825 réponses à ce sujet

[Drone223]

Drone- The crucible was a fine plot device. The starchild was not. Any writer worth their salt will tell you bringing in a Godlike being at the end to "fix" everything and explain everything is poor writing. The story was fine but goes off the rails once you get the message the crucible is not firing and the elevator takes you up.

 

Did you even read my comment I said while the ending doesn't have the best, Bioware have been very clear that they are sticking with their guns and that its not changing anytime soon.

[Tython]

Yes Drone I did read it. What part of my comment about bad writing makes you think I didn't read it?

 

"Bioware wanted the crucible to be the only way to defeat the reapers and refusing to use it was going to end in defeat that was never going to change. I'm not saying the writing in the endings is stellar but I'm saying the writer's intent was never going to change."

 

But the ending did change with the extended cut. Refuse is different than the other three. Anyway, I'm not sure you get what I'm saying. Either way I think we can both agree, as you said in your post, the writing is not stellar. The ending is sadly not changing which is a permanent black mark against Bioware and the Mass Effect franchise.

[Han Shot First]

The Extended Cut also changed the original endings, or at least the High EMS versions of them. Bioware claimed it merely clarified their original intent, but that was face saving PR after a lot of the gaming journos had come out swinging at fans and throwing around words like 'entitled' and 'artistic integrity.' Bioware knew it had to do something to douse the nuclear fire it was getting from it's fanbase, without also drawing a target on itself from the gaming press which had come out in support of Bioware not changing the endings. So it introduced a free DLC that introduced some minor changes while releasing official statements denying it had actually changed anything.

[TMA LIVE]

The Extended Cut also changed the original endings, or at least the High EMS versions of them. Bioware claimed it merely clarified their original intent, but that was face saving PR after a lot of the gaming journos had come out swinging at fans and throwing around words like 'entitled' and 'artistic integrity.' Bioware knew it had to do something to douse the nuclear fire it was getting from it's fanbase, without also drawing a target on itself from the gaming press which had come out in support of Bioware not changing the endings. So it introduced a free DLC that introduced some minor changes while releasing official statements denying it had actually changed anything.

 

Yeah, that was the main issue. The press and gaming developers thought it would bring a bad example if Bioware changed the ending, because it would put pressure on other developers to do the same. Which put pressure on them to not really change much, and more of add to it.

 

My stance on it was, if Bioware, Casey, Mac, and the rest of the writers "want" to make a better ending as well, then why should anything stop them? We get Director's Cuts and Extended Cuts all the time for movies. Why should games be different? They only shouldn't if they don't want to. And they shouldn't be forced to, because fans didn't like it.

[Han Shot First]

Yeah, that was the main issue. The press and gaming developers thought it would bring a bad example if Bioware changed the ending, because it would put pressure on other developers to do the same. Which put pressure on them to not really change much, and more of add to it.

 

My stance on it was, if Bioware, Casey, Mac, and the rest of the writers "want" to make a better ending as well, then why should anything stop them? We get Director's Cuts and Extended Cuts all the time for movies. Why should games be different? They only shouldn't if they don't want to. And they shouldn't be forced to, because fans didn't like it.

 

Films have also occasionally been given new endings after the original was given poor reviews by a focus group. One example of that is the film Ronin.

 

In the ending that shipped...

Spoiler

Rober De Niro's character Sam, a CIA agent, and Vincent (a former French spy played by Jean Reno) chat in a Parisian cafe. While in the cafe they hear news of peace between Sinn Fein and the British government, which was enabled by the events of the film in which the main characters derailed a plot by a more fanatical and breakaway cell of the IRA. They are waiting for Deidre (played by Natasha McElhone) who had been a member of that IRA cell, and during the course of the events of the film had been turned against her boss (the main antagonist) and become a love interest of sorts for Sam. She never shows however, and Sam & Jean Reno's character have a brief exchange about how that's to be expected in the line of work they are in. Of course she didn't show.

 

But the original ending, and the one that didn't go over well with the focus group...was much darker. In the original ending this same exhange occurs between Sam and Vincent, but we get an additional glimpse of Deidre actually making her way to the cafe. On the way there however she is abducted and thrown into a van by masked gunmen, implying that she never shows at the cafe because she was murdered in retaliation by some members of the IRA.

 

Although I have to say I thought the original ending was much better, and disagree with that focus group. With that film I wish they had kept the original ending.

[The Arbiter]

The Extended Cut also changed the original endings, or at least the High EMS versions of them. Bioware claimed it merely clarified their original intent, but that was face saving PR after a lot of the gaming journos had come out swinging at fans and throwing around words like 'entitled' and 'artistic integrity.' Bioware knew it had to do something to douse the nuclear fire it was getting from it's fanbase, without also drawing a target on itself from the gaming press which had come out in support of Bioware not changing the endings. So it introduced a free DLC that introduced some minor changes while releasing official statements denying it had actually changed anything.

"So it introduced a free DLC that introduced some minor changes while releasing official statements denying it had actually changed anything." hahahaaha this made me laugh so hard xD

[themikefest]

The one good thing I can say about the extended cut is it fixed the flashbacks. Of course it provided one of the funniest scenes in the trilogy.

[Iakus]

Yeah, that was the main issue. The press and gaming developers thought it would bring a bad example if Bioware changed the ending, because it would put pressure on other developers to do the same. Which put pressure on them to not really change much, and more of add to it.

 

 

Well it's not like it hasn't happened before

[The Arbiter]

Well it's not like it hasn't happened before

Hahahah EPIC

[ForgottenWarrior]

Dev statements heavily imply that this won't be a direct sequel. Besides not referring to the next game as Mass Effect 4, one former Bioware employee even griped about fans being wrong for using it. And in the time that has passed since this game was first announced, Bioware has repeatedly stated that Shepard's story is over and the next game won't be tied to the previous trilogy or to prior saves. All the signs are pointing to the next game being anything but a direct sequel.

Spin-off? Yeah, that's the solution. But let's be honest - who is interesting in spin-offs? Timeline continuation is the most profitable direction for next ME games. And we all know what this words mean for BW and players.

Well, basically it will be a spin-off (by the fact that there will be almost no connection to events of past games) but take place in a future. A distant future, in that case.

[The Arbiter]

Spin-off? Yeah, that's the solution. But let's be honest - who is interesting in spin-offs? Timeline continuation is the most profitable direction for next ME games. And we all know what this words mean for BW and players.

Well, basically it will be a spin-off (by the fact that there will be almost no connection to events of past games) but take place in a future. A distant future, in that case.

Bioware from one of the reports stated clearly that they don't want anyone to brand it as a spinoff. What I'm looking at or guessing is that they are going to restart or reboot the franchise or the milkyway (even if many people tells me that it won't go down that way I can not rule out the possibility)

[von uber]

Realistically destroy is the only viable end state.
Both of the other endings still have the reapers hanging around (and in synthesis you actually would have husks, cannibals etc as a 'race').

Having nigh on invincible spaceships that can defeat anything still cruising the galaxy renders any threat pointless, especially from the point of view of a foot soldier.

And no, control shep doesn't send them into a sun.

[von uber]

Realistically destroy is the only viable end state.
Both of the other endings still have the reapers hanging around (and in synthesis you actually would have husks, cannibals etc as a 'race').

Having nigh on invincible spaceships that can defeat anything still cruising the galaxy renders any threat pointless, especially from the point of view of a foot soldier.

And no, control shep doesn't send them into a sun.

[Han Shot First]

Yeah the morality of letting Reapers live is complicated. There is absolutely no proof, at least not 100% that in some time they won't start doing the same thing again. And after such a war full of atrocities how do you even let reapers go without consequences, after all apart from Shepard no one really knows that they were controlled. You can't really put them on trial either for all those millions turned into various types of husks. 

What do you do with a 2km mass murderer which itself was constructed from millions of people and who suddenly says that it is good and cuddly and is going to help you rebuild? One thing for sure is that you don't let them roam free in your population centres just because they say they are good. 

 

Another element that makes Control & Synthesis problematic is that the Reapers are all made partially from indoctrinated slaves. The Control & Synthesis endings perpetuate that slavery.

 

 

 

Both of the other endings still have the reapers hanging around (and in synthesis you actually would have husks, cannibals etc as a 'race').

 

Synthesis also leaves the original Catalyst in place and in command of the Reaper fleet. It gets a pass on the countless extinction cycles it caused and from the billions of people it killed from your own civilization, and is allowed to continue determining the galaxy's fate.

 

It still boggles the mind why the lead writers intended that to be the 'ideal' ending. It is by far the most disturbing ending of the three.

[TMA LIVE]

Synthesis also leaves the original Catalyst in place and in command of the Reaper fleet. It gets a pass on the countless extinction cycles it caused and from the billions of people it killed from your own civilization, and is allowed to continue determining the galaxy's fate.

 

It still boggles the mind why the lead writers intended that to be the 'ideal' ending. It is by far the most disturbing ending of the three.

 

Because Casey really liked Deux Ex. Even went as far as making Shepard a cyborg in ME2, though never took advantage of it. He liked Human Revolution so much, he even took the ending from it. Which sucks, because I hated that ending. I wanted an ending where I just walk out of the building, and let whatever happens happens. Instead, I either alter the truth for a certain faction, or blow everyone up??? Where's my Extended Cut for that game.

[katamuro]

Yeah I am amazed that they even considered making the reaper troops stay alive, after all if they have been freed and/or converted to whatever the rest of the galaxy is then do they get their mind back? Do they get new personalities? What about the billions killed by reapers and turned into the huskified versions? You cannot wave a magic stick and think it will be ok, that everyone would understand. 

 

Unless of course synthesis really is huskification to some extent and indoctrination of the whole galaxy. With the Reaper AI still in control. That at least makes sense why everyone is making nice with everyone else in synthesis, after all apart from shepard no one met Starbrat so no one knows why the cycles exist. And it makes sense, synthesis is the final Reaper solution to the problem, when everyone is indoctrinated and the galaxy is under control of the Starbrat with Reaper help then no more cycles. 

[Han Shot First]

Because Casey really liked Deux Ex. Even went as far as making Shepard a cyborg in ME2, though never took advantage of it. He liked Human Revolution so much, he even took the ending from it. Which sucks, because I hated that ending. I wanted an ending where I just walk out of the building, and let whatever happens happens. Instead, I either alter the truth for a certain faction, or blow everyone up??? Where's my Extended Cut for that game.

 

I actually liked the endings for Deus Ex. I thought they fit that universe, and transhumanism was more intelligently handled and with much less space magic. In fact while I hated Synthesis (it's easily my least favorite of ME3's 'win' endings), the Sarif ending was my favorite for Deus Ex. The Sarif ending is basically the synthesis ending for that game, it's just handled so much better.

 

Of course the Sarif ending also doesn't require the protagonist settling for a stalemate in the war they are fighting or making peace with a mass-murdering A.I. responsible for snuffing out countless civilizations.

[TMA LIVE]

I actually liked the endings for Deus Ex. I thought they fit that universe, and transhumanism was more intelligently handled and with much less space magic. In fact while I hated Synthesis (it's easily my least favorite of ME3's 'win' endings), the Sarif ending was my favorite for Deus Ex. The Sarif ending is basically the synthesis ending for that game, it's just handled so much better.

 I'm more of taking about Human Revolution. Did you play that one?

[themikefest]

I make it easy for my Shepard. Pick destroy with no side effects, Reapers destroyed. I can wake up knowing I can have a future without having the reapers around.

[Han Shot First]

 I'm more of taking about Human Revolution. Did you play that one?

 

That was the one I was talking about actually. The Sarif ending is the one where you side with David Sarif, Jensen's boss. It results in a future where humanity and technology are merging, but it doesn't occur through space magic. 

[rapscallioness]

But see the thing is, just because you may choose something--that is no guarantee that it's gonna work out. Your choice does not necessarily equate with the actual outcome. Choice is an intent. A path. But, you know, sometimes things don't turn out the way you envisioned, if at all.

 

I don't think it would trivialize the choices so much as acknowledge that there may be other factors that impact your initial choice.

 

That said, I'd be happy with a Destroy canon. Some time in the future in a more rough and tumble day to day existence within the MEU.

 

I'm really not interested in a side-quel. Though I think sometimes that's what they may do. I don't wanna be James Vega. Worrying about Collector intel while Shep is out taking down the whole Collector world. Meh.

 

And a prequel...idk. I just don't know.

 

We'll see. Lol! I'm very interested to see what they come up with.

[TMA LIVE]

That was the one I was talking about actually. The Sarif ending is the one where you side with David Sarif, Jensen's boss. It results in a future where humanity and technology are merging, but it doesn't occur through space magic. 

 

Yeah, I hated it because it involved lying to the public to make that ending happen.

 

Let me put it this way. You can give me a realistic explanation or give me an illogical one. I really care less about that. I'll ****** about it later, sure, but I care more about if I like the "option". When given the choice of "Do I watching my family get murdered in front of me by a terrorist, or turn around, and pretend it didn't happen", I don't care much about "Is it realistic that I can even see it, since I'm in a location where there's no internet and Cell blockage, and clearly it's being broadcast on a stream". I care more about "Why can't I just give into the terrorists demands, so they don't kill my family?". The realism matters less to me compared to the outcomes I have control over.

 

My character would've just wanted to walk out, and let whatever future happen, happen. Not lie about the truth. Or bury it. So when it comes to Human Revolution, I have no official ending.

[Han Shot First]

 

That said, I'd be happy with a Destroy canon. Some time in the future in a more rough and tumble day to day existence within the MEU.

 

 

If Bioware went with a sole ending sequel at some point, I'd hope it would be Destroy. First because I think it is the best of the ending choices and the one with the most potential for a sequel to be built from it, and secondly because it's my own personal canon ending. I know that second one is selfish, but if I'm going to be honest about the reasons for hoping Destroy was chosen that would definitely be one of the major ones. It also appears to be the fan favorite ending, and the least likely to provoke a rehash of the ME3 ending controversy.

 

Having said that if Bioware ever goes a sole ending route for a sequel, regardless of whether or not Destroy is chosen, I think the way to go about it would be to keep all three of the main ending choices canon. The sequel would just explore the timeline that was created by one of those choices, but the other two would still be canon if chosen. Basically you'd have three potentially canon universe states, but the sequel only follows one path. It's not perfect, but no sequel following on the heels of Mass Effect 3 is going to be.

[rapscallioness]

It is selfish of me, too. I know. But I also think Destroy would set up the most interesting galaxy state. Although, Synthesis could set up a kind of cyberpunk galaxy state I wouldn't balk at. Well, they could all be interesting actually. I could see Control turning into some kind of Big Brother thing.

 

I would love for them to have three potential canons to choose from--if I understand you correctly.  I just don't know if they can do that.

 

Or, hell. We could end up in some type of wormhole. Rubber banding back and forth through alternate universes and experiencing snippets of all the potential outcomes through various missions. Missions that involve going to a Synthetic reality; or a Destroy reality to retrieve some...artifact to set something straight...for whatever reason.

 

haha. but I'm just saying...

[TMA LIVE]

If we ever get a Mass Effect that takes place post ME3, I think either it'll be a hundred years into the future, where everyone beside EDI and Liara are dead. So if Shepard lived or not doesn't matter. They'll either pick the Destroy Ending as the canon for the new series, similar to Infamous Second Son or Legacy of Kain, or ME3's intro, where Shepard dying in ME2 is non-canon in that timeline. Or they'll merge that canons, where we'll become more synthetic in the future, and Reapers are servants of the galaxy, making whatever ending you pick get us to the same direction.