839 réponses à ce sujet

[Aaleel]

The Normandy could have acted as a block and shield to prevent the Geth from reaching the ground troops. There is no way personnel weapons can bring down a Frigate. Plus the Normandy reloaded the Mako on it, as seen since it is in the ship after leaving Virmire where if it was left behind would have been disintegrated by the nuclear blast. And it only takes a single person to drive a Mako. So they could have unloaded it if they needed extra firepower.

 

There was no way to save both Kaiden and Ashley.  As soon as the Geth drop ship appears whoever is at the bomb starts the countdown sequence so there's just not enough time for the Normandy to go to both places land, drop the ramp and pick up both sets of people.  You barely get out going to the one area and rescuing whoever you chose.  If they would have dropped the Mako they would have had to land and drive the Mako back on board as well.  If they would have had the Kodiak shuttle in ME then they could have sent to Normandy one place and the Kodiak the other and joined up but there was no time with just the Normandy to pick up both sets of people.

[Voxr]

I find interesting that a lot of people here partner "happy/good" ending the one where the PC lives. And the sad/bad one is the is automatically the one where they die. I mean

Spoiler

Vic survives to the end of The Shield but I'd hardly call that a happy ending.

[frylock23]

Mmm, I'd say a happy ending is usually one where the PC lives just because usually there is every reason to think that life carries hope with it, not to mention the expectation that your PC would want to enjoy the fruits of a long game spent setting the world to rights, but you're right that isn't always the case. I do have one DA:O ending where my PC lived but lost everything: Alistair did the US, and since she had deposed Anora in a bid to make herself queen and Alistair King, Queen Anora was a dangerous political enemy, so my PC went into exile.

[Chron0id]

I find interesting that a lot of people here partner "happy/good" ending the one where the PC lives. And the sad/bad one is the is automatically the one where they die. I mean

Spoiler

Vic survives to the end of The Shield but I'd hardly call that a happy ending.

Oh Jesus.....James Leung liked this comment.  He's trying to tell us something isn't he?  I swear, he's like a "brain ninja."  He sneaks into your head, sneaks back out, and then you're left with this strange inkling that something is awry...and you can't tell if he placed a booby trap in there somewhere or not. 

[Aaleel]

I find interesting that a lot of people here partner "happy/good" ending the one where the PC lives. And the sad/bad one is the is automatically the one where they die. I mean

Spoiler

Vic survives to the end of The Shield but I'd hardly call that a happy ending.

 

Well does it have to be happy/good, sad/bad, I'm more of a bittersweet person myself.

 

That's why the suicide mission wasn't memorable to me.  Everyone survived, so it was just a bunch of fighting and a ridiculous boss fight to me.  I didn't even know people could die until my best friend told me.  The name implies it should have been some more to it.

[Voxr]

Well does it have to be happy/good, sad/bad, I'm more of a bittersweet person myself.

 

That's why the suicide mission wasn't memorable to me.  Everyone survived, so it was just a bunch of fighting and a ridiculous boss fight to me.  I didn't even know people could die until my best friend told me.  The name implies it should have been some more to it.

I am too. Though in the case of the suicide mission I saved everyone lol.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

There was no way to save both Kaiden and Ashley.  As soon as the Geth drop ship appears whoever is at the bomb starts the countdown sequence so there's just not enough time for the Normandy to go to both places land, drop the ramp and pick up both sets of people.  You barely get out going to the one area and rescuing whoever you chose.  If they would have dropped the Mako they would have had to land and drive the Mako back on board as well.  If they would have had the Kodiak shuttle in ME then they could have sent to Normandy one place and the Kodiak the other and joined up but there was no time with just the Normandy to pick up both sets of people.

Yes there was. While we go to our target, the Normandy can pick up the other. Judging from how long it took them to get us, by the time we are talking to Saren they would be done. So the "Normandy arrives to pick you up" scene can still happen even if they picked up the other first.

[Master Warder Z_]

Yes there was. While we go to our target, the Normandy can pick up the other. Judging from how long it took them to get us, by the time we are talking to Saren they would be done. So the "Normandy arrives to pick you up" scene can still happen even if they picked up the other first.

 

You do realize they were dodging Sovereign across the Horizon the entire time during the battle with Saren correct?

 

Joker made that clear earlier in the mission, it was coming for the Normandy and FAST.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

You do realize they were dodging Sovereign across the Horizon the entire time during the battle with Saren correct?

 

Joker made that clear earlier in the mission, it was coming for the Normandy and FAST.

They certainly didn't seem in a rush when they were dropping the bomb off only a minute earlier. 

 

And it was coming to the base fast, not the Normandy. 

[Master Warder Z_]

They certainly didn't seem in a rush when they were dropping the bomb off only a minute earlier. 

 

That was an oddity i admit, but it still makes sense to do such given it was transporting the explosive device.

 

The Normandy was "hovering" to unload it's payload for maybe a minute and a half at max before it pulled up and sped away.

 

 

And it was coming to the base fast, not the Normandy. 

 

Why wouldn't it engage the enemy ship flying about the Base?

 

Give me one legitimate reason for not sinking the Normandy and i'll consider it.

[CronoDragoon]

I am too. Though in the case of the suicide mission I saved everyone lol.

 

That's the thing though, preferring bittersweet endings isn't the same thing as actively seeking them out. This is a misunderstanding that needs correction, because for people who like happy endings to simply recommend others pick unhappy endings is to fundamentally misconstrue why someone may like a sad or bittersweet ending.

 

The vast majority of players play a character that wants the best outcome. Some people fo FailSheps on their fourth or fifth run for the lulz, others manufacture specific sub-optimal world states to produce the most emotional outcome, but most everyone plays a character that wants a happy ending. Where people differ is the degree to which the character's wishes should match with the actual outcome, and this is where we start talking about meta-preferences. To experience the disconnect between a character's wishes and the reality of their situation can make for very powerful storytelling. Hell, it's what essentially drove the entire Buffy/Angel fandom nuts.

 

But back to the "best" outcome: for some players, such as Allan, the interesting parts of a story aren't when an optimal outcome is envisioned and then achieved, but rather when determining the optimal outcome encompasses a wide range of considerations and factors: moral, personal, emotional. If you were to separate the hate of Mass Effect 3's ending from the actual philosophical and moral debates spawned from it, I think you'd find some of the most thoughtful, nuanced discussion that a game has ever provoked. In that one particular sense, the ending was a wild success.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

That was an oddity i admit, but it still makes sense to do such given it was transporting the explosive device.

 

The Normandy was "hovering" to unload it's payload for maybe a minute and a half at max before it pulled up and sped away.

 

 

 

Why wouldn't it engage the enemy ship flying about the Base?

 

Give me one legitimate reason for not sinking the Normandy and i'll consider it.

So hovering less than that to pick up both squads would be child's play for them then. Plus that explosive device was a ship core. It was built precisely to handle ship movements without failing. 

 

As for a reason, Normandy's stealth systems. The Reapers don't seem to notice it when they are active, hence the escape from Earth, which was covered in Reapers, in ME3. The only time the stealth systems don't work is when jumping to or from FTL, hence why it was seen by the Collector Ship in the beginning of ME2. 

[Aaleel]

Yes there was. While we go to our target, the Normandy can pick up the other. Judging from how long it took them to get us, by the time we are talking to Saren they would be done. So the "Normandy arrives to pick you up" scene can still happen even if they picked up the other first.

 

There wasn't nearly enough time.  All you do is turn around, get on the elevator, go down, talk to Saren, fight and get picked up.  That's not a lot of time, and even still you barely get out in time.  Either way your group (Shepard's) would have had to secure the area so the Normandy can land by defeating all the Geth.  There was one person at the bomb site, which was being overrun by Geth.  No way you're going to land, have that firefight, reload everyone back on the Normandy.  FLy to the other area, land again, load everyone and get out in time.

[Urazz]

Yes there was. While we go to our target, the Normandy can pick up the other. Judging from how long it took them to get us, by the time we are talking to Saren they would be done. So the "Normandy arrives to pick you up" scene can still happen even if they picked up the other first.

Oh, so how would the Normandy pick up the other target with Geth there?  Both targets were being overwhelmed by Geth.  Do you think that the Normandy had enough combat soldiers capable of being there to make a difference for an evacuation?  If the Normandy had that many troops, then why weren't they launched with the assault on the base in the first place?  The answer is that they don't have that many ground troops to ensure a path for the target to get to the Normandy.  Troop pickups usually have some gunners or something there to cover the troops as they get onto the transport.

 

Most of the crew for the Normandy are there to operate the ship.  The Normandy is not a troop carrier or transport.

 

Do you think the Normandy can fire it's weapons on the Geth and take them out?  The Normandy doesn't have that kind of armaments for taking out troops like that.  Sure it could bomb them but then you'd take out the Salarians or set off the bomb.

 

They certainly didn't seem in a rush when they were dropping the bomb off only a minute earlier. 

 

And it was coming to the base fast, not the Normandy. 

What do you mean when they took the heavy ass bomb from the Normandy down to the ground?  I'm sorry but you can only go so fast with that without dropping it or screw up setting it up to blow.  They certainly weren't being casual about planting the bomb.  Bioware could have shown a bit more urgency for sure but I didn't find much problem with the scene.

 

And Sovereign would've taken out the Normandy regardless.

 

 

There wasn't nearly enough time.  All you do is turn around, get on the elevator, go down, talk to Saren, fight and get picked up.  That's not a lot of time, and even still you barely get out in time.  Either way your group (Shepard's) would have had to secure the area so the Normandy can land by defeating all the Geth.  There was one person at the bomb site, which was being overrun by Geth.  No way you're going to land, have that firefight, reload everyone back on the Normandy.  FLy to the other area, land again, load everyone and get out in time.

Exactly,  He acts like there is enough time to do both and he's not taking into account the geth that the Normandy would have to deal with at the other site, which they can't handle since they don't have enough ground troops to secure a path for the other target to get onto the Normandy.

[Master Warder Z_]

So hovering less than that to pick up both squads would be child's play for them then. Plus that explosive device was a ship core. It was built precisely to handle ship movements without failing. 

 

As for a reason, Normandy's stealth systems. The Reapers don't seem to notice it when they are active, hence the escape from Earth, which was covered in Reapers, in ME3. The only time the stealth systems don't work is when jumping to or from FTL, hence why it was seen by the Collector Ship in the beginning of ME2. 

 

Presumably, but they were outrunning a Reaper and a timer on a nuke was ticking down, so i honestly don't view this as a salvageable situation. And yes, the Explosive was said to be highly imperious to damage from external sources, But you seem to be forgetting the enemy here was Geth, as in beings who can download a file from the extranet in less time then it takes for your eyes to register the words on this screen and be capable of deactivating the Nuke.

 

That would work under the assumption that A. they were using them the entire mission and B. They ignored their own in game lore.

 

The Stealth drive sinks can only operate without venting for a a few hours, further more given you can see the ship visually and there were plenty of Geth and Krogan along side the ground to spot it and point the Reaper in it's direction, I don't see how that even works.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I would love to continue this discussion, but I feel we are getting too offtopic so I am going to stop. 

[Kimarous]

I also hope we don't get pigeon holed into some sort of self sacrificing ending. I don't have a problem with that ending but I don't want it.  Although I don't think that a non scarificing ending is automatically a happy one..

 

If there is a self-sacrifice ending, I at least don't want it to be like Fallout 3 and have the game chastise you if you opt to not sacrifice yourself, even if there's much more logical avenues to take (at least post-Broken Steel), like sending a buddy who's literally immune to radiation poisoning instead.

 

Still, I don't think that will be the case. For all Wynne's bluster about sacrificing oneself for the greater good, she'll fully support your survival post-battle and encourage you to bask in the festivities, even if you express discomfort over how you DIDN'T sacrifice yourself. I imagine Origins has a stronger precedent for the matter than Fallout 3, at least for Inquisition.

[EmperorSahlertz]

I find interesting that a lot of people here partner "happy/good" ending the one where the PC lives. And the sad/bad one is the is automatically the one where they die. I mean

Spoiler

Vic survives to the end of The Shield but I'd hardly call that a happy ending.

There also seem to be a lot of people who thinks the sole factor to a happy ending is the survival of the main character and love interest. It doesn't matter the mountain of dead people they left in their wake, as long as the two of them live.

[KaiserShep]

There also seem to be a lot of people who thinks the sole factor to a happy ending is the survival of the main character and love interest. It doesn't matter the mountain of dead people they left in their wake, as long as the two of them live.

 

I think it has more to do with the fact that some may be disheartened by the idea of the protagonist being unable to see the fruit of all this labor fighting the enemy despite having multiple outcomes to the story. The protagonist living would be pretty bad if the entire universe itself was still left in sh*t. Like, what if Shepard and LI were the sole survivors and the entire galaxy is pretty much empty. I doubt those same people would be particularly pleased to see what they've been left with, except maybe a few screwy people.

 

I'm not sure what the mountain of dead people left in the end really matter in this respect, because if you have a story about a major war, swaths of people are going to die anyway. Besides, if you actively chose to kill a great deal of them, however positive the end result is is kind of up to that person anyway.

 

In any case, I'm of the opinion that killing the protagonist is a very hazardous option for the writers. Like, did they have a really good plan, or did they just throw that in because death is so edgy and awesome? Who knows, but my cynicism often leads me to the latter, since I have a low tolerance for that sort of thing, as it can often feel like just as much of a frustrating contrivance.

[EmperorSahlertz]

I think it has more to do with the fact that some may be disheartened by the idea of the protagonist being unable to see the fruit of all this labor fighting the enemy despite having multiple outcomes to the story. The protagonist living would be pretty bad if the entire universe itself was still left in sh*t. Like, what if Shepard and LI were the sole survivors and the entire galaxy is pretty much empty. I doubt those same people would be particularly pleased to see what they've been left with, except maybe a few screwy people.

 

I'm not sure what the mountain of dead people left in the end really matter in this respect, because if you have a story about a major war, swaths of people are going to die anyway. Besides, if you actively chose to kill a great deal of them, however positive the end result is is kind of up to that person anyway.

 

In any case, I'm of the opinion that killing the protagonist is a very hazardous option for the writers. Like, did they have a really good plan, or did they just throw that in because death is so edgy and awesome? Who knows, but my cynicism often leads me to the latter, since I have a low tolerance for that sort of thing, as it can often feel like just as much of a frustrating contrivance.

It matters because the survival of your character does NOT mean it is a happy ending, just like the death of your character does NOT mean it is an unhappy ending.

The majority in this thread seem to think that whenever an unhappy, or rather just NOT a happy one, means the main character has to die. That is not the case however. Your character can live through the story and the ending still not be a happy one.

[Chron0id]

It matters because the survival of your character does NOT mean it is a happy ending, just like the death of your character does NOT mean it is an unhappy ending.

The majority in this thread seem to think that whenever an unhappy, or rather just NOT a happy one, means the main character has to die. That is not the case however. Your character can live through the story and the ending still not be a happy one.

If my avatar has to die, I view it as a sad ending.  Because I'm not around for the after-party. 

[Iakus]

 

But back to the "best" outcome: for some players, such as Allan, the interesting parts of a story aren't when an optimal outcome is envisioned and then achieved, but rather when determining the optimal outcome encompasses a wide range of considerations and factors: moral, personal, emotional. If you were to separate the hate of Mass Effect 3's ending from the actual philosophical and moral debates spawned from it, I think you'd find some of the most thoughtful, nuanced discussion that a game has ever provoked. In that one particular sense, the ending was a wild success.

 

This is a good point, as DAO's endings have certainly spawned some thoughtful discussions (is creating an OGB a good idea?  Does Loghain deserve a chance at redemption?  Is it more important for the Warden or Alistiar to live?  etc) But ME3's endings, for many reasons, caused a negative backlash that tainted any discussion that's likely to come out of it. 

 

SO, why were DAO's endings generally considered a success, and ME3's, well, not?  And what can DAI learn from it?

[TheJediSaint]

This is a good point, as DAO's endings have certainly spawned some thoughtful discussions (is creating an OGB a good idea?  Does Loghain deserve a chance at redemption?  Is it more important for the Warden or Alistiar to live?  etc) But ME3's endings, for many reasons, caused a negative backlash that tainted any discussion that's likely to come out of it. 

 

SO, why were DAO's endings generally considered a success, and ME3's, well, not?  And what can DAI learn from it?

The biggest problem I saw with ME3's ending is that everything came to a crashing halt in the last ten minutes so that a brand new character, who only shows up in those last ten minutes, can explain everything to you.   The other problem with ME3 is that the endings you get are determined by pressing a button on the Endingtron 9000, rather than by choices made during the main campaign.   What DAO got right is that the endings were influenced by choices made all throughout the game, not just in the very last part.

[javeart]

It matters because the survival of your character does NOT mean it is a happy ending, just like the death of your character does NOT mean it is an unhappy ending.

The majority in this thread seem to think that whenever an unhappy, or rather just NOT a happy one, means the main character has to die. That is not the case however. Your character can live through the story and the ending still not be a happy one.

 

 I agree that PC's survival doesn't make a ending happy, but I can understand how most people coul think of her/his as a flaw, I mean I'd rather live and I usually project that on my characters   If the PC dies, I'll always consider that as adding a bitter tone to the ending, so best we can go from there it's bittersweet

[Zjarcal]

What DAO got right is that the endings were influenced by choices made all throughout the game, not just in the very last part.

 

Um, how exactly are the DAO end choices influenced by previous choices? Morrigan offers you the ritual regardless of your relationship with her, the US is always an option, and you will always have a warden to take the blow for you, regardless of how the landsmeet developed.

 

I mean, yeah, there is a level of influence, but it's hardly a big one. In my opinion, if we're gonna consider that a major influence then I'd count EMS (which is nothing but a result of previous choices) in ME3 as a big influence too, since the difference between a low ems and high ems ending can be rather big.

 

(Now if you're referring the epilogue slide outcomes, yeah, that certainly is heavily influenced by choices, although that is true of many of the slides in ME3's own epilogue)

 

For what it's worth, I don't think either ending is a good example of an ending being highly influenced by your choices across a story.