1199 réponses à ce sujet

[warlock22]

This is a somewhat of a long read but its worth it. Pretty much sums up how I feel about the EC, and why people want this ending.

http://whatculture.c...an-responds.php

[Cyran127]

zambot wrote...

Cyran127 wrote...

I don't want a forced happy ending.  I just want an ending that makes sense without pointless ambiguity.  "I'm going to tell you the story about Commander Shepard but leave the part out about whether he survived or not."

There is a lot of ambiguity in the EC endings, but the question of whether Shep survives is resolved.

Not really.  You see him take a breath in one ending, and it could be argued it was his last breath.  Even if you want to believe he survived, which I'm sure everyone does, it doesn't explain how he got there.  Which means the storyteller told this whole story and then at the end said "Oh by the way, Shepard was laying in rubble somewhere still alive  The end."

[vallore]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...


Alot of the new dialogue in extended cut supports the idea that he's just working off of his programming.  He has no perogative.  If he wanted to **** over shepard he'd turn off the oxygen in the control center and kill him.  My favorite like in the extended cut is if you select the renegade response after he explains the control ending shepard says
"I didn't come all this way just to give up everything I had!"  "I dont look forward to being replaced by you, but I'd be forced to accept it."
its not only REALLY sweet writing but it reinforces what he said when you questioned the reaper war itself.  Its his programming, his purpose.  he's an advanced program but he cant make decisions.  the crucible is docked to the citadel and it has opened up new possibilities.  He needs a living being to make a decision because shepard understands what it means to be alive.  (oh hey tying it back into the synthesis ending and basically everything Edi said in the game)

I agree that he seems to be limited by his core programming, but, at the same time, within its limits, he still seems very much in control. He can make decisions; like he can simply go away and carry his plan as before, something that he does if you refuse his pseudo-logic, (the implication is that he is not being forced to do it, it is his choice). His decisions are simply limited within parameters. Note that he could even decide to go against his original creators explicit wishes, as he himself admitted he did.

Further, while he may not like the Control option particularly, (assuming he is telling the truth), he still wants to risk it in any case. It is fully his choice, not Shepard’s or the player’s.


.

Its not applying a flat effect to both organic and synthetic, they're being changed in different ways to unlock the potential for evolution of artificial life and organic life.

Hmm. Indeed I agree that there is still apparently a clear difference between the mostly-synthetics and mostly-organics, and that raises the question of how, exactly, is the supposed unavoidable technological singularity is going to be avoided. The catalyst, (and EDI's), exciting marketing talk aside, what exactly, was changed and how, exactly does it work?

The potential of evolution, both organic and synthetic always was there, I suspect synthesis was designed more to limit the direction and to control the speed of evolution than anything else, (and that is at best).

One thing that stood out to me: Starchild saying "SO BE IT" was an ANGRY response.  It was not programmed to make that decision, shepard's refusal dooms the catalyst to the cycle that he just acknowledged as no longer being the answer to his purpose.  You broke the cycle, thanks to the protheans' efforts, but reject your destiny to establish something to replace it, which is what the Catalyst was pleading with you to do.  He didnt have an agenda, only a purpose.

I agree, he sounds angry, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have an agenda. After all, if he had an agenda and that was thwarted, that would be a good reason for him to be angry, don’t you think?

I would point that, if he was telling the truth, (a big if right there), he does have made his mind about what he wants implemented most of all, and that is a decision right there. (But we can’t know if he considers the other options undesirable or simply less appealing, either). He can also implement some decisions on his own, decisions that obviously escape his creators’ desires. He just can’t implement all of his choices.

The way I see it is that Liara was able to provide enough information on the crucible that the next cycle was able to activate the crucible in a way that didnt leave it up to shepard to make that decision in place of a galactic concensus.  (I would have loved to see a galactic debate of the following species' council discussing what to do with the crucible.  I bet they picked synthesis but thats just me)

Personally, I bet they would shut down their own critical electronic devices and AIs, (after saving their personalities and memories for later reboot), install a remote on the crucible and push the destruction button.

No more problems, no sacrifices. And later, if they so desired, they could even explore their trans-xeno inclinations to their xeno-hearts content, with no risk of catalyst meddling. Win-win.

[Sire Styx]

I can't see why all the endings have to be balenced up. For example, if I choose destroy with low EMS, I think I am right in saying there is a lot of damage caused? But does this have to be balanced with a high EMS synthesis? I haven't played it yet, but I'm assuming there is less of everything exploding and dying? Surely they should e.g. kill all the turians for some reason, just to balance it out.

But anyway, from what I see people are saying that the endings have to be balanced at the ending stage. I'd disagree, because you could make certain endings more or less dficult to achieve. You say that everyone would pick the "happy" no consequence ending (because somehow they have no control over themselves and even though they want the worst ending, they have to pick the best if available). I would suggest making an incredibly high EMS should be needed for it. This would cut out maybe a lot of casual gamers and make sure only the people who really want to spend the time and effort do get the ending. That way your endings balanced up.

I can't actually see what the negatives of control and synthesis are (apart from removal of free will or whatever) but I don't think anyone dies? Destroy seems to be the ending that causes the most damage, having many people die. Refusal has everyone die.
If I wanted to be awkward, I'd question why the endings aren't that balanced up still. Why don't we have in control and synthesis that one of the reapers exploded and killed someone? Or in refusal, have the geth survive or something?

[Kenjison7]

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? 

Why does nobody ever say "Simple renagade ending"? That would be unfair if only one morality group could choose a near-perfect ending

[ioannisdenton]

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. EVERYONE would choose that option . there is no point in that ending and in fact it is lorebreaking.
This is not disney not super mario.
People and characters die since the first scene of ME1 (jeninks) proving that the setting is rather grim

[monrapias]

I for sure don't want a "yay everything went perfect, oh look a unicorn that spits out rainbows and ****s glitter ending"

Wich is pretty much what you want? Or?

[Bone3ater]

Control or synthesis are "simple paragon" endings. Ultimate sacrfice. With the EC you even get to see how impactful your choice really was, it was definiteley not for naught.

So no, I don't agree OP, there doesn't need to be a "happy ending" in that sense. Also it was a one way trip and everyone was betting on the catalyst to defeat the Reapers.
Throughout the game Anderson, Hackett and a lot more characters state that conventional victory will not be possible.
And I agree, it would undermine the whole theme of struggling in the game if you could just beat the Reapers like that.

[Sire Styx]

If you really want the bittersweet ending there is this amazing thing called "self control". Using this thing called "self control" allows you to choose the bittersweet ending even if the 'happy' ending is present. If you cannot control yourself and decry the happy ending because you are compusled to take it, then you are no better than a small child, who is offered ONE of three sweets (say, strawberry, lime and blueberry) but throws a tantrum because they want the bittersweet, but has so little control that they gobble up the blueberry, all the while crying.
---
Also I find it somewhat annoying that people think "well I don't want this ending, so it should not be there". That's silly. I don't want the synthesis ending, but I haven't chosen it. I'm not going to complain if you take it though. I'm perfectly happy with it being there for whoever wants it.

Modifié par Sire Styx, 01 juillet 2012 - 09:18 .

[vallore]

Sire Styx wrote...

If you really want the bittersweet ending there is this amazing thing called "self control". Using this thing called "self control" allows you to choose the bittersweet ending even if the 'happy' ending is present. If you cannot control yourself and decry the happy ending because you are compusled to take it, then you are no better than a small child, who is offered ONE of three sweets (say, strawberry, lime and blueberry) but throws a tantrum because they want the bittersweet, but has so little control that they gobble up the blueberry, all the while crying.
---
Also I find it somewhat annoying that people think "well I don't want this ending, so it should not be there". That's silly. I don't want the synthesis ending, but I haven't chosen it. I'm not going to complain if you take it though. I'm perfectly happy with it being there for whoever wants it.

Indeed. The best ending is not the one the main character lives and saves everyone. That is (possibly) the optimum ending. The player’s best ending is simply the one she enjoys the most. If it is there, she only have to choose it and enjoy. No point in denying others the chance of having fun too.

[semiwise]

warlock22 wrote...

semiwise wrote...

You just wanted an emo-Shepard - one who would sit in his quaters and cry every time someone scraped their knee.

What are you really telling me? That YOU cannot feel if the character isn't feeling? That you need someone to show you the way before you can feel emphaty?

You're probably one of those people who watch sit-coms and laugh only when you hear the canned laughter coming from the track.

Like I said, I feel sorry for you. 

Oh no we got a troll!

Nah, you got it all wrong, it was Elizabeth Lestrad who was trolling there.

She was the one who was demanding Shep to be Mr. Sensitive by bringing endless examples from movies, without understanding that games do not function like movies. She wasn't even able to grasp the fact that the reapers were meant to be UNBEATABLE - whether you agree with it or not.

Did she bring a single example from some other game to illustrate her point - NO. What she was essentially doing was holding this game up to and demanding ridiculous standards, which in turn amounts to trolling.

I can't wait to read endless posts from her why Shep should also be able to poke his nose, wiggle his ears or lift his left eyebrow.

So, thanks for butting in without reading up on previous posts and without any inkling what this was all about. I can't wait to start with my own ad hominem attacks in your direction.

Modifié par semiwise, 01 juillet 2012 - 10:32 .

[PinkysPain]

Kenjison7 wrote...
Why does nobody ever say "Simple renagade ending"? That would be unfair if only one morality group could choose a near-perfect ending

The simple renegade ending is control, with Shepard sitting on a throne of skulls with slaves of all races he deemed worthy of survival bound beneath it ... with the Starchild running around in a jester outfit.

The simple paragon ending is vanquishing the starchild, the simple renegade ending is subjugating the starchild against his will ... what we get is being puppets on a string of an author self insert.

Agency ... that word doesn't mean what Mac Walters thinks it means.

Modifié par PinkysPain, 01 juillet 2012 - 02:23 .

[Bereman08]

Umm, because it is narratively cohesive? I mean, come on, Allan, I respect you, but that question shouldn't even need to be asked.

It should be in the ending because self-determination and the impact of our choices have always been key themes of the Mass Effect series. Why should the trilogy-capper be any different?

Not even close to narratively cohesive.

For a convential military win to be a possibility, you'd have to gut and rewrite a number of sections that make it abundantly clear that the galaxy is outgunned on this fight.  If, thus far, every force that has gone up against the Reapers has lost, not even a Rocky IV training montage can help them.

You'd have to redo the entire ending leading up to the Citadel beam - for a convential military ending to work you can't show that kind of loss in a ground battle.
 
So tell me...what trick does the galaxy have that would let them win, and without redoing essentially the entire game?  If they don't have one, then a refusal ending that leads to victory is not narratively cohesive.

Should also point out that themes of control, destruction, or a coming together of tech and organic have also been themes, in one fashion or another, since Mass Effect began.

[Draining Dragon]

NO DAT ENDING IS 2 DISNEY LOLNOOB

[Seival]

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? 

Never wanted such a standard holywood ending you are talking about.



...In case you didn't notice, I want to remind that

Modifié par Seival, 01 juillet 2012 - 02:33 .

[CroGamer002]

^Even EC is really far from great, let alone perfect.


But, those are opinions.

[Seival]

Mesina2 wrote...

^Even EC is really far from great, let alone perfect.


But, those are opinions.

Agreed, the word "perfect" is just an emotional representation of my happiness

[Caenis]

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? 

YES, as much as I enjoy the endings, what was done...I would have MUCH preferred and been happier with something simple, nothing that made us run into philosophical discussions, debates, that tore people apart in disagreement--just, YES the reapers are destroyed, YES my friends get to live, and HELL YEAH, me and Liara walking off into the Sunset, signing autographers and sipping some alcoholic beverages with Geth on the beach. Watching the little Blue Children run around and telling them the story of, "When I was twice your Age, I defeated the REAPERS"

And Liara being something like, "Children shouldn't have to live up to their parents failures or successes." hehe. "Fortunately you don't have to worry about living up to all that." Shepard growing old, you know. Maybe heading off to visit Samara and her daughter, checking on Jack and her students, of COURSE simple endings are too much to ask for in today's era, as we live in an era where people are constantly trying to push the envelope, get meaning across, get people thinking---there is NO such thing as a game that is meant to be a breath of fresh air from the stuff we have to deal with in day to day life, and I mean it's not that it's bad, it's just that...it just feels that in order for a game to be good these days they have to push against the envelope which means getting more and more complexed.

This is probably a reflection of games once being simple enough to do a really good game according to the day's standards in your basement with just you and maybe an extra buddy or two. But we want more complicated things and need more complexity in games, and so it just makes sense that the more complexity we ask for the more complex the meaning gets. But yeah...I would have probably enjoyed a 'die in my lover's arms' at old age thing, haha and I will have that when I write my Fanfiction XD, kinda like Aeryun and Crichthon from Farscape had their old age and time together for one minute before having the effects of where they were reversed and going back in time.

Yeah, I wouldn't have minded at all *wistful sigh*

I think this experience for Bioware has led me to be a little more choicy in the games I play from them. Don't get me wrong I loved the original ending and the EC, but as I keep saying. Emotionally it was too much, too much investment, too much emotionally pain. You can't ask me to become a character and then 'kill' ME off, not just Shepard but ME off, someone who I have been all these years, and say 'Well happy endings are overrated'. I suppose this 'primes' me for the acceptance of my OWN death in reality but damn. I AM still in mourning and I just don't think it's funny, to be so emotionally into a character like that that you have to mourn even after the memorial is set up and the lights go out. Ugh...on the bright side I can see a world where, oh I can't remember the name of the movie or the gist of it, but the guy ended up living the rest of his days in a virtual reailty where he got to live out his dreams, but in reality he has failed his mission and is in a type of prison. I can totally see a world where games like this evolve so much so that you can live out anything you want---and I imagine that it will get to a point where inflicting death on your character doesn't become just an 'oh that's the way it works' but that it actually becomes a more traumatic experience for the player as they become more and more integrated emotionally and physically into their character's experiences.

[PinkysPain]

Bereman08 wrote...
So tell me...what trick does the galaxy have that would let them win, and without redoing essentially the entire game?

Cut off the head ... ie. the Starchild.

He has control over the Reapers ... control which might be subverted. Of course since it's an author self insert subverting the Starchild outside of the parameters of it's own choosing would hurt Mac Walter's ego even more than conventional victory ...

Modifié par PinkysPain, 01 juillet 2012 - 02:42 .

[Ericus]

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, I'm much happier with the EC-Control ending than I would be with a Hollywood ending.  Overall I think all of the EC endings are fairly happy, but each also have a hint of a dark side.  That's perfect for the Mass Effect series.

[aries1001]

In real life, do we always know the consequences of our choices? Sometimes we do - sometimes we don't. We know that we study hard we might get a good grade - or we might not, depending on the question we get to our exams.If we speak to our teachers, our friends, yes, even our loved ones, we can't control what they say back to us e.g. we can't foresee the consequences of our choices all the time -except under a very few limited circumstances e.g. if we cross the road in a crowded street....

Why should a game then be any different than real life? Isn't this the real question here...? Do we always want to know the consequences of our action are in games e.g. I ddin't foresee Isabela leaving, but I accepted it, and got on with the story. In the end game, in ME3, do we want to know the consequences of our choices....or do we want to be surprised that what we done or decided might not be the happy or best ending, but rather the best possible ending in choices made of grey, not black or white...

[PinkysPain]

aries1001 wrote...
Why should a game then be any different than real life?

Because we want escapism ... ME1 and ME2 were power fantasies, we sacrificed one person along the way (and most of the players could very easily pick someone they didn't like to have along in the first place) and for the rest it was Shepard the baddass overcomes everything ON HIS TERMS ... and gets the girl.

Then suddenly in ME3, cog in the machine of an author self insert because of realism??? Uhhh no, that's now what I paid money for.

Modifié par PinkysPain, 01 juillet 2012 - 03:13 .

[Mixon]

There is a interesting solution, how BW could add this (if they want ofc)
Make some important story dlc that connects with Reapers and after you passed it, there will be additional ending something like that... Could work...

I feel that BW thinks that common (maybe a bit naive) happy ending is not so epic for such really ultra awesome game ever, but still, we already have ultra epic endings with cry and tears. So why not? Just to try...
sorry for my english.

[Sire Styx]

PinkysPain wrote...

aries1001 wrote...
Why should a game then be any different than real life?

Because we want escapism ... ME1 and ME2 were power fantasies, we sacrificed one person along the way (and most of the players could very easily pick someone they didn't like to have along in the first place) and for the rest it was Shepard the baddass overcomes everything ON HIS TERMS ... and gets the girl.

Then suddenly in ME3, cog in the machine of an author self insert because of realism??? Uhhh no, that's now what I paid money for.

I buy games to simulate life. That's why I've got the new 'Real life Sim', There are no aliens, no space technology, no magic. You have to work at a job to get enough money to pay your bills. You need to visit the bathroom and bathe regularly. You need to buy food, or else your character dies and you can't reload a save. There's a high chance of dying by accident or whjatever (car crash, disease etc). There is no happy ending, only terminal illness as you character ages (in real time) and dies. Once your character dies, you can never play the game again.

It's not a particularly fun game, but we don't buy games to have fun. We buy games so we can be tormented in our lesiure time. After a stressful day at school or work, we have to come home and play these games to increase our stress levels.

Modifié par Sire Styx, 01 juillet 2012 - 03:23 .

[comrade gando]

I recall mac n' casey (I swear that should be a sitcom or something) saying that they wanted the ending to ME3 to be memorable. well, with EC the ending is simply upgraded to...meh. it's certainly better than what we had before but there's nothing that wow's me to be frank.

fairly forgettable. from an overall ending stand point, simply the fact that I'm still here moaning and complaining is because it simply is not good enough for me. I was expecting so much more than 'meh'.