1199 réponses à ce sujet

[Malditor]

FatalX7.0 wrote...

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.

It's the truth. It didn't satisfy everyone and it's being used as a precident to call for more and more changes..... Don't see it?

[Caenis]

Oldbones2 wrote...


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.

Agreed.

I feel guilty as I am a loyal Bioware fan. But I really don't plan on  buying anymore DLC's from them without at least hardcore speculation and reading reviews. I would be willing to invest in anything that elaborated and clarified plot holes and gave that optional ending for destroy, even though I myself will never pick destroy. I would show them my support for offering to this players, and hope that they would not make the same mistakes again and do better the next time. I would pay for anything that allowed for reunion dlc's etc. I would pay money! Doesn't that mean anything? Isn't my money what they want? I feel like I am nothing more than a walking wallet to them, that when they think of 'hate' they think of loss of money, and when they think of 'love' and 'fan loyalty' they think 'Kaching!'. I hear it said that the Game Industry it's not about 'art' it's about being in the 'Entertainment Industry'. Many will argue that they are 'craftsmen', not artists....so I get it, I'm a wallet. So I say, here, take my money and give me something more.

With these DLC's they are talking about. As far as I know they are just extra character DLC's. Like adding Kasumi or Javik. But at the end of the day my Character DIES in the end, always. How can I go back and play those scenes knowing that I've already invested 100+ hours just to know I'll die, again and again. Why would I buy anymore DLC's to reiterate what I already know? There is no real great reward or payoff except, oh look I saved the world again and died in the process. The truth is, no matter if they elaborate on Destroy or given an extra ending... I still would have chosen Synthesis even if Destroy were elaborated on. But I would have liked to see the choice.

At present I've got all the closure I can expect I'll get.  I APPRECIATE the closure they gave me, and I commend them on that. But unless buying the DLC effects my ending, the choices I have, and how it changes there's no way in hell I'd buy it...for what? Interesting new stories that shed more light on the Reapers? Nah. I can read about that in the Wiki.

There is no doubt I held a LOT of respect for Bioware. But some business decisions...have made me feel more wary of what to buy, it really began back with DA2, great game, but the change was too big. I didn't buy it until it had been out a least a year and only after I had let go of DA:O and excepted DA2 was not a Sequel to DA:O. When KOTOR III became SWOTOR and MMORPG, which I understood, licensing....I thought bleh. THEN the ME3 ending which I rated 8/10 originally, and then the EC 13/10 for closure--but the original feeling of emptiness, made me afraid of playing  a game just to get to the end and feel nothing. I was literally depressed after the original ending (sorry hate to be dramatic but I was), the EC made it feel less depressing and gave me the closure I wanted and am satisifed enough with, but I am still shellshocked.

The more I talk with other (often disillusioned) fans the more I feel like maybe Bioware didn't add the EC because they cared about us? Maybe it was really about losing all those customers and giving in partially in hope it would reel them back. And it did, to some extent. And while I still love Bioware, and have not lost faith in them. I am worried, worried that the pattern will get worse and not better, that they won't use this as a learning curve. That we're going to see a new wave of products from Bioware, and that it is going to fall from the top. And then who is going to replace Bioware? Who is going to give me the same Great experience as the Bioware games have? WHOSE GONNA GIVE ME MY FIX! T_T 

Anyway I expected the BEST from Bioware's ending and was given Average. I don't want to feel that they could have done better because they have always given me better, but I can't help it...I do...the very fact that people want more...has this ever been a problem before with Bioware? As far as I know the community has never been this torn over an ending like this, and has never been left with still wanting more to the degree that it is now.

gmboy902 wrote...

Secondly, nobody will want Shepard to die when the option remains for him to live.

If Shepard living and having her fairytale ending meant I had to pick Destroy, I would let my Shepard die. I would sacrifice my (Shepard's) life in order to protect the Geth and Edi, my friends. I would become a Reaper in exchange so that a billion more souls didn't have to become one, I'd merge my essence for the same reason. And I am positive there are many people out there who would do the same. As this has been shown in many different player versions where people purposely killed Shepard in ME2, or where they let people died or in DA:O when given a choice.

Someone mentioned they would have rather had no choices at all when it came to the ending and that it would have made it more believable. I agree. If you're going to give choice, go the full range. If you're not, don't give me choice at all. Just show me the cutscene once I reach the end....

Modifié par Caenis, 03 juillet 2012 - 02:17 .

[Oldbones2]

[quote]Caenis wrote...

[quote]Oldbones2 wrote...


Buncha stuff I wrote here...

[/quote]

Agreed.

I feel guilty as I am a loyal Bioware fan. But I really don't plan on  buying anymore DLC's from them without at least hardcore speculation and reading reviews. I would be willing to invest in anything that elaborated and clarified plot holes and gave that optional ending for destroy, even though I myself will never pick destroy. I would show them my support for offering to this players, and hope that they would not make the same mistakes again and do better the next time. I would pay for anything that allowed for reunion dlc's etc. I would pay money! Doesn't that mean anything? Isn't my money what they want? I feel like I am nothing more than a walking wallet to them, that when they think of 'hate' they think of loss of money, and when they think of 'love' and 'fan loyalty' they think 'Kaching!'. I hear it said that the Game Industry it's not about 'art' it's about being in the 'Entertainment Industry'. Many will argue that they are 'craftsmen', not artists....so I get it, I'm a wallet. So I say, here, take my money and give me something more.

With these DLC's they are talking about. As far as I know they are just extra character DLC's. Like adding Kasumi or Javik. But at the end of the day my Character DIES in the end, always. How can I go back and play those scenes knowing that I've already invested 100+ hours just to know I'll die, again and again. Why would I buy anymore DLC's to reiterate what I already know? There is no real great reward or payoff except, oh look I saved the world again and died in the process. The truth is, no matter if they elaborate on Destroy or given an extra ending... I still would have chosen Synthesis even if Destroy were elaborated on. But I would have liked to see the choice.

At present I've got all the closure I can expect I'll get.  I APPRECIATE the closure they gave me, and I commend them on that. But unless buying the DLC effects my ending, the choices I have, and how it changes there's no way in hell I'd buy it...for what? Interesting new stories that shed more light on the Reapers? Nah. I can read about that in the Wiki.

There is no doubt I held a LOT of respect for Bioware. But some business decisions...have made me feel more wary of what to buy, it really began back with DA2, great game, but the change was too big. I didn't buy it until it had been out a least a year and only after I had let go of DA:O and excepted DA2 was not a Sequel to DA:O. When KOTOR III became SWOTOR and MMORPG, which I understood, licensing....I thought bleh. THEN the ME3 ending which I rated 8/10 originally, and then the EC 13/10 for closure--but the original feeling of emptiness, made me afraid of playing  a game just to get to the end and feel nothing. I was literally depressed after the original ending (sorry hate to be dramatic but I was), the EC made it feel less depressing and gave me the closure I wanted and am satisifed enough with, but I am still shellshocked.

The more I talk with other (often disillusioned) fans the more I feel like maybe Bioware didn't add the EC because they cared about us? Maybe it was really about losing all those customers and giving in partially in hope it would reel them back. And it did, to some extent. And while I still love Bioware, and have not lost faith in them. I am worried, worried that the pattern will get worse and not better, that they won't use this as a learning curve. That we're going to see a new wave of products from Bioware, and that it is going to fall from the top. And then who is going to replace Bioware? Who is going to give me the same Great experience as the Bioware games have? WHOSE GONNA GIVE ME MY FIX! T_T 
[/quote]

Anyway I expected the BEST from Bioware's ending and was given Average. I don't want to feel that they could have done better because they have always given me better, but I can't help it...I do...the very fact that people want more...has this ever been a problem before with Bioware? As far as I know the community has never been this torn over an ending like this, and has never been left with still wanting more to the degree that it is now.

You know its odd.  Bioware really is talented, without changing much in
the way of plot, and using almost only tone, they've managed to make a
terrible unworthy ending to a terrific series not just barable, but
halfway decent.  I'll freely admit that the Shepard control monologue is
the best thing ever.  The endings themselves are actually all pretty
good now.  Unfortunately the Catalyst hangs around the endings neck like
an anchor. 


I was unltimately impressed by the EC DLC, but still disapointed.  I still see the potential to do more, to give us real varied endings, to make some omlets out of those eggs.  And not just a better reject ending.

Someone suggested to me that the Reapers are really just unwilling pawns of the Catalyst.  And that if released from his control, they would be as peaceful as the other races.  That they really have no interest in the Catalyst's genocidal plan.

This presents an AWESOME ending idea.


Prior to the end, have the Reapers kill someone, maybe even Shepard's LI.
Get to the end, and reach the Catalyst.  Have there be an option to kill all the Reapers or set them free from the Catalyst (either way Casper the genocidal ghost dies). 

But here's the catch, willing or not the Reapers have killed many, many people.  Even people Shepard loved.  Can we live with mercy?

Or if you want to destroy them.  These things, were forced to become Reapers, they had no control of their actions.  They want to live on, as the last beacons of their culture.

So what do you do, show mercy or get vengeance?

And that's just ONE option.

My point is Bioware is so convinced of their own infallibility, that they have closed themselves off to any ideas but their own.  Yet, it has become quite clear that they are far from perfect.


Not to sound like a bitter fanboy, but your guess that BW released the EC to gather up all the potential customers they could find rather than just trying to make this right is probably the correct one. 

[quote]gmboy902 wrote...

Secondly, nobody will want Shepard to die when the option remains for him to live.

[/quote]

If Shepard living and having her fairytale ending meant I had to pick Destroy, I would let my Shepard die. I would sacrifice my (Shepard's) life in order to protect the Geth and Edi, my friends. I would become a Reaper in exchange so that a billion more souls didn't have to become one, I'd merge my essence for the same reason. And I am positive there are many people out there who would do the same. As this has been shown in many different player versions where people purposely killed Shepard in ME2, or where they let people died or in DA:O when given a choice.

Someone mentioned they would have rather had no choices at all when it came to the ending and that it would have made it more believable. I agree. If you're going to give choice, go the full range. If you're not, don't give me choice at all. Just show me the cutscene once I reach the end....






[/quote]

@gmboy902

If you can't see the flaw in that logic, then I pity what the public school system has done to your 'education'.

Right now, there are people on these forums who think Synthesis is the ****g bomb.  There are people who ONLY choose destroy.  

There are even a few controllers (myself included).


Each of us has our own reasons for picking the ending we like.  And Caenis makes a great point.  What we value in the game and for our own morals vary.  Some people will prioritize Shepard living above anything.  Others want to save everyone without tech raping them.  Still others fear the inevitable tech singularity.


The refuse ending probably wouldn't have a 'perfect' resolution, and even if it did, why would synthesis fans choose it?  They fear the TS.  Controllers might want to have the power of the Reapers.


Moreover such an ending would allow people with multiple characters to roleplay.

My main maleshep might choose perfect refuse.

But my main femshep would almost certainly pick control.

Why shouldn't we have that option?

How would it lessen the game to have more choices?

At this point the endings are well known and everyone has played them.  You don't have to download new ones if you don't want to.  So why would you 'have to' pick a perfect ending?  And how would it harm your playthrough now, months after you experienced the original ending, to have another option?

[Caenis]

Agreed! The dialogue for control was just AWESOME! I choose for my Canon, Synthesis, but for my Non-Canon, I always...always go for control, who could compete with that awesome Shepard doing their slow walk with that epic speech (see Below just for fun). Man, it was just wow.

Shepard said...

Eternal. Infinite. Immortal. The woman I was used these words. But only
now do I truly understand them. And only now do I understand the full extent of
her sacrifice. Through her death, I was created. Through my birth, her thoughts
are freed. They guide me now, give me reason, direction. Just as she gave
direction to the ones who followed her, the ones who helped her to achieve her
purpose. Now my purpose. To give the many hope for a future, to ensure that all
have a voice in their future. The woman I was knew that she could only achieve
this by becoming something greater. There is power in control. There is wisdom
in harness the strengths of your enemy. I will rebuild what the many have lost.
I will create a future with limitless possibilities. I will protect and
sustain. I will act as guardian for the many. And throughout it all, I will
never forget…I will remember the ones who sacrificed themselves so that the
many could survive. And I will watch over the ones who live on. Those who carry
the memory of the woman I was once was. The woman who gave up her life to
become the one who could save the many.

(can't help it had to quote the Shepard XD)  ^---- I have that quote in my file of Wisdom Quotes XD with each line colour coded and everything.

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

[Modernpreacher]

ph34r-X wrote...
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.

Your grandfather blow up many planets?

It's kind of a vastly different thing you're talking about compared to the emotional and physical hell Shep has gone through the last 3 games.

[gmboy902]

@gmboy902

If you can't see the flaw in that logic, then I pity what the public school system has done to your 'education'.

Right now, there are people on these forums who think Synthesis is the ****g bomb.  There are people who ONLY choose destroy.  

There are even a few controllers (myself included).


Each of us has our own reasons for picking the ending we like.  And Caenis makes a great point.  What we value in the game and for our own morals vary.  Some people will prioritize Shepard living above anything.  Others want to save everyone without tech raping them.  Still others fear the inevitable tech singularity.


The refuse ending probably wouldn't have a 'perfect' resolution, and even if it did, why would synthesis fans choose it?  They fear the TS.  Controllers might want to have the power of the Reapers.


How would it lessen the game to have more choices?

At this point the endings are well known and everyone has played them.  You don't have to download new ones if you don't want to.  So why would you 'have to' pick a perfect ending?  And how would it harm your playthrough now, months after you experienced the original ending, to have another option?



[/quote]

Taking cheap shots at someone's intelligence to advance an artistic debate just doesn't flow with me.

Why would I kill all of the Geth and EDI when I could pick Refuse and only lose some faceless soldiers? And to be quite honest, I doubt that many people choose control just so they can be the Reaper Overlord.

The "if you don't like it, don't download it" argument is just bad. By this point in the series, players have become attached to Shepard and his squad. They've become fictional friends. Seeing Shepard die is never by itself preferable to seeing Shepard live and getting to see him reunite with everyone we've come to like. If I have that option, I'm going to go for it.

Which is why I don't want that choice. Getting that choice means losing all the others. It turns "Here's three thought-provoking choices that each Shepard will consider differently" into "Here's a happy ending, and if you really want to kill yourself have some others". The only people I can think that would choose that ending are those who genuinely believe the Catalyst's logic (look at BSN - those are few and far between) and people who just want to be the Reaper boss. There's no reason to pick Destroy.

Modifié par gmboy902, 03 juillet 2012 - 06:08 .

[JJ436]

Nope.

[warlock22]

Caenis wrote...

Oldbones2 wrote...


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.

Agreed.

I feel guilty as I am a loyal Bioware fan. But I really don't plan on  buying anymore DLC's from them without at least hardcore speculation and reading reviews. I would be willing to invest in anything that elaborated and clarified plot holes and gave that optional ending for destroy, even though I myself will never pick destroy. I would show them my support for offering to this players, and hope that they would not make the same mistakes again and do better the next time. I would pay for anything that allowed for reunion dlc's etc. I would pay money! Doesn't that mean anything? Isn't my money what they want? I feel like I am nothing more than a walking wallet to them, that when they think of 'hate' they think of loss of money, and when they think of 'love' and 'fan loyalty' they think 'Kaching!'. I hear it said that the Game Industry it's not about 'art' it's about being in the 'Entertainment Industry'. Many will argue that they are 'craftsmen', not artists....so I get it, I'm a wallet. So I say, here, take my money and give me something more.

With these DLC's they are talking about. As far as I know they are just extra character DLC's. Like adding Kasumi or Javik. But at the end of the day my Character DIES in the end, always. How can I go back and play those scenes knowing that I've already invested 100+ hours just to know I'll die, again and again. Why would I buy anymore DLC's to reiterate what I already know? There is no real great reward or payoff except, oh look I saved the world again and died in the process. The truth is, no matter if they elaborate on Destroy or given an extra ending... I still would have chosen Synthesis even if Destroy were elaborated on. But I would have liked to see the choice.

At present I've got all the closure I can expect I'll get.  I APPRECIATE the closure they gave me, and I commend them on that. But unless buying the DLC effects my ending, the choices I have, and how it changes there's no way in hell I'd buy it...for what? Interesting new stories that shed more light on the Reapers? Nah. I can read about that in the Wiki.

There is no doubt I held a LOT of respect for Bioware. But some business decisions...have made me feel more wary of what to buy, it really began back with DA2, great game, but the change was too big. I didn't buy it until it had been out a least a year and only after I had let go of DA:O and excepted DA2 was not a Sequel to DA:O. When KOTOR III became SWOTOR and MMORPG, which I understood, licensing....I thought bleh. THEN the ME3 ending which I rated 8/10 originally, and then the EC 13/10 for closure--but the original feeling of emptiness, made me afraid of playing  a game just to get to the end and feel nothing. I was literally depressed after the original ending (sorry hate to be dramatic but I was), the EC made it feel less depressing and gave me the closure I wanted and am satisifed enough with, but I am still shellshocked.

The more I talk with other (often disillusioned) fans the more I feel like maybe Bioware didn't add the EC because they cared about us? Maybe it was really about losing all those customers and giving in partially in hope it would reel them back. And it did, to some extent. And while I still love Bioware, and have not lost faith in them. I am worried, worried that the pattern will get worse and not better, that they won't use this as a learning curve. That we're going to see a new wave of products from Bioware, and that it is going to fall from the top. And then who is going to replace Bioware? Who is going to give me the same Great experience as the Bioware games have? WHOSE GONNA GIVE ME MY FIX! T_T 

Anyway I expected the BEST from Bioware's ending and was given Average. I don't want to feel that they could have done better because they have always given me better, but I can't help it...I do...the very fact that people want more...has this ever been a problem before with Bioware? As far as I know the community has never been this torn over an ending like this, and has never been left with still wanting more to the degree that it is now.

I feel your pain, and completey agree to all of this. If we wont more and are willing to pay for it, why not give it, since they seem to care only about money now (BioWare points). I'm still in this fight, I wanted to win on my terms (like Shepard has always done) and reunite with my LI and crew, seeing as how this has been one of the themes to Mass Effect. If they don't do this, then BioWare will loose in the end, and I really hope it doesn't come down to that. I dont want to see another great gaming company go down because of EA. Almost everyone I've seen on other forms descussing things like this as well as HTL and Retake feel the same way that most of us on this form do, I just hope BioWare see's that this isn't going to just go away. No game has touched people like this before, it is something truly unique because its your story. I just wish BioWare would see where we are coming from, its not just a game, its something much more than that. And thats a huge complement to them for something that no one else has been able to do or think of, I just cant believe they didn't end it on a good/happy note for one of the endings.

[vallore]

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.

No sorry. There is no reason to assume that "most of us would feel that is absurd," the argument that if Shepard survives in one ending would somehow cheapen the other endings ignores the fact that Bioware did just such an ending, with survival or death offered in DAO, without losing impact for the death option (that remains my favorite), and even without the need to make survival the most difficult to get… And it worked; by the Maker, how it worked!

You could die to end the Blight, allow one friend to make the sacrifice, or make a ritual with dubious results for the future. The player could choose what was right for their character, as none felt as a get away free card.

Now, whenever a substantial part of your audience is unhappy with the results, ( as it is the case), because something they had good reasons to expect is not present in what you provide, then this is no longer a lesser problem of “it is not possible to please everyone” it is a major problem of design failure.

[Sire Styx]

I've came to the conclusion that people who don't want a "happy" ending have no self control. They have no mind of their own. They can't think for themselves. They are like the reapers, being controlled by the catalyst.

They state time and time again, that if there was a "happy" ending they would HAVE to pick it. If there were a hundred different endings, they would HAVE to pick the "happiest" one. They are unable to choose the one which they prefer.

Because of this, we (the people who would like an ending where the people we know and are close to us survive) are not allowed this option. We are not even allowed to discuss whether it would be nice to have the option.

It would be like me saying "I like to eat apples, but if there is a pear I have no self control and I have to eat it, forgoing all apple and apple-based products. Because of this, no one is allowed pears. Even mentioning a pear is forbidden. Even if a pear cost billions of pounds more than an apple and requires you to go through a series of terrifying and tough trials to reach it, no one is allowed it because I would have to have it."

It's ridiculous. It's not so much that hey want the "happy" ending to have loads of costs associated with it, (such as the geth dying, Edi dying, Shepard lying there dying) it's that they want ti to hurt us. They don't care if we suggest that billions of people need to die to give us the "Happy" ending, only that the people who die have to be people who are close to us and hurt us.

Because that's all it comes down to. A lot of the anti-"happy"-enders want to cause us as much personal distress as possible, which is selfish and immature.

[Kataphrut94]

No, I wouldn't want an ending like that because:

A) It's completely at odds with the tone of the game.

It creates an optimal play experience, which goes against the whole idea of role playing. You wouldn't be making choices based on how you or your character feels, you'd be basing them purely on numbers.

C) Come on, most people thought the Crucible was too much! Given the nature of the Reapers and what they're capable of, you'd need a Deus Ex Machina pulled out of the deepst and holiest reaches of the Arse of God for an ending completely devoid of any meaningful loss to be possible.

Modifié par Kataphrut94, 04 juillet 2012 - 10:39 .

[Sire Styx]

This is my idea of what the 3 main endings give you:
https://docs.google....elRlbno0T3pKQmc
To be honest, looking at it like that, destroy is the worst ending. Many people are dead, all synthetics are dead, Shepard is dying, no reaper help.

Using the logic of some people in this topic though, we should balance the endings out, either by Shepard making a full recovery in destroy, or mass genocide occuring in control and synthesis.

Modifié par Sire Styx, 03 juillet 2012 - 12:13 .

[Aldyramon]

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 hate the idea of Shepard surivinig in a big happy ending. Shepard should sacrifice him/herself to save the Galaxy. The defeat of the Reapers should only be able with great loss. I don't want Shepard arround for the next storyline like a Superhero who could/should just take over any time the new hero fails.

[darkstarxt]

Sire Styx wrote...

I've came to the conclusion that people who don't want a "happy" ending have no self control. They have no mind of their own. They can't think for themselves. They are like the reapers, being controlled by the catalyst.

They state time and time again, that if there was a "happy" ending they would HAVE to pick it. If there were a hundred different endings, they would HAVE to pick the "happiest" one. They are unable to choose the one which they prefer.

Because of this, we (the people who would like an ending where the people we know and are close to us survive) are not allowed this option. We are not even allowed to discuss whether it would be nice to have the option.

It would be like me saying "I like to eat apples, but if there is a pear I have no self control and I have to eat it, forgoing all apple and apple-based products. Because of this, no one is allowed pears. Even mentioning a pear is forbidden. Even if a pear cost billions of pounds more than an apple and requires you to go through a series of terrifying and tough trials to reach it, no one is allowed it because I would have to have it."

It's ridiculous. It's not so much that hey want the "happy" ending to have loads of costs associated with it, (such as the geth dying, Edi dying, Shepard lying there dying) it's that they want ti to hurt us. They don't care if we suggest that billions of people need to die to give us the "Happy" ending, only that the people who die have to be people who are close to us and hurt us.

Because that's all it comes down to. A lot of the anti-"happy"-enders want to cause us as much personal distress as possible, which is selfish and immature.

Agree. I find it paradoxical that people who are militantly against a happy ending argue that if there was one, they would be forced to choose it.

[leapingmonkeys]

Aldyramon wrote...

ph34r-X wrote...

 Simple paragon ending. 

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

Is this basicly what we all want? 

No, I hate the idea of Shepard surivinig in a big happy ending. Shepard should sacrifice him/herself to save the Galaxy. The defeat of the Reapers should only be able with great loss. I don't want Shepard arround for the next storyline like a Superhero who could/should just take over any time the new hero fails.

If that is the ending you want to play to, fine.  But this game is supposed to have a "player driven" plot and must therefore allow for multiple endings to satisfy multiple styles of game play.  The game needs to be satisfying to many people, not just you.  No one is saying the happy ending is the only possible conclusion - they just want it to be possible for those who want to play to such an ending.

[Ozida]

Aldyramon wrote...

No, I hate the idea of Shepard surivinig in a big happy ending. Shepard should sacrifice him/herself to save the Galaxy. The defeat of the Reapers should only be able with great loss. I don't want Shepard arround for the next storyline like a Superhero who could/should just take over any time the new hero fails.

No, you can't, because I hate the idea of Shepard dying. He/she should reunite with his/ her crue and live happily ever after. The defeat of the Reapers should only be with no losses at all. I want Shepard arround for the next storyline exactly like a Superhero who could/should just take over any time the new hero fails.

Here, I can argue like that too if other people would not want to listen to any other logical arguments.

P.S. Didn't mean a personal insult to Aldyramon, just using it as an example for the topic.

[vallore]

Xilizhra wrote...

What if only the synthesis option was proposed by the catalyst and the other two, Control and Destroy was something Shepard would find out only by refusing the Catalyst and walking to a console where, after activation, she would realize these were also options?

Because that'd make Synthesis look unnecessarily worse? I really don't see why it inherently involves compromising your beliefs; I may not be typical, but I don't believe the ending makes me compromise anything.

Syntesis is the only one that is designed as an answer to the catalyst problem. If you choose synthesis, it is likely that you believe in the inevitability of the conflict between organics and synthetics that he presented.

Further, if you are presented with a valid option of achieving victory even if you refuse him, than, regardless of what option you choose, victory will be in your own terms. The Catalyst is no longer imposing his choices; you are the one that freely choose Syntesis as the most acceptable, even if he agrees. As it is now, the catalyst “magnanimously” grants Shepard options, and she either accepts his terms, or fails. That is defeat and capitulation right there.

Further, I would point out that separating Syntesis from the other options does not solve a number of important problems with the endings either; it only would allow the player to not having to sacrifice Shepard’s mind, along with her body and soul, as at least, she could now choose on her own terms.

[saber00005]

I don't ness. get the ending 3 (4 chooses). Is control suppost to be Paragon and destroy suppost to be Renegade? That to me doesn't ness. make sense.

Modifié par saber00005, 03 juillet 2012 - 05:32 .

[Caenis]

warlock22 wrote...

Caenis wrote...


Agreed.

I feel guilty as I am a loyal Bioware fan. But I really don't plan on  buying anymore DLC's from them without at least hardcore speculation and reading reviews. I would be willing to invest in anything that elaborated and clarified plot holes and gave that optional ending for destroy, even though I myself will never pick destroy. I would show them my support for offering to this players, and hope that they would not make the same mistakes again and do better the next time. I would pay for anything that allowed for reunion dlc's etc. I would pay money! Doesn't that mean anything? Isn't my money what they want? I feel like I am nothing more than a walking wallet to them, that when they think of 'hate' they think of loss of money, and when they think of 'love' and 'fan loyalty' they think 'Kaching!'. I hear it said that the Game Industry it's not about 'art' it's about being in the 'Entertainment Industry'. Many will argue that they are 'craftsmen', not artists....so I get it, I'm a wallet. So I say, here, take my money and give me something more.

With these DLC's they are talking about. As far as I know they are just extra character DLC's. Like adding Kasumi or Javik. But at the end of the day my Character DIES in the end, always. How can I go back and play those scenes knowing that I've already invested 100+ hours just to know I'll die, again and again. Why would I buy anymore DLC's to reiterate what I already know? There is no real great reward or payoff except, oh look I saved the world again and died in the process. The truth is, no matter if they elaborate on Destroy or given an extra ending... I still would have chosen Synthesis even if Destroy were elaborated on. But I would have liked to see the choice.

At present I've got all the closure I can expect I'll get.  I APPRECIATE the closure they gave me, and I commend them on that. But unless buying the DLC effects my ending, the choices I have, and how it changes there's no way in hell I'd buy it...for what? Interesting new stories that shed more light on the Reapers? Nah. I can read about that in the Wiki.

There is no doubt I held a LOT of respect for Bioware. But some business decisions...have made me feel more wary of what to buy, it really began back with DA2, great game, but the change was too big. I didn't buy it until it had been out a least a year and only after I had let go of DA:O and excepted DA2 was not a Sequel to DA:O. When KOTOR III became SWOTOR and MMORPG, which I understood, licensing....I thought bleh. THEN the ME3 ending which I rated 8/10 originally, and then the EC 13/10 for closure--but the original feeling of emptiness, made me afraid of playing  a game just to get to the end and feel nothing. I was literally depressed after the original ending (sorry hate to be dramatic but I was), the EC made it feel less depressing and gave me the closure I wanted and am satisifed enough with, but I am still shellshocked.

The more I talk with other (often disillusioned) fans the more I feel like maybe Bioware didn't add the EC because they cared about us? Maybe it was really about losing all those customers and giving in partially in hope it would reel them back. And it did, to some extent. And while I still love Bioware, and have not lost faith in them. I am worried, worried that the pattern will get worse and not better, that they won't use this as a learning curve. That we're going to see a new wave of products from Bioware, and that it is going to fall from the top. And then who is going to replace Bioware? Who is going to give me the same Great experience as the Bioware games have? WHOSE GONNA GIVE ME MY FIX! T_T 

Anyway I expected the BEST from Bioware's ending and was given Average. I don't want to feel that they could have done better because they have always given me better, but I can't help it...I do...the very fact that people want more...has this ever been a problem before with Bioware? As far as I know the community has never been this torn over an ending like this, and has never been left with still wanting more to the degree that it is now.

I feel your pain, and completey agree to all of this. If we wont more and are willing to pay for it, why not give it, since they seem to care only about money now (BioWare points). I'm still in this fight, I wanted to win on my terms (like Shepard has always done) and reunite with my LI and crew, seeing as how this has been one of the themes to Mass Effect. If they don't do this, then BioWare will loose in the end, and I really hope it doesn't come down to that. I dont want to see another great gaming company go down because of EA. Almost everyone I've seen on other forms descussing things like this as well as HTL and Retake feel the same way that most of us on this form do, I just hope BioWare see's that this isn't going to just go away. No game has touched people like this before, it is something truly unique because its your story. I just wish BioWare would see where we are coming from, its not just a game, its something much more than that. And thats a huge complement to them for something that no one else has been able to do or think of, I just cant believe they didn't end it on a good/happy note for one of the endings.

I have to admit that over the past 2 days I have felt a sense of despair in relation to Bioware. I feel it came from surrounding myself with conversations that focus on negativity and getting caught in defensive mode, that has affected this change in tone I see myself making. Suddenly being put on the offensive for subjective opinions have led me to be more aggressive and on a pointless defensive. I've gone from passively accepting, observing, and thinking of my feelings the way I presented them here, to anger, outrage, and downright despair and from constructive criticism from harsh criticism, using harsher language to express these same thoughts and feelings. I feel somewhat more pessimistic and negative when I let myself get pulled into the passionate flame of debate over this whole thing.

SO, needless to say reading this has made me feel better and brought it all back into perspective. Thanks. 

Modifié par Caenis, 03 juillet 2012 - 05:34 .

[tholloway93]

high EMS = that ending on refuse, low you all die.

id like to see a different ending for control depending on whether you played paragon or renegade too

[eran5005]

Sorry OP, can't agree with you there - the whole tension in the story (as far as i'm concerned) is built on the fact that the Reapers can't be defeated in conventional means. Not saying the ending is perfect (though the EC did wonders to improve it IMO), but it's better than what you are proposing (again, IMO)

[Iakus]

saber00005 wrote...

I don't ness. get the ending 3 (4 chooses). Is control suppost to be Paragon and destroy suppost to be Renegade? That to me doesn't ness. make sense.

none of the endings are "paragon or "renegade" as such (though perhaps "stupid" may be universally applied to them)

Control, in fact, has seperate paragon and renegade versions.

[eran5005]

Kerasth wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

Drudez wrote...

A conventional victory should be possible with enormous amounts of EMS.

No. That's just stupid against the reapers that CAN'T BE defeated like that, and is against the plot since M1.  It took almost all the fifth fleet to kill only Sovereign.

You just contradicted yourself. It took a single Alliance fleet and a small part of the Citadel fleet to destroy Sovereign. In ME3 we have the entire Alliance, turian, asari, krogan, quarian and/or geth, salarian, elcor, and volus militaries plus the rachni, a bunch of mercs, and what's left of the batarians. If it takes one fleet to kill one Sovereign-class Reaper, we should be able to at least scrape by.

He didn't contradict anything, if it took a little more than one fleet to defeat Sovereign, then how can 10-12 fleets defeat hundreds or even thousands of reapers? The lore was very clear from the beginning - The reapers are too powerful and there are too many of them, conventional victory is not possible no matter what, that is the reason why BioWare devised the Crucible and Godchild concepts to begin with, cause they backed themselves to a corner story telling wise.

[Novate]

I am all for the War = Sacrifice aspect of the endings, but what I don't get is the ONE BUTTON TO RULE THEM ALL solution they came up with.

After several Months and reading through forums and playing the game, I have finally found the reasons why I hated the ending.
This whole Reaper can't be beaten by conventionally means is whats wrong with the whole game.
It was proven in ME1 that we can beat the Reapers, then in ME2 we proved that we can out gun and out wit the Collectors whom by the way is 50k years in advanced technology ahead of this current generation.

The moral of the stories from ME1 and ME2 is that the Odds are stacked against Shepard, with only a chance smaller than 0.01 % Shepard can still come up from defeat even in death Shepard can come back and kick your ass.

In ME3 all that is wiped clean, the odds are still stacked against us, but this time we have an Secret Weapon, the one weapon that we don't know the uses of, yes we know for sure it will destroy the Reapers. The I WIN button.

IF they had set it up where the Reapers has an massive Mass Effect Shield, an technology that we can't bypass, then sure, conventional weapons can't by pass the technology unless we have an ancient tech that can distrupt the shield so that we have a chance.
And to do that we have to go to the Citadel and access it from within, then have an battle with the catalyst where he uses the child's form to persuade us from doing it where the Cycle must continue. And then in the end, we have to sacrifice ourself, or one of the team, maybe a LI , based on War Assets that you have gathered, that made the effectiveness of the machine different. Then it would make sense to me.

I just think this whole can't beat by Conventional means a whole lots of *****

[Sire Styx]

Novate wrote...

I am all for the War = Sacrifice aspect of the endings, but what I don't get is the ONE BUTTON TO RULE THEM ALL solution they came up with.

After several Months and reading through forums and playing the game, I have finally found the reasons why I hated the ending.
This whole Reaper can't be beaten by conventionally means is whats wrong with the whole game.
It was proven in ME1 that we can beat the Reapers, then in ME2 we proved that we can out gun and out wit the Collectors whom by the way is 50k years in advanced technology ahead of this current generation.

The moral of the stories from ME1 and ME2 is that the Odds are stacked against Shepard, with only a chance smaller than 0.01 % Shepard can still come up from defeat even in death Shepard can come back and kick your ass.

In ME3 all that is wiped clean, the odds are still stacked against us, but this time we have an Secret Weapon, the one weapon that we don't know the uses of, yes we know for sure it will destroy the Reapers. The I WIN button.

IF they had set it up where the Reapers has an massive Mass Effect Shield, an technology that we can't bypass, then sure, conventional weapons can't by pass the technology unless we have an ancient tech that can distrupt the shield so that we have a chance.
And to do that we have to go to the Citadel and access it from within, then have an battle with the catalyst where he uses the child's form to persuade us from doing it where the Cycle must continue. And then in the end, we have to sacrifice ourself, or one of the team, maybe a LI , based on War Assets that you have gathered, that made the effectiveness of the machine different. Then it would make sense to me.

I just think this whole can't beat by Conventional means a whole lots of *****

I would have preffered this to the ending. I had thought originally the catalyst would have been something to even the odds, not just win outright.