319 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

[quote]3DandBeyond wrote...

I spent a couple of dollars in ME2 to get an AAP that did nothing but Make Miranda look less like a hooker.

I'm willing to spend a couple of more that adds a voiceover during the memorial scene saying Shepard's been found alive.

[/quote]

That's the thing.  If you get content along with it that adds to the story, that's great.  But look what people were offered as DLC just recently.  Guns.  Well, that's fine.  But that does really nothing for the game.  If people want to buy them it's not something that bothers me and that's great.  I'd prefer something that fixes the game for a great many people.  No one would have to buy it.  Or even be forced into it being implemented.

[/quote]

So an Alternate Ending Pack instead of an Alternate Appearance Pack


An extra/extended scene, a line or two of dialogue, maybe a different ending slide.  It would take so little...

[PrimeOfValor]

Volc19 wrote...

Destroy is currently the most favored ending. It is preffered by a overwhelming majority.

So, if Bioware goes back on their word and adds more to the endings, it will likely be to balance out Control, Synthesis, and Refuse.

Destroy isn't special. Stop acting like it deserves special treatment.

Hello Volc19 and everything else on this forum, bigmass41 here.

Firstly, I have a question about the destroy ending as the majority that as in where is the proof of that?

Secondly, I have never heard or believe that Bioware said that synthesis is their favorite ending until the EC show visual proof of this. 

Thirdly, OP, I like your idea, I really do, but I see don't the point for Bioware to waste resources for another addition towards the ending. In my opionion, Out of the all DLC ideas the only thing that Bioware can use time and resources is a Romance or ME2 squadmate DLC with a couple of story or side missions or a mixture of both.  

Modifié par bigmass41, 15 août 2012 - 12:42 .

[3DandBeyond]

bigmass41 wrote...

Volc19 wrote...

Destroy is currently the most favored ending. It is preffered by a overwhelming majority.

So, if Bioware goes back on their word and adds more to the endings, it will likely be to balance out Control, Synthesis, and Refuse.

Destroy isn't special. Stop acting like it deserves special treatment.

Hello Volc19 and everything else on this forum, bigmass41 here.

Firstly, I have a question about the destroy ending as the majority that as in where is the proof of that?

Secondly, I have never heard or believe that Bioware said that synthesis is their favorite ending until the EC show visual proof of this. 

Thirdly, OP, I like your idea, I really do, but I see don't the point for Bioware to waste resources for another addition towards the ending. In my opionion, Out of the all DLC ideas the only thing that Bioware can use time and resources is a Romance or ME2 squadmate DLC with a couple of story or side missions or a mixture of both.  

Hey there...
Well I'm not saying they would do this, but it is something that doesn't have to be that difficult.  Everything is already there and would be very easy to achieve.  Higher EMS gotten in DLC play that adds to the Crucible-say Leviathan protects it so it isn't damaged.  Then the kid's dialogue is just changed up a bit.  The only thing that would need to be changed (easily) afterward would be that Destroy wouldn't kill EDI and the geth, so they are alive and shown in the slide show and Shepard would be in a reunion scene (instead of the Memorial Wall scene say a hospital bed). 

The other thing that would change would be the narration.  Hackett would start out talking about having to rebuild but that the reapers are gone and all and at the point where Hackett now talks about the galaxy learning to work together it would not be him talking but would be Shepard and it would be on top of the reunion scene.  It would mean Shepard gets to take some credit for what s/he achieved as well as it would have the emotional impact of talking about unity as Shepard is reunited-brought home to the people Shepard cared about.  This scene would allow for the proper LI to be there-Jack, Miranda, and whoever else.  People that had certain Lis didn't even get the Memorial Wall scene.

That doesn't mean they couldn't do a romance or other DLC, but if they worked all things toward a viable ending (not everyone would have to choose it), then I think it might make other DLC more possible.  More money spent on DLC makes more DLC possible.

[PrimeOfValor]

3DandBeyond wrote...

bigmass41 wrote...

Volc19 wrote...

Destroy is currently the most favored ending. It is preffered by a overwhelming majority.

So, if Bioware goes back on their word and adds more to the endings, it will likely be to balance out Control, Synthesis, and Refuse.

Destroy isn't special. Stop acting like it deserves special treatment.

Hello Volc19 and everything else on this forum, bigmass41 here.

Firstly, I have a question about the destroy ending as the majority that as in where is the proof of that?

Secondly, I have never heard or believe that Bioware said that synthesis is their favorite ending until the EC show visual proof of this. 

Thirdly, OP, I like your idea, I really do, but I see don't the point for Bioware to waste resources for another addition towards the ending. In my opionion, Out of the all DLC ideas the only thing that Bioware can use time and resources is a Romance or ME2 squadmate DLC with a couple of story or side missions or a mixture of both.  

Hey there...
Well I'm not saying they would do this, but it is something that doesn't have to be that difficult.  Everything is already there and would be very easy to achieve.  Higher EMS gotten in DLC play that adds to the Crucible-say Leviathan protects it so it isn't damaged.  Then the kid's dialogue is just changed up a bit.  The only thing that would need to be changed (easily) afterward would be that Destroy wouldn't kill EDI and the geth, so they are alive and shown in the slide show and Shepard would be in a reunion scene (instead of the Memorial Wall scene say a hospital bed). 

The other thing that would change would be the narration.  Hackett would start out talking about having to rebuild but that the reapers are gone and all and at the point where Hackett now talks about the galaxy learning to work together it would not be him talking but would be Shepard and it would be on top of the reunion scene.  It would mean Shepard gets to take some credit for what s/he achieved as well as it would have the emotional impact of talking about unity as Shepard is reunited-brought home to the people Shepard cared about.  This scene would allow for the proper LI to be there-Jack, Miranda, and whoever else.  People that had certain Lis didn't even get the Memorial Wall scene.

That doesn't mean they couldn't do a romance or other DLC, but if they worked all things toward a viable ending (not everyone would have to choose it), then I think it might make other DLC more possible.  More money spent on DLC makes more DLC possible.

I think that this might happen depending on the number of people buying SP DLC like Leviathan or Omega.

[3DandBeyond]

DravenShep wrote...

I noticed more and more people want the destroy ending when all it does is kill EDI, Reapers and the Geth. It really doesn't even truly end the cycle. How is it that people can pick Destroy knowing that it truly doesn't create galaxy wide peace from the Reapers, when all the technology can be rebuilt all over again?

Yes, I chose the Synthesis ending, but have seen all the endings. Please just kindly enlighten me about the Destroy ending.

Well you are free to like what you like and that's ok.  As it is, I don't like any of the choices but will tell you about destroy.

If it does what the kid says it destroys the reapers.  That is the single factor that makes it appealing.  What else it does is a bit open to interpretation.  It damages all tech, targets synthetics and Shepard is part synthetic.  So what that means at least is EDI and the geth will die. As for anything else with synthetic parts, who knows.  The kid says there will be losses but no more than have already occurred.  What that means I don't know.  If EDI and the geth and others die, those are more losses.  So, it's confused and muddied.

The reapers cannot be rebuild.  They are destroyed and not damaged.  EDI and the geth cannot be rebuilt, they too are destroyed.  Other tech is damaged.  Don't ask me-the kid wrote this.  The relays and the citadel and such are damaged and will be rebuilt/repaired.

Organics may learn to build synthetics again.  That is why the kid thinks the conflict will return.  He thinks that because as he sees it organics will always create synthetics that want to kill them.

What destroy does that control and synthesis don't:
Destroys the reapers
Allows people to be truly on their own, free of reaper involvement.  Self-reliant.

In control, reapers are there to fix everything and are the galactic police.
In synthesis, reaper tech is partly used to alter organics at a molecular level and reapers still exist and are synthesized too.   We have no clue as to the kid.

What is possible for all the choices-not probably but possible:
Organics can learn to create synthetics

In control synthetics (EDI and the geth) still exist
In synthesis, people could create organic only DNA and people or synthetic only people.

New conflicts can arise due to other tihngs.

[Scorpion1O1]

This is very creepy. I thought of this exact theory today as I was reading the ME:Invasion comics.

Even though I hope they have a reaper destroy only ending. It bothers me that I have to get DLC to get it. Sad thing is I love Mass Effect so much I will get them anyway.

I doubt that if they were to have a refined Destroy ending, it will be from Leviathan DLC alone. They would only have it after Omega DLC and the what ever other DLC planned.

Also it has been stated by Casey Hudson in the Final Hours of Mass Effect 3
“Whatever we do would likely happen before or during the events of Mass Effect 3, not after”

EDIT: Also a rejection improvement ending would be something I would support.

Modifié par Scorpion1O1, 15 août 2012 - 01:48 .

[Red Panda]

DWH1982 wrote...

I'd love to see a destroy ending that doesn't kill EDI and the geth. Frankly, it's what I wanted in the ending in the first place

Don't want to kill the Geth and EDI?

Pick another ending.


Otherwise, know that in war there are casualties. EDI and the Geth are the last. And as such, they'll be remembered. 

Victory does not come without cost. That is the reality of war. Accept it's ruthless calculus, or accept another variant of it. There is no other option, nor shall there be.

[3DandBeyond]

Scorpion1O1 wrote...

This is very creepy. I thought of this exact theory today as I was reading the ME:Invasion comics.

Even though I hope they have a reaper destroy only ending. It bothers me that I have to get DLC to get it. Sad thing is I love Mass Effect so much I will get them anyway.

I doubt that if they were to have a refined Destroy ending, it will be from Leviathan DLC alone. They would only have it after Omega DLC and the what ever other DLC planned.

Also it has been stated by Casey Hudson in the Final Hours of Mass Effect 3
“Whatever we do would likely happen before or during the events of Mass Effect 3, not after”

I agree with everything here.  I'd get it anyway too.  And that's what I was saying Leviathan would only start the process, but Omega would do so.  I see Omega as starting to "tear down" control as viable.  Omega was where the idea of control really started to be fleshed out with the controlled collectors and TIM as well as the discussion of a control chip in Shepard (that Miranda had wanted).  Leviathan might more affect the idea of synthesis since that's kind of where it began-the kid tried to accomplish it by putting his creators into the construct to make a reaper.

There seemed to be 4 total locked star systems in the ME3 galaxy map, so maybe 4 total DLC-maybe.

And yes I have the Final Hours and I do agree they've said that so it makes a future sequel unlikely but...

If they decided that prequel games wouldn't work, a future one might need to be possible.  Not fixing on one ending makes it hard to do any future game if they wanted to.  Since people have posted a lot about wanting one, BW could reconsider.  And they have said lots of things before that have "changed".

[3DandBeyond]

OperatingWookie wrote...

DWH1982 wrote...

I'd love to see a destroy ending that doesn't kill EDI and the geth. Frankly, it's what I wanted in the ending in the first place

Don't want to kill the Geth and EDI?

Pick another ending.


Otherwise, know that in war there are casualties. EDI and the Geth are the last. And as such, they'll be remembered. 

Victory does not come without cost. That is the reality of war. Accept it's ruthless calculus, or accept another variant of it. There is no other option, nor shall there be.

Maybe there won't be but you don't know that.  BW has said to keep our saves and that we will be amazed at what they have planned.  They may well mean that.  They may not mean it at all.

I don't want to argue about what destroy is since you posted this just to enflame and you know you did.  If you are happy killing your friends, great go enjoy the genocide while you can.   I'm happy you like what you have.  Great.

[Dav3VsTh3World]

By making Destroy "better" you mean by making Destroy "Disneyfied"

No thanks

[Jvolikas]

I just hope Leviathan doesnt prop Synthesis as the ultimate ending that BioWare seems to want us to think it is.

[clennon8]

Jvolikas wrote...

I just hope Leviathan doesnt prop Synthesis as the ultimate ending that BioWare seems to want us to think it is.

The more they try to prop it up, the more they will alienate their fanbase.

For the previous guy...  Yes please to a "Disney" ending.  Want me to buy your DLC, Bioware?  Give me a better Destroy or Refusal ending.

[xxBabyMonkeyxx]

Jvolikas wrote...

I just hope Leviathan doesnt prop Synthesis as the ultimate ending that BioWare seems to want us to think it is.

Me too. That would just make fans even more upset.
Anyway, of course a DLC would make Destroy better. But will BW do it? Of course not!! Got to keep their artistic intergrity after all.

[Iakus]

Dav3VsTh3World wrote...

By making Destroy "better" you mean by making Destroy "Disneyfied"

No thanks

No thanks, we already have Synthesis.

Something more reminiscient of ME1 or ME2 will be fine.

[d-boy15]

in Leviathan or future DLC...

they may not make synthesis as ultimate ending, but I'm very sure they will not improve destroy.

you think they include geth and edi death just for trolling? why do you think destroy ending get only
breath scene?

Modifié par d-boy15, 15 août 2012 - 03:21 .

[Dav3VsTh3World]

I'm guessing those who want a Destroy ending with the Geth and EDI still alive have never had to deal with real life consequences,

Hell if one ending had no consequences whatsoever everyone would choose that one over the other and everyone would live HAPPILY EVER AFTER

[ShepnTali]

Dav3VsTh3World wrote...

I'm guessing those who want a Destroy ending with the Geth and EDI still alive have never had to deal with real life consequences, 

I would guess that's a bad guess. The opposite is more likely.

[clennon8]

Dav3VsTh3World wrote...

I'm guessing those who want a Destroy ending with the Geth and EDI still alive have never had to deal with real life consequences, 

I think you're assuming too much.

Yes, I want a happier Destroy ending, and I really don't care what that makes you think of me.

[Postman778]

Dav3VsTh3World wrote...

I'm guessing those who want a Destroy ending with the Geth and EDI still alive have never had to deal with real life consequences,

Hell if one ending had no consequences whatsoever everyone would choose that one over the other and everyone would live HAPPILY EVER AFTER

Absolutly right, real life consequences are sometimes hard to deal with, but ME3 is a game, not a real life simulation, where I play the hero.

The idea of 3DandBeyond,  improving the crucible with war assets, is pretty good. At least some of our decisions we made would matter in the end. Go ahead with your ideas, maybe some people could take your ideas as basis to improve ME3

[Zan51]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Urdnot Amenark wrote...

I'd love to see Reject improved via EMS. ME 4 will likely have a new threat from another galaxy, quite possibly, so I think there's still plenty of room for it to develop a good premise provided there's sufficient time. I think the destruction of synthetics in the Destroy ending is fitting though I dislike that element; then again, perhaps it could relate to a signal being broadcast that only Reapers and indoctrinated can react to that deactivates them, making it plausible for EDI and the Geth to survive.

That's the thing.  I think an intact crucible could hit on only reapers and not all synthetics.  Destroy is in some ways more viable than reject because in order for reject to be viable (understand I'd almost prefer it to be), it would require a real build up of actual fighting capabilities and retconning of a lot of dialogue in ME3.  Or Hackett would have to come out and say, "oops it was possible after all."

The problem with destroy as it is is the description is ambiguous.  All synthetics, even Shepard are targeted-well what does that mean for anyone with synthetic augmentation or Shepard?  Are those destroyed?  If so, Shepard should die and so should many many others.

And just what defines "synthetics"?  The kid doesn't say synthetic life.  Synthetic is anything not naturally occurring.  But it damages tech-well tech is synthetic.  So the description of destroy is crazy.

I like all your reasoning.  What got me thinking a lot was what about Kaidan? He was my LI and he is in the endings, yet he has an old style L2 (I think it was) Biotoc implant! How come he is OK if anyone with an augmentation dies?? Not to mention we got ones for the Asari Commandoes! No, the description of who dies in Destroy just isn't logical.

[Zan51]

MegaSovereign wrote...

EDI would still have to die because she was made out of Reaper tech.

As for the Geth, I guess their new Reaper upgrades could be damaged. Perhaps their intelligence reverts back to the way it was pre-ME3.

We can't just have a perfect ending because it would invalidate the other ones.

Actually, EDI was the training AI/VI on the Moon that Shepard went to stop that had gone riot. She even tells Shep that in ME 3. She has been augmented with some Reaper tech, but she is not Reaper built. "In Mass Effect 3, it is revealed that this VI was later modified with tech salvaged from Sovereign. The resulting AI was EDI.
" http://masseffect.wi...i/UNC:_Rogue_VI bottom of the page.

Look, I am writing the end book of 9 right now. I face the same dilemma Bioware did - do I kill the hero of 9 books off at the end? Do I kill any of his faithful crew off? Why should I kill anyone one off without a damned good reason, and so far, I haven't come up with one.

Sucess takes sacrifice - yeah, well sacrifice doesn't mean death. Sometimes continuing to live is more painful than death. Sometimes you don't live on whole, you lose something that is essential to you. There are many different forms of sacrifice, why must they all be black and white, meaning live or die? It takes thought to come up with something that isn't kill off the hero or some of the crew just because... 

Which is why to me it is more personal that Bioware seem to want Shepard dead, because I see no real reason to kill her/him. There are also ways to make sure she doesn't appear in a game set when she's still alive in the same universe. but they require thought and planning, not the quick fix of killing her.

Modifié par Zan51, 15 août 2012 - 09:52 .

[EnvyTB075]

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

[3DandBeyond]

Dav3VsTh3World wrote...

I'm guessing those who want a Destroy ending with the Geth and EDI still alive have never had to deal with real life consequences,

Hell if one ending had no consequences whatsoever everyone would choose that one over the other and everyone would live HAPPILY EVER AFTER

Let me see what kind of real life consequences you mean.
My sister committed suicide.
I watched both my father and my mother die-tried to revive my father-he died in front of me when I was 16.
I cared for terminally ill friends who I watched die.
I worked in emergency services and prevented people from killing themselves by talking them down or getting help to them in time.
I oversaw emergency personnel at a hostage standoff at a major US car plant.
I helped people save others from choking
I helped people over the phone deliver babies

What type of real world consequences are you looking for?  And explain to me what real world consequences for the end choices are shown in the epilogues with the overly happy sentiments of rebuilding easily and all that.

[3DandBeyond]

Zan51 wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

EDI would still have to die because she was made out of Reaper tech.

As for the Geth, I guess their new Reaper upgrades could be damaged. Perhaps their intelligence reverts back to the way it was pre-ME3.

We can't just have a perfect ending because it would invalidate the other ones.

Actually, EDI was the training AI/VI on the Moon that Shepard went to stop that had gone riot. She even tells Shep that in ME 3. She has been augmented with some Reaper tech, but she is not Reaper built. "In Mass Effect 3, it is revealed that this VI was later modified with tech salvaged from Sovereign. The resulting AI was EDI.
" http://masseffect.wi...i/UNC:_Rogue_VI bottom of the page.

Look, I am writing the end book of 9 right now. I face the same dilemma Bioware did - do I kill the hero of 9 books off at the end? Do I kill any of his faithful crew off? Why should I kill anyone one off without a damned good reason, and so far, I haven't come up with one.

Sucess takes sacrifice - yeah, well sacrifice doesn't mean death. Sometimes continuing to live is more painful than death. Sometimes you don't live on whole, you lose something that is essential to you. There are many different forms of sacrifice, why must they all be black and white, meaning live or die? It takes thought to come up with something that isn't kill off the hero or some of the crew just because... 

Which is why to me it is more personal that Bioware seem to want Shepard dead, because I see no real reason to kill her/him. There are also ways to make sure she doesn't appear in a game set when she's still alive in the same universe. but they require thought and planning, not the quick fix of killing her.

This is the thing.  Sometimes an aftermath is a horrific thing to live through.  People think a Shepard lives victory is sophomoric and bunnies and rainbows.  Well, is it super sappy sweet when someone survives the utter devastation of a tornado or hurricane?  Look at what they have to do afterward.  And then multiply that exponentially for what has happened in the ME3 galaxy.  Sometimes living heroes are needed more than dead ones.  And sometimes it's harder to unite after the hell of war.  Uniting in war against an enemy makes strange bedfellows of us all-it's far easier to fight alongside someone than it is to rebuild with someone.  In rebuilding you have to share and in war you both merely need to shoot at guys that want to kill both of you.

[EnvyTB075]

Dav3VsTh3World wrote...

I'm guessing those who want a Destroy ending with the Geth and EDI still alive have never had to deal with real life consequences.

This isn't Arma 3, this is Mass Effect, this is also not the sims. I don't play Mass Effect to remind myself about how ****ty life can be.

3DandBeyond wrote...

Dav3VsTh3World wrote...

I'm
guessing those who want a Destroy ending with the Geth and EDI still
alive have never had to deal with real life consequences,

Hell if
one ending had no consequences whatsoever everyone would choose that
one over the other and everyone would live HAPPILY EVER AFTER

Let me see what kind of real life consequences you mean.
My sister committed suicide.
I watched both my father and my mother die-tried to revive my father-he died in front of me when I was 16.
I cared for terminally ill friends who I watched die.
I
worked in emergency services and prevented people from killing
themselves by talking them down or getting help to them in time.
I oversaw emergency personnel at a hostage standoff at a major US car plant.
I helped people save others from choking
I helped people over the phone deliver babies

What
type of real world consequences are you looking for?  And explain to me
what real world consequences for the end choices are shown in the
epilogues with the overly happy sentiments of rebuilding easily and all
that.

Sorry to hear that :/

Modifié par EnvyTB075, 15 août 2012 - 12:14 .