1395 réponses à ce sujet

[PhroXenGold]

You just made me think something; would people have been mad if there was no final choice and the "wildly divergent" endings would have come about as a result of what you'd done over the course of the series?

 

Personally, I would have loved that.

[In Exile]

That's always what I thought it would be - the Reapers all get Killed off For Real ™ and then the ending is basically the sum total of all those choices. Most don't feature, but major stuff - like do we encourage humanity to join the galactic community or dominate it - determine the end state, and then series over, never to be revisited again. 

[Sartoz]

Well, the answer to that is yes since there will always be people who get mad. 

But I don't think the endings occurring based on the actions throughout the trilogy would have received the fallout the actual endings did. Some games are even praised for doing what you described. 

 

                                                                                          <<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>

 

The way the story is unfolded, the final outcome is wether current galatic civilizations win or lose. All other choices are side shows. Having said that, I think you mean the following:

1. If the geth are saved, then the outcome is an integration of machine and organic life.

2. If the geth are destroyed, then the outcome is the Reapers are destroyed.

 

Basically, Shep is not given a final choice but is told what the outcome will be based on previous choices/decisions. This ending I can accept, especially so, if previous choices allows for Shep to live or die.

[Natureguy85]

That's always what I thought it would be - the Reapers all get Killed off For Real ™ and then the ending is basically the sum total of all those choices. Most don't feature, but major stuff - like do we encourage humanity to join the galactic community or dominate it - determine the end state, and then series over, never to be revisited again. 

 

This sounds very similar to how Dragon Age Origins wrapped up. I thought that was very well done and it would have worked here.

 

                                                                                          <<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>

 

The way the story is unfolded, the final outcome is wether current galatic civilizations win or lose. All other choices are side shows. Having said that, I think you mean the following:

1. If the geth are saved, then the outcome is an integration of machine and organic life.

2. If the geth are destroyed, then the outcome is the Reapers are destroyed.

 

Basically, Shep is not given a final choice but is told what the outcome will be based on previous choices/decisions. This ending I can accept, especially so, if previous choices allows for Shep to live or die.

 

While I would gladly erase the Catalyst from existence, if he must be there I want to argue with him. Then my choices throughout the game would be the evidence I present to make my case.

[Maniccc]

Well, for myself, I don't care about Andromeda, at all.  It's not home, I have no investment in it one way or the other.  Plus, we fought through that messy plotline of an ME trilogy to save the galaxy, only to not get to play in that world again.  OK...?  It makes no sense.  As I was playing through ME:3 I kept wondering how the galaxy was going to look like after all of this destruction: Thessia, Earth, and the rest.  Well, there goes all of that.

 

Another issue I have is that this is nothing more than an attempt to milk the ME name.  The only good solution to the ME endings is to retire the MEU and create a new sci-fi universe.  But ME has brand recognition, and they want to milk that.

 

So basically, ME:A is just a cheap cop-out and money grab, as far as I'm concerned.

[xXRengaiaXx]

I don't feel like this at all. I'm sure we can all trust BioWare with actually making a high quality game that is worth our money. They never let us down before; and I honestly didn't see anything wrong with ME3's ending because it "made" me speculate what actually happened and I was satisfied with that. I mean, they brought Sonic back and made it good for goodness sake. BioWare is only one of those few companies that actually cares what their fans has to say...unlike *cough* Bungie.

[Maniccc]

I don't feel like this at all. I'm sure we can all trust BioWare with actually making a high quality game that is worth our money. They never let us down before; and I honestly didn't see anything wrong with ME3's ending because it "made" me speculate what actually happened and I was satisfied with that. I mean, they brought Sonic back and made it good for goodness sake. BioWare is only one of those few companies that actually cares what their fans has to say...unlike *cough* Bungie.

Not sure if serious....

[Natureguy85]

 I'm sure we can all trust BioWare with actually making a high quality game that is worth our money. They never let us down before;

 

No, I can't. That's the whole point. They let me down with a weak DA2 and a terrible end to ME3. I haven't played Inquisition but it's gotten a very mixed response and certainly hasn't excited me.

[LinksOcarina]

No, I can't. That's the whole point. They let me down with a weak DA2 and a terrible end to ME3. I haven't played Inquisition but it's gotten a very mixed response and certainly hasn't excited me.

 

then don't play it.

 

I am always perplexed by this idea of trust to a company. If they make a good game or a bad game, it doesn't mean anything regarding the quality of their next game at all. Such an idea of being "let down' is so damn strange to me I guess. Do what you have to I guess, but if you honestly aren't excited about a game, don't play it. Its why I don't have much interest in Witcher 3 right now.

[xXRengaiaXx]

Dragon Age 2 was indeed horrible, but wasn't that around the time when EA stepped in and made horrendous deadlines?

[Natureguy85]

then don't play it.

 

I am always perplexed by this idea of trust to a company. If they make a good game or a bad game, it doesn't mean anything regarding the quality of their next game at all. Such an idea of being "let down' is so damn strange to me I guess. Do what you have to I guess, but if you honestly aren't excited about a game, don't play it. Its why I don't have much interest in Witcher 3 right now.

 

Because while past performance is not a guarantee of future results, it does have an effect on expectations. When you have some of the same people in control of the new project as were in control of the last one, it's a concern when the previous performance was poor.

 

 

Dragon Age 2 was indeed horrible, but wasn't that around the time when EA stepped in and made horrendous deadlines?

 

Perhaps, but if so, won't EA still be there?

[dragonflight288]

Dragon Age 2 was indeed horrible, but wasn't that around the time when EA stepped in and made horrendous deadlines?

 

DA2 was a rushed product, but let's not forget that ME3 was actually delayed a whole year for extra development, so I don't think it's fair to say that EA rushed Bioware.

[LinksOcarina]

Because while past performance is not a guarantee of future results, it does have an effect on expectations. When you have some of the same people in control of the new project as were in control of the last one, it's a concern when the previous performance was poor.

 

 

I guess people have absurdly high expectations at times.

 

Just play the game, enjoy it, or don't. It happens when a game is a dud, happened to me with KotoR when I first played it. Doesn't reflect poorly on the company for me though.

 

But admittingly I am weird like that. I don't necessarily have loyalty to a company, I just have favorites that I tend to follow. 

[Natureguy85]

If they make a good game or a bad game, it doesn't mean anything regarding the quality of their next game at all.

 

 

Just play the game, enjoy it, or don't. It happens when a game is a dud, happened to me with KotoR when I first played it. Doesn't reflect poorly on the company for me though.

 

But admittingly I am weird like that. I don't necessarily have loyalty to a company, I just have favorites that I tend to follow. 

 

How do you have favorites or follow certain companies if their work doesn't reflect on them in any way?

 

I agree with you on not having "loyalty" in the sense that I think pre-orders are dumb. Full disclosure, I foolishly preordered ME3 and lets just say that taught me a lesson.

[In Exile]

Well, for myself, I don't care about Andromeda, at all.  It's not home, I have no investment in it one way or the other.  Plus, we fought through that messy plotline of an ME trilogy to save the galaxy, only to not get to play in that world again.  OK...?  It makes no sense.  As I was playing through ME:3 I kept wondering how the galaxy was going to look like after all of this destruction: Thessia, Earth, and the rest.  Well, there goes all of that.

 

Another issue I have is that this is nothing more than an attempt to milk the ME name.  The only good solution to the ME endings is to retire the MEU and create a new sci-fi universe.  But ME has brand recognition, and they want to milk that.

 

So basically, ME:A is just a cheap cop-out and money grab, as far as I'm concerned.

 

Wait, none of the made up locations we visit in ME apart from fantasy Vancouver-Seattle and London are "home", because they're all made up. I guess you're not familiar with all the new made up locations we will be visiting, but I'm not sure that's really a criticism. ME2 - apart from the Citadel - didn't really have us visit any of the old familiar ME1 worlds, but that wasn't really a knock on it, was it?

 

Anyway, what really surprises me is that you expected - pre-ME3 - that the end of ME3 would be even remotely compatible with more games in the setting. Bioware can't both do justice to player choice and have sequels. It's just completely silly to expect any of those locations to be revisited. It's why we didn't, for example, ever go back to Feros or Noveria. 

[Gothfather]

/snip

 

Lets face it how far would you get in a fantasy setting, like LOTR if , say, you question why Gandalf couldn't have just asked the Eagles to take Frodo and the Ring all the way to Mordor, for example, without some suspension of disbelief.

 

/snip

 

This is an example of a pseudo hole in the plot to LOTR and it has arisen within the internet because people hear it and repeat it because it SOUNDS rational but people just repeat things without really thinking things through.

 

There are fell beasts that guard the aerial approaches to Mordor. A bunch of eagles could not fly into Mordor unnoticed and this means that Sauron would know exactly where the ring is because he will see it when he sees the eagles fly into mordor with the ring and It would be very easy for him to use all this power against a group of Eagles carrying 9 companions. Couple this with the Nazgul on Fell beasts and the Eagle tactic results in Sauron killing the Fellowship and taking the ring.

 

The key to victory isn't getting into Mordor in the fastest and easiest possible way. It is getting into Mordor with the One ring WITHOUT Sauron noticing and then reaching Mount doom. Because Sauron doesn't beleive that anyone would give up the power of the ring to simply destroy it so he doesn't guard mount doom for that possibility. But he is guarding his lands against aerial scout or aerial incursions and a bunch of Eagles making a b-line to mount doom is one going to be spotted quickly and it is going to alert Sauron to the Free people strategy.  And mount doom isn't exactly on the boarders of his lands so you can't race in and hope you get there before anyone can respond.

 

There is not actually plot hole in the story with regards to the eagle strategy.

[Lebanese Dude]

                                                                                        <<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>

 

Sorry to disappoint.

I bought and played Baldur's Gate and the Ice Dale series, the three DA games, plus the three ME games plus the books, plus I have Dawn of the Seeker (2012) and the DA graphics novels.

 

ME3's ending never got fixed because is was unfixable the way the ending was originally presented.  Better if Shep had one choice..destroy the Reapers..... a better fitting for the apocalyptic finale.  War assets was a joke. I replayed the final ending so many times with different war assets percentages to see if Shep could survive or the endings change.... nada to all. And, by that I mean there was no major divergence .. all lead to the final choice of rainbow colours.

 

If you're going for a "gotcha" moment, at least don't make it a point that despite playing BioWare games consistently for a long time, you still expect something other than a narrated slideshow ending if you get an ending at all. Did ME1 and ME2 even have a "closing" ending other than one "open-to-interpretation" cinematic sequence?

 

Also your solution isn't really a solution. It's simply a wish for BioWare to present the only solution you agree with, and to hell with other options. How else could you destroy the reapers, an unstoppable force, without the Crucible and collateral damage? Are you one of those morons who wanted a Reaper vs Shepard showdown? Shepard barely could handle Marauder Shields after getting hit with one laz0r. How about hundreds of them?

 

Also, are people supposed to not care about the Geth, EDI, and other AI after interacting with them across three games? What about those who had empathy for the Reapers, given that they are the only remnants of civilizations past? Propose a solution for destroying all reapers WITHOUT any collateral damage.

 

When I read comments like yours, I laugh at how clueless some people are. It's like you blitz through the entire game with no situational awareness. We were LOSING. There was NO HOPE. The only way we ended up defeating them was exploiting their mechanical nature. Were you even paying attention to the storyline?

 

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Also war assets aren't percentages. If you're going to talk about a game, at least know what you're complaining about.

 

War assets are values representing Shepard's resources attained across the three games. Depending on how many resources you collect, you unlock different options and their variations. 

 

Given that you played most BioWare games, it's fair to assume you're a "hardcore" fan yeah? Most hardcore fans are completionists so they will tend to have higher scores.

 

If you're going to ****** about quality storyline, how about you actually roleplay your character rather than be a suck-up to every character you meet? It's pretty funny to read when someone complains about lack of variation with the ending when they approach the entire trilogy in the same way every single time as either a pure paragon suck-up or a permanently douche-y yet surprisingly helpful renegade.

 

If you actually do that, you might see the different endings. It's not like you're doing a good job by being a completionist morality-purist if you haven't seen the ending where Shepard "lives" by getting the most war assets you can, the one I got on my first try.

Not gonna delve into that, but given that your entire summary of the endings is "rainbow colors", I assume you were expecting some ultra 15 minute cinematic that details the fate of every person you've ever interacted with.

 

You pick your choice, corresponding energy flows through crucible and into the galaxy, Normandy crashes.

 

Then...you get a slideshow with vivid imagery depicting the fates of various races and people, with a narration corresponding to the choice you made.

 

I find it utterly hilarious that you are implying that there are no differences because not everything was shown. Makes me think why you still believe any of BioWare's previous games had "no difference" given that the detailed slideshows have often been tagged as "hearsay" by the devs, and then subsequently often ignored in later iterations. I'd rather have a short summary of the major decisions and their consequences like DAI and ME3 than reading about Cullen going insane in DAO then having that hand-waived in DA2 and DAI.

 

I mean...do you really lack the imagination needed to fit the story together? Do you really need to SEE everything to understand how it goes down? In fact, most of the minor resolutions in ME3 are done PRIOR to the ending, because it was made very obvious that the final drop on Earth was an all-or-nothing suicidal counterattack. What happened to Balak after ME1? Oh he joined your cause if you spared him in ME3. There...plot-point resolved.

 

The ending in ME3 is open to interpretation no matter what you choice you made. That's literally the best way to resolve ALL microscopic and macroscopic loose ends. Leave it to the player.

 

But of course, you know best. Continue to QQ. 

 

[Lebanese Dude]

Wait, none of the made up locations we visit in ME apart from fantasy Vancouver-Seattle and London are "home", because they're all made up. I guess you're not familiar with all the new made up locations we will be visiting, but I'm not sure that's really a criticism. ME2 - apart from the Citadel - didn't really have us visit any of the old familiar ME1 worlds, but that wasn't really a knock on it, was it?

 

Anyway, what really surprises me is that you expected - pre-ME3 - that the end of ME3 would be even remotely compatible with more games in the setting. Bioware can't both do justice to player choice and have sequels. It's just completely silly to expect any of those locations to be revisited. It's why we didn't, for example, ever go back to Feros or Noveria. 

 

What the **** are you saying? Of course they could have. They just didn't work hard enough!!!11!!!!

[Gothfather]

                                                                                         <<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>

 

I suppose the massive outcry regarding the ending forcing Bio to release a free extended scene(s) to "clarify" the ending was just an illusion. Face it. Bio screwed up.

 

 

i think you are missing the point Lebanese Dude was making. he isn't talking about the quality of the endings but the consequences of the endings. If i pick any colour ending I am going to get a near identical implementation of the ending but the consequences of said ending are extremely divergent and not in anyway the same. I think the endings were really poorly done but the actual galaxy states each of the different choices give you is completely different.

 

Destroy = All synthetics are destroyed, Reapers, Edi, the geth, and the Catalyst even warns that Shepard is part synthetic which I think we can infer that these have a likelihood of being destroyed and with them so too Shepard.

 

Control = Shepard become a 'God,' a disembodied consciousness that controls the Reapers and forces them to do the bidding of the new God-Shepard.

 

Synthesis = All machines become part organic all life becomes part synthetic.

 

Refusal = Reapers win this round, they harvest all the advance races of this cycle but during the next cycle they are stopped

 

The CONSEQUENCES of Destroy have zero in common with Control, Synthesis or Refusal. Control has nothing in common with Synthesis or Destroy ext. All four endings are hugely divergent in their CONSEQUENCES. Yes they all have the same cut scenes with minor variances when the crucible is fired (with the exception of refusal) but what each silly light show does is vastly different and creates a vastly different worldstate.

 

There is no way they could write a coherent story set in the Milky way unless they picked an ending and made that Canon. Which based on past threads on this very idea of creating a canon ending would anger people. They solved the problem by changing locations. It was intelligent and was a solution that required no lose of agency for the players of the previous titles.

 

The quality of the endings in ME3 has no relevance to ME:A because even if they were done masterfully and 99% of the people loved them the issue Lebanese Dude is making still applies. The Consequences of the endings were so divergent that there is no way to make a coherent story in a post ME3 milky way galaxy without taking away player agency with regards to what ending they picked by creating a canon ending. Yet by moving locals players keep their agency and Bioware doesn't have to deal with the different world states a player could have chosen.

[rapscallioness]

[pdusen]

This is an example of a pseudo hole in the plot to LOTR and it has arisen within the internet because people hear it and repeat it because it SOUNDS rational but people just repeat things without really thinking things through.

 

Also, it only seems like a plothole because it never gets addressed in the movies. In the books, they do discuss why that strategy couldn't work at the Council of Elrond before the fellowship ever leaves.

[Maniccc]

Wait, none of the made up locations we visit in ME apart from fantasy Vancouver-Seattle and London are "home", because they're all made up. I guess you're not familiar with all the new made up locations we will be visiting, but I'm not sure that's really a criticism. ME2 - apart from the Citadel - didn't really have us visit any of the old familiar ME1 worlds, but that wasn't really a knock on it, was it?

 

Anyway, what really surprises me is that you expected - pre-ME3 - that the end of ME3 would be even remotely compatible with more games in the setting. Bioware can't both do justice to player choice and have sequels. It's just completely silly to expect any of those locations to be revisited. It's why we didn't, for example, ever go back to Feros or Noveria. 

The Milky Way galaxy, Earth, humanity, that's our home.  As far as your second paragraph, it's a strawman.  I never said what I was expecting, I only answered the TC's question.  Sorry if this is hard for you to understand.  But, as I have said elsewhere, what they should have done after ME3 is retire the franchise and create a new one.

[Unpleasant Implications]

Why are people so keen to dismiss MEA so early on? It it because of DAI(a completely different kind of game), or are they still sore over an ending to a game that came out 3 years ago. It just doesn't make sense. People should just grow up, let go of past slights & give this brand new game in a much beloved franchise a break.

It's called consistency. Expectation are low. You can't just let go of past slights when they can be used to predict future products they make. Five consecutively mediocre to poor games have been developed by Bioware in the last five years. It'd be foolish to simply give them the benefit of the doubt when they've proven unworthy of it.

[Iakus]

 

The quality of the endings in ME3 has no relevance to ME:A because even if they were done masterfully and 99% of the people loved them the issue Lebanese Dude is making still applies. The Consequences of the endings were so divergent that there is no way to make a coherent story in a post ME3 milky way galaxy without taking away player agency with regards to what ending they picked by creating a canon ending. Yet by moving locals players keep their agency and Bioware doesn't have to deal with the different world states a player could have chosen.

They do, however, have to deal with frakking with the lore in order to relocate the setting to Andromeda.  Explaining how it's possible to get there.  Why there are no Reapers there.  Why going back is not an option.  And with minimal handwaving or 'A Wizard Did It"