1042 réponses à ce sujet

[SKAR]

That assumes there is nothing more to learn, not likely.

In any case all three endings that star child allows us are stupid. Annihilation from the DLC is the best option.

Control? What's wrong with that. That's the only one I find no problem with. But I see why you think refusal is best. All these endings suck, **** you catalyst. Harvest my ***.

[nfi42]

Control? What's wrong with that. That's the only one I find no problem with. But I see why you think refusal is best. All these endings suck, **** you catalyst. Harvest my ***.

 

Why should shepherd have to die for the control ending, or for any ending. Bullshit.

 

Actually I think refusal is best because the emotion I feel for total universe annihilation closely matches my emotion as to the stupidly of the explanation for 50000 year cycles.

[NUM13ER]

Honestly getting as far away as possible from the implications of those "ctrl+alt+del" endings isn't going to hurt this game. Otherwise they'd be forced to choose a canon ending and that would just give rise to countless threads crying foul that they don't have three times the staff and budget to work their new story around the Shepard trilogy.

Your story still happened. It was just a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away...

[Bond0709]

I am honestly glad that the ending won't play a factor , but perhaps other choices made in ME3 or previous games will have some impact in MEA. At the very least I could see little nods to the original trilogy. For me it want to forget those endings anyway. I also like the idea of a fresh start, but another part of me wants SOMETHING I did while putting hundreds of hours into the trilogy to matter ... and that is why I believe fans are getting frustrated . The fact that it seems like nothing we did, not a single choice we made, will matter .

[The Twilight God]

So in Control, AI Shepard is merely hoping to rebuild the relay network? Codswallop. Balderdash even.

Well, obviously the Reapers rebuild the relay network in Control, Synthesis and Refuse. You know, it being the main ingredient in their whole galactic trap thing.

AI Shepard's dialog is pretty much the same stuff the TIM and Sovereign were spewing. It is clearly indoctrinated. If you ever read the comic with the Arca Monolith (TIM's origin) you'll know that the blue lightning is insta-husk tech. It's what gave TIM his blue eyes when a spark of it hit him and it gives Shepard those same blue synthetics before disintegrating him. Not only that, but ALL Reapers are indoctrinated themselves. Every single worthy race that fought Reapers became the thing they were fighting. Why would it be any different for Shepard? Why would the writers inform the player that the Reapers always push for Control, have a verified indoctrinated TIM literally try to convince you 5 minutes prior, have Shepard soundly shoot it down and then immediately afterwards believe in Control to such an extent that he's willing to blindly trust a Reaper to the point of killing himself. You don't find this odd?

You can ascribe to bad writing if you wish. That's cool. But it's also akin to saying dinosaurs aren't millions of years old, but God created them as is with all that carbon. Sure, that's conceivable I guess. But seeing as it doesn't fit within the scope of a coherent understandable universe it's not really a subject worthy of scientific debate. Within the realm of science it's irrelevant as it's outside the realm of scientific scrutiny. So staying within the realm of science (i.e. lore, story, etc.), Control has to be an indoctrinated ending. It literally cannot be what the kid claims. The control area itself was already there BEFORE the Crucible even docked. It's literally hardwired into the Citadel. Why would the Reapers put a device there with the sole purpose of giving up their own power? That makes no sense at all.

But I must reiterate. If Control gives you warm fuzzies and you're willing to accept it for that reason, logic be damned, that is your prerogative. Andromeda is what it is so that you're given the choice.

[TurianSpectre]

Well, obviously the Reapers rebuild the relay network in Control, Synthesis and Refuse. You know, it being the main ingredient in their whole galactic trap thing.

AI Shepard's dialog is pretty much the same stuff the TIM and Sovereign were spewing. It is clearly indoctrinated. If you ever read the comic with the Arca Monolith (TIM's origin) you'll know that the blue lightning is insta-husk tech. It's what gave TIM his blue eyes when a spark of it hit him and it gives Shepard those same blue synthetics before disintegrating him. Not only that, but ALL Reapers are indoctrinated themselves. Every single worthy race that fought Reapers became the thing they were fighting. Why would it be any different for Shepard? Why would the writers inform the player that the Reapers always push for Control, have a verified indoctrinated TIM literally try to convince you 5 minutes prior, have Shepard soundly shoot it down and then immediately afterwards believe in Control to such an extent that he's willing to blindly trust a Reaper to the point of killing himself. You don't find this odd?

You can ascribe to bad writing if you wish. That's cool. But it's also akin to saying dinosaurs aren't millions of years old, but God created them as is with all that carbon. Sure, that's conceivable I guess. But seeing as it doesn't fit within the scope of a coherent understandable universe it's not really a subject worthy of scientific debate. Within the realm of science it's irrelevant as it's outside the realm of scientific scrutiny. So staying within the realm of science (i.e. lore, story, etc.), Control has to be an indoctrinated ending. It literally cannot be what the kid claims. The control area itself was already there BEFORE the Crucible even docked. It's literally hardwired into the Citadel. Why would the Reapers put a device there with the sole purpose of giving up their own power? That makes no sense at all.

But I must reiterate. If Control gives you warm fuzzies and you're willing to accept it for that reason, logic be damned, that is your prerogative. Andromeda is what it is so that you're given the choice.

Have to admit i totally agree, even though i always pick destroy as that is what you fought to do through the whole of the trilogy, why would you do any different at the end?

[The Twilight God]

It does seem a bit stupid when youve played all three games for nothing in them to matter, but i guess they will just go along with the destroy ending as however far in the future the game is set, the whole shepard story would basically be legend by that time anyway

You could apply that to every form of entertainment media in existence.

Why play all the Balder's Gate games if it's eventually all over and done with. It's stupid to watch Futurama because nothing in it mattered after the series finale? Any series that doesn't continue infinitely is stupid?

Is the Simpsons the only thing not stupid? Until it ends one day and becomes stupid...

[Il Divo]

The Deus Ex franchise comes to mind. Human Revolution had different endings, with parallels between them and Mass Effect 3 even being made, and yet Mankind Divided managed to make it work.

 

It would probably be a good idea if we avoided using examples from unreleased games as evidence of how Bioware shouldn't have skipped out on the Milky Way. Until we know how good or badly it turns out from a narrative perspective, Mankind Divided doesn't really demonstrate anything. 

 

The question still stands: do we have any released games which have managed to homogenize widely divergent endings (on the galaxy scale of ME3), without being ripped apart for the effort? 

[The Twilight God]

No argument from me. Fantasize away if it makes you happier.

I'm not sure where you are from, but where I'm from "all endings are trainwrecks" does not denote happiness. I wish I could fantasize the facts away like so many others. Sadly, the indisputable facts I bring to bear are too great for me to ignore.

[Iakus]

ME3 decisions didn't matter in ME3, no reason why Bioware would make them matter in ME4.

Frankly our choices didn't matter much in the series in general. 

 

"Big choices" aren't

[AlanC9]

I'm not sure where you are from, but where I'm from "all endings are trainwrecks" does not denote happiness. I wish I could fantasize the facts away like so many others. Sadly, the indisputable facts I bring to bear are too great for me to ignore.

Then why not just believe your deception theory and handwave away any facts you don't like? Or sign on with MEHEM if that's how you're rolling these days.

[SKAR]

Why should shepherd have to die for the control ending, or for any ending. Bullshit.

Actually I think refusal is best because the emotion I feel for total universe annihilation closely matches my emotion as to the stupidly of the explanation for 50000 year cycles.

The only con to that is that the whole galaxy dies and you fail. I agree, why the **** does shep have to die!? **** You catalyst!!! I couldnt have no babies with Ashley!!! But Bio will redeem themselves. And who knows? Maybe in the future if the make a better, upgraded version of 3 for its ten year anniversary or something they can put more stuff in and make better endings. Hopefully. as a matter of fact maybe we should start a faction telling bioware to make ME3 again with better graphics and make better endings. I'll start a petition!!!! I said I didn't care but maybe WE can make a difference!!!! I'm not joking around. WHO'S WITH ME??!!!!? GAMERS OF THE WORLD,UNITE!!!!!

[In Exile]

It would probably be a good idea if we avoided using examples from unreleased games as evidence of how Bioware shouldn't have skipped out on the Milky Way. Until we know how good or badly it turns out from a narrative perspective, Mankind Divided doesn't really demonstrate anything.

The question still stands: do we have any released games which have managed to homogenize widely divergent endings (on the galaxy scale of ME3), without being ripped apart for the effort?

Not to mention the new DX game apparently has a forced cannon for a bunch of major quests like Malik being dead as a doornail. Plus I'm not sure how you can blend diametrically opposed endings, one of which has the protagonist die under undersea rubble.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Not to mention the new DX game apparently has a forced cannon for a bunch of major quests like Malik being dead as a doornail. Plus I'm not sure how you can blend diametrically opposed endings, one of which has the protagonist die under undersea rubble.

Where do you get Faridah Malik being dead is canon? 

[PunchFaceReporter]

How far do some people expect choices to be carried over? To the tenth instalment?

[SKAR]

How far do some people expect choices to be carried over? To the tenth instalment?

Maybe?

[Seboist]

Considering that ME trilogy choices didn't matter in the games they were made in, I'm not getting the surprise that they wouldn't matter in Andromeda either. 'sides,It's ultimately for the best that nothing from that poorly written "trilogy" (in name only) gets carried over.

 

How far do some people expect choices to be carried over? To the tenth instalment?

 

Indeed, and considering that this import gimmick amounts to little more than fluff like brief cameos and emails, is it really worth the additional story complication? The answer is no, especially when taking into account how incoherent and inconsistent the story was in the trilogy outside of choices.

[LiechockiRJ]

Where do you get Faridah Malik being dead is canon?

This is for real? i like her. She and Pritchard are the only one that I trusted in my first play.

And I was right =p

[Iakus]

Where do you get Faridah Malik being dead is canon? 

All I heard was that she wouldn't be in the next game because she could be dead

[Hanako Ikezawa]

This is for real? i like her. She and Pritchard are the only one that I trusted in my first play.

And I was right =p

I never heard it. As Iakus says, the most I ever heard was that because of her possibly being alive or dead, she won't appear in the game or will only be mentioned in a way that leaves her fate ambiguous. I imagine something like Jenson could mention her while talking to the task force pilot. 

 

Yeah, I was the same. Those two were pretty much the only ones who were worthy of trust and were genuinely good people. They were the "light in the darkness" characters that exist in those kinds of settings. 

[straykat]

I suppose I'd be angry if I expected any different.

 

Seriously... do you think there'd be actual results to any of that? That was the biggest problem of that game. Not the endings. All the choices changed too much. It effectively killed off the franchise.....barring an asspull like umm traveling to Andromeda.

[General TSAR]

Like I said, BioWare screwed up the endings so hard that they had to nuke the milky way and start over in Andromeda.

[Natureguy85]

Not to mention the new DX game apparently has a forced cannon for a bunch of major quests like Malik being dead as a doornail. Plus I'm not sure how you can blend diametrically opposed endings, one of which has the protagonist die under undersea rubble.

 

Deus Ex already did that with Invisible War going with an amalgamation of the three ending options in the original Deus Ex. I haven't played Human Revolution yet to know if it would work again.

 

 

 

 

if you include a bit of multi-universe theory,  it's easily done.  Star Trek reboot did it. This is scifi afterall.

 

It's already done.

[Natureguy85]

The EC only shows what happens up to the memorial scene. The picture slideshow is just what is HOPED will occur. None of it is narrated in past tense. It never actually actualizes before the credits role. You, as the player, are duped (i.e. indoctrinated) into thinking things turn out well. When you take the story elements from ME1-ME3, and the books and the comics it is undeniably clear that G and B cannot and do not work out as players would like. It cannot.

Synthesis is Reaper tech; objectively so. Where else does it come from? Not the Crucible and this has been proven via in-game content.

Shepard controlling the Reapers is laughable and the in-game lore itself demonstrates Control is a Reaper lie. In-game and comic content demonstrate this.

The relays are wrecked in even the best case Destroy scenario. Realizing their own idiocy and claiming on twitter than now relays were never necessary is bs. No one knows how to make or repair relays. And given the destruction across the galaxy they don't have the resources to research relay tech. They'd need to FTL to each relay even if they could fix them. I could go on and on about how civilization as they knew it essential got bombed to the "stone age".

All the endings are bad. Each one is a mess. Thank the goddess for the MEHEM.

 

The bold part is an interesting interpretation. I do like it, though you give the writers too much credit. They didn't follow the story from ME1-ME3. The idea that they put out some trick ending is silly. The books, comics, and anything not in the game trilogy are irrelevant. Plot integral info must be in the games.

 

The Extended Cut epilogues are what happened, despite any improbability. I like your interpretation to the contrary because I can't outright disprove it using the game information. I only know it as an outside viewer. You're only wrong in the meta-game sense because of writer intent. Those epilogue scenes do happen because the reason they are there is to whitewash the horrific consequences of the endings as originally released and make the player feel better. You're right that they don't know how to repair Relays. Yet they do because the writer says so. This is drivel, but it's what we were given.

 

The tense of the narration is irrelevant regarding the scenes because they don't line up in any way. In short, I like your idea, and it works as a personal, head canon interpretation, but it is not the Bioware story by any stretch.

 

 

You need to look again. He does not say anything about "all synthetic life". You're still caught up on the original ending and filling in blanks that don't exist. He says only "synthetics" and when you ask him what he means by this he clarifies that synthetics = technology; Not AI in particular. The reason the idea is implanted into the players head is to make Green and Blue seem better. Without the Geth's survival being put into question no Paragons, who make up the vast majority of players, would pick anything other than Destroy. Furthermore, it doesn't matter what the Reapers illusion says. He isn't infallible or incapable of lying even if he did claim it. The actual ending proves that high EMS destroy only targets synthesized (i.e. machine/organic hybrid) materials and not all tech indiscriminately. Husks, the Reaper "terminators" and EDI's blue box (which was made from Sovereign) are the only thing we can see being affected.
 
I go into detail about this here: http://forum.bioware...2#entry11725851

 

You're right; they did edit that line. He no longer says "you can wipe out all Synthetic life if you want," but he still says "All Synthetics will be targeted." The line about technology is a different one, but in all other dialogue, he speaks of Synthetics as "life" like the Geth. He also says "Soon your children will create Synthetics and then the chaos will come back." This implies that the current chaos or conflict will be gone, which according to the Catalyst requires the current Synthetics to be gone as well.

 

Also recall that the Geth now all have Reaper code if they still exist. To believe that Destroy doesn't destroy the Geth requires willful blindness.

 

 

 

 

Can you get a Elcor, Drell, Hanar, Batarian or Volus slide under any circumstance? I guess they all get wiped out? The slides are a reflection of the narrators hopes in regard to the future anyway. Listen to the actual dialog. It's in the present talking about what they either plan to do, hope will happen, etc. None of it actually occurs. Some of the stuff in the slides aren't even possible if you pick destroy (example: Samara ever seeing her daughter again). But that's another subject matter completely.

 

Don't be silly. Those others don't appear in any ending, so their absence in one particular ending is not significant. The Geth do appear in one ending I mentioned, but not the other. Why?

 

Again, I like your interpretation that the slides are the hopes of the narrator, but no, they are the actual events because that's what an epilogue is for. They are separate from the narration. Their possibility is irrelevant because the people who made them were not detail focused and instead wanted to simply reflect the choices made by the players and set an emotional tone. It's Drama over Details or even “drama only, to hell with the details.”

 

 

 

Let me ask you a question. How can Samara reunite with her daughter if she's in some out in the middle of nowhere star cluster with a population of 1 (Falere herself) with no relay network? How does Samara ever see Thessia again in her lifetime? How does Wrex and Grunt get back to Tuchanka overnight (Grunt still has baby plates)? How long do you figure it will take to rebuild planets that have been reduced to rubble (no infrastructure), then research mass relay technology and replicate it then fly to each relay in the network one by one repairing them to make a path to any given world? The Quarian homeworld is literally on the other side of the galaxy from Earth. Even slow boating it isn't an option and even then that's centuries for even the relatively close worlds to earth. Ugh, I could go on and on about the horrendous outcome of Destroy. Warm fuzzies aside every single ending is a trainwreck.

 

The writers didn't think about any of that when they made the scenes. Those are merely there to erase some of the complaints and make players feel better or that their choices mattered. We don't know how much time has passed or any details, and that's intentional. Those warm fuzzies are there because every ending is a train wreck. You're supposed to look at the pretty lights, not the smouldering ruin.

 

 

 

 

Lying? No.

Being cleverly deceptive? Yes.

Hence, Deception Theory.

 

This gives the writers way too much credit!

 

 

 

You can ascribe to bad writing if you wish. That's cool. But it's also akin to saying dinosaurs aren't millions of years old, but God created them as is with all that carbon. Sure, that's conceivable I guess. But seeing as it doesn't fit within the scope of a coherent understandable universe it's not really a subject worthy of scientific debate. Within the realm of science it's irrelevant as it's outside the realm of scientific scrutiny. So staying within the realm of science (i.e. lore, story, etc.), Control has to be an indoctrinated ending. It literally cannot be what the kid claims. The control area itself was already there BEFORE the Crucible even docked. It's literally hardwired into the Citadel. Why would the Reapers put a device there with the sole purpose of giving up their own power? That makes no sense at all.

 

You have it backwards. I have a mountain of evidence of bad writing and you're suggesting that was all a clever trick to Indoctrinate the player. You're right that it makes no sense; that's why we hate the endings. That doesn't mean that isn't what was written.

[Beerfish]

I was enraged today when I decided to buy a Ford and learned there was no option to buy a Ford in North Korea, how the hell could they!  Betrayed!