inherit
♨ Retired
24
0
26,299
themikefest
15,635
August 2016
themikefest
21,655
15,426
|
Post by themikefest on Sept 9, 2017 17:14:49 GMT
As far as I know, the Quarian book. Is there a quarian book? |
|
inherit
4578
0
5,014
griffith82
Hope for the best, plan for the worst
4,259
Mar 15, 2017 21:36:52 GMT
March 2017
griffith82
|
Post by griffith82 on Sept 9, 2017 17:16:31 GMT
Refuse is the only workable ending for an ME3 sequel. But that wouldn't be that much of a sequel now, would it? First off refuse is a shit ending. Second I wouldn't want to play ME: Fallout. |
|
inherit
1129
0
Nov 25, 2024 23:55:29 GMT
2,052
traks
1,012
Aug 22, 2016 11:07:02 GMT
August 2016
traks
Mass Effect Trilogy, Mass Effect Andromeda
t_raks_99
|
Post by traks on Sept 9, 2017 18:08:25 GMT
Andromeda is a brand new galaxy that has a ton of mysteries that has yet to be solved. Aren't a couple of those mysteries going to be solved in a book? No. Unless you consider side content "solving mysteries". |
|
inherit
1129
0
Nov 25, 2024 23:55:29 GMT
2,052
traks
1,012
Aug 22, 2016 11:07:02 GMT
August 2016
traks
Mass Effect Trilogy, Mass Effect Andromeda
t_raks_99
|
Post by traks on Sept 9, 2017 18:15:27 GMT
I think some people don't want Destroy because it'll make the Geth and EDI extinct. That's why they gravitate towards control and synthesis since, in their eyes, it's the best chance for peace. And that's fine, but what has this to do with playing in a parallel universe with a new protagonist? I never understood why people have a problem with that. To me synthesis is an abomination, but if BioWare can tell the best post ME3 story in that parallel universe, I would be interested. Look, I also want to see MEA2 next, but that doesn't mean that BioWare can't use the parallel universes they created through Shepard's choice as basis for new games if they want to. I mean, the only thing that matters is that they tell a good story. That story likely wouldn't include the Geth or EDI even after a control or synthesis ending, because the next crisis in the Milky Way should be something totally different anyways. |
|
yan
N3
Posts: 322 Likes: 692
inherit
803
0
Mar 30, 2022 21:47:44 GMT
692
yan
322
August 2016
yan
|
Post by yan on Sept 11, 2017 8:49:09 GMT
ME3 sequel made by Edmonton and MEA2 made by the remains of Montreal or outsourced to Obsidian. And with no one pointing a gun to your head and forcing you to buy this or that title. Done, everybody happy.
|
|
inherit
Glorious Star Lord
822
0
16,819
KaiserShep
Party like it's 2023!
9,233
August 2016
kaisershep
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by KaiserShep on Sept 12, 2017 6:47:59 GMT
I think some people don't want Destroy because it'll make the Geth and EDI extinct. That's why they gravitate towards control and synthesis since, in their eyes, it's the best chance for peace. I hate Destroy for what it does to the geth and EDI. But even that pales before the other endings. How bad is it that becoming a genocidal monster worse than Saren is the "best" outcome? Refuse Shepard is arguably the biggest genocidal monster of all. |
|
Iakus
N7
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Posts: 21,290 Likes: 50,647
inherit
402
0
Dec 21, 2018 17:35:11 GMT
50,647
Iakus
21,290
August 2016
iakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
|
Post by Iakus on Sept 12, 2017 12:58:41 GMT
I hate Destroy for what it does to the geth and EDI. But even that pales before the other endings. How bad is it that becoming a genocidal monster worse than Saren is the "best" outcome? Refuse Shepard is arguably the biggest genocidal monster of all. Which is why Refuse is just a passive-aggressive trolling on Bioware's part. |
|
inherit
1697
0
183
The Arbiter
163
Sept 29, 2016 18:36:14 GMT
September 2016
thearbiter
|
Post by The Arbiter on Sept 12, 2017 13:45:08 GMT
Forget Andromeda 2, we all want a continuation in the Milky Way. >How can it be done? Follow the Volition model, by that I mean that you pick an ending for a previous game, declare it non-canon to not piss off all the fans, and build a new game on it. I.E look at agents of mayham, a game entirely based off one ending from Saints Row: Gat out of Hell >Which endings do they pick then? Control or Destroy. Pox on synthesis or refuse. But seriously it would be best if it was control since you can get to keep the relays, plus the geth if you hadn't genocide them. Although I'm personally a destroy person and prefer that. >How long after ME3 ending? 100 years? Have some characters from the old trilogy make cameos, Shepard is immortalized if they pick control or destroy. If destroy is the non-canon pick, then there should be references to Shepard being alive and well via dialogue, ambient dialogue etc.. >what's the new threat The Yagh. They're strong like Krogans, smart like Salarians, disciplined like Turians and adaptable like humans. They're a much more menacing threat than the Kett ever were. >what else We're back in the Milky Way with a plethora of new opportunities in new characters, environments and stories to be told ohhh boi... you have no idea what you are going to TRIGGER AROUND HERE. Trust me buddy... you have no idea how many times I have been suggesting this for the past 3 years already |
|
mannyray
N3
Played Anthem finally. So... yeah.
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda
XBL Gamertag: Drycake3000
Posts: 635 Likes: 722
inherit
9095
0
Oct 21, 2024 10:36:46 GMT
722
mannyray
Played Anthem finally. So... yeah.
635
Jul 27, 2017 17:23:42 GMT
July 2017
mannyray
Mass Effect Trilogy, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda
Drycake3000
|
Post by mannyray on Sept 12, 2017 20:48:08 GMT
So the premise is "I hate ME:A, I'd rather have a lousy premise to pander to me and it will sell the world over like hotcakes. FACT LOLOLOL!" Got it.
|
|
inherit
5045
0
Feb 27, 2019 21:49:30 GMT
1,574
suikoden
1,692
March 2017
suikoden
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Baldur's Gate
|
Post by suikoden on Sept 12, 2017 21:00:00 GMT
So the premise is "I hate ME:A, I'd rather have a lousy premise to pander to me and it will sell the world over like hotcakes. FACT LOLOLOL!" Got it. Well now the premise wouldn’t be lousy as Bioware Montreal won’t be in charge to fuck it up. Also the animations, plot, characters, quests, etc |
|
inherit
3439
0
9,664
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
8,054
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Sept 12, 2017 21:04:36 GMT
Which is why Refuse is just a passive-aggressive trolling on Bioware's part. Heh... Talk about adding insult to injury... Well, except that the fanbase asked for Refuse. |
|
inherit
7106
0
4,137
samhain444
1,669
April 2017
samhain444
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by samhain444 on Sept 12, 2017 21:08:22 GMT
Heh... Talk about adding insult to injury... Well, except that the fanbase asked for Refuse. Yep, that was a BioWare concession to the fans who asked for it along with the entire EC...for free |
|
Iakus
N7
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Posts: 21,290 Likes: 50,647
inherit
402
0
Dec 21, 2018 17:35:11 GMT
50,647
Iakus
21,290
August 2016
iakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
|
Post by Iakus on Sept 12, 2017 21:25:15 GMT
Heh... Talk about adding insult to injury... Well, except that the fanbase asked for Refuse.  |
|
inherit
7106
0
4,137
samhain444
1,669
April 2017
samhain444
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by samhain444 on Sept 12, 2017 22:30:39 GMT
Yep, that was a BioWare concession to the fans who asked for it along with the entire EC...for free The EC was merely an attempt at damage control, I don't see it as something that's worthy of special applause.
Especially because a not-rushed ending is something that I expect to see in games at release.
The EC didn't fix the basic issues most people had with the ending itself, it merely improved it on a technical level.
And some people were perfectly happy with the EC and what it accomplished...and some people will never be satisfied no matter what you do and are still butt-hurt about it to this day. Maybe you don't think it's "worthy of special applause" but they still addressed an issue with additional resources and provided it free of charge. They didn't have to do it but they did it but sometimes its not enough no matter what you do because it wasn't "exactly" what "someone" wanted. I wanted a different ending then what I got but, oh well, I have better things to do than send cupcakes... |
|
inherit
Champion of Kirkwall
1212
0
8,026
Sifr
3,737
Aug 25, 2016 20:05:11 GMT
August 2016
sifr
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire
|
Post by Sifr on Sept 13, 2017 0:06:03 GMT
Well, except that the fanbase asked for Refuse. We asked for an option where we could refuse the Catalyst's choices and instead take a third option. The one where the hero does the "talk the monster/computer to death" routine (like we did with Saren), convincing the Catalyst that the Cycle was an inherently flawed solution and doomed to failure, making it illogical to continue. Maybe it's cliche and not realistic, but if they were going to give us another ending, it's better than the "Rocks fall, everybody dies" one. --- As many have said, going with Destroy as the "canon" ending seems to be the one most people want because it's largely considered the "best" ending (or merely pisses the least amount of fans off). The Extended Cut already made destroy less bleak and ended with everyone rebuilding, so it's hardly like retconning is new at this point. Here's my usual suggestion for how I'd handle a post-Destroy setting;
The Relays
The post-Destroy Milky Way should feature a unreliable and fractured Relay Network.
The Relays would have all suffered some degree of impact from the Crucible, ranging from being merely disabled, heavily damaged or being outright destroyed. Trying to establish new "bypasses" around former travel routes would force the various races to venture off the beaten path into the hitherto unknown regions of the galaxy (and the relay network).
One cool game mechanic for this is that rather than game progression determining the areas available to explore, new areas are unlocked by repairing damaged Relays (much like the required influence mechanic in DAI), or new relays being located after a certain level of exploration in a region of space (making the 100% exploration in system/clusters actually mean something).
The Politics
The result of certain Relays being destroyed and new ones taking over as travel routes might lead to border changes between the remaining/emerging political powers, as they vie for control over their section of the network.
Much in the same way people in ASOIAF were forced to capitulate to Walder Frey's demands because the Twins were the only viable crossing for hundreds of miles, I could totally imagine someone ruthless and savvy (Aria T'Loak) using their control over a strategic relay as leverage.
Various regions falling out of contact or control of their previous governments might lead to the rise of various new factions and would-be Kings and rogue states. Council Space would be fractured, Turians may be facing a second Unification War, the Terminus systems would definitely be in open rebellion... all of this could add to a fun subplot as we attempt to end civil wars, vie for control over space and alter the balance of power in favour of various factions we're aligned with (or ourselves).
Alien Races
The Milky Way in the original trilogy was actually largely unexplored, despite how much we were frequently hopping from one spot to another. Most of the exploration was limited to regions of space accessible by the areas of the Relay network, leaving huge swathes of the galaxy untouched because there were either no Relays present or Relays leading there were not allowed to be opened.
This would allow them to easily reveal there are more races dwelling out on the "Here be dragons" parts of the map, but where unknown because the Council insisted in maintaining their "fog of war" for fear of discovering another aggressive species like the Rachni, Krogan, Yahg and Humans (depending on who you ask).
The Yahg might have developed spaceflight independently or reverse-engineered from any ships downed by the Reapers. It's doubtful the quarantine around Parnack would be still in place in the chaos following the Reaper war, making it easy for them to break it. We might even learn they had secretly developed spaceflight under the Council's noses prior to the Reapers even showing up, but were waiting for the right opportunity.
We know that despite appearances the Yahg are extremely calculating and cunning. Having learned of what happened to the Krogan, it might have been in their best interests to "play dumb" and try to lure everyone into a false sense of security. Yahg only defer to someone when they know they can't beat them, so as long as they're stuck on Parnack and everyone out-techs them, the Yahg won't make any power-plays. The moment that changes... all bets are off.
How about finally letting us explore Turvess? Maybe some of the Raloi managed to survive... or their plan to pretend to be primitives went about as well as expected, leaving their homeworld a tomb. Would be a weird experience for players to meet a "new" race who existed during Shepard's time, but have become completely extinct by the time the game takes place.
As for the Batarians, I'd really like to learn they managed to survive despite their heavy losses. They were often treated as jerks and acceptable hate-sink in the original games, but there was the sense that most of their anti-human attitudes were due to Hegemony propaganda. Like the injured Batarian in ME2 who was genuinely surprised if Shepard saved their life, showing that Batarian's perceptions and prejudices about humans are no different than how some humans might view Batarians.
I really enjoyed that the Batarians were fleshed out more in ME3. We finally got to see more sides to them and new aspects of their culture (such as a glimpse into their religion). Was one of the reasons I'd have liked to have seen Batarians appear in Andromeda and/or been a squadmate.
The Synthetic Elephant in the RoomI hated that we were forced to wipe out the Geth and EDI in the original Destroy. EDI perhaps more so, because if the Crucible was designed to target Reaper code, then the Geth unwittingly screwed themselves with that reckless (and OOC) decision to accept Reaper code to achieve full AI status. EDI however was built on that code, so she never had any choice in the matter. (Yeah, I know the Catalyst claims "all synthetics" will be affected, but he's hardly a reliable source of information. Really it makes far more sense that the Crucible would designed to solely target anything running Reaper technology or code, which is why EDI and the Geth were affected) So if given the option, I wouldn't mind seeing the Geth show up in a new incarnation. Perhaps the Quarians salvaged some of their code or recreated them, maybe as penance or simply trying to correct the mistakes they made last time? Or reveal few Geth who survived by being outside the range of the Crucible. With their intelligence, they should have anticipated the Crucible might affect their programming if it was indeed an anti-Reaper/synthetic weapon, so they might have arranged for a few units (carrying backups) to be placed as far from Sol as possible. I'd be tempted to go with a mix of both. How would surviving original Geth react to learning the Quarians may have recreated them from salvaged drones? Would they consider this validation by their Creators or view this as another rejection, having been replaced by a newer model? Would be somewhat fitting that even when the Quarians try to make up for being bad "parents" to the Geth, they unwittingly end up causing a sibling rivalry to develop between the two different generations of Geth. (The Geth question then becomes, which gen is Data and which one is Lore?)  As for EDI, I'd love to see her return as some back-up or at least something of her memory/personality managed to be rescued. Would allow us to see her struggle with her identity or develop in a different way than the first EDI, because they aren't really the same person, more of a memory of that person. (Think Epsilon and the Alpha in Red Vs Blue). Of course, having EDI and Geth recreated would feel a tad like a cheat and diminish sacrificing them at the end of ME3. I think you could probably get away with one, but not both. Not sure which option I'd go for, because both potential scenarios would be fun to explore. I like EDI more, but the Geth would provide more variety and be more easier to justify because you know that someone is going to try tinkering with all those Geth remains at some point. Yeah, I may have put waaaaay too much thought into this.  |
|
Iakus
N7
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Posts: 21,290 Likes: 50,647
inherit
402
0
Dec 21, 2018 17:35:11 GMT
50,647
Iakus
21,290
August 2016
iakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
|
Post by Iakus on Sept 13, 2017 0:06:48 GMT
The EC was merely an attempt at damage control, I don't see it as something that's worthy of special applause.
Especially because a not-rushed ending is something that I expect to see in games at release.
The EC didn't fix the basic issues most people had with the ending itself, it merely improved it on a technical level.
And some people were perfectly happy with the EC and what it accomplished...and some people will never be satisfied no matter what you do and are still butt-hurt about it to this day. Maybe you don't think it's "worthy of special applause" but they still addressed an issue with additional resources and provided it free of charge. They didn't have to do it but they did it but sometimes its not enough no matter what you do because it wasn't "exactly" what "someone" wanted. I wanted a different ending then what I got but, oh well, I have better things to do than send cupcakes... Two words: Broken. Steel. Edit: Also, that "if you weren't happy with EC you're so butthurt nothing would make you happy" bit never gets old  |
|
inherit
3439
0
9,664
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
8,054
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Sept 13, 2017 0:09:50 GMT
Well, except that the fanbase asked for Refuse. "The fanbase" asked for a lot of things. That specific request was at most at behest of a tiny minority - I know, I was there for the entire thing - so it is certainly telling that they chose to fulfill this request in particular.
I mean, even the indoctrination theory was much more popular.
We may have to use the Wayback Machine to settle this. I saw a lot of people saying that " my Shepard would never use the Crucible on those terms, but you're making him do that!" and so forth. It didn't get much debate because there really wasn't much opposition to the proposal. Nor should there have been; as a matter of RP it's not really possible to deny that some percentage of Shepards would have refused and should have been allowed to refuse. The problem, of course, is that saying "you are unfairly restricting my role-playing" is a very different argument from "you're being meanies by putting my character in that position." More people should have made the latter argument if that's what they really meant. |
|
Iakus
N7
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Posts: 21,290 Likes: 50,647
inherit
402
0
Dec 21, 2018 17:35:11 GMT
50,647
Iakus
21,290
August 2016
iakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
|
Post by Iakus on Sept 13, 2017 0:10:10 GMT
Well, except that the fanbase asked for Refuse. We asked for an option where we could refuse the Catalyst's choices and instead take a third option. The one where the hero does the "talk the monster/computer to death" routine (like we did with Saren), convincing the Catalyst that the Cycle was an inherently flawed solution and doomed to failure, making it illogical to continue. Maybe it's cliche and not realistic, but if they were going to give us another ending, it's better than the "Rocks fall, everybody dies" one. --- And people were specifically asking for choices made in the game to affect the success/failure of Refuse: IE: having our choices actually matter. Instead we got an RPG where the GM flips the table over and goes "Rocks fall, everyone dies!" |
|
inherit
♨ Retired
24
0
26,299
themikefest
15,635
August 2016
themikefest
21,655
15,426
|
Post by themikefest on Sept 13, 2017 0:32:15 GMT
I don't recall myself asking for refuse. I don't care since I never choose it. Its funny having Shepard talk big for a moment than stand there like a dumba** for not making a choice. It would be funny having the dumba** running to the thing saying he/she didn't mean it and would like a 2nd chance
The extended cut. The only thing it fixed, for me anyways, was the flashbacks as Shepard shoots the tube
|
|
inherit
Champion of Kirkwall
1212
0
8,026
Sifr
3,737
Aug 25, 2016 20:05:11 GMT
August 2016
sifr
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire
|
Post by Sifr on Sept 13, 2017 0:55:40 GMT
Bethesda has made some really poor decisions, but fixing the ending of Fallout 3 with Broken Steel was not one of them. Developers actually listening to fan criticism and feedback for once, whodathunkit?  And people were specifically asking for choices made in the game to affect the success/failure of Refuse: IE: having our choices actually matter. Instead we got an RPG where the GM flips the table over and goes "Rocks fall, everyone dies!" Exactly, much like how the Geth/Quarians outcome factored in your choices over the trilogy and how the outcome of Conrad's plot in ME3 depended on random and innocuous sidequests you did all the way back in ME1, including the seemingly "pointless" collections. Players want to feel rewarded for putting all the hard effort into the game with a special ending or better outcome. DAO understood this because you got to decide who would show up to fight alongside you in the final battle, while the epilogue slide showed your impact on the world around you (whether it be good or ill). It's a shame that they've kinda strayed from this mindset where your choices don't really matter or affect the outcome. Players prefer to feel like their choices determine the outcome, rather than be railroaded completely. It's one of the reasons why the ending of DAI was a tad underwhelming because nothing you did in the game really changed how that played out. The only difference was who would tag in to fight Corypheus' "Archdemon", either Morrigan or a summoned Dragon. Also I'd love to know who decided to make shooting that kid automatically trigger the FAIL ending in the Extended Cut? Because that wasn't cute or funny. Even if we believe that it wasn't their intention and it was supposed to be an easter-egg, it still comes across a huge "F**k you!" to all the players who criticised the endings. They knew that shooting that friggin' kid provided much needed catharsis and they wouldn't even let fans have that. (I actually liked the Extended Cut and was happy with it. But Refuse was poorly handled and the addition of the Auto-Fail felt super-petty) |
|
inherit
7106
0
4,137
samhain444
1,669
April 2017
samhain444
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by samhain444 on Sept 13, 2017 2:20:27 GMT
And some people were perfectly happy with the EC and what it accomplished...and some people will never be satisfied no matter what you do and are still butt-hurt about it to this day. Maybe you don't think it's "worthy of special applause" but they still addressed an issue with additional resources and provided it free of charge. They didn't have to do it but they did it but sometimes its not enough no matter what you do because it wasn't "exactly" what "someone" wanted. I wanted a different ending then what I got but, oh well, I have better things to do than send cupcakes... Two words: Broken. Steel. Edit: Also, that "if you weren't happy with EC you're so butthurt nothing would make you happy" bit never gets old Ok, Broken Steel, And? |
|
Guardian
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Posts: 566 Likes: 941
inherit
2219
0
941
Guardian
566
Nov 30, 2016 22:10:34 GMT
November 2016
guardian
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by Guardian on Sept 13, 2017 2:50:51 GMT
And people were specifically asking for choices made in the game to affect the success/failure of Refuse: IE: having our choices actually matter. Instead we got an RPG where the GM flips the table over and goes "Rocks fall, everyone dies!" Pretty much, yeah. As many have said, going with Destroy as the "canon" ending seems to be the one most people want because it's largely considered the "best" ending (or merely pisses the least amount of fans off). The Extended Cut already made destroy less bleak and ended with everyone rebuilding, so it's hardly like retconning is new at this point. As much as I agree with you, don't go saying that to a few of the diehard "Synthesis" fans.   dmc1001 found this and posted it in a different thread. It pretty much sums up how the three are seen. I (like iaukus and Laughing Man) were there since the beginning and I don't recall anyone "asking" for Refuse.  I know that it was asked for something where we can tell the child off and then pretty much not be indoctrinated. Personally, I wanted something where it was more of a happy ending and not some "artistic" one. Bioware did listen to the fans, however it was the ones that wanted a "grimdark" ending that were the loudest. So yes, giving the "Refuse" ending was just pretty much twisting a knife already driven into someone's arm or back. As it's been said already, the EC just added the flashbacks and a few minor technical upgrades. It didn't really "fix" what needed to be fixed for me. That aside, I still enjoy ME3. I've lost count at how many times I've played it and ME2 Bethesda has made some really poor decisions, but fixing the ending of Fallout 3 with Broken Steel was not one of them. Now this is something I also remember coming up and being thrown at me back on the old BSN. Someone got upset with me because I said how I did want a happy ending to the OT, and then said I must've been happy about FO3's Broken Steel. I think he ignored my response, because he never replied to me, but it was basically this - I didn't mind how FO3 ended. The sacrifice made sense to me as a Good Karma character. The other reason was that, unlike Mass Effect, FO3 was about giving all to help the Capital Wasteland. Others got a different moral to Mass Effect, but for me it was about Shepard surviving everything thrown at him/her. If they just killed Shep off at the end of ME1, I would have been fine with it. Or even if they just ended it and never did a sequel game - would have been fine with it. But they didn't - they kept bringing Shep back for two more installments. So when Broken Steel came out, I was confused. I didn't mind the ending already in place. But I saw it as an excuse to play more Fallout 3 (and yes, I really did enjoy Broken Steel and felt it was a really good addition to the original ending). In a way, the DA team sort of got it right - by giving us a different protagonist for each game, they could have possibly built it up so the final sacrifice could be made and it would have been possibly accepted better because for each of those installments, we had to get attached again to a brand new protagonist. Does this mean everyone has this feeling? No; some do though. Did I want my Warden back from DA:O? Sure I do - I still do. Hawke was an interesting move though that grew on me. I was opposed to it at first, but yeah, it grew on me. Would I have liked Hawke to be the protagonist in Inquisition? Yes I would have but I'd have been a bit more upset if Hawke had been with how Trespasser ended. |
|
inherit
3439
0
9,664
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
8,054
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Sept 13, 2017 3:05:40 GMT
[Bethesda has made some really poor decisions, but fixing the ending of Fallout 3 with Broken Steel was not one of them. Developers actually listening to fan criticism and feedback for once, whodathunkit? ........ Exactly, much like how the Geth/Quarians outcome factored in your choices over the trilogy and how the outcome of Conrad's plot in ME3 depended on random and innocuous sidequests you did all the way back in ME1, including the seemingly "pointless" collections. Although what you're proposing is a bit different from Broken Steel. Broken Steel clears up a logic problem with the original ending, while Refuse leading to anything other than what it leads to makes Reaper tactics over the course of the war nonsensical, even suicidal, and makes all Citadel leadership look like idiots. This was the standard objection at the time. I don't remember what the standard response was. "ME never made any sense anyway" is a contender, but people who really believe that tended to be not very invested in the ending kerfuffle. I always wanted to know how anybody thought of shooting at a hologram in the first place, myself. The only reason I know about that is the forums. |
|
inherit
3439
0
9,664
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
8,054
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Sept 13, 2017 3:32:05 GMT
dmc1001 found this and posted it in a different thread. It pretty much sums up how the three are seen. I (like iaukus and Laughing Man) were there since the beginning and I don't recall anyone "asking" for Refuse. I know that it was asked for something where we can tell the child off and then pretty much not be indoctrinated. As someone who was part of those debates, I suppose we're all to blame for how unproductive they were. Everyone agreed that Shepard should be allowed to tell the child off, but we never actually settled the "OK, but what happens then" question. We simply disagreed about what should happen, and never got to the question of whether getting the thing everybody wanted would hurt some of us if they didn't get the other part of what they wanted too. It never occurred to me that adding a new RP option would hurt some people's feelings. OTOH, it wasn't my problem, so I don't feel all that bad about not picking up on it. I don't think this is a great description. People who were OK with the EC typically don't think that the endings were grimdark in the first place. |
|
inherit
3439
0
9,664
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
8,054
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Sept 13, 2017 15:49:38 GMT
I'd argue that unless you are role-playing something obscure like a retarded Shepard (or an extremely nihilistic one, which is essentially the same as far as I'm concerned), there's no way to justify choosing refuse from a logical standpoint. Refuse is even more morally abhorrent than the rest, not to mention that tactically, from the point of view of a soldier on a mission, it leads to the ultimate failure. Refuse is just an elaborate "critical mission failure" screen. (it would have been slightly different if this was part of the indoctrination thing, in this case refuse could have an entirely different context) I can think of a few more cases. One of the more popular ones on the old board was a serious Kantian, a Paragon-type who really would never do anything immoral, no matter what the consequences were. (I don't know if such people exist ITRW, but a player's within his rights to play one; note that Refuse being morally abhorrent goes away under this theory of morality.) Or a Shepard who has come around to the idea that this has to be some kind of trick, as certain IT variants required. Or a Shepard who's come to believe that playing serious long shots is the way to go in such a situation; this is arguably a subtype of your "retarded," but by this point in ME3 preposterous luck has been a thing for Shepard. Sure, they're all failures. That's a good thing. CRPGs should give players more opportunities to make bad decisions and fail. Edit: the Kantian doesn't actually fail on his own terms, though. Is that actually a misrepresentation? I'll cop to it being insulting to the position, of course, but I thought the substance of the position was that this choice didn't give a positive, morally-unconflicted option. Anyway, I'm only talking about what people said, and people said that they wanted Shepard to be able to refuse to activate the Crucible. I'll leave discussions of what they meant by what they said to people who were actually on their side. I guess the takeaway here is to say what you actually mean, rather than look for any argument which will bolster your side of a debate. If you want A because X, don't automatically agree with someone who wants A because Z. I suppose this is on me too, for thinking that we were agreeing when we weren't. Put another way, the popularity of Shepard refusing was an illusion, because the same proposed action was doing different things for the people proposing it. |
|
