6432 ответов в этой теме

[dreman9999]

a load of stanton wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

a load of stanton wrote...

if you really care about the community you will listen bioware

this thread wont die

Who are you to speak for the community? How about the ones who don't want what you want?

im only trying to make a point thay bairley listen to us now stop being so......... 
its a post just deal with it 

If they did listen to us they would never of made EC. Just because they don't blindy do what you want does not mean they are not listening to us.

Сообщение изменено: dreman9999, 30 Август 2012 - 05:12 .

[3DandBeyond]

jules_vern18 wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

...You do realize they've already stated that beyond the EC they don't plan to change the endings. Maybe adjust dialog (like they did with Leviathan), which I'd expect. But you're never going to get a full adjustment. You're going to have to accept the endings as they are.

...And they also said that they wouldn't change the endings before the EC, after which they retconned major plot points and provided us with a 4th option. 

I may not have the same views as the OP with regard to everything I'd like to see in future DLC, but I hope this stays on the front page. 

And I for one don't expect everyone to agree-diversity is a great concept.  As are redemption, unity, self-reliance, independence, autonomy, and so on.  I felt that the endings ripped all of these things from the story.  In the end, I want Bioware to answer this-pick any ending and ask yourself if that was what you were fighting for.  Pick any ending and ask, who in ME wanted that.  The heart, the emotional bond with the main character is paramount in any story and the reader or player must feel compelled to have the character do certain things.  The heart must be maintained.

[ShepnTali]

Blow the Citadel to smithereens. Would that quench the fair and balanced bloodlust?

[clennon8]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@3DAndBeyond:
While I feel with you and regret that you cannot take anything satisfying away from the ME series any more, and as a rule I'm always open to new options, I cannot support your plea. Why? Because what you want is an ending with no downside. No, I am not against those as a rule, but in this case, the ending you want would be perceived as canon and immediately invalidate all others in the eyes of a majority. It would unbalance the whole scenario and I know I would dislike that as much as I did the original endings.

What would you want to sacrifice to make this new option balanced with the others?

You are deliriously happy with Synthesis and are on record as saying that you would still pick it even if Destroy had absolutely no drawbacks.  So I'm just going to continue not taking you seriously.

[blacqout]

There is nothing even vaguely "cod-like" about Mass Effect 3. Your plea might be taken more seriously if you didn't invoke the names of game series' that many look down upon just because.

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

...You do realize they've already stated that beyond the EC they don't plan to change the endings. Maybe adjust dialog (like they did with Leviathan), which I'd expect. But you're never going to get a full adjustment. You're going to have to accept the endings as they are.

...And they also said that they wouldn't change the endings before the EC, after which they retconned major plot points and provided us with a 4th option. 

I may not have the same views as the OP with regard to everything I'd like to see in future DLC, but I hope this stays on the front page. 

And I for one don't expect everyone to agree-diversity is a great concept.  As are redemption, unity, self-reliance, independence, autonomy, and so on.  I felt that the endings ripped all of these things from the story.  In the end, I want Bioware to answer this-pick any ending and ask yourself if that was what you were fighting for.  Pick any ending and ask, who in ME wanted that.  The heart, the emotional bond with the main character is paramount in any story and the reader or player must feel compelled to have the character do certain things.  The heart must be maintained.

That's your interpertaion of thegame. Not the literal one. The theme of ME was to question the play of what lenghts  they would go to stop an unstopple force. The ending does not go ageinst that concept.

Сообщение изменено: dreman9999, 30 Август 2012 - 05:15 .

[3DandBeyond]

dreman9999 wrote...

If they did listen to us they would never of made EC. Just because they don't blindy do what you want does not mean they are not listening to us.

dreman9999, I posted my opinions clearly as my opinions.  I can't control where you post or anything, but I'm going to express the desire here that you not hijack this thread for your black hole discussions. Please.

[LadyWench]

Xellith wrote...

Id just like to point out that any conventional victory wouldnt be a cakewalk like some people are suggesting.  I dont think anyone is suggesting a "yup we killed em.  We didnt lose a single ship! huzzah!" scenario.

THIS! I like how a conventional "victory" is automatically a "happy" ending with no consequence. I have heard this mentioned on the forums before, and I don't see anything wrong with an ME2-like stacked ending, where certain chocies or allies Shep made over the games comes back and has an impact on how successful or not those allies are in battle or who survives at the end. Honestly, before ME3 dropped, that was what I was expecting!

[clennon8]

saracen16 wrote...

A successful refuse ending would render the entire plot irrelevant.

Nah.  That's just silly.  It wouldn't be the first time, by far, where a story has had a protagonist chasing a certain solution only to come up with a different one at the end.

Сообщение изменено: clennon8, 30 Август 2012 - 05:17 .

[Cainne Chapel]

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

Cainne Chapel wrote...

Well its just silly to believe you speak for the community, or the majority or whatever, forums are NEVER the majority of gamers.

Out of the 10 people i personally know that PLAYED ME3, guess how many are active on forums?

1. Heck even myself i'm only ever active here and maybe a few MMO forums, but thats it and i play a TON of games.

so to think forumites or internet posters are a majority is just silly.

But besides that, I'm always openf or more content from BW. Problem they face is, if they add ANOTHER ending or change the ending more to suit the whims of those still complaining, where does it then end?

What if people arent happy with the NEW ending? What if people want ANOTHER one? and so on.

Its a slippery slope if there ever was one, sometimes they just HAVE to put their foot down in a way. It sucks I know, but at some point it becomes a waste of resources to keep going back and back and doing over again and again.

So I cans ee why they cant/wont keep changing the ending or adding alternate ones, but once again, if they DID, I'd get it regardless, more options are always nice

And who do you think gave Bioware all their feedback? Would you disagree that the rest of ME playerbase would dislike a better ending?

If bioware is like every other gaming company i know they DO browse forums, but they also have more data collecting measures than just forums. Trust me forumites arent always known as the last bastion of good ideas, we DO have good ideas from time to time, but just like with everything else, we have a metric ton of bad ones to boot.

But evens o that doesnt disprove my point in that the forums arent the majority of the people playing ME3, last i checked we didnt have millions of forum users or posters.

[Xellith]

clennon8 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

@3DAndBeyond:
While I feel with you and regret that you cannot take anything satisfying away from the ME series any more, and as a rule I'm always open to new options, I cannot support your plea. Why? Because what you want is an ending with no downside. No, I am not against those as a rule, but in this case, the ending you want would be perceived as canon and immediately invalidate all others in the eyes of a majority. It would unbalance the whole scenario and I know I would dislike that as much as I did the original endings.

What would you want to sacrifice to make this new option balanced with the others?

You are deliriously happy with Synthesis and are on record as saying that you would still pick it even if Destroy had absolutely no drawbacks.  So I'm just going to continue not taking you seriously.

There we go.  Destroy.  Only reapers targetted.  All other races are fine.  The sacrifice?  We get no green wave and nobody becomes cyborgs.  If synthesis is as great as some people believe it to be, then by not choosing synthesis we are making one of the biggest sacriices possible.

There.  Ending fixed. 

(no sarcasm)

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

If they did listen to us they would never of made EC. Just because they don't blindy do what you want does not mean they are not listening to us.

dreman9999, I posted my opinions clearly as my opinions.  I can't control where you post or anything, but I'm going to express the desire here that you not hijack this thread for your black hole discussions. Please.

No, Sorry but I'm not. The very concept of ME is to question what lenghts the player would go to stop the reapers. It was never to give the player option they would like to do.
Did anyone really wanted to abandon a team mate to their death in ME1 orsacrific ether the council or the live of the alliace fleet.
The first game was  advertied as a game where you had to make hard choices...
 
How does the ending choice counter this? It was never stated we get to pick what the choices were.

[MattFini]

saracen16 wrote...

A successful refuse ending would render the entire plot irrelevant.

Not really.  

A successful refuse ending wouldn't invalidate the current endings any more than the current endings already invalidate the Geth/Quarian storyline forged over three games. 

A successful refuse ending would actually create a compelling plot twist; the Crucible was a sketchy reaper trap, and so we refused to fire it and won anyway. That's actually less sloppy than introducing the StarChild in the trilogy's last ten minutes. 

A successful refuse ending would only add more variety to the endings. Hey, we CHOSE to gather every conceivable war asset (including Leviathan) and we won without bending to the AI's will. 

Best of all?  Those of you who really like your pretentious solutions could STILL CHOOSE THEM!  

[Cainne Chapel]

clennon8 wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

A successful refuse ending would render the entire plot irrelevant.

Nah.  That's just silly.  It wouldn't be the first time, by far, where a story has had a protagonist chasing a certain solution only to come up with a different one at the end.

But thats the thing Clennon, a refuse ending where we just won conventionally WOULD be silly.

Especially considering we're slowly losing everything up until the ending, and we suddenly turn the war around in ONE battle and win the war with NO bad consequences? yeah that would make the whole affair a bit MORE space magicky.

That said, I'm not opposed to new endings, and would LOVE to see more options. How I want those options to play out? I dunno but i'm always game to more ME

[robertthebard]

Massa FX wrote...

To Bioware: Please don't ignore this thread. It reflects how a majority of fans feel. Please relent a bit and work with us. ME games mean so much to fans. Don't shut us out.

It won't be "relent a bit", it will be "completely change the end of the game to satisfy us".

Said this before, and I'll throw it here too, adding the Breath scene was probably a bad idea.  We all knew going in that this was the end of Shepard's story.  They should have just left Shepard dead all the way around.  "But Rob, the community would be up in arms", and this would be different how, exactly?  No matter what they do, they can't win.  They fill in some blanks on the ending, and it's too much information, even though there was an uproar about "coming out of nowhere".  Now it's "we can't have our happily ever after", and after that, what?  I mean, it's a never ending line as far as I can see, once they cave on one thing, they'll be forced to continue caving.

The longer this "controversy" goes on, the more I'm starting to think that, despite the fact that I don't like the ending, it's not because it's bad.  Now we're to "I can't force myself to make a moral decision with a character in RPG, because it's too hard".  In support:

Choosing Refusal is bad because it kills everybody we know in game(and we can't get our happily ever after).

Choosing Synthesis is bad because we force a genetic level change on everyone in the galaxy(and we can't get our happily ever after).

Choosing Control is bad because we might turn the Reapers loose on the galaxy at some point down the road, just because we can(and we can't get our happily ever after).

Choosing Destroy is bad because we will kill the Geth(if we saved them) and EDI(even though we don't like her because she's a sexbot now).

I finished up my Leviathan save last night, on one of the two that I had that actually finished the game, and didn't feel compelled to choose anything due to the new content.  This despite the claim that we are being railroaded to choose Synthesis.  I had chosen Destroy, and I chose it again.  It never even occurred to me that it might be wrong, other than my silent "I'm sorry Geth and EDI, but I have to save as many as I can within my own morals".  The fact that these endings are now being bashed for making it too hard to choose one is starting to make me think that maybe they're just really good, even though I don't like them.  I don't like them, I choose to die in London more than I even think about playing them, I die to Marauder Shields and like it.  If the game had initially ended right there, I would have loved it.

[LadyWench]

MattFini wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

A successful refuse ending would render the entire plot irrelevant.

A successful refuse ending wouldn't invalidate the current endings any more than the current endings already invalidate the Geth/Quarian storyline forged over three games. 

A successful refuse ending would actually create a compelling plot twist; the Crucible was a sketchy reaper trap, and so we refused to fire it and won anyway. That's actually less sloppy than introducing the StarChild in the trilogy's last ten minutes.

Best of all?  Those of you who really like your pretentious solutions could STILL CHOOSE THEM!  

So much win in these statements. :happy: 100% agreed.

[Conniving_Eagle]

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

Cainne Chapel wrote...

Well its just silly to believe you speak for the community, or the majority or whatever, forums are NEVER the majority of gamers.

Out of the 10 people i personally know that PLAYED ME3, guess how many are active on forums?

1. Heck even myself i'm only ever active here and maybe a few MMO forums, but thats it and i play a TON of games.

so to think forumites or internet posters are a majority is just silly.

But besides that, I'm always openf or more content from BW. Problem they face is, if they add ANOTHER ending or change the ending more to suit the whims of those still complaining, where does it then end?

What if people arent happy with the NEW ending? What if people want ANOTHER one? and so on.

Its a slippery slope if there ever was one, sometimes they just HAVE to put their foot down in a way. It sucks I know, but at some point it becomes a waste of resources to keep going back and back and doing over again and again.

So I cans ee why they cant/wont keep changing the ending or adding alternate ones, but once again, if they DID, I'd get it regardless, more options are always nice

And who do you think gave Bioware all their feedback? Would you disagree that the rest of ME playerbase would dislike a better ending?

[saracen16]

clennon8 wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

A successful refuse ending would render the entire plot irrelevant.

Nah.  That's just silly.  It wouldn't be the first time, by far, where a story has had a protagonist chasing a certain solution only to come up with a different one at the end.

A plot device rendered irrelevant by the end of the game makes the entire plot irrelevant. It's like using a mystic key that unlocks a door at the far side of the Earth, only to find that you can open it by simply pressing the button that a wheelchair-bound person would use to open any automatic door.

[dreman9999]

clennon8 wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

A successful refuse ending would render the entire plot irrelevant.

Nah.  That's just silly.  It wouldn't be the first time, by far, where a story has had a protagonist chasing a certain solution only to come up with a different one at the end.

Then you missed the pointof this statement. The theme of those stories were gear for that to happen. Not ME.  he very concept of ME was to see what lenghts you would go to stop an unstopple force. Having a way to doit with out hard chices goes ageinst that concept.

[blacqout]

Oh, and just so you know, your opening proposition is fraught with logical fallacies, ranging from but not limited to: appeal to popularity (and some incredibly bizarre boast about having lots of people on an online 'friends list'); false equivalence; and a good old fashioned 'Godwin' was thrown in for good measure.

I have to ask, are you being sincere, or this some kind of satire?

[robertthebard]

MattFini wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

A successful refuse ending would render the entire plot irrelevant.

Not really.  

A successful refuse ending wouldn't invalidate the current endings any more than the current endings already invalidate the Geth/Quarian storyline forged over three games. 

A successful refuse ending would actually create a compelling plot twist; the Crucible was a sketchy reaper trap, and so we refused to fire it and won anyway. That's actually less sloppy than introducing the StarChild in the trilogy's last ten minutes. 

A successful refuse ending would only add more variety to the endings. Hey, we CHOSE to gather every conceivable war asset (including Leviathan) and we won without bending to the AI's will. 

Best of all?  Those of you who really like your pretentious solutions could STILL CHOOSE THEM!  

It would completely invalidate them.  Isn't it odd that Organic vs Synthetic wasn't the point of three games, until you can use it to build an arguement for another ending that you may like better?  This is exactly why BioWare couldn't win with any changes.

[Ghost Pirate LeChuck]

The sad thing is, if you tell the catalyst you reject all options instead of shooting him in the face, the dialogue that follows is brilliant, utterly brilliant. Then everyone dies. Heh, when you think about it, the 'reject' ending really is Casey and Mac sticking two fingers up to the fans.

Сообщение изменено: Ghost Pirate LeChuck, 30 Август 2012 - 05:25 .

[Xellith]

dreman9999 wrote...

No, Sorry but I'm not. The very concept of ME is to question what lenghts the player would go to stop the reapers. It was never to give the player option they would like to do.
Did anyone really wanted to abandon a team mate to their death in ME1 orsacrific ether the council or the live of the alliace fleet.
The first game was  advertied as a game where you had to make hard choices...
 
How does the ending choice counter this? It was never stated we get to pick what the choices were.

Are you ****ing kidding me?

"Did anyone really wanted to abandon a team mate to their death in ME1?"  I always find that decison the most difficult. I always have to ask myself "which one do I like the least?  Why cant I kill them both?"  Really. I dont like Ash or Kaidan. I would gladly sacrifice them both in that mission if the option arose.  But since I can only kill one of them I always kill Kaidan.  Just so I can screw Ash.

"Or sacrfice either the council or the live of the alliance fleet".  Wasnt a hard choice.  Sent in the Alliance.  We wanted to protect the galaxy and now is their chance.

"The first game was advertied as a game where you had to make hard choices..." they lied.

The hardest choice I ever had to make was whether to rewrite the geth or not.

[MattFini]

Ieldra2 wrote...

While I feel with you and regret that you cannot take anything satisfying away from the ME series any more, and as a rule I'm always open to new options, I cannot support your plea. Why? Because what you want is an ending with no downside. No, I am not against those as a rule, but in this case, the ending you want would be perceived as canon and immediately invalidate all others in the eyes of a majority. It would unbalance the whole scenario and I know I would dislike that as much as I did the original endings.

What would you want to sacrifice to make this new option balanced with the others?

Personally speaking, I would take heavy casualties.  

I'm not sure how this mechanic could/would play out, but I would be more than fine with heavy losses - including some of my crew (not sure how this would be determined) and possibly Shepard.

I was never mad that Shepard died.  I'm mad that the endings are anticlimactic. 

I think, if they DID add a refuse option, that you'd suffer severe casualties. Some of your guys wouldn't make it. Having the option to refuse and fight would mean standing on a pile of dead reapers while suffering the potential loss of some of your squadmates.

I'd take it.

[MattFini]

robertthebard wrote...

It would completely invalidate them.  Isn't it odd that Organic vs Synthetic wasn't the point of three games, until you can use it to build an arguement for another ending that you may like better?  This is exactly why BioWare couldn't win with any changes.

I never once said that was the main conflict of the games.  Stop putting words in my mouth.

But it's a subplot that unfolds across three games.  True?

And it's hilariously contradicted by the laughable StarChild ending pre or post EC.