270 réponses à ce sujet

[Yakko77]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Jonata wrote...

My opinion is that Destroy represents fighting violence with violence. And violence always has a price... even if Shepard will eventually be found and people who played Mass Effect for the romance have that hint, they BioWare couldn't (and probably do not wanted to) picture Destroy as a "Rainbow & Unicorns" ending because it isn't.

As I said, violence has a price, and that price is a permanently scarred Shepard, breathing under the rubble of his own decision. He saved the Galaxy at the highest price possible, his own morality. Destroy is a bittersweet ending and wasn't supposed to be "what the fans wanted" IMO, because that's not the way people write stories. 

This.

Also Bioware wanted people to headcanon what happens to Shepard after the breath scene since not everyone wants the same thing to happen to Shepard.

Video games are a visual medium.  There should be little or no nead for "head cannon".

Destroy ending was given the shaft so the writers could shoehorn Synthesis as being "preferred" when that end literally comes out of no where and doesn't fit the game lore.  Only through the indoctrinated rambling of Saren is such a possibility even remotely hinted at let alone the goal of the game.  At NO point in the series was it my goal or intention to genetically manipulate the galaxy against their will to make everyone the same when victory was achieved in the first place through strength from diversity.

And spare me the "violence is bad" drivel.  Self preservation against those seeking your annialation is hardly going to be a pleasant affair.  If you want to survive then sometime violence isn't just suggested but is a must.  The Reapers desrtoyed thousands of civilization over millions of years and killed countless trillions and you're whining about destroying them being violent?!?!?

Whatever hippie....  <_<

[Massa FX]

DLC will hopefully reveal answers to all our questions. Not sure if there's any more free content coming, but I'm thinking there'll be plenty of content coming that will fill in some big plotholes, answer questions and we'll get more ending "expansions".

Bottom line is money and the forecasted earings from ME3 fell through big time. Big Daddy   EA is a bad enemy to have, so I'm sure there's a lot of negoitiating going on to figure out how to turn this whole thing around.

I have faith in Bioware. I have bigger faith in EA wanting to recoup those lost sales. 

[V-rcingetorix]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

I find it to be very difficult to deal with people who take a totalitarian black/white stance like "I will NEVER... (fill in the blank)".

That kind of mindset is not conducive to discussions or compromises.

For instance: If BioWare DID give you what you're asking for, would you stop asking the question then? If so, then your statement is a lie. If not, then there's no possible way to deal with you as you've gone so far past the point of reasonability as to be absurd.

Nice to see you again, haven't seen you in the forums a while.

But...wouldn't the statement: "That kind of mindset is not conducive to discussions or compromises" also be a totalitarian stance? What if the "I will NEVER..." statement precludes a sentence fragment stating: "accept anything less than a compromise?"

Moderation in everything, including moderation.:innocent:

[ApplesauceBandit]

Where are my blue babies BIOWARE!? WTF!!

[V-rcingetorix]

Back on topic...I only have a few ideas on why BioWare did such an incomplete job on Shepard. Incomplete, in this case, will be defined as having inferior coverage of the principle character in comparison to the previous two iterations of the series.

1. Rushed, pushed to get the game out the door with a retcon DLC later.

2. Game was going down to the wire, someone said, "I can write the ending, you just code up the looks of the thing." But maybe that's another "rush" reason.

3. Costs were getting high and an ending was needed.

4. No one on staff could think of an epic enough ending, so they punted....

5. DLC is planned so people can buy their own ending...(not likely)

6. BioWare forgot what made the endings of the previous iterations so great.

So, mostly rush and lazy reasons, but not certain. Maybe there's a legitimate reason. A proper reason from BioWare is not, "It's artistic, we didn't do anything wrong." That's just reactionary defensive techno-babble. A true reason would underline the steps taken to create the ending, show the logic behind creating such an ending while comparing the current end with the previous games.

Then, and only then, could reasons be given for the current ending. EC is a quick-fix, and a good effort in my opinion. Just not good enough, especially when compared with the storyline heights ME1 and ME2 achieved.

[JBPBRC]

Jonata wrote...

My opinion is that Destroy represents fighting violence with violence. And violence always has a price...

Hah. Tell that to the Blue Suns mechanic who I electrocuted. That little act of violence made it even easier to take down the gunship!

[V-rcingetorix]

lol

[chemiclord]

V-rcingetorix wrote...

So, mostly rush and lazy reasons, but not certain. Maybe there's a legitimate reason. A proper reason from BioWare is not, "It's artistic, we didn't do anything wrong." That's just reactionary defensive techno-babble. A true reason would underline the steps taken to create the ending, show the logic behind creating such an ending while comparing the current end with the previous games.

Then, and only then, could reasons be given for the current ending. EC is a quick-fix, and a good effort in my opinion. Just not good enough, especially when compared with the storyline heights ME1 and ME2 achieved.

Oh yes, because (presuming your theory is true) EA would TOTALLY understand Bioware throwing their corporate bosses in front of the bus.  There'd be NO repurcussions for THAT.  Ya gotta believe me.

[Baa Baa]

"I'll never stop looking..."
Sorry the title reminded me of the Jensen quote from the Deus Ex trailer....
I think it's because they're intentions were to kill off Shepard in every ending. Which is awful, especially if your LI has already had to deal with Shepard's death. That's beyond depressing.
But, I'm pretty happy with how Destroy how turned out, the music, Tali not putting Shep's name on the wall, and Shep's gasp leave enough for me to believe he survived.

[chemiclord]

Baa Baa wrote...

"I'll never stop looking..."
Sorry the title reminded me of the Jensen quote from the Deus Ex trailer....
I think it's because they're intentions were to kill off Shepard in every ending. Which is awful, especially if your LI has already had to deal with Shepard's death. That's beyond depressing.
But, I'm pretty happy with how Destroy how turned out, the music, Tali not putting Shep's name on the wall, and Shep's gasp leave enough for me to believe he survived.

Oh yes, Bioware absolutely wanted Shepard to die in ME3.   They wanted that character dead and done.  Why?  I can only guess, but that was their fairly clear intent.

[dreman9999]

Because it's left open to the player to imagine it themselves.

[Iakus]

dreman9999 wrote...

Because it's left open to the player to imagine it themselves.

We don't have to imagine Shepard dead.  Why should we have to imagine Shep alive?

[V-rcingetorix]

chemiclord wrote...

V-rcingetorix wrote...

So, mostly rush and lazy reasons, but not certain. Maybe there's a legitimate reason. A proper reason from BioWare is not, "It's artistic, we didn't do anything wrong." That's just reactionary defensive techno-babble. A true reason would underline the steps taken to create the ending, show the logic behind creating such an ending while comparing the current end with the previous games.

Then, and only then, could reasons be given for the current ending. EC is a quick-fix, and a good effort in my opinion. Just not good enough, especially when compared with the storyline heights ME1 and ME2 achieved.

Oh yes, because (presuming your theory is true) EA would TOTALLY understand Bioware throwing their corporate bosses in front of the bus.  There'd be NO repurcussions for THAT.  Ya gotta believe me.

True dat. It is a life altering experience. It gives a close-up encounter with the little people, and even if they're not lucky, they could wind up in an outstanding field with hundreds of other people like them! Whod wouldn't like that?

No, the bosses prefer the player base to see the light at the end of the tunnel...and hope they don't realize it's a train. Eh?

[dreman9999]

Yakko77 wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Jonata wrote...

My opinion is that Destroy represents fighting violence with violence. And violence always has a price... even if Shepard will eventually be found and people who played Mass Effect for the romance have that hint, they BioWare couldn't (and probably do not wanted to) picture Destroy as a "Rainbow & Unicorns" ending because it isn't.

As I said, violence has a price, and that price is a permanently scarred Shepard, breathing under the rubble of his own decision. He saved the Galaxy at the highest price possible, his own morality. Destroy is a bittersweet ending and wasn't supposed to be "what the fans wanted" IMO, because that's not the way people write stories. 

This.

Also Bioware wanted people to headcanon what happens to Shepard after the breath scene since not everyone wants the same thing to happen to Shepard.

Video games are a visual medium.  There should be little or no nead for "head cannon".

Destroy ending was given the shaft so the writers could shoehorn Synthesis as being "preferred" when that end literally comes out of no where and doesn't fit the game lore.  Only through the indoctrinated rambling of Saren is such a possibility even remotely hinted at let alone the goal of the game.  At NO point in the series was it my goal or intention to genetically manipulate the galaxy against their will to make everyone the same when victory was achieved in the first place through strength from diversity.

BS. Video games is an interacive medium that used visual medium. People have head cannons all the time for game stories. It's not the only medium to do this ether.

[dreman9999]

iakus wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Because it's left open to the player to imagine it themselves.

We don't have to imagine Shepard dead.  Why should we have to imagine Shep alive?

Because the writes are done writing his story. As I said it left opne to the players imagination.

[Iakus]

dreman9999 wrote...

iakus wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Because it's left open to the player to imagine it themselves.

We don't have to imagine Shepard dead.  Why should we have to imagine Shep alive?

Because the writes are done writing his story. As I said it left opne to the players imagination.

"Because reason" is not an answer.

[dreman9999]

iakus wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

iakus wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Because it's left open to the player to imagine it themselves.

We don't have to imagine Shepard dead.  Why should we have to imagine Shep alive?

Because the writes are done writing his story. As I said it left opne to the players imagination.

"Because reason" is not an answer.

I did not say that. I said because they are done with Shepards story and want it to be open to the players imagination. That is a clear reason.
Think Inceptions ending and dark knoght rises....Both or left open to the audiances imagination.

[CronoDragoon]

dreman9999 wrote...

Think Inceptions ending and dark knoght rises....Both or left open to the audiances imagination.

The Dark Knight Rises actually has exactly the scene for which people were hoping. For Inception, I don't think the comparison works, because you get the reunion scene without knowing whether or not it's real, which is different than not getting a scene at all.

[zsom]

So OP what type of extra closure do you expect now that the game is out? Would you like Shep to actually die or to have him rescued?

[dreman9999]

CronoDragoon wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Think Inceptions ending and dark knoght rises....Both or left open to the audiances imagination.

The Dark Knight Rises actually has exactly the scene for which people were hoping. For Inception, I don't think the comparison works, because you get the reunion scene without knowing whether or not it's real, which is different than not getting a scene at all.

I'm not taking about the reunion. I mean having the ending left open for peoples imagination. The concept.

[V-rcingetorix]

dreman9999 wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Think Inceptions ending and dark knoght rises....Both or left open to the audiances imagination.

The Dark Knight Rises actually has exactly the scene for which people were hoping. For Inception, I don't think the comparison works, because you get the reunion scene without knowing whether or not it's real, which is different than not getting a scene at all.

I'm not taking about the reunion. I mean having the ending left open for peoples imagination. The concept.

Leaving the ending open has a lot of interpretations; leave it open by having a gasping Shepard is one method, leaving Shepard smiling at someone off camera is another. The concept is sound, but not in a series that has developed a fanbase that has grown to expect more definite conclusions.

My question is similar to the OP; why was the ME3 ending so dissimilar from the ME1 and ME2?

EDIT: spelling

Modifié par V-rcingetorix, 15 août 2012 - 07:01 .

[dreman9999]

V-rcingetorix wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Think Inceptions ending and dark knoght rises....Both or left open to the audiances imagination.

The Dark Knight Rises actually has exactly the scene for which people were hoping. For Inception, I don't think the comparison works, because you get the reunion scene without knowing whether or not it's real, which is different than not getting a scene at all.

I'm not taking about the reunion. I mean having the ending left open for peoples imagination. The concept.

Leaving the ending open has a lot of interpretations; leave it open by having a gasping Shepard is one method, leaving Shepard smiling at someone off camera is another.

My question is similar to the OP; why was the ME3 ending so dissimilar from the ME1 and ME2?

That's not op quetion.

[Iakus]

dreman9999 wrote...
I did not say that. I said because they are done with Shepards story and want it to be open to the players imagination. That is a clear reason.
Think Inceptions ending and dark knoght rises....Both or left open to the audiances imagination.

Both movies concluded with pleasant images the audience can decide the veracity of.  in Inception, Cobb is reunited with his children, and you can decide if it's a dream or not (I'll leave Dark Knight alone for spoiler reasons)

You see the image of a happy ending, and decide if it's real 

In ME3 we have to headcanon even the image. And after all the horror and death Shepard went through even in the last few minutes, that's imply not enough.  If we must imagine our own happy endings, we needed a better starting point for it. 

Too much wilderness to travel through to reach it.  Need nice smooth road.

[V-rcingetorix]

I believe the OP asked: "Why is our avatar shafter at the end?"

My question is: Why is the ME3 ending so different from the ME1/ME2 endings?

Not the same, but similar. A little tricky to spot, yes.

[dreman9999]

V-rcingetorix wrote...

I believe the OP asked: "Why is our avatar shafter at the end?"

My question is: Why is the ME3 ending so different from the ME1/ME2 endings?

Not the same, but similar. A little tricky to spot, yes.

it's not similar at all.
ME1 Shepard win with little compromises to do.
In ME2 Shepard has a lot more to comprimies.
In ME3 Shepard has to absolutly comprimies to win.

You question is awnser with a simple "He is give harder choices to make over time". That is clear from comaparing the choices form ME1 , to ME2 to fianlly ME3.

The ops question is why Shepard is force to comprimies. This is different for you question of 
Why is the ME3 ending so different from the ME1/ME2 endings.