6432 réponses à ce sujet

[robertthebard]

3DandBeyond wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

My belief that I, along with my crew, would be the ones to pay that price pretty much started in the sequence leading up to Ilos.  The Avina vid above just convinced me that I was right.  Further confirmation came when I discovered that I had been under house arrest for 6 months, and then that choice line at the time listed above, I knew I was in trouble.  That's the downside to being The Chosen One.  When the feces hits the fan, it's blowing all over you.  The problem is, there isn't a single one of my Shepards that would have turned their back on it.  If all it took to save the galaxy was their own death, they'd have done it.  Regarding the Geth, all I can think of right now is Legion's line on the Shuttle after it confides in you about the Reaper code, and Shepard says they're better than that:  "No, we're not".  Taking note of Legion's sacrifice on Rannoch to deliver the Reaper Code, I cannot help but believe that, in Shepard's shoes, it would have chosen Destroy.  Even if it could still connect to a consensus, that would have been what I foresee as the outcome.  This knowledge, idea in no way affected the Shepard that had to deal with their deaths after choosing Destroy and getting the breath scene.  The Brutal Calculus of War did, however.

I can overlook Sovereign in the lab, because it gave us that great one liner.  I can also buy some kind of shielding vs a passive signal that would indoctrinate, since it does happen with dead Reapers-think the Reaper IFF mission.  It's not much more of a stretch than Mordin's "the swarm can't see us" thing for Horizon.  Hell, it could be something as simple as a cellphone jammer, for all I know.  (You'd laugh at the images that brought up, of Reapers calling your brain, and can't get through)  I had my own "ark" idea, although mine was to go hide where Shepard's apartment is.  The problem is, it's going to take about a century for the Reapers to finish what they're doing.  If Shepard is going to die as a result of the war, I'd rather go down fighting than hiding though.

See, Robert it's hard to take you seriously.  I don't mean this in a nasty way, but I find some things really funny.  At the end of one paragraph you say the brutal calculus of war, but then in the very next, one item among many that was ignored by people and that would have proven the reapers is a comin' (the sovereign tidbit) you have no problem with them all ignoring because of the funny line Shepard says.  I thought the line was funny too but also sad-again, who has the last laugh?  in 2 out of 3 choices, sovereigns bromancers do.  In one choice I don't believe the noise Shepard made was a laugh and in the other non-choice there's just silence.

One of the funniest things I ever read was someone saying if you asked the geth they'd say destroy makes sense, too.  However, listen to what the kid says and see if it makes any sense at all.  It's a mess.  He says synthetics are targeted and even you are part synthetic-which means???  And more fun stuff.  I think the geth would consider the whole ball of wax a bunch of nonsense and really, asking them what you should do and then telling them because the kid says you'll turn into killer robots and we must be saved from you.  That's what reaper boy is telling me, oh synthetic one.  You know the guy that's been sending in actual authentic real killer robots.  He's been sending them in to turn us into goo, so you don't kill us.  Make sense, geth bro?  Uh no.

I know that's not what you're saying.  You say that if the roles were reversed the geth would kill humans.  You don't know that's the case.  Legion showed them capable of sacrificing themselves.  They've done so before.  They didn't even have to align themselve with organics at any time because it was not clear that they were targets of the reapers at all.  But they stood up to fight alongside organics.

Yeah, subtlety is lost on the internet, and there's no shifty eye smiley to convey subtle attempts at humor.  That that line wasn't taken seriously was the intent.  However, no, I do believe that given the choice, Legion would have chosen to destroy the Geth to save the galaxy.  I don't want to seem like I'm assigning my own beliefs about the choices, all of them, to Legion, but, part of my own thoughts about choosing Destroy are derived from conversations with Legion over both games.  We can gain a lot of insight into how their consensus works, and their own motivations from these dialogs,and ultimately by the fact that they chose to let the Quarians leave when it was obvious they were no longer a threat.  The Geth have seen the result of worshipping the Reapers, ME 1 and into ME 2.  That the Geth disagree with the Heretics, and are "surprised" to find out that they are spying on them, loyalty mission.  In the example I gave above, Legion tells you that the Geth "are not better than that".  Interpretation of events will vary, and of course not everyone will see this the way I do, but given the choice to allow the entire galaxy to self determinate, the Geth would lay down their lives to ensure it could happen.  It is central to how the consensus thinks.

As to not clear, Legion makes it pretty clear in 2 that they are outside of the Reaper's plans, and that that's why the Geth would fight both them and the Heretics.  That is a direct response to Shepard asking why the Reapers would attack the Geth.  That Legion believes the Reapers are a threat to the Geth means that the Consensus also believes it.  This is why they are working to thwart the Heretic's plan to make them think like the Heretics do.  They would then believe that fighting Organics was "right", and that's not what they believe.  So, I believe, given the choice, the Geth would die to save the rest of the galaxy.  Whether they actually care about organics or not is not the issue, the issue is that even if they agreed with the Reapers, the Reapers would still harvest the Geth once they had outlived their usefulness.  If they could kill the Reapers at the expense of their own existence, they would do so.  Calculus of War, and being logical beings, instead of emotional beings, they would see the logic.  This has nothing to do with SC's ravings, which are merely Moustache Twirling Exposition, it is more to do with how I have seen that the Consensus works, and what they would do given the choice.

[Calamity]

3DandBeyond wrote...

saracen16 wrote...
**snip**

Zan51 wrote..
***snipsnip*** 

****snipsnipsnip****

 Well, threaten me with a good time.

LOL

Please do! Pleaseplease please! I dare ya! 

**Edit** um wow. My LOL and I dare ya are um outside of the / quote...hmmm

***Edited Edit*** Testing

Modifié par Calamity, 06 septembre 2012 - 12:20 .

[Redbelle]

Pararox wrote...

I was honestly more surprised that Shepard could survive in any of the endings than I was by dying in the others. The protagonists' death is subtly hinted at throughout the game, just like in DA:O. I'd go as far as to call it cliche.

But in DA:O, while death was determined to be envitable, there were ways to work around it and live depending on the choices you made.

ME3, by copmarison of DA:O seems to be of lesser scope in that you are not given any option to live and by not having that option, we run smack into a walls of the illusion of choice's BW made for us and have to deal with the fact that someone at BW forgot how to make a BW game ending in favour of a tyoe of ending other game developers have been playing aroung with for years.

In fact, some of the big names have started to copy the BW model of RPG game design and narrative. Probably because it works in a way that adds to the individuals RPG experience. For BW to turn away from that and limit the scope of their ending may have been a cost effective strategy, but it's cost them the confidence of alot of fans.

[3DandBeyond]

Dendio1 wrote...

Leviathan dlc pretty much solidifies the ending. If it was day one dlc then people wouldn't have been as shell shocked by star kid.

We would have simply said * Ah this is what levvy was talking about*. The way it was initially star kid had next to no foreshadowing. in reality there simply may have been no way for shepard to know the truth until he got there, but now leviathan provides some level of build up to star kid the transition to the ending is smoother.

And then Leviathan has absolutely nothing to do with the ending or in the ending.  And it does nothing to fix the flaws of what the kid says.  Conflict is not always destructive.  Killer robots are not inevitable.  "Preserving" people is not keeping them alive.  And the galaxy is just as screwed as ever, Levi or no Levi.  Just because the foe thinks or is given better reasons for why he's killing you, doesn't mean you like him doing so any better.

The ending denies the existence of diversity, because the AI doesn't understand that.  It denies the idea of unity because the AI does not understand that.  It denies the idea of redemption because the kid does not understand that.  All the kid can see is inevitability.  I don't care where he got the ideas from-he could have read them in a fortune cookie or had a dream for all I care.  That does not mean it makes any sense to do anything he would think would solve his problem, his goal based on seriously flawed logic.  And even so, none of his solutions solve this problem if in fact it is inevitable.  He's to preserve organics.  Well, synthesis doesn't do this, because organics no longer exist.  Control does not guarantee this, because totalitarian rule is anything but peaceful and life-affirming.  Destroy does not guarantee this either.  Each one is also geared at eliminating the possibility of killer robots existing and wiping out all organic life.  Neither does this at all.  In fact, his current solution didn't stop this and helped to encourage it by using the heretic geth.

What kind of seems clear is that it's all tech that is based on reaper tech that seems to be infected with this flaw.  Perhaps that is more why he thinks killer robots are inevitable.  Reaper tech creates this flaw (the killer robot "gene"), this aggressiveness eventually.  It's all based on his creators and their creations which are always flawed.  He is flawed.  So, it's a good idea to make a choice to integrate this flaw even more fully, internally or externally upon the galaxy?

[robertthebard]

Warrior Craess wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Ozida wrote...

Wouldn't it be silly to assume a painful death for your protagonist from the very start? Especially when you are proven that Shepard survives and rises against all odds during first and second games? It was a mixed message that BW has sent. In ME1 and ME2 Shepard was an idealistic hero, who managed to come out of all troubles with minimum blood and sweat. Suicide mission? Not a problem, all survived. Death at space? Thanks to Cerberus, back to live. Killing all those batarians? Nah, no trial for that either... And then, all of a sudden game turns into dark and painful story of a pathetic old soldier that has nightmares, acts tired and annoyed and has to sacrifice a lot to achieve somewhat that's not even a full victory. It either the first two games had to be darker, or the last game had to be lighter, but the tone of all 3 conflict a lot. And that is why, I think, most people didn't think that phrase: "This is the end of Shepard's story" would mean "Choose your way to kill the character".

This is not true. Original post represends the message that many people want, it is a reasonable request that doesn't concern the major feautures of the game. Yes, it's individual desire combined, however, into a mass demand. And, excuse me, but BioWare did make huge profit on ME3, so should they wanted to create additional DLC, they would've had the resources. It is just they don't want to for some reason, although there are people ready to pay for it.

I'm fixing to sound really silly then, because frankly, after Sovereign, I didn't see how we were going to beat the Reapers, especially if there were more than a few of them.  Hey, we took out the Collectors too, but you know what, they weren't Reapers.  What was the galaxy doing while I was dead, and then goofing off with Cerberus?  Pretending Reapers didn't exist.  Roll into the Citadel in ME 2 and ask Avina about the Reapers.  Here ya go.  These are the people that are supposed to fight a successful conventional war against the Reapers?  At least, until they show up and then they're like 5:31.  I don't buy it.  I really thought we'd be toast.

We know that we're not going to get a whole re-write, which is what would be needed for a conventional win (or asymetrical war for that matter). But as Leviathan shows, DLC can be writen that Could effect the endings. (IMO no reason that levi didn't effect the ending except BW digging their heels in). 

For example, they could make a DLC with IT except instead of shepard that indoctrinated it's Hackette.... Having to remove him, would allow Primate Victus to lead the  galaxy fleet. allowing new tactics with the new allies and forces, such as Leviathans.

it would allow you to have your same endings, and allow for some expansion for either destroy, or refuse. If it was something that enough people would buy, then why not allow it? 

Considering actual impact, I think Leviathan should have been included initially in the game.  It would not have addressed my issue with the end sequence, surviving Harbinger's beam, but it would have addressed a lot of the crapstorm that follwed, from what I understand.  You see, no matter what they do, if they don't fix Harbinger's laser survival, they can't fix the endings for me.  I am actually ok(?) with Destroy working like it does, I just can't force myself to play past the rush to the beam most of the time.  This is why I am neither for, nor against optional ending DLC's, and I thought I had made that clear before now.  I'm not here to nay say, or support, I'm here for conversation about it, and about some of the sidetrack conversations about the game.  This is why I have stated that even if all of these DLC were made, I wouldn't buy them, unless they address the DeM that's required to get to them. 

A lot of the problems stem from SC, and assets.  I'd like to have the asset wheel we had in Origins for the Denerim segment, that would rock.  Krogan shock troops would be ideal for part of the Thanix Missile segment, while you may want Turian snipers for other parts of it, etc etc etc.  Even which team would be better for which part would be an interesting debate based entirely on playstyles.  But fixing everything past the beam doesn't fix what's broken for me.

[Redbelle]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Dendio1 wrote...

Leviathan dlc pretty much solidifies the ending. If it was day one dlc then people wouldn't have been as shell shocked by star kid.

We would have simply said * Ah this is what levvy was talking about*. The way it was initially star kid had next to no foreshadowing. in reality there simply may have been no way for shepard to know the truth until he got there, but now leviathan provides some level of build up to star kid the transition to the ending is smoother.

And then Leviathan has absolutely nothing to do with the ending or in the ending.  And it does nothing to fix the flaws of what the kid says.  Conflict is not always destructive.  Killer robots are not inevitable.  "Preserving" people is not keeping them alive.  And the galaxy is just as screwed as ever, Levi or no Levi.  Just because the foe thinks or is given better reasons for why he's killing you, doesn't mean you like him doing so any better.

The ending denies the existence of diversity, because the AI doesn't understand that.  It denies the idea of unity because the AI does not understand that.  It denies the idea of redemption because the kid does not understand that.  All the kid can see is inevitability.  I don't care where he got the ideas from-he could have read them in a fortune cookie or had a dream for all I care.  That does not mean it makes any sense to do anything he would think would solve his problem, his goal based on seriously flawed logic.  And even so, none of his solutions solve this problem if in fact it is inevitable.  He's to preserve organics.  Well, synthesis doesn't do this, because organics no longer exist.  Control does not guarantee this, because totalitarian rule is anything but peaceful and life-affirming.  Destroy does not guarantee this either.  Each one is also geared at eliminating the possibility of killer robots existing and wiping out all organic life.  Neither does this at all.  In fact, his current solution didn't stop this and helped to encourage it by using the heretic geth.

What kind of seems clear is that it's all tech that is based on reaper tech that seems to be infected with this flaw.  Perhaps that is more why he thinks killer robots are inevitable.  Reaper tech creates this flaw (the killer robot "gene"), this aggressiveness eventually.  It's all based on his creators and their creations which are always flawed.  He is flawed.  So, it's a good idea to make a choice to integrate this flaw even more fully, internally or externally upon the galaxy?

One thing I wish BW hadn't done is go for a, Terminator/Matrix/Man vs machine ending. There have been other games, other movies, tv series, books etc that have already done this and done it so much better. ME3's ending brings precious little to this type of narrative, and the man vs machine aspect of Mass Effect is such a small narrative in the scope of the story as a whole that it was perhaps envitable that such an under-explained and under developed part of the game should host the ticker tape finish line.

[robertthebard]

BearlyHere wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Lunch Box1912 wrote...

I understand Shepard must die, that’s what makes the story good (correction) IMO … sacrifice. The way Bioware did it felt rushed and poorly thought out. I’m no writer but I would like to see what a Pat Weekes ending would look like. I’m a huge fan of the wrapping up of the Genophage. It had everything the end of the game lacks.

We still love you Bioware, even if we didn’t love the ending. Keep the single player DLC coming!

And nice touch, liked the added Catalyst dialogue after completing the Leviathan DLC.

Fixed. Added IMO.

Sacrifice doesn't make the story good for everyone.

forced Sacrifice you mean, Bioware shouldn't have tried to kill Shepard in every single ending. Thats very bad writing

I'd like to see a poll asking simply if the death of Shepard had been stated, or heavily foreshadowed in ME1, would you have still played the series?

Yes, without doubt.  My canon ending is Shepard dying, at the beam in London.  Had this been the original ending of the game, I would have been ecstatic.  "I'm going to stop the Reapers, or die trying".  I get that a lot of people didn't buy into that line, but I also understand that a lot of people played Brutal Renegade because it sounds cool, and didn't put any thought into what that really means.  My first playthrough of ME 1, I had to step away from it, because ultimately it was way too harsh for me to wrap my head around for the first time in a new game.  Later, it became my favorite style.  However, this means that I had fully wrapped my head around "willing to do what ever it takes to stop the Reapers", even if that means laying down my own life.

[Redbelle]

@robertthebard:

It may seem silly, but the simple matter is we know next to nothing about the Reapers to be able to make that distinction of being unbeatable. Every encounter with a Reaper has been a fight to survive and escape. They have not been probed or investigated sufficiently to know their limitations beyond encounters in space.

For example. We have no idea if they utilise Command and control to direct Reaper movements across the galaxy. The galaxy, being pretty darn big, cannot be occupied in its entirity at any one time. They have to go through it system by system. Cut off their ability to communicate and co-ordinate and the allied fleet have the potential to gain both surprise and numerical advantage over the Reapers until the Reapers find a way to regroup. Without communication however regrouping can not be co-ordinated into a single mass and so pocket's of Reapers would appear. While more deadly in this group the allied fleet can still gain advantage in numbers. It's the point where the Reapers gather in force like at Earth where the Reapers gain the most killing power but provided the fleet can chew up small numbers of Reapers on a regular basis with little cost to themselves they have the potential to be able to win.

It's Hackett's, we've got the catalyst, lets go Zulu on their asses which ultimately gets everyone killed.

[robertthebard]

Alez Zinai wrote...

saracen16 wrote...
Way to miss the point. The game has always been about stopping the Reapers at any cost.

In the end it turned out that to stop the Reapers you need to fulfill thier goals. Even at destroy they kill all synthetics following thier solution (in that case they just delay "conflict organics vs synthetics"). Is this what the game has always been about?

Yep, they wanted to get killed, that's why they landed, dropped their shields and said "Shoot me here"...

[Ozida]

Redbelle wrote...

One thing I wish BW hadn't done is go for a, Terminator/Matrix/Man vs machine ending. There have been other games, other movies, tv series, books etc that have already done this and done it so much better. ME3's ending brings precious little to this type of narrative, and the man vs machine aspect of Mass Effect is such a small narrative in the scope of the story as a whole that it was perhaps envitable that such an under-explained and under developed part of the game should host the ticker tape finish line.

Oh, I am so glad somebody else thinks the same way! It suprises me that some people think ME3 ending is something new and unique as almost they have never seen those other movies/ tv shows/ games with exact same theme. Never thought such complicated game as ME would come down to a simple "organics vs. syntetics" problem, and never thought somebody would see a best solution to this problem in merging two together.

[3DandBeyond]

Redbelle wrote...

@robertthebard:

It may seem silly, but the simple matter is we know next to nothing about the Reapers to be able to make that distinction of being unbeatable. Every encounter with a Reaper has been a fight to survive and escape. They have not been probed or investigated sufficiently to know their limitations beyond encounters in space.

For example. We have no idea if they utilise Command and control to direct Reaper movements across the galaxy. The galaxy, being pretty darn big, cannot be occupied in its entirity at any one time. They have to go through it system by system. Cut off their ability to communicate and co-ordinate and the allied fleet have the potential to gain both surprise and numerical advantage over the Reapers until the Reapers find a way to regroup. Without communication however regrouping can not be co-ordinated into a single mass and so pocket's of Reapers would appear. While more deadly in this group the allied fleet can still gain advantage in numbers. It's the point where the Reapers gather in force like at Earth where the Reapers gain the most killing power but provided the fleet can chew up small numbers of Reapers on a regular basis with little cost to themselves they have the potential to be able to win.

It's Hackett's, we've got the catalyst, lets go Zulu on their asses which ultimately gets everyone killed.

This is exactly it.  If we needed to understand them at all, it  was along the same lines of Mordin trying to understand the swarms.  The lunacy of having a piece of Sovereign is that it apparently did no good to have it sit in Dr. Bryson's office gathering dust.  What are they made of?  My assumption (could be very wrong) is that they break down all that organic goo into base components which they use with (post EC) synthetic materials obtained from breaking down synthetics to base materials to create a shell and internal infrastructure.  I see the intellectual (consciousness) energy as being utilized to create processing power.

Hackett is the single worst character of the whole game, IMO.  I put him above the kid-and I really detest the kid.  Now, I love Lance and his VA and I love the concept of Hackett, but if ineptitude had a face, it would be his.  In ME1, he was leaving bombs and tech and Alliance everything everywhere.  In ME2, he decides he's going to tell the Batarians that Shepard killed 300k of them with an asteroid so Shepard will have to face the music.  And in ME3, he decides to tell everyone to bend over and kiss their assets goodbye-if only we can find plans for a big battery we won't have to do that or will we.  Hell, let's just shoot at reapers with our assault rifles and hope for the best.  Keep shooting, it is impossible, but keep shooting.  At no point did he ever get involved in trying to show the galaxy the reapers were real-and he knew Bryson had proof.  And the collectors pointed at the proof.  And the Arrival's data pointed at the proof.  No wonder the galaxy is in the trouble it's in.

And, yes why not try cutting off their communication with each other.  And try interrupting the indoctrination signal.  That shielding in Bryson's lab indicates they had the ability.  And they seem to use it at will, though where the heck that came from is anyone's guess. 

It's quite possible they use QEC-which may be where it came from and is related to Leviathan's thrall and probably indoctrination.

It just makes no sense for them to have fought Sovereign and then to do nothing.  You don't even have to say he was a reaper-it's a new big foe, we have to prepare in case there are more of them.  And, it's not a real good attitude to say that one enemy was really tough to beat so we can't even try to fight them.  I mean they fight Sovereign and he was tough so in the beginning of ME3, Shepard indicates they have no chance, even before the reapers hit them when they still know nothing about how they operate at all.  This is really not good military thinking.  Where'd Shepard get all that knowledge from?  It's not about strategy and tactics AND we fight or we die.  Ok, what are we to do then, exactly and how do you know this?

[robertthebard]

Redbelle wrote...

@robertthebard:

It may seem silly, but the simple matter is we know next to nothing about the Reapers to be able to make that distinction of being unbeatable. Every encounter with a Reaper has been a fight to survive and escape. They have not been probed or investigated sufficiently to know their limitations beyond encounters in space.

For example. We have no idea if they utilise Command and control to direct Reaper movements across the galaxy. The galaxy, being pretty darn big, cannot be occupied in its entirity at any one time. They have to go through it system by system. Cut off their ability to communicate and co-ordinate and the allied fleet have the potential to gain both surprise and numerical advantage over the Reapers until the Reapers find a way to regroup. Without communication however regrouping can not be co-ordinated into a single mass and so pocket's of Reapers would appear. While more deadly in this group the allied fleet can still gain advantage in numbers. It's the point where the Reapers gather in force like at Earth where the Reapers gain the most killing power but provided the fleet can chew up small numbers of Reapers on a regular basis with little cost to themselves they have the potential to be able to win.

It's Hackett's, we've got the catalyst, lets go Zulu on their asses which ultimately gets everyone killed.

This presumes a lot.  Against Sovereign, the Alliance lost 8 ships, if you save the Council, I didn't catch numbers if you don't.  You can even paragon the names to the most punched reporter in the galaxy if you choose to do so.  A lot of people take defeating Sovereign on it's own as a sign that we can beat the Reapers.  I didn't.  In the initial wave on Earth, Hackett will tell you that he sacrificed an entire fleet to save two, which retreated.  If he'd stayed and fought, he would have eventually lost them all.  Meanwhile, the strongest military in the galaxy has already lost at least one colony, that we know of, since we don't really know how many colonies they have, and are in the process of losing Palaven.  This is happening simultaneously.  They didn't stop attacking Earth and go to Palaven, they hit them at the same time.  They are busy at multiple points in the galaxy at the same time, watch your galaxy map as you progress through the game, they don't stop attacking Point A, or B to go to C, they are doing this all at one time.  If they brought their entire force to bear on one System, they would control it in a matter of days.

Even the Reaper that we take out on Rannoch is, largely, fabrication.  It has no ground troops, and no support, and yet, it takes three volleys from the largest fleet in the galaxy, focused on the "sweet spot" to take it down.  If there had been a Reaper in orbit in support, it would have wreaked havoc on the Quarian fleet.  If it had had ground support, our method would have been impossible to pull off.  So contrivances aside, we're really not doing that well against the Reapers.  Yeah, we've killed 3 of them, Sovereign, the destroyer on the Krogan homeworld, with Kalros, and then this one.  At what cost?  Well, we lost a lot with Sovereign, enough that according to our assets list, we still haven't recovered fully from it.  We get to have a nice, if believable, contrivance with Kalros, and we get a demonstration of just how hard it really is to kill a single Reaper on Rannoch.

In the meantime, we learn that the Reapers are taking out colonies with factories on them.  This is key.  Because without facilities to manufacture the things we need to fight a long war of attrition, we're not going to be able to fight it.  If we had a way to track our resources while planetside, it would be interesting to see just how far our EMS is dropping while TIM and SC get their Moustache Twirls on.  It's not enough, or not noticed by some, to see that according to financial experts, we'll only be able to afford the war for about a year.  I think this is a news report on the Citadel while you're there, not sure where I heard it actually.  The Reapers, on the other hand, aren't limited by this.  I know a codex entry indicates that they don't need fuel, which is why fuel depots are mostly destroyed.  You know, when we scan and find fuel, those were depots at one time, right?

So no, what happens leading up to the landing on Earth is what has to happen if we're going to fight the war.  It's not done to fuel somebody's ego.  It's either we fight, or we lay down and die, and fighting is going to be costly.

[3DandBeyond]

Ozida wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

One thing I wish BW hadn't done is go for a, Terminator/Matrix/Man vs machine ending. There have been other games, other movies, tv series, books etc that have already done this and done it so much better. ME3's ending brings precious little to this type of narrative, and the man vs machine aspect of Mass Effect is such a small narrative in the scope of the story as a whole that it was perhaps envitable that such an under-explained and under developed part of the game should host the ticker tape finish line.

Oh, I am so glad somebody else thinks the same way! It suprises me that some people think ME3 ending is something new and unique as almost they have never seen those other movies/ tv shows/ games with exact same theme. Never thought such complicated game as ME would come down to a simple "organics vs. syntetics" problem, and never thought somebody would see a best solution to this problem in merging two together.

Yes, it's the most nauseating idea that it all boiled down to stopping the killer robots before they kill us.  It would have been so cool if they'd stuck to the idea of diversity and then saw it applying to synthetic life as well.  Why think that all of them will get smart and then turn into killing machines.  Why wouldn't they be able to achieve just as much diversity as people?  And why would the "best" thing for all have to be synthesis so that synthetics all want full understanding of organics?  This is juvenile thinking.  Even dogs have different personalities.  Some think they are people, but some merely really like being dogs and they act like dogs.  Some act more like real predators.

I think we could all envision synthetic life where synthetics might dislike the inefficiency of organics, they might hate them, they might love them, and they might even disregard them, ignore them.  There could be synthetics that don't want to be bipedal and prefer hive life and those that don't like it that they don't look like organics.

The whole thing also indicates that all organics want to be more like synthetics, which is ludicrous as well.  What the game is saying seems to be that every being in this galaxy really hates what they are, they hate themselves.  Organics want to be synthetic and synthetics want to be organics.  And for some reason, the kid thinks that simply because he knows it could happen if it isn't forced when it is forced, that it will eventually happen.  Ok what?  Because he (we) know it is possible it is inevitable.  Ok, shut the front door.  So now anything the kid knows is possible is inevitable.  Now I understand why he thinks killer robots are inevitable-because he knows it is possible.  Heaven forbid he knows that it's possible that pigs can fly because he will see that as inevitable too and anything that is inevitable, he must make happen.

This is his logic:
It's possible killer robots will exist, so it's inevitable, so he must make it happen by creating killer robots (reapers).
It's possible (ugh) that synthesis one day will naturally occur (not in my opinion), so it's inevitable, so he must make it happen.
Please never ever show this kid any other things that might be possible, because his logic says whatever is possible is inevitable and he must make it happen.


Here's a thought I'd like him to have: It's possible to time travel, therefore it's inevitable, therefore he must make it happen that we can travel back in time and after seeing Sovereign the galaxy will work to build up their assets in case any of his brothers show up-whether they are geth wannabes or a whole new race is irrelevant.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 06 septembre 2012 - 01:43 .

[Ozida]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Yes, it's the most nauseating idea that it all boiled down to stopping the killer robots before they kill us.  It would have been so cool if they'd stuck to the idea of diversity and then saw it applying to synthetic life as well.  Why think that all of them will get smart and then turn into killing machines.  Why wouldn't they be able to achieve just as much diversity as people?  And why would the "best" thing for all have to be synthesis so that synthetics all want full understanding of organics?  This is juvenile thinking.  Even dogs have different personalities.  Some think they are people, but some merely really like being dogs and they act like dogs.  Some act more like real predators.

I agree with the whole post you've wrote, 3D, but I bolded one part that actually made me realize that synthetics already achieved diversity within the game. I am obviously talking about geth. There are "heretics", but also there are "other people" among them, who do not want to kill (Legion states that he is not the only friendly one). Doesn't it prove evolution within synthetics life without attempt of making them more "human"? Also despite my dislike of EDI, she is a great example of synthetics coming "alive" without synthesis. It is another form of life that should be left alone. I believe Shepard even raises this argument when talking to Starkid, but SK (and BioWare behind him) just dismiss this logic. Why? Because they wanted Synthesis to be a perfect ending, but that's another story. The point is, Synthesis is not the only way to achieve evolution of synthetics, it's just a forced push, exactly what salarians did with krogans.

[saracen16]

[quote]3DandBeyond wrote...

[quote]saracen16 wrote...

[quote]Zan51 wrote...

Choice. Ah, yes. When the dialogue becomes auto-dialogue so we cannot interrupt and disagree with what Shepard says, this is choice. When we get shot in the side by a beam from a Reaper, (who kills tall buildings with a glancebut only WOUNDS Shep??) taken OUT of our armor and are in ship civvies, this is choice. When we are railroaded into decisions that until then the game was NOT about - like controling the Reapers, or merging with them and all synthetics - that is choice.

Ah, yes, "choice" We have dismissed the use of choice in ME3.....[/quote]

Way to miss the point. The game has always been about stopping the Reapers at any cost. We know there are those who seek to destroy and seek to control, so obviously those choices were made for us in the end. We already have other major decisions in-game that affect the future of the galaxies we helped shape and they mean something to those immersed in the universe. Whether auto-dialog is present or not doesn't disregard choice.
[/quote]

Nope.  The story was always about destroying the reapers and about reaffirming certain parts of people's character.[/quote]

"Reaffirming parts of character" doesn't do squat when it comes to making hard decisions that defy such character. We've already passed judgement on the rachni, the krogans, the quarians, and the geth.

[quote]Diversity, unity, and redemption.  Don't even try to say that these were not the major points and that it was about doing anything at all costs, because that would be wrong. [/quote]

Riiight, if you say so. Where's "diversity" and "unity" when Shepard decides to not cure the genophage, or let the quarians survive over the geth? This is about uniting whatever is left of the galaxy, and this unity through diversity is just a symptom of Shepard's efforts.

[quote]These were the themes and where the game seemed to be heading was the idea that the galaxy itself was waking up-it had been living this guided, surreal existence all geared to helping lead it towards the annihilation of the most advanced species.  The ending seemed to be where the galaxy might at last wake up and take the future in its own "hands".  It seemed to be that it might rise up and really show just how these ideals came together under Shepard's "command" and would either get the job done or not or various levels of success or failure in between.  [/quote]

That's exactly what Shepard did. He ended the war on his own terms, with the Crucible, a joint effort by all of the allies he gathered, and they fought to win.

[quote]The whole ending disregarded choice-true choice that stuck with the themes of 3 games.  And no sane person in the game sought anything other than the destruction of the reapers.[/quote]

Your arrogance and self-righteousness notwithstanding, don't pretend to speak for the community. That a person isn't sane for not wanting to destroy the Reapers at the end is purely YOUR opinion, not mine. The goal is to stop the Reapers, not necessarily destroying them. Many decided to destroy the Reapers in the end, but others found the other options just as valid, and they all end the cycle. The ending placed choice at the forefront: there are sacrifices to be made with each choice, but you have to choose one to end the cycle. 

[quote]The idea of any choice being relevant if it does not involve their destruction, especially when the alternate choices are 2 that no sane, not indoctrinated, non-reaper being in the game ever thought were good ideas is exactly what is wrong with including them as choices.  It is stated and implied so many times throughout that it makes the choices truly easy if only...   [/quote]

Again, YOUR opinion, not mine. The other choices incorporated were actually very good ideas, IMO, because they offer a consequence that entails choosing the future of the galaxy for it. They tied the organic-vs.-synthetic theme of the game quite nicely, a theme that ME1 reverberated throughout its story.

[quote]One of the most incredible arguments someone tried to make (has been made a lot by others as well) is that if destroy didn't have the cost of the geth and EDI, that would be bad because it would be canon.  Thing is it is canon.  Once a person accepts the idea that my preferred way for the game to go rather than the ugh crucible-the (un)conventional victory is impossible, refuse becomes impossible (cannot destroy them that way), then destroy becomes canon. [/quote]

Wow, you are the most incredulously arrogant person I've met here, probably on par with TAO or maybe even worse. Your "idea" is your headcanon, but it isn't canon, nor is there any established official canon in the Mass Effect universe. The only canon endings are the ones BioWare made for us to choose, but guess what? They're not canon because you are your own Shepard and you play the game that they made and make the choices that you want to. 

[quote]However, it is given its cost and its nonsensical description to avoid that appearance.  They tried too hard to avoid canon that they had stated all along.Even Shepard's first contact with the idea of the crucible states what is canon-the crucible is considered to be a weapon and weapons destroy.  The problem is the crucible also backed destroy into a corner-no reaper instant off button.[/quote]

You're being TOO literal. There is no canon in the universe, regardless of whichever ending BioWare seems to put more light to (there isn't). Shepard was meant to stop the Reapers, not necessarily destroy them. That's what makes the game about choice. You're not willing to face that and for that you miss the point of Mass Effect: many choices lie ahead, none of them easy. The Crucible's function is unknown. It is not known if it is a weapon, an off-switch, or a bomb. All we know is that it is something capable of wiping out the Reapers. 
The fact that the destroy option destroys all synthetics is stated in the game and is explained by the Catalyst. It's a logical balance. The same goes for the other options.

The point of the ending choices is that it asks you a valid question: "What will it take to stop an unstoppable enemy? What are you willing to sacrifice to end the Reaper threat?" Those who chose Destroy answered that sacrificing all synthetic life is a valid price to pay. Those who chose Control said that sacrificing one's own humanity and the free-will of those who want them destroyed is worth it. Those who chose Synthesis said that they would be happy forcing this change on the universe, but they believe that it is something new and something good, although there are always risks associated.

Those who chose refuse are the real indoctrinated ones: they let the Reapers continue the cycle.

[quote]But even so, the choices stand.  I have yet to see you make any credible meaningful or relevant case as to why creating any optional content that you'd never have to see would bother you so.[/quote]

Because it won't be THEIR story, it won't be BioWare's story. It would be YOUR story shoved down everyone else's throats. You would have to rewrite the entire trilogy to make such an ending because it has been already proven that the Reapers are unstoppable and you can't win conventionally.

[quote]The idea apparently assaults and insults your sensbilities even when I'm suggesting that these new things would never have to be in your game.  The fear often comes from others that for some reason it would be bad because too many people would choose it.  Well, threaten me with a good time.[/quote]

Your arrogance and smugness aside, the idea insults every writer, including myself, and artist to have someone like you insult our freedom of expression. I will never give anyone an optional ending to a short story that I would write. I would write the story and give it to them. They don't like it, they can toss it in the bin and buy a new one. They don't have the right to berate me, blackmail me, and threaten me to change my story.

[Ozida]

saracen16 wrote...

Because it won't be THEIR story, it won't be BioWare's story. It would be YOUR story shoved down everyone else's throats. You would have to rewrite the entire trilogy to make such an ending because it has been already proven that the Reapers are unstoppable and you can't win conventionally.

Then BioWare shouldn't promote it as "your own" story, period. Mass Effect should've be promoted: "A story we're going to tell you that you have some rights to participate in for the money you've paid". What was even the point of all the choices within the game then if it all comes down to what BW already have decided will happen at the end anyway? 

[3DandBeyond]

saracen16 wrote...


Your arrogance and smugness aside, the idea insults every writer, including myself, and artist to have someone like you insult our freedom of expression. I will never give anyone an optional ending to a short story that I would write. I would write the story and give it to them. They don't like it, they can toss it in the bin and buy a new one. They don't have the right to berate me, blackmail me, and threaten me to change my story.

Well, as a writer perhaps you may like others to appreciate and consume your work.  If so, you cannot afford to be rigid because those who it must be filtered through will determine for you how well it will be received, just as will the public, any public that may see it. 

Your assertion that I am arrogant and smug reveals this about yourself.  Others with less such characteristics realize that they create what they create in order for others to like it.  And they have altered their endings.  You're rigid whereas true character is not.  It adapts.  And I've not done what you are suggesting here.  I'm asking them and not you to take another look at how their work has been consumed and to also see what they've shown in their stories.  I've already told you I'm not asking you to have anything forced upon you, but you can't handle that.  You appear hostile for some reason that I can't fathom.  And you assign hostile characteristics to my motives and suggestions.  That's sad truly.  Cheer up.  Embrace life and not demented, heroes must die, fatalistic, murderous, suicidal depressing inevitability.  Life and entertainment should have some fun elements to them.

And it's not possible for people to toss ME3 in the bin and buy something else.  Most people were not even allowed to return it for their money back.  Many also feel that it completely ruined all 3 games, taking the fun out of playing ME1 and 2 as well.  And replayability is something you pay for and that is advertised in order to sell games.  If people now sell ME3, it's value is near zero in many places and some versions can't be resold.  But it appears you think it's perfectly ok for people to read your short stories in total and then to throw them back and not buy them-that makes sense.  They consume them and never buy them?  How else can they judge what you've written and decide not to buy?  Seems kind of hard to buy bread with that kind of consumer model, but hey whatever works for you.

I assume you have a publisher, an editor, et al.  You do realize that they get paid for making your work fit what people want to buy?  In the gaming world, beta testers help with that.  But, also in the gaming world it's more and more the buyer that is becoming the beta tester.  And, without fans and fan feedback, how on Earth do you expect any game company to know what people do and do not like about what they've made?  Are they supposed to be psychic and just assume things based on people returning their games or not buying them?

And, if you have publishers (this assumes you have been published) and sales are horrid for your writing how would you want that treated?  Should they elicit feedback in order to figure out why no one bought what you wrote or should they tell people to shut up and just never publish anything you write ever again?  If they get feedback, would you really ignore what people say and just create more things that please you and no one else?  If so, then you really don't want to write to be sold and to be in business.  Companies that want to make money don't want people just voting with their money-they want feedback, because they need to know why people liked or didn't like what they did.  You might not care, but believe me game devs do.  Anyone that wants to make money does. 

[SpamBot2000]

BioWare's artistic integrity is a concern that has frankly been dismissed long ago. They are 'artists' who think it's ok to cut out chapters of their Magnum Opus for separate sale for MOAR $$$$. They rush release their art to make their corporate masters' accounting look better. They sell damn Spectre Megapacks to fleece the sheepish among us. If these are the acts of an artist, what is the genre? Con?

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 06 septembre 2012 - 02:51 .

[robertthebard]

Ozida wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

Because it won't be THEIR story, it won't be BioWare's story. It would be YOUR story shoved down everyone else's throats. You would have to rewrite the entire trilogy to make such an ending because it has been already proven that the Reapers are unstoppable and you can't win conventionally.

Then BioWare shouldn't promote it as "your own" story, period. Mass Effect should've be promoted: "A story we're going to tell you that you have some rights to participate in for the money you've paid". What was even the point of all the choices within the game then if it all comes down to what BW already have decided will happen at the end anyway? 

This right here is exactly why I could never get the ending I want.  This is why "do the right thing" really isn't a good point to appeal to BW from, because, as I said earlier, the "right thing" is widely varied, and will not be consistent, even amongst people that share similar views.  My ending?  My ideal ending is dying to Harbinger's laser blast, which requires no DeM to get past.  But Rob, it isn't a DeM.  Isn't it?  It solves a singular problem that has no resolution w/out it, I survive a blast that rips cruisers in half.  Unfortunately for me, Ozida doesn't see my right thing as valid, since it goes against their right thing.  Again, I'm back to "right thing for whom"?  If the right thing doesn't explain how I survived the shockwave, shrapnel, and shorts in my armor to actually get to where changing the ending matters, then the right thing isn't being done, for me.

Now I'm going to be told that I could just not read the thread, and I wouldn't have to worry about it, because, frankly, that's one of the easiest copouts to use when it's more "I don't really know how to refute what you're saying, so go away so I don't have to try", and is pretty common BSN logic.  The thing is, I hate dealing in absolutes, and laying out a set of parameters and saying "these are the right thing" and then disregarding other views about what the right thing might actually be means that you aren't really looking for the right thing, but are looking for somebody else to make you happy.  One thing that I've learned over the course of my life is that other people can't make me happy.  Happy is a state of mind that I have to find within myself, and if I can't find it there, I'm certainly not going to find it elsewhere.

I was chatting with my grandson about games on his bday, and as he was wearing an Assassin's Creed shirt, I asked him if it's worth playing.  He said sure, he had fun with it, so since Amazon keeps insisting I buy it, I did.  I hope he's right, otherwise I'm going to go over there and crush him...Ok, maybe not, but I won't invalidate his opinion, just because, if it turns out to be the case, I don't like it.  Tastes vary, and the sad truth is that here, varying opinions are either haters, drones, fanboys, etc etc etc.  More absolutes, you're with me or against me, and frankly, none of it matters.  I could go on a tirade about IHoP using Maple Syrup, but it doesn't mean they're going to quit serving it, some people like it.  I do too, actually, just couldn't come up with any other silly analogies to the situation here.

[Ozida]

saracen16 wrote...
Your arrogance and smugness aside, the idea insults every writer, including myself, and artist to have someone like you insult our freedom of expression. I will never give anyone an optional ending to a short story that I would write. I would write the story and give it to them. They don't like it, they can toss it in the bin and buy a new one. They don't have the right to berate me, blackmail me, and threaten me to change my story.

Ok, I really didn't want to bring that up, but I have published 3 books in my life (1 self-published and 2 with a help of a publisher). They are not in English, so the titles probably won't say anything to you. But I remember when I brought my "brilliant masterpieces" (as I naively thought at that time) to a publisher, they slaughtered it. My publisher said that what I've written is good, but it won't be popular among readers and needs to be changed if I want my books out to the bookstores. I was put in tough position of either changing my novels or leaving with my pride safe. I decided to rewrite it because I wanted to make profit at that time, not to become second Shakespeare. In Russia, we have expression "people eats". That means that if you want to make money, you need to consider what "people would eat", not your personal visions and desires.

If BioWare was a single writer who wrote a book for a sake of Pulitzer prize, I wouldn't expect any changes to it disregarding me liking the plot or not. But it is not a writer, it's a game developer studio, and if they want to make money, they need to feed us something "people will eat". If they (or you) find this offensive, they (you) may have some problems in understanding how business works nowadays.

Modifié par Ozida, 06 septembre 2012 - 02:50 .

[3DandBeyond]

saracen16 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

One of the most incredible arguments someone tried to make (has been made a lot by others as well) is that if destroy didn't have the cost of the geth and EDI, that would be bad because it would be canon.  Thing is it is canon.  Once a person accepts the idea that my preferred way for the game to go rather than the ugh crucible-the (un)conventional victory is impossible, refuse becomes impossible (cannot destroy them that way), then destroy becomes canon.

Wow, you are the most incredulously arrogant person I've met here, probably on par with TAO or maybe even worse. Your "idea" is your headcanon, but it isn't canon, nor is there any established official canon in the Mass Effect universe. The only canon endings are the ones BioWare made for us to choose, but guess what? They're not canon because you are your own Shepard and you play the game that they made and make the choices that you want to. 

However, it is given its cost and its nonsensical description to avoid that appearance.  They tried too hard to avoid canon that they had stated all along.Even Shepard's first contact with the idea of the crucible states what is canon-the crucible is considered to be a weapon and weapons destroy.  The problem is the crucible also backed destroy into a corner-no reaper instant off button.

You're being TOO literal. There is no canon in the universe, regardless of whichever ending BioWare seems to put more light to (there isn't). Shepard was meant to stop the Reapers, not necessarily destroy them. That's what makes the game about choice. You're not willing to face that and for that you miss the point of Mass Effect: many choices lie ahead, none of them easy. The Crucible's function is unknown. It is not known if it is a weapon, an off-switch, or a bomb. All we know is that it is something capable of wiping out the Reapers. 
The fact that the destroy option destroys all synthetics is stated in the game and is explained by the Catalyst. It's a logical balance. The same goes for the other options.

The point of the ending choices is that it asks you a valid question: "What will it take to stop an unstoppable enemy? What are you willing to sacrifice to end the Reaper threat?" Those who chose Destroy answered that sacrificing all synthetic life is a valid price to pay. Those who chose Control said that sacrificing one's own humanity and the free-will of those who want them destroyed is worth it. Those who chose Synthesis said that they would be happy forcing this change on the universe, but they believe that it is something new and something good, although there are always risks associated.

Those who chose refuse are the real indoctrinated ones: they let the Reapers continue the cycle.

But even so, the choices stand.  I have yet to see you make any credible meaningful or relevant case as to why creating any optional content that you'd never have to see would bother you so.

Because it won't be THEIR story, it won't be BioWare's story. It would be YOUR story shoved down everyone else's throats. You would have to rewrite the entire trilogy to make such an ending because it has been already proven that the Reapers are unstoppable and you can't win conventionally.

Well, aren't you precious.  You are one mad person.  Sorry life is so bad and you have no real good way to handle that other than to repeatedly insult people.  If you write then I assume you know how to use words that deal with the post and not the poster.  Thanks for showing your true colors, though.  You just hate anyone that does not agree with you.  Good way to discuss things. 

Show me where in the game even a renegade Shepard thought controlling or going for synthesis was a good idea.  List the normal people in the game that wanted anything like that-the respected people.  MY Shepard isn't the only person that wanted to destroy them and not just stop them-because allowing them to live was not guarantee that they would not still be a problem.  That's why it is canon.  I've no doubt you don't see any sort of (un)conventional victory as possible.  Why is that?  Because the game says it's so.  Well, it also says dead reapers are how we end this.  They think the crucible is a weapon and weapons do what?  Destroy stuff.  If a realistic victory is not possible so that is canon, then destroy is canon.  No rational person in the game wants the big bad guys with people goo in them to exist at the end of all this.  No one that walked over all those dead bodies on the citadel would say, "gee, the best thing to do would be to let the reapers live and to make them my underlings or to force people to join with them in green-eyed goodness."

The choices aren't working towards any greater good, they work toward some alternate evil.  2 out of 3 leave the reapers alive and inject them even more fully into the lives of those in the galaxy-you see them as A-OK.  Great.  Devaluing one form of life-those that were even always in agreement with you, that the reapers must be destroyed, you see as a good thing.  But the questions raised by doing any of these things are real, they just aren't explored.

Your last point here is hilarious.  If you write then I assume you comprehend.  I have never suggested this be shoved down your or anyone else's throats.  Perhaps you'd like to read my OP again and see where even in my post you are addressing, I've said the content would be optional and for others that want it, but not for those who don't.  You and I have vastly different ideas of what forcing something upon people means.  I take the meaning from the dictionary and it's exemplified by what is done to the galaxy with synthesis as in it is done without anyone's permission-people's bodies, the most intimate and untouchable of things we all have, is to be forever altered by the decision of only one person.  It's not optional.  You see something optional as forced on everyone.  I don't think that means what you think it means.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 06 septembre 2012 - 03:15 .

[Ozida]

to robertthebard...

I wasn't alking about the right ending, I was talking about "their story" vs. "our story". I was under impression that BW has created 3 games that were based on my decisions as a player and should have outcome based on those decisions.
Now I am told that it's actually their story, so I am wondering what was the point of other choices as well? It's not even about liking or disliking the ending, but about if it should even have those 4 choices at the end if it's "their story" anyway. Why not to tell us how it ends exactlly instead?
 
And if it's somehow "our story" why is it presented with a clear vision from BioWare and being defended as "their right to do whatever they want with it"? It just seems as an argument that is being tossed around just to justify the ending, not a real belief from people regarding "our"/"their" story issue.

[robertthebard]

Ozida wrote...

to robertthebard...

I wasn't alking about the right ending, I was talking about "their story" vs. "our story". I was under impression that BW has created 3 games that were based on my decisions as a player and should have outcome based on those decisions.
Now I am told that it's actually their story, so I am wondering what was the point of other choices as well? It's not even about liking or disliking the ending, but about if it should even have those 4 choices at the end if it's "their story" anyway. Why not to tell us how it ends exactlly instead?
 
And if it's somehow "our story" why is it presented with a clear vision from BioWare and being defended as "their right to do whatever they want with it"? It just seems as an argument that is being tossed around just to justify the ending, not a real belief from people regarding "our"/"their" story issue.

I have viewed every video game I have ever played as their story.  No matter how many choices I may get in dialog, and let's use DA: O as a prime example, the story is still going to one place.  Now, that place can have varying outcomes, depending on how you want to approach it, but the main story arc is still BW's story.  It doesn't matter if you save the elves or the werewolves, either side will fight for you when it counts.  It doesn't matter if you save the mages or destroy them.  All of these "choices" result in the same thing, forces at Denerim.  I could not, on my City Elf, wait for Denerim to burn to kill the Archdemon.  I could not tell the various treaty races to solve their own petty squabbles and do what the treaty implies.  I could not, if I'd wanted to, avoid getting involved in politics, despite the fact that the Grey Wardens aren't supposed to get involved in politics, which is how they got kicked out of Ferelden in the first place.  It's all BW's story, and, interestingly enough, all of these points were discussed when Origins was new and exciting.  You are always limited by the writer's idea.

No matter what dialog choices you made in ME 1, the vast majority of them have the same line when spoken, it's just the meaning that is transferred over.  The dialog wheel has always been limited and will always get "but that's not what I wanted to say".  Sometimes it may be exactly what you wanted to say, other times, in any game with this system, it's WTF, where did that come from?  Choice is an illusion, and always will be.  Consequences from these choices can be big, or a line of dialog somewhere that you wouldn't get, or, like with Conrad Verner, a little interesting cutscene that you didn't get if you didn't play out his schtick in 1 and 2.  Either way, the story is going where it's going.  If it ended at the beam in London, I would have been ecstatic, and would have written glowing reviews for nobody to read but me.  The way that I perceived the Reaper threat over the course of the first two games left me expecting this, I didn't need "We can't beat them conventionally" to be beat into my head in 3, I already sincerely believed that.  That's my point about the right thing.  To me, adding an exportable save right there at the beam would have meant that I was completely happy with the game.  Instead, if I like a Shepard variant enough to replay it, I have to make myself ignore the biggest flaw I see in the game, and sit through the various dialogs to get to where I can export.  Sucks to be me in that my right thing would never be supported by the community:  The Right Thing

[Iakus]

saracen16 wrote...

The point of the ending choices is that it asks you a valid question: "What will it take to stop an unstoppable enemy? What are you willing to sacrifice to end the Reaper threat?" Those who chose Destroy answered that sacrificing all synthetic life is a valid price to pay. Those who chose Control said that sacrificing one's own humanity and the free-will of those who want them destroyed is worth it. Those who chose Synthesis said that they would be happy forcing this change on the universe, but they believe that it is something new and something good, although there are always risks associated.

And in all coutcomes, Shepard burns.    Fire, electricity, space magic.  That sacrifice is forced by Bioware, regardless of anything Shepard does. Some "choice" huh?.

But even so, the choices stand.  I have yet to see you make any credible meaningful or relevant case as to why creating any optional content that you'd never have to see would bother you so.

Because it won't be THEIR story, it won't be BioWare's story. It would be YOUR story shoved down everyone else's throats. You would have to rewrite the entire trilogy to make such an ending because it has been already proven that the Reapers are unstoppable and you can't win conventionally.

This isn't Alan Wake.  This isn't Assassin's Creed.  This is Mass Effect.  Of course we're supposed to have a degree of agency.  Why would they even bother with the import feature otherwise.

If I wanted to just go along for the ride and pwn space zombies, why would I play a Bioware game?  This shouldn't be "their" story or "my" story.  It should be "our" story.

Your arrogance and smugness aside, the idea insults every writer, including myself, and artist to have someone like you insult our freedom of expression. I will never give anyone an optional ending to a short story that I would write. I would write the story and give it to them. They don't like it, they can toss it in the bin and buy a new one. They don't have the right to berate me, blackmail me, and threaten me to change my story.

Do you normally give readers control of the protagonist?  No?  Bad example then.

[3DandBeyond]

robertthebard wrote...

This right here is exactly why I could never get the ending I want.  This is why "do the right thing" really isn't a good point to appeal to BW from, because, as I said earlier, the "right thing" is widely varied, and will not be consistent, even amongst people that share similar views.  My ending?  My ideal ending is dying to Harbinger's laser blast, which requires no DeM to get past.  But Rob, it isn't a DeM.  Isn't it?  It solves a singular problem that has no resolution w/out it, I survive a blast that rips cruisers in half.  Unfortunately for me, Ozida doesn't see my right thing as valid, since it goes against their right thing.  Again, I'm back to "right thing for whom"?  If the right thing doesn't explain how I survived the shockwave, shrapnel, and shorts in my armor to actually get to where changing the ending matters, then the right thing isn't being done, for me.

But see you are linking the right thing to the wrong thing.  I'm not saying changing it to be this and this is the right thing.  I'm saying that re-assessing things is the right thing.  And in any debate you can have your idea of what the right thing is, just as I can.  I am stating my opinion of what the right thing is and asking them to see if they can find common ground upon which to agree with this opinion.  If I say I like blue then a blue t shirt is the right thing for me to wear.  But maybe you don't like blue so yellow is the right thing.

Merely because we differ on our views of what the right thing to do is in any circumstance is no reason to state what we think the right thing is. 

I've stated that re-evaluating this whole thing and taking a look back at the things people saw in ME and so on, is the right thing for many fans and even for BW itself.  I have said that a lot of understanding on all sides has been drowned out with a lot of noise.  I've also said that taking another look at all of this might allow them to see that remaining a dev that creates this type of unique game and not going in some other direction may also be the right thing for them.  I'm merely asking them to step back, shut out the noise, and see if they can hear what people have truly been saying.  It's not so much been about hate, though that gets the focus, but about the love of these games.  You often express more of a disdain for anything past a certain point and so nothing would satisify you.  I have also stated that if I had the money and the company there are things I'd totally re-do as well, but I can't ask them to consider that.  I know that money matters. 

I see that continually bleeding fans leads to bleeding money and I don't want them to go away.  I don't want this franchise or a similar one to go away.  I see a lot that has been done wrong and a lot that has been done right.  In this I'm trying to get past the non-game killers and ask them to consider a way to reconcile most fans with what now exists, in the least painful way for all concerned.  So-called pro-enders don't all just love the endings and many have said they're ok, but they're done with ME.  So, this is not a winning business model going forward.  Companies need to keep as many customers as possible.

My suggestion is that they (BW) not be hated for keeping most of what they already have and that fans that like it all be allowed to keep all that they now like.  And my further suggestion is that they consider adding content for fans that don't like what they have that they could pay for as optional content.  What you want Robert falls into the same problem that my real full on wish does-it is cost prohibitive.  So, I have to go with what I think could realistically be accomplished for the maximum benefits for all or most concerned.  We cannot ever get them to re-do it all and I'm not asking for any such thing.  That would be hated by those that now like what they have.

What I am asking is that everyone compromise a lot or a little.  I'm asking those that dislike the endings to compromise and distill it all down to what would at least make the game playable for them-for many it's at least one decent ending without compromising the values of their Shepard.  One that is possible even if difficult to attain and that can lead to a way to see that Shepard is indeed alive and with friends.  I'm asking them to be willing to pay to fix it so that they like the games again and they can move beyond all this.  I want them to put aside their anger and work to see if this can be done.  I'm asking BW to compromise and put the past in the past as well.  I'm asking them to consider the fact, we have loved this game and them for creating it.  I'm asking them to get beyond the noise and the hurt and to look and see what it has meant to us and how it could be better if this helped clean up the BSN, so they want to come home here, and it could be fun for all. 

And I'm not really asking very much from those that like the endings they now have-I don't want to touch that.  I'm not asking BW to kick your dog or change what you like.  All I'm asking you to do is to consider that it might be the kinder thing to do to try and at least not be so single-mindedly opposed to everything anyone says as if it's a personal attack on you.  And I'm asking you to take a look and see how it might actually make more DLC viable as well.  Because if (and only if) interest and money dries up, you might not see much more DLC or any more games like ME ever again.  Especially when the only real thing such people can say is "if you don't like it, don't buy it", or "just don't buy their games", or any other thing that indicates we should just not buy BW products.  It's funny, I'm asking people to get ready to spend money with BW and on ME, and those that like the endings are telling people not to.