247 réponses à ce sujet

[David7204]

I'm getting a little tired of hearing that everything would be rainbows and sunshine if the Reapers had been left unexplained...

Modifié par David7204, 23 septembre 2012 - 05:25 .

[His Name was HYR!!]

Eryri wrote...

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?

For the same reason you play ME1.

You can't "lose" that game either.


As for IT... what makes that whole philosophy stupid is that there's no point in making "trick" lose endings if they're not even going to tell the player clearly that they won or lost.

[LucasShark]

Eryri wrote...

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?

The hillarious bit I find when people say "destroy is the best ending!" is that they are effectively celebrating an act of genocide in terms of colateral damage, and yet it is still "equal" to the others.

If they really were going for a "no win scenario" then actually DO that, as it stands we just have the education system problem of "everyone is special!", although you'd have to add "except those dirthy synthetics!  They're evil!"

[Eryri]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Eryri wrote...

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?

For the same reason you play ME1.

You can't "lose" that game either.

The difference being that ME1 was actually fun. The ending of ME3 is a tedious slog.

[Eryri]

LucasShark wrote...

Eryri wrote...

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?

The hillarious bit I find when people say "destroy is the best ending!" is that they are effectively celebrating an act of genocide in terms of colateral damage, and yet it is still "equal" to the others.

If they really were going for a "no win scenario" then actually DO that, as it stands we just have the education system problem of "everyone is special!", although you'd have to add "except those dirthy synthetics!  They're evil!"

Oh if the endings are literal I agree completely! All 3 endings are hideous at face value. IT is the only thing stopping me from snapping my disks in disgust.

[Dragoonlordz]

Eryri wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Eryri wrote...

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?

For the same reason you play ME1.

You can't "lose" that game either.

The difference being that ME1 was actually fun. The ending of ME3 is a tedious slog.

Fun is subjective, what you may not find fun others do. What others find fun you might not.

I for one find ME2 the least fun out of all the trilogy titles. Others however think it was the most fun.

[LucasShark]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Eryri wrote...

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?

For the same reason you play ME1.

You can't "lose" that game either.

That, is because ME1 acted, or rather should have acted as an extended first act to a 3 act story.

I do however agree on the topic of how ridiculous IT has gotten, particularly following the refuse "ending".

[AlanC9]

Eryri wrote...

The difference being that ME1 was actually fun. The ending of ME3 is a tedious slog.

Don't both games end with big corridor slogs? Though ME1 does have that silly Saren-hopper fight at the end.

[Eryri]

AlanC9 wrote...

Eryri wrote...

The difference being that ME1 was actually fun. The ending of ME3 is a tedious slog.

Don't both games end with big corridor slogs? Though ME1 does have that silly Saren-hopper fight at the end.

True. I still enjoyed it though, silly as it was. I'm a sucker for an OTT boss fight.

[CaIIisto]

My problem with the endings is that there are many, many, many people around the world that have played ME1 through ME3, and they should all really, to an extent, have been given the opportunity to have the game close out how they wanted it to, ie. yes, provide for the grim ending, but also provide for an upbeat ending with Shepard living and riding off into the sunset if that's what some people wanted. The good ending to 'destroy' went some way to addressing this, but stopped short. As it was, I was grateful at least for an ending where Shepard didn't definitely die, but damn, now I want to know what happens next!

[AlanC9]

ShepnTali wrote...

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. 

How is that different from any other game that isn't going to have a direct sequel?

[Eryri]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Fun is subjective, what you may not find fun others do. What others find fun you might not.

I for one find ME2 the least fun out of all the trilogy titles. Others however think it was the most fun.

Fair enough. Lots of people find the human reaper ridiculous. I thought it was fine. Maybe I'm easily pleased.

[Rudy Lis]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I for one find ME2 the least fun out of all the trilogy titles. Others however think it was the most fun.

Glass is half-full or half-empty, eh?

[LucasShark]

Bester76 wrote...

My problem with the endings is that there are many, many, many people around the world that have played ME1 through ME3, and they should all really, to an extent, have been given the opportunity to have the game close out how they wanted it to, ie. yes, provide for the grim ending, but also provide for an upbeat ending with Shepard living and riding off into the sunset if that's what some people wanted. The good ending to 'destroy' went some way to addressing this, but stopped short. As it was, I was grateful at least for an ending where Shepard didn't definitely die, but damn, now I want to know what happens next!

This is precisely what I'm talking about: a "fuzzy logic" of ending scenarios as it were.  There SHOULD have been an overt-failure ending, likewise there should have been a Star-warsian victory ending.  As it stands we've got lime, blueberry and strawberry flavored grimdark pseudo-win, handed to us by the enemy themselves.

[ShepnTali]

AlanC9 wrote...

ShepnTali wrote...

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. 

How is that different from any other game that isn't going to have a direct sequel?

Go back to the original point of why it's not hard.

[Netsfn1427]

LucasShark wrote...

Bester76 wrote...

My problem with the endings is that there are many, many, many people around the world that have played ME1 through ME3, and they should all really, to an extent, have been given the opportunity to have the game close out how they wanted it to, ie. yes, provide for the grim ending, but also provide for an upbeat ending with Shepard living and riding off into the sunset if that's what some people wanted. The good ending to 'destroy' went some way to addressing this, but stopped short. As it was, I was grateful at least for an ending where Shepard didn't definitely die, but damn, now I want to know what happens next!

This is precisely what I'm talking about: a "fuzzy logic" of ending scenarios as it were.  There SHOULD have been an overt-failure ending, likewise there should have been a Star-warsian victory ending.  As it stands we've got lime, blueberry and strawberry flavored grimdark pseudo-win, handed to us by the enemy themselves.

The Reapers didn't hand you victory. You helped acquire scientists to build the Crucible and the fleets to defend it. You get to the Conduit to open the arms of the Citadel to allow the Crucible to dock. The Crucible is what gives the options to defeat the Reapers, changing the Catalyst into an info dump who can only tell you what the Crucible does. So no, the Reapers don't hand you victory.

Here's my question. Why should there have been an overt failure ending and why should there have been an Ewok dancing ending? Why are they required? 

[LucasShark]

Netsfn1427 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

Bester76 wrote...

My problem with the endings is that there are many, many, many people around the world that have played ME1 through ME3, and they should all really, to an extent, have been given the opportunity to have the game close out how they wanted it to, ie. yes, provide for the grim ending, but also provide for an upbeat ending with Shepard living and riding off into the sunset if that's what some people wanted. The good ending to 'destroy' went some way to addressing this, but stopped short. As it was, I was grateful at least for an ending where Shepard didn't definitely die, but damn, now I want to know what happens next!

This is precisely what I'm talking about: a "fuzzy logic" of ending scenarios as it were.  There SHOULD have been an overt-failure ending, likewise there should have been a Star-warsian victory ending.  As it stands we've got lime, blueberry and strawberry flavored grimdark pseudo-win, handed to us by the enemy themselves.

The Reapers didn't hand you victory. You helped acquire scientists to build the Crucible and the fleets to defend it. You get to the Conduit to open the arms of the Citadel to allow the Crucible to dock. The Crucible is what gives the options to defeat the Reapers, changing the Catalyst into an info dump who can only tell you what the Crucible does. So no, the Reapers don't hand you victory.

Here's my question. Why should there have been an overt failure ending and why should there have been an Ewok dancing ending? Why are they required? 

On the crucible:
A) that was NOT the conduit, that was a beam of light that was never shown before, ever.
yes, they do hand us victory.  We go before the equivellent of the architect, who should not have existed in the first place because it makes no sense with the lore up to that point.  And he just says "oh, you made it here?  Well here you can win"

As for why there should have been a fuzzy logic ending: Because it fits!

When we are told "your choices have consequences" most of us took that as not being PR spin.  If you were a ******, then you should be able to lose.  If you were a saint, and did absolutely everything, you should be rewarded for that.

[GreyLycanTrope]

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 like this Earth-clan *breath* he understands.

[Rudy Lis]

LucasShark wrote...

The hillarious bit I find when people say "destroy is the best ending!" is that they are effectively celebrating an act of genocide in terms of colateral damage, and yet it is still "equal" to the others.

Well in terns of total annihilation of your main enemy this is definitely "best" ending, because this is only ending where they are destroyed.


Otherwise, I have two questions, if you don't mind:
1. Why game is "grim" and "dark"? It's not. It tries to, but it's not. Well, "dark" part could be ommited if those Alliance engineers left Cerberus lighting intact.
2. What is "best case"?

Netsfn1427 wrote...

Here's my question. Why should there have been an overt failure ending and why should there have been an Ewok dancing ending? Why are they required?

"Variety is spice of life", or what's the saying?

[Ieldra]

OP, the problem is this:

If one ending is better by your standards, and another better by my standards, then different endings work very well.

However, if one ending is better by any reasonable standard, for instance by being the only one with no downside, it will be perceived as canon. People will argue that others are doing something wrong if they choose a different ending, and those who still choose those other endings will resent the fact that this "perfect" ending was "obviously" intended by the writers to be canon.

The comparison with ME2 is invalid because the final choice is different. The equivalent of an ME2 game where I let people die on the SM would be an ME3 game where I, for instance, don't make peace on Rannoch when I can or skip the "Cerberus bomb" mission on Tuchanka. These desicsions make for a less than perfect outcome in the end, but they do not result in a scenario that feels like the wrong choice overall.

The existence of a "perfect" ending, should it be based on only one of the existing choices, would invalidate the other choices in a way mere suboptimal decisions on the way there could never do.

Just look at Synthesis. Half the reason it is so reviled is that people perceive it as being intended as the best ending, while they do not like it one bit.

The only way a "perfect" ending would work if there was a perfect version for every option of the final choice. Then you could say, for instance, "I choose to write my story in a way that I get the less perfect version, but it's my choice". Only then would the ending scenario not be perceived as Bioware prescribing a best ending.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 23 septembre 2012 - 06:02 .

[MegaSovereign]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Eryri wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Eryri wrote...

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?

For the same reason you play ME1.

You can't "lose" that game either.

The difference being that ME1 was actually fun. The ending of ME3 is a tedious slog.

Fun is subjective, what you may not find fun others do. What others find fun you might not.

I for one find ME2 the least fun out of all the trilogy titles. Others however think it was the most fun.

ME2 was a great game but I think I got burned out of it. Once the next ME game comes out it'll be the same deal with ME3.

[Netsfn1427]

LucasShark wrote...

On the crucible:
A) that was NOT the conduit, that was a beam of light that was never shown before, ever.
yes, they do hand us victory.  We go before the equivellent of the architect, who should not have existed in the first place because it makes no sense with the lore up to that point.  And he just says "oh, you made it here?  Well here you can win"

As for why there should have been a fuzzy logic ending: Because it fits!

When we are told "your choices have consequences" most of us took that as not being PR spin.  If you were a ******, then you should be able to lose.  If you were a saint, and did absolutely everything, you should be rewarded for that.

Anderson refers to the beam as the Conduit. He likely does it because it fulfills the same purpose as the original Conduit.

The Catalyst is changed. It gives you the options because you brought the Crucible to that point, docked it, and altered it programming. It outrightly says the Crucible changed it and presented it with new options. If you don't dock the Crucible, the Catalyst doesn't do jack. You lose. Cycle continues. Therefore it is Shepard who brings victory, not the Reapers.

Also, can you show how the Catalyst doesn't make sense with the lore to this point? What controlled the Reapers, their beginning and their purpose was never explained prior to ME3. So how does it make no sense?

Your choices mattered, just not in the way you wanted. Your choices in ME2 affect how things turn out in ME3. They don't heavily reflect on the ending choice, but that would have been a first for a Bioware game. It also isn't required to make it a good game. It's a choice and Bioware chose not to go in that direction.

[LucasShark]

Rudy Lis wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

The hillarious bit I find when people say "destroy is the best ending!" is that they are effectively celebrating an act of genocide in terms of colateral damage, and yet it is still "equal" to the others.

Well in terns of total annihilation of your main enemy this is definitely "best" ending, because this is only ending where they are destroyed.


Otherwise, I have two questions, if you don't mind:
1. Why game is "grim" and "dark"? It's not. It tries to, but it's not. Well, "dark" part could be ommited if those Alliance engineers left Cerberus lighting intact.
2. What is "best case"?

To the first: it really isn't "grimdark", but oh boy do they try to make it that.  See the "dead children" and the diablo style piled bodies, and all the muted palet. 

As for the second: something that isn't awful and isn't a "barely win".  Something uplifting, something fitting with the overall uniting the galaxy theme from games 1-2.1.

[Netsfn1427]

Rudy Lis wrote...

"Variety is spice of life", or what's the saying?

But there is variety. Heck Bioware games typically just have two endings. ME1 and ME2 just had 2. ME3 has four. I call that variety.