6432 réponses à ce sujet

[3DandBeyond]

zioninzion wrote...

Gore Vidal, one of the great American writers and playwrights of our time once wrote a popular play called "Visit to a Small Planet". His originally ending had the world coming to an end. However, during the first showings people were so appalled as were producers that he had to change the ending.

This is why I don't believe this artistic integrity stuff. BW wouldn't be the first or last to change unacceptable endings. And like someone else said, its sadistic to draw the players so into the game just to leave them with that ending.

For the record I do not think BW should change the ending. That would upset me. What they should do is a)pretend that IT is theirs or own up to it or b)continue ME4 where ME3 left off and give us something to be excited for.

Sorry if this is random.

Not random-the point about Gore Vidal is a good one and it's repeated over and over again, if someone with a brain just looks and sees that no one is setting a precedent here.

And I'm not technically asking them to change a thing.  I'm asking them to add to what they have.  I'd love for them to change it all, but realistically it's not gonna happen.

The point of this thread was to ask for alternate and additional optional content, not to ask they change the ending for everyone.

But, here's the thing.  What if it had been BW's intention all along to create a better ending?  What if all of this, including DLC that's coming up, was all leading up to a full on win-or chance at one?

There are many that say BW decides what the game should be like-would they then feel the same, if at the end when all DLC was released, there was a win with Shepard alive, the reapers dead, the kid's dialogue fully changed to support destruction of the reapers (with the crucible having been created for that purpose).  The synthetics that it spoke of maybe all along was the reaper machines and he'd attempted to stop them by putting his creators in control of them inside them.  But it didn't work.

So, what if the ending, once and for all, turned out to be an amalgamation of some of what we are asking for here and was at least in part intended all along?  I truly wonder if the same people who love their choices now would feel the same as they do about BW.  I've read where people say they truly wish the galaxy had been destroyed at the end and aren't happy the EC was released.  So, I wonder at what point fans decide that BW has gone past what they should be "supported" for doing.  Where do fans draw the line?

I once asked the question, but never got an answer though I think it's relevant here.

I don't see the endings as fitting the game, so what if those that think they do fit were treated to other endings.
What if the game ended with a bunch of dancing monkeys and lizards laughing at everyone and claiming that you could choose to become monkeys or lizards because that's the direction of evolution and is also where much of life in the galaxy came from.  People messed it up so badly that they must do it all over again.

Would it then be ok for Bioware to say this is the end of the game and it's all you will get?

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 25 septembre 2012 - 05:43 .

[sharkboy421]

Xellith wrote...

You know - some people have said that "changing the ending will set a bad precident" or some such.

In Final Fantasy 11 (an MMORPG) you have 3 nations, each with their own missions.  Some missions can be done with the other nations and others are nation specific.

Mission 6 I believe involves traveling to Castle Vahzl and defeating the "Shadow Lord".  So you beat him and bam.  New rank and such. 

The very next expansion (which also came with the NA and EU versions of the game) more or less started by saying "hey are you alright?" or something.  It turns out that what you saw didnt happen the way you thought it did.  You missed an entire segment where the 5 Ark Angels are summoned and kick the ass of the Shadow Lord.

Original "Ending" www.youtube.com/watch
Zilart Retcon "Ending" Part 1 www.youtube.com/watch
Zilart Retcon "Ending" Part 2 www.youtube.com/watch

Basically put.  The original ending was a "dream" and what really happened was revealed in the Zilart Expansion Pack.

And blood donation was successful    Made me break my diet though since I said "screw it CHEESEBURGUR NAO!"

I agree that changing the ending does not necessarily set a bad precedent but its a bit different for FFXI as it was an MMO.  And FFXI had a much larger focus on story than other MMOs at the time.  And I had to comment as I played FFXI for 5 years, man I miss that game, such good times.  Then Abyssea came out and idk what happened.

Anyways back on topic.  I want to agree with one of the above posters that the reason the endings are so confusing and jarring is because the catalyst and his problem seems to come out of no where.  While the organic vs synthetic conflict has always been part of ME, the Rannoch story arc pretty much wrapped things up I thought.  Priority Earth was about killing the Reapers and "Tak(ing) Earth Back."  For the catalyst to show up and say "no its not" 10 minutes before the credits, it is incredible jarring and just bad story telling.

[AresKeith]

@3D I wouldn't really be surprised if BW was adding more to the ending through DLCs since all of them seem to be story-related, but I also wouldn't be surprised if they wasn't

[sdinc009]

3DandBeyond wrote...

sdinc009 wrote...

Let's all perform a little experiment. Ready? Ok. Starting at the final scene, rewind back to before the magic elevator and pause. Now, forgetting about what happens after the elevator takes Shepard up I want you to think about something. At this point in the game, what is the main driving goal of the story? Take your time and really think and remember Shepard has not yet gone up the light elevator yet. So, what is your answer? Is it to defeat the Reapers and save the Galaxy? Or is it to solve the problem of peace between organics and synthetics?
 
Let's try another one. At this point in the game, and remember we haven't met Glowboy yet, we're still in the room TIM and Anderson died in. If you were to guess where this game was going, how should it end? Forget in depth detail for a moment and think of just logical progression. Do you think it should be with an epic battle against the Reapers? Or do you think it would be involving sitting down with the Reapers undisclosed leader, having a friendly little chat, and then making an arbitrary choice that it presents?

So let's see what the results of this little experiment are.

Well, you know where I'm at.  That's similar to the question I've posed and probably way more relevant.  As I have asked (and yet to have those that just are so in love with the endings answer) is what they thought would happen when they opened the box to ME3 and put the game disk in the drive.  Or go back to ME1 and then ME2.  Is this honestly how you hoped it would end?  I think it's unforseeable that at the end we'd be given arbitrary choices that yes, to involve questions raised in the games, but don't honor the main themes.

It would have made far more sense if the choices had been between choosing Unity, Redemption, or Diversity as ways to destroy the reapers.  These were the main themes. 

To answer your question, I honestly thought we would probably set off the crucible and it would do something, but then we'd fight reapers.  I knew Shepard was in bad shape so I thought that there might be someone who would come and get Shepard out of there or even that it was possible Shepard would die or sacrifice herself, but I figured I'd replay it and do better.  And I thought it was going to be great fun to do so.  Boss conversations are way over-rated and only really loved by 2 entities that may well spell the doom of this type of game-fans that can't understand why this kind of ending feels so hollow and Bioware.  I never want to play a game like this again.  And you can take that tow mean 2 things, both relevant. 

At this point, I really don't want to play a game that allows me choices and I certainly don't want to play a game that has no sensible and realistic actual win at the end.  I play games to win.  And I say this with only one exception or caveat.  As it stands now, this game has trashed my idea of what was great about ME-making choices and feel like you determined the direction of the game.  Since someone decided that none of that mattered after I spent all the real play time and other world time waiting for the games and starting different Shepards and thinking I'd play all of them through to the end, then I never want to play a game with choices if this is the direction they will take.  I don't play games to feel sad at the end.  I don't play them to find some idiotic notion of balance.  I am so sick and tired of people thinking that is some realistic thing that needs to be at the end of this game.  It's one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard.  It's like saying sporting events are best when they end in a tie or a draw.  Or that in live everything always has some mirror image.  The only balance I want in a video game is a way to lose and a way to win and a way to actually feel like I've done both.  Balance as others see it does exist at the end, it's that ambivalent, ambiguity all wrapped up into one.  The real balance it should have is not there.  There's many shades of demented, but little else.

Alright, good example of logical progression and implementing main thematic elements in the ending.

[3DandBeyond]

AresKeith wrote...

@3D I wouldn't really be surprised if BW was adding more to the ending through DLCs since all of them seem to be story-related, but I also wouldn't be surprised if they wasn't

No, I'm not expecting it to happen, but a lot of people (you know who they are) are fond of saying that it's Bioware's game and they should not do what fans "demand" (I really wish people would understand a word before they use it).

I just have never had the question answered, that if it's Bioware's game, then anything goes, right?  So, anyone that thinks that should suck it up if BW has already decided on adding to the endings or if at the end when all DLC has been released, there's only one ending in which reapers fly out a huge dead Shepard reaper's asterisk.  It's BW's game and so they are free to trash it however they like, but they are also free to take a look and see if this is really the feeling they want fans to be left with.  I don't yet believe that. 

[keopm]

way to go you got my vote

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

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.

That would be Casey Hudson. He wrote the starchild ending. Mac was working on Anderson/Shepard scene. In this case Casey Hudson killed you, unless you hit "the magic number" which if you lived in rural America you couldn't hit until the EC was out.

[3DandBeyond]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...


That would be Casey Hudson. He wrote the starchild ending. Mac was working on Anderson/Shepard scene. In this case Casey Hudson killed you, unless you hit "the magic number" which if you lived in rural America you couldn't hit until the EC was out.

Yes, exactly.  Where I am I consider myself very lucky to have high speed internet.  We have one provider (unless I wanted satellite internet and I don't).  We have good service and I live in a rural area between two large cities and not far from very large suburban areas.

I've talked with others that don't have great service so they don't play MP or don't or can't pay for xbox live.  So, for months the only way they could see that torso scene (the bestest most satsifying ending to a game everrrrrr), was on someone else's youtube.

[zioninzion]

3DandBeyond wrote...

zioninzion wrote...

Gore Vidal, one of the great American writers and playwrights of our time once wrote a popular play called "Visit to a Small Planet". His originally ending had the world coming to an end. However, during the first showings people were so appalled as were producers that he had to change the ending.

This is why I don't believe this artistic integrity stuff. BW wouldn't be the first or last to change unacceptable endings. And like someone else said, its sadistic to draw the players so into the game just to leave them with that ending.

For the record I do not think BW should change the ending. That would upset me. What they should do is a)pretend that IT is theirs or own up to it or b)continue ME4 where ME3 left off and give us something to be excited for.

Sorry if this is random.

Not random-the point about Gore Vidal is a good one and it's repeated over and over again, if someone with a brain just looks and sees that no one is setting a precedent here.

And I'm not technically asking them to change a thing.  I'm asking them to add to what they have.  I'd love for them to change it all, but realistically it's not gonna happen.

The point of this thread was to ask for alternate and additional optional content, not to ask they change the ending for everyone.

But, here's the thing.  What if it had been BW's intention all along to create a better ending?  What if all of this, including DLC that's coming up, was all leading up to a full on win-or chance at one?

There are many that say BW decides what the game should be like-would they then feel the same, if at the end when all DLC was released, there was a win with Shepard alive, the reapers dead, the kid's dialogue fully changed to support destruction of the reapers (with the crucible having been created for that purpose).  The synthetics that it spoke of maybe all along was the reaper machines and he'd attempted to stop them by putting his creators in control of them inside them.  But it didn't work.

So, what if the ending, once and for all, turned out to be an amalgamation of some of what we are asking for here and was at least in part intended all along?  I truly wonder if the same people who love their choices now would feel the same as they do about BW.  I've read where people say they truly wish the galaxy had been destroyed at the end and aren't happy the EC was released.  So, I wonder at what point fans decide that BW has gone past what they should be "supported" for doing.  Where do fans draw the line?

I once asked the question, but never got an answer though I think it's relevant here.

I don't see the endings as fitting the game, so what if those that think they do fit were treated to other endings.
What if the game ended with a bunch of dancing monkeys and lizards laughing at everyone and claiming that you could choose to become monkeys or lizards because that's the direction of evolution and is also where much of life in the galaxy came from.  People messed it up so badly that they must do it all over again.

Would it then be ok for Bioware to say this is the end of the game and it's all you will get?

I totally agree with you. I don't get this attitude that fans cant complain or give serious imput. The worst type of input that the fans can give is with their wallet. BW is lucky that we are so vocal and caring about this series. At least look at the threads and forums and heated debates on this website. Would it be better if we just "accepted" the ending and never bought another ME game and just watched BW's ME fade to history?

I also agree the endings are not fitting. And I am going to put enough faith in the BW writers that they are above these endings. Im going to take the EC as trying to put out some flames of discontent but not be the ending of the story. On that note, I don't get the people who are saying the EC DLC disproves IT. It disproves nothing as the whole point of IT (IMO) is that we don't know where reality ended and began (roughly). For example, one minute your runing suicidally towards a beam, the next your halfway accross the galaxy back on the Normady. If thats the logic of the ending and EC, then I accept none of those endings. What I expect is for Shepard to wake up in 4, in a partly destroyed Earth ready to continue whatever mission at hand.

I am so happy there are fans like this to stand up and discuss these issues.

[Snypy]

3DandBeyond wrote...

[...]

There are many that say BW decides what the game should be like-would they then feel the same, if at the end when all DLC was released, there was a win with Shepard alive, the reapers dead, the kid's dialogue fully changed to support destruction of the reapers (with the crucible having been created for that purpose).  The synthetics that it spoke of maybe all along was the reaper machines and he'd attempted to stop them by putting his creators in control of them inside them.  But it didn't work.

So, what if the ending, once and for all, turned out to be an amalgamation of some of what we are asking for here and was at least in part intended all along?  I truly wonder if the same people who love their choices now would feel the same as they do about BW.  I've read where people say they truly wish the galaxy had been destroyed at the end and aren't happy the EC was released.  So, I wonder at what point fans decide that BW has gone past what they should be "supported" for doing.  Where do fans draw the line?

[...]

It would be great if the final DLC expanded on the ending. But there are a few problems with that. Firstly, BioWare would prove it can't be trusted, because its PR guys said the ending wouldn't ever be changed again. Secondly, many fans would be unsatisfied with the new ending anyway. Thirdly, if it was necessary to buy all previous DLCs to access the best ending, many customers would accuse BioWare of bad business practices. Lastly, all those pro-ending supporters would probably get mad.

Modifié par Snypy, 25 septembre 2012 - 06:37 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I've seen people use Red Dead Redemption as the bittersweet ending where you also can get to play his son to get revenge. Okay spoiler, but the game has been out so long now it's common knowledge. I haven't finished the game yet and I know the spoiler. The thing is that you are playing a linear story in a sandbox world. There is no role playing involved. You have a set of quests to do, and a set way that John Marston reacts to people. You have no input on how John Marston reacts to people. You can be an ass for a while but as soon as John Marston is killed and you respawn at your previous save game or you pay your bounty everything is fine with the world again. The way they did it works.

Back to ME3. Casey Hudson obviously is a control freak. I can tell from his body language and the way he spoke during the interviews. When they did the endings it is pretty obvious that the breath scene was a compromise and one that he did as a "yeah, okay, I suppose we should toss them a bone for effort, but just a short quick breath, like in the Matrix Reloaded. Nothing more, and make it hard to get that, say 4000 EMS." The intent was to kill you as Shepard in all the endings.

But the thing is that when the game came out the ending didn't make any sense in relation to the rest of the story. It was an elevator to WTF-land, and there's this translucent kid telling you to "wake up" when clearly you're awake. Forget the EC for a minute and watch the original ending again. Then watch the EC. Sure you get to question the AI more, but in the end you get to make the same three crappy choices, or give the best speech of the game and die along with the rest of the galaxy, watch the same explosions, with some added cinematics, and then watch a slide show which have 16 wildly different variations [/sarcasm], and ends with a memorial and the ship taking off, and if you're really lucky... you get to see the gasp if you picked Destroy as a "glimmer of hope." (Yeah, I suppose we should toss them a bone for effort.) All the EC does is explain what control, synthesis, and destroy did. It really didn't change much of anything.

I'm guessing the "gasp" is Shepard finally growing a brain and remembering to use "Unity". They should have had Shepard get up out of the rubble and get the evac, and have the reunion in the original ending. Failing that, they should have added it in the EC. Will they add it as part of a DLC in the future? Doubtful. Not as long as Hudson is in charge of the series. He wanted Shepard dead.

ME3 was a great place to start because your choices didn't matter.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 25 septembre 2012 - 06:56 .

[zioninzion]

Snypy wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

[...]

There are many that say BW decides what the game should be like-would they then feel the same, if at the end when all DLC was released, there was a win with Shepard alive, the reapers dead, the kid's dialogue fully changed to support destruction of the reapers (with the crucible having been created for that purpose).  The synthetics that it spoke of maybe all along was the reaper machines and he'd attempted to stop them by putting his creators in control of them inside them.  But it didn't work.

So, what if the ending, once and for all, turned out to be an amalgamation of some of what we are asking for here and was at least in part intended all along?  I truly wonder if the same people who love their choices now would feel the same as they do about BW.  I've read where people say they truly wish the galaxy had been destroyed at the end and aren't happy the EC was released.  So, I wonder at what point fans decide that BW has gone past what they should be "supported" for doing.  Where do fans draw the line?

[...]

It would be great if the final DLC expanded on the ending. But there are a few problems with that. Firstly, BioWare would prove it can't be trusted, because its PR guys said the ending wouldn't ever be changed again. Secondly, many fans would be unsatisfied with the new ending anyway. Thirdly, if it was necessary to buy all previous DLCs to access the best ending, many customers would accuse BioWare of bad business practices. Lastly, all those pro-ending supporters would probably get mad.

Does the ending of ME3 have to be the end of the reapers of shepards journey? Can't the end of ME3 just be taking back Earth?

I set out to see if anything would back this up and first I saw the Amazon description which was hopefull

Here is the Amazon product description: "Mass Effect 3 is a Role-playing Game (RPG) / Third-Person Shooter hybrid set in a Science Fiction universe. Mass Effect 3 is the third game in the popular Mass Effect series, and is rumored to be the final installment."

But seeing those BW tweets about this being the end of Shepard really sucks!

[Snypy]

zioninzion wrote...

Snypy wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

[...]

There are many that say BW decides what the game should be like-would they then feel the same, if at the end when all DLC was released, there was a win with Shepard alive, the reapers dead, the kid's dialogue fully changed to support destruction of the reapers (with the crucible having been created for that purpose).  The synthetics that it spoke of maybe all along was the reaper machines and he'd attempted to stop them by putting his creators in control of them inside them.  But it didn't work.

So, what if the ending, once and for all, turned out to be an amalgamation of some of what we are asking for here and was at least in part intended all along?  I truly wonder if the same people who love their choices now would feel the same as they do about BW.  I've read where people say they truly wish the galaxy had been destroyed at the end and aren't happy the EC was released.  So, I wonder at what point fans decide that BW has gone past what they should be "supported" for doing.  Where do fans draw the line?

[...]

It would be great if the final DLC expanded on the ending. But there are a few problems with that. Firstly, BioWare would prove it can't be trusted, because its PR guys said the ending wouldn't ever be changed again. Secondly, many fans would be unsatisfied with the new ending anyway. Thirdly, if it was necessary to buy all previous DLCs to access the best ending, many customers would accuse BioWare of bad business practices. Lastly, all those pro-ending supporters would probably get mad.

Does the ending of ME3 have to be the end of the reapers of shepards journey? Can't the end of ME3 just be taking back Earth?

I set out to see if anything would back this up and first I saw the Amazon description which was hopefull

Here is the Amazon product description: "Mass Effect 3 is a Role-playing Game (RPG) / Third-Person Shooter hybrid set in a Science Fiction universe. Mass Effect 3 is the third game in the popular Mass Effect series, and is rumored to be the final installment."

But seeing those BW tweets about this being the end of Shepard really sucks!

ME3 isn't the end of Shepard. It's the end of Shepard as the main character in video games. He/she might have a cameo role in ME4.

Modifié par Snypy, 25 septembre 2012 - 07:46 .

[dreman9999]

sharkboy421 wrote...

Xellith wrote...

You know - some people have said that "changing the ending will set a bad precident" or some such.

In Final Fantasy 11 (an MMORPG) you have 3 nations, each with their own missions.  Some missions can be done with the other nations and others are nation specific.

Mission 6 I believe involves traveling to Castle Vahzl and defeating the "Shadow Lord".  So you beat him and bam.  New rank and such. 

The very next expansion (which also came with the NA and EU versions of the game) more or less started by saying "hey are you alright?" or something.  It turns out that what you saw didnt happen the way you thought it did.  You missed an entire segment where the 5 Ark Angels are summoned and kick the ass of the Shadow Lord.

Original "Ending" www.youtube.com/watch
Zilart Retcon "Ending" Part 1 www.youtube.com/watch
Zilart Retcon "Ending" Part 2 www.youtube.com/watch

Basically put.  The original ending was a "dream" and what really happened was revealed in the Zilart Expansion Pack.

And blood donation was successful    Made me break my diet though since I said "screw it CHEESEBURGUR NAO!"

I agree that changing the ending does not necessarily set a bad precedent but its a bit different for FFXI as it was an MMO.  And FFXI had a much larger focus on story than other MMOs at the time.  And I had to comment as I played FFXI for 5 years, man I miss that game, such good times.  Then Abyssea came out and idk what happened.

Anyways back on topic.  I want to agree with one of the above posters that the reason the endings are so confusing and jarring is because the catalyst and his problem seems to come out of no where.  While the organic vs synthetic conflict has always been part of ME, the Rannoch story arc pretty much wrapped things up I thought.  Priority Earth was about killing the Reapers and "Tak(ing) Earth Back."  For the catalyst to show up and say "no its not" 10 minutes before the credits, it is incredible jarring and just bad story telling.

As long as the reapersare still there, it's not wraped up.

[dreman9999]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

I've seen people use Red Dead Redemption as the bittersweet ending where you also can get to play his son to get revenge. Okay spoiler, but the game has been out so long now it's common knowledge. I haven't finished the game yet and I know the spoiler. The thing is that you are playing a linear story in a sandbox world. There is no role playing involved. You have a set of quests to do, and a set way that John Marston reacts to people. You have no input on how John Marston reacts to people. You can be an ass for a while but as soon as John Marston is killed and you respawn at your previous save game or you pay your bounty everything is fine with the world again. The way they did it works.

Back to ME3. Casey Hudson obviously is a control freak. I can tell from his body language and the way he spoke during the interviews. When they did the endings it is pretty obvious that the breath scene was a compromise and one that he did as a "yeah, okay, I suppose we should toss them a bone for effort, but just a short quick breath, like in the Matrix Reloaded. Nothing more, and make it hard to get that, say 4000 EMS." The intent was to kill you as Shepard in all the endings.

But the thing is that when the game came out the ending didn't make any sense in relation to the rest of the story. It was an elevator to WTF-land, and there's this translucent kid telling you to "wake up" when clearly you're awake. Forget the EC for a minute and watch the original ending again. Then watch the EC. Sure you get to question the AI more, but in the end you get to make the same three crappy choices, or give the best speech of the game and die along with the rest of the galaxy, watch the same explosions, with some added cinematics, and then watch a slide show which have 16 wildly different variations [/sarcasm], and ends with a memorial and the ship taking off, and if you're really lucky... you get to see the gasp if you picked Destroy as a "glimmer of hope." (Yeah, I suppose we should toss them a bone for effort.) All the EC does is explain what control, synthesis, and destroy did. It really didn't change much of anything.

I'm guessing the "gasp" is Shepard finally growing a brain and remembering to use "Unity". They should have had Shepard get up out of the rubble and get the evac, and have the reunion in the original ending. Failing that, they should have added it in the EC. Will they add it as part of a DLC in the future? Doubtful. Not as long as Hudson is in charge of the series. He wanted Shepard dead.

ME3 was a great place to start because your choices didn't matter.

We have a survey on the borad that shows ha people who feel there choices don't matter post ec are the minority....Vast minority at that.

You choices do matter. You just don't like the choices you have on hand.

[AresKeith]

dreman9999 wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

I've seen people use Red Dead Redemption as the bittersweet ending where you also can get to play his son to get revenge. Okay spoiler, but the game has been out so long now it's common knowledge. I haven't finished the game yet and I know the spoiler. The thing is that you are playing a linear story in a sandbox world. There is no role playing involved. You have a set of quests to do, and a set way that John Marston reacts to people. You have no input on how John Marston reacts to people. You can be an ass for a while but as soon as John Marston is killed and you respawn at your previous save game or you pay your bounty everything is fine with the world again. The way they did it works.

Back to ME3. Casey Hudson obviously is a control freak. I can tell from his body language and the way he spoke during the interviews. When they did the endings it is pretty obvious that the breath scene was a compromise and one that he did as a "yeah, okay, I suppose we should toss them a bone for effort, but just a short quick breath, like in the Matrix Reloaded. Nothing more, and make it hard to get that, say 4000 EMS." The intent was to kill you as Shepard in all the endings.

But the thing is that when the game came out the ending didn't make any sense in relation to the rest of the story. It was an elevator to WTF-land, and there's this translucent kid telling you to "wake up" when clearly you're awake. Forget the EC for a minute and watch the original ending again. Then watch the EC. Sure you get to question the AI more, but in the end you get to make the same three crappy choices, or give the best speech of the game and die along with the rest of the galaxy, watch the same explosions, with some added cinematics, and then watch a slide show which have 16 wildly different variations [/sarcasm], and ends with a memorial and the ship taking off, and if you're really lucky... you get to see the gasp if you picked Destroy as a "glimmer of hope." (Yeah, I suppose we should toss them a bone for effort.) All the EC does is explain what control, synthesis, and destroy did. It really didn't change much of anything.

I'm guessing the "gasp" is Shepard finally growing a brain and remembering to use "Unity". They should have had Shepard get up out of the rubble and get the evac, and have the reunion in the original ending. Failing that, they should have added it in the EC. Will they add it as part of a DLC in the future? Doubtful. Not as long as Hudson is in charge of the series. He wanted Shepard dead.

ME3 was a great place to start because your choices didn't matter.

We have a survey on the borad that shows ha people who feel there choices don't matter post ec are the minority....Vast minority at that.

You choices do matter. You just don't like the choices you have on hand.

you mind showing this survey

[CaIIisto]

AresKeith wrote...

you mind showing this survey

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

A clear majority of people in favour of IT over EC, and an overwhelming majority wanting a 'happy' end.

But it's ok, we're all much happier now that we can tell the Star-Brat to go f*ck himself.

[AresKeith]

Bester76 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

you mind showing this survey

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

A clear majority of people in favour of IT over EC, and an overwhelming majority wanting a 'happy' end.

But it's ok, we're all much happier now that we can tell the Star-Brat to go f*ck himself.

I've seen that survey, its funny how he thinks that means a majority of people think there choices mattered

[dreman9999]

AresKeith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

I've seen people use Red Dead Redemption as the bittersweet ending where you also can get to play his son to get revenge. Okay spoiler, but the game has been out so long now it's common knowledge. I haven't finished the game yet and I know the spoiler. The thing is that you are playing a linear story in a sandbox world. There is no role playing involved. You have a set of quests to do, and a set way that John Marston reacts to people. You have no input on how John Marston reacts to people. You can be an ass for a while but as soon as John Marston is killed and you respawn at your previous save game or you pay your bounty everything is fine with the world again. The way they did it works.

Back to ME3. Casey Hudson obviously is a control freak. I can tell from his body language and the way he spoke during the interviews. When they did the endings it is pretty obvious that the breath scene was a compromise and one that he did as a "yeah, okay, I suppose we should toss them a bone for effort, but just a short quick breath, like in the Matrix Reloaded. Nothing more, and make it hard to get that, say 4000 EMS." The intent was to kill you as Shepard in all the endings.

But the thing is that when the game came out the ending didn't make any sense in relation to the rest of the story. It was an elevator to WTF-land, and there's this translucent kid telling you to "wake up" when clearly you're awake. Forget the EC for a minute and watch the original ending again. Then watch the EC. Sure you get to question the AI more, but in the end you get to make the same three crappy choices, or give the best speech of the game and die along with the rest of the galaxy, watch the same explosions, with some added cinematics, and then watch a slide show which have 16 wildly different variations [/sarcasm], and ends with a memorial and the ship taking off, and if you're really lucky... you get to see the gasp if you picked Destroy as a "glimmer of hope." (Yeah, I suppose we should toss them a bone for effort.) All the EC does is explain what control, synthesis, and destroy did. It really didn't change much of anything.

I'm guessing the "gasp" is Shepard finally growing a brain and remembering to use "Unity". They should have had Shepard get up out of the rubble and get the evac, and have the reunion in the original ending. Failing that, they should have added it in the EC. Will they add it as part of a DLC in the future? Doubtful. Not as long as Hudson is in charge of the series. He wanted Shepard dead.

ME3 was a great place to start because your choices didn't matter.

We have a survey on the borad that shows ha people who feel there choices don't matter post ec are the minority....Vast minority at that.

You choices do matter. You just don't like the choices you have on hand.

you mind showing this survey

http://www.mediafire...cccy9p2za55ecz5

Page 22.

Modifié par dreman9999, 25 septembre 2012 - 08:27 .

[dreman9999]

AresKeith wrote...

Bester76 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

you mind showing this survey

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

A clear majority of people in favour of IT over EC, and an overwhelming majority wanting a 'happy' end.

But it's ok, we're all much happier now that we can tell the Star-Brat to go f*ck himself.

I've seen that survey, its funny how he thinks that means a majority of people think there choices mattered

Go to page 22 of that servey. Under "Shepards actions directly and cleary influenced the success or other wise of goals"

You see the majority agreed with the his/her choices mattered post ec.

Modifié par dreman9999, 25 septembre 2012 - 08:28 .

[dreman9999]

Bester76 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

you mind showing this survey

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

A clear majority of people in favour of IT over EC, and an overwhelming majority wanting a 'happy' end.

But it's ok, we're all much happier now that we can tell the Star-Brat to go f*ck himself.

I'm sure Hamlet , Romeo and Juliet wanted that happy ending option in there endings, too.

Modifié par dreman9999, 25 septembre 2012 - 08:28 .

[Chaotic-Fusion]

@Dreman

That relates to Shepard's influence. The one relating to choices, called "War Assets feel like they matter and significantly impact the endings" is on page 25/26.

The survey makes it pretty clear that making choices matter is among the things people felt the EC didn't do at all.

"The EE improves War Assets the least of any issue, with the total disagree score falling from
54% to 45% and the total agree score rising from 30% to 37%."

And most of the "total agree" score comes from the "agree" option, with few people choosing "strongly agree". While many people choose "strongly disagree".

Modifié par Chaotic-Fusion, 25 septembre 2012 - 08:18 .

[CaIIisto]

dreman9999 wrote...
I'm sure Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet wanted that happy ending option in there endings, too.

You're right, of course. I'd forgotten that Hamlet and R&J were RPGs built upon choice, consequence and self-determination.

[dreman9999]

Chaotic-Fusion wrote...

@Dreman

That relates to Shepard's influence. The one relating to choices, called "War Assets feel like they matter and significantly impact the endings" is on page 25/26.

The survey makes it pretty clear that making choices matter is among the things people felt the EC didn't do at all.

"The EE improves War Assets the least of any issue, with the total disagree score falling from
54% to 45% and the total agree score rising from 30% to 37%."

And most of the "total agree" score comes from the "agree" option, with few people choosing "strongly agree". While many people choose "strongly disagree".

Influence is choice. On the matter of war assets is a matter of how significat it felt to the player in the end of the game. Ofcorse it did not, none of it was ever shown in the last battle. The war assets score not being good just mean bioware did priority earth badly, not that choice did not matter.

Most of war assets are not brought in by basedon player choice. A good portion is gained via search and rescue. Other is via import from MP. War assets being graded bad is not an issue of lack of player choice influence being that you can get a good protion without making plot choices. That just an issue of them not being shown...Aka, for BW to fix it they need to redo priority earth.

[dreman9999]

Bester76 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
I'm sure Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet wanted that happy ending option in there endings, too.

You're right, of course. I'd forgotten that Hamlet and R&J were RPGs built upon choice, consequence and self-determination.

So we need an easy way out of the virmire choice, citadel choice, geth choice, collector base choice, and tuchanka choice for them to be good choices given to the player?