6432 réponses à ce sujet

[Xellith]

dreman9999 wrote...

Xellith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

@LadyWench

Again, It was never staed that bioware had to give you the choices you want. That not what the series is about.
And I don't think it's all black and white ether...It is grey ..That's why I'm ok with the improved endings. The issue here is not that you want a conventionaly victory ending but you want an ending with no compremises...That was never what BW stated the game was about...
 

"lots of choices, none of them easy."

That is what they advertized.

Do you even know what the orignal planned ending was? It was way more harsh than the ending we got.

With the orignal dark energy plot, the reaper were try to story the end of the galexy because it was losing dark energy and organic were making it drain faster.
The reaper found that humanity was a way to solve this and had to reaper to save the galexy.
You origanal choices were to let them reaper all of humanity including you or destroy the reapers and doom the galexy....

Take the humans.  No question.  Next.

That's includes you too, I hope you know.

Yup.  Go for it.  Its only humans.  Not like I have any emotional attachment to the humans of the mass effect universe.  If it was "turn all turians into mush" then Id have to think about it. 

[Warrior Craess]

dreman9999 wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Captain McBuck wrote..
Battle of Thermopylae.
Battle of Hastings.
Battle of Trefalgar.
Battle of Kursk On the Eastern Front
D-Day Operation Overlord.
The Tet Offensive.
Battle of East Pararall.

History is filled with examples where one battle has turned the face of a war around

Those are some pretty terrible examples. Thermopylae didn't decide anything. William wasn't losing before Hastings, though Harold really shouldn't have fought there. Kursk shouldn't have been fought either - the Germans were kidding themselves about being able to win there. Germany was already doomed before Overlord.

Umm you should re-read what he's saying. Those battles apply as he's stating them.

The Battle for thermopylae, allowed Athens to have enough time to evacuate. Result Persians lost a huge naval battle. King is dicouraged and leaves. Remaining forces later defeated soundly by Spartan lead greek forces.  in the end the war turned on the battle of Themopylea.

Hastings - Harold should have fought there, and if not for the decision of one of his generals, would have won handily.  It was the defining battle of the war, and where Harold died. Not only did this battle change the course of the war it changed the course of warfare.

As for Kursk, it really doesn't matter if the Germans were fooling themselves (strategic stupidity doesn't invalidate that the battle was a turning poiint).

Overload - ok thats a bit of a strech about being a turning point. Though it did save alot of lives during the invasion of normandy.

Do you understand that you compearing armies with limits in recources and numbers to the reapers who have no limits as a fleet?

I understand perfectly. In fact I've arguded that as the game is written a conventional war isn't winnable. That doesn't mean that the endings were any good. It doesn't mean that DLC that fundamentally alters the universe of ME as we know shouldn't have been included, or released prior to ME3.  That doesn't change the fact that the star brat and pretty much everything from the jump into the beam is a complete disconnect from the rest of the story. 

Nor does it change the fact that as Bioware adds more content to it, that the game writing is in fact changed. 

If ME3 have included both "from the ashes" and "leviathan" from the beginning as early missions, and the "EC" ... Well now you might actually have a much better game, and the endings might not have been so poorly recieved. 

As it stands? nothing more than retcons to make their crappy little artistic vision seem less vile. 

[CronoDragoon]

All of this pro-ender/anti-ender terminology needs to GTFO. It's like Democrats vs. Republicans. How about instead we just speak about specific issues and see what side of the fence we fall on? Generalizing is only going to make the community dumber.

[AlanC9]

clennon8 wrote...

Oh, I just love it when people say "NO" to requests like the OP's, and then proceed to get on their high horse and bloviate about living in "the real world" and having to make "hard choices." I have a suspicion that those people are the ones with the least experience in "real life."

Yep. Just like many of the people who say that they play games to get away from all of the pain and no-win situations in real life probably live pretty cushy lives themselves.

[dreman9999]

Warrior Craess wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...
Here is the counter point that many of us are trying to get you to understand. There isn't anything difficult, or hard about the ending choices of ME3.  There is no emotive context to it, becuase the rest of the theme of the ME series has been discarded. The options are nothing more than which one do I like best at this point. There is no morality to thses choices, because there is no history to it (at least in game).  The EC made the endings better, but still not thematically consistant with the rest of the ME series. 

Huh? You seem to be saying that whether a decision is hard depends on stuff outside the consequences of that decision. If that's you point, count me as another one who doesn't understand it.

it may be confusing becuase it's the tail end of a rather large reply pyramid. I simply removed most of the pyramid so that it wouldn't be so cumbersome.

Let me break it down for you. It's a game (hopefully we can all agree on that). In this game we have choices that can be made. As has been pointed out, it doesn't really matter what you choose, becuase in the end you can win the game. 

Dreman9999 is saying that the entire point of the game is to make those choices. He also says that those choices don't matter, becuase in the end you win the game. 

My point, is that those choices only matter based on the context we, the players, give them. This context is based on our interpretations of the game - something dreman9999 has discounted.  According to him there is a literal theme to this game. And that theme is Choice.  

The reason that many of us find the endings so abhorent is that the final choice, the one that should mean the most, actually means the least, becuase it is so disconnected from the rest of the series. The Final choice takes my interpretation of the series and smashes it to smithereens. Why would I then attach any emotional context at all to the final choice? 

The endings are subjective by design. Speculation for everyone = interpretation, not choice. Much of the reason I'm annoyed with BW over this is that they wanted specualtion (interpretation) then told us we're doing it wrong.  Sorry but how can my intrepretation of a subjective ending be wrong? Dreman999 annoys me for the same reason. In the ME series you can not invalidate a players interpretation, due to the fact that it's designed to achieve just that. 

I never stated the choice don't matter. What I mean is that morality does not matter. That what's important is how you get the asseist. What I'm saying is morality is what limits our action to how we get them. Of coures morality changes how we see the choices given. Morality by nature is relitive. My point is that the limit of the reality in hand casue conflit with your morality.

Aka,ME is a case of morality vs logic aka conflicts of ethics. What is important is the goal but what limits the actions taken togetting to that goal is you morality. Sure, you moraly decide how you see the action you do but it does not defer the fact something has to be done to get to your goal.
You have to do something to acheive your goal and you morals decide you actions.

This means that what you willing to do based on your moraily decide your asseits.

ThAT means the theme is what the player is willing to do to stop an unstoppable force.

Modifié par dreman9999, 30 août 2012 - 08:09 .

[3DandBeyond]

Kel Riever wrote...

There is a difference between a not happy ending and awful writing.

The problem with ME3 ending(s) is awful writing. And once you get through the awful writing, you could then accuse them of being dumb for not having a happy ending option.

But if they had non-stupid faux choices, with p*ss poor writing, and a pure lack of paying attention to their own story, even within the story of ME3, even if the endings were not happy endings, they would have been well received. They are not.

The endings suck. And not because they might be considered just unhappy.

I agree, but there are ways they could be salvaged to this date.  And again, I will say there is nothing super happy even in a win.  The consequences should have been real, valid, and visible.  They were not.

The sacrifices that got them to that point and would eventually many years later bring them home again (to an intact, functioning, fully self-actualized galaxy) are and would be great.  The writing needed to get on top of it all and be tight and emotional and authentic and complete.  And any happiness wouldn't be obtained cheaply.

[dreman9999]

Warrior Craess wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Captain McBuck wrote..
Battle of Thermopylae.
Battle of Hastings.
Battle of Trefalgar.
Battle of Kursk On the Eastern Front
D-Day Operation Overlord.
The Tet Offensive.
Battle of East Pararall.

History is filled with examples where one battle has turned the face of a war around

Those are some pretty terrible examples. Thermopylae didn't decide anything. William wasn't losing before Hastings, though Harold really shouldn't have fought there. Kursk shouldn't have been fought either - the Germans were kidding themselves about being able to win there. Germany was already doomed before Overlord.

Umm you should re-read what he's saying. Those battles apply as he's stating them.

The Battle for thermopylae, allowed Athens to have enough time to evacuate. Result Persians lost a huge naval battle. King is dicouraged and leaves. Remaining forces later defeated soundly by Spartan lead greek forces.  in the end the war turned on the battle of Themopylea.

Hastings - Harold should have fought there, and if not for the decision of one of his generals, would have won handily.  It was the defining battle of the war, and where Harold died. Not only did this battle change the course of the war it changed the course of warfare.

As for Kursk, it really doesn't matter if the Germans were fooling themselves (strategic stupidity doesn't invalidate that the battle was a turning poiint).

Overload - ok thats a bit of a strech about being a turning point. Though it did save alot of lives during the invasion of normandy.

Do you understand that you compearing armies with limits in recources and numbers to the reapers who have no limits as a fleet?

 

If ME3 have included both "from the ashes" and "leviathan" from the beginning as early missions, and the "EC" ... Well now you might actually have a much better game, and the endings might not have been so poorly recieved. 

But it has it now. Having it now make it no longer have a bad ending. Just that it was badly recieved.

[Warrior Craess]

AlanC9 wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

Umm you should re-read what he's saying. Those battles apply as he's stating them.

He was saying that these battles changed a losing cause into a winning one. These battles didn't do that.

Thermopylae is only a success if you buy the Decree of Themistocles. It's an outright failure according to Herodotus, though it did cause the Persians to lose a week or so of the campaign season. The decisive battle of the campaign was Salamis. Arguably, that battle does fit his thesis; I was saying that he had terrible examples, not that battles don't sometimes reverse the course of a war.

Hastinghs was decisive, but Harold wasn't obviously winning before that. And even if Harold might have won the battle, fighting immediately seems to have been a poor decision since he could get reinforcements more easily than William. Though conterfactuals like that are impossible to prove, of course.

And all Kursk did was reveal the truth about Germany's position. They were losing before and losing afterward.

I'll give you a pass on Thermopylea though even a losing battel can turn the tide in a war....

However Harold was certainly winning, having just returned from troucning a viking army. He was winning this battle handliy. Until some of his commanders couldn't control their men and charged downhill after retreating normandians. After that the battle and the war was over. 

[Baa Baa]

5 Stars.
Well said, a very good, honest post. I also like that you were kind and not bashful, that's pretty rare to see on BSN.

[Captain McBuck]

AlanC9 wrote...

Captain McBuck wrote..
Battle of Thermopylae.
Battle of Hastings.
Battle of Trefalgar.
Battle of Kursk On the Eastern Front
D-Day Operation Overlord.
The Tet Offensive.
Battle of East Pararall.

History is filled with examples where one battle has turned the face of a war around

Those are some pretty terrible examples. Thermopylae didn't decide anything. William wasn't losing before Hastings, though Harold really shouldn't have fought there. Kursk shouldn't have been fought either - the Germans were kidding themselves about being able to win there. Germany was already doomed before Overlord.

Themopylae  slowed down the Persian advance long enough for the Greeks to regroup,  it was successful in its purpose as a delaying action. William Wasn't losing but it pur the nail in the coffin for Harrold. Kurk broke the back of the Germans because One Nut was an idiot. as you said, trying to win at Kursk was as retarted as Hackeet sending the Victory Fleet to Earth.

Incidentally I should point out that I don't think we can win Conventonally, Fleet to Fleet.I don't think its imposable, However I don't think we can do it in this cycle because you council has hamstrung us too badly.

[SpamBot2000]

Whatever the reasons, the ending sold us out. For all tough guy posturing, ME was never about "dealing with the REAL, man!" The whole contrivance was unworthy of the series, and BioWare surely know this.

So I certainly support this. Thanks for putting it so eloquently again 3D.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 30 août 2012 - 08:15 .

[Baa Baa]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Eloquent as usual. I support this.

[3DandBeyond]

AlanC9 wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Oh, I just love it when people say "NO" to requests like the OP's, and then proceed to get on their high horse and bloviate about living in "the real world" and having to make "hard choices." I have a suspicion that those people are the ones with the least experience in "real life."

Yep. Just like many of the people who say that they play games to get away from all of the pain and no-win situations in real life probably live pretty cushy lives themselves.

This is a joke, right?  I'm not going into detail here, because I have done so before but I've seen and done far more in my life than I'd wish on those like you that I don't see eye to eye with.  I assume you live in the real world and occasionally it's darker moments intrude.

I know about hard choices.  I've had to make life and death choices before for those close to me and those just as dear who were not close to me.  I've watched people die and I've watched people be kept alive in a state somewhere in between.  I've dealt with suicide and homicide, sacrifice and selfishness.  I've helped people live a little before dying when others gave up on them.  And I've counciled parents whose children didn't make it home alive.  And I've learned far more from them than I ever imparted to them.

I will tell you that this is exactly why I play games-and I've played video games since the 1980s.  Real life exists and I've seen plenty of it.  It's pretty demented when it must constantly be inserted into entertainment for some gratuitous reason which ends up being the desire to be taken seriously.  I think Bioware did this.  They made pronouncements that they wanted ME3 to be their "big" game and they wanted it to be like Star Wars.  They said this.  But, they began to get afraid that it would be seen as space fluff.  It didn't have to be, but they were afraid that if they didn't do something supposedly different, it would be seen like that.  But it never was like Star Wars.  I was unique.  It's sad that fans seemed to understand it better than they did.

The sacrifice, the grittiness was there in the aftermath all along.  The art was in the emotion and the stories contained within and it was in the acting and the characters.  All they had to do was give it endings that kept that going, but now we have what we have and I do still think they could rehabilitate it.

[ATiBotka]

ATiBotka wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Prove it's Shepard.

If you play as femshep, she has boobs, if you play as maleshep, he doesn't.

MaleShep:


FemShep:

[Warrior Craess]

dreman9999 wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...
Here is the counter point that many of us are trying to get you to understand. There isn't anything difficult, or hard about the ending choices of ME3.  There is no emotive context to it, becuase the rest of the theme of the ME series has been discarded. The options are nothing more than which one do I like best at this point. There is no morality to thses choices, because there is no history to it (at least in game).  The EC made the endings better, but still not thematically consistant with the rest of the ME series. 

Huh? You seem to be saying that whether a decision is hard depends on stuff outside the consequences of that decision. If that's you point, count me as another one who doesn't understand it.

it may be confusing becuase it's the tail end of a rather large reply pyramid. I simply removed most of the pyramid so that it wouldn't be so cumbersome.

Let me break it down for you. It's a game (hopefully we can all agree on that). In this game we have choices that can be made. As has been pointed out, it doesn't really matter what you choose, becuase in the end you can win the game. 

Dreman9999 is saying that the entire point of the game is to make those choices. He also says that those choices don't matter, becuase in the end you win the game. 

My point, is that those choices only matter based on the context we, the players, give them. This context is based on our interpretations of the game - something dreman9999 has discounted.  According to him there is a literal theme to this game. And that theme is Choice.  

The reason that many of us find the endings so abhorent is that the final choice, the one that should mean the most, actually means the least, becuase it is so disconnected from the rest of the series. The Final choice takes my interpretation of the series and smashes it to smithereens. Why would I then attach any emotional context at all to the final choice? 

The endings are subjective by design. Speculation for everyone = interpretation, not choice. Much of the reason I'm annoyed with BW over this is that they wanted specualtion (interpretation) then told us we're doing it wrong.  Sorry but how can my intrepretation of a subjective ending be wrong? Dreman999 annoys me for the same reason. In the ME series you can not invalidate a players interpretation, due to the fact that it's designed to achieve just that. 

I never stated the choice don't matter. What I mean is that morality does not matter. That what's important is how you get the asseist. What I'm saying is morality is what limits our action to how we get them. Of coures morality changes how we see the choices given. Morality by nature is relitive. My point is that the limit of the reality in hand casue conflit with your morality.

Aka,ME is a case of morality vs logic aka conflicts of ethics. What is important is the goal but what limits the actions taken togetting to that goal is you morality. Sure, you moraly decide how you see the action you do but it does not defer the fact something has to be done to get to your goal.
You have to do something to acheive your goal and you morals decide you actions.

This means that what you willing to do based on your moraily decide your asseits.

The means the theme is what the paly is willing to do to stop an unstoppable force.

That argument works fine until the ending. What morality is there in choosing 1 of 3 very bad choices? 2 of which the person providing you with said choises states are not solutions at all. They are just a termporary halt on the harvesting.

Gee if I truly want to stop the cycles of harvesting, I gotta make everyone in the universe into some weird synthetic/organic hybrid..  otherwise I really on delay the inevitable.  

Gee if I want to truly destroy the reapers, I only got 1 option.. destroy them and the geth and EDI. 

Gee if I want to be a powerhungry tyrant/despot I choose control.  

Sorry I don't see any moral conflict in that set of choices. 

It's not 3 different ways to destroy the reapers, each with their own emotional context. It's very simple set of options with no vested interest in at least 2 of them.  Destroy being the only one that involves more than just personal sacrifice on shepards part.

[MapleJar]

To the OP, I tip my hat. Well said.

[phat0817]

That was great read op I wish they would consider it but I'm afraid your well written statement will go on deaf ears and blind eyes in Bioware.

[Baa Baa]

phat0817 wrote...

That was great read op I wish they would consider it but I'm afraid your well written statement will go on deaf ears and blind eyes in Bioware.

Then bumps must be given until it is witnessed!
BUMP

[Xellith]

AlanC9 wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Oh, I just love it when people say "NO" to requests like the OP's, and then proceed to get on their high horse and bloviate about living in "the real world" and having to make "hard choices." I have a suspicion that those people are the ones with the least experience in "real life."

Yep. Just like many of the people who say that they play games to get away from all of the pain and no-win situations in real life probably live pretty cushy lives themselves.

I actually dived as deep as I could into the ME universe to escape reality after I watched my dad die slowly of
Acute myeloid leukemia

Modifié par Xellith, 30 août 2012 - 08:23 .

[Thaa_solon]

ATiBotka wrote...

ATiBotka wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Prove it's Shepard.

If you play as femshep, she has boobs, if you play as maleshep, he doesn't.

MaleShep:


FemShep:

However irrelevant......

Shepards dogtags doesn't look like the ones in the breath scene, but some people found out in the game files that the video clip is called "shepard breathes something".

So yeah, prior to the assault on earth shepard made new dogtags and after the destroy ending ended up in a pile of rubble.

Case closed

[Mathias]

A very sound and compelling plea. Pretty much sums up how the fans feel about this god forsaken mess.

But...

inversevideo wrote...

I think we need to wait for the next cycle/story-arc. This one is done.

A fundamental issue with Shepard's arc, is that Bioware changed the game, from ME1 to ME2, to appeal to a wider audience. They got their wider audience. Neither side is wrong, they are just different gamers, and differ in what attracted them to the ME series and the type of game they want to play.

I know there will be another story arc. There is too much money, in the ME IP, not to move forward. Bioware/EA will need to decide what audience they want to reach, and make their game accordingly. If anything, the 'audience widening' move should demonstrate that a single game cannot be all things to all people. Changing your demographic, mid-way through a series, is not an easy task.

What I hope though, is that Bioware/EA listens to what 3Dand Beyond has said, and consider her words, when crafting the next story-arc. And BW, if you truly want to follow in the steps of CoD, that is cool. Just let us know honestly, up-front, so we can make an informed purchasing decision.

This is the more likely scenario. I doubt Bioware would be cool enough to give us a satisfying ending via DLC. I don't even think they'll apply this information to their future games. The devs are like robots, devode of any human emotion. I'm sure a lot of that has to do with their PR policies, but in the end, i think Bioware will end up trying to appeal to the COD and MP audience with future installments.

[Eryri]

Very eloquently put OP. I agree completely.

[phat0817]

Baa Baa wrote...

phat0817 wrote...

That was great read op I wish they would consider it but I'm afraid your well written statement will go on deaf ears and blind eyes in Bioware.

Then bumps must be given until it is witnessed!
BUMP

[Warrior Craess]

dreman9999 wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

If ME3 have included both "from the ashes" and "leviathan" from the beginning as early missions, and the "EC" ... Well now you might actually have a much better game, and the endings might not have been so poorly recieved. 

But it has it now. Having it now make it no longer have a bad ending. Just that it was badly recieved.

It's the end of a trilogy. Any DLC should have been of minor value as far as the main storyline goes.  
From Ashes, and Leviathan alter waht we know of the universe in pretty fundamental ways. Lev is really pretty bad about it. 

The EC fundamentally changes the endings. This should not have been required. 

But to turn your point around, yes the DLC is now available and it changed the Universe, and the endings... so whats stopping them from doing it just a weee bit more? 

[Chardonney]

Baa Baa wrote...

phat0817 wrote...

That was great read op I wish they would consider it but I'm afraid your well written statement will go on deaf ears and blind eyes in Bioware.

Then bumps must be given until it is witnessed!
BUMP

Joining in.

BUMP