267 réponses à ce sujet

[CaIIisto]

tevix wrote...

The catalyst design attempts to make you feel free, but really you aren't. Any of the original three options you take is you accepting the reapers logics, and following their orders. If you pick refuse it's a glrofied game over sceen, not earning you an actual completion of the game. You ultimately have no real choice.

With refuse, yes you lose, but you also torpedo the Reapers chances in the next cycle. 

[Vajraja]

For me pass - it still doesn't mean the ending was great. But more clarity around my major issues: where is the normandy going, is everyone dead now? and others were explained in greater detail. So it works - I don't think there would have been as big a stink if the EC was the original ending. The Starchild is still annoying - and synthesis sucks : )

[BleedingUranium]

tevix wrote...

2) The original dark energy ending idea is a template for what should have been implemented.
---Accept the reapers reasoning and allow the harvest
---Reject the reapers reasoning and destroy them

That's the thing about the dark energy ending, it's the same choice, just using a different vehicle:

-Believe the Reapers and help them
-Don't believe the Reapers and kill them

[Blade8971]

The EC didn't do much at all. It's unfortunate that Bioware didn't fix the endings over the past year when they had the chance. The Shepard Trilogy will always be remembered for the horrible endings in ME3 - which will be brought up repeatedly when Bioware rolls out future games whether they are Mass Effect or another title. If they believe this would go away - it won't.

[tevix]

@Bester76

Giving the next cycle victory without having to fight the reapers should count as a vicotry in and of itself. The refuse does not count as a game completion (won't earn you an achievement, trophy). It's a glorified game over screen. BW did not intend this as an acceptable method of "victory".

@BleedingUranium

The difference is you truly reject the reapers and still achieve an acceptable ending (as in it would count as a game completion). The destroy option is not rejection of the reapers. You are still using their technology. It's an option that is still presented and made available by the Catalyst. If you accept one of it's choices, you are accepting it's reasoning.

The only way to truly reject them is not considered a completion of game, and does not change in any way based on your actions up to that point. The only other action that grants you a glorified game over screen is sex with morinth. That is nothing more than novelty, and not considered an "acceptable" action to proceed through the game. A rejection of the reapers should be.

[mass perfection]

Fail.

[CaIIisto]

tevix wrote...

@Bester76

Giving the next cycle victory without having to fight the reapers should count as a vicotry in and of itself. The refuse does not count as a game completion (won't earn you an achievement, trophy). It's a glorified game over screen. BW did not intend this as an acceptable method of "victory".

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not crediting BW here.

What BW intended with the refuse ending really doesn't concern me at all, it's how it works narratively. I find it far more palatable than either synthesis or control, either of which largely gives the Starbrat what it wants - a new solution where the Reapers survive. You might as well call those the surrender or collaboration options. 

Destroy and refuse are the only choices I'd go with. Granted, destroy is one of Casper's options, but the only reason it tells you about that one is because it knows you already know about it. It doesn't want you to pick destroy, that much is obvious from its reaction when you shoot the tube. There's a downside, apparently, but is there? All synthetic life will be targetted by the beam. Will it? nice ass-pull there Casper. Given that it knows that it has to tell you about destroy, when it actually wants you to pick one of the other two choices, it's not outside the realm of possibility that it's being economical with the truth. 

The reason I choose destroy over refuse is that a) I don't really believe the brat when he tells me that ALL synthetic life will be destroyed, and Even if that were true, that's an acceptable loss to me anyway. Plus, the extent of the downside is malleable anyway - what if you already sided with the Quarians and the Geth are gone? Then it's just EDI - didn't the Citadel DLC just suggest that EDI can be shut down? We know that Shepard has a working communicator, that's how he talks with Hackett, so what's to stop Shepard contacting the Normandy and getting EDI shut down before shooting the tube?

If there were no destroy option though then it would have been refuse, and the trophy/achievement could have stayed locked. 

Modifié par Bester76, 17 mars 2013 - 02:16 .

[Zagardal]

k.lalh wrote...

Pass. C+
It's a story. BioWare made a story. If you didn't like their story, that's not a fault of BioWare. If they gave you a Disney ending to the games, how cheesy would that be. It's an M rated game with some of the most mature themes that I would never have expected to find in a video game.
If you don't like it that much, that you find it self-fulfilling to rant about it, by all means go for it. People agree with you.
But keep in mind, they have the right to take the story where they want, and if you didn't like it, writing a thousand word essay isn't going to do anything, especially when BW already added to the ending by giving out a free DLC.
A FREE DLC.
From a company owned by EA.
Think about that for a bit.
Bioware did a lot for the fans that complained, and they gave us Citadel and Leviathan which helped to answer many of our requests and address a lot of our concerns.
Now the endings.
People complain left, right, and centre, how many plot holes there are in the endings. I call baloney. There are plot holes in every game. The reason why people b*tch and complain, is that it wasn't what they wanted and they looked hard to justify the reasons for their feelings.
If I did the same every time something crappy happens in my life and I didn't get what I wanted, I would be a horrible person to be around.
The endings had mediocre writing at best. A MacGuffin and a Deus Ex Machina wooo. But come on...how pretentious can you get. They ended the games, and closed Shepard's story arc. That's what their purpose was. But keep in mind. EA's fiscal year ends at the end of March. ME3 was rushed to please the stock holders and spruce up their coffers. 

BW fixed it with the EC + DLC, and cleaned up a lot of that crap we complained about. 

Is it still lacking? Yeah ofc.

Is it good enough? For a game I paid ~$20 for and got over 150h worth of game play? Yep.

I'll respond to you by quoting myself

Zagardal wrote...
Failed, hard. We needed an actual debate with the starbrat, something that included examples, back up arguments, exposition, etc. We needed the greatest exchange of the trilogy, and the EC just added a few lines to a mediocre cop out, completely ignoring the main gameplay mechanic; it's the equivalent of taking an action game with a very deep combo system and making the final boss a quicktime event.

What we got what just pandering to vast amount of people that just wanted a happy ending or more closure, which we honestly didn't need.

Is it good enough? no, it isn't. But I'm talking about the ending, not the entire game. I actually liked the game, and the ending didn't kill it for me, but I'm not gonna defend the ending just because I can say "hey, I did get a lot of bang for my buck". The same goes the other way around, I won't trash the game, or the series for that matter, just for the last 10 minutes.

"It's a story. BioWare made a story. If you didn't like their story, that's not a fault of BioWare" Again, loved the story, hated the ending. And that is Bioware's fault, because I'm not talking about the decisions they made in regards to where the story might go, but about the fact they did a poor job managing those choices. There's a lot of unaddressed plot holes, and as you said yourself, they ended things with a MacGuffin and a Deus Ex Machina, that's just lazy writing. Way too lazy for what the series had already done in the past (look at ME2, a game with practically no real narrative objective in the major story arc, but they pulled it off), and way too lazy for what BW claims it can do with storytelling.

Modifié par Zagardal, 17 mars 2013 - 01:49 .

[AlanC9]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

[Because it by definition is the most pointless choice you can have (it has no real consequence because the trilogy is over) .

What definition would that be? Plenty of RPG choices don't change anything during gameplay, either because they're at the end of the game or because they change the status if a location that you're about to leave forever.

Pointless as presented in ME, because you don't return to see the consequences later, if it's the last thing you do.

Right. And like I just said, and you quoted, lots of RPG choices work like that. Returning to see consequences is not all that common.

[tevix]

@Bester76

You make a good argument.

Thinking about the destroy ending proves you right, in that it's an option that is already there but it tries to avoid if at all possible. It paints it as the worst choice when in reality if you don't trust the reapers and want them gone that's the choice to make.

Destroy was always the crucible's intended use, the catalyst just co-opted it for his own goals. Destroy would then essentially be a middle finger to him.

[GreyLycanTrope]

fail

[MacroSpamMK]

Blade8971 wrote...

The EC didn't do much at all. It's unfortunate that Bioware didn't fix the endings over the past year when they had the chance. The Shepard Trilogy will always be remembered for the horrible endings in ME3 - which will be brought up repeatedly when Bioware rolls out future games whether they are Mass Effect or another title. If they believe this would go away - it won't.

They couldn't change the endings.
First of all, it was Bioware's story and vision. Yes, their ending didn't appeal to a lot of people, but it was their ending and they'd be selling themselves out if they changed it. And two, they'd alienate the people (however few they may have been) who enjoyed the endings.

[XxBrokenBonezxX]

EC failed miserably.

[mumba]

XxBrokenBonezxX wrote...

EC failed miserably.

More of this in the thread!

[nrobbiec]

BringBackNihlus wrote...

Pass. With flying colors.

More of this in the thread! (Though not necessarily spelt the American way)

[AlanC9]

tevix wrote...

Destroy was always the crucible's intended use, the catalyst just co-opted it for his own goals. Destroy would then essentially be a middle finger to him.

This is pure headcanon. You don't know anything about the intended use.

Modifié par AlanC9, 17 mars 2013 - 02:26 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

MacroSpamMK wrote...
They couldn't change the endings.
First of all, it was Bioware's story and vision. Yes, their ending didn't appeal to a lot of people, but it was their ending and they'd be selling themselves out if they changed it. And two, they'd alienate the people (however few they may have been) who enjoyed the endings.

Because alienating the many hardcore fans who did want it changed because storywise, narratively, and thematically, is garbage is so much better.

Makes perfect sense.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 17 mars 2013 - 02:28 .

[tevix]

@AlanC9

Destroy is availible no matter how lousy your military score is.

Only when it becomes more advanced and well defended does it become capable of the other two options. This suggests that with an advanced design the catalyst is capable of co-opting it for his own purposes.

It is also said at least once in the game that it seems to have enough energy to destroy the reapers. It's simply a question of HOW will it destroy them.

"How will it dispense the energy, and in what form?"

Destroy is the default capacity of the device, thus it's original intention.

Not head-canon.

[BleedingUranium]

tevix wrote...

Destroy is availible no matter how lousy your military score is.

Actually no, if you saved the Collector Base and have low EMS, you can only Control. While this dosen't make sense taken literally, it makes perfect sense in other interpretations.

Modifié par BleedingUranium, 17 mars 2013 - 02:41 .

[tevix]

@Bleedinguranium

Are any of those interpreations anything that won't get the thread locked?

[BleedingUranium]

tevix wrote...

@Bleedinguranium

Are any of those interpreations anything that won't get the thread locked?

They would, I believe :innocent:

[XxBrokenBonezxX]

Mumba1511 wrote...

XxBrokenBonezxX wrote...

EC failed miserably.

More of this in the thread!

Someone has to remove the rose colored glasses and see it for what it is.

[AlanC9]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Actually no, if you saved the Collector Base and have low EMS, you can only Control. While this dosen't make sense taken literally, it makes perfect sense in other interpretations.

Why doesn't it make sense taken literally? And what other interprerptations make more sense?

Modifié par AlanC9, 17 mars 2013 - 03:22 .