365 réponses à ce sujet

[Erez Kristal]

MegaSovereign wrote...

In mass effect 3, you lost control over shepard. you start the game after being locked up in vancouver against your better judgement.

I don't quite understand your expectation here. If each of the ME games have anything in common it's that all their intros have the "wrong place, wrong time" vibe.

you are unable to keep cerberus in check and in turn they get indocterniated,

Shepard never had any control over Cerberus. In fact, it's revealed that TIM manipulated Shepard into believing that Cerberus is more moderate than it actually is.

you are unable to find out what is going on in the batarians domain. which results in a greater reaper fighting force.

Why would he go to Batarian space? The Batarians were screwed with or without Shepard. Human-Batarian relations are even more strained after the events of Arrival.

The geth and the quarrians- go to war when you stop to babysit them.

Up until ME3, Shepard had NO influence on this conflict. In ME2 you can warn them not to go to war but they do anyway.

New technology from the collector base isnt distributed among the alliance navy, greatly hindering their preparations for the reapers invasion.

You didn't give the Collector Base to the Alliance. You gave it to TIM.

Your lack of belief in shepards capabilities is astonishing. 
Take a few notes from timmy and miri    


1) I expect shep to make wise decisions when bioware takes control from my hands
2) you had more influence than you know. just look what you could do to them i me1 and me3 and look what you had them achieve in me2.
3) you know, to see whats going on. this is what countries do on their enemies and allies. they spy on them.
4) so shep couldnt have had a quarrian and geth memebers, a geth who repesented the geth consensus who also revered shepard.(N7 armor) Shepard was well respected among the quarrians admiralty board. with enough political leverage he could have pacified the quarrians.
5) cerberus-alliance both repesent humanity they are intertwined

Modifié par erezike, 06 juillet 2013 - 06:13 .

[Reorte]

AlanC9 wrote...

Reorte wrote...
Neither do they usually get pointlessly kicked. Besides, being a game with decisions in it the whole point of getting them right or wrong is to reward or kick the player. If that doesn't happen there's no point in putting them in there. And the impact of events is magnified if the player feels they're responsible about them. If something bad happens in a game and it's my fault I'll feel pretty bad about it, and that's a good thing. If it just happens anyway and there was nothing that could be done about it, particularly when choices are part of the game, then I just get annoyed at the writers.

"Reward or kick" strikes me as a weird way to approach the concept of consequences. I don't see why decisions should necessarily have a "right" and a "wrong" either.

I suppose that I over-simplified because some should just make things different but "reward or kick" is the key reason why they have impact on the player - you can really feel great when you've achieved something, or awful when it's really your fault that things have gone wrong. That's the big advantage games have as a storytelling medium, they can magnify the emotional impact of events by the player being responsible for them.

[Excella Gionne]

I never imagined Shepard surviving anyways, although, it would make me really happy to see what goes on after the post-ending, I feel like the real ending for this game would be the moderate amount of EMS for Destroy where the energy of Destroy kills the reapers, the Normandy escapes the energy of the crucible without sustaining damage, and Shepard dies. Why? Because there's no way in hell that Shepard is alive after the destruction of the Crucible and Citadel, and mainly, because Shepard cannot breathe in space unless somehow the Citadel's barriers are somehow still self-sustaining and is trapping the air in.

[KaiserShep]

I always thought it was a pretty bad mistake to force Shepard to die no matter what you did. But, like everything else, retcon saves the day.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 06 juillet 2013 - 07:08 .

[Bill Casey]

Why do you care if Shepard lives or dies?
He's a war criminal. He's a detestable human being...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 06 juillet 2013 - 07:32 .

[Iakus]

Bill Casey wrote...

Why do you care if Shepard lives or dies?
He's a war criminal. He's a detestable human being...

And there's the second half of the problem with the endings

[Nightwriter]

Enhanced wrote...

I don't understand. Shepard's goal was to defeat the Reapers. That happens. Just because Shepard dies in most of the endings, they are bad?

I found them bad because they made me feel like Shepard died meaninglessly.

[Iakus]

Nightwriter wrote...

Enhanced wrote...

I don't understand. Shepard's goal was to defeat the Reapers. That happens. Just because Shepard dies in most of the endings, they are bad?

I found them bad because they made me feel like Shepard died meaninglessly.

Yup, even in DAO, if you take the Ultimate acrifice, the Warden's death had meaning, and was no less valid than the endings where the Warden lives.

Shepard's death, otoh, smacks strongly of Bioware saying "You exist because we allow it, and will end because we demand it"

[KaiserShep]

Bill Casey wrote...

Why do you care if Shepard lives or dies?
He's a war criminal. He's a detestable human being...

For crying out loud. You have a very skewed idea of what it means to be a war criminal. 

[DeinonSlayer]

Bill Casey wrote...

Why do you care if Shepard lives or dies?
He's a war criminal. He's a detestable human being...

Why? Because EDI got caught in the wave?

Didn't do Arrival, BTW.

[Yestare7]

erezike wrote...

and we would have a better feeling, overall. 

I recommend MEHEM,
or high ems destroy, Citadel afterwards.  Feel better.

Modifié par Yestare7, 06 juillet 2013 - 08:08 .

[Seboist]

In order for ME3 to have a good ending it needed to have a good plot first, otherwise it's like asking "Why don't Plan 9 or Birdemic have good endings?".

[KaiserShep]

The Arrival doesn't make Shepard a war criminal either. To insist that it does required ignoring every single detail.

[Bill Casey]

You can try to justify it all you want...
He's a monster who doubles down on monster at the end of the story...
There's no redemptive character arc, just more monster in several flavors...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 06 juillet 2013 - 08:27 .

[Nightwriter]

iakus wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Enhanced wrote...

I don't understand. Shepard's goal was to defeat the Reapers. That happens. Just because Shepard dies in most of the endings, they are bad?

I found them bad because they made me feel like Shepard died meaninglessly.

Yup, even in DAO, if you take the Ultimate acrifice, the Warden's death had meaning, and was no less valid than the endings where the Warden lives.

Shepard's death, otoh, smacks strongly of Bioware saying "You exist because we allow it, and will end because we demand it"

And I also could live to see my friends again if I chose. That was good.

[KaiserShep]

Bill,

That's not an explanation. It's just more moralizing and complaining. What you're basically saying is that the only moral thing to do is lay down and die and take everyone with you. Misguided self righteousness doesn't really make one a ok 

Modifié par KaiserShep, 06 juillet 2013 - 08:30 .

[DeinonSlayer]

Bill Casey wrote...

You can try to justify it all you want...
He's a monster who doubles down on monster at the end of the story...
There's no redemptive character arc, just more monster...

Didn't do Arrival. Geth were already dead (OK, so I did get a bit trigger-happy on the VI). Only friendly casualty of the Wave was EDI.

Where's the problem?

[Redbelle]

iakus wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Why do you care if Shepard lives or dies?
He's a war criminal. He's a detestable human being...

And there's the second half of the problem with the endings

Aside from everyone he killed in his duties as a soldier. Are you referring to an event?

[Brovikk Rasputin]

Mass Effect 3 has an excellent ending. Don't know who told you otherwise.

[AresKeith]

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

Mass Effect 3 has an excellent ending. Don't know who told you otherwise.

It's called having an opinion, learn it one day

[Brovikk Rasputin]

AresKeith wrote...

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

Mass Effect 3 has an excellent ending. Don't know who told you otherwise.

It's called having an opinion, learn it one day

You can call it an opinion all you want, but you'll still be wrong. 

[Nightwriter]

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

Mass Effect 3 has an excellent ending. Don't know who told you otherwise.

GANDALF.

Check and mate.

[AresKeith]

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

Mass Effect 3 has an excellent ending. Don't know who told you otherwise.

It's called having an opinion, learn it one day

You can call it an opinion all you want, but I'll learn it one day

Good 

[Brovikk Rasputin]

Weak.

[AlanC9]

erezike wrote...

4) so shep couldnt have had a quarrian and geth memebers, a geth who repesented the geth consensus who also revered shepard.(N7 armor) Shepard was well respected among the quarrians admiralty board. with enough political leverage he could have pacified the quarrians.

Meaning that if Bio had wanted to write it that way, they could have?

Sure, but they didn't want that, so they didn't write that.

Sheo isn't magic. He can't do whatevet you want him to be able to do.