225 réponses à ce sujet

[themikefest]

There is huge pool of blood under both.   

yep

 

Spoiler

[Asharad Hett]

And their eyes are open.

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=ME7IBT5zrqM

[Monica21]

And their eyes are open.

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=ME7IBT5zrqM

 

But, uh, why just stand there and pump a few rounds into a dead squadmate? Just making sure?

 

And 1750 is a super duper low EMS. I can see how it would have been possible to have low EMS when ME3 was released, since you had to play multiplayer to get it high enough, but it seems like you'd have to actively RP against bringing the galaxy together.

[Asharad Hett]

The video was from my first ME3 character in 2012, prior to playing any multiplayer and prior to any DLC.  It's basically the game in the first week after release.  I didn't waste time with survey missions and fetch quests.  I was trying to save the galaxy.   

 

The OP wanted to know if Shepard's survival would have helped the game's reputation.  But in the first few weeks after release, there were many people who saw the game as death upon death.  Shepard's survival really wasn't the real problem for me.  The problem was grimdark.  The gamer could avoid grimdark by doing fetch quests and surveys, but the average gamer didn't understand that by avoiding the most boring part of the game they would be awarded the darkest endings.  So for me, Shepard's survival wouldn't have changed the sour taste in my mouth.  

 

If my first Shepard had survived, he would have been lonely.  I suppose he could make new friends.  Or maybe become an alcoholic.  /shrug

[DebatableBubble]

I think Shepard's a crappy character. Wouldn't have mattered much to me if there were multiple endings where they could survive. Even now, though I certainly wouldn't call the endings "good", I don't think the endings are complete garbage. 

[AlanC9]

And their eyes are open.
 
https://www.youtube....h?v=ME7IBT5zrqM

Thanks. I think I never bothered to try a low-EMS run myself until after the EC had shipped.

[themikefest]

But, uh, why just stand there and pump a few rounds into a dead squadmate? Just making sure?

 

And 1750 is a super duper low EMS. I can see how it would have been possible to have low EMS when ME3 was released, since you had to play multiplayer to get it high enough, but it seems like you'd have to actively RP against bringing the galaxy together.

Its not that hard. Only need 3500 tms. The lowest I've had my ems was at 1022

 

My first playthrough of ME3, I had all 12 squadmates from ME2 imported into ME3. I don't recall what my ems was, but I know I didn't have enough for synthesis, 2800 ems, only enough to choose control or destroy. 

[JohnAlekseyev]

Also, in my ideal ending, we would never find out why the Reapers were doing what they were doing. We don't need to know. Any reason just sounds stupid because Sovereign told us in ME1 that we wouldn't comprehend. It's like ants trying to understand the motives of humans. I love that idea and I wish Bioware didn't give into pressure and explain what the hell the Reapers were doing.

While I would largely still be unhappy with the ending you suggested (Unhappy with how the Reapers as they were displayed in ME3 and the Crucible as a whole), this part of your post is just extremely good. I think that the Reapers should have never arrived, not after how powerful the were shown to be in ME1, lol. I don't like how their motives were brought down to something rather nonsensical, and you're just spot on. Keeping more mystery would have been good.

It would have been better if Vigil was the Catalyst because Vigils data file was put into the Citadel back in the first game. It would have been a good tie in for the crucible plot device.
 
I WILL ALWAYS  HATE THE STARCHILD! Vigil would have been better!

Vigil as the Catalyst is an interesting idea for sure.

______________

After reading about Drew Karpshyn talking about the other ME3 story they had outlined, I found it preferable to turn that into a nice piece of headcanon, largely ignoring ME3 and the countless things it broke.



For me it's become: ME1, ME2: Some of the best single player games ever made; ME3: Silly funny cooperative MP shooter.

[Excarkun]

i don't know about the 40 endings.. but some where in their I guess they could of made it some how possible he lives and they win the WAR..stop the Reapers in a way.. BUT it would have to be REALLLY DIFFFICULT ..and MUSt have to play the game/s in a cetian way kill so many enemies and ..have a Multiplayer score of some kind to get this all accomplish ..A Challanged that not many at all would get..

 

But most or 98% of the endings 10-20..or so can end with him dying I would been much more happier with that..then the same ending no matter what and different colors..I wanted a More challenging Mass Effect 2 Ending..

 

 

[mopotter]

If your War Assets had been high you should have had an announcement that they found Shepard alive or shown Shepard at the memorial.  If they war assets were not high enough then the charred body would have been perfect.  

 

They could have still kept the control and synthesis options and there would have been people who preferred those.  But for those of us who worked our fingers to the bone getting that EMS as high as possible, the charred body sucked big time.

 

Yeah, there were other problems, but this is why I stopped playing and then switched to pc and the MEHEM.   I still have Shepards who die, but not all of them.  And I do not consider the breath as a sign Shepard survived.  

[ZombiePopper]

I hate the fact that if anyone (not just Bioware) makes an ending where the protagonist dies, everyone gets together and creates an uproar. A character death can be extremely powerful and it can work tremendously well. I think an ending where Shepard dies conventionally in combat just after he saves the galaxy would have been perfect.

My ideal ending would be:

- The weapon discovered on Mars by Liara is actually a weapon.

- Clever tactics, nukes and warp bombs allow the galaxy to actually take down a large portion of the Reapers.

- The "Catalyst" is not space magic, but a genuine piece of ancient technology that allows the weapon to fire.

- Final scene is Shepard, all his squad mates from all games, and all his war assets in epic combat trying to install the last component of the weapon.

- Shepard dies protecting LI/Squad mates/Whoever

- Weapon works, reapers die, galaxy saved.

To make this death mean more, I would also not have had Shepard die and be reborn by Cerberus in ME2. That was entirely pointless and tacky.

Also, in my ideal ending, we would never find out why the Reapers were doing what they were doing. We don't need to know. Any reason just sounds stupid because Sovereign told us in ME1 that we wouldn't comprehend. It's like ants trying to understand the motives of humans. I love that idea and I wish Bioware didn't give into pressure and explain what the hell the Reapers were doing.

Instead, it went like this:

Reaper: "Oh, our motives are so alien to you, you wouldn't get it"
Shepard: "Oh, wow. Okay".
Reaper: "Yeah.... we are killing everyone because if we don't, you will create synthetics that will kill you all so bad that no organic life will exist".
Shepard: "But you just said I wouldn't comprehend. I can fully comprehend that. I understand".
Reaper: "Oh...Yeah..... So, how about the weather today?"

I think the big thing people wanted to see is all of their choices and recruits coming together in the final battle and working with Shepard. But that didn't happen.

Agreed, a hero's death, CAN, be very moving and powerful.
But the reality is, it's been done-to-death (pun intended)
Killing the hero, "just because" is ridiculous reasoning. It was foreshadowed, yes. But I expected it to be done in a much, much better manner.

we've had the hero dying in every book, graphic novel, movie, tv series and movies, games, et cetera. A few years ago, it would've been "hip" and "edgy". Mordin and Thane's deaths are the perfect examples of "how to do it correctly." I didn't want either to die, but wow those scenes are still extremely powerful, even to this day.

So IF it's going to be done, again, it's needs to be done well. Or it just becomes a weak "rip-off" of something else.
And frankly, that's my biggest issue with the ME3 endings, besides some of the bigger issues obviously, which I could've potentially, overlooked, for the most part... if it had been done well; It isn't done well.
You want to kill Shep?
K, at least do it in a moving, powerful, orig and memorable manner for goodness sake. They clearly knew HOW to do it judging by Mordin and Thane, But nup.

And I also agree with several of your points and that they would've had a big impact on the ending. Such as seeing our WA's in action, it just seems like it would've been the obvious thing to do.

Also that the reapers reasoning should've remained hidden. It doesn't really matter. Seeing the "man behind the curtain" just ruins it, for me. Especially since it was done so poorly.
-Star kid; organics must be harvested.

-Shep; why?

-Star-kid; because your synthetics will always kill organics.

-Shep; Uhhhhh, synthetics are destroying organics. So why do you care which synthetics kill us?

-Star kid; no, no. We're "harvesting you".

-Shep; what's the difference?

-Star kid; uhhhh we're replacing the word "kill" with "harvesting", see? It sounds better.

-Shep; but they both result in you killing us, which is supposedly, why you're killing us. To stop synthetics from killing us, but now synthetics are killing us....

-Star-kid; That's about the gist of it.

-Shep; soooo, why not kill synthetics instead? There's less of them and it'll be easier to accomplish.

-Star-kid; Look man, it's all a bit technical, k. What, are you writing a paper or something? So, anyway, How bout that synthesis option? Pretty kewl, right?

-Shep; no, I can't make that choice.

-Star-kid; ugh, dammit, just pick a color based on your favorite skittle. I'm on break in 5mins.

-Shep; Hey Joshua, how about a quick game of tic-tac-toe?

[The Real Bowser]

My problem with the end of ME3 was that my choices didn't matter when Bioware always built the trilogy upon saying my choices did matter.

 

So no, even if Sheperd survived, I wouldn't have been happy about it.  His 'noble' sacrifice was a drop in the bucket as far as my massive discontent with the ending went.

 

My main issues with the ending involved the Reapers' bogus reasoning for having harvested the races, the fact there was no finale at all (which only added to the anticlimactic ending), and most importantly, nothing I did in the entire three games mattered.  The adjusted ending helped slightly but it was far too shallow an ending for such a monumental game series.

[Darkarus]

IMO the endings should have run the gambit between total failure along the lines of Refusal to the yes "Disney style happy ending" where Shepard, EDI and the Geth live, the relays are fine and the Normandy crew survives without ending up on the random planet Normany 2185. And Shepard gets to live happily ever after with their choice of of Blue, Pink or adopting in the case of Tail/Garrus, or Alenko/Cortez relationship because hybrid babies are not a thing....

 

For the Star Brat he should never have been introduced have Vendetta explain the choices of the crucible (not sure if Synthesis stays in this ending but Refuse/doesn't work, Control and Destroy would fit as we know that the Protheans worked on both of those options.

[Get Magna Carter]

In Blood Omen :Legacy of Kain there was a choice at the end between two endings

a) Kain chooses to die and in so doing brings life back to the world, a ghost (and no-one else) remembers him as a hero

b ) Kain becomes the evil undead ruler of a dying world

 

the sequels made b ) canon because of the greater story potential.  I preferred a) 

 

I also chose death for the protagonist in Walking Dead season 1 -there wasn't a happy alternative.  I don't remember any outcry over the ending

[Get Magna Carter]

One thing defenders of the ending forget is that this is a GAME to be ENJOYED by players

Games are different from other media (movies, books, etc) in that the player is an active participant (some players consider the protagonist to be an extension of themselves) - and this is especially important in games where the player's choices steer the path of the game.

What is acceptable in other media is not necessarily acceptable in games.

 

And the presentation of choices matters

In Dragon Age II the biggest choice was supposed to be between freedom and security but was described as a choice between justice and mob-rule.

sort of..if a lynch mob want to hang an innocent man, should the government protect the innocent man or provide an official hangman for the job?

 

And ME3 ends with a ghostly-kid suddenly appearing, claiming to be the arch-villain of the series and presenting an unappealing set of options rationalise by a bleak "world-view" which is at odds with the resat of the game (and before EC there was barely any option to argue)

This was not enjoyable

If the ending had been well presented as a heroic death eliminating the Reaper for once-and-for all it would have been fine.  But the options closest to that were not sufficiently well-presented as such.

 

Another thing the defenders of the ending seem to do is base the defence on the EC and Leviathan and complain that people playing the game when originally released did not pay enough attention to the DLC which wasn't available then...

[voteDC]

Games are still premade pieces of software written and made by a team of people working for a game development company. The player (us) can only choose what has been programmed into the game. There is no such thing as freedom of choice in any game.

 

Don't be naive enough to think that you have complete control over any game you play because you don't.

It is up to the game to maintain the illusion that the player has choice, even when they truly don't.

Mass Effect 3 sadly breaks that, not just in the ending but through the entirety of the game. Now that doesn't make it a bad game but it does give to people the impression that they are playing Bioware's Shepard instead of their own. It shatters the illusion of player input.

After all this time I can play the first Walking Dead game from Telltale and I hammer the key at the end trying to get Lee up. Now I know it is not going to work, I've played it often enough to know that. The acting, the atmosphere, etc everything about the game, that ending scene especially, still maintains the illusion of choice.

It's a tricky balance to maintain but Bioware managed it with the first two Mass Effect games but took a jump to the wrong side with the third.

[Asharad Hett]

Don't be naive enough to think that you have complete control over any game you play because you don't.

 

Let's not be too hasty.  There are many games that give you complete control with no scripts.  That aside, I agree with what you are saying with respect to ME3.

[magic713]

It certainly wouldn't have hurt if Shepard could have survived the encounter. My issue with the endings were that all four of them felt wrong in different ways to me.

 

Destroy: It destroys all synthetics, including EDI and the Geth (assuming that they were recruited to help, which I do). It felt like mass murder of my friends and allies.

 

Control: Made me feel like a hypocrite, choosing to do what the Illusive Man tried to do to the Reapers in the whole game. This one I hate the least.

 

Synthesis: Feels like a forced peace, taking away the free will of others. It felt like everyone was now at peace, but not by their choice, which I found unsettling.

 

Refuse: Shepard doesn't make a choice and it's just giving up after all that hard work over three games. 

[Get Magna Carter]

Games are still premade pieces of software written and made by a team of people working for a game development company. The player (us) can only choose what has been programmed into the game. There is no such thing as freedom of choice in any game.

 

Don't be naive enough to think that you have complete control over any game you play because you don't.

That may be a valid response to the GTA's "Go anywhere, do Anything" marketing quote but isn't relevant to what I was saying.

Biowares games have always included a limited selection of choices to give the player limited influence into the events of the game and these have frequently had significant effect on the ending.

 

In the case of Mass Effect 3 (at the time of release) the problem with the selection was

1) visually the most obvious difference was the colour of the explosions

2) conceptually, they all had bad implications

Destroy killed a squad mate and (arguably) resulted in genocide making Shepard's efforts establishing peace between the Geth and Quarians worthless

Control sets up Shepard forcing peace on the galaxy, answerable to no-one, eliminating or brainwashing anyone steps out of line (though of-course Shepard would have no idea as to whether he had been brainwashed himself or whether his/her judgement is faulty.

and Synthesis is the desired goal of Shepard's true arch-enemy, it involves using space-magic to alter bodies of everyone in the universe in unimaginable ways against their will.  It's alleged it is needed to prevent genocide/war but there is no evidence that it is needed or that it would be successful if it was  

[voteDC]

It was always Bioware's Shepard. The only way Shepard could be yours is if you wrote every one of Shepard's lines yourself from the beginning of ME1, which you didn't.

 

The ending does have choice impact. It's rather the player who interprets it as different colored explosions or space magic. That's not the fault of the developer though.

It's always been Telltale's Lee and Clem too but boy they make me feel otherwise in the two seasons so far.

The same is true for Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2. We all know at heart that the character of Shepard is already formed but it's the true measure of a great RPG maker to make us believe otherwise, to push the thought of that the game company made this character to the back of our minds and make us believe that we are forming the character instead.

Bioware did that with the first two games. Why do so many people believe, myself included, that they didn't do a good job of it in the third and final game of Shepard's trilogy.

As to the endings I always maintain that the flaw was in the execution. As I've said before, don't tell me that my actions will have vastly different repercussions and then show me that they don't. It's another example of Bioware failing to maintain the illusion.

[voteDC]

The endings weren't the same. Sorry you feel this way.

You don't seem to be reading what I am typing.

The ideas behind the endings were good and different. However the cinematics were near identical.

We were told by the Catalyst our choice would have vastly different repercussions but we then saw a collection of cinematics that had very little variation.

Can you honestly tell me that the shipped endings, as shown in the video below, were acceptable reflections of the ideas behind them?

[v0rt3x22]

I think the ending was amazing and typical for Bioware Games.

Major plot twist.

 

The reapers attempt to indoctrinate Shepard and you get to choose whether they succeed or not. 

What's not to like about that?