123 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

csm4267 wrote...
Sounds like you wanted an ending where you make a choice, but not have any serious consequences to go with it. Like it or not, this game did not end with a boss fight, or a quick simple, easy to understand ending. Instead you are left to make a hard choice, which, as foreshadowed throughout the game, "your choices will become less appealing as the Reapers devour your galaxy". Then you get to the end, and you see that play out. Hard choices. The options presented to you may not be very inviting, but you can't go to the developers and ask them to make a different option, because you don't like the ones they gave you. Mass Effect, as in life, you can't always get what you want, and you have to make the best of the situation even those options are not good.

The non-crazy argument against this is that it's wrong to suddenly start introducing hard choices in the very end of the trilogy. Up until then, with the exception of Virmire, there's a way out of all the dilemmas. Letting players iff the hook is something Bio does in other games too.

Modifié par AlanC9, 17 septembre 2013 - 02:42 .

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...

RukiaKuchki wrote...
 But not this time. Some things are bigger than him and his moral code. Whichever choice he makes, a huge sacrifice must be made. Someone will lose. He has to chose something that goes against everything he stands for to ensure the survival of the galaxy - he has to sacrifice not only his physical self, but more than likely his own ideals. It feels like a kick in the gut, but that is so much more like reality. 

This is called "railroading" that might be fine your your typical action-shooter, but it's a big no-no in rpgs.  Making the player lose no matter what choices are made...what's the point of giving choices to begin with?  

If this is "art" I'll take entertainment

That's an awfully expansive definition of railroading. If the PC doesn't get to do what he wants the way he wants to, it's railroading? 

If the character definitively dies in virtually every outcome, that is railroading.

If the player is forced into a moral compromise regardless of choice, that is railroading.  Particularly when you are able to take a stand at other points in the game.

[Steelcan]

I took a stand against the Catalyst, I blew him and his minions to hell. If that isn't a stand idk what is.

[Tyreslol]

replayed the game, was very pleased with how much better the gameplay was compared to ME1/ME2

but the plot is totally ruined by the entire sequence with the catalyst. godawful deus ex machina that completely disrupts narrative flow is terrible writing that would get you a failing grade in a community college literature course - giving it to millions of paying customers is borderline malpractice

and synthesis and its non-existent logic is still just as criminally stupid as it was the first time seeing it offered, it's really amazing how anyone can think TURNING EVERY PERSON IN THE GALAXY INTO A REAPER is a good "best" ending holy crap

[Seboist]

Mass Effect was always a railroaded linear corridor shooter. I don't know why it took up until 3's endings for some to figure it out.

[Iakus]

csm4267 wrote...

Sounds like you wanted an ending where you make a choice, but not have any serious consequences to go with it. Like it or not, this game did not end with a boss fight, or a quick simple, easy to understand ending. Instead you are left to make a hard choice, which, as foreshadowed throughout the game, "your choices will become less appealing as the Reapers devour your galaxy". Then you get to the end, and you see that play out. Hard choices. The options presented to you may not be very inviting, but you can't go to the developers and ask them to make a different option, because you don't like the ones they gave you. Mass Effect, as in life, you can't always get what you want, and you have to make the best of the situation even those options are not good.

I wanted endings with consequences that make sense.  Not "All synthetics must die because Reasons"  Not everyone is forced to become half-synthetic, no say in the matter. Because Reasons.  Not "Shepard must die because Reasons"   Making a chocie horrific for no other reason than to have a horrific choice is not fun, entertaining, and not good roleplaying.

Again if this is "art" I'll take entertainment.  

The ending has a great deal of ambiguity and stuff left unexplained, but as this article states, it's always best to have something closer to Lost, than to the Matrix Reloaded Architect scene which explains too much. That's what people want--to have most stuff explained for them. Honestly a very bad thing to do, because it takes away some of the mystery the game once had. They want every bit of the ending explained. From why you have a gun with unlimited ammo, to why you shoot Anderson, but the bullet wound ends up on you instead of him, but he dies anyways.

Ah, Lost and the Matrix.  Two endings that people generally agree sucked.

Why not add The Sopranoes too?   

Long story short, perhaps try to play the game and use some simple logic and reason to figure it out instead of going to Bioware and asking for a patch when you have a question.  This is a game based around making decisions after all. If you can't decide and you need them to decide for you why the ending is the way it is, or explain how Shepard got to Earth from Citadel I don't think this game is for you. I mean people like the characters and the story, but that's it. If they were really involved with it, they'd try to unravel the ending mystery or use their imagination or logic to fill in the blanks.

Protip:  Insulting someone's intelligence is not a good way to have a debate.

[Iakus]

Seboist wrote...

Mass Effect was always a railroaded linear corridor shooter. I don't know why it took up until 3's endings for some to figure it out.

There was the hope they'd pull something off in the end.  Or at least bring it in for a railroaded but satisfactory endiing.

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...
If the character definitively dies in virtually every outcome, that is railroading.

If the player is forced into a moral compromise regardless of choice, that is railroading.  Particularly when you are able to take a stand at other points in the game.

You can take a stand at the end of ME3 too. I presume you mean "take a stand and get the preferred result anyway." Like I said a couple posts ago, it isn't crazy to object to introducing such a choice in the last few minutes of a series that had been about reprogramming the Kobayashi Maru scenario up until then. (Didn't bother me since I thought that was a bug rather than a feature, but YMMV.)

And "virtually every" is mere hyperbole.

Modifié par AlanC9, 17 septembre 2013 - 03:11 .

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

You can take a stand at the end of ME3 too. I presume you mean "take a stand and get the preferred result anyway." Like I said a couple posts ago, it isn't crazy to object to introducing such a choice in the last few minutes of a series that had been about reprogramming the Kobayashi Maru scenario up until then. (Didn't bother me since I thought that was a bug rather than a feature, but YMMV.)

And "virtually every" is mere hyperbole.

That depends on your definition of "preferred result" People seem to think that means "rainbows and unicorns" and debate goes downhill from there.  

No what I want is an ending with a price that actually fits the story being told.  And I can assure you, what I'm willing to pay is in some ways higher than what many on these forums would be willing to pay.  

The problem with the choice is how thematically similar they are:  iarbitrary.  last minute, and it forces moral compromise.  It's not just a tough choice, it's a sick choice.  One that has nothing to do with anything that came before.

Modifié par iakus, 17 septembre 2013 - 03:52 .

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...
Ah, Lost and the Matrix.  Two endings that people generally agree sucked.

Why not add The Sopranoes too?   

Because the Sopranos ending really was a good ending that some people didn't comprehend. Unlike Lost. which was the best they could do with the mess they'd written themselves into. I presume the Matrix falls into that category too.

[Eterna]

All of your problems would be solved if you just chose the correct ending.

Control.

Control is a means to survival.

Modifié par Eterna5, 17 septembre 2013 - 04:00 .

[KaiserShep]

Don't listen to him. We destroy them, or they destroy us.

[wolfhowwl]

iakus wrote...
No what I want is an ending with a price that actually fits the story being told.  And I can assure you, what I'm
willing to pay is in some ways higher than what many on these forums would be willing to pay.  

Destroying synthetics as a consequence was rather contrived.

It would have made more sense if Earth was destroyed by its proximity to the weapon or the energy beam turned the relays into scrap metal. That would have fit the story much better.

Modifié par wolfhowwl, 17 septembre 2013 - 04:11 .

[Eterna]

KaiserShep is misguided.

We both have the same goals, my methods are simply more refined than his.

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

That depends on your definition of "preferred result" People seem to think that means "rainbows and unicorns" and debate goes downhill from there.  

No what I want is an ending with a price that actually fits the story being told.  And I can assure you, what I'm willing to pay is in some ways higher than what many on these forums would be willing to pay.  

The problem with the choice is how thematically similar they are:  iarbitrary.  last minute, and it forces moral compromise.  It's not just a tough choice, it's a sick choice.  One that has nothing to do with anything that came before.

So you're willing to pay a high price only as long as there's no moral compromise, right. So, whether it's a high price or not depends on the current exchange rate. 

[Iakus]

If that's how you want to look at it.

It is also a reason for having mtiple endings. Or at least multiple ending contexts

[Iakus]

wolfhowwl wrote...

iakus wrote...
No what I want is an ending with a price that actually fits the story being told.  And I can assure you, what I'm
willing to pay is in some ways higher than what many on these forums would be willing to pay.  

Destroying synthetics as a consequence was rather contrived.

It would have made more sense if Earth was destroyed by its proximity to the weapon or the energy beam turned the relays into scrap metal. That would have fit the story much better.

Las a lower EMS consequence sure.  Such a possibility was even mentioned by Hackettonce.

But I was thinking of the relays and more long term or even permanent loss of them.  At least until the  could be replaced.

The Citadel too

[KaiserShep]

Eterna5 wrote...

KaiserShep is misguided.

We both have the same goals, my methods are simply more refined than his.

Listen to yourself. You're...indoctrinated. 

[TheMyron]

The citadel party should have been reserved for post-war destroy ending.

[marshalleck]

Playing ME3 again is like having sex with an ex. Awkward and then I wish I hadn't.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

You know they really should have given the option of throwing the starchild off the Citadel into space, and having the illusion of the control rods, the synthesis beam, and the plasma conduit vanish and leave us with a big box in the middle with a button on it labeled "Reaper Off Button". Shepard goes and pushes it and all the reapers turn off. Then we get a repeat of Gerrel's line

"The Reapers' Defensive line is broken. They're completely helpless. Keep firing and finish them."

Then Shepard gets a message from Hackett....

"Shepard, I'm seeing something that looks like a glowing kid flying away from the Citadel."

Shepard: Hit it with your main gun, sir. That thing is dangerous. And don't eyeball it.

The End.

Face the facts. This is just as stupid an ending.

[Reorte]

Sensible consequences would be ones that flowed out of the story. As long as you have something as ridiculous in its power as the Catalyst / Crucible you're never going to have convincing negatives for using it, since anything capable of Synthesis could easily do Destroy without any negatives whatsoever. And, since it affects things throughout the entire galaxy, just trashing Earth wouldn't be particularly convincing either. The only one I've thought of that would work would be it giving an edge over the Reapers but it'll still be a long war, but that would prevent a dramatic and sudden end of story (no great loss, considering).

[Cainhurst Crow]

Ugh, more ****s on the internet trying to push their opinions on a subjective experience (IE FUN) as if it were objective fact.

Been there, done that, this **** was old the first month it was going on. Now it's been so long the damn turd of an argument has petrified, crumbled, and blown away as dust on the wind.

[Br3admax]

TheMyron wrote...

The citadel party should have been reserved for post-war destroy ending.

So that those that picked the other three ending would not be able to enjoy the DLC they just payed 15 dollars for? I definitely agree with BioWare on this one. Imagine the outcry if you had to pick a certain ending to play DLC. 

[TheMyron]

Br3ad wrote...

TheMyron wrote...

The citadel party should have been reserved for post-war destroy ending.

So that those that picked the other three ending would not be able to enjoy the DLC they just payed 15 dollars for? I definitely agree with BioWare on this one. Imagine the outcry if you had to pick a certain ending to play DLC. 

Not the attempt on Shepard's life, but the party,... well, maybe there should be a second post-war party.