6432 réponses à ce sujet

[Oransel]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Archonsg wrote...
Is asking for a REFUSAL Victory [...] asking too much?

Yes. Because it was the point of the ending that you had to compromise your principles. I can agree, to some degree, with the wish to extend the Shepard-lives scene into something that feels more real, but add any ending where you win and don't need to compromise your principles and the whole ending scenario will be undermined.

Unless they add a downside on par with the death of the synthetics in Destroy. And then, what's the point? You might as well choose Destroy.

Nope. Synthesis, Control and Destroy are easy escapes to end the series for noobs or lazy people. Refusal victory with Shep definetely alive and LI reunion should be a reward for playing good and smart accumulating assets. 

[Xellith]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Hrothdane wrote...
As far as I'm concerned, I don't see a problem with "undermining" the ending in such a way.

And I do. It would be the worst decision they could make from my POV.

Which underscores my point: giving 3DAndBeyond and those who think like her what they want is likely to ****** off - and I mean *really*, epically ****** off - quite a few other players. It isn't just adding something to get a specific group on board. It would change the whole scenario.

Again, unless they add a downside that is felt as significant by the players. And then, what's the point?

If synthesis is as amazing as you claim it to be - then surely not picking synthesis is a significant downside.

[Hrothdane]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Hrothdane wrote...
As far as I'm concerned, I don't see a problem with "undermining" the ending in such a way.

And I do. It would be the worst decision they could make from my POV.

Which underscores my point: giving 3DAndBeyond and those who think like her what they want is likely to ****** off - and I mean *really*, epically ****** off - quite a few other players. It isn't just adding something to get a specific group on board. It would change the whole scenario.

Again, unless they add a downside that is felt as significant by the players. And then, what's the point?

Our wishes are mutually exclusive, unfortunately. All we can do is make our respective cases; the decision is ultimately out of our hands anyways.

As long as all the information and opinions are presented, accounted for, and acknowledged; I can be satisfied with the outcome, even if I don't get what I want.

[BD Manchild]

Ozida wrote...

Excue me, but how would it ****** of people if it would be optional? Don't like it, don't get it! I for one did buy Levi. DLC, but it doesn't "****** me off" if others did. I don't see your point at all.

I've found that people who use arguments like the one you argued against generally have no point. And they call people who support the ideas in this thread "whiners"; the only whining I see is from these people who don't have any argument other than "they musn't change anything, so there!".

Get it in your heads, people; the ideas in this thread WOULD NOT BE FORCED ON ANYBODY. You like the endings as they are, then good for you; you don't need to get anything extra. People have already said that they'd be willing to pay to see further ending additions as an entirely optional DLC; why is the term "optional" so hard for some people to grasp?

[Ieldra]

Xellith wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Hrothdane wrote...
As far as I'm concerned, I don't see a problem with "undermining" the ending in such a way.

And I do. It would be the worst decision they could make from my POV.

Which underscores my point: giving 3DAndBeyond and those who think like her what they want is likely to ****** off - and I mean *really*, epically ****** off - quite a few other players. It isn't just adding something to get a specific group on board. It would change the whole scenario.

Again, unless they add a downside that is felt as significant by the players. And then, what's the point?

If synthesis is as amazing as you claim it to be - then surely not picking synthesis is a significant downside.

If "destroyed Reapers" is really the best outcome, then isn't the death of the synthetics an acceptable price to pay?

You can make such an argument for all the endings. That's the point of the ending setup. Add an ending where you don't ask yourself - as the player - "Is it really worth it?" and the scenario crumbles.

[spirosz]

Oransel wrote...

Nope. Synthesis, Control and Destroy are easy escapes to end the series for noobs or lazy people. Refusal victory with Shep definetely alive and LI reunion should be a reward for playing good and smart accumulating assets. 

What. 

Easy Escapes?  This will go well... ahah.

[BD Manchild]

[quote]Ieldra2 wrote...

If synthesis is as amazing as you claim it to be - then surely not picking synthesis is a significant downside.
[/quote]
If "destroyed Reapers" is really the best outcome, then isn't the death of the synthetics an acceptable price to pay?

You can make such an argument for all the endings. That's the point of the ending setup. Add an ending where you don't ask yourself - as the player - "Is it really worth it?" and the scenario crumbles.

[/quote]

Except the scenario is one that should never have been there in the first place. The outcome of the series should have been based on your decisions and how much effort you put in over the course of the series, not some arbitrary choice that comes out of nowhere, doesn't make any sense and does not fit with the rest of the series either narratively or thematically.

Besides, there isn't any moral conflict if you don't believe there's a "lesser of three evils", so for a good deal of players whatever intent there was for "compromise" was completely lost on them. If that was Bioware's intent, then as far as some are concerned, including myself, they failed miserably.

Modifié par BD Manchild, 11 septembre 2012 - 12:52 .

[Ieldra]

BD Manchild wrote...

Ozida wrote...
Excue me, but how would it ****** of people if it would be optional? Don't like it, don't get it! I for one did buy Levi. DLC, but it doesn't "****** me off" if others did. I don't see your point at all.

I've found that people who use arguments like the one you argued against generally have no point. And they call people who support the ideas in this thread "whiners"; the only whining I see is from these people who don't have any argument other than "they musn't change anything, so there!".

Get it in your heads, people; the ideas in this thread WOULD NOT BE FORCED ON ANYBODY. You like the endings as they are, then good for you; you don't need to get anything extra. People have already said that they'd be willing to pay to see further ending additions as an entirely optional DLC; why is the term "optional" so hard for some people to grasp?

Because these options do not exist in isolation. Any option you add affects the others. And if you have an option that feels comfortable then that will invalidate those which don't feel comfortable. You don't think choosing Synthesis is a comfortable decision, do you? I have a decision whose outcome I like, but I must compromise my principles to get it. In a big way. In short: If you can win without compromising your principles, then choosing any other ending becomes wrong.

That's why I'm adamantly opposed to adding such an ending option.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 11 septembre 2012 - 12:53 .

[BD Manchild]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Because these options do not exist in isolation. Any option you add affects the others. And if you have an option that feels comfortable then that will invalidate those who don't feel comfortable. You don't think choosing Synthesis is a comfortable decision, do you? I have a decision whose outcome I like, but I must compromise my principles to get it. In a big way. In short: If you can win without compromising your principles, then choosing any other ending becomes wrong.

That's why I'm adamantly opposed to adding such an ending option.

Ugh, what part of "optional DLC" do you not understand? Way to completely miss the point of what was said.

[obZen DF]

Oransel wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Archonsg wrote...
Is asking for a REFUSAL Victory [...] asking too much?

Yes. Because it was the point of the ending that you had to compromise your principles. I can agree, to some degree, with the wish to extend the Shepard-lives scene into something that feels more real, but add any ending where you win and don't need to compromise your principles and the whole ending scenario will be undermined.

Unless they add a downside on par with the death of the synthetics in Destroy. And then, what's the point? You might as well choose Destroy.

Nope. Synthesis, Control and Destroy are easy escapes to end the series for noobs or lazy people. Refusal victory with Shep definetely alive and LI reunion should be a reward for playing good and smart accumulating assets. 

So, before the EC came out, you were lazy as well :happy:

[3DandBeyond]

wright1978 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Archonsg wrote...
Is asking for a REFUSAL Victory [...] asking too much?

Yes. Because it was the point of the ending that you had to compromise your principles. I can agree, to some degree, with the wish to extend the Shepard-lives scene into something that feels more real, but add any ending where you win and don't need to compromise your principles and the whole ending scenario will be undermined.

Unless they add a downside on par with the death of the synthetics in Destroy. And then, what's the point? You might as well choose Destroy.

I want an extension of Shep lives and i'd be happy with a refusal victory as long as there was the massive balancing sacrifice which would no doubt make it undesirable to many of the refuse win advocates. Otherwise as Ieldra says the entire ending scenario will be undermined.

Well, Iedra2 is not on point here though.

And understand I'm not holding out for an all out refuse victory.  Would I like one to be possible?  Yes.  But it's not a deal breaker. 

It is one way that this could be done, but also would be more expensive to accomplish.

Even so, what has been proposed is to make content that would not affect anyone who did not buy it.  That means my game if I play it might be out of balance to you, but yours never would if you did not buy it.  That's what I've suggested for any type of content that would satisfy those of us who feel it's the most preposterous way to end a game with some rejection of principles just to achieve balance.  That sounds exactly like kid-speak.

I'm not saying you can't like what you like.  I'm saying I don't and many others feel the same way.  And balance?  What the heck is that all of a sudden?  I would ask that you read the posts here by again because it seems like Iedra2 is suggesting we're asking for some easy let's just win solution.  We never have, ever and are not doing so now.  What is being asked for and has been repeatedly constantly stated is truly a balanced way to end this-one that features what for us would be more authentic decisions and not artificial choice at the end.  I've suggested a true destroy with an intact crucible-but the path to it being nothing easy to get.  The alternate could be a possibility too-similar to the low EMS destroy now.  And I've wished for a realistic aftermath that shows that life would indeed be difficult after a win even, but that perseverance and unity again would pave the way for a future absent the reapers.

I don't feel that this game was ever heavily balanced one way or another-why else were we allowed go be full paragon or full renegade or something in between?

And to be fair, where's the balance now?  There's no full on victory only the loss of principles and sad, in meaning endings.  I don't have any sense that I've accomplished anything at the end of the game.  In fact, it feels like wasted time in playing a game that could have been and should have been fun for the most people possible.  That means everything running the gamut from full on loss to full on win, and not the rejection of principles for what I see as some contrived inserted cost.

Still and all, I'm not asking to take away what Iedra2 now has.  I'm asking for something extra that I'd pay for.  Balance can stay in others' games if they feel they have it and if they like what they have.  Many, many people don't.

[Oransel]

obZen DF wrote...
So, before the EC came out, you were lazy as well :happy:

No. Developers were lazy before the EC, and they stayed lazy after it. We just want to salvage what can be salvaged in ME3. Aside from ME3 reboot it's starbrat removing or refusal victory. Both can do.

[Ieldra]

BD Manchild wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Because these options do not exist in isolation. Any option you add affects the others. And if you have an option that feels comfortable then that will invalidate those who don't feel comfortable. You don't think choosing Synthesis is a comfortable decision, do you? I have a decision whose outcome I like, but I must compromise my principles to get it. In a big way. In short: If you can win without compromising your principles, then choosing any other ending becomes wrong.

That's why I'm adamantly opposed to adding such an ending option.

Ugh, what part of "optional DLC" do you not understand? Way to completely miss the point of what was said.

If a DLC exists, it exists for everyone who knows of it, regardless of whether they buy it or not. It's *you* who's missing the point. The simple knowledge that an ending exists that doesn't require you to compromise your principles will invalidate the others. I can already see the fanatics claiming "X is the only real ending". Only this time, they'd have a point.

[3DandBeyond]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Xellith wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Hrothdane wrote...
As far as I'm concerned, I don't see a problem with "undermining" the ending in such a way.

And I do. It would be the worst decision they could make from my POV.

Which underscores my point: giving 3DAndBeyond and those who think like her what they want is likely to ****** off - and I mean *really*, epically ****** off - quite a few other players. It isn't just adding something to get a specific group on board. It would change the whole scenario.

Again, unless they add a downside that is felt as significant by the players. And then, what's the point?

If synthesis is as amazing as you claim it to be - then surely not picking synthesis is a significant downside.

If "destroyed Reapers" is really the best outcome, then isn't the death of the synthetics an acceptable price to pay?

You can make such an argument for all the endings. That's the point of the ending setup. Add an ending where you don't ask yourself - as the player - "Is it really worth it?" and the scenario crumbles.

Anyone would be free to keep what they now have and to not buy or play optional content, just like you can do with  DLC you buy right now.

Iedra2 introduced a false concept here by not reading my OP and merely commenting on one out of context post and then caused others to run with it.

I'm not asking anyone to change what they now have, something that a large segment of ME fans don't and never have liked.  I am not asking others that like their endings to do anything.

I am asking that some additional content be made available for a fee for those who want something more so that the most people can be happy and that will increase the fanbase and help to put the subject to rest for the most part.  As I see it this would make new DLC and new ME content way more viable, especially in a down economy.  Video games are expensive and companies truly can't afford to bleed fans.  I see it as a win for everyone.  People that like their endings could keep them, fans that don't could get something they like, and BW could regain and keep fans and have more resources for more content and that benefits us all.

Even as webhead921 stated, it might be something others might play with a non-canon Shep (for them), just for the fun of it.

Again, tone down the rhetoric and don't assume you all know what's being said based on what one person interprets from one post.

I don't mind you having the need to see all synthetics destroyed in order to win, but that does not sit well with me at all.  So, please don't deny me and others the possibility of a way to enjoy the game like you do.  If the roles were reversed, I'd do the same because I'd want everyone to like the game.  I do want everyone to like the game and to be able to like the game.

[drayfish]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Because these options do not exist in isolation. Any option you add affects the others. And if you have an option that feels comfortable then that will invalidate those which don't feel comfortable. You don't think choosing Synthesis is a comfortable decision, do you? I have a decision whose outcome I like, but I must compromise my principles to get it. In a big way. In short: If you can win without compromising your principles, then choosing any other ending becomes wrong.

That's why I'm adamantly opposed to adding such an ending option.

How is an ending that demands its players abandon the noble principles that have driven them to achieve the impossible and inspire heroism and belief in others in any way meaningful?
 
Truly?
 
I would love if someone could explain to me what on earth such a text says of value about humanity, the human condition, or our experience of ourselves in the universe?
 
The best I've heard so far is some truly depressing nonsense about 'doing what needs to be done' to win wars. ...Fantastic. Because that's what we need more of as a society - excuses to devalue or dismiss morality in the pursuit of victory. 
 
I cannot express how heartbreaking it is to see Mass Effect, a text that has previously treasured inclusivity and acceptance, throw all that away in some vulgar validation of amorality. 

'Believing in others and respecting their right to self-determinism is dumb!'

'You have to be the harbinger of a new world order built upon an act of terrorism!'

'Do it now or we'll kill everything!' 
 
The ending of Mass Effect does not inspire deep thought; it does not test our morality or expand our understanding of ourselves: all it does is prove to us that a soldier is better equipped to do what it takes to win wars if they don't give a damn in the first place. Divest yourself of all humanity, disabuse yourself of all that fundamental respect you hold for your fellow man - because that kind of crap will just get in the way when the big decisions need to be made.

What a sickening message to send.
 
Because to me that's the ugly truth that people seem to skip over when defending these endings: not everyone has to sacrifice something in these conclusions. Racists; megalomaniacal lunatics; egomaniacal sociopaths – these figures all get to swim through the ending of Mass Effect without hesitation, giving up nothing, feeling no remorse at all, and being told by every epilogue that they were heroes – that they unquestionably did the right thing and were celebrated as the shining beacon of a new age. The only people who suffer in this moral grinder are those who have morals to punish.

And why?  Why is that the hero we need?  Why is that he hero anyone ever has needed?
 
Truly, Greek tragedies – stories in which noble characters were brought to despair and ruin by the fickle cruelties of fate – were never even this bleak. Oedipus may have ended his days a blind vagabond wandering the hills in agony alone, but at least he remained honourable in his actions, at least he retained his dignity and his purity of spirit.  He still got to serve as a true inspiration for others by not twisting his morality into some vile knot. He was a good man who did great things, and selflessly saved his city.  And even when fate visited untold horrors upon him, he stayed just and true because to allow oneself to be broken by circumstance, to sell out ones beliefs even in the face of pure despair would be the most unforgivable sin of all.
 
...And this was from a society that believed in an unremitting fatalism that dwarfed anything the Reapers could cough up. At the moment of absolute judgement the hero is called upon to prove their valour, to stand for something that means more than they themself, more than life itself – but instead Bioware chose to strangle into us the message that hope was a lie, and that only by utterly betraying your ethics is the world allowed to spin on.
 
If anyone can explain to me why that is a moral any human being should embrace I will be amazed. ...I will probably also be left sobbing uncontrollably in the corner, but amazed I will be.

Modifié par drayfish, 11 septembre 2012 - 01:48 .

[BD Manchild]

Ieldra2 wrote...

If a DLC exists, it exists for everyone who knows of it, regardless of whether they buy it or not. It's *you* who's missing the point. The simple knowledge that an ending exists that doesn't require you to compromise your principles will invalidate the others. I can already see the fanatics claiming "X is the only real ending". Only this time, they'd have a point.

How? What about people who choose not to buy it? Does it automatically invalidate their personal canon? All your argument's boiling down to at this point is "I've got what I wanted, so nobody else should get what they want". And you call people who support the ideas presented in this thread selfish...

Also, your argument's rendered entirely invalid by the simple fact that people ALREADY CLAIM THEIR ENDING IS THE "REAL" ONE. Even a casual glance at BSN will tell you that.

Also, as was pointed out while I was typing this, an ending where you abandon your principles for the sake of some arbitrary compromise does not automatically make it a fulfilling or meaningful ending. Maybe it does for you, but evidently it does not for a lot of people.

Modifié par BD Manchild, 11 septembre 2012 - 01:23 .

[3DandBeyond]

Ieldra2 wrote...

BD Manchild wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Because these options do not exist in isolation. Any option you add affects the others. And if you have an option that feels comfortable then that will invalidate those who don't feel comfortable. You don't think choosing Synthesis is a comfortable decision, do you? I have a decision whose outcome I like, but I must compromise my principles to get it. In a big way. In short: If you can win without compromising your principles, then choosing any other ending becomes wrong.

That's why I'm adamantly opposed to adding such an ending option.

Ugh, what part of "optional DLC" do you not understand? Way to completely miss the point of what was said.

If a DLC exists, it exists for everyone who knows of it, regardless of whether they buy it or not. It's *you* who's missing the point. The simple knowledge that an ending exists that doesn't require you to compromise your principles will invalidate the others. I can already see the fanatics claiming "X is the only real ending". Only this time, they'd have a point.

Oh give me a break.  I know Justin Bieber sings songs I don't like and I don't buy them.  That doesn't mean he's ruined my life and he shouldn't be allowed to sing because I'd have to know about it.

And people already say that "X is the only real ending" and they do have a point.  They have a point according to others that agree.  You are here telling me that these are the only real endings and many don't agree.  You've come up with your own ideas of what synthesis means and you think that's the real ending for synthesis and you have a point for you and your compadres.  Everyone even now has a point as to what the real ending is.  New DLC wouldn't make anything more valid-it would just help one group that is now left out have an ending for them.

You've seen the original endings-they existed and the EC exists and Leviathan added and minutely changed that, so what was and what now is, is constantly in flux. 

If Omega comes out and it says reapers are really flying elephants and I don't buy Omega, I'd never believe they were flying elephants.

There's a lot of stuff in graphic novels and in books that isn't in the games-I learned about Adjutants last night.  So, now that I know about them does that ruin the game I have or impact it?  No.  They aren't yet in my game.

Personally, the idea that you are compromising your principles is a joke.  There's no compromise, there's a total dissolution of them in order to salvage some foolish notion that what is left resembles life.  That's how I see it-so please, I do want something to balance that.  Iedra2 head canons that synthesis allows you to pick your evolution and many other things.  Well, I've seen that said by Iedra2 in the synthesis thread.  That doesn't mean it's in my game.

[Fiannawolf]

In the vanilla ending there was no downside to destroy b/c of lack of content in all 3. EDI and the Geth were alive but on the other hand all relays died in all endings....


This game is really missing a

http://tvtropes.org/...in/GoldenEnding

This is esp relevent if you have a save file all across the series. I expected shep to do the ulimate sacrifice ala DA O in some of the endings but not in nearly all of them. If you like one of the endings adding in more options wont invalidate what you like. Its not like anyone is saying one choice is canon over the others...well until Bioware makes ME4 then they might be forced to. Who knows at this point.

I want more options. I want something that leads to a suicide mission 2.0 but since its Reapers Ive already lost people I like:

Legion, Mordin, Ash/Kai depending

So really I cant get the "Save everyone" achievement this time anyway.

Lets say High EMS refusal would need 8 or 9k EMS. Then MP would be required. Make it hard to obtain. Still use the Cruible but since you have all the assets you need have your science peeps bypass/hack the Kid and fire the cruible to take out the Reapers only. What ever science team you send in will die. Like the Suicide mission lets say you have to choose Kas, David Archer, and/or Kaylee Sanders to go in to lead. That would make things interesting.

People who read the novels would feel for Kaylee, and the game only peeps who had overlord would be for David to survive and Kas is a no brainer for most. Make it Suicide Mission 2.0.

Even though my peeps survived the Collector base it was still hard decisions.

Have somethign similar for the other endings too. Control: In order to get shep hooked up you have to sac a science team. That way organic human shep is in complete domination of the reapers and not Catayst AI SHEP. Have it also very High EMS option.

For Synth: Same thing. Unless you have resources the beam will disinigrate Sheppy.

Destory: Post Breath Reunion.

Edit: 

Spot on Drayfish. 3D as always  Bro/sisfist to all the excellent people in this thread.

Modifié par Fiannawolf, 11 septembre 2012 - 01:26 .

[Blueprotoss]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

I think what we've been asking for is a less polluted destroy ending.

Please explain.

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote... 

* synthesis is the disney ending where although Shepard dies everyone and their local friendly husk get along fine, and everything gets rebuilt with the help of the reapers in no time. Even Batarians and Humans get along. Krogans and Turians love each other. We're all the same now, that's the sacrifice.

Synthesis is far from Disney and those alliances happened through survivial/brotherhood.

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote... 

* control despite the fact that Shepard dies, is more of the Law & Order ending. (hence the blue) where the Shreapalyst is the head cop, judge and jury of the galaxy, keeping a watchful eye over those who live on, while rebuilding what was lost, and protecting and defending the innocent, helping those too weak to make it on their own, and destroying those who threaten the will of the many.

Control being a Paragon option could be debated whether its really belongs like Destroy being Renegade.  Control could go any way in the story based on what Shepard is.

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote... 

* but destroy? destroy gets rid of the reapers, starboy, the geth, EDI + all other AIs. It leaves all the destruction in its wake including all the relay damage, Citadel damage, and all the destruction on each world, but there's a chance Shepard lives.... in a pile of rubble, but a chance Shepard lives.

Destroy doesn'thow kill the Reaper AI but it does kill EDI and the Geth based on they have Reaper tech in them.  There were no mentioning of what happened to AIs or VIs.

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote... 

So a reunion + removing the destruction of the geth, EDI and other AIs from the Destroy ending would make Destroy too sugar coated, compared to the others? That's what the original question was. Now factor in Leviathan and Omega.

To be fair you currently can't factor in Omega until its announced.

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote... 

Because I guess if those two things were removed, would any of you choose Control or Synthesis?

I doubt that people wouldn't choose Control or Synthesis.

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote... 

But I'm not unreasonable. I'm willing to compromise. I know we'll never get the less polluted destroy ending.

Maybe.

[3DandBeyond]

BD Manchild wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

If a DLC exists, it exists for everyone who knows of it, regardless of whether they buy it or not. It's *you* who's missing the point. The simple knowledge that an ending exists that doesn't require you to compromise your principles will invalidate the others. I can already see the fanatics claiming "X is the only real ending". Only this time, they'd have a point.

So because you've got what you wanted, nobody else is allowed to? And you call people who support these ideas selfish...

Also, as was pointed out while I was typing this, an ending where you abandon your principles for the sake of some arbitrary compromise does not automatically make it a fulfilling or meaningful ending. Maybe it does for you, but evidently it does not for a lot of people.

Exactly.  It's totally and completely unfulfilling and devoid of meaning to a great many people.  This is a game that was to be about all out war.  We are told we can never have that-what should have been. So, what I'm hoping is to salvage at least some semblance that you could possibly get a victory without acting like a total galaxy killer yourself by injecting reapers into people, letting reapers roam and help rule, or by killing the very people that always agreed with you and are viewed by your foe to be the inevitable killers that the current foe is.  That's not a compromise at all, because when you compromise there's the implication you will get something good out of it. 

Destroy as it now is has a description that is so unclear as to seem like a joke and it's the only choice or non-choice that at least partly may fulfill the main goal that a war was supposed to be about.  Yes, it was about destroying reapers.  So the cost of being allowed to do that by some artifically inserted choices is the deaths of the only beings who saw the threat just as Shepard did.  And in previous posts Iedra2 is indicating it might well be the canon choice-destroy.  Because without EDI and the geth dying everyone would choose it.  I assume that means Iedra2 would also choose it, so if you would choose it and if a lot of others that don't now pick destroy, would choose it, remind me why that would be a bad thing?

[Iakus]

Ieldra2 wrote...


Because these options do not exist in isolation. Any option you add affects the others. And if you have an option that feels comfortable then that will invalidate those which don't feel comfortable. You don't think choosing Synthesis is a comfortable decision, do you? I have a decision whose outcome I like, but I must compromise my principles to get it. In a big way. In short: If you can win without compromising your principles, then choosing any other ending becomes wrong.
.

There is something very wrong with that underlined statement. 

[LupusXIII]

Waht 3D started here is one of the most impressive avalanche threads i have ever seen

yesterday i finished my first playtrhough after months (including EC and Leviatan) and i must say i pretty much ignored the crucible story not on purpose i enjoyed to unite an army with the single task to kick reaper asses there sure are lots of realy good moments in ME3 tuchanka, Ranoch (Despite i could throw Han´gerrel and Xen out of an airlock) also the leviatan story realy feelt like Masseffect all this points made me feel like i could make it and push the reapers out of MY galaxy and than in the end i stood at the citadel talking to this glowing little bastard and i couldnt help but to reject the three ways he told me i have and to do nothing and i just had the feeling damn i got screwed again all waht happend before dosnt matter anymore i had around 7k EMS much more than i needed

im pro alt-ending and fine if its a dlc even if not free i will buy because i still care and i havnt lost the hope cause without hope waht is left

Modifié par LupusXIII, 11 septembre 2012 - 01:42 .

[Blueprotoss]

iakus wrote...

webhead921 wrote...

I appreciate the OP's ideas a lot more than I have appreciated other threads because 3D is asking for more without undermining what is already there, and without insulting those who like the extended cut.

That's the thing about games with multiple endings, it should cover a broader spectrum of players.

The current endings leave too many people out in the cold.

A lot of the "multiple ending" games don't cover a broader spectrum especiially when you factor in all of the choices throghout a single game or series.

Some will always be left out of the cold and that can't be helped whn something isn't tailored on an individual basis.

[Blueprotoss]

Oransel wrote...

obZen DF wrote...
So, before the EC came out, you were lazy as well [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/happy.png[/smilie]

No. Developers were lazy before the EC, and they stayed lazy after it. We just want to salvage what can be salvaged in ME3. Aside from ME3 reboot it's starbrat removing or refusal victory. Both can do.

If you want a ME3 reboot then ME as a series would have to be redone and Bioware was far from being lazy.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 11 septembre 2012 - 01:42 .

[3DandBeyond]

Blueprotoss wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

I think what we've been asking for is a less polluted destroy ending.

Please explain.

It's been stated repeatedly from the OP on and even in places where you've previously participated. 

Destroy's description by the kid starts off with the statement that the crucible is largely intact.  That means it is either not finished or damaged, since it is not intact. He then goes on to say it will not discriminate and will target all synthetics and then says a lot of stuff that makes it rather a mess of a description.  The key seems to be that something for targeting the thing is missing.  If that's found, it might be able to hit the reapers only.  That doesn't mean that true collateral damage (unintended damage and death) could not and would not occur.  It just means that it would see and shoot at only reapers.  The geth as a race would not be a target.  All synthetics would not be a target.  Even you who are partly synthetic (as are others) might not end up a torso Shepard. 

And the crucible could do whatever it was truly intended to do.  The flip side is that bad things still could happen (much like a low EMS destroy ending).  And this destroy which would be difficult to get would lead to some true even one scene reunion for a living Shepard, along with a real authentic aftermath of a galaxy in a shambles and needing people to come together to rebuild.  People would at last be without the reapers deciding the direction of the future.  Something neither of the other 2 choices allow-self-determination and self-reliance.

That is one way to do it.

I've also said that it's pretty curious to me that with high EMS the state of the crucible (largely intact) is only mentioned in destroy.  What if it also had an impact on the other 2 choices?  And why wouldn't it?  It may be assumed that quite possibly it does have an impact.  Destroy is the very first thing the kid describes and he tells you then that the thing is largely intact.  That could mean it does affect how good it is at achieving the other 2 choices.  Wouldn't it be interesting if the only reason Shepard's life is needed in synthesis is because the thing is not complete?  Wouldn't it be interesting if the only reason Shepard has to die in control is because the crucible is not intact?  What if all endings had another form of variety added to them as well?  I have no problem with any of that and think it could be a lot of fun for everyone.  And games are meant to be fun.  But I'd really like to have the possibility to feel good at the end of ME3.  That's why I played ME games.