883 réponses à ce sujet

[OMGsideboob]

Honestly, this next DLC should be a bridge to Mass Effect 4 since clearly the story isnt done per the ending... Unless they plan on giving ANOTHER DLC following this one. The idea seems like a corny idea to keep it going. It's saying buy the DLC and we'll finally fix the ending the forum types have whined about.

BTW RussianZombeh, love your "Garrus Vakarian Facts" GIF in your signature. Brilliant.

[obZen DF]

Isn't it convenient that, of all the threads/speculations/rumours and what else, Bioware only denies this one?

[Ithurael]

obZen DF wrote...

Isn't it convenient that, of all the threads/speculations/rumours and what else, Bioware only denies this one?

What other rumor threads exist on BSN about future post ending content?

Bioware has only been denying any post ending dlc or post ending content.

[Pheonix57]

Can anyone tell me why some threads have the blue Bioware logo under the title?

[ADeadDiehard]

Pheonix57 wrote...

Can anyone tell me why some threads have the blue Bioware logo under the title?

It means that a Bioware employee has posted in this thread somewhere.

[The Twilight God]

Ithurael wrote...

Wow dude, I sense some hate in that post.

No hate at all. However, IF I WHERE THE WRITERS I wouldn't take crap from people who claim I'm the worst writer in the world and think Reapers habitually use indoctrination accept for when dealing with Shepard in a situation in which their very existence is at stake. The flack They are getting isn't legitimate. I'm not saying ME3 is perfect, but it isn't bad writting. People don't seem to be able to distinguish objectively bad writting from a story they don't like.

It's the players' choice to commit suicide because the "Reaper Commander" said it was a good idea. Why should those Shepard's who supposedly survived be shortchanged so that people who picked indoctrinated choices can have peace of mind? This is why I don;t like the direction they took. I'd rather have 1 good satisfying ending than 3 mediocre and 1 horrid ending. 

Ithurael wrote...

Personally, I severly doubt that bioware would end Mass Effect with only one ending. It seems out of place for the series. ME was supposed to be about role playing and choices mattering. Assuming any form of IT is true, then anyone who picks control or synthesis is immediatly invalidated and - essentially - scolded. This game is suppose to be the big finale with endings that vary in wildly different conclusions. RGB do, actually accomplish that.

Mass Effect has 4 endings. And no prior choices really matter in respect to those 4 endings. It's based on EMS.

Indoctrination is a Reaper tool. They are habitual users of indoctrination. It's what the Reapers do. And in 3 out of 4 endings Shepard is indoctrinated. This is why the indoctrination of the player continues beyond the credits. It would invalidate them if they openly admitted that they were indoctrinated endings. Nobody would pick them even though they are narratively sound. Everyone would complain that they don't count thus defeating the purpose in even making the endings. If and when they do admit it they will need to alter those endings so that they aren't indoctrinated endings. This would actually be quite easy.

Vendetta uploads to the Crucible like he said he would before Kai Leng showed up on Thessia. He informs you of what new options come up. It explains that the reapers have set up a contengency and that it can use those options to expand upon the Crucible's function. Starbinger will just offer advice and suggestions which will include the orginal indoctrinated endings (these will be low to mid EMS as Vendetta's program will be damaged and he won't be able to protect Shepard from himself). As Vendetta can detect indoctrination it will not allow Shepard to do anything harmful in high EMS.

There is no reason whatsoever for the Reapers to have to stay alive.

Destroy - Basic ending. Reapers die, but galactic civilization is in turmoil with relays fubared and worlds in rubble.

Control - Destroy still happens. Reapers killed, but Shepard can then control the lifeless ships to use them to help rebuild. Shepard gains an understanding of Reaper tech so he can repair the relays. His body goes into a comatose state as his mind exists in "cyberspace". There is a slight hope that he could recover someday. Renegade options could include a galactic dictator role and paragon have him fly the Shrepards into the sun. Then instead of the stargazer it shows Shepard on life support 10 years later and then he wakes up.

Synthesis - Destroy still happens. Reapers dead. Now Shepard can make everyone in the Sol systems progeny superior and hope that with this new intelligence organics can figure out the best way to solve the coming problems. In otherwords, the people on earth and the people in the fleets are "infected" with a retro-virus. Their children will be born synthesized and their children's children and so on. So Synthesis will occur "naturally" over the course of time. Shepard dies as his body is used to formulate the retro-virus. 

Each death ending will have a body remaining. People who pick the death endings get a scene in which Shepard explains what he is about to do and why. A final goodbye with the entire crew via radio "it's been an honor" and whatnot. 

Destroy will come off as selfish and "renegade" and the player gets rewarded with a reunion.
Control and Synthesis will then be true sacrifices (vs. feeling like forced sacrifices) as they lead to better outcomes, but require Shepard to sacrifice himself. And they'll have the big funeral scen instead with differences based on rather they pick control paragon, control renegade or sysnthesis

Ithurael wrote...

I still shoot the tube because it is the only ending that resonates thematically. My headcanon states that the destroy energy will destroy all reaper tech - thus why the geth and edi die. But there are other people out there that have just as much passion for their endings (blue or green) as I do. Hell even bioware employees have chosen synthesis or control.

In my version EDI dies but the geth survive since they aren't Reaper tech. The thing about that is both interpretations are valid. I think my veiws makes more sense, but I can't rule out your interpretation. That isn't the case when it come to Destroy vs. Synthesis, Control and Refuse. I can prove that they are indoctrinated endings. Now you might say you can't prove something like that in a game. I would say, If I can't then anything is possible. Literally anything. The Reapers could piloted by ewoks. The asari could be a sleepr collector race. Anything could be true. But those ideas aren't valid because dispite it being a game it still has rules that dictate how the universe works. And based on these rules you can prove certain things.

I wouldn't put much stock in what Bioware employees says as they have to toot the company line. They aren't going to do or say anything to burst the bubble. For instance, people say the Kid wants synthesis, but in-game events and everything it does dictates that it does not want the Harvest to end. It makes lies that can be proven to be lies. These facts aren't changed because somebody is very passionate about their fondness of a particular ending.
 

Ithurael wrote...

And also, I will say that there was some bad writing in ME3 (crucible, good guy harbinger, kai leng) but I still shot the tube regardless - does that make me an idiot?

This isn't bad writing. That is writing you don't care for. A MacGuffin, less Harbinger and an unliked character doesn't constitute bad writing. I think the movie Starship Troopers is poor writing, but I still enjoy it.

Read Mass Effect: Deception for bad writting. This is a joke comic, but believe me.. it is an accurate portrayal of the book. That's what makes it so funny.

Ithurael wrote...

IT Con is plausible as an interpretation. As canon...I..don't know. Not my cup of tea though. I do love the detail that you went into. It is very admirable.

Non-indoctrination isn't plausible for Control, Synthesis and Refuse. For people who chooses Destroy indoctrination can be ignored, but there is no plausible reason for Shepard to pick anything other than Destroy. Fact. Yes, I said it. Fact. I challenge anyone to give me one itsy bitsy teenie weenie justification for those endings that doesn't require ignoring inm-game events and making up situations that contradict events and aren't supported by lore. I have yet to hear one.

[Ithurael]

Jeebus...I don't need a thesis man. I like your interpretaion on IT con - it just isn't my cup of tea.

The Twilight God wrote...

This isn't bad writing. That is writing you don't care for. A MacGuffin, less Harbinger and an unliked character doesn't constitute bad writing. I think the movie Starship Troopers is poor writing, but I still enjoy it.

Read Mass Effect: Deception for bad writting. This is a joke comic, but believe me.. it is an accurate portrayal of the book. That's what makes it so funny.

However, here is where I may have to disagree...the bad writing in ME3 did take away from the immersion. Harbinger standing there, not knowing (and headcannoning) what the crucible does, Kai Leng's poor construction (think Taylor Lautner of Mass Effect).

They are poorly written devices. Starship troopers did have some...questionable moments in terms of dialog -most might have been bad acting, but we can weigh those evenly i suppose. But the shortcomings of starship troopers movie (the first one - the sequels were just...aweful) did not totally take away from the film.

The shortcomings of the writing in ME3 did break immersion for me - maybe not for you - but for me they did.

Don't even get me started on ME: Deception...

Though I am interested to hear about your points on the geth surviving vs being destroyed. It is true that we see EDI's name on the wall and never know if the get are alive/dead. however, we do not see a slide (not the best proof, but enough proof IMO to show that they are not in the galaxy's future post-destroy). To me it makes a kind of thematic sense - if you follow me - that destroy resets the galaxy to pre-reaper age. The galaxy - and it's civilizations - were built upon the technology of the reapers. Destroy removes that technology and allows all life to build their future.

So when legion was all like "oooh Reaper Code - I'll use it to benefit us!" I was a little 0_o WTF. And when I realized that they all died my headcanon just kinda took over and theorized that the destroy energy found all reaper code, technology, hardware, etc and erased it.

felt bad for EDI though... but war has casualties...

[I can Hackett]

well april is Q1 maybe theyre playin an April fools joke

APRIL FOOLS PROJECT X IS ACTUALLY TRUE!!!

[The Twilight God]

Ithurael wrote...
Jeebus...I don't need a thesis man. I like your interpretaion on IT con - it just isn't my cup of tea.

It wasn't a thesis. It's a reply.

Ithurael wrote...

However, here is where I may have to disagree...the bad writing in ME3 did take away from the immersion. Harbinger standing there, not knowing (and headcannoning) what the crucible does, Kai Leng's poor construction (think Taylor Lautner of Mass Effect).

Is that it? Is the entire game horribly written because Harbinger doesn't blow up a stealth frigate and because you don't like Kai Leng? As far as Kai Leng, it felt as if they wanted to put in a Shepard-like antagonist, but really had no idea how to pull it off. Typically, when someone fights Shepard... they die. Saren is the only one who ever walked away from a Shepard encounter. Unlike Saren, there was really no reason for Kai Leng to run if he really thought he was as good as he claims he is. So he came off as a weakling and a coward padded in plot armor. The fact that shepard is forced to "lose" to this jackoff and mope around like a little bit*h didn't help either. I think Patricks Weekes acknowledged this. Is the entire game bad writting do to two scenes (Citadel and Thessia)?

The real problem with ME3 is that it feels striped. The game had the same development time as ME2, but without the need for graphic and gameplay overhaul and it's half as long. I'm pretty sure they cut alot of stuff out to sell later as DLC.

And what exactly do you mean by you didn't know what the Crucible does? It is stated by Hackett that the scientist have figured out that it will release a powerful energy that will destroy the Reapers.

Ithurael wrote...

They are poorly written devices. Starship troopers did have some...questionable moments in terms of dialog -most might have been bad acting, but we can weigh those evenly i suppose. But the shortcomings of starship troopers movie (the first one - the sequels were just...aweful) did not totally take away from the film.

That is a matter of opinion.

Apparently, alot of people didn't like it and though it did take away from the film. Hence it bombed in theatres. Depends on the audience. I didn't take it too seriously so I enjoyed it.

Ithurael wrote...

Though I am interested to hear about your points on the geth surviving vs being destroyed. It is true that we see EDI's name on the wall and never know if the get are alive/dead. however, we do not see a slide (not the best proof, but enough proof IMO to show that they are not in the galaxy's future post-destroy). To me it makes a kind of thematic sense - if you follow me - that destroy resets the galaxy to pre-reaper age. The galaxy - and it's civilizations - were built upon the technology of the reapers. Destroy removes that technology and allows all life to build their future.

The Geth are used as a means to get people to picked the indoctrinated endings. If they were to reveal the Geth are alive they might as well admit control and synthesis turn out like you'd expect any other dealing with the Reapers. EDI actually has reaper parts in his blue box. Technically, she is a Reaper program just minus the Intelligences motivations. The Geth have nothing to do with "reaper technology".

[Ranger Jack Walker]

^They have the Reaper code in them. The thing that made a single geth several times more intelligent than 10 Geth. I'd say that counts as Reaper Technology.

[Ranger1337]

Just bring back the Dark Energy problem and explain that the Crucible accelerated its spread. There ya go .

[CyberMiguel]

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

^They have the Reaper code in them. The thing that made a single geth several times more intelligent than 10 Geth. I'd say that counts as Reaper Technology.

Nope. You're forgetting one little thing: GETH ARE SOFTWARE, NOT HARDWARE. As software they can be stored on anything (even quarians suits) and don't count as reaper tech, unlike EDI, which is fully dependant on it's reaper tech blue box. 

[Mirdarion]

Ithurael wrote....

So when legion was all like "oooh Reaper Code - I'll use it to benefit us!" I was a little 0_o WTF. 

Same thought here.

[Ranger Jack Walker]

CyberMiguel wrote...

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

^They have the Reaper code in them. The thing that made a single geth several times more intelligent than 10 Geth. I'd say that counts as Reaper Technology.

Nope. You're forgetting one little thing: GETH ARE SOFTWARE, NOT HARDWARE. As software they can be stored on anything (even quarians suits) and don't count as reaper tech, unlike EDI, which is fully dependant on it's reaper tech blue box. 

I know they are software. If you notice, Destroy doesn't blow up the reapers. They just fall down as if all software inside had been wiped. Which is what presumably happened with the Geth.

[Killdren88]

They said Halo 3 would be the end. I doubt considering what we got. This won't be the end. Here to hoping ME 4 will start with Shepard waking up in London rubble.

[Ithurael]

Killdren88 wrote...

They said Halo 3 would be the end. I doubt considering what we got. This won't be the end. Here to hoping ME 4 will start with Shepard waking up in London rubble.

Halo 3 was the end of the bungie storyline

Bungie made halo 1-3

However, Halo 4 is being made by 343 studios.

There will be a mass effect 4, however, bioware has stated that there will be no shepard in it. ME3 is the end of shepards storyline. It is the end of the current story arch.

[Ithurael]

The Twilight God wrote...

snip
The real problem with ME3 is that it feels striped. The game had the same development time as ME2, but without the need for graphic and gameplay overhaul and it's half as long. I'm pretty sure they cut alot of stuff out to sell later as DLC.

snip

^This. This so damn much:crying:

If anything ME3 does feel very stripped and lacking. For me the emotional climax came at tuchanka and then the game began to dip down, but then rannoch happend and I started to break immersion (legion going to reaper tech/code to upgrade the geth). After rannoch, sanctuary was the only level that had some spirit. Earth could have been an on-a-rail shooter for ch*ist sake.

And ME2 came out in 2010 (3 yrs after ME1) ME3 came out in 2012 (2 yrs after ME2) All in all, I really think that bioware should have given ME3 more time to be fleshed out. I am still finding some glitches and bad pathing.

Bioware just dropped the ball with the final part of the game unfortunatly.

[The Twilight God]

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

^They have the Reaper code in them. The thing that made a single geth several times more intelligent than 10 Geth. I'd say that counts as Reaper Technology.

There is really no proof the geth die. Actually, evidence suggests they aren't killed in Destroy.

The geth are not "reaper tech". Neither is eezo and alternating current (which is all mass effect fields are). The only things that are "reaper tech" are things that indoctrinate and function as an extension of their will. Things that, as EDI would put it, have "reaper signatures".

As far as "Reaper code" is concerned, it's a terminology which is commonly misunderstood. The Geth simply have a code that the Reapers designed to improve their efficiency, but it doesn't make them reaper-like or make them "reaper tech". For instance, say a reaper was an architech and built a house. The house wouldn't blow up just because a reaper designed it. The house isn't "reaper tech". The Geth remain programs distinguished from the reapers. Legion doesn't say it was the code that allowed them to be controlled. The code was simply something that imporvement their efficiency. It had nothing to do with the actual control. Otherwise, Legion would have turned on Shepard.

Any machinery is synthetic. There is no difference between a mech, an alliance cruiser or a geth destroyer platform. The fact that all synthetics, which would include all those ships cruising past that broken relay, were not destroyed or disabled indicates that the Kid may have been fibbing alittle. It's not that far fetched actually. It doesn't want you to choose Destroy. Tali even says that Geth were loading into Quarian suits cybernetics to help them develop their immune system faster. They are still the same software-only lifeforms they have always been. Just like the epilogues, Bioware expected the player to make quick emotionally charged assumptions and ignore the plain facts. They needed to tempt players away from Destroy and it would be harder to do so if only EDI, a single individual, was the only thing at stake. Going back to the epilogue I think a mention of the geth sacrifice would be warranted. Hackett says nothing about any such loss.

[The Twilight God]

Ithurael wrote...

If anything ME3 does feel very stripped and lacking. For me the emotional climax came at tuchanka and then the game began to dip down, but then rannoch happend and I started to break immersion (legion going to reaper tech/code to upgrade the geth). After rannoch, sanctuary was the only level that had some spirit. Earth could have been an on-a-rail shooter for ch*ist sake.

Tuchanka was watery eye emotional climax
Rannoch was more tense emotional climax
The only optional mission I though was really good was Grissom Academy.

I enjoyed most of the mandatory missions. Thessia itself was kinda lame. I enjoyed bringing Javik to the temple though. And Earth was "just another mission". The entire finale felt like it was 95% Alliance. Wall to wall Alliance crusier with a handful of Turian and Asari ships. Every fighter was human. No geth, quarians, salarians, hanar, etc. shown actually fighting. I think there is only one shot of an asari vessel during the actual fighting. No krogan's fighting on earth, no elcor walking tanks, no geth primes dropping out of the sky. Ugh! I though this was about the galaxy uniting together, not the Alliance taking on the reapers by themselves which is what it felt like. That had to be one of the most anti-climatic endings ever. They should have taken a queue form DA:O on how to deal with war assets. It would have been OK the Citadel was an actual level you fought through to get to the console, but noooooo....

And the romances were just done horribly. I romanced Tali and I wasn't even sure if it imported correctly. Shepard never even mentions her. She might as well not even exist until the moment she walks into the command room. I now see no point in a Jack romance anymore. Miranda is saved only in the fact that it actually makes sense why she would have no contact with Shepard.  Once again, Bioware spares no expense to ensure I know that I didn't romance the correct person. As soon as I leave Earth: Hereeeeeee's Liara!!!

Ithurael wrote...

And ME2 came out in 2010 (3 yrs after ME1) ME3 came out in 2012 (2 yrs after ME2) All in all, I really think that bioware should have given ME3 more time to be fleshed out. I am still finding some glitches and bad pathing.

The time between release is not the same as development time. ME2 and 3 had the same development time.

ME2 had about 27 months development time (Nov 2007 - Dec 2009).
ME3 had about 27 months development time (Dec 2009 - Feb 2012).

Modifié par The Twilight God, 08 septembre 2012 - 11:39 .

[Killdren88]

The Twilight God wrote...

Ithurael wrote...

If anything ME3 does feel very stripped and lacking. For me the emotional climax came at tuchanka and then the game began to dip down, but then rannoch happend and I started to break immersion (legion going to reaper tech/code to upgrade the geth). After rannoch, sanctuary was the only level that had some spirit. Earth could have been an on-a-rail shooter for ch*ist sake.

Tuchanka was watery eye emotional climax
Rannoch was more tense emotional climax
The only optional mission I though was really good was Grissom Academy.

I enjoyed most of the mandatory missions. Thessia itself was kinda lame. I enjoyed bringing Javik to the temple though. And Earth was "just another mission". The entire finale felt like it was 95% Alliance. Wall to wall Alliance crusier with a handful of Turian and Asari ships. Every fighter was human. No geth, quarians, salarians, hanar, etc. shown actually fighting. I think there is only one shot of an asari vessel during the actual fighting. No krogan's fighting on earth, no elcor walking tanks, no geth primes dropping out of the sky. Ugh! I though this was about the galaxy uniting together, not the Alliance taking on the reapers by themselves which is what it felt like. That had to be one of the most anti-climatic endings ever. They should have taken a queue form DA:O on how to deal with war assets. It would have been OK the Citadel was an actual level you fought through to get to the console, but noooooo....

And the romances were just done horribly. I romanced Tali and I wasn't even sure if it imported correctly. Shepard never even mentions her. She might as well not even exist until the moment she walks into the command room. I now see no point in a Jack romance anymore. Miranda is saved only in the fact that it actually makes sense why she would have no contact with Shepard.  Once again, Bioware spares no expense to ensure I know that I didn't romance the correct person. As soon as I leave Earth: Hereeeeeee's Liara!!!

Ithurael wrote...

And ME2 came out in 2010 (3 yrs after ME1) ME3 came out in 2012 (2 yrs after ME2) All in all, I really think that bioware should have given ME3 more time to be fleshed out. I am still finding some glitches and bad pathing.

The time between release is not the same as development time. ME2 and 3 had the same development time.

ME2 had about 27 months development time (Nov 2007 - Dec 2009).
ME3 had about 27 months development time (Dec 2009 - Feb 2012).

You have to remember that some of the time was dedicated to multiplayer sadly....

[LilyasAvalon]

The Twilight God wrote...

ME2 had about 27 months development time (Nov 2007 - Dec 2009).
ME3 had about 27 months development time (Dec 2009 - Feb 2012).

...What's your point? ME2 was pretty damn disappointing too story wise in comparison to ME1. All that tells me is that both games should've been given a LOT more time.

[Arppis]

LilyasAvalon wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

ME2 had about 27 months development time (Nov 2007 - Dec 2009).
ME3 had about 27 months development time (Dec 2009 - Feb 2012).

...What's your point? ME2 was pretty damn disappointing too story wise in comparison to ME1. All that tells me is that both games should've been given a LOT more time.

They should have. But the main story wasn't the beef, it was the little stories it was constructed from and not to mention introducing the Cerberus to player.

[Doveberry]

Chris Priestly wrote...

You can keep discussing this if you wish, but it is false. Sorry.

We have aid numerous times now, we have "ended the endings". While there is more DLC for both Single and Multiplayer still to come, there is no more "endings" DLC.

This comment did it for me, for some reason. I still had some tiny bit of hope left that this series might get the finale it deserves, but now I guess I'll give up. And I won't be buying another thing from Bioware until reviews confirm beyond any doubt that it's worth paying for.

I know that it's silly, but I somehow feel stabbed in the back. I also know that my voice in this is insignificant, and that ultimately nobody cares what I think. But I've been so very attached to this company for so very long that it actually feels painful to think about what's been done to my favourite franchise, by my favourite game developer. The whole situation feels like a bad breakup, and even if I am just being silly, I think it'll take some time for me to get over this.

However, I expect that the only way of actually getting over it is to move on to other developers and other things. I may change my tune if Bioware happen to do something truly amazing out of the blue, but until then I imagine that this feeling of having been "betrayed" will remain. And it makes me sad that I suddenly feel this way about a company that I've loved since my childhood.

It would have been lovely if there had been something to this rumour. I always knew it was an extremely long shot, and that it was extremely unlikely, but it was the last straw I had left to cling to that actually made me feel that I could possibly go back and replay the games. No straws left now, I guess. Time to mope.

[Ithurael]

Doveberry wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

You can keep discussing this if you wish, but it is false. Sorry.

We have aid numerous times now, we have "ended the endings". While there is more DLC for both Single and Multiplayer still to come, there is no more "endings" DLC.

This comment did it for me, for some reason. I still had some tiny bit of hope left that this series might get the finale it deserves, but now I guess I'll give up. And I won't be buying another thing from Bioware until reviews confirm beyond any doubt that it's worth paying for.

I know that it's silly, but I somehow feel stabbed in the back. I also know that my voice in this is insignificant, and that ultimately nobody cares what I think. But I've been so very attached to this company for so very long that it actually feels painful to think about what's been done to my favourite franchise, by my favourite game developer. The whole situation feels like a bad breakup, and even if I am just being silly, I think it'll take some time for me to get over this.

*snip

Don't worry man, many of us have been there. Point in fact, my gf dumped me about three months after the ME3 endings for an older guy who has a lot more money and promised her a 'better' career. but that is besides the point. (I am still kinda pissed about it though)

In the end, we fall down then we pick ourselves back up again.
:wizard:

[Doveberry]

Ithurael wrote...
In the end, we fall down then we pick ourselves back up again.
:wizard:

I guess we do. Thanks for making me feel a bit less mopey.

Edit: Also, sorry about your girlfriend. But if that was her reason for dumping you, then I'm sure you can do much better. Money should be not be an issue when it comes to love.

Modifié par Doveberry, 10 septembre 2012 - 05:36 .