6432 réponses à ce sujet

[Warrior Craess]

dreman9999 wrote...

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.

Which is your interpretation of the game. The beauty of ME was that it involved the players in ways that most other games fail to do. Becuase of this involvement no ones interpretation of the "theme" of ME is incorrect. This is where I see those of you that support the endings and EC as failing to understand the rest of us.  We do not feel as if the theme makes sense, and we're asking for optional DLC that would change it for us. 

Yes, the DLC would be available for everyone. However much like those people who are not buying the Levi DLC, if you don't want the endings changed, you don't actually have to do anything. Just leave the game as it is. It's those of us that want changes that would have to persue the DLC, and to download it.

[Xellith]

AlanC9 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

The destroy end is an issue of morality vs logic. Choosing it doesn't mean we can't coexsist with synthetics. People would pick it no matter what race it killed. Choosing it mean we a will to go to any lenghts to kill the reapers.

Thought experiment: Destroy works differently. It only kills Reapers. However, the uncontrolled energy release causes the Citadel relay to detonate. Earth and 80-90% of the human race are wiped out, along with Wrex and a bunch of the ME2 squadmates.

Do people still pick it?

Yes.

[MattFini]

Stornskar wrote...

I don't see anything they could do at this point that would rekindle my interest, as those two components are integral to the story now. And that's a shame, because this is one of my favorite franchises ever ...

I don't know.  Refusing to accept him, and fighting back to win would be pretty satisfying. 

[Conniving_Eagle]

I don't see why an ending with no stupid forced sacrafice is bad. Destroy is already the most popular with people headcanoning Shepard surviving and getting an LI reunion, and the relays getting fixed.

Synthesis supporters can still pick Synthesis, since it's inevitable.

[dreman9999]

MattFini wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

So ME is not about stopping a race of machines that are invading the galexy?

Yeah.  That's the underlying conflict of the series.  I never said it wasn't.

But "stopping a race of machines that are invading the galaxy" isn't a theme.  

The theme of the ME trilogy on the whole was consistently "victory through diveristy" more than it was ever "organics vs. synthetics".

In your final dialogues with StarChild, however, the game suddenly asks us to swallow that this was always the theme.  And that synthetics will always destory og- blah blah blah, you get the idea.

And refusing to use the crucible, and beating the reapers with a 100% united galaxy would be more fitting to the overall theme of the trilogy. That's parlty why everything about StarChild rubs people the wrong way. 

No , that is not the theme. The them of mass effect is what lenghts the player is will to go to stop an unstopable force.
Saying that it's victory through diversity is to implay the actions of the story is lenght....It's not.  I can kill off the geth or used them as pawns  to later destory. I can trick the krogans to help me. I can just use everyone a pawns to be later thrown away an still beat the reapers. All that matter is if the action I do ensures there defeat, it does not matter how. You looking at the theme on a way too paragon view. Look at it both pragon and renegade.

[AlanC9]

Xellith wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Thought experiment: Destroy works differently. It only kills Reapers. However, the uncontrolled energy release causes the Citadel relay to detonate. Earth and 80-90% of the human race are wiped out, along with Wrex and a bunch of the ME2 squadmates.

Do people still pick it?

Yes.

Should have played myself. I'd be substantially more likely to pick this than the existing Destroy.

[dreman9999]

Warrior Craess wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

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.

Which is your interpretation of the game. The beauty of ME was that it involved the players in ways that most other games fail to do. Becuase of this involvement no ones interpretation of the "theme" of ME is incorrect. This is where I see those of you that support the endings and EC as failing to understand the rest of us.  We do not feel as if the theme makes sense, and we're asking for optional DLC that would change it for us. 

Yes, the DLC would be available for everyone. However much like those people who are not buying the Levi DLC, if you don't want the endings changed, you don't actually have to do anything. Just leave the game as it is. It's those of us that want changes that would have to persue the DLC, and to download it.

That is not just my interpritation of the game. This is literal. Has it accured to you that there is more then one way to get the assets need to beat the reapers. I have many ways to get it, both that can be seen morilty good or bad. If  do just moraly bad ways to get the assits, I still beat the reapers. If i just do morily good ways to get the assits...I still beat the reapers.

What does that mean?

[clennon8]

AlanC9 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

The destroy end is an issue of morality vs logic. Choosing it doesn't mean we can't coexsist with synthetics. People would pick it no matter what race it killed. Choosing it mean we a will to go to any lenghts to kill the reapers.

Thought experiment: Destroy works differently. It only kills Reapers. However, the uncontrolled energy release causes the Citadel relay to detonate. Earth and 80-90% of the human race are wiped out, along with Wrex and a bunch of the ME2 squadmates. Normandy and the rest of the fleets FTL out and are safe.

Do people still pick it?

Yep.  You're going to have go much further than that before I start considering the other options.

[LadyWench]

dreman9999 wrote...

LadyWench wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

LadyWench wrote...

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.

Do you understand how wrong he is? Destory dod not invalived te geth /quarian story line. The geth /quarian story line is a conflict based on morality. Both sides think they are right and nether wants to back down...More so the quarians. You bring logic to the conflict to stop it.
The destroy end is an issue of morality vs logic. Choosing it doesn't mean we can't coexsist with synthetics. People would pick it no matter what race it killed. Choosing it mean we a will to go to any lenghts to kill the reapers.

*sigh* He said "the current endings," (meaning ALL of them, thematically
and plotwise, as they are presented) not just the Destroy ending. That
is completely different from how you are interpreting and then arguing
it.

How does control and synthsis choice even begin to invalidate the geth /quarian choice? 

Makers breath! Your train of thought on this is very narrow and you're asking it backwards, but I will try to answer your question anyway:
The argument of the Catalst was that the ENTIRE premise of the cycles of harvesting are cemented in the idea that organics and synthetics CANNOT CO-EXIST PEACEFULLY. This has implications that retroactively recolor the whooooole ME series, all the deaths and Reapers, it all comes down to robots and fleshies will NEVAAAAR be friends. Despite the fact that Shep can have, you know, synthetic friends.
First of all, Control is NOT getting along. It's called brainwashing and they are only swapping out one dictator for another.
Second, besides the fact that Synthesis is fake MAGIC the way they describe it (and also, why do I have to jump into the beam? Why can't Shep donate some blood or hair for the DNA? Anyways...), it is forcing a genetic change on everyone and, frankly, doesn't even guarantee that people will get along. It just ASSUMES that everyone will now be linked and cuz we have both circuits and meaty bits in common, that there will be no more misunderstandings and therefore an end to all war. Guess Catalyst doesn't remember Leviathan after all these years.

ALL of these endings go against the whole "build your army to win!" attitude of all the rest of the game(s). Synthesis in particular flies in the face of the DIVERSITY = BEST message that was also an obvious emphasis, even in ME3 up until the very last 15 minutes. Why build allies at all if a conventional victory was NEVER actually on the table? And none of these make the plot-god any less ridiculous.

And for the record, I will choose destroy every time if a "conventional" victory without using the (stupid ****in') crucible isn't an option. It IS a hard choice and it pains me that my Shep reuniting the Geth and Quarians was pointlessly short-lived, but it does what it was meant to do--STOP the Reapers and rid the galaxy of them once and for all. The crucible and catalyst are too suspect in my book to do it any other way.

Modifié par LadyWench, 30 août 2012 - 06:06 .

[MattFini]

dreman9999 wrote...

No , that is not the theme. The them of mass effect is what lenghts the player is will to go to stop an unstopable force.
Saying that it's victory through diversity is to implay the actions of the story is lenght....It's not.  I can kill off the geth or used them as pawns  to later destory. I can trick the krogans to help me. I can just use everyone a pawns to be later thrown away an still beat the reapers. All that matter is if the action I do ensures there defeat, it does not matter how. You looking at the theme on a way too paragon view. Look at it both pragon and renegade.

And you're looking at it through ME3-only.

But go back to the first game.  You recruit a team of aliens and you get nothing but grief for it.  In the end you perserve no matter your choices.

Same for ME2.  How do you survive a suicide mission?  By recruiting a widespread group of different races and specialties. In the end, you're either successful because you came together and gained their trust - or you die horribly because you didn't.  

In both games it's that diveristy that helps you succeed, no matter your choices.

And the same with ME3.  What are you doing for the entire damn game?  You're uniting the galaxy.  Even if you let the geth or quarians die, or if you sabotage the genophage or not, you're still bringing species together for the greater good.  

That's a uniform theme flowing through three narratives. 

Until of course the final ten minutes of Mass Effect 3. 

So, with that in mind and trying to stay relevant to this thread, a more thematically fitting ending would've been to refuse the StarChild.  Then, depending on your choices, you have varied success in your fight. 

  

[PuppiesOfDeath2]

dreman9999 wrote...

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.

This game was advertised as "Take Earth Back."  We didn't get to do that.  We were placed into a forced bargain with the Star Kid.  The results don't allow you to "take" anything.  But all of that is a digression.

The point of this thread is a plea to BioWare to give players a choice that is not morally repulsive and that doesn't rob a number of devoted players of an opportunity to prevail with dignity, along with your friends. 

I know that the number of disgruntled players is very, very large.  What BioWare risks in not addressing these issues is its uniqueness as a developer. 

[Applepie_Svk]

OP: Well said pal, but unfortunately for us we will be only another whiners and complainers which didn´t appreciate the art.

Yes, yes they were listening, though not my kind of guys but some EMO guys which love to cut their own steams...

[ATiBotka]

PuppiesOfDeath2 wrote...

The point of this thread is a plea to BioWare to give players a choice that is not morally repulsive and that doesn't rob a number of devoted players of an opportunity to prevail with dignity, along with your friends. 

You people can't make hard choices.

[JPR1964]

It seems to me that most of the people who choose Destroy it's just because Sheppard can survive and "bang" his LI later later : they overlook the fact that they genocide an entire race doing that... And just this, nullify the destroy option as real moral choive...

I can understand them anyway...

JPR out!

[The Charnel Expanse]

Or you could just, you know, find another game to play.
They're not going to be able to make a game that everyone is satisfied with because the issues with the writing go deeper than just the ending.
I think the EC came out the way it did because short of rewriting the entire script going back to the Mars mission and the introduction of the Crucible as a plot device, they're not going to be able to come up with a non-Crucible-centric ending.

Do you regret wasting as much time you did writing that OP? Because I sure regret wasting the time I spent reading it.

[Sky651]

I agree OP.

I think(hope) that when all is said and done, aka all DLC, we will be able to win through refusal.

[Warrior Craess]

dreman9999 wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

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.

Which is your interpretation of the game. The beauty of ME was that it involved the players in ways that most other games fail to do. Becuase of this involvement no ones interpretation of the "theme" of ME is incorrect. This is where I see those of you that support the endings and EC as failing to understand the rest of us.  We do not feel as if the theme makes sense, and we're asking for optional DLC that would change it for us. 

Yes, the DLC would be available for everyone. However much like those people who are not buying the Levi DLC, if you don't want the endings changed, you don't actually have to do anything. Just leave the game as it is. It's those of us that want changes that would have to persue the DLC, and to download it.

That is not just my interpritation of the game. This is literal. Has it accured to you that there is more then one way to get the assets need to beat the reapers. I have many ways to get it, both that can be seen morilty good or bad. If  do just moraly bad ways to get the assits, I still beat the reapers. If i just do morily good ways to get the assits...I still beat the reapers.

What does that mean?

lol do you understand what literal is? or what interpretation is? the concepts are mutually exclusive. 

Literal, the game has choices. In the end effect (especially with the game as written) these choices mean nothing. There is no real change to the outcome of the game.  You may as well flip a coin for all that it matters.

Interpretation, why we make those choices. What those choices mean to US the players. How we perceive the game and it's interactions. 

Taken literally this game offers nothing more than CoD, GoW or any other FPS. You may as well have played it with out any decision making options (hey that style of play was actually supported wasn't it?).

Interpretively this game is head and shoulders above those FPS games. Not because there are choices, those are nothing more than the mechanism allowing us to make interpretations. But because it allows, and invokes those interpretations on a personal level. 

[clennon8]

ATiBotka wrote...

PuppiesOfDeath2 wrote...

The point of this thread is a plea to BioWare to give players a choice that is not morally repulsive and that doesn't rob a number of devoted players of an opportunity to prevail with dignity, along with your friends. 

You people can't make hard choices.

I chose Destroy.  And then I chose not to spend another dime on ME3.  Those were sort of hard choices, I guess.

[PuppiesOfDeath2]

ATiBotka wrote...

PuppiesOfDeath2 wrote...

The point of this thread is a plea to BioWare to give players a choice that is not morally repulsive and that doesn't rob a number of devoted players of an opportunity to prevail with dignity, along with your friends. 

You people can't make hard choices.

Not true.  You make lots of hard choices in the trilogy.  People don't dislike the endings because they "can't make hard choices."  People don't like the endings because the things that made them invest so much in the entire trilogy are taken from them at the end.  Don't blithely dismiss their feelings as being the result of some character flaw.

It isn't.

[Dragoonlordz]

Here's my plea to Bioware.

Do not do any more ending DLC, all remaining DLC should be for those who enjoy the game not spending all your time and money trying to please people who still hate it after EC. I do not want a pew pew fight with Harbinger and conventional victory is a big NO. Refuse ending should always equal loss not win.

Thanks

Lucky me, it looks like Bioware agree's with me.

I said it before and will say it again, Bioware make games they want to make and hope you enjoy them. This does not equal you have to enjoy everything they make and they are not required to fulfill your every desire in every title they make.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 30 août 2012 - 06:04 .

[JPR1964]

ATiBotka wrote...

PuppiesOfDeath2 wrote...

The point of this thread is a plea to BioWare to give players a choice that is not morally repulsive and that doesn't rob a number of devoted players of an opportunity to prevail with dignity, along with your friends. 

You people can't make hard choices.

For me, there is only one choice, done in the EC : the refusal... But it's so poorly done... The others are non revelant IMO, Synthesis being the worst : moraly, logically and evolution wise...

JPR out!

Modifié par JPR1964, 30 août 2012 - 06:02 .

[JPR1964]

The Charnel Expanse wrote...

Or you could just, you know, find another game to play.
They're not going to be able to make a game that everyone is satisfied with because the issues with the writing go deeper than just the ending.
I think the EC came out the way it did because short of rewriting the entire script going back to the Mars mission and the introduction of the Crucible as a plot device, they're not going to be able to come up with a non-Crucible-centric ending.

Do you regret wasting as much time you did writing that OP? Because I sure regret wasting the time I spent reading it.

you can always move to read something else no?

JPR out!

Modifié par JPR1964, 30 août 2012 - 06:02 .

[ATiBotka]

JPR1964 wrote...

ATiBotka wrote...

PuppiesOfDeath2 wrote...

The point of this thread is a plea to BioWare to give players a choice that is not morally repulsive and that doesn't rob a number of devoted players of an opportunity to prevail with dignity, along with your friends. 

You people can't make hard choices.

For me, there is only one choice, done in the EC : the refusal... But it's so poorly done... The others are non revelant IMO, Synthesis being the worst : moraly, logically and evolution wise...

JPR out!

What's the problem with refuse?

[dreman9999]

LadyWench wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

LadyWench wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

LadyWench wrote...

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.

Do you understand how wrong he is? Destory dod not invalived te geth /quarian story line. The geth /quarian story line is a conflict based on morality. Both sides think they are right and nether wants to back down...More so the quarians. You bring logic to the conflict to stop it.
The destroy end is an issue of morality vs logic. Choosing it doesn't mean we can't coexsist with synthetics. People would pick it no matter what race it killed. Choosing it mean we a will to go to any lenghts to kill the reapers.

*sigh* He said "the current endings," (meaning ALL of them, thematically
and plotwise, as they are presented) not just the Destroy ending. That
is completely different from how you are interpreting and then arguing
it.

How does control and synthsis choice even begin to invalidate the geth /quarian choice? 

Makers breath! Your train of thought on this is very narrow and you're asking it backwards, but I will try to answer your question anyway at the risk of a headache:
The argument of the Catalst was that the ENTIRE premise of the cycles of harvesting are cemented in the idea that organics and synthetics CANNOT CO-EXIST. This has implications that retroactively recolor the whooooole ME series, all the deaths and Reapers, it all comes down to robots and fleshies will NEVAAAAR be friends.
First of all, Control is NOT getting along. It's called brainwashing and they are only swapping out one dictator for another.
Second, besides the fact that Synthesis is fake MAGIC the way they describe it (and also, why do I have to jump into the beam? Why can't Shep donate some blood or hair for the DNA? Anyways...), it is forcing a genetic change on everyone and, frankly, doesn't even guarantee that people will get along. It just ASSUMES that everyone will now be linked and cuz we have circuits and meaty bits in common, that there will be no more war. Guess Catalyst doesn't remember Leviathan after all these years.

ALL of these endings go against the whole "build your army to win!" attitude of all the rest of the game(s). And none of these make the plot-god any less ridiculous.

And for the record, I will choose destroy every time if a "conventional" victory without using the (stupid ****in') crucible isn't an option.

That is not waht the catalyst is saying. He said their will alway be conflictwith organics  and synthetics. Not that they can't coexist The catalyst issue is that he wnts an absolute solution. A perfect solution.
The results of the geth/quarian conflict does not mean that conflict can't happen later. Anyone can say they are together now because of the reaper conflict. Nothing garuntees that the peace will last later on.

How do you not get that the catalyst is a being that is only satisfied when it contrls everything. Add that it just a machine doing what it is told. It wants perfection and will not stop till it get it...Get a Clu....(Tron:legacy referance.)

The problem here is that organics cause the problm because they enslave synthetics with programing and try to force the syntetic to be slaves. Thecatalyst understood that and went to impose on to orgainc think by cahnging them to a new form of life, a reaper....But it was imperfect and he keep looking to improve it. The fact that the results ofth egeth /quarian conflict is  ont garunteed to last is all the info it need to reap them. The catalyst wants a perfect solution that is 100% garunteed.

[The Charnel Expanse]

JPR1964 wrote...

The Charnel Expanse wrote...

Or you could just, you know, find another game to play.
They're not going to be able to make a game that everyone is satisfied with because the issues with the writing go deeper than just the ending.
I think the EC came out the way it did because short of rewriting the entire script going back to the Mars mission and the introduction of the Crucible as a plot device, they're not going to be able to come up with a non-Crucible-centric ending.

Do you regret wasting as much time you did writing that OP? Because I sure regret wasting the time I spent reading it.

you can always move to read something else no?

JPR out!

touché