209 réponses à ce sujet

[Dr_Extrem]

AlanC9 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...


so .. even in the original design, it apears, that the "perfect" sm would still have been possible. zaeed was part of the box if i remember correctly .. hard to get, yet possible.

That's my guess. It's not based on any evidence except that a dev once said the IFF should have been forced and if they did force it the numbers would be exactly right. Assuming the GameInformer (?) SM calculations are correct; I have not tested this yet myself.

well .. guessing is all we have .. they made the design decision a long time ago - in favour of the higly possible perfect ending. (when my uncle played me2 for the first time, he had no casualties - he just picked the right team members, because he thought they would be good at their jobs)

was it wrong to raise high expectations? .. maybe (a big maybe - almost a yes). is it right to fuel those high expectations for the majority of me3, just to abandon the possibility at the ending? certainly not.


imo, you should stick to your decisions. "konsequent sein heißt, auch holzwege zuende zu gehen" (being consistant also means, to stay off track, til the end.)

[AlanC9]

Kabooooom wrote...

People who are literature inclined view the endings as shoddy writing. Because they are. I mean, that's just an objective observation - there is no denying it.

Sure. There are ways to set up this sort of dizzying narrative shift -- Gene Wolfe does it all the time-- but Bio didn't use them. They did set up that the Crucible was going to do something strange, but that's it.

I suppose The Fall of Hyperion comes closest to doing what ME3 did, but we get the big reveal there at about the 3/4 mark of the story.

[AlanC9]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

imo, you should stick to your decisions. "konsequent sein heißt, auch holzwege zuende zu gehen" (being consistant also means, to stay off track, til the end.)

I can't actually think of an equivalent to that saying in English, except for maybe "you dance with who brung you"

[Dr_Extrem]

AlanC9 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

imo, you should stick to your decisions. "konsequent sein heißt, auch holzwege zuende zu gehen" (being consistant also means, to stay off track, til the end.)

I can't actually think of an equivalent to that saying in English, except for maybe "you dance with who brung you"

its fitting .. alternate version: "you have made your bed, now you must lie in it." (wie man sich bettet, so liegt man)

[Wayning_Star]

OP, it's simple. There is NO A B C or D ending...

[cyrexwingblade]

aM1ty wrote...

 Please keep in mind I beat ME3 for the first time ever with the Extended Cut DLC Installed.

I just basically did a suicide run over the past week playing ME1, 2 and 3 in a row. It has quickly become my favourite video game series of all time. One of the things I loved about Mass Effect was the conclusion it had. Shepard died a hero, at least from the "major decision" I picked, and had to sacrifice everything he's built and loved in order to save Humanity. Please tell me what was so horrible about that? Why was that worth changing? Is it only because I played the Extended Cut that I actually enjoyed the conclusion to the Shepard trilogy?

I need answers!

If you are happy, then the ending was fine.

I was not.

[Hurbster]

Because dark matter suddenly did not matter any more.

So many things wrong with the endings. Synthesis fans should be aware that it was ripped DIRECTLY from one of the Deus Ex:Invisible War endings.

[capn233]

Can someone please explain to me their experience of the color blue? Do I see the same thing when I look at something we call blue as you do?

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

capn233 wrote...

Can someone please explain to me their experience of the color blue? Do I see the same thing when I look at something we call blue as you do?

Blue

[Massa FX]

The ending did not fit with Shepard's personality established throughout the series.

1. Shepard bent over, submissive, and led around a merry go round of logic by a child air that resembled a dead character (which s/he doesn't even acknowledge), is what set my BS flag to high alert.

... from that first moment of "wake up" till the Bioware dialog thanking me for playing is... a huge disappoint.

[Fur28]

DinoSteve wrote...

capn233 wrote...

Can someone please explain to me their experience of the color blue? Do I see the same thing when I look at something we call blue as you do?

Blue

are you indoctrinated or something, thats obviously red

[AlanC9]

 This is Blue.

[Coder4Hire]

I could tell you, but let's use this instead. It's months old, but it's still correct AND you can watch it while you eat dinner.

[Vortex13]

The Catalyst is a perfect example of over explanation ruining a solid premise. You have two games worth of build up on how the Reapers must be stopped, how they need to be destroyed; 'Culturally Dead, nothing worth preserving." as Mordin put it.

But then suddenly, in the last five minutes of the game the plot decides that having a never before seen mastermind be behind everything is a much better choice then Harbinger as the big bad. Not only that, but the narrative feels that the Reapers also need to be portrayed as tragic, sympathetic villains, completely contrary to how they were portrayed in the previous two games. The story then deems it nesasary to have this brand new character to act as an info dump and deliver a fifteen minute monologue trying to explain why the sudden shift in theme was needed right at the climax of the game.

K.I.S.S. none of this pointless Shamalama-ding-dong "It's a twist!" expansion was vital to the story, if the past (almost) year is any indication, then this was a huge series damaging move.

[samgurl775]

More than anything for me, it was the "yo dawg" logic of the Catalyst, and the fact he was introduced in the last 10 minutes of the game.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

I'd like someone to tell me what was good about the endings?

Modifié par DinoSteve, 04 janvier 2013 - 12:53 .

[KevShep]

aM1ty wrote...

 Please keep in mind I beat ME3 for the first time ever with the Extended Cut DLC Installed.

I just basically did a suicide run over the past week playing ME1, 2 and 3 in a row. It has quickly become my favourite video game series of all time. One of the things I loved about Mass Effect was the conclusion it had. Shepard died a hero, at least from the "major decision" I picked, and had to sacrifice everything he's built and loved in order to save Humanity. Please tell me what was so horrible about that? Why was that worth changing? Is it only because I played the Extended Cut that I actually enjoyed the conclusion to the Shepard trilogy?

I need answers!

1. The ending is an EXACT copy and paste ending of Deus Ex with the same Exact 4 choices destroy/merge/control and refuse.

2. The baseline plot of ME was set before ME1 and was continued in ME2, however (since the lead writer Drew K went to SWTOR) before ME3 the baseline plot changed to remove the plotline of ME2 COMPLETELY. ME2's plot was centered around the human reaper/collector base and now that ME3's NEW plot direction happend ME2's ENITER plot has nothing to do with stopping the reapers and now the human reaper/colletor base is nothing but a foot note in the series that should have been... JUST... a DLC instead of a full blown game.  ME is about stopping the reapers and ME2 added nothing to that! The crucible SHOULD have been in ME2 instead!

3. There are more plot holes in the last 10 minutes then there are in the whole entire series even after the EC and all its DLC's.

Modifié par KevShep, 04 janvier 2013 - 01:24 .

[Dean_the_Young]

KevShep wrote...

2. The baseline plot of ME was set before ME1 and was continued in ME2,

Dude... they've outright admitted, on various points across the series, that this wasn't the case. Even before the ending uproar. The trilogy certainly doesn't suggest it from its execution (the depiction of Cerberus, the lack of progress in advancing a victory over the Reapers themselves in ME2, the poorly-planned implications of the suicide mission), and a lot of the weaknesses across the games and lack of smooth transition doesn't exactly suggest it either.

They admitted before after ME2 that they hadn't considered the companion rolls for ME3 in light of the Suicide Mission, they've admitted that Cerberus was initially a throw-away, and they've denied that Dark Energy was ever some established intent. You'd actually have to argue that the writers are lying when they've admitted to not having it all planned out, which is not only strange but an extremely difficult position to make.

[KevShep]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

KevShep wrote...

2. The baseline plot of ME was set before ME1 and was continued in ME2,

Dude... they've outright admitted, on various points across the series, that this wasn't the case. Even before the ending uproar. The trilogy certainly doesn't suggest it from its execution (the depiction of Cerberus, the lack of progress in advancing a victory over the Reapers themselves in ME2, the poorly-planned implications of the suicide mission), and a lot of the weaknesses across the games and lack of smooth transition doesn't exactly suggest it either.

They admitted before after ME2 that they hadn't considered the companion rolls for ME3 in light of the Suicide Mission, they've admitted that Cerberus was initially a throw-away, and they've denied that Dark Energy was ever some established intent. You'd actually have to argue that the writers are lying when they've admitted to not having it all planned out, which is not only strange but an extremely difficult position to make.

I didnt say the plot was thought out, I said that the underline plot was.

Drew K even said what he wanted to do with ME3, it involved the human reaper/collector base. Iam not talking about specifics of the plot per say.

Modifié par KevShep, 04 janvier 2013 - 01:33 .

[Dean_the_Young]

KevShep wrote...

I didnt say the plot was thought out, I said that the underline plot was.

Then you'll have to establish a distinction, because I've never heard of such a thing as a 'underline plot.'

Drew K even said what he wanted to do with ME3, it involved the human reaper/collector base. Iam not talking about specifics of the plot per say.

Then you'll need to elaborate clearly and measuredly.

[KevShep]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

KevShep wrote...

I didnt say the plot was thought out, I said that the underline plot was.

Then you'll have to establish a distinction, because I've never heard of such a thing as a 'underline plot.'

Drew K even said what he wanted to do with ME3, it involved the human reaper/collector base. Iam not talking about specifics of the plot per say.

Then you'll need to elaborate clearly and measuredly.

By underlining plot I mean that they may not have known what they were going to do with cerberus or TIM but the underlining plot was stopping the reapers.Underlining plot is the basics of what to work with to develop the plot. As the series goes on they add to the underlining plot with things like the human reaper/collector base...all of this is what makes the actuall plot. ME3 did not offer a way for ME2 to contribute to stopping the reapers as it should have been since they have now made it part of the plot at the end of ME2!

Modifié par KevShep, 04 janvier 2013 - 01:44 .

[SSPBOURNE]

It was underwhelming and had more holes than a driving range. It tried to be a firework show with the fancy effects and ''''brilliant'''' (need to add plenty of air quotes on ''''''''''brilliant'''''''''') plot twists. But it came out as a wet fart. Which is the only sound I could hear after I got to the starkid.

Modifié par SSPBOURNE, 04 janvier 2013 - 01:52 .

[Dean_the_Young]

KevShep wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

KevShep wrote...

I didnt say the plot was thought out, I said that the underline plot was.

Then you'll have to establish a distinction, because I've never heard of such a thing as a 'underline plot.'

Drew K even said what he wanted to do with ME3, it involved the human reaper/collector base. Iam not talking about specifics of the plot per say.

Then you'll need to elaborate clearly and measuredly.

By underlining plot I mean that they may not have known what they were going to do with cerberus or TIM but the underlining plot was stopping the reapers.Underlining plot is the basics of what to work with to develop the plot. As the series goes on they add to the underlining plot with things like the human reaper/collector base...all of this is what makes the actuall plot. ME3 did not offer a way for ME2 to contribute to stopping the reapers as it should have been since they have now made it part of the plot!

You're putting the cart before the horse. And the luggage outside of the cart.

The reapers being stopped isn't the underlying plot: it's the end-state of the series. How that happens is the plot, and those specifics are the plot.

ME3 did not offer a way for ME2 to contribute to stopping the Reapers except... well, wait, it did. Through the Rannoch and Tuchanka arcs, as well as through The Illusive Man and Cerberus. ME3 certainly built main story arcs off of elements brought up in ME2, not least because they were actually built up in ME2. These key arcs certainly did contribute to stopping the Reapers, providing the narrative's key alliances of forces and support to creating the Crucible.

ME3 did not offer a way for ME2 to contribute to the actual means of stopping the Reapers because ME2 did jack squat with that modestly important subplot. This is the failure of ME2 to raise up something important in advance rather than of ME3 to go scavenging for something ME2 neglected to develop. It certainly could have been conceivable to write a plot in which the Crucible-equivalent might have been divulged from the Collector Base, the only real information archive of note to be reached in ME2... but ME2 thought it would be great to allow the player to blow up the base, and so the Vital Information was probably going to have to come from somewhere else. ME2 did develop the means, and so ME3 had to and did from somewhere players couldn't complain about having already blown up.


There was no pre-planned path for how to get to the end of ME3 until ME3 itself. The Collector Base and the Human Reaper were possibilities, not firm intents.

[KevShep]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

but ME2 thought it would be great to allow the player to blow up the base, and so the Vital Information was probably going to have to come from somewhere else. ME2 did develop the means, and so ME3 had to and did from somewhere players couldn't complain about having already blown up.


There was no pre-planned path for how to get to the end of ME3 until ME3 itself. The Collector Base and the Human Reaper were possibilities, not firm intents.

This is the other thing that I have a problem with.The story was supposed to arc into different endings such as saving the council or killing them and blowing up the collector base/or keeping it. There was only one narrative and one ending and only one path that did not take into account you past actions. The best past action that I can think of is that I keeped the krogan cure in ME2 and it went off of that and had a impact( i think, I never saw what happend if you picked something else in ME2).

If ME3 was going to use the crucible then they should have use ME2 to introduce it. Since they did not then the...Crucible like device...should have come from something in ME2 such as with cerberus or the collector base( if it was destroyed).

The underlining plot of destroying the reapers WAS the underlining plot as countless people ingame(and narrative) have made that clear.