1199 réponses à ce sujet

[JKA_Nozyspy]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

JKA_Nozyspy wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Yup, because every game should end with the hero winning with at absoulutely no cost because that's what makes a good game. A happy ending.

Did you complain that ME1 had a 'happy' ending where the Alliance rides in and saves the day, becoming heroes? Or how about the 'happy' ending in ME2 where you could survive and save your entire crew.

I'ma stop you there. Just because ME1 and 2 have happy endings doesn't mean ME3 should have a happy ending.

As for the Destroy ending, were you seriously suprised that a laser that destroys synthetics destroyed synthetics?

It does break the contunuity of the theme a bit when twice you are able to cheat death and defeat the bad guys and save the day, but on the last and most important occasion you are never given that option. It does for me anyway.

A synthetic destroying beam also destroying the Geth does make a certain amount of sence, especially given their Reaper Code upgrades, but considering that Synthesis is somehow able to merge organic and synthetic lifeforms into one, there should also be inventive ways of getting around killing the Geth

dreman9999 wrote...

No convention means mean no conventional means. Why is this so hard to understand?

Im not talking about the 'conventional win' scenario, i am not of the mind personally that that would be possible without major changes to the technology (like this Leviathan providing anti Reaper weapons for example). As a deus ex machina, the Crucible isnt brilliant, but it works enough that i am satisfied to have it in there.

What irritates me about the destroy ending, is that without any previous lore explanation, Shepard is able to merge himself with and control the Reapers for all eternity, and evereyone else lives happily ever after, and also use himself to synthesise all synthetics and organics, to live happily ever after; both times only sacrificing himself to 'Win'. And yet when it comes to destroy, the cost of winning is to kill one of your friends and an entire race. There seems to be an imbalance between the cost to effect ratio there.

Afterall, why would you write a story that allows players to prove that synthetics do not always have to destroy organics, reconcile two warring species and give the Geth full intelligence, and then in the end, all that effort basically means you are hamstrung and can only choose two of the three endings (neither of which feel quite right to me) if you dont want to undo it all. Afterall choosing the destroy ending, which the entirety of the story has led you to up to that point, basically renders all of your previous efforts null and void.

Just my two pennies anyway, i respect other people see these choices differently so if you disagree, please try and do so in a non-belligerant manner.

[Fionn Marr]

There were infinitly better ways that the writers could have gone if they really wanted to have Synth/Control/Destroy as their ending options without introducing an annoying little snot like the God-Brat.

Let's look at that through existing characters- as if the God-Brat didn't exist and Shepard was still at the control panel room and Anderson and TIM were there with him.

Control: Shepard agrees with TIM, possibly at the expense of Andersons life - fires off the Crucible using TIMs discoveries about Reaper control. Result: Control of the Reapers. No Anderson, TIM alive and a new age for humanity.

Syth: Represented by EDI. EDI presents Shepard with the option of unification. Shepard downloads her into the Crucible and she sets off the green pulse bringing peace to all, if not a little less free will. Result: No more EDI and a new age for the Borg- Um, I mean organic and synthetic life.

Destroy: Represented by Anderson. Shepard rejects TIM, probably shooting him, blows the Reapers straight to Purgatory. I mean the actual Purgatory, not the night club. Result: No more Reapers, no more TIM.

Follow any of these options with beers on a beach with Garrus followed by some serious blue baby making with Liara. I want 6. I'm naming them all Squid Girl #. Then it's off to Rannoch to put up prefab shelters and teach the Geth how to play Liar's Dice.

Job done.

All the peices were in place to explore these three endings without introducing what will be remembered by many as the most annoying character in sci-fi. Even Jar Jar Freaken Binks had a character arc. The God-Brat is just an annoying little pillock. No-one likes kids who can't act. To keep the Star Wars comparison going the God-Brat had less emotional depth than young Anakin. He was as shallow as a puddle in a car park.

A happy ending should have least been an option. With the sheer amount of hours spent playing the game could they not have at least provided a happy ending for totally maxing out your EMS?
Beyond taking a single breath?

[dreman9999]

JKA_Nozyspy wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

JKA_Nozyspy wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Yup, because every game should end with the hero winning with at absoulutely no cost because that's what makes a good game. A happy ending.

Did you complain that ME1 had a 'happy' ending where the Alliance rides in and saves the day, becoming heroes? Or how about the 'happy' ending in ME2 where you could survive and save your entire crew.

I'ma stop you there. Just because ME1 and 2 have happy endings doesn't mean ME3 should have a happy ending.

As for the Destroy ending, were you seriously suprised that a laser that destroys synthetics destroyed synthetics?

It does break the contunuity of the theme a bit when twice you are able to cheat death and defeat the bad guys and save the day, but on the last and most important occasion you are never given that option. It does for me anyway.

A synthetic destroying beam also destroying the Geth does make a certain amount of sence, especially given their Reaper Code upgrades, but considering that Synthesis is somehow able to merge organic and synthetic lifeforms into one, there should also be inventive ways of getting around killing the Geth

dreman9999 wrote...

No convention means mean no conventional means. Why is this so hard to understand?

Im not talking about the 'conventional win' scenario, i am not of the mind personally that that would be possible without major changes to the technology (like this Leviathan providing anti Reaper weapons for example). As a deus ex machina, the Crucible isnt brilliant, but it works enough that i am satisfied to have it in there.

What irritates me about the destroy ending, is that without any previous lore explanation, Shepard is able to merge himself with and control the Reapers for all eternity, and evereyone else lives happily ever after, and also use himself to synthesise all synthetics and organics, to live happily ever after; both times only sacrificing himself to 'Win'. And yet when it comes to destroy, the cost of winning is to kill one of your friends and an entire race. There seems to be an imbalance between the cost to effect ratio there.

Afterall, why would you write a story that allows players to prove that synthetics do not always have to destroy organics, reconcile two warring species and give the Geth full intelligence, and then in the end, all that effort basically means you are hamstrung and can only choose two of the three endings (neither of which feel quite right to me) if you dont want to undo it all. Afterall choosing the destroy ending, which the entirety of the story has led you to up to that point, basically renders all of your previous efforts null and void.

Just my two pennies anyway, i respect other people see these choices differently so if you disagree, please try and do so in a non-belligerant manner.

1. The crucible is not a deux ex.
2.The only thing is left to expline is who made it.Not have that does no make it a deux ex.
3. It didn't magicly comfrom know where being that it was hinted at for lotsb.
4. The only issue is how it was applied in the game, if it was something that was slowly discover the reseprtion of it would be different.
5. Control has the same concept of the geth consensus mission. It's possible in the lore.
6. And no everyone does not live happily ever after in the control ending.
7. The entire idea of mass effect is to bring the player to a moral delema via the choices they have to make. This no different then the choice you made in the rest of the game. Where was this complain that the choice you had to make is too extreme in ME1 ending, virmire , the LEGIONS mission in ME2, genophage cure, and so on?

[dreman9999]

Fionn Marr wrote...

There were infinitly better ways that the writers could have gone if they really wanted to have Synth/Control/Destroy as their ending options without introducing an annoying little snot like the God-Brat.

Let's look at that through existing characters- as if the God-Brat didn't exist and Shepard was still at the control panel room and Anderson and TIM were there with him.

Control: Shepard agrees with TIM, possibly at the expense of Andersons life - fires off the Crucible using TIMs discoveries about Reaper control. Result: Control of the Reapers. No Anderson, TIM alive and a new age for humanity.

Syth: Represented by EDI. EDI presents Shepard with the option of unification. Shepard downloads her into the Crucible and she sets off the green pulse bringing peace to all, if not a little less free will. Result: No more EDI and a new age for the Borg- Um, I mean organic and synthetic life.

Destroy: Represented by Anderson. Shepard rejects TIM, probably shooting him, blows the Reapers straight to Purgatory. I mean the actual Purgatory, not the night club. Result: No more Reapers, no more TIM.

Follow any of these options with beers on a beach with Garrus followed by some serious blue baby making with Liara. I want 6. I'm naming them all Squid Girl #. Then it's off to Rannoch to put up prefab shelters and teach the Geth how to play Liar's Dice.

Job done.

All the peices were in place to explore these three endings without introducing what will be remembered by many as the most annoying character in sci-fi. Even Jar Jar Freaken Binks had a character arc. The God-Brat is just an annoying little pillock. No-one likes kids who can't act. To keep the Star Wars comparison going the God-Brat had less emotional depth than young Anakin. He was as shallow as a puddle in a car park.

A happy ending should have least been an option. With the sheer amount of hours spent playing the game could they not have at least provided a happy ending for totally maxing out your EMS?
Beyond taking a single breath?

1. EDI would never opt for synthesis.
2. We loose learning the perpose of the reapers.
3. The choices turn form moraly gray to black and white.

Modifié par dreman9999, 09 juillet 2012 - 07:08 .

[dreman9999]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

The tone of this game was different than the last two, allowing for different themes. It would be cool if a high EMS Destroy ending killed Shepard but spared the Geth and EDI. I think that would be fair.

That still would make the ending too black and white. I though we didn't want that?
The point of the game was to bring the player to moral conflict via choice?
Is Shepard care for the geth and EDI and killed them, would not living be a punishment? We are not even told we would live if we sselect it, why would livng through it even be a reason to pick it?

[knightnblu]

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? 

Would have been nice, but never going to happen.

[dreman9999]

knightnblu 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? 

Would have been nice, but never going to happen.

But this would go ageints the point of the series.

[Fionn Marr]

[/quote]1. EDI would never opt for synthesis.
2. We loose learning the perpose of the reapers.
3. The choices turn form moraly gray to black and white.

[/quote]

1. She might as she is emotionally invested in Joker, a man who's entire life would be made easier by curing his condition through synthesis. She might well go for eliminating all illness from organic life. Or at least suggesting it to Shepard.

2. We don't care. The Reapers turn up every 50,000 years to cleanse the galaxy of advanced organic life. We die if they succeed. We knew that already. The God-Brat doesn't even put a name to his creators, as well as spouting off a bunch of expository dialogue which argues against itself. The only thing he actually proves is that his creators were horribly out of touch with the entire universe and how it works. He provides the "solution" to "chaos"? WTF? The entire universe IS chaos. Biology is chaos. Infinity is chaos. Evolution, the creation of stellar bodies, all chaos. The God-Brat is the most un-natural thing in the natural universe. He adds nothing of value to the story at all. Hell I'd even take a boss battle with Harbinger over this non-sense and I'm a role-player not a shooter.

3. Totally disagree. Because of one thing. Sacrifice. In each of the options I outlined one high profile supporting character will die. Shepard choses. No black and white victory here because all the decisions have far reaching consequences. Is shooting TIM all well and good? Has Andersons time naturally come to an end? What further understanding of sythetic life could EDI have offered if she was still around?

One last thing, on the topic of shades of grey.

To many shades of grey is great way to right royally alienate your audiance when telling a story. If every villian had a troubled up-bringing and a heart of gold, and every hero had a conflicted darker side then your audiance gets real sick of it real quick. Depth is fine. Conflict builds character. But heroes still need the space to grow and be heroes. To much grey gets real damn annoying. That why the characters like Garrus in ME and Heilo in Bastlestar Gallactica are important. They are the Moral Compass to the protagonist. Always there to ask "Should we be doing this?". It's an important character in any story.

Modifié par Fionn Marr, 09 juillet 2012 - 07:42 .

[mauro2222]

maaaze wrote...

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

without sacrifice there is no sense of accomplishment.

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

the same with Kai Leng and Thane.

I've got a pretty nice sense of accomplishment when I finished the Suicide Mission with no casualties, I managed get everyone alive.

[JKA_Nozyspy]

dreman9999 wrote...

JKA_Nozyspy wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

JKA_Nozyspy wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Yup, because every game should end with the hero winning with at absoulutely no cost because that's what makes a good game. A happy ending.

Did you complain that ME1 had a 'happy' ending where the Alliance rides in and saves the day, becoming heroes? Or how about the 'happy' ending in ME2 where you could survive and save your entire crew.

I'ma stop you there. Just because ME1 and 2 have happy endings doesn't mean ME3 should have a happy ending.

As for the Destroy ending, were you seriously suprised that a laser that destroys synthetics destroyed synthetics?

It does break the contunuity of the theme a bit when twice you are able to cheat death and defeat the bad guys and save the day, but on the last and most important occasion you are never given that option. It does for me anyway.

A synthetic destroying beam also destroying the Geth does make a certain amount of sence, especially given their Reaper Code upgrades, but considering that Synthesis is somehow able to merge organic and synthetic lifeforms into one, there should also be inventive ways of getting around killing the Geth

dreman9999 wrote...

No convention means mean no conventional means. Why is this so hard to understand?

Im not talking about the 'conventional win' scenario, i am not of the mind personally that that would be possible without major changes to the technology (like this Leviathan providing anti Reaper weapons for example). As a deus ex machina, the Crucible isnt brilliant, but it works enough that i am satisfied to have it in there.

What irritates me about the destroy ending, is that without any previous lore explanation, Shepard is able to merge himself with and control the Reapers for all eternity, and evereyone else lives happily ever after, and also use himself to synthesise all synthetics and organics, to live happily ever after; both times only sacrificing himself to 'Win'. And yet when it comes to destroy, the cost of winning is to kill one of your friends and an entire race. There seems to be an imbalance between the cost to effect ratio there.

Afterall, why would you write a story that allows players to prove that synthetics do not always have to destroy organics, reconcile two warring species and give the Geth full intelligence, and then in the end, all that effort basically means you are hamstrung and can only choose two of the three endings (neither of which feel quite right to me) if you dont want to undo it all. Afterall choosing the destroy ending, which the entirety of the story has led you to up to that point, basically renders all of your previous efforts null and void.

Just my two pennies anyway, i respect other people see these choices differently so if you disagree, please try and do so in a non-belligerant manner.

1. The crucible is not a deux ex.
2.The only thing is left to expline is who made it.Not have that does no make it a deux ex.
3. It didn't magicly comfrom know where being that it was hinted at for lotsb.
4. The only issue is how it was applied in the game, if it was something that was slowly discover the reseprtion of it would be different.
5. Control has the same concept of the geth consensus mission. It's possible in the lore.
6. And no everyone does not live happily ever after in the control ending.
7. The entire idea of mass effect is to bring the player to a moral delema via the choices they have to make. This no different then the choice you made in the rest of the game. Where was this complain that the choice you had to make is too extreme in ME1 ending, virmire , the LEGIONS mission in ME2, genophage cure, and so on?

1. I feel it does conform to the Deus Ex type;

"In some ancient Greek drama, an apparently insoluble crisis was solved by the intervention of a god, often brought on stage by an elaborate piece of equipment. This "god from the machine" was literally a deus ex machina."

"A deus ex machina "god from the machine"; plural: dei ex machina) is a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly solved with the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability, or object." ~ Wikipedia

Personally i think both the Crucible and Celestial Toddler are both used in the manner of a Deus Ex Machina.

2. See above.

3. Very true, but i do feel the Crucible did not get enough screentime in ME3, i think we should have been able to visit it and actually talk to the people we had recuited for it about what the device was.

4. I agree the execution wasnt brilliant.

5. I suppose you could use that example, good point.

6. Well maybe not 'happily ever after', per se with with ReaperShep watching over the galaxy, it means things are going to be a lot better (or maybe worse, if he was a total Renegade!).

7. I never said choices shouldnt be difficult, but the examples you gave are examples of 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one'. The sacrifice felt commensurate to what was gained by that sacrifice. Considering that the Geth are an entire civilization and that you could have spent a significant portion of the game actually trying to save them and get peace with the Quarians, i feel the sacrifice of the Geth is not commensurate to the Destruction of the Reapers as control seems to offer better 'value for money' for the galaxy as a whole, as only Shep dies (though he isnt really 'dead' exactly).

Even though the Geth are only a part of the galactic whole, there are enough of them, and you build enough of a connection with them, that the 'needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few' way of looking at it no longer holds as much weight.

The Mad Hanar wrote...

The tone of this game was different than the last two, allowing for different themes. It would be cool if a high EMS Destroy ending killed Shepard but spared the Geth and EDI. I think that would be fair.

I would be very satisfied with that. I always knew there was a very good chance Shep was going to die, and came to terms with that well before ME3 was released. Not that it wouldnt be nice for him to survive, but i would be perfectly happy with an ending like you described.

[mauro2222]

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 videogames are escapism, I don't need more sad things in videogames because they make the story mature/realistic/edgy whatever crap... I want to have a happy ending, I want to feel good when I end the game.

Mordin/Thane/the VS/Miranda/Legion/Anderson, are already dead, countless of lives were lost... there's no need for more sadness.

Modifié par mauro2222, 09 juillet 2012 - 07:57 .

[Fionn Marr]

mauro2222 wrote...

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 videogames are escapism, I don't need more sad things in videogames because they make the story mature/realistic/edgy whatever crap... I want to have a happy ending, I want to feel good when I end the game.

Mordin/Thane/the VS/Miranda/Legion/Anderson, are already dead, countless of lifes were lost... there's no need for more sadness.

The purple Asari speaks wise words. In fact you have summed up my feelings exactly.

Yes, an artist, musician or a writer (in this case of a game) succeeds when his or her art elicits an emotional response from the audiance. And yes, I had an emotional response to ME3. Heartfelt dissappointment and betrayal. After everything that I'd invested emotionally in the story and more importantly the characters.

But If I want a good cry then I'll watch Betty Blue, or Shindler's List, or Old Yella, or Elmo's Adventures in Grouchland.

I wanted my Shepard to be a heroine. And she was. And then I was forced to take out a gun and shoot her like a dog. No chance of survival (Gasping breath notwithstanding) . A s dead as Old Yella.

Yes, a herioc option for a hero is an heroic sacrifice- however contrived. But there should have at least been and OPTION. For those who worked hard for it and wanted it. 'Cause we're not all into artsy foreign films and sad endings.

Some of us are into escapism and that's why we watch films, read books and play games.

[Rhayak]

maaaze wrote...

without sacrifice there is no sense of accomplishment.

Well, you have bled on a hundred battlefields.... that's quite the sacrifice in my book. You don't have to actually DIE.

And yes, i would really like an ending like that to the point where i would pay for it.

I LOVE an ending where everyone wins and everyone lives. Not ashamed to admit it.

Modifié par Rhayak, 09 juillet 2012 - 08:39 .

[warlock22]

mauro2222 wrote...

maaaze wrote...

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

without sacrifice there is no sense of accomplishment.

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

the same with Kai Leng and Thane.

I've got a pretty nice sense of accomplishment when I finished the Suicide Mission with no casualties, I managed get everyone alive.

Same here

[Kel Riever]

...

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.

That would be called a WRITER of an RPG DOING THEIR JOB. The reason is because you let the player have an ending they want, not an ending you decided they should like.

Does that answer your question? Its like rpg 101, and I would expect at least the writer of the ending to know that, even if your average player doesn't think about that.

Could have solved the entire thing. But the DLC not giving that option reeks of somebody not wanting to change their mind. Reminds me of George Lucas.....at least all the bad things about George Lucas and none of the good ones.

[Mr.Spo]

I want that option in the game.

[dreman9999]

@Fionn Marr wrote...
1. I'm sorry. Listen to what she says when she finds her humanity and how she feels about beign forced todo anything and anyone else forced to do anything. She would tell Shepard She is ok with what ever Shep picks, including destory. She would just want to wish to say good bye to Joker before Shep picks destory.
2.You confusing the old endign with the ec ending. It's clear now. I don't need the names of it'smake to understand it. It's telling me.And it clear that younot getting what going on. The star child did not choose on his own to solve the organic/synthetic problem, It's creater did and made him to solveit. It's just a machine doing what it's program is tell him to do. It can help itself to do this or believe that the organic/synthetic problem need to be solved, that is how it is programed.

3.If you have one answer out of many that is the most right, It ecomes black and white, no matter who dies to pick that choice.  Letting some of some characters you know die to save many is still a moraly good choice because the one effect is you.Nit the same case with teh destory choice we have now.

And no shade of grey is not a great way to alienate you adiance. So many of the greats story are grey and question morality. They are great because they test the character. Why is it bad when the berden is too great?

Modifié par dreman9999, 09 juillet 2012 - 02:25 .

[dreman9999]

Kel Riever wrote...

...

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.

That would be called a WRITER of an RPG DOING THEIR JOB. The reason is because you let the player have an ending they want, not an ending you decided they should like.

Does that answer your question? Its like rpg 101, and I would expect at least the writer of the ending to know that, even if your average player doesn't think about that.

Could have solved the entire thing. But the DLC not giving that option reeks of somebody not wanting to change their mind. Reminds me of George Lucas.....at least all the bad things about George Lucas and none of the good ones.

Then you missed thepoint of the game. It was never just about giving the player want he wanted. It was aboutbring the player to moral conflict. It's been thsame case since ME1, why is is dofferent now?

[dreman9999]

Rhayak wrote...

maaaze wrote...

without sacrifice there is no sense of accomplishment.

Well, you have bled on a hundred battlefields.... that's quite the sacrifice in my book. You don't have to actually DIE.

And yes, i would really like an ending like that to the point where i would pay for it.

I LOVE an ending where everyone wins and everyone lives. Not ashamed to admit it.

But that is not what this story is about...It never was. You victory or serviaval will always have a cost.

[Kel Riever]

dreman9999 wrote...

Kel Riever wrote...

...

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.

That would be called a WRITER of an RPG DOING THEIR JOB. The reason is because you let the player have an ending they want, not an ending you decided they should like.

Does that answer your question? Its like rpg 101, and I would expect at least the writer of the ending to know that, even if your average player doesn't think about that.

Could have solved the entire thing. But the DLC not giving that option reeks of somebody not wanting to change their mind. Reminds me of George Lucas.....at least all the bad things about George Lucas and none of the good ones.

Then you missed thepoint of the game. It was never just about giving the player want he wanted. It was aboutbring the player to moral conflict. It's been thsame case since ME1, why is is dofferent now?

No, the point of the game was gotten by the vast majority of the players.  It isn't that it is a moral choice.

It is that the ending is moronic.

If it had been a good ending, people would have liked it, moral choice or not.  Very simple.  The point is the ending sucks, and people got that point.

[dreman9999]

JKA_Nozyspy wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

JKA_Nozyspy wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

JKA_Nozyspy wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Yup, because every game should end with the hero winning with at absoulutely no cost because that's what makes a good game. A happy ending.

Did you complain that ME1 had a 'happy' ending where the Alliance rides in and saves the day, becoming heroes? Or how about the 'happy' ending in ME2 where you could survive and save your entire crew.

I'ma stop you there. Just because ME1 and 2 have happy endings doesn't mean ME3 should have a happy ending.

As for the Destroy ending, were you seriously suprised that a laser that destroys synthetics destroyed synthetics?

It does break the contunuity of the theme a bit when twice you are able to cheat death and defeat the bad guys and save the day, but on the last and most important occasion you are never given that option. It does for me anyway.

A synthetic destroying beam also destroying the Geth does make a certain amount of sence, especially given their Reaper Code upgrades, but considering that Synthesis is somehow able to merge organic and synthetic lifeforms into one, there should also be inventive ways of getting around killing the Geth

dreman9999 wrote...

No convention means mean no conventional means. Why is this so hard to understand?

Im not talking about the 'conventional win' scenario, i am not of the mind personally that that would be possible without major changes to the technology (like this Leviathan providing anti Reaper weapons for example). As a deus ex machina, the Crucible isnt brilliant, but it works enough that i am satisfied to have it in there.

What irritates me about the destroy ending, is that without any previous lore explanation, Shepard is able to merge himself with and control the Reapers for all eternity, and evereyone else lives happily ever after, and also use himself to synthesise all synthetics and organics, to live happily ever after; both times only sacrificing himself to 'Win'. And yet when it comes to destroy, the cost of winning is to kill one of your friends and an entire race. There seems to be an imbalance between the cost to effect ratio there.

Afterall, why would you write a story that allows players to prove that synthetics do not always have to destroy organics, reconcile two warring species and give the Geth full intelligence, and then in the end, all that effort basically means you are hamstrung and can only choose two of the three endings (neither of which feel quite right to me) if you dont want to undo it all. Afterall choosing the destroy ending, which the entirety of the story has led you to up to that point, basically renders all of your previous efforts null and void.

Just my two pennies anyway, i respect other people see these choices differently so if you disagree, please try and do so in a non-belligerant manner.

1. The crucible is not a deux ex.
2.The only thing is left to expline is who made it.Not have that does no make it a deux ex.
3. It didn't magicly comfrom know where being that it was hinted at for lotsb.
4. The only issue is how it was applied in the game, if it was something that was slowly discover the reseprtion of it would be different.
5. Control has the same concept of the geth consensus mission. It's possible in the lore.
6. And no everyone does not live happily ever after in the control ending.
7. The entire idea of mass effect is to bring the player to a moral delema via the choices they have to make. This no different then the choice you made in the rest of the game. Where was this complain that the choice you had to make is too extreme in ME1 ending, virmire , the LEGIONS mission in ME2, genophage cure, and so on?

1. I feel it does conform to the Deus Ex type;

"In some ancient Greek drama, an apparently insoluble crisis was solved by the intervention of a god, often brought on stage by an elaborate piece of equipment. This "god from the machine" was literally a deus ex machina."

"A deus ex machina "god from the machine"; plural: dei ex machina) is a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly solved with the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability, or object." ~ Wikipedia

Personally i think both the Crucible and Celestial Toddler are both used in the manner of a Deus Ex Machina.

2. See above.

3. Very true, but i do feel the Crucible did not get enough screentime in ME3, i think we should have been able to visit it and actually talk to the people we had recuited for it about what the device was.

4. I agree the execution wasnt brilliant.

5. I suppose you could use that example, good point.

6. Well maybe not 'happily ever after', per se with with ReaperShep watching over the galaxy, it means things are going to be a lot better (or maybe worse, if he was a total Renegade!).

7. I never said choices shouldnt be difficult, but the examples you gave are examples of 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one'. The sacrifice felt commensurate to what was gained by that sacrifice. Considering that the Geth are an entire civilization and that you could have spent a significant portion of the game actually trying to save them and get peace with the Quarians, i feel the sacrifice of the Geth is not commensurate to the Destruction of the Reapers as control seems to offer better 'value for money' for the galaxy as a whole, as only Shep dies (though he isnt really 'dead' exactly).

Even though the Geth are only a part of the galactic whole, there are enough of them, and you build enough of a connection with them, that the 'needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few' way of looking at it no longer holds as much weight.

The Mad Hanar wrote...

The tone of this game was different than the last two, allowing for different themes. It would be cool if a high EMS Destroy ending killed Shepard but spared the Geth and EDI. I think that would be fair.

I would be very satisfied with that. I always knew there was a very good chance Shep was going to die, and came to terms with that well before ME3 was released. Not that it wouldnt be nice for him to survive, but i would be perfectly happy with an ending like you described.

1. It not one being that it was hinted at form LOTSB. Added it's the same concept of vigal giving you the virus from ME1.

2. See above.

3.That's the only problem with it. That still doesn't make it a deux ex.
4.If you y see that's the real probelm, why are you calling it a it's a deus ex.
5. Then can weatleast have people stopcalling destroy and control space magic?

6. No one would ever be happy know that some one  was constaly watching them. A big brother goverment is not good no matter how balevalent.

7.And that'swhy the choice was applied. It's a difficult choice to make that you don't want to do.  It pushes your morality. Why is it bad to have it there if it too heavy a burden?

[D24O]

No we can't agree, we can only argue and make massive quote pyramids. F*** you.

[dreman9999]

Kel Riever wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Kel Riever wrote...

...

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.

That would be called a WRITER of an RPG DOING THEIR JOB. The reason is because you let the player have an ending they want, not an ending you decided they should like.

Does that answer your question? Its like rpg 101, and I would expect at least the writer of the ending to know that, even if your average player doesn't think about that.

Could have solved the entire thing. But the DLC not giving that option reeks of somebody not wanting to change their mind. Reminds me of George Lucas.....at least all the bad things about George Lucas and none of the good ones.

Then you missed thepoint of the game. It was never just about giving the player want he wanted. It was aboutbring the player to moral conflict. It's been thsame case since ME1, why is is dofferent now?

No, the point of the game was gotten by the vast majority of the players.  It isn't that it is a moral choice.

It is that the ending is moronic.

If it had been a good ending, people would have liked it, moral choice or not.  Very simple.  The point is the ending sucks, and people got that point.

No, I gurantee you if EC was the ending from the start know one would be complining. The only reason why they hate ec ending because they are still looking it in the light of the old endings.
It not moronic to ask these choiace at all. You haven't even give a reason to why it's moronic. It just a case that they endign choice you feel are to heavy a berden. That is it.

[Kel Riever]

I did give my reason. It simply seems you don't like my answer. Read above.