319 réponses à ce sujet

[3DandBeyond]

Feanor_II wrote...

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.

Ok, but ambiguity and dilemma, no excitment and no fun-that just doesn't define a great game for me.  Games feature wins.  ME3 has no win.  Me1 and 2 had wins.  ME3 has a boss conversation.

I only like destroy more in theory, not in practice.  The "costs" for it are artificial so that it is not the canon ending that it really is.  Synthesis and Control were never goals.  Destroy was.  If destroy wasn't, then conventional victory is possible.  People must accept canon as canon-I get told that every time I state they could have made conventional (unconventional) fighting work.  I'm told that impossible is canon.  So, I do know that it is.  People in the game keep saying it.  Just as they keep saying destroy is.  I didn't write it.  Bioware did.  I keep getting told it's their game and so it is and they made destroy canon.  Sorry, they did that, not me.

And you would still be able to and free to always choose synthesis and control to your heart's content.  If those are canon to you then you needn't pick destroy ever.  If you would pick destroy, then they aren't canon to you.  Just as right now you can vaporize Earth if that is what is real to you.  You and others seem to think this would take away the ending you like-it wouldn't.  It would merely establish lore that any new game could be based upon.  You could even head canon all of it if you want, since supposedly the rest of us should have no problem head canoning a good ending.  It might be nice for others to get in on the fun and head canon their endings too.  I keep getting told that head canoning Shepard alive is great and valid.  So everyone should have to do it.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 16 août 2012 - 03:19 .

[Gilberts5150]

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.

Ditto for me....
 I completely bought ME for single player (play very very little multi) experience and now I sorta I feel little incentive to add to EMS or get new weapons or anything due to the ending that still will come and I have no interest in seeing that ending again, killed replay value for me. This is someone who played through ME1 and 2 a ton and started I have no idea how maybe Sheperds that i did not finish with just to see other options. I loved playing through those games but the ending of 3 even took that away. If they add end game content or more changes to it then maybe I will buy it....but would feel dumb having to buy a good ending...when I payed for the one I have already sadly.

[oldag07]

The end is supposed to be a difficult decision.  Like saving or destroying the base.

[clennon8]

oldag07 wrote...

The end is supposed to be a difficult decision. 

Sure, I suppose that's a valid objective.  But here's the thing.  The choice we have isn't difficult so much as infuriating.  If it were truly "difficult," Destroy wouldn't be the most popular choice by a wide margin.  To a great many of us, Control and Synthesis are inherently unchoosable (if I may make up a word).  Therefore, Destroy is winning by default.  I saw a post yesterday where someone mentioned he would still pick Destroy even if it wiped out all life in the galaxy for the entire cycle.  I think I agree with him.

Let's face it.  A lot of fans have walked away from this game, and half (?) of the fans that are still around are still agitated to some degree over the endings.  So, in all of my self-servingness and undeserved entitlement, I do hereby say that Bioware might as well give us what we want.  A better Destroy ending.

And if we're so lucky as to get that better ending, and you're still the sort that wants to turn the galaxy green, or the sort that wants to become the Catalyst's successor, then go for it.  We wouldn't want to take that away from you.

Modifié par clennon8, 16 août 2012 - 04:14 .

[3DandBeyond]

oldag07 wrote...

The end is supposed to be a difficult decision.  Like saving or destroying the base.

No, the ending should be difficult to get to like saving everyone on the suicide mission.  Why was it called a suicide mission and not something like destroy the collectors?  Because you had to destroy the collectors.  Saving or destroying the base was only a difficult decision to make because you wondered what it would mean for ME3.  I never wanted to save it because TIM wanted that.  And I thought he had bad motives and he'd really kept screwing over Shepard.  Once I played ME3, the decision about the base was easy.  It doesn't make a difference for anything much in ME3.  So, again it does not compare.  You can save or destroy it and still move on and everything is ok as long as you kill the collectors.

The difficult part was completing the mission, not some random moral choice.  It was difficult to save your crewmembers and teammates, not deciding to do it.

And there were consequences if you didn't do things in time.  ME3 doesn't show truly bad consequences-even killing EDI and the geth and Shepard torso aren't consequences since consequences happen after.  They are costs.  And ME2 didn't ask you to pay such costs to get the collectors.

[Mad-Hamlet]

The only thing that would make the Destroy Ending better would be:

If you choose destroy, it will wipe out The Reapers...and anyone who has never heard of plot pacing'.

[3DandBeyond]

clennon8 wrote...

oldag07 wrote...

The end is supposed to be a difficult decision. 

Sure, I suppose that's a valid objective.  But here's the thing.  The choice we have isn't difficult so much as infuriating.  If it were truly "difficult," Destroy wouldn't be the most popular choice by a wide margin.  To a great many of us, Control and Synthesis are inherently unchoosable (if I may make up a word).  Therefore, Destroy is winning by default.  I saw a post yesterday where someone mentioned he would still pick Destroy even if it wiped out all life in the galaxy for the entire cycle.  I think I agree with him.

Let's face it.  A lot of fans have walked away from this game, and half (?) of the fans that are still around are still agitated to some degree over the endings.  So, in all of my self-servingness and undeserved entitlement, I do herefore say that Bioware might as well give us what we want.  A better Destroy ending.

And if we're so lucky as to get that better ending, and you're still the sort that wants to turn the galaxy green, or the sort that wants to become the Catalyst's successor, then go for it.  We wouldn't want to take that away from you.

Exactly.  My idea may not be the right way or a good way, but I thought it might be the easiest and least disruptive way (internally for the game).  It would leave everything basically as they are and available and merely add to the ending we have by using "new" war assets that are specific to protecting or finishing the crucible and your prior EMS and changing up dialogue and some end scenes and slides.  That to me is minimally invasive.  And it does not change what anyone has or could get now.  I see the "better" Destroy ending as even being difficult to get.  It could be triggered by dialogue in the way Refuse is.  For instance, saying that you have only ever wanted to Destroy them (harsher than this) might cause a change in the kid that disrupts his programming, but only if that is opened up-there could even be renegade or paragon interrupts or choices.  Otherwise, you might still only have the Destroy you now have.

I'm saying creating an additional hard to get Destroy.  It uses the crucible, which keeps the writers' idea fundamentally intact, but your decisions could make the kid less valid.  If you like the other choices for endings, then you might validate other ideas.  For instance if you think Synthesis is a way to peace then there could even be dialogue to go along with that-it's a difficult choice, but you do it because it will save everyone.  But if you are set and decide Destroy is it, that would make that dialogue choice never happen.

[Eryri]

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.

Well said. I wholeheartedly agree.

[Wu the Lotus Blossom]

People will keep fighting about this for a long time... All I know is that I need the drive to play through the entire series again. It's my favorite game of all time and I NEED that drive. I miss that joy and excitement and sense of expectation, I miss building the relationships with those amazing characters and the hope that by their side I'll be heading towards something grand. I don't hate Mass Effect and I don't hate Bioware, I just wish they'd empathize with those of us who feel the story is incomplete, to empathize with the feelings that they themselves influenced and just try to SEE what it is we're saying. I'm not being coherent, I get that, but I'm sitting here next to my bf who is playing ME2 and has that sense of excitement that I don't have anymore. And it affects me more than I'd have ever imagined something fictional could.

[Eryri]

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.

You make some very good points. I for one wouldn't touch a post synthesis ME4 with a barge pole (The Eyes! shudders).

However I disagree that DLC that favours Destroy would be "a slap in the face". This is the last game in a trilogy so the final choice is essentially meaningless anyway because we will never get to see the consequences of that choice in any substantial way. 

The consequences of the final choice have such radically divergent consequences for the setting, that it will be impossible for Bioware to ever make a sequel that takes them into account.

It's probably logistically impossible to make a game with a coherent plot that can support both Synthesis (everyone's green, reapers everywhere) and Destroy (no Geth or Reapers, lots of ruins).

This means that the Mass Effect Universe is effectively dead, at least in terms of games. Possibly people could write novels taking one or other of the choices as canon, but they're not really my cup of tea. And prequel games wouldn't appeal to me at all - I know how everything turns out already. If we can never experience a living, breathing game world based on our choice, then that choice doesn't really matter.

To cut a rambling wall of text short, my point is that as the final choice is meaningless and illusory - very few people will feel agrieved if Destroy turns out to be the canonical "best" choice that is improved further with DLC. Particularly as it seems to be by far the most popular anyway - at least that's my impression from these boards. 

Modifié par Eryri, 16 août 2012 - 05:13 .

[MartinPenwald]

Eryri wrote...

The consequences of the final choice have such radically divergent consequences for the setting, that it will be impossible for Bioware to ever make a sequel that takes them into account.

It's probably logistically impossible to make a game with a coherent plot that can support both Synthesis (everyone's green, reapers everywhere) and Destroy (no Geth or Reapers, lots of ruins).

This means that the Mass Effect Universe is effectively dead, at least in terms of games. Possibly people could write novels taking one or other of the choices as canon, but they're not really my cup of tea. And prequel games wouldn't appeal to me at all - I know how everything turns out already. If we can never experience a living, breathing game world based on our choice, then that choice doesn't really matter.

Agreed. I have no idea how Bioware wants to handle this IP in the future, considering how badly they snafud the end with the choices. If the choices had been on a smaller scale, i.e. ME2 suicide mission style where, based on what you choose, squadmates/NPCs live or die but the overall picture is the same, I could see a ME4 in the future, but right now? Not really.

[3DandBeyond]

Eryri wrote...


You make some very good points. I for one wouldn't touch a post synthesis ME4 with a barge pole (The Eyes! shudders).

However I disagree that DLC that favours Destroy would be "a slap in the face". This is the last game in a trilogy so the final choice is essentially meaningless anyway because we will never get to see the consequences of that choice in any substantial way. 

The consequences of the final choice have such radically divergent consequences for the setting, that it will be impossible for Bioware to ever make a sequel that takes them into account.

It's probably logistically impossible to make a game with a coherent plot that can support both Synthesis (everyone's green, reapers everywhere) and Destroy (no Geth or Reapers, lots of ruins).

This means that the Mass Effect Universe is effectively dead, at least in terms of games. Possibly people could write novels taking one or other of the choices as canon, but they're not really my cup of tea. And prequel games wouldn't appeal to me at all - I know how everything turns out already. If we can never experience a living, breathing game world based on our choice, then that choice doesn't really matter.

To cut a rambling wall of text short, my point is that as the final choice is meaningless and illusory - very few people will feel agrieved if Destroy turns out to be the canonical "best" choice that is improved further with DLC. Particularly as it seems to be by far the most popular anyway - at least that's my impression from these boards. 

That's what I take from the boards as well.  I read people saying that if they made a "better" destroy ending then everyone would choose it.  Well that's the point.  But, it wouldn't be like it would happen tomorrow or even would be achieved easily.  It just would be possible.  And if everyone would choose it then the most important reason is because people would want it.  Saying everyone would choose it is a reason to make it happen and not a reason to not make it happen.

[Eryri]

3DandBeyond wrote...

That's what I take from the boards as well.  I read people saying that if they made a "better" destroy ending then everyone would choose it.  Well that's the point.  But, it wouldn't be like it would happen tomorrow or even would be achieved easily.  It just would be possible.  And if everyone would choose it then the most important reason is because people would want it.  Saying everyone would choose it is a reason to make it happen and not a reason to not make it happen.

Exactly. If the "choice" is meaningless, they might as well give us one ending with the feel-good factor that most people seem to want.

Personally I didn't play ME3 to "control" the reapers, "merge with" the reapers" or even to "destroy" the reapers.

I played it to have fun! 

Call me shallow and unsophisticated but I like happy endings.

[zambot]

MartinPenwald wrote...

Eryri wrote...

The consequences of the final choice have such radically divergent consequences for the setting, that it will be impossible for Bioware to ever make a sequel that takes them into account.

It's probably logistically impossible to make a game with a coherent plot that can support both Synthesis (everyone's green, reapers everywhere) and Destroy (no Geth or Reapers, lots of ruins).

This means that the Mass Effect Universe is effectively dead, at least in terms of games. Possibly people could write novels taking one or other of the choices as canon, but they're not really my cup of tea. And prequel games wouldn't appeal to me at all - I know how everything turns out already. If we can never experience a living, breathing game world based on our choice, then that choice doesn't really matter.

Agreed. I have no idea how Bioware wants to handle this IP in the future, considering how badly they snafud the end with the choices. If the choices had been on a smaller scale, i.e. ME2 suicide mission style where, based on what you choose, squadmates/NPCs live or die but the overall picture is the same, I could see a ME4 in the future, but right now? Not really.

I was about to agree with you, but as I started typing a response, I realized the endings are not so different that they preclude a sequel.  100 years after Shepard:

All the relays are functional again
The reapers (if they survived) have gone back into deep space or to some remote part of the galaxy under the control of Shepard or of their own volition
Society has embarked on a transhuman path, but is a little more advanced if synthesis was chosen (hey +1 aug for your character!)
Geth have been rebuilt if destroyed.  If destroy was picked they lose the ability to do the "Legion dance"
Green eyes and skin are retconned and they fade over time.
Shepard, if survived ME3 has a grave site next to his/her LI (or in the case of an LI that can live past 100 years, can be met in game).

Note, I am not claiming this is "Good", but I have seen worse when it comes to writing in unplanned sequels.

[Eryri]

zambot wrote...


I was about to agree with you, but as I started typing a response, I realized the endings are not so different that they preclude a sequel.  100 years after Shepard:

All the relays are functional again
The reapers (if they survived) have gone back into deep space or to some remote part of the galaxy under the control of Shepard or of their own volition
Society has embarked on a transhuman path, but is a little more advanced if synthesis was chosen (hey +1 aug for your character!)
Geth have been rebuilt if destroyed.  If destroy was picked they lose the ability to do the "Legion dance"
Green eyes and skin are retconned and they fade over time.
Shepard, if survived ME3 has a grave site next to his/her LI (or in the case of an LI that can live past 100 years, can be met in game).

Note, I am not claiming this is "Good", but I have seen worse when it comes to writing in unplanned sequels.

That's actually a very clever way of fixing this, less than ideal, situation. However I'd find it hard to get involved with a completely new cast of characters in such a game, as everyone but Liara, Grunt and Wrex would be long dead. 

Plus it normalises all the choices into almost identical outcomes, so it still renders the final decision moot. Bioware may as well pick one canon choice now in the service of creating one satisfying ending rather than 3 mediocre ones that have no major consequences anyway.

Modifié par Eryri, 16 août 2012 - 05:45 .

[PuppiesOfDeath2]

Eryri wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

That's what I take from the boards as well.  I read people saying that if they made a "better" destroy ending then everyone would choose it.  Well that's the point.  But, it wouldn't be like it would happen tomorrow or even would be achieved easily.  It just would be possible.  And if everyone would choose it then the most important reason is because people would want it.  Saying everyone would choose it is a reason to make it happen and not a reason to not make it happen.

Exactly. If the "choice" is meaningless, they might as well give us one ending with the feel-good factor that most people seem to want.

Personally I didn't play ME3 to "control" the reapers, "merge with" the reapers" or even to "destroy" the reapers.

I played it to have fun! 

Call me shallow and unsophisticated but I like happy endings.

I wouldn't call you either one.  That makes perfect sense to me.

[zambot]

Eryri wrote...


That's actually quite a clever way of fixing this. However I'd find it hard to get involved with a completely new cast of characters as everyone but Liara, Grunt and Wrex would be long dead. 

Plus it normalises all the choices into almost identical outcomes, so it still renders the final decision moot.

Regardless of what happens, if there is a sequel,  I cannot imagine anything but cameos for the current chracters.  New story, new characters, new protagonist, new writing team etc.  The new development team will want a clean slate on which to work without the baggage of having to track little threads for who is dead, who is alive, etc.

[3DandBeyond]

zambot wrote...


I was about to agree with you, but as I started typing a response, I realized the endings are not so different that they preclude a sequel.  100 years after Shepard:

All the relays are functional again
The reapers (if they survived) have gone back into deep space or to some remote part of the galaxy under the control of Shepard or of their own volition
Society has embarked on a transhuman path, but is a little more advanced if synthesis was chosen (hey +1 aug for your character!)
Geth have been rebuilt if destroyed.  If destroy was picked they lose the ability to do the "Legion dance"
Green eyes and skin are retconned and they fade over time.
Shepard, if survived ME3 has a grave site next to his/her LI (or in the case of an LI that can live past 100 years, can be met in game).

Note, I am not claiming this is "Good", but I have seen worse when it comes to writing in unplanned sequels.

Interesting and clever, but.

You can't just rebuild the geth nor EDI.  They won't be the same people.  It's like saying you can replace a child that dies with a new one.

Control is ominous in either version, but moreso for a renegade-this doesn't bode well and would ring inauthentic for the reapers to just leave or be sent off.  And Shreaper would be forever. 

Synthesis would require every scene and character be modeled in 2 different ways-one green and one not green.  I guess they could retcon it, but starting out a new ME series on a retcon would maybe be a bad way to start, though that didn't really stop them before.

It would also presumably create a different type of society, one based on a reaper path of knowledge.  The other would be based on tech created by people of the galaxy without reaper interference.  And the other if under Control would potentially be a truly autocratic type of existence-more like the Protheans.

I'm not dismissing this out of hand but I just see the 3 "worlds" and societies as fundamentally different-people would all have different psyches.

But, it would still have a huge problem.  A large segment of people wouldn't buy it.  I wouldn't. I want this one finished satisifactorily.  And how would you decide what type of game you get-synthesized people, controlled, or those that destroyed.  I'm saying they would not be using your save game from ME3 at all.  And it's very likely that a new game may show up when the new consoles arrive.  This would be a new series and would only mention a few things that happened in this ME.  It could have "older" characters show up, but not have main recurring roles. 

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 16 août 2012 - 05:49 .

[Eryri]

zambot wrote...

Eryri wrote...


That's actually quite a clever way of fixing this. However I'd find it hard to get involved with a completely new cast of characters as everyone but Liara, Grunt and Wrex would be long dead. 

Plus it normalises all the choices into almost identical outcomes, so it still renders the final decision moot.

Regardless of what happens, if there is a sequel,  I cannot imagine anything but cameos for the current chracters.  New story, new characters, new protagonist, new writing team etc.  The new development team will want a clean slate on which to work without the baggage of having to track little threads for who is dead, who is alive, etc.

On second thought, I do like the idea of creating my own protagonist in a future game; possibly a member of a different species. My only reservation is that I like having a voiced protagonist. I couldn't get in to DA Origins because the main character was mute and expressionless.

It might be difficult and expensive to get multiple VAs to voice a Turian, and an Asari, and a Krogan and so on as the main character.

Plus I would like to see the old crew in cameo roles. I'm very fond of the likes of Garrus and Joker as characters, so I'd like them to still be around. Best of all would be interacting with a version of our Shepard, promoted to an Admiral Hackett / Anderson mentor role, and with a personality based on our playstyle in the previous game. This of course would require high EMS Destroy.

However, I would need to have ME3 fixed before I could invest, either emotionally or financially, in another Bioware game.

Modifié par Eryri, 16 août 2012 - 06:02 .

[CommanderShwan]

zambot wrote...

I was about to agree with you, but as I started typing a response, I realized the endings are not so different that they preclude a sequel.  100 years after Shepard:

All the relays are functional again
The reapers (if they survived) have gone back into deep space or to some remote part of the galaxy under the control of Shepard or of their own volition
Society has embarked on a transhuman path, but is a little more advanced if synthesis was chosen (hey +1 aug for your character!)
Geth have been rebuilt if destroyed.  If destroy was picked they lose the ability to do the "Legion dance"
Green eyes and skin are retconned and they fade over time.
Shepard, if survived ME3 has a grave site next to his/her LI (or in the case of an LI that can live past 100 years, can be met in game).

Note, I am not claiming this is "Good", but I have seen worse when it comes to writing in unplanned sequels.

Except if Mass Effect 4 had any antagonist that got to the point of threatening a fairly large portion of the galaxy, then Catashep's Reaper Police squad would show up and just beat the crap out of them. So this antagonist would have to develop some way to placate/defend against the reapers which would of course then open the book wide open for a conventional victory argument in the first place.

The synthesis epilogue extremely points towards the end of all hostilities completely(as if the entire galaxy was indoctrinated/brainwashed hmmm.....). There simply wouldn't be a conflict if Sythesis was around because everyone is kumbayaa being half robot/half person. Even if synthesis didn't indoctrinate the galaxy, the antagonist would still have to find a way to stop the now friendly reapers from stopping their plans, which again would require a plot device that would invalidate the Catalyst and the ending to begin with.

The only canon ending Bioware can go with without retconning the heck out of their story is Destroy. There are no more reapers or geth or EDI, but the galaxy still has it's free will and a conniving Aria has an entire Mercenary Legion to start carving out her own galactic empire, and I'm sure some Salarians aren't going to let the fact that the Krogan are breeding like rabbits just be forgiven. Then you'd have every race all smiles to eachother but in reality they'd all be trying to grab up as much reaper tech as they can (much like the Asari didn't mind to tell anyone about the prothean beacon in their back yard even while the entire universe was on fire around them). Batarians are probably a mixed bag as well, they might start striking out against the galaxy since they are all but extinct and no one helped them.

[PuppiesOfDeath2]

Gilberts5150 wrote...

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.

Ditto for me....
 I completely bought ME for single player (play very very little multi) experience and now I sorta I feel little incentive to add to EMS or get new weapons or anything due to the ending that still will come and I have no interest in seeing that ending again, killed replay value for me. This is someone who played through ME1 and 2 a ton and started I have no idea how maybe Sheperds that i did not finish with just to see other options. I loved playing through those games but the ending of 3 even took that away. If they add end game content or more changes to it then maybe I will buy it....but would feel dumb having to buy a good ending...when I payed for the one I have already sadly.

I hear you completely.  I think I had 8 saved ME2 games.  Renegade/Paragon, different classes, LIs, etc.  And I enjoyed trying and beating Insanity because I loved the final scenes and battle with your crew.  (Wasn't it hard to hear your crewmate in the hot tube on the Collector Base urging you to hurry up and open the next hatch?)  It was rewarding to achieve with the higher difficulty too (the Disabled Collector Ship on Insanity was a bear!) 

That feeling isn't there at all in ME3.  It was a real, unexpected, and disappointing surprise to me.  (All of those potential ME2 imports are just going to waste.)

[zambot]

CommanderShwan wrote...


Except if Mass Effect 4 had any antagonist that got to the point of threatening a fairly large portion of the galaxy, then Catashep's Reaper Police squad would show up and just beat the crap out of them. So this antagonist would have to develop some way to placate/defend against the reapers which would of course then open the book wide open for a conventional victory argument in the first place.

Never underestimate the lengths writers will go...  

Future antagoinst develops new crucible like device.  He unveils it to the galaxy by wiping out the system that the reapers were on (or if dead already) he wipes out <insert random race here>.  Now, the galaxy torn apart by fear, must rely on one person, who is plagued by dreams of the past and struggling to come to terms with a new, rare form of Biotic power.  It's up to this one individual to form a rag-tag team to take on this new menace before he unleashes this terrible force upon.....EARTH!

Edit: This needs a title!  Mass Effect 4: Genesis!

Modifié par zambot, 16 août 2012 - 06:15 .

[CommanderShwan]

zambot wrote...

CommanderShwan wrote...


Except if Mass Effect 4 had any antagonist that got to the point of threatening a fairly large portion of the galaxy, then Catashep's Reaper Police squad would show up and just beat the crap out of them. So this antagonist would have to develop some way to placate/defend against the reapers which would of course then open the book wide open for a conventional victory argument in the first place.

Never underestimate the lengths writers will go...  

Future antagoinst develops new crucible like device.  He unveils it to the galaxy by wiping out the system that the reapers were on (or if dead already) he wipes out <insert random race here>.  Now, the galaxy torn apart by fear, must rely on one person, who is plagued by dreams of the past and struggling to come to terms with a new, rare form of Biotic power.  It's up to this one individual to form a rag-tag team to take on this new menace before he unleashes this terrible force upon.....EARTH!

Yeah, that'd be an incredible length considering this guy would have to kidnap countless scientists, probably take over or construct on his own an Insanely large construction dock (at a time when the ENTIRE galaxy needs these things since they're all rebuilding too) let alone secure the vast quantities of resources needed to build another catalyst.

THEN he has drive it undetected all way to EARTH to USE IT.

In short, Your story is implausible.

[zambot]

CommanderShwan wrote...

zambot wrote...

CommanderShwan wrote...


Except if Mass Effect 4 had any antagonist that got to the point of threatening a fairly large portion of the galaxy, then Catashep's Reaper Police squad would show up and just beat the crap out of them. So this antagonist would have to develop some way to placate/defend against the reapers which would of course then open the book wide open for a conventional victory argument in the first place.

Never underestimate the lengths writers will go...  

Future antagoinst develops new crucible like device.  He unveils it to the galaxy by wiping out the system that the reapers were on (or if dead already) he wipes out <insert random race here>.  Now, the galaxy torn apart by fear, must rely on one person, who is plagued by dreams of the past and struggling to come to terms with a new, rare form of Biotic power.  It's up to this one individual to form a rag-tag team to take on this new menace before he unleashes this terrible force upon.....EARTH!

Yeah, that'd be an incredible length considering this guy would have to kidnap countless scientists, probably take over or construct on his own an Insanely large construction dock (at a time when the ENTIRE galaxy needs these things since they're all rebuilding too) let alone secure the vast quantities of resources needed to build another catalyst.

THEN he has drive it undetected all way to EARTH to USE IT.

In short, Your story is implausible.

Never underestimate

Modifié par zambot, 16 août 2012 - 06:17 .

[CommanderShwan]

Point to you, good sir.