831 réponses à ce sujet

[GalacticWolf5]

Stop with the canon endings. They already said they won't do that.

Now what I assume they'll do is: The Ark left some time before the Crucible was used. This way the people in Andromeda are not affected by any of the endings and we, the players, know what choice we made in the Milky Way.

They could even put a QEC in the Ark connected to the Milky Way and use this to recognize the choices made by the players.

Destroy: Have the person say that all Synthetics and Reapers are destroyed and that they rebuilt the damage from the War.

Paragon Control: The person says that Shepard is the new Reaper master cousciousness and that s/he has been a great help rebuilding the damages and protecting people.

Renegade Control: The person says that Shepard is the new Reaper master cousciousness and that s/he is ruling with an iron fist.

Synthesis: The person has green circuits and explain how Organics and Synthetics have changed and are at peace now.

Refuse: No communication at all. Or maybe don't even adress it, like Shepard's death in ME2.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Let's get into even more ridiculous things, like mass effect weapons in general. I think the old Soviet military would have been able to defend Earth better than the Systems Alliance because Mass Effect Universe weapons suck. Our modern weapons pack more firepower than those things. They were simply rule of cool weapons, nothing more.

 

QEC with the Milky Way? They still need mass relay type com buoys to communicate, thus a trail of bread crumbs for the reapers to follow, otherwise once they've been traveling for about a month they're outside of range and they'll find out in a few thousand years what choice Shepard made. We're not going to do that. Basically Our Old Choices Don't Matter in ME: Andromeda.  Well, they do matter, and that's why we ended up with ME: Andromeda in the first place.

[o Ventus]

I see this as kind of the same boat suckerpnch was in after inFamous 2. At the end of the game, the player makes a choice that can either kill him and save the normal people or endow him with godlike abilities to awaken powers in the minority. 

 

Another red or blue choice if you will. 

 

When they wanted to make Second Son, the next game in the series, they had a choice to make, which ending do we use? They decided the most fair way would be to look at the trophy data and use tally up which optioned was picked the most on the first playthrough. In this case, most people sacrificed themselves, so Cole stays dead and the world moves on. 

 

I don't know why Bioware wouldn't just do this.

[o Ventus]

Why is everybody saying that Destroy was the best ending?! It was the worst ending period!

[Twilight_Princess]

I think the thing people are most angry about isn't the fact that Bioware is sidestepping the terrible endings. They're angry because if Bioware hadn't messed up the endings of ME3 so badly and left the lore and universe in such a broken state, they wouldn't be forced to throw it all out and start over.

 

It's not the fact that they've moved on, it's the fact that it was the only option they had because they forced themselves into that position through their incompetent handling of the endings.

 

Had they not screwed up so badly, they could have moved on in a much more organic way, rather than the way they are now which feels like both a hail Mary and a copout.

 

The problem boils down to this: They didn't go to Andromeda because it was an exciting choice. They aren't going there because it makes sense or because it's the next logical step. They aren't going there because there was nothing left to explore in the Milky Way, physically or narratively. No, they went there because they broke the Milky Way as a setting so badly that they were screwed, so if they were going to continue the series, they HAD to move to a new galaxy. It's not organic. It feels forced and desperate, because that's exactly what it is. Grasping at straws and trying to make gold out of it. They didn't go there because it was an exciting choice, they went there because it was the ONLY choice.

 

If that doesn't encapsulate the scale of their blunder, nothing does.

 

 

Pretty much THIS. It's funny, if the decisions had just been destroy and control there might have been some wiggle room there to go back to that galaxy a few games down the road. But thanks to synthesis's existence that's never gonna happen.

[dragonflight288]

Why is everybody saying that Destroy was the best ending?! It was the worst ending period!

 

 

No it wasn't!

 

It was the best ending period, full stop, the end, full period...!

 

 

Those are bold statements. I suppose you an absolute and objective argument to back it up?

 

If not, then it's a subjective opinion, just like control and synthesis being "better" are also subjective.

 

What makes one ending "better" than another? What is "better" to begin with? Is the ending that makes most sense in a senseless ending better? The ending that offers the most resolution to the galaxy? The one that resolves all conflict through Big Brother Shepard?

 

What makes one ending ultimately and objective superior to the other two?

[Il Divo]

I think there's a certain degree of bias in favor of people who made the kill/destroy choices on these forums, really.

 

General feeling seems to be, X can die in the game. If they include X in any meaningful way, they either have to negate the choice of the people who chose to kill X, or spend time and resources on making Y to replace X in the playthroughs for people who killed X. It's easier to just not have X show up as people who killed X can say X is dead and people who spared X can say X is off screen, doing whatever it is that X does.

 

And while I accept that this is the easier option, that doesn't make it the better one. Because in a lot of ways it really negates the option ever being presented. If you're never going to have the geth show up again, then there was no point in giving us the option to actually keep them around. 

 

Of course, I've got just as much of a problem with the flip side of this coin where they give us the option to kill someone and have that someone *cough*Leliana*cough* - sorry, sore throat, I said Leliana - show up again anyway. If you're going to do that, then you shouldn't have made her killable to start with. 

 

This is essentially the argument against the import mechanic, which I've often been a proponent of. 

 

I'd argue the best we've seen it done is with ME3 and DA:I and both of those were still very far from ideal. If it's going to be done, people either have to be comfortable with shorter games, higher gaming prices to justify the plot divergences, less significant plot choices, or some other round about solution. 

[eyezonlyii]

This is essentially the argument against the import mechanic, which I've often been a proponent of. 

 

I'd argue the best we've seen it done is with ME3 and DA:I and both of those were still very far from ideal. If it's going to be done, people either have to be comfortable with shorter games, higher gaming prices to justify the plot divergences, less significant plot choices, or some other round about solution. 

I'm totally down with less significant plot choices. I what one person in history is on the "front lines" (our PC) making these huge choices? It's always the people at the very top of the ladder who make the big decisions. Just let me choose whether this or that settlement thrives, or this or that bandit is executed or works for me. 

[Il Divo]

I'm totally down with less significant plot choices. I what one person in history is on the "front lines" (our PC) making these huge choices? It's always the people at the very top of the ladder who make the big decisions. Just let me choose whether this or that settlement thrives, or this or that bandit is executed or works for me. 

 

I could get behind it too, provided they remain personal and interesting. As you say, quite a few times there are eye-rolling circumstances behind why our PC gets to make these epic decisions.

 

On the other hand, I look at one of DA2's major criticisms being that Hawke was largely powerless and the overall reception and can't help but wonder if Bioware is afraid to go that route again. 

[Arijharn]

But that seems like a fundamental structural problem. If your villains need to hold the idiot ball for the plot to work, maybe the plot needs work. 

 

I can't help but feel that Mass Effect became a jumbled mess because Drew moved on to other projects, and Mac Walters stepped in. Not that I have anything specific against Mac or anything, but the mish mash was evident enough to introduce the Catalyst, which essentially became a deus ex machina if you ask me. If the project had the same Lead Writer from start to finish, with perhaps a clear direction of over-arching goals for the series, then much of the controversy would have been avoided, especially if elements were gradually included... such as some sort of concept of the Catalyst having existed at least since ME2.

 

The Catalyst for example compares itself and the Reapers as fire, and for the life of me I still think that's a ridiculous to borderline idiotic comparison to make, but perhaps there's nuances that I've missed.

[Il Divo]

I can't help but feel that Mass Effect became a jumbled mess because Drew moved on to other projects, and Mac Walters stepped in. Not that I have anything specific against Mac or anything, but the mish mash was evident enough to introduce the Catalyst, which essentially became a deus ex machina if you ask me. If the project had the same Lead Writer from start to finish, with perhaps a clear direction of over-arching goals for the series, then much of the controversy would have been avoided, especially if elements were gradually included... such as some sort of concept of the Catalyst having existed at least since ME2.

 

The Catalyst for example compares itself and the Reapers as fire, and for the life of me I still think that's a ridiculous to borderline idiotic comparison to make, but perhaps there's nuances that I've missed.

 

Consistency definitely is helpful, but what we've had regarding Drew's Dark Energy theory (imo) doesn't really leave me with the impression that he had an epic plan for Mass Effect 3 that was inevitably cut. If I remember right, I think some fan asked him about the ME3 endings and he mentioned that (vaguely) they resembled something he had been planning. YMMV, though. 

[Former_Fiend]

This is essentially the argument against the import mechanic, which I've often been a proponent of. 

 

I'd argue the best we've seen it done is with ME3 and DA:I and both of those were still very far from ideal. If it's going to be done, people either have to be comfortable with shorter games, higher gaming prices to justify the plot divergences, less significant plot choices, or some other round about solution. 

 

Honestly I'd be up for paying a higher price for the game if they were willing to put the work in to create vastly different world states depending on the decisions of the player. If they're putting in the effort to essentially put three divergent worlds into one game, I think the replay value of that would justify a higher price.

 

Though I honestly think time is a factor as well. EA dictates a development cycle for them, so even if they'd be willing to put that effort into it - which I don't know if they are or aren't - they likely simply don't have the time to do it.

[In Exile]

Consistency definitely is helpful, but what we've had regarding Drew's Dark Energy theory (imo) doesn't really leave me with the impression that he had an epic plan for Mass Effect 3 that was inevitably cut. If I remember right, I think some fan asked him about the ME3 endings and he mentioned that (vaguely) they resembled something he had been planning. YMMV, though. 

Switching writers mid-stream more led to the weird tone-shift between ME1 and ME2. ME3 was pretty consistent with ME2 besides the insanity that was the ending. 

[dragonflight288]

Switching writers mid-stream more led to the weird tone-shift between ME1 and ME2. ME3 was pretty consistent with ME2 besides the insanity that was the ending. 

 

 

Well, this is kind of problematic since Dragon Age just lost David Gaider in favor of Weekes now that Inquisition is out. 

[Dr. Rush]

I don't know why Bioware wouldn't just do this.

 

Because Mass Effect is at least supposed to be a roleplaying game. The comparison between Mass Effect and the Infamous series is a relevant one though. Mass Effect is in danger of becoming what Infamous is; a story-driven action game with really shallow morality options. Be a comic book superhero or be a comic book super villain. That is essentially what the morality of the Paragon/Renegade systems amount to as well. They don't ask you to define the character you are roleplaying in a meaningful way, instead they ask you to put your character into a box, either the good guy archetype or the bad guy archetype. Its really shallow morality and it fails to facilitate meaningful roleplaying.

[In Exile]

Well, this is kind of problematic since Dragon Age just lost David Gaider in favor of Weekes now that Inquisition is out. 

 

There'll certainly be a tone shift. Didn't you notice it with Solas, or with how Into the Abyss, for example, was a very different kind of take on the setting (thematically) of the Fade? You see it with Cole, too. Weekes has a different take on spirits and the Fade. But DA is apparently better plotted out as a setting, so we likely won't get thematic gibberish unlike ME3.

[dragonflight288]

There'll certainly be a tone shift. Didn't you notice it with Solas, or with how Into the Abyss, for example, was a very different kind of take on the setting (thematically) of the Fade? You see it with Cole, too. Weekes has a different take on spirits and the Fade. But DA is apparently better plotted out as a setting, so we likely won't get thematic gibberish unlike ME3.

 

I took the new theme of the Fade as the Frostbite engine mixed with the fact that we're there physically. And even Hawke mentions it doesn't look like it did when he visited.

 

But yeah, good point. 

[Former_Fiend]

There'll certainly be a tone shift. Didn't you notice it with Solas, or with how Into the Abyss, for example, was a very different kind of take on the setting (thematically) of the Fade? You see it with Cole, too. Weekes has a different take on spirits and the Fade. But DA is apparently better plotted out as a setting, so we likely won't get thematic gibberish unlike ME3.

 

I also think it's less of a problem in Dragon Age as each game in that series is meant to, at least partly, stand on it's own. Each builds off the other but it's not one single plotline like the first ME trilogy was. So each game has it's own tone, and that becomes part of the charm of the franchise. 

[In Exile]

I took the new theme of the Fade as the Frostbite engine mixed with the fact that we're there physically. And even Hawke mentions it doesn't look like it did when he visited.

 

But yeah, good point. 

 

I meant more how now it seems that spirits are kind of playdough that can be molded into entities, which wasn't really how DG went with it. I think JOH's take on spirits/the Fade is what we'll see moving forward, and it's pretty different from the 7 Deadly Sins portrayal of DAO/DA2. 

 

I also think it's less of a problem in Dragon Age as each game in that series is meant to, at least partly, stand on it's own. Each builds off the other but it's not one single plotline like the first ME trilogy was. So each game has it's own tone, and that becomes part of the charm of the franchise. 

 

That's why I want ME to be standalone. Bioware hasn't shown any ability to do a continuous series because of how much they want to change after each iteration. 

[dragonflight288]

 

 

I meant more how now it seems that spirits are kind of playdough that can be molded into entities, which wasn't really how DG went with it. I think JOH's take on spirits/the Fade is what we'll see moving forward, and it's pretty different from the 7 Deadly Sins portrayal of DAO/DA2. 

 

Ah, that.

 

But you know the brilliant thing is? None of it contradicts the lore established by Gaider. Even as far back as Origins, we are pretty much told that the Fade reflects reality. It's a realm of dreams, and one's own will can set the terms of that realm. 

 

The demons and spirits were categorized, but for all we know, they were categorized because they were shaped that way because that's what the ancient tevinters expected, and that belief molded them, while also acknowledging they had their own wills as well, their own desires. 

 

Yeah, you make a good point about the thematic and tonal shift, but it is amazing that the shift doesn't actually break the established rules set by Gaider. 

 

But this is a mass effect thread, so I'm just going to say that the humans, krogan and asari went through an eluvian and ended up in Andromeda and call it good. lol. 

[AlanC9]

QEC with the Milky Way? They still need mass relay type com buoys to communicate, thus a trail of bread crumbs for the reapers to follow, otherwise once they've been traveling for about a month they're outside of range and they'll find out in a few thousand years what choice Shepard made. We're not going to do that. Basically Our Old Choices Don't Matter in ME: Andromeda.  Well, they do matter, and that's why we ended up with ME: Andromeda in the first place.

Err.. actually, QECs don't need comm buoys. But no way they're including one. They're going to duck our choices all the way.

[BabyPuncher]

That's why I want ME to be standalone. Bioware hasn't shown any ability to do a continuous series because of how much they want to change after each iteration. 

 

The ME team a very good job of carrying some things through the series. Just not everything.