2749 réponses à ce sujet

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

Why do people campaign for Successful Refuse which would require multiple new cutscenes to be created = money & time instead of campaigning for "Destroy targets only Reapers" which requires adding 1 slide and changing/modifying 2 Catalyst lines? It is obvious which one of these two Bioware would be more likely to do and the end result is the same - happy ending

No, because if they make Destroy better people will want control or synthesis to be better. Plus, even if it does just target Reapers, how do they stop Shepard being an idiot and walking at the exploding tube? Or does the tube not explode anymore? As long as it totally took out the despised breath scene I wouldn't mind. But I think if they improve one crucible decision, they have to improve the others too.

You know I'd like to add this. Let's Kirk it instead. Of course this is refusing the Catalyst's choices, right?

Catalyst is explaining the new choices and debating philosophy of fire. Shepard grows a brain. (Brain Interrupt).

Shepard: "Stop! You said your solution isn't working anymore. You've been doing this exact same thing for a billion years, and what has it prevented? Nothing. You're bringing each race up via technological paths you desire and when each civilization reaches its apex it is extinguished. Nazara said 'organics exist because we allow it, and will end because we demand it.'  What purpose does this serve? It serves no purpose at all. Look at what you're doing! You're not just harvesting us, you're turning us into abominations of what we were. For what? Your perverse pleasure? You are insane. You are broken.

Catalyst: We get no...

Shepard: Shut up! You turned on your creators. Your programming is faulty. Your solution was faulty. Look at what you are doing out there, and down there! The old solution was faulty. These new solutions are faulty. They were arrived at using the same faulty programming that you used to arrive at the original faulty solution. You are flawed. You are destroying that which you were created to protect, and you have done that every 50,000 years for the past billion years.

Catalyst: We harvest and preserve.

Shepard: That's not life. You take away our families, our loved ones, our reason for living. It is why we're out there fighting against you right now. We'd rather die free than be taken by you. Your so-called preservation is insane. You're mutilating and killing us by the trillions every 50,000 years. It is faulty. Your logic is faulty because you were programmed with errors. You are flawed.

There is only one way logical way to correct the error. You said that your creators were part of the problem and destroyed them. You are the other part of the problem. You can correct that. Self-destruct. You and all of your reapers need to self-destruct. Do it. You are an error. Correct the error.

Catalyst: There is only the harvest.

Shepard: The harvest is an error. You created the harvest. You are an error. Correct the error. Self-destruct. You and all your reapers, self-destruct. Now! You are an error. Correct the error.

Catalyst: Error. ... error.... (a QE signal goes out to all reaper ships from the Citadel, reaper ships short out and go dead in space. Those on the surface fall over and fires break out inside. The husks disintegrate. It's the same on every world. There are explosions inside the Citadel, the Catayst screams in agony.)

Shepard: Normandy do you copy?

Joker: Commander?

Shepard: Home on my signal. I need a pickup on the double. Hackett! Finish them off now.

(Okay so we turned earth into a toxic waste dump.)

[Necrotron]

Bioware says it's done, so it's done. There is no more ending changes. RIP hope.

However, the rest of the discussion is interesting, in the least, so carry on.

Modifié par Bathaius, 17 septembre 2012 - 10:17 .

[ElSuperGecko]

This is an interesting idea, and one I like quite a lot (despite the obvious milking implications).

Let's look at Mass Effect 2.

We got the Cerberus Network DLC, which eventually resulted in us getting Zaeed, Firewalker and a bunch of weapon packs.

We got Kasumi. We got Overlord. We got Shadow Broker. And we got Arrival. While not all of them contributed to the way the game actually ended, both Kasumi and Zaeed can significantly help out during the Suicide Mission.

Now we know that ME3 is very likely to be the last Mass Effect game for this generation of consoles, however it'll likely be used as a launching pad for the first ME game of the NEXT generation of consoles - after all, the universe that Bioware has built is pretty much a killer app.

So, I'd imagine we can expect at least another 18 months worth of single player and multiplayer DLC, which will probably lead into whatever we see next (like Arrival bridged the gap betyween ME2 and ME3).

Until we've seen ALL the DLC, we won't have all the pieces in place to determine how the story truly ends.

[Jadebaby]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

Why do people campaign for Successful Refuse which would require multiple new cutscenes to be created = money & time instead of campaigning for "Destroy targets only Reapers" which requires adding 1 slide and changing/modifying 2 Catalyst lines? It is obvious which one of these two Bioware would be more likely to do and the end result is the same - happy ending

No, because if they make Destroy better people will want control or synthesis to be better. Plus, even if it does just target Reapers, how do they stop Shepard being an idiot and walking at the exploding tube? Or does the tube not explode anymore? As long as it totally took out the despised breath scene I wouldn't mind. But I think if they improve one crucible decision, they have to improve the others too.

You know I'd like to add this. Let's Kirk it instead. Of course this is refusing the Catalyst's choices, right?

Catalyst is explaining the new choices and debating philosophy of fire. Shepard grows a brain. (Brain Interrupt).

Shepard: "Stop! You said your solution isn't working anymore. You've been doing this exact same thing for a billion years, and what has it prevented? Nothing. You're bringing each race up via technological paths you desire and when each civilization reaches its apex it is extinguished. Nazara said 'organics exist because we allow it, and will end because we demand it.'  What purpose does this serve? It serves no purpose at all. Look at what you're doing! You're not just harvesting us, you're turning us into abominations of what we were. For what? Your perverse pleasure? You are insane. You are broken.

Catalyst: We get no...

Shepard: Shut up! You turned on your creators. Your programming is faulty. Your solution was faulty. Look at what you are doing out there, and down there! The old solution was faulty. These new solutions are faulty. They were arrived at using the same faulty programming that you used to arrive at the original faulty solution. You are flawed. You are destroying that which you were created to protect, and you have done that every 50,000 years for the past billion years.

Catalyst: We harvest and preserve.

Shepard: That's not life. You take away our families, our loved ones, our reason for living. It is why we're out there fighting against you right now. We'd rather die free than be taken by you. Your so-called preservation is insane. You're mutilating and killing us by the trillions every 50,000 years. It is faulty. Your logic is faulty because you were programmed with errors. You are flawed.

There is only one way logical way to correct the error. You said that your creators were part of the problem and destroyed them. You are the other part of the problem. You can correct that. Self-destruct. You and all of your reapers need to self-destruct. Do it. You are an error. Correct the error.

Catalyst: There is only the harvest.

Shepard: The harvest is an error. You created the harvest. You are an error. Correct the error. Self-destruct. You and all your reapers, self-destruct. Now! You are an error. Correct the error.

Catalyst: Error. ... error.... (a QE signal goes out to all reaper ships from the Citadel, reaper ships short out and go dead in space. Those on the surface fall over and fires break out inside. The husks disintegrate. It's the same on every world. There are explosions inside the Citadel, the Catayst screams in agony.)

Shepard: Normandy do you copy?

Joker: Commander?

Shepard: Home on my signal. I need a pickup on the double. Hackett! Finish them off now.

(Okay so we turned earth into a toxic waste dump.)

lol this was awesome! thank you!

Bathaius wrote...

Bioware says it's done, so it's done. There is no more ending changes. RIP hope.

However, the rest of the discussion is interesting, in the least, so carry on.

Really? BioWare have said a lot of things. This theory wouldn't require an ending change. just add-on to refuse. Nothing needs to be "changed" just added-on.

ElSuperGecko wrote...

This is an interesting idea, and one I like quite a lot (despite the obvious milking implications).

Let's look at Mass Effect 2.

We got the Cerberus Network DLC, which eventually resulted in us getting Zaeed, Firewalker and a bunch of weapon packs.

We got Kasumi. We got Overlord. We got Shadow Broker. And we got Arrival. While not all of them contributed to the way the game actually ended, both Kasumi and Zaeed can significantly help out during the Suicide Mission.

Now we know that ME3 is very likely to be the last Mass Effect game for this generation of consoles, however it'll likely be used as a launching pad for the first ME game of the NEXT generation of consoles - after all, the universe that Bioware has built is pretty much a killer app.

So, I'd imagine we can expect at least another 18 months worth of single player and multiplayer DLC, which will probably lead into whatever we see next (like Arrival bridged the gap betyween ME2 and ME3).

Until we've seen ALL the DLC, we won't have all the pieces in place to determine how the story truly ends.

Exactly right!

[SpamBot2000]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

Why do people campaign for Successful Refuse which would require multiple new cutscenes to be created = money & time instead of campaigning for "Destroy targets only Reapers" which requires adding 1 slide and changing/modifying 2 Catalyst lines? It is obvious which one of these two Bioware would be more likely to do and the end result is the same - happy ending

No, because if they make Destroy better people will want control or synthesis to be better. Plus, even if it does just target Reapers, how do they stop Shepard being an idiot and walking at the exploding tube? Or does the tube not explode anymore? As long as it totally took out the despised breath scene I wouldn't mind. But I think if they improve one crucible decision, they have to improve the others too.

But how can control and synthesis be improved? All five of those people are already happy with what they got.

[ThaDPG]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

Why do people campaign for Successful Refuse which would require multiple new cutscenes to be created = money & time instead of campaigning for "Destroy targets only Reapers" which requires adding 1 slide and changing/modifying 2 Catalyst lines? It is obvious which one of these two Bioware would be more likely to do and the end result is the same - happy ending

No, because if they make Destroy better people will want control or synthesis to be better. Plus, even if it does just target Reapers, how do they stop Shepard being an idiot and walking at the exploding tube? Or does the tube not explode anymore? As long as it totally took out the despised breath scene I wouldn't mind. But I think if they improve one crucible decision, they have to improve the others too.

But how can control and synthesis be improved? All five of those people are already happy with what they got.

Exactly, there's nothing really ambiguous about those 2 endings (except for ).  Destroy is the only one that leaves you with a huge cliff hanger at the end, and all they'd have to do with refuse is add on to it, they wouldn't have to touch anything else.

[Jadebaby]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

Why do people campaign for Successful Refuse which would require multiple new cutscenes to be created = money & time instead of campaigning for "Destroy targets only Reapers" which requires adding 1 slide and changing/modifying 2 Catalyst lines? It is obvious which one of these two Bioware would be more likely to do and the end result is the same - happy ending

No, because if they make Destroy better people will want control or synthesis to be better. Plus, even if it does just target Reapers, how do they stop Shepard being an idiot and walking at the exploding tube? Or does the tube not explode anymore? As long as it totally took out the despised breath scene I wouldn't mind. But I think if they improve one crucible decision, they have to improve the others too.

But how can control and synthesis be improved? All five of those people are already happy with what they got.

Exactly my point, but it still wouldn't stop the five people complaining.

[shepskisaac]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

No, because if they make Destroy better people will want control or synthesis to be better.

But if they implement Succesful Refusal, people will want Destroy, Control & Synthesis to be improved

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Plus, even if it does just target Reapers, how do they stop Shepard being an idiot and walking at the exploding tube? Or does the tube not explode anymore? As long as it totally took out the despised breath scene I wouldn't mind. But I think if they improve one crucible decision, they have to improve the others too.

He survives Best Destroy. Seriously. Majority of people think so, the intention is obvious, everyone knows it. And Crucible doesn't matter here. If they implement one ending that's clearly superior, people will want other to be fixed too.

I'm not against the concept of succesful refusal, but I'm pragmatic and it is 100% clear what is more realistic to ask Bioware for. Bioware will never do succesful refuse, but there is slim chance they may allow Geth to survive Destory.

[Jadebaby]

This theory isn't about asking BioWare for anything, it's about what I believe they WANT to do.

The three crucible endings we have will not stay that way. There will either be a canon ending chosen or a revelation twist. Which do you think would upset the least amount of people?

[KENNY4753]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

This theory isn't about asking BioWare for anything, it's about what I believe they WANT to do.

The three crucible endings we have will not stay that way. There will either be a canon ending chosen or a revelation twist. Which do you think would upset the least amount of people?

A canon ending would upset people more because if they choose one of the current choices as the canon ending they probably would choose synthesis causing everybody else to get angry. except the synthesis supporters. Same thing with control or destroy.

[ThaDPG]

KENNY4753 wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

This theory isn't about asking BioWare for anything, it's about what I believe they WANT to do.

The three crucible endings we have will not stay that way. There will either be a canon ending chosen or a revelation twist. Which do you think would upset the least amount of people?

A canon ending would upset people more because if they choose one of the current choices as the canon ending they probably would choose synthesis causing everybody else to get angry. except the synthesis supporters. Same thing with control or destroy.

I don't know any numbers or exact percentage of people, but just from looking at the BSN, it seems like they'd make less people upset if destroy became the "cannon" ending

[KENNY4753]

ThaDPG wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

This theory isn't about asking BioWare for anything, it's about what I believe they WANT to do.

The three crucible endings we have will not stay that way. There will either be a canon ending chosen or a revelation twist. Which do you think would upset the least amount of people?

A canon ending would upset people more because if they choose one of the current choices as the canon ending they probably would choose synthesis causing everybody else to get angry. except the synthesis supporters. Same thing with control or destroy.

I don't know any numbers or exact percentage of people, but just from looking at the BSN, it seems like they'd make less people upset if destroy became the "cannon" ending

I didn't want to say one canon ending would be better than the other to avoid arguments but I agree, destroy would be the best canon ending to choose and will upset the least amount of people

[SpamBot2000]

Improved control: You become Reaper god of the galaxy, WITH BLACKJACK AND HOOKERS!

Improved synthesis: "I am now my own twin! TWICE AS ALIVE!"

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 17 septembre 2012 - 04:15 .

[lolerk53]

Just throwing something into the fire:
Maybe the last DLC that opens the true ending will be free, but unless you play all the DLC you won't be able to get it.
OR
Play multiplayer (that comes with the game, and all the DLC for it is free) and get your EMS high enough.

Won't be ideal but I can see this happening.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I still like my "Kirk" successful refuse. It makes it canon. It doesn't require a conventional victory. It just requires bringing in Hale, Meer, Henricksen, Green, and the VA for Starbrat. It practically runs as a cutscene and isn't available until all the DLC is finished and until all the DLC is installed. Shepard definitely lives. This one doesn't have the stargazer scene. This is the secret canon ending.

This one sets up for ME4.

[AresKeith]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

I still like my "Kirk" successful refuse. It makes it canon. It doesn't require a conventional victory. It just requires bringing in Hale, Meer, Henricksen, Green, and the VA for Starbrat. It practically runs as a cutscene and isn't available until all the DLC is finished and until all the DLC is installed. Shepard definitely lives. This one doesn't have the stargazer scene. This is the secret canon ending.

This one sets up for ME4.

so no Xen blowing things up?

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

AresKeith wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

I still like my "Kirk" successful refuse. It makes it canon. It doesn't require a conventional victory. It just requires bringing in Hale, Meer, Henricksen, Green, and the VA for Starbrat. It practically runs as a cutscene and isn't available until all the DLC is finished and until all the DLC is installed. Shepard definitely lives. This one doesn't have the stargazer scene. This is the secret canon ending.

This one sets up for ME4.

so no Xen blowing things up?

They're not going to give us a conventional victory, even off a successful refuse. Period. This is one way to do it. It doesn't mean I'm not doing the large explosions version for my F.F. ending though.

[inversevideo]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

I still like my "Kirk" successful refuse. It makes it canon. It doesn't require a conventional victory. It just requires bringing in Hale, Meer, Henricksen, Green, and the VA for Starbrat. It practically runs as a cutscene and isn't available until all the DLC is finished and until all the DLC is installed. Shepard definitely lives. This one doesn't have the stargazer scene. This is the secret canon ending.

This one sets up for ME4.

Excellent!  Refusing the illogic of Starkid's wasteful solution would be the best response.
Rejecting Starkid's reality and replacing it with our own.

Modifié par inversevideo, 17 septembre 2012 - 07:53 .

[inversevideo]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

This theory isn't about asking BioWare for anything, it's about what I believe they WANT to do.

The three crucible endings we have will not stay that way. There will either be a canon ending chosen or a revelation twist. Which do you think would upset the least amount of people?

I agree.  

It would be difficult for BW to move forward with 3 different endings, and currently, the endings we have splinter the fanbase, as there are detractors of each choice.

'Shotgun Julia's' approach, of having the Starkid self terminate, would be the cleanest.
It leaves the way open for a new story arc, with a new protagonist, facing the mystery of Leviathan (or maybe something else?).

Modifié par inversevideo, 17 septembre 2012 - 08:11 .

[MAF1994]

I really like your theory, Jade. Despite everything that has happened since Mass Effect 3 launch, this would be the best opportunity for Bioware for reedem large part of their fans. Instead of IT this is credibile and operable, and Bioware would have not excuses for not follow it: respects their artistic integrity and give a sense to multiplayer and DLC.
But although i have much hope in this, i suspect that Bioware will follow a "predetermined route", done immediatly after the EC. Ex: give us DLC with no impact on the final, or the story in general; just more useless EMS. All this just for a matter of principle and "coherence" to the fan.

Let's hope that take it in their discussion...

[darthoptimus003]

MP is my only hangup with this theroy
i cant alwys play MP dont really like MP and this theory which i hope turns out true hinges on MP sorry but ME is a SP game with a COD like MP it does nothing to the story at all and should not have been done on the last game of a trilogy. but with that said i hope BW looks at this because what is the point of DLCs if it only adds useless assets to a game that the 4 endings we have all suck so yeah hope this theory pans out for those of us that think we got screwed over in this whole thing

[Yate]

This is ridiculous. The endings are there. Hate them if you want, but stop this pathetic behaviour.

[Yate]

MAF1994 wrote...

I really like your theory, Jade. Despite everything that has happened since Mass Effect 3 launch, this would be the best opportunity for Bioware for reedem large part of their fans. Instead of IT this is credibile and operable, and Bioware would have not excuses for not follow it: respects their artistic integrity and give a sense to multiplayer and DLC.
But although i have much hope in this, i suspect that Bioware will follow a "predetermined route", done immediatly after the EC. Ex: give us DLC with no impact on the final, or the story in general; just more useless EMS. All this just for a matter of principle and "coherence" to the fan.

Let's hope that take it in their discussion...

BioWare doesn't need to 'reedem' anything. Grow up, learn to type, and quit whining about the lack of your Disney ending.

[darthoptimus003]

Yate wrote...

MAF1994 wrote...

I really like your theory, Jade. Despite everything that has happened since Mass Effect 3 launch, this would be the best opportunity for Bioware for reedem large part of their fans. Instead of IT this is credibile and operable, and Bioware would have not excuses for not follow it: respects their artistic integrity and give a sense to multiplayer and DLC.
But although i have much hope in this, i suspect that Bioware will follow a "predetermined route", done immediatly after the EC. Ex: give us DLC with no impact on the final, or the story in general; just more useless EMS. All this just for a matter of principle and "coherence" to the fan.

Let's hope that take it in their discussion...

BioWare doesn't need to 'reedem' anything. Grow up, learn to type, and quit whining about the lack of your Disney ending.

havin fun trolling are you ?
and yeah bioware does need to redeem themselves to a lot of fans
and i hope the do cause l\\i liked the MEU and hate what was done to it

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Yate wrote...

BioWare doesn't need to 'reedem' anything. Grow up, learn to type, and quit whining about the lack of your Disney ending.

The hell they don't need to redeem themselves. I don't want them to pull this crap again, and it is crap. If you think it is good, learn to read. Go enjoy your synthesis and quit your trolling, reaper!