I recently started a thread about how a happy ending might have ruined Mass Effect 3. On that thread a lot of unrelated criticisms have been leveled at Mass Effect 3. I have decided to respond to those criticisms, as well as a few others from other threads.
1. Every decision I made isn't reflected in the ending.
It can't be. The EC reflected a few key decisions and it was almost 2 gigabytes. An ending with an in-depth reflection on every decision over three games would be inconcievably huge, involve thousands of Bioware staff, and cost enough to bankrupt every software company in the world. It would also be of truly bum-numbing length and would likely bore you to tears.
2. The catalyst is an obvious deus ex machina plot device.
The catalyst is not, stricty speaking, a deus ex machina (it is major part of the plot of the game throughout) but the criticism is not entirely unfair.
In defence, the structure of the ending needs the game to explain the potential consequences of Shepards actions, and no existing character in the game could convincingly do that. It may not be entirely believable, but it is perhaps an acceptable compromise given the dramatic function of the catalyst.
3. Wouldn't the ending be better if...
No, it wouldn't. I hate to break it to you but you are (in all probability) not an undiscovered literary genius. You are not (in all probability) the next Dickens/Dostoyevsky/J.K. Rowling. The vast majority of amateur writers are rubbish, and the statistics suggest that, whatever your literary aspirations, you are one of these (I am - thus far - a failed author myself, I feel your pain). The ending in your head is probably much, much worse than the one on screen.
Even if you are an undiscovered genius, it would be prudent to respect the artisistic integrity of others, as I'm sure you would want them to do to you. Analyse the endings you've got by all means, but don't re-write them in your head to suit your expectations.
4. It's different than Mass Effect 1/Mass Effect 2
Yes, it is. If you don't want a game that's different from Mass Effect 1 or Mass Effect 2, then play either Mass Effect 1 or Mass Effect 2.
5. There are no fish on the presidium*
No, there certainly are not.
*it's possible I made this one up.
A response to some criticisms of Mass Effect 3
Débuté par
AndyAK79
, sept. 28 2013 12:41
Retour en haut
#2
Posté 28 septembre 2013 - 01:35
DuskWanderer
-
- Members
- 2 088 messages
Given the massive outcry about the ending, there were problems far greater than "the artistic integrity of others." It had some massive problems. I'll agree people can be really stupid about it, but there were massive flaws, there's no getting around that.
There are times when endings in another fashion are better than the original. The writer of Fight Club said that about the movie's ending.
There are times when endings in another fashion are better than the original. The writer of Fight Club said that about the movie's ending.
#3
Posté 28 septembre 2013 - 01:39
The Night Mammoth
-
- Members
- 7 476 messages
1. I have never, ever seen someone make that complaint.
2. The Catalyst, as in the AI we meet, is not a major part of the plot throughout. The Catalyst that's a 'major' part of the plot is actually the Citadel, and is only really important for the last quarter of the game as a maguffin.
3 a. You are not in a position to judge that, and whether a person is an undiscovered literary genius or not is irrelevant. Their ideas should be judged on their own merits.
b. I see no reason why people can't rewrite fiction they don't like in their heads. Providing they don't insist their interpretation should be taken as the canon by the wider community, and they don't profit from it, there are really no negatives unless you believe in some arbitrary notion that an author's work should be forever unspoiled, a notion I think has no value or meaning whatsoever.
4. Yeah, I think this is a gross over simplification of the actual point people put forward.
2. The Catalyst, as in the AI we meet, is not a major part of the plot throughout. The Catalyst that's a 'major' part of the plot is actually the Citadel, and is only really important for the last quarter of the game as a maguffin.
3 a. You are not in a position to judge that, and whether a person is an undiscovered literary genius or not is irrelevant. Their ideas should be judged on their own merits.
b. I see no reason why people can't rewrite fiction they don't like in their heads. Providing they don't insist their interpretation should be taken as the canon by the wider community, and they don't profit from it, there are really no negatives unless you believe in some arbitrary notion that an author's work should be forever unspoiled, a notion I think has no value or meaning whatsoever.
4. Yeah, I think this is a gross over simplification of the actual point people put forward.
Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 28 septembre 2013 - 01:53 .
#4
Posté 28 septembre 2013 - 01:41
Cobalt2113
-
- Members
- 622 messages
The Night Mammoth wrote...
1. I have never, ever seen someone make that complaint.
You've never heard anyone say "my choices didn't matter"? You must be new here.
Modifié par Cobalt2113, 28 septembre 2013 - 01:41 .
#5
Posté 28 septembre 2013 - 01:44
The Night Mammoth
-
- Members
- 7 476 messages
Try reading the point I responded to again.Cobalt2113 wrote...
The Night Mammoth wrote...
1. I have never, ever seen someone make that complaint.
You've never heard anyone say "my choices didn't matter"? You must be new here.
Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 28 septembre 2013 - 01:45 .
#6
Posté 28 septembre 2013 - 01:49
Deverz
-
- Members
- 224 messages
AndyAK79 wrote...
3. Wouldn't the ending be better if...
[/b]No, it wouldn't. I hate to break it to you but you are (in all probability) not an undiscovered literary genius. You are not (in all probability) the next Dickens/Dostoyevsky/J.K. Rowling. The vast majority of amateur writers are rubbish, and the statistics suggest that, whatever your literary aspirations, you are one of these (I am - thus far - a failed author myself, I feel your pain). The ending in your head is probably much, much worse than the one on screen.
What does this have to do with anything?
#7
Posté 28 septembre 2013 - 01:53
Vigilant111
-
- Members
- 2 491 messages
1. I have not read your other thread but I am confident that no one (yes, no one) is saying "Every single decision must be reflected in the ending or I am gonna be so pissed off". However, you are correct in what u said about financial and time costs as Bioware has already pointed out: "U do not know them, and there is not enough time."
2. There was supposed to be only one consequence from Shepard's actions, at least one might expect, and that is the demise of the reapers. Any POTENTIAL consequences are projections or conditions made by the Catalyst to either encourage or dissuade Shepard from making a particular choice. These projections should not be perceived as explanation of the endings. The EC provided VISIONS only, in an attempt to soften the blow of immediate aftermath of the endings.
If I remember correctly, the term "Deus Ex Mechina" is referring to an instrument that is introduced near the end of a story to provide resolution conveniently with little or no foreshadowing. Throughout ME3, we have only a very vague idea of what the Crucible does, and have no idea of what (or whom as it turned out) the Catalyst is. The mysterious Crucible/Catalyst construct shoots a giant ball of flame and EVERYTHING changed: resolution? tick; limited foreboding? tick; convenience? tick -yeah, I think this is a classic
Of course, u might argue that the degree of this plot device's impact felt may vary between different endings
3. This is a moot point really, some praised the Tuchanka/Rannoch arcs ,many despised the ending, it is all part of forum-going. There had been some helpful suggestions being made, and Bioware incorporated them into the EC, feedback and suggestions are helpful to improve products
2. There was supposed to be only one consequence from Shepard's actions, at least one might expect, and that is the demise of the reapers. Any POTENTIAL consequences are projections or conditions made by the Catalyst to either encourage or dissuade Shepard from making a particular choice. These projections should not be perceived as explanation of the endings. The EC provided VISIONS only, in an attempt to soften the blow of immediate aftermath of the endings.
If I remember correctly, the term "Deus Ex Mechina" is referring to an instrument that is introduced near the end of a story to provide resolution conveniently with little or no foreshadowing. Throughout ME3, we have only a very vague idea of what the Crucible does, and have no idea of what (or whom as it turned out) the Catalyst is. The mysterious Crucible/Catalyst construct shoots a giant ball of flame and EVERYTHING changed: resolution? tick; limited foreboding? tick; convenience? tick -yeah, I think this is a classic
Of course, u might argue that the degree of this plot device's impact felt may vary between different endings
3. This is a moot point really, some praised the Tuchanka/Rannoch arcs ,many despised the ending, it is all part of forum-going. There had been some helpful suggestions being made, and Bioware incorporated them into the EC, feedback and suggestions are helpful to improve products
#8
Posté 28 septembre 2013 - 02:26
wright1978
-
- Members
- 8 116 messages
1. Every decision I made isn't reflected in the ending.
Well no but priority earth could have reflected a lot more & taken on board the very successful suicide mission elements from the previous game. You EC stuff is a red herring if what i've previously read on here about reasons for size of EC is true.
Catalyst is an obvious deux ex machina plot device. There was no need for this character at all if they'd bothered to integrate the various crucible functions earlier into the narrative. Bolted on piece of nonsense.
You don't have to be an expert writer to pick apart a trainwreck of an ending when one appears. Making broad suggestions for improvement isn't suggesting that they are better writers & could actually write the dialogue.
Well no but priority earth could have reflected a lot more & taken on board the very successful suicide mission elements from the previous game. You EC stuff is a red herring if what i've previously read on here about reasons for size of EC is true.
Catalyst is an obvious deux ex machina plot device. There was no need for this character at all if they'd bothered to integrate the various crucible functions earlier into the narrative. Bolted on piece of nonsense.
You don't have to be an expert writer to pick apart a trainwreck of an ending when one appears. Making broad suggestions for improvement isn't suggesting that they are better writers & could actually write the dialogue.
#9
Guest_StreetMagic_*
Posté 28 septembre 2013 - 02:37
Guest_StreetMagic_*
Guest_StreetMagic_*
-
- Guests
Deverz wrote...
AndyAK79 wrote...
3. Wouldn't the ending be better if...
[/b]No, it wouldn't. I hate to break it to you but you are (in all probability) not an undiscovered literary genius. You are not (in all probability) the next Dickens/Dostoyevsky/J.K. Rowling. The vast majority of amateur writers are rubbish, and the statistics suggest that, whatever your literary aspirations, you are one of these (I am - thus far - a failed author myself, I feel your pain). The ending in your head is probably much, much worse than the one on screen.
What does this have to do with anything?
Nothing. He's stooping to the same tactics as David. Demeaning people in "real life" ways as a method of "convincing" them. "Because you're a such and such insignificant/powerless person who won't accomplish anything in life, you should listen to me instead."
Modifié par StreetMagic, 28 septembre 2013 - 02:39 .
#10
Posté 28 septembre 2013 - 02:46
katamuro
-
- Members
- 2 875 messages
You must be new to this whole thing, the things you brought up were already talked about in dozens of threads for months and they have been silent for months. And even then no one expected "all" of their decision to matter. No one.
Catalyst was not needed and was called a deus ex machina because like deus ex machina it allowed the people who wrote the plot to end it quickly in just a few lines of dialogue. It just wasnt proper to end a trilogy in 5 minutes of dialogue.
As to literary might, it really doesnt matter, because good ideas come from all kinds of sources, it does not have to be War and Peace it just has to make sense for the people. We like stuff that is not the most artisticly gernius things, and we do not expect anyone to propose anything like that. What we do expect is for the others to respect our tries even when they are bad.
Catalyst was not needed and was called a deus ex machina because like deus ex machina it allowed the people who wrote the plot to end it quickly in just a few lines of dialogue. It just wasnt proper to end a trilogy in 5 minutes of dialogue.
As to literary might, it really doesnt matter, because good ideas come from all kinds of sources, it does not have to be War and Peace it just has to make sense for the people. We like stuff that is not the most artisticly gernius things, and we do not expect anyone to propose anything like that. What we do expect is for the others to respect our tries even when they are bad.
Modifié par katamuro, 28 septembre 2013 - 02:51 .
#11
Posté 28 septembre 2013 - 02:52
Dubozz
-
- Members
- 1 866 messages
Hey OP you are a bit late to the party. Where have you been in march 2012? Maybe you should go check California Literary Review if you want to know why 'deus ex'( oh ironi) ending is not a good thing for ME3.(you know, from guys that have SOME relation to literature).
As for you previous thread - it was pretty pointless, since there were no games that have been RUINED by the happy ending.
upd. my gramma at night...
As for you previous thread - it was pretty pointless, since there were no games that have been RUINED by the happy ending.
upd. my gramma at night...
Modifié par Dubozz, 29 septembre 2013 - 03:31 .
#12
Posté 28 septembre 2013 - 03:07
JamesFaith
-
- Members
- 2 301 messages
Vigilant111 wrote...
1. I have not read your other thread but I am confident that no one (yes, no one) is saying "Every single decision must be reflected in the ending or I am gonna be so pissed off". However, you are correct in what u said about financial and time costs as Bioware has already pointed out: "U do not know them, and there is not enough time."
Sorry to dissapoint you but I saw that. Not in this particular form but it was here.
Some people here were once using PR quote "All your decisions SHOULD matter" and interpreted it as "All your decision WILL matter." and used it as argument that their particular favourite decision had to be in game. I had some agruments about it with them so I remember it quite well.
#13
Posté 28 septembre 2013 - 03:14
essarr71
-
- Members
- 1 890 messages
1. The formatting and nature of the EC determined it's size (primarily the animated slides). The amount of money burned by Bioware to make it is also irrelevant. They clearly could afford it and felt it was worth making. I also don't think the majority of people here would be bored to tears by watching how everything played out a little longer. How many had multiple imports of varied choices for this very reason?
2. People say the Crucible is the DEM. They're wrong there, too. The true DEM isn't any plot device or character, it's the reason for the conflict. You claim the game requires an explanation, but the explanation does not add up to what the plot has shown us to this point.
3. You grouped Dickens and Dostoyevsky with JK Rowling. And we should listen to your authority on this because? Here's a thought.. How do you know any better?
4. Tone and expectations previously established by titles isn't a bad thing. I still believe the tonal shift of the ending compared to it's predecessors would have been fine if the reasoning and polish behind the ending was better.
5. I'm pretty sure you're making a lot of stuff up reading your threads.
2. People say the Crucible is the DEM. They're wrong there, too. The true DEM isn't any plot device or character, it's the reason for the conflict. You claim the game requires an explanation, but the explanation does not add up to what the plot has shown us to this point.
3. You grouped Dickens and Dostoyevsky with JK Rowling. And we should listen to your authority on this because? Here's a thought.. How do you know any better?
4. Tone and expectations previously established by titles isn't a bad thing. I still believe the tonal shift of the ending compared to it's predecessors would have been fine if the reasoning and polish behind the ending was better.
5. I'm pretty sure you're making a lot of stuff up reading your threads.
#14
Posté 28 septembre 2013 - 03:19
Iakus
-
- Members
- 30 431 messages
[quote]AndyAK79 wrote...
1. Every decision I made isn't reflected in the ending.
It can't be. The EC reflected a few key decisions and it was almost 2 gigabytes. An ending with an in-depth reflection on every decision over three games would be inconcievably huge, involve thousands of Bioware staff, and cost enough to bankrupt every software company in the world. It would also be of truly bum-numbing length and would likely bore you to tears.[/quote]
You're painting with too broad a brush. It's not that every decision needs to be reflected, the problem is none of them are, save the COllector Base. nd even then only if you bury the needle as far as EMS goes.
Ultimately you always get
Synthesis
Control
Destroy
With the corresponding endings And in the end Shepard
Dies
Dies
Dies (or does s/she)
[quote
2. The catalyst is an obvious deus ex machina plot device.
The catalyst is not, stricty speaking, a deus ex machina (it is major part of the plot of the game throughout) but the criticism is not entirely unfair.
In defence, the structure of the ending needs the game to explain the potential consequences of Shepards actions, and no existing character in the game could convincingly do that. It may not be entirely believable, but it is perhaps an acceptable compromise given the dramatic function of the catalyst.[/.quote]
You're right. The Catalyst is more of a Diobolus Ex Machina. There to tell you Shepard can't win. Or rather, can't win wihtout severe moral and/or physical compromises. THere wasn't a shred of forshadowing or evidence prior to Thessia. ANd its existence renders the entire Mass Effect trilogy pointless.
[quote]
3. Wouldn't the ending be better if...
[/b]No, it wouldn't. I hate to break it to you but you are (in all probability) not an undiscovered literary genius. You are not (in all probability) the next Dickens/Dostoyevsky/J.K. Rowling. The vast majority of amateur writers are rubbish, and the statistics suggest that, whatever your literary aspirations, you are one of these (I am - thus far - a failed author myself, I feel your pain). The ending in your head is probably much, much worse than the one on screen.
Even if you are an undiscovered genius, it would be prudent to respect the artisistic integrity of others, as I'm sure you would want them to do to you. Analyse the endings you've got by all means, but don't re-write them in your head to suit your expectations. [/quote]
No you don't need to be a literary genius to come up with a better ending. Mediocre should be plenty. Heck all you really have to be is willing to think beyond your own Shepard and consider the possibility that other players may have a different idea of how thier Shepard's story should conclude A pity that didn't happen with the writers we had with either original endings or with EC.
[quote]
4. It's different than Mass Effect 1/Mass Effect 2
Yes, it is. If you don't want a game that's different from Mass Effect 1 or Mass Effect 2, then play either Mass Effect 1 or Mass Effect 2.
[/quote]
Yes. ME3 is different from ME2 which is different from ME1. But they are all suposed to be part of the same story, and thus have some siilarities, They are supposed to be better connected than the name "Commander Shepard" Otherwise what is the point?
1. Every decision I made isn't reflected in the ending.
It can't be. The EC reflected a few key decisions and it was almost 2 gigabytes. An ending with an in-depth reflection on every decision over three games would be inconcievably huge, involve thousands of Bioware staff, and cost enough to bankrupt every software company in the world. It would also be of truly bum-numbing length and would likely bore you to tears.[/quote]
You're painting with too broad a brush. It's not that every decision needs to be reflected, the problem is none of them are, save the COllector Base. nd even then only if you bury the needle as far as EMS goes.
Ultimately you always get
Synthesis
Control
Destroy
With the corresponding endings And in the end Shepard
Dies
Dies
Dies (or does s/she)
[quote
2. The catalyst is an obvious deus ex machina plot device.
The catalyst is not, stricty speaking, a deus ex machina (it is major part of the plot of the game throughout) but the criticism is not entirely unfair.
In defence, the structure of the ending needs the game to explain the potential consequences of Shepards actions, and no existing character in the game could convincingly do that. It may not be entirely believable, but it is perhaps an acceptable compromise given the dramatic function of the catalyst.[/.quote]
You're right. The Catalyst is more of a Diobolus Ex Machina. There to tell you Shepard can't win. Or rather, can't win wihtout severe moral and/or physical compromises. THere wasn't a shred of forshadowing or evidence prior to Thessia. ANd its existence renders the entire Mass Effect trilogy pointless.
[quote]
3. Wouldn't the ending be better if...
[/b]No, it wouldn't. I hate to break it to you but you are (in all probability) not an undiscovered literary genius. You are not (in all probability) the next Dickens/Dostoyevsky/J.K. Rowling. The vast majority of amateur writers are rubbish, and the statistics suggest that, whatever your literary aspirations, you are one of these (I am - thus far - a failed author myself, I feel your pain). The ending in your head is probably much, much worse than the one on screen.
Even if you are an undiscovered genius, it would be prudent to respect the artisistic integrity of others, as I'm sure you would want them to do to you. Analyse the endings you've got by all means, but don't re-write them in your head to suit your expectations. [/quote]
No you don't need to be a literary genius to come up with a better ending. Mediocre should be plenty. Heck all you really have to be is willing to think beyond your own Shepard and consider the possibility that other players may have a different idea of how thier Shepard's story should conclude A pity that didn't happen with the writers we had with either original endings or with EC.
[quote]
4. It's different than Mass Effect 1/Mass Effect 2
Yes, it is. If you don't want a game that's different from Mass Effect 1 or Mass Effect 2, then play either Mass Effect 1 or Mass Effect 2.
[/quote]
Yes. ME3 is different from ME2 which is different from ME1. But they are all suposed to be part of the same story, and thus have some siilarities, They are supposed to be better connected than the name "Commander Shepard" Otherwise what is the point?
#15
Posté 28 septembre 2013 - 03:27
Mathias
-
- Members
- 4 305 messages
AndyAK79 wrote...
1. Every decision I made isn't reflected in the ending.
It can't be. The EC reflected a few key decisions and it was almost 2 gigabytes. An ending with an in-depth reflection on every decision over three games would be inconcievably huge, involve thousands of Bioware staff, and cost enough to bankrupt every software company in the world. It would also be of truly bum-numbing length and would likely bore you to tears.
I don't think anyone complained about all our decisions not being reflected in the ending. The complaint was that:
A. The decisions, especially the big ones, had no big impact in the 3rd game. There were some that did, like whether or not Wrex was alive, or if you saved Maelon's data. But the more noteworthy ones didn't amount to anything. The Rachni Queen choice for example, didn't matter basically at all. It mattered for the War Rating, which i've gone on at length on why the War Asset system was a mistake. The concept was sound, the execution was not.
B. None (not all) of our choices affected the ending. The ending is based completely on your EMS score, and not on the decisions you made throughout the trilogy, which contradicts what Bioware said these past 5 years about our choices having a direct impact on the ending.
3. Wouldn't the ending be better if...
[/b]No, it wouldn't. I hate to break it to you but you are (in all probability) not an undiscovered literary genius. You are not (in all probability) the next Dickens/Dostoyevsky/J.K. Rowling. The vast majority of amateur writers are rubbish, and the statistics suggest that, whatever your literary aspirations, you are one of these (I am - thus far - a failed author myself, I feel your pain). The ending in your head is probably much, much worse than the one on screen.
You're in no position to judge that, and to be quite frank that's a very close minded thing to say. A person is measured by their actions, not by their education. I have personally seen ideas come from the minds of fans that would've been a lot better than what Mac and Casey came up with. You don't have to be a brilliant mind to come up with a good or even a decent ending. The ending that we got was so stupid and so reviled that I doubt the ideas for a better ending that a lot of people had could be any worse. You'd have to try REALLY hard to come with something worse than Star Child, Space Magic, and Gilligan's Planet.
Even if you are an undiscovered genius, it would be prudent to respect the artisistic integrity of others, as I'm sure you would want them to do to you. Analyse the endings you've got by all means, but don't re-write them in your head to suit your expectations.
People are free to do whatever they want, that includes headcannoning a new ending.
4. It's different than Mass Effect 1/Mass Effect 2
Yes, it is. If you don't want a game that's different from Mass Effect 1 or Mass Effect 2, then play either Mass Effect 1 or Mass Effect 2.
Who says that? Nobody is saying they hated ME3 because it wasn't the first two games. They may say they wish certain elements from the first two games were present in ME3, but that's it.
Modifié par Mdoggy1214, 28 septembre 2013 - 03:28 .
#16
Posté 28 septembre 2013 - 03:45
KaiserShep
-
- Members
- 23 863 messages
AndyAK79 wrote...
3. Wouldn't the ending be better if...
[/b]No, it wouldn't. I hate to break it to you but you are (in all probability) not an undiscovered literary genius. You are not (in all probability) the next Dickens/Dostoyevsky/J.K. Rowling. The vast majority of amateur writers are rubbish, and the statistics suggest that, whatever your literary aspirations, you are one of these (I am - thus far - a failed author myself, I feel your pain). The ending in your head is probably much, much worse than the one on screen.
Even if you are an undiscovered genius, it would be prudent to respect the artisistic integrity of others, as I'm sure you would want them to do to you. Analyse the endings you've got by all means, but don't re-write them in your head to suit your expectations.
Even if you aren't an experienced filmmaker or writer, and making a better movie, game or TV show is beyond your capability, you can still possess a fair understanding of what makes a good narrative, what constitutes good characterization, and what makes a sensible plot.
But anyway, this isn't a counterpoint, because there's no point to which you're actually countering. "Wouldn't the ending be better if..." - what? There's all kinds of possibilities that a story can be concluded, which you are obviously dismissing outright, and you're not really in any position to determine that no alternatives can work, based on the probability that no one in this forum can be considered to live up to whatever your standard may be of "literary genius".
Modifié par KaiserShep, 28 septembre 2013 - 03:49 .
#17
Posté 28 septembre 2013 - 03:53
JamesFaith
-
- Members
- 2 301 messages
iakus wrote...
You're painting with too broad a brush. It's not that every decision needs to be reflected, the problem is none of them are, save the COllector Base. nd even then only if you bury the needle as far as EMS goes.
Ultimately you always get
Synthesis
Control
Destroy
With the corresponding endings And in the end Shepard
Dies
Dies
Dies (or does s/she)
And here we got second extreme side of same coin.
Decisions weren't reflected in way I wanted and they didn't give me result I desire, so there were none.
#18
Posté 28 septembre 2013 - 04:01
KaiserShep
-
- Members
- 23 863 messages
iakus wrote...
You're painting with too broad a brush. It's not that every decision needs to be reflected, the problem is none of them are, save the COllector Base. nd even then only if you bury the needle as far as EMS goes.
Come on. You know this is wrong. It didn't turn out the way you wanted, but don't pretend that absolutely none of your decisions were reflected at all. For myself, the thing I cared about the most was the fate of the various characters, which was something I can affect with the choices I made in this game and the previous. Since the EC got rid of the abrupt nothingness of the original ending, I got to get an idea of what happened to them.
#19
Posté 28 septembre 2013 - 04:06
Iakus
-
- Members
- 30 431 messages
JamesFaith wrote...
iakus wrote...
You're painting with too broad a brush. It's not that every decision needs to be reflected, the problem is none of them are, save the COllector Base. nd even then only if you bury the needle as far as EMS goes.
Ultimately you always get
Synthesis
Control
Destroy
With the corresponding endings And in the end Shepard
Dies
Dies
Dies (or does s/she)
And here we got second extreme side of same coin.
Decisions weren't reflected in way I wanted and they didn't give me result I desire, so there were none.
No decision I make anywhere in the game can make Synthesis other than Synthesis. Nor can I make Control anything but Control. Nor Destroy anything but Destroy. EMS can show tiers of how much breakage a given ending causes, but cannot alter what each ending does, nor can it affect which chocies get presented in teh end.
In short, once you've had your conversation with teh Catalyst, none of your previous choices have anything to do with Red, Green, or Blue.
#20
Posté 28 septembre 2013 - 04:07
Reorte
-
- Members
- 6 601 messages
We see two major examples of previous choices having an impact on story arcs - Rannoch and Tuchanka. I suspect that's about the level at which previous choices were expected to matter, probably a little more so with it being the main plot.
#21
Posté 28 septembre 2013 - 04:08
Iakus
-
- Members
- 30 431 messages
KaiserShep wrote...
iakus wrote...
You're painting with too broad a brush. It's not that every decision needs to be reflected, the problem is none of them are, save the COllector Base. nd even then only if you bury the needle as far as EMS goes.
Come on. You know this is wrong. It didn't turn out the way you wanted, but don't pretend that absolutely none of your decisions were reflected at all. For myself, the thing I cared about the most was the fate of the various characters, which was something I can affect with the choices I made in this game and the previous. Since the EC got rid of the abrupt nothingness of the original ending, I got to get an idea of what happened to them.
I am, of course, referring to the endings here. Tuchanka actually reflects choices quite well. Rannoch as well. But once you get to the endgame, it all goes away. Like they were completely seperate games.
#22
Posté 28 septembre 2013 - 04:08
Excella Gionne
-
- Members
- 10 452 messages
A year and a half later......
No one hates ME3, maybe those who don't love the series enough to stick with it through it's troubling times.
Your decision on Assets matter to the ending, but other than that it's a complete bore and nothing really changes. It's repetitive. The Catalyst felt like a quick patch up and making it the main solution as well as the problem wasn't too wise for ME3. The very main problem throughout the series was trying to solve the Reaper problem and why they are so determined to exterminate the galaxy. And who said the endings couldn't change for the better? Given the criticisms and ideas by BSNers, there was a lot of room for great endings.
No one hates ME3, maybe those who don't love the series enough to stick with it through it's troubling times.
Your decision on Assets matter to the ending, but other than that it's a complete bore and nothing really changes. It's repetitive. The Catalyst felt like a quick patch up and making it the main solution as well as the problem wasn't too wise for ME3. The very main problem throughout the series was trying to solve the Reaper problem and why they are so determined to exterminate the galaxy. And who said the endings couldn't change for the better? Given the criticisms and ideas by BSNers, there was a lot of room for great endings.
#23
Posté 28 septembre 2013 - 04:08
Reorte
-
- Members
- 6 601 messages
Or play enough multiplayer and it'll make even less difference.iakus wrote...
No decision I make anywhere in the game can make Synthesis other than Synthesis. Nor can I make Control anything but Control. Nor Destroy anything but Destroy. EMS can show tiers of how much breakage a given ending causes, but cannot alter what each ending does, nor can it affect which chocies get presented in teh end.
In short, once you've had your conversation with teh Catalyst, none of your previous choices have anything to do with Red, Green, or Blue.
#24
Posté 28 septembre 2013 - 04:18
Iakus
-
- Members
- 30 431 messages
Reorte wrote...
Or play enough multiplayer and it'll make even less difference.iakus wrote...
No decision I make anywhere in the game can make Synthesis other than Synthesis. Nor can I make Control anything but Control. Nor Destroy anything but Destroy. EMS can show tiers of how much breakage a given ending causes, but cannot alter what each ending does, nor can it affect which chocies get presented in teh end.
In short, once you've had your conversation with teh Catalyst, none of your previous choices have anything to do with Red, Green, or Blue.
That too
#25
Posté 28 septembre 2013 - 04:21
JamesFaith
-
- Members
- 2 301 messages
iakus wrote...
No decision I make anywhere in the game can make Synthesis other than Synthesis. Nor can I make Control anything but Control. Nor Destroy anything but Destroy. EMS can show tiers of how much breakage a given ending causes, but cannot alter what each ending does, nor can it affect which chocies get presented in teh end.
In short, once you've had your conversation with teh Catalyst, none of your previous choices have anything to do with Red, Green, or Blue.
And as I said before decisions just weren't presented in way you desire.
There are 7 versions of ending dependant on EMS:
1) Only bad Destroy.
2) Bad Destroy and bad Control.
3) Common Destroy and bad Control
4) Common Destroy and good Control
5) Good Destroy and good Control
6) Good Destroy, good Control and Synthesis
7) Destroy with breathing scene, good Control and Synthesis.
But because you are despiting EMS system, which is partially influenced by previous decisions (Decisions weren't reflected in way you wanted) and didn't get your precious Shepard-live-happyend (You didn't get result you desires), you are sticking with your extremist claims "no decisions reflection in ME3".
Modifié par JamesFaith, 28 septembre 2013 - 04:27 .
