The guys who played evil bastards right through the trilogy? Shepard assuming control of the reapers and not dying would be something any evil (or rogue) Shepard wouldn't be able to pass up, with the power of the reapers he could do anything.
|
|
|
The guys who played evil bastards right through the trilogy? Shepard assuming control of the reapers and not dying would be something any evil (or rogue) Shepard wouldn't be able to pass up, with the power of the reapers he could do anything.
(Formerly "The Herald")
"The bible is like an EULA. People just scroll past everything and click "I agree" without reading it."
-Moe
#102
Ah yes, I did say that I liked how the Paragon/Renegade wasn't too clear cut. That said, I think the principle still stands. Destroying the Reapers for free would be too easy, and they wanted that bittersweet ending.
Originally Posted by Starblade
Codex: If you pick red/green/blue and put your faith in the reaperchild find out that he's right, the war ends right now and the death stops. If you fight it out you know that you did it your way, and you pay the price in blood. Being able to win conventionally doesn't remove all sacrifice from the story. You can win without a contrived personal sacrifice and still lose so much. How bittersweet would it be to have an epilogue that shows everyone rebuilding, then ends on a final scene of Shepard standing in an endless field of grave markers, looking at the headstones of Joker, Traynor, of every member of the Normandy crew, because you chose to fight it out to the end and stick to your guns, knowing there might have been another way? There's so much death and tragedy and pain and devastation in the story before the end that almost any ending that doesn't involve time travel is going to be bitter.
Co-founder of Homeworld:@
Open to new members
Well an ending explaining the trillions dead, the relays gone and the earth being a charred waste land is enough for me to be sad about. I don't need my Shepard to die as well, there was plenty of death around, everyone you knew on the Citadel for starters. If the Catalyst can change all life in the galaxy, why exactly does Shepard have to die? And why do the Geth die? etc. It seems like it was aiming for bittersweet just for the sake of it, and not explaining it to the audience, similar to Legion just far worse.
I get that moral ambiguity is an interesting part of the ending, but when its not well reasoned it tends to leave me with a bad taste in my mouth. Both TIM and Saren can be convinced that there options are wrong, they only actually seem to believe them because of the indoctrination process. To then say they were right makes little sense to me, we spent three games rebelling against their ideals and proving them wrong. To then only get to choose those options (combined with suicide), or genocide seems basically unfair. The unfair part isn't the issue, its that the end choices don't make sense given the nature of the choices we've had throughout the trilogy.
Last edited by Ewokz; 5th Apr 12 at 1:29 PM.
#105
I remember where I read that summary: it's from the The Final Hours iOS app which has a bunch of behind the scenes stuff for ME3.
I'll see if I can find any more interesting tidbits later, but the app highly implies that budget and time constraints screwed up the ending and that the choices and their outcomes were supposed to be presented in a much better manner (for one, the kid didn't exist.)
Bingo. They were hamfisting the "bitter" part so much they totally forgot about the "sweet" part. In addition to the entire rest of the nonsense, like the fact the kid even exists.
- sincerely, the Sign Painter
#107
Also, the expiry date is meaningless. It's only there to cover EA's butt if Microsoft pulls the content a couple years from now.
#108
So multiple star systems went 'kapowie' supernova style, and there is a change to rebuild the actual cause of the super nova?
Bioware plot...brain hurts.
On a slightly more serious note I figure it will be ~slightly more confusing, lore destroying and 'to be concluded' type of ending that will make things even worst for the people who actually liked the original ending.
Good news is that it can't get much worst tho!
#109
Uh yes it can. If it was a flippant or a comment made in jest, fine- the reason the ending seems so bad is because the stuff preceding it is so good. Trust me when I say it can get a lot worse
P.S. not ignoring replies, just thinking about how to respond.
Yeah I am slightly worried this could get a lot worse. I'm betting it will make things a little better, like Thorno said, turd polishing.
#111
I wonder how they are going to explain my teleporting teammates who go hit by Harbinger, then appeared in the Normandy?
#112
It's pretty easy, just appeal to possible universes, like Star Trek (please don't)
I'm more interested in how Shepard survives re-entry and the cataclysmic damage the Citadel does to the earth.
#114
The same way you survived atmospheric re-entry the first time.
My Interceptor is better than your Interceptor.
#115
Space Magic
#116
... Biotics?
Maybe when the Collectors wanted Shepard's body, they were told to get it by the Reapers. And the Reapers were told by the Catalyst. And the Catalyst was told by the SpaceElvesEldarFaeries to retrieve Shepard. These Space Faeries are eternal and hyperevolved, their motives unknowable.
I really wish Brent Knowles was in charge, not Casey Hudson, that man would've likely seen to a proper ending from the get-go.
You don't actually survive entry in ME2, Shepard's officially brain dead. Takes 'em two years to get you into working order. In ME3 your breathing after falling from space with patchy, messed up armour and no helmet (if you were joking then nvmThe same way you survived atmospheric re-entry the first time.)
The biggest issue I have with it is what the Citadels going to do to earth (and Shepard as he must land somewhere near it), something that size falling onto the surface is extinction event stuff right?
#119
Given the amount of upgrades I seem to be merrily applying to my body (and armour) in ME2, it wouldn't surprise me if I could survive atmospheric re-entry in ME3. Insanely tough skeletal structure, reinforced (synth-metal improved?) muscles with medigel conduits running through in addition to my cardiovascular system. I'm like a goddamned T-800 (or maybe a T-1000, given the amount of facial reconstruction you can undergo).
I am an Iron Warrior! Iron Within, Iron Without!
Remember that you're supposedly part Reaper and the destroy ending thus supposedly also destroys those bits, so you're heavily weakened (and that without counting Harbinger's hug).
#121
It's already a miracle that Shepard's body isn't just fried carbon and vaporised carbon dioxide. Really, look at how quickly you begin to see the atmospheric friction. Obviously I'm not being serious, but you could nitpick so many things in this game. For example, Tali confesses to having cybernetic upgrades on the Geth Dreadnought, which is one of that youtube rant guy's points about the ending- does the Destroy ending affect Quarians, given their cybernetic upgrades? Massive speculation time.You don't actually survive entry in ME2, Shepard's officially brain dead. Takes 'em two years to get you into working order. In ME3 your breathing after falling from space with patchy, messed up armour and no helmet (if you were joking then nvm
I think Bioware should just go with this as the epilogue and be done with it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=6j03J4OAYH4
Evolve or Die...I choose to evolve.
Steam: Ekko Tek
#123
It's a bit of a plot point that the body's still kicking, somehow. It's what they used as a basis to bring Shepard back, he was "meat and tubes" for a while, but never completely dead, more like horror movie "he's dead OR IS HE" dead. But it was a bit of a joke so it doesn't really matter.You don't actually survive entry in ME2, Shepard's officially brain dead.
That's a good point. It's mentioned that the Geth start to reside in the Quarians' suits to help their immune systems by faking infections (somehow), but since they're Reaper code you could end up screwing over both races and yourself too. And EDI (even though she walks out of the ship at the end if you talked to her enough).For example, Tali confesses to having cybernetic upgrades on the Geth Dreadnought, which is one of that youtube rant guy's points about the ending- does the Destroy ending affect Quarians, given their cybernetic upgrades? Massive speculation time.
#124
Ah yes, I forgot to mention- when did they say that you're installed with Reaper upgrades? I missed that.
Really?! I thought I killed EDI off when I chose Destroy.And EDI (even though she walks out of the ship at the end if you talked to her enough).
Well the entire Normandy sequence breaks continuity anyway. Squadmates who were on ground with you in the last mission and who were by all logical accounts dead can appear then, too.
#126
It's brought up by Miranda and TIM a couple times.
She'll occasionally walk out of the ship if you've talked to her enough for her to qualify as "best friend" based on the scripting. Even if her infiltrator body got blown up by Harbinger.Really?! I thought I killed EDI off when I chose Destroy.
Starblade there's a vid log in the Cerberus base that confirms Shepard was completely dead, he was a charred corpse pure and simple. Considering what they say in the logs, he was a ruin on discovery.
I always thought Reaper upgrades are speculated because somehow between the two vids (at the end) they found something that would enable them to regenerate him. After the first one they said it was impossible given the current methods available to them; then they suddenly have a new development. Don't remember them hinting at it but I'll take your word on it, been a while since I played ME2 and I no doubt have missed some bits in ME3.
@Gorb there's really only so far you can go with upgrades in ME2, if he was tough enough to be breathing after re-entry without a helmet and significant parts of his armour damn near nothing in the game should have damaged him. The unknown qualities of the armour in ME, the tiny hole in his suit on his first re-entry and the nature of how he was found kind of makes me happy enough with him being brought back in ME2. What happens with him in ME3 is just ridiculous given the background and what occurred. To me its like "Well if you thought teleporting squad mates from earth, onto a ship running from sol made no sense, wait until you finish the credits".
Last edited by Ewokz; 5th Apr 12 at 8:01 PM.
#128
It's also brought up Shepard was alive, and you openly admitted earlier he was only "brain dead" so, either/or really. In the games he's described as "dead", "alive", "only a couple cells survived" and a few other things too.Starblade there's a vid log in the Cerberus base that confirms Shepard was completely dead, he was a charred corpse pure and simple.
It's not particularly important as it was just a single line and reference but originally it was going to be part of the larger "Shepard's being indoctrinated and has to fight against it" thing that happened at the end. Shepard has it, Cerberus operatives have them, TIM has it.I always thought Reaper upgrades are speculated because somehow between the two vids (at the end) they found something that would enable them to regenerate him.
Maybe Javik told Shepard the secret of breathing vacuum during a loading screen. You don't know!What happens with him in ME3 is just ridiculous given the background and what occurred.
#129
The WHOLE DAMN NORMANDY should blow up because EDI inhabits the ship itself, which effectively is the same as a Reaper.
I don't understand why people act like the ending was the only bad thing about ME3. The whole thing is full of retcons and lazy writing. The game never had much a of chance given EAs unrealistic demands that it be easily accessible to people who haven't even played the others and that it was supposed to appeal to a larger audience. Fulfilling those requirements was always going to be a huge compromise.
While some of the retcons were quite lazy, keeping it open for those who haven't played is still a good thing, in a sense. If I just bought Mass Effect 3 and found out that it was required that I play through -ALL- of Mass Effect 1 and 2 before I could play Mass Effect 3, I'd probably demand a refund or just not play it since I don't own the first two games (I do own the first two, hypothetical scenario before anyone assumes otherwise).
#132
Nalkor, EA/Bioware were advertising ME3 as the BEST ENTRY into the trilogy... seriously.
The problem is it's a story driven RPG that didn't rely heavily on gameplay, in most games the focus is gameplay and the story is more or less a bonus so it doesn't really matter if it's totally ruined to make sequels more accessible. EAs expectation that they could turn mass effect into a huge franchise is unrealistic, it was never going to be the next CoD. A more reasonable approach would have been to just accept it's only going to sell 2-3 million units and not waste money on celebrities and marketing while producing a product that would satisfy existing customers.
EA's money wasting is demented, ME3 is barely selling better than the others, the celebrity voices and composer add nothing to the game when development is clearly a very low priority. Not only have sales likely failed to live up to its increased marketing budget they have probably managed to kill yet another profitable franchise.
#134
ME3 has still sold quite well. They haven't killed the franchise yet. Heck, even DA2 (awful as it was) sold enough to allow a DA3 but thankfully it appears Bioware's getting the time needed to do better on that one.
I guarantee that was the main issue with a lot of ME3; it was rushed.
Yup. It sure seems that way in many places. Oh, what could have been...
@Akranadas - I'm sorry, could you please say something that doesn't sound devoid of rational logic? Did EA/BioWare actually fucking say that? How the fuck is going into the last entry of a trilogy the best way to understands a goddamn thing? If I watched Return of the Jedi without having seen A New Hope or Empire Strikes Back, I'd have no idea what the fuck was going on.
#137
Yes, EA actually marketted the game as being stand alone enough to serve as an entry point.
Mind = Blown, and not in a good way.
#139
I don't understand why people act like the ending was the only bad thing about ME3. The whole thing is full of retcons and lazy writing. The game never had much a of chance given EAs unrealistic demands that it be easily accessible to people who haven't even played the others and that it was supposed to appeal to a larger audience. Fulfilling those requirements was always going to be a huge compromise.
I don't know what game you were playing but that's not my experience at all.
Well of course they were going to say that- and it translates in the game. Obviously it's not easy to get into the game at ME3, but you can see the differences between the writing of ME2 and ME3. There's more introductions, more left side of the convo wheel that allows you to ask really stupid clarifying questions BUT they allow for the rough and ready summary of previous events. So I can see where Bioware learned a bit from ME2, because ME2 was certainly not new guy friendly.Yes, EA actually marketted the game as being stand alone enough to serve as an entry point.
That said, it's obviously a marketing ploy by EA. It's not retarded, they're just trying to milk it for all it's worth.
How did you miss that Nalkor? I think pretty much every advertisement for ME3 was "THIS IS THE PERFECT PLACE TO START!", also, EA is now playing the victim of homophobes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain...gay-hate-mail/
It's pretty sad that the only ones calling EA out on their bullshit are sites and people that have nothing to do with videogames.
@Shuma - After the number of PMs you and I had back and forth last year, they're still saved yes, I opted to distance myself from any hype or advertisements pertaining to ME3. Still find it strange that Guardians with riot shields were something Casey Hudson was actually proud of.
Plus, I don't visit a whole lot of sites about games since I've been let down too often due to marketing promising one thing and instead something else entirely is delivered.
#142
Can we have a thread with the Anti-EA sentiment that results in EVERYONE jumping on the hate wagon for once?
Guess now gay people are to be blamed for everything this season.
Personally, even if gay characters were in the game to a point that it was annoying, I wouldn't hate EA because they included them there. I would blame EA because they hired weak writers that didn't bother to flesh them out a bit more than the stereotypic 'I'm a gay man and I sleep with men, Commander. Also, hi, my name is xxx'.
@Akranadas - If you'd like, I could post the YouTube video of EA's CEO at a shareholder meeting where he says gamers are such great sources of revenue, that he should consider adding microtransactions to their Battlefield games in the form of everytime you reload a gun of any kind, you would be charged $1.00 USD thanks to Origin and billing information.
It only sold 2 million on xbox 360, much less on PS3 and PC. Given the amount of marketing I would have thought they expected much higher sales. I don't see how more time would have helped the game, they knowingly made the game in a way that was sure to disappoint fans. If they were short on time you wouldn't expect they would add multiplayer and kinect support.
#146
To be fair Misiok, the gay characters are handled as well as the straight romances.
I actually liked how Cortez being gay was treated as such a normal thing in the game personally. It wasn't dwelt upon. He just was a man who'd lost his lover and happened to be gay.
Which parts didn't they retcon or completely ruin? The only parts of the story that seemed coherent to me were curing the krogans and a few minor squad side missions. It would have been more understandable if it was mostly ME1 they ignored since the main writer left but they ignore or retcon ME2 stuff just as much. The sheer stupidity of many of the retcons is absurd, for instance they go to the trouble of having the illusive man voiced by Martin Sheen only to wreck the character in ME3. Why bother creating a character voiced by a celebrity if you're not going to develop the character or even come up with a reasonable reason why the main character is suddenly the bad guy? Then you also have legion and harbinger, again characters from ME2, who are basically killed off screen without being resolved.
#148
Harbinger shoots a laser at and kills your teammates (and almost you) on Earth.
"He's indoctrinated" is reasonable but also predictable and boring. They should have done something else.Why bother creating a character voiced by a celebrity if you're not going to develop the character or even come up with a reasonable reason why the main character is suddenly the bad guy?
Yeah In my OP the Cerberus side-story was really bad in places, full of plot holes and what not. It would have been far more interesting if they had done something original with it.
TIM was always an evil bastard though, throughout ME1 and ME2 you see multiple horrifying experiments conducted by Cerberus. I guess he's not really evil in any of the three games, but his lack of any morals comes across like that. I don't see how anyone would think that his character in ME3 wasn't in line with the last two games.
@Starbalde
These logs pretty much recon what has been said before, as most conversations concerning Shepard are speculation where as these are definitive records. But in the end I guess it comes down to what you consider dead.
Last edited by Ewokz; 6th Apr 12 at 8:04 AM.
#150
I really thought they were going to gO with the angle of TIM realizing he's losing to indoctrination and him bringing Shep back to save the day in his stead.
If done right that would have been an excellent twist. Making much of what Shep's done, including his betrayal of Cerberus and return to the Alliance, being all according to TIM's plan in the first place.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
