121 réponses à ce sujet

[Bfler]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Just don't pull an ME3.... no... no... no.. no....

If the ending is like the new destroy ending mod, which came out two days ago, I would be satisfied with it.

[Sable Rhapsody]

Bfler wrote...
If the ending is like the new destroy ending mod, which came out two days ago, I would be satisfied with it.

Well, a more polished version of the MEHEM.  I wonder how compatible the Frostbite engine will be with modding if we end up not liking the ending?  It took months to develop the tools for the new ending mod, and those are still fairly rudimentary.

[Arppis]

How about they show us the ending before hand and let us decide if it's good or not? /sarcasm.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Kyle Kabanya wrote...

ME3 ending would have been so much better, if they would have made the choices matter. Everything up to the end was meaningless, because you made one more decision that negated everything else that happened before the final decision, and forced everything and everyone into one of three senarios that didn't include shepard, the character we poured our time and heart into.

But aside from that catastrophe, DA3 needs one thing, CLOSURE. It doesn't matter if the game ends with a decision, a boss, a big bang, doens't matter, as long as our choices had a butterfly effect that crafted and molded the ending in some way. And the story must conclude the PC's story, unless it continues to DA4.

You are incorrect.

If you saved the quarians, they were alive and prospering.
If you saved the Krogan, they were alive and prospering.

The difference is that your previous choices didn't directly win the fight with the reapers.
You final choice decided the fate if the galaxy, but it didn't invalidate your previous choices (aside from possibly the Geth, but that is the price one pays).
You choices DID shape the galaxy. The lives of enitre SPECIES and PLANETS. But that simply isn't enough for some people.
I guess they expect to see the Rachnii murder the reapers if they saved them, even tough it was obvious such a thing won't happen and can't happen.

There was this silly idea that every choice you make MUST have a MASSIVE impact at the end. Regardless ifit makes narrative/story sense or not.

Shappard completed his objective. He won in the end. The galaxy was saved.
That is a happy ending, but obviosuly not happy enough for some.

And in the context of saving the galaxy from anihiliation, minor impacts like who is leading the Krogan or if character X survived or not are utterly unimportant and immaterial. So of course they wont' change the "feel" of
the ending in any meaningfull way.

[KDD-0063]

One thing:
Don't introduce the core conflict, especially one that players won't probably care about, in the final moment. ME3 introduce/altered its core conflict into "man vs AI" in its final moment. What's worse? It did it by saying it--and as a consequence, I don't buy it, which leads to the ending feels extremely jarring and making no sense.

Now, the mage vs templar core conflict seems well established in DA3 for now. So it is probably easier to follow.

On a last note, if you absolutely want to change the theme and core conflict, introduce it earlier, and not right in the end!

[Lotion Soronarr]

What makes you think it wasn't the core conflict?

[Fawx9]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

What makes you think it wasn't the core conflict?

When it was always the Reapers causing the problems and not the AIs.

[Kanon777]

I dont care about bitter or swet endings, all I need is an epilogue, like in DAO, that shows the consequences of my choices and how they affected my companions. DA2, ME1, ME2 AND ME3 failed to do that so i hope we get it right this time...

[WotanAnubis]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

What makes you think it wasn't the core conflict?

Mass Effect 3 made me think that.

It seemed to be Galaxy VS Reapers. And the Galaxy definitely included EDI and potentially the Geth - both AIs helping defend the galaxy against the evil, genocidal Reapers.

And then Star Kid is like "Nope. The Reapers are SAVING you from the evils of EDI and the Geth by murdering the lot of you and harvesting your genetic material".

And then I was like "... what?"

[Lord Gremlin]

By the gods, I don't want a final boss. Almost all bosses in Dragon Age are a chore and not enjoyable to fight.
The really important things about ending are
1) VASTLY different endings, like night and day. Like in Jade Empire.
2) The ending is decided by player and you should feel like you really work towards this goal and accomplished it.

Personally, I just want an option to become the one malevolent force of true Evil to rule them all... Just a suggestion.

[Blastback]

I've been thinking, and I think the main objection I have to ME3's ending, and the reason I can't enjoy it at all, is that Shepard doesn't earn the victory.  It's handed to him/her, by the Reapers no less.  If Shepard had died to simply activate the crucible, or protecting it long enough to beat the Reapers, it could have worked for me.  I may prefer a happy ending, but i can live with a bitter sweet one, if it's done right.  But in ME3, you only earn how much damage the galaxy recives when the game ends.  Whatever option you pick isn't your solution, it's the Catayist's. 

[LinksOcarina]

WotanAnubis wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

What makes you think it wasn't the core conflict?

Mass Effect 3 made me think that.

It seemed to be Galaxy VS Reapers. And the Galaxy definitely included EDI and potentially the Geth - both AIs helping defend the galaxy against the evil, genocidal Reapers.

And then Star Kid is like "Nope. The Reapers are SAVING you from the evils of EDI and the Geth by murdering the lot of you and harvesting your genetic material".

And then I was like "... what?"

So the question I  have is, without Shepard being directly or indirectly involved, would the involvement of the Geth and EDI be enough to prove the Catalyst wrong?

Got to remember they are proof of it turning, but not proof staying peaceful, because who knows what happens after the fact as well. 

[esper]

Lord Gremlin wrote...

By the gods, I don't want a final boss. Almost all bosses in Dragon Age are a chore and not enjoyable to fight.
The really important things about ending are
1) VASTLY different endings, like night and day. Like in Jade Empire.
2) The ending is decided by player and you should feel like you really work towards this goal and accomplished it.

Personally, I just want an option to become the one malevolent force of true Evil to rule them all... Just a suggestion.

I don't want a big final choice. I want a final boss ending  based on choices I made before the ending. Not in the last second before the final boss fight.

[Fast Jimmy]

Ironically enough, the only ending where we can see a world without the Reapers and give EDI and the Geth a chance to prove if they would, indeed, turn on organics is destroy, where they are annihilated.

[WotanAnubis]

LinksOcarina wrote...

So the question I  have is, without Shepard being directly or indirectly involved, would the involvement of the Geth and EDI be enough to prove the Catalyst wrong?

Got to remember they are proof of it turning, but not proof staying peaceful, because who knows what happens after the fact as well.

The Catalyst can assert whatever he likes, everything else in the Mass Effect series contradicts him.

Yeah, sure, it's possible EDI goes HAL-9000 on us, but what proof do we have of that? She enters into a relationship with Joker for crying out loud.

It's possible the all the Geth turn evil, but what proof do we have of that? First the Geth acted in self-defence against the Quarians. Then, when the Quarians were defeated the Geth let them go, staying behind on/above Rannoch to do their own thing and not bother anyone else. The only reason some but not all Geth turned hostile was because the Reapers showed up and messed them up like they did (it is implied) the Rachni.

And then there's that credit-stealing Citadel AI in Mass Effect, who is, admittedly, quite unpleasant. But even it does what it does because it knows its existence is illegal and it will be destroyed/killed if found out. And it, quite reasonably, wants to exist.

And Star Child wants me to believe that AIs will 'inevitably' turn against organic life? Well, who am I going to believe? The Reaper Spokesman or the evidence of my own eyes?

[LinksOcarina]

WotanAnubis wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

So the question I  have is, without Shepard being directly or indirectly involved, would the involvement of the Geth and EDI be enough to prove the Catalyst wrong?

Got to remember they are proof of it turning, but not proof staying peaceful, because who knows what happens after the fact as well.

The Catalyst can assert whatever he likes, everything else in the Mass Effect series contradicts him.

Yeah, sure, it's possible EDI goes HAL-9000 on us, but what proof do we have of that? She enters into a relationship with Joker for crying out loud.

It's possible the all the Geth turn evil, but what proof do we have of that? First the Geth acted in self-defence against the Quarians. Then, when the Quarians were defeated the Geth let them go, staying behind on/above Rannoch to do their own thing and not bother anyone else. The only reason some but not all Geth turned hostile was because the Reapers showed up and messed them up like they did (it is implied) the Rachni.

And then there's that credit-stealing Citadel AI in Mass Effect, who is, admittedly, quite unpleasant. But even it does what it does because it knows its existence is illegal and it will be destroyed/killed if found out. And it, quite reasonably, wants to exist.

And Star Child wants me to believe that AIs will 'inevitably' turn against organic life? Well, who am I going to believe? The Reaper Spokesman or the evidence of my own eyes?

Well, if Shepard wasn't involved again, would you have a choice in believing anyone?

I mean, my point is that without Shepard there is no reason to believe anything you just said, because the Catalyst would be proven right. With Shepard, you have a chance to change things. It doesn't mean, however, the change will last, which I think is kind of the point though. 

[WotanAnubis]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Well, if Shepard wasn't involved again, would you have a choice in believing anyone?

I mean, my point is that without Shepard there is no reason to believe anything you just said, because the Catalyst would be proven right. With Shepard, you have a chance to change things. It doesn't mean, however, the change will last, which I think is kind of the point though.

How would Shepard's absence prove the Star Child right? Why would EDI go evil without Shepard? Why would the Geth go berserk without Shepard?

OK, yes, you could say that without Shepard the Reapers would kill everyone. So what? That does not prove that AIs inevitably turn on the people that created them - the argument Star Kid uses to claim the genocidal Reapers are the good guys somehow. It's complete nonsense, rendering the entire ending a ridiculous farce.

Modifié par WotanAnubis, 05 novembre 2012 - 09:53 .

[LinksOcarina]

WotanAnubis wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Well, if Shepard wasn't involved again, would you have a choice in believing anyone?

I mean, my point is that without Shepard there is no reason to believe anything you just said, because the Catalyst would be proven right. With Shepard, you have a chance to change things. It doesn't mean, however, the change will last, which I think is kind of the point though.

How would Shepard's absence prove the Star Child right? Why would EDI go evil without Shepard? Why would the Geth go berserk without Shepard?

OK, yes, you could say that without Shepard the Reapers would kill everyone. So what? That does not prove that AIs inevitably turn on the people that created them - the argument Star Kid uses to claim the genocidal Reapers are the good guys somehow. It's complete nonsense, rendering the entire ending a ridiculous farce.

You misunderstand my point. Basically, without Shepard's involvement with the Geth/Quarian conflict, the Geth would be percieved as the main force of the bad guys as they were in game one. As for EDI, would she stay as the Hannibal AI  on the moon and nothing else? 

It's me doing what I hate, which is the age-old "what if?" scenarios. Does it make things right? No, but it does kind of show how, without the intervention of Shepard, theoretically the Catalyst would be correct in the end regarding its logic. 

[Maria Caliban]

LinksOcarina wrote...

You misunderstand my point. Basically, without Shepard's involvement with the Geth/Quarian conflict, the Geth would be percieved as the main force of the bad guys as they were in game one. As for EDI, would she stay as the Hannibal AI  on the moon and nothing else? 

I disagree.

The geth weren't considered a threat until Shepard exposed their actions and later helped beat back the attack on the Citadel. Prior to Shepard's involvement, the Council's attitude was that the Geth were isolationists. If no one bothered them, they bothered no one. It had been that way for centuries.

Yes, the qunari thought of the geth as 'bad guys' but no one really respects the qunari or cares about opinions on galactic matters anyway.

Likewise, EDI wouldn't exist without Shepard because she was made from the remains of Sovereign.

Without Shepard, the Reapers swoop in at the end of game one and take over.

[thats1evildude]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Yes, the qunari thought of the geth as 'bad guys' but no one really respects the qunari or cares about opinions on galactic matters anyway.  

Well, no wonder. Who cares about the opinions of a bunch of hornheads on some backwater fantasy world when it comes to galactic politics?

[Maria Caliban]

[burning salaradile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Ironically enough, the only ending where we can see a world without the Reapers and give EDI and the Geth a chance to prove if they would, indeed, turn on organics is destroy, where they are annihilated.

So basically, the starchild is asking you to take its word for it without giving you the opportunity to test its logic.