6432 réponses à ce sujet

[Netsfn1427]

3DandBeyond wrote...

No, I'm not.  I'm actually taking all that into consideration.  Which you'd know if you read any of the thread before commenting on one specific part of it.

Go and take a look at the reviews for Leviathan.  Ardent supporters (IGN, G4TV, Game Informer) were not in love with it.  In fact, some called it pointless.  IGN released a list of the top 100RPGs of all time.  Guess what wasn't on there?  Want to know what was?  ME1 and 2.  But not 3.  Skyrim was. 

Want to know why I started this thread.  Read my OP.  Beyond that there's a real personal thing that made break down in tears.  It's because of a friend I have and ME3 was what he spent his whole year's entertainment budget on.  I won't bore you with his story in total, but suffice to say, he loved ME1 and 2 and he can't play ME3.  It's ruined 3 games for him.  And I came up with an idea that may not be perfect, but it was an idea of how to use compromise and to try and turn this around into a better, nicer discussion.  Sure, I'm thinking of myself, but in all that I also thought of a way that would bring in money and bring back fans to BW.

BW has been bleeding fans and the review sites are an indication.  Do you read the comments on the web all over the place?  Well, I've read a lot and there is a meh feeling about BW and ME, especially.  Even people that liked the ending think it's done.  Do you want more ME?  I do.  If it's good.  I looked for a way to use compromise to help with that.  Fewer fans won't help to keep the franchise going.  And DLC will need to deliver.

A lot of people may seem to like the endings, but have you read what "like" means?  I have.  A lot of people say they're ok, better, not great, not enough, fine, but not so many love them.  I loved ME1's ending and ME2's ending.  I don't hear that many people saying they love ME3's.  I also don't hear a lot of legacy players saying they really like them and that they fit with ME.  That doesn't speak well if you want ME-type games to continue.

You apparently never read my OP, formed an opinion here, and even said additions to the current ending would be wrong because too many people would want it.  Well, that sounds like a winner to me.  No company ever wants to sell something too many people want.  @dreman9999 used the same argument before.  It's not an argument.  It's you agreeing with me.  If a lot of people want it, that means a lot of people don't have an ending they like.  Sounds like a winner.

I've been systematically responding to the things you've thrown at me. One was a gameplay issue. I answered that. You came back with the selfish charge. I answered that. I've given you in game and real world rationale for it. It hardly has to do with selfishness on the part of people who don't want the endings changed. It has to do with practicality. 

You have a friend who was heartbroken over the endings. That's rough for them. I have a friend who loved the original endings. My wife thinks the Catalyst expo-speaks too much in the EC, though she agrees the original endings were too vague. We know there are people with different opinions. The point is someone in this debate is going to get the short end of the stick, since changing the endings does have consquences for those who have no problem with them. You should expect people who feel they lose out in some way would defend themselves. 

I also take issue with your belief that this would be popular. A paid DLC ending would be torn to pieces. (Free DLC is a different story) People would be livid that Bioware strung people along and made them pay for a "proper" ending. "Proper" is in quotes because while I feel the endings are proper, the people who this would be in theory made for, clearly don't feel that way. You may be comfortable with paying for a new ending, but a lot of people would not be. A lot of people would be downright outraged. Some might buy it anyway, but plenty would be done with Bioware for good, feeling like they were manipulated. Imagine if Bioware had charged for the EC? I mean people are already livid about Javik, and though enjoyable, he isn't even essential to the game. 

You can't compare ME to a game that delivers content in episodes. ME was never that type of game. DLC, which enchances but doesn't change the overarcing storyline is one thing. LoTSB, Beyond the Ashes, Leviathan, Bring Down the Sky all enrich the experience, but the framework of ME doesn't change in either of them. And none effect the ending at all (beyond a few passing words in Leviathan). 

An entire ending, is something else entirely. And if Bioware made a new ending, those same review sites you hail would rip Bioware apart. 

[Snypy]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

The problem I have with these stupid turdtastic endings is that all of them. Every single one of them go against everything I believe. In reality the only one that comes even remotely close is refuse.

The ending is the worst s*** f*** choices I've seen put together. What the hell were they thinking? We're still arguing about this six months later?

Synthesis? I'm taking away everyone's freedom of choice to achieve some sort of galactic bull**** peace-love between the reaper god, reaper, husk, synthetic, and organic by molecular molestation, not knowing if everyone is going to accept it, and I'm not going to be around to answer for it. Starbrat is going to be there to oversee the whole thing. Enjoy your new galactic order.

Control? Whoa! This one is heavy. Power. I get to have all the power in the galaxy except it's not me. It's the Starbrat with a new coding module added. I wonder how that's going to work out after 50,000 years?

Destroy? So I worked my ass off cured the genophage, made peace between the Quarians and the Geth, now I get to kill my allies, and destroy the galactic infrastructure, which, BTW we have absolutely no idea how to rebuild. And I get to have an implication of hope that Shepard might have survived, and that's all.

Refuse? I get to stand by my morals and just die, but I doom the galaxy.

How can anyone defend any of these endings? The only time destroy is palatable is if the Geth aren't there, otherwise it is indefensible.

The ending is like playing tic tac toe. There is never a winner. The only way to win is not to play. That is the game that Mac Walters and Casey Hudson gave us. Quit to dashboard is the win. Ctrl-Alt-Del is the win.

The ending is insane. You argue with insane things: TIM and Starbrat. You can at least convince TIM he's insane and he'll suicide. Starbrat? there's no way to convince him he's nuts, that his programming is faulty and that he was programmed by flawed stupid cuttlefish. There's no way to convince him that he's destroying what he was created to protect. There's no way to convince him that he IS the problem. Instead they have Shepard go brain dead and just give up.

Mass Effect 3 is a study in what not to do in video game story writing. The Intro really sucks. From Mars to Thessia is very good. Thessia to Priority Earth is mediocre. Priority Earth is bad. And the ending blows.

As for people who liked the endings... would they have preferred an ending where they could have seen their choices in action, where they could have actually role played their Shepard and had Shepard make a difference? where they could have had the super Suicide Mission and not necessarily ending with the boss fight from hell, but with something that really would have mattered? And had everything end with closure?

Or would they have rather had what we got originally? Or the polished turd we got with the EC with no closure?

Yes, from Mars to Thessia (until Kai Leng shows up), the story is quite good. But it goes downhill after that.

I'm wondering what Casey Hudson and Mac Walters thought when they came up with the endings. Actually, I'd like to ask them what they think the purpose video games is.

I personally think that there should've been at least one ending--even if difficult to achieve--which would've allowed players like us to have the feeling of accomplishment and fulfillment after finishing such a great trilogy, instead of sadness and depression. I certainly wouldn't have played ME3 until the end had I known how terrible the ending was. I find the EC acceptable, but not good.

(I'm finished today; it's late and I'm making too many typos.  )

Modifié par Snypy, 19 septembre 2012 - 08:21 .

[3DandBeyond]

Ieldra2 wrote...
snipped

The LotSB content affects you because of parts of it within the game. However, I am not suggesting there be any content in your game.

I have stated what content I've suggested as plausible, but not the only way to go about this. I did at the outset also state that this is mainly an appeal to ask BW to revisit the issue and am not substituting my complete wishes as the total picture.

I have also stated that I don't think this has to be about balance. This is something that somewhere someone came up with as if it has any merit in the game. Balance-that is what the kid says. It's a false premise. If you think that war is about achieving balance then well, suffice to say it isn't. Nor is it about moral issues and having to always give up something for no reason to get something else with no clear good to be done. It is about trying to find the real good and then and only then determining what you'd do to get that. It's about knowing when you might have to accept less, but still trying to do the best thing. It isn't about finding some balance without knowing the full weight of your options.

Even you cannot fully explain within what the kid says and without head canon, what the choices do and how it is accomplished. So, you cannot find balance with ambiguity. All you can do is make decisions and hope you haven't screwed the galaxy. But don't tell me it's about achieving some balance when no choice is adequately explained or adequately described as to outcome.

I've also explained that Shepard and the galaxy have earned the chance at that happier outcome. The debt has been paid in that they at last worked together to do something. No one was left out and left behind in my game. Every race was represented and determined to grow up and do what must be done. The sacrifice is all that they have done and all that they will do to overcome a future they must face without being augmented by found reaper tech, reaper interference, and every other thing they've used as a crutch.

There can still be collateral damage. And I also spoke of one possibility being different versions of what happens. Screw up and things might well be worse than a low EMS destroy now-what if Shepard's friends are seen dying? And of course, Shepard and the galaxy are annihilated. And then another where Shepard sacrifices all and much of the galaxy is destroyed. You see Hackett go down in flames and friends die and yet the galaxy ultimately is saved, but a wreck. And then you can still get to another happier ending, but you have to work at it.

Part of the sacrifice and balance comes from paying for it and having had to wait for it and for having to be called all kinds of names when all we want is something kinder, something nicer, and something that makes the game playable. We just want to enjoy the game like you do. But that's a bad thing. I don't think you'd ever see a different ending as superior, so that's not even pertinent. You can't give on something when you aren't asked to give up anything. Go outside yourself and think what you are saying here.

Again, if the roles were reversed I'd be supporting you and I say that because I've done it. In another game there was an issue that did not affect me and people that were unhappy about it got called all kinds of names. I didn't think that was right. What ends up happening is unhappy people walk away because many people like dreman9999 tell them that if they don't like it they can leave. Well, if enough people do that games suffer. I've seen that too.

The more people that like a game the better, for everyone. You know, I read in the game that Kal died. But, it's not true. In mine he didn't. I get told to use my imagination because that torso in rubble is a horrible ending to me. Maybe that would help you here-ignore Miranda's dossier. It never happened. Use your imagination. Don't you feel better now?

[vallore]

Ieldra2 wrote...
<snip>

Anyway, the difference in my perspective is, I used to rail against the setup of the ME1/ME2 decisions where there was always a way out and people never had to compromise in anything really important, with the exception of Virmire and Arrival. I've always felt that ME1/2 pitted a delusionary feel-good morality where people could have their cake and eat it and doing the right thing would always pay off (Paragon) against a stupid **** attitude (Renegade) good for nothing but presenting a contrast to the blue. So perhaps it's not surprising that the moral dimension of ME3's final choice plays to my preferences.

Sorry to barge in, but I believe that to be the wrong approach to the problem; the renegade attitude is not stupid any more than the paragon is smart; in truth Bioware is not telling just one story, but rather several variations of the same story, each with different themes.

If a renegade does a pragmatic choice to solve a problem, than that is the correct answer in that story; a story presumably about difficult choices to achieve one’s ends.

But the story of the paragon is not about that, (and it is not about easy feel-good morality either); it can be about remaining true to one’s beliefs, about defiance and hope victorious. The paragon’s story is not the same story we are playing with the renegade, and one should not be sacrificed because of the other, and most especially not after three games.

Am I understanding you correctly: your main complaint is that you feel your Shepard is out of character at the end because she accepts the presented options without even trying to find a way out? Or is it that there is no way out? Because if it's the latter, then I disagree that there has to be a way out. Shepard does not control the situation she's put in, and I don't have a problem with the writers putting the protagonist in an impossible situation. If it's the former, then I can agree with you to a point. One of my main complaints with the ending is that you can't bring up the geth/quarian peace against the organic/synthetic problem. I'd be ok with a reasonable explanation of why it doesn't count, but Shepard not bringing it up is definitely out of character.

<snip>

Personally I believe there should be a way out, and if there wasn’t, Shepard should look for it, regardless, why?

Because of story and character consistency. Now, as you pointed out, moments like Vermire are rare, exceptions, not the rule. We know Shepard is a person that doesn’t let limitations get in her way, and never gives up until she finds a way out. then the ending, (arguably the most important moment of the game), is an exception; both to Shepard’s personality, (she feels and sounds defeated the moment she is out of the lift and doesn’t even bother to argue her case against the catalyst) and the game, that almost always provided a way out until then.

This breaks the player’s connection with her character, (by making her act uncharacteristically at the most critical moment, without giving player options to act otherwise), and also breaks the connection to the story, (as suddenly the story that they were playing, (one that was allowed and even encouraged by Bioware), suddenly disappears and is substituted by a fundamentally different story.

This disconnection obviously does not happen to all the players, but I would argue that is because there is not a single story being told. The story of a ruthless pragmatic Shepard would more easily fit with the endings, (or so I believe), but that of an idealist (and ideal) hero, does not. If Bioware didn’t want to provide an ending for the later character, why provide 2.9 games where we could play one, consistently?

[Ieldra]

@3DAndBeyond:
Just to show that I'm trying to be constructive:

One way adding an ending like the one you propose would work is if each final choice option required a specific decision or combination of decisions to become active. Like, say, your's only becomes active if you chose to save the Council and destroyed the Collector base and cured the genophage (basically, always make the Paragon choices). Synthesis only becomes active if you make peace on Rannoch (which requires that Tali is admiral and Legion's LM was done and they're both alive), Control requires that you keep the Collector base, Destroy requires that you destroyed the Collector base. Maybe a little more variety so you don't feel too railroaded, but you get the idea.

BTW, that's how things should have worked in the first place: the ending needed to be drastically more dependent on choices made during the main game. That way, we would be able to tailor our ending scenario to our preferences, and as an added bonus that feeling that our choices didn't matter wouldn't exist any more.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 19 septembre 2012 - 08:16 .

[sdinc009]

CronoDragoon wrote...

sdinc009 wrote...

I'm not entirely certain what the point is that you're trying to get across. The wordage used seems to almost contradict itself and you're not really focusing on a particular issue just raising mulitple and very differing issues. The "hard choice" paradigm has always been a staple theme of the entire series. ME 3 is the end of a trilogy so it can't really be taken as a stand alone game. It must conform to what has come before it or the narrative falls apart. I don't know where Nietsche is coming from, I've for one have never mentioned him nor have I refered to him as a nihilist. I'm not really arguing with anything in your post mainly because I found it confusing in what was said. Please feel free to elaborate on what exactly the point you're trying to make is because it didn't come across very clear. I mean no offense simply trying to understand what is being said

The hard choice paradigm is most certainly not what the staple theme of the series has been. For every Virmire, there are 5 Rannochs.

My overall point in my post is that if ME3 is looked at separate from the themes established in ME1 and ME2, then the endings fit tonally. They reflect the general sentiment of the game that hard choices must be made, that they are fighting an impossible war, that not everything will be all right. However, fans coming in from the first 2 games will recognize these themes, but only as obstacles eventually overcome by Shepard. In the first 2 games, Shepard's morality trumps the situation. In ME3, the situation trumps Shepard's morality.

This is connected to how one feels about the endings, and therefore all the parts of my post are quite related to this central point. Ieldra, for example, likes hard choices in general, likes them on principle. Similarly, others may want easy outs regardless of whether or not the situation allows for them. Then there is a middle ground, where people like me have stories that they want to defy logic and end happily, and also have stories that they want to end with a bittersweet touch, where things may not be happy but they are fitting.

Those looking at ME3's story and tone detached from the first two games will indeed see the endings tones as fitting. Those who saw the dark, calculated philosophy of ME3 pre-endings saw these situations as tension that will be ultimately resolved satisfactorily by Shepard.

With the Nietzsche part, someone must have misquoted you when quoting someone else.

Ok I understand what you're getting at now. I am starting to think there may be some miscommunication happening. I don't think anyone would be opposed to difficult choices. Hard choices make for extremely compelling stories and have always been a part of ME series. Where these difficult choices lead is what most are wanting to change. We can keep the exact same choices yet completely change the outcome of them to create a better resolution to the story. I think these 2 aspects are getting confused. We could probably go back and forth all day arguing about whether the tone fits or not and ultimately it would really come down to individual preferences and particular scenes so I'll skip that. Finally, I don't really think you can seprate ME 3 from the others since it's the final in a trilogy and should have continuity with the story as a whole, but I do understand the point you're making. And yeah, I don't know where Niezsche came from.

[Netsfn1427]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

The problem I have with these stupid turdtastic endings is that all of them. Every single one of them go against everything I believe. In reality the only one that comes even remotely close is refuse.

The ending is the worst s*** f*** choices I've seen put together. What the hell were they thinking? We're still arguing about this six months later?

Synthesis? I'm taking away everyone's freedom of choice to achieve some sort of galactic bull**** peace-love between the reaper god, reaper, husk, synthetic, and organic by molecular molestation, not knowing if everyone is going to accept it, and I'm not going to be around to answer for it. Starbrat is going to be there to oversee the whole thing. Enjoy your new galactic order.

Control? Whoa! This one is heavy. Power. I get to have all the power in the galaxy except it's not me. It's the Starbrat with a new coding module added. I wonder how that's going to work out after 50,000 years?

Destroy? So I worked my ass off cured the genophage, made peace between the Quarians and the Geth, now I get to kill my allies, and destroy the galactic infrastructure, which, BTW we have absolutely no idea how to rebuild. And I get to have an implication of hope that Shepard might have survived, and that's all.

Refuse? I get to stand by my morals and just die, but I doom the galaxy.

How can anyone defend any of these endings? The only time destroy is palatable is if the Geth aren't there, otherwise it is indefensible.

The ending is like playing tic tac toe. There is never a winner. The only way to win is not to play. That is the game that Mac Walters and Casey Hudson gave us. Quit to dashboard is the win. Ctrl-Alt-Del is the win.

The ending is insane. You argue with insane things: TIM and Starbrat. You can at least convince TIM he's insane and he'll suicide. Starbrat? there's no way to convince him he's nuts, that his programming is faulty and that he was programmed by flawed stupid cuttlefish. There's no way to convince him that he's destroying what he was created to protect. There's no way to convince him that he IS the problem. Instead they have Shepard go brain dead and just give up.

Mass Effect 3 is a study in what not to do in video game story writing. The Intro really sucks. From Mars to Thessia is very good. Thessia to Priority Earth is mediocre. Priority Earth is bad. And the ending blows.

As for people who liked the endings... would they have preferred an ending where they could have seen their choices in action, where they could have actually role played their Shepard and had Shepard make a difference? where they could have had the super Suicide Mission and not necessarily ending with the boss fight from hell, but with something that really would have mattered? And had everything end with closure?

Or would they have rather had what we got originally? Or the polished turd we got with the EC with no closure?

Your choices shape the galaxy that follows. That's what the EC is for. Pre-EC that's a legit complaint. Post EC, not so much. As for the ending, your choices indirectly influence the options you have at the end with regards to the three choices. The war asset system is precisely so that no one game decision locks you out of the choices. it's the summation of all your choices and decisions across the three games. What's the alternative?  Tie the endings to a singular earlier choice? Imagine if you were required to not cure the Genophage to get the best ending? You think there wouldn't have been complaints about that strategy? 

I've given a defense of these endings. They are forcing you to decide what's most important to you. You have morals, but what are the ones you value most. You want an ending where you don't have to make that choice. 

Anyone can choose to save both the Quarians and the Geth. That's not a moralistic choice. That's just doing what is required off a checklist. Anyone can get Miranda and Jack to stand down. That's not a moralistic choice. That's just making sure you have enough paragon/renegade points to meet the check. The endings of ME3 actually demand you decide what's most important to you. 

It isn't about clear-cut, easily defined right and wrong. It's about your own personal tastes and what you can live with. Yeah it's not an easy decision. If it was an easy decision, it wouldn't be an interesting one. 

[Xilizhra]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@3DAndBeyond:
Just to show that I'm trying to be constructive:

One way adding an ending like the one you propose would work is if each final choice option required a specific decision or combination of decisions to become active. Like, say, your's only becomes active if you chose to save the Council and destroyed the Collector base and cured the genophage (basically, always make the Paragon choices). Synthesis only becomes active if you make peace on Rannoch (which requires that Tali is admiral and Legion's LM was done and they're both alive), Control requires that you keep the Collector base, Destroy requires that you destroyed the Collector base. Maybe a little more variety so you don't feel too railroaded, but you get the idea.

BTW, that's how things should have worked in the first place: the ending needed to be drastically more dependent on choices made during the main game. That way, we would be able to tailor our ending scenario to our preferences, and as an added bonus that feeling that our choices didn't matter wouldn't exist any more.

So you would accept the proposed "superior" ending if it involved choices made earlier in the game?

You say I'm ridiculous, but the plain fact is you are wilfully ignorant
of the effect of adding an ending like the one you want. I'll ask, not
for the first time: what kind of
significant sacrifice would you accept in your ending to balance out the
fact that none of the downsides of the other endings are in it? If you answer "none", then you've proven my point. If you can give me a suggestion or two, maybe we can come to an agreement.

What would you qualify as "significant?" 

Modifié par Xilizhra, 19 septembre 2012 - 08:22 .

[3DandBeyond]

Netsfn1427 wrote...

I've been systematically responding to the things you've thrown at me. One was a gameplay issue. I answered that. You came back with the selfish charge. I answered that. I've given you in game and real world rationale for it. It hardly has to do with selfishness on the part of people who don't want the endings changed. It has to do with practicality. 

You have a friend who was heartbroken over the endings. That's rough for them. I have a friend who loved the original endings. My wife thinks the Catalyst expo-speaks too much in the EC, though she agrees the original endings were too vague. We know there are people with different opinions. The point is someone in this debate is going to get the short end of the stick, since changing the endings does have consquences for those who have no problem with them. You should expect people who feel they lose out in some way would defend themselves. 

I also take issue with your belief that this would be popular. A paid DLC ending would be torn to pieces. (Free DLC is a different story) People would be livid that Bioware strung people along and made them pay for a "proper" ending. "Proper" is in quotes because while I feel the endings are proper, the people who this would be in theory made for, clearly don't feel that way. You may be comfortable with paying for a new ending, but a lot of people would not be. A lot of people would be downright outraged. Some might buy it anyway, but plenty would be done with Bioware for good, feeling like they were manipulated. Imagine if Bioware had charged for the EC? I mean people are already livid about Javik, and though enjoyable, he isn't even essential to the game. 

You can't compare ME to a game that delivers content in episodes. ME was never that type of game. DLC, which enchances but doesn't change the overarcing storyline is one thing. LoTSB, Beyond the Ashes, Leviathan, Bring Down the Sky all enrich the experience, but the framework of ME doesn't change in either of them. And none effect the ending at all (beyond a few passing words in Leviathan). 

An entire ending, is something else entirely. And if Bioware made a new ending, those same review sites you hail would rip Bioware apart. 

I have more than one friend who was heartbroken.  Nice way to minimalize this.  I've read an awful lot on this, more than I care to, and ME3 is not going to be remembered as it is for all the stuff inside it-the ending will be what it's remembered as.  That damage has been done.  And I was not speaking of DLC that just enhances content, though additions to endings could also be considered to be enhancing content.  I'm not askng them to change the endings, merely to enhance at least one. 

You've come here in the middle of a discussion and assumed a lot, most of it untrue.  And when I explain things, you move the bar.  And you don't realize just what the basis for this thread is.  I don't believe you read the OP-you commented on dreman's post is all and assumed a lot from there. 

I think we could keep on with the status quo and a great many previous ME fans who might have returned will never do so.  Newer fans seem to want more of an FPS and a lot of them didn't care so much about the story.  I don't know where you came in at all and assume nothing, but if you liked ME for the story, it's probably not good to not try and see if there's a way for legacy players to be drawn back in.  ME games featured people playing them repeatedly as new Shepards in different ways.  A lot of people are just glad to be done with ME3 after one playthrough. 

Go to Gamestop or Blockbuster in your area if you have one, or a store that sells used games.  Near me and halfway across the state from where I live, stores have huge supplies of used ME3 games. 

You can keep telling me that fixing the ending would not be good for you and I will tell you that it may actually be good for everyone.  But, I'm not asking you.  I'm asking Bioware to look at it and see if I'm right.  Probably they won't do that, but maybe they will.  You don't agree, even if it really would not hurt you.  You can say it would mean they'd pull resources from making stuff you'd like, but what if it meant they'd have more resources to make more stuff you'd like.  Only they know if that's possible, but there are a lot of people that might also be willing to compromise if they would. 

[Ieldra]

Xilizhra wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

@3DAndBeyond:
Just to show that I'm trying to be constructive:

One way adding an ending like the one you propose would work is if each final choice option required a specific decision or combination of decisions to become active. Like, say, your's only becomes active if you chose to save the Council and destroyed the Collector base and cured the genophage (basically, always make the Paragon choices). Synthesis only becomes active if you make peace on Rannoch (which requires that Tali is admiral and Legion's LM was done and they're both alive), Control requires that you keep the Collector base, Destroy requires that you destroyed the Collector base. Maybe a little more variety so you don't feel too railroaded, but you get the idea.

BTW, that's how things should have worked in the first place: the ending needed to be drastically more dependent on choices made during the main game. That way, we would be able to tailor our ending scenario to our preferences, and as an added bonus that feeling that our choices didn't matter wouldn't exist any more.

So you would accept the proposed "superior" ending if it involved choices made earlier in the game?

I would accept it if I could make reasonable roleplaying choices that would make it inactive. See, I'm coming from the position that all existing DLC that affects the main story arc in any way is canon, so I can't pretend an added ending doesn't exist. But if it doesn't exist for my Shepard as a consequence of earlier decisions he would reasonably make, that's acceptable.

I would still be somewhat concerned about that new option being perceived as canon.

You say I'm ridiculous, but the plain fact is you are wilfully ignorant of the effect of adding an ending like the one you want. I'll ask, not for the first time: what kind of significant sacrifice would you accept in your ending to balance out the fact that none of the downsides of the other endings are in it? If you answer "none", then you've proven my point. If you can give me a suggestion or two, maybe we can come to an agreement.

What would you qualify as "significant?"

Significant enough that people can still justify making a different decision.

[Xamufam]

where i live there is 2 game & 2 gamestop they haven't traded in ME3 for 5 months now, that shows the disappointment that it created

Modifié par Troxa, 19 septembre 2012 - 08:46 .

[3DandBeyond]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@3DAndBeyond:
Just to show that I'm trying to be constructive:

One way adding an ending like the one you propose would work is if each final choice option required a specific decision or combination of decisions to become active. Like, say, your's only becomes active if you chose to save the Council and destroyed the Collector base and cured the genophage (basically, always make the Paragon choices). Synthesis only becomes active if you make peace on Rannoch (which requires that Tali is admiral and Legion's LM was done and they're both alive), Control requires that you keep the Collector base, Destroy requires that you destroyed the Collector base. Maybe a little more variety so you don't feel too railroaded, but you get the idea.

BTW, that's how things should have worked in the first place: the ending needed to be drastically more dependent on choices made during the main game. That way, we would be able to tailor our ending scenario to our preferences, and as an added bonus that feeling that our choices didn't matter wouldn't exist any more.

Thank you and I do hope to be more constructive too.  I've just said a lot of this already and it's like people coming in on the middle of a conversation and thinking they know what I mean.

This is similar to something else I once suggested and I've not said here anywhere that "this is how it must be done".  I've suggested things as what people wanted to see in endings-things that would make them more uplifting and have realistic consequences.  However, I tried to come up with a suggestion that would be the least destructive to the games of others.  I purposely did not want it to have anything inserted into your game if you didn't want to play it.

The other thing I once suggested was that the endings not even be choices-that they did result from all that you did in the game.  You want balance and this would give it in that you could end up with things truly based on who you aligned with, the choices you made, and all along the way.  If you liked TIM and tried to see if control made sense, then you might end up with control being what happens when you set off the crucible.  Not as a choice.  And it might have really bad or really good consequences where Shepard could even live in that scenario.  The kid might be there to explain what will happen and still you might be able to refuse this.  Or, if it was destroy, maybe Anderson would be the VI / AI and there'd be good and bad things.  And so on with synthesis.  That's without having a choice, but this would require substantial new content to the game.

Then, I also suggested that as it is the kid first explains destroy.  He begins by saying the crucible is not intact.  And then that it targets all synthetics.  So it seems to be missing something or was not well protected.  Maybe targeting is off.  Why then does whatever is missing just affect destroy?  He doesn't repeat the statement that it's largely intact when he describes the other choices, because he already said that.  What if you had to find other items or assets and get more EMS in DLC that  makes it fully intact?  What if it changed how synthesis works-he explains it better, it is given way more exposition and you knew what it would do.  What if it changed how control works and so on.  Perhaps then each choice has more permutations based upon how much further along you get in finishing and getting all that you need.

That is just one other idea and less destructive to the whole game and less invasive to someone who would not want additions to the endings.

[3DandBeyond]

Troxa wrote...

where i live there is 2 game & 2 gamestop they haven't traded in ME3 for 5 months now, that shows the disappointment that it created

Yeah they won't take them here either.  They have a lot of them.  And one guy my brother knows at the gamestop near him says people were trading them in for like $5 when they were taking them.

[Xilizhra]

I would accept it if I could make reasonable roleplaying choices that would make it inactive. See, I'm coming from the position that all existing DLC that affects the main story arc in any way is canon, so I can't pretend an added ending doesn't exist. But if it doesn't exist for my Shepard as a consequence of earlier decisions he would reasonably make, that's acceptable.

I would still be somewhat concerned about that new option being perceived as canon.

I would accept that as reasonable, though I'd find it unnecessary.

Significant enough that people can still justify making a different decision.

People can justify anything; look at how many people sided with the templars in DA2. That aside, what if, say, Earth was destroyed?

[Snypy]

Ieldra2 wrote...

You say I'm ridiculous, but the plain fact is you are wilfully ignorant of the effect of adding an ending like the one you want. I'll ask, not for the first time: what kind of significant sacrifice would you accept in your ending to balance out the fact that none of the downsides of the other endings are in it? If you answer "none", then you've proven my point. If you can give me a suggestion or two, maybe we can come to an agreement.

What would you qualify as "significant?"

Significant enough that people can still justify making a different decision.

How about the facts that the Reapers are gone forever? The Starchild even warns Shep that if he chooses Destroy, his children will eventually create AIs which will destroy all organics. Therefore, if there was a Destroy ending where the Geth (with the Reaper code) remain unharmed, Shep would risk that choosing this ending might soon lead to the extinction of everyone in the galaxy (who knows when the Geth get ideas about getting rid of the organics). But that certainly won't happen if he picks, say, Synthesis.

Modifié par Snypy, 19 septembre 2012 - 08:48 .

[NorDee65]

Netsfn1427 wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Your choices shape the galaxy that follows. That's what the EC is for. Pre-EC that's a legit complaint. Post EC, not so much. As for the ending, your choices indirectly influence the options you have at the end with regards to the three choices. The war asset system is precisely so that no one game decision locks you out of the choices. it's the summation of all your choices and decisions across the three games. What's the alternative?  Tie the endings to a singular earlier choice? Imagine if you were required to not cure the Genophage to get the best ending? You think there wouldn't have been complaints about that strategy? 

I've given a defense of these endings. They are forcing you to decide what's most important to you. You have morals, but what are the ones you value most. You want an ending where you don't have to make that choice. 

Anyone can choose to save both the Quarians and the Geth. That's not a moralistic choice. That's just doing what is required off a checklist. Anyone can get Miranda and Jack to stand down. That's not a moralistic choice. That's just making sure you have enough paragon/renegade points to meet the check. The endings of ME3 actually demand you decide what's most important to you. 

It isn't about clear-cut, easily defined right and wrong. It's about your own personal tastes and what you can live with. Yeah it's not an easy decision. If it was an easy decision, it wouldn't be an interesting one. 

The war assets do not really affect the ending that much, they still remain bad and could only get "worse" if you do not have enough, but basically they remain the same.

Choice for endings based on earlier choices?

One possibility: as an example let us take destroy:
brokered peace between geth and quarians->choice between sacrificing geth and EDI or sacrifcing Shep's life
renegade: sacrifice geth etc.
paragon: Shep takes the dive

I am not saying that is a good solution but at least it takes the previous games into account not only in the choices made, but also in the underlying gameplaymechanics.

[Netsfn1427]

3DandBeyond wrote...

I have more than one friend who was heartbroken.  Nice way to minimalize this.  I've read an awful lot on this, more than I care to, and ME3 is not going to be remembered as it is for all the stuff inside it-the ending will be what it's remembered as.  That damage has been done.  And I was not speaking of DLC that just enhances content, though additions to endings could also be considered to be enhancing content.  I'm not askng them to change the endings, merely to enhance at least one. 

You've come here in the middle of a discussion and assumed a lot, most of it untrue.  And when I explain things, you move the bar.  And you don't realize just what the basis for this thread is.  I don't believe you read the OP-you commented on dreman's post is all and assumed a lot from there. 

I think we could keep on with the status quo and a great many previous ME fans who might have returned will never do so.  Newer fans seem to want more of an FPS and a lot of them didn't care so much about the story.  I don't know where you came in at all and assume nothing, but if you liked ME for the story, it's probably not good to not try and see if there's a way for legacy players to be drawn back in.  ME games featured people playing them repeatedly as new Shepards in different ways.  A lot of people are just glad to be done with ME3 after one playthrough. 

Go to Gamestop or Blockbuster in your area if you have one, or a store that sells used games.  Near me and halfway across the state from where I live, stores have huge supplies of used ME3 games. 

You can keep telling me that fixing the ending would not be good for you and I will tell you that it may actually be good for everyone.  But, I'm not asking you.  I'm asking Bioware to look at it and see if I'm right.  Probably they won't do that, but maybe they will.  You don't agree, even if it really would not hurt you.  You can say it would mean they'd pull resources from making stuff you'd like, but what if it meant they'd have more resources to make more stuff you'd like.  Only they know if that's possible, but there are a lot of people that might also be willing to compromise if they would. 

I've read your original post. I read it when you made it. But I take issue with plenty of it, especially the parts about the endings not providing a satisfying conclusion. And people vocally disliking something doesn't mean that a lot, or even the majority, agree with them. We're about to have a presidential election in the US where 48% of the people will be extremely disappointed with how it turns out. They'll be vocal. They'll still be a minority. Now I don't know how the majority of people breakdown with the endings and neither do you. But a large vocal group does not mean majority, in either direction. And once more, adding DLC endings will ****** a lot of people off. Perhaps even more than were originally annoyed with the endings, since you'll ****** some of them off for having to pay for the ending they want and you'll ****** off people that liked the endings. 

You're mistaking FPS fans with people who like a better combat system. I loved ME1 when it came out. But the combat system stinks. The cover system is lousy, the shooting mechanics are clunky and most fights, especially early in the game, are clunky. ME2 was a vast improvement, but compared to ME3 it's dull. The RPG elements of 3 vastly outshine those of the beloved ME2, so Bioware was trying to split the difference. 

I've shown you multiple ways, as a guy who loves the ME universe, how this would affect me negetively. You dismiss those concerns. And games fall in value after time. I could pick up the Witcher2 for the PC for 29.99 at my local Target, which is 10 bucks less than ME3. Supposedly the Witcher2 is amazing. Price does not equal quality or reception, especially when a game has been out for months. Shoot you can find a lot of new, popular games for 10 or 20 bucks off within a month these days. 

If Bioware thought there was a market for a new ending above all else, they wouldn't need you to alert them to it. They have sales numbers. And they're not going to support ME forever. They've already announced there's going to be a new ME game. Eventually, companies move on. The Sims 2 was still profitable franchise when EA moved on, but they felt they could expend similar resources for greater profit with the Sims 3. Eventually Bioware will do that with ME3, regardless of how well the DLC does. So yeah, resources and time are limited. 

[Xilizhra]

You know, it's entirely possible that they could introduce an IT-ish ending that's only canon if you install it.

[AresKeith]

Xilizhra wrote...

You know, it's entirely possible that they could introduce an IT-ish ending that's only canon if you install it.

and if they really wanna do more ME after ME3 they might have to set one of endings up as canon

[ThaDPG]

Xilizhra wrote...

You know, it's entirely possible that they could introduce an IT-ish ending that's only canon if you install it.

I would actually love for them to do that

[NorDee65]

Netsfn1427 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

I have more than one friend who was heartbroken.  Nice way to minimalize this.  I've read an awful lot on this, more than I care to, and ME3 is not going to be remembered as it is for all the stuff inside it-the ending will be what it's remembered as.  That damage has been done.  And I was not speaking of DLC that just enhances content, though additions to endings could also be considered to be enhancing content.  I'm not askng them to change the endings, merely to enhance at least one. 

You've come here in the middle of a discussion and assumed a lot, most of it untrue.  And when I explain things, you move the bar.  And you don't realize just what the basis for this thread is.  I don't believe you read the OP-you commented on dreman's post is all and assumed a lot from there. 

I think we could keep on with the status quo and a great many previous ME fans who might have returned will never do so.  Newer fans seem to want more of an FPS and a lot of them didn't care so much about the story.  I don't know where you came in at all and assume nothing, but if you liked ME for the story, it's probably not good to not try and see if there's a way for legacy players to be drawn back in.  ME games featured people playing them repeatedly as new Shepards in different ways.  A lot of people are just glad to be done with ME3 after one playthrough. 

Go to Gamestop or Blockbuster in your area if you have one, or a store that sells used games.  Near me and halfway across the state from where I live, stores have huge supplies of used ME3 games. 

You can keep telling me that fixing the ending would not be good for you and I will tell you that it may actually be good for everyone.  But, I'm not asking you.  I'm asking Bioware to look at it and see if I'm right.  Probably they won't do that, but maybe they will.  You don't agree, even if it really would not hurt you.  You can say it would mean they'd pull resources from making stuff you'd like, but what if it meant they'd have more resources to make more stuff you'd like.  Only they know if that's possible, but there are a lot of people that might also be willing to compromise if they would. 

I've read your original post. I read it when you made it. But I take issue with plenty of it, especially the parts about the endings not providing a satisfying conclusion. And people vocally disliking something doesn't mean that a lot, or even the majority, agree with them. We're about to have a presidential election in the US where 48% of the people will be extremely disappointed with how it turns out. They'll be vocal. They'll still be a minority. Now I don't know how the majority of people breakdown with the endings and neither do you. But a large vocal group does not mean majority, in either direction. And once more, adding DLC endings will ****** a lot of people off. Perhaps even more than were originally annoyed with the endings, since you'll ****** some of them off for having to pay for the ending they want and you'll ****** off people that liked the endings. 

You're mistaking FPS fans with people who like a better combat system. I loved ME1 when it came out. But the combat system stinks. The cover system is lousy, the shooting mechanics are clunky and most fights, especially early in the game, are clunky. ME2 was a vast improvement, but compared to ME3 it's dull. The RPG elements of 3 vastly outshine those of the beloved ME2, so Bioware was trying to split the difference. 

I've shown you multiple ways, as a guy who loves the ME universe, how this would affect me negetively. You dismiss those concerns. And games fall in value after time. I could pick up the Witcher2 for the PC for 29.99 at my local Target, which is 10 bucks less than ME3. Supposedly the Witcher2 is amazing. Price does not equal quality or reception, especially when a game has been out for months. Shoot you can find a lot of new, popular games for 10 or 20 bucks off within a month these days. 

If Bioware thought there was a market for a new ending above all else, they wouldn't need you to alert them to it. They have sales numbers. And they're not going to support ME forever. They've already announced there's going to be a new ME game. Eventually, companies move on. The Sims 2 was still profitable franchise when EA moved on, but they felt they could expend similar resources for greater profit with the Sims 3. Eventually Bioware will do that with ME3, regardless of how well the DLC does. So yeah, resources and time are limited. 

I can relate to your worries somewhat. However, what I do not understand is how an additional DLC at extra charge, which you do not have to download at all, but made for those like me who absolutely loathe the endings, can effect your enjoyment of the game? If this DLC where a mandatory download you'd be right in being furious, but that is not what we want.

If I had bought this game for the PC, and someone could mod an alternative ending I liked, I'd take it, but as it is this is not possible for the consoles and I am therefore dependent on Bioware to relent a bit.

And this is not only to enjoy one game, but all three, because as it stands now, I cannot bring myself ever to replay any ME game, and the anouncement that CH et al. are not only planning more ME but also something totally new leaves me underwhelmed.

But that is not how I want that. I want to have my unbounding enthusiasm back for any Bioware project.

[Netsfn1427]

NorDee65 wrote...

The war assets do not really affect the ending that much, they still remain bad and could only get "worse" if you do not have enough, but basically they remain the same.

Choice for endings based on earlier choices?

One possibility: as an example let us take destroy:
brokered peace between geth and quarians->choice between sacrificing geth and EDI or sacrifcing Shep's life
renegade: sacrifice geth etc.
paragon: Shep takes the dive

I am not saying that is a good solution but at least it takes the previous games into account not only in the choices made, but also in the underlying gameplaymechanics.

That was their intent I imagine. All the war asset system is is a means to keep track of how much your choices are going to influence your ending. It's the exact same in the Geth/Quarian choice, just with fewer variables and without the war asset listing to guide you. Each of your choices in ME2 and 3 give you certain points. If you don't hit a certain threshold, no peace is possible. It was a way to split the difference of having your choices matter but not having any ONE choice matter too much. 

If they made any one choice necessary to get the ending people wanted, there would be anger. In the example you provided, Paragon people might be annoyed that only Renegade Sheps live. Etc. That might have been interesting as well. Or something where you defeat the Reapers regardless, but the Galaxy has serious negative consequences (You cured the Genophage- the Krogan start a new rebellion in the epilogue. Or you didn't cure the Genophage, Earth and half your party dies in game because you lack Krogan support). 

But they're not overhauling it at this point. That stuff makes interesting to discuss for future games of this nature, but not really what is going to happen with ME3. 

[Xilizhra]

But they're not overhauling it at this point. That stuff makes interesting to discuss for future games of this nature, but not really what is going to happen with ME3.

If this is the case, we should be excoriating Bioware on the matter, not letting them rest.

[Netsfn1427]

NorDee65 wrote...

I can relate to your worries somewhat. However, what I do not understand is how an additional DLC at extra charge, which you do not have to download at all, but made for those like me who absolutely loathe the endings, can effect your enjoyment of the game? If this DLC where a mandatory download you'd be right in being furious, but that is not what we want.

If I had bought this game for the PC, and someone could mod an alternative ending I liked, I'd take it, but as it is this is not possible for the consoles and I am therefore dependent on Bioware to relent a bit.

And this is not only to enjoy one game, but all three, because as it stands now, I cannot bring myself ever to replay any ME game, and the anouncement that CH et al. are not only planning more ME but also something totally new leaves me underwhelmed.

But that is not how I want that. I want to have my unbounding enthusiasm back for any Bioware project.

It's as Ieldra2 posted, DLC becomes canon. I can't just ignore that Miranda can't have children after LoTSB. It's not neccessary for the main plot, but it changes her view on her character. My entire perception of her backstory (maybe her father realized she wasn't perfect and let her go rather than she escaped, etc.) changed as a result. I never got Arrival on the 360, but I did for my definitive PC playthroughs. Because it was still canon. Paid DLC, content still counts towards canon. 

So that's why it's not as simple as ignoring it. 

[AresKeith]

Netsfn1427 wrote...

NorDee65 wrote...

I can relate to your worries somewhat. However, what I do not understand is how an additional DLC at extra charge, which you do not have to download at all, but made for those like me who absolutely loathe the endings, can effect your enjoyment of the game? If this DLC where a mandatory download you'd be right in being furious, but that is not what we want.

If I had bought this game for the PC, and someone could mod an alternative ending I liked, I'd take it, but as it is this is not possible for the consoles and I am therefore dependent on Bioware to relent a bit.

And this is not only to enjoy one game, but all three, because as it stands now, I cannot bring myself ever to replay any ME game, and the anouncement that CH et al. are not only planning more ME but also something totally new leaves me underwhelmed.

But that is not how I want that. I want to have my unbounding enthusiasm back for any Bioware project.

It's as Ieldra2 posted, DLC becomes canon. I can't just ignore that Miranda can't have children after LoTSB. It's not neccessary for the main plot, but it changes her view on her character. My entire perception of her backstory (maybe her father realized she wasn't perfect and let her go rather than she escaped, etc.) changed as a result. I never got Arrival on the 360, but I did for my definitive PC playthroughs. Because it was still canon. Paid DLC, content still counts towards canon. 

So that's why it's not as simple as ignoring it. 

by like I posted earlier to you, If your so against the suggestion of a DLC that you don't have to buy, how would you feel if they did this through pre-ending DLCs which you can still avoid the ending that were suggesting?