371 réponses à ce sujet

[remydat]

Life sucks and sometimes you have to make decisions that have no happy endings. You don't get to rewrite or mod life to get the ending you want. And that is why I loved the endings. I didn't completely love any of the choices because they all had moral dilemmas and to me that was strangely the most satisfying part for me.

[Alien Number Six]

Remydat I agree. There are no wins without losses.

[KaiserShep]

NeroonWilliams wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

The thing I guess I am absolutely greatful for is the retcon of the galactic dark age. So throw that on there. As I said, it wasn't the Geth or EDI that I worried about. It's the relay's, the lifeblood of civilization.

i have to say that aside from Shepard's survival, this is really what mattered most to me. Losing the relays would sour the whole thing for me. I'm fine with trading EDI and the Geth for the death of the reapers, but losing the civilization that we know and never being able to reach any of the worlds and characters would reduce the upsides in the endings to zero. 

Actually, keeping that Dark Age in the EC while grim, would have made that ending even more powerful for me.  Hmm, maybe swap the Dark Age for killing off the Geth.

Eh, I'm kind of picky about downer endings, and Mass Effect is one of those series in which making such an ending unavoidable should be a strict no-no.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

remydat wrote...

Life sucks and sometimes you have to make decisions that have no happy endings. You don't get to rewrite or mod life to get the ending you want. And that is why I loved the endings. I didn't completely love any of the choices because they all had moral dilemmas and to me that was strangely the most satisfying part for me.

I felt the exact opposite with it being a video game. I don't think it's satisfying at all with that 'realism'.

I'd rather have a higher version of destroy or whatnot (hell make it  conventional victory) where you lose 75% of your forces but beat the Reapers permanently. Only problem with that is that you don't use the Crucible, and, since you dicked around the whole game about building it (also wasting resources to finish it), you might as well use it.

I think I linked it but I put in my scenario of making the game better. It's headcanon, but it's much more believable to me than the ending we have.

The themes (major ones anyway): http://social.biowar...2117/4#16537887

And the broad ending scenario I have:
http://social.biowar...0327/7#16533863

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 05 mai 2013 - 05:57 .

[KaiserShep]

Personally I think using the mass relay network against the reapers is a pretty solid concept, though this would have been immensely improved with a conventional victory for earth itself, like earth is won in a straight fight, then the crucible is used to mop up the remaining reapers. All other options are needless hokum pretending to be viable options.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

dreamgazer wrote...

I do like how the ending messed around with the audience's perception of paragon and renegade alignments, and how aggressively it forced them to consider longevity and precedents in the story. It was handled horribly by contradicting logic and established lore, but I did appreciate that element of it.

I can dig it.

I'm a pro-ender, of sorts. Here's my take on it...

First, it should be said that I think the ending isn't bad, but it's far from flawless. It has its good and bad points.

What I disliked:
-- The Child.
-- Final-decision and options' consequences.
-- Lack of background information, details.

What I liked:
-- Music.
-- The Catalyst (not the same as "The Child").
-- Learning the Reapers' backstory.
-- Final-decision and options' consequences.


What I included in both is something I'm sort of split on -- I feel it both ways. On one hand, the execution of the Crucible options is pretty lousy, the downsides involved with all of them kind of ****** on the spirit/theme of their general ideals, and high EMS should have been better rewarded. However, I do like the general things they were going for. I like the high-stakes decision involving the fate of the galaxy, I like having an alternative story to simply "we kill the evil mawnsterz", I like establishing the hero facing a difficult dilemma and doing what he/she thinks is best.

So yeah, I have kind of a love-hate relationship with the ending. I just tend to look on the bright side a bit more.

[NS Wizdum]

remydat wrote...

Life sucks and sometimes you have to make decisions that have no happy endings. You don't get to rewrite or mod life to get the ending you want. And that is why I loved the endings. I didn't completely love any of the choices because they all had moral dilemmas and to me that was strangely the most satisfying part for me.

Life usually obeys the laws of physics and follows some kind of logic though. The ending just came out of nowhere. I went into the game fully expecting my character was going to die, and a lot of other people were going to die too. Thane and mordin were good deaths, they made sense. I didn't want them to die, but at least they died for something. Killing all the Geth and Edi because no one knows how to calibrate the giant space gun (that the leader of your enemy tells you to fire)? Not a good death. It doesn't seem like a moral dillemma to me, it seems like the writers needed to find a way to make each ending not appealing. They tossed in negative aspects just for the sake of  having a negative.

With the EC, and all the discussion that went on, I was sort of able to piece together how the writers intended the ending to be. They still failed in explaining that inside the actual game though.

[Jadebaby]

I'll tell you how some people can like it...

It's because everyone is different...

Some people out there have zero standards.. Twitter followers for example..

[NS Wizdum]

Jadebaby wrote...

I'll tell you how some people can like it...

It's because everyone is different...

Some people out there have zero standards.. Twitter followers for example..

I was with you until the last line, thats kind of a low-blow.

There are some people who created characters that fit perfectly into the ending.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Oh twitter canon.

Killing off fan-favorite characters and replacing them with pandering VG reporters in ****ty dresses since 2012!

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 05 mai 2013 - 08:31 .

[DDK]

NS Wizdum wrote...

The ending just came out of nowhere.

I don't feel it came out of nowhere at all. In fact, I predicted that it would be much like it was from the very beginning of the series. Not exactly, obviously, but I could already see the themes within the story and saw them coalesce in the sequel and solidfy in the final of the series. By the end, walking up to that last decision point, I knew exactly what the choices would be and the end result of them.

Normally I would say predictability is a bad thing. In this case, however, I felt I got exactly what it was I was expecting because of everything else the series had led me to believe from earlier on, and it felt very satisfying.

[Mastone]

Malisin wrote...

NS Wizdum wrote...

The ending just came out of nowhere.

I don't feel it came out of nowhere at all. In fact, I predicted that it would be much like it was from the very beginning of the series. Not exactly, obviously, but I could already see the themes within the story and saw them coalesce in the sequel and solidfy in the final of the series. By the end, walking up to that last decision point, I knew exactly what the choices would be and the end result of them.

Normally I would say predictability is a bad thing. In this case, however, I felt I got exactly what it was I was expecting because of everything else the series had led me to believe from earlier on, and it felt very satisfying.

I am sorry Mailisin, but I beg to differ..I beg to differ a helluva lot.
You obviously liked the ending ( I didnt so lets get that out of the way) and you are in your right to do so of course.
But stating that this ending was a logical outcome of all 3 installments is just not true, in fact  in hindsight the 3 installments look  more like 3 alternative ME stories with 3 blokes called shepard than it was a sequential storyline.
I was also disappointed not only by the strange and complete out of the blue ending, but also that absolutely none of your choices ever made any impact whatsoever ---except of course entries in the great journaling system...
It is quite understandable that  the player is no god who changes the universe by saying yes or no in dialoque, but things like dying at the end of ME2 or helping TIM out by saving the collectorbase( or not) should have changed the whole outset of ME3:
If Shepard died you should be starting ME3 as a new character fresh from the N7 program to join the Normandy as a replacement officer either siding with Cerberus or the Alliance depending on the loyalty of crewmembers and choices Shepard made in ME2.
If Shepard survived ME2 and sided with TIM he should side with Cerberus in the beginning, if you destroyed the collectorbase you get to start as an alliance member.

Oh and before people say this is technical not do able...please look at The Witcher 2...it al depends how dedicated you are in your craft...

I for one truly hope Bioware finds their spark again, but as of now hope is dwindling.

[AlanC9]

[quote]Mastone wrote...

I was also disappointed not only by the strange and complete out of the blue ending, but also that absolutely none of your choices ever made any impact whatsoever ---except of course entries in the great journaling system...[/quote]
[/quote]

How many RPGs have you played? Nothing you do in KotOR mean anything once you leave the planet you made the decision on. In DA:O consequences are minimal. TES games don't have consequences, Ultima games didn't have choices, TW1 changed a couple of battles and one mission in the endgame. The standard you're applying to ME3 seems to be one that would leave you in a perpetual state of disappointment.

[quote]
I for one truly hope Bioware finds their spark again, but as of now hope is dwindling.
[/quote]

Again? Bio never did what you're talking about.

Modifié par AlanC9, 05 mai 2013 - 03:34 .

[Morlath]

Mastone wrote...


I am sorry Mailisin, but I beg to differ..I beg to differ a helluva lot.
You obviously liked the ending ( I didnt so lets get that out of the way) and you are in your right to do so of course.
But stating that this ending was a logical outcome of all 3 installments is just not true, in fact in hindsight the 3 installments look more like 3 alternative ME stories with 3 blokes called shepard than it was a sequential storyline.
I was also disappointed not only by the strange and complete out of the blue ending, but also that absolutely none of your choices ever made any impact whatsoever ---except of course entries in the great journaling system...
It is quite understandable that the player is no god who changes the universe by saying yes or no in dialoque, but things like dying at the end of ME2 or helping TIM out by saving the collectorbase( or not) should have changed the whole outset of ME3:
If Shepard died you should be starting ME3 as a new character fresh from the N7 program to join the Normandy as a replacement officer either siding with Cerberus or the Alliance depending on the loyalty of crewmembers and choices Shepard made in ME2.
If Shepard survived ME2 and sided with TIM he should side with Cerberus in the beginning, if you destroyed the collectorbase you get to start as an alliance member.

Oh and before people say this is technical not do able...please look at The Witcher 2...it al depends how dedicated you are in your craft...

I for one truly hope Bioware finds their spark again, but as of now hope is dwindling.

But Shepard choosing to return to Alliance makes sense regardless of how anyone plays ME2. Shepard is an N7, the best of the best the Alliance can make and sides with the Cerberus to help the colonies. No matter if people play Shepard with a xenophobic slant, he is an Alliance man through-and-through. He believes in the ideals of the Alliance if not its current methodology.

Renegade Shepard uses Machiavellian actions to get the best results but at no point does Shepard get given or look to take the chance to either go pirate or actually join Cerberus beyond the Collector mission. The start of ME3 makes sense with the way that ME2 is handled.

I've said it before but I really believe that people don't understand the reason why ME3 is not and should never have been the great open-world, multi-choice utopia that is wanted. ME3 is taking place in the middle of a galatic war and you don't sandbox a war experience. A military operation in war time is under much more regimented control that one sent to hunt a rogue agent or a Black Ops group sent to research and stop the abductions of civilians.

[MegaSovereign]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Oh twitter canon.

Killing off fan-favorite characters and replacing them with pandering VG reporters in ****ty dresses since 2012!

I don't like Emily Wong or Diana Allers. I never liked any of the reporters in the ME series.

I seriously don't understand how any of the reporters could have a fan base.

[N7-RedFox]

Jadebaby wrote...

I'll tell you how some people can like it...

It's because everyone is different...

Some people out there have zero standards.. Twitter followers for example..

I lol'd coz its true 

Modifié par N7-RedFox, 05 mai 2013 - 04:17 .

[dreamgazer]

Jadebaby wrote...

I'll tell you how some people can like it...

It's because everyone is different...

Some people out there have zero standards.. Twitter followers for example..

C'mon, Jade. 

[dreamgazer]

MegaSovereign wrote...

I don't like Emily Wong or Diana Allers. I never liked any of the reporters in the ME series.

I seriously don't understand how any of the reporters could have a fan base.

I liked Emily Wong enough to find it infuriating that they offed her on Twitter and incorporated an IGN employee into the cast.

[remydat]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I felt the exact opposite with it being a video game. I don't think it's satisfying at all with that 'realism'.

I'd rather have a higher version of destroy or whatnot (hell make it  conventional victory) where you lose 75% of your forces but beat the Reapers permanently. Only problem with that is that you don't use the Crucible, and, since you dicked around the whole game about building it (also wasting resources to finish it), you might as well use it.

I think I linked it but I put in my scenario of making the game better. It's headcanon, but it's much more believable to me than the ending we have.

The themes (major ones anyway): http://social.biowar...2117/4#16537887

And the broad ending scenario I have:
http://social.biowar...0327/7#16533863

It's a matter of preference.  I hate when games and movies all have happy endings.  I think there is enough happy endings out there that I appreciate a game that doesn't have one.  Considering ME1 and ME2 was us fighting a single reaper and his goons, I saw no way ME3 would end with a perfect happy ending.  Look how much trouble we had with one reaper and you want me to believe things will be A-OK when thousands if not hundreds of thousands of them attack.  But again, people are free to disagree.

[remydat]

NS Wizdum wrote...

Life usually obeys the laws of physics and follows some kind of logic though. The ending just came out of nowhere. I went into the game fully expecting my character was going to die, and a lot of other people were going to die too. Thane and mordin were good deaths, they made sense. I didn't want them to die, but at least they died for something. Killing all the Geth and Edi because no one knows how to calibrate the giant space gun (that the leader of your enemy tells you to fire)? Not a good death. It doesn't seem like a moral dillemma to me, it seems like the writers needed to find a way to make each ending not appealing. They tossed in negative aspects just for the sake of  having a negative.

With the EC, and all the discussion that went on, I was sort of able to piece together how the writers intended the ending to be. They still failed in explaining that inside the actual game though.

Pretty sure the game has been ignorng the laws of physics for a long time.  The giant space gun was passed down over millions of years, I don't find it unusual that they would not know how it all works as stuff is bound to be lost in translation over that vast an amout of time.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

MegaSovereign wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Oh twitter canon.

Killing off fan-favorite characters and replacing them with pandering VG reporters in ****ty dresses since 2012!

I don't like Emily Wong or Diana Allers. I never liked any of the reporters in the ME series.

I seriously don't understand how any of the reporters could have a fan base.

Who would you have preferred though? The established character who has been with the series since the first game and who it would have been nice to see again? Or the IGN woman who sounds and looks like complete crap, and who's inclusion in the game is heavily suspected to amount to pandering for a good review, not to mention taking resources away that could have gone to some other feature, like a side-mission or whatnot?

I understand if you say neither as well. I thought it was an interesting idea to have a reporter on the ship, but I think the execution was utterly terrible.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

remydat wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I felt the exact opposite with it being a video game. I don't think it's satisfying at all with that 'realism'.

I'd rather have a higher version of destroy or whatnot (hell make it  conventional victory) where you lose 75% of your forces but beat the Reapers permanently. Only problem with that is that you don't use the Crucible, and, since you dicked around the whole game about building it (also wasting resources to finish it), you might as well use it.

I think I linked it but I put in my scenario of making the game better. It's headcanon, but it's much more believable to me than the ending we have.

The themes (major ones anyway): http://social.biowar...2117/4#16537887

And the broad ending scenario I have:
http://social.biowar...0327/7#16533863

It's a matter of preference.  I hate when games and movies all have happy endings.  I think there is enough happy endings out there that I appreciate a game that doesn't have one.  Considering ME1 and ME2 was us fighting a single reaper and his goons, I saw no way ME3 would end with a perfect happy ending.  Look how much trouble we had with one reaper and you want me to believe things will be A-OK when thousands if not hundreds of thousands of them attack.  But again, people are free to disagree.

I'm fine with not having a perfectly happy ending for the galaxy. Past having the relays intact, I'm fine if 90% of the galactic population dies. I'm fine if Earth is turned into a wasteland. 

But I want a happy ending for Shepard. I want to see him and his LI, and his crew, and the Normandy alive, and surviving. Hell, I don't care if some of the squad were forced deaths. Make the people you take to the beam with you die. 

[remydat]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I'm fine with not having a perfectly happy ending for the galaxy. Past having the relays intact, I'm fine if 90% of the galactic population dies. I'm fine if Earth is turned into a wasteland. 

But I want a happy ending for Shepard. I want to see him and his LI, and his crew, and the Normandy alive, and surviving. Hell, I don't care if some of the squad were forced deaths. Make the people you take to the beam with you die. 

So 90% of the population can die as long as Shep lives.  How selfish, lol.  I kid.  Look I know where you are coming form.  It is why in most movies the hero lives.  I am just the opposite.  I would be pissed if Shep survived from a story telling perspective.  This threat is just too massive for me to think he comes out of this alive. 

To each his/her own I suppose.

[AlanC9]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
I'm fine with not having a perfectly happy ending for the galaxy. Past having the relays intact, I'm fine if 90% of the galactic population dies. I'm fine if Earth is turned into a wasteland. 

But I want a happy ending for Shepard. I want to see him and his LI, and his crew, and the Normandy alive, and surviving. Hell, I don't care if some of the squad were forced deaths. Make the people you take to the beam with you die. 

Heh. Whenever I used to say that this was people's problem with the ending, someone like drayfish or 3DandBeyond would come by and say that I was deliberately distorting the anti-ending position to make it look bad.