177 réponses à ce sujet

[3DandBeyond]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Tron Mega wrote...

i couldnt care less what NPC #357 says! is that really all you want to rely on? "the game said you were supposed to loose, duh!" did you forget the fact that ME was an underdog story, right up untill the very end? remember when you beat the so called "suicide mission?" remember when you completed that mission and no one died??? name one thing shepard has done that wasnt deamed impossible!

This is really the problem. You tell players in ME2 via NPCs and Shepard that not all of them will make it and people will die, that it's a Suicide Mission, and then have no deaths whatsoever, it does establish an expectation.

With that being said, my expectation was still that we would use the Crucible to win without having to compromise our morality, not that conventional victory was possible. The Crucible was simply too important to ME3's plot to be an optional device.

Yes, and given what we were given this is a completely reasonable expectation.  Once the Crucible was set as the thing that would help us win, then the story was set upon us winning as at least one possible thing.  Note that I said "us winning" and not us being handed some half-witted quasi-victory with an uncertain future that required the total subjugation of things our character may have believed in and cared about and even fought for.

I'd have loved a story that was created with a victory possible, one we achieved without some contrived crucible thingamajig.  And I didn't say conventional because that has always implied people running at reapers and going pew pew and reapers dying in droves.  I mean imaginative inventions that perhaps were developed by the Salarians or even the mercs that were attempting to find a way to kill the reapers.  Or something that people came up with themselves that would allow the reapers to be fought and that would have allowed for a truly cathartic battle with a resolution to follow. 

Once the crucible poked its head in the door, it was obvious that was not to be but there were still hints it could happen.  The dialogue with Conrad about it being a dark energy weapon and what dark energy could do to reapers hinted that something else might yet occur.  But then it didn't.

So, the crucible was how I expected US to win, not what I expected would force Shepard to capitulate and immediately agree to use to force the galaxy into some uncertain future.  It became an item that caused the story to end up being about some sort of survival no matter the cost.  And the Shepard I played that would have questioned everything and never have thrown caution out the window for mere survival was forced to play along or meet with instant annihilation in the players' eyes.  Even if Refuse seems the right course (and I can see it as more right in many ways), it does not allow the player any emotional connection to the sacrifice being made in service to self-determination.  We see cutscenes of the end and then a happy life for those who came after.  But that happiness isn't for people I cared about and I didn't get to see what happened or how the end came for those I cared about, so nothing that came after mattered.

[Son of Shepherd]

3DandBeyond wrote...

mopotter wrote...


yes, I did have people die in ME2.  And I had people live, not by using the strategy guide I just played so many games that  I ended up with one where everyone survived.  Only once.

And for me, I did expect Shepard to die in some games, did expect the reapers to win in some game,  but I never expected the type of endings they ended up with.

Always my expectation as well and what I will always believe was the major mistake here.  You don't set up people to think that along with certain truly bad possible outcomes there are some truly good possible ones (or one) as well and then don't make the good ones possible.  I can fully see that some wouldn't want an all too easy "super silly victory" only sort of ending (but I then would wonder why they ever played ME2 because ME1 had that).  I also would have to wonder why they played ME3 because even in ME2 Shepard HAD TO LIVE to be able to use that save game.

This is what I mean about internal promises in stories.  ME1 and ME2 did at least set up a story world in which Shepard could (and always had to) come out alive and because of that at least some shred of happiness was forced upon the player.  Those that wanted more could only get that in ME2 by saving everyone and getting to the crew in time so they weren't turned into goo.  ME1 didn't even give you that choice-Shepard lived, all is happy, though Shepard's pissed at those ignoring the reaper issue. 

And yet, twice in endings you are clearly shown Shepard must live but ultimately are given no such thing in a very real emotionally satisfying way at the end of the whole story.  In fact, even with the Lazarus Project you are shown that Shepard must live.  And you can get some bittersweet moments later on due to this. 

The idea that ultimately Shepard's fate is of little consequence (to the devs) and to the whole story while at the same time it's once again Shepard "fixing" everything and the galaxy sitting there with fingers in their noses while this is happening is just so stupid.

In ME1 and 2, the galaxy is a bunch of idiotic children.  In 3, they begin to learn to grow.  Shepard was meant to help them do this, but at the end Shepard still makes the decisions AND pays the price for all of this.  And the galaxy has to live with this decision without having a say, without lifting a finger at the end.  Brilliant. 


On top of all that there's the whole twisted logic that no matter how many words are thrown at cannot be made logical.  In truth with Leviathan we are given a story in which the hero must mostly die in service to some ancient organic idiots that created an AI that destroyed them when he was created to keep AIs from destroying them.  If I'm expected to think this idiocy is cool story telling, I'd at least like to leave the game with a smile.

Sums up a lot of my feelings. I would say though generally ME2 was a happy ending as it's quite easy to get through with the vast majority of squadmates intact, a couple of deaths don't really detract from the feeling of accomplishment, relief. You felt like a hero and there aren't imo many games out there that master this. This is what ME was (was) about for me and the reason I couldn't wait for more. 

To those that like of the ending of 3 and defend it, why did you enjoy the first 2 games, with their happy and heroic endings?

[3DandBeyond]

Troxa wrote...

dorktainian wrote...

www.youtube.com/watch 

The end was always important.  Us ITers have always thought so.  So much so that Magnetite has posted this vid on youtube with the background sounds only (no speech or music - sfx only) from shep getting hit by harbie right to starjar.

Pretty damning evidence if you ask me that us ITers were right all along.   

Reaper horns.  Whispering voices.  Sound effects on the citadel that were on earth.  

The same things is in the dreams if you remove the music when you get near the kid the whispers get stronger, you even hear don't trust him, give in & harbinger, but this is not some IT discovery it's just that they cut out indoctrination these things are just remains.

In me 2 mine reports they saw a white glow after being exposed to the reaper artifact
www.youtube.com/watch
www.youtube.com/watch

Exactly to the point regarding Indoctrination.  No, they didn't go with that and if they had it could have even been very well done.  However, the earlier blog regarding the stuff left in the game about it and this post are spot on.

In the Final Hours app there is also a discussion of how they had intended to go with indoctrination as a main story line but it was dropped.  The problem is they didn't remove content that pointed to indoctrination from the game.  Probably due to money or laziness or some idea that it would be fun to "tease" fans into thinking indoctrination was happening or an intent to maybe re-visit the issue later on, but the stuff that people point to for IT is in the game and was put there by the devs on purpose.

This was one of the main problems regarding the debate over IT or no IT-the stuff is in the game intentionally and left there by design or by accident or due to financial concerns.  But they did say the story line was abandoned as it became too complicated.  As I said I'm sure I saw this in the Final Hours app but if not it was in one of the literally thousands of videos and/or dev interviews I've seen or read.  I can force myself to take another look at Final Hours but so much of that is appalling given how the game ended that it's difficult.

Yeah, I'm sure it sounds like I'm bitter but just call me bittersweet.  So much of ME actually is fairly good, a lot of it is just plain great, touching, amazing.  That makes the place where it went wrong seem so bitter. 

Again, a reminder for the future of the genre.  If you tell a story, tell the complete story.  If you provide alternate, branching story lines as well as varied personalities and traits for characters, then be true to those things.  Or veer off for a very good well-established reason that rings true with those you emotionally bind to your story.  Jack the Ripper should never become a happy circus clown in the last few pages of a story, nor should Hello Kitty become Jack the Ripper right at the end.  And neither should do so without at least some form of real protest or authentic meaningful need.

I've had time to think this over and I'd hope Bioware continues to make such games, but I also hope they have learned from this.  Create sense, stay with sense, don't insert drug induced "reality" and twisted pseudo-logic at the end and force everyone who may have played differently into making the exact same decisions with the exact same outcomes. 

[AlanC9]

CronoDragoon wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

It's not quite that simple. I actually managed to lose Miranda my first time out. I didn't go along with Bio's Paragon/Renegade dialogue scheme, so I couldn't make the checks to preserve Miranda's and Zaeed's loyalty (paragon path on his LM). And I botched Thane's mission by tracking the wrong guy wearing red ; OK, that part was just plain incompetence. With Garrus in my final mission team, I turned out to be 0.1 points under what I needed for the Hold The Line score. Miranda was the squishiest non-loyal squadmate, and died.

Someone who won't reload Thane's mission to do it right, or always pick P/R to pass checks, isn't someone overly concerned with the absolute best perfect ending anyway; they are more concerned with taking the game's concept of consequences for actions seriously. If someone is actively trying for the perfect playthrough, then they can get it very easily.

Fair enough. I'm somewhat hostile to perfect endings in the first place, so of course I wouldn't bother reloading to get one.

[3DandBeyond]

AlanC9 wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

It's not quite that simple. I actually managed to lose Miranda my first time out. I didn't go along with Bio's Paragon/Renegade dialogue scheme, so I couldn't make the checks to preserve Miranda's and Zaeed's loyalty (paragon path on his LM). And I botched Thane's mission by tracking the wrong guy wearing red ; OK, that part was just plain incompetence. With Garrus in my final mission team, I turned out to be 0.1 points under what I needed for the Hold The Line score. Miranda was the squishiest non-loyal squadmate, and died.

Someone who won't reload Thane's mission to do it right, or always pick P/R to pass checks, isn't someone overly concerned with the absolute best perfect ending anyway; they are more concerned with taking the game's concept of consequences for actions seriously. If someone is actively trying for the perfect playthrough, then they can get it very easily.

Fair enough. I'm somewhat hostile to perfect endings in the first place, so of course I wouldn't bother reloading to get one.

And that is fair enough as well.  Had the game (ME3) ended with a simple sappy everyone gets this happy ending I'd have objected to that.  Because the game series deserved a variety.  It was the direction that ME2 was leading us in-the ability to actually fail even if you could succeed. 

That means unequivocal sad full loss just as much as it means unequivocal happier full win and all the colors in between.  I've never wanted there to be one linear "this is it" ending that everyone must get.  I could even see there being some that would be unsettling and that would be great.  I've played games where doing good or what seems to be the best thing doesn't lead to some known good happening.  And that's fine. 

But in a game of choices that promised variety at the end, variety is lacking unless all you wanted was sad or darker, or even ambiguous.  If you wanted anything more the devs said "screw you" even when they implied it would happen or stated that it would.  I'd further say that if you wanted authentic consequences you were left out too but sure that's subjective.  I don't see these endings as depicting the full range of what realistically could happen from the choices but that's as I see it.

I'd always want for you to have that darker version that seemed real to you because that is how the story played for you.  All I've ever stated is that the full range was lacking.  I'd even suggest that you did not get what you should have gotten-the galaxy should have had a worst case scenario from which nothing remained.  That was authentic and a real possibility.  Not this version in which the Earth is destroyed, but the galaxy might go on without it with reapers floating about or whatever.  Annihilation was at stake and should have been attainable, just as a win should have been.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 03 août 2013 - 08:08 .

[BeastSaver]

A perfect ending is a bit boring to me. I've had "perfect" endings (high EMS, usually Destroy), a failShep ending (low EMS, Refuse to avoid devastating the galaxy and all organic life), as well as many in-between endings. I almost always let Jacob and Jack die. One time I let Garrus die (that was a hard one-the game felt empty without him). The only way I can do a game without Wrex is if I don't recruit him in ME - can't bring myself to kill him in ME or betray him in ME3 if he is alive. I've had games where I didn't recruit everyone and some games where I didn't do the loyalty mission for all characters (if you get Samara past the SM but she doesn't ask you to do her LM, she still shows up at the Ardat-Yakshi monastery and the dialog changes). The game has so much variety, even among the various endings (yes, I do think there are more than four). I don't even mind my Shepard dying, because I see him/her as being so war-weary, death is not such a bad thing.

[3DandBeyond]

BeastSaver wrote...

A perfect ending is a bit boring to me. I've had "perfect" endings (high EMS, usually Destroy), a failShep ending (low EMS, Refuse to avoid devastating the galaxy and all organic life), as well as many in-between endings. I almost always let Jacob and Jack die. One time I let Garrus die (that was a hard one-the game felt empty without him). The only way I can do a game without Wrex is if I don't recruit him in ME - can't bring myself to kill him in ME or betray him in ME3 if he is alive. I've had games where I didn't recruit everyone and some games where I didn't do the loyalty mission for all characters (if you get Samara past the SM but she doesn't ask you to do her LM, she still shows up at the Ardat-Yakshi monastery and the dialog changes). The game has so much variety, even among the various endings (yes, I do think there are more than four). I don't even mind my Shepard dying, because I see him/her as being so war-weary, death is not such a bad thing.

And it's this kind of thing that is lacking in ME3.  That and there is no denouement where the consequences of the actions play out and let you see the ramifications, good or bad.

In ME2, it may be brief but a number of things are concluded.  The dead are revered, TIM is dealt with, the survivors pay homage to someone that helped them regain their lives (all were broken people prior to Shepard and could be redeemed).  It is short but it is enough.  It sets them up as a team, but then they're not.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Indoctrination was never a "dropped storyline." Anyone who actually read either version of the leaked ME3 scripts (rather than merely claiming to have) would know that. They only dropped an animation that was supposed to take place around the ending related to Shepard/Anderson fighting indoctrination, as it was too taxing for the systems to handle. Guess what? We *did* get that event in our game -- it was the TIM encounter.


Also, as people continually parrot what a great ending IT would have been, I never see those posts backed up with what's actually so great about it on its own merits. Then again, people seem to think that literally anything would be better than what we got -- even every character in the story died of spontaneous combustion (please spare me the dumb jokes). Still, I don't see the fascination with IT any more than that of a baby's with a shiny object. Criminy cripes, an indoctrination plot involving Shepard does not actually bring the main plot (Reaper war) to any sort of conclusion. It just goes to show how little fans actually care about the story. They just want something that makes them go "oooh..." (regardless sense).

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 03 août 2013 - 08:18 .

[AlanC9]

3DandBeyond wrote...
And that is fair enough as well.  Had the game (ME3) ended with a simple sappy everyone gets this happy ending I'd have objected to that.  Because the game series deserved a variety.  It was the direction that ME2 was leading us in-the ability to actually fail even if you could succeed.  

For clarity, I'm against the way ME2 handled the SM too. It would have worked much better for me if the IFF mission had been forced right after Horizon, which apparently Bio had considered at one point in the design. You can see what this would imply, I'm sure. 

I don't think that every game should have the "full range."

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

I don't think that every game should have the "full range."

Maybe not every game, but this was teh capstone to a trilogy of hundreds of choices actross three games.

It should have had a range as broad as a mountain and deep as the sea.

[dorktainian]

The cycle ends. I never understood how the cycle could end in a literal sense to be honest until recently. Looking at the choices and what they meant was an eyeopener at first. Indoctrination is clearly a huge part of whats going on (don't believe me, isolate the sound effects from harbinger in london onwarsd - its pretty compelling stuff) however not everything is black and white until you understand the reapers.

''We have no beginning, we have no end, we simply are'' Very circular logic......Rinse and repeat.

[jtav]

Nope. Because anything other than the best ending would have been a failure state. I'd have mandated at least two SM deaths and ideally abut half the crew. You can save your pet characters, but not everyone.

[3DandBeyond]

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

I don't think that every game should have the "full range."

Maybe not every game, but this was teh capstone to a trilogy of hundreds of choices actross three games.

It should have had a range as broad as a mountain and deep as the sea.

Yes, and it's the point that this is what we were told.  The full range also was more broadly implied and doesn't mean I expected endless variation but the reasonable conclusion to a variety of versions-based upon the dialogue Bioware wrote for us to use and based upon what they set up as precidence.  And that never meant that unidirectional happy face smiley unicorn.  It meant rational and it meant possible.  It meant that sacrifice with meaning was just as plausible and attainable as total annihilation and even a survival victory with consequences.  A galaxy in ruins that would need some care or a galaxy totally ruined beyond saving and something in between.

It was fully understood that when the devs said ME3 didn't have to be as limited at the end as ME2 or ME1 because this was the end of the trilogy, that it meant they were free to open up the possibilities.  They did the opposite and narrowed their view with the illusion of variety.  If you wanted something that seemed cool and super intellectual and dark but cheery with cute cutscenes, well oh happy day.  If you wanted something more gritty and real, authentic and gut-level with dirty bloodied satisfied heroes who eeked out a victory and survived to help rebuild a galaxy torn apart, you had your imagination.

[David7204]

If you have any ideas on how a "gritty and real, authentic and gut-level with dirty bloodied satisfied heroes" victory could be achieved against the Reapers, I'm all ears.

Frankly, I like how the conversation with the leader of the Reapers uses very mild and simple non-technical diction. It's the way God would speak. Or Satan.

Modifié par David7204, 03 août 2013 - 09:00 .

[3DandBeyond]

StreetMagic wrote...

BeastSaver wrote...

 I don't even mind my Shepard dying, because I see him/her as being so war-weary, death is not such a bad thing.

That's all good. War weary is out of the question for my Shepard though. I like war -- Not that I take it lightly, but rather I like these games, so I just transfer the fun loving attitude in character. He's no different than any beer guzzling axe-wielding dwarf I make in D&D. It'd be ridiculous if made those guys bogged down with emotions.

Too bad this isn't something you can roleplay anymore though. I can't find the interview, but Walters specifically wanted to write the character as war weary.. it's a role already written for you. That's pretty lame. It's one thing to hold more control over his other characters like Illusive Man or Aria, another to do it with Shepard. I like a lot of his characters too, don't get me wrong, but he's taking the same approach with the player character as he does with them.

And this was plain wrong.  Shepard was in part defined by the player as you suggest.  Sure, Shepard could be weary but driven or even morosely entertained.  The personality was always yours to define.  Just as I was free to see that Shepard had some emotional connection to piles of bolts (geth, EDI) as well as flesh and scales.  Shepard had a dynamic personality.  Walters though seemed bent on a destroyed galaxy and that's not my interpretation but his own words and what he wrote.  It's obvious his real intent was for Shepard to only ever die at the end.  It may be due to the fact this was never the story he created and not his character but one made by someone else, or he didn't know of any other way to end it.

He did say in pre-release interviews that the galaxy would be destroyed.  That was also written in the flow chart for the story and can be seen in the Final Hours app.  He showed how and why in the Arrival and then in the original endings the exploding relays should have been shown to destroy the galaxy.  But then other things just did not fit and were stupid.  And people wanted to know why if the galaxy was a mess, did it matter that the Normandy crashed?  There's a codex, Desperate Measures that says what still should happen at the EC end of ME3-a ruptured relay ruins terrestrial planets and clearly one is ruptured near Earth.  Yet it's ignored.

The writing is atrocious and contradictory and all over the place.  Shepard is a trashed character and no matter what choice someone at BW decided to do this.  Even in Refuse where Shepard once again seems to clearly be Shepard, the intent is clear.  RIP.

[David7204]

Walters had stated clearly that a 'destroyed galaxy' was absolutely not his intention.

Modifié par David7204, 03 août 2013 - 09:06 .

[3DandBeyond]

David7204 wrote...

If you have any ideas on how a "gritty and real, authentic and gut-level with dirty bloodied satisfied heroes" victory could be achieved against the Reapers, I'm all ears.

Frankly, I like how the conversation with the leader of the Reapers uses very mild and simple non-technical diction. It's the way God would speak. Or Satan.

And I've discussed this in so many ways in other threads and even in PMs with you so get over it.  You have a grudge on with me right now and want to try and get at me.  Have fun with that.

I've even stated very simply different things that could have been done but they are my versions of things and my imagination.  I've never said I have the one right way to anything but have stated what I would prefer would have happened.  And the gritty reality of it would have been a living Shepard being there to help maintain the peace, not in some silent reaper god hull, but in the flesh, living through the devastation of planets torn apart by a war that might have killed them all.  And the game had many hints as to how other methods could have been used against the reapers or even just the crucible itself.  Even if the crucible had been used not to achieve a win but to help achieve it in some way outside of inane choices, and with those that are left working to pick up the pieces.  That could have been bittersweet given all the people that have died.

[3DandBeyond]

David7204 wrote...

Walters had stated clearly that a 'destroyed galaxy' was absolutely not his intention.

Later on but after he stated that a destroyed galaxy, a wasteland was.  Go to youtube and search for the video with his statements made in Feb or 2012.  He said there would be no DLC post-ME3 because the galaxy would be a wasteland and no one would want to play in a wasteland.  But you want to fight with me and so anything I say you will disagree with.  Grow up.

[Iakus]

3DandBeyond wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Walters had stated clearly that a 'destroyed galaxy' was absolutely not his intention.

Later on but after he stated that a destroyed galaxy, a wasteland was.  Go to youtube and search for the video with his statements made in Feb or 2012.  He said there would be no DLC post-ME3 because the galaxy would be a wasteland and no one would want to play in a wasteland.  But you want to fight with me and so anything I say you will disagree with.  Grow up.

[David7204]

There's no grudge. I merely judge content on the BSN with the same standard's I'd judge it by in-game.

Your idea in your signature frankly sucks. Doesn't come remotely close to "gritty and real, authentic and gut-level with dirty bloodied satisfied heroes." Just the Crucible being a little more convenient.

Take heart in that fact that I fully admit that the Crucible sucks as is.

[chemiclord]

3DandBeyond wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Walters had stated clearly that a 'destroyed galaxy' was absolutely not his intention.

Later on but after he stated that a destroyed galaxy, a wasteland was.  Go to youtube and search for the video with his statements made in Feb or 2012.  He said there would be no DLC post-ME3 because the galaxy would be a wasteland and no one would want to play in a wasteland.  But you want to fight with me and so anything I say you will disagree with.  Grow up.

See, this is where there's a big problem with statements made once.

I, for example, will bounce around an idea for a while, but at some point, I very well will likely think, "eh... maybe not.  Let's try something else."  I'll do this a hundred times from first draft to final copy.

Could a wasteland galaxy been Walters intent at one point in the development process?  Absolutely.  Does that statement mean that it was ALWAYS his intent from start to finish?  Perhaps... but I think it's a dangerous assumption to reach on that statement alone.

[Iakus]

chemiclord wrote...

See, this is where there's a big problem with statements made once.

I, for example, will bounce around an idea for a while, but at some point, I very well will likely think, "eh... maybe not.  Let's try something else."  I'll do this a hundred times from first draft to final copy.

Could a wasteland galaxy been Walters intent at one point in the development process?  Absolutely.  Does that statement mean that it was ALWAYS his intent from start to finish?  Perhaps... but I think it's a dangerous assumption to reach on that statement alone.

See, he said the galactic wasteland thing only a month before the game's release.  This wasn't an idea that was being tossed around.  THe endings were a done deal.

[3DandBeyond]

David7204 wrote...

There's no grudge. I merely judge content on the BSN with the same standard's I'd judge it by in-game.

Your idea in your signature frankly sucks. Doesn't come remotely close to "gritty and real, authentic and gut-level with dirty bloodied satisfied heroes." Just the Crucible being a little more convenient.

Take heart in that fact that I fully admit that the Crucible sucks as is.

And that idea in my signature had nothing to do with gritty and real but was one suggestion some time ago as to how the crucible could have been used and changed with DLC.  I didn't say it had anything to do with that and yes, you have made this incredibly personal.  Apparently you think today is some big giveaway in brownie points or to see who can be the most obnoxious.  You can have your opinion and others are free to have theirs, but you've decided if they disagree with you then you need to follow them around and be as nasty as you can.  That's some standard you have.  Thanks.

I've posited many ideas on the BSN and some stink-so what.  Some don't and that doesn't change anything either.  That idea in my sig line was one that I had come up with that would do the least damage to the game if BW had considered an alternate ending.  My wish would have been a full re-write but that would have damaged the whole story that many did like and would have removed choices that they also may have liked.  So, I had looked for a compromise ending.  I don't care if you don't like it and it's moot.  My preferred ending would have been a more realistic view of things and I've never strayed from this.