214 réponses à ce sujet

[MegaIllusiveMan]

Never mind... Just testing something.

Modifié par MegaIllusiveMan, 17 octobre 2013 - 06:55 .

[Reorte]

RiouHotaru wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

Regarding FTL, the problem is that FTL travel in the MEU still requires conventional fuel sources to function. The eezo core reduces the mass of the vessel, but it still needs the standard thrusters for motive power. Because of that, there's no way the ships, as they are, can reach the various homeworlds without a relay. Heck the Normandy can run out of fuel just jumping from system to system in a single nebula.

The problem I have with this argument is that you wind up equating a game mechanic (the fuel meter) to in-game lore, which contradicts that.  The 37 light-years a day was also listed as the cruising speed for a frigate, which could go FASTER if pushed.

If fuel concerns were so prevelant, there'd be something in the lore about it.  But then I don't know why they felt the need to include a fuel meter in ME2 to begin with, since all it amounted was a few spare minutes spent going to a depot to restock.

At the risk of sounding very nerdy the Normandy has a range of over 100 ly. The nearest star to Arcturus that could plausibly be Euler (Benning's sun) is Beta Comae Berenices, 12 ly from Arcturus, and IIRC it takes about 100 fuel units to get there. However I doubt that that's intentional.

Long distance travel depends upon more than being able to cover the distance. Any fleet undertaking it would need servicing facilities too, and ships built around being able to easily get to them via the relays would probably not be self-sufficient enough for such long-term journeys. The quarians would probably be the best equipped for it.

[RiouHotaru]

Reorte wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

Regarding FTL, the problem is that FTL travel in the MEU still requires conventional fuel sources to function. The eezo core reduces the mass of the vessel, but it still needs the standard thrusters for motive power. Because of that, there's no way the ships, as they are, can reach the various homeworlds without a relay. Heck the Normandy can run out of fuel just jumping from system to system in a single nebula.

The problem I have with this argument is that you wind up equating a game mechanic (the fuel meter) to in-game lore, which contradicts that.  The 37 light-years a day was also listed as the cruising speed for a frigate, which could go FASTER if pushed.

If fuel concerns were so prevelant, there'd be something in the lore about it.  But then I don't know why they felt the need to include a fuel meter in ME2 to begin with, since all it amounted was a few spare minutes spent going to a depot to restock.

At the risk of sounding very nerdy the Normandy has a range of over 100 ly. The nearest star to Arcturus that could plausibly be Euler (Benning's sun) is Beta Comae Berenices, 12 ly from Arcturus, and IIRC it takes about 100 fuel units to get there. However I doubt that that's intentional.

Long distance travel depends upon more than being able to cover the distance. Any fleet undertaking it would need servicing facilities too, and ships built around being able to easily get to them via the relays would probably not be self-sufficient enough for such long-term journeys. The quarians would probably be the best equipped for it.

You're right.  Long distance travel would require better facilities and ships, and the Quarians seemed the best prepared for that.  Heck, the EC High EMS Destroy ending pretty much shows the fleets separating and going their own ways.  So it's obvious the Quarians aren't strangers to such long-term travel.

But by comparison both Tuchanka and Palaven aren't terribly far away.  But again, I'm eyeballing the Galactic Map and making what amounts to barely educated guesses, I won't even try to claim I have any idea of the scale of the Map.

[Reorte]

RiouHotaru wrote...

You're right.  Long distance travel would require better facilities and ships, and the Quarians seemed the best prepared for that.  Heck, the EC High EMS Destroy ending pretty much shows the fleets separating and going their own ways.  So it's obvious the Quarians aren't strangers to such long-term travel.

But by comparison both Tuchanka and Palaven aren't terribly far away.  But again, I'm eyeballing the Galactic Map and making what amounts to barely educated guesses, I won't even try to claim I have any idea of the scale of the Map.

For a bit of scale we're around 27 000 ly from the galactic centre.

What would be most plausible would be using conventional FTL travel to get to known life-supporting planets. There are probably enough in range, including some dextro ones. I've always assumed that there are large numbers of planets that we simply don't know about that are inhabited, and probably quite a number of inhabitable ones that are simply too far off the relay network for anyone to bother with, but which have been found and charted. They could come in useful.

I also once had the idea that the dormant relays could be unaffected, and finding and using them to try to link the galaxy back together could create an interesting future game. Unknowns on the far side of the newly-used relays, interspersed with the occasional bit of the familiar when you manage to find your way back to a previously-known world.

[KaiserShep]

It would make sense that a dormant relay is unaffected, since they wouldn't have been used to distribute the energy from the Crucible.

[Reorte]

KaiserShep wrote...

It would make sense that a dormant relay is unaffected, since they wouldn't have been used to distribute the energy from the Crucible.

That's my reasoning (I suppose the beam could've activated them but since both are plausible future stories could chose whichever one worked). Using them would reintroduce the sense of exploration into Mass Effect in a big way.

[MegaIllusiveMan]

RiouHotaru wrote...

1-  I felt that rather sizeable chunks of the EC were unnecessary and wastes of time and effort.  I still applaud Bioware for taking the time and effort to make it even when they had no obligation too however.

Anyway, on to the specific things I didn't like: The small confirmation pieces
2-  Now, what do I mean by "confirmation pieces"?  These were things like Hackett saying Shepard had made it up to the Citadel, or telling the Fleet that the Crucible was firing so they had to leave in order to justify the scene with Joker fleeing,

3- or the alteration to the destruction of the Relay (and yes, the Relay is destroyed, they just changed the visuals, if you watch the Control ending, the relay is clearly in pieces and being put back together).  My issue with these was that they violated the "show, don't tell" rule.  But it's not really Bioware's fault, these pieces weren't there at the start.  They were added in later.

4-One could even call the ending slide-shows "confirmation pieces" because the jist of them was to assure people that the galaxy wasn't doomed, and nobody starved to death and it wasn't this permanent bleak dark age that a good chunk of the fanbase delcared it HAD to be.  The point is, the only reason these scenes existed was to tell people either "yes, you were right" or "No, you were wrong."  When anyone willing to take a look at the presented information could come to this conclusion anyway.

5-Why was it so difficult to believe Joker was leaving because the Crucible was firing?  

6-Why did the destruction of the Mass Relay HAVE to equal an Arrival-style level of fallout despite the difference in the circumstances?  

7-Why was it impossible to believe that conventional FTL wouldn't get people home (a claim made FACT by the EC Destroy ending, by the way).

8-The "Exposition Dump" is the dialog wheel where you basically interrogate the Catalyst about himself and the Reapers.  I remember people in the original endings complaining about having the Catalyst info-dumping on players in the last 10 minutes being in poor story-telling taste.  Which makes the EC's exposition even WORSE by comparison.

9- Shepard apparently, despite the urgency of the situation, magically has enough time to ask the Catalyst questions which, overall, seem to have very, very little impact on the grand scheme of things or the decision you have to make.

10- The worst part is that the EC made people who later got Leviathan feel like the latter was just retroactive foreshadowing for the former, since the information given is largely the same.  If you were one of the few, lucky people who got to play Leviathan first, and then the EC, it feels more like confirmation of speculation, but for most everyone else it felt redundant.  Leviathan's information only served to repeat the Catalyst, which, while confirming that the Catalyst wasn't lying or being decietful, still feels pointless. 


As a whole, while I liked what the EC offered in some parts, I just generally felt like it was a placation that wasn't needed.  I realize this puts me in a likely a very small minority of people.  But I don't think that my opinion (or anyone else's opinion) isn't worthwhile just because I share an opinion that's either a popular or an unpopular one.  Overall, my only real regret with the trilogy, and ME3, is that it's come to an end, and we have to move on to different people and different parts of the MEU as a whole.  And while I relish the idea of exploring other parts of the franchise, both future or past, I'll miss the things we got, and likely won't see anytime soon again.

1- Following Mass Effect 3's release, a number of players complained that
the game's original ending was confusing and lacked closure. In
response, BioWare's Dr. Ray Muzyka announced new content would be
created for Mass Effect 3 to address fan concerns. (Extended Cut)

2- Those were just minnor addons.

3- The Relays weren't destroyed, they actually explained that if your EMS is high enough, they disassemble(or something like that).

4- Actually, if you play the Ending with EC with Low EMS, you can see a lot of things that the galaxy is devastated(and some words doomed),(Your choices can also influence on your decisions in-game) for example:

Earth: It's devastated and is left to be rebuilt by a couple of survivors



Tuchanka: That depends, actually. If you destroyed the Genophage Cure, it will be devasted too...



5- Because Joker and the Normandy Crew wouldn't abandon Shepard just like that. Remember Miranda's quote from ME2: "You got that fire that makes someone willing to follow you into hell itself"

6-Because that was explained in Arrival. And in The Codex(Desperate Measures entry) says that others fleet commanders were considering in destroying Mass Relays to stop the Reapers, but it was quickly dismissed, because it would take too long to evacuate Civilians and it would cause catastrophical damage to the planets.

7- Again, the Codex says it too. "The Reapers can patiently wait while traveling through FTL, which can take decades or more."

8- People actually wanted an explanation from the Catalyst, not just him talking 10 min everything we already knew of the Reapers...

9- Well, that happened on a lot of occasions, for example:

The Normandy being destroyed in ME2
The Collector Base talk with TIM

Hell, you could go to a barbecue and comeback and no one would actually take note of that... (The game doesn't progress if you doesn't select a response)

10- Leviathan actually explains a lot to the player(More than the Catalyst) and also reveals that the Reapers were created by the Leviathans(a thing that the Catalyst doesn't explain).

[KaiserShep]

Those Tuchanka slides are pretty sad.

[Baihu1983]

Don't think most found the ending confusing just very unrewarding.

You don't bring in a new character in the last 10 minutes and have him completely crap on everything leading up to that point.

Not helped by Bioware saying the ending was not a simple A,B or C choice which of course it was and it was basically the same ending 3 times with different colours.

[jontepwn]

The EC supplied the game with actual endings where there were none. I mean what did we get in the original ending? I have no idea if the choice I made even made a difference, or if the rest of my friends even made it out alive. And now the Normandy is marooned on some planet on the ass-end of the galaxy. No closure whatsoever. What kind of an ending is that? All that character-building, relationships, creating alliances, uniting the galaxy and that is what I get? How can you even call that an ending?

The EC cut down on the asinine biblical allusions, provided an epilogue, more information and implications of the choice you had to make, added cutscenes, more polish all around. It mostly got rid of all the flaunting, its need to come off as deep and meaningful when it's not. The one thing that still weighs it down now is the insipid twist and the AI vomiting into my eardrums with his bad voice acting.

If a large portion of your fan base concludes that the trilogy was an utter waste of time because of the ending, you did something wrong. I do not consider the EC a waste of time, and I'm thankful that Bioware did something to fix the ending.

Modifié par jontepwn, 17 octobre 2013 - 08:59 .

[RiouHotaru]

Baihu1983 wrote...

Not helped by Bioware saying the ending was not a simple A,B or C choice which of course it was and it was basically the same ending 3 times with different colours.

This argument keeps coming up and it starts becoming frustrating.

The endings aren't just A, B, or C.  That implies the endings are static.  Fixed.  Utterly unchangeable.  Which isn't true.

Destroy comes in three distinct variations.  Low EMS, Mid EMS, High EMS, and while Mid and High share only a small alteration in scene it's a fairly BIG difference (Shepard living in one versus dying).

Hell, depending on your EMS, you might only have access to as few as a SINGLE ending.  This is most certainly NOT a static choice.

A, B, or C endings would be Deus Ex: Human Revolution.  Or even the original Deus Ex.  Where no matter what choices you made, no matter what decisions you picked, the endings are unchangeable.  There's no variation, no alteration.  Your endings are fixed regardless of play-style or level of completion.

Mass Effect's endings were different based on your choices, because your choices influenced your EMS, and your EMS determined what endings you could choose from, and the quality of said endings.

[Reorte]

The A, B, C thing is, I think, a fair complaint of the original endings, even if there are small EMS variations (such as no-one getting out of the Normandy). With the EC it's not great but there's enough to invalidate the complaint.

[AlexMBrennan]

Now, what do I mean by "confirmation pieces"? These were things like Hackett saying Shepard had made it up to the Citadel, or telling the Fleet that the Crucible was firing so they had to leave in order to justify the scene with Joker fleeing, or the alteration to the destruction of the Relay (and yes, the Relay is destroyed, they just changed the visuals, if you watch the Control ending, the relay is clearly in pieces and being put back together). My issue with these was that they violated the "show, don't tell" rule

An alternative is that, in the game as shipped, the player couldn't tell which side had won without falling back on Twitter/word of cod and the game was a sequence of randomly chained together setpieces (squad fighting on Earth => Normandy crashing on random planet). The ending, as it was shipped, was a mess and Bioware tried to fix this mess and I wouldn't call that "unnecessary".

when they had no obligation too however.

Do you really think that Bioware did that out of the goodness of their hearts? The unprecedented fan outrage surely had nothing to do with it.

because there's been a very good theory, supported by the scene itself, that explains why Harbinger didn't shoot down the Normandy that went around, which satisfies that possible dilemma

Seriously? How hard is it to see that any content that require insane conspiracy theories that no reasonable person would believe is bad writing?

AND FOR THE LAST EFFING TIME: THAT'S NOT WHAT THEORY MEANS. GET A BLOODY DICTIONARY

[KwangtungTiger]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Now, what do I mean by "confirmation pieces"? These were things like Hackett saying Shepard had made it up to the Citadel, or telling the Fleet that the Crucible was firing so they had to leave in order to justify the scene with Joker fleeing, or the alteration to the destruction of the Relay (and yes, the Relay is destroyed, they just changed the visuals, if you watch the Control ending, the relay is clearly in pieces and being put back together). My issue with these was that they violated the "show, don't tell" rule

An alternative is that, in the game as shipped, the player couldn't tell which side had won without falling back on Twitter/word of cod and the game was a sequence of randomly chained together setpieces (squad fighting on Earth => Normandy crashing on random planet). The ending, as it was shipped, was a mess and Bioware tried to fix this mess and I wouldn't call that "unnecessary".

when they had no obligation too however.

Do you really think that Bioware did that out of the goodness of their hearts? The unprecedented fan outrage surely had nothing to do with it.

because there's been a very good theory, supported by the scene itself, that explains why Harbinger didn't shoot down the Normandy that went around, which satisfies that possible dilemma

Seriously? How hard is it to see that any content that require insane conspiracy theories that no reasonable person would believe is bad writing?

AND FOR THE LAST EFFING TIME: THAT'S NOT WHAT THEORY MEANS. GET A BLOODY DICTIONARY

Think happy thoughts.......

youtu.be/uYTtZ8yMbwU

[Mathias]

Since I enjoy reiterating myself:

Original Ending: Terrible Writing, Terrible Execution.

Extended Cut: Terrible Writing, Decent Execution.

[Iakus]

And to reiterate myself:

My Shepard=/= Your Shepard

[AlanC9]

KaiserShep wrote...

Regarding FTL, the problem is that FTL travel in the MEU still requires conventional fuel sources to function. The eezo core reduces the mass of the vessel, but it still needs the standard thrusters for motive power. Because of that, there's no way the ships, as they are, can reach the various homeworlds without a relay. Heck the Normandy can run out of fuel just jumping from system to system in a single cluster. 

Wait a minute. Ships are said to be able to scoop fuel from gas giants. Unless there just aren't any gas giants on the route, fuel can't run out. (Normandy has to buy fuel because she burns hi-test, like most military ships.)

That's why flying to Ilos was considered merely impractical, rather than impossible. The limiting factor would likely be parts and maintenance

Modifié par AlanC9, 17 octobre 2013 - 11:13 .

[GreatBlueHeron]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Now, what do I mean by "confirmation pieces"? These were things like Hackett saying Shepard had made it up to the Citadel, or telling the Fleet that the Crucible was firing so they had to leave in order to justify the scene with Joker fleeing, or the alteration to the destruction of the Relay (and yes, the Relay is destroyed, they just changed the visuals, if you watch the Control ending, the relay is clearly in pieces and being put back together). My issue with these was that they violated the "show, don't tell" rule

An alternative is that, in the game as shipped, the player couldn't tell which side had won without falling back on Twitter/word of cod and the game was a sequence of randomly chained together setpieces (squad fighting on Earth => Normandy crashing on random planet). The ending, as it was shipped, was a mess and Bioware tried to fix this mess and I wouldn't call that "unnecessary".

when they had no obligation too however.

Do you really think that Bioware did that out of the goodness of their hearts? The unprecedented fan outrage surely had nothing to do with it.

because there's been a very good theory, supported by the scene itself, that explains why Harbinger didn't shoot down the Normandy that went around, which satisfies that possible dilemma

Seriously? How hard is it to see that any content that require insane conspiracy theories that no reasonable person would believe is bad writing?

AND FOR THE LAST EFFING TIME: THAT'S NOT WHAT THEORY MEANS. GET A BLOODY DICTIONARY

Wow.  Are you insecure about your intelligence, or is there a different reason you constantly take a heaping, smelly, criticize-any-perceived-lack-of-intellectual-prowess steaming dump over fellow posters?  I mean, gawd damn.  Seriously, step away from the BSN. 

[Dean_the_Young]

RiouHotaru wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

Regarding FTL, the problem is that FTL travel in the MEU still requires conventional fuel sources to function. The eezo core reduces the mass of the vessel, but it still needs the standard thrusters for motive power. Because of that, there's no way the ships, as they are, can reach the various homeworlds without a relay. Heck the Normandy can run out of fuel just jumping from system to system in a single nebula.

The problem I have with this argument is that you wind up equating a game mechanic (the fuel meter) to in-game lore, which contradicts that.  The 37 light-years a day was also listed as the cruising speed for a frigate, which could go FASTER if pushed.

If fuel concerns were so prevelant, there'd be something in the lore about it.  But then I don't know why they felt the need to include a fuel meter in ME2 to begin with, since all it amounted was a few spare minutes spent going to a depot to restock.

Plus, the lore does have workarounds. You can carry your own helium 3 processors with you, to fuel up at the gas giants you pass. You also have fabricators that can make preceision goods and machinery such as the fuel sytems. It's more about preparing for a long trip rather than stumbling out without a plan.

Of course, the bigger restraint in the ME lore is drive core buildup. But that's surmountable by (a) scouting out new paths, an admittedly time consuming but feasible practice, and ( Reaper tech. Which is all around after the ending.

[Dean_the_Young]

Reorte wrote...

The A, B, C thing is, I think, a fair complaint of the original endings, even if there are small EMS variations (such as no-one getting out of the Normandy). With the EC it's not great but there's enough to invalidate the complaint.

The A, B, C thing was really, really stupid because A, B, C is an arbitrary labeling system. It can cover any level of differentiation, no matter how great or small. You can use A, B, C to differentiate between degrees of Destroy, or between the different end routes, or anything else.

There is absolutely nothing in the world that can't be differentiated into categories of A, B, C and so on... except for things which have no differentiation. Otherwise, there's no limit.

[Dean_the_Young]

AlanC9 wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

Regarding FTL, the problem is that FTL travel in the MEU still requires conventional fuel sources to function. The eezo core reduces the mass of the vessel, but it still needs the standard thrusters for motive power. Because of that, there's no way the ships, as they are, can reach the various homeworlds without a relay. Heck the Normandy can run out of fuel just jumping from system to system in a single cluster. 

Wait a minute. Ships are said to be able to scoop fuel from gas giants. Unless there just aren't any gas giants on the route, fuel can't run out. (Normandy has to buy fuel because she burns hi-test, like most military ships.)

That's why flying to Ilos was considered merely impractical, rather than impossible. The limiting factor would likely be parts and maintenance

And with fabricators being established around ME2, precision goods and tools can generally be made with sufficient raw materials... such as asteroids or planets along the way.


The first slow-FTL routes will be exploratory in trying to find the next reachable helium planet or drive discharge point, and that's a process that could conceivably take additional decades.  That could even include backtracking months or years if you get stuck in a functional dead-end. You could have stops of days, weeks, or months to set up hasty mining efforts on planets to dig up raw materials for your fabricators and refits after accidents or damage.

But afterwards, once the first routes are explored and shared? Groups could easily set up caches along the route, and the journeys would be long and slow but hardly out of reach. As the technology adapts to a no-Relay setting, capabilities of slow FTL would also improve as well. Eventually, Reaper slow-FTL might be the galactic standard.

[Rixatrix]

I feel like a lot about the endings could be redeemed if we didn't get the A, B, C choice at the end.

Some primitive examples... I find it hard to believe that a Shep who sided with the geth and encouraged EDI that she was a person would not choose Synthesis, that a Shep who was pro-human-supremacy wouldn't choose Control, or that a Shep who was anti-AI and a loyal Alliance Navy subordinate to Anderson and Hackett wouldn't choose Destroy.

Maybe if the game had tracked our decisions from ME1 to ME2 and through ME3 and offered only one of the ABC choices (based on Shep's actions through 3 games), Refuse, and Conventional Means (the success of which would depend on EMS, if that would be kept)?

Although it would be restrictive, it would make a helluva lot more sense (considering my "choices would matter") than offering A, B, and C no matter what Shep's decisions were (excluding EMS), essentially removing the significance of all those choices.

Modifié par BlueMoonSeraphim, 18 octobre 2013 - 01:57 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Gah! You did that on purpose!

[AlanC9]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The first slow-FTL routes will be exploratory in trying to find the next reachable helium planet or drive discharge point, and that's a process that could conceivably take additional decades.  That could even include backtracking months or years if you get stuck in a functional dead-end. You could have stops of days, weeks, or months to set up hasty mining efforts on planets to dig up raw materials for your fabricators and refits after accidents or damage.

I've been plugging this as sequel material for months. 

[AlanC9]

BlueMoonSeraphim wrote...

I feel like a lot about the endings could be redeemed if we didn't get the A, B, C choice at the end.

Some primitive examples... I find it hard to believe that a Shep who sided with the geth and encouraged EDI that she was a person would not choose Synthesis, that a Shep who was pro-human-supremacy wouldn't choose Control, or that a Shep who was anti-AI and a loyal Alliance Navy subordinate to Anderson and Hackett wouldn't choose Destroy.

Maybe if the game had tracked our decisions from ME1 to ME2 and through ME3 and offered only one of the ABC choices (based on Shep's actions through 3 games), Refuse, and Conventional Means (the success of which would depend on EMS, if that would be kept)?

Although it would be restrictive, it would make a helluva lot more sense (considering my "choices would matter") than offering A, B, and C no matter what Shep's decisions were (excluding EMS), essentially removing the significance of all those choices.

What problem is this trying to solve? A player who thinks his Shepard A wouldn't pick option X can just.... not pick option X.