419 réponses à ce sujet

[Mangalores]

David7204 wrote...

...
Mass Effect isn't one of those stories. More importantly, it's poor game design to flesh out an alternate path that ends in failure no matter what.

The issue of Mass Effect was never game design but story design because the later was far more imperative for success of  the games than the former. The game design was always a third person shooter. The construction of the story and the universe was far more important and which deterioated with ME2 and ME3 as the main plot started to fail (not necessarily sub plots or character plots which kind of made that investment so hurtful )

You could make a happy ending about the ultimate sacrifice. In a way that is what imo ME3 should have been about: Every last one in the galaxy is ready to sacrifice themselves for the greater good. There should have been more  Mordin moments aka characters you love and respect do what is necessary to stop the Reapers or just to fulfill their character. But we barely get any of this.

Such hero stories can be from saving a planet to saving a single child or comrade. Heck, if you are a good storyteller you can this kind of story work even with a completely, despicable coward.


Then the music tearing at your heartstrings would fit. You are sad your friends die but you know they did not die in vain but for what they considered worth it.

In a way if you really wanted to make ME3 a dark, tale of heroism and sacrifice the game should not allow for you to save every character, it should only influence how you can influence their choice how to commit to this ultimate fight ( run away, betray you or die trying to help you). Otherwise - as we see - the optimal playthrough counteracts the drama of the story.

People might have ****ed and whined about that ending, too, but imo in an entirely different way and I would defended Bioware to no end for having the balls to do it.


In a way the "bad" endings indeed feel like the truest ones since the characters including Shepard at least do not betray themselves.

[Iakus]

erezike wrote...

iakus wrote...



The Crucible as a superweapon is kind of a silly idea, but after ME2 was pretty much the only option left.  Personally I would have preferred an ME2 where Shepard spent the game gathering potentially useful intel and weapon designs to be used when the Reapers arrive.  Thus we could battle them not with a single device, but with an array of old and new technology, where no single weapon tilts the balance, but the combined efforts of many races, past and present, that we can [

but isnt that what were dong? collecting collectors technology & geth tech.
+ taking the thanix canons& dedi on a field test.

Except we really don't reverse engineer much collector tech.  Not like XCom ro something.  And the Alliance already had the thanix cannon.

I'm talking about buiding something like the Klendagon Big Honkin' SPace Canon.  Investigating the Beings of Light.  Studying Sovereign's remains and looking for potential weaknesses.  Making an alliance iwth the geth, since tehy think more outside the box than anyone else in the galaxy!

[Iakus]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...


Still, I can't say I blame Bioware for ignoring those Shepards who would do as you describe. They've never really been willing to indulge the "take your ball and go home" Shepards. I can't say my character ever had the ability to do as you describe when prevented with a ****ty choice throughout the trilogy.

Plan A is still "Find a way to stop the Reapers with out becoming a complete monster" of course.  

And if Shepard did well, find a way to survive.

BEcause as it is, this "choice" to me undermines the entire trilogy.  Makes me go "Why did I even bother?"

[BaladasDemnevanni]

iakus wrote...

Plan A is still "Find a way to stop the Reapers with out becoming a complete monster" of course.  

And if Shepard did well, find a way to survive.

BEcause as it is, this "choice" to me undermines the entire trilogy.  Makes me go "Why did I even bother?"

Right, but I'm saying that Bioware never supported this type of Shepard in the first place. When I had to choose between Destroying vs. Controlling the Geth heretics, there is no "Let Garrus make my decision for me" button. There is no shoot myself in the head. There is simply: deal with the hand your dealt, which Arrival, much as it sucked, already demonstrated. I just don't see where the "my Shepard would never do x, y, or z" argument comes from. Bioware doesn't usually support apathetic or weak-willed protagonists.

[CronoDragoon]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Right, but I'm saying that Bioware never supported this type of Shepard in the first place. When I had to choose between Destroying vs. Controlling the Geth heretics, there is no "Let Garrus make my decision for me" button. There is no shoot myself in the head. There is simply: deal with the hand your dealt, which Arrival, much as it sucked, already demonstrated. I just don't see where the "my Shepard would never do x, y, or z" argument comes from. Bioware doesn't usually support apathetic or weak-willed protagonists.

I like that you used the geth heretic decision, because it's one of the few decisions that matches the ending in tone. The "my Shepard would never do x,y,z" argument is one of conditioning by the rest of the series with few exceptions, wherein some (a lot) of Shepards were able to solve situations to the benefit of everyone with very little cost. Think Rannoch. When the series keeps positively reinforcing the ability to undermine the dramatic tension of a situation by continually finding a third option that makes everyone happy, and then the ending doesn't do this, you create a disconnect between Paragon Shepards that always picked top right Blue, and Paragon Shepards confronted with the ending choices.

Slight digression: I actually don't mind how Rannoch is handled since it isn't merely "shout to win." You only have a chance at peace by handling the geth/quarian situation in specific ways across two games; namely by assisting those who consider peace possible and promoting an atmosphere of negotiation.

Back to topic: This also created the expectation for a successful Refuse. Lame as it of course would have been, you can't deny that it would fit a good deal of how decisions played out across the trilogy, with the exception of say, geth heretics and Virmire.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 03 octobre 2013 - 02:03 .

[Iakus]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

iakus wrote...

Plan A is still "Find a way to stop the Reapers with out becoming a complete monster" of course.  

And if Shepard did well, find a way to survive.

BEcause as it is, this "choice" to me undermines the entire trilogy.  Makes me go "Why did I even bother?"

Right, but I'm saying that Bioware never supported this type of Shepard in the first place. When I had to choose between Destroying vs. Controlling the Geth heretics, there is no "Let Garrus make my decision for me" button. There is no shoot myself in the head. There is simply: deal with the hand your dealt, which Arrival, much as it sucked, already demonstrated. I just don't see where the "my Shepard would never do x, y, or z" argument comes from. Bioware doesn't usually support apathetic or weak-willed protagonists.

None of the chocies up until this point were anywhere near as bleak as I found the ending choice.  Always, I could imagine Shepard striving for the best possible outcome, even if he's not always successful (can't rescue both Ash and Kaidan.  Can't save the Horizon colonists, etc)  Even in Arrival, SHepard has the option to at least try to warn the batarians.


Heck, I can even justify in my mind rewriting the Heretics by interpreting certain details as the Heretics were already reprogrammed with the Heretic Virus by Sovereign.  Shepard's is actually deprogramming them, not reprogramming them.
The options presented by the Catalyst are, to me so horrific, I find myself thinking the entire trilogy was a waste of time.  THIS is the best outcome I can hope to get?

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...
Slight digression: I actually don't mind how Rannoch is handled since it isn't merely "shout to win." You only have a chance at peace by handling the geth/quarian situation in specific ways across two games; namely by assisting those who consider peace possible and promoting an atmosphere of negotiation.

And Tuchanka is similar.  Heck even the coup standoff has elements to it.

Where's that level of nuance for the ending?

[AlanC9]

Sorry I didn't get back to this, but it looks like you were having fun with H.Y.R. 2.0  in the meantime

iakus wrote...
Well, regardless of how I played my Shepard across five years and three games, the chocies become:

Violate the genetic code of every living being in the galaxy.  And die
Let the Reapers take over the galaxy, under new management.  And die.
Kill the Reapers while kill slaughtering my own allies.  Including one who has been a stalwart ally for two of the three games (and die.  OR DID HE?  DUN DUN DUN!)
Make a moving speech about what I've been fighting for and watch the game laugh at you as rocks fall and everyone dies.

So no, none of these choices felt like I was playing "My character"  My character probably would have erten a bullet first.  I suppose I could simulate that by simply closing the game, but frankly that entire sequence made me too angry to think of it at the time.

So your problem is that your character didn't have the option to commit suicide rather than make the Refuse speech? I know you don't mean that, so why are you saying that.? And what do you actually mean? It still sounds like it's your character only  if he gets choices he likes, which is a truly bizarre definition of "my character."

The problem is EMS means everything.  And only creates one or two variations of each of the three endings.

Technically, DAO has four endings, but  the choices made in the game make it feel like numerous variations among them.  

EMS means everything? Really? Low-EMS Destroy is a lot more like high-EMS Destroy than it's like low-EMS Control, as far as I can see.

Anyway, if what DA:O did besides the ending counts, then what ME3 did besides the ending counts too. The fates of several races and many NPCs have nothing whatsoever to do with the ending, though I suppose DA:O presentation was somewhat superior in this regard.

[AlanC9]

CronoDragoon wrote...
Back to topic: This also created the expectation for a successful Refuse. Lame as it of course would have been, you can't deny that it would fit a good deal of how decisions played out across the trilogy, with the exception of say, geth heretics and Virmire.

Sure. Bio's often let you get out of the hard choices. Whether that's a bug or a feature of their house style is a matter of personal taste. My impression from some of their interviews is that they may not be institutionally aware that this is a feature of their style; I think they believe that they've always been in the business of giving us such choices, though objectively that's nonsense.

Modifié par AlanC9, 03 octobre 2013 - 04:44 .

[Bizantura]

I am thankfull Bioware has put the "Refuse option" in.
Depending on my mood I choose refuse. Keeping one's soul + freedom are far more important then hanging onto a body.

Is it that cut and dry for me? Honestly no and in my selfisch mode I choose destroy to reunite with my LI.

The other choises I abhore, but do understand people choosing them.

I don't think any of the choises on offer are there per chance!!

[Iakus]

[quote]AlanC9 wrote...

So your problem is that your character didn't have the option to commit suicide rather than make the Refuse speech? I know you don't mean that, so why are you saying that.? And what do you actually mean? It still sounds like it's your character only  if he gets choices he likes, which is a truly bizarre definition of "my character."[/quote]

I'm sayin that the final choice is an impossible for me.  I can't justify taking any of them.  And even Refuse is simply a rocks fall option.  Shep blowing his brains out is as good an option as any.  That's why.  At least, like The Illusive Man, he goes out with a little dignity that way.

[quote]
The problem is EMS means everything.  And only creates one or two variations of each of the three endings.

[/quote]

EMS means everything? Really? Low-EMS Destroy is a lot more like high-EMS Destroy than it's like low-EMS Control, as far as I can see.

Anyway, if what DA:O did besides the ending counts, then what ME3 did besides the ending counts too. The fates of several races and many NPCs have nothing whatsoever to do with the ending, though I suppose DA:O presentation was somewhat superior in this regard.
[/quote]

Yes, EMS means everything.  The only differences between High and Low EMS Destroy is breakage.  Which is determined by...EMS.

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

So your problem is that your character didn't have the option to commit suicide rather than make the Refuse speech? I know you don't mean that, so why are you saying that.? And what do you actually mean? It still sounds like it's your character only  if he gets choices he likes, which is a truly bizarre definition of "my character."

I'm sayin that the final choice is an impossible for me.  I can't justify taking any of them.  And even Refuse is simply a rocks fall option.  Shep blowing his brains out is as good an option as any.  That's why.  At least, like The Illusive Man, he goes out with a little dignity that way.

That's fine. I didn't say your Shepard had to find any of the choices tolerable. I still can't see how suicide is as good an option as giving the Refuse speech, but if you want to play a Shepard who's so weak that he'll kill himself rather than face reality, that's your business. (I don't know if a "shoot myself" option would have passed the ROI test, but I think they would have had the animation free from the TIM scene, so it would have been cheap to add)

But saying that facing an unacceptable choice means that the character isn't your character is still nonsense. It isn't even hyperbole. It's just nonsense.

Your rhetoric's been getting a little unhinged lately

Like this:

EMS means everything? Really? Low-EMS Destroy is a lot more like high-EMS Destroy than it's like low-EMS Control, as far as I can see.

Yes, EMS means everything.  The only differences between High and Low EMS Destroy is breakage.  Which is determined by...EMS.

If all you're saying is that EMS determines whether you get low-EMS or high-EMS versions of destroy.... yep, tautologically true. But which EMS version you got doesn't override all the other choices or consequences.  You want the list? And you didn't even try to address the underlined above.

Why are you posting silly stuff  like the italed? You know it's not actually true, you've seen it's not effective as rhetoric, and all it ensures is that you'll get a reply pointing out why you're wrong. I know you like to argue, but I don't see the value of this tactic.

Modifié par AlanC9, 03 octobre 2013 - 09:47 .

[Ice Cold J]

I STILL don't believe that the Reapers couldn't be defeated "conventionally."

Every race and fleet in the galaxy? C'mon.

But yeah, I never accept this as an ending either. Way too melancholy for me.

[AlanC9]

Ice Cold J wrote...

I STILL don't believe that the Reapers couldn't be defeated "conventionally."

Every race and fleet in the galaxy? C'mon.

The problem with this feeling -- it's not an argument -- is that there are as many Reapers, and as far advanced beyond organics, as Bio wants there to be. If Bio wants the Reapers to defeat the galaxy, that's how strong they are.

[Reorte]

Ice Cold J wrote...

I STILL don't believe that the Reapers couldn't be defeated "conventionally."

Every race and fleet in the galaxy? C'mon.

If that was possible they'd have been wiped out long before this cycle. Something else was needed. Just not what we got.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

That's fine. I didn't say your Shepard had to find any of the choices tolerable. I still can't see how suicide is as good an option as giving the Refuse speech, but if you want to play a Shepard who's so weak that he'll kill himself rather than face reality, that's your business. (I don't know if a "shoot myself" option would have passed the ROI test, but I think they would have had the animation free from the TIM scene, so it would have been cheap to add)

Obviously you don't see.  You can't imagine how Refuse of simpy shooting Shepard (or simply turning off the game) seems like a valid option in comparison to the other ending you're fine with the endings as--is.

But saying that facing an unacceptable choice means that the character isn't your character is still nonsense. It isn't even hyperbole. It's just nonsense.

Your rhetoric's been getting a little unhinged lately

I love you too

If all you're saying is that EMS determines whether you get low-EMS or high-EMS versions of destroy.... yep, tautologically true. But which EMS version you got doesn't override all the other choices or consequences.  You want the list? And you didn't even try to address the underlined above.

Why are you posting silly stuff  like the italed? You know it's not actually true, you've seen it's not effective as rhetoric, and all it ensures is that you'll get a reply pointing out why you're wrong. I know you like to argue, but I don't see the value of this tactic.

Alright, you do have to do a certain amount of work to unlock Synthesis.  Not much, but a little.  EMS does apply there.  Don't try to tell me Control or Destroy gets locked out at lowest EMS, you have to deliberately tank your score to get that.  

But within those incredibly broad parameters, regardless of your choices in the game.  When you stand before the Catalyst.  You get identical choices regardless of how you played the trilogy.  And like I said, Control does have some variation based on paragon/Renegade score  For that, Control is the best written ending, if nothing else.  But otherwise the only difference between the results of High EMS control and Low EMS Control is breakage.  Pretty much the same with Destroy (though at least they gave Hackett a different speech in the really low EMS) There is no variation at all in Synthesis.  

Sorry, ending slides don't do it for me.  

[Iakus]

Reorte wrote...

Ice Cold J wrote...

I STILL don't believe that the Reapers couldn't be defeated "conventionally."

Every race and fleet in the galaxy? C'mon.

If that was possible they'd have been wiped out long before this cycle. Something else was needed. Just not what we got.

Thus the "decapitate teh government and shut off the relays" strategy

[Sir DeLoria]

Ice Cold J wrote...

I STILL don't believe that the Reapers couldn't be defeated "conventionally."

Every race and fleet in the galaxy? C'mon.

But yeah, I never accept this as an ending either. Way too melancholy for me.

It took the whole Alliance fleet to take down one capital ship. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of capital ships. The Protheans were far superior to us and still failed.

[Iakus]

Necanor wrote...

Ice Cold J wrote...

I STILL don't believe that the Reapers couldn't be defeated "conventionally."

Every race and fleet in the galaxy? C'mon.

But yeah, I never accept this as an ending either. Way too melancholy for me.

It took the whole Alliance fleet to take down one capital ship. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of capital ships. The Protheans were far superior to us and still failed.

It took FIfth Fleet and a Citadel Fleet (without thanix cannons)  to take down Sovereign and a fleet of Heretics

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Mass Effect became a mess at Ilos, and then when the cycle became a "regular 50,000 year event".

[Sir DeLoria]

iakus wrote...

Necanor wrote...

Ice Cold J wrote...
I STILL don't believe that the Reapers couldn't be defeated "conventionally."

Every race and fleet in the galaxy? C'mon.

But yeah, I never accept this as an ending either. Way too melancholy for me.

It took the whole Alliance fleet to take down one capital ship. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of capital ships. The Protheans were far superior to us and still failed.

It took FIfth Fleet and a Citadel Fleet (without thanix cannons)  to take down Sovereign and a fleet of Heretics

After Sovereign's shields were disabled. 

[BaladasDemnevanni]

iakus wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Ice Cold J wrote...

I STILL don't believe that the Reapers couldn't be defeated "conventionally."

Every race and fleet in the galaxy? C'mon.

If that was possible they'd have been wiped out long before this cycle. Something else was needed. Just not what we got.

Thus the "decapitate teh government and shut off the relays" strategy

This does not follow. To use an example I've seen put on here, we herd off and butcher cows systematically, that does not mean we are in fear of cows' military prowess.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

iakus wrote...

None of the chocies up until this point were anywhere near as bleak as I found the ending choice.  Always, I could imagine Shepard striving for the best possible outcome, even if he's not always successful (can't rescue both Ash and Kaidan.  Can't save the Horizon colonists, etc)  Even in Arrival, SHepard has the option to at least try to warn the batarians.

And in the ME3 ending, you have the option to try (and fail) at refuse. Arrival doesn't get any more of a pass in that regard.

Even if you dislike the scale, the principle remains the same: your Shepard is forced into horrific scenarios, without some magic solution out or the ability to take his ball and go home. There is nothing different about the ME3 endings in principle compared to the Virmire Survivor, the ME1 final decision, or the Geth Heretics.

[JamesFaith]

Necanor wrote...

iakus wrote...

Necanor wrote...

It took the whole Alliance fleet to take down one capital ship. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of capital ships. The Protheans were far superior to us and still failed.

It took FIfth Fleet and a Citadel Fleet (without thanix cannons)  to take down Sovereign and a fleet of Heretics

After Sovereign's shields were disabled. 

Yeap and before it Sovereign destroyed 4 Alliance ship in less then 5 second.

[Iakus]

[quote]Necanor wrote...

It took FIfth Fleet and a Citadel Fleet (without thanix cannons)  to take down Sovereign and a fleet of Heretics

[/quote]After Sovereign's shields were disabled. 
[/quote]

Mac Walters tweeted a while back that they would have destroyed Sovereign eventually anyway.  They just would have taken higher casualties than they did.