825 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

I'm not assuming it's the best outcome. I'm assuming it's the best outcome to the Reapers, because that's literally what the Catalyst says. "It's the ideal solution".

Hmm. Ok, but if that's what you meant by the best outcome then "(a)nd yet with the ending, the best outcome is what the Reapers what. Not what you want." is a bit silly. Yeah, the Reapers want what the Reapers want, not necessarily what Shepard wants. What were you getting at there?
 

What I am assuming is that it can be not the best could for Shepard. Or certain Shepards. For Shepard who charms, he'd find a way out. Instead of picking between Tali being exiled, or her father being disgraced, he'd find the option where neither would need to be done. And the ending doesn't reflect that. I do think it should, if given the right amount of points.

  

The first sentence is gibberish, but I think I get your drift. My response still stands. I don't think the PC should always have a way out. Even if he really wants one. Especially if he really wants one.

[Heimdall]

I guess you could do the Invisible War situation after Ark. You make a new trilogy about the characters stranded in the new galaxy, and how they deal with being there. Decades later, they find a way back, and when they do, the Milky Way is so different, any ending besides refused could've happened.

I don't think they should revisit the Milky Way. We've had our chance to define the fate of that Galaxy.

[Iakus]

Sadly, that was EA's practice. Or at least until after ME3, and being voted worst company of the year. And with Extended Cut being free, they learned a practice like that will cost them more money. But then again, you get Dragon Age 3, which despite having an conventional ending, it still feels like an after thought. And we're still buying a buggy, unfinished product. So yeah, we're still screwed there. I mean, I know you liked the ending because everything is happy and dandy, but for me, I felt like I bought "half" a game for the price of a full game.

 

I think just adding another choice besides refuse would've been the best approach. As long as the original endings were still valid options for people, and remained in the game, then the fans of those endings could be happy. And for those who wanted to "beat" the Reapers, and not be forced to pick their choices, they'd get an ending they felt they worked for. Maybe not make them completely happy, since the main endings would still have valid points and benefits, but they'd at least pick what was right for them.

 

There's a quote I read from Mac Walters a while ago, which I feel fits the situation about the ending. He said something along the lines of "Some players would tell me, "Yeah, it was sad, but it felt right for my Shepard", But because there was no other choice, it was going to be right for some people, and for others, in the middle, it wouldn't feel right for their Shepard". He was more of talking about Shepard dying. But I think the same applies to choices. For me, the ending was right for me in Extended Cut mode. For you, it wasn't. And ME3 had many choices where you can make the impossible possible by charming. You rarely were put in a situation where you had no way out, and had to pick a side. You instead could create the best outcome for both the Krogan and the Quarians/Geth if you worked hard enough, and charmed everyone. And yet with the ending, the best outcome is what the Reapers what. Not what you want. Like the dialogue wheel the choice chamber reflected, the other side should've reflected Charm and Intimidate, to create the best outcome for "Shepard".

Oh I agree that DAI has it's share of problems.  Especially for PC players.  And yeah the ending was pretty "safe" I wouldn't say  I loved it exactly.  But it was satisfactory.  Which after ME3 I find to be a win. 

 

ANd like I said, I have no problem with people liking the endings we were given.  But if Bioware was serious about the whole "these are your Shepards" and "your choices shape the story" then they should have had a wider variety of outcomes than those three with varying levels of breakage.  

 

Yeah I'm well aware of that quote.  It's from the same article where he compares Shepard to Walter White, an antihero from a tv show where the audience has zero agency, and who was dying of cancer since the first episode so of course he's gonna die.   

[Han Shot First]

All you have to know abut any prequel comics is:

 

Cerberus did it.

 

Also the books.

 

Cerberus stealing the Reapers' limelight was even bigger problem in the books and comics than it was in Mass Effect 3. I think of all them the Reapers are the focus of exactly one. (the prequel book about Saren & Anderson)

 

The rest are the All Cerberus Show, all the time.

 

On that note I hope we don't even hear the word Cerberus once in the next game. 

[Mcfly616]

Wasn't this Saren's ultimate goal?

 Quite possibly...

 

 

 

 

 

And?

[The Arbiter]

 Quite possibly...

 

 

 

 

 

And?

wouldn't that make us indoctrinated? and counter-productive?

[SwobyJ]

Wasn't this Saren's ultimate goal?

 

To be exact, Saren's goal shifted as he changed his mind/was Indoctrinated more/Sovereign's plan advanced.

 

In order:

1)Find a way to stop, fight, resist the Reapers, and go along with Sovereign for now. (I think this was his plan at first?)

2)Go along with Sovereign as an ally, to let the Reapers in, but put chips in various research (and maybe other connections, but that's just theory) in order to find a way to at least counter the Reapers, or at least the Indoctrination occurring.

3)Reapers appear irrefutable. So Saren submits to Sovereign, still considering himself an ally. He believes by this point that the Reapers can only improve organics, but only if organics submit to the Reapers. On the Reaper's terms.

4)The Reapers must arrive. Saren openly submits to Sovereign, as a servant. He claims that Sovereign is impressed by Shepard, and that the merging of synthetics and organics is the future, and that we'll be reborn through joining Sovereign.

 

So what's the difference? Well, as presented by the ME3 ending:

-The Reapers' Catalyst presents the choice, but we can pick anything else. We always have other choices clearly available to us.

-Merging between organics and synthetics are done at a level that we've never seen the Reapers capable of before

-As far as it appears, Synthesis is not on the Reapers' terms and power, but ours. And it ends up seemingly putting everyone on a generally equal power level, instead of submission to the Reapers.

 

 

Saren was trying to set up a situation where organics were 'spared', but only to be implanted/changed/experimented/etc by the Reapers as they see fit, and the Collectors are introduced in ME2 as a consequence of that. So even if we are very trans/posthumanist with our scifi sensibilities, we have to know that submission to the Reapers is just not a heroic thing.

 

But apparently building a giant weapon that can be turned into a tool that can seemingly override any Reaper control and make the Reapers feel connected to organics at an innate level, including encouraging 'humanity' in them? Hmmm.

 

That doesn't sound like the same thing as "Yeah we have to do what the Reapers say about everything because they're gonna kill us all otherwise dawg." In the Decision Chamber, we don't even face that latter part. We always have Control and/or Destroy available, and they have to do more with a larger 'synthetic/organic problem solution' (as explained by Catalyst) than 'you'll all die if you don't do exactly as we want'.

 

 

But I'll admit that Synthesis is closest to what Saren wanted by the end of his Indoctrination journey, and it does carry the most related risks. For all we know, we did Reaperfy everyone in Synthesis, and that can be considered a total Lose ending, in that sense. Even if that Reaperfied form looks very different than all especially ME1-ME2 examples, and we were presented with a clear choice instead of convinced that there was only one choice.

 

 

 

There may even be a difference made between the 'Catalyst/Intelligence' and 'The Reapers'. The Reapers would appear to still want the Cycle To Continue. They may or may not be actually aware of the Catalyst themselves. So if anything, they may only 'want' Refuse. But the Catalyst is the Collective Intelligence, being made of and calculating the intelligence of all of the Reapers, and that combined with being in the Citadel while combining with the Crucible = deciding that Synthesis (if available) is the way to go.

 

So what are we submitting to, in that case? Before this stuff of ME3 ending, 'submitting' was only understood as:

1)Just waiting to die, instead of DOING something

2)Turning right into Reaper tech without alternatives/differences, considering it the only way of evolution, without care for being controlled by it

 

The Crucible technology would appear at least to go against this.

1)Using it DOES something AGAINST the Reapers

2)It INVOLVES Reaper tech, but acts as separate technology, in accordance to resistance against the Reapers

 

Control and Synthesis may be really skirting the line between helping/hurting the Reapers, but that's why we have those Paragon replies since ME2 (maybe ME1), where Shepard says they'll 'stop' the Reapers, not 'kill/destroy' them. A Paragon may aspire to achieve great success at the supposed impossible, and both a Paragon and Renegade may take a turn towards attempting a miracle (even a Renegade could pick Synthesis easily because it 'kills' the Reapers into something else, just as they may see it as 'killing' organics to make them something else).

 

Anyway, my main point is that Saren positioned himself as a slave, while Shepard seemingly positioned himself as ALWAYS the opponent, or even superior to the Reapers (at least in the moment of the final choice). 

Could he be tricked about this and wrong and Indoctrinated and blah blah? Okay, maybe, yeah. But it would still have been through the framing that Shepard was FIGHTING the Reapers (even in Synthesis, even if its at more of the ideological level), not actively working FOR them. Even if Indoctrination Theory is real, imo, for example --- I like to think that even Synthesis would produce something that would reflect that Shepard kept enough of himself alive, continuing, someplace/where/who. Because even Synthesis was not submission. Merging isn't submission. But it is assimilation, so I still have concerns .

[The Arbiter]

To be exact, Saren's goal shifted as he changed his mind/was Indoctrinated more/Sovereign's plan advanced.

 

In order:

1)Find a way to stop, fight, resist the Reapers, and go along with Sovereign for now. (I think this was his plan at first?)

2)Go along with Sovereign as an ally, to let the Reapers in, but put chips in various research (and maybe other connections, but that's just theory) in order to find a way to at least counter the Reapers, or at least the Indoctrination occurring.

3)Reapers appear irrefutable. So Saren submits to Sovereign, still considering himself an ally. He believes by this point that the Reapers can only improve organics, but only if organics submit to the Reapers. On the Reaper's terms.

4)The Reapers must arrive. Saren openly submits to Sovereign, as a servant. He claims that Sovereign is impressed by Shepard, and that the merging of synthetics and organics is the future, and that we'll be reborn through joining Sovereign.

 

So what's the difference? Well, as presented by the ME3 ending:

-The Reapers' Catalyst presents the choice, but we can pick anything else. We always have other choices clearly available to us.

-Merging between organics and synthetics are done at a level that we've never seen the Reapers capable of before

-As far as it appears, Synthesis is not on the Reapers' terms and power, but ours. And it ends up seemingly putting everyone on a generally equal power level, instead of submission to the Reapers.

 

 

Saren was trying to set up a situation where organics were 'spared', but only to be implanted/changed/experimented/etc by the Reapers as they see fit, and the Collectors are introduced in ME2 as a consequence of that. So even if we are very trans/posthumanist with our scifi sensibilities, we have to know that submission to the Reapers is just not a heroic thing.

 

But apparently building a giant weapon that can be turned into a tool that can seemingly override any Reaper control and make the Reapers feel connected to organics at an innate level, including encouraging 'humanity' in them? Hmmm.

 

That doesn't sound like the same thing as "Yeah we have to do what the Reapers say about everything because they're gonna kill us all otherwise dawg." In the Decision Chamber, we don't even face that latter part. We always have Control and/or Destroy available, and they have to do more with a larger 'synthetic/organic problem solution' (as explained by Catalyst) than 'you'll all die if you don't do exactly as we want'.

 

 

But I'll admit that Synthesis is closest to what Saren wanted by the end of his Indoctrination journey, and it does carry the most related risks. For all we know, we did Reaperfy everyone in Synthesis, and that can be considered a total Lose ending, in that sense. Even if that Reaperfied form looks very different than all especially ME1-ME2 examples, and we were presented with a clear choice instead of convinced that there was only one choice.

 

 

 

There may even be a difference made between the 'Catalyst/Intelligence' and 'The Reapers'. The Reapers would appear to still want the Cycle To Continue. They may or may not be actually aware of the Catalyst themselves. So if anything, they may only 'want' Refuse. But the Catalyst is the Collective Intelligence, being made of and calculating the intelligence of all of the Reapers, and that combined with being in the Citadel while combining with the Crucible = deciding that Synthesis (if available) is the way to go.

 

So what are we submitting to, in that case? Before this stuff of ME3 ending, 'submitting' was only understood as:

1)Just waiting to die, instead of DOING something

2)Turning right into Reaper tech without alternatives/differences, considering it the only way of evolution, without care for being controlled by it

 

The Crucible technology would appear at least to go against this.

1)Using it DOES something AGAINST the Reapers

2)It INVOLVES Reaper tech, but acts as separate technology, in accordance to resistance against the Reapers

 

Control and Synthesis may be really skirting the line between helping/hurting the Reapers, but that's why we have those Paragon replies since ME2 (maybe ME1), where Shepard says they'll 'stop' the Reapers, not 'kill/destroy' them. A Paragon may aspire to achieve great success at the supposed impossible, and both a Paragon and Renegade may take a turn towards attempting a miracle (even a Renegade could pick Synthesis easily because it 'kills' the Reapers into something else, just as they may see it as 'killing' organics to make them something else).

 

Anyway, my main point is that Saren positioned himself as a slave, while Shepard seemingly positioned himself as ALWAYS the opponent, or even superior to the Reapers (at least in the moment of the final choice). 

Could he be tricked about this and wrong and Indoctrinated and blah blah? Okay, maybe, yeah. But it would still have been through the framing that Shepard was FIGHTING the Reapers (even in Synthesis, even if its at more of the ideological level), not actively working FOR them. Even if Indoctrination Theory is real, imo, for example --- I like to think that even Synthesis would produce something that would reflect that Shepard kept enough of himself alive, continuing, someplace/where/who. Because even Synthesis was not submission. Merging isn't submission. But it is assimilation, so I still have concerns .

impressive explanation... well I chose the easy way out... off button. I just finished ME3 and the trilogy a week ago... I remembered 3 years ago people where complaining about the ending. Yeah I did watch the original and it felt short... but the destroy felt REALLY REALLY satisfying for me to be honest... after all of the people dead I just watched in pure satisfaction on how those space squids turned into squid balls. But yeah... plot holes and inconsistencies... the only thing I am worried about now is if ME4 is a different ball game and the whole Milky Way galaxy gets restarted to day 0 to make way for a new lore or trilogy [I'm fine with that but yeah would miss old characters] or if they do decide a sequel... welp it would be too messy

[Mcfly616]

wouldn't that make us indoctrinated? and counter-productive?

 Not necessarily. It may suggest that the Reapers were onto something.

[Guanxii]

I don't mean to sound disrespectful but moving the series to another galaxy never sat right with me because it smells like cowardice and yet more lazy plot contrivance ontop of a train wreck. I don't want to see the series exiled to Andromeda because BioWare are too proud to admit they made a mistake and take responsibility for it for the sake of the franchise. Such a move wouldn't bolster the credibility of their 'artistic integrity' it would instead confirm that they had no earthly idea what they were doing or how to resolve it except in the cheapest most weazely non committal plot convenience way imaginable. Go team soft-reboot.

[Heimdall]

I don't mean to sound disrespectful but moving the series to another galaxy never sat right with me because it smells like cowardice and yet more lazy plot contrivance ontop of a train wreck. I don't want to see the series exiled to Andromeda because BioWare are too proud to admit they made a mistake and take responsibility for it for the sake of the franchise. Such a move wouldn't bolster the credibility of their 'artistic integrity' it would instead confirm that they had no earthly idea what they were doing or how to resolve it except in the cheapest most weazely non committal plot convenience way imaginable. Go team soft-reboot.

Cowardice? This is a mindset I really don't understand. Sticking to this Galaxy and doing a sequel isn't brave, it just creates a whole host of problems about player choice and continuity. It's pretty clear they planned to end the series with ME3 at first, that's the reason the endings don't support a sequel as they stand, not because they screwed up. If they do Ark theory, all they admit to is having written themselves into a corner, which they did.

You say Bioware is "too proud to admit they made a mistake and take responsibility for it for the sake of the franchise", but what the hell does that even mean? What would "taking responsibility" consist of and what would it change? Mistake or not, screaming it from the rooftops doesn't change the reality of their situation. They've still written themselves into a corner and they still need to find a way to move forward.

[The Arbiter]

Cowardice? This is a mindset I really don't understand. Sticking to this Galaxy and doing a sequel isn't brave, it just creates a whole host of problems about player choice and continuity. It's pretty clear they planned to end the series with ME3 at first, that's the reason the endings don't support a sequel as they stand, not because they screwed up. If they do Ark theory, all they admit to is having written themselves into a corner, which they did.

You say Bioware is "too proud to admit they made a mistake and take responsibility for it for the sake of the franchise", but what the hell does that even mean? What would "taking responsibility" consist of and what would it change? Mistake or not, screaming it from the rooftops doesn't change the reality of their situation. They've still written themselves into a corner and they still need to find a way to move forward.

I concur... if you analyze the trilogy

 

ME1 had a canon beginning and canon ending - Story of a commander, then Saren dies no matter what you do in between

 

ME2 had a canon beginning and ending - Saren dies and the collectors attacked! collectors defeated then the reapers attacked! no matter what you do in between

 

ME3 even had a canon beginning but NO CANON ENDING - The reapers attacked! but the outcome is unknown  BIG QUESTION MARK

 

it "seems" or highly plausible that Bioware would

 

1. Restart the Milky Way galaxy and expand to other galaxies for ME4

2. Take the Ark approach and make the Milky Way a big mystery reserved for ME6 or abandon it altogether

[Guanxii]

Cowardice? This is a mindset I really don't understand. Sticking to this Galaxy and doing a sequel isn't brave, it just creates a whole host of problems about player choice and continuity. It's pretty clear they planned to end the series with ME3 at first, that's the reason the endings don't support a sequel as they stand, not because they screwed up. If they do Ark theory, all they admit to is having written themselves into a corner, which they did.

You say Bioware is "too proud to admit they made a mistake and take responsibility for it for the sake of the franchise", but what the hell does that even mean? What would "taking responsibility" consist of and what would it change? Mistake or not, screaming it from the rooftops doesn't change the reality of their situation. They've still written themselves into a corner and they still need to find a way to move forward.

It's side stepping the issue and running away from the problems associated with the endings no matter how you look at it. Approach all of these issues head now on and actually resolve them or the franchise will be forever ruined by them...  doomed to wallow in me3's looming shadow in some irrelevant backwater of space.

[Heimdall]

It's side stepping the issue and running away from the problems associated with the endings no matter how you look at it. Approach all of these issues head now on and actually resolve them or the franchise will be forever ruined by them... doomed to wallow in me3's looming shadow in some irrelevant backwater of space.

There's that language again "running away" and "Approach all these issues head on". This isn't a question of nerve, bravery or honesty, this is about the very real practical obstacles in creating a Mass Effect sequel set after ME3, especially without a canon.

And on the contrary, if the next game spends all its time trying to apologize for ME3, then wallowing "in me3's looming shadow" is exactly what it will be doing. A clean cutting of ties is in order.

[CronoDragoon]

It's side stepping the issue and running away from the problems associated with the endings no matter how you look at it. Approach all of these issues head now on and actually resolve them or the franchise will be forever ruined by them...  doomed to wallow in me3's looming shadow in some irrelevant backwater of space.

 

Nobody will care about these issues if ME4 has a good story. That's the only thing they need to focus on.

 

If ME4 is completely unrelated to the ME3 galaxy but tells a good story with compelling characters then ME3 will be old news. The simplest solution to ME3's "looming shadow" is to make a good game, and everything else falls into place.

[Guanxii]

There's that language again "running away" and "Approach all these issues head on". This isn't a question of nerve, bravery or honesty, this is about the very real practical obstacles in creating a Mass Effect sequel set after ME3, especially without a canon.

And on the contrary, if the next game spends all its time trying to apologize for ME3, then wallowing "in me3's looming shadow" is exactly what it will be doing. A clean cutting of ties is in order.

 

Canon will be re-established one way or another. I continue to argue that a new canon is need to resolve the old and move the series forward in a practical way. What you're suggesting is not a practical or even reasonable response... sure you can ignore the state of our galaxy and move the entire series to Andromeda - but that's crazy talk and would leave the series ultimately worse off then just biting the bullet now and immediately reestablishing the galaxy and series as we know and love it.

[themikefest]

What happens if the next game doesn't have that good of a story or sell as well as past ME titles? What will Bioware do?

[Tonymac]

Maybe they will learn the lesson and not destroy the MEU and kill the main hero and throw them away like a stray dog.

[Heimdall]

Canon will be re-established one way or another. I continue to argue that a new canon is need to resolve the old and move the series forward in a practical way. What you're suggesting is not practical or even a reasonable response... sure you can ignore the state of our galaxy and move the entire series to Andromeda - but the series will ultimately suffer for it.

They've already said no canon for ME3, that effectively means a reboot or something like Ark Theory or homogenizing the ending outcomes (ick). If Ark Theory, then there's no reason to muck about with canons at all. I'm not a fan of a reboot, I don't consider it a step forward in the franchise, more like a step back and sideways. Considering the way such a reboot would have to be rewritten (excising the Reapers and redefining species relations to avoid retreading the same ground as the original) I don't think they should even bother using the Mass Effect name.

See, you aren't the first person to tell me that the series would suffer from shifting to a different Galaxy, and you are just like the rest in failing to elaborate how or why that would be the case. I'm beginning to think its just an emotional kneejerk reaction.

[The Arbiter]

guys guys no need to turn against each other! STAY FOCUS can't we all just get along?! because of that crap ending even the fanbase is divided

[CronoDragoon]

It's going to be some variant of Ark Theory. It's really the only thing that makes sense. Based on what Mac said in Final Hours the team was fully aware of the mess that the Suicide Mission caused for Mass Effect 3 in terms of implementing choices. The devs probably have an even greater desire for a clean slate than the fans. A reboot would nullify the original trilogy and just make people angry, and we know for a fact that it's not a prequel. A different galaxy is the only possibility left.

[Vazgen]

 

See, you aren't the first person to tell me that the series would suffer from shifting to a different Galaxy, and you are just like the rest in failing to elaborate how or why that would be the case. I'm beginning to think its just an emotional kneejerk reaction.

Having a sizeable population of trilogy races in a new galaxy is going to take quite some time. And after that much time, they might as well stick with the Milky Way and homogenize the choices. There is also no indication of technology that can allow intergalactic journeys in the trilogy. The only species with well-enough developed stasis technology were the Protheans and even their huge underground facilities experienced power shortages and death of the frozen Protheans. And we're not talking about some facilities in this case, it's a journey through dark space with no resources.

I would prefer to have an isolated location inside the Milky Way. Have some section of the galaxy unaffected by the Crucible and Reaper invasion and set the game there.

[Iakus]

It's going to be some variant of Ark Theory. It's really the only thing that makes sense. Based on what Mac said in Final Hours the team was fully aware of the mess that the Suicide Mission caused for Mass Effect 3 in terms of implementing choices. The devs probably have an even greater desire for a clean slate than the fans. A reboot would nullify the original trilogy and just make people angry, and we know for a fact that it's not a prequel. A different galaxy is the only possibility left.

Would a reboot cause all copies of the trilogy to erase themselves?

[SwobyJ]

impressive explanation... well I chose the easy way out... off button. I just finished ME3 and the trilogy a week ago... I remembered 3 years ago people where complaining about the ending. Yeah I did watch the original and it felt short... but the destroy felt REALLY REALLY satisfying for me to be honest... after all of the people dead I just watched in pure satisfaction on how those space squids turned into squid balls. But yeah... plot holes and inconsistencies... the only thing I am worried about now is if ME4 is a different ball game and the whole Milky Way galaxy gets restarted to day 0 to make way for a new lore or trilogy [I'm fine with that but yeah would miss old characters] or if they do decide a sequel... welp it would be too messy

 

I chose Synthesis the first time and Breath Destroy every time since (including the Continue+ of my Main Shepard). I've never chosen Synthesis since, or Control ever, though I may have alts who will.

 

Personally, I don't think Bioware will do a restart. They may do something that effectively in many ways is a restart, but it won't be a literal one.

[CronoDragoon]

Would a reboot cause all copies of the trilogy to erase themselves?

 

For continuity, yes.