1814 réponses à ce sujet

[crimzontearz]

That's far ling term tho

[dreamgazer]

KaiserShep wrote...

We have to head-canonize our way through every ending. While Shepard's fate is much clearer in those endings, the idea that the reapers will be continually benevolent for all time certainly is not. Renegade control is the exception, however, since the Shepard AI clearly has bad intentions.

Destroy ambiguity: Shepard's clear survival.
Control ambiguity: ReaperShep's future intentions.
Synthesis ambiguity: Reapers, period. 

The EC offered immediate clarity and closure in a lot of areas, but it left a lot of room to play in the future. 

[David7204]

crimzontearz wrote...

I never asked for ambiguity david. Never will either

That's wise and honest.

[KaiserShep]

So basically, Synthesis = ah yes, reapers.

[crimzontearz]

Why would I lie about what I want and like? What would be the point David?

[Dean_the_Young]

iakus wrote...

It was a mistake to tie Shepard's (hinted at) survival to a certain color.

Correction: it's something you and various other people don't like. If it was the goal of the developers to help balance the choices on what they thought would be player meta-gaming perspectives, people for whom Shepard's survival is equally  important to the galactic consequences of the choices, then it succeeded brilliantly.

Considering how many times in the last two years you've declared you'd have settled for 'just' an explicit 'Shepard survives and lives' Destroy, can you honestly claim that Shepard's potential state isn't a useful tool to leverage the endings against eachother on personal merits as well?

You may dismiss Control as Shepard dying, for example, but plenty of people have seen it as a separate continuation of existence.

[Dean_the_Young]

dreamgazer wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Pretty sure they wanted a placeholder, just in case.

What do you mean?

In case they actually do want to revisit Shepard's story.

I see. I guess TV shows do that often (if they don't know a season will be renewed or not, they give themselves various outs).

It's a very common thing. 

Shepard's journey against the Reapers came to a close, and that's how I'd prefer they ended his/her story, but they could pull a Halo 4 if they really wanted to.  Hell, they could bullshit their way around a version of Shepard being resurrected in all the ending states. 

There's always the Lazarus Project.

[David7204]

It's a popular buzzword. People throw in their support for such vague concepts without really considering what they entail. I figure 'Ambiguity' gives people the impression that the story is somehow smarter because they're supposedly working it out themselves.

An elegant lie, unfortunately. But there are weapons against such a thing.

Modifié par David7204, 23 décembre 2013 - 06:04 .

[Dean_the_Young]

iakus wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

I can only hope they just want us to feel alone and abandoned for the time being (see my previous post about Eve and her rite to become shaman).

If they actually want "alone and abandoned" to be the final, definitive conclusion though, I might have to laugh. That's so depressing it's funny.

You would have thought a dlc designed to add "clarity and closure" would have added something to that...

And it largely did... for the issues that were complained about being too unclear. Unfortunately for you and the other dozen people who've been spinning their wheels for the last two years, Shepard's survival in high-EMS destroy wasn't ambiguous to most- the issue was that you could only get the scene through multiplayer. EC fixed that, and added more narrative cues that had the rest of the player base go 'okay, I get that Shepard survives,' and carry on.

If you want to sling around the 'clarity and closure' line, you should at least have the intellectual honesty to recognize what dominant topics it was responding to and attempting to address. Even if your pet grievance was never in the Top Ten List of What Was Wrong With ME3 (According to Fan Base Volume).


.

[Cainhurst Crow]

David7204 wrote...

So tell me. If people are sure it's Shepard and sure he or she is alive, why exactly do I see people complaining that Shepard wasn't shown alive?

Because people are clinging to their anger like it was a liferaft in the ocean and don't want to give an inch to the developers. 

[teh DRUMPf!!]

dreamgazer wrote...

Oh, lord. The art argument.

That carsousel (sp?) aptly describes my head right now.

[Iakus]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

iakus wrote...

It was a mistake to tie Shepard's (hinted at) survival to a certain color.

Correction: it's something you and various other people don't like. If it was the goal of the developers to help balance the choices on what they thought would be player meta-gaming perspectives, people for whom Shepard's survival is equally  important to the galactic consequences of the choices, then it succeeded brilliantly.

Considering how many times in the last two years you've declared you'd have settled for 'just' an explicit 'Shepard survives and lives' Destroy, can you honestly claim that Shepard's potential state isn't a useful tool to leverage the endings against eachother on personal merits as well?

You may dismiss Control as Shepard dying, for example, but plenty of people have seen it as a separate continuation of existence.

And it utterly failed to balance the choices.  By some polls, Destroy is more popular than all the other options put together.  I am certainly not so naive as to think Shepard's survival doesn't contribute greatly to this.

And (once again) I say:  Shepard's ambiguous survival in Destroy is a major pain, but it is not the only, or even greatest problem I have with the endings.  With some other reworking of the ending I could even accept the breath scene (reluctantly)

I do think that minimal effort could have fixed the scene itself though.  And I find it mind boggling that nothing was done with it at all.

Modifié par iakus, 23 décembre 2013 - 06:54 .

[crimzontearz]

I'll take clear, uncontradicted word of god....I am not sure the effort could be more minimal Iakus

[Iakus]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

And it largely did... for the issues that were complained about being too unclear. Unfortunately for you and the other dozen people who've been spinning their wheels for the last two years, Shepard's survival in high-EMS destroy wasn't ambiguous to most- the issue was that you could only get the scene through multiplayer. EC fixed that, and added more narrative cues that had the rest of the player base go 'okay, I get that Shepard survives,' and carry on.

What cues would those be?  the inexplicably Force-sensitive LI?  If anything it reinforces Unpleasant Implications by showing a memorial service with Anderson's name already on the baord.  there is litrally one person in the entire galaxy who hasn't written Shepard off.  Reinforced by that identical scene of Shepard alone, hurt, and no hlp in site.  No sign that anyone in-system was even bothering to search. 

Heck even Luke got a reunion (two really, one on Bespin, one on Endor) where Leia sensed he wasn't dead.  And she was Force sensitive.

If you want to sling around the 'clarity and closure' line, you should at least have the intellectual honesty to recognize what dominant topics it was responding to and attempting to address. Even if your pet grievance was never in the Top Ten List of What Was Wrong With ME3 (According to Fan Base Volume).

This isn't my "pet grievance" My own deals with the Crucible's function itself.  I am in fact being honest enough to point out how the only ending where Shepard is hinted to live was deliberately  (even after a "clarity and closure" dlc) left ambiguous was a major contributing factor to the backlash.  And this was done when a line or two of dialogue, a few extra seconds, or even a few altered details could have provided the details needed.

[crimzontearz]

....do you even know what word of god means in this context?

[dreamgazer]

crimzontearz wrote...

I'll take clear, uncontradicted word of god....I am not sure the effort could be more minimal Iakus

You have it, crimzon. Yay! You should be happy! 

Also, why exactly should they go out of their way to further satisfy someone who doesn't trust them anyway and thinks they're devoid of common sense?

[Iakus]

crimzontearz wrote...

I'll take clear, uncontradicted word of god....I am not sure the effort could be more minimal Iakus

Well, I'm taking Word of God "There is no canon" as saying MEHEM can be my canon.  I'll take refusal to provide any more details as assent

Though as to minimal effort, simply putting "Fifth Fleet to Normandy, we found Shepard, he/she's alive!" over the intercomm as the LI is staring upward would have been pretty minimal.

Adding a security team reporting the same thing as Shep takes a breath

Etc

Modifié par iakus, 23 décembre 2013 - 07:07 .

[trenq]

BLASPHEMY

[Iakus]

StreetMagic wrote...

I know what it means, but I'm encouraging you to tell the gods to go **** themselves. Be a bit more autonomous. Don't lose too much sleep over this. From one frustrated fan to another.

Well, if Pillars of Eternity delivers what it promises, I may just have a new god to worship

[dreamgazer]

iakus wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

I know what it means, but I'm encouraging you to tell the gods to go **** themselves. Be a bit more autonomous. Don't lose too much sleep over this. From one frustrated fan to another.

Well, if Pillars of Eternity delivers what it promises, I may just have a new god to worship

Considering Alpha Protocol and Fallout New Vegas, I already do.

Y'know, not worship. But yeah.

[KaiserShep]

Why is anyone hoping for more words from up high? There is no point, because:

Modifié par KaiserShep, 23 décembre 2013 - 07:27 .