580 réponses à ce sujet

[maaaad365]

@Gimmedagun

It's simple. Make Destroy the canon ending , Shepard survives and we have ME4 as a continuation- rebuild the galaxy ( you don't have to play as Shepard, he can do his own thing while you play as another character with no connection to him). The other 2 choices ( blue and green ) are possibilities that never happened in the ME universe.

And I told you why , for me , the blue and green ending make no sense, and I am sure that many people feel the same. But I do understand your point of view, you are satisfied with the ending. 

Modifié par maaaad365, 06 février 2014 - 10:46 .

[Display Name Owner]

Many will disagree, but even if they would do this (which they wouldn't) I don't even think they should. If they wanted to keep Shepard, than killing the poor guy for a second time in the endings was just a waste, and undoing it, be it by canonising some miraculous recovery or doing yet another Lazarus jobby would just be unsatisfying and I'd even go so far as to call it bad writing.

Shepard is dead, let's just move on.

[AlanC9]

StreetMagic wrote...
Generally speaking though, there's a lot of issues with the balance of power. The Krogan are just one part of it (and that in itself has many variables). The story only works in one way - and it sucks if you don't play it that way. It works if you bundle everything, every asset and every species, into one big barrel, and introduce a "one size fits all" solution like Synthesis. All problems solved, everybody's happy. Everything is concluded. Control works too, since you can keep it all in check as Reaper Shep, I suppose. Destroy creates more questions however. The Catalyst warns how Destroy creates chaos when it comes to synthetics -- but it's chaos with everything actually. We're left with no clue on how the power will be balanced, how people evolve, if and how the Council restructures or becomes obsolete, or especially where humans stand (especially led by Renegade Shepard's actions. Paragon is easier to predict). For a game called Mass Effect, I'm just left with more questions on what the "effects" even are.

I'm a little confused by your definition of "works" here. It sounds like it means "wrapping up absolutely everything." Why would we want that?

[SwobyJ]

The endings are all canon.

[maaaad365]

SwobyJ wrote...

The endings are all canon.

That's a logical impossibility. Only one of them can be true if ME4 is a sequal. If ME4 is in the past , then Bioware can postpone the canon ending, but they will need to make a decision at some point in the future.

Modifié par maaaad365, 06 février 2014 - 11:12 .

[GimmeDaGun]

StreetMagic wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...
Generally speaking though, there's a lot of issues with the balance of power. The Krogan are just one part of it (and that in itself has many variables). The story only works in one way - and it sucks if you don't play it that way. It works if you bundle everything, every asset and every species, into one big barrel, and introduce a "one size fits all" solution like Synthesis. All problems solved, everybody's happy. Everything is concluded. Control works too, since you can keep it all in check as Reaper Shep, I suppose. Destroy creates more questions however. The Catalyst warns how Destroy creates chaos when it comes to synthetics -- but it's chaos with everything actually. We're left with no clue on how the power will be balanced, how people evolve, if and how the Council restructures or becomes obsolete, or especially where humans stand (especially led by Renegade Shepard's actions. Paragon is easier to predict). For a game called Mass Effect, I'm just left with more questions on what the "effects" even are.

I'm a little confused by your definition of "works" here. It sounds like it means "wrapping up absolutely everything." Why would we want that?

Well, I don't want it in the first place. I want to play through different political/cultural issues (Keyword: "Play"). I enjoy the chaos. It's just sucks if there's no possibiity to examine it. [edit: Or get killed for it, for that matter]

If I really wanted to wrap up everything, I'd have picked Synthesis.

There's another game trilogy for that, it's called The Witcher.

[SwobyJ]

maaaad365 wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

The endings are all canon.

That's a logical impossibility. Only one of them can be true if ME4 is a sequal. If ME4 is in the past , then Bioware can postpone the canon ending, but they will need to make a decision at some point in the future.

I'll bet you 10000 imaginary Credits.


EDIT: To be clearer, I think Destroy is the most truthful of endings, but all 3 can and do happen, and do have truth to them. NOT talking about what IT proposes.

Modifié par SwobyJ, 06 février 2014 - 11:58 .

[Han Shot First]

maaaad365 wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

The endings are all canon.

That's a logical impossibility. Only one of them can be true if ME4 is a sequal. If ME4 is in the past , then Bioware can postpone the canon ending, but they will need to make a decision at some point in the future.

They could get away with making a sequel where all three original endings carry over (Refuse is guaranteed non-canon) but it would require having certain consequences of the various endings being reversed or altering in the time between the close of ME3 and the start of ME4. You'd have to change some of the consequences so that there were not radical differences between the three endings. A sequel doesn't necessarily have to be set immediately after the previous game after all. If the next game were set several hundred years after ME3 that is quite a bit of time for things to have changed. Think how much our own planet has changed in the last seven hundred years.

They'd probably have to remove any physical manifestations of Synthesis and any reference to being partially synthetic would be in dialogue only. Characters would be partially synthetic without any green glowy nonsense. They'd also have to address the fate of the Reapers, which would probably be having no Reapers at all in a sequel. In Destroy saves they'd be destroyed and in Control or Synthesis they'd probably have them disappear for another galaxy or dark space.  Destroyers would probably have the Geth rebuilt in their playthroughs, with the only difference again being dialogue. Perhaps the Destroy Geth would be less trustful of organics than with the Control or Synthesis saves.

I'm not recommending the above by the way, I'm just pointing out that Bioware could go a similar route.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 07 février 2014 - 12:00 .

[AlanC9]

The full KotOR 2 is not inconceivable.

Modifié par AlanC9, 07 février 2014 - 12:11 .

[SwobyJ]

StreetMagic wrote...

I wouldn't want the Geth rebuilt in my post Destroy world.

I take the "Red" color of Destroy pretty literally. I think it's consistent with Renegade actions throughout the trilogy. I think anyone with a lot of Paragon choices, but chose Destroy in the end is going to have more problems. Too much chaos. Too much to manage, and no clear authority on who can keep any of it in check. I want as few lingering problems as possible. That means Geth dead, Krogan dead (more or less), Ardat Yakshi dead...

Hmm, what else is left? If I could nuke Leviathan's planet, I would.

It's like what Renegade Shep says about the Thorian in ME1: The only thing to do with a creature like that is to kill it.

Re: the bolded.

Nah, I got Citadel DLC. I'll be fine :innocent:

(you know my 'clone' theory)

[GimmeDaGun]

StreetMagic wrote...

GimmeDaGun wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...
Generally speaking though, there's a lot of issues with the balance of power. The Krogan are just one part of it (and that in itself has many variables). The story only works in one way - and it sucks if you don't play it that way. It works if you bundle everything, every asset and every species, into one big barrel, and introduce a "one size fits all" solution like Synthesis. All problems solved, everybody's happy. Everything is concluded. Control works too, since you can keep it all in check as Reaper Shep, I suppose. Destroy creates more questions however. The Catalyst warns how Destroy creates chaos when it comes to synthetics -- but it's chaos with everything actually. We're left with no clue on how the power will be balanced, how people evolve, if and how the Council restructures or becomes obsolete, or especially where humans stand (especially led by Renegade Shepard's actions. Paragon is easier to predict). For a game called Mass Effect, I'm just left with more questions on what the "effects" even are.

I'm a little confused by your definition of "works" here. It sounds like it means "wrapping up absolutely everything." Why would we want that?

Well, I don't want it in the first place. I want to play through different political/cultural issues (Keyword: "Play"). I enjoy the chaos. It's just sucks if there's no possibiity to examine it. [edit: Or get killed for it, for that matter]

If I really wanted to wrap up everything, I'd have picked Synthesis.

There's another game trilogy for that, it's called The Witcher.

What do you mean? Never got around to them, and can only get Witcher 2 on my Xbox :

I mean it's all about choices and consequences. You can influence the world around you and your own choices shape your story in many ways. You have to be very careful, since even one bad move or dialogue option can kill you. Its story is quite an intricate one and if you enjoy chaos (in a good way) you'll love it. I think it's one of the best rpg-s and games in general out there. The characters are all very well written and all of them have three-dimensional personalities. There's a lot to love and hate about them. It's a dark medieval fantasy game. It's not for the paragon ME-fan kind of people, since you can't play the stainless hero-man in it, but even they can enjoy it if they get the hang of it. 

Buy the enhanced edition with all its (free) dlcs immediately. You won't regret it, I promise and it's cheap as hell now. The first game is great, but you don't need to play it in order to enjoy the second one. Oh, and you have to play it at least twice in order to get the complete experience, if you know what I mean.  It's a must have, even if the gameplay can be pretty difficult and unforgiving at first. Trust me! 

Modifié par GimmeDaGun, 07 février 2014 - 12:18 .

[GimmeDaGun]

StreetMagic wrote...

Is Witcher 2 a good place to start?

It is. They make a trilogy, but the overarching plot's presence in the first two games is pretty subtle. You play a personal journey and each installment tells a different, self-contained episodic tale. 

[GimmeDaGun]

StreetMagic wrote...

Is Witcher 2 a good place to start?

Oh, and since The Witcher 1 is not a very new game, you really don't need a gaming rig for it. If you have a decent enough PC which can handle some older games, you can buy that too. Check out its system requirements.

[Han Shot First]

StreetMagic wrote...

Is Witcher 2 a good place to start?

Yes.

I started with the Witcher 2. Its a much better game than the first, and since the story structure is episodic you don't really need to start with the first game. Although it is the same protagonist through all three Witcher games, the way it plays out is sort of like your if DA:O Warden was also the protagonist of DA2 and DA:I. Same protagonist, different plots and and antagonists.

[GenRtin]

SwobyJ wrote...

GenRtin wrote...

Is it possible for Bioware to lie? Yes. But I doubt they would lie about Shepard. There is no point in him/her returning, especially as the protagonist again. Shepard became the first human Spectre, defeated on the best Spectres, died, was resurrected, lead an unlikely team to survive a supposed "suicide mission", then united a galaxy to battle the Reapers and make a decision that would alter the galaxy forever. I too would miss Shepard, but it's better for him/her to leave with us wanting more, rather than having Shepard be around for so long that we just want him/her to go away. Besides, it would be nice to get a new perspective, preferably an alien, and not a human perspective.

What about a more synthetic perspective?

We did sort of get a Geth perspective, but it could be expanded on.  I'm just saying that it would be great to play as someone other than a human.
But interesting idea.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Plus, if showing Shepard clearly alive would make such a scenerio too obviously the "right one" despite the hilariously over-the-top "everything is JUST PERFECT" monologue in Synthesis then maybe there's something fundamentally wrong with the endings themselves, no?

The design intent was that there would be something wrong with each one of the endings, yep.

And the ending which merely hints that Shepard lives greatly outweighs the other ending options.

So again, if Shepard lives>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>description of ridiculously happy green funtimes for the galaxy, is there not something fundamentally wrong with the endings anyway? That the intent is not living up to the desire of the players?

[Han Shot First]

StreetMagic wrote...

I wouldn't want the Geth rebuilt in my post Destroy world.

*If* the next game were a sequel that carried over all endings except Refuse, the Geth would probably be rebuilt for Destroyers. The alternative would be there not being any Geth in Control or Synthesis playthroughs. Bioware would have to take into account the major differences between the various endings and bring them more in line, so that they wouldn't have to craft the equivalent of three separate games. So you'd probably end up with the Quarians reactivating the Geth to help rebuild Rannoch in Destroy playthroughs rather than the Geth sailing off for dark space
in a Control or Synthesis import.

As far as a sequel goes I think Bioware really only has two choices. The first is to go with the above scenario, the second is to anoint only one of the three endings as the sole canon and build on that sole canon ending. In either approach they are likely not going to please everyone.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 07 février 2014 - 06:57 .

[thehomeworld]

I did hear someone say that Shep would be the lead in ME4 however I took it as their own wishful thinking. If they did indeed do a 5th element revive shep for the new system I think they should have shep go psycho I mean who could go through that again against their will again and just shrug and be fi-...oh wait...yeah BW already did that plot line and people hated it.

If they did in a hypothetical situation bring shep back they should make shep go insane from the stress of it and both Meer (who will be allowed to be freaking human like he was in ME3) and Hale back because Hale made Shep for the whole series. I wouldn't be able to have mshep with his original voice and have fshep be someone new.

Modifié par thehomeworld, 07 février 2014 - 07:52 .