Comento por si no sabían, que el Readines se aumenta por medio de la opción multiplayer. Es decir, los demás finales, se unlockean si jugamos multiplayer...
{ Este tema ha sido editado, no postees tan rápido, editá }
Sigo todavía con la leche... Y floodeo porque quiero y puedo. Acá un post en reddit de un flaco que básicamente refleja parte de mi decepción.
Finales Posibles:
Rating < 1750 - Earth is destroyed regardless of your choice
Rating 1751-2050 - If Shepard destroys the Reapers, Earth is destroyed.
Rating 2051-2350 - If Shepard becomes a Reaper, Earth is saved.
Rating 2351-2650 - If Shepard destroys the Reapers, Earth is only devastated.
Rating 2651-2800 - If Shepard destroys the Reapers, Earth is saved.
Rating 2801-4000 - Shepard can create a synergy between organics and synthetics.
Rating 4000-5000 - If Shepard destroys the Reapers and "saves" Anderson, Shepard
will also live as Earth is saved.
Rating 5000+ - If Shepard destroys the Reapers and does not "save" Anderson,
Shepard will also live as Earth is saved.
Rating 1751-2050 - If Shepard destroys the Reapers, Earth is destroyed.
Rating 2051-2350 - If Shepard becomes a Reaper, Earth is saved.
Rating 2351-2650 - If Shepard destroys the Reapers, Earth is only devastated.
Rating 2651-2800 - If Shepard destroys the Reapers, Earth is saved.
Rating 2801-4000 - Shepard can create a synergy between organics and synthetics.
Rating 4000-5000 - If Shepard destroys the Reapers and "saves" Anderson, Shepard
will also live as Earth is saved.
Rating 5000+ - If Shepard destroys the Reapers and does not "save" Anderson,
Shepard will also live as Earth is saved.
Sigo todavía con la leche... Y floodeo porque quiero y puedo. Acá un post en reddit de un flaco que básicamente refleja parte de mi decepción.
by rogersmith25@reddit:
Yes. This is exactly the problem. If Bioware really wants fan-feedback, I hope they read this...
I think there is misplaced hatred of the ending. For example, the people who wanted a "happy ending" are being juvenile. Many say the ending doesn't fit thematically with the game to that point - well, a happy ending would have been a thematic disaster. I think everyone was spoiled by the end of ME:2 where it was possible to save everyone and have a happy ending.
If you are a long-term fan of the universe, you know that the Mass Relays had to be destroyed... they had to. The entire point of the ME Relays was that they were used to control and manipulate the development of space-faring civilizations according to the Reapers' designs. They were given the Citadel and the Relays so that they had access to technology before they had developed it themselves. They became dependent on something that they didn't fully understand. Anyone who didn't get a sinking feeling when they learned about the Citadel in Mass Effect 1 wasn't paying attention.
Furthermore, an open-ended finale is also acceptable. While I loved the ending of Throne of Bhaal because it gave closure to major characters' stories, it is by no means the only way to effectively end a game. For recent examples in film, look at the endings of Inception or Children of Men. Both films have a conclusion that is open for interpretation. If Inception had been a game, fans would want to replay the game on "New Game+" to see "it" actually topple. If Children of Men had been a game, fans would want to be able to gain more allies to see what exactly happens to Clive Owen and the rest of the world... do they succeed?
There are two camps of unhappy ME3 fans (well 3 if you count the anti-Origin crowd I am a part of): 1) Unhappy because the final scenes are essentially exactly the same, and 2) Unhappy because they didn't get the ending they wanted.
Bioware doesn't owe you a happy ending. No story does. Would you want Hamlet to be rewritten with a happy ending? Or perhaps an ending to Titanic where you can make sure everyone gets on a lifeboat and is okay? Even some of the most respected games of the last few years had protagonists die inevitably in the end. Giving Shepard a "happily ever after" would not fit thematically with ME3.
But there is no question that the ending was missing key pieces of information. For example, some players wanted the choice to not destroy the Mass Relays, and I think this is a fair choice. Destroying the relays strands so many people from their loved ones. But using the Crucible will destroy the Relays - that's how it works. So if you were a Shepard who refused to destroy the relays, where does that leave you? Well, one new ending would be to refuse to choose - Shepard slowly dies on the Crucible. This would be a "Reapers Win" ending because the Alliance simply lacks the firepower to win the battle. As Shepard slowly loses his strength, you could be fed the audio of Alliance leaders saying the battle is hopeless; you could be fed reports of the deaths of your friends; the Catalyst could implore you to make a choice as the battle is slowly lost. The consolation would be that Shepard could wonder whether they would be more help in the next cycle than the protheans were in his.
This isn't a happy ending! But it does reflect the choice that people wanted to make. Waiting more than a few minutes would be costly and likely force ambivalent Shepards to choose.
But the legitimate unhappiness about the endings comes from the fact that ultimately, the final choice doesn't seem to change anything. The ending plays out in exactly the same way - yet the implications are unbelievably different! The destruction of the Reapers and all synthetic life is completely different from Shepard controlling the Reapers. But the implications do not manifest themselves on screen. Fans wanted that choice to matter.
The choice to destroy all Synthetic life is genocide. We should see EDI die or see Joker mourn her. We should see someone react to the massive fleets of lifeless Geth. Someone should comment on their sacrifice, or vow to rebuild them; or vow never to rebuild them. What constitutes synthetic "life". What is destroyed and what isn't destroyed and if toaster ovens still work, how does the explosion tell the difference. Is the damage irreparable, or could Joker conceivably go on a quest to rebuild his synthetic love? We need a voiceover declaring victory and vowing to rebuild from a major character we respect.
What about the choice to control the reapers? How much control does Shepard really have? Did he really only have enough strength to force them to retreat or is he now in charge? How much of Shepard's intellect remains in their programming? Could a strong Shepard leave a message to his allies? Ultimately, this shouldn't be ambiguous because the player is Shepard; he/she would know where his mind is if it still existed. If Shepard dies sending a single command, then we should know what command we sent. But if I stand by my "ambiguous endings are okay" idea, then at the very least we should be treated to an epilogue where a major character wonders whether the Reapers will ever return or wonders how much of Shepard is still out there. This ending needs something to differentiate it from the other endings!
The "happy ending" that didn't fit with the story was the synthesis ending. "Space Magic" it's often called. This is unsatisfying on so many levels. I imagine that many fans were frustrated that this was the hardest ending to obtain yet made the least sense. There are so many "how" and "why" questions with this ending that I think it's likely the most reviled. This one needs an explanation. It's implications are so bizarre and radical that it is shocking that the ending is essentially exactly the same as the others except Joker magically has glowing eyes.
The choice presented is ultimately satisfying - 1) destroy the Reapers permanently but also be forced to commit an act of genocide and kill his friends to do so Groundhog day, 2) attempt to control the Reapers and try to make them never return, 3) create a future where the Reapers are no longer needed, removing conflict between organics and synthetics by removing such a distinction. Each choice radically changes the fate of the galaxy. But the subsequent scene doesn't reward us for the positive aspects of our choice or punish us for the negative. As I outlined above, you should be forced to witness the pros and cons of your choice. Joker should weep for EDI in "destruction"; your love interest should wonder whether Shepard guaranteed the Reapers would never return and whether a piece of you is still out there in "control"; Jack should wonder whether by becoming synthetic-organics, whether they are simply Reapers now themselves to which Joker and EDI should embrace and say that they are too happy to care in "synthesis".
The problem with the final choice is that it didn't feel like a choice and the ending scene didn't reflect any of the choices Shepard had made. For example, choosing to destroy all synthetic life would have completely different implications if Shepard chose to free the Geth or side with the Quarians. These choices should have impacted the final scene and epilogue.
Ultimately, Bioware took a risk by denying the players a "cake and ice cream" ending - but I think that was absolutely the right choice. There is a [1] popular alternate ending which I despise. It's a cop-out ending. The gaming community isn't entitled to a happy ending any more than romantic film fans deserve an ending to Titanic where DiCaprio survives in the end. What we do deserve is endings that diverge based on our choices. Obviously the surviving characters have subsequent conversations about the choices Shepard made -- this should have been the Epilogue, not the open ended "far in the future" one we got.
I will be very disappointed in Bioware's integrity if they cave in and implement an ending where Shepard survives and the Relays are intact. I will be disgusted if it costs $10.
I think there is misplaced hatred of the ending. For example, the people who wanted a "happy ending" are being juvenile. Many say the ending doesn't fit thematically with the game to that point - well, a happy ending would have been a thematic disaster. I think everyone was spoiled by the end of ME:2 where it was possible to save everyone and have a happy ending.
If you are a long-term fan of the universe, you know that the Mass Relays had to be destroyed... they had to. The entire point of the ME Relays was that they were used to control and manipulate the development of space-faring civilizations according to the Reapers' designs. They were given the Citadel and the Relays so that they had access to technology before they had developed it themselves. They became dependent on something that they didn't fully understand. Anyone who didn't get a sinking feeling when they learned about the Citadel in Mass Effect 1 wasn't paying attention.
Furthermore, an open-ended finale is also acceptable. While I loved the ending of Throne of Bhaal because it gave closure to major characters' stories, it is by no means the only way to effectively end a game. For recent examples in film, look at the endings of Inception or Children of Men. Both films have a conclusion that is open for interpretation. If Inception had been a game, fans would want to replay the game on "New Game+" to see "it" actually topple. If Children of Men had been a game, fans would want to be able to gain more allies to see what exactly happens to Clive Owen and the rest of the world... do they succeed?
There are two camps of unhappy ME3 fans (well 3 if you count the anti-Origin crowd I am a part of): 1) Unhappy because the final scenes are essentially exactly the same, and 2) Unhappy because they didn't get the ending they wanted.
Bioware doesn't owe you a happy ending. No story does. Would you want Hamlet to be rewritten with a happy ending? Or perhaps an ending to Titanic where you can make sure everyone gets on a lifeboat and is okay? Even some of the most respected games of the last few years had protagonists die inevitably in the end. Giving Shepard a "happily ever after" would not fit thematically with ME3.
But there is no question that the ending was missing key pieces of information. For example, some players wanted the choice to not destroy the Mass Relays, and I think this is a fair choice. Destroying the relays strands so many people from their loved ones. But using the Crucible will destroy the Relays - that's how it works. So if you were a Shepard who refused to destroy the relays, where does that leave you? Well, one new ending would be to refuse to choose - Shepard slowly dies on the Crucible. This would be a "Reapers Win" ending because the Alliance simply lacks the firepower to win the battle. As Shepard slowly loses his strength, you could be fed the audio of Alliance leaders saying the battle is hopeless; you could be fed reports of the deaths of your friends; the Catalyst could implore you to make a choice as the battle is slowly lost. The consolation would be that Shepard could wonder whether they would be more help in the next cycle than the protheans were in his.
This isn't a happy ending! But it does reflect the choice that people wanted to make. Waiting more than a few minutes would be costly and likely force ambivalent Shepards to choose.
But the legitimate unhappiness about the endings comes from the fact that ultimately, the final choice doesn't seem to change anything. The ending plays out in exactly the same way - yet the implications are unbelievably different! The destruction of the Reapers and all synthetic life is completely different from Shepard controlling the Reapers. But the implications do not manifest themselves on screen. Fans wanted that choice to matter.
The choice to destroy all Synthetic life is genocide. We should see EDI die or see Joker mourn her. We should see someone react to the massive fleets of lifeless Geth. Someone should comment on their sacrifice, or vow to rebuild them; or vow never to rebuild them. What constitutes synthetic "life". What is destroyed and what isn't destroyed and if toaster ovens still work, how does the explosion tell the difference. Is the damage irreparable, or could Joker conceivably go on a quest to rebuild his synthetic love? We need a voiceover declaring victory and vowing to rebuild from a major character we respect.
What about the choice to control the reapers? How much control does Shepard really have? Did he really only have enough strength to force them to retreat or is he now in charge? How much of Shepard's intellect remains in their programming? Could a strong Shepard leave a message to his allies? Ultimately, this shouldn't be ambiguous because the player is Shepard; he/she would know where his mind is if it still existed. If Shepard dies sending a single command, then we should know what command we sent. But if I stand by my "ambiguous endings are okay" idea, then at the very least we should be treated to an epilogue where a major character wonders whether the Reapers will ever return or wonders how much of Shepard is still out there. This ending needs something to differentiate it from the other endings!
The "happy ending" that didn't fit with the story was the synthesis ending. "Space Magic" it's often called. This is unsatisfying on so many levels. I imagine that many fans were frustrated that this was the hardest ending to obtain yet made the least sense. There are so many "how" and "why" questions with this ending that I think it's likely the most reviled. This one needs an explanation. It's implications are so bizarre and radical that it is shocking that the ending is essentially exactly the same as the others except Joker magically has glowing eyes.
The choice presented is ultimately satisfying - 1) destroy the Reapers permanently but also be forced to commit an act of genocide and kill his friends to do so Groundhog day, 2) attempt to control the Reapers and try to make them never return, 3) create a future where the Reapers are no longer needed, removing conflict between organics and synthetics by removing such a distinction. Each choice radically changes the fate of the galaxy. But the subsequent scene doesn't reward us for the positive aspects of our choice or punish us for the negative. As I outlined above, you should be forced to witness the pros and cons of your choice. Joker should weep for EDI in "destruction"; your love interest should wonder whether Shepard guaranteed the Reapers would never return and whether a piece of you is still out there in "control"; Jack should wonder whether by becoming synthetic-organics, whether they are simply Reapers now themselves to which Joker and EDI should embrace and say that they are too happy to care in "synthesis".
The problem with the final choice is that it didn't feel like a choice and the ending scene didn't reflect any of the choices Shepard had made. For example, choosing to destroy all synthetic life would have completely different implications if Shepard chose to free the Geth or side with the Quarians. These choices should have impacted the final scene and epilogue.
Ultimately, Bioware took a risk by denying the players a "cake and ice cream" ending - but I think that was absolutely the right choice. There is a [1] popular alternate ending which I despise. It's a cop-out ending. The gaming community isn't entitled to a happy ending any more than romantic film fans deserve an ending to Titanic where DiCaprio survives in the end. What we do deserve is endings that diverge based on our choices. Obviously the surviving characters have subsequent conversations about the choices Shepard made -- this should have been the Epilogue, not the open ended "far in the future" one we got.
I will be very disappointed in Bioware's integrity if they cave in and implement an ending where Shepard survives and the Relays are intact. I will be disgusted if it costs $10.
Responder