247 réponses à ce sujet

[LucasShark]

I don't get it: why do some people put it out there that "no one ending can be better than any other!"

The main reason put forward is that it would "make certain choices wrong".  Well I've got news: that was the case in ME2.

If you chose to launch your mission before you were ready, that was a bad choice, and the game punished you for it.  If you chose to leave your crew to die, that was a dick move, and the game told you so.  If you used your squad poorly, that was a bad move, and the game punished you for it.

For a generally grim game, ME3 really doesn't seem to like this particular idea.

This of course factors into the ending, and why all 3 endings were/are so very samey.  And why we never see our war assets in action.  It is basically insulated from all choices we could make, besides the EMS score.

Why were our choices not used?  Think about it: this would have been the series-long equivelant of upgrading the Normandy, or gaining crew loyalty.  You kill the rachni?  Well then there are no ravagers, but you get none of their help.  The rachni are spared: ravagers, but you get a massive space force.  One is short-term gain, the other is overall gain. 

I know this would mean a very limited type of choice set-up would get the "best" ending, but that makes sense!  A perfect storm of events needs to occur to get the best-case scenario.

I always thought of ME as a "choose your own adventure book" as it were, and you know how many not so great endings were in those books generally?  Answer: a lot.

[Taboo]

Because "best case scenario" in this instance is western romanticism.

"Best Case Scenario" in this instance refers to how you deal with the Reaper threat and what the galaxy will look like post war.

I have a free galaxy in my ending. And a living Shepard ready to help rebuild. Surely this is my best case scenario?



The endings are TERRIBLE but I refuse to make something out of them that isn't there.

[Pantanplan]

Because a lot of people mistake grimdark stories for realistic stories. I would love a perfect ending, as long as it was difficult to obtain.

[Vigilant111]

Of course there is, its called synthesis and it is officially endorsed by EMS

[Ozida]

Pantanplan wrote...
 I would love a perfect ending, as long as it was difficult to obtain.

+1

[Taboo]

Vigilant111 wrote...

Of course there is, its called synthesis and it is officially endorsed by EMS

The Breathe Scene and Shepard surviving has the highest requirement. Even in the EC...

[David7204]

Don't care. Not good enough.

[His Name was HYR!!]

Pantanplan wrote...

Because a lot of people mistake grimdark stories for realistic stories. I would love a perfect ending, as long as it was difficult to obtain.

I value the final decision for being a hard one. I play to be challenged on more than just a "video game" level, but also on an intellectual and emotional one, and I've shelved many a video game for failing to do so.

If you let players just have their cake and eat it in the end, it seizes to be a hard choice, but a stupid mini-game.


I agree with the OP though on some level, they should have had more choice/consequence than just what they reserved for the ending, like the rachni thing.

[Dragoonlordz]

There has been vast amounts of reasons given as to why certain ideas regarding peoples subjective individual "best endings" should not happen. I find it odd that your do not know this, or maybe you do and just refuse to acknowledge their reasons out of stubborness. You may have your reasons why your personal idea of best ending should happen and others have reasons why your interpretation should not. Also take into account for many people they got their own best endings and "best" is very much personal preference between different people with different desires as what would want to see.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 23 septembre 2012 - 05:08 .

[Vigilant111]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

Of course there is, its called synthesis and it is officially endorsed by EMS

The Breathe Scene and Shepard surviving has the highest requirement. Even in the EC...

Well, isn't synthesis the ENDING that requires the most EMS compared to other ENDINGS?

[LucasShark]

Pantanplan wrote...

Because a lot of people mistake grimdark stories for realistic stories. I would love a perfect ending, as long as it was difficult to obtain.

As I've said many times: prettysure this game abbandoned what little realism ME2 had left...

[Taboo]

Vigilant111 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

Of course there is, its called synthesis and it is officially endorsed by EMS

The Breathe Scene and Shepard surviving has the highest requirement. Even in the EC...

Well, isn't synthesis the ENDING that requires the most EMS compared to other ENDINGS?

No. The Best Version of Destroy is unlocked at 3100.

Synthesis is at 2800.

[LucasShark]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Pantanplan wrote...

Because a lot of people mistake grimdark stories for realistic stories. I would love a perfect ending, as long as it was difficult to obtain.

I value the final decision for being a hard one. I play to be challenged on more than just a "video game" level, but also on an intellectual and emotional one, and I've shelved many a video game for failing to do so.

If you let players just have their cake and eat it in the end, it seizes to be a hard choice, but a stupid mini-game.


I agree with the OP though on some level, they should have had more choice/consequence than just what they reserved for the ending, like the rachni thing.

Except this isn't an intellectual challenge: it's steeped in pseudo-intelectualism, nothing more.

This is why the entire mess is based on its own logical falicy, because it was never planned to exist in the first place.  As of ME1 and ME2, the Reapers were akin to the joker: they weren't complicated, because the story really wasn't about them.

[ShepnTali]

The final choice isn't hard. You pick the one you want.

[LucasShark]

ShepnTali wrote...

The final choice isn't hard. You pick the one you want.

Hence why they were so simillar in terms of actual content and why poeople debate why each is "the best".

This is a pretty cheap way of making yourself (as a writer) look a lot smarter than you are.  To the casual observer, it looks as though this was planned all along and has some kind of deep thematic meaning... where as in reality it does not.

[His Name was HYR!!]

LucasShark wrote...

Except this isn't an intellectual challenge: it's steeped in pseudo-intelectualism, nothing more.

This is why the entire mess is based on its own logical falicy, because it was never planned to exist in the first place.  As of ME1 and ME2, the Reapers were akin to the joker: they weren't complicated, because the story really wasn't about them.

You're confusing the final decision with the Reapers themselves.

And no, ME1 was about them. ME2 was not, but that was its failing. The Reapers' menace effectively died with that game when they became trash-talking clowns that you continually defeated and made look stupid.

[His Name was HYR!!]

ShepnTali wrote...

The final choice isn't hard. You pick the one you want.

If it wasn't hard, you would have so many people crying about how they can't get out without a perfect ending.

Try again. 

[LucasShark]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

Except this isn't an intellectual challenge: it's steeped in pseudo-intelectualism, nothing more.

This is why the entire mess is based on its own logical falicy, because it was never planned to exist in the first place.  As of ME1 and ME2, the Reapers were akin to the joker: they weren't complicated, because the story really wasn't about them.

You're confusing the final decision with the Reapers themselves.

And no, ME1 was about them. ME2 was not, but that was its failing. The Reapers' menace effectively died with that game when they became trash-talking clowns that you continually defeated and made look stupid.

ME2 was precisely as "about the reapers" as ME1 was, almost not at all.  The focus of the story as on the characters, not the force they opposed.

[LucasShark]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

ShepnTali wrote...

The final choice isn't hard. You pick the one you want.

If it wasn't hard, you would have so many people crying about how they can't get out without a perfect ending.

Try again. 

*cough* strawman *cough*

[AlanC9]

LucasShark wrote...

This is why the entire mess is based on its own logical falicy, because it was never planned to exist in the first place.  As of ME1 and ME2, the Reapers were akin to the joker: they weren't complicated, because the story really wasn't about them.

The problem with that analogy is that a single irrational lunatic is one thing, but an entire race of space lunatics inflicting their organized lunacy on the galaxy for millions of years is quite another.

In retrospect, mixing Lovecraftian horror (where things can't be explained) and sci-fi ( where they can) was a terrible mistake.

[Eryri]

LucasShark wrote...

I don't get it: why do some people put it out there that "no one ending can be better than any other!"

The main reason put forward is that it would "make certain choices wrong".  Well I've got news: that was the case in ME2.

Yes! Agreed. 

As one of the tin-foil hatted (and proud of it) IT brigade, it always annoys me when people say that IT can't be true because that would make control or synthesis the loser "indoctrinated endings". This would therefore "invalidate their choice" to become God-Emperor of the galaxy or turn everyone into green-eyed zombies.

Even if Shepard really is on the citadel, and the choice really does work as advertised (including the ridiculous synthesis abomination ) you are still agreeing with those certified nutbags TIM or Saren if you choose control or synthesis respectively.

In order for ME3 to be a game it has to be possible to lose it. They already got rid of a final boss. Post EC - all endings seem to be wins - insipid though they are. If there are no winners or losers, what's the point of playing?

[LucasShark]

AlanC9 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

This is why the entire mess is based on its own logical falicy, because it was never planned to exist in the first place.  As of ME1 and ME2, the Reapers were akin to the joker: they weren't complicated, because the story really wasn't about them.

The problem with that analogy is that a single irrational lunatic is one thing, but an entire race of space lunatics inflicting their organized lunacy on the galaxy for millions of years is quite another.
In retrospect, mixing Lovecraftian horror (where things can't be explained) and sci-fi ( where they can) was a terrible mistake.

I'm inclined to agree: as sci-fi almost demands they have an explanation.  While meanwhile they are most effective when unexplained.

[His Name was HYR!!]

LucasShark wrote...

ME2 was precisely as "about the reapers" as ME1 was, almost not at all.  The focus of the story as on the characters, not the force they opposed.

Characters are not a focus of the story. They are back-stories.

LucasShark wrote...

*cough* strawman *cough*

 

Great. Another guy who doesn't know what a strawman is.

[ShepnTali]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

ShepnTali wrote...

The final choice isn't hard. You pick the one you want.

If it wasn't hard, you would have so many people crying about how they can't get out without a perfect ending.

Try again. 

Those are the choices presented to us. Nothing matters when I turn the game off. There is no consequence in future gameplay. I may as well throw darts.