6432 réponses à ce sujet

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Jamie9 wrote...
A question concerning "sad" or "bittersweet" endings. How do you feel about purely linear games? Can they have sad endings?

What I don't like is forced sacrifice. Sacrifice is not something that can be forced. It didn't go over well in Fallout 3 either, so they patched it. So what I did was I had Butch as a partner, and took a look at Butch, and gave the code to the woman with the Brotherhood of Steel and she went in, and Butch and I left, basically would rather raise a family than be a hero. So a "real hero" did the job. And when Broken Steel came out Fawkes did the job.

Bittersweet ending? Okay. I don't mind that. ME2 had a bittersweet ending for me on my first play. I romanced Thane and he got taken by the seeker swarm all because Miranda wasn't loyal. Jack was holding the bubble. I'd already lost Legion. So losing a LI was bittersweet. I won the game at a price.

The first time I played ME1 I sacrificed the council because I thought I'd lose the game if I didn't. When I found out that it didn't matter..... <_< Honestly it should have made a difference like with casualties on the Normandy, but saving the DA should have brought the DA into the battle against Sovereign instead of it just being like an Edsel out there in space.

Games that have bittersweet endings? I've played them. They're fine. I just don't like forced sacrifice in a RPG.

[Iakus]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...
A question concerning "sad" or "bittersweet" endings. How do you feel about purely linear games? Can they have sad endings?

What I don't like is forced sacrifice. Sacrifice is not something that can be forced. It didn't go over well in Fallout 3 either, so they patched it. So what I did was I had Butch as a partner, and took a look at Butch, and gave the code to the woman with the Brotherhood of Steel and she went in, and Butch and I left, basically would rather raise a family than be a hero. So a "real hero" did the job. And when Broken Steel came out Fawkes did the job.

Bittersweet ending? Okay. I don't mind that. ME2 had a bittersweet ending for me on my first play. I romanced Thane and he got taken by the seeker swarm all because Miranda wasn't loyal. Jack was holding the bubble. I'd already lost Legion. So losing a LI was bittersweet. I won the game at a price.

The first time I played ME1 I sacrificed the council because I thought I'd lose the game if I didn't. When I found out that it didn't matter..... <_< Honestly it should have made a difference like with casualties on the Normandy, but saving the DA should have brought the DA into the battle against Sovereign instead of it just being like an Edsel out there in space.

Games that have bittersweet endings? I've played them. They're fine. I just don't like forced sacrifice in a RPG.

Nothing says "Your choices matter" like forcing SHepard to die in virtually every ending.

[Snypy]

GarvakD wrote...

In regards to Shepard's cybernetics. In addition to Miranda's statements, Cerberus audio/video logs, discussions throughout the game, and the fact that Shepard is nowhere near an Adam Jensen level of modification, I feel safe to say his survival in destroy was justified.

I saw that video. I started researching IT a bit more. Started looking back on Bioware comments. Its got me worried now. What if this ME4 is basically ME3 revamped, but acknowledging the existence of IT in greater detail. Having him break free of it.  If the accepted indoctrination point for Shepard is where Arghos Rho interacts with him (rather than at the end of the ME3 Priority: Earth or something else), then all the events of ME3 would never have occurred. Everything I went through. All the story. The building of relationships and decisions. The relationship with my LI. Non-existent. Horrifying. But probably isn't true. Just as lame as synthesis canon though.

The Indoctrination theory is build upon speculations, not facts. Some people just couldn't understand that ME3 had such a terrible ending (pre-EC) so they've come up with their own explanations. It's fair to stay that the writers had never intended it. And just to point out, Arrival DLC is non-canon. If you haven't played it, your Shep has never interacted with the artefact and therefore cannot be indoctrinated.

Besides, BioWare can never acknowledge the IT. Such acknowledgement would be a suicide for the company. The backlash from critics and fans would be unimaginable.

Modifié par Snypy, 25 septembre 2012 - 08:09 .

[CaIIisto]

Bittersweet endings per se are absolutely fine. Done in the right way, I would even be fine with it for ME3, in fact it would have worked very well had it been done properly.

For a game of choices though, I disagree that it should be the 'only' tone for the ending of the game, and even then, if it is, make it mean something. As it stands Shepard's sacrifice was massively watered down by having it imposed upon us.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Bester76 wrote...

Bittersweet endings per se are absolutely fine. Done in the right way, I would even be fine with it for ME3, in fact it would have worked very well had it been done properly.

For a game of choices though, I disagree that it should be the 'only' tone for the ending of the game, and even then, if it is, make it mean something. As it stands Shepard's sacrifice was massively watered down by having it imposed upon us.

Exactly. When it is forced like that across the board it ceases to be a sacrifice. In a role playing game the author just killed you.

[CaIIisto]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Exactly. When it is forced like that across the board it ceases to be a sacrifice. In a role playing game the author just killed you.

Sacrifice was a great theme to explore at the end of the game. The fact that it was botched so spectacularly is what makes the endings so galling. 

Put the decision back into the hands of the player, incentivise them to make the sacrifice themselves. Make it mean something. I really don't understand why that was such a hard thing for them to have done.

[zioninzion]

Snypy wrote...

GarvakD wrote...

In regards to Shepard's cybernetics. In addition to Miranda's statements, Cerberus audio/video logs, discussions throughout the game, and the fact that Shepard is nowhere near an Adam Jensen level of modification, I feel safe to say his survival in destroy was justified.

I saw that video. I started researching IT a bit more. Started looking back on Bioware comments. Its got me worried now. What if this ME4 is basically ME3 revamped, but acknowledging the existence of IT in greater detail. Having him break free of it.  If the accepted indoctrination point for Shepard is where Arghos Rho interacts with him (rather than at the end of the ME3 Priority: Earth or something else), then all the events of ME3 would never have occurred. Everything I went through. All the story. The building of relationships and decisions. The relationship with my LI. Non-existent. Horrifying. But probably isn't true. Just as lame as synthesis canon though.

The Indoctrination theory is build upon speculations, not facts. Some people just couldn't understand that ME3 had such a terrible ending (pre-EC) so they've come up with their own explanations. It's fair to stay that the writers had never intended it. And just to point out, Arrival DLC is non-canon. If you haven't played it, your Shep has never interacted with the artefact and therefore cannot be indoctrinated.

Besides, BioWare can never acknowledge the IT. Such acknowledgement would be a suicide for the company. The backlash from critics and fans would be unimaginable.

Why would IT be suicide for the company and cause mass backlash? In my mind it would be the most incredible thing. Regardless of whether its true or not and without descending this thread into a massive IT argument, wouldnt the concept that at the end of the game that anyone who thought synethesis and control were the right decisions themselves were indoctrinated? The whole game there was the possibility of any of the characters to be indoctrinated but in the end they would have done such a good job that the player themselves could have been indoctrinated too (despite the evidence against listening to the reapers).

I just think that would make this the most incredible and revolutionary ending/continuing of a series. Who would be pissed? I am sure most of th people who got it "wrong" if it IT exists who have a more "whoa moment" than being mad.

[mjb203]

3DandBeyond wrote...

mjb203 wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

What I'm irritated about is the 5 years of a relationship with this story, and the protagonist into whom I made the mistake of putting way too much of myself into. See I thought this was a RPG about choices where those choices mattered, and it turned out they didn't. And I was taken in by the story, the characters, and since March this has been like going through an ugly divorce.

I've tried being reasonable. We've all tried being reasonable, but they seemed determined to undermine and leave a very large fanbase with an ending to a series that leaves one without hope. The EC just sugar coated it but underneath the sugar coating is the same crap we were given in March, just with pretty slides and some dialogue added. Shepard still dies in 2.77 endings and is in a pile of rubble taking a gasp of air as a "glimmer of hope" in 0.3 of them. Glimmers are not very much.

Please note that even if you think that we, the dissatisfied are a "minority" we are still a very large number. The vocal ones only made up about 3-4%.

Granted the story is quite grim, but a triumph against the invaders as difficult as it might have been would have been welcome, videogamey as that might have been. The lack of that is going to bite BioWare in the ass, and I think it is already doing that.

I really didn't need to have StarChild at the end. Its existance is a giant WTF at the end, but now they're making DLC to "foreshadow" it. That in itself is bad writing. You do that before the fact, not after the fact. I didn't need to have moral choices at the end. Bottom line is that Walters & Hudson screwed the pooch.

I would have been content with a Suicide Mission version 2.0: a more difficult Suicide Mission 1.0. Make your war assets and weapons upgrades matter.

In regards to the "videogamey" comment, I would have appreciated the possibility of the triumph (and yes, it should have been very difficult to acheive).  I just don't get why Bioware didn't want to make things too "videogamey", when they effectively game us a very "videogamey" score system in the form of EMS. 

Sorry, you can't get the breath easteregg, you only have 3099 points!  You needed 3100 (or 4000 before EC).  Game over.  <- That is the reason I can't take the, "we didn't want to make it videogamey" excuse very well.

Edit: grammar

Actually the ending now is more gamey than videogame.  It isn't intellectual.  I sometimes read intellectual things and struggle to understand them.  I understand this and it's the least satisfying game ending I've ever played.  Other games had endings that were too short, not exciting, or whatever, but they were still more fun.

I love Uncharted and am particularly fond of the first one-but the end bad guy fight wasn't great and it was just odd to have to do but the epilog was fun and the ending boss bad guy didn't need to be super great.  He just had to be beatable. 

Now, ME should be seen for its own merits and not compared with Uncharted.  They aren't the same type of games.  And I wouldn't want ME3 to have some easy way to win it-I expected something tough, something bold, and ultimately something fully winnable, fun, and satisfying.  Something more game than gamey.

Don't get me wrong, I'm agreeing with you here.  It was just when that phrase was first used, when the developers knew that the EMS was, in effect, a video game score, that made me facepalm.  I was wanting the same things as you: something tough, but at the same time fully winnable and presented in a satisfying manner, provided you put in the effort.

[Snypy]

zioninzion wrote...

Snypy wrote...

GarvakD wrote...

In regards to Shepard's cybernetics. In addition to Miranda's statements, Cerberus audio/video logs, discussions throughout the game, and the fact that Shepard is nowhere near an Adam Jensen level of modification, I feel safe to say his survival in destroy was justified.

I saw that video. I started researching IT a bit more. Started looking back on Bioware comments. Its got me worried now. What if this ME4 is basically ME3 revamped, but acknowledging the existence of IT in greater detail. Having him break free of it.  If the accepted indoctrination point for Shepard is where Arghos Rho interacts with him (rather than at the end of the ME3 Priority: Earth or something else), then all the events of ME3 would never have occurred. Everything I went through. All the story. The building of relationships and decisions. The relationship with my LI. Non-existent. Horrifying. But probably isn't true. Just as lame as synthesis canon though.

The Indoctrination theory is build upon speculations, not facts. Some people just couldn't understand that ME3 had such a terrible ending (pre-EC) so they've come up with their own explanations. It's fair to stay that the writers had never intended it. And just to point out, Arrival DLC is non-canon. If you haven't played it, your Shep has never interacted with the artefact and therefore cannot be indoctrinated.

Besides, BioWare can never acknowledge the IT. Such acknowledgement would be a suicide for the company. The backlash from critics and fans would be unimaginable.

Why would IT be suicide for the company and cause mass backlash? In my mind it would be the most incredible thing. Regardless of whether its true or not and without descending this thread into a massive IT argument, wouldnt the concept that at the end of the game that anyone who thought synethesis and control were the right decisions themselves were indoctrinated? The whole game there was the possibility of any of the characters to be indoctrinated but in the end they would have done such a good job that the player themselves could have been indoctrinated too (despite the evidence against listening to the reapers).

I just think that would make this the most incredible and revolutionary ending/continuing of a series. Who would be pissed? I am sure most of th people who got it "wrong" if it IT exists who have a more "whoa moment" than being mad.

BioWare's reputation is quite fragile, particularly after so much misinformation about ME3 before it was released. If the lead writer came out today and said that the ending was merely a hallucination and everything players did was absolutely meaningless, BioWare would have a very hard time convincing people to buy its products again, mainly because of mistrust. You can see for yourself that the sheer majority of ME3 players believe the destination is as important as the journey itself. After all, this is also one of the main reasons why the Extended Cut was released. Imagine for a second what would happen if everyone was told that the destination in ME3 is the death of everyone in the galaxy, regardless of the decisions the player made throughout the trilogy.

To address your opinion: would it be revolutionary? Sure, it would be. But few revolutions bear fruit in the end. Anyway, there's no concerete evidence to prove that the IT supporters are correct, only (far-fetched) speculations. (You can tell me the best reason why you think the IT is correct. I guess 3D won't like this discussion here, though.)

[3DandBeyond]

Jamie9 wrote...

Sigh. This again Shotgun.

You imply that it's okay for movies and TV series to have a variety of endings, but games must always end the same way.

This isn't the case. If I won every game, the impact would be lessened. Knowing that I COULD lose, is what brings tension on that first playthrough. I don't know how it's going to turn out.

You win in at least 80% of fiction anyhow, so I have no idea why you complain about it.

Yes, this again.  Video games are about winning.  That's what they've been about since gaming began.  I have no problem knowing you could lose, but knowing I can never win?

I've said this before, the hardest games I've played in recent years, Demon's Souls and Dark Souls, feature you dying a lot.  It's part of the ad and name of the website for Dark Souls-"Prepare to Die", and even those games were ultimately winnable.  Mostly meant for you to have to try and enlist help from other players to do so and infinitely harder if you do it on your own, but winnable.

No one wanted ME3 to be easy to win or just be about one ending, a win.  I personally wanted it to be about one outcome with a variety of variation-full loss, partial loss, partial win, full win.  And a broad variety in the middle of all that.  I fully expected there'd be scenarios where you could lose your whole team, including Shepard through a sacrifice or an accident and still beat the reapers.  Or have them live, only to lose to the reapers.  But, I'd always believed there would be one path to a full win, a difficult one, but possible.

The suicide mission in ME2 was more like this and what many expected was a huge big suicide mission on steroids.  We got a limp biscuit with weak tea.  And a conversation.  And for all that, there is no feeling of victory.  There's no feeling whatsoever.  They gutted the emotion out of it.  The feelings that should be there should be what the game internally makes you feel like-that you are caught up in the emotion of it all and sad or jubilant.  Instead the only emotions it elicits are frustration, depression (what a waste of a good game and time and money), and even anger. 

People talk about balance.  That's one of those stupid words that should never be used because there's no such thing.  Balance would be able to lose, able to win.  Able to die, able to live.  Closure for dead Shepards and closure for the one living one.  What balance and win is there if 3/4 of the endings show a dying Shepard and the closure in a couple shows in great detail Shepard dying, but in the living Shepard ending you get a pile of rubble?  It just sounds like a bad joke.  After 5 years, 100 plus hours, hundreds of different worlds, that's the best you can hope for at the end of a game that was all about the hero.

[Xellith]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...
A question concerning "sad" or "bittersweet" endings. How do you feel about purely linear games? Can they have sad endings?

What I don't like is forced sacrifice. Sacrifice is not something that can be forced. It didn't go over well in Fallout 3 either, so they patched it. So what I did was I had Butch as a partner, and took a look at Butch, and gave the code to the woman with the Brotherhood of Steel and she went in, and Butch and I left, basically would rather raise a family than be a hero. So a "real hero" did the job. And when Broken Steel came out Fawkes did the job.

Bittersweet ending? Okay. I don't mind that. ME2 had a bittersweet ending for me on my first play. I romanced Thane and he got taken by the seeker swarm all because Miranda wasn't loyal. Jack was holding the bubble. I'd already lost Legion. So losing a LI was bittersweet. I won the game at a price.

The first time I played ME1 I sacrificed the council because I thought I'd lose the game if I didn't. When I found out that it didn't matter..... <_< Honestly it should have made a difference like with casualties on the Normandy, but saving the DA should have brought the DA into the battle against Sovereign instead of it just being like an Edsel out there in space.

Games that have bittersweet endings? I've played them. They're fine. I just don't like forced sacrifice in a RPG.

There is no such thing as a forced sacrifice.  You MUST have an option to escape for there to be a sacrifice.  Its like if I held a gun up to your head and said "okay.  Push one of these butons.  Then I kill you".  Is pushing one of those buttons REALLY a sacrifice? 

Its all contrived and forced.  This is why the ME3 ending fails for me.  Nothing you did mattered and the game sticks you on rails where everyone gets a bespoke ending aside from the new slideshow.  The writers responsible for the ending are just morons.

Modifié par Xellith, 25 septembre 2012 - 12:11 .

[3DandBeyond]

[quote]mjb203 wrote...


Actually the ending now is more gamey than videogame.  It isn't intellectual.  I sometimes read intellectual things and struggle to understand them.  I understand this and it's the least satisfying game ending I've ever played.  Other games had endings that were too short, not exciting, or whatever, but they were still more fun.

I love Uncharted and am particularly fond of the first one-but the end bad guy fight wasn't great and it was just odd to have to do but the epilog was fun and the ending boss bad guy didn't need to be super great.  He just had to be beatable. 

Now, ME should be seen for its own merits and not compared with Uncharted.  They aren't the same type of games.  And I wouldn't want ME3 to have some easy way to win it-I expected something tough, something bold, and ultimately something fully winnable, fun, and satisfying.  Something more game than gamey.

[/quote]

Don't get me wrong, I'm agreeing with you here.  It was just when that phrase was first used, when the developers knew that the EMS was, in effect, a video game score, that made me facepalm.  I was wanting the same things as you: something tough, but at the same time fully winnable and presented in a satisfying manner, provided you put in the effort.[/quote]


Sorry if I seemed to be disagreeing with you-I wasn't.  What happens with me is that a phrase is used and I start arguing with the person who said that in the first place.  So, I agree with you.  I think it's another case of "opposite" day, where up is down and down is up.  You play a video game that has inserted fully video game-type moments, put into the middle of the game or running all through it.  A boss fight would have been less video gamey than the arbitrary numbers assigned to EMS and the use of it to determine what choices are available to you.

I've said it before that I could accept these "choices" far more if they weren't choices but if they'd been extensions of what you did in the game.  If you were a fan of TIM's and advocated controlling every situation and the reapers, you'd get to the citadel and control would be the outcome, with truly good and truly bad versions  Synthesis, the same and so too, destroy.  But with a path within all of them to win and for Shepard even to live.  It fully disgusts me that the idea of all that you've done coming down to how much EMS you have as far as what you can choose from based upon some need to find a solution to a flawed idea of a problem.

[Oransel]

I have always told the same thing, I will repeat it here. There were 3 ways to solve the problem:

1. Design the game without Crucible or any super-weapon, yet not a conventional victory - many many different outcomes. This was what ME3 SHOULD have been. Has not happened.

2. If we have Crucible, well, it's not lost, just remove starbrat. Make Shepard fight to the panel, click it and let EMS decide which of 16 endings you would have. Not as good as first option, but infinetely better than what we got.

3. If Bioware are stubborn as hell about starbrat, go with Indoctrination theory or conventional victory on high EMS.

Every other option is BS and does not belong to ME Universe.

[zioninzion]

(edit: i screwed up the quote boxes but until my 3d question it was snypy's comment.
[/quote]

BioWare's reputation is quite fragile, particularly after so much misinformation about ME3 before it was released. If the lead writer came out today and said that the ending was merely a hallucination and everything players did was absolutely meaningless, BioWare would have a very hard time convincing people to buy its products again, mainly because of mistrust. You can see for yourself that the sheer majority of ME3 players believe the destination is as important as the journey itself. After all, this is also one of the main reasons why the Extended Cut was released. Imagine for a second what would happen if everyone was told that the destination in ME3 is the death of everyone in the galaxy, regardless of the decisions the player made throughout the trilogy.

To address your opinion: would it be revolutionary? Sure, it would be. But few revolutions bear fruit in the end. Anyway, there's no concerete evidence to prove that the IT supporters are correct, only (far-fetched) speculations. (You can tell me the best reason why you think the IT is correct. I guess 3D won't like this discussion here, though.)
[/quote]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Im new here so whose 3D?

I guess we have to ask ourselves where does the "ending" begin. For me it begins with that kick ass space fight scene and not the catylyst. The whole game Earth and the other planets have been getting ruined and finally, the galaxy is united and ready to fight off the reapers. So for me that is the beginning of the ending. So when BW labeled the game as "take back earth" then perhaps (with a high enough EMS) that is exactly what happened. We took back Earth. But does it have to be the end of the series? Or the fight with the Reapers? Or Shepards story?

Perhaps destroy doesnt send the reapers packing or destroyed but just destroys the indoctrination (here we come IT ). Perhaps from here, we take back Earth, the Reapers are defeated on Earth and other places and then go running back towards dark space or who knows. I can't remember but did BW market this as the end of the story? I would personally prefer a white lie and a conspiracy theory or ambigious ending all for the sake of making a big bang for ME4 then I would a boring truth of "the series is over theres nothing deep to the endings."

When I see the IT videos or evidence I think it becomes very clear that this is the true meaning at the end. I just believe the story is deeper than just a trilogy with a simple ending because there are also some good novels (just started reading revelations), graphic novels etc. I hope BW and the creators are on to something bigger than just a trilogy.

Modifié par zioninzion, 25 septembre 2012 - 12:42 .

[3DandBeyond]

Xellith wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...
A question concerning "sad" or "bittersweet" endings. How do you feel about purely linear games? Can they have sad endings?

What I don't like is forced sacrifice. Sacrifice is not something that can be forced. It didn't go over well in Fallout 3 either, so they patched it. So what I did was I had Butch as a partner, and took a look at Butch, and gave the code to the woman with the Brotherhood of Steel and she went in, and Butch and I left, basically would rather raise a family than be a hero. So a "real hero" did the job. And when Broken Steel came out Fawkes did the job.

Bittersweet ending? Okay. I don't mind that. ME2 had a bittersweet ending for me on my first play. I romanced Thane and he got taken by the seeker swarm all because Miranda wasn't loyal. Jack was holding the bubble. I'd already lost Legion. So losing a LI was bittersweet. I won the game at a price.

The first time I played ME1 I sacrificed the council because I thought I'd lose the game if I didn't. When I found out that it didn't matter..... <_< Honestly it should have made a difference like with casualties on the Normandy, but saving the DA should have brought the DA into the battle against Sovereign instead of it just being like an Edsel out there in space.

Games that have bittersweet endings? I've played them. They're fine. I just don't like forced sacrifice in a RPG.

There is no such thing as a forced sacrifice.  You MUST have an option to escape for there to be a sacrifice.  Its like if I held a gun up to your head and said "okay.  Push one of these butons.  Then I kill you".  Is pushing one of those buttons REALLY a sacrifice? 

Its all contrived and forced.  This is why the ME3 ending fails for me.  Nothing you did mattered and the game sticks you on rails where everyone gets a bespoke ending aside from the new slideshow.  The writers responsible for the ending are just morons.

I'm sure she agrees.  It's because we all often get told that Shepard is sacrificing him/herself for a choice.  It's more like suicide.  There's a big disconnect here, because some see the choices as resulting in good things while others like me, don't.  In order to sacrifice you do have to feel there is something worthy that you are dying for.  You sacrifice for a cause, lay down your life for others.  You don't and can't sacrifice yourself if you have no clear idea what you are imparting upon others in return.  The descriptions for all of the choices feature a lot of ambiguity and the cutscenes and slide shows don't make them seem any better, they seem overly cute.  And while I do love EDI and Tricia Helfer does a great job, I have to wonder at the use of her voice alone to say synthesis is a good thing.  But, no one would really help make it better.

[Xellith]

Have fun guys. Gonna go donate some blood... btw did I mention I'm deathly afraid of needles?

[3DandBeyond]

Xellith wrote...

Have fun guys. Gonna go donate some blood... btw did I mention I'm deathly afraid of needles?

Good luck.  I passed out last time I did.  Now, they won't let me.

[Snypy]

zioninzion wrote...

(edit: i screwed up the quote boxes but until my 3d question it was snypy's comment.

BioWare's reputation is quite fragile, particularly after so much misinformation about ME3 before it was released. If the lead writer came out today and said that the ending was merely a hallucination and everything players did was absolutely meaningless, BioWare would have a very hard time convincing people to buy its products again, mainly because of mistrust. You can see for yourself that the sheer majority of ME3 players believe the destination is as important as the journey itself. After all, this is also one of the main reasons why the Extended Cut was released. Imagine for a second what would happen if everyone was told that the destination in ME3 is the death of everyone in the galaxy, regardless of the decisions the player made throughout the trilogy.

To address your opinion: would it be revolutionary? Sure, it would be. But few revolutions bear fruit in the end. Anyway, there's no concerete evidence to prove that the IT supporters are correct, only (far-fetched) speculations. (You can tell me the best reason why you think the IT is correct. I guess 3D won't like this discussion here, though.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Im new here so whose 3D?

I guess we have to ask ourselves where does the "ending" begin. For me it begins with that kick ass space fight scene and not the catylyst. The whole game Earth and the other planets have been getting ruined and finally, the galaxy is united and ready to fight off the reapers. So for me that is the beginning of the ending. So when BW labeled the game as "take back earth" then perhaps (with a high enough EMS) that is exactly what happened. We took back Earth. But does it have to be the end of the series? Or the fight with the Reapers? Or Shepards story?

Perhaps destroy doesnt send the reapers packing or destroyed but just destroys the indoctrination (here we come IT ). Perhaps from here, we take back Earth, the Reapers are defeated on Earth and other places and then go running back towards dark space or who knows. I can't remember but did BW market this as the end of the story? I would personally prefer a white lie and a conspiracy theory or ambigious ending all for the sake of making a big bang for ME4 then I would a boring truth of "the series is over theres nothing deep to the endings."

When I see the IT videos or evidence I think it becomes very clear that this is the true meaning at the end. I just believe the story is deeper than just a trilogy with a simple ending because there are also some good novels (just started reading revelations), graphic novels etc. I hope BW and the creators are on to something bigger than just a trilogy.

3D stands for 3DandBeyond, the OP of this thread.

Well, what you described is a light version of the IT that I read about. Anyway, for me, the ending begins when I leave the FOB, but I can agree to your interpretation that it begins when the fleets enter the Sol system. The label: "Take Back Earth"  has been used for marketing purposes. It captures people's attention very well.

The Reapers are machines--constructs--and the indoctrination works only on organics. The geth couldn't be indoctrinated, they had to be hacked to obey the Reapers. Therefore, the Reapers cannot suffer from indoctrination (and even if they could, a long-term indoctrination eventually results in the death of the subject).

Let's assume for a moment that what you're saying is true. Why would the Reapers flee from the galaxy? They have no purpose to exist other than to destroy the organics. And they cannot replenish their own numbers without harvesting. Consequently, their return to the dark space doesn't make sense.

Additionally, I don't understand where Shepard would become indoctrinated so severely that he/she wouldn't be able to tell the reality from a hallucination (especially given his/her mental strength). When the Leviathan took over Shepard in the DLC, it was very obvious.

Well, ME3 is the final game in the trilogy. We don't know yet what the next game (ME4) will be about. I bet my money that it will be the prequel to ME3, though. Perhaps it's for the best.

PS, it's not so hard to make a convincing video about any topic.

Modifié par Snypy, 25 septembre 2012 - 01:32 .

[SpamBot2000]

Snypy wrote...

Besides, BioWare can never acknowledge the IT. Such acknowledgement would be a suicide for the company. The backlash from critics and fans would be unimaginable.

Backlash from fans? The latest survey data shows a majority prefers IT over the EC. If anything, BW should stop acknowledging the EC.

And backlash from critics? Well, just tell them you won't be advertising in their publications if anyone gets uppity.

[Snypy]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Snypy wrote...

Besides, BioWare can never acknowledge the IT. Such acknowledgement would be a suicide for the company. The backlash from critics and fans would be unimaginable.

Backlash from fans? The latest survey data shows a majority prefers IT over the EC. If anything, BW should stop acknowledging the EC.

And backlash from critics? Well, just tell them you won't be advertising in their publications if anyone gets uppity.

What survey? How many people took part in it? And what were their demographics? The truth is that few ME fans use the BSN. EA sold around 3 million copies of ME3, by the way.

Modifié par Snypy, 25 septembre 2012 - 01:43 .

[SpamBot2000]

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/14226254

[CaIIisto]

To be fair, 11,000 people is a fairly sizeable sample.

[zioninzion]

Snypy wrote...

zioninzion wrote...

(edit: i screwed up the quote boxes but until my 3d question it was snypy's comment.

BioWare's reputation is quite fragile, particularly after so much misinformation about ME3 before it was released. If the lead writer came out today and said that the ending was merely a hallucination and everything players did was absolutely meaningless, BioWare would have a very hard time convincing people to buy its products again, mainly because of mistrust. You can see for yourself that the sheer majority of ME3 players believe the destination is as important as the journey itself. After all, this is also one of the main reasons why the Extended Cut was released. Imagine for a second what would happen if everyone was told that the destination in ME3 is the death of everyone in the galaxy, regardless of the decisions the player made throughout the trilogy.

To address your opinion: would it be revolutionary? Sure, it would be. But few revolutions bear fruit in the end. Anyway, there's no concerete evidence to prove that the IT supporters are correct, only (far-fetched) speculations. (You can tell me the best reason why you think the IT is correct. I guess 3D won't like this discussion here, though.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Im new here so whose 3D?

I guess we have to ask ourselves where does the "ending" begin. For me it begins with that kick ass space fight scene and not the catylyst. The whole game Earth and the other planets have been getting ruined and finally, the galaxy is united and ready to fight off the reapers. So for me that is the beginning of the ending. So when BW labeled the game as "take back earth" then perhaps (with a high enough EMS) that is exactly what happened. We took back Earth. But does it have to be the end of the series? Or the fight with the Reapers? Or Shepards story?

Perhaps destroy doesnt send the reapers packing or destroyed but just destroys the indoctrination (here we come IT ). Perhaps from here, we take back Earth, the Reapers are defeated on Earth and other places and then go running back towards dark space or who knows. I can't remember but did BW market this as the end of the story? I would personally prefer a white lie and a conspiracy theory or ambigious ending all for the sake of making a big bang for ME4 then I would a boring truth of "the series is over theres nothing deep to the endings."

When I see the IT videos or evidence I think it becomes very clear that this is the true meaning at the end. I just believe the story is deeper than just a trilogy with a simple ending because there are also some good novels (just started reading revelations), graphic novels etc. I hope BW and the creators are on to something bigger than just a trilogy.

3D stands for 3DandBeyond, the OP of this thread.

Well, what you described is a light version of the IT that I read about. Anyway, for me, the ending begins when I leave the FOB, but I can agree to your interpretation that it begins when the fleets enter the Sol system. The label: "Take Back Earth"  has been used for marketing purposes. It captures people's attention very well.

The Reapers are machines--constructs--and the indoctrination works only on organics. The geth couldn't be indoctrinated, they had to be hacked to obey the Reapers. Therefore, the Reapers cannot suffer from indoctrination (and even if they could, a long-term indoctrination eventually results in the death of the subject).

Let's assume for a moment that what you're saying is true. Why would the Reapers flee from the galaxy? They have no purpose to exist other than to destroy the organics. And they cannot replenish their own numbers without harvesting. Consequently, their return to the dark space doesn't make sense.

Additionally, I don't understand where Shepard would become indoctrinated so severely that he/she wouldn't be able to tell the reality from a hallucination (especially given his/her mental strength). When the Leviathan took over Shepard in the DLC, it was very obvious.

Well, ME3 is the final game in the trilogy. We don't know yet what the next game (ME4) will be about. I bet my money that it will be the prequel to ME3, though. Perhaps it's for the best.

PS, it's not so hard to make a convincing video about any topic.

Do you mean a prequel to ME or ME3? What would the prequel entail? I just start revelations the book. Don't know wheres its going but it seems it will cover everything up to one. I personally want to see ME4 continue the story. I would bet my money that any prequel would be a DLC.

My Reaper fleeing idea was totally baseless on any reality - just felt like throwing it out there

Perhaps the scenes in the game where its clear Shepard is having a hard time mentally with the war is a sign of his will breaking which would allow indoctrination to speed up. Honestly, I dont really know. I dont even grasp fully the whole Reaper thing either.

[ElSuperGecko]

Snypy wrote...
Besides, BioWare can never acknowledge the IT. Such acknowledgement would be a suicide for the company. The backlash from critics and fans would be unimaginable.

That's a personal opinion, an a clearly biased one at that.

Bioware can happily and easily acknowledge IT, so long as they do so in a manner which both builds on the ideas and principles already incorporated within the game, and shows that it was something they had in mind all along.

And we know for a FACT that Bioware created the Citadel/Catalyst mission with elements of indoctrination in mind.

The critical and fan response would depend entirely on how well it was implemented and how satisfying the inclusion ended up being.  And Bioware have a fairly impressive history when it comes to expanding on their games with additional content and DLC.

[Snypy]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/14226254

There were 11942 participants. which is roughly 0.39% of those who bought ME3. It's a good sample, but I'm not sure how it accounted for demographics. (I didn't find that survey anywhere. )

Modifié par Snypy, 25 septembre 2012 - 02:08 .