247 réponses à ce sujet

[LucasShark]

Netsfn1427 wrote...

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.

First: no it is not the conduit, it never was, and never shall be.  The conduit was a miniature mass relay created by the protheans, not a reaper-spawned beam of magic light who;s purpose makes no sense.

"he gives you the potions": You just said it!  How do you not get this?  We don't take the victory for ourselves!  We are handed it.

As for why the catalyst makes no sense:
"We are each a nation" - Sovreign
The entire crafting a new reaper and preserving memory thing.
It's all a schitzofrenic mess.

And here is the rub of the choices: no, ours did not matter.  The story does not come to a culmination.  The conclusion of this story SHOULD and was sold as a culmination of events of the story.

[Rudy Lis]

LucasShark wrote...

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. 

Well, seeing their actions in other aspects (minus defending their "art"), I can't say they were trying to do anything, other than milk us for money, really.

LucasShark wrote...

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.

So "best case" in terms of acceptance by audience and/or personal viewer?

Netsfn1427 wrote...

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.

That's quantity, not variety. If I put four glasses in front of you, filled with same Coca-Cola, would it be variety?

Modifié par Rudy Lis, 23 septembre 2012 - 06:17 .

[CINCTuchanka]

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.

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.

Because it was just as misguided an idea in ME2 as it would have been for ME3.  It's more interesting for all endings to have elements of loss.

And no, I don't think that they should have a perfect ending for those that "want it."   It cheapens the experience for everyone if all you need to do is go read a strategy guide and figure out how to get the "perfect" ending.  Everyone should have to make a tough call at the end of the game, which is more or less what happened.  I'm sorry if the ending upset you,  but a perfect ending would have been an artistic failure.* 

I'm not saying the original ending was great, but it was miles better than a "perfect" ending would have been.  I'm all for choice, but having a perfect ending takes choice away.  People need to realize this before BioWare just ends up having all their games end up with sunshines and rainbows because EA is forcing them to for the $$$$.  That's why I'm strongly against the perfect ending argument:  It's going to ruin the games I like.

*That's right, I like art!

[LucasShark]

Rudy Lis wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

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. 

Well, seeing their actions in other aspects (minus defending their "art"), I can't say they were trying to do anything, other than milk us for money, really.

LucasShark wrote...

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.

So "best case" in terms of acceptance by audience and/or personal viewer?

Netsfn1427 wrote...

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.

That's quantity, not variety. If I put four glasses in front of you, filled with same Coca-Cola, would it be variety?

I'm inclined to agree on the "aside from defending their art they just want money".   However, I'm playing along for the sake of things...

No, I meant best case in terms of Yes, we do win, with little compromise, something bloody satasfying the way the victorys in ME2 and 1 were.

[LucasShark]

CINCTuchanka 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.

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.

Because it was just as misguided an idea in ME2 as it would have been for ME3.  It's more interesting for all endings to have elements of loss.

And no, I don't think that they should have a perfect ending for those that "want it."   It cheapens the experience for everyone if all you need to do is go read a strategy guide and figure out how to get the "perfect" ending.  Everyone should have to make a tough call at the end of the game, which is more or less what happened.  I'm sorry if the ending upset you,  but a perfect ending would have been an artistic failure.* 

I'm not saying the original ending was great, but it was miles better than a "perfect" ending would have been.  I'm all for choice, but having a perfect ending takes choice away.  People need to realize this before BioWare just ends up having all their games end up with sunshines and rainbows because EA is forcing them to for the $$$$.  That's why I'm strongly against the perfect ending argument:  It's going to ruin the games I like.

*That's right, I like art!

So you like "okay you can win... uh... but these people are now dead!"

This is not art, this is pretenciousness and pseudo-intelectualism.

[Rudy Lis]

LucasShark wrote...

I'm inclined to agree on the "aside from defending their art they just want money".   However, I'm playing along for the sake of things...

So that means what?

LucasShark wrote...

No, I meant best case in terms of Yes, we do win, with little compromise, something bloody satasfying the way the victorys in ME2 and 1 were.

So we lack Luke Shepard standing near Han Garrus, hugging Leia Tali in front of big fire with Anakin Anderson body? If we had that, that would be "best case" scenario?

[LucasShark]

Rudy Lis wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

I'm inclined to agree on the "aside from defending their art they just want money".   However, I'm playing along for the sake of things...

So that means what?

LucasShark wrote...

No, I meant best case in terms of Yes, we do win, with little compromise, something bloody satasfying the way the victorys in ME2 and 1 were.

So we lack Luke Shepard standing near Han Garrus, hugging Leia Tali in front of big fire with Anakin Anderson body? If we had that, that would be "best case" scenario?

I can't honestly tell if you are being intensionally argumentative.

[Netsfn1427]

LucasShark wrote...

First: no it is not the conduit, it never was, and never shall be.  The conduit was a miniature mass relay created by the protheans, not a reaper-spawned beam of magic light who;s purpose makes no sense.

"he gives you the potions": You just said it!  How do you not get this?  We don't take the victory for ourselves!  We are handed it.

As for why the catalyst makes no sense:
"We are each a nation" - Sovreign
The entire crafting a new reaper and preserving memory thing.
It's all a schitzofrenic mess.

And here is the rub of the choices: no, ours did not matter.  The story does not come to a culmination.  The conclusion of this story SHOULD and was sold as a culmination of events of the story.

We're debating semantics. The beam fulfills the exact same purpose as the Conduit. Besides it doesn't really change my point. Shepard still had to reach it, despite Harbinger blasting hundreds, if not thousands of troops into oblivion while Shep tries to reach the beam.

Shepard's actions change the Catalyst's programming. Without Shepard's actions, the cycle continues. I mean if you're arguing the Reapers handed us victory, then you're saying that if Shepard wasn't there, the cycle would have ended. Right? 

The Catalyst contradicts nothing Sovereign said. Each reaper is the preserved consciousness of a harvested civilization. They even have their own personality; Harbinger and Sovereign don't act the same way. That's like arguing that Sovereign and Saren were the same entity. Saren was controlled but mantained most of his own personality. Same with the Illusive Man.

Also the preserved memory thing was hinted at in ME2. As soon as they brought up the idea that humanity would be used to create a new reaper, that was implied. Heck Legion suggests they govern by consensus, akin to the Geth.

Have you ever played a Bioware game? Most ending decisions in Bioware games are completely divorced from the choices you made before. The themes may remain in some cases, but the choices you made before are not relevant. You could play a boy scout in KOTOR and still go Dark side at the temple. You could play paragon in ME1 and still kill the council. Tell me, how does saving the rachni or not directly affect ME1's ending?

[Netsfn1427]

Rudy Lis wrote...

That's quantity, not variety. If I put four glasses in front of you, filled with same Coca-Cola, would it be variety?

True. However, the endings are substantially different. The Reapers and synthetics are dead in one, everyone is a synthethic/organic hybrid in one, status quo remains with the third and the galaxy is wiped out with the fourth. That's variety.

[LucasShark]

Netsfn1427 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

First: no it is not the conduit, it never was, and never shall be.  The conduit was a miniature mass relay created by the protheans, not a reaper-spawned beam of magic light who;s purpose makes no sense.

"he gives you the potions": You just said it!  How do you not get this?  We don't take the victory for ourselves!  We are handed it.

As for why the catalyst makes no sense:
"We are each a nation" - Sovreign
The entire crafting a new reaper and preserving memory thing.
It's all a schitzofrenic mess.

And here is the rub of the choices: no, ours did not matter.  The story does not come to a culmination.  The conclusion of this story SHOULD and was sold as a culmination of events of the story.

We're debating semantics. The beam fulfills the exact same purpose as the Conduit. Besides it doesn't really change my point. Shepard still had to reach it, despite Harbinger blasting hundreds, if not thousands of troops into oblivion while Shep tries to reach the beam.

Shepard's actions change the Catalyst's programming. Without Shepard's actions, the cycle continues. I mean if you're arguing the Reapers handed us victory, then you're saying that if Shepard wasn't there, the cycle would have ended. Right? 

The Catalyst contradicts nothing Sovereign said. Each reaper is the preserved consciousness of a harvested civilization. They even have their own personality; Harbinger and Sovereign don't act the same way. That's like arguing that Sovereign and Saren were the same entity. Saren was controlled but mantained most of his own personality. Same with the Illusive Man.

Also the preserved memory thing was hinted at in ME2. As soon as they brought up the idea that humanity would be used to create a new reaper, that was implied. Heck Legion suggests they govern by consensus, akin to the Geth.

Have you ever played a Bioware game? Most ending decisions in Bioware games are completely divorced from the choices you made before. The themes may remain in some cases, but the choices you made before are not relevant. You could play a boy scout in KOTOR and still go Dark side at the temple. You could play paragon in ME1 and still kill the council. Tell me, how does saving the rachni or not directly affect ME1's ending?

This will be my last response to you, as you are being an idiot.

Yes, I have played a bioware game, every one since Kotor in fact.  I expected something higher of the conclusion to their most ambitious series, apparently I'm wrong to expect anything but moneyspinning of large companies.

[MegaSovereign]

LucasShark wrote...

Netsfn1427 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

First: no it is not the conduit, it never was, and never shall be.  The conduit was a miniature mass relay created by the protheans, not a reaper-spawned beam of magic light who;s purpose makes no sense.

"he gives you the potions": You just said it!  How do you not get this?  We don't take the victory for ourselves!  We are handed it.

As for why the catalyst makes no sense:
"We are each a nation" - Sovreign
The entire crafting a new reaper and preserving memory thing.
It's all a schitzofrenic mess.

And here is the rub of the choices: no, ours did not matter.  The story does not come to a culmination.  The conclusion of this story SHOULD and was sold as a culmination of events of the story.

We're debating semantics. The beam fulfills the exact same purpose as the Conduit. Besides it doesn't really change my point. Shepard still had to reach it, despite Harbinger blasting hundreds, if not thousands of troops into oblivion while Shep tries to reach the beam.

Shepard's actions change the Catalyst's programming. Without Shepard's actions, the cycle continues. I mean if you're arguing the Reapers handed us victory, then you're saying that if Shepard wasn't there, the cycle would have ended. Right? 

The Catalyst contradicts nothing Sovereign said. Each reaper is the preserved consciousness of a harvested civilization. They even have their own personality; Harbinger and Sovereign don't act the same way. That's like arguing that Sovereign and Saren were the same entity. Saren was controlled but mantained most of his own personality. Same with the Illusive Man.

Also the preserved memory thing was hinted at in ME2. As soon as they brought up the idea that humanity would be used to create a new reaper, that was implied. Heck Legion suggests they govern by consensus, akin to the Geth.

Have you ever played a Bioware game? Most ending decisions in Bioware games are completely divorced from the choices you made before. The themes may remain in some cases, but the choices you made before are not relevant. You could play a boy scout in KOTOR and still go Dark side at the temple. You could play paragon in ME1 and still kill the council. Tell me, how does saving the rachni or not directly affect ME1's ending?

This will be my last response to you, as you are being an idiot.

Yes, I have played a bioware game, every one since Kotor in fact.  I expected something higher of the conclusion to their most ambitious series, apparently I'm wrong to expect anything but moneyspinning of large companies.

Throwing insults at people is a clear sign of defeat.

For you.

End of Line.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 23 septembre 2012 - 06:36 .

[Rudy Lis]

LucasShark wrote...

I can't honestly tell if you are being intensionally argumentative.

I'm not.
I'm just trying to figure out what exactly "best case scenario" is. Because as much as I don't like the way the scale of war and "grimness" of situation are shown in game, I barely see any other way to implement ME1/2 victory-alike endings other than that of SW ending I mentioned. Sort of "yes, there are huge losses boring blah-blah, but we cut them out to keep ratings low and morale high, let's just show alive and more or less happy protagonist and that's all".

[LucasShark]

MegaSovereign wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

Netsfn1427 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

First: no it is not the conduit, it never was, and never shall be.  The conduit was a miniature mass relay created by the protheans, not a reaper-spawned beam of magic light who;s purpose makes no sense.

"he gives you the potions": You just said it!  How do you not get this?  We don't take the victory for ourselves!  We are handed it.

As for why the catalyst makes no sense:
"We are each a nation" - Sovreign
The entire crafting a new reaper and preserving memory thing.
It's all a schitzofrenic mess.

And here is the rub of the choices: no, ours did not matter.  The story does not come to a culmination.  The conclusion of this story SHOULD and was sold as a culmination of events of the story.

We're debating semantics. The beam fulfills the exact same purpose as the Conduit. Besides it doesn't really change my point. Shepard still had to reach it, despite Harbinger blasting hundreds, if not thousands of troops into oblivion while Shep tries to reach the beam.

Shepard's actions change the Catalyst's programming. Without Shepard's actions, the cycle continues. I mean if you're arguing the Reapers handed us victory, then you're saying that if Shepard wasn't there, the cycle would have ended. Right? 

The Catalyst contradicts nothing Sovereign said. Each reaper is the preserved consciousness of a harvested civilization. They even have their own personality; Harbinger and Sovereign don't act the same way. That's like arguing that Sovereign and Saren were the same entity. Saren was controlled but mantained most of his own personality. Same with the Illusive Man.

Also the preserved memory thing was hinted at in ME2. As soon as they brought up the idea that humanity would be used to create a new reaper, that was implied. Heck Legion suggests they govern by consensus, akin to the Geth.

Have you ever played a Bioware game? Most ending decisions in Bioware games are completely divorced from the choices you made before. The themes may remain in some cases, but the choices you made before are not relevant. You could play a boy scout in KOTOR and still go Dark side at the temple. You could play paragon in ME1 and still kill the council. Tell me, how does saving the rachni or not directly affect ME1's ending?

This will be my last response to you, as you are being an idiot.

Yes, I have played a bioware game, every one since Kotor in fact.  I expected something higher of the conclusion to their most ambitious series, apparently I'm wrong to expect anything but moneyspinning of large companies.

Throwing insults at people is a clear sign of defeat.

For you.

End of Line.

"Thing x is thing y, despite clearly being another thing"

How is this legitimate?

[MegaSovereign]

LucasShark wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

Netsfn1427 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

First: no it is not the conduit, it never was, and never shall be.  The conduit was a miniature mass relay created by the protheans, not a reaper-spawned beam of magic light who;s purpose makes no sense.

"he gives you the potions": You just said it!  How do you not get this?  We don't take the victory for ourselves!  We are handed it.

As for why the catalyst makes no sense:
"We are each a nation" - Sovreign
The entire crafting a new reaper and preserving memory thing.
It's all a schitzofrenic mess.

And here is the rub of the choices: no, ours did not matter.  The story does not come to a culmination.  The conclusion of this story SHOULD and was sold as a culmination of events of the story.

We're debating semantics. The beam fulfills the exact same purpose as the Conduit. Besides it doesn't really change my point. Shepard still had to reach it, despite Harbinger blasting hundreds, if not thousands of troops into oblivion while Shep tries to reach the beam.

Shepard's actions change the Catalyst's programming. Without Shepard's actions, the cycle continues. I mean if you're arguing the Reapers handed us victory, then you're saying that if Shepard wasn't there, the cycle would have ended. Right? 

The Catalyst contradicts nothing Sovereign said. Each reaper is the preserved consciousness of a harvested civilization. They even have their own personality; Harbinger and Sovereign don't act the same way. That's like arguing that Sovereign and Saren were the same entity. Saren was controlled but mantained most of his own personality. Same with the Illusive Man.

Also the preserved memory thing was hinted at in ME2. As soon as they brought up the idea that humanity would be used to create a new reaper, that was implied. Heck Legion suggests they govern by consensus, akin to the Geth.

Have you ever played a Bioware game? Most ending decisions in Bioware games are completely divorced from the choices you made before. The themes may remain in some cases, but the choices you made before are not relevant. You could play a boy scout in KOTOR and still go Dark side at the temple. You could play paragon in ME1 and still kill the council. Tell me, how does saving the rachni or not directly affect ME1's ending?

This will be my last response to you, as you are being an idiot.

Yes, I have played a bioware game, every one since Kotor in fact.  I expected something higher of the conclusion to their most ambitious series, apparently I'm wrong to expect anything but moneyspinning of large companies.

Throwing insults at people is a clear sign of defeat.

For you.

End of Line.

"Thing x is thing y, despite clearly being another thing"

How is this legitimate?

I don't see your point?

[Netsfn1427]

Always nice to see civility in a discussion!

Seriously? You can hope for more than what you've gotten before. But that doesn't mean what they gave you is bad, or even wrong. I would say they DID give you more than before anyway, they just didn't give you what you were expecting. Again, that doesn't make it wrong. It just means you didn't like it. Which, contrary your opinion to me, does not make you an idiot. It just gives you a different opinion from mine.

But blanket statements like "this doesn't make sense" or "violated the lore" bother me if they're not substantiated. There's a difference between not liking something and something not making sense.

[Dean_the_Young]

Because it's not the best case for my enjoyment, obviously.

[/thread]

[LucasShark]

MegaSovereign wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

Netsfn1427 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

First: no it is not the conduit, it never was, and never shall be.  The conduit was a miniature mass relay created by the protheans, not a reaper-spawned beam of magic light who;s purpose makes no sense.

"he gives you the potions": You just said it!  How do you not get this?  We don't take the victory for ourselves!  We are handed it.

As for why the catalyst makes no sense:
"We are each a nation" - Sovreign
The entire crafting a new reaper and preserving memory thing.
It's all a schitzofrenic mess.

And here is the rub of the choices: no, ours did not matter.  The story does not come to a culmination.  The conclusion of this story SHOULD and was sold as a culmination of events of the story.

We're debating semantics. The beam fulfills the exact same purpose as the Conduit. Besides it doesn't really change my point. Shepard still had to reach it, despite Harbinger blasting hundreds, if not thousands of troops into oblivion while Shep tries to reach the beam.

Shepard's actions change the Catalyst's programming. Without Shepard's actions, the cycle continues. I mean if you're arguing the Reapers handed us victory, then you're saying that if Shepard wasn't there, the cycle would have ended. Right? 

The Catalyst contradicts nothing Sovereign said. Each reaper is the preserved consciousness of a harvested civilization. They even have their own personality; Harbinger and Sovereign don't act the same way. That's like arguing that Sovereign and Saren were the same entity. Saren was controlled but mantained most of his own personality. Same with the Illusive Man.

Also the preserved memory thing was hinted at in ME2. As soon as they brought up the idea that humanity would be used to create a new reaper, that was implied. Heck Legion suggests they govern by consensus, akin to the Geth.

Have you ever played a Bioware game? Most ending decisions in Bioware games are completely divorced from the choices you made before. The themes may remain in some cases, but the choices you made before are not relevant. You could play a boy scout in KOTOR and still go Dark side at the temple. You could play paragon in ME1 and still kill the council. Tell me, how does saving the rachni or not directly affect ME1's ending?

This will be my last response to you, as you are being an idiot.

Yes, I have played a bioware game, every one since Kotor in fact.  I expected something higher of the conclusion to their most ambitious series, apparently I'm wrong to expect anything but moneyspinning of large companies.

Throwing insults at people is a clear sign of defeat.

For you.

End of Line.

"Thing x is thing y, despite clearly being another thing"

How is this legitimate?

I don't see your point?

The thing which spawned the idiot remark was this: He's arguing that an object, which looks different, is in a different location, and is simply called the same thing, ie: the conduit, is the conduit from ME1.

This is insane, end of story.  If it looks different, is in a different spot, and behaves differently, it is no longer the same thing!

[Rudy Lis]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Not going to lie, that would improve the endings.

No, it would improve one ending.
Although some say that's the amount of ending we have.

Netsfn1427 wrote...

True. However, the endings are substantially different. The Reapers and synthetics are dead in one, everyone is a synthethic/organic hybrid in one, status quo remains with the third and the galaxy is wiped out with the fourth. That's variety.

Fine, first glass is empty, three other have coca-cola made in different regions if the world, so it tastes a little bit different. I could add some powedered glass into one of glasses and/or ice made of cola from very same glass into another, if you would like.
I'm not that much jabbing over similarities of endings, more over the way of presentation. Also known as "story telling". Not to mention overall logical and plotholes in whole universe.

[AlanC9]

LucasShark wrote...

This will be my last response to you, as you are being an idiot.

Yes, I have played a bioware game, every one since Kotor in fact.  I expected something higher of the conclusion to their most ambitious series, apparently I'm wrong to expect anything but moneyspinning of large companies.

Not exactly. What you were wrong about was expecting Bio to do something that neither they nor any other RPG developer has ever even attempted to do.

The most you were going to get is a somewhat different set of final missions, leading to endings which are only differentiated by brief cutscenes and slides.

Modifié par AlanC9, 23 septembre 2012 - 06:47 .

[AlanC9]

LucasShark wrote...


The thing which spawned the idiot remark was this: He's arguing that an object, which looks different, is in a different location, and is simply called the same thing, ie: the conduit, is the conduit from ME1.

You forgot the part where it does the same thing - transports Shepard to the Citadel so he can hit the Win button.

[Netsfn1427]

LucasShark wrote...

The thing which spawned the idiot remark was this: He's arguing that an object, which looks different, is in a different location, and is simply called the same thing, ie: the conduit, is the conduit from ME1.

This is insane, end of story.  If it looks different, is in a different spot, and behaves differently, it is no longer the same thing!

Dude. Anderson calls it the Conduit in ME3. Like it or not, he does. But it ISN'T important because it doesn't change my original point that Shepard had to make it to the beam.

[Hudathan]

Because I think it's silly.

[Iakus]

Taboo-XX wrote...

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.

High EMS Destroy is 2650.  The breath easter egg is unlocked at 3100

[LucasShark]

AlanC9 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...


The thing which spawned the idiot remark was this: He's arguing that an object, which looks different, is in a different location, and is simply called the same thing, ie: the conduit, is the conduit from ME1.

You forgot the part where it does the same thing - transports Shepard to the Citadel so he can hit the Win button.

Except it doesn't: we don't come out beside the companion conduit, and Anderson shows up in a different location!