354 réponses à ce sujet

[GreyLycanTrope]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...
And validate it's claim that synthetics and organics can get along by removing all synthetics from the equation. I can't support that claim I don't agree with it.

This, I think, is the root from which your other criticisms grow.  I guess at least there is a Refuse option now, for those who feel so strongly about this principle that they are willing to literally sacrifice everything and everybody in the galaxy for it.

Yeah I have the banner for a reason, though being penalized for holding that view point is....well infuriating to say the least.

[CaptainZaysh]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Yeah I have the banner for a reason, though being penalized for holding that view point is....well infuriating to say the least.

Yeah, so you'd like there to have been an option to permanently solve the synthetic/organic thing without negotiating with the enemy?  If so it kind of seems like you wanted a solution with no costs.

[MegaSovereign]

Synthetics aren't removed from the equation...In fact Starjar says eventually new synthetics will be rebuilt.

[CaptainZaysh]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Synthetics aren't removed from the equation...In fact Starjar says eventually new synthetics will be rebuilt.

Are you talking about the Destroy ending?  Yes, organics will always build synthetics, that is the reality that underpins the reason for the Catalyst's existence.

[Gervaise]

The hero doesn't have to die for the trilogy to come to an end. Baldurs Gate didn't end with the death of the main character but their story did so far as being involved with it was concerned. Neverwinter Nights 2 did not end with the death of the main character but uncertainty over their end and their companions, which was resolved in the Mask of the Betrayer.

That said, I fully expected Shepard to die saving the galaxy. In fact from the moment Hackett said that something called the Catalyst was needed to complete the Crucible, I thought "Shepard is definitely going to die". I was convinced that Shepard was the catalyst and in fact I still think that is true because only Shepard was able to make the the "decision" and thus make things happen, which is what a catalyst does. All the conversations with the crew mates tended to reinforce the idea that Shepard was not going to make it.

There had been a theme running throughout of destroy versus control. It had been there in ME2 in Legion's loyalty mission and at the end with the decision over the Collector Base. It resurfaced in the Genophage cure (since originally the Citadel council had chosen control over destroy) and again on Rannoch. And since the morality and effects of choosing one over the other were mixed, it was reasonable that the final choice would be between the two, with mixed outcomes with respect to morality, effects, emotional impact, etc.

The main problem was with synthesis because throughout the entire trilogy, the results of subjecting beings to it had been portrayed as bad and the hybrids created as nothing short of monsters. Then suddenly we are presented with it as a possible ending that is sold to us on the basis of being something that is good. Plus the Reapers no longer being the big bad acting out of their own conviction that they are superior and thus entitled to do as they do, but mere tools of the Intelligence. I always knew they must have been created but assumed that creator had been one of the first to perish - so the Leviathans fitted perfectly well with that scenario but the Intelligence didn't. It's logic made no sense at all to me and so I had little reason to want to agree with it and take its "ideal" solution. However, the first run through I was totally confused by the colour scheme and the fact that normally a shining white light is associated with good outcomes (had I not seen as much in my memory share with Liara?)

Reading the Final Hours, it is revealled that originally we were going to be given a conventional big boss ending with a synthesised and power boosted TIM. Presumably after beating him we would simply press the button and get a conventional destroy ending with Reapers wiped out and everyone else surviving, except possibly Shepard. For some reason, the writers decided this would too cliched and predictable and so we got the endings we did. May be they should do a DLC ending with the one they originally planned and then when people get to the beam, that is where they are given the choice of a) conventional ending (TIM boss) or director's cut (the current endings). Since they have made it clear that Shepard's story ends regardless and it would be impossible to write a sequel without canonising one of the endings anyway, this would make little difference except allowing those people who do not enjoy the endings, to experience the original "conventional" vision of the writers rather than the later "non-conventional" one.

Modifié par Gervaise, 31 octobre 2012 - 02:38 .

[crimzontearz]

honestly....Bioware wanted to deliver something....they failed

Strangely enough, 343i tried to do the same thing and poof....they did it very VERY well. Much better than bioware

well then....we will see if Bioware can learn from their mistakes, we know EA does not

[TK EL_]

Anyone who sees this for anything other than what it was, a rushed, substandard effort at a trilogy conclusion is going the extra mile to deceive themselves. It's really that simple. I can spout rhetoric upon rhetoric but I did that months ago. The fact are there: rushed development, intentionally deceptive PR, change of trilogy end focus only after the end of the second game. Plot holes, inconsistencies, et al were inevitable

[Sanunes]

crimzontearz wrote...

honestly....Bioware wanted to deliver something....they failed

Strangely enough, 343i tried to do the same thing and poof....they did it very VERY well. Much better than bioware

well then....we will see if Bioware can learn from their mistakes, we know EA does not

The big difference I see between 343 and BioWare is that 343 decided to ignore what their players were wanting in the game and made the game they wanted to, if you look around here you have people demanding BioWare add a certain feature or character to the game and BioWare will do so.  So BioWare is stuck, make a substandard game and try and make people happy or ignore players and make them upset because they weren't listened to.

[CaptainZaysh]

TK EL wrote...

Anyone who sees this for anything other than what it was, a rushed, substandard effort at a trilogy conclusion is going the extra mile to deceive themselves.

If only we were all as smart and self aware as you, eh, TK EL?  I might have achieved the same conclusion you did if only I were more honest with myself.

[crimzontearz]

TK EL wrote...

Anyone who sees this for anything other than what it was, a rushed, substandard effort at a trilogy conclusion is going the extra mile to deceive themselves. It's really that simple. I can spout rhetoric upon rhetoric but I did that months ago. The fact are there: rushed development, intentionally deceptive PR, change of trilogy end focus only after the end of the second game. Plot holes, inconsistencies, et al were inevitable

please 

some people did not believe DA2 was rushed even when Inon Zuhr plublicly stated so. Some fans will never believe

[Catman Assuming Direct Control]

But...but... the ending was great.

[crimzontearz]

Sanunes wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

honestly....Bioware wanted to deliver something....they failed

Strangely enough, 343i tried to do the same thing and poof....they did it very VERY well. Much better than bioware

well then....we will see if Bioware can learn from their mistakes, we know EA does not

The big difference I see between 343 and BioWare is that 343 decided to ignore what their players were wanting in the game and made the game they wanted to, if you look around here you have people demanding BioWare add a certain feature or character to the game and BioWare will do so.  So BioWare is stuck, make a substandard game and try and make people happy or ignore players and make them upset because they weren't listened to.

I disagree with that, given what I saw from the leaks they listened quite well

also, Bioware was given a NUMBER of polls detailing what players wanted and chose to ignore them.....the result? I am left speculating whether my character is alive or not where other players got the closure they wanted

[GreyLycanTrope]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Yeah, so you'd like there to have been an option to permanently solve the synthetic/organic thing without negotiating with the enemy?  If so it kind of seems like you wanted a solution with no costs.

I don't want to solve the organic synthetics problem at all, that's something we should strive towards on our own without Reaper involvment. I've made some progress towards that end with the Geth and EDI, I'd like to see where that road takes us, not erase it and start from scratch. I'm open to negotiation, the Catalyst isn't, he dictates he doesn't argue. No costs? How many people have died in the conflict already? Do you really need to add all existing synthetics to the already staggering list of casualties for it to be meaningful? If I had the option to remove the Reapers and have Shepard die in the process I would take it in a heart beat. The existing cost is contrary to what I'm trying to achieve.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 31 octobre 2012 - 03:06 .

[wright1978]

Sanunes wrote...

I think part of the problem is they put too many variables into the ending when they really haven't done that in my recent memory, if there was a single ending and the only choice there was to kiss your LI, a final goodbye hug to Shepard's mother, or something simliar at the Forward Operations Base and from that point forward everything becomes static to new choices I believe the ending could have been much better. If you really look back at Mass Effect 1 and 2, at least for me neither gives me a good conclusion so that made the expectation of a conclusion for Mass Effect 3 that much higher.

My biggest problem with the Extended Cut is that it left the "breath scene" intact making it the default ending for so many people that want the hope that Shepard is alive. If they simply changed the breath audio for a person flat lining I think it would have kept the different endings balanced.

Completely removing player agency and  player choice in the ending such as you suggest would make things much worse not better. As it currently stands not expanding on the breath scene to provide exposition to shep lives is the problem not that Shep lives scenario exists.

[Da_old_Boss]

Pretty much spot-on OP.

[3DandBeyond]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Well yeah, that plus it was terribly-written.

Well it's not easy to take about five different endings from alternate sources, addressing completely different plots and themes and try to fit them into a completely different story.  I mean, how could they write anything else if someone else had not written it for some other story first?  I just wish someone had actually watched more blockbuster movies with heck yeah gut level we won endings than those with more intellectual endings that fit very specific other stories.  B5-order and chaos, Deus ex (a somewhat satirical game and the DeHR), Matrix, even the Princess Bride (stargazer telling bedtime stories) is represented, as well as synthesis taken from at least one game and one cartoon. 

These IPs actually had pretty well written endings, but it's not possible to smash them altogether and have them fit each other and then fit a story they were never meant for.

[ZajoE38]

The one and only reason is Catalyst. The "evil" - the Catalyst.. if he wanted to make a perfect trap, why would he - the central brain of Reapers put him self in to centre of the society -his target and didn't allow him self to control it. It's totally against logics. If the central mind would be (in) Harbinger, everything would be ok.

[Gamer790]

I agree completely Cheez, for whatever it' s worth.

Modifié par Gamer790, 31 octobre 2012 - 03:27 .

[unbentbuzzkill]

IMO the endings failed because of these three reasons

1. the reapers have been dead set on destroying all advance life in the galaxy for two games but suddenly in the third they give you the option of destroying them because they need a new solution? bull

2. harbinger has been a key figure since ME2 and you barely see him.

3. and this is the most important reason of all if you make a game and the fans of your game say WTF?! almost in unison all across the world adress the issue don't say "we are going to respect our writers artistic vision" which basically says we got your money already so your S.o.l get over it.

[crimzontearz]

unbentbuzzkill wrote...

IMO the endings failed because of these three reasons

1. the reapers have been dead set on destroying all advance life in the galaxy for two games but suddenly in the third they give you the option of destroying them because they need a new solution? bull

2. harbinger has been a key figure since ME2 and you barely see him.

3. and this is the most important reason of all if you make a game and the fans of your game say WTF?! almost in unison all across the world adress the issue don't say "we are going to respect our writers artistic vision" which basically says we got your money already so your S.o.l get over it.

notice also...their apologies were worded "we are sorry you found the endings subpar and that hurts us" as opposed to "we are sorry we let you down"

[xSTONEYx187x]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Synthetics aren't removed from the equation...In fact Starjar says eventually new synthetics will be rebuilt.

Are you talking about the Destroy ending?  Yes, organics will always build synthetics, that is the reality that underpins the reason for the Catalyst's existence.

So the whole point of the Reapers was to stop synthetics from destroying organics, yet he gives you the options to destroy the Reapers and every synthetic in the galaxy ..... THEN he tells you that you'll eventually be able to build synthetics again ...... WHAT'S THE POINT OF DESTROY THEN!? 

The Reapers will be no more, BUT, organics and synthetics will wage war in the distant future anyway, but this time the Reapers won't be around to "stop it" .... 

[CaptainZaysh]

xSTONEYx187x wrote...

The Reapers will be no more, BUT, organics and synthetics will wage war in the distant future anyway, but this time the Reapers won't be around to "stop it" .... 

Yes, the survivors of the Reaper War will need to devise a way to prevent being wiped out by a synthetic uprising.  (Hopefully they will be more careful than the Leviathans were.)

The point is that there actually will be survivors of the Reaper War, and they will cause no more galactic extinctions.  Do you see?

[EagleScoutDJB]

I like it when a developer is willing to try something new in a game, there are not enough left with the guts to do that. But the last game in a trilogy seems like the wrong place to try something new, and if you have the guts to try something new you need to have the guts to admit you were wrong if it doesn't work.

Modifié par dbollendorf, 31 octobre 2012 - 04:39 .

[SNascimento]

Greylycantrope wrote...

SNascimento wrote...


But you would miss something very important: uncertainty and the new beginning. Especially the former.
.
Let me put an ending scenario here and you tell me if this is something more close to what you'd like to see, just don't analize it to much. You pick destroy option: All reapers are destroyed, but the geth, EDI and the galaxy infrastructure remains intact. You last scene is Shepard being held by your friends while dying, and they say that he did it, he stopped the reapers and everybody is oh so very proud of him. Than you get a nice epilogue showing the afterward. Shepard being endless praised, maybe a classic statue scene. You get difference scenes depending on your actions and everything.
.
There is it. Pretty straight foward, don't you think? How would you liked it?
.
I'm very confident if that ending was available the uproar wouldn't have existed, or at least would have been minimal compared to what is was. People would be satisfied by it. But then, its message would be completely different from the one we've got now. Continuing with my stupid death analogy, you can't make it happen while give certainty to the player. You have to make it wonder what will happen after the end.

Still plenty of uncertainty to be had in that scenario. Will the Geth remain peaceful? Will the Krogan? What ahppens if Wreav was incharge instead of Wrex? What happens if Wrex isn't around anymore? Will the Yahg be a problem somewhere down the line? The Rachni? Are Cereberus ideals really dead or will they resuface? What fall out can the asari expect from withholding their Prothean Beacon? Primarch Victus was a good primarch during the war but can he handle peace? What will the Salarains do if the Genophage is cured will they try a different more extreme counter measure agains the Krogan?

Things aren't always certain, we can hope for the best but things can always change down the road, we'd get a fighting chance to actually make our own future with all parties involved but just the future seems bright now doesn't mean it will always remain so.

.
That is not the same thing. This kind of uncertainty would have a totally different affect on the player, to the point for most  people it wouldn't be an emotional problem, but a racional one. ME3's original ending make you feel the incertainty deep inside you. And that is definitely not what people wanted. No wonder they good so pissed.

[Iakus]

dbollendorf wrote...

I like it when a developer is willing to try something new in a game, there are not enough left with the guts to do that. But the last game in a trilogy seems like the wrong place to try something new, and if you have the guts to try something new you need to have the guts to admit you were wrong if doesn't work.

This.

This is why I'm less upset about the misteps in DA2.  Different character.  Different setting.  Different time.  SUre, try something different.

But not in a linked trilogy.  Bring it home.  Then do something differnt for ME4.