6432 réponses à ce sujet

[3DandBeyond]

This is why I'm asking for BW to reconsider this. I've completed their latest poll and have asked them to have a real presence here on the BSN with registered owners. Past is prologue. Start today and try and start a new discussion about what could resurrect a better feeling for all, including themselves. It does no good to go on twitter and remain mired in the thought, "everyone on the BSN hates me". Yeah, I assure you I am not universally loved as well, but I'll be ok. You will too, BW if you can be introspective and try and see what you did best. My opinion is that you have the capability to pull that out again. If you won't listen to us, consult the games and listen to your characters. They speak well of you and can speak well for you.

[Fiannawolf]

I noticed some cosmetic changes at the TIMMEH base. Umm As for other things: EC fixed some Mars bugs and Kaidan Alive Engineer Dialog issues. Levi fixed a newly ported Liara romance shep. You cant reload an early save with that glitched line. It has to a fresh Sheppy from 2 again.

Im thinking your overall EMS/War Assests are recalculated at TIMMEH base attack so they wanted people to reload from that point. I went in with over 8000 EMS. *thinks* I dont think I heard any new conversations with my crew.

Most of the ending alt stuff kicked in at Earth.

[sdinc009]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Isichar wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Isichar wrote...

One might even say he is arguing for the sake of arguing

How is that when the basis of arguing is the same as debating and discussing, which means you're actually complimenting me,  Either way I'm not  someone that insults people.

Theres no discussion going on with you. Just people talking about how they viewed the situation and you bashing them without reason.

If there was no discussion then I wouldn't be here and its ironic when you're currently the only one that insults me and I love how you aren't on topic.

Um, there's no insult happening here. Making a statement based on observational action is not an insult, simply a statement of fact. There's no open ended opinion that defames anothers character occuring here. If it appears that you are "arguing for the sake of arguing" or playing Devil's Advocate so to speak, then that's what you appear to be doing. It is not an insult simply an observation.

[MegaSovereign]

3DandBeyond wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Wasn't the EC based off of the massive pre-EC ME3 survey?

IIRC the most voted problems were the Mass Relays blowing up, the fleets starving at Sol, and the Normandy being stranded. The EC addressed those issues.

Not according to BW and panel discussions.  And not according to them pre-EC.  They created stickied threads for registered owners to voice concerns and suggestions and comments.  They stated that they used this feedback as well, but also said (implying that this was most of what they read as feedback) that if people didn't explain what they didn't like that they had no way to know what was wrong.  900 plus pages in one stickied thread that they created contained exhaustive explanations of what people thought was wrong.  Within those threads the relays were a part of it, as was the Normandy stranded and Joker running away thing. 

However, they started to retcon the relays on twitter and in the EC announcement they stated they didn't know how anyone could have even thought the galaxy was destroyed at the end of the original endings since they hadn't intended that to be so.  Well, if they had indeed been listening they would have known that people thought that because they said that in at least 2 places in the game and Mac Walters said it in a Feb. interview.  So, they addressed it, but didn't even really fix it.  Look at the Charon relay.  It's a mess.  Read the Desperate Measures codex.  Tell me that the Sol system still would not be screwed in the destroy ending.

The relays were a part of it, but by and large the biggest complaint was about the kid and having an ending based not on the major previous choices and things done in the game, but in an artificial choice tree set up at the end of the game-choices that everyone gets.  People rail against canon anything-well, 3 choices are canon.  1 non-choice that's canon.  Variation is only as to renegade (attitude slides and narration) and how many you get with the EMS you have.  And nothing fundamentally changes at the core what is wrong with the kid or the choices.  That was by far a much bigger issue than the relays alone.  Everything that happened after making a choice was all part of being forced into this funnel at the end.

Again, it's like watching a sporting event where your team and the other team are tied up and in the last few seconds of the game, all play stops and your team captain is offered 3 choices by the other team's captain-and each of them decides exactly how much the opposing team will win by.

The game is so contradictory and that has not been fixed - once I hit 3100 EMS I'm told my chances of winning are even-I'm also told by Hackett that we can win this thing and I'm told on my that my forces are winning in key locations.  But I can't win this thing.  The best I can hope to do is to kill people who are trying to help fight against these things and ensure that future conflict between organics and synthetics will occur-future synthetics will know that the geth were killed to save organics.  Or, I can damn the galaxy with some other flavor of reaper intervention for the foreseeable future-internally or externally.  That doesn't smell like victory with a whole lot of costs to me.

The 3 biggest issues were addressed in the EC. Other than that there were also complaints about the Catalyst being portrayed as a God-like figure, but this was mitigated with extra context.

The Crucible's destroy functionality targets all synthetic technology, this is something that you had no control over. You certainly shouldn't feel guilty for it. The purpose of gathering EMS was to mimimize losses. With low EMS the Crucible practically wipes out most of the galaxy. You're also headcanoning that future synthetics will attack organics. This simply isn't true because synthetics don't behave like organics. Vengenance is something they don't necessarily care about. If anything, learning about the fate of past synthetics would motivate them to try to prevent conflict with organics.

I don't see how Control/Synthesis damns the galaxy. They are the ideal options and that's exactly what Paragon Shepard has been for 3 games: An idealist. You stop the Reapers and use them for good. Oh and the synthetics don't die in these ending.

You're trying to paint a picture about the endings that simply isn't true. All 3 non-refusal endings are victories.

EDIT:

I'm not saying they are perfect and I certainly wouldn't mind them expanding the endings further. I'm just saying that some of the claims you made boil down to hyper-exaggeration. This is part of the reason why Bioware doesn't take some of our feedback seriously. They assume that the fans on BSN let their passion cloud their reasoning.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 14 septembre 2012 - 03:42 .

[Blueprotoss]

3DandBeyond wrote...

You're hoping someone will insult you.  On other forums you'd be banned for this.  You say one thing and someone tries to discuss it and then say something contradictory to get people started and you are trying to inflame.  It's obvious.  You do it in every thread you visit.  You rely on no one paying attention to this behavior. 

The point isn't about whether or not you've seen what you say you haven't seen or anything else.

I'd prefer at least one ending that made real sense for a lot of people and that didn't require that they force their Shepard to go against the way they played Shepard.

If I was hoping for someone to insult me then I would be here insulting people, which is what I don't do.

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Let's cut to the chase: why engage him at all? Based on his posting history, he's either an idiot or a troll and in either case, no productive discussion will be had.

Clearly you don't know what you're talking about based on how you don't know what a "troll" is because of general ignorance. 

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 14 septembre 2012 - 03:53 .

[Blueprotoss]

Isichar wrote...

Just doing you a favor and showing you the error of your logic (or rather lack of...), no need to thank me.

and saying "your wrong" over and over again without backing it up may qualify as a discussion where you come from, but here we call that trolling.

How is having a discussion wrong unless if your opinion says that insullts must be used.

sdinc009 wrote...

Um, there's no insult happening here. Making a statement based on observational action is not an insult, simply a statement of fact. There's no open ended opinion that defames anothers character occuring here. If it appears that you are "arguing for the sake of arguing" or playing Devil's Advocate so to speak, then that's what you appear to be doing. It is not an insult simply an observation.

How is that when "the Devil's Advocate" is 3D and doing a good job of it without rage being frequent. 

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 14 septembre 2012 - 04:00 .

[Blueprotoss]

sdinc009 wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Ozida wrote...

Hm, I must be really not paying attention then. I do not remember any drastic changes at Cerbers' base when I was re-playing it. Can you please give a quick summary of differences?

Thats okay, but I can't personally talk about the Cerberus base since I just started at the beam.

That's fine, but I can since I did start from before the Cerberus base. In fact I waited till the EC DLC to go through my Nightmare difficulty run. And the answer is "NO" there are no changes at the Cerberus base. The only time any differences, even on the minute level, begins is during the Victory fleet arrival cinematic seems like it has maybe a few extra scenes.

Maybe you didn't notice those changes just like Ozida did its human to make mistakes.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 14 septembre 2012 - 03:57 .

[3DandBeyond]

Fiannawolf wrote...

I noticed some cosmetic changes at the TIMMEH base. Umm As for other things: EC fixed some Mars bugs and Kaidan Alive Engineer Dialog issues. Levi fixed a newly ported Liara romance shep. You cant reload an early save with that glitched line. It has to a fresh Sheppy from 2 again.

Im thinking your overall EMS/War Assests are recalculated at TIMMEH base attack so they wanted people to reload from that point. I went in with over 8000 EMS. *thinks* I dont think I heard any new conversations with my crew.

Most of the ending alt stuff kicked in at Earth.

Yes, right.  Those things were more like patches that should have happened no matter what.  And I know it's trivializing it to say the EC added nothing but for me that is the case.  It didn't add to what needed to be added to.  Control and Synthesis for many people were never choices they'd pick as the way they wanted their game to end.  So, both of those could show that everyone gets a lifetime supply of chocolate and cheesecake and that the galaxy will be instantly fixed and so on and I'd never consider them to be good things.  Call it head canon, and people have said that what I see happening after choosing them is my head canon.  Ok, so I can't head canon those endings, but I must head canon the one I want.  And this is the way everything is handled.  I'm supposed to speculate, but not as to what I really logically think these things would mean.  Ok tell you what-if you don't want me to head canon the endings then end the game in a way that does not require me to head canon things.  Don't give me abiguity and then tell me that I really shouldn't take things so literally (that's an impossibility with ambiguity), and at the same time tell me not to read too much into it.

At least I'd like to know exactly what is acceptable interpretation for these endings.  I believe it's like this:

Synthesis is sunshine and rainbows-the slides show that.  It can't be anything bad because the slides would show that if that was true.  Don't head canon negative things.  Instead, head canon that it means you get to decide how you want to be augmented.  Never ask questions about it if they can't be answered by some positive head canon.  It's best that way.

Control is sunshine and rainbows because (hell yeah) it's great being reaper god.  And don't head canon things like people not liking reapers with people goo in them policing the galaxy and husks raking leaves and banshees making cookies.  Life is great for the Many.  Only positive head canon is allowed.  It's best that way.

Destroy-who cares about EDI and the geth?  Yeehaw, we got the reapers.  Ambiguity is so much fun.  And who cares if the hero whose face you created, whose face could not be imported, whose face has been shown in countless fanmade tribute videos is not seen at the end.  Who cares if you got to see the flesh burned and ripped off of a dying Shepard's face, no one cares about the weakly smiling face of a living Shepard.  No one cared to see an injured Shepard stand up and take in a breath of air that said, "it's time to get to work".  It was really satisfying to instead get a gasp from the torso, like a fish out of water.  A torso, that was given no context upon which to base postitive head canon-that head canon requires you ignore everything that's basically shown and made up endings are so much fun. 

Dead Shepards are positive things with bunnies and rainbows so it's all good and realistic.  Living Shepards are negative things because all you want are bunnies and rainbows and that's bad and unrealistic.  It's real life, hard choices must be made and it's a game so you need to know this isn't about what you want. 

Well, it all starts to make sense-it isn't supposed to make sense.

[Fiannawolf]

Yea, I noticed the bug fixes b/c I had a shep file from earlier in the game. The dlcs have fixed bugs but as far as content goes: Yea, EC stuff really didnt have a noticable effect until Earth. Levi: Kid Conversation had some more lines but no new cinima scenes with Levis fighting reapers and no new slides after the fact.


If you do take the RGB stuff at face value, your right, dead shepards get "happier" more fulfilling endings. Ouch....

[sdinc009]

MegaSovereign wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Wasn't the EC based off of the massive pre-EC ME3 survey?

IIRC the most voted problems were the Mass Relays blowing up, the fleets starving at Sol, and the Normandy being stranded. The EC addressed those issues.

Not according to BW and panel discussions.  And not according to them pre-EC.  They created stickied threads for registered owners to voice concerns and suggestions and comments.  They stated that they used this feedback as well, but also said (implying that this was most of what they read as feedback) that if people didn't explain what they didn't like that they had no way to know what was wrong.  900 plus pages in one stickied thread that they created contained exhaustive explanations of what people thought was wrong.  Within those threads the relays were a part of it, as was the Normandy stranded and Joker running away thing. 

However, they started to retcon the relays on twitter and in the EC announcement they stated they didn't know how anyone could have even thought the galaxy was destroyed at the end of the original endings since they hadn't intended that to be so.  Well, if they had indeed been listening they would have known that people thought that because they said that in at least 2 places in the game and Mac Walters said it in a Feb. interview.  So, they addressed it, but didn't even really fix it.  Look at the Charon relay.  It's a mess.  Read the Desperate Measures codex.  Tell me that the Sol system still would not be screwed in the destroy ending.

The relays were a part of it, but by and large the biggest complaint was about the kid and having an ending based not on the major previous choices and things done in the game, but in an artificial choice tree set up at the end of the game-choices that everyone gets.  People rail against canon anything-well, 3 choices are canon.  1 non-choice that's canon.  Variation is only as to renegade (attitude slides and narration) and how many you get with the EMS you have.  And nothing fundamentally changes at the core what is wrong with the kid or the choices.  That was by far a much bigger issue than the relays alone.  Everything that happened after making a choice was all part of being forced into this funnel at the end.

Again, it's like watching a sporting event where your team and the other team are tied up and in the last few seconds of the game, all play stops and your team captain is offered 3 choices by the other team's captain-and each of them decides exactly how much the opposing team will win by.

The game is so contradictory and that has not been fixed - once I hit 3100 EMS I'm told my chances of winning are even-I'm also told by Hackett that we can win this thing and I'm told on my that my forces are winning in key locations.  But I can't win this thing.  The best I can hope to do is to kill people who are trying to help fight against these things and ensure that future conflict between organics and synthetics will occur-future synthetics will know that the geth were killed to save organics.  Or, I can damn the galaxy with some other flavor of reaper intervention for the foreseeable future-internally or externally.  That doesn't smell like victory with a whole lot of costs to me.

The 3 biggest issues were addressed in the EC. Other than that there were also complaints about the Catalyst being portrayed as a God-like figure, but this was mitigated with extra context.

The Crucible's destroy functionality targets all synthetic technology, this is something that you had no control over. You certainly shouldn't feel guilty for it. The purpose of gathering EMS was to mimimize losses. With low EMS the Crucible practically wipes out most of the galaxy. You're also headcanoning that future synthetics will attack organics. This simply isn't true because synthetics don't behave like organics. Vengenance is something they don't necessarily care about. If anything, learning about the fate of past synthetics would motivate them to try to prevent conflict with organics.

I don't see how Control/Synthesis damns the galaxy. They are the ideal options and that's exactly what Paragon Shepard has been for 3 games: An idealist. You stop the Reapers and use them for good. Oh and the synthetics don't die in these ending.

You're trying to paint a picture about the endings that simply isn't true. All 3 non-refusal endings are victories.

EDIT:

I'm not saying they are perfect and I certainly wouldn't mind them expanding the endings further. I'm just saying that some of the claims you made boil down to hyper-exaggeration. This is part of the reason why Bioware doesn't take some of our feedback seriously. They assume that the fans on BSN let their passion cloud their reasoning.

"You're also headcanoning that future synthetics will attack organics." No she's not! This is very clearly stated by the Catalyst. It says that future generations will create synthetics and the problem will appear again. It's not head canon when it's stated in the diaogue.

[sdinc009]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Isichar wrote...

Just doing you a favor and showing you the error of your logic (or rather lack of...), no need to thank me.

and saying "your wrong" over and over again without backing it up may qualify as a discussion where you come from, but here we call that trolling.

How is having a discussion wrong unless if your opinion says that insullts must be used.

sdinc009 wrote...

Um, there's no insult happening here. Making a statement based on observational action is not an insult, simply a statement of fact. There's no open ended opinion that defames anothers character occuring here. If it appears that you are "arguing for the sake of arguing" or playing Devil's Advocate so to speak, then that's what you appear to be doing. It is not an insult simply an observation.

How is that when "the Devil's Advocate" is 3D and doing a good job of it without rage being frequent. 

Again, you're incorrect. First, 3D started this thread and has remained consistent on her stance with the sole purpose of pleading to Bioware to fix the ending of ME 3. By definition this is not playing Devil's Advocate. You ,however, are doing exactly what the defintion of Devil's Advocate is :

In common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with, for the sake of argument.

[3DandBeyond]

MegaSovereign wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Wasn't the EC based off of the massive pre-EC ME3 survey?

IIRC the most voted problems were the Mass Relays blowing up, the fleets starving at Sol, and the Normandy being stranded. The EC addressed those issues.

Not according to BW and panel discussions.  And not according to them pre-EC.  They created stickied threads for registered owners to voice concerns and suggestions and comments.  They stated that they used this feedback as well, but also said (implying that this was most of what they read as feedback) that if people didn't explain what they didn't like that they had no way to know what was wrong.  900 plus pages in one stickied thread that they created contained exhaustive explanations of what people thought was wrong.  Within those threads the relays were a part of it, as was the Normandy stranded and Joker running away thing. 

However, they started to retcon the relays on twitter and in the EC announcement they stated they didn't know how anyone could have even thought the galaxy was destroyed at the end of the original endings since they hadn't intended that to be so.  Well, if they had indeed been listening they would have known that people thought that because they said that in at least 2 places in the game and Mac Walters said it in a Feb. interview.  So, they addressed it, but didn't even really fix it.  Look at the Charon relay.  It's a mess.  Read the Desperate Measures codex.  Tell me that the Sol system still would not be screwed in the destroy ending.

The relays were a part of it, but by and large the biggest complaint was about the kid and having an ending based not on the major previous choices and things done in the game, but in an artificial choice tree set up at the end of the game-choices that everyone gets.  People rail against canon anything-well, 3 choices are canon.  1 non-choice that's canon.  Variation is only as to renegade (attitude slides and narration) and how many you get with the EMS you have.  And nothing fundamentally changes at the core what is wrong with the kid or the choices.  That was by far a much bigger issue than the relays alone.  Everything that happened after making a choice was all part of being forced into this funnel at the end.

Again, it's like watching a sporting event where your team and the other team are tied up and in the last few seconds of the game, all play stops and your team captain is offered 3 choices by the other team's captain-and each of them decides exactly how much the opposing team will win by.

The game is so contradictory and that has not been fixed - once I hit 3100 EMS I'm told my chances of winning are even-I'm also told by Hackett that we can win this thing and I'm told on my that my forces are winning in key locations.  But I can't win this thing.  The best I can hope to do is to kill people who are trying to help fight against these things and ensure that future conflict between organics and synthetics will occur-future synthetics will know that the geth were killed to save organics.  Or, I can damn the galaxy with some other flavor of reaper intervention for the foreseeable future-internally or externally.  That doesn't smell like victory with a whole lot of costs to me.

The 3 biggest issues were addressed in the EC. Other than that there were also complaints about the Catalyst being portrayed as a God-like figure, but this was mitigated with extra context.

The Crucible's destroy functionality targets all synthetic technology, this is something that you had no control over. You certainly shouldn't feel guilty for it. The purpose of gathering EMS was to mimimize losses. With low EMS the Crucible practically wipes out most of the galaxy. You're also headcanoning that future synthetics will attack organics. This simply isn't true because synthetics don't behave like organics. Vengenance is something they don't necessarily care about. If anything, learning about the fate of past synthetics would motivate them to try to prevent conflict with organics.

I don't see how Control/Synthesis damns the galaxy. They are the ideal options and that's exactly what Paragon Shepard has been for 3 games: An idealist. You stop the Reapers and use them for good. Oh and the synthetics don't die in these ending.

You're trying to paint a picture about the endings that simply isn't true. All 3 non-refusal endings are victories.

EDIT:

I'm not saying they are perfect and I certainly wouldn't mind them expanding the endings further. I'm just saying that some of the claims you made boil down to hyper-exaggeration. This is part of the reason why Bioware doesn't take some of our feedback seriously. They assume that the fans on BSN let their passion cloud their reasoning.

Ok, you are being disingenuous here and I suspect you know that.  The single biggest issue was the presence of the kid.  Period.

You know full well why people feel control and synthesis damns the galaxy, so don't play this game.  I know you know why.  I also know that you are aware I was not saying synthetics die in control and synthesis but was saying that about destroy.  Why act like this?  I don't consider you to be un-smart, so why do this?

No one that really thinks about control would see that as making sense to people living in the galaxy.  They have watched these monsters destroy whole colonies, murder family and friends and tear a whole in their lives.  They have people goo in them.  I don't care if the reapers are now going to vomit money and puppies.  It is illogical to think people would welcome them with open arms and say all is forgiven if you'll just fix everything.  They can't fix what's been lost.  They've killed trillions.  And no one would know Shepard essence is controlling them.  They would wonder what the hell is up with them.  And Shepard might well have to split the baby at some point when one side of the Many wants to fight with some other group of Manys.  The galaxy has always existed and evolved using reaper influence and this promotes it.

And synthesis changes people internally - it changes all organics internally and gives synthetics full understanding of organics (that no longer exist).  Yeah, ok that's realistic.  Somehow this ignorant AI is able to give synthetics full understanding of organics (that no longer exist).  And the tech within people will begin a cascade of events that is meant to achieve what the kid sees as inevitable as the end stage of evolution (that in itself is insane-synthesis will never be a part of natural evolution, nor would the augmentation with tech ever be created by evolution-both would always be artificial processes, not of nature).  If synthesis fully integrates tech within people (this is reaper tech), then people again will not evolve on their own, will not innovate based on their own learning, will again be doomed to walk a path created by reapers.  Yay.

In both cases, the reapers still exist.  I can see no rational person in either instance in the game being overjoyed to have these things in their lives.  They were abominations created by the forced integration (sound familiar) of organic and maybe synthetic intelligence (but they're mindless), created merely to keep doing this same thing.  They utilize organic component material to create cores and forms of reapers.  So, quite literally that reaper down the street may be your cousin Bob.  He doesn't look so good and he can't talk to you, but hey, he's in there.  And both of these also leave banshees, husks, brutes, and so on running around doing whatever.  They are drones, so what the heck are they after these choices are made?  Destroy as it is now all but ensures synthetics will be in conflict with organics in the future.  It does this because any newly created synthetics would know that organics felt it was acceptable to destroy synthetics to save organics.  It would be a part of the culture that exists after the war.

You have your opinion, but really don't mischaracterize things said.  You think these choices don't damn the galaxy.  I do.  I think they destroy what makes life worth living.  It's not life at any cost.  It's life worth living at a cost that does not destroy all that.  It's creating an uncertain future that is far more likely to be problematic and tortuous than even dying would be.

And thanks so much for your last statement.  Really nice.I go to great lengths to explain what I think repeatedly and they made ambiguous endings.  They didn't give them good explanation.  You have been around here  long enough to have read some of my long posts and I've fully explained everything I said that you characterize as exaggeration.  I'm not exaggerating.  My opinion is the endings as they currently are do damn the galaxy.  That's not exaggeration but rational and reasonable extrapolation of what they've shown.  They have not even adhered to their own story and we paid them money for it.

But, now I'm said to be over-hyping things.  The irony.

[Blueprotoss]

sdinc009 wrote...

Again, you're incorrect. First, 3D started this thread and has remained consistent on her stance with the sole purpose of pleading to Bioware to fix the ending of ME 3.

Consistness is in the eye of the beholder and nobody can control a thread to that degree because on the general negativity in people and how the Interenet acts.  Plus the insulting was coming from Isichar not from 3D.

sdinc009 wrote... 

By definition this is not playing Devil's Advocate. You ,however, are doing exactly what the defintion of Devil's Advocate is :

In common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with, for the sake of argument.

This topic is a "devil's advocate" in general based on how a fair middle ground is trying to be established.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 14 septembre 2012 - 04:32 .

[3DandBeyond]

I am saying that as I see it the current endings feature what many see as bleak futures that are not touched on with the slides. That doesn't fit, but then much in them does not fit and isn't explained well.

I'm asking for an alternative that works for those that feel this way. I'd like a real look back to take place that is done to see objectively how some can come to have these opinions. The characters mattered to me. The idea was that they were juxtaposed against a great foe. That was important and still for many of us the characters were the great thing that is forgotten in trying too hard to explain the motivations of the foe.

BW, please consider something that at least gives us something to take away from all this that we can feel good about.

[CronoDragoon]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Ok, you are being disingenuous here and I suspect you know that.  The single biggest issue was the presence of the kid.  Period.

Speak for yourself. My 3 hopes going into the EC:

1. Relays no longer destroyed.
2. Normandy crew shown safe and not stranded.
3. Geth/EDI no longer gone in Destroy.

The top 2 being fixed was a pleasant surprise, because I was convinced they would stick by their symbolism of the relays being destroyed meaning freedom for the galaxy, no matter the horrific consequences it would cause they BW clearly did not think about. But they did retcon it, and I give them kudos for that.

The kid himself has never been a huge issue, because when people complained about the Catalyst they complained about 3 things:

1. The original endings seemed to portray his opinion as objective truth (fixed in the EC and Leviathan).
2. The Crucible choices don't appear to be a triumphant refutation of his beliefs. Destroy is, in fact, a refutation of his beliefs, but it simply doesn't feel this way because it reduces the identities of the geth and EDI back to being simply "synthetics" which appears in line with his programming. But notice that this complaint is centered around the Crucible choices, not the Catalyst.
3. He's not foreshadowed and too disconnected with our vision of the Reapers previously. This issue, while true, ultimately has no demonstrable consequence within the story of the game.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 14 septembre 2012 - 04:38 .

[vallore]

3DandBeyond wrote...

The memorial wall scene is great, but other than Liara who could have a connection to Shepard, I'm not sure how everyone became psychic. They seem positive Anderson is dead, but not Shepard in Destroy. Well, why are they so positive Shepard is dead then in the other endings. Again, I understand it for Liara, but for anyone else?

Indeed, and it would have been a problem very easy to avoid, provided they had been as clear with Shepard’s surviving as they were with her dying. (No need of suggesting it).

e.g. Shepard awakes in a hospital bed, with the LI, or best friend, looking over her. Shepard looks and recognizes her LI/friend and feebly smiles, while the LI/friend smiles back and holds her hand, concern fading away. They wouldn’t even need more than a few seconds for that scene and it could be voiceless; or they could simply reuse one of the numerous previous recorded appropriate character voices to add a “Shepard!” from the LI/friend, and that being responded by an appropriate ”<Liara/Tali/Kaidan/Miranda/etc>” from the male/female Shepard.

Personally, I don’t doubt that, for most of us, such a scene, voiced or even voiceless, would be far more satisfying than a gasping torso alone in the rubble, while slowly bleeding to death, alone. (Not to speak of how much complaining the inclusion of such a scene in a future DLC could end, and how much renewal of interest in the game from people that are currently uninterested).

Alas, what we got was ambiguity, of the kind that forces the player to go against what common sense suggests, if we want to create a not-so-unhappy ending.

It seems to me, that the devs had a clear preference for Shepard dying, and that is fine, except… ME wasn’t a movie or a book; it was a game where the player is consistently invited and encouraged to create her own protagonist, (within limits). Shepard wasn’t just theirs; it was also of the player.

As a storyteller, you cannot forget what your primary goal is: the player’s enjoyment. In a game, unlike a movie, you have the ability to provide different endings, appropriate for the different type of characters the player can play (as allowed and encouraged by the storyteller, no less). As a storyteller, you cannot, (or rather, should not), pick the character type you most like and give it an appropriate ending, forgetting all the rest you aided and encouraged the player to create… most especially in the case of the ending of an entire trilogy….

[CronoDragoon]

3DandBeyond wrote...

The memorial wall scene is great, but other than Liara who could have a connection to Shepard, I'm not sure how everyone became psychic. They seem positive Anderson is dead, but not Shepard in Destroy. Well, why are they so positive Shepard is dead then in the other endings. Again, I understand it for Liara, but for anyone else?

It is symbolic of the fact that he is not dead. And they are all positive Shepard is dead in the other endings because the center of the Citadel exploded where both he and Anderson are presumed dead, not because of the actual mechanics of how he died using the Crucible.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 14 septembre 2012 - 04:47 .

[DonYourAviators]

lol BioWare don't care. Shame.

[3DandBeyond]

CronoDragoon wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Ok, you are being disingenuous here and I suspect you know that.  The single biggest issue was the presence of the kid.  Period.

Speak for yourself. My 3 hopes going into the EC:

1. Relays no longer destroyed.
2. Normandy crew shown safe and not stranded.
3. Geth/EDI no longer gone in Destroy.

The top 2 being fixed was a pleasant surprise, because I was convinced they would stick by their symbolism of the relays being destroyed meaning freedom for the galaxy, no matter the horrific consequences it would cause they BW clearly did not think about. But they did retcon it, and I give them kudos for that.

The kid himself has never been a huge issue, because when people complained about the Catalyst they complained about 3 things:

1. The original endings seemed to portray his opinion as objective truth (fixed in the EC and Leviathan).
2. The Crucible choices don't appear to be a triumphant refutation of his beliefs. Destroy is, in fact, a refutation of his beliefs, but it simply doesn't feel this way because it reduces the identities of the geth and EDI back to being simply "synthetics" which appears in line with his programming.
3. He's not foreshadowed and too disconnected with our vision of the Reapers previously. This issue, while true, ultimately has no demonstrable consequence within the story of the game.

I'm speaking from reading the posts in multiple threads prior to the EC, to watching multiple youtube videos of the original endings which were geared to just be like walkthroughs and yet would have thousands of comments about hating the kid as well as multiple threads created here repeatedly about how much everyone hated the kid, and so on.  If that was all me, then I should be exhausted.

So the kid's opinion is now objective truth?  Uh, no.  And number 2, what?  What?  A refutation of his beliefs-everything he says would cause me to want to refute his beliefs.  If the choices don't do that-and I never thought they did, I always thought they were an extention and an affirmation of them-that's exactly what is wrong with them.  The choices are there to do his job.  But, who the heck ever thought the problem he is there for was THE problem?  Exactly no one.  I don't care how right he thinks he is or how right his creators thought his purpose was, I don't.  I never will.  They can try all they want to, but nothing he asserts is inevitable.  Things can be probable based on previous examples, but not inevitable.  Much of what is asserted is just plain nonsense and contradictory.

The biggest issue most people had was that the kid could not be fixed and needed to be gone.  You can say it wasn't, but it was stated everywhere.  In order to get to the relay destruction and the rest, you had to go through the kid.  The things that were said about him ran the gamut of his presence totally invalidated almost all of ME1.  He created the choices and/or the crucible plans.  Nothing refutes the idea that he still could have come up with the crucible plans.  And more.  Sure, I only have anecdotal evidence, but in everything I read there was not once that people didn't overwhelmingly agree that the kid was a mess.

[3DandBeyond]

vallore wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

The memorial wall scene is great, but other than Liara who could have a connection to Shepard, I'm not sure how everyone became psychic. They seem positive Anderson is dead, but not Shepard in Destroy. Well, why are they so positive Shepard is dead then in the other endings. Again, I understand it for Liara, but for anyone else?

Indeed, and it would have been a problem very easy to avoid, provided they had been as clear with Shepard’s surviving as they were with her dying. (No need of suggesting it).

e.g. Shepard awakes in a hospital bed, with the LI, or best friend, looking over her. Shepard looks and recognizes her LI/friend and feebly smiles, while the LI/friend smiles back and holds her hand, concern fading away. They wouldn’t even need more than a few seconds for that scene and it could be voiceless; or they could simply reuse one of the numerous previous recorded appropriate character voices to add a “Shepard!” from the LI/friend, and that being responded by an appropriate ”<Liara/Tali/Kaidan/Miranda/etc>” from the male/female Shepard.

Personally, I don’t doubt that, for most of us, such a scene, voiced or even voiceless, would be far more satisfying than a gasping torso alone in the rubble, while slowly bleeding to death, alone. (Not to speak of how much complaining the inclusion of such a scene in a future DLC could end, and how much renewal of interest in the game from people that are currently uninterested).

Alas, what we got was ambiguity, of the kind that forces the player to go against what common sense suggests, if we want to create a not-so-unhappy ending.

It seems to me, that the devs had a clear preference for Shepard dying, and that is fine, except… ME wasn’t a movie or a book; it was a game where the player is consistently invited and encouraged to create her own protagonist, (within limits). Shepard wasn’t just theirs; it was also of the player.

As a storyteller, you cannot forget what your primary goal is: the player’s enjoyment. In a game, unlike a movie, you have the ability to provide different endings, appropriate for the different type of characters the player can play (as allowed and encouraged by the storyteller, no less). As a storyteller, you cannot, (or rather, should not), pick the character type you most like and give it an appropriate ending, forgetting all the rest you aided and encouraged the player to create… most especially in the case of the ending of an entire trilogy….

Very well said!! 

And you hit it exactly right.  For most, the whole thing would have been put to rest as messy as it is, had they included that one scene in place of the memorial wall.  In fact, that was for many one of the bare minimum things they asked BW for before the EC came out.  That was the most desired form of closure.  Many went so far as to say they didn't care for closure to control and synthesis-they wished the whole thing be removed, but knew that wouldn't happen.  So they just wished for closure for Shepard. I'm not saying everyone, but many.  They'd have been willing to head canon the rest.

Your last point is something that so echoes my feelings.  We got to play paragon and renegade and we got to have characters that fell in love or cheated or didn't care about the whole thing.  The ending forgot that.  We invested and created emotions in characters and for many there's no understanding of that at the end.  Not one real thing to grab onto for that.  In fact, the way they've handled the torso is to say on the one hand it's a beacon of hope and on the other to just smash all that and say it's clearly Shepard dying.  Someone thinks this is funny and it isn't.

[CronoDragoon]

3DandBeyond wrote...


So the kid's opinion is now objective truth?  Uh, no.  And number 2, what?  What?  A refutation of his beliefs-everything he says would cause me to want to refute his beliefs.  If the choices don't do that-and I never thought they did, I always thought they were an extention and an affirmation of them-that's exactly what is wrong with them.  The choices are there to do his job.  But, who the heck ever thought the problem he is there for was THE problem?  Exactly no one.  I don't care how right he thinks he is or how right his creators thought his purpose was, I don't.  I never will.  They can try all they want to, but nothing he asserts is inevitable.  Things can be probable based on previous examples, but not inevitable.  Much of what is asserted is just plain nonsense and contradictory.

Who are you arguing with? It certainly isn't me. The numbered list were what the Catalyst complaints boiled down to, not 3 things I assert are true and deserve to be.

And yes, the Catalyst was often mentioned as a problem. I am trying to show why the Catalyst's existence itself is not the heart of the issue but rather the 3 things above which were either fixed or a problem outside of the Catalyst.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 14 septembre 2012 - 05:05 .

[3DandBeyond]

CronoDragoon wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...


So the kid's opinion is now objective truth?  Uh, no.  And number 2, what?  What?  A refutation of his beliefs-everything he says would cause me to want to refute his beliefs.  If the choices don't do that-and I never thought they did, I always thought they were an extention and an affirmation of them-that's exactly what is wrong with them.  The choices are there to do his job.  But, who the heck ever thought the problem he is there for was THE problem?  Exactly no one.  I don't care how right he thinks he is or how right his creators thought his purpose was, I don't.  I never will.  They can try all they want to, but nothing he asserts is inevitable.  Things can be probable based on previous examples, but not inevitable.  Much of what is asserted is just plain nonsense and contradictory.

Who are you arguing with? It certainly isn't me. The numbered list were what the Catalyst complaints boiled down to, not 3 things I assert are true and deserve to be.

And yes, the Catalyst was often mentioned as a problem. I am trying to show why the Catalyst's existence itself is not the heart of the issue but rather the 3 things above which were either fixed or a problem outside of the Catalyst.

Ok honestly.  I quoted this:

CronoDragoon wrote...


Speak for yourself. My 3 hopes going into the EC:

1. Relays no longer destroyed.
2. Normandy crew shown safe and not stranded.
3. Geth/EDI no longer gone in Destroy.

The top 2 being fixed was a pleasant surprise, because I was convinced they would stick by their symbolism of the relays being destroyed meaning freedom for the galaxy, no matter the horrific consequences it would cause they BW clearly did not think about. But they did retcon it, and I give them kudos for that.

The kid himself has never been a huge issue, because when people complained about the Catalyst they complained about 3 things:

1. The original endings seemed to portray his opinion as objective truth (fixed in the EC and Leviathan).
2. The Crucible choices don't appear to be a triumphant refutation of his beliefs. Destroy is, in fact, a refutation of his beliefs, but it simply doesn't feel this way because it reduces the identities of the geth and EDI back to being simply "synthetics" which appears in line with his programming. But notice that this complaint is centered around the
Crucible choices, not the Catalyst. 
3. He's not foreshadowed and too disconnected with our vision of the Reapers previously. This issue, while true, ultimately has no demonstrable consequence within the story of the game.

I quoted things you posted and mischaracterized-what you interpreted people were saying and I disagree with your take on that.  I don't think you understood what people were saying.   The complaints that revolved around the kid were not centered on the crucible, but sat squarely on his glowing head.  The fact was that the crucible was of course a part of all that and yes that it wasn't distanced from him.  You say that the kid's opiniion is fixed in the EC and Leviathan-no it isn't.  No one ever believed he wasn't programmed to believe there's some fight between organics and synthetics.  It still isn't objective truth.  It's a flawed reality that is determined to be inevitable.  It's ridiculous and again never addresses another major complaint-geth/quarians.  You see destroy as a refutation of his beliefs, but in fact it is an affirmation of them-in fact, it ensures the inevitable will take place.  He says it will.  He thinks it will. 

And the number 3 issue is a huge one, the biggest one and yes it does have a consequence.   It takes the player out of the story.  I was fighting reapers not some glowy AI kid wannabe who isn't very intelligent.  It ruins the emphasis of the game.  It demotes the reapers down to idiot status.  In one fell swoop, the kid ruined the game.  He was always the problem for a great many people.  You don't see that so you won't see why others think so.  Stories live and die by their characters (especially when character based)-friend and foe alike, emotions (especially when character based), and immersion (destroying the relationship and identification with the characters demolishes that).  The kid does all of that.  He only makes it worse by opening his mouth.  His lack of foreshadowing gives us no feeling that he should be there at all.  It has major consequences.  It ruins the previous games, and what that does is makes a lot of legacy players take notice that much of ME3 was created to appeal to new players and ignores previous owners.

And what comes next basically is hard to fix if he's not somehow diminished in importance.

Still and all he exists in the game.  It's why if there were to be some additions to what we have, such as a fully intact crucible, it could actually work to take him out as a factor.  Destroy (as a possibility) would no longer affirm his assertions.  He wants EDI and the geth destroyed-they're the problem.  If that no longer happened, destroy would not solve his problem ever.  It would be totally removed as any kind of solution for the kid and his flaw.  It would only do what the galaxy wants it to do.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 14 septembre 2012 - 05:45 .

[Benchpress610]

MegaSovereign wrote...
*sniped*

You're trying to paint a picture about the endings that simply isn't true. All 3 non-refusal endings are victories.

*sniped

Hmm…funny, as much as I try to see them as “victories”, they don’t feel like victories

[Ozida]

To alleyd...

Loved the picture, it made me smile. And I agree with your post. I think after 6 month people are far from being "haters" now. Many have moved on, many have gave up, the real haters have been banned... It's time to talk and see what can be done for ME (especially, if we are talking about compromises and additions as per OP).