760 réponses à ce sujet

[3DandBeyond]

RiouHotaru wrote...


I'm sorry, you came to those conclusions all on your own.  There was plenty of evidence in-game that refuted your arguments (Arrival actually refutes your biggest claim, hilariously).  That you took a pessimistic interpretation was entirely your choice.  Don't try to state that the game made you come to that conclusion.

No, I didn't.  The Arrival does nothing but reinforce my claim.  It was there for that purpose.  Actually, the fact is Mass Relays are supposed to be fairly impossible to damage given their shielding so the fact that the asteroid does damage the Alpha relay and causes it to explode is rather incredible and means it was there to purposely show us what happens when a relay is destroyed.

Sure an asteroid destroyed the relay but a destroyed relay is a destroyed relay whether you crash something into it or whether it explodes and it was Bioware and not I that said there would be a galactic dark ages-that was their intent as to what the crucible would do.  And in the codex, Desperate Measures, it's pretty clear that the relay didn't even have to totally be destroyed, just ruptured.  A ruptured relay will ruin all terrestrial worlds in a system.  That's pretty clear.  And Biioware said that.  Don't try to rewrite the game.  The game clearly stated that relays contained massive amounts of energy that would be released upon destruction which would negatively impact a star system.  In fact, the citadel is partly a mass relay and its proximity to Earth and the fact it should have been destroyed (in the original endings) should have meant something bad for Earth.

Even just the stranding of all fleets and the destruction that had already occurred would have meant things were very bad in the galaxy.  So don't tell me that's just my interpretation.  That is exactly what they initially intended and exactly what they showed.  And I'm told my desire for some happier ending is about bunnies and rainbows.  You were clearly told bad things, really bad things had happened and decided to paint unicorns over it all.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 16 juillet 2012 - 06:23 .

[AresKeith]

3DandBeyond wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...


I'm sorry, you came to those conclusions all on your own.  There was plenty of evidence in-game that refuted your arguments (Arrival actually refutes your biggest claim, hilariously).  That you took a pessimistic interpretation was entirely your choice.  Don't try to state that the game made you come to that conclusion.

No, I didn't.  The Arrival does nothing but reinforce my claim.  It was there for that purpose.  Actually, the fact is Mass Relays are supposed to be fairly impossible to damage given their shielding so the fact that the asteroid does damage the Alpha relay and causes it to explode is rather incredible and means it was there to purposely show us what happens when a relay is destroyed.

Sure an asteroid destroyed the relay but a destroyed relay is a destroyed relay whether you crash something into it or whether it explodes and it was Bioware and not I that said there would be a galactic dark ages-that was their intent as to what the crucible would do.  And in the codex, Desperate Measures, it's pretty clear that the relay didn't even have to totally be destroyed, just ruptured.  A ruptured relay will ruin all terrestrial worlds in a system.  That's pretty clear.  And Biioware said that.  Don't try to rewrite the game.  The game clearly stated that relays contained massive amounts of energy that would be released upon destruction which would negatively impact a star system.  In fact, the citadel is partly a mass relay and its proximity to Earth and the fact it should have been destroyed (in the original endings) should have meant something bad for Earth.

Even just the stranding of all fleets and the destruction that had already occurred would have meant things were very bad in the galaxy.  So don't tell me that's just my interpretation.  That is exactly what they initially intended and exactly what they showed.  And I'm told my desire for some happier ending is about bunnies and rainbows.  You were clearly told bad things, really bad things had happened and decided to paint unicorns over it all.

and I bring back my old favorite statement combining the ME1 ending and ME2 suicide mission and ending elements with the chance of Shepard dying is what the ME3 ending should have been, not this crap thats been covered in sprinkles

[mopotter]

When I saw Shepard under that rubble, no one around, I thought. Infection. Unless someone finds Shepard soon those wounds will be the end of her. When I see the 3 choices, I think, why did I bother making choices in the other two games.

I never minded the idea of some of my Shepards dying to destroy the reapers, based on my choices in the other games and the ems score. I didn't mind the geth dying when it was necessary. I didn't mind the quarian dying when it was necessary, but Edi and the geth should have survived the destruction if I worked to make peace between Tali and Legion.

I always replay BioWare games, actually I replay all the games I keep in my collection of games I love. Replayed ME and ME2 more times than I can count. ME2 probably a few more because there were so many options in who survived. I've played ME3 three times.

I really have no interest in replaying it again. Maybe someday I'll play a couple of the Shepards that are in limbo right now, but I deleted more than one because it doesn't matter what I've done the choices are the same. Choose destroy geth die, maybe Shepard lives. Choose synthesis everyone is alike. Choose control, well I don't have any Shepards who would choose control.

I loved the ending of ME1. I even loved the ending of ME2. ME3 hated it without the EC. With the EC I played and don't care if I play again.

Agree with Love Sherri: "If it was any other game, I would have no problem with seeing that there just might not be that "good ending" the gamer wants. But I have to say, ME has indeed had a whole message of conquering against enormous odds and ending up like a bad ass in the end. A broken body did not fit with what Bioware had built up to; I didn't feel bad ass at all in the end. I felt sad no matter I did."

[The Twilight God]

3DandBeyond wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...


I'm sorry, you came to those conclusions all on your own.  There was plenty of evidence in-game that refuted your arguments (Arrival actually refutes your biggest claim, hilariously).  That you took a pessimistic interpretation was entirely your choice.  Don't try to state that the game made you come to that conclusion.

No, I didn't.  The Arrival does nothing but reinforce my claim.  It was there for that purpose.  Actually, the fact is Mass Relays are supposed to be fairly impossible to damage given their shielding so the fact that the asteroid does damage the Alpha relay and causes it to explode is rather incredible and means it was there to purposely show us what happens when a relay is destroyed.

Sure an asteroid destroyed the relay but a destroyed relay is a destroyed relay whether you crash something into it or whether it explodes and it was Bioware and not I that said there would be a galactic dark ages-that was their intent as to what the crucible would do.  And in the codex, Desperate Measures, it's pretty clear that the relay didn't even have to totally be destroyed, just ruptured.  A ruptured relay will ruin all terrestrial worlds in a system.  That's pretty clear.  And Biioware said that.  Don't try to rewrite the game.  The game clearly stated that relays contained massive amounts of energy that would be released upon destruction which would negatively impact a star system.  In fact, the citadel is partly a mass relay and its proximity to Earth and the fact it should have been destroyed (in the original endings) should have meant something bad for Earth.

Even just the stranding of all fleets and the destruction that had already occurred would have meant things were very bad in the galaxy.  So don't tell me that's just my interpretation.  That is exactly what they initially intended and exactly what they showed.  And I'm told my desire for some happier ending is about bunnies and rainbows.  You were clearly told bad things, really bad things had happened and decided to paint unicorns over it all.

It amazes me how people complaining about Biowares are pulling their own Bioware (i.e. ignoring established lore).

The pre-EC endings equated to galactic civilization being snuffed out. As you said, this was already established in Arrival that relays goes boom, star system goes with it. This even if even mentioned at the start of ME3 and by Batarians on the Citadel.

Post-EC there will still be no crew reunion for destroy. The relays are non-functional even if they changed it from exploding to just "severely damaged". And it will take centuries to get repair crews to them all via FTL travel.

Kind of hard to get a happy ending out of this except for Synthesis and Destroy assuming reaper FTL is WAY faster than ours. And if the only way to be "happy" is to collaborate with the Reapers and be stupid enough to trust them for no reason then it's broken writting.

[Kel Riever]

Again, medigel. It is their black box answer for wounded people recovering. It isn't a realistic universe completely. Why does it have to be so hard to understand?

[Pitznik]

The Twilight God wrote...

It amazes me how people complaining about Biowares are pulling their own Bioware (i.e. ignoring established lore).

The pre-EC endings equated to galactic civilization being snuffed out. As you said, this was already established in Arrival that relays goes boom, star system goes with it. This even if even mentioned at the start of ME3 and by Batarians on the Citadel.

Post-EC there will still be no crew reunion for destroy. The relays are non-functional even if they changed it from exploding to just "severely damaged". And it will take centuries to get repair crews to them all via FTL travel.

Kind of hard to get a happy ending out of this except for Synthesis and Destroy assuming reaper FTL is WAY faster than ours. And if the only way to be "happy" is to collaborate with the Reapers and be stupid enough to trust them for no reason then it's broken writting.

Shouldn't be a problem to reach each and every relay as long as in its system, or even its nebula, there is a world with advanced technology. It's not like you start in the Sol system and go one by one.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I do have a really difficult question.

Why is it so difficult to end a story with the hero alive, and still take a hard line on ending their story arc? Bethesda: 600 hrs with the Nerevarine. Goodbye. 600 hrs with the Hero of Cyrodill. Goodbye Sheogorath. They did it.

Was it that hard for the writers to have made one fracking commitment in this series for a single scene at the end where instead of that stupid idiotic breath scene they had Shepard in the hospital recovering being visited by the LI if there was one (sitting in a chair)? (High EMS Destroy) Yes I know no one would pick either Control or Synthesis then.

They threw the Geth and EDI on the Destroy ending. We'd kill them to get this, and BW wouldn't allow us to do that -- purposely "murder innocent robots" (EDI is different), and they wouldn't remove the penalty for picking destroy because that would have required them to do a better job of selling Synthesis and Control. Oh, wait. Silly me, they couldn't. It's hard to sell death by electrocution, and death by swan dive into a death ray.

You want Shepard dead and destroy the reapers? Fine. Don't collect all the fracking artifacts. Skip some of the minor missions. Don't play any multiplayer or iOS. It's easy to get 2500 EMS, then you get Shepard's name on the wall.

Bottom line is that BioWare tried to have it both ways. They didn't want to ****** off the "Shepard needs to die in the end" crowd, or the "Shepard should survive" crowd. So they did it half assed. Which crowd did they please? Neither one.

Leaving the ending as a head canon is pure lazy writing. It seems everyone at BW contradicts everyone else. Essentially we're getting this: "We don't know. You guys figure it out."

And the real bottom line is that if they'd declared Shepard dead at the end in all endings --- NO DLC SALES.

The reason they did the EC was they saw this: NO DLC SALES.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 16 juillet 2012 - 07:55 .

[Ansible]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

And this is funny .. what are we still arguing on the forums ....





SPECULATIONS FROM EVERYWHERE !

We don't wanna talk about IT

The endings were planned as they were all along

IT could be true

IT is not a band idea, per se

IT is true everyone!!

I was speaking for myself, not the company I work for.


BioWare... Give up. Nothing you say or do about the IT will make me interested in your ****ty endings again.

[mopotter]

Kel Riever wrote...

Again, medigel. It is their black box answer for wounded people recovering. It isn't a realistic universe completely. Why does it have to be so hard to understand?

Automatic medigel?  I can work with that.  The guy in the hospital had medigel used too late and lost a limb.  Shepard had a gut, stomach,  wound.

[Taboo]

Yeah but my imagination is the only place where poor writing from Bioware can't touch me.

I'd say that that's a huge bonus.

It isn't difficult to do. Everything that happens after he regains consciousness is up to you.

If you wish for your Shepard to die in a pile of his own **** from evacuated bowels that's your business.

Everyone else has taken the hint.

[AresKeith]

mopotter wrote...

Kel Riever wrote...

Again, medigel. It is their black box answer for wounded people recovering. It isn't a realistic universe completely. Why does it have to be so hard to understand?

Automatic medigel?  I can work with that.  The guy in the hospital had medigel used too late and lost a limb.  Shepard had a gut, stomach,  wound.

it is weird that Shepard starts bleeding out after his final talk with Anderson

[cyrslash1974]

mopotter wrote...

Kel Riever wrote...

Again, medigel. It is their black box answer for wounded people recovering. It isn't a realistic universe completely. Why does it have to be so hard to understand?

Automatic medigel?  I can work with that.  The guy in the hospital had medigel used too late and lost a limb.  Shepard had a gut, stomach,  wound.

Yep, but Citadel's hospital has received a lot of new medical stuffs thanks to pick-up missions after this event.

Modifié par cyrslash1974, 16 juillet 2012 - 08:24 .

[Shaigunjoe]

I have no problem playing an ME game sans Shepard.

[cyrslash1974]

I am pretty sure that Shep will be the new human councellor in ME4

[Reorte]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Yeah but my imagination is the only place where poor writing from Bioware can't touch me.

I'd say that that's a huge bonus.

It isn't difficult to do. Everything that happens after he regains consciousness is up to you.

If you wish for your Shepard to die in a pile of his own **** from evacuated bowels that's your business.

Everyone else has taken the hint.

Most other people realist that headcanon is just wishful thinking.

[mopotter]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

I do have a really difficult question.

Why is it so difficult to end a story with the hero alive, and still take a hard line on ending their story arc? Bethesda: 600 hrs with the Nerevarine. Goodbye. 600 hrs with the Hero of Cyrodill. Goodbye Sheogorath. They did it.

Was it that hard for the writers to have made one fracking commitment in this series for a single scene at the end where instead of that stupid idiotic breath scene they had Shepard in the hospital recovering being visited by the LI if there was one (sitting in a chair)? (High EMS Destroy) Yes I know no one would pick either Control or Synthesis then.

They threw the Geth and EDI on the Destroy ending. We'd kill them to get this, and BW wouldn't allow us to do that -- purposely "murder innocent robots" (EDI is different), and they wouldn't remove the penalty for picking destroy because that would have required them to do a better job of selling Synthesis and Control. Oh, wait. Silly me, they couldn't. It's hard to sell death by electrocution, and death by swan dive into a death ray.

You want Shepard dead and destroy the reapers? Fine. Don't collect all the fracking artifacts. Skip some of the minor missions. Don't play any multiplayer or iOS. It's easy to get 2500 EMS, then you get Shepard's name on the wall.

Bottom line is that BioWare tried to have it both ways. They didn't want to ****** off the "Shepard needs to die in the end" crowd, or the "Shepard should survive" crowd. So they did it half assed. Which crowd did they please? Neither one.

Leaving the ending as a head canon is pure lazy writing. It seems everyone at BW contradicts everyone else. Essentially we're getting this: "We don't know. You guys figure it out."

And the real bottom line is that if they'd declared Shepard dead at the end in all endings --- NO DLC SALES.

The reason they did the EC was they saw this: NO DLC SALES.

Nice.

Sadly your right, Shepard could have died in the destroy ending if they had just made our choices count more.  It's one of the things I liked about ME2.  I had many variables depending on choices I made.    I have said it before, I think whoever was in charge was tired of the series and bored with the whole thing.  Lazy writing a large part of it.  

They didn't need 3 separate endings, just a variable in the destroy one. (what Shepard has been trying to do for the last 2 games).  From reapers win to reapers destroyed and Shepard with team celebrate and all sorts of combinations in between depending on your choices. geth destroyed, geth survive, quarians destroyed, quarians survive, both survive, genophage cured or not and all of this making a difference in the ending.  Maybe even one where the reapers run back to dark space and future generations can take the fight to them.  MMO style (i wouldn't play but I don't play mmo games).  Lots of work.  Apparently too much work.

[Taboo]

Reorte wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Yeah but my imagination is the only place where poor writing from Bioware can't touch me.

I'd say that that's a huge bonus.

It isn't difficult to do. Everything that happens after he regains consciousness is up to you.

If you wish for your Shepard to die in a pile of his own **** from evacuated bowels that's your business.

Everyone else has taken the hint.

Most other people realist that headcanon is just wishful thinking.

Well since your comment disregards official statements I'm going to have to disagree with you.

The enitre intent is meant for you to have head canon.

But that's only what I've gathered from people who wrote the scripts and oversaw the EC. 

[Doctoglethorpe]

I like to imagine if RotJ didn't show Luke deffenitively surviving.  Instead it just shows a random shuttle escaping the explosion of the Death Star and then it shows Leia telling Han "He survived, I feel it." and then roll credits. 

What purpose does such a method serve?  If he's alive, then hes alive.  Just flippin show it.  If hes dead, then hes dead, flippin show it.  To be ambiguous that means you want it to be both, which means your unable to commit to a very important part of the story. 

Its especially messed up when we know that he deffenitly DOES survive because the freaking game files are listed as such.  So you can't even speculate that he might still be dead, hes not.  He's deffenitely alive.  But instead of getting a scene that shows it as such, we get an ambiguous easter egg. 

Its an amazing failure of judgement and storytelling imo. 

Modifié par Doctor Moustache, 16 juillet 2012 - 08:55 .

[Iakus]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

I have no problem playing an ME game sans Shepard.

In theory, neither do I.

I do, however, have a major problem playing an ME game where leaving Shepard to that kind of fate is considered artistic, or even good writing.  It leads me to wonder when something like that could happen again.

[Reorte]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Well since your comment disregards official statements I'm going to have to disagree with you.

The enitre intent is meant for you to have head canon.

But that's only what I've gathered from people who wrote the scripts and oversaw the EC.

And yet it still remains wishful thinking. Headcanon only works when you are the author - god of that universe. A game puts the player in the position of a (constrained) protagonist instead of just an observer, but at the end elevating them to god simply fails for me. It's as bad or worse than suddenly shutting the player out altogether part way through and turning the game into a film.

Modifié par Reorte, 16 juillet 2012 - 09:04 .

[Iakus]

Kel Riever wrote...

Again, medigel. It is their black box answer for wounded people recovering. It isn't a realistic universe completely. Why does it have to be so hard to understand?

Because neither Shepard nor Anderson thought to use it earlier?

[Taboo]

Reorte wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Well since your comment disregards official statements I'm going to have to disagree with you.

The enitre intent is meant for you to have head canon.

But that's only what I've gathered from people who wrote the scripts and oversaw the EC.

And yet it still remains wishful thinking. Headcanon only works when you are the author - god of that universe. A game can move the player from observer to (constrained) protagonist but at the end elevating them to god simply fails for me. It's as bad or worse than suddenly shutting the player out altogether part way through and turning the game into a film.

The game has looked and been framed like a film since the first game.

I mean for ****'s sake dude, the film grain effect? That makes the game look like it was shot on 35mm film.

That's the point.

You are the author of your own universe. That's kind of the point.

[Reorte]

Taboo-XX wrote...

The game has looked and been framed like a film since the first game.

I mean for ****'s sake dude, the film grain effect? That makes the game look like it was shot on 35mm film.

That's the point.

You are the author of your own universe. That's kind of the point.

I turned the film grain effect off, I didn't like it. 

In that post you range from film (observer only) to author of your own universe (god) and it's clearly neither of those. It uses aspects of film because they're a dramatic way of getting the presentation across. You were certainly never the author though - you had limited control over a single character (Joker segment in ME2 notwithstanding). You couldn't change what other characters did, what the settting did, other than via your actions - from that point of view it's a highly constrained version of real life (the constraints being down to practical technical limitations).

Modifié par Reorte, 16 juillet 2012 - 09:09 .

[Iakus]

Taboo-XX wrote...

The game has looked and been framed like a film since the first game.

I mean for ****'s sake dude, the film grain effect? That makes the game look like it was shot on 35mm film.

That's the point.

You are the author of your own universe. That's kind of the point.

Pretty sure most of us didn't pay $60-$80 dollars to be told  "head canon it".

[Vox Draco]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...
The reason they did the EC was they saw this: NO DLC SALES.

Your entire post was true, but this truly is the one and only reason they made that EC...the fear of hurting their DLC-sales too much. This is why they changed their endings (and they did, they changed it despite artistic yadda yadda and even added a new one! Which sucks even more...)

I wonder how much money the EC has cost, and how much it will pay off with DLCs. Guess they will still make enough money and claim all this as a success...but I doubt that they won all potential customers back they scared away already...and an evil voice in my mind even hopes so...