1199 réponses à ce sujet

[RethenX]

De1ta G wrote...

RethenX wrote...

The more I think about it conventionally winning the battle for Earth may have been possible, but the war, I really don't think so. By the time the battle is over on Earth, the victory fleet would probably be in a critical state, and not at all able to provide assistance to the other theaters of war. Not to mention, if the Reapers decided to counter attack in full force, that would probably be it for the allies.

I believe the crucible should of worked in a way that made it possible for a conventional victory. When Sovereign's shield went down in ME 1 it took one blast from the Normandy to kill it. If the crusible sent off a blast that took down the Reapers shields, it is very plausible that the war could have been won conventionally after that. Especially with upgraded thanax cannons on every ship.

I know, i thought the crucible was going to do something along those lines as well. Unfortunately, that isn't the case.

[KLGChaos]

^Except for the fact that they're living beings? Hell, we don't even know if humans have souls, so that's not a good argument. "Creator, do I have a soul." Tali: "Yes, Legion."

Anyway, found a nice thread about heroic sacrifice and how ME3 really fails in this department. When used naturally, it can be a great thing. However, when forced on the player just to create a false sense of drama, it ends up feeling contrite. After all, it's not a true sacrifice if it's forced on you (which is why the Reject ending, despite it's big middle finger, is still the best). DA:O got it right. You could choose to sacrifice yourself, your friend could choose to do it of you could find a way to subvert it entirely, but with the possibility of something worse in the future and placing your faith in the future generations. And the best part was that there were multiple ways to go about it

[Sirsmirkalot]

High EMS Destroy comes close enough to what the OP wants for me. The reapers were such an overwhelming force that victory over them without any sacrifice would feel unbelievable and cheap.

Right now, we have to either choose between sacrificing the Geth and Edi, a galaxy being policed by a single entity, combining organics and synthetics (ugh, it even sounds stupid while typing) into a hivemind or rejecting their options and let a future cycle decide. And I'm perfectly okay with that.

Modifié par Sirsmirkalot, 30 juin 2012 - 05:34 .

[De1ta G]

KLGChaos wrote...

^Except for the fact that they're living beings? Hell, we don't even know if humans have souls, so that's not a good argument. "Creator, do I have a soul." Tali: "Yes, Legion."

Anyway, found a nice thread about heroic sacrifice and how ME3 really fails in this department. When used naturally, it can be a great thing. However, when forced on the player just to create a false sense of drama, it ends up feeling contrite. After all, it's not a true sacrifice if it's forced on you (which is why the Reject ending, despite it's big middle finger, is still the best). DA:O got it right. You could choose to sacrifice yourself, your friend could choose to do it of you could find a way to subvert it entirely, but with the possibility of something worse in the future and placing your faith in the future generations. And the best part was that there were multiple ways to go about it

But they aren't living beings. They are sentient mechines. They seem like they are living but they aren't. We know exactly how they were created. Built by the Quarians with high tech tools and other mechines. And what Tali says is just there to add drama. Also another way of BioWare tricking you into thinking that the geth is just as valuable as organics so that you might think about picking the other choices. That's the only reason the geth and EDI being destroyed is apart of it in the first place. 

The sacrifice didn't seem forced on me at all. Except for that I would die in all three except refusal. To me, refusing just seems selfish. You have options in which case you will die but end the cycle(possibly), but instead you do absolutely nothing and watch as everyone dies. Refusal is sacrifcing EVERYTHING just cuz you don't do what the Catalyst says.

[Nragedreaper]

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 it's tuesday.  I play Dragon Age origins to this day.  I have it for Xbox 360 and PC.  I play it over and over again, and depending on the day that determines the ending.  Sometimes I watch my warden's funeral and sometimes I watch his epilogue of happiness.  That's the thing about games with choice, they allow you to have the experience you want on any given day.  Look at it this way, if I'm in the mood for saving private ryan I watch it, but if I want to watch something with a better ending I have to put in Pearl Harbor.  The choice allows the game to be the best of both worlds, something griping and dramatic, or something lighthearted and fun.  All depending on the choices.

[Anduin The Grey]

De1ta G wrote...

But they aren't living beings. They are sentient mechines. They seem like they are living but they aren't. We know exactly how they were created. Built by the Quarians with high tech tools and other mechines. And what Tali says is just there to add drama. Also another way of BioWare tricking you into thinking that the geth is just as valuable as organics so that you might think about picking the other choices. That's the only reason the geth and EDI being destroyed is apart of it in the first place. 

Storywise, Admiral Xen would agree with you, from the writers point of view, I can only guess that they wanted to ask us or remind us what many other films/books etc have asked in the past, what is it to be alive?

Is a bacteria and/or a virus alive? How do you tell the distinction between machine and living being or otherwise? And would you commit an entire race to oblivion over that belief? There are certainly elements on Earth right now that would do the same to those that did not believe like they do, what makes their beliefs any more valid than anyone elses? Or, more importantly, would you be willing to kill for a belief as the Illusive Man certainly was.

Belief in my view is as beautiful as it is ugly, certainly worth dying for, never worth killing for.

[De1ta G]

[quote]Anduin The Grey wrote...

[quote]De1ta G wrote...

But they aren't living beings. They are sentient mechines. They seem like they are living but they aren't. We know exactly how they were created. Built by the Quarians with high tech tools and other mechines. And what Tali says is just there to add drama. Also another way of BioWare tricking you into thinking that the geth is just as valuable as organics so that you might think about picking the other choices. That's the only reason the geth and EDI being destroyed is apart of it in the first place. 

[/quote]

Storywise, Admiral Xen would agree with you, from the writers point of view, I can only guess that they wanted to ask us or remind us what many other films/books etc have asked in the past, what is it to be alive?

Is a bacteria and/or a virus alive? How do you tell the distinction between machine and living being or otherwise? And would you commit an entire race to oblivion over that belief? There are certainly elements on Earth right now that would do the same to those that did not believe like they do, what makes their beliefs any more valid than anyone elses? Or, more importantly, would you be willing to kill for a belief as the Illusive Man certainly was.

Belief in my view is as beautiful as it is ugly, certainly worth dying for, never worth killing for.
[/quote

Thanks for mentioning Admiral Xen. Seems I am more like her than my Shepard character. My Shepard, who was paragon, chose to destroy the heretics instead of rewritting them because it was wrong to brainwash them even though they are synthetics, and even though it was considered the renegade option. Also, I remember my Shepard talking about how testing weapons on Geth was wrong. So, now I'm thinking about all these contridictions that happened with my character. My Shepard believed in let a 1000 die to save a 100000 only if there was absolutely no other option. But the other options were; 1. Go against what I just got done telling TIM, that we are not ready to control such power, 2. Rewritting the genetic code of every organic and synthetic, which my character does no approve of, and 3. Letting the repears when and leave everything I did in vain. 

So it seems there really wasn't an option that fit my Shepard. Oh well, these are the endings BioWare wanted.

[chemiclord]

At the end of the day... I think answer to the thread title has been found.

No. We CAN'T all agree on this.

[Anduin The Grey]

chemiclord wrote...

At the end of the day... I think answer to the thread title has been found.

No. We CAN'T all agree on this.

I think that's a brilliant answer lol

[JustinSonic]

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? 

It would be completely and utterly cliche, but it would be heartwarming and nice as well. While it may leave some people wanting more, it'd definitely put closure to the series.

[CoolHanc101]

D24O wrote...

You know someone, somewhere will come in and complain that you're too immature to handle the ending.

I would want that though, I'd be lying if I said I didn't.

I'd too be lying if I said I didn't

[De1ta G]

BringBackNihlus wrote...

I don't see why aging means you have to throw away liking a feel-good, triumphant ending...which is what we had for ME and ME2, correct? I have no problem with people wanting the ending the way it is. That's fine, but I don't. I want to SEE Shepard alive. I don't want to image it, or dare I say speculate about his whereabouts and if that name plate scene insinuates that the crew is coming to save me. I wanted to SEE it, but I guess that's asking too much.

I needed to see Shepard sacrifice him/herself in order to be a true hero and legend. He/She already survived so many things and already did so much. Heck, Shepard should have died when that Reaper blasted the Defense Committee at the start of the game. And I don't see how they could of made it to where you had a choice whether to sacrifice or not to win. If you could choose to live and win, then why on Earth would you not choose it? And if they made it based on EMS, well then people like me who did everything in the game would have gotten the live ending. 
And I just don't think that fits very well.

[masster blaster]

okay Can you please answer this. If you think that all is not what it seems but then why does Shepard wake up in Destroy even though Shepard was suppose to die/ I know you can"t go into details but does that mean we can't trust the Catalyst who may have just been created by the Reapers to counter dict Shepard's choice.

[Mystiq6]

masster blaster wrote...

okay Can you please answer this. If you think that all is not what it seems but then why does Shepard wake up in Destroy even though Shepard was suppose to die/ I know you can"t go into details but does that mean we can't trust the Catalyst who may have just been created by the Reapers to counter dict Shepard's choice.

http://social.biowar...index/12854481/
Short answer: No, I don't think you can trust him.

[NickelToe]

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.

It is made fun of, the good guys winning in the end.  So in turn the other side is making fun of winning being too main stream.

Shepherd sacrifice is good imo, not the way it was done in this instance.  Falling on a grenade is good, running through hails of gunfire to trigger the catalyst (without space magic), some non-cheasy and non-quasi intellectualy "off-switch" would have been much better.  That does not suit writers who are just trying to be different for different's sake.

To me it is funny that in a game boasted as having so many options and so many choices that it was not a given to add the "Rides off into the Sunset" ending.  Its bad for business (unless Bioware wants all this negativity) and it is bad for a RPG that is advertised as having options.

If Bioware is truly ending Mass Effect or just Commander Shepherds story and they want to stay true to some of the greatness that is Mass Effect 1, then why not give more options, especially after the Producer interviews pre-launch?

If they continue Mass Effect in the future (most likely as a Gears of War clone) then it does not matter what ending the people play, the producers and writers can continue to the story from any of the optional endings.  They want Catalyst and space kid to be it, so be it.  A lot of people wont like it but they would appreciate the option to "RETAKE THE EARTH."

I ask you...

Based on the above.  Why does Bioware see fit to limit the options and only serve the folks who wanted Shepherd to sacrifice himself or to put it more simply, why does Bioware have to limit the option to 3.5 endings, when another screenshot of (or 12) can be inserted with a LI and Shep holding hands at the end of a conventional win? 

(remember most people by now have looked up and watched the pre-launch videos where Casey and Mac are discussing the ending and its many options that are not "A, B or C."  My guess is that if a conventional win or anything that ignores space kid was in, the majority would go for that ending and people would view the current endings as the
"B real" ending.)

[Monarchos915]

I am disappointed that the community is complaining so much at the lack of a golden ending. One of the things the gaming industry media used against us when calling us "whiny and entitled" was that all we wanted was a happy ending.

Most if not all of us were very quick to reject that claim. However, now it seems that to a large portion of "retakers," that was one of the central issues.

It also seems that the term "narrative coherence" has become grossly overused ever since that wonderful tasteful understated nerd rage came out.

I am happy to say that I enjoy the EC endings, despite hating the originals, and am MORE than comfortable not having a perfect ending.

[CoolHanc101]

Note to self:
next time a new game from bioware comes out, check the reviews on the ending first (without spoilers)

[Dysjong]

The main theme in mass effect trilogy is choices and sacrifice.

Look, nobody really likes the starchild or the reapers and you are given a choice, you have to act and lose something.

Based upon the individual persons experience in the game, the person makes that choice.

I took synthesis. Am i wrong? No i don't think so. Are any of the other endingd wrong? No.

I Think that is the grand joke. No matter which ending, there is no right from wrong, Casey hudson and Bioware did grant us players the ultimate choice, we may not like them but then again, we didnt like to be forced between Kaiden and Ashley.

[edisnooM]

RethenX wrote...

De1ta G wrote...

RethenX wrote...

The more I think about it conventionally winning the battle for Earth may have been possible, but the war, I really don't think so. By the time the battle is over on Earth, the victory fleet would probably be in a critical state, and not at all able to provide assistance to the other theaters of war. Not to mention, if the Reapers decided to counter attack in full force, that would probably be it for the allies.

I believe the crucible should of worked in a way that made it possible for a conventional victory. When Sovereign's shield went down in ME 1 it took one blast from the Normandy to kill it. If the crusible sent off a blast that took down the Reapers shields, it is very plausible that the war could have been won conventionally after that. Especially with upgraded thanax cannons on every ship.

I know, i thought the crucible was going to do something along those lines as well. Unfortunately, that isn't the case.

I had actually just been thinking that same thing about the shields and the Crucible. It would have been nice if the super weapon we spent all game building could have been used by us against the Reapers. You know, instead of being told by the Reapers how we could use it.

 

[KillerJudgement]

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. It's too good to be true. The original endings were a slap in the face with left-field space magic.

The EC endings are far more... human. Shepard, as badass as he/she is, will be forever remembered for their sacrifice to save the galaxy. If he/she lived, that would almost... defeat the purpose of Shepard's existence.

If they continue Shepard's story from the destruction breath clip (saying that he/she's alive), then he/she still gave their life to save the galaxy, but he/she's salvageable. If anything, you might... *****might***** get your wish as an extension to that breath clip, but at this point I don't expect Bioware to grant you that as DLC.

Modifié par KillerJudgement, 30 juin 2012 - 09:00 .

[Kreidian]

To answer directly to Allan's question. I will use the Destroy ending as an example.

As things stand now, even with the changes in the EC, nothing you do ever changes the ending. The EC was for the most part exactly what everyone expected, meaning that as far as the endings go, storywise, nothing changed, no clarification was needed, everything that happened was exactly what we already thought happened.

Meaning, in the case of destroy, no matter what you do the Geth and EDI always die. In fact this is even more firmly confirmed in the EC since EDI will show up on the memorial wall as a direct result of the Destroy option, regardless of your EMS. Mike Gamble confirmed that there is no possible way to save EDI from her fate no matter what your EMS score is once you pick destroy.

If you spent hundreds upon hundreds of hours, starting way back from ME1, making the perfect save, putting the extra effort, and doing EVERYTHING right, you still get the same ending as some random guy who more or less phoned it in for the whole game and also picked destroy. There is no difference at all at this point. Thus the reward for the dedicated fan is not proportional given the vast amount of time and effort spent to reach that point. It is specifically because nothing you can do can possibly give you a different ending. This makes the value of the current endings meaningless.

The happy ending described here is valid even if only as a reward to the loyal fans that have supported the franchise since its inception.

I could say more, but it's hard to delve further into the issue without potentially sounding rude.


In truth as much as I disagree with the content of the ending, that was never something that bothered me. What truly bothered me, so much so that it makes playing the game impossible, was the disrespectful way in which BioWare communicated to their loyal fans as a result of the ending controversy. I mean people were insulted by the press releases and such which were released that effectively blamed the fans for being too stupid to truly enjoy the ending.

I'm not even saying that to be antagonistic but simply pointing it out because it IS in fact an issue many people have. And yet no one at BioWare has ever even acknowledged that their comments were perceived as disrespectful, much less dare to appologize for potentially insulting their fanbase.

Honestly all I ever wanted, all I'm still waiting for, is some kind of recognition of that problem. Like the apology that you gave to RPGenius. Not even anything as descriptive or detailed. Just a simple "sorry" would go a long way to just let me enjoy playing Mass Effect again.

[Rane7685]

Umm no thanks I dont want that ending. It would be kinda weird since all game we heard they couldnt be defeated in that manner

[NM_Che56]

Vendetta, the prothean AI on Thessia, said the reapers can't be defeated conventionally. So if u want to argue with make believe be my guest but it would be silly.

[MoZedK]

I will agree to that the ending is broken, and that BW made a huge mistake here.

Why do I say that, well I say it of many reasons. Lets take the most personal to me. Becous it dosent make me wanna replay the game.

Now why do I not want to do that, well simply put the ending does not belong.

That is caused of many thing, one of wich that it changes the Centrale Conflict in the last moments, it also changes the Genre of the game. Those to is bad enough.

But narritive coherence is mutch worse, what do I meen.

lets take the destroy ending and one of the many hole and problems here.

How in the world will it destroy all synthetic life, hmmm The reapers is a mix of bio compund and machine. The geth is not this, so why will it kill them.

If it kills the geth it should also destroy EDI, if so it will destroy the computers onboard most starships. It will kill shepard and many others.

I could go on with wierdness in the writing. Simply put it does not belong in a Talk Techky game.
It is the same of all 3 endings, to many holes and again it does not belong.
The refusel ending is just ok.

I could go on, but if I can figure our how to make a video in good enough quality I will go in more depth with it.

Most of it return to Space Magic, that is not the nature of talk techy genre.

A nit picking I also think is wierd why do you use a plate that says Commander Shepard when I have a first name.

That is just my view of this in my opinion horrible made ending.