1106 réponses à ce sujet

[theflyingzamboni]

 

 

I want a few very different choices like: Horrible destiny, dying, become crazy, become a villain, dissapear, become hero, retire (going on with "small" adventures), retire with romance, retire with romance and 32 children and so on ..... I want the possibility to have a REAL sad ending, a REAL bad ending and the possibility for a REAL Happy-Ending.

 

And I don't want that Bioware destroy my decisions in further games.

Divergent endings and meaningfully carried over to a sequel. So basically you want two things that don't go together. 

[Applepie_Svk]

 

You are doomed to disappointment on that last bit. The endings were exactly what they appeared to be.

 

On the other hand, if whole time they were aiming for IT, they did pretty good job in the idea of having fans indoctrinated, the ones that felt fine with belief that control or synthesis is now an option.

[Lucca_de_Neon]

Well, that's the thing. I don't generally pick Synthesis. And even when you do, do we really have any reason to think that this results in some sort of cultural homogenization? The only actual evidence is that it now looks like Wreav won't be launching a war. Is that because he's peaceful, or because after his upgrade he now has the brains to figure out what a disaster this would be?
 

Irony, I think. It's not going quite as far as the Dark Energy plot, where Shepard would have been the villain all along. But Bio was always thinking along these lines.
 

Everything? If you cured the genophage, it stays cured. If you helped the geth exterminate the quarians, they stay dead.
 

You are doomed to disappointment on that last bit. The endings were exactly what they appeared to be.

Synthesis means that every race (including mosquitos for all i know) now share the same DNA or a part of it and the premise of that is "UNDERSTANDING" even when everyone understands things just fine if they are willing. With OP UNDERSTANDING comes a consensus and way of thinking that rejects indivual thinking and promotes homogeny. Again: is the principle behind joining everything.

It's not irony. It's a poorly executed excuse to change the nature of a character. TIM was the very definition of a Renegade..not a traitor that would murder every human on sight and justify it with "I think i know what i'm doing!". He was better than that. What's ironic is that a change in the attitude or personality would be tolerable, of course...unless you are pulling a last second surprise like the one we had. Then, the irony becomes a comfortable, yet horrible, convinience.

The cure could be healed with Synthesis aswel, since is a disease that was specific to the krogan DNA. DNA that now it's gone (repeating previous message: i'm not against a particular outcome, i'm against the existence of the choice) if you gave the middle finger to the krogans, you live with the consequences of that..you don't jump into a green light because you have 2nd thoughts. In the case of the Geth, what if i saved them at the cost of the quarians? The red ending becomes a giant Nelson pointing at me while laughing! whatever the case, in all playthroughs, the end f*cks all your previous decisions and the core of the story.

As for disappointment: true enough. I remain completly alienated from any kind of joy about the endings that we got. Poor quality and execution but that's a fail on them, not me. So i'm allowed to move on...not them. To this day, people all over the world point at the end of ME and clasifies it as a giant BS. 

Now excuse me but my english vocabulary has it's limits and i'm near the end. I don't know that many ways of explaining the same thing over and over again. Luckly for me, i believe most understand my point of view and i'm really sorry if you don't..but there's not much more i can do. If you want, i can give you videos about how this fails on so many levels. Let me know ^^

[Natureguy85]

Everything? If you cured the genophage, it stays cured. If you helped the geth exterminate the quarians, they stay dead.

 

As I believe we discussed in a different thread, those affect the epilogue, but not the ending. They do not affect your time with TIM or the Catalyst.

It's not irony. It's a poorly executed excuse to change the nature of a character. TIM was the very definition of a Renegade..not a traitor that would murder every human on sight and justify it with "I think i know what i'm doing!". He was better than that. What's ironic is that a change in the attitude or personality would be tolerable, of course...unless you are pulling a last second surprise like the one we had. Then, the irony becomes a comfortable, yet horrible, convinience.

 

 

While I agree with everything else in this post, here you're off. The bolded section is exactly what Cerberus was and what happens in ME3, particularly at Horizon.

[SentinelMacDeath]

As I believe we discussed in a different thread, those affect the epilogue, but not the ending. They do not affect your time with TIM or the Catalyst.

 

While I agree with everything else in this post, here you're off. The bolded section is exactly what Cerberus was and what happens in ME3, particularly at Horizon.

 

Right? He might have been a Renegade kind of guy before he was indoctrinated but ME3 TIM was just done for ... Sanctuary man ... Sanctuary

[AlanC9]

On the other hand, if whole time they were aiming for IT, they did pretty good job in the idea of having fans indoctrinated, the ones that felt fine with belief that control or synthesis is now an option.

Perhaps. But they weren't.

[AlanC9]

As I believe we discussed in a different thread, those affect the epilogue, but not the ending. They do not affect your time with TIM or the Catalyst.

Yes. We should keep using that distinction. It's useful.

It's not clear to me that an ending should be affected by everything that came before. KotOR's wasn't. ME1's wasn't. DA:O's , only in a minimal fashion..

[AlanC9]

Synthesis means that every race (including mosquitos for all i know) now share the same DNA or a part of it and the premise of that is "UNDERSTANDING" even when everyone understands things just fine if they are willing. With OP UNDERSTANDING comes a consensus and way of thinking that rejects indivual thinking and promotes homogeny. Again: is the principle behind joining everything.

This is a bit confused. "Understanding" is only said to be changed for synthetics, not organics. What organics get is full integration with technology, not understanding. You're just making up stuff here.

It's not irony. It's a poorly executed excuse to change the nature of a character. TIM was the very definition of a Renegade..not a traitor that would murder every human on sight and justify it with "I think i know what i'm doing!". He was better than that. What's ironic is that a change in the attitude or personality would be tolerable, of course...unless you are pulling a last second surprise like the one we had. Then, the irony becomes a comfortable, yet horrible, convinience.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. Are you against the entirety of TIM's role in ME3? Anyway, TIM never has any intention of murdering every human on sight. To the end, he thinks he's going to save them and uplift them. He's wrong, of course, but that doesn't change the intention.

In the case of the Geth, what if i saved them at the cost of the quarians? The red ending becomes a giant Nelson pointing at me while laughing!

Again, if that bothers you then you shouldn't pick that option. That could make red a bad option for you, yep. What's wrong with giving you an option that you don't like?

whatever the case, in all playthroughs, the end f*cks all your previous decisions and the core of the story.

And when you say "all," you don't actually mean "all." Your English is fine; it's the underlying thoughts that are disorganized.

[Ahglock]

I don't get the wrecks your previous decisions mindset. Yeah some decisions become irrelevant but that happens in life. Plenty of times I make a choice and then later on another choice makes the past choice moot.

On the other hand I do think when you go with a dues ex or whatever plot device the catalyst is called it does make it seem that all your efforts to progress the main plot were pointless. All you needed to do was flip a switch why waste your time gaining alliances etc. the problem was their poor execution of EMS. It should have no effect on which magic ray you can choose or its efficacy. But a crappy ems may mean you already lost too many civilizations and infrastructure to the reapers to truly continue where as high ems meant you held them off with minimal casualties by the time it was finished. With how it was done it made it seem like your efforts were kind of pointless with a fairly arbitrary number powering a magic device.

[Natureguy85]

It's not clear to me that an ending should be affected by everything that came before. KotOR's wasn't. ME1's wasn't. DA:O's , only in a minimal fashion..

 

True. but KoTOR, ME, and DAO were not the final entry of their franchises, but were self contained works. Only ME gave any hint at a sequel yet still wrapped up its own plot very well. Considering "choice," or as I call it "self-determination," was a theme of the series, it would fit here.

 

With KoTOR specifically, there is a difference in focus. The choices you make there are not about changing the galaxy, as they are in Mass Effect. They are about defining your character. There, the morality meter of light vs dark is actually part of the story. Shepard is only changed by what dialogue options are or are not available. From a role play perspective, you have to think of a "grayed out" choice as something that Shepard wouldn't say.

 

 

I'm not sure where you're going with this. Are you against the entirety of TIM's role in ME3? Anyway, TIM never has any intention of murdering every human on sight. To the end, he thinks he's going to save them and uplift them. He's wrong, of course, but that doesn't change the intention.

 

I am. There's no reason he should be the primary antagonist. It could have worked in a game where the Reapers weren't already there. It worked in Dragon Age Origins with Loghain because you were in the North while the Darkspawn were in the south. They were approaching the door, but the Reapers are inside the house.

[Iakus]

This is a bit confused. "Understanding" is only said to be changed for synthetics, not organics. What organics get is full integration with technology, not understanding. You're just making up stuff here.

What does "full integration" even mean?  How does rewriting everyone's DNA  teach synthetics the power of love?

 

How does it make Wreav peaceful?  Cure the genophage, make everyone immortal? How does fundamentally changing every living being down to their DNA and beyond with "organic energy" solve a problem that existed only in the mind of a mad computer?

[Kroitz]

I don't get the wrecks your previous decisions mindset. Yeah some decisions become irrelevant but that happens in life. Plenty of times I make a choice and then later on another choice makes the past choice moot.

On the other hand I do think when you go with a dues ex or whatever plot device the catalyst is called it does make it seem that all your efforts to progress the main plot were pointless. All you needed to do was flip a switch why waste your time gaining alliances etc. the problem was their poor execution of EMS. It should have no effect on which magic ray you can choose or its efficacy. But a crappy ems may mean you already lost too many civilizations and infrastructure to the reapers to truly continue where as high ems meant you held them off with minimal casualties by the time it was finished. With how it was done it made it seem like your efforts were kind of pointless with a fairly arbitrary number powering a magic device.

 

The example you provide exists in an hardly predictable space, while a story is a fully controlled space. If you make a decision in life that might make another decision obsolete, that's sometimes circumstances, sometimes mistakes, sometimes choice. If it's part of a design, it can also happen but that is a mistake and mistakes happen because of poor planing, execution or choosing.

[Commander Rpg]

I have no fear for how the game ended, it makes people puke. I have fear for how the new ones are beginning. The moral clarity of the company is what it is, there aren't also many of the previous founders and core programmers and designers, and what remains is controlled by a Big Boss company who doesn't care about good gaming. I can't expect anything more than what I've seen in Mass Effect 3 and Dragon Age 3. Mass marketing at the wild state.

[Ahglock]

The example you provide exists in an hardly predictable space, while a story is a fully controlled space. If you make a decision in life that might make another decision obsolete, that's sometimes circumstances, sometimes mistakes, sometimes choice. If it's part of a design, it can also happen but that is a mistake and mistakes happen because of poor planing, execution or choosing.

I'm not sure I'm getting your point. Are you saying stories are controlled by the writer so they shouldn't reflect what can happen in reality but only reflect some arbitrary measure of what we think is ideal? Why can't commander Shepard make a bad choice, a mistake that a later choice changes for worse or better? Sorry if I'm not getting your point I'm working on very little sleep the last few days, and am having a hard time focusing.

[Kroitz]

I'm not sure I'm getting your point. Are you saying stories are controlled by the writer so they shouldn't reflect what can happen in reality but only reflect some arbitrary measure of what we think is ideal? Why can't commander Shepard make a bad choice, a mistake that a later choice changes for worse or better? Sorry if I'm not getting your point I'm working on very little sleep the last few days, and am having a hard time focusing.

 

Ah, no, sorry. I missread your post and thought you meant that making choices in a story obsolete is left to chance.

 

I'll add poor observation to my own list.

[Natureguy85]

I'm not sure I'm getting your point. Are you saying stories are controlled by the writer so they shouldn't reflect what can happen in reality but only reflect some arbitrary measure of what we think is ideal? Why can't commander Shepard make a bad choice, a mistake that a later choice changes for worse or better? Sorry if I'm not getting your point I'm working on very little sleep the last few days, and am having a hard time focusing.

 

Of course that can happen. But shouldn't something like that be an actual plot point? The point is that the fact that unexpected things happen in real life doesn't mean that any random crap should happen in a story.

[Lucca_de_Neon]

This is a bit confused. "Understanding" is only said to be changed for synthetics, not organics. What organics get is full integration with technology, not understanding. You're just making up stuff here.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. Are you against the entirety of TIM's role in ME3? Anyway, TIM never has any intention of murdering every human on sight. To the end, he thinks he's going to save them and uplift them. He's wrong, of course, but that doesn't change the intention.

Again, if that bothers you then you shouldn't pick that option. That could make red a bad option for you, yep. What's wrong with giving you an option that you don't like?

And when you say "all," you don't actually mean "all." Your English is fine; it's the underlying thoughts that are disorganized.

I do actually mean "all" and i'm not "making up stuff". I'm giving my analisys based on what the game preached about in the last 5 minutes. Seriously, mate....everyone understands what i'm saying even if we agree or not on some of the finer details ^^ and there is the chance of having a productive debate with almost everyone, if you are willing..but this isn't a debate. I say A, you say that A is a lie, you ask me to explain it again, i say A again, you say it's a lie again....we have our own cycle! Nice! kinda dull tho xd We are done. Our conversation is giving me a headache. No offense. Peace!

[Ahglock]

Ah, no, sorry. I missread your post and thought you meant that making choices in a story obsolete is left to chance.

I'll add poor observation to my own list.

Probably my writing. Dyslexia plus sleep apnea sometimes leads too some incoherent posting on my part. And typing on my phone doesn't help.

[Ahglock]

Of course that can happen. But shouldn't something like that be an actual plot point? The point is that the fact that unexpected things happen in real life doesn't mean that any random crap should happen in a story.

I'm not defending the ending as it being a dues ex or whatever you want to call the catalyst wrecked the story for me in its own. It was too to bottom the worst written ending ive encountered in a decade. Cancelled shows that ended on a cliff hanger had a better ending. But, later choices over writing previous choices can be good story telling.

Let's say I go through a quest line to save Bob. Yippee Bob is saved. Later on a invading army comes through and story wise I can devote resources to save bobs village and Bob but the cost is a significant tactical element like a port town or something. Deciding to save the port town instead does not make saving Bob irrelevant. It makes the choice to save the port town more powerful instead.

[prosthetic soul]

Divergent endings and meaningfully carried over to a sequel. So basically you want two things that don't go together. 

These two aren't mutually exclusive.  Not by a long shot.  Only people who think like that tend to give excuses and have a defeatist attitude in general (basically Bioware in a nutshell).  Instead of coming up with ways it can be done, they list of all the ways it can't.  But where there is a problem, there is a solution.  And in this case, it's an easily rectified problem.  

[AresKeith]

As I believe we discussed in a different thread, those affect the epilogue, but not the ending. They do not affect your time with TIM or the Catalyst.

 

Not many of our choices would affect that, it makes more sense that they would affect the epilogue 

[Natureguy85]

I'm not defending the ending as it being a dues ex or whatever you want to call the catalyst wrecked the story for me in its own. It was too to bottom the worst written ending ive encountered in a decade. Cancelled shows that ended on a cliff hanger had a better ending. But, later choices over writing previous choices can be good story telling.

Let's say I go through a quest line to save Bob. Yippee Bob is saved. Later on a invading army comes through and story wise I can devote resources to save bobs village and Bob but the cost is a significant tactical element like a port town or something. Deciding to save the port town instead does not make saving Bob irrelevant. It makes the choice to save the port town more powerful instead.

 

I'd say that depends on how much effort and investment went into the quest to save Bob. You are right though that it is the player that decides to take the path that goes against the earlier work.

 

 

Not many of our choices would affect that, it makes more sense that they would affect the epilogue 

 

Well it's certainly easier to do it that way, but there are two things that could have made it matter.

 

1) The Quarian/Geth arc, EDI, and the few sidequests dealing with AI are all directly applicable to the Catalyst's premise and therefore the new, overriding conflict introduced at the end. Depending on how they went, they would be evidence in favor of either Shepard or the Catalyst.

 

2) EMS differentiation could set up something like the suicide mission, where available resources dictate the outcomes. As it stands, EMS is just a score and it doesn't matter from where the points come; it only matters that you have enough. This leans on one of my proposed changes to the Trilogy where the creation of the Thanix Cannon and possibly other Reaper tech based technologies put conventional victory on the table, albeit a long shot. For example, having more fleets means more dead Reapers, which perhaps weakens the Catalyst's bargaining position (if I'm stuck with the Catalyst being there) as he sees his precious Reapers being killed. Remember, his stated objective is to preserve Organic life, so each dead Reaper is a failure of that objective. More ground troops would probably just make the Earth mission easier, ala the Suicide Mission or the battle of Denerim from Dragon Age Origins. And Crucible research would mess with the Catalyst directly or something.

[AresKeith]

 

Well it's certainly easier to do it that way, but there are two things that could have made it matter.

 

1) The Quarian/Geth arc, EDI, and the few sidequests dealing with AI are all directly applicable to the Catalyst's premise and therefore the new, overriding conflict introduced at the end. Depending on how they went, they would be evidence in favor of either Shepard or the Catalyst.

 

2) EMS differentiation could set up something like the suicide mission, where available resources dictate the outcomes. As it stands, EMS is just a score and it doesn't matter from where the points come; it only matters that you have enough. This leans on one of my proposed changes to the Trilogy where the creation of the Thanix Cannon and possibly other Reaper tech based technologies put conventional victory on the table, albeit a long shot. For example, having more fleets means more dead Reapers, which perhaps weakens the Catalyst's bargaining position (if I'm stuck with the Catalyst being there) as he sees his precious Reapers being killed. Remember, his stated objective is to preserve Organic life, so each dead Reaper is a failure of that objective. More ground troops would probably just make the Earth mission easier, ala the Suicide Mission or the battle of Denerim from Dragon Age Origins. And Crucible research would mess with the Catalyst directly or something.

 

1. The Geth/Quarian arc I do agree should've been relevant to the ending and I was really annoyed that we couldn't bring that up

 

2. The Earth mission was the perfect place to have the EMS actually do something other than the Crucible's health

[Iakus]

These two aren't mutually exclusive.  Not by a long shot.  Only people who think like that tend to give excuses and have a defeatist attitude in general (basically Bioware in a nutshell).  Instead of coming up with ways it can be done, they list of all the ways it can't.  But where there is a problem, there is a solution.  And in this case, it's an easily rectified problem.  

Unfortunately, the more divergent the ending, the less meaningful it can be.  It's a paradox of sorts, but it's true.

 

Since everyone has be be in pretty much the same place in a future game, the differences in individual world-states can only have so much variation.  THe more variation, the more zots have to be invested in those variations.  The more choices to be accounted for, the more potential variations.  THis can be mitigated by changing protagonist and location for each game, like what Dragon Age is doing.  But if the variables in a world-state get too bad, then you simply can't tell a coherent story anymore without hitting a reset/reboot button.

 

THis is why I say choices should be meaningful in the game where they are made.  But not in future games.

[Lucca_de_Neon]

Unfortunately, the more divergent the ending, the less meaningful it can be.  It's a paradox of sorts, but it's true.

 

Since everyone has be be in pretty much the same place in a future game, the differences in individual world-states can only have so much variation.  THe more variation, the more zots have to be invested in those variations.  The more choices to be accounted for, the more potential variations.  THis can be mitigated by changing protagonist and location for each game, like what Dragon Age is doing.  But if the variables in a world-state get too bad, then you simply can't tell a coherent story anymore without hitting a reset/reboot button.

 

THis is why I say choices should be meaningful in the game where they are made.  But not in future games.

You do have the example of Wrex. If he survives the first game, you get a poweful impact on the third and also a valuable moment on the second. However, in a series finale. You should really wrap up the story in a way that doesn't affect a possible release in the future. This way, you wouldn't have to cripple the next game by making everyone flee so that you don't be affected by the consequences of that ending (which i think is what we are having). I would be really happy if this isn't the case, and we get to start on Earth, long after ME3 but i do realise that is almost impossible to do that.