Mass Effect 3 Ending Scandel Makes Kevin Levine Sad - Polidicks

[QUOTE=thisispain;35227543]i can honestly say that would be an even worse ending.[/QUOTE] mh. interesting in how different it would be from the others, but ultimately pretty stupid lol

[QUOTE=Vedicardi;35227558]mh. interesting in how different it would be from the others, but ultimately pretty stupid lol[/QUOTE] yeah that also breaks character. shepard wouldn't just send out everyone to die against the reapers in a blaze of glory.

[QUOTE=thisispain;35227543]i can honestly say that would be an even worse ending.[/QUOTE] yeah, it's definitely not perfect but without some tweaking I don't see many other options. In my opinion, going out in a blaze of glory is a helluva lot better than the options I was given. I might be in the minority on this one, but I genuinely think "The Reapers Win" would be a more satisfying ending than what we got.

[QUOTE=thisispain;35227543]i can honestly say that would be an even worse ending.[/QUOTE] Why? I mean it would have been ridiculous, but at least it would have followed the same emotional train as the last two games, overcoming the odds through teamwork and courage.

[QUOTE=thisispain;35227564]yeah that also breaks character. shepard wouldn't just send out everyone to die against the reapers in a blaze of glory.[/QUOTE] Well, theoretically, if your EWS is high enough you could blow those bastards out of the sky.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;35227550] Mass Effect is about shaping your character and your universe through your decisions. Decision is a core element of how the story is conveyed. Take it away, without reason especially, and you take away the attachment of the audience to the plot.[/QUOTE] i just don't think it could have ended in any conclusive way. perhaps bioware was too ambitious and bit off more than they can chew.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;35227550]Except you miss the point of the games. Mass Effect is about shaping your character and your universe through your decisions. Decision is a core element of how the story is conveyed. Take it away, without reason especially, and you take away the attachment of the audience to the plot. Bioshock was linear, shooting based, and simple. You were given objectives and you fulfilled them. You never thought to do anything else because the option was never presented. This quirk of how the brain works is what that twist was about, but that's not what the game was about. If the twist was instead that you were attacked by a splicer and were suddenly rendered helpless for no adequately explained reason, people would be just as furious. Because that would be breaking the logic of the game, wherein splicers are easily dispatched threats that you would have no trouble fending off.[/QUOTE] you're not really making decisions though. you're shaping your character, but really you're going to the same places and having a generally similar experience to everyone else playing the game. and you forget bioshock was one of the first current gen FPS games to have moral choices (little sisters) without go to the extent of deus ex, at least. choice was a big drawing point when it first came out

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;35227568] overcoming the odds through teamwork and courage.[/QUOTE] the odds were far against them because they already knew fighting the reapers conventionally wasn't possible. shepard would basically be telling them to commit suicide.

[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;35227571]Well, theoretically, if your EWS is high enough you could blow those bastards out of the sky.[/QUOTE] the highest it gets is a "moderate" chance of winning right? I think you're exaggerating a bit

[QUOTE=thisispain;35227564]yeah that also breaks character. shepard wouldn't just send out everyone to die against the reapers in a blaze of glory.[/QUOTE] The only constraints Shepard is established to have is that he won't actively destroy galactic society. It's entirely possible that, given the entire might of the galaxy's armies behind him, Shepard would feel confident enough to stick to his chances. Maybe the three decisions are worse than defeat, I would argue that they are.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;35227595]The only constraints Shepard is established to have is that he won't actively destroy galactic society.[/QUOTE] maybe your shepard but certainly not my shepard. this is exactly what i'm talking about, there's really too much constraint when it comes to the game. either they took away the choice and try to explain it in some bullshit way (they fucked up) or make it so there is no ending.

[QUOTE=thisispain;35227578]i just don't think it could have ended in any conclusive way. perhaps bioware was too ambitious and bit off more than they can chew.[/QUOTE] There definitely could have been conclusive (and wildly varying endings). 1) Bad ending: The Reapers Win; game ends with a short sequence showing the galaxy being harvested. Epilogue shows a future race finding Liara's "black box" and the game ends with a hopeful note that the new cycle might defeat the Reapers. 2) "Best" ending: The tradtional Mass Effect ending, Shepard, his squadmates, and the Fleet destroy the reapers through teamwork, courage and defying the odds. There's plenty of loss, but there's still that familiar triumph we felt at the end of Mass Effect 1 and 2. Maybe a bit unrealistic given the scale of the conflict, but then so was surviving a suicide mission with 0 casualties and that ending was fantastic. 3) Multiple "middle ground" endings resulting in important characters or even entire homeworlds being decimated, but still resulting in a bittersweet success. There, conclusive endings. All Bioware had to do was to follow their own tradition of game endings.

[QUOTE=thisispain;35227588]the odds were far against them because they already knew fighting the reapers conventionally wasn't possible. shepard would basically be telling them to commit suicide.[/QUOTE] to be fair infiltrating a massive starbase crawling with thousands of well equiped and synchronized enemies with only a dozen or so people and coming out entirely unscathed is also impossible but it fit the emotional progression of the story, so hey why not

[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;35227606]There definitely could have been conclusive (and wildly varying endings). 1) Bad ending: The Reapers Win; game ends with a short sequence showing the galaxy being harvested. Epilogue shows a future race finding Liara's "black box" and the game ends with a hopeful note that the new cycle might defeat the Reapers. 2) "Best" ending: The tradtional Mass Effect ending, Shepard, his squadmates, and the Fleet destroy the reapers through teamwork, courage and defying the odds. There's plenty of loss, but there's still that familiar triumph we felt at the end of Mass Effect 1 and 2. Maybe a bit unrealistic given the scale of the conflict, but then so was surviving a suicide mission with 0 casualties and that ending was fantastic. 3) Multiple "middle ground" endings resulting in important characters or even entire homeworlds being decimated, but still resulting in a bittersweet success. There, conclusive endings. All Bioware had to do was to follow their own tradition of game endings.[/QUOTE] the only way they would've won was with the harbinger though. the only reason your "odds" are so high is because of that "super weapon" [editline]20th March 2012[/editline] sorry I mean crucible

[QUOTE=thisispain;35227603]maybe your shepard but certainly not my shepard. this is exactly what i'm talking about, there's really too much constraint when it comes to the game. either they took away the choice and try to explain it in some bullshit way (they fucked up) or make it so there is no ending.[/QUOTE] You are forced to fight the Reapers. That is all. Shepard is, within the logic of the series, capable of doing anything that, at the very least, harms or otherwise hinders the Reapers. So yeah, you could send out the fleets to commit suicide out of pure spite. I can see Shepard doing that.

[QUOTE=Vedicardi;35227626]the only way they would've won was with the harbinger though. the only reason your "odds" are so high is because of that "super weapon" [editline]20th March 2012[/editline] sorry I mean crucible[/QUOTE] Do we really know that though? We heard tales of multiple capital ships being destroyed throughout the game and that's the most powerful unit the Reapers have. The fleet at the end is unprecedented in scale, far beyond what anyone anticipated. Hell, we saw a single ship blow two legs off a Reaper. And there are thousands, if not tens of thousands of ships in our fleet, all hell-bent on the Reaper's annihilation. I think we could have had a shot.

[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;35227606] 1) Bad ending: The Reapers Win; game ends with a short sequence showing the galaxy being harvested. Epilogue shows a future race finding Liara's "black box" and the game ends with a hopeful note that the new cycle might defeat the Reapers. 2) "Best" ending: The tradtional Mass Effect ending, Shepard, his squadmates, and the Fleet destroy the reapers through teamwork, courage and defying the odds. There's plenty of loss, but there's still that familiar triumph we felt at the end of Mass Effect 1 and 2. Maybe a bit unrealistic given the scale of the conflict, but then so was surviving a suicide mission with 0 casualties and that ending was fantastic. 3) Multiple "middle ground" endings resulting in important characters or even entire homeworlds being decimated, but still resulting in a bittersweet success. There, conclusive endings. All Bioware had to do was to follow their own tradition of game endings.[/QUOTE] conclusive in the same way that the current endings are conclusive. how would you even get the bad ending, how would you screw up? and for the "best" ending, logically that makes no sense. why when it was absolutely 100% determined that the reapers were completely overpowered would shepard beat the odds through teamwork? especially if their magic weapon didn't work? the suicide mission was completely different so it's not comparable.

i can see shep doing millions of things but it's still just a team of devs they can't do everything.

[QUOTE=thisispain;35227543]i can honestly say that would be an even worse ending.[/QUOTE] but at least it wouldn't invalidate everything else you did during the entire series

[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;35227645]Do we really know that though? We heard tales of multiple capital ships being destroyed throughout the game and that's the most powerful unit the Reapers have. The fleet at the end is unprecedented in scale, far beyond what anyone anticipated. Hell, we saw a single ship blow two legs off a Reaper. And there are thousands, if not tens of thousands of ships in our fleet, all hell-bent on the Reaper's annihilation. I think we could have had a shot.[/QUOTE] but you never really know how many reapers there are, and when you are in the crucible, it certainly doesn't sound like things are going well yeah i think it couldve been an option but it wasn't so it wasn't

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;35227610]to be fair infiltrating a massive starbase crawling with thousands of well equiped and synchronized enemies with only a dozen or so people and coming out entirely unscathed is also impossible but it fit the emotional progression of the story, so hey why not[/QUOTE] they'd basically have to make 60 endings which all would take into account every single choice the player made. i think mass effect should have been a text-based game.

[QUOTE=Sector 7;35227661]but at least it wouldn't invalidate everything else you did during the entire series[/QUOTE] my ending validated everything I had done. I don't know about you.

[QUOTE=Vedicardi;35227587]you're not really making decisions though. you're shaping your character, but really you're going to the same places and having a generally similar experience to everyone else playing the game. and you forget bioshock was one of the first current gen FPS games to have moral choices (little sisters) without go to the extent of deus ex, at least. choice was a big drawing point when it first came out[/QUOTE] bullshit bioshock's draw was that it was a spiritual sequel to system shock, AKA a fun FPSRPG The little sisters thing is a hamfisted attempt at adding in choice, but it's so inconsequential both thematically and gameplay wise that it never really factors in.

[QUOTE=thisispain;35227670]they'd basically have to make 60 endings which all would take into account every single choice the player made. i think mass effect should have been a text-based game.[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasteland_(video_game)[/url] woop

[QUOTE=Sector 7;35227661]but at least it wouldn't invalidate everything else you did during the entire series[/QUOTE] it doesn't acknowledge anything you did throughout the series either.

[QUOTE=thisispain;35227647]conclusive in the same way that the current endings are conclusive. how would you even get the bad ending, how would you screw up? and for the "best" ending, logically that makes no sense. why when it was absolutely 100% determined that the reapers were completely overpowered would shepard beat the odds through teamwork? especially if their magic weapon didn't work? the suicide mission was completely different so it's not comparable.[/QUOTE] I can honestly say that I don't think the current endings are conclusive at all. Yeah, Reapers are destroyed but what about everything else? What about the characters we grew to love, what about the future of galactic society? Quite frankly...we don't know shit. And yes, the suicide mission is comparable. We were told a dozen times that "People WILL die" on that mission and I made it through without so much as a scratch.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;35227672]bullshit bioshock's draw was that it was a spiritual sequel to system shock, AKA a fun FPSRPG The little sisters thing is a hamfisted attempt at adding in choice, but it's so inconsequential both thematically and gameplay wise that it never really factors in.[/QUOTE] your decisions regarding the little sisters is the ONLY thing that effects the endings I can't see how you can see it is not important and the adam you get "from" them is a huge part of the game too.

[QUOTE=thisispain;35227670]they'd basically have to make 60 endings which all would take into account every single choice the player made. i think mass effect should have been a text-based game.[/QUOTE] uh that depends on your definition of ending really I don't see why it has to be so different from Mass Effect 2.

[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;35227684]What about the characters we grew to love, what about the future of galactic society? Quite frankly...we don't know shit.[/QUOTE] yeah because they'd have to spend ages making each adaptable ending. just the geth vs quarians and the krogan genophage contains dozens of variables that would change the characters you started liking and the future of galactic society.

[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;35227684]I can honestly say that I don't think the current endings are conclusive at all. Yeah, Reapers are destroyed but what about everything else? What about the characters we grew to love, what about the future of galactic society? Quite frankly...we don't know shit. And yes, the suicide mission is comparable. We were told a dozen times that "People WILL die" on that mission and I made it through without so much as a scratch.[/QUOTE] well they story they told was the story of shepard, not the story of the entire mass effect universe. after the end of ANY game so much insane shit COULD happen, you can speculate all you want. for example you have no idea what really happens after the end of portal 2