Ah, well let's put it this way then: the Mass Effect's team never planned the existence of Shepard post-trilogy.
[snip]
Journey=life? Jon Grissom had a journey that came to an end without him dying. He retired to become a recluse, if I recall correctly.
Just because they wanted this to conclude Shepard's story does not mean death was /mandatory/. To see it argued otherwise is actually pretty baffling.
I guess you haven't been to the DAI forums as of late, where people have been asking for the return of the Warden
I think most of that is because Bioware ignored the DA:O epilogues had all Wardens who did the dark ritual disappear at some point during the course of DA2. A lot of the people asking for the return of the Warden aren't so much fixated on the Warden returning as a character as much they just want that lame disappearing act resolved. Also the appearance of Hawke in a couple screenshots/vids is fueling some of that.
Without Hawke and the disappearing act I don't think as many people would be posting about the Warden.
I think most of that is because Bioware ignored the DA:O epilogues had all Wardens who did the dark ritual disappear at some point during the course of DA2. A lot of the people asking for the return of the Warden aren't so much fixated on the Warden returning as a character as much they just want that lame disappearing act resolved. Also the appearance of Hawke in a couple screenshots/vids is fueling some of that.
Without Hawke and the disappearing act I don't think as many people would be posting about the Warden.
This obsessive need for closure in games baffles me.
This obsessive need for closure in games baffles me.
Thing is, Origins/Awakening already provided this. But if the sequel up and says that the character disappears and alludes to something greater/more sinister going on, then it stands to reason that people would expect this issue to be resolved somehow. Otherwise, what would be the point?
Thing is, Origins/Awakening already provided this. But if the sequel up and says that the character disappears and alludes to something greater/more sinister going on, then it stands to reason that people would expect this issue to be resolved somehow. Otherwise, what would be the point?
The point?
He's gone. That's the point.
The point?
He's gone. That's the point.
Come on. This makes no sense. If you want a character to disappear, but that character's story was already reasonably wrapped up, all you have to do is never have him/her play a role in any future stories ever again and there would be zero fuss, but DA2 obviously suggests more than a simple disappearance, since Hawke disappears as well, and it's suggested that this is somehow connected. I have a suspicion that this may end up just being a stupid throwaway line that they didn't reasonably plan ahead for, but I'd rather the writers not add hooks that they can't explain, or else the series will suffer from carelessness. I don't want threads to be started only to lead to stupid dead ends, like ME2's dark energy problem.
Come on. This makes no sense. If you want a character to disappear, but that character's story was already reasonably wrapped up, all you have to do is never have him/her play a role in any future stories ever again and there would be zero fuss, but DA2 obviously suggests more than a simple disappearance, since Hawke disappears as well, and it's suggested that this is somehow connected. I have a suspicion that this may end up just being a stupid throwaway line that they didn't reasonably plan ahead for, but I'd rather the writers not add hooks that they can't explain, or else the series will suffer from carelessness. I don't want threads to be started only to lead to stupid dead ends, like ME2's dark energy problem.
Well it might just be me, but I never thought while playing ME3: 'but what about Dark Energy?!?!'
I probably don't care enough to be bothered with these kind of things.
The dark energy thing in ME2 is not even close to the same as the Warden not being part of DA:I. Hell, my first warden, the guy I'm hoping to create my DA Keep world state from, romanced Morrigan.
ME's dark energy thing was mentioned by a few quarians and nobody listens to suit-rats anyway 
(kidding).
Well it might just be me, but I never thought while playing ME3: 'but what about Dark Energy?!?!'
I probably don't care enough to be bothered with these kind of things.
When I first played the trilogy, I didn't take part in this forum and I wasn't aware of the whole scrapped dark energy plot for ME3. I'm kind of a stickler for dialogue and side plots and consider anything that comes up frequently enough to be fairly important. The dark energy problem was the only significant issue in the entire game outside of the immediate threat of the Collectors. I mean, maybe it's just me, but I would consider a star dying billions of years before its time to be extremely important.
When I got to ME3, I thought about the dark energy problem, but it became obvious that the trilogy had sharply veered off that course, and the dark energy thing was reduced to some random, forgettable spacial anomaly like something out of Star Trek Voyager. If it was just mentioned in passing conversation, that'd be one thing, but an entire mission was framed around this phenomenon.
If it was just mentioned in passing conversation, that'd be one thing, but an entire mission was framed around this phenomenon.
An entire mission was centered around minogen X3 as an environmental hazard as well. The only thing I ever saw in the whole dark energy thing was an excuse to provide an environmental hazard.
I don't really care for the Dark Energy thing either. Sure, once I was told the theme was foreshadowed in ME2 I definitely noticed it more when I replayed it, but honestly it was just very vague foreshadowing. About as vague as whatever it was Flemeth was telling me in her little DA2 cameo.
The Dark Energy idea was bad IMO, because it would've used circular logic as well. The spread of Eezo and Dark Energy would largely come from the Mass Relays which the Reapers created, so we'd still get that loophole of derp logic that is in the current endings, not to mention it also put Humanity on a pedestal which I don't like, but Bioware still did in ME3 by making Earth seem like it was more important than the rest of the galaxy. There's a difference between lending Shepard alien forces to aid his people's homeworld and buying time for the Crucible to "hopefully" end the Reapers everywhere else as there is to not caring about the other races and focusing on freeing Earth while Thessia, Palaven and etc. burns, and from time to time Shepard and Co. talked about it as if the plot was "retake Earth", not to mention that nobody knew the Catalyst was gonna be found at Earth before very near the end of the story, so the idea that everyone should gather to focus on Earth was nonsensical to me throughout more than the first half of the game.
The "humanity first" propaganda was effing huge in ME3.
An entire mission was centered around minogen X3 as an environmental hazard as well. The only thing I ever saw in the whole dark energy thing was an excuse to provide an environmental hazard.
Difference is, minagen X3 isn't some mysterious phenomenon that baffles characters in the game. We find out what it is rather quickly and it's pretty much dealt with. A simple environmental hazard can be just about anything that's never really needs to be mentioned once the mission is over, but that's not how the dark energy thing was treated. It was pretty obvious to me that whatever the dark energy thing was, it was simply abandoned and the trilogy looked terribly disorganized as a result.
While I don't like the direction it was apparently going to go in, it would've been better had it not been there at all. Bringing up mysterious ominous crap and then scrapping it halfway through is not what I consider to be a good way to write a storyline that spans over three games.
I'll just have to chime in here.
Shepard dying was certainly a factor that contributed to my feelings towards ME3's ending. I did, after all, make my main Shepard come back in a fan fiction epilogue.
However, thinking back to my response towards the original ending, it wasn't the main factor. The main factor was that the original ending invoked a dark age (not wholesale destruction as some critics claimed, but a dark age of civilization), and thus my character's death failed to achieve what I had set out to do: saving my civilization. Not some nebulous future civilization or "all souls that ever existed" (Javik) nor something even more fundamental like "organic life", but my civilization. As one review put it, the good outcome was removed from anything tangible and relegated to "the realm of far-flung statistics". Shepard died for nothing with which I felt connected.
Then came the EC and removed that particular problem, but compounded another one: the religious vibe around my preferred ending, which - to add insult to injury - made no sense whatsoever lore-wise, flew in the face of all SFnal rationalization and felt like invoked wilfully and artificially.
So yeah, Shepard dying was a raw deal, even suspecting the story was set to end that way early, but on its own it wasn't critical from my POV. The other elements were the critical ones, and Shepard's death compounded the problem.
I felt betrayed by ME3 three times. I could've dealt with one.
You're baffled by anything that doesn't involve cleaning BioWare's footwear with your tongue.This obsessive need for closure in games baffles me.
I'll just have to chime in here.
Shepard dying was certainly a factor that contributed to my feelings towards ME3's ending. I did, after all, make my main Shepard come back in a fan fiction epilogue.
However, thinking back to my response towards the original ending, it wasn't the main factor. The main factor was that the original ending invoked a dark age (not wholesale destruction as some critics claimed, but a dark age of civilization), and thus my character's death failed to achieve what I had set out to do: saving my civilization. Not some nebulous future civilization or "all souls that ever existed" (Javik) nor something even more fundamental like "organic life", but my civilization. As one review put it, the good outcome was removed from anything tangible and relegated to "the realm of far-flung statistics". Shepard died for nothing with which I felt connected.
Then came the EC and removed that particular problem, but compounded another one: the religious vibe around my preferred ending, which - to add insult to injury - made no sense whatsoever lore-wise, flew in the face of all SFnal rationalization and felt like invoked wilfully and artificially.
So yeah, Shepard dying was a raw deal, even suspecting the story was set to end that way early, but on its own it wasn't critical from my POV. The other elements were the critical ones, and Shepard's death compounded the problem.
I felt betrayed by ME3 three times. I could've dealt with one.
Good points.
What really killed the endings for me was the sense of making a deal with the devil. If the ending conditions were more satisfying, a faceless torso breath scene would be, while not exactly great, at least an acceptable reward for having a super-high EMS.
I mean, all we really needed was a longer conversation with The Catalyst to point out all his logical mistakes; give us a means to argue with him being the insane hitler-AI that he is. Give us a choice to at least come up with our own solution; let us ask why the Reapers can't just be turned off forever after explaining to him that there's no such thing as a synthetic singularity, or at least that any signs of one so far has resulted in peace and agreements like the Geth/Quarian war.
I like how they made Shepard a little bit more resistant in the EC, by making him say "That's besides the point" when the Catalyst mentions that Shepard has synthetic implants to argue that Synthesis is an appealing option, or stuff like the whole dialogue option "How is this not "war"!?" but it's like Bioware got indecisive here. We were given some of the logical dialogue choices we originally wish we had back in March 2012, but somehow we still can't go all the way. The only thing close to it is Refuse but that just makes Shepard do heroic monologue instead of directly counterarguing the Catalyst's logic.
Shepard should at least've been able to tell him that "even if there will be a singularity a billion years from now, it's not YOUR choice to make whether we live to see it or not". Arguably Destroy gives us this option, but it's at the cost of EDI and the Geth, when really there should've just been a perfect Destroy option that depended on your EMS (like really high EMS) that would be optimal. "But the problem would be that everyone would choose it". No. It wouldn't. Apparently some like Synthesis and Control. They want those scenarios to happen, not because they have the least casualties, but because they like the concepts, believe it or not. Let us, who don't believe in the future synthetic crisis completely destroy the Clean-up every 50k years cycle and let those who believe it take do the necessary solutions.
In what sense? Nobody else there but shep.For sure, I would have liked a longer debate with the Catalyst.
There is an interesting conundrum that comes with realized power (ie the Reapers and the Crucible), if you don't take control of it and use it, someone else will. That is also what our hero faced in the Decision Chamber.
If you look at the Reapers and the Crucible collectively as representative of the vast power of advanced technology suddenly available to us in the Decision Chamber, then if Shepard does not act, then the Catalyst will continue to use that power.In what sense? Nobody else there but shep.
If you look at the Reapers and the Crucible collectively as representative of the vast power of advanced technology suddenly available to us in the Decision Chamber, then if Shepard does not act, then the Catalyst will continue to use that power.
Oh okay, I see where you're coming from. I just didn't get it. 
I was thinking, 'wait, no one else is going to, or can, use the crucible.'
You can use it and disagreethe Catalyst (IMO that's what Destroy does) but you can't actually say so directly to the Catalyst. That's a big problem for me.For sure, I would have liked a longer debate with the Catalyst.
There is an interesting conundrum that comes with realized power (ie the Reapers and the Crucible), if you don't take control of it and use it, someone else will. That is also what our hero faced in the Decision Chamber.
When I first played the trilogy, I didn't take part in this forum and I wasn't aware of the whole scrapped dark energy plot for ME3. I'm kind of a stickler for dialogue and side plots and consider anything that comes up frequently enough to be fairly important. The dark energy problem was the only significant issue in the entire game outside of the immediate threat of the Collectors. I mean, maybe it's just me, but I would consider a star dying billions of years before its time to be extremely important.
When I got to ME3, I thought about the dark energy problem, but it became obvious that the trilogy had sharply veered off that course, and the dark energy thing was reduced to some random, forgettable spacial anomaly like something out of Star Trek Voyager. If it was just mentioned in passing conversation, that'd be one thing, but an entire mission was framed around this phenomenon.
I have a feeling that the Warden's disappearance is going to be resolved in DA:I as well, since DA2 implied that the disappearance of Hawke was linked to that of the Warden. And we know Hawke returns. I think with the Warden they're just opting to have him or her return off screen. Maybe through one or more of those war table missions.
I have a feeling that the Warden's disappearance is going to be resolved in DA:I as well, since DA2 implied that the disappearance of Hawke was linked to that of the Warden. And we know Hawke returns. I think with the Warden they're just opting to have him or her return off screen. Maybe through one or more of those war table missions.
I wouldn't be surprised if Leliana sheds some light on what happened to the Warden especially if she romanced him/her.
I wouldn't be surprised if Leliana sheds some light on what happened to the Warden especially if she romanced him/her.
I hope so, but given the number of different possible warden/outcome combinations available, it's gonna have to be a pretty generic statement.
I mean, all we really needed was a longer conversation with The Catalyst to point out all his logical mistakes; give us a means to argue with him being the insane hitler-AI that he is. Give us a choice to at least come up with our own solution; let us ask why the Reapers can't just be turned off forever after explaining to him that there's no such thing as a synthetic singularity, or at least that any signs of one so far has resulted in peace and agreements like the Geth/Quarian war.
I like how they made Shepard a little bit more resistant in the EC, by making him say "That's besides the point" when the Catalyst mentions that Shepard has synthetic implants to argue that Synthesis is an appealing option, or stuff like the whole dialogue option "How is this not "war"!?" but it's like Bioware got indecisive here. We were given some of the logical dialogue choices we originally wish we had back in March 2012, but somehow we still can't go all the way. The only thing close to it is Refuse but that just makes Shepard do heroic monologue instead of directly counterarguing the Catalyst's logic.
Shepard should at least've been able to tell him that "even if there will be a singularity a billion years from now, it's not YOUR choice to make whether we live to see it or not". Arguably Destroy gives us this option, but it's at the cost of EDI and the Geth, when really there should've just been a perfect Destroy option that depended on your EMS (like really high EMS) that would be optimal. "But the problem would be that everyone would choose it". No. It wouldn't. Apparently some like Synthesis and Control. They want those scenarios to happen, not because they have the least casualties, but because they like the concepts, believe it or not. Let us, who don't believe in the future synthetic crisis completely destroy the Clean-up every 50k years cycle and let those who believe it take do the necessary solutions.
Pretty much exactly this, even in the extended cut what the catalyst said was complete nonsense and a more in depth description of just what the crucible was and why it could do the things it did other than "it's a power source" and "I can't explain who created it because reasons." Honestly the OP link to the PAX panels just shows to me how stubborn and unwilling they are to admit that they could have possibly at any point made an unsatisfactory conclusion to the series.
I personally feel like simplifying it down to "synthetics to organics" as they did was a silly and unsatisfying way to end all of it, without even mentioning the exceptions, hell the examples of Synthetics attacking organics is when they were subjugated by the Reapers.
The entire ending needed less "artistic vision" and more content, clarity and closure.
Retour en haut