You couldn't get the real ending of Baldur’s Gate 2 without the expansion, just sayin.
You couldn't get the real ending of Baldur’s Gate 2 without the expansion, just sayin.
I'm failing to writing a blog, specifically about playing games the wrong way
http://playingitwrong.wordpress.com/
Baldur's Gate 2 wasn't a choice'n'consequences game, so the ending didn't really matter anyway, beyond that you defeat the baddie.
Irrelevant on further examination of the rest of the thread.
Whether you became a God or not, aside?Originally Posted by NathanH
I'm failing to writing a blog, specifically about playing games the wrong way
http://playingitwrong.wordpress.com/
Yeah, but that was originally planned as the third game in the series, it only became an expansion when they abandoned it.
Yeah, I don't think that was a particularly big deal. It wasn't even really a concept before Throne of Bhaal. If the choice hadn't been available, it wouldn't have made that much difference. The main plot of the whole series was about fighting back against a string of baddies who wanted to kill or control you, and so all that mattered for the ending was that they were all defeated and the string of baddies was finally finished with. What happens afterwards is not particularly important to this.
In contrast, in Mass Effect 3 you are constantly making decisions that will have significant repercussions, so it's much more important that the ending clears this up properly, and in particular doesn't suddenly create a new situation that couldn't have been predicted and renders many of the previous choices somewhat irrelevant.
Irrelevant on further examination of the rest of the thread.
It was a concept from the first game. Somewhat central to that whole "why does Sarevok want you dead" plot they had going on there.
I don't think it was relevant in the first game. Suppose for instance there is some invented reason why the PC can't become the god but Sarevok can. The first game is basically no different under this assumption.
Irrelevant on further examination of the rest of the thread.
Not sure what you're trying to say. The main plot of the BG saga is the Bhaalspawn wars and how it ends. By the same token, whether you opt to destroy, control or synthesise with the Reapers does not in any way change the first two Mass Effects either. Does that mean it's utterly irrelevant too?
This is pretty much my expectations.
I'm saying that Baldur's Gate is not a choice'n'consequence game, and having one choice at the end doesn't make it one, and that this means that the ending (of each game) is not really a big deal, as long as it deals with the main motivation: the defeat of the particular person or group in that game that was trying to kill you.
Mass Effect is, in contrast, a choice'n'consequence game, and hence the ending needs to do more than deal with the main motivation (stopping the Reapers). If the ending causes earlier choices'n'consequences to become meaningless or make their outcome impossible to have predicted, this is a problem.
So, comparison of the ending, the DLC situation and so on, with that of Baldur's Gate is misleading and wrong.
Irrelevant on further examination of the rest of the thread.
Ok,
I just finished ME3 to days ago and had to digest the disappointing ending. I roamed the internet a bit afterwards because some stuff didn't make sense and I read a bit about the indoctrination theory which was more the kind of ending i hoped, though of ever since shepard got cyborged in ME2....
So here is what I think... Bioware messes with us on purpose. Shepard's dream, the kid who doesn't interract with anyone else. All those are metaphores and hints that something else COULD be at work, influencing shepard.
I think the ending is more a Total recall/ Inception kind of ending. I could be wrong but i like think of it like that.
Long video, but skip to the end for his thoughts on the whole Indoctrination theory (around the 37 minute mark). He makes a good case for why IT just doesn't hold up: -
Last edited by Kadayi; 22-04-2012 at 01:51 PM.
Why yes you're right I'm deliciously evil
Tradition is the tyranny of dead men
Steam:Kadayi Origin: Kadayi GFWL: Kadayi
Probable Replicant
*blush* I'm flattered by the attention boys, but please let's not make the thread about liddle old me
When you get to the stage where you want to pretend the whole ending didn't actually happen and the whole thing was inside Shepard's head, you know the ending is a steaming pile of sheeeeeeeeet. How to explain Shepard suddenly going from the Citadel to lying on the ground in London? I think that's just god awful writing.
Only one of the endings has him back in London.
The whole ending takes place in London, regardless of which colour you decide to paint the galaxy.
I'm failing to writing a blog, specifically about playing games the wrong way
http://playingitwrong.wordpress.com/
I think archonsod was referring to the good ending - destroy with EMS > 5000. There's a brief scene where Shepard, buried under rubble, takes a single breath. The rubble looks like brick and concrete, rather than the metal and plastic of the Citadel, which suggests that Shepard somehow ended up back in London. Or, alternatively, suggests that Bioware once again screwed up.
Not to me he doesn't. Not even close. He's got one single counter to it and it's the same as everyone else's - 'bioware are shit' or 'didn't care and got lazy'. What? Countless references to indoctrination throughout all 3 titles found in dialogue, cutscenes, text, culminating in the 3 choices, 2 of which knowingly failed for the previous 2 main indoctrinees, the third leaving a cliffhanger for 'more' (whatever may come) - a plausable chance to unravel the conspiracy after a rather ballsy experiment in game immersion and the best the naysayers can offer is 'meh', whilst still admitting it doesn't make an ounce of sense otherwise.
I'm kinda still on the fence, it being a bit of a building 7 debate, but I just don't get the no credence to IT seemingly just because people didn't like it. It's curiously on-par with common reaction to any conspiracy - 'us fooled? pfft no'. I'm not convinced it's not a possibility.
Can anyone answer how exactly Shepard got shot on the Citadel?
Marauder shields plugged you when you were approaching the beam. You're holding your side before your encounter with TIM.
If IT was real it effectively means they shipped the game without a proper ending. If you 'woke up' and the game carried on it would make sense, but it doesn't. This idea that after the extended cut DLC Bioware are then going to release a further 'real' ending is wishful thinking. There's no rationale to doing something like that. They couldn't ever get away with charging people for the 'real' ending even if that was the intention.
Why yes you're right I'm deliciously evil
Tradition is the tyranny of dead men
Steam:Kadayi Origin: Kadayi GFWL: Kadayi
Probable Replicant
*blush* I'm flattered by the attention boys, but please let's not make the thread about liddle old me
The issue is, is that if that's the ending, it's a total failure. Because most people didn't 'get' it. It failed at getting across what it wanted to.
I personally liked the Synthesis ending, I agree that there are some weird plots (like the relays exploding and the normandy flying away) but I liked it.
Reply With Quote
