342 réponses à ce sujet

[KiwiQuiche]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

GlassElephant wrote...

High Kicks wrote...

Maybe Shep's apartment will survive the destruction.
Only to be looted after said destruction. Probably.

Shepard: " I don't like looters."
Looters: "What? Are you going to kill us over it?"
Shepard: "I've killed people for less."

the looters will need to change their pants.

"Relax Mouse, you can change your pants in a moment."

[MegaSovereign]

Nerevar-as wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

So much hyperbole.

Why would the ending overshadow the DLC content? Your squadmates will still be alive and kicking post-ending. And the ending certainly won't overshadow the memories.

Just think of whatever TV, movie, book, etc left you so dissapointed you didn´t go back to it or its authors. That´s it.

I still don't understand.

If this is how you feel about ME3 then why would you buy the next DLC? And why would Bioware cater to people who feel strongly about their hatred for their products?

[PainCakesx]

MegaSovereign wrote...

So much hyperbole.

Why would the ending overshadow the DLC content? Your squadmates will still be alive and kicking post-ending. And the ending certainly won't overshadow the memories.

Because I didn't play as my squadmates, I played as Shepard. He was the center of my story as the protagonist. While the future of my squadmates are important, the protagonist of the story is arguably more important. We have 4 possible outcomes:

1) You die
2) You die
3) You die
4) You ambiguosly *might* survive under seemingly impossible conditions, or die.

It's not difficult to see why this fact overshadows the DLC. Great, I get a new apartment, gamble it up with squadmates and relax. Before I am blown to hell. 

Having funtimes with the squad before the ending is utterly pointless and only serves to make the experience worse. Hate to say it, but BioWare really dropped the ball here.

Modifié par PainCakesx, 22 février 2013 - 11:19 .

[Eterna]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

So much hyperbole.

Why would the ending overshadow the DLC content? Your squadmates will still be alive and kicking post-ending. And the ending certainly won't overshadow the memories.

Just think of whatever TV, movie, book, etc left you so dissapointed you didn´t go back to it or its authors. That´s it.

I still don't understand.

If this is how you feel about ME3 then why would you buy the next DLC? And why would Bioware cater to people who feel strongly about their hatred for their products?

The "E" word. 

[PainCakesx]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

So much hyperbole.

Why would the ending overshadow the DLC content? Your squadmates will still be alive and kicking post-ending. And the ending certainly won't overshadow the memories.

Just think of whatever TV, movie, book, etc left you so dissapointed you didn´t go back to it or its authors. That´s it.

I still don't understand.

If this is how you feel about ME3 then why would you buy the next DLC? And why would Bioware cater to people who feel strongly about their hatred for their products?

I can't speak for the above poster, but I don't hate ME3 just to hate on it. I wanted them to fix the one, glaring problem with the game. If they were to do that, this "hatred" would fizzle out significantly.

They refuse to do it to supposedly stand by their Deus-Ex rip-off of an ending - a decision that I will never understand.

[MegaSovereign]

FlamingBoy wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

So much hyperbole.

Why would the ending overshadow the DLC content? Your squadmates will still be alive and kicking post-ending. And the ending certainly won't overshadow the memories.

You know what, since when was hyperbole became a bad thing, I have notice that on this forums its slowly turned into this monster despite not being logically invalid

Hyperbole: is the use of a rhetoric or exaggeration in order to express strong emotions.

people do this all the time like "I LOVE CUPCAKES" or " this chair weighs 1000000 pounds"

Since when has hyperbole become a bad thing, people do it all the time. Its an accepted form of speech.

Hyperboles are usually used by people who can't effectively let their talking points speak for itself. Passively using hyperboles in a casual discussion is not a bad thing, but it in an actual debate it's frowned upon.

[MegaSovereign]

PainCakesx wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

So much hyperbole.

Why would the ending overshadow the DLC content? Your squadmates will still be alive and kicking post-ending. And the ending certainly won't overshadow the memories.

Because I didn't play as my squadmates, I played as Shepard. He was the center of my story as the protagonist. While the future of my squadmates are important, the protagonist of the story is arguably more important. We have 4 possible outcomes:

1) You die
2) You die
3) You die
4) You ambiguosly *might* survive under seemingly impossible conditions, or die.

It's not difficult to see why this fact overshadows the DLC. Great, I get a new apartment, gamble it up with squadmates and relax. Before I am blown to hell. 

Having funtimes with the squad before the ending is utterly pointless and only serves to make the experience worse. Hate to say it, but BioWare really dropped the ball here.

So you have one outcome where Shepard isn't dead. You put some fluff around the words "you survive" to try to disregard this outcome.

And either way, your assessment of each outcome is incredibly simplistic, if not ridiculously misleading. In any story the pursuit of the protagonist's goals take precedence over the protagonist's health by the end of it . Unless ofcourse his primary goal was to stay alive---which it wasn't considering how the ME2 intro went down .

Your current argument is that because Shepard dies in most of the endings, his efforts to save everyone and everything he has ever loved in the galaxy were pointless. This couldn't sound anymore ridiculous.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 22 février 2013 - 11:34 .

[Nerevar-as]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

So much hyperbole.

Why would the ending overshadow the DLC content? Your squadmates will still be alive and kicking post-ending. And the ending certainly won't overshadow the memories.

Just think of whatever TV, movie, book, etc left you so dissapointed you didn´t go back to it or its authors. That´s it.

I still don't understand.

If this is how you feel about ME3 then why would you buy the next DLC? And why would Bioware cater to people who feel strongly about their hatred for their products?

I won´t buy it, nor did I buy the previous ones. No point. I´m letting go of ME as a whole, but I sympathize with people who won´t/can´t.

And the hate goes towards the ending, not towards the product. These people LOVE ME, and are hurt by what  was done to it by some misguided and failed attempt at "artisitc maturity" the writers hadn´t the talent to pull off. That it was done by pulling the rug from under their feet at the very end just makes things worse. I think we still haven´t got an explanation about why they chose that ending because most would say how stupid the writers were.

[PainCakesx]

MegaSovereign wrote...

PainCakesx wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

So much hyperbole.

Why would the ending overshadow the DLC content? Your squadmates will still be alive and kicking post-ending. And the ending certainly won't overshadow the memories.

Because I didn't play as my squadmates, I played as Shepard. He was the center of my story as the protagonist. While the future of my squadmates are important, the protagonist of the story is arguably more important. We have 4 possible outcomes:

1) You die
2) You die
3) You die
4) You ambiguosly *might* survive under seemingly impossible conditions, or die.

It's not difficult to see why this fact overshadows the DLC. Great, I get a new apartment, gamble it up with squadmates and relax. Before I am blown to hell. 

Having funtimes with the squad before the ending is utterly pointless and only serves to make the experience worse. Hate to say it, but BioWare really dropped the ball here.

So you have one outcome where Shepard isn't dead. You put some fluff around the words "you survive" to try to disregard this outcome.

And either way, your assessment of each outcome is incredibly simplistic, if not ridiculously misleading. In any story the pursuit of the protagonist's goals take precedence over the protagonist's health by the end of it . Unless ofcourse his primary goal was to stay alive---which it wasn't considering how the ME2 intro went down .

Your current argument is that because Shepard dies in most of the endings, his efforts to save everyone and everything he has ever loved in the galaxy were pointless. This couldn't sound anymore ridiculous.

No, my point was that to end his character arc in such an unsatisfying manner makes it pointless.

And I added "fluff" because the premise around his survival is so ridiculous that it's difficult to believe. The reason people question his survival is because his survival makes no sense. He's shot, hit by a reaper laser and engulfed in the flames of a 14 km diameter explosion. We even see him bleeding out before he's lifted to the RGB chamber. It makes no damn sense.

His efforts in the Reaper war are important, but to ignore the fact that ME is a very character driven story where the player builds a strong connection to Shepard is also disengenuous. Shepard becomes an extension of us, and therefore what happens to him is of great importance. Maybe this isn't the case to you, but it's evidently the case for many. This is why this DLC is overshadowed by the ending - because in a game that prides itself on immersing the player into the role of Shepard, his ultimate fate makes this DLC difficult to swallow.

And "winning" the reaper war is questionable, as it doesn't feel like a victory. You can "win" the war by forcing genetic mutation on everyone in the galaxy, enslaving all synthetic life or committing mass genocide. So even at the end of it all, Shepard's sacrifice amounts to very little. 

Modifié par PainCakesx, 22 février 2013 - 11:45 .

[FlamingBoy]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

So much hyperbole.

Why would the ending overshadow the DLC content? Your squadmates will still be alive and kicking post-ending. And the ending certainly won't overshadow the memories.

Just think of whatever TV, movie, book, etc left you so dissapointed you didn´t go back to it or its authors. That´s it.

I still don't understand.

If this is how you feel about ME3 then why would you buy the next DLC? And why would Bioware cater to people who feel strongly about their hatred for their products?

I don't hate biowares products, I hate there new direction, because they techniquely don't cater what they used but at the same time say this time "we are taking feedback into account".
Its dishonesty

[Nerevar-as]

MegaSovereign wrote...



So you have one outcome where Shepard isn't dead. You put some fluff around the words "you survive" to try to disregard this outcome.

Er.... no. The devs did.

[MegaSovereign]

PainCakesx wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

PainCakesx wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

So much hyperbole.

Why would the ending overshadow the DLC content? Your squadmates will still be alive and kicking post-ending. And the ending certainly won't overshadow the memories.

Because I didn't play as my squadmates, I played as Shepard. He was the center of my story as the protagonist. While the future of my squadmates are important, the protagonist of the story is arguably more important. We have 4 possible outcomes:

1) You die
2) You die
3) You die
4) You ambiguosly *might* survive under seemingly impossible conditions, or die.

It's not difficult to see why this fact overshadows the DLC. Great, I get a new apartment, gamble it up with squadmates and relax. Before I am blown to hell. 

Having funtimes with the squad before the ending is utterly pointless and only serves to make the experience worse. Hate to say it, but BioWare really dropped the ball here.

So you have one outcome where Shepard isn't dead. You put some fluff around the words "you survive" to try to disregard this outcome.

And either way, your assessment of each outcome is incredibly simplistic, if not ridiculously misleading. In any story the pursuit of the protagonist's goals take precedence over the protagonist's health by the end of it . Unless ofcourse his primary goal was to stay alive---which it wasn't considering how the ME2 intro went down .

Your current argument is that because Shepard dies in most of the endings, his efforts to save everyone and everything he has ever loved in the galaxy were pointless. This couldn't sound anymore ridiculous.

No, my point was that to end his character arc in such an unsatisfying manner makes it pointless.

And I added "fluff" because the premise around his survival is so ridiculous that it's difficult to believe. The reason people question his survival is because his survival makes no sense. He's shot, hit by a reaper laser and engulfed in the flames of a 14 km diameger explosion. We even see him bleeding out before he's lifted to the RGB chamber. It makes no damn sense.

His efforts in the Reaper war are important, but to ignore the fact that ME is a very character driven story where the player builds a strong connection to Shepard is also disengenuous. Shepard becomes an extension of us, and therefore what happens to him is of great importance. Maybe this isn't the case to you, but it's evidently the case for many. This is why this DLC is overshadowed by the ending - because in a game that prides itself on being immersed in the role of Shepard, his ultimate fate makes this DLC difficult to swallow.

And "winning" the reaper war is questionable, as it doesn't feel like a victory. You can "win" the war by forcing genetic mutation on everyone in the galaxy, enslaving all synthetic life or committing mass genocide. So even at the end of it all, Shepard's sacrifice amounts to very little. 

You added fluff because you were trying to reject its premise, whether that's because it weakens your doom and gloom assessment of how Shepard's fate is sealed, or because it simply wasn't sufficient in providing closure to Shepard's character arc. I want to believe it's the latter but it's probably a bit of both.  You make it sound like Shepard should have been obliterated by that point. So, according to you, post-ending DLC where Shepard is shown moving about after all those preceeding death traps is stupid in itself. Just saying, you can't cherry pick where you apply realism.

Ending the cycle is a definite outcome. That's not questionable. Whether you feel it was a victory is ultimately subjective. It does to me and a lot of other people but obviously not to you.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 22 février 2013 - 11:52 .

[PainCakesx]

Nerevar-as wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...



So you have one outcome where Shepard isn't dead. You put some fluff around the words "you survive" to try to disregard this outcome.

Er.... no. The devs did.

This too.

If their goal was to make the ending controversy go away, emptying a truck of gasoline onto the fire was definitely not a good way to go about it.

BioWare owns the current state of the community too. With the exception of the EC, they've dealt with the whole controversy the wrong way. Pretending it doesn't exist and acting aloof in the face of criticism is a good way to ensure that the controversy never goes away.

[MegaSovereign]

FlamingBoy wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

So much hyperbole.

Why would the ending overshadow the DLC content? Your squadmates will still be alive and kicking post-ending. And the ending certainly won't overshadow the memories.

Just think of whatever TV, movie, book, etc left you so dissapointed you didn´t go back to it or its authors. That´s it.

I still don't understand.

If this is how you feel about ME3 then why would you buy the next DLC? And why would Bioware cater to people who feel strongly about their hatred for their products?

I don't hate biowares products, I hate there new direction, because they techniquely don't cater what they used but at the same time say this time "we are taking feedback into account".
Its dishonesty

But they did take certain feedback into account. They can't please everyone but you can't ignore the fact that feedback did inspire the new hubs and ME1/ME2 cast content.

[PainCakesx]

MegaSovereign wrote...

You added fluff because you were trying to reject its premise, whether that's because it weakens your doom and gloom assessment of how Shepard's fate is sealed, or because it simply wasn't sufficient in providing closure to Shepard's character arc. I want to believe it's the latter but it's probably a bit of both.  You make it sound like Shepard should have been obliterated by that point. So, according to you, post-ending DLC where Shepard is shown moving about after all those preceeding death traps is stupid in itself. Just saying, you can't cherry pick where you apply realism.

Ending the cycle is a definite outcome. That's not questionable. Whether you feel it was a victory is ultimately subjective. It does to me and a lot of other people but obviously not to you.

If you wish to take the ending at face value and not look past that, then more power to you. You can try to ignore the fact that Shepard was clearly bleeding out prior to being woken up by Hackett and the fact that he was clearly on the verge of death if you'd like, but that doesn't change the fact that the circumstances surrounding his survival are nonsensical.

Now, would showing him unambiguously alive make that any less illogical? No, of course not. But it would at least provide closure, which is much better than an ending that provides no closure outside of a cheap cliffhanger cop-out of an ending to his character arc.

Nobody is arguing that BioWare's intention was to show him alive - they're arguing that the nonsensical premise removes any/all emotional impact of the scene, making it unsatisfying and anti-cathartic. Not to mention that a torso taking a breath is hardly a fitting end to a character we've played for over 100 hours regardless of circumstances surrounding the scene.

And while he ended the cycle, being forced to choose a war-crime to do it is a pitifully weak way to end the trilogy.

Modifié par PainCakesx, 23 février 2013 - 12:10 .

[SurfaceBeneath]

PainCakesx wrote...
And "winning" the reaper war is questionable, as it doesn't feel like a victory. You can "win" the war by forcing genetic mutation on everyone in the galaxy, enslaving all synthetic life or committing mass genocide. So even at the end of it all, Shepard's sacrifice amounts to very little. 

Alternatively you can "win" the war by elevating every organic being into a new state of higher being, watch over and protect the galaxy as a machine god, or turn off a few toasters and obliterate the Reapers for good.

Semantics are fun.

[Nerevar-as]

MegaSovereign wrote...

But they did take certain feedback into account. They can't please everyone but you can't ignore the fact that feedback did inspire the new hubs and ME1/ME2 cast content.

That´s the problem. They took feedback in what they didn´t care to change. There´s one huge blot in ME, and it´s going to stay. I don´t think they are aware how much they screwed. We´ll know who was right in a couple of years.

[PainCakesx]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

PainCakesx wrote...
And "winning" the reaper war is questionable, as it doesn't feel like a victory. You can "win" the war by forcing genetic mutation on everyone in the galaxy, enslaving all synthetic life or committing mass genocide. So even at the end of it all, Shepard's sacrifice amounts to very little. 

Alternatively you can "win" the war by elevating every organic being into a new state of higher being, watch over and protect the galaxy as a machine god, or turn off a few toasters and obliterate the Reapers for good.

Semantics are fun.

I guess it depends on whether or not you think that forcing a genetic change on every being in the galaxy or unilaterally declaring yourself the supreme overlord of the galaxy is an ethical decision.

And I tend to think that EDI and Legion were more than just "toasters." 

[SurfaceBeneath]

Also to answer the OP, knowledge that my Shepard will not survive the ending (at least as a mortal, Machine God Shepard for life) will not in any way minimize my enjoyment of spending time with friends. If I learned that IRL I was going to die tomorrow, I'd savor every moment I could with the people I love, not shut myself in a room and cry about it.

[PainCakesx]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Also to answer the OP, knowledge that my Shepard will not survive the ending (at least as a mortal, Machine God Shepard for life) will not in any way minimize my enjoyment of spending time with friends. If I learned that IRL I was going to die tomorrow, I'd savor every moment I could with the people I love, not shut myself in a room and cry about it.

If I was forced into that situation, I would too.

But this is a game, not real life. While in real life I'd prefer not to know when my exact time of death will be, I don't want to in a game either.

[Nerevar-as]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

PainCakesx wrote...
And "winning" the reaper war is questionable, as it doesn't feel like a victory. You can "win" the war by forcing genetic mutation on everyone in the galaxy, enslaving all synthetic life or committing mass genocide. So even at the end of it all, Shepard's sacrifice amounts to very little. 

Alternatively you can "win" the war by elevating every organic being into a new state of higher being, watch over and protect the galaxy as a machine god, or turn off a few toasters and obliterate the Reapers for good.

Semantics are fun.

No, they aren´t They are just a way to dress horrible things in a nice package so those who can´t see beyond it won´t complain. And I´m not talking about ME.

[SurfaceBeneath]

PainCakesx wrote...
I guess it depends on whether or not you think that forcing a genetic change on every being in the galaxy or unilaterally declaring yourself the supreme overlord of the galaxy is an ethical decision.

And I tend to think that EDI and Legion were more than just "toasters." 

I guess it depends on whether you think that Synthesis is "forced" when it was probably an inevitable outcome to begin with (most organic beings were already implementing synthetic systems into them throughout the entire trilogy) or if you think that a "Control" ending necessarily results in them "ruling the galaxy" and not just watching distantly and protecting them from threats that come up. 

Also I also think that EDI and the Geth were more than toasters. But a destroy ending doesn't negate the possibility of them being repaired and turned back on like toasters if you want to go that route. 

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 23 février 2013 - 12:11 .

[Nerevar-as]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Also to answer the OP, knowledge that my Shepard will not survive the ending (at least as a mortal, Machine God Shepard for life) will not in any way minimize my enjoyment of spending time with friends. If I learned that IRL I was going to die tomorrow, I'd savor every moment I could with the people I love, not shut myself in a room and cry about it.

If you learnt that IRL you´d have the worst death you can imagine, and it would undo all your life stood for, would you really enjoy the rest of yout life? That´s the flaw in ME ending, not Shepard dying.

Have you read Childhood´s End?

[MegaSovereign]

If you wish to take the ending at face value and not look past that, they more power to you. You can try to ignore the fact that Shepard was clearly bleeding out prior to being woken up by Hackett and the fact that he was clearly on the verge of death if you'd like, but that doesn't change the fact that the circumstances surrounding his survival are nonsensical.

And he wasn't "clearly on the verge of death." He survived Harbinger's shot with the only serious damage done being to his armor. And he got shot by Marauder Shields in the shoulder which isn't a vital organ. I think the passing out was from a major case of fatigue caused by the preceding events. When someone passes out from blood lost, simply saying "wake up" won't actually do anything.

Above all of that, Shepard is the closest thing to a cyborg in that fiction. He has upgrades that most humans don't and been through things that would break most people. And you could have upgraded Shepard even further through the Normandy's tech labs. A man like Zaeed can survive a shot to the head through rage and will alone.

And while he ended the cycle, being forced to choose a war-crime to do it is a pitifully weak way to end the trilogy.

I don't see how Control is a "war crime." I can see how it's morally conflicting but painting it as illegal is wrong. Or arguably killing synthetics. Technically the creation of AIs is illegal anyway. But that's besides the point.

Getting back on topic:

I still don't see how the ending conflicts with this DLC. The characters you've been working to save are all alive and well by the end of the journey. And if you choose Destroy, so does Shepard.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 23 février 2013 - 12:19 .

[Bizantura]

Going to follow Shepards end some day but today I enjoy his/her journey till that bitter end.