378 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Mr.House wrote...
You can, what he is saying you can delay the IFF to get everyone but Legion loyal and nothing bad happens. What should have happen is after the ship, TIM says he will look for a way to get you a IFF, you then have 5 mission slots. This is your time to get as many peoiple as loyal as you can, then TIM contacts you and you then fly to the dead Reaper to get the IFF. After the IFF mission you have one more mission slot, one that happens the crew get's kidnapped. You can then launch the suicide mission pr continue to get peopel loyal, however oding this will result in most of your crew at the base dead. This would have made the SM more harder in terms of who to assin roles to and not.

Yep. Thanks.

I wasn't being very clear back there. I'm opposed to having a golden ending, and so ME2 letting you have one was a bad thing. For me; YMMV.

Forcing the IFF mission isn't my idea originally -- one of the devs said post-release that he thought they should have done that.

Modifié par AlanC9, 15 septembre 2012 - 10:38 .

[Seival]

ShepnTali wrote...

Help me understand what's wrong with a so called, 'disney' ending

Which is it?

"Disney" ending is for "disney" movies, i.e. silly fairy tales.



ME Trilogy was the true sci-fi from the beginning. Sci-fi genre has its own rules. For example, sci-fi story has to be deep, philosophical, and instructive.

ME is sci-fi, DE:HR is sci-fi, Prey is sci-fi. But something like Star Wars or Star Track aren't sci-fi, they are just action/adventure/political stories with starships and lasers.



...In short, if you like only "disney" endings, then ME is not for you. Try something else.

[Iakus]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Good for a playthrough maybe. After that? Nada. It's the same basic flaw behind the conclusion to the Geth-Quarian conflict: there's a clear right and wrong answer. Shepards who get everyone out alive are competent, those who fail to do so are not.

Moral conflicts? Those never stop being intriguing, assuming the player cares about both outcomes. While I think both Ashley and Kaidan are bland characters, the set-up of choosing between the two was brilliant. Not sure what I would have done if it was between Morrigan and Alistair, my two favorite character. Moral questions indicate that the developer is making the player choose between two things they care about (Ex: Warden's life vs. Alistair's life), something I approve of aside from the Dark Ritual.

So?  That's where role-playing comes in.  Every Shepard doesn't have to be crazy-prepared Shepard.  People are free to mix and match their choices to see what unfolds i teh story.

People deliberately kill off select characters in the Suicide Mission just to see what happens.  And choose what makes "the best story" for them.

Not like ME3's ending where you're basically told by Bioware what the "best story" is (hint:  It doens't invovle blue babies or houses on Rannoch)

[o Ventus]

Seival wrote...

ME Trilogy was the true sci-fi from the beginning. Sci-fi genre has its own rules. For example, sci-fi story has to be deep, philosophical, and instructive.

No it doesn't, just like how not every fantasy story needs to have orcs or elves.

[Linksys17]

because 95% of people believe happy endings are too mainstream oh the delicious irony

[Abraham_uk]

dreman9999 wrote...

Sorry. I'll stop with the pyrimds.

100 quote pyrimids later

Have you considered a career in politics?

[SNascimento]

There is nothing wrong with it, they are just a safe and common way to end something. The problem is people hating the ME3's endings because they are not like that.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

iakus wrote...

1) So?  That's where role-playing comes in.  Every Shepard doesn't have to be crazy-prepared Shepard.  People are free to mix and match their choices to see what unfolds i teh story.

2) People deliberately kill off select characters in the Suicide Mission just to see what happens.  And choose what makes "the best story" for them.

3) Not like ME3's ending where you're basically told by Bioware what the "best story" is (hint:  It doens't invovle blue babies or houses on Rannoch)

1) I  really don't consider role-playing an idiot to be appealing, particularly when Shepard is built up as a competent character.

2) Ignoring of course that killing off certain characters didn't produce the most divergent storylines (the Rachni, Legion), the appeal of tragedy is not merely to see how the story changes. The appeal of Virmire was not merely that there would be differences in ME2 and 3, but more importantly that the game forced me into a dilemma.

3) Better than Bioware telling me the player "hey, you screwed up", as per the Suicide Mission. I'd take the Virmire Scenario any day of the week over the Suicide MIssion. The former is an interesting thought experiment, the latter is as straightforward as algebra.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 15 septembre 2012 - 10:54 .

[Seival]

o Ventus wrote...

Seival wrote...

ME Trilogy was the true sci-fi from the beginning. Sci-fi genre has its own rules. For example, sci-fi story has to be deep, philosophical, and instructive.

No it doesn't, just like how not every fantasy story needs to have orcs or elves.

Orcs and Elves are not "rules". They are races. That's why they are not needed in each fantasy story.

If a story with starships and lasers is not deep, philosophical, and instructive, then it's not a sci-fi. Sci-fi means "Science Fiction", not a "Space Adventure".

[Iakus]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

iakus wrote...

1) So?  That's where role-playing comes in.  Every Shepard doesn't have to be crazy-prepared Shepard.  People are free to mix and match their choices to see what unfolds i teh story.

2) People deliberately kill off select characters in the Suicide Mission just to see what happens.  And choose what makes "the best story" for them.

3) Not like ME3's ending where you're basically told by Bioware what the "best story" is (hint:  It doens't invovle blue babies or houses on Rannoch)

1) I  really don't consider role-playing an idiot to be appealing, particularly when Shepard is built up as a competent character.

2) Ignoring of course that killing off certain characters didn't produce the most divergent storylines (the Rachni, Legion), the appeal of tragedy is not merely to see how the story changes. The appeal of Virmire was not merely that there would be differences in ME2 and 3, but more importantly that the game forced me into a dilemma.

3) Better than Bioware telling me the player "hey, you screwed up", as per the Suicide Mission. I'd take the Virmire Scenario any day of the week over the Suicide MIssion. The former is an interesting thought experiment, the latter is as straightforward as algebra.

1) Shepard may not be an idiot.  But can make mistakes.  

2 That's on Bioware for making choices meaningless

3 Shepard doesn't have to die to save Ashley or Kaidan.  All the ending chocie in ME3 pretty much require SHepard's death.  

[BaladasDemnevanni]

iakus wrote...

1) Shepard may not be an idiot.  But can make mistakes.  

2 That's on Bioware for making choices meaningless

3 Shepard doesn't have to die to save Ashley or Kaidan.  All the ending chocie in ME3 pretty much require SHepard's death.  

1) Mistakes make him an idiot, particularly with how the Suicide Mission is set up. It's hard to buy the whole mistake argument if I have to pretend that Jacob is an acceptable Biotic candidate when I also brought along two biotic specialists for the job.

2) It's still beside the point. The appeal of a moral dilemma is not simply to see "what might happen".  I'm just pointing out that what might happen in ME3's case isn't significant. The appeal of moral dilemmas is recognizing that the player is at a crossroads where they have to make an impossible decision. I prefer that games focus on implementing gray solutions than clear examples of correct/incorrect.

3)  Shepard's death is not the key point of the argument. You stated earlier that the game should not "force tragedy". I would regard the death of a companion character (assuming the player likes them) as tragic, even if you choose the companion. Hence my point that scenarios like Virmire (which demand tragedy) are far more interesting than scenarios like the Suicide Mission which is exceptionally easy to figure out and even if not straightforward, loses all dramatic tension once you know the relevant variables. The fear of the unknown is what gave the SM it's power.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 15 septembre 2012 - 11:12 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Seival wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Seival wrote...

ME Trilogy was the true sci-fi from the beginning. Sci-fi genre has its own rules. For example, sci-fi story has to be deep, philosophical, and instructive.

No it doesn't, just like how not every fantasy story needs to have orcs or elves.

Orcs and Elves are not "rules". They are races. That's why they are not needed in each fantasy story.

Are you deliberately avoiding the point? Elves and orcs are incredibly common elements in fantasy stories, as much as aliens, robots, and going in to space in sci-fi. They're tropes of the genre, and they aren't required to make a decent story. 

If a story with starships and lasers is not deep, philosophical, and instructive, then it's not a sci-fi. Sci-fi means "Science Fiction", not a "Space Adventure".

Never seen so much bullsh*t in my life. I certainly wouldn't label Mass Effect science fiction under this rule. 

[o Ventus]

Seival wrote...

Orcs and Elves are not "rules". They are races. That's why they are not needed in each fantasy story.

If a story with starships and lasers is not deep, philosophical, and instructive, then it's not a sci-fi. Sci-fi means "Science Fiction", not a "Space Adventure".

Wow. Never in my life have I seen somebody miss the point so severely. May Zardoz have mercy on your soul.

Though I would love to know who appointed you the pope on what does and doesn't constitute "science fiction".

Science = a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. In short: the general building of information. See: biology, physics, chemistry, etc.

Fiction = any narrative work that deals with information or events that are not factual, but rather, imaginary and/or theoretical. See: Alice in Wonderland, Lord of the Rings, etc.

In neither of those 2 decriptions is there an arbitrary criterion that mandates discussion of philosophical or moral topics.

[Iakus]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

1) Mistakes make him an idiot, particularly with how the Suicide Mission is set up. It's hard to buy the whole mistake argument if I have to pretend that Jacob is an acceptable Biotic candidate when I also brought along two biotic specialists for the job.

2) It's still beside the point. The appeal of a moral dilemma is not simply to see "what might happen".  I'm just pointing out that what might happen in ME3's case isn't significant. The appeal of moral dilemmas is recognizing that the player is at a crossroads where they have to make an impossible decision. I prefer that games focus on implementing gray solutions than clear examples of correct/incorrect.

3)  Shepard's death is not the key point of the argument. You stated earlier that the game should not "force tragedy". I would regard the death of a companion character (assuming the player likes them) as tragic, even if you choose the companion. Hence my point that scenarios like Virmire (which demand tragedy) are far more interesting than scenarios like the Suicide Mission which is exceptionally easy to figure out and even if not straightforward, loses all dramatic tension once you know the relevant variables. The fear of the unknown is what gave the SM it's power.

1) Depends on the mistake.  Jacob sure.  Miranda claims to be a strong biotic though.  Garrus has also been known to die running the vents.  But this is getting into ME2 territory.

2) The appeal of making a choice is seeing what the consequences of that choice are.  SO yes it is "to see what might happen"  Putting the player in a quandary is to make them think about the possible positive and negative repercussions.  If Bioware fails to provide those repercussions, that's on them,

3) The point of this arguement is what's wrong with a "disney" ending.  Typically, that derogatory comment comes around whenever people argue that Shepard should be able to survive (not just hinted at surviving) the choice at the end of ME3.    I strongly believe it should at least be possible.  You'll notice I have not mentioned EDI, the geth, the Reapers, or any other group in the galaxy regarding the chocies.  

You said yourself the Suicide Mission loses all dramatic tension once you know the variable.  Well, I know th variables of ME3:  Shepard's not getting off the CItadel alive.  Where's the dramatic tension there?

Modifié par iakus, 15 septembre 2012 - 11:50 .

[ShepnTali]

Seival wrote...

ShepnTali wrote...

Help me understand what's wrong with a so called, 'disney' ending

Which is it?

"Disney" ending is for "disney" movies, i.e. silly fairy tales.



ME Trilogy was the true sci-fi from the beginning. Sci-fi genre has its own rules. For example, sci-fi story has to be deep, philosophical, and instructive.

ME is sci-fi, DE:HR is sci-fi, Prey is sci-fi. But something like Star Wars or Star Track aren't sci-fi, they are just action/adventure/political stories with starships and lasers.



...In short, if you like only "disney" endings, then ME is not for you. Try something else.

The sci fi mumbo jumbo aside, only "disney" endings? Where do you get that idea.

And this is odd coming from someone who thinks a 'brilliant' addition as DLC, would be an additional 5 hours of gameplay as the LI who would hook up with Shepard once again if he survived the destroy ending. Shepard out of the rubble is exactly all the disney most people (not happy with ambiguity) are looking for.

What's the beef here? 

[Ticonderoga117]

Seival wrote...
"Disney" ending is for "disney" movies, i.e. silly fairy tales.

ME Trilogy was the true sci-fi from the beginning. Sci-fi genre has its own rules. For example, sci-fi story has to be deep, philosophical, and instructive.

ME is sci-fi, DE:HR is sci-fi, Prey is sci-fi. But something like Star Wars or Star Track aren't sci-fi, they are just action/adventure/political stories with starships and lasers.

...In short, if you like only "disney" endings, then ME is not for you. Try something else.

Hold the phone!
Here are the reasons why you are wrong here:
1) Because you're "defintiion" of SciFi is crap. Utter. Crap.

However, let's use YOUR rules:
Here's why you're wrong.
Again.
And again.
And again.

So, I bet you've only watched the movies, and generally the older ones still conveyed something akin to your rules, so kindly please stop saying nonsense.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

But there is a Disney ending. It's called Synthesis. See how EDI is alive and no longer alone. She is happy. Everyone carries a piece of Shepard in their hearts: even the reapers carry a piece of Shepard.

[AresKeith]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

But there is a Disney ending. It's called Synthesis. See how EDI is alive and no longer alone. She is happy. Everyone carries a piece of Shepard in their hearts: even the reapers carry a piece of Shepard.

the plants has a piece of Shepard too

[FlamingBoy]

there was not anything wrong with it

it was just an attack by bioware and co (ign, ea, gamespot, ect) to imply that all me3 fans were unreasonable and stupid, there were a multitude of buzz words as the result of the controversies surrounding me3, such as the entitlement, entitled gamer (a ridiculous concept), artistic integrity, among others

[Bill Casey]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

But there is a Disney ending. It's called Synthesis.

Don't insult Disney like that...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 16 septembre 2012 - 01:15 .

[ghost9191]

well depending on how you look at it, synthesis can be happy for some, as can control. destroy is kinda also, but i just assume you mean a ending where shep lives, state of the galaxy they are happy enough. but if you mean shep lives happy ending then destroy is half way there

[ghost9191]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

But there is a Disney ending. It's called Synthesis. See how EDI is alive and no longer alone. She is happy. Everyone carries a piece of Shepard in their hearts: even the reapers carry a piece of Shepard.

[shepskisaac]

Nothing wrong with Disney endings. As long as you don't go on an anti-Bioware crusade just because you didn't get Disney ending and let's be honest. This was (and still is) the main reason for opposing the current endings for many people.

[Iakus]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

But there is a Disney ending. It's called Synthesis. See how EDI is alive and no longer alone. She is happy. Everyone carries a piece of Shepard in their hearts: even the reapers carry a piece of Shepard.

Oh relax kids, I've got a gut feeling Shepard's around here somewhere hahahahaha, after all isn't there a little Shepard in all of us?  Hahahaha... hahaha, in fact, you might even say we just ate Shepard, and he's in our stomachs... right now!  AHAHAHAHAHAHA!... Wait, scratch that one. 

[Iakus]

IsaacShep wrote...

Nothing wrong with Disney endings. As long as you don't go on an anti-Bioware crusade just because you didn't get Disney ending and let's be honest. This was (and still is) the main reason for opposing the current endings for many people.

Five years and three games, at least one or two "happy endings" should have been an option.