1199 réponses à ce sujet

[cavs25]

Y2Kevin wrote...

This isn't a Disney movie; I'm glad all of the endings require some level of sacrifice. In all honesty, the only ending that doesn't disappoint me is the "Refusal," as I don't believe the Reapers should have been defeated by any means, and certainly not conventional ones.

There are a few choices made throughout the series that I wish carried a little more weight, the fate of the Rachni just to name one, but overall I was pleased with the ability to allow the cycle to continue at the expense of high-level galactic civilization.

Yet the synthesis ending that Bioware tries to shove down your throat is that disney ending you are talking about.

Everyone is happy and together and helping each other bl ah blah blah 


The truth is even if we would have won conventionally  this isn't a disney ending.
Why? Because just look how many god damn things we have sacrificed along the way!
Just in ME 3, two of our closes friends dies ( for some) Thane and Mordin.  We might have lost even more people in ME2.  ME we have the Virmire casualty, (possibly) Wrex.

All the millions of people the Reapers have already killed, all the broken families and friends lost.

How the hell is that a disney ending?

[wantedman dan]

Y2Kevin wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

Y2Kevin wrote...

This isn't a Disney movie; I'm glad all of the endings require some level of sacrifice. In all honesty, the only ending that doesn't disappoint me is the "Refusal," as I don't believe the Reapers should have been defeated by any means, and certainly not conventional ones.

So we all should be subscribed to how you believe your Shepard should go.

Funny how everybody wants their opinion on how the story should have went with zero consideration as to how others play.

I didn't mean to discount your Shepard, or anybody else's for that matter.  The Mass Effect series has always been about victory through sacrifice (you can find many examples in all 3 Mass Effect games).  I can understand wanting Shepard to live, or wanting something "happy" in the ending, but Shepard surviving, the Geth and EDI living, Reapers being defeated through conventional means, etc. seems like entirely too much being given without anything being taken away.

Again, I don't mean to upset you because I'm sure you're all as tied to your Sheps as I am to mine, but during that conversation with Sovereign on Virmire I pretty much had it in my head that no matter how hard the universe tried, we're not beating these things.  I'm glad I got the chance to play out that scenario, because without the Extended Cut I did not have that option.

Inadvertent or not, you're still discounting others' Shepards.

Sacrifice is only an underlying consequence of one of the true overarching themes of the series, which is self-determination. Why should something be taken away if I've done everything right? Why should something be taken away if I've earned the right to see everything flourish?

It's absurd to think that because you think your Shepard should be content with compromise, you think everyone else should, too.

[Miekkas]

zambot wrote...

I agree. And you know what? Romeo should have never died. What a stupid ending. I paid good money to watch Romeo ride off with Juliet into the sunset. Screw you Shakespeare, I mean suicide? wtf, that's not even realistic. Shakespeare you're an **** terrible writer, let's just hope you learn from this when you finish Hamlet, and not kill him off too. Unbelievable.

If you had seen or read any of Shakespeare's plays though, you would naturally expect a tragedy, especially considering the fact that the play is called "The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet". In Mass Effect, players were expecting a well written and uplifting ending that was consistent with the themes of the prior two games, which is not what they received. They instead were given ending with themes completely different, and in fact almost the exact opposite. Your attempt at satire does not stand up to scrutiny.

[warlock22]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'm stressing the idea: "Because something CAN be done, does that mean it SHOULD be done?"  If you think it should be done, then why?  Some have written up some very interesting responses and I enjoy reading them.

Well Mass Effect has always been about options and you are selling a product, ones that you are trying to appeal to fans. But really just read Scolai post and on page five and Miekkas on page 6 if you haven't, they say everything that I would have and more, they put it the best why this should be an ending option. To show Shepard alive and reunite with their LI and crew.

  @Scolai and Miekkas kudos to both of you

Modifié par warlock22, 29 juin 2012 - 05:30 .

[mnomaha]

comrade gando wrote...

LaughingDragon wrote...

You want to know the REAL truth Allan?

Here it is.... Because that's what we are paying you for. To give us what we want. Do you think millions of fans want to spend $60 and get something they don't like? Every poll taken shows that 70-80% of more of fans thought the endings were terrible. The most die hard fans, had problems with the whole game for reasons like how prior choices RE the rachni, geth/quarian etc etc etc etc don't matter at all in ME3. Casual fans who just like to shoot guns with blue and red lights obviously don't care. 

Do you know why we all bought ME2 and ME3? Because in ME1 Shepard walks out from under that rubble against all odds and triumphs over saren and sovereign.

Why did we buy ME3? Because shepard survives the suicide mission and takes down the collectors and walks away a hero.

Why do 80% of fans hate ME3 ending? Because there's no way to WIN, there's no way for Shepard to walk away a hero. Every scenario is epic failure. Green eyed zombies...wtf dude? Controlling the reapers? Yeah no. Destroying the reapers with red lightning space magic and dying or gasping for air in the rubble fade to black? 

so much THIS. you just described perfectly how I feel. There's no way to WIN.

I'm with both of you. Why bother playing a game if there is no possible way to win.

[Salfin]

I don't know...

I feel like people want to have an ending where victory comes at very little or perhaps no cost. And they want it because buying the game gives them that right, not because of how it would affect the dynamic between the other choices.

I feel like destroy is one of the more fitting endings for the series, that has been the goal all along afterall. But over and over they say that its not going to be easy, the cost is going to be very high etc etc.

The endings aren't perfect, but I know I never felt like they weren't happy enough. So no, we all can't agree on this, sorry.

[mnomaha]

warlock22 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'm stressing the idea: "Because something CAN be done, does that mean it SHOULD be done?"  If you think it should be done, then why?  Some have written up some very interesting responses and I enjoy reading them.

Well Mass Effect has always been about options and you are selling a product, ones that you are trying to appeal to fans. But really just read Scolai post and on page five and Miekkas on page 6 if you haven't, they say everything that I would have and more, they put it the best why this should be an ending option. To show Shepard alive and reunite with their LI and crew.

Not only has Mass Effect always been a game about options...it has always been marketed as a game about options.

[ThePasserby]

 There are many excellent points raised to answer Allan's question, mostly on the narrative side of the issue. I'd like to raise a few points from the gamer's side, unless they have already been made. 

Does anyone here take part in a competition that is rigged so that the first place always goes to the contest organiser's family member no matter how well you performed, and that the best you can ever hope for is second place? No we don't. In competitions and contests, we take part in them because we want to be rewarded for our efforts in an environment where there is fairplay. The winner has to win fair and square.

The same goes for games. We play, expecting the rules, in this case, the themes and in-game laws of the universe, to be respected. We expect to win according to the in-game rules. We don't play games that are programmed in advance that you'll always lose or achieve second place at best.

This of course raises the question why Shepard has to survive and go on to lead a fulfiling life without jeapardising his soul or compromising his principles. Well, such expectations were laid down from the very first game through the second and on till the mission on Tuchanka. The series' mythos have spelt it out very clearly that you, the player, can achieve your goals without sacrificing your morals, principles, integrity and your loyalty to your friends. Every part of the ME series .has reinforced the game's "rules".

And then, bam! The game tells you, "Gotcha! See all those successful completion of mission objectives you've had so far? They're just there to lure you in to the final game, which is rigged from the start! The game makers have decided that you won't ever achieve total victory. Thanks for playing!"

The three expanded endings we have are this game's equivalent of getting at best the second prize. The first prize always goes to Mac Walters and Casey Hudson, for foisting their "artistic vision" on us.

In other words, despite what you might expect from playing the whole series up to the final mission, you are playing to lose. I don't know of many gamers who play to lose and walk away happy

[mnomaha]

Salfin wrote...

I don't know...

I feel like people want to have an ending where victory comes at very little or perhaps no cost. And they want it because buying the game gives them that right, not because of how it would affect the dynamic between the other choices.

I feel like destroy is one of the more fitting endings for the series, that has been the goal all along afterall. But over and over they say that its not going to be easy, the cost is going to be very high etc etc.

The endings aren't perfect, but I know I never felt like they weren't happy enough. So no, we all can't agree on this, sorry.

I already paid the price when I romanced someone that wasn't on bioware's list of canon choices. I think I've paid enough. I would like the option to win now.

[OblivionDawn]

-1.

An ending like the one in OP would cheapen the entire game. And the people who understand that shouldn't have to play sub optimally and get lower EMS just so they can get a fitting ending to the game.

It's not as easy as changing the ending. Being able to defeat the Reapers conventionally would make most of the game pointless.

[warlock22]

mnomaha wrote...

comrade gando wrote...

LaughingDragon wrote...

You want to know the REAL truth Allan?

Here it is.... Because that's what we are paying you for. To give us what we want. Do you think millions of fans want to spend $60 and get something they don't like? Every poll taken shows that 70-80% of more of fans thought the endings were terrible. The most die hard fans, had problems with the whole game for reasons like how prior choices RE the rachni, geth/quarian etc etc etc etc don't matter at all in ME3. Casual fans who just like to shoot guns with blue and red lights obviously don't care. 

Do you know why we all bought ME2 and ME3? Because in ME1 Shepard walks out from under that rubble against all odds and triumphs over saren and sovereign.

Why did we buy ME3? Because shepard survives the suicide mission and takes down the collectors and walks away a hero.

Why do 80% of fans hate ME3 ending? Because there's no way to WIN, there's no way for Shepard to walk away a hero. Every scenario is epic failure. Green eyed zombies...wtf dude? Controlling the reapers? Yeah no. Destroying the reapers with red lightning space magic and dying or gasping for air in the rubble fade to black? 

so much THIS. you just described perfectly how I feel. There's no way to WIN.

I'm with both of you. Why bother playing a game if there is no possible way to win.

Yep this^ all of it.

[Torrible]

Oops. Wrong thread.

Modifié par Torrible, 29 juin 2012 - 05:57 .

[EnvyTB075]

OblivionDawn wrote...
It's not as easy as changing the ending. Being able to defeat the Reapers conventionally would make most of the game pointless.

Good, the crucible was a terrible idea to start with.

[wantedman dan]

OblivionDawn wrote...

-1.

An ending like the one in OP would cheapen the entire game. And the people who understand that shouldn't have to play sub optimally and get lower EMS just so they can get a fitting ending to the game.

It's not as easy as changing the ending. Being able to defeat the Reapers conventionally would make most of the game pointless.

Oh, like amassing the entire galactic fleet that you spent most of the game... amassing.

Right?

[warlock22]

OblivionDawn wrote...

-1.

An ending like the one in OP would cheapen the entire game. And the people who understand that shouldn't have to play sub optimally and get lower EMS just so they can get a fitting ending to the game.

It's not as easy as changing the ending. Being able to defeat the Reapers conventionally would make most of the game pointless.

Wow so many people would disagree with you.

[cavs25]

Salfin wrote...

I don't know...

I feel like people want to have an ending where victory comes at very little or perhaps no cost. And they want it because buying the game gives them that right, not because of how it would affect the dynamic between the other choices.

I feel like destroy is one of the more fitting endings for the series, that has been the goal all along afterall. But over and over they say that its not going to be easy, the cost is going to be very high etc etc.

The endings aren't perfect, but I know I never felt like they weren't happy enough. So no, we all can't agree on this, sorry.

How is there no cost? lol
How many teamates do you lose through all three games?
How many people die to the reapers in mass effect 3 alone.
Infact I liked the fact that mass effect 3 was very bleak compared to 2 and 1 because of the war.  But it gives you no pay off.<_<

[mnomaha]

Most of the game is pointless if you consider the current endings.

[Ticonderoga117]

Y2Kevin wrote...
I didn't mean to imply that "happy" was a bad thing, only that in the universe of MY Shepard I had written-off victory years ago - and I'm glad I finally got to see it play out that way.

Well that's fine and good, but in mine I saw Shepard crawl out from the wreckage of Soverign like a boss, run out of the Collector Base like a boss (and with no casualties), that I naturally expected the opportunity to walk out of ME3 like a boss and with Tali nearby.

Should everyone get that? No. Like you said, you had your Shep expecting death. At least the EC addresses most of the issues and I can sorta get the ending I had in mind for my Shep.

Still amazed the Normandy got that close to the beam though...

[TheMiffins]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

ph34r-X wrote...

I mean look at the refusal ending. Why can't we have that in the refusal ending, but if you're readiness is too low you get the current refusal ending.

I'm just asking this to facilitate discussion, so I'm not trying to pour salt on the wound or anything (my that sounds ominous...).


I see your opinion come up, and I often state my opinion and perspective.  I want to try something a bit different.  Many feel "why can't we have that in the refusal ending?"

Which is a fair enough point.  The writers/designers could have easily allowed that to be an option (what happens in the game is literally whatever they put in).


Just to be direct though:  Why should this be an option for the refusal ending.  Or even more generally, why should there be an ending that contains the following:

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

I'm just asking to hear your thoughts on the subject.  Open question to others that feel the same way.

The option should be given simply because it's a general story telling element, which ME is full of. With the endings we get a good varying degree of endings, but we don't get a real "everyone lives" ending (Destroy is the only one that comes close.) It's a fundamental story element, but also if someone works hard enough to get make the choice or get the EMS required for it, it should be rewarded. I wouldn't consider it a giving in to fans desires as more of a "thank you for playing, being with us from the beginning of Shepard's story, and making all the decesions along the way, here's your reward.

Right off the bat we have three options that are both pro and con: with Control we see Shepard essentially becomes a God - which doesn't really sit well with him as a person, Synthesis we see Shepard play god by making everyone in the universe a single being - at the cost of destroying the reapers the different races lose their individuality, and with Destroy we don't become or play god but we have to sacrifice our friends (Edi) and a whole species (Geth) just to wipe out the Reapers. 

Refusal is the rejection of those ideas, that we'll try to do it our way, not yours. And to make us immediatly fail seems somewhat unfair. I love the Refusal because it isn't a true failure, but being able to beat the Reapers conventionally, even with heavy losses, would be nice.

[AtreiyaN7]

Personally, I would find this to be a cheap out given the sacrifices you and others make along the way. You might as well rewrite the whole story so that Mordin lives, both of Samara's daughters live, Legion doesn't have to sacrifice himself, you get to save Koris AND his crew, etc.

On the other hand, it's not as if I have some sort of vociferous objection to a "happy" ending. It's BW's story and if for some reason they chose to add it, I wouldn't care one way or the other. I might even choose it to see the big old wedding that would presumably be a part of it.

After I started replaying ME3 from the beginning again today, I did pay attention when Hackett definitely said that we can't win the war conventionally (and that the Crucible amounts to our only hope, more or less) during the trip to Mars.

Even if you factor in gathering all the fleets of all the races...I just don't get the impression that any of it would ever be enough and find the idea that we'll be able to win to be somewhat unrealistic. With the other endings I can at least envision technological/scientific scenarios that make them acceptable.

[Miekkas]

OblivionDawn wrote...

-1.

An ending like the one in OP would cheapen the entire game. And the people who understand that shouldn't have to play sub optimally and get lower EMS just so they can get a fitting ending to the game.

It's not as easy as changing the ending. Being able to defeat the Reapers conventionally would make most of the game pointless.

In what way would defeating make most of the game pointless when in reality the Crucible and StarChild as deus ex machina make the war assets mostly pointless? If anything, spending the game trying to gather as many war assets as possible to try and win the war conventionally would make more sense because more assets means more forces to fight the Reapers.

[zambot]

vivaladricas wrote...

zambot wrote...

I agree. And you know what? Romeo should have never died. What a stupid ending. I paid good money to watch Romeo ride off with Juliet into the sunset. Screw you Shakespeare, I mean suicide? wtf, that's not even realistic. Shakespeare you're an **** terrible writer, let's just hope you learn from this when you finish Hamlet, and not kill him off too. Unbelievable.

Let me ask you this though, when the Dark knight rises comes out, do you think if Batman dies that Nolan will handle that badly?  Honestly just asking.  The man and his brother work their butts off and write very coherant stuff, you can kill you main character in many ways that are far superior.  

Unless you dislike his work then maybe the Exorcist?  That was done well, were I didnt know how to feel about that ending.  Good I guess she seemed fine, but both priests died one in spectacualr fashion.  + I live near those steps.  

I get your sarcasm and can see why people think its only because shep dies but it could be handled loads better. Control is weird to me so I cant count that at the moment. 

There is no doubt in my mind both Shakespeare and Nolan are superior artists, but in my opinion all this clammer for a rainbow ending has gone too far.  I know people mock Bioware for "artistic integrity", but at some point Bioware does have to draw the line.  If they feel Shepard has to make the ultimate sacrifice in their weird Synthesis ending, so be it.  If they don't want to make 16+ love interest scenes for the end of the Destroy ending because they feel they'll fail or hit the download limit, that's fine.  

Do I feel the EC was the best ending I ever played?  No.  But I do feel asking them to make a "disney ending" is going too far.  At the end of the day, this isn't a comissioned painting.  This is a game Bioware created, and it either holds up for you or it doesn't.

[WandySilva]

To me, mass effect has always been about choices and consequences, creating an ultimate happy ending would remove the consequence. Even if you have 100% completion, you're actions should have some form of repercussion. Why make a game about tough, personal morality based decisions, when the player can grind out a complete victory scenario, to me, that would be worse than the current literal endings.