841 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Really? If you saw the breath clip in a movie or a TV show, you'd know what it meant. Why are you adopting a different interpretive strategy for a video game? Particularly when that strategy leads you to a conclusion that you don't want and the authors didn't intend?

[Dean_the_Young]

 

That makes a great deal more sense to me. With Cerberus, I was always a fan of a midly branching plot where the ME3 human contact was either Ceberus or the Alliance. Ignoring how ME3 actually went down, if we avoided going to Earth and just had the same set pieces (the human embassy on the Citadel for the Alliance path, and TIM's holo chats for the Ceberus path) it would be a relatively low resource way of doing things. 

 

But then again, I was always onside with the idea behind Cerberus, apart from the weird racism and their generally hilarious mad-scientist level incompetence. 

 

Did you ever read my 'Cerberus as Frenemies' TL;DR two years ago?

[prosthetic soul]

Really? If you saw the breath clip in a movie or a TV show, you'd know what it meant. Why are you adopting a different interpretive strategy for a video game? Particularly when that strategy leads you to a conclusion that you don't want and the authors didn't intend?

This is probably coming from someone whose favorite ending was actually expanded upon in the Extended Cut. 

[In Exile]

Did you ever read my 'Cerberus as Frenemies' TL;DR two years ago?

 

That's just a lot better than what we got, execution aside. I enjoyed the read. 

 

 

This is probably coming from someone whose favorite ending was actually expanded upon in the Extended Cut. 

 

I hate all the endings, but seriously, there's no justification for doubting Shepard lives in the red ending. 

[BabyPuncher]

The idea of Shepard fighting batarians or any other non-Cerberus indoctrinated troops is just dumb.

[In Exile]

The idea of Shepard fighting batarians or any other non-Cerberus indoctrinated troops is just dumb.

 

Yeah, not rising to this troll bait, so let's go with this one: I'm happy to hear you admit that the entire plot of both ME1 and ME2 is dumb.  

[BabyPuncher]

As in, batarian troops as a primary enemy in ME 3.

 

Literally the only advantage I see is that it might do something to account for the player's choice in ME 2. And that's so chock full of problems it would never happen. And it perhaps may be less contrived to encounter batarians as an army than Cerberus, although it would be far easier just to go back and alter Cerberus here and there. Everything else is just introducing problem after problem.

[In Exile]

As in, batarian troops as a primary enemy in ME 3.

 

Literally the only advantage I see is that it might do something to account for the player's choice in ME 2. And that's so chock full of problems it would never happen. And it perhaps may be slighty less contrived than Cerberus, although it would be far easier just to go back and alter Cerberus here and there. Everything else is just introducing problem after problem.

 

It makes a great deal more sense, because it avoids the plot-hole of how Cerberus just developed a huge intergalactic military overnight. A Batarian client state as a front for the reapers works on two levels: (1) it allows the writers to create more political chaos, by having a pretend "you can ally with the reapers, look at the Batarians!" plot, upping the stakes; and (2) it ties up their sad fall from grace, and forces players to confront the uncomfortable idea that just because there's an evil empire out there, not every fate it can end up with is necessarily deserved or justice. 

[BabyPuncher]

Forgetting for a minute that even if that was true, it introduces a half dozen bigger problems...

 

First of all,  the better solution would be making clear that instead of Cerberus waging a supposed war against the galaxy, more or less the only troops out there are the ones we personally see. Have an early scene where Hackett or someone talks about Cerberus and asks Shepard to handle them whenever a problem arises. Alter a few missions here and there to not have them lose cruisers every 5 minutes.

 

Secondly, 'creating more chaos' is not a goal. Writing good plots is the goal, and unless you have a plot and a resolution lined out, this is more creating more problems that need to be solved than anything else.

 

Thirdly, their 'fall from grace' is not a great idea since they've never had grace to begin with. Literally our very first encounters with batarians was terrorists attempting to kill a planet full of innocent people. The batarians getting slaughtered is not going to have much a sympathtic effect when everyone else is getting slaughtered as well.

[AlanC9]

This is probably coming from someone whose favorite ending was actually expanded upon in the Extended Cut.

I don't see what you're getting at with that point. It's true, sure. All the endings were expanded upon in the Extended Cut, so it can't help but be true.

Edit: nah, I won't bother playing the disingenuous routine tonight. I'm capable of following the emotional appeal even when there's no rational argument being made. You're expressing the desire for more content for a surviving Shepard, right? Little blue babies, yada yada yada. OK. I don't feel any strong desire for that myself; it just gives Bio more ways to blow up my headcanon, without any substantial value to me. But this is one of those personal taste things that isn't going to go anywhere.

I don't understand how this is a response to my question, though. To repeat, why are you interpreting the scene in a way that doesn't work for you, when that isn't the way you'd interpret that scene if you saw it in a different work? This interpretation only makes sense if you want Shepard dead.

[KaiserShep]

Patently false.  At best, it's a case of Schrodinger's Cat with Shepard and the ME 3 endings.  At worst, he's dead in every ending.  But don't you dare tell me that the ****** poor 3 second clip of my Shepard inhaling at the very end was him "living."

 

Sure, but then, if that's true, what's the point of having two distinct versions of Destroy insofar as Shepard's fate is concerned in the first place? If you wish to hold to the idea that the breath scene is just a glimpse of Shepard's final moments, that's your prerogative, but that's not the reality of it.

[BabyPuncher]

I really don't like it when stories do this. It's poor writing, just like almost everything else concerning the ending.

 

There's nothing wrong with implying things, but implying things that go against common sense is a problem. Too often the case it's exactly this sitution. The story tries to end on a supposed hopeful note, but logic tells us that the protagonist is completely screwed anyway. Just like that idiotic scene of the crewmembers looking out on the planet as if it's a bright happy Eden instead of a dead end where they're almost certain to starve or worse. You need to make your implications actually align with what makes sense.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I like ambiguous endings.  They leave space for headcanon.

[Lebanese Dude]

OP summed it up nicely.

Also, give me a gay LI from the get-go pls

[Cyberstrike nTo]

This is not a mistake, I can pretty much promise you it's going to happen in one form or another.

 

I would advise you get used to it.

 

 

Holstering was sacrificed because of memory constraints on ancient consoles. Shouldn't be an issue this time.

 

Then why did both ME1 and ME2 allow holstering on Xbox 360 and PS3? 

[DaemionMoadrin]

Then why did both ME1 and ME2 allow holstering on Xbox 360 and PS3? 

 

Because they used less memory than ME3, meaning there was more spare memory left. Logic.

[AlanC9]

Right. ME1 and ME2 didn't have as many combat animations as ME3 did.

[AlanC9]

There's nothing wrong with implying things, but implying things that go against common sense is a problem. Too often the case it's exactly this sitution. The story tries to end on a supposed hopeful note, but logic tells us that the protagonist is completely screwed anyway. Just like that idiotic scene of the crewmembers looking out on the planet as if it's a bright happy Eden instead of a dead end where they're almost certain to starve or worse. You need to make your implications actually align with what makes sense.

Does logic actually show that? Leaving aside Shepard because I'm bored wth the topic, I don't see how you get to your conclusion about the crashed Normandy.

There are two possibilities for what the Normandy was doing when the Crucible wave hit; standard FTL travel or relay transit. If it's the latter, there's only one possible destination; the Alliance colony world of Demeter. There are more possibilities for standard FTL, such as Benning. None of them are very far from colonized worlds if they're not already colonized.

[Grieving Natashina]

<connecting...disengaging lurk mode>

 

I'll be back for real in about a few days or so.  

 

On topic, here is my list:

 

1) If you introduce characters from the EU, give them some real story.  One of the first things I hated about Kai Leng was that, as a player that never read the EU, he came right the hell outta nowhere.  I'd never heard of this clown and suddenly everyone from Anderson to Miranda is all but crapping their pants over this guy.  I was very confused the first time I played.

 

2) Auto-dialogue, although I think they did better with DA:I than they did in ME3.  Hopefully they keep that up.

 

3) Plot consistency.  I want it to where there won't be any sudden plot changes due to a writer leaving.  I want the plot to remain consistent despite any team changes.  No more dropped plots because a writer left.  If it's been hinted all over the previous game (dark energy,) then follow through with it.  If the team feels that they can't without a certain writer, then they shouldn't introduce those elements.  If it hinges on one person staying or leaving, then please don't pursue it.  It made some parts of ME2 completely nonsensical in ME3.   

 

4) For lady Sheps: Arms that don't look ultra skinny, and overall better animations for everyone.  Seriously, enough with the hip sway on the female characters and the hunched gorilla movements for the male characters.  In DA:I, I kept yelling at the screen for my Inquisitor to stand up straight in cut scenes.  Since the female characters use the male animations for the cut scenes, I keep seeing the hunched back look.  Which I hate for both genders.  I felt that ME1 was a lot better in this regard.

 

4) A gay LI right from the start.  To be honest, that is something that I can see them doing.  It's been years since ME3, and I like to think they've learned their lesson.

 

5) Spacebar does almost everything on PC.  This can get not only annoying, but possibly fatal.  Accidentally tapping space once to much and jumping while an Atlas is gunning for you is not good.  I'd like the cover and jumping buttons kept separate.

 

6) I know I keep coming back to him, but Kai Leng was the biggest Villain Sue I've ever seen in my life.  I've been playing RPG games, both video and tabletop, since 1987 and I've rarely seen a villain that bad.  I've almost never seen a villain have such blatant plot armor in my life.  I don't mind losing in my games.  Virmire was a great example.  Another good example (old school) is FFVI, where you will be defeated and the world will be in a horrible shape until you defeat the main villain for good.   

 

More than the endings, this was the part of ME3 that had me yelling the loudest in the most NSFW ways.  I've taken out gunships and Reapers on foot, and yet this guy has impenetrable barriers.  Not to mention the Idiot Ball Shepard kept picking up every time he was around.  Shoot the son of a goat already!  

 

This was kinda very insulting after the scripted boss battle:

Spoiler

 

7) Unnecessary Butt-Cam.  The Kaidan scene (where a romanced Shep is checking out dat butt,) made sense, since it was from Shepard's PoV.  Having the butt-shot while talking to Miranda about her sister was just silly.  That screenshot from ME3 reminds me why I found and installed a black version of her outfit for ME3.  The butt was one thing, but it didn't help that the pattern of the cat-suit was so hideous to me.

 

8) Look, I'm sure Ms. Chobot is a nice gal.  However, please no more hiring non voice actors to give them a place in the game.  Especially after killing off her replacement via a real world Tweet.  I was not happy when I asked the forums what happened to Emily.  I don't care how nice they are, if they cannot professionally voice act, don't have them in the game.  Also, please stop trying to make the characters look exactly like the actors.  Some turn out okay, like TIM, Miranda and Sheploo, but I've seen more Allers and Tallis in BioWare games.  Characters I felt where verging on the Uncanny Valley and not in flattering ways (note: While I didn't like the character Tallis, at least Felicia Day did an excellent job voicing her.)

 

There might be more, but I can't think of anything else at the moment.  When I go back to playing ME3, which I had been playing before I had a series of computer issues, I'm sure more will come to mind.  I'll be around more next week, once I'm done with my PSP game.

 

<engaging lurk mode...disconnected>

[rashie]

On the mention of Kai Leng, please do NOT have villains doing things in cutscenes that do not have story consistency with gameplay, or more, don't take control of the player character in cutscenes and make them fail at things there is little chance of happening, if done in gameplay.

[prosthetic soul]

Sure, but then, if that's true, what's the point of having two distinct versions of Destroy insofar as Shepard's fate is concerned in the first place? If you wish to hold to the idea that the breath scene is just a glimpse of Shepard's final moments, that's your prerogative, but that's not the reality of it.

How do you know it's the reality of it though?

[prosthetic soul]

I don't see what you're getting at with that point. It's true, sure. All the endings were expanded upon in the Extended Cut, so it can't help but be true.

Edit: nah, I won't bother playing the disingenuous routine tonight. I'm capable of following the emotional appeal even when there's no rational argument being made. You're expressing the desire for more content for a surviving Shepard, right? Little blue babies, yada yada yada. OK. I don't feel any strong desire for that myself; it just gives Bio more ways to blow up my headcanon, without any substantial value to me. But this is one of those personal taste things that isn't going to go anywhere.

I don't understand how this is a response to my question, though. To repeat, why are you interpreting the scene in a way that doesn't work for you, when that isn't the way you'd interpret that scene if you saw it in a different work? This interpretation only makes sense if you want Shepard dead.

We're not talking about other works.  We're talking about Mass Effect.  And in Mass Effect, it is so abundantly obvious Bioware wanted Shepard to die in every single ending.  Giving him a scene in which his torso hemorrhages shortly before everything cuts to black does not lend enough credence to the "SHEPARD LIVES" theory.   Oh and the bolded part is undeniably untrue.  Here's what I think is happening here.   You are operating under the assumption that just because Shepard is confirmed to be alive after the fact by Bioware (and let's be honest, their word amounts to little at this juncture) that it suddenly means the Destroy HIGH-EMS ending is satisfactory and everything is copacetic and everyone should be all right with it. 

 

If you're a writer and you have to confirm after you've written a book, made a movie, developed a video game, that a certain character lives, dies, does this, does that, or clarify anything, you have probably failed in your duty.

[KaiserShep]

I didn't need confirmation from the devs to determine that Shepard was alive. Logically, the intention of the scene is clear. Whether or not one considers it satisfying on either an emotional or intellectual level is irrelevant. I wasn't terribly satisfied by the way that scene was put up, but Shep's been through worse and somehow managed to get through two whole games after that. The rest of the trilogy has plenty of things that make logic cry, so I just roll with it and fuggetabout it. There's no point in having two distinct versions of high EMS Destroy in this respect. 

[prosthetic soul]

I didn't need confirmation from the devs to determine that Shepard was alive. Logically, the intention of the scene is clear. Whether or not one considers it satisfying on either an emotional or intellectual level is irrelevant. The rest of the trilogy has plenty of things that make logic cry, so I just roll with it and fuggetabout it. There's no point in having two distinct versions of high EMS Destroy in this respect. 

You didn't.  But Bioware did have to come out and say it at one point if I recall correctly.  And no the intention of the scene wasn't clear at all, especially not in pre-Extended cut. 

 

There's no point in having two distinct versions of high EMS Destroy in this respect.

 

I beg to differ.

[rashie]

The whole point of the ending in the first place was to be uncertain and promote speculation, although that kinda backfired on Bioware on a scale rarely seen in video game crowds, as its execution was horribly flawed.

 

I don't think Bioware ever intended for the fate of Shepard in high EMS to be a set fact in the first place, but did it in a PR statement afterwards to please fans of their games.