It's simple, Iakus. Against a foe such as the Reapers, there is no victory possible without sacrifice. (In general victories don't come without sacrifice - but especially not against the Reapers.)
If you don't believe the problem as described by the catalyst exists, (I don't believe it either - it's always been the Reapers who made sure that organics and synthetics came into conflict) go for destroy. Organics and synthetics will work out their differences on their own terms.
And saving the entire galaxy isn't victory enough for this?
Not if I'm going to play the game more than once. Didn't plan on saving the galaxy every time I played, didn't plan on Shepard living every time I played. I did plan on having Shepard alive in one game and that did not include a body that required me to come up with a way to make it survive.
More than one play (based on their past games and expectations that they gave me from these past games) means there should have been one ending that actually said - YES I SURVIVED and I will morn those who didn't make it. And the whole idea that Shepards friend or LI has a vision or hears Shepard calling, "help, I'm lying in a heap of ash and rock and it hurts 
" was lame. They have some good writers, they could have done something in the EC like showing a picture of a body in a hospital bed wrapped in gauze or instead of the Mona Lisa Smile, announced that Shepard had been found.
The reason we still hate is because we loved so much. I still love it. Loved it enough to buy the whole series for the PC so I could use the MEHEM mod made by someone talented and who loved the game as much as i do. They should not have had to do this. Mods are supposed to give me new hair styles and other people nudes. They shouldn't have to fix something this important. But I'm sure glad they did.
The ending was not the only problem with ME3, but it was the only reason I stopped playing after a few times, while playing the first two over and over and over and over and..... from the release date.
More than one play (based on their past games and expectations that they gave me from these past games) means there should have been one ending that actually said - YES I SURVIVED and I will morn those who didn't make it. And the whole idea that Shepards friend or LI has a vision or hears Shepard calling, "help, I'm lying in a heap of ash and rock and it hurts
Yeah, that's not what happens in the scene, though. The difference in the scene is symbolic of the fact that Shepard is alive (as per the people who made the scene) but there's no vision or anything.
Yeah, that's not what happens in the scene, though. The difference in the scene is symbolic of the fact that Shepard is alive (as per the people who made the scene) but there's no vision or anything.
Actually, there's a reason why the scene is derisively compared to the LI being suddenly Force-sensitive
Except, of course, no rescue or reunion to follow-up on it.
Actually, there's a reason why the scene is derisively compared to the LI being suddenly Force-sensitive
Except, of course, no rescue or reunion to follow-up on it.
Considering - if a reunion scene had followed - none of you would give a crap about the what the LI does in the memorial scene, I'm not going to take such derision seriously. It's just more sour grapes about reunion scenes.
Don't include me in the "you". My problems with the endings go beyond a simple reunion scene. I consider it more of a final "Frak you!" from Bioware than anything else.
At any rate, if there had been a reunion scene, the Force-sensitivity scene wouldn't have been needed (unless said reunion was a rescue scene, I guess)
I didn't say a reunion scene would have erased your ending problems. I said that the only reason people are nitpicking the memorial scene is because they didn't get one.
While this may not be aimed at me, I'm addressing it anyway. 
"nitpicking- looking for small or unimportant errors or faults in order to criticize unnecessarily." if I were going to nitpick it would be Tali's face. Not one of the ending choices, which makes a game worth replaying for 5 years or more.
The memorial scene is important, because there is no way Ash or whoever held the plaque knew Shepard was alive. BW put it in the Mona Lisa Smile and holding onto the plaque to give the illusion that someone knew Shepard had survived. And the only way they would have known was telepathy because there was no announcement over the loudspeaker, not messenger, no e-mail notification nothing to say why they held back on putting Shepard's plaque up. it irritates me. Big Time. A reunion scene wasn't necessary. Would have been nice, but not necessary.
All of the other problems ME3 had, the auto dialogue, decrease in renegade or middle options, lack of the LI from Me2 being more involved in the story, not being able to save both the geth and the quarian if you had worked on that in previous games, even Jacob, all of these problems I would have complained about, but I would still be playing the game on my 360 if they had just done something to give a logical reason for not putting up the plaque.
....but they don't know he's alive. They believe he is, and the difference was put in there to hint at the reunion and that the Normandy crew would go looking for him. This is what BioWare said.
And I'm not talking about the ending choices when saying "nitpicking". I'm talking specifically about this issue with the memorial scene.
....but they don't know he's alive. They believe he is, and the difference was put in there to hint at the reunion and that the Normandy crew would go looking for him. This is what BioWare said.
And what makes it so necessary to explicitly show Shepard's death and not Shepard's survival? Why show Shepard disintegrating alone on the Citadel, but not show a reunion in the only ending where it's possible?
Why must True Art be so Angsty?
And what makes it so necessary to explicitly show Shepard's death and not Shepard's survival? Why show Shepard disintegrating alone on the Citadel, but not show a reunion in the only ending where it's possible?
Why must True Art be so Angsty?
Your first question is something I can't answer, but your second question's answer is that true art reflects life, and life is often angsty. Not all art, of course, and not all life.
Is "necessary" the right concept there? Nothing about ME is necessary.
How about "desirable" instead? Same question, less silliness.
Considering - if a reunion scene had followed - none of you would give a crap about the what the LI does in the memorial scene, I'm not going to take such derision seriously. It's just more sour grapes about reunion scenes.
I don't hate ME3, but ME3 has lost a lot of RPG aspect compared to the first games : Autodialog, impact of the choices, too much linear .... Obviously, the cinematic phasis and the fight sequences are amazing. ME 3 is a good game, but not a good ME game. It's my oppinion. ME1 is, was, and will stay a masterpeace for me.
On the other hand, I dislike the endings (ME1 and ME2 endings are epic) but it's another discussion I think.
And hello from France to BW community ^^
Yeah, that's not what happens in the scene, though. The difference in the scene is symbolic of the fact that Shepard is alive (as per the people who made the scene) but there's no vision or anything.
I've always hated symbolism. Ever since Anolfini Wedding Portrait. A dog should just be a cute animal, not representing fidelity and a mirror verifying a witness. Ugh. I'm too literal for symbolism. Just give me the fact mam.
I've always hated symbolism. Ever since Anolfini Wedding Portrait. A dog should just be a cute animal, not representing fidelity and a mirror verifying a witness. Ugh. I'm too literal for symbolism. Just give me the fact mam.
That's fair. Nobody has to like symbolism.
It's simple, Iakus. Against a foe such as the Reapers, there is no victory possible without sacrifice. (In general victories don't come without sacrifice - but especially not against the Reapers.)
No, there isn't. But that doesn't make any sacrifice presented a good or convincing one (and that's accepting that there is one - if you've got hold of something capable of doing Synthesis you've got hold of something capable of doing anything, but that's a flaw in that, not an argument that there shouldn't be any loss). The problem isn't that we've got loss (a better term than sacrifice), but that we've got it thrown in to say "No victory without loss, so we'll arbitrarily kill some people." The way it's done simply doesn't work. Have the whole thing take time, so the Reapers will eventually be stopped but not without struggle and loss, and it would be fine.
Your first question is something I can't answer, but your second question's answer is that true art reflects life, and life is often angsty. Not all art, of course, and not all life.
And as an art and storytelling form a game has a possibility to cover something no other form really can - it can turn out differently, and get to the emotions in a much bigger way as a result (really feel losses you're ultimately responsible for, feel great about victories you've achieved that didn't have to turn out that way). To not exploit that ability is to leave a lot out.
Constant negativity is more grating than constant positivity. Except in the case of STIs.
But it's just as valid.
And as an art and storytelling form a game has a possibility to cover something no other form really can - it can turn out differently, and get to the emotions in a much bigger way as a result (really feel losses you're ultimately responsible for, feel great about victories you've achieved that didn't have to turn out that way). To not exploit that ability is to leave a lot out.
In practice these two things end up contradicting each other, though, because the player can simply reload. The situations in which the player feels responsible for a loss but chooses it anyway are situations where an alternate, better option was unavailable (or were players simply refuse to reload). Players are still ultimately seeking the optimal end-state at any cost, even if it requires meta-gaming a playthrough to get it. They aren't actually interested in the emotional resonance of feeling responsible for loss. Video game stories have a long way to go, but so do players' attitudes towards videogames.
I include myself in that category since I reload when something goes wrong. I would actually love to play a game where you simply were not allowed to reload. The best alternative is a game like Dragon Age 2 that buries certain decisions in the length of the game (such as Isabela only returning based on her strength of opinion).
There's also a difference between personalized playthroughs and playthroughs where you control what happens. And I also reject the notion that if a game doesn't have varied endings then it isn't fulfilling it's potential as a game.
If some people feel the need to save scum for the optimal ending, why should everyone else suffer for it? Why should tragedy be forced on all because some can't see their own choices through and need to metagame?
Can you get a high enough EMS with a non-import game of ME3 to get the breath scene (exc. MP)? Would you have to do a lot of save scumming to ensure you got it?
Can you get a high enough EMS with a non-import game of ME3 to get the breath scene (exc. MP)? Would you have to do a lot of save scumming to ensure you got it?
I think it's possible since the EC. I always imported though so I don't know how the conditions are in a non-import game.
I include myself in that category since I reload when something goes wrong. I would actually love to play a game where you simply were not allowed to reload. The best alternative is a game like Dragon Age 2 that buries certain decisions in the length of the game (such as Isabela only returning based on her strength of opinion).
ME3 as well, right? VS during the coup, genophage outcome and Rannoch peace are all based on events from the previous games. Though obviously not applicable to DA since we're not playing the same character from one installment to the next.
The problem isn't whether or not you actually do reload, right? Even having the option without using it changes your relationship to the outcomes.
Retour en haut