292 réponses à ce sujet

[FoggyFishburne]

Yeah it is a shame that they suffered some kind of brain hemorrhage while writing the ending. And instead of salvaging their ending, they just continue to throw more tripe at us. It is rather perplexing.

Though Skyrim is vastly overrated. I love the game but it's not perfect and all the praise it gets is retarded. Mass Effect 3 shot itself in the foot with the ****ty ending but... ok ME3 did a lot of things kinda wrong. The dry dialogue choices for one is something I really hate. The reduced emphasis on characters another. **** it, my point is Skyrim isn't the greatest game ever. Stop treating it as such.

I'm pretty much done with BioWare. CD Project Red are my favorite developers now. Can't wait for Witcher 3 and Cyberpunk.

[bboynexus]

Dean, honestly, aren't you just a little too...y'know...reasonable for this forum?

Genuine question.

[Dean_the_Young]

AsheraII wrote...

TullyAckland wrote...

The interpretation of a story is a personal thing, and it’s one of the most enjoyable aspects of an experience like this for many players. To tell you what we think would be to take away the validity of each player’s take on it.

And ultimately, our opinion on what is “really” happening is no more accurate than what a player believes when playing it. The interpretation of the story is a player choice, and like other choices in the game we don’t like to trample on it by definitively stating what is “canon”.

Can we apply that statement to any potential games taking place in the Mass Effect universe after Mass Effect 3?

Even if I personally very much prefer Destroy over the other endings, I do not like the idea of making that a canon ending for future Mass Effect games, whether or not Shepard has a role in those. I'm basically convinced that a game in the Mass Effect series could be made which takes place after ME3, and not only allows ALL savegames to be viable for import, but, if done well, could even merge them into a single universal state at its conclusion without invalidating the players' decisions from prior games, meaning the IP would be more viable again for re-use after that.

A post-ME3 gameseries would be much like the post-ME2 book Retribution: it might refer to some events, but would also try to be as independent of them as possible. Much like how 'Shepard defeated the Collectors' and 'Collector technology salvaged from the base' confirms Shepard beat the Collectors, but not the Base Decision.

By making the ME trilogy main plots only minor issues, a sequel trilogy could reflect choices much in the DA2 manner. That might disappoint people who wanted, say, the Geth/Quarians to be a major player in a sequel, but such is life.


The hardest decision to compensate for would be the ending choice. Eight hundred years in the future might make the issue of Tali's loyalty irrelevant, but the Reapers being around is a big significant.

[dancarrero]

corporal doody wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

corporal doody wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...



Deckard is a replicant, Quaid is still in Rekall, and Shepard is fighting indoctrination...

DISAGREE

WHAT??!!!

UM...........whah?

You have every right to disagree,  but you should know you disagree with Ridley Scott.
www.youtube.com/watch
Not that his interpretation of his own work is any more valid than yours.

Total Recall
Paul Verhoeven even points out the part where Quaid receives a lobotomy, and outright says most of the film is in Quaid's head. Again, this is just the interpretation of the director.

Whah ain't no country I ever heard of, do they speak English in whah?

My interpretation is that you're wrong and you should feel bad...

in regards to Blade Runner.....
It is one of the major beefs i have with the director's cut...or was it the extended cut...or was it the extended director's cut.....The newer cut without Harrison Ford's voiceover....  the twist is weak.....and it differs from the book that influenced the movie.

in regards to Total Recall....
I own the director's cut...but havent watched it.....BUT.....the theatrical release says otherwise....so um..im gonna by that. AND IF it aint in the director's cut...IT IS BS that you have to go to another media to get answers!

WHAT IS THIS WORLD COMING TO.

Really?Bladerunner is very loosely based on Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep.Its almost unrecognizable.
The EC should have ended IT talk.IT is done for better or for worse.I dont like the endings but why are these guys still grasping for straws.Bioware was very clear if you refuse the 3 endings you get their middle finger and the cutaway to Liaras explanation to the next cycle.So how does IT fit in with that?

[Dean_the_Young]

bboynexus wrote...

Dean, honestly, aren't you just a little too...y'know...reasonable for this forum?

Genuine question.

I assure you, there are topics I am completely unreasonable about. Presumably whatever topics we disagree on.

[Gtacatalina]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

That's a matter of definition: what is the 'Best Ending'? If Bioware's belief was that it was having access to the Synthesis option (which can be done on SP alone), and that the 'Breath' scene was just an Easter Egg and not a separate ending, then that would be neither an exageration or a falsehood. That players would disagree is something different.

So, again, what is Bioware's definition of the Best Ending?

Bioware did lie about not having to play multiplayer.

"Of course you don’t have to play multiplayer, you can choose to play
all the side-quests in single-player and do all that stuff you’ll
still get all the same endings and same information, it’s just a
totally different way of playing"
Mike Gamble
http://www.nowgamer....ry_details.html

You couldn't get a certain destroy ending or the Defender & Master & Commander achievements without playing multiplayer.

Modifié par Gtacatalina, 12 juillet 2012 - 01:05 .

[warlock22]

TullyAckland wrote...

The interpretation of a story is a personal thing, and it’s one of the most enjoyable aspects of an experience like this for many players. To tell you what we think would be to take away the validity of each player’s take on it.

And ultimately, our opinion on what is “really” happening is no more accurate than what a player believes when playing it. The interpretation of the story is a player choice, and like other choices in the game we don’t like to trample on it by definitively stating what is “canon”.

... so then if it is so enjoyable, then why is most of the fan base still upset? Most of us wanted canon endings, that what we were lead to believe that we were going to get. They way I see it from what I've read and seen, you were either to lazy and/or pressed for time to give us true endings. Hell you got moved the writer who wrote ME1 and ME2 to SWTOR, thats probobly why this happend, you didn't follow up on what he had planned from the begining and so we got this...

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]Gtacatalina wrote...

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

That's a matter of definition: what is the 'Best Ending'? If Bioware's belief was that it was having access to the Synthesis option (which can be done on SP alone), and that the 'Breath' scene was just an Easter Egg and not a separate ending, then that would be neither an exageration or a falsehood. That players would disagree is something different.

So, again, what is Bioware's definition of the Best Ending?

[quote]


Bioware did lie about not having to play multiplayer.

"Of course you don’t have to play multiplayer, you can choose to play
all the side-quests in single-player and do all that stuff you’ll
still get all the same endings and same information, it’s just a
totally different way of playing"
Mike Gamble
http://www.nowgamer....ry_details.html

You couldn't get a certain destroy ending or the Defender & Master & Commander achievements without playing multiplayer.[/quote]

[/quote]And that's a separate issue (best ending vs. all endings), which would be a falsehood. The endings part, not the information.

Of course, if you believe some of the speculation by other Bioware devs not part of the ME team, there might have been an error in regards to the Breath Scene that which, if true, would have made it unintentional. That, however, should be taken with a grain of salt the size of Texas.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 12 juillet 2012 - 01:07 .

[warlock22]

Mesina2 wrote...

TullyAckland wrote...

The interpretation of a story is a personal thing, and it’s one of the most enjoyable aspects of an experience like this for many players. To tell you what we think would be to take away the validity of each player’s take on it.

And ultimately, our opinion on what is “really” happening is no more accurate than what a player believes when playing it. The interpretation of the story is a player choice, and like other choices in the game we don’t like to trample on it by definitively stating what is “canon”.

That's great.

This is why I can hang out with Thane and Legion... OH WAIT, THEIR DEATHS ARE CANONICAL!
Some much for speaking of story is a player choice.

And don't give me that giving an option for them to live would remove emotional impact.

Exhibit A - Mordin. He can survive Tuchanka and try to cure genophage later.
Exhibit B - Miranda. Her death scene is heartbreaking in ME3, yet you can avoid it. Very easily avoidable.
Exhibit C - Grunt. He surviving impacts more emotionally then his death. And his death is, again, avoidable.

This!^^

[BDelacroix]

Why do people keep insisting that IT would have been a genius move? It would have wasted our time as players/readers of the story. Like dream sequences in books and movies. They insult the reader as it is all then waste of our time. In the end , we still have no ending.

[Dean_the_Young]

warlock22 wrote...

TullyAckland wrote...

The interpretation of a story is a personal thing, and it’s one of the most enjoyable aspects of an experience like this for many players. To tell you what we think would be to take away the validity of each player’s take on it.

And ultimately, our opinion on what is “really” happening is no more accurate than what a player believes when playing it. The interpretation of the story is a player choice, and like other choices in the game we don’t like to trample on it by definitively stating what is “canon”.

... so then if it is so enjoyable, then why is most of the fan base still upset?

You're confusing 'it's.

Tully refers to the interpretation process as a whole. You're referring to the ending in particular.

Most of us wanted canon endings, that what we were lead to believe that we were going to get.

If there was a single canon ending, you'd see a riot from everyone who wasn't pleased by it.

They way I see it from what I've read and seen, you were either to lazy and/or pressed for time to give us true endings.

Have you tried expanding your vision?

Hell you got moved the writer who wrote ME1 and ME2 to SWTOR, thats probobly why this happend, you didn't follow up on what he had planned from the begining and so we got this...

It's an open secret, by which I mean it's been known for some time, that the story of the ME trilogy wasn't planned from the beginning. They didn't even have ME2 planned at the time of ME1.

[Gweedotk]

TullyAckland wrote...

The interpretation of a story is a personal thing, and it’s one of the most enjoyable aspects of an experience like this for many players. To tell you what we think would be to take away the validity of each player’s take on it.

And ultimately, our opinion on what is “really” happening is no more accurate than what a player believes when playing it. The interpretation of the story is a player choice, and like other choices in the game we don’t like to trample on it by definitively stating what is “canon”.

I agree. Leaving it up to players to create their own "canon" is precisely what makes Mass Effect so enjoyable. It is likely one of the most customizable role-playing games on the market.

[Galbrant]

daaaav wrote...

TullyAckland wrote...

The interpretation of a story is a personal thing, and it’s one of the most enjoyable aspects of an experience like this for many players. To tell you what we think would be to take away the validity of each player’s take on it.

And ultimately, our opinion on what is “really” happening is no more accurate than what a player believes when playing it. The interpretation of the story is a player choice, and like other choices in the game we don’t like to trample on it by definitively stating what is “canon”.

I'm afraid I'm with Tolkein on this...

He told the exact story he wanted to tell along with all the associated meanings and implications. Rather than relying purely on vague allegory and symbolism he left it up to the readers as to wether HIS story had any applicability to THEIR lives.

This business of "speculations" and "open endedness" has no applicability and just infuriates and frustrates the audience.

It has to stop...

I concur, Hideo Kojima learn this after MGS3 when it's suppose to be the last Metal Gear Game. He wanted to left it a mystery and let the fans speculate on their own, but the fans wanted to know what happens to the Patriots,Solid Snake, Otacon, Olga's daugther, and Ocelot, not to speculate they wanted to see with their own eyes the story to continue to unfold not stumbling in the dark. He was compel to make MGS4 to clear up those loose ends. Though those death threats he recieved were unwarranted.

[mauro2222]

Baronesa wrote...

TullyAckland wrote...

The interpretation of a story is a personal thing, and it’s one of the most enjoyable aspects of an experience like this for many players. To tell you what we think would be to take away the validity of each player’s take on it.

And ultimately, our opinion on what is “really” happening is no more accurate than what a player believes when playing it. The interpretation of the story is a player choice, and like other choices in the game we don’t like to trample on it by definitively stating what is “canon”.

If it is open to interpretation... like for instance take Liara's words on Refuse ending that the Crucible did not work... we could interpret that as the Crucible not being used on the next cycle... a valid interpretation,,, right?

Then why the hell did mr Gamble come out and instead of leaving open interpretation, he flat out said next cycle WILL use the Crucible?

This is the kind of contradictions that hurt your case

Twitter... replacing Galactic News since 2012.

[SimonTheFrog]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

SimonTheFrog wrote...

Prothean beacons were explained a lot later, biotics pretty early via codex, Asari via talking to Liara etc. All major points were explained in some way at some point.

Except those aren't explanations, those are handwaves. The same sort of technobable-for-effect that applies to the Crucible.

Also i was very sceptical about many parts of the ME2 story. The central arc with the lazarus and cerberus in general and then the proto-reaper... i reject that wholeheartedly. But still i always felt that i was sure what BW was TRYING to tell me. Even if i didn't like it.

They weren't trying to tell you anything besides a handwave. 'Lazarus brought you back from the dead with Science.' They never went into, or cared, for the 'how.'

But at the end of ME3, me and other people are not so sure what's happening on screen anyway. That's a first.

Most people were quite aware: the Catalyst talks to you, explains your choices, and Shepard gets to choose an effect.

Many just wanted to dig deeper, which would have the same problems in the other games as well.

Well, handwaves go a long way. And technobabble is a central part of sci-fy. Especially if it as inspired as Eezo (as a basic "what if there was an element that can influence mass via electrical currents" question) or monogendered Asari etc.
And yeah, they might not have a perfect chain of cause and effect for their stuff. And especially for the lazarus project i missed a more detailed explenation from somebody better versed than Jacob ("It was baaaad") but they usually handwave a lot. NPC's talk about it, there is the codex etc.

Before the EC we didn't even get handwaves for the three endings. And even after EC i wouldn't call it handwave. There is not even technobabble. I don't call "essence of shepard" Technobabble.
And yes, IT had some strong arguments, whether or not the majority of players, myself included, believed it was intended or not. And saying that this ambiguity is a good thing is not handwaving. It's the opposite of handwaving.

Yeah for handwaving

[Iakus]

Gweedotk wrote...

TullyAckland wrote...

The interpretation of a story is a personal thing, and it’s one of the most enjoyable aspects of an experience like this for many players. To tell you what we think would be to take away the validity of each player’s take on it.

And ultimately, our opinion on what is “really” happening is no more accurate than what a player believes when playing it. The interpretation of the story is a player choice, and like other choices in the game we don’t like to trample on it by definitively stating what is “canon”.

I agree. Leaving it up to players to create their own "canon" is precisely what makes Mass Effect so enjoyable. It is likely one of the most customizable role-playing games on the market.

Except while before we could make out own canon based on the choices we made in the game and watching the results play out, the ending to ME3 basically tells us to sit back an dream up what happened tn..  Heck, I didn't need to spend all that money if I was going to have to do that myself!

[Anthadlas]

TullyAckland wrote...

The interpretation of a story is a personal thing, and it’s one of the most enjoyable aspects of an experience like this for many players. To tell you what we think would be to take away the validity of each player’s take on it.

And ultimately, our opinion on what is “really” happening is no more accurate than what a player believes when playing it. The interpretation of the story is a player choice, and like other choices in the game we don’t like to trample on it by definitively stating what is “canon”.

Even if I could take that seriously I still really hate your avatar

[SpamBot2000]

BDelacroix wrote...

Why do people keep insisting that IT would have been a genius move? It would have wasted our time as players/readers of the story. Like dream sequences in books and movies. They insult the reader as it is all then waste of our time. In the end , we still have no ending.

Not so much genius as "here's a way out of this dead end you can take without removing content that might well be some important executive's kid for all we know."

[CroGamer002]

iakus wrote...

Except while before we could make out own canon based on the choices we made in the game and watching the results play out, the ending to ME3 basically tells us to sit back an dream up what happened tn..  Heck, I didn't need to spend all that money if I was going to have to do that myself!

This.

[JeffZero]

 I never even liked the theory to begin with.

[Applepie_Svk]

nitefyre410 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

Oh, and if anyone's looking for a reason for why Bioware devs rarely post on here. Well, this thread is your answer.

Yes how dare we..... reply to BioWare empoyees.

 

With  cristicism none the less.... such insolant whelps we are.    

 

[Galbrant]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

Oh, and if anyone's looking for a reason for why Bioware devs rarely post on here. Well, this thread is your answer.

Yes how dare we..... reply to BioWare empoyees.

 

With  cristicism none the less.... such insolant whelps we are.    

 

Thank got my new favorite video.

Modifié par Galbrant, 12 juillet 2012 - 01:40 .

[NM_Che56]

I think IT as a whole and compreshensive theory is dead, but I still think some elements on their own were valid.

You could still argue that the kid was a hallucination...not prove, but argue.

You could still argue that the nightmares were indications that the reapers were pounding on the door to Shepard's mind. I firmly believe that this is true. Why else would there be so many whispers (most unintelligible) and oily shadows (the kind described by the Rachni Queen)?

I think Shepard did physically ascend to the Decision Chamber and actually speak to the catalyst. I think all of the things we saw that occured after actually happened as shown.

[AnsinJung]

jkflipflopDAO wrote...
Uh, no.

MDK2 - ended
KOTOR - tied up all plot points and left the Revan character for later.
NWN - ended in climax, but you never really "end" in DnD.
DAO - ended
Mass Effect - concluded even though we all knew it was going to be a trilogy
ME2 - same
DA2 - Crappy, open-ended ending with no closure to the hero.
ME3 - despite being the actual end of the trilogy and the hero Shepard's story, it ends on ambiguous note. Same problem as DA2

Following this trend, DA3 will be even worse than ME3.

Modifié par AnsinJung, 12 juillet 2012 - 01:47 .

[NM_Che56]

Gweedotk wrote...

TullyAckland wrote...

The interpretation of a story is a personal thing, and it’s one of the most enjoyable aspects of an experience like this for many players. To tell you what we think would be to take away the validity of each player’s take on it.

And ultimately, our opinion on what is “really” happening is no more accurate than what a player believes when playing it. The interpretation of the story is a player choice, and like other choices in the game we don’t like to trample on it by definitively stating what is “canon”.

I agree. Leaving it up to players to create their own "canon" is precisely what makes Mass Effect so enjoyable. It is likely one of the most customizable role-playing games on the market.

Unfortunately, some people need EVERYTHING wrapped up in a neat little bow with explicity details about every bit of minutiae.  To these people I say "go read 'See Spot Run'."