300 réponses à ce sujet

[jtav]

Just what the title says. Assuming that this isn't your first ever playthrough, you know that Shepard lives in Destroy. But all three endings embody certain worldviews. It seems a mistake to conflate "do you want Shepard to live?" and "how do you want your galaxy to look." It'd be better to go for the DAO/DAA approach. First decide how you want the Crucible to fire. Then decide who presses the button/shoots the tube/etc. Make the would-be sacrificee whoever Shepard has the highest relationship value so it's not an easy choice. That way, the game is only asking the player one question at a time.

 

And yes I realize Shepard doesn't know they survive Destroy. But we do, and it seems to be a major factor.

[Bob from Accounting]

Requiring that the player lose the person they like the most for the sole reason they like them the most sounds to me like just about the worst thing you could do.

 

It's like the literal opposite of choices that matter. It's choices that matter in the sense that your choices develop only to screw you and defy what you actually want and intended as much as possible.

 

It's horrendously contrived, particularly since many players have a squadmate on the team planning to commit suicide after the battle is over anyway, and would thus make a perfect candidate if a sacrifice was actually necessary. Not to mention a character whose can survive the loss of her physical body.

 

On top of all that, deciding which character is the player's 'favorite' anyway is incredibly difficult and unreliable.

[JasonShepard]

Related question:

Would people still pick the same ending if they KNEW Shepard wasn't going to survive any of them?

 

I think Bioware viewed Shepard's survival as a reward for doing everything, then decided that they couldn't tie it to Control or Synthesis because of how those endings were implemented in-universe. So it's less "Shepard lives in Destroy" and more "Shepard definitely dies in Control and Synthesis". But I agree that "Shepard or Shepard's closest squadmate" would have been a gut-wrenching final choice.

[Sir DeLoria]

Wait, why would Shep not simply sacrifice the person he/she likes least?

[themikefest]

Wait, why would Shep not simply sacrifice the person he/she likes least?

Shepard-- with a paragon persuasion "Liara I need you to do this for me. You're my bestest friend

Liara -- "If you think its best Shepard"

Shepard -- "I do Liara. I will join you shortly"

[CrutchCricket]

It does skew the numbers but I don't think it's intentional.

[Br3admax]

 

And yes I realize Shepard doesn't know they survive Destroy. But we do, and it seems to be a major factor.

Except the first time through we didn't, and plenty of people still picked Destroy. 

[von uber]

If they had a more explicit Sheprad survival with LI reunion in destroy then who would choose anything esle?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I don't think the vast majority of players choose destroy because Shepard survives.

 

I think the presentation needs to be given more of a logical and rational focus on what you're truly doing in each ending, as well as truly identifying what each ending represents. And I think it's pretty fair to say that Shepard surviving isn't really a reward for destroy so much as it is an outcome.

 

Also, making the person who is Shepard's closest squadmate seems to be more of a contrived appeal to emotion to generate a rather false sense of drama. I think it would be more reasonable to tie the survival of either TIM or Anderson into the ending, and have them be the possible avatar for each. You'd get the final area and have TIM and Anderson, and have a final choice on who to side with on philosophy, followed by the ability to have the survivor (the one you sided with) be given the ability to be your 'sacrifice' so to speak enacting Control or Destroy (Shepard himself could still enact either ending while dying in the process), with Synthesis being a Shepard only option. I just had a brainstorm with it, so I haven't really thought out much details on how it would work.

 

For example, I'd choose TIM/Cerberus over Anderson/the alliance while having TIM die to reverse the damage he'd done enacting Destroy (a destroy where my Shepard would go on to ensure that a stronger humanity would go on to lead the galaxy in rebuilding and taking a much more proactive, authoritative position akin to Cerberus goals).

[MassivelyEffective0730]

If they had a more explicit Sheprad survival with LI reunion in destroy then who would choose anything esle?

 

There are people, such as the OP, who would choose synthesis/control because the consequences of those choices are more in line with their own worldviews and perspectives.

[CrutchCricket]

Also, making the person who is Shepard's closest squadmate seems to be more of a contrived appeal to emotion to generate a rather false sense of drama. I think it would be more reasonable to tie the survival of either TIM or Anderson into the ending, and have them be the possible avatar for each. You'd get the final area and have TIM and Anderson, and have a final choice on who to side with on philosophy, followed by the ability to have the survivor (the one you sided with) be given the ability to be your 'sacrifice' so to speak enacting Control or Destroy, with Synthesis being a Shepard only option. I just had a brainstorm with it, so I haven't really thought out much details on how it would work.

 

Would pick synthesis before I allow TIM to actually control the Reapers. Which already goes against the whole "we already control him so he has no chance" thing.

 

In general though I think there's already enough associations of that kind for each ending, without the game blatantly encouraging them. How many people mindlessly yell "Pick destroy, it's what Anderson wanted!" or "eww, control/synthesis, what are you TIM/Saren"? It eclipses actually thinking about the details and consequences of each ending, which is what needs more attention.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Except the first time through we didn't, and plenty of people still picked Destroy. 

 

The first time through, the ending was so horribly handled and bizarre that I had no effing clue what the hell was going on. Things had changed completely to something that was entirely different from what was going on, and I had literally no instruction on what was what. I just sort of stumbled into the green beam. Then the complete lack of an ending at all (in the original ending, the game really just randomly stops with me following the Normandy to some empty planet) just hit me like a blue screen of death. Beyond several figurative images presented (which were utterly shite in their presentation), so little was given that I had to spend the better part of a day just processing what the hell happened with a pit of disbelief on this being what was given as the ending. 

 

Then I saw the dlc message and I knew we had been screwed.

[wright1978]

I personally think Shep's death or survival should not have been linked to the thematic choice. I don't think a contrived send favourite squad die would have been good either. I'd have much preferred Shep's death to be linked to the level and effective use of war assets during priority earth.

Obviously I also think that Shep's survival should also be overt in the epilogue.

[von uber]

My mate who played it through for the first time recently (well, he stopped at the missile defense on priority earth for a year as he got so pissed off with it on PS3) ended up wandering into the synthesis option as he had no no clue what was happening.

he enever really got into the series much (to the point he never even mentioned to me he had it when i bought all 3) and so may be a representative example of the more casual gamer and their ending experience.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Would pick synthesis before I allow TIM to actually control the Reapers. Which already goes against the whole "we already control him so he has no chance" thing.

 

In general though I think there's already enough associations of that kind for each ending, without the game blatantly encouraging them. How many people mindlessly yell "Pick destroy, it's what Anderson wanted!" or "eww, control/synthesis, what are you TIM/Saren"? It eclipses actually thinking about the details and consequences of each ending, which is what needs more attention.

 

I can sort of envision an inversion of the final ending choice, where you can have TIM survive against Anderson and have him only able to enact Destroy, while you choose Control and put him in a position to enact your will or even use him as your physical avatar.

 

Conversely, Anderson would be able to enact Control, if you convince him that his idealism and strength can be used to change the Reapers to benefit the galaxy in a good way. And he could also enact Destroy. Meanwhile, you could enact the Control that TIM wanted, so there'd really be no difference there.

 

That said, I don't really know why you wouldn't want TIM in control of the Reapers. What would he do that disgusts you so much? I mean, if I had it my way, destroy really would be the only viable ending, with the others being faustian deals that really do nothing but enhance the power or ideals of the Reapers to have them permanently enact their solution. I'd do it as a showing of what would happen if you trust the Reapers.

 

And as I said, that's exactly what I was calling for as well. More understanding and substance to what each ending really is, and what each ending really does. Looking at it, looking at the history of the Reapers, looking at the logic and the reasoning behind the problem the Reapers are trying to solve, looking at the history of the galaxy and the Leviathans history, I came to a conclusion that Destroy really truly was the only acceptable option. And I'm saying this as the guy who doesn't hate the Reapers as they're made out to be in ME3. I'd rather they were something more along the lines of what I made them out to be, but the ones that we get aren't ones I can really despise, though also not ones I can allow to exist.

[DeinonSlayer]

I for one would still pick destroy even if I knew for a fact that Shepard wouldn't survive. We're talking about a decision affecting the entire galaxy. Would you really let your decision be swayed by the fate of a single person?

I view Shepard's survival as a not-unwelcome bonus, but it isn't the primary motivator for my choice.

Not even going to dignify the pre-EC ending by addressing it. It never would have survived peer review.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I for one would still pick destroy even if I knew for a fact that Shepard wouldn't survive. We're talking about a decision affecting the entire galaxy. Would you really let your decision be swayed by the fate of a single person?

I view Shepard's survival as a not-unwelcome bonus, but it isn't the primary motivator for my choice.

Not even going to dignify the pre-EC ending by addressing it. It never would have survived peer review.

 

I would. Then again, I'm the kind of guy that doesn't believe in the inherent 'rights' or value of life. If one guy is stronger, smarter, more cunning, and more clever than the rest, I say why shouldn't he be given more influence?

 

I don't choose control or synthesis out of some belief that its wrong to make people submit or change them. I choose against them because I do believe they are legitimately incompatible options for the galaxy. I see destroy as the most beneficial in the long run.

 

And indeed, you are correct. That's why it wasn't peer reviewed. Casey and Mac subscribed to my ideals. Sadly, they weren't smart enough or clever enough to actually be worthwhile of it.

[CrutchCricket]

I can sort of envision an inversion of the final ending choice, where you can have TIM survive against Anderson and have him only able to enact Destroy, while you choose Control and put him in a position to enact your will or even use him as your physical avatar.

So... you grab the rods and upload yourself into the Reapers... while TIM blows the whole system sky-high?
 

Conversely, Anderson would be able to enact Control, if you convince him that his idealism and strength can be used to change the Reapers to benefit the galaxy in a good way. And he could also enact Destroy. Meanwhile, you could enact the Control that TIM wanted, so there'd really be no difference there.

 

I don't get it. Why have them at all, if they can choose or be persuaded to choose any of the options you can? Because they're there? If so, anyone can be persuaded to do it, in which case we're back to the question of who'd you put in your place.
 

That said, I don't really know why you wouldn't want TIM in control of the Reapers. What would he do that disgusts you so much? I mean, if I had it my way, destroy really would be the only viable ending, with the others being faustian deals that really do nothing but enhance the power or ideals of the Reapers to have them permanently enact their solution. I'd do it as a showing of what would happen if you trust the Reapers.
 
And as I said, that's exactly what I was calling for as well. More understanding and substance to what each ending really is, and what each ending really does. Looking at it, looking at the history of the Reapers, looking at the logic and the reasoning behind the problem the Reapers are trying to solve, looking at the history of the galaxy and the Leviathans history, I came to a conclusion that Destroy really truly was the only acceptable option. And I'm saying this as the guy who doesn't hate the Reapers as they're made out to be in ME3. I'd rather they were something more along the lines of what I made them out to be, but the ones that we get aren't ones I can really despise, though also not ones I can allow to exist.

See my opinion of TIM for your answer. Though, if I were fully consistent with my views of control, a TIM control entity would grow disconnected and abandon the piddly organics just as easily as any other. But I wouldn't be willing to put up with him until he did.

 

I agree that controlling the Reapers is not an ending I expected and synthesis is downright batshit lunacy. But I can see the, presumably "original intent" behind having them, namely providing different kinds of victory. You can get your basic, good guys win, bad guys lose (and as always England Prevails) victory (destroy), you can get a personal ascension to nigh-godhood victory (control) or a "make the galaxy a better place" victory (synthesis). The problem isn't with the choices themselves, it's the **** sandwich they're wrapped in, particularly the latter. To that end I wouldn't want to just invalidate two of them. Yes they're unexpected but with a little prerequisite work they could've been made to fit.

[Sir DeLoria]

I for one would still pick destroy even if I knew for a fact that Shepard wouldn't survive. We're talking about a decision affecting the entire galaxy. Would you really let your decision be swayed by the fate of a single person?
I view Shepard's survival as a not-unwelcome bonus, but it isn't the primary motivator for my choice.
Not even going to dignify the pre-EC ending by addressing it. It never would have survived peer review.

Agreed, Destroy anytime, all the time.

@Mike Exactly, the years of being forced to have Liara aboard the ship would finally pay off!

[Mcfly616]

Nope. I don't think it was a mistake at all. For one, I expected Shep to die no matter how the ending came about. I just had a vibe ever since the first game that Shep would eventually pay the ultimate price in order to stop the Reapers. The biblical symbolism and similarities throughout the trilogy only strengthed that vibe.

I don't really mind that they chose Destroy as the one ending where it's possible to survive. It's the only ending where his corporeal form isn't completely dissolved. So, if they were gonna choose one, they chose the right one.

[von uber]

Maybe varying degrees of destroy (dependant on galactic resource) coupled with a suicide style mechanic on the final mission would have been better.

Something like:

0-900 - Reapers win, all squad mates killed enroute

900 - 1250 - victory, galaxy devastated, majority squadmates killed

1250 - 2500 - victory, galaxy badly damaged, some squad mates killed, shep lives

etc

 

Simpler and more thematically consistant. You could then end it with Anderson dying and you pressing the button.

[Nightwriter]

Agree about the question conflation. Didn't like it, thought it was an unfortunate way for them to go.

 

Disagree about the having to sacrifice whoever's most important to you feature (if I'm understanding your meaning correctly). Feels kind of phoned in. Slapping negative drawbacks willy nilly to create choice difficulty without an attempt at something more thoughtful or tasteful was a bit of a problem already.

[jtav]

It's basically DAO's choice without the DR. And I'm a big believer that the final choice should be as painful as possible, even if the player has achieved a high asset count.

[Nightwriter]

It's basically DAO's choice without the DR. And I'm a big believer that the final choice should be as painful as possible, even if the player has achieved a high asset count.

 

I liked the way DA:O did it. But the sacrificee wasn't whoever your most valued character was, that I recall.

[Sir DeLoria]

It's basically DAO's choice without the DR. And I'm a big believer that the final choice should be as painful as possible, even if the player has achieved a high asset count.

Why? We already have enough games that follow this stupid trend of having a sacrificial ending out of nowhere and making the player feel like everything they did was futile.