183 réponses à ce sujet

[Mcfly616]

Then perhaps you should accept that some people's perspective is that it's thematically an entropic ending where people give up their free will in exchange for peace, and everyone effectively becomes no different than husks.

 

That's the problem with speculative, non-concrete endings. The person you were putting down before you is, by your own admittance, no less right or wrong than you are, because it's up to each individual's perspective thanks to a lack of concrete information.

  If you want to have an interpretation based on evidence to the contrary... Ok. But nobody is a husk. Never at any point in the ending did they portray the beings of the galaxy as enslaved thralls. 

 

 

Not sure how me saying that the beings new abilities were left up to speculation some how translates to you that they're all husks. Interesting though....

 

 

 It's nothing new however. Many like to portray things in negative light even when nothing lends it any credence in the first place.

[SilJeff]

To each their own, of course.

 

Also, can I just note how nice it is to see someone amicably admit someone else might have a point? Sometimes I fear these forums have lost all sense of decorum. Your open-mindedness is refreshing, and I thank you for it.

 

No problem. Can get difficult sometimes, but I try my best to stay moderate

[RiptideX1090]

  If you want to have an interpretation based on evidence to the contrary... Ok. But nobody is a husk. Never at any point in the ending did they portray the beings of the galaxy as enslaved thralls. 

 

 

Not sure how me saying that the beings new abilities were left up to speculation some how translates to you that they're all husks. Interesting though....

 

 

 It's nothing new however. Many like to portray things in negative light even when nothing lends it any credence in the first place.

 

I could write a very long diatribe on how the Reapers and their master are supremely entropic beings, how the biggest proponent of Synthesis was an enslaved Madman who most people convince to commit suicide rather than continue to living as a puppet, citing Mordin's speech on how Reaper Technology adds more and more alteration until there's eventually nothing left and how EDI's bit about immortality and reaching a new level of existence sounds very much as though foreshadowing the possibility that everyone will end up in Reaper bodies anyway, ect., but I believe that isn't the purpose of this thread, is it?

 

No, this thread is about one person believing that the only way ME4 won't be a cop out is if one ending is canonized or if Indoctrination Theory turns out to be proven correct. On that note, I think that's complete codswallop.

 

Personally, I go with Destroy, for a host of reasons that are my own, but you know, I think the only way to keep the next game from being a cop-out is simply to set it after the endings, and not have it take place in a setting, such as another galaxy, where we'd be removed from the consequences of the first game. Hell, ideally, I'd like to see something like the Keep, where we choose the state of the galaxy we left in our ME3 playthroughs, and what the galaxy is like depends on what ending we got.

 

Seeing people struggling to rebuild after Destroy.

 

Watching riots take place against Reaper-Shepard.

 

Seeing people trying to cope with the changes of Synthesis.

 

THAT is how we avoid a cop out. Bioware was clearly deadset on keeping these endings which very few people liked, so alright, keep them. Do more than that, own them. Show us what comes next, and show us how our choices mattered.

 

In my opinion, anything less than that is a cop-out. Anything less than that, and we'll still be here bickering over which ending was the least awful without anything to quantify our arguments beyond a bunch of non-concrete thematic and symbolic crap.

 

Nothing would disappoint me more than than making any ending, even my own, canon. That is NOT what these games should be about.

[Pateu]

Paragons don't kill off entire races. They look for alternatives, which is what Control is

 

Why in the world would the Paragon believe the Reapers that if he chooses Control all will be well?

 

To quote the paragon Control ending: "To give the many hope for a future; to ensure that all have a voice in their future. / To right the wrongs of the past; to provide a voice to those too weak to speak for themselves".

 

Shepard isn't God. He isn't all knowing. He couldn't have known what would happen before it did.

 

Throughout the whole series, Paragon choices were against indoctrination, TIM/Control and Reapers in general.

 

To Control is to subject the galaxy to the '' What if '' terror, which never goes away. Shepard will never go '' OH HI GUYS AM SHEPARD THE REAPERS ARE GOOD OK '' and the Galaxy will live in fear of the reapers.

 

Furthermore, every Husk, Banshee and other Reaper spawn will be kept alive and will continue to exist in their twisted form.

 

Also do explain why when Shepard is disolved he looks like a Husk, if he isn't indoctrinated.

[Pateu]

Bioware will eventually have to fix ME3 by proclaiming that the events in that game never actually happend.

 

They could state that the events in ME3 were just a dream, or a hallucination, or false memories implanted into Shepards mind by Cerberus for some reason.  I don't care what Bioware thinks of, ME3 just really needs to be fixed.

 

ME3 is fine. Only the ending needs a fix. Hell, replace Star Kid with TIM.

 

Instead of Star Kid telling you what the Crucible will do, it's a wounded TIM who's dying, but knows how to operate the Crucible. His last act is that of telling Shepard how to use the Crucible and then the Destroy ending happens.

 

Really, Star Kid just shouldn't exist.

[dlux]

ME3 is fine. Only the ending needs a fix. Hell, replace Star Kid with TIM.

There is a lot more than that which needs to be fixed actually.

 

But if Bioware did dump the stupid Star Child/Catalyst/Reaper AI BS and just made Harbinger the leader of the Reapers again, then that would already be a HUGE improvement. It would also fix a lot of illogical BS too, like why the Catalyst was just herpa derping around in the Citadel instead of just simply opening the Mass Relay in ME1.

[Pateu]

There is a lot more than that which needs to be fixed actually.

 

Do tell.

[dlux]

Do tell.

Like the entire game.
 
ME3 was substantially worse than ME2 in almost every aspect, that includes narrative design (weak beginning, terrible ending and very poor overall quality of the story and dialogue), level design, quest design, character design, broken mechanics (war assets), poor roleplaying mechanics (choices have no meaning)... should I continue?
 
Not to mention that ME3 substantially disregards continuity and never explained or completely abandoned many story elements from the previous games.

[Mcfly616]

Like the entire game.

ME3 was substantially worse than ME2 in almost every aspect, that includes narrative design (weak beginning, terrible ending and very poor overall quality of the story and dialogue), level design, quest design, character design, broken mechanics (war assets), poor roleplaying mechanics (choices have no meaning)... should I continue?
 
Not to mention that ME3 substantially disregards continuity and never explained or completely abandoned many story elements from the previous games.

 

[KaiserShep]

Like the entire game.
 
ME3 was substantially worse than ME2 in almost every aspect, that includes narrative design (weak beginning, terrible ending and very poor overall quality of the story and dialogue), level design, quest design, character design, broken mechanics (war assets), poor roleplaying mechanics (choices have no meaning)... should I continue?

 

I can understand maligning ME3's narrative in its own right, but to do so while comparing it to ME2 as though the latter is really superior is a bit perplexing. ME2 pretty much goes for the episodic format, often departing from the rather scant Collector plot, padding the game with mercs perhaps about as much as ME3 may with Cerberus, and at least the latter ties in more closely to the reaper conflict. It has plenty of shining moments within those "episodes", but I find that ME2 works best in its parts than it does in its whole as far as the narrative is concerned.

 

But the most confusing thing to me is the bolded. The level design? I don't believe we even played the same game, because ME2 was quite blatantly designed like an arena. Some maps were so haphazardly designed that the ground literally created cover on the fly rather than having a more natural layout to take advantage of (e.g. the raising floor panels of Purgatory). Many things were just too neat and clean, making things like rock formations and rubble seem completely unnatural. There's just no way that ME3 is at all inferior to ME2 as far as the battlefield designs are concerned. Heck, even Priority: Earth, the map many agree to look rushed, actually looks more substantial as a battlefield than the Collector base, not to mention that the enemies we face in the final stretch are strangely unimpressive.

 

But then, this kind of goes to ME2's rather odd difficulty curve, because other than the boss from Contra, the game very quickly exhausts its list of hardened, elite-level enemies very early, and then largely abandons them in the final act of the game. Like, why are there no Praetorians in the Collector Base? It's very unfortunate that Horizon should be more difficult than the Suicide Mission.

 

As for choices having no meaning, I'd really like to know which choices in ME2 were more substantial than those in ME3, the latter of which has you possibly presiding over the extinction of entire races. Regardless of what people may think of the ending or the story, the decisions you make in ME3 have lasting effects on the galaxy and have very immediate effects on the characters around Shepard. You can betray allies and perhaps even shoot your friends, like how Shepard can kill Wrex, shoot the VS, shoot Mordin in the back, allow Samara to kill herself, etc.. How is that not meaningful?

[AlanC9]

ME3 was substantially worse than ME2 in almost every aspect, that includes narrative design (weak beginning, terrible ending and very poor overall quality of the story and dialogue), level design, quest design, character design, broken mechanics (war assets), poor roleplaying mechanics (choices have no meaning)... should I continue?

Choices have no meaning? Compared to ME2's? That strikes me as being borderline delusional.

I also have no idea what your problems with ME3's quest and character design are.

I'll grant you that the pre-EC EMS system had a bug, though.

[KaiserShep]

I assumed that quest design is in reference to the eavesdrop journal updating if you pass by an NPC on the Citadel, which I admit isn't great. The character design problem is something I don't understand though, since most everyone looks about the same with just revamped armor (I think the armor in ME3 is vastly improved over the previous games), with the exception of possibly custom Shep and default FemShep. Maybe Bailey getting hair dye really bothers some people. The only character I know of that makes a very wide departure is Liara, but that occurs in ME2, and I think the refinement in ME3 is an improvement, personally. The aliens of the group are pretty much unchanged, save for Garrus getting a niftier visor, and Ashley is basically just a different hairdo and armor that isn't something strawberry shortcake would take into battle.

[Farangbaa]

I can understand maligning ME3's narrative in its own right, but to do so while comparing it to ME2 as though the latter is really superior is a bit perplexing. ME2 pretty much goes for the episodic format, often departing from the rather scant Collector plot, padding the game with mercs perhaps about as much as ME3 may with Cerberus, and at least the latter ties in more closely to the reaper conflict. It has plenty of shining moments within those "episodes", but I find that ME2 works best in its parts than it does in its whole as far as the narrative is concerned.

 

But the most confusing thing to me is the bolded. The level design? I don't believe we even played the same game, because ME2 was quite blatantly designed like an arena. Some maps were so haphazardly designed that the ground literally created cover on the fly rather than having a more natural layout to take advantage of (e.g. the raising floor panels of Purgatory). Many things were just too neat and clean, making things like rock formations and rubble seem completely unnatural. There's just no way that ME3 is at all inferior to ME2 as far as the battlefield designs are concerned. Heck, even Priority: Earth, the map many agree to look rushed, actually looks more substantial as a battlefield than the Collector base, not to mention that the enemies we face in the final stretch are strangely unimpressive.

 

But then, this kind of goes to ME2's rather odd difficulty curve, because other than the boss from Contra, the game very quickly exhausts its list of hardened, elite-level enemies very early, and then largely abandons them in the final act of the game. Like, why are there no Praetorians in the Collector Base? It's very unfortunate that Horizon should be more difficult than the Suicide Mission.

 

As for choices having no meaning, I'd really like to know which choices in ME2 were more substantial than those in ME3, the latter of which has you possibly presiding over the extinction of entire races. Regardless of what people may think of the ending or the story, the decisions you make in ME3 have lasting effects on the galaxy and have very immediate effects on the characters around Shepard. You can betray allies and perhaps even shoot your friends, like how Shepard can kill Wrex, shoot the VS, shoot Mordin in the back, allow Samara to kill herself, etc.. How is that not meaningful?

 

 

Choices have no meaning? Compared to ME2's? That strikes me as being borderline delusional.

I also have no idea what your problems with ME3's quest and character design are.

I'll grant you that the pre-EC EMS system had a bug, though.

 

 

You guys do all the typing for me. It's glorious.

[SporkFu]

I can understand maligning ME3's narrative in its own right, but to do so while comparing it to ME2 as though the latter is really superior is a bit perplexing. ME2 pretty much goes for the episodic format, often departing from the rather scant Collector plot, padding the game with mercs perhaps about as much as ME3 may with Cerberus, and at least the latter ties in more closely to the reaper conflict. It has plenty of shining moments within those "episodes", but I find that ME2 works best in its parts than it does in its whole as far as the narrative is concerned.

 

But the most confusing thing to me is the bolded. The level design? I don't believe we even played the same game, because ME2 was quite blatantly designed like an arena. Some maps were so haphazardly designed that the ground literally created cover on the fly rather than having a more natural layout to take advantage of (e.g. the raising floor panels of Purgatory). Many things were just too neat and clean, making things like rock formations and rubble seem completely unnatural. There's just no way that ME3 is at all inferior to ME2 as far as the battlefield designs are concerned. Heck, even Priority: Earth, the map many agree to look rushed, actually looks more substantial as a battlefield than the Collector base, not to mention that the enemies we face in the final stretch are strangely unimpressive.

 

But then, this kind of goes to ME2's rather odd difficulty curve, because other than the boss from Contra, the game very quickly exhausts its list of hardened, elite-level enemies very early, and then largely abandons them in the final act of the game. Like, why are there no Praetorians in the Collector Base? It's very unfortunate that Horizon should be more difficult than the Suicide Mission.

 

As for choices having no meaning, I'd really like to know which choices in ME2 were more substantial than those in ME3, the latter of which has you possibly presiding over the extinction of entire races. Regardless of what people may think of the ending or the story, the decisions you make in ME3 have lasting effects on the galaxy and have very immediate effects on the characters around Shepard. You can betray allies and perhaps even shoot your friends, like how Shepard can kill Wrex, shoot the VS, shoot Mordin in the back, allow Samara to kill herself, etc.. How is that not meaningful?

Holy crap, suddenly I don't wanna play ME2 anymore. J/k ...well said. 

[Pateu]

that includes narrative design

 

It literally had 4 plot missions. Horizon, Collector ship, Reaper IFF, Collector Base. Everything else is filler.

 

level design

 

???

 

I sure do like endless halls and mercs with little dialogue inbetween.

 

Not to mention your companions don't even talk during DLCs.

 

character design

 

Than ME3? Yeah, no.

 

poor roleplaying mechanics (choices have no meaning)

 

Yeah they do.

 

Don't disarm the bomb, krogan get nuked.

 

Sabotage the genophage, wrex gets killed.

 

Don't try to understand the geth, you gotta choose who to annihilate.

 

It had plenty choices.

 

You're just trying way too hard to hate it.

[KaiserShep]

I wonder how many people were disappointed that the Collector General was not an enemy we could fight in the game, and in fact if you didn't do Arrival until after the main plot was completed, Shepard never even got to see this thing. I sure was. Granted, more than likely you'd just be talking to Harbinger again, since he liked to assume direct control of everything, but I would've much rather had some kind of super praetorian over the human reaper.

[dlux]

I can understand maligning ME3's narrative in its own right, but to do so while comparing it to ME2 as though the latter is really superior is a bit perplexing. ME2 pretty much goes for the episodic format, often departing from the rather scant Collector plot, padding the game with mercs perhaps about as much as ME3 may with Cerberus, and at least the latter ties in more closely to the reaper conflict. It has plenty of shining moments within those "episodes", but I find that ME2 works best in its parts than it does in its whole as far as the narrative is concerned.

Why was the collector plot scant?

Anyway, it's okay if you like ME3, but I am perplex as to why you don't think that ME2 (and ME1 too, of course) clearly had a superior narrative design.

ME2 has many very well written and interesting characters with meaningful character arcs and also numerous great and varied story arcs, which are supported by excellently designed and fleshed out locations and dialogue. Heck, even minor characters were very interesting in ME2.
I have no idea how ME3 could possibly have the better or equal narrative design with boring characters like James Vega and Steve Cortez, Cerberus the evil Sith Empire as a major story arc and fetch quests galore with badly written and boring dialogue, just to name a few things. The genophage story arc in ME3 was good and the conclusion was satisfying, the beginning of the mission on Luna too, that's about it though.
 

But the most confusing thing to me is the bolded. The level design? I don't believe we even played the same game, because ME2 was quite blatantly designed like an arena. Some maps were so haphazardly designed that the ground literally created cover on the fly rather than having a more natural layout to take advantage of (e.g. the raising floor panels of Purgatory). Many things were just too neat and clean, making things like rock formations and rubble seem completely unnatural. There's just no way that ME3 is at all inferior to ME2 as far as the battlefield designs are concerned. Heck, even Priority: Earth, the map many agree to look rushed, actually looks more substantial as a battlefield than the Collector base, not to mention that the enemies we face in the final stretch are strangely unimpressive.

ME3's level design is just a sequence of corridors without much variety. The levels were also quite obtuse.
 

But then, this kind of goes to ME2's rather odd difficulty curve, because other than the boss from Contra, the game very quickly exhausts its list of hardened, elite-level enemies very early, and then largely abandons them in the final act of the game. Like, why are there no Praetorians in the Collector Base? It's very unfortunate that Horizon should be more difficult than the Suicide Mission.

Sure, the game could have been harder.
 

As for choices having no meaning, I'd really like to know which choices in ME2 were more substantial than those in ME3, the latter of which has you possibly presiding over the extinction of entire races. Regardless of what people may think of the ending or the story, the decisions you make in ME3 have lasting effects on the galaxy and have very immediate effects on the characters around Shepard. You can betray allies and perhaps even shoot your friends, like how Shepard can kill Wrex, shoot the VS, shoot Mordin in the back, allow Samara to kill herself, etc.. How is that not meaningful?

Having only one ending with no choice between red/green/blue would have had lasting effects on the galaxy too. ^^

Anyway, there is no real choice in ME3, because no matter what you do in ME3 or the previous games, the outcome is the same, you just choose between red / green / blue. They change a bit depending on your war assets, but that's it.

[dlux]

Choices have no meaning? Compared to ME2's? That strikes me as being borderline delusional.

Maybe you should actually try and tell me why I'm wrong instead of simply throwing insults around.
 

I also have no idea what your problems with ME3's quest and character design are.

I have no idea why you think James Vega or Steve Cortez, for example, are well designed characters.

[KaiserShep]

He didn't actually say that they were well-designed characters, but you didn't actually explain what your issues with them are either. Vega is one that I have a fairly good idea as to why he gets singled out, but Steve Cortez is not particularly remarkable either as a character or in terms of his aesthetic. I'm very curious to know what your issue with him is.

[dlux]

Holy crap, suddenly I don't wanna play ME2 anymore. J/k ...well said.

Too bad ME3 is considered to be a terrible game and ME2 an excellent one.

Interesting to see that there are a few ME3 fans here that defend that bad game vehemently (well, everything but the ending at least). I'm kind Kind of surprised after that major shitstorm that ME3 caused.

[dlux]

He didn't actually say that they were well-designed characters, but you didn't actually explain what your issues with them are either. Vega is one that I have a fairly good idea as to why he gets singled out, but Steve Cortez is not particularly remarkable either as a character or in terms of his aesthetic. I'm very curious to know what your issue with him is.

Well then why does he have a problem with me having a problem with them then?

 

Steve Cortez is boring, the most rememberable part of his character arc was when he cried profusely about his dead husband. Wow. There are numerous much more minor characters in ME2 that were much more interesting than Cortez.

 

Now I'm very curious as to why you think he isn't badly written and not terribly boring.

[SporkFu]

Too bad ME3 is considered to be a terrible game and ME2 an excellent one.

Interesting to see that there are a few ME3 fans here that defend that bad game vehemently (well, everything but the ending at least). I'm kind Kind of surprised after that major shitstorm that ME3 caused.

I don't think that one game being good/bad automatically means the other is the opposite. KaiserShep made some good points about ME2. I was joking about not wanting to play it anymore. I still like it just fine.

[Farangbaa]

Too bad ME3 is considered to be a terrible game and ME2 an excellent one.

It is? Don't confuse your opinion for the truth.
 

Interesting to see that there are a few ME3 fans here that defend that bad game vehemently (well, everything but the ending at least). I'm kind Kind of surprised after that major shitstorm that ME3 caused.

So basically you're entire argument on why ME3 is a bad game is that others think it's a bad game?

 

Ugh, missed your other post

[KaiserShep]

Too bad ME3 is considered to be a terrible game and ME2 an excellent one.

Interesting to see that there are a few ME3 fans here that defend that bad game vehemently (well, everything but the ending at least). I'm kind Kind of surprised after that major shitstorm that ME3 caused.

 

Personally, it's neither here or there for me what people consider to be excellent or not. I think the new Star Trek movies are illogically-written shlock, but they're exceptionally well made on a technical level and they seem to do well with audiences and critics. As a big fan of the trilogy, I'm extremely critical of the problems I see in the entire series, of which there are many, but since this forum is keen on focusing on ME3 while largely giving a pass to the problems of the others, I tend to put more emphasis on the problems of the others instead.

 

 

Well then why does he have a problem with me having a problem with them then?

 

Steve Cortez is boring, the most rememberable part of his character arc was when he cried profusely about his dead husband. Wow. There are numerous much more minor characters in ME2 that were much more interesting than Cortez.

 

Now I'm very curious as to why you think he isn't badly written and not terribly boring.

 

You'd have to ask him if you want an answer to that question.

 

Anyway, as for Cortez being boring and badly written, well that's simply your opinion, one that I don't share. As for your claim that there are numerous minor characters in ME2 that are much more interesting, I can't help but find that pretty suspect. If all you remember is him crying, and nothing else about his character, that's not really my problem. I do find it rather strange, though, that a minor, noncombatant character whose primary purpose in the story is to be our shuttle pilot would be singled out alongside a boisterous companion character like James Vega. Frankly, I'm guessing now that this kind of ties in to your bias against the game. Anything and everything in it is bad, while everything in ME2 is good. I find this all highly disingenuous, and for that reason, I also suspect that any reason I give for why I don't think Cortez is boring and badly-written will be just as quickly dismissed. 

[Farangbaa]

Why was the collector plot scant?

'Ah yes, Reapers'
 

Anyway, it's okay if you like ME3, but I am perplex as to why you don't think that ME2 (and ME1 too, of course) clearly had a superior narrative design.

'Ah yes, Reapers'

Basically, in ME2 you're doing everything but stop the Reapers. You fix daddy issues, issues with friends, issues with the past, issues in general.

'Ah yes, Reapers'
 

ME2 has many very well written and interesting characters with meaningful character arcs and also numerous great and varied story arcs, which are supported by excellently designed and fleshed out locations and dialogue. Heck, even minor characters were very interesting in ME2.
I have no idea how ME3 could possibly have the better or equal narrative design with boring characters like James Vega and Steve Cortez, Cerberus the evil Sith Empire as a major story arc and fetch quests galore with badly written and boring dialogue, just to name a few things. The genophage story arc in ME3 was good and the conclusion was satisfying, the beginning of the mission on Luna too, that's about it though.

ME2 is a collection of short stories with a flimsy overaching arc you could easily forget about. But most striking of all is that you could delete ME2 entirely from the trilogy, and nothing would change in the end. ME2 has nothing to do with the Reapers; it's a bloody side story composed of short stories about family problems.
 

ME3's level design is just a sequence of corridors without much variety. The levels were also quite obtuse.

That's ME2. Even the outside locations are corridorred.
 

Anyway, there is no real choice in ME3, because no matter what you do in ME3 or the previous games, the outcome is the same, you just choose between red / green / blue. They change a bit depending on your war assets, but that's it.

I'm getting so tired of this. All your choices mattered, just not in the way you wished they had. Or did you really expect them to come up with a couple of hundred endings so your all choices would be cinematized? Please.