319 réponses à ce sujet

[AresKeith]

they were trying to hard and being lazy with endings

[Iakus]

3DandBeyond wrote...


The problem is that the geth/EDI "sacrifice" is theirs to offer and not for someone else to choose for them to make.  That gasping torso may have had good reason, but no amount of good can outweigh the bad that was done and that it could lead to.  Unfortunately, all their sacrifice gets is one line about not forgetting what they did from Hackett and then the sun comes out and the galaxy is a happy place.  It's sort of that way with all the endings-a lot happier than I envision even a "good" destroy ending would leave things.  It shouldn't be such an easy road forward and there should be consequences, real ones.  Their deaths might lead others to conclude they too could be expendable when things get tough.

The deaths of EDI and the geth (and whoever else dies from the loss of "synthetics") are gratuitous, but may only occur because of "faulty" equipment.  This certainly is not the intent of destroy because it exists this way due to an incomplete crucible, in my opinion.

he other problem is that there is no final farewell to them.  They die and are forgotten about.  If they had a final ending scene like Mordin, Anderson, or even Grunt (though he can live) their deaths would be far easier to accept.  That they saw thier deaths coming and accepted it.  Rather than struck down ususpecting by friendly fire.  The way they're portrayed now, they're just hostages of the Catalyst, discarded when no longer needed.

If their deaths are necessary for the Destroy ending, then their deaths should at least have meaning.

[3DandBeyond]

iakus wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...


The problem is that the geth/EDI "sacrifice" is theirs to offer and not for someone else to choose for them to make.  That gasping torso may have had good reason, but no amount of good can outweigh the bad that was done and that it could lead to.  Unfortunately, all their sacrifice gets is one line about not forgetting what they did from Hackett and then the sun comes out and the galaxy is a happy place.  It's sort of that way with all the endings-a lot happier than I envision even a "good" destroy ending would leave things.  It shouldn't be such an easy road forward and there should be consequences, real ones.  Their deaths might lead others to conclude they too could be expendable when things get tough.

The deaths of EDI and the geth (and whoever else dies from the loss of "synthetics") are gratuitous, but may only occur because of "faulty" equipment.  This certainly is not the intent of destroy because it exists this way due to an incomplete crucible, in my opinion.

This is all part of it. 


he other problem is that there is no final farewell to them.  They die and are forgotten about.  If they had a final ending scene like Mordin, Anderson, or even Grunt (though he can live) their deaths would be far easier to accept.  That they saw thier deaths coming and accepted it.  Rather than struck down ususpecting by friendly fire.  The way they're portrayed now, they're just hostages of the Catalyst, discarded when no longer needed.

If their deaths are necessary for the Destroy ending, then their deaths should at least have meaning.

People like me often point to the fact that characters don't know if Shepard's alive at the end, but even if Shepard is, it's also true Shepard doesn't know about the fate his/her friends that had survived earlier either.

I just see the torso as a cliffhanger that they had to know people wanted changed for the EC, for closure.  I have had this nagging suspicion that it was meant for something else-not a new game with Shepard but for a grand finale.

The bluescreen "buy DLC" in the original endings seemed to also hint at that.  So, what if there was a grand finale planned?  And it doesn't have to mean you have to buy all DLC, but it would mean waiting.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 15 août 2012 - 06:00 .

[PuppiesOfDeath2]

zambot wrote...

First you have to consider that most people do not play DLC, so changing anything via DLC is a dubious proposition already. Using DLC to invalidate the choices that people made would, in my opinion, be an enormous mistake. Now of course Bioware could change their mind. Someone in a suit could say, "wow, this ME stuff makes us so much money. Go make an ME4, and I don't care how much story you have to butcher to make it happen". ( If Hollywood is any indication something like that probably will happen.) Then they'll chop up the ending (or make an alternate universe / prequel). Maybe they'll pick a canon ending and ****** off everyone who didn't pick it. Maybe they'll try to preserve all three in some cheesy way (+2 augments for synthesis choosers!, synthetic enemies 20% weaker for destroy choosers! Activate Word of Shepard power once per day for Control choosers!). Who knows.

I personally wouldn't buy such a product, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be successful.

If people don't buy the DLC, then the DLC can't invalidate their ending.  If people are fine with their endings, I think that's great.  Most players are not happy with them.  So Bioware has a chance to make money and make their customers happy by developing the "breath" scene further.  If they are willing to have a breath (which they describe in the player's guide as "Shepard lives"), then they shouldn't have a problem extending that outcome.

I won't buy the Leviathan DLC because the ending of the game currently ruins the single player experience for me.  My Shepard "lives" through my choice of Destroy, but the depiction of that result is so unsatisfying that I have no desire to relive my disappointment.  If other future DLC gives me a reason to try my chosen ending again, then I would likely do that.  If it was particularly good, it would likely cause me to go back and buy other DLC because the single player experience was worthwhile again.

Right now, it isn't.

[Iakus]

PuppiesOfDeath2 wrote...

If people don't buy the DLC, then the DLC can't invalidate their ending.  If people are fine with their endings, I think that's great.  Most players are not happy with them.  So Bioware has a chance to make money and make their customers happy by developing the "breath" scene further.  If they are willing to have a breath (which they describe in the player's guide as "Shepard lives"), then they shouldn't have a problem extending that outcome.

I won't buy the Leviathan DLC because the ending of the game currently ruins the single player experience for me.  My Shepard "lives" through my choice of Destroy, but the depiction of that result is so unsatisfying that I have no desire to relive my disappointment.  If other future DLC gives me a reason to try my chosen ending again, then I would likely do that.  If it was particularly good, it would likely cause me to go back and buy other DLC because the single player experience was worthwhile again.

Right now, it isn't.

This.  All of it.

[3DandBeyond]

iakus wrote...

PuppiesOfDeath2 wrote...

If people don't buy the DLC, then the DLC can't invalidate their ending.  If people are fine with their endings, I think that's great.  Most players are not happy with them.  So Bioware has a chance to make money and make their customers happy by developing the "breath" scene further.  If they are willing to have a breath (which they describe in the player's guide as "Shepard lives"), then they shouldn't have a problem extending that outcome.

I won't buy the Leviathan DLC because the ending of the game currently ruins the single player experience for me.  My Shepard "lives" through my choice of Destroy, but the depiction of that result is so unsatisfying that I have no desire to relive my disappointment.  If other future DLC gives me a reason to try my chosen ending again, then I would likely do that.  If it was particularly good, it would likely cause me to go back and buy other DLC because the single player experience was worthwhile again.

Right now, it isn't.

This.  All of it.

Yep that's how I feel as well.  Not saying this (my OP) is the way to get there, but it's a way that I think would be easy enough to do.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 15 août 2012 - 09:04 .

[AresKeith]

iakus wrote...

PuppiesOfDeath2 wrote...

If people don't buy the DLC, then the DLC can't invalidate their ending.  If people are fine with their endings, I think that's great.  Most players are not happy with them.  So Bioware has a chance to make money and make their customers happy by developing the "breath" scene further.  If they are willing to have a breath (which they describe in the player's guide as "Shepard lives"), then they shouldn't have a problem extending that outcome.

I won't buy the Leviathan DLC because the ending of the game currently ruins the single player experience for me.  My Shepard "lives" through my choice of Destroy, but the depiction of that result is so unsatisfying that I have no desire to relive my disappointment.  If other future DLC gives me a reason to try my chosen ending again, then I would likely do that.  If it was particularly good, it would likely cause me to go back and buy other DLC because the single player experience was worthwhile again.

Right now, it isn't.

This.  All of it.

I wish others would think like that

[Zan51]

EnvyTB075 wrote...

I still want to know what book you're supposedly writing.

Subtle.. Go see my Profile, I have updated it with the information for those who wish to know. Not putting it here because this is as off topic as I want to get.

[zambot]

PuppiesOfDeath2 wrote...

zambot wrote...

First you have to consider that most people do not play DLC, so changing anything via DLC is a dubious proposition already. Using DLC to invalidate the choices that people made would, in my opinion, be an enormous mistake. Now of course Bioware could change their mind. Someone in a suit could say, "wow, this ME stuff makes us so much money. Go make an ME4, and I don't care how much story you have to butcher to make it happen". ( If Hollywood is any indication something like that probably will happen.) Then they'll chop up the ending (or make an alternate universe / prequel). Maybe they'll pick a canon ending and ****** off everyone who didn't pick it. Maybe they'll try to preserve all three in some cheesy way (+2 augments for synthesis choosers!, synthetic enemies 20% weaker for destroy choosers! Activate Word of Shepard power once per day for Control choosers!). Who knows.

I personally wouldn't buy such a product, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be successful.

If people don't buy the DLC, then the DLC can't invalidate their ending.  If people are fine with their endings, I think that's great.  Most players are not happy with them.  So Bioware has a chance to make money and make their customers happy by developing the "breath" scene further.  If they are willing to have a breath (which they describe in the player's guide as "Shepard lives"), then they shouldn't have a problem extending that outcome.

I won't buy the Leviathan DLC because the ending of the game currently ruins the single player experience for me.  My Shepard "lives" through my choice of Destroy, but the depiction of that result is so unsatisfying that I have no desire to relive my disappointment.  If other future DLC gives me a reason to try my chosen ending again, then I would likely do that.  If it was particularly good, it would likely cause me to go back and buy other DLC because the single player experience was worthwhile again.

Right now, it isn't.

I'm not happy with the current endings.  But I'm not happy with Bioware picking one over the others either.  That pretty much goes against the reason I play Bioware games.

[Zan51]

I so want all this conjecture to be true, Like 3DandBeyond I have waited a lifeetime for a game of the caliber of the ME series, a game that is good SF, where you are a character, can make choices, see them affect your world and that of others. I don't want an Eve like game where you are stuck in "ships" and just trading, I don't want a FPS like Doom. UNREAL 1 and 2 were a taste of what I wanted, then came ME. It was amazing. I was living a life I wanted to live through an intractive kind of "book". As a writer and life long gamer, I firmly believe games of this caliber will be one of the futures of books - interactive, playing out the story.

I grew up reading real life stories about WW2 internees in Germany, Turkey and other places. It was an age of Heroes. We live in an age where no one wants them, but the human psyche needs them.
Take Douglas Bader, WW2 flying ace. As a young man he lost both legs to being stupid and flying upside down under bridges, showing off. But he became a British Icon, much like Shepard. He was indomitable, put in Colditz Castle which was the ultimate prison in Germany for constant escapees. Remember, he had no legs from about knee level down. They even took his legs away to stop him escaping, and he still escaped. I even talked to a fellow student whose father was in Colditz with him!

We need an heroic upligfting ending too. We need heroes, people to believe in, to know that despite what life throws at us, We. Can. Win.

Those who want death, destruction and gritty have it. Why should giving us something uplifting disturb you? You don't have to play that ending, but we have nothing else. And at the end of the day, wouldn't most of us prefer to remember a game that uplifted us, made us feel good to win it?

I hate losing the Geth and EDI. I genuinely care about them, and remember, we are chemical and electrically fuelled beings ourselves - think of the factory cells in our bodies, programmed to produce the chemicals we need for life. Programmed. That's the key. Like the Geth but organic. Our programming can be warped too - it's called brainwashing and indoctrination, what cults do to their followers even today. So I never saw the Geth and EDI as less than me and other organics, and hated being forced in the game to sacrifice them.

(If you have never played the Unreal games, give them a lookm they are still worth playing)

Modifié par Zan51, 15 août 2012 - 09:15 .

[3DandBeyond]

zambot wrote...


I'm not happy with the current endings.  But I'm not happy with Bioware picking one over the others either.  That pretty much goes against the reason I play Bioware games.

I don't think I get this at all.  In ME1 and 2, they picked endings and gave you ways to get them and you had good or bad ways especially in ME2 to get there.  But you got one basic ending.

In ME3, you always have a way to get the ending you want it's just expanding on what you could get if you worked for it and wanted it.  You aren't forced into it ever.  Just like right now.  If you want destroy to blow up Earth as well, then don't do a good job in the game and it can happen.

All this would do is expand what we now have.  But again it would leave the door open for any ME set in the future, which is basically cut off right now.

How would this go against the reason you play BW games?  I'm serious and not ridiculing you.  I just don't understand and possibly you can help me to understand.

I guess I also don't understand not wanting to see some expansion to maybe fix something you don't like.  I play all games to have fun.  Right now I don't find the endings fun so they kind of go against why I play all games.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 15 août 2012 - 09:46 .

[zambot]

I play Bioware games because the illusion that I can shape the world that I'm a part of tends to be very strong. KOTOR is probably my favorite Bioware game, and one of the many reasons I like that game are the two endings (with additional minor variations). The replay value for that game was very high, thanks in large part to that.

ME2, while it wasn't as different as KOTOR still offered your two alternatives to take with you to ME3. Additionally you could have dead squad members, but I'll ignore that for now since I would have replayed ME2 until I got the perfect ending (no dead squadies).

ME3 is intriguing to me largely because there is no clear "good choice". While it fails greatly on execution, it follows more the KOTOR model of different "good endings" for different Shepards. What I take issue with in your post is not that you want to improve the Destroy ending, but that you suggest "closing off" Synthesis or Control. poppycock I say! Why not a DLC that closes off Destroy? Then if you bought all DLCs you could close off all three choices and be left with Refuse! How awesome would that be?

Pre-EC one of my biggest complaints was we got 3 buttons that gave us 3 different explosion colors. Where were my different endings? The EC (for all its faults) at least fixed that problem and made each one feel very different. Let's not go backwards by removing choices from the game.

To be clear, there's nothing wrong with DLC that fixes things. EC fixed a lot of stuff. If they added DLC that fixed the ending by removing star brat, I'd buy that. If they added DLC that tried to fix the DEM part of star brat by making him relevent throughout the entire game, I might be that (I say might because I dislike the character, so I'm not sure I want more of that even though it would fix the DEM flaw).

My last complaint is with the canon issue. ME4 (which I highly doubt will happen), if it does happen, needs to be a prequel or an alternate universe. Bioware picking an ending as canon is a huge slap in the face to players who picked one of the other endings. Think about how you'd feel if ME4 game out and was basically a game about living in a transhumanist society where everyone had green eyes, but you did not pick synthesis. It'd be a different game, not the ME that you played.

[3DandBeyond]

zambot wrote...

I play Bioware games because the illusion that I can shape the world that I'm a part of tends to be very strong. KOTOR is probably my favorite Bioware game, and one of the many reasons I like that game are the two endings (with additional minor variations). The replay value for that game was very high, thanks in large part to that.

ME2, while it wasn't as different as KOTOR still offered your two alternatives to take with you to ME3. Additionally you could have dead squad members, but I'll ignore that for now since I would have replayed ME2 until I got the perfect ending (no dead squadies).

ME3 is intriguing to me largely because there is no clear "good choice". While it fails greatly on execution, it follows more the KOTOR model of different "good endings" for different Shepards. What I take issue with in your post is not that you want to improve the Destroy ending, but that you suggest "closing off" Synthesis or Control. poppycock I say! Why not a DLC that closes off Destroy? Then if you bought all DLCs you could close off all three choices and be left with Refuse! How awesome would that be?

Pre-EC one of my biggest complaints was we got 3 buttons that gave us 3 different explosion colors. Where were my different endings? The EC (for all its faults) at least fixed that problem and made each one feel very different. Let's not go backwards by removing choices from the game.

To be clear, there's nothing wrong with DLC that fixes things. EC fixed a lot of stuff. If they added DLC that fixed the ending by removing star brat, I'd buy that. If they added DLC that tried to fix the DEM part of star brat by making him relevent throughout the entire game, I might be that (I say might because I dislike the character, so I'm not sure I want more of that even though it would fix the DEM flaw).

My last complaint is with the canon issue. ME4 (which I highly doubt will happen), if it does happen, needs to be a prequel or an alternate universe. Bioware picking an ending as canon is a huge slap in the face to players who picked one of the other endings. Think about how you'd feel if ME4 game out and was basically a game about living in a transhumanist society where everyone had green eyes, but you did not pick synthesis. It'd be a different game, not the ME that you played.

Thanks for the answer.

The 2 alternatives in ME2 had nothing to do with Shepard's fate and really meant nothing to ME3.  The collector base issue was nowhere near as big an issue as is the idea of green eyed people and reapers flying around with green circuits.  The fate of the galaxy would be a real crucial issue if BW ever did want to create a sort of sequel and they would be stupid to say they'd never consider making one.  Not having one ending that would meet the ME 1-3 goal of destroying the reapers and setting the fate of the galaxy would close off the chance to ever make any ME set after ME3 with Earth humans in it.

Your last point is exactly my point.  It's counterpart is what they did in ME2 and 1.  You had an ending that you eventually got to.  BW may never decide to do any other ME story game, but they might.  They may never decide to do a future ME game, set after ME3, but they might.  If they don't create an ending that might be hard to get at and that could come as more like some real finale to Shepard's story (that so far is not finished), then any future ME set later is just truly hard to envision.  The thing is if they don't choose an ending for ME3 (which again you would never have to choose) then if they ever did make any game set after it they'd have a real problem.  They'd close the door on ever making one.

An alternate or past time period would be fun, for DLC or one game, but not in the same style that we have come to love.  People relate to playing as a human with Earth ties.  I do disagree with the idea of making Earth so central in ME3, but I do think it would ruin the flavor of ME to have the player's avatar be non-human.  People liked to create Shepards in their own image (close to it) and I've seen hundreds if not thousands of different Shepard faces all over the web.  A Turian or a Prothean looks very similar (as they show them in the game) to other Turians or Protheans.  And with this game having what amounts to many (even you) see the endings as less than great means what for prequels?  No value.  It was hard enough for Star Wars to do it, and it had an uplifting final ending.  Aside from the things not having the quality of the original movies, they all led into a bad situation that was underway-the Empire taking over.  A prequel ME would lead into the kid and reapers and what many see as a bad ending.  I, for one have no interest in learning about other people's lives in any alternate galaxy or before this time; I want to know what happens to the hero of this time.

I don't see DLC as adding more of the kid.  I see it as altering him and maybe even finally finishing with him.  He becomes more obviously messed up maybe and he could finally be shown not as a kid but as the avatar of the reapers.  Shepard, avatar of the player facing off against the avatar of the reapers, not as a boy but more as the "so be it" implies.  And Shepard at last has the chance to destroy the kid and reapers-the catalyst tries to stop this or dissuade Shepard. 

As it is the endings are the same as the original.  That's illusion and they don't show consequences.  They state them but for Control and Synthesis, people don't often admit they exist and then for all of the choices there are mostly fine slides.  Renegade Control is a bit different, but still not really giving it real consequences.  And just because they are now not the exact same endings with RGB colors really doesn't change the fact they are the same as they were.  Casey Hudson said they would not be fundamentally changed and they aren't.

The fact that you can play ME3 by itself and get the same end choices and all really does bear out the illusion of any kind of choice.  But nothing I've suggested would change any of that.  You still could choose even to not have this take effect-don't get the EMS if you don't want it.  Don't use it-in much the same way it works now.  If you want the Earth vaporized, don't get higher EMS, let the crucible be really unfinished.  All I'm suggesting is they could add certain conditions that you could meet that would complete or protect the crucible so it would be intact and would lead to a destroy that gets rid of the kid and reapers only.  You wouldn't have to do that.

But since destroy was the goal all along, it makes sense to me that this would be how it could finally conclude Shepard's story.  And ME this time in this trilogy was about Shepard VS the reapers.  Any ending that does not get rid of the reapers (control and synthesis don't) does not meet the goal of the trilogy, Shepard's goal.  And the torso does not finish Shepard's story.


With all of this I am saying they would make one ending more canon-but they already did.  Destroy is the only choice that results in the reapers being gone.  But it is made not canon because of what happens to synthetics and the big question marks that exist of what else it does.  And what it does to Shepard.  And BW specifically said this would be the end of Shepard's story, but the torso does not have an ending.  I'm also saying that getting to this type of ending could take awhile-they could make it hard to get for one thing and it wouldn't even be available until all DLC has been released.  The DLC would just expand the importance of all your EMS-what you have and what more you might earn in DLC.  And it would just make it possible to get a high EMS full Destroy.

I do know what they've said, but I do also think they know that there is a big market for people that want something that comes after ME3.  Right now, a lot of people don't see DLC as even having value.  They could add value to it and make a prequel more appealing and make a future game more possible.  As it is, sidequests are meaningless to many-no reason if all you get are the same endings.  Prequels are meaningless for the same reason.  And sequels are meaningless for many and would be confused without a clear ending to build upon.  Even if it took place thousands of years later.

People are fond of saying that all throughout the game you are told a conventional victory is impossible.  Well, anyone complaining about an ME4 without green eyed people would be guilty of doing something similar to this.  The game said conventional was impossible.  The game also said the only solution was dead reapers.  So, if impossible means the crucible, kid, and choices are needed, then the only solution (dead reapers) means destroy.  Everyone said that.  Control was repeatedly rejected as was the idea of synthesis.  So it does make sense to meet the goal, Shepard's goal in some final DLC.  It would bring the story full circle (what stories should do). 

It would also make the other choices more fun for people to try since those that now feel like they don't have any ending, don't want anything to do with any of them, but they might play them out if they knew a decent ending (for them) was possible.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 16 août 2012 - 02:39 .

[christrek1982]

AresKeith wrote...

iakus wrote...

PuppiesOfDeath2 wrote...

If people don't buy the DLC, then the DLC can't invalidate their ending.  If people are fine with their endings, I think that's great.  Most players are not happy with them.  So Bioware has a chance to make money and make their customers happy by developing the "breath" scene further.  If they are willing to have a breath (which they describe in the player's guide as "Shepard lives"), then they shouldn't have a problem extending that outcome.

I won't buy the Leviathan DLC because the ending of the game currently ruins the single player experience for me.  My Shepard "lives" through my choice of Destroy, but the depiction of that result is so unsatisfying that I have no desire to relive my disappointment.  If other future DLC gives me a reason to try my chosen ending again, then I would likely do that.  If it was particularly good, it would likely cause me to go back and buy other DLC because the single player experience was worthwhile again.

Right now, it isn't.

This.  All of it.

I wish others would think like that

I agree 100% I'm conflicted I'm sure the DLC will be grate but the ending is so depressing that it just is not worth puting myself through it a second time just for 1-2 hours of DLC.  but if they sorted ithe ending in such a way where you see that shepard is alive and has been rescued then I'd go back and buy all the DLC.

[Wu the Lotus Blossom]

christrek1982 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

iakus wrote...

PuppiesOfDeath2 wrote...

If people don't buy the DLC, then the DLC can't invalidate their ending.  If people are fine with their endings, I think that's great.  Most players are not happy with them.  So Bioware has a chance to make money and make their customers happy by developing the "breath" scene further.  If they are willing to have a breath (which they describe in the player's guide as "Shepard lives"), then they shouldn't have a problem extending that outcome.

I won't buy the Leviathan DLC because the ending of the game currently ruins the single player experience for me.  My Shepard "lives" through my choice of Destroy, but the depiction of that result is so unsatisfying that I have no desire to relive my disappointment.  If other future DLC gives me a reason to try my chosen ending again, then I would likely do that.  If it was particularly good, it would likely cause me to go back and buy other DLC because the single player experience was worthwhile again.

Right now, it isn't.

This.  All of it.

I wish others would think like that

I agree 100% I'm conflicted I'm sure the DLC will be grate but the ending is so depressing that it just is not worth puting myself through it a second time just for 1-2 hours of DLC.  but if they sorted ithe ending in such a way where you see that shepard is alive and has been rescued then I'd go back and buy all the DLC.

I completely agree with you. If we'd get the closure we're craving for, I'd buy every single piece of DLC and replay everything all over again.

[zambot]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Your last point is exactly my point.  It's counterpart is what they did in ME2 and 1.  You had an ending that you eventually got to. 

Here's the thing though.  ME1 and ME2 were part of a trilogy.  Bioware has made no secret of the fact that they planned 3 titles for this series, so it makes sense for ME1 and ME2 to end at a point where the series could continue without huge diverging paths.  ME3 is the planned end, and as such, they have freedom to end it different ways for different people, like KOTOR.  I say "like KOTOR" because it's very clear from KOTOR2 that KOTOR2 was never planned.

Mass Effect is not Dr. Who or Star Trek.  It wasn't planned to go on indefinitely.  It is a trilogy.  Any attempts at a true sequel (ME4 post ME3) will feel tacky and wrong because of the way ME3 ended.  What you are suggesting is to change the ending of ME3 so much that it can support itself indefinitely, which in my opinion would be a mistake.

But since destroy was the goal all along, it makes sense to me that this would be how it could finally conclude Shepard's story.  And ME this time in this trilogy was about Shepard VS the reapers.  Any ending that does not get rid of the reapers (control and synthesis don't) does not meet the goal of the trilogy, Shepard's goal.  And the torso does not finish Shepard's story.

No.  The goal of the triliogy is to end the reaper threat.  You can do it through killing them (Destroy), enslaving them (Control), or making peace with them (Synthesis).  Then you can come on BSN and chastise other people for picking the ones that were more criminal.  (The more this goes on, the more I think this was intended by Bioware).  Goals change as Shepard gets new information.  

With all of this I am saying they would make one ending more canon-but they already did.  Destroy is the only choice that results in the reapers being gone.  But it is made not canon because of what happens to synthetics and the big question marks that exist of what else it does.  And what it does to Shepard.  And BW specifically said this would be the end of Shepard's story, but the torso does not have an ending.  I'm also saying that getting to this type of ending could take awhile-they could make it hard to get for one thing and it wouldn't even be available until all DLC has been released.  The DLC would just expand the importance of all your EMS-what you have and what more you might earn in DLC.  And it would just make it possible to get a high EMS full Destroy.

I disagree any one ending is canon.  The reapers being gone isnt the only way to stop the reaper threat.  They could improve Destroy, but they could also improve Control or Synthesis.  They could make a control where Shepard retains more of her former self.  They could make a sythesis that isn't so "magical" but still results in peace with the reapers.  They could do all of these things.  I'm guessing they won't.

I do know what they've said, but I do also think they know that there is a big market for people that want something that comes after ME3.  Right now, a lot of people don't see DLC as even having value.  They could add value to it and make a prequel more appealing and make a future game more possible.  As it is, sidequests are meaningless to many-no reason if all you get are the same endings.  Prequels are meaningless for the same reason.  And sequels are meaningless for many and would be confused without a clear ending to build upon.  Even if it took place thousands of years later.

This didn't stop them from making DLC for ME2.  I largely saw them having no value.  People who want to play more ME3, will by the DLC.  People who don't care, won't.  


Anyway, I suspect we'll just have to disagree on this.  I want a game with 3+ distinct endings.  I really wish it wasn't a "choose a button at the end" given to us by a DEM.  But that's what we got.  However, I don't consider it an improvement by chopping it down from 3 to 1, then making an ME4 based on that one.  

[clennon8]

zambot wrote...

No.  The goal of the triliogy is to end the reaper threat.

I know that what you're saying probably sounds like it ought to be correct, but it simply isn't.  The goal was always to destroy the Reapers.  All the way through the entire series until the last 10 minutes that is.  Control and Synthesis were rejected at every turn by Shepard until the Reaper Overlord suggested them, at which point Shepard is like "I have been blind and now I can see!"  And then I barfed.

Modifié par clennon8, 16 août 2012 - 02:48 .

[zambot]

clennon8 wrote...

zambot wrote...

No.  The goal of the triliogy is to end the reaper threat.

I know that what you're saying probably sounds like it ought to be correct, but it simply isn't.  The goal was always to destroy the Reapers.  All the way through the entire series until the last 10 minutes that is.  Control and Synthesis were rejected at every turn by Shepard until the Reaper Overlord suggested them, at which point Shepard is like "I have been blind and now I can see!"  And then I barfed.

First, I agree.  Springing all this stuff on us in the last 10 minutes was a mistake.  

But I disagree the goal is to destroy the Reapers.  I am quite sure that if Shepard was ever presented the possibility 
 before the crucible came along  to reprogram them or strand them in deep space, he/she would have taken it.  The goal, all along, was to stop the reapers from killing everyone using any means possible.  Destroying them is the most direct route.

[clennon8]

Shepard was presented with the concepts of Control and Synthesis earlier in the series and roundly rejected them.

Modifié par clennon8, 16 août 2012 - 03:20 .

[3DandBeyond]

zambot wrote...


Here's the thing though.  ME1 and ME2 were part of a trilogy.  Bioware has made no secret of the fact that they planned 3 titles for this series, so it makes sense for ME1 and ME2 to end at a point where the series could continue without huge diverging paths.  ME3 is the planned end, and as such, they have freedom to end it different ways for different people, like KOTOR.  I say "like KOTOR" because it's very clear from KOTOR2 that KOTOR2 was never planned.

Mass Effect is not Dr. Who or Star Trek.  It wasn't planned to go on indefinitely.  It is a trilogy.  Any attempts at a true sequel (ME4 post ME3) will feel tacky and wrong because of the way ME3 ended.  What you are suggesting is to change the ending of ME3 so much that it can support itself indefinitely, which in my opinion would be a mistake.

No.  The goal of the triliogy is to end the reaper threat.  You can do it through killing them (Destroy), enslaving them (Control), or making peace with them (Synthesis).  Then you can come on BSN and chastise other people for picking the ones that were more criminal.  (The more this goes on, the more I think this was intended by Bioware).  Goals change as Shepard gets new information.  

I disagree any one ending is canon.  The reapers being gone isnt the only way to stop the reaper threat.  They could improve Destroy, but they could also improve Control or Synthesis.  They could make a control where Shepard retains more of her former self.  They could make a sythesis that isn't so "magical" but still results in peace with the reapers.  They could do all of these things.  I'm guessing they won't.

This didn't stop them from making DLC for ME2.  I largely saw them having no value.  People who want to play more ME3, will by the DLC.  People who don't care, won't.  

Anyway, I suspect we'll just have to disagree on this.  I want a game with 3+ distinct endings.  I really wish it wasn't a "choose a button at the end" given to us by a DEM.  But that's what we got.  However, I don't consider it an improvement by chopping it down from 3 to 1, then making an ME4 based on that one.  

Actually, all that Bioware has ever repeatedly said is that ME3 is the end of Shepard's story.  And it still would be.  But in order to have any ME game (they have never said they would not have more ME games), they would be cutting off their noses to shut off a game set in the future-most people that I've read posts and wishes from have desired this.  It doesn't make sense for them to cut off that venue completely, even if they decide to never use it.  They wouldn't want to rule out a potential cash cow.

The goal was to destroy the reapers.   Hackett said it repeatedly.  It's ok for him and believable when he says conventional victory is impossible (and that is canon) but when he says the only solution to the reaper problem is dead reapers that isn't?  The goal was never to have reapers flying around as neighbors or the galactic police and the very idea that they would still exist is one of the main things that makes the other choices questionable.

In Destroy the kid links the state of the crucible (it is largely intact) to its inability to discriminate.  That does imply if it were complete then it would work correctly.  Refuse even implies that a future cycle did this.  Liara gives them the crucible plans and tells them what to do.

You keep ignoring that I've said that doesn't mean you couldn't make a different choice and you wrongly state it gives you only one choice.  What I propose does not do that.  It makes one choice more fully achieve the goal.  Neither Synthesis nor Control do that.  And they were never what any reputable person in the game wanted.  They couldn't become canon because no one ever wanted to do that in the game, unless indoctrinated or crazy.  On the contrary, everyone wanted to destroy them. 

DLC in ME2 wasn't adding things to the end of a game and the game wasn't the end of a story.  And ME2 had a more relatable ending, a better ending.  Leviathan will add to the end of ME3 which is the end of the story.  A story that a lot of people don't like.  These people would be giddy about buying Leviathan if the ending was better.  I think if the ending could be made better, they'd still buy it.  And they'd be open to an ME4.

Also consider ME3 originally was supposed to leave the galaxy as a wasteland, and that goes along with the idea that no game could come after it.  It is no longer a wasteland.  People change their minds all the time.  If they made a decent ending possible (Shepard lives is possible, but Shepard could die even if the geth, EDI, and synthetics survive), I'd be in line for ME4 and all DLC.  Since a lot of people are willing to even just buy reunion DLC, I think others would grudgingly climb on board for an improved ending with that reunion.

[ShepnTali]

Yeah, there's quite a bit that can happen here. Find something out with Leviathen, and maybe the destroy/geth line is omitted from the dialogue, therefore it doesn't happen. We'll see. This can be interesting if it chooses to be.

[3DandBeyond]

clennon8 wrote...

zambot wrote...

No.  The goal of the triliogy is to end the reaper threat.

I know that what you're saying probably sounds like it ought to be correct, but it simply isn't.  The goal was always to destroy the Reapers.  All the way through the entire series until the last 10 minutes that is.  Control and Synthesis were rejected at every turn by Shepard until the Reaper Overlord suggested them, at which point Shepard is like "I have been blind and now I can see!"  And then I barfed.

Exactly.  Anyone that wanted Control or Synthesis is seen as either crazy, indoctrinated, or a reaper.  Hackett says destroying them is the only choice-and the game even shows Shepard's mentor and father figure choosing Destroy.  It's rather clear.  But, they couldn't make it too obvious so they added costs to it.  The geth, EDI, synthetics die.  But that's a problem, too.  You might not care about the geth or EDI, but you should care about Shepard.  So Shepard is a torso.  And they have determined that that could mean Shepard dies or lives.  ME3 was to end Shepard's story, but the torso is not done.

[Feanor_II]

I'm not for an ambious "good choice", letting the rest as idiotic choices. You like one of the endings more? Fine but accept the pros and cons, not chanrge your favourite with "pros" and the other with "cons"....

In my case, and I've said millions of times, in this kind of games I love the ambiguty and the dilemas, no excitement, no fun, no "brain squishing" in having an obvious good choice.

[ShepnTali]

I'm fine with idiotic choices being optional. They are defended heartily.