1199 réponses à ce sujet

[Ozida]

Eradyn wrote...

C9316 wrote...

Oh and not sure if anyone remembers, but in the first two games you're constantly told that the war with the Reapers would definitely be costly, which is why I think the bittersweet ending works best the war cost alot but civilization can be rebuilt. Imo a super happy ending would trivialize entire fight.

Due to the way the game is designed, currently, such a "super happy ending" would already have required many great sacrifices to achieve.

And I have no problem with that.

I agree. Let's not forget that we have already sacrificed Mordin/Wrex, Kaidan/ Ash, Legion/Tali, plus anybody else who did not survied during ME2. People who wanr sacrifices and darama - is this not enough for you? What, are you maniacs? 

[Anduin The Grey]

Stornskar wrote...

Anduin The Grey wrote...

ph34r-X wrote...

 Simple paragon ending. 

Shepard Lives, reapers defeated by conventional means, Geth/ EDI lives, Shepard walks off into the sunset with love interest.

Is this basicly what we all want? 

Maybe Disney are hiring right now?

You're in luck then, Wall-E and what else is getting cheaper by the day
I would take Pixar storytelling a million times before this  ...

Modifié par Anduin The Grey, 29 juin 2012 - 11:31 .

[Iakus]

NOD-INFORMER37 wrote...

I have to ask, why does everyone bring up Disney anytime a "happy ending" thread comes up?

"Disney happy" and the "happy" ending ppl are looking for are two very different things lmao

Yup, if I wanted a Disney ending I'd just pick Synthesis.

[TemplePhoenix]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Simply put, if there is one ending that is objectively better than all the other endings - Shepard lives, LI reunion, crew all survives, Geth and EDI survive, space unicorns, etc - then you are, by definition, actively punishing players for picking any other ending.

That was the problem that ME2 had. It was too easy, through simple normal gameplay, to get the best ending that people have to actively TRY to purposefully mess things up if they want to kill off a certain character.

You can sit there and say "well if you don't want it, you don't have to pick it" all you want, but the simple fact of the matter is that if it exists, I would be stupid for picking anything OTHER than it. I would be purposefully making the ending of my game WORSE by not picking the Disney ending.

Right now we can have debates til the cows come home about which ending is "best". If the Disney ending is in the game, the debate's over. There is no reason to pick anything OTHER than Destroy. Ever. Again.

Yeah, this.

I'm actually quite loving the debates that are going on here in several threads about which ending is the most justifiable (both morally and from a personal viewpoint.). Every camp seems to have a point about something, which is nice, and emphasizes that everyone's Shepard IS different, and will choose different things.

Like Father Jerusalem says, having a 'perfect' ending with absolutely no drawbacks immediately puts any other ending into a 'wrong choice' bracket; anything bad that happens to the galaxy means you have made a 'mistake' somewhere along the way. If we had a situation like that, you may as well just have that one perfect ending, with various imperfect variations on it, rather than four distinct choices, something I discuss (shameless plug) in this thread here:

http://social.biowar.../index/12864779

...however, to respond to the OP, I COULD happily deal with a proper LI reunion scene; I can live with it merely being implied, but I also wouldn't complain if it was made overt.

[Anduin The Grey]

NOD-INFORMER37 wrote...

I have to ask, why does everyone bring up Disney anytime a "happy ending" thread comes up?

"Disney happy" and the "happy" ending ppl are looking for are two very different things lmao

Obviously.

[Hurbster]

I would have thought that billions of dead across the galaxy, worlds devastated, ect, ect would have been enough of a sacrifice already.

[KevShep]

I during my many years as a fan I used to stop and think....I wonder how revolotional and awesome the ending to this series in going to be? Well, it was far from it! It sucked!

All of a sudden I have Admiral Hackett (just after leaving earth) telling me that we have this "super-awesome-kill-all-reapers-death-ray-of-doom" pice of crap plans and there JUST NOW TELLING ME! Thats WWWAAAYYYY to convenient and just plain stupid and un imaginative!

Modifié par KevShep, 29 juin 2012 - 11:38 .

[Raptor_Thirteen]

I guess I'm with you. Not that I'm a fan of happy endings just for the sake of feeling good at the end of a game... I respect a good downer too... but I support the idea that the endings should be more widely varied than they were.

Once upon a time there was a game named 'Wing Commander 3', and in it, your performance in missions and decisions along the way created major variations in what came next in the game, culminating in either victory or defeat in the War against the evil alien race. The last level was even different depending on what you did.

If there was ever a modern game so firmly rooted in choice that a case could be made to justify the development cost of creating so much extra content even though some players may never see it, it was Mass Effect 3. In all honesty, even though I'm not so thrilled at the idea of an ending that is made of sugar and rainbows, I would want the possibility to exist if you performed well enough.

[Inside_Joke]

So ... basically ...



*by: Pookie776*

[Delaney]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

ph34r-X wrote...

I mean look at the refusal ending. Why can't we have that in the refusal ending, but if you're readiness is too low you get the current refusal ending.

I'm just asking this to facilitate discussion, so I'm not trying to pour salt on the wound or anything (my that sounds ominous...).


I see your opinion come up, and I often state my opinion and perspective.  I want to try something a bit different.  Many feel "why can't we have that in the refusal ending?"

Which is a fair enough point.  The writers/designers could have easily allowed that to be an option (what happens in the game is literally whatever they put in).


Just to be direct though:  Why should this be an option for the refusal ending.  Or even more generally, why should there be an ending that contains the following:

Shepard Lives, reapers defeated by conventional means, Geth/ EDI lives, Shepard walks off into the sunset with love interest.

I'm just asking to hear your thoughts on the subject.  Open question to others that feel the same way.

Answering your question "Why should there be an ending that contains the follwing....?": 
Because simply there is no reason for a choice driven epic space opera like ME not to have a happy ending (I mean: an OPTION for this, not only this). ME1 had one, ME2 had one depending on which choices you made ... And ME3 suddenly "No never!" ... Why? Because that would be a clishé? Everything has already become a cliché? A bad ending is a cliché! A happy ending is a cliché! Yes, even a sacrafice ending is a cliché? Why? Guess what! Because you have already seen those kind of endings over and over again in epic stories similiar to ME! Does that make those stories bad! No! Absolutly no!
And furthermore another thing concerning the Destroy ending (before someone says to me that we already do have a happy ending): do you really think that only implying a happy ending is a satisfying conclusion to a TRILOGY - or even an ENDING?

Modifié par Delaney, 29 juin 2012 - 11:44 .

[marinredwolf]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Just to be direct though:  Why should this be an option for the refusal ending.  Or even more generally, why should there be an ending that contains the following:

I have some mixed feelings on it. On one hand, I actually feel the Refusal scene is fairly appropriate as it now stands - defiance and loss against overwhelming odds, but seeds laid for the future.

On the other hand, I (and probably a lot of people) have an urge to try to "win" a game - and none of the endings felt like a win to me.

Perhaps more important as to why there "should" be such an ending is the Mass Effect games leading up to this point have almost always offered a way to "win" in the end. Maybe it requires really high paragon/renegade and loyalty ratings, and maybe there were costs, but it was possible to walk off the Collector base with all your companions and at least most of your crew. To be faced with a final ending where there is no possibility for Shepard to come out alive (save arguably the "secret" Destroy ending that requires willing sacrifice of a squadmate and a species, and even then offers only a glimmer of hope) feels too extreme compared to what's come before. At least it did to me, opinions naturally vary on where that line is.

That said, I'm personally reasonably satisfied with the extended endings. Not happy, but not deeply disappointed as I was with the earlier versions with their lack of clarity and total ambiguity either.

Modifié par marinredwolf, 29 juin 2012 - 11:44 .

[Butane9000]

This should have been 1 of many options. Yes I do agree this should be in there, but so should the bittersweet, the tough to swallow and the sad (complete loss) endings. Specifically, 16 different flavors of endings like we were promised that reflect our choices.

[batterez]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

ph34r-X wrote...

I mean look at the refusal ending. Why can't we have that in the refusal ending, but if you're readiness is too low you get the current refusal ending.

I'm just asking this to facilitate discussion, so I'm not trying to pour salt on the wound or anything (my that sounds ominous...).


I see your opinion come up, and I often state my opinion and perspective.  I want to try something a bit different.  Many feel "why can't we have that in the refusal ending?"

Which is a fair enough point.  The writers/designers could have easily allowed that to be an option (what happens in the game is literally whatever they put in).


Just to be direct though:  Why should this be an option for the refusal ending.  Or even more generally, why should there be an ending that contains the following:

Shepard Lives, reapers defeated by conventional means, Geth/ EDI lives, Shepard walks off into the sunset with love interest.

I'm just asking to hear your thoughts on the subject.  Open question to others that feel the same way.

Mass Effect 1 & 2 taught us that by standing together with absolute resolve we can acomplish anything against all odds.   I know this point has been firmly hammered into the ground, but I completely agree with it. In ME2 we are given a range of outcomes for the suicide mission, from the absolute best: No one dies and the Collectors are defeated. To the absolute worst: Everyone dies and we utterly fail. The only way to achieve the best possible outcome is by utilizing the diverse make-up of your squad. 

Why can't the same be possible in ME3? A united galaxy should be given the opportunity for success. A conventional victory should be possible with all races, both synthetic and organic, standing side-by-side with a common goal. This, I think, should exist as a best possible outcome; an outcome that is challenging to obtain and requires that all the 'right' choices be made. It would send the message that no race is any less important than another and by standing together as equals we can accomplish great things at near-impossible odds (Pretty positive real-world message, as well). Instead, I feel, that the fleets exist only as meat shields so Shepard can save the galaxy by pressing a button. 

Just my poorly worded thoughts on the matter. Believe it or not, I actually enjoyed EC. 

Modifié par batterez, 29 juin 2012 - 11:52 .

[Anduin The Grey]

Anything where billions have died and entire races (may) have been exterminated should have a happy ending, but that's just my take on the trilogy. But it's that context that makes it so hard for me to understand how anyone can imagine fitting a Disney ending to this game, it's like saying, yea, mass atrocities and genocides happened but woo, crack out the champagne!

I can't imagine anyone in that universe celebrating anything other than, how the hell did I survive and if they've lost (a lot) of close one(s) that's going to be the last thing they will want to do.

Modifié par Anduin The Grey, 29 juin 2012 - 11:52 .

[Romaka]

I honestly do not see what the big deal is with including the option for a so called "happy" ending for a multitude of reasons.

One - No ending would be 100% happy fluffy bunnies, unicorns and rainbows.   Just not possible with how the whole trilogy is set up.  But a 95% happy ending is completely doable.

Two - The fact would be is that it would still be the choice of the player as to whether they wanted to go for that ending.  As has been said numerous times - If you do not want that then do not choose it.  I mean really, simply because the choice is there would not invalidate another person's choice for one simple reason.

Three -  This is the end.  The Mass Effect trilogy (Shepard trilogy) ends here.  That is what Bioware has constantly said.  There is no need to limit the choices of the players at this point because they do not need to build upon it in the future.  The ending you choose is the ending for your specific Shepard.

As they have said, There is no canon.  If that were indeed true then everyone makes the correct choice in the end because it is the end they chose.  Simply because other choices are there does not make any other choice better than the other.  It is simply the fact that there is no choice for the "happy ending" that many people want.

Simply because others want it does not mean in the end you are forced to choose it as well.  But this is simply my own opinion.  Feel free to agree or disagree.

[Uncle Jo]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Simply put, if there is one ending that is objectively better than all the other endings - Shepard lives, LI reunion, crew all survives, Geth and EDI survive, space unicorns, etc - then you are, by definition, actively punishing players for picking any other ending.

That was the problem that ME2 had. It was too easy, through simple normal gameplay, to get the best ending that people have to actively TRY to purposefully mess things up if they want to kill off a certain character.

You can sit there and say "well if you don't want it, you don't have to pick it" all you want, but the simple fact of the matter is that if it exists, I would be stupid for picking anything OTHER than it. I would be purposefully making the ending of my game WORSE by not picking the Disney ending.

Right now we can have debates til the cows come home about which ending is "best". If the Disney ending is in the game, the debate's over. There is no reason to pick anything OTHER than Destroy. Ever. Again.

In ME2 You've recruited your squademates, listened to their story, helped them and developed relations with them. It was normal to try to save them all. Regarding who you'll affect to which task and if s/he was loyal or not, there was a possibility to loose one of them (even if as you said, it was relatively easy to assign the tasks). Let alone the possibility of loosing the rest of the crew if you don't make the mission right after the Collectors abductem them.

Control is the bad(ass) ending (following TIM's path, I can live with
it) but should have been also tied to your EMS. Low EMS should have lead
to a control failure of the Reapers and Shep being indoctrinated. Galaxy lose. Game over.

I still don't see any narrative reason to kill the Geth and EDI if you chose Destroy . They've just added it for the hell of it. Otherwise no one would have chosen Control or worst, Synthesis.
Problem is that Destroy is normally the canon ending, since it was the ultimate goal of ME games. That's why you stopped Saren and TIM. Now it's the ending which seems to have the most downsides. So they were right after all and Shep an idiot ?

I wanted to throw up after seeing the whole writers propaganda for Synthesis and their desperate attempts to make it the most emotional one, although it's the ending which thematically absolutely doesn't fit in the ME universe...

But the real question is did we really need three (four) different endings ? All was about destroying the Reapers. Why didn't they go with a conventional battle won or lost according to your EMS ? Why the giant super gun and the space troll ?

[dirty console peasant]

I created another thread yesterday about Endings that I would pay for, this was one of them
here is the thread if you are interested
social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/12843296/1#12845308

Conventional Victory
Yes it was stressed repeatedly during the game that Conventional Victory was impossible, HOWEVER didn't Shepard build a career on doing the impossible. Shepard got to illos when is was supposedly impossible, Shepard even returned from the Omega-4 relay, possibly without any losses even ON A SUICIDE MISSION. Therefore I believe that there should be a DLC that enables Shepard to win conventionally, maybe by giving mid game missions that increase Galaxy at war points to where it is possible to get 8000 EMS, and at 8000 EMS the refuse option can be played like the SM and you direct the forces allied against the Reapers to CONVENTIONAL victory. The better you play the less losses you take; but unlike the SM it is impossible to keep everyone alive.
Edit: In this ending each of your squadmates and previous squadmates would be in danger
Jack would be with ascension kids

Miranda would be with her strike team

Grunt would be with the Krogan Horde

Tali would be on the Migrant fleet (She is an admiral after all)

Garrus would be with his strike team

Liara would be commanding the Shadow Broker strike team

The Virmire survivor would be with the Spectre team

Zaeed would retake control of the Blue Suns and command them

Samara would be on a team of Justicars

Not sure about Jacob

Wrex might also be part of the Krogan Horde

Not sure about Kasumi

Not sure about Javik

James would be part of an N7 Strike team

The Normandy is an asset so Edi would be part of that

Steeeeeeve would be part of the fighter wing that he helped convince to assist in the war effort

It should be set up such that multiple fleets would each be able to do the job alone, however there are too many jobs for too few fleets capable of performing the tasks and therfore you would only be able to keep some of your squad and fleets alive, not all of them.  Similar to a combination of the SM and Virmire.
This I would be willing to pay for (maybe $5-$10) as I do not consider it a prerequisite for a good ending, and there would be extra mid game playable content.

Modifié par Shepard Cmdr, 29 juin 2012 - 11:55 .

[Anduin The Grey]

Romaka wrote...

I honestly do not see what the big deal is with including the option for a so called "happy" ending for a multitude of reasons.

One - No ending would be 100% happy fluffy bunnies, unicorns and rainbows.   Just not possible with how the whole trilogy is set up.  But a 95% happy ending is completely doable.

Two - The fact would be is that it would still be the choice of the player as to whether they wanted to go for that ending.  As has been said numerous times - If you do not want that then do not choose it.  I mean really, simply because the choice is there would not invalidate another person's choice for one simple reason.

Synthesis, Done

Modifié par Anduin The Grey, 29 juin 2012 - 11:54 .

[TemplePhoenix]

Uncle Jo wrote...

But the real question is did we really need three (four) different endings ? All was about destroying the Reapers. Why didn't they go with a conventional battle won or lost according to your EMS ? Why the giant super gun and the space troll ?

http://social.biowar.../index/12864779

Just what I was pondering... (I honestly don't know which way of doing it would be better).

[Anduin The Grey]

Uncle Jo wrote...

But the real question is did we really need three (four) different endings ? All was about destroying the Reapers. Why didn't they go with a conventional battle won or lost according to your EMS ? Why the giant super gun and the space troll ?

Am sure you'll get your way with future endings in the ME universe and feel happy in the knowledge that EA will knuckle down each and every year to sell you the same story and multiplayer experience year after year.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Uncle Jo wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Simply put, if there is one ending that is objectively better than all the other endings - Shepard lives, LI reunion, crew all survives, Geth and EDI survive, space unicorns, etc - then you are, by definition, actively punishing players for picking any other ending.

That was the problem that ME2 had. It was too easy, through simple normal gameplay, to get the best ending that people have to actively TRY to purposefully mess things up if they want to kill off a certain character.

You can sit there and say "well if you don't want it, you don't have to pick it" all you want, but the simple fact of the matter is that if it exists, I would be stupid for picking anything OTHER than it. I would be purposefully making the ending of my game WORSE by not picking the Disney ending.

Right now we can have debates til the cows come home about which ending is "best". If the Disney ending is in the game, the debate's over. There is no reason to pick anything OTHER than Destroy. Ever. Again.

In ME2 You've recruited your squademates, listened to their story, helped them and developed relations with them. It was normal to try to save them all. Regarding who you'll affect to which task and if s/he was loyal or not, there was a possibility to loose one of them (even if as you said, it was relatively easy to assign the tasks). Let alone the possibility of loosing the rest of the crew if you don't make the mission right after the Collectors abductem them.

Control is the bad(ass) ending (following TIM's path, I can live with
it) but should have been also tied to your EMS. Low EMS should have lead
to a control failure of the Reapers and Shep being indoctrinated. Galaxy lose. Game over.

I still don't see any narrative reason to kill the Geth and EDI if you chose Destroy . They've just added it for the hell of it. Otherwise no one would have chosen Control or worst, Synthesis.
Problem is that Destroy is normally the canon ending, since it was the ultimate goal of ME games. That's why you stopped Saren and TIM. Now it's the ending which seems to have the most downsides. So they were right after all and Shep an idiot ?

I wanted to throw up after seeing the whole writers propaganda for Synthesis and their desperate attempts to make it the most emotional one, although it's the ending which thematically absolutely doesn't fit in the ME universe...

But the real question is did we really need three (four) different endings ? All was about destroying the Reapers. Why didn't they go with a conventional battle won or lost according to your EMS ? Why the giant super gun and the space troll ?

Putting a "canon" ending in the Mass Effect games is, frankly, doing it wrong. They've said all along that because of all the variables, there is no such thing as a "canon" ending. The goal of the series was to STOP the Reapers - not necessarily destroy them. Any of the endings (even Refuse) can be "canon" because they all (eventually) achieve that goal. That's why we can debate which is right, and which is wrong.

If, for instance, Control had put a timeline on how long Shepard can Control the Reapers - for the next, say, 100,00 years, but after that they'll break free... wouldn't it be worse than Synthesis and Destroy? Wouldn't people be less inclined to pick Control over the others? It's the exact same situation (in reverse) as this Disney ending wish fulfillment.

Personally, I love Control. It was the first one I picked on my Renegade Shep and it turns me into an immortal Space Batman with an army of Reapers at my command. It's AWESOME.

[warlock22]

Micah3sixty wrote...

 I love the new EC endings, but would love to see a reunion DLC or ending.

Is this too much to ask for?

No, no its not. This should have been there the whole time.

[Barneyk]

ph34r-X wrote...

Simple paragon ending. 
Shepard Lives, reapers defeated by conventional means, Geth/ EDI lives, Shepard walks off into the sunset with love interest.
Is this basicly what we all want?

No!

[warlock22]

eltiojul wrote...

Yes. If I make the right decisions, save everyone, cure the genophage... ect.

Yes, yes, yes. Kill the Reapers, save the galaxy, Shepard means hero in Tuchanka.

Yes, yes, yes choose between a seat in the council (if you saved the council on ME1), Admiral Hackett's position or retire.

Yes, yes, yes, LI reunion, crew reunion.

Yes Bioware yes. 3 games, 150hours, +180€, MAKE IT POSSIBLE!

+1. Being able to choose a seat on the council or retire would be cool. And I can see Shepard taking a seat on the council, he/she is the savior galaxy after all.

[Andromidius]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

ph34r-X wrote...

I mean look at the refusal ending. Why can't we have that in the refusal ending, but if you're readiness is too low you get the current refusal ending.

I'm just asking this to facilitate discussion, so I'm not trying to pour salt on the wound or anything (my that sounds ominous...).


I see your opinion come up, and I often state my opinion and perspective.  I want to try something a bit different.  Many feel "why can't we have that in the refusal ending?"

Which is a fair enough point.  The writers/designers could have easily allowed that to be an option (what happens in the game is literally whatever they put in).


Just to be direct though:  Why should this be an option for the refusal ending.  Or even more generally, why should there be an ending that contains the following:

Shepard Lives, reapers defeated by conventional means, Geth/ EDI lives, Shepard walks off into the sunset with love interest.

I'm just asking to hear your thoughts on the subject.  Open question to others that feel the same way.

Because not everyone likes Space Magic, enough people have died already, and the Reapers don't deserve to live.

Pretty simple, really.