6432 réponses à ce sujet

[Philosophaster]

@DirtyMouthSally: I try, and I can always appreciate civil discussion and debate. I can also appreciate the irony of receiving a compliment concerning tact considering our user names

[Essalor]

The polls are quite restrictive by design but there's another interesting thing that I think merits some attention.

After scouring these forums I see many people saying that the endings are "okay" or " fine" as they are. Some people kind of like them because they are different or nihilistic. However as far as I can ssee nobody really LOVES them. There's one ending support thread on the forums but it really more of a "oh-well-at-least-they-tried-something-new" kind of deal.

I don't say people who didn't like pre- or post-EC endings don't exist. But most people have either moved on or just accepted the ending they got.

There's a difference between being satisfied and being in love with or in less potent terms: "fond of". I don't see a lot of threads saying how brilliant the endings were, or how ingenious the structure and the narrative. I see people who loved the Krogan conflict or Quarian war parts or even the dialogue and drama in ME3, but no love for the endings.

[CaIIisto]

I have mixed feelings re the ending, in fact I'm torn.

I got the sense almost all the way through ME3 that Shepard would ultimately die, and in the end, his/her sacrifice was incredibly bittersweet. Personally, I felt that played out just right.

However, even though I could see that ending coming, once it arrived, and played out, I would have given the world to have the choice to save him/her.

It's classic heart and head - in my head I can completely get on board with Shepard making the ultimate sacrifice for everyone else. In my heart though, I would have saved him/her given the choice.

[Snypy]

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

If only Bioware knew something about polling.

They really should incorporate it into the game. I'm not sure how they get some of their data, or how accurate it is.

However, most polls aren't accurate.

Many polls are made in a way so that the results confirm what you want to be confirmed. That's marketing.  It's enough to use clever wording and most people will misinterpret the options.

By the way, BioWare has access to statistical data in your saved games, e.g., what decisions you make, the time you spend doing something, etc. Not that it would help them analyze if there's something wrong with the ending, because if I choose Destroy every time, it doesn't mean that I'm really satisfied with the outcome; I just think it's better than Refusal.

Modifié par Snypy, 20 septembre 2012 - 09:18 .

[Zan51]

But for me and others, the sacrifice wasn't worth it because what was offered was from a tainted source and we had no way of knowing it was either sane or truthful! That is the problem right there for a lot of us. I personally want nothing to do with the star brat's choices. It's too contrived, forced and thrust on us in the last 10 minutes. I wanted something that actually fitted into the real universe there, not that. After being able to have all my crew survive the Collector base suicide mission by choosing who did what sensibly, I can see no reason for there to have to be a death of Shepard in the story arc - it was about overcoming immense odds, not falling over with a whimper to the insane logic of a VI.

[Snypy]

Zan51 wrote...

But for me and others, the sacrifice wasn't worth it because what was offered was from a tainted source and we had no way of knowing it was either sane or truthful! That is the problem right there for a lot of us. I personally want nothing to do with the star brat's choices. It's too contrived, forced and thrust on us in the last 10 minutes. I wanted something that actually fitted into the real universe there, not that. After being able to have all my crew survive the Collector base suicide mission by choosing who did what sensibly, I can see no reason for there to have to be a death of Shepard in the story arc - it was about overcoming immense odds, not falling over with a whimper to the insane logic of a VI.

That's precisely what I think.

Modifié par Snypy, 20 septembre 2012 - 08:35 .

[Xellith]

Why didnt we get a suicide mission 2.0 where our choices in the trilogy determined whether we succeeded or failed Bioware? Why were we given a bespoke ending that EVERYONE got????

[Applepie_Svk]

Xellith wrote...

Why didnt we get a suicide mission 2.0 where our choices in the trilogy determined whether we succeeded or failed Bioware? Why were we given a bespoke ending that EVERYONE got????

It´s Too videogamey  - Hudson and Walters /facepalm.jpg

[masleslie]

This may sound a little weird but go with me on this. I think the real problem here is not just the differences of opinion about the endings, or even the content of the endings themselves.

As the OP said there is no way anyone is going to change another persons opinion - we are all too passionately involved for that. I have read many of the comments here. Some people are supportive of the endings & understand the ideas behind the tough choices that were forced upon the player. Some people cannot accept the endings as they are and are demanding new options.

The real question is did Bioware and the Mass Effect 3 writers do anything wrong in not providing those players with the ending they wanted? I would argue no. They, like other players voicing opinions here, simply hold a different set of ideas about the story & characters they seem to love as much as we do. You cannot expect them to change their position when you remain adamant that other players posting here cannot change yours. If Bioware has not done anything wrong but simply failed to give you what you wanted, you cannot reasonably demand they now add new endings. We all simply need to learn to disagree without being disagreeable.

[Snypy]

masleslie wrote...

This may sound a little weird but go with me on this. I think the real problem here is not just the differences of opinion about the endings, or even the content of the endings themselves.

As the OP said there is no way anyone is going to change another persons opinion - we are all too passionately involved for that. I have read many of the comments here. Some people are supportive of the endings & understand the ideas behind the tough choices that were forced upon the player. Some people cannot accept the endings as they are and are demanding new options.

The real question is did Bioware and the Mass Effect 3 writers do anything wrong in not providing those players with the ending they wanted? I would argue no. They, like other players voicing opinions here, simply hold a different set of ideas about the story & characters they seem to love as much as we do. You cannot expect them to change their position when you remain adamant that other players posting here cannot change yours. If Bioware has not done anything wrong but simply failed to give you what you wanted, you cannot reasonably demand they now add new endings. We all simply need to learn to disagree without being disagreeable.

I think the problem is that Mac Walters and Casey Hudson themselves--without peer review from the other writers on the team--created the ending(s) which, in my opinion, contradicts almost everything that came before it. Their set of ideas about the story, as you call it, is too different from what ME trilogy originally intended to achieve. I personally don't want the endings removed or replaced. But there should be at least one (additional) ending which doesn't render all our choices throught the trilogy absolutely meaningless. Because as it stands now, the choice we face at the end isn't affected by the decisions we made in ME1-3, so long as we have at least 3,100 EMS. And that's what's wrong with it. Besides, what's the whole point of EMS if players don't need more than 3,100 to get the best ending? Why should we try to gain 7,000 or 8,000 EMS when it doesn't change the RGB/R options one bit?

ME3 was supposed to be about experiencing the consequences from our decisions in ME1-2, but I can't see that my decisions affect the options the Starchild presents to me. Moreover, ME3 is most likely the final game, there probably won't be a sequel. Therefore, the writers weren't limited in any way to give players the chance to choose from many fundamentally different endings. But there are essentially only four endings now.

[GreyLycanTrope]

inconsiderate rick wrote...

@DirtyMouthSally: I try, and I can always appreciate civil discussion and debate. I can also appreciate the irony of receiving a compliment concerning tact considering our user names

Why you're not inconsiderate at all Rick. Y u misleading ppl?

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 20 septembre 2012 - 11:44 .

[StElmo]

This was quite a well written post - I hope someone from BioWare responds

[3DandBeyond]

Essalor wrote...

The polls are quite restrictive by design but there's another interesting thing that I think merits some attention.

After scouring these forums I see many people saying that the endings are "okay" or " fine" as they are. Some people kind of like them because they are different or nihilistic. However as far as I can ssee nobody really LOVES them. There's one ending support thread on the forums but it really more of a "oh-well-at-least-they-tried-something-new" kind of deal.

I don't say people who didn't like pre- or post-EC endings don't exist. But most people have either moved on or just accepted the ending they got.

There's a difference between being satisfied and being in love with or in less potent terms: "fond of". I don't see a lot of threads saying how brilliant the endings were, or how ingenious the structure and the narrative. I see people who loved the Krogan conflict or Quarian war parts or even the dialogue and drama in ME3, but no love for the endings.

I wonder if the ending support thread you mention is the supposed pro-ending compendium one.  If it is, let me just say the title of it is a fallacy.  I had the dubious pleasure of attempting to wade through that thread and the numerous threads listed within it that were being used to show how many people loved the endings.  The thread is a good idea but fatally flawed in that most of the pro-ending threads listed are anything but that.  One of my own threads is listed there and the description for it is misleading.  I think the person compiling that meant well but those threads don't prove the point.  The vast majority of those that were supporting the endings had pages numbering in the double digits with most posters against the endings.  A huge number of threads listed were not pro-ending, but were described as not technically pro-ending, but with good discussions.  By contrast the "I hate the kid" or "the kid makes no sense" or "why can't we have a happy ending" or "what's wrong with refuse" or "conventional victory" threads have mostly gotten pages numbering in triple digits.  Not all responses support the topic, but they do garner discussion.

Now, there are threads that support control and synthesis.  These also get a lot of anti-control and anti-synthesis posts.  And there's the ultimate ending support thread that was created by a person who has also made some ending suggestions to Bioware but at times routinely comes here to tell me (us) that we have no right to ask Bioware to do anything because they don't take suggestions.  So, I have a hard time taking that thread seriously.

[Xilizhra]

iakus wrote...

You know that quote about the importance of stories "Fairy tales are more than true. Not because they tell us dragons exist, but because they tell us dragons can be defeated"? ME3 doesn't do that. Sure ME1 and ME2 did. But ME3 tells us dragons can't be beaten no matter how you struggle or prepare. Whatever you do, it won't be enough. Dragons cannot be beaten.

But they can be appeased. If you're willing to compromise yourself.

Well, some would indeed call that more realistic. To be frank, I'm not bothered by that so much as I am by the results.

[Ozida]

Xellith wrote...

Why didnt we get a suicide mission 2.0 where our choices in the trilogy determined whether we succeeded or failed Bioware? Why were we given a bespoke ending that EVERYONE got????

This...
OR
Why did they even give us choices in the first place? Honestly, if BW has tried to avoid ME3 being too "typical" and "video-gamy", this was the worst approach to take. Making choices at the end of the game? How "original".

Should they just render endings based on previous choices and EMS value, we wouldn't even have this problem at all! If only we knew how to travel in time.

Modifié par Ozida, 20 septembre 2012 - 02:13 .

[3DandBeyond]

Okay the next is a big wall of text and I apologize, but I keep hearing talk about balance and I wanted to address that.  Also, it's the fact that I think that there still is a chance BW has ideas to add to the endings within planned DLC.  It's possible and not probable.

The thing is here, Bioware is asking for suggestions for a new game. That's great. I'm still here offering suggestions for this game and I do think they still have to definitively finish it. I think honestly since they are releasing DLC that does impact the ending, whether by design or not, there is perhaps a wish that they have to tie all of this together at the end of the game's lifespan.

They need to tie up Leviathan and doubtless there will be open ends to Omega as well. Just think that it does appear they are re-arranging some assets. Leviathan exists and perhaps those left might be changed in some way as they get closer to, say Earth where the kid is (the citadel is) and where a lot of reapers are concentrated. Perhaps the Leviathan will be changed if they are in contact with those made into reapers (their kind who are now with other people of different cycles). What if they merely want to get rid of the reapers. If Aria gets Omega, would she not be more powerful? And what if there are other Collectors and if destroying their base somehow changed some of them? The Collectors seemed to be the ones that fought other Protheans-indoctrinated protheans wanted to control the reapers, other protheans wanted to destroy them. Consider that the Collectors you meet in Omega might no longer be indoctrinated or they might find out that their idea was like TIM's to control the reapers.

Just saying, I think Leviathan (though others don't agree) makes it even more clear that synthesis was the kid's way of achieving balance. Control might be what Omega is about. What if the Citadel is about Destroy. And what if the idea is that balance that so many seem to think is the greatest thing-the kid thinks it's needed in the game and some players think it's needed in the endings. What if real balance is something that is only achieved when the galaxy reclaims its own destiny?

I'd like to think that all this talk about synthesis being inevitable is just being used to mislead. I am probably wrong, but I'd like to think the whole idea was to have some big finale where this all does make sense at last. If so, I think and many will disagree, it could be a way to turn the negativity on all sides around.

I say this because some people reject ideas here because they don't like BW being told to change their story (not what I've suggested), they don't like additions that they might never see (makes no sense to me), and suggest it would ruin some finely tuned balance.

Well, I think as it is the balance is way off-the game is heavily weighted to the reapers' and the kid's favor. People say there needs to be balance within the choices. I say that the choices throw the whole thing out of balance in the first place. I don't see the choices as tough choices. I see them as non-choices. There's a big difference. For a choice to be tough, it must mean that I have to do something I don't want to do, really don't want to do to achieve something that is clearly good. That causes a tear within the soul and the heart. You can choose to do something really bad to get something really good or you can choose to do something really good (by not doing that bad thing) and allow something really bad to happen. That's a tough choice. Doing something very bad to do something that is ambiguous is not a tough choice. I wouldn't do it. There's no choice there if what happens is unclear. No balance at all. Because that great good thing does not exist. There is no counter-weight to doing the really bad thing. And neither choice gives you some clearly good thing in return for selling your soul.

It does beg the question what price is too high and what reward for that price is good enough? To me, the price of the choice is not just in what is done to make it happen, but in what happens next. The slideshow doesn't reveal or display that and is arbitrary in my opinion. It's there to try and make people feel good because the relays are not hurt so bad.

But balance I find is the wrong reason to stick by these choices. I say adding to the ending or somehow fixing it would actually restore some sense of balance. As it is, everything is geared to the kid's need to control the situation and salvage a solution for a problem that persists without nuance within his programming and his flawed responses to it. He's imperfect and wanting to dispense his version of perfection upon the galaxy in response to a very out of balanced idea of the state of things. But balance and imbalance as some positives and negatives are just as flawed in this ideation as is bad chaos and good order or bad and good conflict. Balance, order, conflict are all neutral. As are the counterparts of imbalance, chaos, and again conflict. The kid sets them up as good and bad, but that's not so. They all can be good or bad. Balance provides some idea that actions always cause reactions, but that's not always the case and isn't always for good. And it implies symmetry, but symmetry is unnatural. In fact, in art asymmetry is way more appealing. Your own face is asymmetrical-you look different in a mirror than you do in a photo.

Evolution is nature's attempt at finding balance, but nature never finds that because evolution is persistent. In fact, even now humans are evolving far faster than was at first thought to be happening. People are fond of saying it's the journey and not the destination that's important. Well, in life and things like evolution, I would definitely agree. Learning, growing, evolving and all the transitory states of life are far more persistent than things like balance. Balance is an end state and end states don't allow you to go any further. They are dead ends. If you stop learning, stop evolving, stop growing the alternative is a dead end. Extreme balance is a dead end. Extreme order, extreme chaos, bad conflict also can lead to dead ends. The endings are totally not a good balance because the choices offer extremes that point to these dead ends.

I think wars are never won by putting things into balance and order and removing conflict. I think they are won by achieving a positive imbalance and understanding chaos and appreciating constructive conflict. These choices are so much about some computerized version of yin and yang. They are attempts made by an AI to exact a price for a reward and to find balance and order, because those are cold logic ideals. They are not the ideals of people. People don't seek perfection, people may seek their idea of it, but diversity means it can never be achieved, because my idea of that is far different from yours. Only a purely logical device could ever see perfection as a universal ideal. And only a purely logical device would think that a price must always be paid for a reward, any price for any reward. But people are not like that. They always judge the values and the meaning of any price and any reward. Logical devices will always try to get 1-1 to equal 0. People will always try to make 1-1 be greater than 0. Because people, at their best do not assign numerical values to other people or to the meaning of life. To create balance people want rewards to be greater than costs, they certainly also want to know what they will get for the price paid. Nothing is ever in balance. People talk about it a lot, wanting balance, but it's untrue and a fool's errand. What people always want is more for less-it's human nature. We want tomorrow to be better than today. We want to get bigger portions of food for less money. Walmart exists because they knew people wanted to pay less and get more (not saying Walmart goes about this in a good way, but it's true). We want others to love us often just because we exist. We say one thing and do another, but want to be judged by what we say and not be reviled for what we may do. Balance is unrealistic and while you can say in some instances it might be a good thing, it does not exist except as an absolute and people do not work in absolutes.

What this whole wall of text means is that stories do best when they are asymmetrical. We want our heroes to loom large or have their character revealed when they fall very hard and far in doing some super good thing. We don't want balance. We want the exact opposite in stories. And that's the way writers write them. It's one of the tenets of writing-exaggeration. You exaggerate the characteristics, values, morals, and actions of your main characters so that they stand out amongst the others. That way if you have a conflicted hero, you can easily see that-the person was so good that the bad thing they must do is extremely emotional. And the bad guys must be really really bad. If they are redeemed and turn good, this must be an exaggerated act. And so too must endings be exaggerated and feature high degrees of contrast. The bad thing that could happen must be really bad and the good thing that could happen must be really good and at the end, there can be only one. Not balance, but a good or bad imbalance-extremes. Balance is ambiguity when it's good vs. bad. Some want balance and faux art and some want real art and asymmetry. I think it's time for the latter.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 20 septembre 2012 - 01:49 .

[sdinc009]

CronoDragoon wrote...

sdinc009 wrote...

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.

Although hard choices have always been a part of the ME series, I would argue that the Paragon/Renegade system has always been a bigger part. Even choices like the Council in ME1, the Collector Base in ME2, etc....these are all molded into Paragon and Renegade choices. Virmire is special in this regard, since the choice is completely divorced from morality, which in Mass Effect is represnted by the P/R system.

What I was trying to get at earlier with dreman, and admittedly did a bad job, is that many of the choices in ME are in fact easy choices because they focus on morality instead of consequences.

Take the Council. You can save the Council at the cost of soldiers' lives, or you sacrifice the Council to get a better shot at winning the battle. Let us assume that most people can comfortably fall into the Paragon or Renegade. If you are a Paragon taking the Paragon choice, you are leading soldiers to battle in the name of an ideal (what the Council represents). The soldiers who die doing so, do it willingly and succeed in their mission. Therefore, the consequences are actually rewards. Similarly, a Renegade who chooses to sacrifice the Council has nothing to complain about in the ending, since the consequences fit the morality which spurred the decision.

This type of choice that acts more as a pedestal for your morality, instead of a harbinger of negative consequences, reoccurs often in Mass Effect. If you have a Paragon-type of morality, you are safe to just automatically choose the upper option every time, because you know that you will be rewarded with positive consequences every time you do it. Similarly, a Renegade with be rewarded with renegade consequences.

Often, the only negative consequences garnered from Paragon choices are hypothetical future scenarios. Will the geth and quarians truly live in peace? Will the krogans learn from their mistakes or start a new empire? Will the Rachni truly ally with us or turn into a terror once more? Will sparing Sidonus from Garrus's wrath come back to bite us?

The answer to everything is essentially headcanon, and thus the player is insulated from true repercussions. That is why I tend to believe ME choices are relatively easy.

The P/R system is a gaming dynamic unique to Mass Effect while the idea of making difficult choices that influence the story is a bit more of a theme, but I think we're kind of splitting hairs at this point. They shouldn't be separated is mine because they are both relavant game dynamics that make the whole Mass Effect experience so great (up till the final 10 min). But, the thing about the P/R system is that it is NOT about morality. This is actually stated in interviews about the first Mass Effect. See, the P/R system evolved from the Kotor system of Light Side/ Dark side dialgoue options. That's a clear moral good/ evil decision dynamic. However, in Mass Effect, Shepard does not have a good or evil choice dynamic. Shepards motivations remain constant throughout the entire series. Protect the Galaxy and Stop the Reapers. P or R that motivation is the same so Shepard is still the good guy. What the Paragon or Renegade options give the player is to allow them to define what kind of hero Shepard is. Is he more like Superman, a boyscout that follows the rules and will never break his moral code? Or is he more like Batman, who will act without remorse for his adversaries and beat the crap out of anyone in his way. The P/R system lets the player define whether you want your Shepard to be the "badass-take-no-****" kind of hero or the "always-do-the-right-thing" hero. The thing that never changes, however, is that whether Paragon or Renegade, Shepard is the hero

[sdinc009]

masleslie wrote...

This may sound a little weird but go with me on this. I think the real problem here is not just the differences of opinion about the endings, or even the content of the endings themselves.

As the OP said there is no way anyone is going to change another persons opinion - we are all too passionately involved for that. I have read many of the comments here. Some people are supportive of the endings & understand the ideas behind the tough choices that were forced upon the player. Some people cannot accept the endings as they are and are demanding new options.

The real question is did Bioware and the Mass Effect 3 writers do anything wrong in not providing those players with the ending they wanted? I would argue no. They, like other players voicing opinions here, simply hold a different set of ideas about the story & characters they seem to love as much as we do. You cannot expect them to change their position when you remain adamant that other players posting here cannot change yours. If Bioware has not done anything wrong but simply failed to give you what you wanted, you cannot reasonably demand they now add new endings. We all simply need to learn to disagree without being disagreeable.

When 90% of the people that play the game find the same exact problem with that game then there is clearly something wrong with that game. So I would argue yes. Movies go through test screenings, books go through editors, and all forms can be changed if the end result doesn't stack up. The fact is the original endings were total garbage and the EC DLC did a good job of fixing that but they still suck. And it's been stated many times that we are not DEMANDING they change the ending we are merely REQUESTING they do. We are voicing our opinions and offering constructive criticisms in order to motivate Bioware into fixing what is widely agreed to be a broken ending. They don't have to do this, but we as the consumers have every right to let them know that WE hope they will.

[N7 Lisbeth]

inconsiderate rick wrote...

http://www.masseffec...e.de/feedback/#

@N7 Lisbeth: Perhaps I'm in the wrong here, but it would seem that you have made some errors reading this survey data. The data was collected no later than May 17th and released on the 25th, approximately one month before the release of the Extended Cut. One of the questions in the survey asks, "Do you think that the upcoming Extended Cut can fill all the logical gaps?" The graphs concerning ending choice omit the refuse ending as an option, only the original three choices are represented. Where did you get the 83% statistic for people who had the EC? It seems that this data would serve as an inaccurate gauge of post-EC opinion.

All that being said, I am not implying that there isn't a large faction that remains dissatisfied with the endings as they stand now (this thread is certainly evidence enough). My intent is not to belittle your stance on the endings, rather it is to prevent you from using what appears to be faulty evidence in support of it. It was interesting to read all the same, thanks for the link.

Glad you enjoyed some of the data. I also found a great deal of the information surveyed and collected to be intriguing.

I saw the dates as well, but clearly there's more to it than the one date. It's impossible to have tens of thousands of people that have EC DLC installed (a clear part of the survey) if it all of the data was taken pre-EC.

[Tooneyman]

Holy crap this is still going. I love for it. Keep up the pressure for all the hope in the freaking world. WOOT!

[vallore]

Snypy wrote...

I think the problem is that Mac Walters and Casey Hudson themselves--without peer review from the other writers on the team--created the ending(s) which, in my opinion, contradicts almost everything that came before it. Their set of ideas about the story, as you call it, is too different from what ME trilogy originally intended to achieve. I personally don't want the endings removed or replaced. But there should be at least one (additional) ending which doesn't render all our choices throught the trilogy absolutely meaningless. Because as it stands now, the choice we face at the end isn't affected by the decisions we made in ME1-3, so long as we have at least 3,100 EMS. And that's what's wrong with it. Besides, what's the whole point of EMS if players don't need more than 3,100 to get the best ending? Why should we try to gain 7,000 or 8,000 EMS when it doesn't change the RGB/R options one bit?

To achieve such a high level of EMS we would need to play MP, do we not? As you are certainly aware, many of us don’t play or even enjoy MP. Depriving people of a satisfying SP ending because they don’t want to do something ME was never about before seems unfitting to me. A better solution is required, like a targeting device that can be attached to the crucible, or some other fitting solution.

ME3 was supposed to be about experiencing the consequences from our decisions in ME1-2, but I can't see that my decisions affect the options the Starchild presents to me. Moreover, ME3 is most likely the final game, there probably won't be a sequel. Therefore, the writers weren't limited in any way to give players the chance to choose from many fundamentally different endings. But there are essentially only four endings now.

Very much so; it is as if the authors forgot they were making a game and not a movie.

I can understand their preference for a certain ending and a certain type of Shepard, but they made an implicit compromise with the players:

Since the beginning of ME1, they provided us with a range of options for us to define who Shepard was and options to choose from to define what our Shepard’s story was going to be about. These options weren’t limitless, but they existed and could be picked consistently through all the game… except at the ending were we are railroaded into a story that, for many of us, wasn’t even remotely the one we had been playing for three games.

note:
edited for clarity

Modifié par vallore, 20 septembre 2012 - 03:16 .

[Ozida]

Tooneyman wrote...

Holy crap this is still going. I love for it. Keep up the pressure for all the hope in the freaking world. WOOT!

This thread shall not die.

[Archonsg]

3DandBeyond wrote...

The thing is here, Bioware is asking for suggestions for a new game.

I am sorry.
Where did you see this? I was looking at the announcement area and didi not see a post there.

[sdinc009]

[quote]vallore wrote...

[quote]Snypy wrote...

I think the problem is that Mac Walters and Casey Hudson themselves--without peer review from the other writers on the team--created the ending(s) which, in my opinion, contradicts almost everything that came before it. Their set of ideas about the story, as you call it, is too different from what ME trilogy originally intended to achieve. I personally don't want the endings removed or replaced. But there should be at least one (additional) ending which doesn't render all our choices throught the trilogy absolutely meaningless. Because as it stands now, the choice we face at the end isn't affected by the decisions we made in ME1-3, so long as we have at least 3,100 EMS. And that's what's wrong with it. Besides, what's the whole point of EMS if players don't need more than 3,100 to get the best ending? Why should we try to gain 7,000 or 8,000 EMS when it doesn't change the RGB/R options one bit? [/quote]


To achieve such a high level of EMS we would need to play MP, do we not? As you are certainly aware, many of us don’t play or even enjoy MP. Depriving people of a satisfying SP ending because they don’t want to do something ME was never about before seems unfitting to me. A better solution is required, like a targeting device that can be attached to the crucible, or some other fitting solution.



[quote]

Not after the EC DLC. It is possible to achieve 7000 - 8000 EMS in SP so with the Galactic readiness 50% hit that puts the total EMS at least at 3500 which is enough for the complete ending