1199 réponses à ce sujet

[Temper_Graniteskul]

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.

So instead, players who want a happy ending should be punished because other people might metagame? There's a difference between saying 'I would like the option to have this, and choose it if I like' and 'I'll always pick a certain thing if it's offered, and you need to prevent me from being able to do so.'

There are different definitions of 'winning' the game - the argument between which of the three colour-coded endings is proof of that. The idea that even the OP's ending would be considered 'objectively better' by a plurality of players is something I find suspect, given the chatter on the boards. Whatever your choices might be, I guarantee you that there are others out there that wouldn't pick Destroy even if it had the qualities in the OP; the pro-Synthesis threads seem to have more than a few. By your logic no one would have ever picked the 'bad' ending in ME2, and yet they did. People will work for the endings they want.

But they can't if the option isn't there. I'd like a happy ending to pick from - an additional option. It doesn't take away from the choices of others to have it there, any more than having the Widow takes away from the Incisor.

[KevShep]

warlock22 wrote...

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.

Loved it!

The ME3 writers were just terrible. I miss Drew Karpyshyn!

[Delaney]

KevShep wrote...

warlock22 wrote...

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.

Loved it!

The ME3 writers were just terrible. I miss Drew Karpyshyn!

How long did it take to make this picture? Three months, huh? ... Bioware, Bioware ...

[Uncle Jo]

Anduin The Grey wrote...

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.

You're heavily wrong. Who the hell are you to assume you know me ?

I don't give a damn about the endings anymore and I'm not buying any further DLC about ME. I was never fond of MP and never will. Particularly in a SP game like ME.
I'm just discussing about the endings and that's my right. Period.

[string3r]

maaaze wrote...

no, it would cheapen the reapers and the game. The whole trilogy would just end like any other video game...

without sacrifice there is no sense of accomplishment.

Curing the genophage would not have had the same emotional effect without Mordin dieing.

the same with Kai Leng and Thane.

I think Shepard sacrificed enough already.

[Mavqt]

Mr. Big Pimpin wrote...

Sure; this should come at some negative to balance it out though, like having massive fleet casualties or having to sacrifice a squadmate or something. It should also require like 5000 EMS or something.

Basically what I really want though is some kind of expansion of the Shepard living scenario, because what we have now doesn't do it for me.

I think all the destroy fans want a expansion on Shepard living. For me atleast having your LI not placing Shepards' name on the mormorial wall isn't enough. Saying that having your LI take it down would have made it more special(to me atleast). Since I doubt it took the same time for hackett or however to find Shepard as it took your LI to go to place Shepard on the wall. abit of a rant sorry :C

Modifié par mavqt, 30 juin 2012 - 12:28 .

[Anduin The Grey]

warlock22 wrote...

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.

Tali did something very similar, she didn't seem to enjoy the role at all.

[bigbade]

conventional victory should only be possible if the game was building up to that possibility or if the crucible was discovered to be a trap, otherwise it renders everything you do throughout the game moot. The catalyst/crucible, while terrible, is part of the story now and a conventional ems victory makes their existence meaningless which isn't what bioware wants.

[KevShep]

string3r wrote...

maaaze wrote...

no, it would cheapen the reapers and the game. The whole trilogy would just end like any other video game...

without sacrifice there is no sense of accomplishment.

Curing the genophage would not have had the same emotional effect without Mordin dieing.

the same with Kai Leng and Thane.

I think Shepard sacrificed enough already.

I think the players have sacrificed enough as well.

D*mn it Bioware, what have you done?!

[Anduin The Grey]

Uncle Jo wrote...

Anduin The Grey wrote...

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.

You're heavily wrong. Who the hell are you to assume you know me ?

I don't give a damn about the endings anymore and I'm not buying any further DLC about ME. I was never fond of MP and never will. Particularly in a SP game like ME.
I'm just discussing about the endings and that's my right. Period.

I know you about as well as you know the space troll you referred to, or the writers for that matter, not very well obviously. Unless you know something nobody else does, why don't you ask instead of stating your opinion as fact?

Modifié par Anduin The Grey, 30 juin 2012 - 12:30 .

[Anduin The Grey]

bigbade wrote...

conventional victory should only be possible if the game was building up to that possibility or if the crucible was discovered to be a trap, otherwise it renders everything you do throughout the game moot. The catalyst/crucible, while terrible, is part of the story now and a conventional ems victory makes their existence meaningless which isn't what bioware wants.

Had never actually occurred to me but thanks for that insight

[chemiclord]

I don't want a "happy ending."

Because a "happy ending" becomes the "right ending", and a "right ending" defeats any moral question posed... which is presumably the entire point of what the Catalyst provides.

Much like how there was only one "right" way to complete the suicide mission, a "golden ending" eliminates any need for a question to the end of Mass Effect 3. The writers didn't want a "right" ending... thus, there cannot be a overly "happy" one.

[Iakus]

chemiclord wrote...

I don't want a "happy ending."

Because a "happy ending" becomes the "right ending", and a "right ending" defeats any moral question posed... which is presumably the entire point of what the Catalyst provides.

Much like how there was only one "right" way to complete the suicide mission, a "golden ending" eliminates any need for a question to the end of Mass Effect 3. The writers didn't want a "right" ending... thus, there cannot be a overly "happy" one.

Multiple happy endings are possible.

For a given value of "happy"

[Kildin_of_the_Volus]

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.

To the OP:
No.  That is not what we all want.  See above for details.

[string3r]

Ghost1017 wrote...

Hackett: Conventionally we can't defeat the reapers without the crucible.

How does he even know that though? He doesn't.

[chemiclord]

iakus wrote...

chemiclord wrote...

I don't want a "happy ending."

Because a "happy ending" becomes the "right ending", and a "right ending" defeats any moral question posed... which is presumably the entire point of what the Catalyst provides.

Much like how there was only one "right" way to complete the suicide mission, a "golden ending" eliminates any need for a question to the end of Mass Effect 3. The writers didn't want a "right" ending... thus, there cannot be a overly "happy" one.

Multiple happy endings are possible.

For a given value of "happy"

Each option posed takes something different from Shepard... either the synthetic life he/she fought for, his/her own humanity, or his/her very life.

Multiple "happy" endings where everyone you care about lives, and there's no significant damage to your monkey sphere makes the decision moot.   At that point, you really ARE doing nothing more than "picking a color", which is something that was supposedly oh-so-horrible in the ending originally produced. 

Modifié par chemiclord, 30 juin 2012 - 12:48 .

[Malditor]

I really don't believe there needs to be a super happy ending where shepard lives. It's fitting that he dies in the end to save humanity. I don't expect everyone to agree and I won't be responding to any replies to my statement.

[Anduin The Grey]

string3r wrote...

Ghost1017 wrote...

Hackett: Conventionally we can't defeat the reapers without the crucible.

How does he even know that though? He doesn't.

He gives you the answer to your question in the same dialogue you are referring to as far as I am aware and if not that dialogue another and not one you can skip though am too lazy to double check that latter fact right now

[elodar11]

What about motivation?

Why did we climb every mountain with the Mako in ME1?
Why did we mine every planet in ME2?

Those games taught us that if we do the work, we can "bring everyone back alive".

But in ME3, we are gathering resources to battle the reapers. Is this not to battle them conventionally?
If we can't beat them, why are we even playing the game?

I find the endings destroy my motivation to play the game.

So yes, I want the "happy ending". I spent my 60 bucks on a video GAME 
hoping to get a "video gamey" ending.

Modifié par elodar11, 30 juin 2012 - 01:01 .

[chemiclord]

Malditor wrote...

I really don't believe there needs to be a super happy ending where shepard lives. It's fitting that he dies in the end to save humanity. I don't expect everyone to agree and I won't be responding to any replies to my statement.

I find the question posed at the end to be very interesting one.

It basically asks you to put your values in order.  If you are more centered on those close to you, then Destroy is more appealing.  If you're more interested in the galaxy as a whole, even at the personal cost, then Control is more your thing.  If you're a space hippie... well, there's Synthesis for you, I guess.  You might need some good peyote to truly understand it, though...

[Metalunatic]

Yep.

[Delaney]

Kildin_of_the_Volus 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.

To the OP:
No.  That is not what we all want.  See above for details.

Sorry ... but the emphasized part is just ... plain stupid. Why not complaining about the happy ending in ME2 then? Or about every game which presents different endings and one of them is a happy ending?

[chemiclord]

elodar11 wrote...

What about motivation?

Why did we climb every mountain with the Mako in ME1?
Why did we mine every planet in ME2?

Those games taught us that if we do the work, we can "bring everyone back alive".

But in ME3, we are gathering resources to battle the reapers. Is this not to battle them conventionally?
If we can't beat them, why are we even playing the game?

I find the endings destroy my motivation to play the game.

So yes, I want the "happy ending". I spent my 60 bucks hoping to get a "video gamey" ending.

Now, this IS a legitimate complaint... and I don't inherently disagree with you.

The theme of "if you do everything right, everything will come out roses" was pretty strong in the first two games, to throw that out in the third is jarring.

There's nothing inherently wrong with wanting a "video gamey" ending... but the writers decided they didn't want that this time.  And with the question they posed, a "video gamey" ending would defeat the entire question.  I respect Bioware's right to tell the story as they see fit; even if they kinda pulled the rug out from under their established theme.  When done right, it can be beautiful... I do wonder if this was the right time and story to do it, though.

[Apple Lantern]

No, I don't. I just want a reunion after choosing destroy with high EMS. Conventional victory is impossible, so getting out with the "I just pulled a perfect Suicide Mission on the Reapers" is just far-fetched.

[Uncle Jo]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

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.

Using "canon" was a bad move from me. My bad. And yes you're right about the fact that the goal was to STOP the Reapers.

But frankly speaking, during the the three games Control was always foreshadowed as bad and not an option with good outcome (Saren, TIM, David Archer in Overlord, rogue Prothean faction...).

As for synthesis, well we've fought from the beginning to the end for preserving the diversity of the galaxy (Genophage, Peace between Quarians and Geth...) and for a peaceful coexistence between the different races (synthetics and organics). Not to forcibly change them. Every species has its right to evolve the way it should. IMO the green ending seems to directly contradicts this.

I also found Shep's speech (particularly the Renegade one) in the Control Ending pretty awesome, even if if it'll never be my choice. It was very well executed. Probably the best one, with the Refusal ending (I liked its simplicity).
The real downside to the control ending (aside from the "death" of Shep, which is also included in Synthesis and Destroy with low EMS), is that the Reapers are still hanging around and nothing guarantees that he won't become a real one (like the Starbrat)...

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 30 juin 2012 - 01:12 .