1199 réponses à ce sujet

[Malditor]

Caenis wrote...

Malditor wrote...

It's because they want it explicitly shown that shepard lives and is reunited with his/her LI etc. And they want it for whatever ending they decide. Imagine how they would react if the tables were turned and all the endings had Shepard living and those of us who felt he/she should have died at the end kept posting that we wanted that ending.

It has been stated time and time again that *the majority of people are asking for one choice out of many, NOT for all the endings to have a happy ending. (They have even stated they were willing to make sacrifices and do whatever it took to have that). I haven't heard anyone say they want all the endings changed, what I'm hearing is they want a 'choice' just a choice, an option out of many.  "The full range."

If the tables were turned and people asked for the CHOICE of a sacrifice ending, why not give them that choice???

(Edited for spelling errors)

It's easy to say to give us that choice now, and I'm sure there would be some people who would still feel that way in that case. However, most people would think us absurd.
If you made it so only one ending gave the living shepard and happy days there would be posts about how it's not fair that it isn't possible with this or that choice too. The problem here is there will never be a 100% happy fan base. Give in to one thing and another will pop up.

[Modernpreacher]

iakus wrote...

All the more reason why there should be an ending where Shepard can finally find peace.  After everything Shep's gone through, he/she has more than earned it.  

They knew the job. They were picked in ME1 because there was no one more suited to saving Mankind. And Shepard does that, except on the Refusal ending. 

That IS the happy ending. Mankind is saved. Shepard sacrificed his/her life to accomplish what he set out to do. Through 3 games, Shepard never turned from the goal. He drove forward. Did whatever it took. And every little thing took a little bite out of him. You can only have some many bites taken out of you before you're chewed up. He went further, did more, and accomplished more in his fight than any other human was able to.

Sure he deserves peace.

Death is peace. Sometimes the only true peace there is.

What kind of a life could he have had? Do you really seeing a man or woman like Shepard living happily ever after? Sure he thinks he could do it. But he could't. He's done too much. Killed too many. Sacrificed too much, not only of himself but of friends, family, whole PLANETS of people... 

Do you really see him taking his kids to school on Monday mornings? Potty training little blue babies?

There was no other ending. This was a one way trip for him, and I do not believe for a minute that he didn't know that.



The only other story compairson I can make is Stephen King's Dark Tower. When I first read the end of that series, I nearly threw the book across the room. After a day or two, and really trying to look at who the character was and what he did, I couldn't see any other real resolution than what happened in the last book. The character painted themselves into a corner so to speak. And that corner was a mofo.

There are a lot of paralells to me in the two stories from a thematic perspective.

[digoutyoursoul]

I'm just sad we will never get the happy ending now, the EC has put an end to that, any DLC for sp will be pre ending. I understand the need for that type of ending but there is no chance now, we might aswell accept it

Modifié par digoutyoursoul, 03 juillet 2012 - 12:22 .

[Sire Styx]

Good Lord, it was like this in other threads. People sit and explain stuff (e.g. the sky is blue) and finally, when you think everyone understands, someone comes in and says "yes, but you said the sky was orange". No one reads any posts excepts posts that back up their own argument.

Just while I remember, before I go, people (not just in this thread) seem to be flipping between "it's a game" and "games should emulate life".

In one breath (post) people are saying the endings should have sacrifice, because real life isn't happy. In the next post they say that we already have a happy ending, because Shepard lives. Shepard has been shot, lasered, possibly attacked by husks, shot again, bled profusely, blew up, seemingly blew up again and burried in rubble (and depending on what you believe, was asphyxiated, survived reentry into the earths atmosphere and crashed into the earth). Shepard is presumably still lying in that rubble, seeing as everyone just happened to evacuate the surrounding area. It's highly unlikely that anyone will get to Shepard in time before Shepard dies. Obviously I'm not saying that this happens, I'm just saying that you can't flip between these "it's a game/real life" when trying to make a point because it is silly.

[Caenis]

incinerator950 wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Just a quick interjection here, don't mean to derail what looks like a good convo....

Lots of talk about sacrifice, especially self-sacrifice, making things more "real". Possibly some atavistic mode of thinking, like "a sacrifice is needed in order to ensure the success of an endeavour" driving some of this argument? Also, regarding self-sacrifice in particular: Some people are always very insistent in these things about "a hero wanting/needing to die with his boots on" etc. Why this discomfort with a heroic figure surviving and possibly relinquishing the hero role? Phobia of domesticity?

I mean, just sayin'...

They both can work if written correctly.  For Control, Shepard is alive without a body.  In Merge, you give up body and mind to join with the Catalyst.  You live in Destroy with a high EMS. 

FINALLY SOMEONE ELSE HAS SAID IT!

Shepard is still alive except without a body, and has lost all ties with organic form. But I bet if she felt so motivated to do so she could create a 'platform' for her body, lol but that would just take away all that godliness, bodyless Shepard = Better, but still, she's stiiilll alive and that means if she wanted she could still confront her LI or her LI could seek her out and confront her, in the same way Shepard sought out the Catalyst.

[Caenis]

Malditor wrote...

Caenis wrote...

Malditor wrote...

It's because they want it explicitly shown that shepard lives and is reunited with his/her LI etc. And they want it for whatever ending they decide. Imagine how they would react if the tables were turned and all the endings had Shepard living and those of us who felt he/she should have died at the end kept posting that we wanted that ending.

It has been stated time and time again that *the majority of people are asking for one choice out of many, NOT for all the endings to have a happy ending. (They have even stated they were willing to make sacrifices and do whatever it took to have that). I haven't heard anyone say they want all the endings changed, what I'm hearing is they want a 'choice' just a choice, an option out of many.  "The full range."

If the tables were turned and people asked for the CHOICE of a sacrifice ending, why not give them that choice???

(Edited for spelling errors)

It's easy to say to give us that choice now, and I'm sure there would be some people who would still feel that way in that case. However, most people would think us absurd.
If you made it so only one ending gave the living shepard and happy days there would be posts about how it's not fair that it isn't possible with this or that choice too. The problem here is there will never be a 100% happy fan base. Give in to one thing and another will pop up.

Except....there is already an ending where Shepard gets to live, there are actually 2 endings...Control & Destroy, except in Control Shepard has no body, and in Destroy Shepard has a body, and is found taking a breath. Which leaves only elaborating on that 'breath' , and showing that achievement--instead of Hackett speaking let Shepard speak about what s/he learned---the choice is already there, it's just not elaborated on.

[Caenis]

Sire Styx wrote...

Good Lord, it was like this in other threads. People sit and explain stuff (e.g. the sky is blue) and finally, when you think everyone understands, someone comes in and says "yes, but you said the sky was orange". No one reads any posts excepts posts that back up their own argument.

Just while I remember, before I go, people (not just in this thread) seem to be flipping between "it's a game" and "games should emulate life".

In one breath (post) people are saying the endings should have sacrifice, because real life isn't happy. In the next post they say that we already have a happy ending, because Shepard lives. Shepard has been shot, lasered, possibly attacked by husks, shot again, bled profusely, blew up, seemingly blew up again and burried in rubble (and depending on what you believe, was asphyxiated, survived reentry into the earths atmosphere and crashed into the earth). Shepard is presumably still lying in that rubble, seeing as everyone just happened to evacuate the surrounding area. It's highly unlikely that anyone will get to Shepard in time before Shepard dies. Obviously I'm not saying that this happens, I'm just saying that you can't flip between these "it's a game/real life" when trying to make a point because it is silly.

Ok, just to elaborate. I am pointing out that we HAVE a happy ending that Shepard lives, but it is NOT elaborated on so that we don't feel like s/he is left bleeding to death, and that I would have LIKED to see that elaborated on so that we can have that hard work and achievement recognized....

Edit: Sorry just not sure if you're saying people are saying but there is a happy ending (as so far as I know, I'm one of the only ones who keeps trying to reiterate that the option to live is there just not elaborated on), and that you're saying it doesn't count because it's not elaborated on as if I am only saying there is a happy ending where Shepard lives.

That's what has already been said about that happy ending, that the choice is there (for people who are arguing AGAINST having an ending where Shepard lives), BUT it is not elaborated on so people don't feel any closure regarding Shepard's death (which is what people are asking for), so it feels like an Easter Egg scene, but the Destroy ending suggests with Hackett Speaking etc. that Shepard is never found and dies (or found too late), and lets face it the odds are against Shepard here.

Modifié par Caenis, 03 juillet 2012 - 12:36 .

[Malditor]

Caenis wrote...

Malditor wrote...

Caenis wrote...

Malditor wrote...

It's because they want it explicitly shown that shepard lives and is reunited with his/her LI etc. And they want it for whatever ending they decide. Imagine how they would react if the tables were turned and all the endings had Shepard living and those of us who felt he/she should have died at the end kept posting that we wanted that ending.

It has been stated time and time again that *the majority of people are asking for one choice out of many, NOT for all the endings to have a happy ending. (They have even stated they were willing to make sacrifices and do whatever it took to have that). I haven't heard anyone say they want all the endings changed, what I'm hearing is they want a 'choice' just a choice, an option out of many.  "The full range."

If the tables were turned and people asked for the CHOICE of a sacrifice ending, why not give them that choice???

(Edited for spelling errors)

It's easy to say to give us that choice now, and I'm sure there would be some people who would still feel that way in that case. However, most people would think us absurd.
If you made it so only one ending gave the living shepard and happy days there would be posts about how it's not fair that it isn't possible with this or that choice too. The problem here is there will never be a 100% happy fan base. Give in to one thing and another will pop up.

Except....there is already an ending where Shepard gets to live, there are actually 2 endings...Control & Destroy, except in Control Shepard has no body, and in Destroy Shepard has a body, and is found taking a breath. Which leaves only elaborating on that 'breath' , and showing that achievement--instead of Hackett speaking let Shepard speak about what s/he learned---the choice is already there, it's just not elaborated on.

The people who aren't happy don't accept that he lives in either ending, or if they do it's not enough to know he is "alive" they need the reunion etc shown. They don't like to "head canon" their own post ending content. It isn't a good idea for BW to keep going back on their word as it sets a bad precedent. They added a refusal ending, which was what so many wanted, even if it meant they had to lose the war. Now that it is in there people want to be able to win conventionally with refusal, even if Shepard and others die. If BW gives that, then it'll be a new complaint that shepard shouldn't die, or if shepard didn't die that X character shouldn't die and so on and so forth. It's a slippery slope to start giving in to demand/request after demand/request.

[Caenis]

Malditor wrote...

The people who aren't happy don't accept that he lives in either ending, or if they do it's not enough to know he is "alive" they need the reunion etc shown. They don't like to "head canon" their own post ending content. It isn't a good idea for BW to keep going back on their word as it sets a bad precedent. They added a refusal ending, which was what so many wanted, even if it meant they had to lose the war. Now that it is in there people want to be able to win conventionally with refusal, even if Shepard and others die. If BW gives that, then it'll be a new complaint that shepard shouldn't die, or if shepard didn't die that X character shouldn't die and so on and so forth. It's a slippery slope to start giving in to demand/request after demand/request.

(So I am just going to try and Clarify)

You are against ANY kind of ending change, and did not like that BW changed the ending to begin with, feeling that changing endings only leads to more problems, and if that they changed the ending again it would lead to more problems. So you're in the "Don't Change the Endings at all" Group (correct?)

I will now state, that the people here aren't asking for a new ending to tack onto what is already there. They are simply wishing for something that wasn't there, what they wish they had seen but didn't. Many people accept that Bioware isn't going to change that ending again. But what we are discussing is why we would have liked to see it and expressing a case for it.

I know that for me, I am doing it so that maybe in future Bioware games what happened here with ME won't happen again, and hell maybe if enough people want it and are willing to pay for it Bioware might make an optional DLC for it, one you have to pay for...that's not a given, that's not for sure, but what I do accept is that this is a learning process and by expressing our feelings on the subject we may not change what has already been said and done, but we may be able to effect future decisions that are made in house.

[Sire Styx]

Caenis wrote...

Sire Styx wrote...

Good Lord, it was like this in other threads. People sit and explain stuff (e.g. the sky is blue) and finally, when you think everyone understands, someone comes in and says "yes, but you said the sky was orange". No one reads any posts excepts posts that back up their own argument.

Just while I remember, before I go, people (not just in this thread) seem to be flipping between "it's a game" and "games should emulate life".

In one breath (post) people are saying the endings should have sacrifice, because real life isn't happy. In the next post they say that we already have a happy ending, because Shepard lives. Shepard has been shot, lasered, possibly attacked by husks, shot again, bled profusely, blew up, seemingly blew up again and burried in rubble (and depending on what you believe, was asphyxiated, survived reentry into the earths atmosphere and crashed into the earth). Shepard is presumably still lying in that rubble, seeing as everyone just happened to evacuate the surrounding area. It's highly unlikely that anyone will get to Shepard in time before Shepard dies. Obviously I'm not saying that this happens, I'm just saying that you can't flip between these "it's a game/real life" when trying to make a point because it is silly.

Ok, just to elaborate. I am pointing out that we HAVE a happy ending that Shepard lives, but it is NOT elaborated on so that we don't feel like s/he is left bleeding to death, and that I would have LIKED to see that elaborated on so that we can have that hard work and achievement recognized....

Edit: Sorry just not sure if you're saying people are saying but there is a happy ending (as so far as I know, I'm one of the only ones who keeps trying to reiterate that the option to live is there just not elaborated on), and that you're saying it doesn't count because it's not elaborated on as if I am only saying there is a happy ending where Shepard lives.

That's what has already been said about that happy ending, that the choice is there (for people who are arguing AGAINST having an ending where Shepard lives), BUT it is not elaborated on so people don't feel any closure regarding Shepard's death (which is what people are asking for), so it feels like an Easter Egg scene, but the Destroy ending suggests with Hackett Speaking etc. that Shepard is never found and dies (or found too late), and lets face it the odds are against Shepard here.

None of the endings are particularly happy. People may find them satisfying, but I think they all are limited to bitter sweet.
What I'm meaning is, there is only one ending where we actually see that Shepard may be alive. People are using that to say that we already have a happy ending. But then other people are sruging to say that the game should be like real life and be tragic. If you tried to apply both of those ideas to the destroy ending, then Shepard is dead. The destroy endin may imply Shepard lives, but does not give any indication of how long or with what crippling disabilities s/he now has. I'm really just saying that applying logic to the ending (disregarding space magic or whatever) Shepard is dying.

[Malditor]

Caenis wrote...

Malditor wrote...

The people who aren't happy don't accept that he lives in either ending, or if they do it's not enough to know he is "alive" they need the reunion etc shown. They don't like to "head canon" their own post ending content. It isn't a good idea for BW to keep going back on their word as it sets a bad precedent. They added a refusal ending, which was what so many wanted, even if it meant they had to lose the war. Now that it is in there people want to be able to win conventionally with refusal, even if Shepard and others die. If BW gives that, then it'll be a new complaint that shepard shouldn't die, or if shepard didn't die that X character shouldn't die and so on and so forth. It's a slippery slope to start giving in to demand/request after demand/request.

(So I am just going to try and Clarify)

You are against ANY kind of ending change, and did not like that BW changed the ending to begin with, feeling that changing endings only leads to more problems, and if that they changed the ending again it would lead to more problems. So you're in the "Don't Change the Endings at all" Group (correct?)

I will now state, that the people here aren't asking for a new ending to tack onto what is already there. They are simply wishing for something that wasn't there, what they wish they had seen but didn't. Many people accept that Bioware isn't going to change that ending again. But what we are discussing is why we would have liked to see it and expressing a case for it.

I know that for me, I am doing it so that maybe in future Bioware games what happened here with ME won't happen again, and hell maybe if enough people want it and are willing to pay for it Bioware might make an optional DLC for it, one you have to pay for...that's not a given, that's not for sure, but what I do accept is that this is a learning process and by expressing our feelings on the subject we may not change what has already been said and done, but we may be able to effect future decisions that are made in house.

I was against them doing new endings. I did enjoy the EC though. I do say that doing the EC set a bad example. I understand that you and some others aren't actually requesting/demanding that they change the endings, however you are in the minority of those posting. The basic premise of this thread was that everyone could agree on wanting the ending the OP posted. The problem is that not everyone DID want it. I would never propose to say that everyone wanted/should have wanted any type of ending. I'm not saying that the OP was looking to offend anyone but assuming that everyone would agree to what they proposed is not intelligent.

[Ozida]

Malditor wrote...
I was against them doing new endings. I did enjoy the EC though. I do say that doing the EC set a bad example. I understand that you and some others aren't actually requesting/demanding that they change the endings, however you are in the minority of those posting. The basic premise of this thread was that everyone could agree on wanting the ending the OP posted. The problem is that not everyone DID want it. I would never propose to say that everyone wanted/should have wanted any type of ending. I'm not saying that the OP was looking to offend anyone but assuming that everyone would agree to what they proposed is not intelligent.

Once again, I disagree. Making EC was not a bad example, but rather a wise business decision. Company was loosing money because most of people were not satisfied with the product, and so BW decided to get it better. (Who in their mind would think that EA/BW did it for their "care for players", not for money?).

BW knew that practically nobody would buy future DLCs and games if they leave the ending as it was. It was other to loose the huge amount of income (remember, they have to pay those "writer" salaries?) or to make something customers demand for. Pretty fits business model, if you ask me, and I was surprised they hesitated of doing EC for so long.

Modifié par Ozida, 03 juillet 2012 - 01:07 .

[digoutyoursoul]

A lot of people are still not satisfied with the EC, of the opinion it still did not deliver a quality ending or in depth enough.

[Pelle6666]

Would have been a nice option even if it is not challenging in any way.

[Malditor]

Ozida wrote...

Malditor wrote...
I was against them doing new endings. I did enjoy the EC though. I do say that doing the EC set a bad example. I understand that you and some others aren't actually requesting/demanding that they change the endings, however you are in the minority of those posting. The basic premise of this thread was that everyone could agree on wanting the ending the OP posted. The problem is that not everyone DID want it. I would never propose to say that everyone wanted/should have wanted any type of ending. I'm not saying that the OP was looking to offend anyone but assuming that everyone would agree to what they proposed is not intelligent.

Once again, I disagree. Making EC was not a bad example, but rather a wise business decision. Company was loosing money because most of people were not satisfied with the product, and so BW decided to get it better. (Who in their mind would think that EA/BW did it for their "care for players", not for money?).

BW knew that practically nobody would buy future DLCs and games if they leave the ending as it was. It was other to loose the huge amount of income (remember, they have to pay those "writer" salaries?) or to make something customers demand for. Pretty fits business model, if you ask me, and I was surprised they hesitated of doing EC for so long.

It's only set a bad example because it was never going to satisfy everyone. Now people can use it as a precident and call for more and more changes. They hesitated because they needed to evaluate how much the potential cost would be to do it or not. They had to be sure that the potential recovery on the back end *dlc profits* would cover what it cost to do the EC.

[FatalX7.0]

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:

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 we just do.

Mass Effect is about overcoming the odds, overcoming diversity, making your own path, your own choices, your own story. And most importantly, it's about the characters. The characters are the reason that almost everyone is playing to save the galaxy.

I've been playing the game for five years, I care about the characters, I love the characters, I want to save them, I want to be with them.

In Mass Effect 2, Shepard can live, enemy defeated, entire team alive and he walks off into the sunset with his love interest. You had to work for it. And it was great, people loved it. Really cool ending. The fact that it was in Mass Effect 2 makes it a bit unfathomable for some people that it's not in Mass Effect 3, even more so when you consider that Mass Effect 3 is about your choices, your outcomes, your path, your story.

There is really no good reason such an option can't exist. Sure, you can say that people in the game say a convetional win is impossible, but how do you know for sure? Just because he says it, so then you don't even try? We can obviously destroy Reapers. Or is it just some silly reason to get us to choose the crappy choices forced down our throats at the end?

People want the happy ending because they just do. It appeals to them. That's it. It's not rocket science, it's simple and logical. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting such an ending, especially in a game like Mass Effect, nor should there be any confusion about it. Every person is different.

[FatalX7.0]

Malditor wrote...

Ozida wrote...

Malditor wrote...
I was against them doing new endings. I did enjoy the EC though. I do say that doing the EC set a bad example. I understand that you and some others aren't actually requesting/demanding that they change the endings, however you are in the minority of those posting. The basic premise of this thread was that everyone could agree on wanting the ending the OP posted. The problem is that not everyone DID want it. I would never propose to say that everyone wanted/should have wanted any type of ending. I'm not saying that the OP was looking to offend anyone but assuming that everyone would agree to what they proposed is not intelligent.

Once again, I disagree. Making EC was not a bad example, but rather a wise business decision. Company was loosing money because most of people were not satisfied with the product, and so BW decided to get it better. (Who in their mind would think that EA/BW did it for their "care for players", not for money?).

BW knew that practically nobody would buy future DLCs and games if they leave the ending as it was. It was other to loose the huge amount of income (remember, they have to pay those "writer" salaries?) or to make something customers demand for. Pretty fits business model, if you ask me, and I was surprised they hesitated of doing EC for so long.

It's only set a bad example because it was never going to satisfy everyone. Now people can use it as a precident and call for more and more changes. They hesitated because they needed to evaluate how much the potential cost would be to do it or not. They had to be sure that the potential recovery on the back end *dlc profits* would cover what it cost to do the EC.

No.

Just stop.

[gmboy902]

Ozida wrote...

gmboy902 wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...
Why this discomfort with a heroic figure surviving and possibly relinquishing the hero role?

The problem I really have, other than the fact that it has been stated to be impossible to defeat the Reapers conventionally throughout the series, is that a "Shepard lives" ending negates the other three (or four) choices.

Where is the sacrifice in that? If Shepard lives, EDI lives, and all of the characters we like live, then where's the sacrifice? Thousands or millions of military grunts die? Okay...? They're faceless people that the player doesn't care about. I would "sacrifice" a billion soldiers to see my Shepard walk out of the Citadel alive.

Sacrifice is more than just numbers. It's the effect that it has on the player. Letting a million soldiers die isn't the same, in this case, as killing off a race or losing your squadmates or Shepard himself. It isn't nearly as hard of a decision.

So Ash/ Kaidan, Wrex/ Mordin, Thane, Leagion/ Tali still aren't enough sacrififces for most of you? How much blood do you need to be satisfied? Hooow muuch? *in tragic voice, of course*

That's irrelevent. Ashley or Kaiden, Wrex and/or Mordin, Thane, and Legion will die no matter what ending you choose. This utopian ending people want adds little if any sacrifice to the story, while the other three require significant sacrifices. Thus, such an ending would eliminate the choice.

[Oldbones2]

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 the fact is the refusal ending is imcomplete as is.  Don't the other endings adjust the outcome based on EMS?
Because we play games to win?
Because it would maintain the consistency of the game, wherein if we work hard, we can reap a better reward.
Because it wouldn't necessarily mean the other endings would have 0 picks.  Many synthesis fans, would still pick that one just to prevent a TS in the future.
Because it would fit the game and fill in the niche of the other endings (It wouldn't HAVE to be 'perfect' either, maybe the brutality of the fight ruins the Earth and kills most of humanity in the process).
Because its basically what we asked for, and you threw in refuse because we asked (I assume).
Because at this point many of us would PAY (real money EA, real, spendable money) for such an addition.
Because it 'might' win back more fan support (to be truthful, this is incredibly unlikely.  I myself, hate BW not for the endings, but for the companies' response to fans legitament complaints in the months following the release).
Because it is one way to 'fix' the refuse ending, which is unquestionably a slap in the face of the ending's critics.  (Come on, you could at least have added in some scenes of the fleets getting hammered and given us so hope spots of the sqaddies almost escaping before their deaths.  Not an 'ending' that is a THIRD as long as the others).
Because this ONE ending if included originally would have prevented this entire outrage.  (though the EC DLC being in the game from the start would have done the same)
Because no on, and I mean no one, expects this of you.
Because the EC DLC makes the ending of the Mass Effect trilogy good enough.  But when has your company ever settled for good enough?
Because ME3 is a masterpiece and it deserves the many varied endings that it was supposed to contain.  This could be one of the first new ones.  If released for free, others could be released for money. 
Because I would buy every single SP DLC BW releases if you gave us that ending.
Because as it stands I and possibly a few others, will not buy DLC because we still don't feel there is any point to the game and the series as a whole.
Because before ME3 and especially during ME3, I was raring to see the ME film.  Now I'm hoping it gets stuck in dev. hell, just to prevent any chance of 'the ending.'  (Please note, that while I would prefer the film series didn't end with the Catalyst and synthesis, as long as in my game I could defy him and win, I'd be ok with it)
Because I want to respect Bioware again.  I don't and likely won't respect your 'integrity' for many years.  But your creativity and imagination, your talent at writing coherant logical plots, your intuition for the audience emotions are still up for grabs.
Because frankly, you want fans like me, fans who are WAAAAAY to invested in the series.  Because we buy all the DLC, we go see the film adaptation, we spend MONTHS lurking on the forums, we pre-order, we buy day 1, we talk the series up to our friends, we buy the merchandising, we keep the franchise going after the casual crowd moves on (you know they will) we buy brand, we make fan work, we give feedback, we defend your work, we bring in publicity, .........we are your base.  And you need us.

[gmboy902]

Ozida wrote...

WE DO NOT WANT ALL ENDINGS TO BE A HAPPY-END! How much more clear can we make that? We want an option. That is hardest one to get. With other options available for those of you who want heroic death.

First of all, the difficulty doesn't matter. Anyone who really enjoys ME3 will probably end up getting the highest ending.

Secondly, nobody will want Shepard to die when the option remains for him to live. I'm not arguing against this Disney ending because I'm in love with the idea of a heroic sacrifice and think that everyone should agree with me. I'm arguing against it because if there's an ending where Shepard lives and few if any of your squadmates die, there is no choice to it. One of the few redeeming aspects about the endings is that they force you to make a choice based on what your Shepard is willing to sacrifice to see the Reaper War end (or what he is willing to sacrifice to defy the Catalyst). It means that your answer will change depending on what personality you have developed for Shepard throughout the series. It means that there isn't a "best" choice, just one that is best for your Shepard.

But every Shepard, from Renegade to Paragon and everything in between, would choose this option people are suggesting. There is no real sacrifice to it.

I don't see why you think that some people just want beyond all desire to see Shepard die. What people like myself really want is a meaningful choice made based on our Shepard's profile. What OP suggests is a cheap way out that gives you no reason to choose the other endings.

[ph34r-X]

Modernpreacher wrote...

iakus wrote...

All the more reason why there should be an ending where Shepard can finally find peace.  After everything Shep's gone through, he/she has more than earned it.  

They knew the job. They were picked in ME1 because there was no one more suited to saving Mankind. And Shepard does that, except on the Refusal ending. 

That IS the happy ending. Mankind is saved. Shepard sacrificed his/her life to accomplish what he set out to do. Through 3 games, Shepard never turned from the goal. He drove forward. Did whatever it took. And every little thing took a little bite out of him. You can only have some many bites taken out of you before you're chewed up. He went further, did more, and accomplished more in his fight than any other human was able to.

Sure he deserves peace.

Death is peace. Sometimes the only true peace there is.

What kind of a life could he have had? Do you really seeing a man or woman like Shepard living happily ever after? Sure he thinks he could do it. But he could't. He's done too much. Killed too many. Sacrificed too much, not only of himself but of friends, family, whole PLANETS of people... 

Do you really see him taking his kids to school on Monday mornings? Potty training little blue babies?

There was no other ending. This was a one way trip for him, and I do not believe for a minute that he didn't know that.



The only other story compairson I can make is Stephen King's Dark Tower. When I first read the end of that series, I nearly threw the book across the room. After a day or two, and really trying to look at who the character was and what he did, I couldn't see any other real resolution than what happened in the last book. The character painted themselves into a corner so to speak. And that corner was a mofo.

There are a lot of paralells to me in the two stories from a thematic perspective.

I'd picture shepard being like Anderson. Continuing his military career at an officer position. Or maybe shepard does just retire and live out the rest of his life. Maybe even on-purposely disappearing, Sort of a Darth Revan like disappearing into quiet seclusion, except reappearing once in a while. Shepard deserves to rest but live the rest of his life. Or maybe training N7 soldiers. N when there would be future conflict, shepard would say to the new character hes had enough of war this is the new guy's fight. I mean I think of my grandfather, he was one of the BEST crane operators in New York City. Back in the 50's was a guinea pig to trying out the new 150 foot crane (very dangerous back then) He's now 80 years old and the training director for all the other operators. Thats just how things work. Old teaches the young.

[ph34r-X]

digoutyoursoul wrote...

I'm just sad we will never get the happy ending now, the EC has put an end to that, any DLC for sp will be pre ending. I understand the need for that type of ending but there is no chance now, we might aswell accept it

Thats the kind of thinking tht lets companies like EA F*** over and step all over their consumers. 

[chemiclord]

ph34r-X wrote...

digoutyoursoul wrote...

I'm just sad we will never get the happy ending now, the EC has put an end to that, any DLC for sp will be pre ending. I understand the need for that type of ending but there is no chance now, we might aswell accept it

Thats the kind of thinking tht lets companies like EA F*** over and step all over their consumers. 

Only if the consumers are stupid enough to keep buying EA products.

[Voiceacted a Husk]

If it makes sense, why not? If it doesn't, NO.

[Dragoonlordz]

Ozida wrote...

gmboy902 wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...
Why this discomfort with a heroic figure surviving and possibly relinquishing the hero role?

The problem I really have, other than the fact that it has been stated to be impossible to defeat the Reapers conventionally throughout the series, is that a "Shepard lives" ending negates the other three (or four) choices.

Where is the sacrifice in that? If Shepard lives, EDI lives, and all of the characters we like live, then where's the sacrifice? Thousands or millions of military grunts die? Okay...? They're faceless people that the player doesn't care about. I would "sacrifice" a billion soldiers to see my Shepard walk out of the Citadel alive.

Sacrifice is more than just numbers. It's the effect that it has on the player. Letting a million soldiers die isn't the same, in this case, as killing off a race or losing your squadmates or Shepard himself. It isn't nearly as hard of a decision.

So Ash/ Kaidan, Wrex/ Mordin, Thane, Leagion/ Tali still aren't enough sacrififces for most of you? How much blood do you need to be satisfied? Hooow muuch? *in tragic voice, of course*

Can never have enough. I need it to feed my demon babies.

Anyhows GMboy is right (imho). Not far off what I said earlier.

You will have to scroll back to read it, I cba to repaste, rewrite it again here.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 03 juillet 2012 - 01:58 .