247 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

LucasShark wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

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!

But like I , um, just said, it transports Shepard to the Citadel so he can hit the Win button. That's the important thing about it.

[SpamBot2000]

Because people are frightened by the thought they were played for suckers and it worked, so they have to keep coming up with rationalizations for why the ending was so great and it would be somehow immoral to improve on it?

[Rudy Lis]

AlanC9 wrote...

That's the important thing about it.

And don't forget shortcut - imagine we have to limp all way toward Citadel's top (or bottom) from other end of one of petals! Several dozens of kilometres through piles of corpses and possible rubble. And no saves!

[Netsfn1427]

And we're way off topic. It does essentially the same thing. That's all that matters to the point I was making.

Back on topic, there's still a legitimate question as to WHY a ROTJ ending or a you fail ending is required. Did I miss something where games are required to end a certain way? The goal of the game is to stop the Reapers from destroying civilization. You do that directly in three of the endings and indirectly in the fourth. The goal of the main character is fulfilled; the reapers are stopped.

Why is anything else required?

[Rudy Lis]

Netsfn1427 wrote...

Why is anything else required?

Because storytelling is not providing with proper basis for, say, "acceptance" of existing ending and correcting just ending to let more people to accept that is simpler and faster than correcting whole damn bloody broken storytelling? I don't want to name few works, which, by my opinion, provide such basis (including those where protagonist and/or someone close to him dies), because I already was reprimanded once for "spoilering".

[mjb203]

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.

I think part of the problem is that if certain players wanted to have a feeling of sacrifice (i.e.: Shepard dying or whatever) and there was an ending where Shep lived, along with all of the races (even geth), they wouldn't be able to prevent themselves from always choosing that ending.  It's really the same reason that people were complaining the suicide mission in ME2 was too easy. 

Heck, I intentionally made playthroughs of ME2 where certain squad members died, just so I could see it play out different in 3.  I had one playthrough where I didn't have Zaeed or Thane, due to screwing up Thane's loyalty mission and choosing Zaeed as a squad leader.

The problem, as I see it, is that some people don't know self control (if there is an optimal ending, they MUST get it, even if they don't want it), or they meta-game instead of role-playing Shepard.  For instance, in my one playthrough where I lost Thane and Zaeed, my Shep stayed up on the balcony and looked around for Kolyat instead of running through the doorway in the back and he also thought Zaeed would make a good squad leader after founding the Blue Suns.  That is how I role-played him, despite knowing that these actions were "incorrect".  Heck, he could have also picked sides in the Miranda/Jack argument and Tali/Legion argument (and would have had he been romancing a particular one of the three).

I think an ending where Shep didn't have to die and all races survived would have been fine, and they could even keep it to where you could choose to sacrifice yourself or not, possibly dependent on EMS (but don't make death/survival mandatory once a certain amount is reached, so you could still role-play a Shep willing to make the sacrifice).  And for the record, I think Shep should have been given the option to survive in all endings, not just destroy. 

[Hudathan]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Because people are frightened by the thought they were played for suckers and it worked, so they have to keep coming up with rationalizations for why the ending was so great and it would be somehow immoral to improve on it?

The accuse-you-of-lying-because-I-can-read-your-mind argument? Nice.

All these people can't possibly have a different opinion from mine, they know I'm right they just don't want to admit it!

[LucasShark]

mjb203 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.

I think part of the problem is that if certain players wanted to have a feeling of sacrifice (i.e.: Shepard dying or whatever) and there was an ending where Shep lived, along with all of the races (even geth), they wouldn't be able to prevent themselves from always choosing that ending.  It's really the same reason that people were complaining the suicide mission in ME2 was too easy. 

Heck, I intentionally made playthroughs of ME2 where certain squad members died, just so I could see it play out different in 3.  I had one playthrough where I didn't have Zaeed or Thane, due to screwing up Thane's loyalty mission and choosing Zaeed as a squad leader.

The problem, as I see it, is that some people don't know self control (if there is an optimal ending, they MUST get it, even if they don't want it), or they meta-game instead of role-playing Shepard.  For instance, in my one playthrough where I lost Thane and Zaeed, my Shep stayed up on the balcony and looked around for Kolyat instead of running through the doorway in the back and he also thought Zaeed would make a good squad leader after founding the Blue Suns.  That is how I role-played him, despite knowing that these actions were "incorrect".  Heck, he could have also picked sides in the Miranda/Jack argument and Tali/Legion argument (and would have had he been romancing a particular one of the three).

I think an ending where Shep didn't have to die and all races survived would have been fine, and they could even keep it to where you could choose to sacrifice yourself or not, possibly dependent on EMS (but don't make death/survival mandatory once a certain amount is reached, so you could still role-play a Shep willing to make the sacrifice).  And for the record, I think Shep should have been given the option to survive in all endings, not just destroy. 

Agreed to this 100 percent.

A lot of people seem to forget what the RP in RPG stands for.  If you would/want to sacrafice yourself, then follow that storyarc.  And honestly: it isn't really a sacrafice if it is mandatory.

[LucasShark]

Hudathan wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Because people are frightened by the thought they were played for suckers and it worked, so they have to keep coming up with rationalizations for why the ending was so great and it would be somehow immoral to improve on it?

The accuse-you-of-lying-because-I-can-read-your-mind argument? Nice.

All these people can't possibly have a different opinion from mine, they know I'm right they just don't want to admit it!

Unfortunately: as an Athiest I have actually had that argument used upon me.

[mjb203]

LucasShark wrote...

mjb203 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.

I think part of the problem is that if certain players wanted to have a feeling of sacrifice (i.e.: Shepard dying or whatever) and there was an ending where Shep lived, along with all of the races (even geth), they wouldn't be able to prevent themselves from always choosing that ending.  It's really the same reason that people were complaining the suicide mission in ME2 was too easy. 

Heck, I intentionally made playthroughs of ME2 where certain squad members died, just so I could see it play out different in 3.  I had one playthrough where I didn't have Zaeed or Thane, due to screwing up Thane's loyalty mission and choosing Zaeed as a squad leader.

The problem, as I see it, is that some people don't know self control (if there is an optimal ending, they MUST get it, even if they don't want it), or they meta-game instead of role-playing Shepard.  For instance, in my one playthrough where I lost Thane and Zaeed, my Shep stayed up on the balcony and looked around for Kolyat instead of running through the doorway in the back and he also thought Zaeed would make a good squad leader after founding the Blue Suns.  That is how I role-played him, despite knowing that these actions were "incorrect".  Heck, he could have also picked sides in the Miranda/Jack argument and Tali/Legion argument (and would have had he been romancing a particular one of the three).

I think an ending where Shep didn't have to die and all races survived would have been fine, and they could even keep it to where you could choose to sacrifice yourself or not, possibly dependent on EMS (but don't make death/survival mandatory once a certain amount is reached, so you could still role-play a Shep willing to make the sacrifice).  And for the record, I think Shep should have been given the option to survive in all endings, not just destroy. 

Agreed to this 100 percent.

A lot of people seem to forget what the RP in RPG stands for.  If you would/want to sacrafice yourself, then follow that storyarc.  And honestly: it isn't really a sacrafice if it is mandatory.

I hear you.  I'll be the first to admit that I'm guilty of meta-gaming at times, but after a while I like to intentionally make "mistakes" in an RP game to see how different things can be. 

Thing is, this is the reason Bioware took out the ability to save Hawke's mother in DA2, because the "majority" would want to save her.  Well, no kidding!  She's your character's mom!  I would still liked to have been able to save her, and I would have some playthroughs where Hawke would have failed to do so.  It would have certainly helped branch that story a bit better, but I'm starting to go off topic.

But yeah, I think they could offer Shep a way to survive in the Control and Synthesis endings in addition to Destroy, and allow the geth and EDI to be saved in Destroy, dependent on EMS and an additional choice in case we role-play our Sheps as willing to make that sacrifice.  Forced sacrifice is ridiculous in a video game, although I will admit in the Virmire situation, Bioware pulled that forced sacrifice out nicely.

[Rudy Lis]

mjb203 wrote...

The problem, as I see it, is that some people don't know self control (if there is an optimal ending, they MUST get it, even if they don't want it), or they meta-game instead of role-playing Shepard.

 

Sorry if I sound rude, but I know this approach too well - attempts to "help" few by affecting many. And obviously I don't like it.
If they don't know self control, why other should suffer?
Same thing with decision like Rachni - they didn't want us to miss that. WTF, in RPG game (well, on long run, what exactly we were missing, few assets points or meeting with jumbo shrimp queen)? One of most pleasant moments for me in Witcher, particulary 2, or Fallout New Vegas is option to choose sides (it's less noticable in W1). if FNV actually affects only "ending" parts of missions and majority of game remans same, W2 actually allows you to see two different storylines. And make you to play twice, to know full extent of story. Why's that bad? Enforcing some events on us looks extremely stupid in game based on consequences and repercussions.

mjb203 wrote...

but don't make death/survival mandatory once a certain amount is reached, so you could still role-play a Shep willing to make the sacrifice

Oh, a colleague! I also would like to see that option. Not EMS, but relationship based (imagine in whole "bighmates" subplot would be intertwined here) - if Shepard have strong friendship with his crew, then he has option to live. If his will is broken or he simply doesn't want to live, well, nobody holding him.

[Sousabird]

destroy mother ****er have you heard of it? I don't want a super perfect sunshine and rainbows end, it's too unrealistic in a war of this magnitude so I like destroy because it's an appropriate sacrafice for the greatest victory.

[mjb203]

Rudy Lis wrote...

mjb203 wrote...

The problem, as I see it, is that some people don't know self control (if there is an optimal ending, they MUST get it, even if they don't want it), or they meta-game instead of role-playing Shepard.

 

Sorry if I sound rude, but I know this approach too well - attempts to "help" few by affecting many. And obviously I don't like it.
If they don't know self control, why other should suffer?
Same thing with decision like Rachni - they didn't want us to miss that. WTF, in RPG game (well, on long run, what exactly we were missing, few assets points or meeting with jumbo shrimp queen)? One of most pleasant moments for me in Witcher, particulary 2, or Fallout New Vegas is option to choose sides (it's less noticable in W1). if FNV actually affects only "ending" parts of missions and majority of game remans same, W2 actually allows you to see two different storylines. And make you to play twice, to know full extent of story. Why's that bad? Enforcing some events on us looks extremely stupid in game based on consequences and repercussions.

mjb203 wrote...

but don't make death/survival mandatory once a certain amount is reached, so you could still role-play a Shep willing to make the sacrifice

Oh, a colleague! I also would like to see that option. Not EMS, but relationship based (imagine in whole "bighmates" subplot would be intertwined here) - if Shepard have strong friendship with his crew, then he has option to live. If his will is broken or he simply doesn't want to live, well, nobody holding him.

I agree 100% on the Witcher 2 point!  And don't worry, you didn't sound rude in the first reply, especially because it seems that we are on the same side of the aisle on this!   

I don't like the forced aspect of it either!  Like I said, I think Bioware did great with it in the Virmire situation in ME1, but it just comes right out of left field in ME3 with the Catalyst. 

[mjb203]

Sousabird wrote...

destroy mother ****er have you heard of it? I don't want a super perfect sunshine and rainbows end, it's too unrealistic in a war of this magnitude so I like destroy because it's an appropriate sacrafice for the greatest victory.

Then if the option is there for the "perfect" ending, don't pick it.  Simple.

Just don't try to force the sacrifice on those who don't want it.

[LucasShark]

Sousabird wrote...

destroy mother ****er have you heard of it? I don't want a super perfect sunshine and rainbows end, it's too unrealistic in a war of this magnitude so I like destroy because it's an appropriate sacrafice for the greatest victory.

Then pick a sacrafice storyarc if you feel it's the best one.  I don't see how the existence of a more uplifting ending elsewhere makes that one less relevant.

[Rudy Lis]

mjb203 wrote...

Forced sacrifice is ridiculous in a video game, although I will admit in the Virmire situation, Bioware pulled that forced sacrifice out nicely.

Nope. Remote detonator, anti-withdrawal system (so called booby-trap, linked to main fuze, just in case), airdrop (Joker dropped Mako in 20 metres gap, after all), more than 4 characters on the go (hello, there is full detail of Marines aboard Normandy, plus Mako, not just Liara, Tali and optional Garrus and Wrex), plus, Steven Seagal move - Shepard sacrifices himself and let those others to fulfill mission. Lazarus this, Illusive Man!

mjb203 wrote...

I agree 100% on the Witcher 2 point! And don't worry, you didn't sound rude in the first reply, especially because it seems that we are on the same side of the aisle on this!

Glad to hear. But because here are few those who accepted my quirks, I prefer to excuse first.

mjb203 wrote...

I don't like the forced aspect of it either! Like I said, I think Bioware did great with it in the Virmire situation in ME1, but it just comes right out of left field in ME3 with the Catalyst.

Well, on Virmire situation I think we'll be in disagreement.

Modifié par Rudy Lis, 23 septembre 2012 - 07:47 .

[mjb203]

Rudy Lis wrote...

mjb203 wrote...

Forced sacrifice is ridiculous in a video game, although I will admit in the Virmire situation, Bioware pulled that forced sacrifice out nicely.

Nope. Remote detonator, anti-withdrawal system (so called booby-trap, linked to main fuze, just in case), airdrop (Joker dropped Mako in 20 metres gap, after all), more than 4 characters on the go (hello, there is full detail of Marines aboard Normandy, plus Mako, not just Liara, Tali and optional Garrus and Wrex), plus, Steven Seagal move - Shepard sacrifices himself and let those others to fulfill mission. Lazarus this, Illusive Man!

Ha!  Well, I suppose if the salarians could have rigged it up like that, then sure!  But as I was saying it didn't seem to come out of nowhere like the Catalyst did.  It flowed well within the story.  The same way Legion's sacrifice flowed well with the story in ME3 (yeah, I would have liked it if he surivived, but it didn't feel out of place like the Catalyst did).

[CaIIisto]

I agree with the sentiment - it would have been more of a sacrifice if I'd gotten to choose it for myself.

[Iakus]

Bester76 wrote...

I agree with the sentiment - it would have been more of a sacrifice if I'd gotten to choose it for myself.

I would love to have had the scrifices in teh ending be by ordering individuals, groups, or even entire fleets to their probable deaths.  Not just have the sacrifice forces on you based on the color of chocie you picked.  No sacrifice, even Shepard's should have been set in stone.

[Rudy Lis]

mjb203 wrote...

Ha!  Well, I suppose if the salarians could have rigged it up like that, then sure! 

 

Salarians? SALARIANS?! N7 operatives flying on high-tech ship which should be filled with lot of different armament can't do even this?
Given lack of flashlights, FLIR, NVG and schizophrenic overall ME2/3 guns system, I can say only one thing - fcuk that future, I like our dull "primitive" past...

mjb203 wrote...

But as I was saying it didn't seem to come out of nowhere like the Catalyst did.  It flowed well within the story. 

Well, I haven't noticed the flow, but at least yes, Kaidan and Ashley were present almost from game's beginning, unlike that evil casper.

mjb203 wrote...

The same way Legion's sacrifice flowed well with the story in ME3 (yeah, I would have liked it if he surivived, but it didn't feel out of place like the Catalyst did).

Well, if I know a few things about military, I'm total cretin when it comes to computers, but why it's not possible to copy his personality somewhere? In case with EDI codex says that each AI will be different, but in case of Geth? Yesterday's Legion is worse than today's one?

[Netsfn1427]

But why would you sacrifice if you don't have to?

Now, if you had something that was gained by Shepard dying (the Geth and EDI live), then maybe this could be argued. You don't want to commit genocide against synthetics and Shepard dies instead. Otherwise it plays out like destroy+ currently does, Shep lives by synthetics die.

But if you have an ending with no sacrifice, there's zero incentive for anyone to choose another ending.

Of course, some could argue that we already have that. Synthesis, space magic flaws and all, has Shepard sacrifice his/her life for the betterment of the Galaxy. Whether I disagree with the premise, Bioware's picture is of a better galaxy in that ending. Destroy+ has Shepard living and Synthetics dying.

[CaIIisto]

iakus wrote...

I would love to have had the scrifices in teh ending be by ordering individuals, groups, or even entire fleets to their probable deaths.  Not just have the sacrifice forces on you based on the color of chocie you picked.  No sacrifice, even Shepard's should have been set in stone.

You could have had something like in the Suicide Run in ME2 - assigning people to roles in the final battle, including those that you know you're sending to die. In terms of the sacrifice theme, that would have been a more satisfying way of doing it IMO.

[mjb203]

Netsfn1427 wrote...

But why would you sacrifice if you don't have to?

Now, if you had something that was gained by Shepard dying (the Geth and EDI live), then maybe this could be argued. You don't want to commit genocide against synthetics and Shepard dies instead. Otherwise it plays out like destroy+ currently does, Shep lives by synthetics die.

But if you have an ending with no sacrifice, there's zero incentive for anyone to choose another ending.

Of course, some could argue that we already have that. Synthesis, space magic flaws and all, has Shepard sacrifice his/her life for the betterment of the Galaxy. Whether I disagree with the premise, Bioware's picture is of a better galaxy in that ending. Destroy+ has Shepard living and Synthetics dying.

Well, in that case people would be meta-gaming and not really role-playing.  In the cases I described, there was still the option of Shepard to sacrifice, if that is the story arc that your particular Shepard was leaning towards.  In your case, you are arguing that all Shepards, regardless of what they believe, should either sacrifice themselves or commit genocide against synthetics.  Given that there is no evidence that the Catalyst is not lying, and therefore can be no guarantee that the Reapers will be controlled or synthesis will take place (without meta-gaming), it is just sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice.  It comes out of nowhere just so everyone won't pick destroy.  That is a poor reason to include an arbitrary sacrifice.

For example, in Control, why doesn't the control beam affect all synthetics with Reaper tech?  If the beam cannot differentiate in Destroy, how can it in Control?  If it can target specific DNA in Sythesis, why can't I choose to have it target krogan DNA along with synthetics in Destroy if I had Wreav in charge of the krogan clans?  It makes no sense from a story perspective, other than to keep people from "picking the best choice" because there is none.

[AlanC9]

LucasShark wrote...
Then pick a sacrafice storyarc if you feel it's the best one.  I don't see how the existence of a more uplifting ending elsewhere makes that one less relevant.

Because unnecessary sacrifice is a silly mistake.

Modifié par AlanC9, 23 septembre 2012 - 09:17 .

[mjb203]

Rudy Lis wrote...

mjb203 wrote...

Ha!  Well, I suppose if the salarians could have rigged it up like that, then sure! 

 

Salarians? SALARIANS?! N7 operatives flying on high-tech ship which should be filled with lot of different armament can't do even this?
Given lack of flashlights, FLIR, NVG and schizophrenic overall ME2/3 guns system, I can say only one thing - fcuk that future, I like our dull "primitive" past...

mjb203 wrote...

But as I was saying it didn't seem to come out of nowhere like the Catalyst did.  It flowed well within the story. 

Well, I haven't noticed the flow, but at least yes, Kaidan and Ashley were present almost from game's beginning, unlike that evil casper.

mjb203 wrote...

The same way Legion's sacrifice flowed well with the story in ME3 (yeah, I would have liked it if he surivived, but it didn't feel out of place like the Catalyst did).

Well, if I know a few things about military, I'm total cretin when it comes to computers, but why it's not possible to copy his personality somewhere? In case with EDI codex says that each AI will be different, but in case of Geth? Yesterday's Legion is worse than today's one?

Well, in the case of rigging something up, I just meant since the salarians rigged the nuke from their drive core (if I'm remembering correctly), they may not have had time to also rig up a longe range detonator.  I'm just trying to argue from a story perspective, but I certainly see where you are coming from in that regard.  I'm just saying from my POV, the game made it seem like there was a tight enough deadline that doing such never really crossed my mind at that point in the game.  However, had the choice been present, I would have been all for allowing that option to happen!

As for the third point, yeah, I didn't like that the "copy/paste" Reaper code not working, but it still fell within my suspension of disbelief and didn't distract from the overall story as much.  But I do agree with your premise that since the geth A.I. works differently than others in the ME universe that it could have been presented better.