702 réponses à ce sujet

[dreamgazer]

They should've just kept it simple. The entire Earth mission needed to be fleshed out a lot more and gave us more of an epic feel. When you load up the Crucible, it should've just fired right then and there, and Instead of three choices, your ending is predetermined by how you played all three games:

 

Bad Ending: You didn't have enough forces to push through, Reapers win.

Normal Ending: Reapers destroyed, Earth is glassed, Normandy and crew die, Shepard dies, vast majority of Allied forces were killed.

Good Ending: Reapers destroyed, Earth is fine, Normandy and crew survive, Shepard dies, majority of Allied forces were killed.

Perfect Ending: Reapers destroyed, Earth is fine, Normandy and crew survive, Shepard lives, only half of the Allied forces were killed.

 

Then from there you get a series of epilogues that vary depending on your choices throughout the games. True we never would've found out what the Reaper motivation was, but I could care less because honestly The Reapers were ten times more terrifying when they were unknown. I'm sure some people might read this and go "No! Screw Happy Endings!" But to me, I'd rather have an ending that makes me feel, than an ending that makes me think. At least for a video game that took me on an emotional and personal journey over the course of 5 years.

 

In a series that ends with difficult final choices (or, at least try to be) in its previous two games and frequently probes those playing to think about the decisions they're making, I would have been pretty disappointed without one in ME3. Better execution would be great, but I prefer what's there instead of, essentially, MEHEM. 

[Mathias]

In a series that ends with difficult final choices (or, at least try to be) in its previous two games and frequently probes those playing to think about the decisions they're making, I would have been pretty disappointed without one in ME3. Better execution would be great, but I prefer what's there instead of, essentially, MEHEM. 

 

Those difficult final choices from ME1 and ME2 didn't really amount to anything though, so what difference does it make? I would much rather have "No choice, great executed ending" than "Lots of choice, poorly executed ending". 

[dreamgazer]

Those difficult final choices from ME1 and ME2 didn't really amount to anything though, so what difference does it make? I would much rather have "No choice, great executed ending" than "Lots of choice, poorly executed ending". 

 

Those decisions did shape what ME3 looked like, though. More impact would've been great, but saying they didn't amount to anything is disingenuous. 

 

Anyway, it should have been obvious looking at ME2 that major impact from decisions in previous games wasn't gonna happen. Illusion of choice. 

[ImaginaryMatter]

Another thing I forgot to add in my previous post.

 

When asking about the Crucible, the catalyst says 'you do not know them and there's not enough time to explain it". My first thought was that it was Bioware's way of saying we don't know.

 

Too bad there wasn't a Crucible dlc to explain it  and when confronting the catalyst, it would have something to say about it similiar to what we got with the Leviathan dlc.

 

I always thought there wasn't a Crucible explanation DLC because the whole thing is a massive contrivance, and attempting to explain it would be a massive exercise in frustration and futility.

[Obadiah]

I always thought there wasn't a Crucible explanation DLC because the whole thing is a massive contrivance, and attempting to explain it would be a massive exercise in frustration and futility.

I think if they did it, it would please those of us that are satisfied with the story. It would do nothing for those who are still complaining because, well, they just want a different story.

[ImaginaryMatter]

In a series that ends with difficult final choices (or, at least try to be) in its previous two games and frequently probes those playing to think about the decisions they're making, I would have been pretty disappointed without one in ME3. Better execution would be great, but I prefer what's there instead of, essentially, MEHEM. 

 

I never found the other ending choices to be particularly great. ME1 to me always felt more like a tactical decision -- when we know next to nothing about the situation (also, is Shepard really the right person to make that call?). And ME2 narrows the scope to rejecting the base out of pure idealism, or handing the base over to TIM.

[Mathias]

Those decisions did shape what ME3 looked like, though. More impact would've been great, but saying they didn't amount to anything is disingenuous. 

 

Anyway, it should have been obvious looking at ME2 that major impact from decisions in previous games wasn't gonna happen. Illusion of choice. 

 

Saying that those choices amounted to anything more than "a little" is what's actually disingenuous, ESPECIALLY the wasted potential of the Collector Base.

 

But aside from that I don't think it was obvious in ME2 that major choices wouldn't impact ME3. Why? Because it was Mass Effect 2 of 3. If they began to truly branch out from all the choices you made in ME1 into ME2, and then take all those different paths and branch those out into ME3, that would've been a developmental nightmare. It was understandable that they briefly touched upon the decisions you made in ME2, because they were saving it to come to fruition to ME3. It only just so happened that they didn't have much impact on the third game, but I can easily blame EA on that for not giving Bioware the time they truly needed. Given what ME3 was suppose to be and the amount of variation they had to follow up on, giving Bioware only 2 years was asinine.

[dreamgazer]

I always thought there wasn't a Crucible explanation DLC because the whole thing is a massive contrivance, and attempting to explain it would be a massive exercise in frustration and futility.

 

Quite frankly, as someone who's fine with the idea of the Crucible but not the execution, that DLC sounds about as boring as a bag of bricks. 

 

The reason it didn't get made is probably because it would make very little money. 

[ImaginaryMatter]

I think if they did it, it would please those of us that are satisfied with the story. It would do nothing for those who are still complaining because, well, they just want a different story.

 

Um... yes?

[dreamgazer]

Saying that those choices amounted to anything more than "a little" is what's actually disingenuous, ESPECIALLY the wasted potential of the Collector Base.

 

But aside from that I don't think it was obvious in ME2 that major choices wouldn't impact ME3. Why? Because it was Mass Effect 2 of 3. If they began to truly branch out from all the choices you made in ME1 into ME2, and then take all those different paths and branch those out into ME3, that would've been a developmental nightmare. It was understandable that they briefly touched upon the decisions you made in ME2, because they were saving it to come to fruition to ME3. It only just so happened that they didn't have much impact on the third game, but I can easily blame EA on that for not giving Bioware the time they truly needed. Given what ME3 was suppose to be and the amount of variation they had to follow up on, giving Bioware only 2 years was asinine.

 

Man, you guys give ME2 waaaaaay too much slack.

 

In essence, it's alright if that thing avoids the main plot, changes the world-building all around, and reveals next-to-no evidence of prior choices, but ME3 damn sure better do the work for both games.

[KaiserShep]

The potential of the Collector base evaporated when we were given the option to destroy it. The only way I can see this decision having weight would be to make ME3's ending fixed , depending on whether or not you had its resources. None of this three choice stuff.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree as you say. Simply put, I think ME2 went into an appropriate direction. You didn't. We view the chain differently.

 

I will resolutely stand against any arguments that decry the characters personal problems as 'daddy issues'. 

[ImaginaryMatter]

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree as you say. Simply put, I think ME2 went into an appropriate direction. You didn't. We view the chain differently.

 

I will resolutely stand against any arguments that decry the characters personal problems as 'daddy issues'. 

 

I've never understood the daddy issues claim myself. If we're being that liberal with defining daddy issues every issue on god's-green-earth can be explained as a daddy issue -- even the Catalyst!

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Man, you guys give ME2 waaaaaay too much slack.

 

In essence, it's alright if that thing avoids the main plot, changes the world-building all around, and reveals next-to-no evidence of prior choices, but ME3 damn sure better do the work for both games.

 

As I elaborated yesterday (and despite my disagreement with your phrasing), yes. That is ME3's job. And in my opinion, it failed to deliver on many of those things. A lot of the things you say ME2 was supposed to do were things I don't think it was supposed to. I disagree on it avoiding the main plot. I disagree that it changed the universe it was in in any egregious or unexplained manner. I disagree about the lack of revelation for choices; IMO, ME2 was supposed to add more variables next to ME1 while resolving a few (which it did). IMO, it's the concluding arc's mission to tie up loose ends, not the middle act.

 

But back to agree to disagree. This is my opinion. And there it is. This is going to delve further and further into opinion based grounds as it has. You say it's a narrative mess. I disagree. I don't think it's a narrative mess. We're at an impasse.

 

As I said, I do have a more critical eye for the third part of a trilogy than I do for the second. 

[dreamgazer]

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree as you say. Simply put, I think ME2 went into an appropriate direction. You didn't. We view the chain differently.

 

I will resolutely stand against any arguments that decry the characters personal problems as 'daddy issues'. 

 

Hey, I didn't make the GIF. 

 

As I said, I do have a more critical eye for the third part of a trilogy than I do for the second.

 

And I have a more critical eye for the second than I do the third, which did a lot more to clean up the mess that ME2 created, both willingly and through avoidance, than you seem to realize.  Agree to disagree.

 

(... but I still do like the second!)

[Eryri]

Those difficult final choices from ME1 and ME2 didn't really amount to anything though, so what difference does it make? I would much rather have "No choice, great executed ending" than "Lots of choice, poorly executed ending".

Agreed. ME3 was supposed to be the absolute end of the trilogy after all. It seems pointless to me to have this enormous galaxy changing choice that actually doesn't affect your experience in any meaningful way way because it happens just before the credits role. (Or before 5 minutes of slides in EC.) They seemed to be shoehorning in a choice just for the sake of it, because it's Mass Effect and that's what these games are supposed to be about. But a choice with no real consequences for as as players, is meaningless. The ending should have been about the consequences of our past choices.

And for personal preference, a boss fight might have been nice too. Say what you like about the silliness of the Reapinator, at least fighting it was fun. The gameplay climax of ME3 slipped by without my actually noticing that it was supposed to be a climax.

[AlanC9]

Agreed. ME3 was supposed to be the absolute end of the trilogy after all. It seems pointless to me to have this enormous galaxy changing choice that actually doesn't affect your experience in any meaningful way way because it happens just before the credits role. (Or before 5 minutes of slides in EC.) 

 

This is something Bio's done fairly often, of course.

[TheOneTrueBioticGod]

To be fair, Jacob's, Miranda's, and Tali's  loyalty missions all deal directly with their fathers. 

Samara's and Thane's deal with their failures as being parents. 

Both Jack's and Grunt's have to deal with their childhood. 

Zaeed, Kasumi, Garrus, Legion, and Mordin's don't, however. 

[Ryriena]

I never got the daddy Issues for the crew members in me2. Yeah, Tail had issues with her father being an admiral, whom wouldn't? Being in the spot light with most kids can be hard on them. Look at President Obama children, how often do you see them in the spot light? Thats because they understand some children need to grow outside of that pressure to become normal adults. Or Sherily Temple for another example of parents not putting that pressure on their children who are in the spot light. She turned out to a be a fine & classy woman who later became ambassador to some country...

[Eryri]

This is something Bio's done fairly often, of course.

True, but I don't think that it's generally a good idea in games. Deus Ex Human Revolution has a similar, last minute, set of choices. I picked one, then reloaded my last save and saw all the others in the space of a about 20 minutes. Consequently none of them felt "real" to me. None of them felt like my personal canon for Jensen.

I think if there is to be a "final choice" in RPGs, then perhaps it should take place much earlier in the game. Well before the climax, and possibly so early that you don't even realise at the time you make it that the consequences will be so dramatic. That might provide more of an incentive to replay the entire game to see the different endings, rather than just reloading the last save.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

To be fair, Jacob's, Miranda's, and Tali's  loyalty missions all deal directly with their fathers. 

Samara's and Thane's deal with their failures as being parents. 

Both Jack's and Grunt's have to deal with their childhood. 

Zaeed, Kasumi, Garrus, Legion, and Mordin's don't, however. 

 

There is a comic that exists that portrays what each squad member needs to do: Jacob, Miranda, Tali, Thane, Samara, Legion, and Mordin all have to deal with a loved one or familial member of some sort (in Legions case, it involves its people as a whole). 

 

Jack Zaeed, Kasumi (to an extent, and she also fits in the other category to an extent as well), and Garrus all want revenge.

 

Grunt is technically the only one to no fall under either trend, his just wanting to kill stuff as a coming of age ritual.

 

Of course, this is the second 'loyalty mission' you have to do for Garrus and Tali; ME1 had those missions as well for the Garrus, Tali, and Wrex, with Garrus' being to track down and eliminate an old mark that slipped through the cracks, Tali's to find a suitable resource for the Migrant Fleet, and Wrex concerning his family's ancestral armor. You could also make a case that Liara has one by virtue of her mother, and taking Liara with you to confront her.

[Hadeedak]

Yeah that too. Shoot I liked all of the character arcs. I think it's at the point where I love the characters more than the robots, but I guess that's what Del Toro was going for.

 

 

Del Toro is the champion at punching me right in my 'heck yeah' button.

[AlanC9]

The Crucible/Catalyst scene needed a complete rewrite since the execution was terribly flawed (jumping into a beam to release 'organic energy'? Come on man! Shooting a pipe activates a system? WTF?)

 

Some folks have gone halfway to IT and said that the whole scene with the Catalyst is actually a psychic interface with the Crucible's systems. So, for instance, you activate Destroy by shooting something because the act of shooting symbolizes destructive action. 

 

I don't really buy that Bio was actually going for something like this myself, though it's a bit of an improvement.

[Hadeedak]

It's certainly interesting to compare to the Leviathan conclusion conversation.

 

And given my druthers, I'd love the final scene to be a bit more like that.

[KaiserShep]

Some folks have gone halfway to IT and said that the whole scene with the Catalyst is actually a psychic interface with the Crucible's systems. So, for instance, you activate Destroy by shooting something because the act of shooting symbolizes destructive action. 

 

I don't really buy that Bio was actually going for something like this myself, though it's a bit of an improvement.

 

This would reconcile the design of the decision chamber. Basically, it can be any kind of structure the Intelligence decides it to be to make it easier for the subject to accept, kind of like how Legion/Geth VI will filter the information of the consensus so Shepard isn't overwhelmed by the data. Thinking about it, this could have worked pretty well. Like, Shepard passes out in the control room after TIM and Anderson die, and the Catalyst accesses Shepard's mind, so Shepard is still just sitting in that room, and if he/she chooses destroy, then Shep wakes up in that same spot, and if Shep chooses control, then it's a total mind wipe that renders him/her braindead and it's a wrap. Of course, this precludes Synthesis, but I couldn't care less.