436 réponses à ce sujet

[Cheviot]

Couldn't Shepard live with destroy?

Initally that wasn't enough, though a lot of people have chosen that as "their" ending as time goes on. 

[Biotic Babe]

I'm judging by the snark and personal attack that the internet hurt your feelings again?

Poor thing.

*Sips Ryncol*

Oh, the opposite, in fact! I ended up laughing at the excessive waves of man pain coming from your posts. Meanwhile, I'm just super stoked that Andromeda looks like it's full of cute girls 

[rossler]

The big deal was that Shepard died without you being able to save him, a lot of people were sad, and were made to believe that, if they complained enough about how the ending didn't make any sense (even if maybe it did), Bioware would be forced to rewrite it, and Shepard could be brought back.  That's the short version.

 

Shepard can survive in the high EMS destroy ending. 

 

Bioware actually stated that rewriting the ending would do more harm than good. Sometimes, you have to stick to your guns instead of giving the squeaky wheels (the most vocal fans) the grease.

[ZipZap2000]

Oh, the opposite, in fact! I ended up laughing at the excessive waves of man pain coming from your posts. Meanwhile, I'm just super stoked that Andromeda looks like it's full of cute girls

Indeed the man pain is real.

*Sings Ryncol*

My Ryncol has a first name U-R-D-N-O-T

My ryncol has a second name its R-Y-N-C-O-L

Your taste in women it is T-E-R-RIBLE

[AlanC9]

The endings... well without getting too caught up in the colour coding... I think if one of the options gave Shepard the chance to survive it would have been ok... problem was Bioware gave us a character/avatar that quite a lot of us invested a lot in, kinda got close to... and I think a lot of us equate winning with killing the bad guys and getting the 'girl/boy/asari/being of your choice.

Probably true. I've noticed over the years that there's a real correlation between being OK with the endings and thinking that the "breath clip" obviously means that Shepard survives.

[Lady Artifice]

They wrote themselves into such a corner with ME3 that this "reboot" barely qualifies as one

 

 

You've put reboot in quotes, but have any of the devs actually described this game as a one? 

 

Because nothing about the promotion seems like it's trying to pose as a reboot to me. 

[dreamgazer]

It's not a reboot. You can colloquially call it a "soft reboot" since it'll feature new characters and a new location, but the fact that it has actual ties to the original narrative and setting prevents it from being a legitimate reboot.

Spinoff's the word.

[Lady Artifice]

It's not a reboot. You can colloquially call it a "soft reboot" since it'll feature new characters and a new location, but the fact that it has actual ties to the original narrative and setting prevents it from being a legitimate reboot.

Spinoff's the word.

 

 

I very rarely see the word reboot used correctly on this forum, as often as people throw it around. 

[KirkyX]

Probably true. I've noticed over the years that there's a real correlation between being OK with the endings and thinking that the "breath clip" obviously means that Shepard survives.

 

I'm not exactly 'okay' with the endings - it's more that, while I'm not particularly keen on them, they're not actually my biggest problem with ME3 - but I do think the breath clip was meant to imply that Shepard survived, simply because there's no reason to include it otherwise. At the very least, it's meant to leave the possibility open for those who would prefer it to end that way.

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

Various things. People felt that starchild was a curve ball that was completely unexpected and given no notice. In fairness, he was random because we knew nothing of the Leviathans or starchild and we wouldn't learn about either of them until the DLC months later due to starchild refusing to provide any further details.

 

There was also a lack of explanation in the aftermath of the game and a lack of closure for all of our companions. The Normandy crash lands on a bizarre planet and we are unaware of the fate of the crew.

 

Then there is the bizarre ending with the child and grandfather talking about "The Shepard" and how apparently Shepard's actions became legend. Not to mention, the three options at the end of the game were incredibly vague and ambiguous with some choices contradicting what you did previously in the game. The entire ending of ME3 was just rushed, incomprehensible, and poorly executed when it first released.

 

Leviathan, Citadel, and Extended Cut helped to rectify a lot of issues. However, even the last ten minutes of the game on the Citadel after being hit by Harbinger with all the strangeness that was happening threw many folks off and was disappointing as it came across as if BioWare was trying too hard to be clever and thought-provoking. Some also complain about the forced sacrifice/death of Shepard, although it's debatable that Shepard survives in High EMS Destroy with the breath sequence.

 

Ultimately, it came down to a matter of the ending was not what many expected and thus was a disappointment.

 

 

I should not be doing this... deep breath (oh and before you all evicerate me just know that I love reading these threads they are mostly very amusing... which is great for free entertainment)

The endings... well without getting too caught up in the colour coding... I think if one of the options gave Shepard the chance to survive it would have been ok... problem was Bioware gave us a character/avatar that quite a lot of us invested a lot in, kinda got close to... and I think a lot of us equate winning with killing the bad guys and getting the 'girl/boy/asari/being of your choice'

 

But I am really looking forward to the next ME game I'm going in open minded and probably open hearted... so shoot me.. now.. go on flame away

 

 

The big deal was that Shepard died without you being able to save him, a lot of people were sad, and were made to believe that, if they complained enough about how the ending didn't make any sense (even if maybe it did), Bioware would be forced to rewrite it, and Shepard could be brought back.  That's the short version.

 

 

Well unexpected stuff happens all over ME though.

 

But even though it was maybe less exciting why not just say well the rest of the game is fine you know 9/10?

 

 

This is why you don't get a straight answer. Everyone has a different opinion. And then there are those that liked the ending and dismiss everyone who didn't like it by saying childish things like "You are just sore that Shepard didn't live and have blue babies with Liara". As if that was actually said by anyone ever.

 

Basically, noone wants to open that can of worms.

 

I'm  of the opinion that ME3 was not anywhere close to perfect throughout the game  either, but you know, opinions.

[Seraphim24]

That's how I felt, but you have to remember folks invested five years into this trilogy. Then all the sudden random stuff happens and for many their Shepard ends up dead beyond their control. It almost felt like a slap in the face by BioWare taking away player agency from the gamer. That upset a lot of people because they grew so attached to their Shepards. For me, I thought the entire game was great with an ending that was rushed and needed more time. For others, they crucified the entire game because of the state of the ending and refuse to even consider it a great game irrespective of that.

 

See I mean I invested... er... well lets say I played the ME trilogy just like everyone else.

 

And contrary to popular belief not everyone was all down on the ending I thought it was like I said fine basically, one way or another I could not remotely understand the emotional outpouring afterwards.

 

I don't maybe I had practice because you had to abandon your protags in BG and NWN and such as well.

[rossler]

That's how I felt, but you have to remember folks invested five years into this trilogy. Then all the sudden random stuff happens and for many their Shepard ends up dead beyond their control. It almost felt like a slap in the face by BioWare taking away player agency from the gamer. That upset a lot of people because they grew so attached to their Shepards. For me, I thought the entire game was great with an ending that was rushed and needed more time. For others, they crucified the entire game because of the state of the ending and refuse to even consider it a great game irrespective of that.

 

The player is still able to consciously choose whether Shepard can survive or not. He doesn't end up dead beyond our control. You push the interact button (E on PC) on the power conduit to control the Reapers. You walk Shepard towards the beam with your keyboard, which then triggers a cutscene for synthesis. You shoot the tube to trigger a cutscene where the Reapers were destroyed. There was no control being taken away from people. 

[BaaBaaBlacksheep]

They wrote themselves into such a corner with ME3 that this "reboot" barely qualifies as one
 
Cant use the Normany so just design the Tempest to look like Normandy 3.0
 
Go to another galaxy but drag along every race from the Milky Way because they don't want to let them go
 
Cant use the Citadel so just design the Ark to be a mini Citadel
 
Cant use Shepard but still have an N7 character
 
Main character still working for an official organization
 
 
Its funny and sad at the same time. I was hoping for drastic changes, but I guess Mass Effect Andromeda is just going to turn out to be Mass Effect 4.

Yep they're going to screw up this one. Same N7 Shepard 3.0 and saving the day gets pretty tiresome and extremely boring. BioWare are the mother of all ****ups

[Seraphim24]

This is why you don't get a straight answer. Everyone has a different opinion. And then there are those that liked the ending and dismiss everyone who didn't like it by saying childish things like "You are just sore that Shepard didn't live and have blue babies with Liara". As if that was actually said by anyone ever.

 

Basically, noone wants to open that can of worms.

 

I'm  of the opinion that ME3 was not anywhere close to perfect throughout the game  either, but you know, opinions.

 

Yeah but everyone has a different opinion on all kinds of things and it doesn't necessarily rise to that level of emotion.

[rossler]

I'm still traumatised. BioWare owe me for the cost of therapy. 

 

Get in the emergency room line. 

[Seraphim24]

I don't know the way people talk about you know "you could pick X, they didn't clarify synthesis means Y" "I was surprised by Z" it's almost like they're about to have open heart surgery or something and this is some kind of major surgical experience or something. Or like sweating over a mortgage contract or.. something.

 

I mean video games didn't even have endings once upon a time basically.

[rossler]

I remember when they were just a line of text. 

[Morty Smith]

Can you believe you still play as boy-zelda in the new zelda game? They couldn't even bring themself to rename hyrule-land.

 

Nintendo screwed up zelda-man adventures.

[Seraphim24]

I remember when they were just a line of text. 

 

[rossler]

Ah, the old NES days. That takes me back. 

[Steelcan]

I think "soft reboot" does work here, because while it isn't an explicit wipe of the slate, it does have several hallmarks of a reboot, and the fact that they are changing galaxies when the majority of the Milky Way is still unexplored just screams to me that they are abandoning ship because of the endings.

[Onuris22]

For others, they crucified the entire game because of the state of the ending and refuse to even consider it a great game irrespective of that.

 

Yea, never really understood it myself. The game was simply AMAZING all the way to the end, issue with the ending itself or not.

 

Most people I knew just hated that the ending was basically the same no matter what, at least to them. I actually was really conflicted on what I thought was best out of the options given, and I have ti admit I chose synthesis the first time since I figure if Shepard was going to sacrifice himself it'd be to end the cycle (supposedly,) and create a life for all he cared about...and that did mean Edi and Joker. It's technically what the Reapers wanted all along (if in a different form,) but it seemed....like it took something away from the Reapers by Shepard actually choosing it and bypassing them sort of.

 

I tend towards the destroy now because of the indoctrination theory and that it seems Shep lives afterwards, at least, we can believe that if we wish. It's still painful losing Legion and Edi especially after all you go through to free the Geth and what Edi basically means for humanity itself, which is why I originally went Synthesis. It's a hard choice and I like that you have to make a hard choice at the end and that there is no win win situation, really.

[BatarianBob]

I feel they are playing it too safe. I would have liked the Humans to set up a large colony in Andromeda and have next to nothing in common with the last games.

No citadel like location
No Normandy like design for the ship
Only have 1-2 milky way races make an appearance and forget about the rest
Have the majority of squadmates be Andromedan
Have the character be a Han Solo smuggler type that only works for himself

Except we are not getting that, we are getting basically the same game as the last trilogy. Its like when my work used to offer chicken sandwiches for lunch, then take their leftovers and offer chicken salads as a "new" item the next day. Thats what this game feels like.

So what you want is a new IP?

I agree with you there. But if you'e going to make a Mass Effect game, it may as well look like a Mass Effect game.

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

Yeah but everyone has a different opinion on all kinds of things and it doesn't necessarily rise to that level of emotion.

 

I was replying to your question on why you aren't getting a straight answer NOW.

 

The whole "OMG the devs got death threats over the endings" is seriously overblown. There were a few people who did that, or a few people that threatened to sue the devs, and those few were soundly mocked by posters who otherwise didn't like the endings either.

 

The BSN tends to attract people that conflate a negative opinion to mean EVERYONE thought that!!1!!.

 

The vast majority of complaints were on how they didn't feel the endings matched what came before or didn't make sense, stuff like that. There was some nonsense about cupcakes too.  The devs received hundreds more cupcakes than they did death threats.

 

 

I don't know the way people talk about you know "you could pick X, they didn't clarify synthesis means Y" "I was surprised by Z" it's almost like they're about to have open heart surgery or something and this is some kind of major surgical experience or something. Or like sweating over a mortgage contract or.. something.

 

I mean video games didn't even have endings once upon a time basically.

 

The types of games that didn't have endings, still don't. RPG's always had endings.

 

Maybe you are the type who doesn't get emotionally invested in video games. Kudos to you. That seems healthy. The vast majority of BSN posters, however, are very invested in the games. For them, the ending was a slap in the face. Or it was the best thing ever. Depends who you ask.

[IST]

Negative thread for the sake of being negative.

 

Let's see, the biggest threat to mankind and alienkind has been sorted one way or another: a time of rebuilding, rejoicing and rejuvenation is required in the Milky Way after the gangbang of a time that was the Reaper War.

 

We must remember this is a video game series, and such requires the respect to fans to bring back familiar faces such as beloved races and easter eggs to hold in reverence the previous chapters in the story that is Mass Effect.  If they went FULL reboot, then imagine the sh*tstorm that would insue?  It wouldn't be Mass Effect without Salarian ballads or Asari grins.

 

This is a time to be excited for what's to come, new adventures with new family bound dynamics and a new galaxy where we need to find Humanity a new home: now this begs the ultimate question that I feel will be slowly uncovered as we get closer to release:

 

Do the Ark ships leave just prior to the Reapers arriving (unlikely IMO) which doesn't require a canon ending to be chosen....or have they chosen say, Destroy or Control, and just ran with that: and obviously a new threat is imminent to the whole galaxy now (say after a decent amount of time post Reaper War) that requires the colonization of Andromeda in order to save the inhabitants of the Milky Way.

 

It's more respectful the choices of the original trilogy to go with plan A (pre-Reaper occupation of Earth in ME3) but I just don't see how it would work that way... the governments of Earth and the Citadel refuted Shepard's claims till the bitter end, so the Ark Initiative would have to have been funded by other means and kept a secret from everyone who matters apparently....seems odd.

 

The other choice is choosing a canon ending, and a new threat has arisen post Reaper War that may have to do with say, Dark Energy or something like that, making the Milky Way uninhabitable in the foreseeable future.,.. this mean they chose an ending as the ol' Synthesis ending conundrum stuffs up any way of not doing that.

 

Personally, I'm happy if they chose Destroy as a canon and are going with the post-war story: but that's probably because I chose Destroy in each of my many playthroughs, if I was an adamant Synthesis believer, I may have other ideas.

 

Either way, let's rejoice that a new space adventure with Krogan humps and N7 thumps is on the way! XX