80611 réponses à ce sujet

[MegumiAzusa]

hukbum wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

hukbum wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

hukbum wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...
Reapers are still dead and we are victorious.

I don't know what kind of player you are, but destroying Earth is just stupid if you can avoid it. Low EMS shows you (with or without IT, doesn't matter in that case) that you screwed up and the Shep you played was a real crappy one.

Which is not the point. The point is that you still successfully destroyed the Reapers and saved this cycle.

Jep, but based on IT it doesn't even matter. High EMS Destroy is the goal, the breath scene is the goal. Low EMS Destroy says "better luck next time".
That's why it is quite irrelevant for IT (imo).

Indoctrinating Shep should basically screw this Cycle at least as much as opt out does, which it does not, which is a problem for IT.

Not really. IT simply doesn't work without the breath-scene. That's why I like the EMS=Sheps willpower analogy.
Not enough EMS, no chance to get that scene, or based on IT and that analogy: no chance to break free from indoctrination. Mission failed, whatever the game tells you afterwards.

This doesn't explain the indifference.

[spotlessvoid]

Megumi:

Maybe the cycle can win regardless, the question is only what happens to Shepard. Pretty cheesy though. At bare minimum your war assets should make a difference.

[spotlessvoid]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

So what is your view on the lack of differentiation between stargazer scenes Megumi?
Isn't it possible that Bioware isn't telling us anything about the story to remain vague? Just because refuse is different doesn't automatically mean the other three are the same. Doomsday made a good suggestion, and it's quite likely it's a fourth wall breaking message and that's all it is.

If it's that all that it is a new scene for opt out wouldn't be needed.
If it would have been vague enough the new scene for opt out wouldn't be needed.

Except it's completely possible Bioware wanted to make a statement about refuse without commenting on the others

[ElSuperGecko]

MegumiAzusa wrote...
If it's that all that it is a new scene for opt out wouldn't be needed.
If it would have been vague enough the new scene for opt out wouldn't be needed.

Again, not necessarily true.

Bioware went to pains to point out that Refuse ended in nothing but failure for our cycle.  Conventional victory is impossible.  We'll go for conventional victory!  SO BE IT.  THE CYCLE CONTINUES.

The ORIGINAL three endings - Destroy/Control/Synthesis - remain open to interpretation, and can potentially lead to victory.  They can potentially end in defeat.  Hence they have the same Stargazer scene as they originally did.

The differnce is more a condemnation of the Refuse ending than it is a contradiction of the existing ones.

edit:  'd by spotlessvoid...

Modifié par ElSuperGecko, 06 décembre 2012 - 08:53 .

[MegumiAzusa]

spotlessvoid wrote...

Megumi:

Maybe the cycle can win regardless, the question is only what happens to Shepard. Pretty cheesy though. At bare minimum your war assets should make a difference.

Which they obviously do not.

[hukbum]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

hukbum wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

hukbum wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

hukbum wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...
Reapers are still dead and we are victorious.

I don't know what kind of player you are, but destroying Earth is just stupid if you can avoid it. Low EMS shows you (with or without IT, doesn't matter in that case) that you screwed up and the Shep you played was a real crappy one.

Which is not the point. The point is that you still successfully destroyed the Reapers and saved this cycle.

Jep, but based on IT it doesn't even matter. High EMS Destroy is the goal, the breath scene is the goal. Low EMS Destroy says "better luck next time".
That's why it is quite irrelevant for IT (imo).

Indoctrinating Shep should basically screw this Cycle at least as much as opt out does, which it does not, which is a problem for IT.

Not really. IT simply doesn't work without the breath-scene. That's why I like the EMS=Sheps willpower analogy.
Not enough EMS, no chance to get that scene, or based on IT and that analogy: no chance to break free from indoctrination. Mission failed, whatever the game tells you afterwards.

This doesn't explain the indifference.

From my point of view it does. From your point of view it doesn't.
That's what IT is. A point of view. A valid interpretation. And I tread it like that.

[spotlessvoid]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

Megumi:

Maybe the cycle can win regardless, the question is only what happens to Shepard. Pretty cheesy though. At bare minimum your war assets should make a difference.

Which they obviously do not.

So the question remains...what is your conclusion?

[spotlessvoid]

The harder the Reapers force indoctrination, the more the victim degrades. It's often in the Reapers best interest to only get a hook in their target whenever possible, ratcheting it up as needed. Weaker willed and already corrupted subjects require a less heavy handed approach as they are easier to manipulate. Same goes for more physically or socially isolated subjects. Some victims of indoctrination are tools to be rapidly discarded, some are meant to be sleeper agents, others major pawns, and some are just being guided down a path of betrayal.

The Normandy crew are not easy targets. They are mentally tough, united, and under great scrutiny. Anything more than subtle influence would probably become noticeable honestly. To indoctrinate a crew filled with almost nothing but paragons isn't some small task when there's such an overall sense of solidarity and a true leader inspiring them to be their best. Take out their source of mental strength and watch their fortitude sink. The Reapers play on fear and doubt, trying to wedge in their own ideas and changing the victims entire outlook. As long as they're rallying around Shepard, they are going to be a lot harder to subvert. Killing him just makes him a martyr. It would still be a blow, but not like turning the Knight in Shining Armor into an indoctrinated shell of his former self.

[DoomsdayDevice]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...


- The refuse stargazer scene is different because Shepard knows (s)he didn't save this cycle.
- The three regular stargazer scenes are identical because in every ending, Shepard believes (or is made to believe) (s)he saved this cycle/ended the Reaper threat.

BUMP

[dorktainian]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

DoomsdayDevice wrote...


- The refuse stargazer scene is different because Shepard knows (s)he didn't save this cycle.
- The three regular stargazer scenes are identical because in every ending, Shepard believes (or is made to believe) (s)he saved this cycle/ended the Reaper threat.

BUMP

DOUBLE BUMP

[Rifneno]

dorktainian wrote...

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

DoomsdayDevice wrote...


- The refuse stargazer scene is different because Shepard knows (s)he didn't save this cycle.
- The three regular stargazer scenes are identical because in every ending, Shepard believes (or is made to believe) (s)he saved this cycle/ended the Reaper threat.

BUMP

DOUBLE BUMP

In my cycle, we threw bumps out the airlock.

[Fingertrip]

Can someone explain to me why they would release post-ending DLC content that shackles the foundation of the existing ending to the people that enjoyed it?

Can also someone explain to me where they said they would release extra content for Shepard and to change his story-arc? I've seen numerous Bioware Staff members saying that there's no extra content to Shepards conclussion, and that the story is final with how it's ended.

If you say if its' just to lure the players, whos to say that they didn't try to trick the players with wanting them to believe it's more to the ending then meets the eye?

Thanks.

[ElSuperGecko]

Rifneno wrote...

dorktainian wrote...

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

- The refuse stargazer scene is different because Shepard knows (s)he didn't save this cycle.
- The three regular stargazer scenes are identical because in every ending, Shepard believes (or is made to believe) (s)he saved this cycle/ended the Reaper threat.

BUMP

DOUBLE BUMP

In my cycle, we threw bumps out the airlock.

Ba-dum BUMP TISH!

[Rifneno]

I wonder what Protheans did with their problems before they developed space travel.

[ElSuperGecko]

Fingertrip wrote...
Can also someone explain to me where they said they would release extra content for Shepard and to change his story-arc?

I'm confused.  Weren't Leviathan and Omega extra content for Shepard?  Didn't they change Shepard's story arc?

Aren't we expecting more similar content in the next few months?  Won't that change Shepard's story arc?

[MaximizedAction]

Fingertrip wrote...

Can someone explain to me why they would release post-ending DLC content that shackles the foundation of the existing ending to the people that enjoyed it?

Same question was asked an infinite-fold in the months after ME3's release about why they released a game that shackles the foundation of the existing lore and themes to the people that enjoyed it.

Modifié par MaximizedAction, 06 décembre 2012 - 09:40 .

[ElSuperGecko]

Rifneno wrote...
I wonder what Protheans did with their problems before they developed space travel.

I believe they fed them alive to enraged honey badger-analogues.

Modifié par ElSuperGecko, 06 décembre 2012 - 09:41 .

[spotlessvoid]

Only community managers have said no ending dlc. They deny everything. Like it's their job to. Gamble has specifically refused to answer that question.

A lot more fans would be regained than lost with an IT DLC.

[Domanese]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Fingertrip wrote...
Can also someone explain to me where they said they would release extra content for Shepard and to change his story-arc?

I'm confused.  Weren't Leviathan and Omega extra content for Shepard?  Didn't they change Shepard's story arc?

Aren't we expecting more similar content in the next few months?  Won't that change Shepard's story arc?

The better question is what the final evolution to a reaper's point of view is? Why would you support your enemies in the last moments when all this time you have been trying to destroy them so suddenly after you have been driving towards this goal for so long? Why turn to the Illusive Mans, or Saren's line of thinking and effectively turn on all of your allies and friends that helped you get this far? 

Modifié par Domanese, 06 décembre 2012 - 09:49 .

[dorktainian]

can you imagine the advertising campaign for me4 in a few years time without IT. Would they be able to grab back any fanbase they potentially honk off? Surely they should be looking after their fans now? and surely that includes the ITers?

what if this is an experiment by bioware and they are all sat in base laughing at us? both ITers and non ITers?

[Eryri]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

DoomsdayDevice wrote...


- The refuse stargazer scene is different because Shepard knows (s)he didn't save this cycle.
- The three regular stargazer scenes are identical because in every ending, Shepard believes (or is made to believe) (s)he saved this cycle/ended the Reaper threat.

BUMP

Another way-out, but enjoyable theory, is the stargazer and his grandson are blissfully unaware that they are merely self-aware sub-programs running in the wetware of a new reaper. Their idillic little planet is just a pleasant version of the matrix to keep their conscious minds placid, while their subconscious minds comprise the gestalt intellect of the reaper.

There's no great evidence for this theory, and I can't remember who came up with it, but it appeals to my love of mind****ery. EDIT: Actually I think it might have been BleedingUranium's idea?

On another different but related topic - if the EC and refuse ending as we currently know them really were unplanned bandaids to quell fan outrage, I wonder if Bioware will strike them from canon as they did with the botched Deception novel, if and when the "true" ending is revealed?

I find it interesting that the EC is not included by default in the Trilogy pack (although it is in the WiiU version which now that I think of it, counts against this idea a bit). 

Modifié par Eryri, 06 décembre 2012 - 09:51 .

[Domanese]

dorktainian wrote...

can you imagine the advertising campaign for me4 in a few years time without IT. Would they be able to grab back any fanbase they potentially honk off? Surely they should be looking after their fans now? and surely that includes the ITers?

what if this is an experiment by bioware and they are all sat in base laughing at us? both ITers and non ITers?

I bet you that they are cackling like madmen because the experiment worked completely

[paxxton]

Rifneno wrote...

I wonder what Protheans did with their problems before they developed space travel.

They had their own Protheans - the Inusannon.

[Eryri]

spotlessvoid wrote...

Only community managers have said no ending dlc. They deny everything. Like it's their job to. Gamble has specifically refused to answer that question.

A lot more fans would be regained than lost with an IT DLC.

Absolutely. The number of people who are passionate fans of the literal endings is unlikely to be large I think. And even if they are, that passion is bound to have faded in the past nine months.

I think it makes more sense rather than less for Bioware to have waited to make an IT reveal, because they were worried about the reaction of the fiercely pro-ending crowd, (understandable as I'm sure they don't want to hurt anyone's feelings deliberately, least of all those who were happy with the game as was).

However, that potential negative reaction to any change, will be less and less vocal as times goes on, and people are distracted by other games.

It's only obsessive folk like us who are still interested in ME and are the likely target audience to buy future DLC.
And look at the group who's thread is the longest and most viewed? Why, I do believe it's ours! 

Edit - I believe it is traditional to exclaim "TOP!" 

Modifié par Eryri, 06 décembre 2012 - 10:03 .

[Rifneno]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Rifneno wrote...
I wonder what Protheans did with their problems before they developed space travel.

I believe they fed them alive to enraged honey badger-analogues.

That is a better answer than I believed possible.

paxxton wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

I wonder what Protheans did with their problems before they developed space travel.

They had their own Protheans - the Inusannon.

Of course. Every species had "the one before". Well, except the first obviously. I was just joking about the "throw it out the airlock" thing. What did they do before airlocks? Fortunately, ElSuperGecko has solved the mystery. Awesomely.

Eryri wrote...

Absolutely. The number of people who are passionate fans of the literal endings is unlikely to be large I think. And even if they are, that passion is bound to have faded in the past nine months.

I think it makes more sense rather than less for Bioware to have waited to make an IT reveal, because they were worried about the reaction of the fiercely pro-ending crowd, (understandable as I'm sure they don't want to hurt anyone's feelings deliberately, least of all those who were happy with the game as was).

However, that potential negative reaction to any change, will be less and less vocal as times goes on and people are distracted by other games.

It's only obsessive folk like us who are still interested in ME, and likely to buy future DLC - and look who's thread is the longest and most viewed? Why, I do believe it's this one!

It's hard to say. We're naturally biased. We're going to think the reveal will be better received than it likely will be because we're vehemently in the pro camp. The opposite is true too. The literalists think the reveal will be received worse than it likely will be. Everyone involved enough to have an educated opinion is biased one way or another. I hope we're closer to the truth.