526 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

wright1978 wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

I think the reason as to why they didn't expand on the breath scene was because they didn't want one ending to seem way more appealing than the others, by having the Hero survive and reunite with his crew. Their intention with the EC was to expand on the endings, but not change them. 

Very sad if it is  true that this is the reason why they refused to provide any clarification or closure for fans achieving the high ems destroy ending in an ec designed to provide clarification and closure. 

My guess -- just a guess -- is that they didn't think the breath clip needed more clarity. Pre-EC the chatter on this board wasn't mostly about the clip being ambiguous, it was mostly about people not being able to get the clip in the first place, thanks to the EMS screwup. You could say that requiring MP masked a substantive issue.

[CronoDragoon]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...
Unless the ENTIRE ending consists of bad writing and is the last thing you see in the story. I can look past shoddy writing here and there in the middle of the story. But not at the very end where it's suppose to provide resolution and closure.

It does provide resolution and closure. I think the words you are looking for are maybe satisfaction and catharsis.

In any case, the entire ending does not consist of bad writing. It has one or two instances of really poor judgment on the part of the writers - and those instances are significant enough for me to not really like the endings much, but there's good stuff in there too.

At least you admit you willfully ignore ME1 and ME2's writing flaws.

[dreamgazer]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

It still amazes me to this day though that people who were satisfied with the EC are so willing to look past the really bad writing. Who cares that this this and that didn't make sense and sounded stupid. At least I got my memorial scene and cool speech from Control AI Shepard.

If we're being frank....um yea why not? If the OP is telling us anything coherent it's that he prioritizes the outcome of the story more so than whether it's great writing or not. 

There's nothing amazing about people being happy with their outcome. 

Well some people like myself have standards, what can I tell ya? I'm not a nitpicker, but if something is blantently awful and nonsensical, then I can't look past it.

Obviously, you can.  The content at the beginning and end of ME2 can very easily be seen as blatant nonsense, not to mention the contrived scenario involving the Collector attack on the Normandy. 

[dreamgazer]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...



They also could have made Control and Synthesis even more "appealing" to even the balance, but they didn't.

And they had plenty of time. They simply made the decision to go this route because they wanted to.

But they kinda did actually. I didn't find them appealing, but I saw what they were going for. That whole monologue with Shepard in the Control ending pretty much spelled out that he'll be using the Reapers for good to help rebuild and protect the galaxy, whereas before it was completely up in the air what he did with them.

I don't agree with them having plenty of time because I doubt EA said "Oh yeah yeah yeah, take as much time as you need. It's cool." They had a deadline.

Yet, they could have gone even further by retconning Shepard's death in the other two scenarios.

Or had the Reapers disappear in the Control ending. Or made Synthesis optional.   They didn't.

And having a deadline doesn't mean they didn't have plenty of time to work with.

[wright1978]

AlanC9 wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

I think the reason as to why they didn't expand on the breath scene was because they didn't want one ending to seem way more appealing than the others, by having the Hero survive and reunite with his crew. Their intention with the EC was to expand on the endings, but not change them. 

Very sad if it is  true that this is the reason why they refused to provide any clarification or closure for fans achieving the high ems destroy ending in an ec designed to provide clarification and closure. 

My guess -- just a guess -- is that they didn't think the breath clip needed more clarity. Pre-EC the chatter on this board wasn't mostly about the clip being ambiguous, it was mostly about people not being able to get the clip in the first place, thanks to the EMS screwup. You could say that requiring MP masked a substantive issue.

Don't buy that in the slightest. There was chatter about clarification/closure for shep as well as very vocal talk about reunions. The way they presented the memorial was imo a clear indication that they only cared about their preferred vision of killing shep and while they knew removing the breath scene completely would cause uproar they weren't willing to add anything substantive to provide clarifcation/closure for that ending. As you say though all we're doing is making our own best guesses at the intent though..

Modifié par wright1978, 07 février 2014 - 04:58 .

[AlanC9]

wright1978 wrote...
Don't buy that in the slightest. There was chatter about clarification/closure for shep as well as very vocal talk about reunions. The way they presented the memorial was imo a clear indication that they only cared about their preferred vision of killing shep and while they knew removing the breath scene completely would cause uproar they weren't willing to add anything substantive to provide clarifcation/closure for that ending. As you say though all we're doing is making our own best guesses at the intent though..

Just to be clear, you think that Bio themselves wanted Shep dead even in high-EMS Destroy? Even though the name of the video clip says that he lives?

[CronoDragoon]

wright1978 wrote...
Don't buy that in the slightest. There was chatter about clarification/closure for shep as well as very vocal talk about reunions.

The latter two have virtually nothing to do with the first; you can't just lump them together. There was indeed chatter about reunions and closure, but almost no posts calling for clarification, until BW made the joke about "he could be dying!" and fans ran with it.

[wright1978]

AlanC9 wrote...

wright1978 wrote...
Don't buy that in the slightest. There was chatter about clarification/closure for shep as well as very vocal talk about reunions. The way they presented the memorial was imo a clear indication that they only cared about their preferred vision of killing shep and while they knew removing the breath scene completely would cause uproar they weren't willing to add anything substantive to provide clarifcation/closure for that ending. As you say though all we're doing is making our own best guesses at the intent though..

Just to be clear, you think that Bio themselves wanted Shep dead even in high-EMS Destroy? Even though the name of the video clip says that he lives?

There's Mac's comment below coupled with other bits and pieces of comments that make it abuntly clear that their vision was to kill Shep. The Breath scene was a sop added in to add some a little bit of speculations/brightness in response to the fear of the uber bleakness, yet if they actually clarifciation/closure for this ending in EC they would be chnaging their vision. So instead it is dumped at the end of the new epilogues like a bad smell. I should let it go, i've got MEHEM to provide closure for Shep thankfully but the bitterness just won't drain from the wound.

http://www.complex.c...er-white-moment

"The only view I’ve had on it was, well, I was watching Breaking Bad, and
that deals with (spoiler alert) the main character dying. And in no way
do I think that anybody was surprised that he died. It was set up, even
from the get-go, that this was a character that was going to die. But
the interesting difference there is that that’s not a character that
people had control of. They didn’t have any say at any point at what
would happen to Walter White. Period."

Modifié par wright1978, 07 février 2014 - 05:16 .

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

Just to be clear, you think that Bio themselves wanted Shep dead even in high-EMS Destroy? Even though the name of the video clip says that he lives?

Yes.  I absolutely wholheartedly believe that.

It's even been admitted that the  breath scene was a last-minute addition done solely because someone thought the endings might be too bleak.

It's "a ray of hope" nothing more.  Bioware wanted Shepard dead.

[Iakus]

wright1978 wrote...

There's Mac's comment below coupled with other bits and pieces of comments that make it abuntly clear that their vision was to kill Shep. The Breath scene was a sop added in to add some a little bit of speculations/brightness in response to the fear of the uber bleakness, yet if they actually clarifciation/closure for this ending in EC they would be chnaging their vision. So instead it is dumped at the end of the new epilogues like a bad smell. I should let it go, i've got MEHEM to provide closure for Shep thankfully but the bitterness just won't drain from the wound.

http://www.complex.c...er-white-moment

"The only view I’ve had on it was, well, I was watching Breaking Bad, and
that deals with (spoiler alert) the main character dying. And in no way
do I think that anybody was surprised that he died. It was set up, even
from the get-go, that this was a character that was going to die. But
the interesting difference there is that that’s not a character that
people had control of. They didn’t have any say at any point at what
would happen to Walter White. Period."

So the lesson here is:  Always roleplay your characters (even in a choice-based narrative)  as if they have terminal cancer.  Even if at no point in the game is it indicated that your character is dying.  Your thoughts on the matter count as much asit does for a character on a tv show.

Modifié par iakus, 07 février 2014 - 06:28 .

[Mathias]

CronoDragoon wrote...

It does provide resolution and closure. I think the words you are looking for are maybe satisfaction and catharsis.

I never said it didn't. It DOES provide resolution and closure.

Poorly.

In any case, the entire ending does not consist of bad writing. It has one or two instances of really poor judgment on the part of the writers - and those instances are significant enough for me to not really like the endings much, but there's good stuff in there too.

I would say it's a lot more than just one or two instances.

At least you admit you willfully ignore ME1 and ME2's writing flaws.

I actually don't, but they didn't sour my playthrough of them because they weren't as offensive and stupid as what we got with ME3.

[Mathias]

dreamgazer wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

It still amazes me to this day though that people who were satisfied with the EC are so willing to look past the really bad writing. Who cares that this this and that didn't make sense and sounded stupid. At least I got my memorial scene and cool speech from Control AI Shepard.

If we're being frank....um yea why not? If the OP is telling us anything coherent it's that he prioritizes the outcome of the story more so than whether it's great writing or not. 

There's nothing amazing about people being happy with their outcome. 

Well some people like myself have standards, what can I tell ya? I'm not a nitpicker, but if something is blantently awful and nonsensical, then I can't look past it.

Obviously, you can.  The content at the beginning and end of ME2 can very easily be seen as blatant nonsense, not to mention the contrived scenario involving the Collector attack on the Normandy. 

No. I've heard this argument before about the Lazurus Project. I don't see the problem with a Sci Fi universe that takes place way into the future, having the technology to bring a person back to life. They had advanced technology, and spent two years and billions of credits into bringing Shepard back. That's a good enough explanation to me. I don't need a Codex entry that provides made up formulas and mathematical details to explain in intricate detail on how to bring a human back to life. They still at least provided some explanation to it.

Can I sit here and continue to question it? Yea. But what's the point? It's the beginning of the 2nd part of the story and the rest of it for the most part was great. It helped move the story forward. So why does the ending bother me more than something like this? Because an ending is suppose to wrap up the story. It shouldn't be convoluted and create more questions that remain unanswered. Especially when you know what makes certain elements within said ending completely illogical, and most ESPECIALLY when the developers flat out told us that they would not end the series like Lost, where they leave a bunch of questions unanswered.

Saying things like "Synthesis cannot be forced" and then have you jump into a beam that someone turns every single thing in the Galaxy into an Organic/Synthetic hyrbid without warning or their consent, deserves question and criticism. 

[Mathias]

dreamgazer wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...



They also could have made Control and Synthesis even more "appealing" to even the balance, but they didn't.

And they had plenty of time. They simply made the decision to go this route because they wanted to.

But they kinda did actually. I didn't find them appealing, but I saw what they were going for. That whole monologue with Shepard in the Control ending pretty much spelled out that he'll be using the Reapers for good to help rebuild and protect the galaxy, whereas before it was completely up in the air what he did with them.

I don't agree with them having plenty of time because I doubt EA said "Oh yeah yeah yeah, take as much time as you need. It's cool." They had a deadline.

Yet, they could have gone even further by retconning Shepard's death in the other two scenarios.

Or had the Reapers disappear in the Control ending. Or made Synthesis optional.   They didn't.

You told me they didn't attempt to make Synthesis and Control more appealing, and I told you they did and why. And your response is "Yea well it wasn't quite enough to make it appealing. They could've done this this and that."

But they did do things to make it more appealing. They expanded on both endings and made everything seem happy dorey for the Galaxy's future. In Control Shepard takes control of a legion of Machine Gods to help advanced and protect the Galaxy, and in Synthesis they all become hippies. They wanted to make each ending appealing in it's own way, while still trying to keep them all unique from each other. Each one has it's big appeal:

Destroy: Shepard Lives (but lives the rest of his life as a disfigured cripple)
Control: Shepard becomes God.
Synthesis: Organics and Synthetics hug and make up with each other.

It was just part of their attempt to make the endings better without changing them outright. But I stand by my point that if they went back in time to the point where they began development on ME3, we would've gotten a different ending.

[dreamgazer]

No, I never said they didn't attempt to make blue and green more appealing.

They also could have made Control and Synthesis even more "appealing" to even the balance, but they didn't.

Modifié par dreamgazer, 07 février 2014 - 06:47 .

[Karlone123]

I just can't wrap my head around how they said the ending would not be presented in an ABC style of ending, but then it was. The ending was rushed with apparent little input from other writers who worked on the game and as such it came across as a disappontment for different reasons (i.e. all endings were the same, cliffhanger styled ending, ending did not present enough content).

I still dislike ME3, not just for its ending. to the point I considered trading it in. The EC showed that the ending was not sufficient enough to players and was expanded upon. I do not aim to be disrespectful towards Bioware work, but given how unhappy I felt with ME3 quality overall, I am excited to hear news for the next game but I will be taking a cautious approach to what Bioware does with ME4 and not set myself up for another possible disappoitment.

[sveners]

CronoDragoon wrote...

wright1978 wrote...
Don't buy that in the slightest. There was chatter about clarification/closure for shep as well as very vocal talk about reunions.

The latter two have virtually nothing to do with the first; you can't just lump them together. There was indeed chatter about reunions and closure, but almost no posts calling for clarification, until BW made the joke about "he could be dying!" and fans ran with it.

Can't seem to recall that joke

Modifié par sveners, 07 février 2014 - 10:37 .

[mopotter]

AlanC9 wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

I think the reason as to why they didn't expand on the breath scene was because they didn't want one ending to seem way more appealing than the others, by having the Hero survive and reunite with his crew. Their intention with the EC was to expand on the endings, but not change them. 

Very sad if it is  true that this is the reason why they refused to provide any clarification or closure for fans achieving the high ems destroy ending in an ec designed to provide clarification and closure. 

My guess -- just a guess -- is that they didn't think the breath clip needed more clarity. Pre-EC the chatter on this board wasn't mostly about the clip being ambiguous, it was mostly about people not being able to get the clip in the first place, thanks to the EMS screwup. You could say that requiring MP masked a substantive issue.

I do remember this. Probably a good guess.   I don't play MP so didn't get the breath clip which I thought would be a seriously hurt Shepard but one without any doubt still very much alive.  Then they fixed the ems problem,  I saw it, and pretty much stared in disbelief for awhile.  Then thought I must have done something wrong.  Checked with some people and found nope that was the "good" ending.  For some anyway.

[Seival]

jetblack01 wrote...

 
I just wanted to say that i found the end of ME3 very depressing and have decided that i will not ever buy a game again where the chracter you have been fighting for, to keep him or her alive, is then sort of executed at the end of the game, no matter  your actions, because of "editorial jurisdiction". 

What i think is so weird about the fact they have to kill Shepard from the universe is that it goes against the essence of just about every RPG ever developed, or any game for that matter which is that the fundamental motive for playing is to stay alive, thats why they invented save and load. 

Funny thing is that Biowares attitude re killing the Shepard story is almost an analog of the Space child´s year zero type motivations. It´s like we must destroy the present and all history with it so the next generation can flourish.

In the case of Bioware, its we need to kill shepard so the mass effect universe can continue.

In my last playthrough ending of ME3 i really started thinking the dialogue of space child is explaining ot players why Shepard is about to dissapear, nothing to do with Reapers and all to do with commercialism at EA and Bioware. 

So my promise to any game developer is i will preorder nothing until i hear about the ending and i will not buy any more forced death endings. I dont want a depressing end of my games, there´s enough of that in real life. 

Hmm... You almost copied my initial feedback to the ending.

Here is a friendly advice: deal with it. It will not require too much time. I changed my initial opinion on the ending in few weeks of thinking about it constructively, without too many emotions. The ending was brilliant. Really. It was completely unpredictable and shoking. It fit the story just perfectly. You can't win on your terms against the unstoppable force. And the final choice is the most difficult choice in the entire trilogy, wich is based on making choices (keep that in mind, please).

Modifié par Seival, 08 février 2014 - 04:12 .

[durasteel]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

No. I've heard this argument before about the Lazurus Project. I don't see the problem with a Sci Fi universe that takes place way into the future, having the technology to bring a person back to life. They had advanced technology, and spent two years and billions of credits into bringing Shepard back. That's a good enough explanation to me. I don't need a Codex entry that provides made up formulas and mathematical details to explain in intricate detail on how to bring a human back to life. They still at least provided some explanation to it.
...

To be honest, I think making Shepard a sci-fi Frankenstein's monster was not an inherently bad idea. Killing him in the destruction of the SR-1 was also not a bad idea. The problem for me was in recovering his body from the surface of the planet.

A frozen Shep-cicle being snagged out of a cloud of space debris in a decaying orbit would have been one thing. A human body being reanimated after surviving re-entry and impact... no.

[DoomsdayDevice]

They didn't exactly reanimate the body. All that was preserved was Shep's brain, which they placed into a new body. It's still bizarre, but I'll buy it.

[IoCaster]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

They didn't exactly reanimate the body. All that was preserved was Shep's brain, which they placed into a new body. It's still bizarre, but I'll buy it.

[DextroDNA]

So... still ****ing about the ending.

Which somehow leads to arguments about the Lazarus Project?

E3 and the ME4 reveal couldn't come sooner, then you'd all have something else to argue about.

[nallepuh86]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

They didn't exactly reanimate the body. All that was preserved was Shep's brain, which they placed into a new body. It's still bizarre, but I'll buy it.

Also shepard dropped into cold planet, meaning it could preserve very long time and still be reviveable.

They have revived girl after she was 3 hours dead, and recovered completely todays technology.
Considering that mass effect is in the future, bringing shepard back to live isnt so hard as it would seem to be.
http://www.theguardi...-lazarus-effect

durasteel wrote...
To be honest, I think making Shepard a
sci-fi Frankenstein's monster was not an inherently bad idea. Killing
him in the destruction of the SR-1 was also not a bad idea. The problem
for me was in recovering his body from the surface of the planet.

A
frozen Shep-cicle being snagged out of a cloud of space debris in a
decaying orbit would have been one thing. A human body being reanimated
after surviving re-entry and impact... no.

Shepard
had a space suit. It could allow her to survive entry to the
atmosphere, and it would soon fall to terminal velocity, thus allowing
her/him to survive the impact.

In real live vesna vulovic has survived from 10,160 meters fall down without paracute.

Modifié par nallepuh86, 09 février 2014 - 01:38 .

[AlanC9]

Right. Terminal velocity isn't very fast. There'd be a problem if you hit at orbital velocity, but Normandy wasn't in orbit.