439 réponses à ce sujet

[Obadiah]

That scene in the Omega DLC where the Turians, Batarians, Krogan, Humans, and Asari are all working together in Aria's or the Talons' base, that's what I'd have liked to see at the Priority Earth mid stage FOB area.

[Bfler]

5.       I mean who would choose to kill Shepard at that point?  It creates a single "right" ending and the others are "less right" ???

 

E.g. the people, who choose the ultimate sacrifice in DA:O.

[Valmar]

@Valmar, I think you got me wrong. I never argued for possibility of the worst possible ending for a completionist player. All I said was that a completionist player should receive the best possible ending but it should not be ideal because, as you said it yourself, "that would just be silly".

About possible directions I meant that ME3 could've gone either way (the whole game, not just the ending) - a perfect, flawless victory based on your choices throughout the game (ME2-style) or costly victory with sacrifices required regardless of your choices (ME1-style). They've chosen the second and I agree with them, for it works better for a galactic scale war.

When I mentioned that it would require a different game, I referred to the feel of the game prior to ending. It constantly reminds and shows you that sacrifices are necessary. An ending that doesn't require sacrifices will be inconsistent with the rest of the game.

As for why EDI has to die - she is based on Reaper technology from Sovereign and has Reaper IFF integrated. Geth have the Reaper code.

 

No, you didn't. I was using that as an hypothetical to put your argument in another context. I applied your reasoning to another ending. It was the same principle, just arguing for a different ending.

 

Yes, EDI is based on reaper technology but so what? Given how crucial the Normandy and crew are the crucible (what with Liara being the one to discover the damn thing and Shepard the one to bring it to the council's attention) it isn't unreasonable to assume they'd find some way to protect EDI who is after all only based on the reaper tech and not a reaper. Not that it should target her anyway. She isn't a reaper just because she may be based on some reaper rubble from the citadel. The reaper IFF is something to consider though, I can see that being an issue. Though certainly not one they can't write their way out of it.

 

Though again I don't see any reason that she should HAVE to die. She isn't a reaper and we've certainly gotten enough EMS to be able to figure something out, you'd think. The geth are not in such a different position. They have reaper upgrades, still not reapers themselves. The crucible was designed to target reapers. The starbrat says it will kill all Synthetics (then points out that Shepard is partly synthetic) yet Shepard survives the blast. If the story can make an exempt for Shepard and say "okay, you have a ton of EMS so we'll let you live" then why can't it do the same with EDI and the geth?

 

If we can be okay with this device changing all life in the galaxy (new framework, new dna, new magic) then why can we not be okay with it being refined to target specifically only reapers? After throwing synthesis into the mix I hardly think its unreasonable to also say it can target only the reapers. It is a device designed and built specifically for destroying the reapers, after all. You mean to tell me with all the mind power we're tossing at that thing INCLUDING THE GETH no one can figure out a way to prevent the Geth and Edi from being effected by it? We can throw suspension of belief out the window for the synthesis nonsense but not for finding a way to save the Geth and EDI?

 

Putting all that to the side though, even forgetting about EDI and the geth, what about Shepard and the rest of the squad? They survived the ending so why can't they get a happy ending? Would seeing them get some closure really be such a bad thing? It's not like they'd need be brought back to life since they're already alive. We'd just need to see them reunited. I mean they lived anyway so why not make it more upbeat then just seeing them stand by a wall or breath under a pile of rubble. The groundwork for a happier ending is already there in the game, why be against them adding to it? ME2 didn't shy away from the cheese, why must ME3 be different.

 

All this talk of "sacrifices need to be made" and "people should die to be realistic" seems to undermine the fact that Shepard and the gang (other than EDI) can /already/ survive the ending. Why can't they get a happy ending? Its not like the default of all the endings has them all dead and gone. I'm not asking them all to be resurrected, since they weren't mandatory dead in the first place.

 

 

Valmar, are you sure piling responses to everybody into one humongous post is a useful strategy? I'm not even sure why the board has MultiQuote. Anyway, let me wade through this to the relevant parts....
 

 

I prefer it over making multiple posts, something some forums can take offense to. If it makes you feel better the forum does limit the amount of quotes you can use in a single post. The relevant parts should be easy enough for you to find because I quoted the person I'm talking to before making it. If I didn't include the multiple quotes it would be easy to get lost with who I'm talking to, wouldn't you agree?

 

Plus multi-quoting allows me to section off parts of the argument for easier understanding of what I'm referring to like I'm doing now. It is the style I prefer, at anyrate.

 

 

Hmm. I'm surprised. Google's Ngram viewer shows that the metaphor has been at a pretty high level of use since 1970 or so. I suppose that's right about the time the term started to be mostly used metaphorically. (IIRC the M-1 tank doesn't even have an escape hatch.)
 

 

I understand the concept, it isn't a difficult metaphor to wrap ones mind around. I just had never heard of it before in any other context other than being literally an escape hatch. Even then in recent memory I've only seen it mentioned on this forum and it was usually being related to Dragon Age. Hence why I thought there was an ending in Dragon Age with a literal escape hatch. I was taking it literally because I never heard anyone use it as a metaphor, that doesn't mean I don't understand its use as a metaphor. It may be very popular, I wouldn't know. I'm not a social person. I didn't even know who that twerking girl was people were going crazy about.

 

 

So you're not actually asking for any changes at all. Just different presentation. This isn't even a happier ending since nothing's different.

OK, that clears things up quite a bit. If you're just asking for more content for your preferred ending, this is a very different argument from what I thought it was. I thought this was another round of Iakus' "the ending choices are morally unacceptable" argument.
 

 

It may not be happier to you but it'd be a lot happier to me and many others. All I get was a brief breathing scene of Shepard under a rock. That's it. That's my happy ending. What would be so horrible if they gave a cheesier, happier ending where Shepard reunites with the squad and we get some closure to whats going to happen to the characters we spent years growing close to? I don't care if its cheesy and corny or whatever. The first two games gave happy endings why can't the third one give me something not so depressing.

 

The control ending and synthesis got extra content that elaborated somethings and showed where the characters were. Not much but it got something. The destroy ending gets so little compared to them. If someone prefers control ending they got something more fulfilling, I'd imagine, because they could actually see Shepard with control, see what became of him (or it, depending on your perspective).

 

Synthesis gives you EDI's little dialogue speech about how shes alive and yadda yadda. What did destroy ending get? Shepard is still just a gasping armor plate under a rock with the only change being that the LI doesn't put the name of the wall. Fantastic. They could had at least made an effort to make that ending happier and more fulfilling then that. This, again, changes nothing but only adds to it.

 

Having the extra scenes and content in the ending that shows Shepard reunited with the crew may not seem like its any happier of an ending than what we have to you but to me it would. I may sound harsh about it but frankly I felt I deserved more than just a damn pillar crushing  a gasping Shepard. Sure, they survive, but damn. At least give me something a little more cheery than that. The reapers are defeated, isn't that the appropriate time to feel accomplished? The setting had never been more right for some cheer.

 

 

 

As for Shepard... Well, I think Shepard was always meant to die in Battle. Sorry. But it's true.

 

High-EMS Destroy ending. Shepard lives. If you felt he was meant to die, there's certainly plenty of options for you to choose from though. The endings provide an abundance of martyr sacrifice.

 

 

 

 

 

In response to the little side-talk going on about Bioware 'owing' fans something or rather or not they 'hooked' us... I won't say much on this because its beating an old horse but read this:

http://forum.bioware...ase-statements/

 

Those saying they owe us something aren't all doing so because they're entitled, they do so because they (Bioware) specifically sold the game to us on the promise that X will be in the game. Is it wrong that we trusted them and took them on their word? That we believe them when they made these claims? Maybe, afterall, hype is hype. Still, don't be too quick to judge fans who felt they deserved more. When you advertise, promise and sell a product to someone as being something it quite simply isn't then consumer is fully within their right to be upset.

 

There are a lot of 'good' lines I could quote from those statements but I will leave it at this, for those that say the ending had to be such and such way:

 

“We have a rule in our franchise that there is no canon. You as a player decide what your story is.” - Casey Hudson

[themikefest]

As I posted before. A slide showing Shepard and LI standing next to each other with their backs to the camera, looking over a field as the sun is setting. This would be good enough for me.

 

For the endings that have Shepard dead, have a statue of Shepard in his/her armor with LI looking at it and if not a statue, have a grave showing LI standing in front of it.

[Farangbaa]

“We have a rule in our franchise that there is no canon. You as a player decide what your story is.” - Casey Hudson

 

I didn't want to be a Spectre, nor work for Cerberus, nor seek the aid of the Quarians.

[Vazgen]

@Valmar, I'm not sure what you're getting to. Do you just want for Bioware to add a few extra scenes for High EMS Destroy ending showing Shepard and squadmates celebrating? If so, I wouldn't mind having that scene Not that I absolutely need it, I just headcanon it since there is nothing contradicting it.

My theory for Destroy ending is something like this: the geth use functions from central Reaper database which, in combination with their architecture, make them sentient (I actually think that these upgrades make all the geth connected, like Reapers can communicate on huge distances, which, in case of unique geth architecture, makes them sentient). EDI uses Reaper technology more extensively, since she doesn't have the unique architecture of the geth. She needs Sovereign tech to be sentient (as shown in Cerberus HQ video logs). Destroy pulse is only the visible part of the effect - it serves to destroy nanites in husk/cannibal/marauder... bodies which basically disintegrates them. The other part is the destruction of Reaper central database which is pure software and is not visible. It causes Reapers to collapse (notice how they are not destroyed like husks) because their programs no longer function. Same with geth and EDI. I think it'll be possible to rebuild the geth to their pre-Reaper state, quarians can do it (though they most likely won't). EDI - don't think so. 

[Valmar]

@Valmar, I'm not sure what you're getting to. Do you just want for Bioware to add a few extra scenes for High EMS Destroy ending showing Shepard and squadmates celebrating? If so, I wouldn't mind having that scene Not that I absolutely need it, I just headcanon it since there is nothing contradicting it.

 

That would be an improvement, yes. Like I've been saying all along, I want a happier ending then what we get. Yet people act as though having a happy destroy ending somehow takes away from the others.

 

My theory for Destroy ending is something like this: the geth use functions from central Reaper database which, in combination with their architecture, make them sentient (I actually think that these upgrades make all the geth connected, like Reapers can communicate on huge distances, which, in case of unique geth architecture, makes them sentient). EDI uses Reaper technology more extensively, since she doesn't have the unique architecture of the geth. She needs Sovereign tech to be sentient (as shown in Cerberus HQ video logs). Destroy pulse is only the visible part of the effect - it serves to destroy nanites in husk/cannibal/marauder... bodies which basically disintegrates them. The other part is the destruction of Reaper central database which is pure software and is not visible. It causes Reapers to collapse (notice how they are not destroyed like husks) because their programs no longer function. Same with geth and EDI. I think it'll be possible to rebuild the geth to their pre-Reaper state, quarians can do it (though they most likely won't). EDI - don't think so. 

 

I don't have a problem with your theory but just as your theory can support why they must be destroyed there's many other theories to support why they shouldn't. For every reason why they should be destroyed there's reasons why they shouldn't. Giving the player both options satisfies both parties and gives the game more varying choices of endings to boot. 

 

I still think having another variation of the ending that also has Edi and the Geth surviving if certain conditions are met and your EMS is high enough would be nice. Personally I don't care about the geth and can handle EDI being gone (though she was awesome). I'm fine with them being sacrificed. I just don't feel that its necessary for their deaths to be mandatory and don't see why players can't have another option. Again the geth gave support to the crucible yet they couldn't come up with a way to protect themselves from the very weapon they were helping create? This seems like something your war assets should have had helped out with. So while I would be satisfied with a happier ending without Edi or the Geth I still think that option should had been added.

 

A lot of people, afterall, would very much like to not wipe out the geth and kill Edi. Even if I don't share their passion for it I'm totally okay with them getting that ending. I can see why they'd have to die if you don't have insane EMS scores since it adds a challenge, a goal to strive for. Plus it gives more variation to the endings, something I think they desperately need. Especially Destroy. Consider this:

 

Shepard is partly synthetic. The destroy ending kills Shepard if the EMS isn't high enough. Why does it not kill him if its high? A good explaination for this, I think, is to say that the increased resources and brain-power spent on the crucible project allowed them to fine-tune it and make it more precise in its execution. This makes sense not only for Shepard but also for the devastating effects the crucible can have on low EMS settings. When its low, it turns humans on earth to ash. When its high it only targets reaper husks - YET not Shepard even though he is synthetic. Yet the husks are part organic. They're meat bags with tech crammed in. If the refinements meant that the blast only targeted synthetics and not organics too then why is Shepard okay? Because the blast was precise enough to specifically target reapers, as it was meant to do in the first place.

 

If you can get high enough EMS to refine the blast down enough to avoid destroying humanity and even half-synthetic Shepard while still turning reaper troops to ash then you should also be able to refine to target only reapers and not the geth and Edi, who are not reapers and just happen to have borrowed traits. We even are able to make the blast precise enough that doesn't completely destroy the relays (which aren't only based on reaper tech but also built by the reapers themselves). It does not seem like a stretch to me at all and fits in well with the game's system of war assets and EMS playing factor in your various endings to have an option to not have the geth and Edi die. 

 

Making it mandatory that the geth and Edi die feels like a  cheap way of forcing drama on a story that already has plenty, imo. They die for the sake of dying and I see no reason why it MUST be this way. Why, because the star brat says all synthetics will be destroyed without discrimination? The very one that implied Shepard would die aswell? We've already proved that the star brat doesn't have a perfect understanding of the crucible's effect (or was lying one) since Shepard survives the blast.

 

Especially odd, this forced drama, considering its 'only' the geth that get wiped out. Not everyone even views them as being worth crying about since they're 'just' machines. I know I'm more upset over seeing Edi die then I am seeing the geth. Though that's just me. Seems extra weird when you factor in that the geth may already be dead at the time. So it could just be Edi who has to die for the cause. The fact that the geth die regardless of anything else if you choose destroy makes you wonder what the point was of making peace with them in the first place. They would had been better off siding with the reapers instead of helping the organics build the very weapon that will lead to their destruction. Having the death mandatory takes away from the importance of saving the geth, imo. Yet having it just be one variable outcome adds in extra flavors, as it were.

 

Also, if having Edi and the Geth survive isn't realistic enough for your tastes then I'd point out the existence of synthesis. If that ending isn't unrealistic then I don't know what is. At least Edi and the Geth surviving has some reasonable bases to work on that can be explained.  Anyone who complains that having them survive wouldn't be dark and realistic enough I point to the synthesis ending. Mass Effect 3 gave up on being realistic the moment a nightmare ghost child reaper told Shepard to jump in a beam of light to give all life in the galaxy the same dna and framework. If that nonsense is to be accepted then I see no reason why Edi and the Geth have to be doomed to destruction when theres actual sensible ways to work around them being spared.

[AlanC9]

I prefer it over making multiple posts, something some forums can take offense to. If it makes you feel better the forum does limit the amount of quotes you can use in a single post. The relevant parts should be easy enough for you to find because I quoted the person I'm talking to before making it.

Sure, I can do that. But doing it can occasionally involve scrolling up to the original post, since a quote-reply only brings up the new material in the post you're replying to, not any quoted material in that post. I don't see how this isn't more work for both of us.

If I didn't include the multiple quotes it would be easy to get lost with who I'm talking to, wouldn't you agree?

It wouldn't be easy to get lost if you replied to different people in different posts, of course. But yeah, I suppose if you insist on bundling up replies to different people in the same post, you'd better keep doing the multi-quotes.

I just had never heard of it before in any other context other than being literally an escape hatch. Even then in recent memory I've only seen it mentioned on this forum and it was usually being related to Dragon Age. Hence why I thought there was an ending in Dragon Age with a literal escape hatch. I was taking it literally because I never heard anyone use it as a metaphor, that doesn't mean I don't understand its use as a metaphor. It may be very popular, I wouldn't know. I'm not a social person. I didn't even know who that twerking girl was people were going crazy about.

That's the problem with tools like Ngram. It's easy to find out that a metaphor is in common use, but it's much harder to tell where in particular it's in use. It'd be interesting to see how that metaphor's managed to be routed around you, but I can't think of an easy way to do it.

The control ending and synthesis got extra content that elaborated somethings and showed where the characters were. Not much but it got something. The destroy ending gets so little compared to them.

Huh? Destroy isn't shorter than the other endings. You get the same content showing where the characters are.

[KaiserShep]

Is there any version of Destroy that shows Jack?

[AlanC9]

A lot of people, afterall, would very much like to not wipe out the geth and kill Edi. Even if I don't share their passion for it I'm totally okay with them getting that ending. I can see why they'd have to die if you don't have insane EMS scores since it adds a challenge, a goal to strive for. Plus it gives more variation to the endings, something I think they desperately need.
 

Just once, I'd like to see someone pushing for more variation in the endings who really was interested in more variation for its own sake, rather than just trying to find a way to sell happier endings.

[AlanC9]

Is there any version of Destroy that shows Jack?

I thought the clip with her standing over her students' graves plays in Destroy.

[Dabrikishaw]

Remove the Catalyst A.I., keep the rest of the ending the same.

[Iakus]

I thought the clip with her standing over her students' graves plays in Destroy.

I think there's a glitch where it doesn't in Destroy.  Only the romance one where she's staring up in the sky can trigger.

[Iakus]

Just once, I'd like to see someone pushing for more variation in the endings who really was interested in more variation for its own sake, rather than just trying to find a way to sell happier endings.

You realize that I'd be okay with the choice to destroy the geth or permanently bring down the relay network in Destroy, right?  How's that for "happier"?

 

Heck I'd let the breath scene slide for an option like that.

[KaiserShep]

I thought the clip with her standing over her students' graves plays in Destroy.

 

I believe that this slide is dependent on Shepard's choice during the dialogue aboard the escape shuttle from Grissom, regarding whether or not the students will be sent to either the front line or support. If Shepard grants their wish to be sent to the front lines, then they die. Otherwise they can be seen with her in some Alliance facility.

 

A quick Google search led me to MrFob's MEHEM thread stating that Miranda and Jack don't show up at all in Destroy unless you romance them, which sucks.

[Iakus]

I believe that this slide is dependent on Shepard's choice during the dialogue aboard the escape shuttle from Grissom, regarding whether or not the students will be sent to either the front line or support. If Shepard grants their wish to be sent to the front lines, then they die. Otherwise they can be seen with her in some Alliance facility.

 

A quick Google search led me to MrFob's MEHEM thread stating that Miranda and Jack don't show up at all in Destroy unless you romance them, which sucks.

Yep. MEHEM fixes the bug and the fix is available for unmodded games as well:

 

http://forum.bioware...fix/?p=15469522

[dreamgazer]

That isn't accurate, at least with Jack on consoles.  Those slides popped with both my DestroySheps who didn't romance her. 

 

I honestly don't remember with Miranda.

[WhiskeyBravo45]

As a result of some good posts here I’ve been thinking on this issue.  Does having a “save Shepard” option make the “sacrifice Shepard” solutions less worthy?  It can be hard to grasp an idea that we don’t like, or contradicts our own views.  Especially when we have strong feelings on a subject (any ME fans there?).  We all tend to dismiss, devalue, or just ignore stuff that disagrees with/challenges our own positions- read up on “confirmation bias”, it’s just human nature. 

 

So I’ve come up with this analogy to see if it makes this clearer and easier to understand.  Just food for thought, not saying everyone has to agree – just try and consider it fairly.

 

Let’s use the grenade in foxhole scenario.  Your squad is in a foxhole and a grenade falls in.  With just 1-2 seconds on the fuse, you jump on the grenade just as it goes off – killing you but saving your buddies.  Soldiers will often get the Medal of Honor posthumously (or equivalent for other countries) for that, the self-sacrifice is seen as noble and significant.  “There is no greater love than to lay down one's life for one's friends” etc. 

 

Now let’s add the alternative ending.  The grenade comes in but there are 15 seconds on the fuse and you know it.  You know there is an easy way out (pick it up and throw it back, dummy).  How does it look now if you jump on the grenade, wait 15 seconds, and get yourself killed?  Well under those circumstances it just looks pointless and stupid.  With the addition of the “easy out” to save everyone, then the validity of the sacrifice takes on an entirely different significance. 

 

Okay, don’t get lost arguing grenades don’t have long fuses or you wouldn’t know about it.  I simply use the scenario to contrast the two kinds of conditions, stripping off so many other variables as distractions.  You don’t have to agree, but does it at least make sense why some people say adding more “save Shepard” endings ruins it (for them)?  I mean how many people want to kill off Shepard pointlessly after so many hours, if given a choice?  The “save” option becomes the de facto right choice or best choice for nearly everyone.  Personally, I may not be happy Shepard died, but am at least satisfied it achieved something (epic) and was not pointless.  Looking at it from a critical perspective, my best guess is this is why Bioware did not go that route, even with the DLC.

 

And you know, I get it - there are some movies where you just don’t want the realistic or dramatic ending.  So I’m not saying any disappointment with the finale is wrong for everyone.  It’s an interactive and emotional game experience, so subjective evaluations are entirely proper.  That’s beside the whole of issue of Bioware giving people the wrong expectations.  I think that stupidity crippled the franchise (i.e. alienated up to half the fans) but that is a different topic. 

[Valmar]

Sure, I can do that. But doing it can occasionally involve scrolling up to the original post, since a quote-reply only brings up the new material in the post you're replying to, not any quoted material in that post. I don't see how this isn't more work for both of us.
 

 

I'm not sure I follow. Perhaps we just have different methods for how we read/section off posts. I have multiple monitors and use heavily the ctrl-c/v keys so maybe thats why. I don't know. I've never had an issue with scrolling to original posts. I suspect you're replying using the quick reply and that is the cause of your dilemma. I could be wrong, though. Using the more dedicated post function will allow you to have two tabs open so you can just ctrl-tab back and forth on a whim if you need to see the original post. Scrolling isn't a necessity.

 

 

It wouldn't be easy to get lost if you replied to different people in different posts, of course. But yeah, I suppose if you insist on bundling up replies to different people in the same post, you'd better keep doing the multi-quotes.
 

 

Past forums I've been on discourage multiple posts when it could had been all one post. To the point that even if I did what you suggest a mod would had edited the posts to combine them anyway, while adding "if you want to add more to the post use the edit button, not more posts". I'm not saying that is how it is on this forum but thats my experience on past forums which no doubt influenced me to adapt to this method. To each his/her own. If you feel replying to me is such a tedious chore you could simply not. It's not like anything we're discussing is life-changing and important. It's just a video game.

 

 

That's the problem with tools like Ngram. It's easy to find out that a metaphor is in common use, but it's much harder to tell where in particular it's in use. It'd be interesting to see how that metaphor's managed to be routed around you, but I can't think of an easy way to do it.
 

 

Like I said before, I'm not social. To be aware of a metaphor (specifically one that also works literally) I'd likely need to be talking to others who know it and use it for me to pick it up that way. Knowledge on the internet is not, as of yet, beamed directly into my brain. I have to either seek it myself or see it mentioned by another. I doubt anyone knew what 'lol' was until they noticed others doing it. I wouldn't know what #EnterWordHere is all about if not for its constant online use hinting to me that its a twitter tag, a service I do not use.

 

 

Huh? Destroy isn't shorter than the other endings. You get the same content showing where the characters are.

 

I didn't mean to say its shorter. I meant they got more substance to them. In the control ending we get the scene of AI Shepard and see what became of him. In the synthesis we hear of EDI and how she is now alive. In destroy we get Hackett saying we won. Hackett is a poor stand-in for the protagonist who is alive under a rock somewhere. The other endings feel more personal since they're narrated by characters we know far more intimately. Shepard being one, EDI being the other. Having Hackett be the one to tell us everything is okay in the destroy ending seems like something that should only take place if Shepard is dead and therefor unable to do so himself.

 

They provide a bit more closure. You find out Shepard really did take over the reapers and is now some kind if virtual god. Okay then. You find out EDI is alive. Okay then. Destroy ending you find out Shepard is still stuck in some rubble somewhere. Joys. Shepard was in no position to reunite with the crew in the other endings, he's cleary dead in those. The destroy ending has him alive, there is reason to see him with the crew. Yet all we get is a gasping chest-plate.

 

 

Just once, I'd like to see someone pushing for more variation in the endings who really was interested in more variation for its own sake, rather than just trying to find a way to sell happier endings.

 

I do want more variation even if I'm not creative or inspired enough to think of anything myself. The 'happy ending' already has foundation built for in the high destroy ending. You don't have to change things radically. Its easy to elaborate on something you already have. Besides, its personal bias that we all have. Fact of the matter is that nothing we say or do here is going to change ANYTHING. ME3 is done. So I could spend hours writing up all these different variations that they COULD had added... or just write up what I would had liked to see. The question in the title is how would YOU end ME3, afterall. That's is my ideal ending. I understand that it isn't for everyone and that is fine. Most of my argument on here has been fighting against the notion that me having a happier ending would somehow take away from others endings.

 

Coincidentally there are members in this very topic who have written up different varying endings that don't all rely on happier outcomes. Even more so on past topics, this is something that's been discussed for the past two years afterall. A happier outcome is usually part of some of their plans but they usually also include darker ones aswell. You make it sound as if you've never seen anyone suggest varied endings that weren't just happy. In which case perhaps you're just not looking in the right places.

 

 

 

[snip]

 

What you wrote isn't in of itself bad. It's well thought out and everything and I appreciate that. However I think its still nevertheless irrelevant. This argument is based on the false assumption that Shepard dies no matter what.

 

Something many seem to overlook, I think, is the fact that Shepard doesn't have to die in the end. Shepard survives the high-EMS destroy ending. So debating that they shouldn't add an ending where Shepard survives because it would somehow take away from the other endings is utterly pointless since that ending already exists. The ground work, the foundation of a happy ending is already there in Mass Effect. Yes, you need high EMS to get the Shepard-lives ending but its still there as an option. This option, btw, has not ruined any one elses choices. So I don't see how making it any happier would somehow take away from the other choices. It's not like they'd need to bring Shepard back to life, not when he/she already survived.

 

Too many people talk as if Shepard dying is mandatory and like its a staple of the ending. That simply isn't the case.

[Iakus]

 

 

I do want more variation even if I'm not creative or inspired enough to think of anything myself. The 'happy ending' already has foundation built for in the high destroy ending. You don't have to change things radically. Its easy to elaborate on something you already have. Besides, its personal bias that we all have. Fact of the matter is that nothing we say or do here is going to change ANYTHING. ME3 is done. So I could spend hours writing up all these different variations that they COULD had added... or just write up what I would had liked to see. The question in the title is how would YOU end ME3, afterall. That's is my ideal ending. I understand that it isn't for everyone and that is fine. Most of my argument on here has been fighting against the notion that me having a happier ending would somehow take away from others endings.

 

Also it's important to consider that the endings we already have are largely considered to be pretty grim.  It only makes sense that, with the desire for more outcomes, there would be a desire for more "happier" endings than simply more variations of what we've already got.

[dreamgazer]

Also it's important to consider that the endings we already have are largely considered to be pretty grim.

 

They could be much grimmer. 

[Iakus]

They could be much grimmer. 

 

Not by much, given Low EMS Destroy, Renegade Control, and Refuse.  

 

You don't see many people wanting worse.  Plenty want better though.  Kinda points towards where the scarcity lies.

[WhiskeyBravo45]

...

WhiskeyBravo45, on 31 Oct 2014 - 07:49 AM, said:

[snip]

 

What you wrote isn't in of itself bad. It's well thought out and everything and I appreciate that. However I think its still nevertheless irrelevant. This argument is based on the false assumption that Shepard dies no matter what.

 

Something many seem to overlook, I think, is the fact that Shepard doesn't have to die in the end. Shepard survives the high-EMS destroy ending. So debating that they shouldn't add an ending where Shepard survives because it would somehow take away from the other endings is utterly pointless since that ending already exists. 

 

Too many people talk as if Shepard dying is mandatory and like its a staple of the ending. That simply isn't the case.

 

Well, assuming the "gasp" at the end is proof of both life and long-term survival.  Which most people don't seem to be happy with.  And sacrificing the Geth & EDI if your intent is to save Shepard is a pretty Renegade choice most don't like either. (but hey I'm not judging)  

 

I might argue that Shepard may not have intended to sacrifice himself in the Destroy option... such as 'he was gonna blow it up regardless of the cost'.  However, he was ready to pay that price if it came.  So the outcome (maybe he survives) doesn't detract from his action ...  sometimes those guys jumping on the grenade do live.

 

I meant to address those discussions of the "super happy" alternatives proposed where Shepard and Love Interest walk away into the sunset.  Where there is no intent to pay the piper, as it were.  And it's more in the way of explaining the counter-claim that allowing such happy endings degrade the main critical plot dilemma and the sacrifice options.  Because some people said "I don't see how" etc.

 

I'm not making assertions or drawing conclusions, just asking questions and trying to consider as many good ideas as possible!

[sveners]

They could be much grimmer. 

 

Seriously? How? Choose refuse, and all the civilized species you know are extinguished. Is total galactic annihilation really a point to make? In that case, why not make the whole universe implode

[Reorte]

Just once, I'd like to see someone pushing for more variation in the endings who really was interested in more variation for its own sake, rather than just trying to find a way to sell happier endings.

I'm keen for happier but more variation for its own sake would be good too. I also think that it should be rather easier to get the bad versions. A version where the Normandy gets shot down not long before the end, Shepard has lost everything that means anything personal to her, and only has left the goal of defeating the Reapers - just that grim necessity left to drive on, would be a very good and dare I say it necessary addition. Possibly even quite a likely one.