Ce sujet est fermé
CronoDragoon wrote...
You don't need to be so defensive. I don't want a fight, I want a discussion. I would also like to see the endings changed further, but I disagree with some of your specifics of what you want - things like the endings are nihilistic or the Catalyst is the main problem. I'm not spamming your thread with hate, haven't insulted you or called you names, and as far as I can tell have not been condescending, either. I don't see why you want to cut off this discussion unless you feel belittled or insulted, neither of which I believe I have done.
This is a forum and you should be open to discussing the specifics of how an ending paid DLC should work. I was one of the first to post my belief, in the first week of ME3's release, that the best answer was a paid ending DLC. And I got roasted for it. Perhaps you were in the same boat as me, but what I don't appreciate is being effectively told to go away in a thread that aligns with my general wishes but has some points of contention with the specifics.
Now, back to the discussion about the Catalyst: I challenge that the Catalyst going away would solve 95% of the ending. When people say that, what they really have in mind is the youtube video where Shepard activates the Crucible, and it skips over the Catalyst and right to the Destroy ending Crucible firing and wiping out the Reapers. In this case, we are looking not just for the removal of the Catalyst but the removal of the ending choice in its entirety, along with the negative consequences of Destroy.
Alternatively, if we keep the Catalyst, but take away the geth/EDI destruction, we will have a situation similar to ME2, where the general sentiment would be, "The boss was kind of stupid, but the rest was awesome." In other words, I believe the Catalyst came to represent and be associated with the ending choice, which is not altogether unfair since he presents and explains the choices (and it is not ruled out that he comes up with them, as well) However, I do think it means that what really got people angry was not the Catalyst himself, but rather what the player, through his presence, is forced to endure in the endings. I also think that when people talk about the disconnect between the ME series and the ending, it is more important for them that the tone seems so out of place rather than the lack of Catalyst foreshadowing.
In summary, I believe what is missing from the endings currently is not the removal of the Catalyst, but the lack of a triumph over his ideals. While Destroy is not what he wants, it is also not really what you the player want. There's not as much catharsis as there could be.
Sorry, but your last statement about what the player wants does not apply to me at all. I don't care what the catalyst wants. But destroy that fit some "rules" I've considered would provide me a heck of a lot of catharsis. You have your opinion on it. The catharsis I would have rather had was a real win over them on our terms and without MacCrucible, but that's not realistic because they never wanted to invest all that it would have taken to do that.
As to your first statement, you're assigning emotions that were not in place. I wasn't defensive but rather weary of continually rehashing things over and over again-things stated quite often here and elsewhere.
I don't want you to go away at all-never my intent. The video that was brought up wasn't mentioned by me and it was said that it didn't solve everything, but was better without the kid. I don't know if it was the one I saw, I do appreciate the videos, but what I'm suggesting isn't a partial answer as good as some are outside of the game, but one in the game.
I do think we just must disagree about the catalyst because major threads (those with hundreds of pages) that I read at length spoke fervently against both the catalyst in general and in relationship to the choices. His whole idea of logic was repeatedly ridiculed. You can't separate the 2. Even if he had no connection to the creation of the choices, it does not matter. The choices serve his purpose. And in case it's unclear to some, yes sure this is my opinion. But, it's not like he says "pssst, don't choose destroy". He doesn't make it that clear as to just what all it will do, but at least in the immediate future it serves his purpose-synthetics cannot kill organics if synthetics do not exist. And in all choices, killer robot synthetics are not necessarily avoidable by his logic.
I am saying that the kid was always dislike and the choices were too (not by everybody-my obligatory disclaimer) but by many. I am pretty sure that's what all the "yo dawg" pics were all about. And that didn't stop after the EC was released. In fact, it even seemed that the kid was made worse as the crucible no longer contained the choices but became a big battery that powered the choices that existed in the citadel which is a part of the kid. The whole thing just is so incredibly hard to take seriously IMO.
I have tended to advocate one method over another because as I see it that would be the least intrusive, invasive, and expensive to do. I am not advocating removal of the kid and I've said that ad nauseum. I see one way to do it and do desire that other ideas be explored, but the fundamental things that I see that would make the most people a bit happier and allow them some type of win would be destroyed reapers, geth and EDI survival, Shepard survival, a reunion (seen and not implied-and it does not have to be some super big thing, but a scene), and the indication of a realistic aftermath since the galaxy has just been through hell. That doesn't mean totally bleak either, but a view that the galaxy has work to do but that they will face the future that they will make. This is what I think encompasses a lot of the minimums people feel are missing. Not everyone cares about a reunion scene, but a lot do. Not everyone cares about EDI and the geth, but a lot do. Again, it was about compromise. This would be more difficult to get. But the opposite of this could happen as well if you don't do what is needed to be done in the DLC-you could pretty much totally screw the galaxy or save it and Shepard dies or get what you have now, but there would be a way to get a good win feeling ending.
Additional desires include the ability to see or use war assets. I could also see this as fitting into the DLC to get what is needed to achieve the goal.
How to do it-I've also stated wishes for this and some aren't realistic. If I ever mention refuse, I open up a crapstorm where I get accused of being many things because all I want is a conventional victory. Not true. I think refuse would be great, but as I see it it would require either retconning what's been said in ME3 or going back and changing a lot in it. I can wish for it, but I don't see how it would happen unless it was already planned and everyone had it in their game.
It came down to looking at destroy. The kid says the crucible is largely intact, not fully intact. It doesn't discriminate and targets all synthetics. To me, this indicates that proper targeting is missing and if assets needed for that are found, maybe it will discriminate. And if you get the particular missing parts along with asset numbers the kid will truly be changed in some way. Again, I can wish for things. Perhaps his avatar becomes Harbinger and you can have a form of a confrontation with him, maybe not in person (again, money being a factor), but maybe even a mental fight where he tries to get you to pick something else. What if completing the crucible also changes the other 2 choices? The description of them starts with destroy where he says it's largely intact, but what if that does not only apply to destroy? Maybe the avatar for the AI will give you new reasons to think about the other 2. And what if the crucible requires specific things for those choices as well. You could play the DLC and miss the items needed for them or get them first and more easily and miss the destroy assets.
The point is DLC might not only add to destroy (but that would be a preference at minimum since it seems easiest to implement for the basic better ending). There could even be time elements such as were in ME2-I actually really liked the way that was handled because I had no idea that I could save Kelly and Gabby, and while I didn't care for Kelly, I liked Gabby well enough and felt bad when Dr. Chakwas yelled at me.
Anyway, as I see it adding to the endings (and I'm not saying this is the only way) might well pave the way for or make other DLC more relevant and desirable. You have review sites that are starting to really think DLC that doesn't change the endings is pointless-imagine that from sites that got nasty about fans. Fan support for planned DLC may be strong (BW must know), but what I'm suggesting need not take focus away from that. And I think further interesting and fun DLC could be even more viable. I'm really just asking BW to consider it and take a look at all the fan made things prior to the ending debacle and maybe for all of us to do a rewind.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not looking for there to be no cost or some super easy, super happy ending. I'm looking for a path to a "happier" ending with a win that doesn't make me feel blah afterward. And if it means even that the crucible is just a giant space cannon well so be it. If I was in the galaxy and that stuff was all really happening, I'd use it. I wouldn't say I needed to step back and think if this is just too easy and needs to be more cathartic. The win, the small bit of happy, that would make it cathartic and the knowledge that I could feel ok about starting ME1, 2, and 3 again and play different ways and get one ok ending instead of 4 that just feel bad. Perfect? No way. I've never expected that. I played a game that for me hasn't got a win ending. And I'm offering to pay for one.
Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 15 septembre 2012 - 01:41 .
Retour en haut
) 
thx for sharing dude
