New Mass Effect 3 Story DLC "Leviathan"

[MANIFESTER]

Haha.
And they could have fixed all this mess so easily. Just make one ending, with varying degrees of success, depending on which choices you made throughout all 3 games. Do everything right, you get the best ending possible, do everything wrong and everybody dies. Instead, the name Bioware became synonymous with bad writing. Pity.

I feel as though that is the wrong path to go down. Perhaps you have a more grand vision in mind for this, but having one ending where if you do everything "right" from the 3 games gives you the best ending... That seems like a really bad call. Just in the thought that some choices you make are "correct" or not. In a sense it blows the whole player choice idea out of the water, and makes the essential idea of "defining your Shepard" to be meaningless if they create the "perfect" Shepard in such a manner. But perhaps I am assuming too much.

Maybe Bioware did become synonymous with bad writing, but not with me. I agree the ending was handled poorly, but I loved the rest of the game, and that easily smoothed it over.

 

[tobi the good boy]

It's not really an illogical extreme when the thing you're talking to says "I Control them" and has a system literally built into it that someone can operate to CONTROL the reapers...

It isn't when we see throughout the games that he doesn't. He is also a known liar, admits to not being perfect, and admits to having stuff go against his plans, which shows he isn't in full control, and can't be.

Also if Shepard was just "replacing" him, there really wouldn't need to be a pretty space beam, he would just be uploaded into the computer and use whatever the SC uses to control The Reapers to do so himself.

You don't need a magic energy pulse to not change anything.
.
.

Also even IF Shepard doesn't control all The Reapers in a hive mind like way, the few rouge ones could easily be destroyed by the non rouge ones. They have been following orders for over 1 billion years with only 1 apparent dissenter, whatever The Reapers believe in they believe fanatically.

and anyways, I previously did make mention of the fact that it is entirely possible that Shepard doesn't control all of The Reapers 100%, and just order the ones he did control to destroy the ones that go rogue.

but people seem to love not reading the entire thread and instep just commenting on the first post they do like without actually Reading the entire point someone was making. that wasnt directed to you, but to other, unreading, people here.

No, I read your other posts, I just thought they were a convoluted mess. The very fact that
1. The Star Child actively says he controls them.
2. Refers to them specifically in a possessive sense "They are mine!".
3. The fact that when you inquire about the control ending he equates it to stepping down and giving Shepard control.
and oh, right...
4. The fact he has a system built into him that CONTROLS THE REAPERS... Kind of point otherwise.

 

[SajuukKhar]

No, I read your other posts, I just thought they were a convoluted mess. The very fact that
1. The Star Child actively says he controls them.
2. Refers to them specifically in a possessive sense "They are mine!".
3. The fact that when you inquire about the control ending he equates it to stepping down and giving Shepard control.
and oh, right...
4. The fact he has a system built into him that CONTROLS THE REAPERS... Kind of point otherwise.

1. Which we know is a total lie, or you misinterpreting what he says, as reapers can go rouge, which shows he DOESN'T control them. Not to mention the whole free will, Individuality thing the Reapers have going on, which also makes what he says a lie, or you misinterpreting, and given how what he says allows for Reapers to be individualistic, and not be 100% under his complete control, it seems like your misinterpreting what he said.

2. People call their children, and their pets, their own also, does that mean parents have 100% complete control over everything their children, and pets, do? Nope.

3. The SC is also a known liar, and admits that Shepard getting there falls outside of his plan. He said Shepard would die from the destroy ending because of his cybernetics, which we know is 100% false. Why do you trust everything that a known liar with incomplete information states as 100% fact?

4. Actually the crucible is the thing that allows Shepard to take control of the Reapers, the SC does not, by default, have that functionality built it. He even says the crucible opens up new possibilities. It isn't like the Citadel had a "kill all Reapers instantly" button, or a "merge all life into hybrid things" button either.

 

[tobi the good boy]

No, I read your other posts, I just thought they were a convoluted mess. The very fact that
1. The Star Child actively says he controls them.
2. Refers to them specifically in a possessive sense "They are mine!".
3. The fact that when you inquire about the control ending he equates it to stepping down and giving Shepard control.
and oh, right...
4. The fact he has a system built into him that CONTROLS THE REAPERS... Kind of point otherwise.

1. Which we know is a total lie, as reapers can go rouge, which shows he DOESN'T control them.

2. People call their children their own also, does that mean parents have 100% complete control over everything their children do? Nope.

3. The SC is also a known liar, and admits that Shepard getting there falls outside of his plan. He said Shepard would die from the destroy ending because of his cybernetics, which we know is 100% false. Why do you trust everything that a known liar with incomplete information states as 100% fact?

4. Actually the crucible is the thing that allows Shepard to take control of the Reapers, the Sc does not, by default, have that functionality built it. He even says the crucible opens up new possibilities.

I could sit here and argue with you over how you're using evidence that hasn't even been released yet (Rogue Reaper), or how everything you've written has been mostly theoretical. But I've got better things to do with my life. Good day

EDIT: Refer to Zhukov's last post if you want to keep arguing because that's where my stance firmly lies.

 

[The Human Torch]

I feel as though that is the wrong path to go down. Perhaps you have a more grand vision in mind for this, but having one ending where if you do everything "right" from the 3 games gives you the best ending... That seems like a really bad call. Just in the thought that some choices you make are "correct" or not. In a sense it blows the whole player choice idea out of the water, and makes the essential idea of "defining your Shepard" to be meaningless if they create the "perfect" Shepard in such a manner. But perhaps I am assuming too much.

Maybe Bioware did become synonymous with bad writing, but not with me. I agree the ending was handled poorly, but I loved the rest of the game, and that easily smoothed it over.

Obviously I simplified it a bit, for the sake of keeping my post short, but yeah, there are 'correct' choices in Mass Effect, sometimes they are obvious and sometimes not so obvious.

Like destroying/saving the Reaper base at the end of Mass Effect 2. At that time it seemed like a good idea to destroy it, but if you save it, you will use the technology and information gained from that base with Mass Effect 3, it's worth a ton of War Asset points. And if you fail Mass Effect 2 completely, by making all the wrong choices, you die. So it's not all so cut and dry.

So my idea of an ending is not just 100% good, 50/50 neutral and 100% bad, it would have varying levels of success, and depending on the choices you made, how many allies you recruited, how many side quests you completed through all 3 parts, would determine how successful your final push against the Reapers will be.

Such an ending would be far more satisfactory to me personally. Feel free to suggest your own preference.

 

[Anti Nudist Cupcake]

It's like bioware completely forgot how they portrayed the reapers prior to mass effect 3.
Everything; the ending, now this, contradicts what we were made to believe about the reapers.

 

[MANIFESTER]

*snip*

Obviously I simplified it a bit, for the sake of keeping my post short, but yeah, there are 'correct' choices in Mass Effect, sometimes they are obvious and sometimes not so obvious.

Like destroying/saving the Reaper base at the end of Mass Effect 2. At that time it seemed like a good idea to destroy it, but if you save it, you will use the technology and information gained from that base with Mass Effect 3, it's worth a ton of War Asset points. And if you fail Mass Effect 2 completely, by making all the wrong choices, you die. So it's not all so cut and dry.

So my idea of an ending is not just 100% good, 50/50 neutral and 100% bad, it would have varying levels of success, and depending on the choices you made, how many allies you recruited, how many side quests you completed through all 3 parts, would determine how successful your final push against the Reapers will be.

Such an ending would be far more satisfactory to me personally. Feel free to suggest your own preference.

I still do not feel as though, there are wrong decisions, besides maybe the ones where you die, but I felt those were more "stupid" decisions than "wrong" ones. Confusing, I know, let me see if I can clarify... From what I remember you only die based on your decisions based on how to tackle the final missions be it prep work or decisions during the mission. And if you do not do your prep work you will fail. It isn't a moral decision that defines your Shepard. True the Reaper base gives you war assets but you can still get the "proper" amount without it which, to me, doesn't make it a wrong decision if you destroy the reaper base.

From what I get (and possibly assume) from your post is that you wanted a big battle at the end of ME3 that would show all your allies and every choice from the other games come into play. (I wanted something like that too.) But putting aside the ENORMOUS difficulty of that. I think that the portrayal of the Reaper invasion in ME3 showed that you cannot win in an upfront fight. I believed that was hammered in from the beginning of the game.

As for my ideas on how the ending should of gone, I would have gotten rid of Start Child thingy...maybe kept choices but make the decisions more subtle not just 3 pathways. You know something more along the lines of the Original Deus Ex ending would be nice. Hell, I was fascinated by the Indoctrination theory (never believed it to be true) so I think that the possibilities from that would of been spectacular if handled properly. I am curious as to what you think.

 

[DJ_DEnM]

I'm just gonna go ahead and quote what I said in the previous topic about this:

When the game first came out I had an idea of having a Reaper as a squadmate, taking over people similar to what EDI does with the robot. Now my dreams may be fulfilled~!

 

[instinctepyon]

So this is what the Mass Effect series has become, a gaming version of Groundhog Day. Players are 'forced' to relive the ending of ME3, for so long as EA is releasing DLC.

Introducing Modern Warfare '13: The Detonation Map Pack! Because Call of Duty's name is being changed due to yearly releases, means we have to adopt a naming convention like Madden for all the kidz (why the z? because without it we wouldn't make our 2 billion dollars off the little scrot- I mean customers)

- Bobby Kotick

Source - IGN.com

----------

For those wondering, no that is NOT an actual news post before the COD kiddies start jumping on me. It is a parody, unfortunately though, I could see EA easily treating Mass Effect 3 DLC in exactly the same way:

- Lacklustre Content.
- Accountants / Investors put first before gamers when it comes to value for money.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

You know, I jokingly mused that ME3 would have something to do with a Reaper that rebelled and joined you.

I made the joke because such an idea would be rather silly.

And Leviathan... are they referring to the Leviathan of Dis? Because that Reaper was taken by the Batarians, who got indoctrinated by it, which pretty much screwed the Batarians when the Reapers came. Which doesn't exactly strike me as "helping against the Reapers".

Unless it's some other Reaper. I guess we'll find out.

From what I gathered playing the Derelict Reaper mission in Mass Effect 2, Reapers don't actually choose to indoctrinate people, it just happens. It's an unconscious process for them, like, for example, breathing is for us. So he didn't necessarily do it to help the other Reapers.

But whatever, I think this is one time where I'm not going to care if it creates a plot hole or two. I can have a Reaper on my team? Hell. Fucking. Yes.

 

[SpectacularWebHead]

Hey, it's not all bad. I bet having your own pet Reaper will bring in, like, 50 whole War Asset points. Surely that'll make all the difference in the end. [/sarcasm]

Hah, yeah. Gotta love the War Asset System. It's like the level system in Dragonball Z. Picture this scenario:

*Starchild is in the Crucible*
Starchild: "Harbinger, what does the scanner say about the fleet's power?"
Harbinger: "IT'S OVER 9,0000!!!!!!"

Starchild: "WHAT, 9000?! THERE'S NO WAY THAT CAN BE RIGHT!...sigh. Okay, I guess we've got no choice. We'd better turn on the purple Plot Resolution Beam, too."

Do Shepard and Liara get to have Little blue babies in the purple ending?