257 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

SunValleyKing wrote...

iakus wrote...
So, how do you like Synthesis? 

I don't see this fan ending as being "Disney" at all.  More like "Life goes on"  Except in this case with SHepard, EDI, and the geth.  Sacrifices were still made to get there.

I am not a fan of synthesis, but that is mostly because you are forcing something on the rest of the galaxy against their will.  To me the only ending that is worse than sythesis is refusal.

The main problem I have with the fan video in this thread is that it makes it so that you can choose destroy without sacrificing EDI or the Geth, and that to me, is a cop out.  I don't have a problem with Shepard living in the destroy ending per se, but it has to come at some cost.  Sacrificing EDI and the Geth is a good start, but I would think that there would have to be some kind of physical toll on Shepard as well.  

Genociding a race is "a good start?"

[SpamBot2000]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

"Disney" ending less cliche than Bible ending?

Oops, what I meant to type was: "Disney" MORE cliche than Bible?" 

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

SunValleyKing wrote...

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...
I don't see a problem with them still making "full win" ending *possible* (along with other possibilities with diff. degree of sacrifices in them).

This way you still could've had "realistic" ending you wish for. But it sounds more like you can't quite enjoy it knowing that some people got the "Disney" ending and they like it. I see no other explanation why possibility to save everyone in suicide mission bothers you - you just said you've got ending you like, so what's the problem?

Here is the problem with making the Disney ending an option, it makes it the default choice.  It basically validates or invalidates every single decision made in the entire series.  If you don't get the Disney ending, you made the "wrong" choices.

Don't get me wrong, I understand where you are coming from.  Over the course of three games it is easy to become attached to Commander Shepard, and it is very difficult to say goodbye to a character that you have become so attached to.  In the Disney ending, you don't have to.  Before the release of ME3, I was having a conversation with my brother, and I said, "if Shepard doesn't die in ME3, I am going to be pissed."  Yet, as I neared the end of the game, a small part of me was hoping that there was some way that I could save Shepard because I wasn't quite ready to say goodbye.  

I don't quite get you, since you didn't directly answer me why you thought that ME2 ending options were wrong. You say that making "Disney ending" simply available makes it "default" somehow?  Isn't it "default" in your mind only, but why, you just told me you hate "Disney endings"?
Is it because you feel compelled to get the "best" ending, otherwise it does not feel good, and if you get it it does not feel good if its "too good"?
It somehow feels that you want other people options to be limited because of your own issues.

Modifié par Ingvarr Stormbird, 03 juillet 2012 - 05:56 .

[SunValleyKing]

iakus wrote...
Genociding a race is "a good start?"

Yes, someone must die so that Shepard may live.

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

SunValleyKing wrote...
Yes, someone must die so that Shepard may live.

Why?
This whole phrase is a bit strange and bloodthirsty-ish.

Modifié par Ingvarr Stormbird, 03 juillet 2012 - 06:08 .

[The Heretic of Time]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

"Disney" ending less cliche than Bible ending?

Wait... how are the current endings we have "bible endings"?

[The Heretic of Time]

SunValleyKing wrote...

You know what? The ending to Romeo and Juliet is a real bummer, maybe we can get them to change that so that they both live in the end. And while we are at it, why not change Braveheart so that William Wallace lives at the end, and change Gladiator so that Maximus kills Commodus and then brings his dead wife and son back from the dead so that they can live happily ever after?

/thread

[Ryzaki]

Oh yes let's compare and contrast something that was supposed to be dark and angsty in the first place to something that had upbeat happy endings to avert to wangst in the end. Clearly that's a reasonable comparison.

[SunValleyKing]

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...
I don't quite get you, since you didn't directly answer me why you thought that ME2 ending options were wrong. You say that making "Disney ending" simply available makes it "default" somehow?  Isn't it "default" in your mind only, but why, you just told me you hate "Disney endings"?
Is it because you feel compelled to get the "best" ending, otherwise it does not feel good, and if you get it it does not feel good if its "too good"?
It somehow feels that you want other people options to be limited because of your own issues.

Real quickly, about the ME2 suicide mission.  For the most part, I liked a great deal of it.  What I didn't like was that it wasn't really a suicide mission.  Once you figured out the "right" choices to make, everybody comes out ok.  If your Shepard makes a "wrong" choice, people die.  I would have prefered something similar to Virmire where you have to choose between one crew member or the other, or something like choosing to save part of your crew at the cost of not fully defeating the Collectors.

Also, I don't hate Disney endings, I hate the Disney ending for this particular game.  In my opinion, it just doesn't fit.  From the very beginning of ME1, it is made clear that there is a brutal, costly, war on the horizon, and Shepard is desperately trying to make sure that everyone is ready for it.  The fate of the entire galaxy is at stake, and to win that war without great sacrifice makes it cheap for me.

[Ryzaki]

Oh...so all those who died already don't count as great sacrifice?

I guess BW should've blown up the Normandy in all endings and had everyone close to Shepard die (maybe Miranda, Jacob, Jack, Mordin (if he managed to avoid suicide), Samara and the rest should all be skewered by Reaper forces during Priority Earth. Clearly those who already died aren't enough.

I'm sorry but that arguement irks me. The game wouldn't be disney with a ending with non-destroyed Geth and EDI and dead Reapers. Several worlds are shadows of their former selves, some races will have tension (hi there Asari, Krogan, Salarians (for offering squat with help if you helped the Krogan), so on) their needs to be rebuilding, distrust of synthetics will still remain (even if its lessened) and so on. I don't see where people are pulling disney ending from a happy ending. They are not the same thing.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 03 juillet 2012 - 06:23 .

[SpamBot2000]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

"Disney" ending less cliche than Bible ending?

Wait... how are the current endings we have "bible endings"?

See The Holy Bible.

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

SunValleyKing wrote...

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...
I don't quite get you, since you didn't directly answer me why you thought that ME2 ending options were wrong. You say that making "Disney ending" simply available makes it "default" somehow?  Isn't it "default" in your mind only, but why, you just told me you hate "Disney endings"?
Is it because you feel compelled to get the "best" ending, otherwise it does not feel good, and if you get it it does not feel good if its "too good"?
It somehow feels that you want other people options to be limited because of your own issues.

Real quickly, about the ME2 suicide mission.  For the most part, I liked a great deal of it.  What I didn't like was that it wasn't really a suicide mission.  Once you figured out the "right" choices to make, everybody comes out ok.  If your Shepard makes a "wrong" choice, people die.  I would have prefered something similar to Virmire where you have to choose between one crew member or the other, or something like choosing to save part of your crew at the cost of not fully defeating the Collectors.

Also, I don't hate Disney endings, I hate the Disney ending for this particular game.  In my opinion, it just doesn't fit.  From the very beginning of ME1, it is made clear that there is a brutal, costly, war on the horizon, and Shepard is desperately trying to make sure that everyone is ready for it.  The fate of the entire galaxy is at stake, and to win that war without great sacrifice makes it cheap for me.

You said before you liked the ME2 ending that you've got where some squad mates died, and decided to keep this save, because it felt more realistic (I was the same BTW, it felt more interesting to me).
But why did you starte figuring out the "right" choices to make, if you liked this ending? This only means you didn't like it after all? You contradict yourself.

And sounds like you will be upset if the game has any kind of alternative ending that *you* don't like (even if it has an ending you like too). I thought the whole point of open-ended games was to make more people satisfied, so everybody could pick their own story. 

Modifié par Ingvarr Stormbird, 03 juillet 2012 - 06:23 .

[SunValleyKing]

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...
Why?
This whole phrase is a bit strange and bloodthirsty-ish.

Because your choices have consequences.  It is made perfectly clear in the other two endings that Shepard will die if either of those paths are chosen.  The only option that Shepard has any chance of surviving is destroy, but at the cost of the Geth and EDI.  Depending on how you played the game, it makes the different options more or less appealing.  A bastard renegade Shepard doesn't think twice about wiping out the Geth or EDI to avert death, while a paragon Shepard wouldn't think twice about making the ultimate sacrifce to save the galaxy.

[Ryzaki]

SunValleyKing wrote...

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...
Why?
This whole phrase is a bit strange and bloodthirsty-ish.

Because your choices have consequences.  It is made perfectly clear in the other two endings that Shepard will die if either of those paths are chosen.  The only option that Shepard has any chance of surviving is destroy, but at the cost of the Geth and EDI.  Depending on how you played the game, it makes the different options more or less appealing.  A bastard renegade Shepard doesn't think twice about wiping out the Geth or EDI to avert death, while a paragon Shepard wouldn't think twice about making the ultimate sacrifce to save the galaxy.

A paragon Shepard might not think that sacrifice is saving the galaxy though. (and hell my Paragon picks Destroy for one reason it's the ONLY choice that successfully destroys the Reapers. That's what he was there to do. Not solve some damn technological singularity.) EDI and the Geth were unfortunate casualities. My renegade picks Control because LOL power! 

My whole issue with those endings is that some of the bad points seem arbitary ridculous and just there to be badpoints.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 03 juillet 2012 - 06:32 .

[Sheepie Crusher]

shodiswe wrote...

You shoudl have clipped in EDI from the destroy ending at teh momorial into the ending for the Destoy part of the memorial, if the geth were alive then EDI should be alive. Jumping to the scene whre Liara realizes that Shepard isn't dead.

If you meant that the noon reapers synthetics wern't dead, for this ending.

As promised, here is the fixed version

[SunValleyKing]

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...
You said before you liked the ME2 ending that you've got where some squad mates died, and decided to keep this save, because it felt more realistic (I was the same BTW, it felt more interesting to me).
But why did you starte figuring out the "right" choices to make, if you liked this ending? This only means you didn't like it after all? You contradict yourself.

And sounds like you will be upset if the game has any kind of alternative ending that *you* don't like (even if it has an ending you like too). I thought the whole point of open-ended games was to make more people satisfied, so everybody could pick their own story. 

I have played through all three games multiple times, and unless I am trying to acheive a specific result (like get everyone killed), I don't make those mistakes in subsequent play throughs.  The ending to ME2 made it so that certain decisions were "right" decisions or "wrong" decisions based on who lived or died.  So it validates or invalidates your choices.  Now contrast that with Virmire, where you are forced to choose between Ashley and Kaiden (not a hard choice for me, Kaiden dies every single time), the game doesn't tell you which one is "right" and which one is "wrong".  It leaves it to the player to decide.

[The Heretic of Time]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

"Disney" ending less cliche than Bible ending?

Wait... how are the current endings we have "bible endings"?

See The Holy Bible.

I've read the whole damn thing from cover to cover (I know, too much time on my hands I suppose). I don't see how the current endings of ME3 are bible endings. Could you please explain?

[SunValleyKing]

Ryzaki wrote...
A paragon Shepard might not think that sacrifice is saving the galaxy though. (and hell my Paragon picks Destroy for one reason it's the ONLY choice that successfully destroys the Reapers. That's what he was there to do. Not solve some damn technological singularity.) EDI and the Geth were unfortunate casualities. My renegade picks Control because LOL power! 

My whole issue with those endings is that some of the bad points seem arbitary ridculous and just there to be badpoints.

Those are perfectly valid points.  I still have a renegade playthrough to finish and I haven't decided how I am going to end it yet.  You can make a strong case for any alignment picking any of the endings.  A paragon Shepard could pick destroy because it is the only ending in which the Reapers are destroyed, or a pargon Shepard could pick control because that ending may offer the quickest path to recovery in the aftermath of the war.  Shepard is going to be taking some risks either way.  What if the Krogan decide to exact revenge in the destroy ending?  In the same scenario in control Shepard could use the Reapers to keep them in check.  What if control Shepard goes crazy and decides to start harvesting organics?  Not an issue in the destroy ending.

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

 

SunValleyKing wrote...

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

SunValleyKing wrote...
Yes, someone must die so that Shepard may live.

Why?
This whole phrase is a bit strange and bloodthirsty-ish.

 

Because your choices have consequences.  It is made perfectly clear in the other two endings that Shepard will die if either of those paths are chosen.  The only option that Shepard has any chance of surviving is destroy, but at the cost of the Geth and EDI.  Depending on how you played the game, it makes the different options more or less appealing.  A bastard renegade Shepard doesn't think twice about wiping out the Geth or EDI to avert death, while a paragon Shepard wouldn't think twice about making the ultimate sacrifce to save the galaxy.

No, what I asked you, why story must mandate for somebody to be killed for Shepard to live.

Modifié par Ingvarr Stormbird, 03 juillet 2012 - 06:49 .

[SunValleyKing]

Ryzaki wrote...

Oh...so all those who died already don't count as great sacrifice?

I guess BW should've blown up the Normandy in all endings and had everyone close to Shepard die (maybe Miranda, Jacob, Jack, Mordin (if he managed to avoid suicide), Samara and the rest should all be skewered by Reaper forces during Priority Earth. Clearly those who already died aren't enough.

I'm sorry but that arguement irks me. The game wouldn't be disney with a ending with non-destroyed Geth and EDI and dead Reapers. Several worlds are shadows of their former selves, some races will have tension (hi there Asari, Krogan, Salarians (for offering squat with help if you helped the Krogan), so on) their needs to be rebuilding, distrust of synthetics will still remain (even if its lessened) and so on. I don't see where people are pulling disney ending from a happy ending. They are not the same thing.

I am not saying that everyone should die either, but the argument that you should be able to destroy the Reapers and save the Geth and EDI doesn't make the final choice mean as much.  Sweet, I can just kill the Reapers with no negative repurcussions, wheras the other choices either pose serious moral and ethical questions or are extremely risky.  Why even give a choice at all in that is what you want?  

Not to mention the fact that EDI is a rogue VI combined with Reaper tech, so the catalyst would naturally target her as well, and the Geth are upgraded with Reaper code, so it makes sense that anything that targets the Reapers would also target the Geth.

[Ryzaki]

SunValleyKing wrote...
Those are perfectly valid points.  I still have a renegade playthrough to finish and I haven't decided how I am going to end it yet.  You can make a strong case for any alignment picking any of the endings.  A paragon Shepard could pick destroy because it is the only ending in which the Reapers are destroyed, or a pargon Shepard could pick control because that ending may offer the quickest path to recovery in the aftermath of the war.  Shepard is going to be taking some risks either way.  What if the Krogan decide to exact revenge in the destroy ending?  In the same scenario in control Shepard could use the Reapers to keep them in check.  What if control Shepard goes crazy and decides to start harvesting organics?  Not an issue in the destroy ending.

What if the Krogan decide to rebel? (if Genophage cured despite Eve and Wrex's influence)

What if Geth and Quarians get into it again? (if Peace)

What if Geth are persecuted by others (if Quarians dead)

What if Salarians reattempt to create genophage? 

(Those won't be an issue in Control or Synthesis since a. can be STFU or I kill you! and B. apparently results in everyone farting rainbows).

There's plenty of things that could go wrong despite the ending. Just different things varying on the endings. (Only ending that averts this is Synthesis.)

Thus I don't see how EDI and Geth surviving destroy makes it Disney. Hell post Reaper war could invite several heavy anti-synthetic sentiments that EDI and the Geth have to struggle to overcome (especially if the Geth are the only ones left on Rannoch). Maybe disheartened they seperate from organics starting the cycle all over again when other organics try to wipe them out. Maybe they go with some organics and other organics disrupt the peace they have with each other.

There's plenty of ways things can go wrong in Destroy with living EDI and the Geth.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 03 juillet 2012 - 06:55 .

[SpamBot2000]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

"Disney" ending less cliche than Bible ending?

Wait... how are the current endings we have "bible endings"?

See The Holy Bible.

I've read the whole damn thing from cover to cover (I know, too much time on my hands I suppose). I don't see how the current endings of ME3 are bible endings. Could you please explain?

Jesus Christ, a man who combined the Divine and the Mortal, was required to sacrifice his life in order to reconcile mankind with God. But he did not stay dead, but ascended to Heaven. And that sort of thing. 

[SunValleyKing]

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

No, what I asked you, why story must mandate for somebody to be killed for Shepard to live.

*sigh*

[Generic answer as to why they die]
The Geth and EDI must die in the control ending because they are both integrated with Reaper tech, and anything that will kill the Reapers will kill them as well.

[As to why I feel that someone must die so that Shepard may live]

By making it possible for Shepard to live without sacrificing anything, you make the decision cheap and easy.  The majority of players would pick that one because it doesn't carry any real consequences.  This series has never been about making easy choices.

I get the feeling that most of the people that want to be able to choose destroy without sacrificing EDI and the Geth feel like destroy should be the paragon ending, and control should be the renegade ending.

[Ryzaki]

SunValleyKing wrote...

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

No, what I asked you, why story must mandate for somebody to be killed for Shepard to live.

*sigh*

[Generic answer as to why they die]
The Geth and EDI must die in the control ending because they are both integrated with Reaper tech, and anything that will kill the Reapers will kill them as well.

[As to why I feel that someone must die so that Shepard may live]

By making it possible for Shepard to live without sacrificing anything, you make the decision cheap and easy.  The majority of players would pick that one because it doesn't carry any real consequences.  This series has never been about making easy choices.

I get the feeling that most of the people that want to be able to choose destroy without sacrificing EDI and the Geth feel like destroy should be the paragon ending, and control should be the renegade ending.

Then why doesn't control control them? Logically speaking if one results in them all being destroyed because of the code surely the other should all control them via the same code. EDI flat out says she has priorities.

As for B. That's your belief. I don't share it. Not to mention that doesn't mean said decision has no consequences. For all we know the Geth and EDI surviving the war with post anti-synthetic sentiments (since Shep killed the Reapers) would be enough of a consequence. (Another war could start, the singularity could speed up, who knows).

Destroy and Control are both (there's a reason Control has paragon and renegade variants) neither ending is one specific morality.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 03 juillet 2012 - 07:05 .