1005 réponses à ce sujet

[felipejiraya]

Yes, I'm peace since the EC.

[AlanC9]

Yes you had just learned minutes ago what the whole absurd process was about.
 
Not that there hadn't already been plenty of death, some of it pointless, already.

Suddenly you're talking about a completely different absurdity.

[AlanC9]

Heck, even the author of Dragon Age could've pulled it off, if he had just left the whole other option out of the written narrative. As this is not about my new obsession, I will say yeah it was not a smart move to tell the player your killing yourself for something stupid. .

Huh? I thought the player character was killing himself -- assuming that happens -- to save the Galaxy. Which he does.

[dreamgazer]

Oh, for Pete's sake. It was made about as obvious as humanly possible that the Crucible was going to either destroy or control the Reapers, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to predict that Shepard's going to choose between the two at the end (like every other game in the series). On top of that, why would Shepard know precisely how the Crucible would work, anyway? S/he's no scientist in comparison to those working with the blueprints, and has more important logistical and diplomatic matters to attend to beyond double-guessing minds waaaay beyond his/her awareness level and the tech of the Protheans.

I may find the introduction of Synthesis to be absurd, but the rest ain't that difficult to buy whatsoever in the face of desperation, especially considering Shepard's willingness to chase after Saren and the far vaguer Conduit.

[Iakus]

Suddenly you're talking about a completely different absurdity.

I see it as one long absurdity.  It just clumps more in certain areas.

 

But the entire Crucible concept as a MacGuffin that does...something, we're not sure what, but IT'S OUR ONLY CHANCE!!!!  was pretty absurd.  

 

Adding the forced sacrifice on top of it just helped elevate it to farcical levels.  

[Iakus]

Oh, for Pete's sake. It was made about as obvious as humanly possible that the Crucible was going to either destroy or control the Reapers, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to predict that Shepard's going to choose between the two at the end (like every other game in the series). On top of that, why would Shepard know precisely how the Crucible would work, anyway? S/he's no scientist in comparison to those working with the blueprints, and has more important logistical and diplomatic matters to attend to beyond double-guessing minds waaaay beyond his/her awareness level and the tech of the Protheans.
 

Except even the scientists who are building the freaking thing and reading the blueprints don't know what it does.

 

 

 

I may find the introduction of Synthesis to be absurd, but the rest ain't that difficult to buy whatsoever in the face of desperation, especially considering Shepard's willingness to chase after Saren and the far vaguer Conduit.

Except Shepard was not chasing Saren.  Anderson even said not to bother, he's in the wind.  What he was doing was tracking down clues as to what Saren might be up to.

[Dabrikishaw]

While I do agree with a few certain criticisms about Mass Effect 3 as a whole and the endings pre and post extended cut, I've never needed to be at peace with Mass Effect 3 because I've always been okay with it. 

[dreamgazer]

Except even the scientists who are building the freaking thing and reading the blueprints don't know what it does.

Eh, only if you take the game's language literally. It was made clear from the get-go by Liara that it had immense destructive power against the Reapers, and later on that it would utilize the mass relays. It was repeatedly communicated that controlling the Reapers was an option, too, albeit a misguided one when discussing the option with Hackett. Not knowing exactly what it'll do =/= not having an idea of what it'll do. They weren't building a giant kazoo. Some idea was known of its capabilities, and it's not as if the red and blue options aren't bound to this franchise's established lore. Of course, they lose me with Synthesis.

Except Shepard was not chasing Saren.  Anderson even said not to bother, he's in the wind.  What he was doing was tracking down clues as to what Saren might be up to.

That is the equivalent of chasing Saren, and you know it. Even if you're tangentially right, that meant Shepard was chasing the "Conduit", which was a pure MacGuffin at that point that could have done quite literally anything.

[Vigilant111]

Exactly so. It's conceptually impossible for Shepard to look for devices to improve particular functions of the Crucible when Shepard doesn't know what those functions are yet.I suppose different categories of equipment could improve different functions without Shepard or the player knowing that in advance, but in practice this just means that you should play a completionist game if you want all the options, which is exactly where we are now.

 

But let's say it was possible to pick up different equipment to enable different functions. Shepard wouldn't be allowed to make that decision anyway. Hackett wouldn't accept something that improved Control or Synthesis even if you hand-delivered it to him, because he wouldn't want those options used if he knew they existed. I don't think you'd do any better with the Council, Victus, or any other authority figure, unless the quarians supported Control. (I figure Xen would go for it, at least.) Though I guess the game could be structured around Shepard sneaking onto the construction site to surreptitiously install such equipment, how would Shepard know in advance that he'd be the guy at the controls of the thing? Certainly nobody ever intended that.

 

Okay okay, I get it, so this isn't a game where choices matter

 

See, if the Crucible solutions are revealed from the start, and each player works toward their chosen path, wouldn't that be better?

 

You quoted all these people who would not agree with Shepard, but isn't that the norm? Most people (including squadmates) don't agree with him from the start but usually happy to yield at the end, this is a result of story development and characterization

 

Also, your post also paints control and synthesis (and maybe even destroy) as measures that go against wishes of the galactic community, thus it is better to be undertaken without others' acknowledgement - this does not go well with the theme "In unity we shall defeat them"

[AlanC9]

I see it as one long absurdity.  It just clumps more in certain areas.

 

But the entire Crucible concept as a MacGuffin that does...something, we're not sure what, but IT'S OUR ONLY CHANCE!!!!  was pretty absurd.  

 

Adding the forced sacrifice on top of it just helped elevate it to farcical levels.  

 

Lumping these together is not rational since the two design elements are independent. Either could have appeared without the other.

 

But I'm making a category mistake here, right? This is about feelings, not rationality

[AlanC9]

See, if the Crucible solutions are revealed from the start, and each player works toward their chosen path, wouldn't that be better?

I don't see why it would be better. I suppose it could add replay value; since you wouldn't need 2/3 of the assets on any given playthrough you could skip a lot of content. Of course, to make this work the asset awards would have to be structured in such a way that you know what you're going to get before you do the mission. The scanning game would need to be yanked or radically overhauled, etc., but that's not a bad idea on the merits anyway.

Would revealing Synthesis require an earlier reveal of the Reapers' purpose and origins, or would it just be some weird Prothean idea until the endgame?

Also note that the relationship with Cerberus would have to be rethought if Control is always going to be a viable option for Shepard. But again, not a bad idea anyway.

You quoted all these people who would not agree with Shepard, but isn't that the norm? Most people (including squadmates) don't agree with him from the start but usually happy to yield at the end, this is a result of story development and characterization

You mean, even more of Shepard resolving long-standing political and ethical debates by shouting at people for a couple of minutes? Well, if we can swallow it in the existing ME3, I guess it would be workable.

[DesioPL]

People amusing me... Still talking about that endings, because they believe will change everything but truth is worse...

 

Bioware don't care anymore about ME3, so what's is a point of this disscusions?

 

Well honestly... I do not care anymore about endings, ME3 support is over and time to move along.

[Uccio]

I don't follow this. It's not like Shepard can't live through ME3. And what are you getting at with the italed?

 

Shepard taking one gasp at the end is not a indication of survive. For all we know that was his last breath before dying from the trauma he received from the blast. One more option to the end (Shepard lives /Anderson dies) would have created a lot more good will from the gaming community ala DA, capish?

[Uccio]

And I give Bioware credits for having the guts to kill Shepard. How much easier it would have been to make everything a happy ending, but they didn't. It takes guts to do that.

 

How much they screwed up with it is up for every individual for themselves to decide. Me, wasn't too phased by it. And you always have a High EMS Destroy.

 

I would have given Bio credits for actually making different endings regading Shepard. Heck, even just renegade and paragon endings could have been made totally different. Renegade, most die, along with Shepard (bad ending). Paragon, most live, along with Shepard (good ending). "What you choose affects the ending" kind of way, like delivering what was promised.

[Excella Gionne]

People amusing me... Still talking about that endings, because they believe will change everything but truth is worse...

 

Bioware don't care anymore about ME3, so what's is a point of this disscusions?

 

Well honestly... I do not care anymore about endings, ME3 support is over and time to move along.

If we stopped discussing about anything, this forum would go dead. The Mass Effect forums are one of the most active forums I've been in, and I like active forums. I also go to the Assassin's Creed forums every now and then, but it's semi-dead a lot of the times until a new shows up and then it becomes more active.

[DesioPL]

If we stopped discussing about anything, this forum would go dead. The Mass Effect forums are one of the most active forums I've been in, and I like active forums. I also go to the Assassin's Creed forums every now and then, but it's semi-dead a lot of the times until a new shows up and then it becomes more active.

 

Ok fine but, what's a point to still discussing about ME3 endings? That will not change anything.

[Fixers0]

The core narrative problem with the Mass Effect trilogy becomes quite evident when you  compare Mass Effect next to Star trek. Now that may sound awkard, but i believe that a side by side comparission will grant an effective insight into what went wrong with Mass Effect. In general, Mass Effect takes inspiration from two prominent elements present in the Star trek Series, Namely the Borg threat and the Dominion war. It's not hard to see the Borg as major inspiration for the Reapers; Both are implacable and devastating technologically advanced foes that  cannot be reasoned with in any way. The Dominon war on the other hand applies mostly to Mass Effect 3 and involves an unfolding galaxy wide war that centers around building alliances and dealing with local problems in anticpation for the big battles.

 

The problem that arrise here, is that Borg threat and the Dominion war weren't designend to be combinend into singular narrative, and that by doing so you a create a whole series of problem, this is exactly happend in the Mass Effect trilogy.  When first in Mass Effect presented  the Reapers are extremely similar to what the Borg are in Star Trek. Yet as the story goes into Mass Effect 3 it results into a quasi-coventinal war, and an extremly poorly executed on at that. The underlying cause of this problem is that the nature of the Reaper threat is so drastically changed between installements and that there's little contextual consitency to be found within that threat.  Not to mention that Human Reaper and Catalyst shake up the nature of our threat several times as well.

 

The obvious solution is to go one of both ways; Either go tng style and have the Reapers be this is terrifying nearly all powerfull race of machines that conquer civilisations while  also focussing on moral and ethical dillemas, or go the Dominion war route and have a large-scale interstellar war against powerfull but evenly matched foe while at the same time focus on character development arcs. the new antagonist for this route could either be a migrating race from another galaxy or perhaps a redesigned terminus coalition that takes up arms against the orderly and somewhat imperialistic council allinged races (including humanity).

 

I personnally favor the tng route, but thats mostly a personal preferance. In end both concepts work equally well when properly executed and it's possible that one trilogy focussing on the council-terminus war  well the second trilogy deals with the reaper threat. 

[AchesOfDoom]

I refuse to think shepard died in Destroy ending, provided you had the needed EMS. I cannot explain if that's the case, why did we see the breath scene.

 

For me, Shepard will always live, even if he is going to spend his entire life in a wheelchair. I cannot think of him the other way...being dead...of course the explosion was...explosive...but c'mon....he was ****** ressurected .

 

 

PS : For me ME is not about Shepard, it's about the Universe that offered Shepard.

[Ghostwritten]

In my opinion, you just chose between differently colored explosions.

[DeinonSlayer]

I would have given Bio credits for actually making different endings regading Shepard. Heck, even just renegade and paragon endings could have been made totally different. Renegade, most die, along with Shepard (bad ending). Paragon, most live, along with Shepard (good ending). "What you choose affects the ending" kind of way, like delivering what was promised.

Ugh, no more paragon favoritism. It was bad enough we were railroaded into playing one-dimensional characters in ME2 simply to unlock persuasions unless we resorted to save-editing.

[Uccio]

Ugh, no more paragon favoritism. It was bad enough we were railroaded into playing one-dimensional characters in ME2 simply to unlock persuasions unless we resorted to save-editing.

 

I actually agree, I was just saying that even such small option would have made the ending a tiiny weeny bit better, even it would still suck.

[KaiserShep]

I refuse to think shepard died in Destroy ending, provided you had the needed EMS. I cannot explain if that's the case, why did we see the breath scene.

 

For me, Shepard will always live, even if he is going to spend his entire life in a wheelchair. I cannot think of him the other way...being dead...of course the explosion was...explosive...but c'mon....he was ****** ressurected .

 

It'd be pretty weird to be confined to a wheelchair in the MEU.

 

"What the hell did I pay for all that heavy muscle, skin and bone weaves for?"

[Iakus]

Eh, only if you take the game's language literally. It was made clear from the get-go by Liara that it had immense destructive power against the Reapers, and later on that it would utilize the mass relays. It was repeatedly communicated that controlling the Reapers was an option, too, albeit a misguided one when discussing the option with Hackett. Not knowing exactly what it'll do =/= not having an idea of what it'll do. They weren't building a giant kazoo. Some idea was known of its capabilities, and it's not as if the red and blue options aren't bound to this franchise's established lore. Of course, they lose me with Synthesis.
 

 

A water heater has immense destructive power.  A water heater is not a weapon.  Just knowing "It can make a big boom" is not the same as knowing what kind of weapon it is. Or how it can be utilized.

 

  That is the equivalent of chasing Saren, and you know it. Even if you're tangentially right, that meant Shepard was chasing the "Conduit", which was a pure MacGuffin at that point that could have done quite literally anything.

 

 

Yes.  But part of what Shepard was doing is trying to figure out what the MacGuffin is and why Saren wants it.  In ME3, otoh Shepard seems to care little for what the Crucible is or what it can do. (besides the highly generic "stop the Reapers")

[Iakus]

Lumping these together is not rational since the two design elements are independent. Either could have appeared without the other.

 

But I'm making a category mistake here, right? This is about feelings, not rationality

They might be separate elements.  But they mix together to create something greater than the sum of their parts

 

 An absurd plot with a "happy"ending or at least the option for it

 

Or even a tragic ending where the character had a rational reason for the sacrifice 

 

would not have caused nearly the backlash.

 

Together, they created a perfect sh*tstorm

[KaiserShep]

A water heater has immense destructive power.  A water heater is not a weapon.  Just knowing "It can make a big boom" is not the same as knowing what kind of weapon it is. Or how it can be utilized.

 

There was that microwave emitter in Batman Begins, though I have to wonder why it didn't boil the water in everyone's bodies at the same time.