Hahahaha! They're all Alliance flesh and blood, Dave, and Shepard's their matriarch.
(But no, I don't agree.)
That's fine, every opinion counts other wise discussion would be futile. Right or wrong, we're all in a holding pattern until after DAI, besides debate rarely causes one to switch from one side to the other. Though it wouldn't surprise me if Shepard wasn't deified in some odd way in the next ME adventure.
That's fine, every opinion counts other wise discussion would be futile. Right or wrong, we're all in a holding pattern until after DAI, besides debate rarely causes one to switch from one side to the other. Though it wouldn't surprise me if Shepard wasn't deified in some odd way in the next ME adventure.
Like he wasn't deified already.
So I was watching a livestream today with a developer and though he was Not a developer of ME he offered his insight as to what actually happened. I found his well reasoned theory to be not only eye opening, but it really made me take a step back and do some hard thinking.
Basically he pointed to the delay, explained what sometimes caused delays, then talked about budgets, etc. and followed that up with some statements from Bioware, etc. and from that extrapolated that the ending we got in the game (even the dlc one) was not the real planned ending, it is just what we ended up with. Now before you jump all over me let me explain.
The PLANNED ending MAY have been super awesome and would have left us all mind boggled, but there were issues that had to be fixed, budget dried up and they pushed out what they did as a season ending cliff hanger hoping that we the public would see it for that and give them time. THEN they would recoup some capitol with DLC sales, etc. and caft a true ending DLC that would pick up from the Game Ending and give us the one true planned ending. He pointed to the comics (enemies were different, the whole fleet did not make it, etc.), the comments, etc. as a means to strengthen this argument/opinion. With the huge explosion of hate against the on disk ending and the massive bad press, the lawsuites, etc. they could not continue that plan and so we have what we have.
*IF* this is true, then I feel even worse for my anger at the time. We had press coverage hyping the ending that did not seem to agree with what we got, that was a MAJOR issue with me. I own my actions, and I own everything I said. I was not a good person saying what I did, but I own it. All you can do as a person is to own your mistakes and *try* to be better. But to the ending, I am really saddened if they had actually planned a very awesome detailed ending that we never got because of the actions of asshats like me. I did not write letters, I posted here. I did not threaten law suits, I raged here. I also did not go to metacritic and try to shoot the game down. I just walked away from Mass Effect, never got the DLCs, etc.
SO perhaps that is why the ending is confusing. Perhaps they intended to actually expound upon the ending with a longer DLC that would pick up and show us what the real plan was. I personally hope that is true,and I am saddened by what happened that caused it NOT to come to pass if it was true.
So I was watching a livestream today with a developer and though he was Not a developer of ME he offered his insight as to what actually happened. I found his well reasoned theory to be not only eye opening, but it really made me take a step back and do some hard thinking.
Basically he pointed to the delay, explained what sometimes caused delays, then talked about budgets, etc. and followed that up with some statements from Bioware, etc. and from that extrapolated that the ending we got in the game (even the dlc one) was not the real planned ending, it is just what we ended up with. Now before you jump all over me let me explain.
The PLANNED ending MAY have been super awesome and would have left us all mind boggled, but there were issues that had to be fixed, budget dried up and they pushed out what they did as a season ending cliff hanger hoping that we the public would see it for that and give them time. THEN they would recoup some capitol with DLC sales, etc. and caft a true ending DLC that would pick up from the Game Ending and give us the one true planned ending. He pointed to the comics (enemies were different, the whole fleet did not make it, etc.), the comments, etc. as a means to strengthen this argument/opinion. With the huge explosion of hate against the on disk ending and the massive bad press, the lawsuites, etc. they could not continue that plan and so we have what we have.
*IF* this is true, then I feel even worse for my anger at the time. We had press coverage hyping the ending that did not seem to agree with what we got, that was a MAJOR issue with me. I own my actions, and I own everything I said. I was not a good person saying what I did, but I own it. All you can do as a person is to own your mistakes and *try* to be better. But to the ending, I am really saddened if they had actually planned a very awesome detailed ending that we never got because of the actions of asshats like me. I did not write letters, I posted here. I did not threaten law suits, I raged here. I also did not go to metacritic and try to shoot the game down. I just walked away from Mass Effect, never got the DLCs, etc.
SO perhaps that is why the ending is confusing. Perhaps they intended to actually expound upon the ending with a longer DLC that would pick up and show us what the real plan was. I personally hope that is true,and I am saddened by what happened that caused it NOT to come to pass if it was true.
I'm not sure about this. EA might be many things, but I've never heard of them being cheap on budgets. Deadlines yes, budgets no. If anything, the ending was probably affected more by the deadlines than money, if at all. I think that the amount of development time that was given to them was barely enough to make a great game. And if there is part of the game that might definitely show a lack of development, it's definitely the very last mission.
I mean, compare the final mission at Earth vs. the Tuchunka arc. Tuchanka was a pure stroke of genius, tying in characters, races, everything was working to that common goal.
Priority Earth felt barebones in comparison. And unfortunately it probably got even more flack because it was that final push, the very last mission of a massive and incredible trilogy. Compare it to a game ending mission like the fight at the Citadel in ME1 or the Suicide Mission in ME2, and it feels like something's missing.
I think ME3 in general got burned by an old adage. ''Play the beginning and end well, and no one will notice the middle'' Worked perfectly for ME1 and ME2, if you notice some of the complaints people had about the plot of those two games (example would be how ME2's plot does little to stop the reapers, I guess). ME3's opening was alright, could have been better if it wasn't geared to new players as much, and the ending, well I won't bore you with what we already know 
We're talking about how the endings made us feel, and why. I don't see how it's off-topic.
An old topic, yes. But this is someone new who wants to discuss it. I am providing an alternate perspective.
I'm even being calm and polite about it
Well, apparently in your mind, griping about the ending is on-topic on any mass effect topic. But yeah, talking about how terrible the ending is on a thread about how the OP feels lost after having finished the trilogy, and how great the trilogy is, is obviously off-topic.
But the good news is, you little whiners managed to hijack the thread and turn it into yet another gripe-fest about the ending- which is great, because we definitely are suffering a perpetual shortage of such threads. 
Well, apparently in your mind, griping about the ending is on-topic on any mass effect topic. But yeah, talking about how terrible the ending is on a thread about how the OP feels lost after having finished the trilogy, and how great the trilogy is, is obviously off-topic.
But the good news is, you little whiners managed to hijack the thread and turn it into yet another gripe-fest about the ending- which is great, because we definitely are suffering a perpetual shortage of such threads.
Every topic turns into drama about Shepard dying if Iakus is involved.
Every
single
one.
It's why he's on my ignore list. Now if you people would all stop quoting him, it would actually work 
Well, apparently in your mind, griping about the ending is on-topic on any mass effect topic. But yeah, talking about how terrible the ending is on a thread about how the OP feels lost after having finished the trilogy, and how great the trilogy is, is obviously off-topic.
But the good news is, you little whiners managed to hijack the thread and turn it into yet another gripe-fest about the ending- which is great, because we definitely are suffering a perpetual shortage of such threads.
You know what, I do regret my part in dragging this thread off-topic. And I apologize to the OP.
But in my defense, I reiterate, I was expressing my opinion, and how it differs from the OP. I was more than willing to simply talk about the different feelings it left us with.
But then, let's be polite and leave it at individuals like you chose to pick a fight. I should not have been baited into engaging the likes of you. And for that once again, I am sorry.
There were a lot of people out there who felt lost at the end of ME3, and not just the players. On the day of its release ME3 sold 890,000 copies - that's amazing. EA publicly touted it, and they don't normally release sales figures. Two days later the complaints began, and the numbers of those complaining swelled to what some have called a tsunami, with as many as 50,000 players complaining. Any basic Business Administration course is going to teach you that for every one person who makes a phone call to complain, or sends an email, there are going to be at least 9 to 10 others who are being just as vocal, except they're not making a phone call or sending an email - they're complaining to their friends. Just do the math. By mid June sales had plummeted (don't believe me? google it) and all of sudden retailers were feeling lost. They were expecting this Game of the Year to go through the roof. Many of them began offering deep discounts, $30 off coupons on a game only 3 months old. On Wall Street, stockholders began to feel lost because the value of their stock began dropping. Money Magazine called the ME3 ending a disaster. Paul Tasi, writing for Forbes Magazine, called the EC "too little, too late."
I play a game because it's fun, because it's challenging. The second time I played the game I picked Synthesis. As a result I got to watch the skin burning off of the face of the character I had designed. Believe me, I felt lost. Where's the fun in that?
You know what, I do regret my part in dragging this thread off-topic. And I apologize to the OP.
But in my defense, I reiterate, I was expressing my opinion, and how it differs from the OP. I was more than willing to simply talk about the different feelings it left us with.
But then, let's be polite and leave it at individuals like you chose to pick a fight. I should not have been baited into engaging the likes of you. And for that once again, I am sorry.
Wow, way to write an apology and still try to imply its someone else's fault- you truly are shameless.
Wow, way to write an apology and still try to imply its someone else's fault- you truly are shameless.
Meant every word of it too.
welcome to ignore. Enjoy your stay
[..]
I play a game because it's fun, because it's challenging. The second time I played the game I picked Synthesis. As a result I got to watch the skin burning off of the face of the character I had designed. Believe me, I felt lost. Where's the fun in that?
Seems to me that you're not playing for a good reason. Why should games be fun to play? Do you only watch fun movies, read fun books, listen to fun music?
I believe that if we want video games to proudly stand next to music and cinema as a true form of art we need to move beyond this idea "games should be fun". Everytime I play ME3, the ending is a great reward, the Reapers are stoped, the galaxy is safe and Shepard is an everlasting legend. It may sound like a defeat to some players but ME3's ending is a victory, a Pyrrhic victory yes but it's still a victory.
Seems to me that you're not playing for a good reason. Why should games be fun to play? Do you only watch fun movies, read fun books, listen to fun music?
I believe that if we want video games to proudly stand next to music and cinema as a true form of art we need to move beyond this idea "games should be fun". Everytime I play ME3, the ending is a great reward, the Reapers are stoped, the galaxy is safe and Shepard is an everlasting legend. It may sound like a defeat to some players but ME3's ending is a victory, a Pyrrhic victory yes but it's still a victory.
You evidently didn't read the PS.
p.s. By "Fun" in this post I meant actually "funny" and "grin provoking" fun, not fun as having a good time in general.
Seems to me that you're not playing for a good reason. Why should games be fun to play? Do you only watch fun movies, read fun books, listen to fun music?
Yes. Because things that are boring, or depressing, or otherwise unfun are not good use of my leisure time. Time I could spend following the news, get all that and be better informed about the real world.
Which is not to say one cannot have "serious fun" Not all fun is slapstick frivolity. There can of course be serious themes in a game. But what is important is that it be enjoyable to the audience. Making video games a matter of forcing people to eat their vegetables is not going to do anyone any good. If there is not a fun factor in a recreational item like a video game, why would anyone buy them?
Besides which, who are you to judge what a "good reason" is to play a game?
Seems to me that you're not playing for a good reason. Why should games be fun to play? Do you only watch fun movies, read fun books, listen to fun music?
I believe that if we want video games to proudly stand next to music and cinema as a true form of art we need to move beyond this idea "games should be fun". Everytime I play ME3, the ending is a great reward, the Reapers are stoped, the galaxy is safe and Shepard is an everlasting legend. It may sound like a defeat to some players but ME3's ending is a victory, a Pyrrhic victory yes but it's still a victory.
People have different ideas of fun, apparently. Music, books and movies all have genres. Usually I find tearjerker movies to be horrid - i.e. non-fun. I hate a good deal of vulgar music, ergo I do not purchase it. Same can be said with romance novels.
The point here is that these mediums all fall into a genre. Now, look at ME1 and ME2. The genre is sci-fi, and both could have good, what I consider "fun" endings. I can save the Council, defeat Saren and Sovereign, and most importantly live. ME2 was more broad spectrum, but it was certainly sci-fi. I could kill the termi-reaper, and live - even have a perfect ending where my suicide mission had no deaths. It could also go south - so far south as to be good to watch once, yet I never personally played it where Shep dies in ME2. It might have been worth it though, because then I can't play that character in ME3.
If you are going to change genres you should alert your audience. So, lets look at ME3. Sci-fi, and you get to choose how you die, except for a token breath scene and some cheese "Did all of that really happen?" That's not fun for me, because they changed the music, threw all of the genre out of the window. All they had to do was tell us there is no happy ending, we changed the genre - buy at your own risk.
What I call fun, and what you call fun may be completely different. That's one of the reasons we have genres. The point is, don't change it mid stride and try to pull it off as highbrow, because its not.
I could kill the termi-reaper, and live - even have a perfect ending where my suicide mission had no deaths.
This was a mistake, in my opinion. It should not have been possible to finish the suicide mission with no casualties.
This was a mistake, in my opinion. It should not have been possible to finish the suicide mission with no casualties.
Still, it is doable in the game and it was intentional. Granted, you had to do a lot (or know a lot about the game mechanics) to pull it off. Its one of the reasons I loved ME2 so much.
Now, I do think I follow you for realism - or in the very least a Renegade fashion. 
Pragon Shep..... not so much. I hated choosing Ash or Kaidan - yet I always killed him every single time. But, I understand where you are coming from.
This was a mistake, in my opinion. It should not have been possible to finish the suicide mission with no casualties.
I think it works in ME2, tonally. Mechanically, it definitely makes sense to have it be possible.
This was a mistake, in my opinion. It should not have been possible to finish the suicide mission with no casualties.
Your innocence died.
The ending still gives me a terrible feeling inside and I don't wanna do Bioware a disservice and claim that this is because "the ending is too sad" or that "i'm sad Shepard has to die" or whatever. They need to learn. The ending doesn't work because it is incoherent with the rest of the game. The theme of the entire game is not properly incorporated in the final ten minutes; in fact it feels like a whole new plot is introduced in the latter moments of the game and this is something Bioware completely avoided fixing when they made the Extended Cut.
But I digress. If they simply removed the Catalyst there would still be lots of weird foreshadowing leading up to nothing throughout the game, but still, the Catalyst scene is not coherent with the dreams, nor is it coherent with many of the REAL events that happen or can happen throughout ME3.
And since the EC and Leviathan Bioware has actually made the problem worse by depicting the Catalyst in a different way. Originally he was portrayed as a "good" character I believe or at least a grey character, but someone who was telling the truth and by listening to him you were supposed to know what to do about the problems he explains to you. After the EC he is portrayed as someone who is inherently flawed and while Shepard can now call him out on some of his faults it's not possible to drive this theme home. The Catalyst is wrong about everything he says. The game even tells us this implicitly post EC, but we can't make the most logical and optimal solution of making him realise he's wrong, so Shepard is forced to do something against his will, whether it be either A: Surrender (reject ending) or B: Sacrifice himself to save the galaxy by using one of the three very unnecessary and unoptimal solutions the Catalyst wants you to make.
Again, the most logical thing would be to make the Catalyst realize how wrong he is (and he IS wrong. The game makes this very clear) and make him simply turn off the Reapers or simply cease and desist.
But again. I think the entire plot of the trilogy was pretty much doomed the second they introduced the Crucible as a "weapon to wipe out the Reapers" within the first 1-2 hours of the game, and TIM being completely different from how he was depicted in ME2.
Ach, it makes me still feel sad when I remember my first playthrough, but: navigare necesse est and there will be another bit of space to explore.
And in the meantime I can headbutt things and watch Asari butts in MP.
Again, the most logical thing would be to make the Catalyst realize how wrong he is (and he IS wrong. The game makes this very clear) and make him simply turn off the Reapers or simply cease and desist.
But again. I think the entire plot of the trilogy was pretty much doomed the second they introduced the Crucible as a "weapon to wipe out the Reapers" within the first 1-2 hours of the game, and TIM being completely different from how he was depicted in ME2.
The plot of the trilogy was "doomed" to this fate in ME2 when they skipped ahead two years after railroading Shepard into getting spaced, the galaxy pretended as if the Reapers didn't exist, and we spent the entirety of the middle entry resolving daddy issues and fighting a villain of the week.
Under the circumstances, ME3 didn't turn out too bad whatsoever.
And the heat is still on. 
Sorry I was busy the last days. There is absolutely no need to apologize for a different opinion. I also think it is impossible to discuss the ending without talking about the death of Shep.
To choose between Kaidan and Ashley in ME1 was really easy for me, because I didn't think about the other two games at that time. When you played it right after it was released you couldn't even know that more games would come. So inside my head everything was quite:
"I don't want to romance that girl because she is a girl and most of the time she annoys me, so she has to do the dirty work and if she dies I don't care that much. I can't romance the cute guy but I like him and want him around me."
That's really interesting, because my penis made that decision (I hate my baser human instincts 
), and I'm pretty sure that this was the case with most players. Character development wasn't that big in ME1. And then I started ME2, and everything was WHOA and the more I played the deeper the relationships got. All the time doing missions with a personal background. Sometimes I was even like "enough of the foreplay, when will the real game start?" And then one day it struck me: that IS the real game! All you do is connect between those characters. I waited all the time for when the "real" action would start until I realized I'm already inside of it. When the suicide mission came along, I instinctly knew that I didn't wanted anybody to die. Something changed. No penis thinking this time. I had a connection to everyone and I couldn't stand the thought of losing one of them.
Then there is ME3 and you have built up your friends- family and everything finally concludes into a further going romance and enduring love. And when you have everything, you can also lose everything. I think this is a really great way for this message in the game: the more you have, the more you can lose. And then you really actually lose it. In your face!
As I mentioned in my opening post, there is a difference in consuming a book or a movie/series where you have to go the path the writer(s) set out for you and consuming a game that is designed to make you choose. All of this makes you much more involved with everything. I stayed away from walkthroughs because I never like it to spoiler myself. My suicide squad survived because I was lucky and chose the right people and did every mission because I wanted to know everything about everyone. And then BAM: Kelly didn't make it. Because I chose to absolve other missions after the kidnapping. Later I read about it, and that I could have saved her if I chased them right after. That's something you never want to experience. You come late to appointments or work or you oversleep your alarm call. But if someone could die because of that, well I don't know if I would see it as casual anymore.
I also don't get the problem with the Crucible. If they hadn't discovered it, the AI would've never shown up and the Reapers would win.
Or do you talk about a total different ending instead?
What I find way more interesting the longer I think about it, is the fact that there was an AI that lets you choose. And that it only shows up when someone got that far to have the Crucible built. That would ultimately mean that the greater force who created the AI and the Reapers already knew that the "cycle" isn't a solution for eternity and that one day someone would break it. So what does that mean? Is it all part of a much greater plan that will be uncovered in ME4? I have no idea but it makes me wonder, and that is something good.
Have a nice start in the week folks!
As I mentioned in my opening post, there is a difference in consuming a book or a movie/series where you have to go the path the writer(s) set out for you and consuming a game that is designed to make you choose. All of this makes you much more involved with everything. I stayed away from walkthroughs because I never like it to spoiler myself. My suicide squad survived because I was lucky and chose the right people and did every mission because I wanted to know everything about everyone. And then BAM: Kelly didn't make it. Because I chose to absolve other missions after the kidnapping. Later I read about it, and that I could have saved her if I chased them right after. That's something you never want to experience. You come late to appointments or work or you oversleep your alarm call. But if someone could die because of that, well I don't know if I would see it as casual anymore.
There is a difference, yes. And you're right, it's the involvement of the player, it's how the outcome is a result of your choices.
That's part of what got me furious at the endings. After five years, preordering all three games, hundreds of choices all poured into saving the galaxy, to have it end like...that. It's like that feeling your got after learning about Kelly: it's something I never wanted to experience. It's like I screwed up somewhere along the way, turned left instead of right, helped the wrong person, or didn't help the right person and it all somehow went wrong.
Except, I didn't. I did everything "right" yet no matter how perfect a playthrough I do, I'm doomed to end up in that chamber, with those outcomes.
I also don't get the problem with the Crucible. If they hadn't discovered it, the AI would've never shown up and the Reapers would win.
Or do you talk about a total different ending instead
I think he's referring to one popular "alternative" ending that some think would have been better: to simply end the game after the "best seats in the house" scene. And let players decide from there what happened.
What I find way more interesting the longer I think about it, is the fact that there was an AI that lets you choose. And that it only shows up when someone got that far to have the Crucible built. That would ultimately mean that the greater force who created the AI and the Reapers already knew that the "cycle" isn't a solution for eternity and that one day someone would break it. So what does that mean? Is it all part of a much greater plan that will be uncovered in ME4? I have no idea but it makes me wonder, and that is something good.
Have a nice start in the week folks!
By any chance, have you played the Leviathan DLC?
And sometimes no matter what choices you make, you can't guarantee your own survival or anybody else's.
I'm sure that goes without saying....
Retour en haut
