69 réponses à ce sujet

[shin-zan]

I think the endings suck, grimdark for the sake of it is overdone and doesn't add depth... It's not original to have everyone die at the end, it's a crutch writers use to create artificial drama or try and get an emotional response out of their audience.

That said, what really bugs me is that they could have kept their grimdark endings and included one that's sunshine and bunnies, the advantage of video games is that you can have multiple. If you have enough war assets or did a certain quest, relays don't blow up, or make it a choice whether to blow them up or not, easy.

[Aurica]

Its hardly bold or unpredictable.  The endings reminds me of DA2 so much that its almost as if its intentionally written to jerk you around so that players will react to it.

In short - they put a shocking ending for the sole purpose for shocking the players.

Modifié par Aurica, 05 mars 2012 - 10:56 .

[YorickMori]

Nice to know that all of your choices make 0 impact on the final conclusion of the trilogy. What a load of garbage.

[WizenSlinky0]

TheStoner wrote...


Having multiple endings in a game based around the idea of choice is hardly going catering to a different playerbase.

Of course it isn't. Doesn't mean people wouldn't complain about it. They would have "compromised their artistic vision to pander to paragons" or some such.

I'm not saying it has to be logic. I'm saying if you frequent these forums even a little bit there should be no reason for you to disagree with me. This stuff happens.

[chengthao]

bold and unpredictable doesn't mean its good

[TheImmortalBeaver]

I wouldn't mind all the complaining about the endings... if the game was already out yet. I mean, they may be bold and unpredictable and amazing, or they may be cliche and stupid. It's impossible to tell without the entire game to put them into context. What comes to mind is the Prothean Beacon and the Cipher. The vision from the beacon was pretty stupid without the context from the Cipher.
...and none of this is going to keep the BSN from complaining. At least it's only one day until the complaints become legitimate.

[Pedro Costa]

Brockololly wrote...

It sounds bold....until you realize they ripped off Deus Ex.

This. If I wanted DX, I'd replay DX... =(

[Muskau]

 If you go through the forums, there is a plethora of better thought out reasons and storylines for the Reapers in ME3.

I bet the people here could write a better thought out and more engaging ending that actually gives CLOSURE TO THE STORY.  Blowing up relays and getting people stranded on random world is not closure.  It's not tying up loose plot threads, not letting people see how there decisions through 3 games play out, not letting people see what happens to all of their team members .  It's a plane crashing on an island in the middle of nowhere and people wandering out.

Sounds like the opening to 'Lost'.

And to add insult to injury, it cuts to a man telling a kid a story about a 'Shepard'

I've seen far FAAAAR better ideas from the people on these forums.  And Bioware is supposed to have professional writers with degrees.

It's the most phoned in ending to a trilogy that started interesting I've probably ever seen. Even worse than The Matrix Trilogy.

[l7986]

Is the end like DX were all the options are laid out for you to select because that really got me angry that after one playthrough i could save the game and watch all 3 endings.

[Hendrik3]

Brockololly wrote...

It sounds bold....until you realize they ripped off Deus Ex.

Exactly what I thought...
I have played the original Deus Ex once... the ending was proposterous and I never touched the game again. Until Deus:Ex Human Revolution, I thought I could give it a go... I was literally baffled that they actually did the exact same, lame thing despite the different playstyles. All that story and looking in corners culminated in a simple choice of which you never get to see the results - it didn't matter what you did, so why bother? It put it back into its box and never touched that again either.

If ME3 ends the same way, chances are the first playthrough will be my last. I'm all for storyline and whether good or bad, I don't care as long as it fits what I do. If, in the end, my efforts and decisions are of no influence to the choices in the end - there is no reason to do it again. 

[Grand Wazoo]

iRipper wrote...

I know George Lucas was somehow involved in this!

Mass Effect 3D 2015
Better with Kinect

[Ieldra]

It does not appear to be true that your choices don't have impact.

It appears that each of the endings only becomes available under certain conditions, as evidenced by the fact that in the footage of the "bad" Destroy ending I watched, you are never offerered another option but to destroy the Reapers.

The problem is there isn't choice where we want it, namely about preserving the relays and staying with our LIs and friends if we survive. (BTW: the latter is not problem IMO - regular FTL still works and the Normandy wasn't in a relay jump but in regular FTL when the crash happened. I't cant be that far away.)

[Ksandor]

The Last Guardian wrote...

Gotta to hand that to Bioware at least. Regardless of the fact that Bioware decided to give a big F.U to people who wanted a more happier ending, I still think that the ending is quite interesting. 

 It's bold, and very different of what we would expect. Sure, in my mind I can imagine the cliched ending where Shepard dies, yet Earth survives and everyone salutes his coffin at the end. I also can see another ending, where everyone is on Earth staring into the sunshine, assured of there victory.

 But the endings we've seen, are different, and very bold. Despite of it's potential excution, I still give Bioware a thumbs up for that. They could've easily taken a safe route which would've pleased all fans, and it obviously would've been the more obvious choice to make...but they didn't.

 I'm sure at the end of the day the consesus will be split on whether the ending was good or bad. But for now, from afar, from not knowing the context, it sounds bold.

Bioware has balls. 

Why should I persuade myself by saying it could be worse? I don't want console or fool myself. If something is bad I say bad.

Modifié par Ksandor, 05 mars 2012 - 02:30 .

[Ksandor]

Muskau wrote...

 If you go through the forums, there is a plethora of better thought out reasons and storylines for the Reapers in ME3.

I bet the people here could write a better thought out and more engaging ending that actually gives CLOSURE TO THE STORY.  Blowing up relays and getting people stranded on random world is not closure.  It's not tying up loose plot threads, not letting people see how there decisions through 3 games play out, not letting people see what happens to all of their team members .  It's a plane crashing on an island in the middle of nowhere and people wandering out.

Sounds like the opening to 'Lost'.

And to add insult to injury, it cuts to a man telling a kid a story about a 'Shepard'

I've seen far FAAAAR better ideas from the people on these forums.  And Bioware is supposed to have professional writers with degrees.

It's the most phoned in ending to a trilogy that started interesting I've probably ever seen. Even worse than The Matrix Trilogy.

Professionals like Drew Karpyshyn left ages ago. Probably they made him upset with shallow ideas. In my opinion Mr. Walters just could not grasp the real meaning of Mass Effect universe... He just did not know how to play with the strange sandbox he was given. Intel dropped the ball sir!

Compare this with Mass Effect 1's cohesive and professional scenario. Not tecnically professional but also in that game Shepard and others were acting like true professional soldiers and you get the idea. Bioware stopped telling stories or writing plots. They all go for shocking DA2 cinematics. Well... They will learn when they will lose enough customers if they ever. Meanwhile say goodbye to REAL Mass Effect.

Understand this a partially covered woman with full of sexual innuendo will sell better than an intelectual debate on the nature of physics. Baldur's Gate is coming to mobile devices starting by iPhone. Please read Baldur's Gate I and II dialogs. Please also read Planescape Torment. Just read them and think again. How far we have fallen even since KOTOR...

Modifié par Ksandor, 05 mars 2012 - 02:44 .

[Archelaos]

Seeing the endings, I think I know why Protheans were unable to defeat Reapers. They engaged in creation of the most complicated and plain useless piece of weaponry in all possible universes. Why they built in all those choices instead creating sth that has only one choice - destroy Reapers in given star system? If they did, they would certainly have enough time to not only finish a device, but to produce it in enough numbers to win the war. The gun needs Mass Relay as power source? No problem. Proteans knew how to buid one, they can build a few more.

Destroy - Guardian explains tech singularity and you think he is full of it. So you blow up the Reapers. This blows up the Citadel, and kills all synthetic life. Yes that includes EDI and the Geth. It does NOT eliminate all tech based in Element Zero. I still don't know where that idea came from.

How this red blast can distinguish one computer from another? How it can tell if this comp is complicated enough to deserve destruction while this other don't? How is tech supposed to work without proper computers? I bet drednought's main computer is way more complicated than most of the Geth platforms.

Control - Guardian explains tech singularity and you think "crap that might really happen" so you decide to keep the reapers around, but you are the new master. Perhaps you also feel bad that each reaper represents a race of life forms, and if you killed them you would be the biggest mass murderer of all time. So you have your body vaporized and your mind absorbed by the Citadel, replacing the Guardian. You immediately call off the Reapers.

What?!?!?!?!?!? They no longer represent anything. No more than a cup made from human scull represent said human.

Synthesis (official name, not Merge) - Guardian explains tech singularity, but that if the organic and synthetic were united all would be raised to a higher existence. You jump in to the crucible energy beam and are dissolved, collector base style. A pulse then comes from the Citadel, changing all of the Reapers along with all other life into a hybrid. The Reapers stop attacking on their own. The Citadel is destroyed.
In all three, the Relays are used to spread the chosen action galaxy wide. In all three, that process destroys them. They blow up Arrival style, but spew out the chosen type of energy, not just a blast wave like in Arrival.

Now this one is a gem. Can anyone explain me why all this stuff is needed to make this magic? Maybe just go to some old shaman from a desert and ask him to do the same? 
How an blast of energy can create synthetic pieces in living organic creatures without using resources from their bodies, killing them in the process? How a blast of energy can create any synthetic pieces at all?
Besides, what this merge means? And who put proper programming in Mass Relays? Who provided patterns for all living beings on all planets in a galaxy? From one-cell amoeba to thresher maw and from smallest plant to Thorian?
Taking into account evolution and species mutations, some completely random?

And even if we believe in merge is on cell level... End result would not have only glowing eyes. It would be completely new organism, probably not very plesant to look at, and certainly unable to remember anything from it's old form.

Modifié par Archelaos, 05 mars 2012 - 03:39 .

[BaronIveagh]

Brockololly wrote...

It sounds bold....until you realize they ripped off Deus Ex.

I still think it was Divergence Eve they ripped off, with the intersteller portals blowing up and all that.  Only this one doesn't send the hero back in time and give them a shot at fixing it...

[crazyrabbits]

Patriota125 wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

It sounds bold....until you realize they ripped off Deus Ex.

They're similar, but not quite the exact same thing. You crealy haven't played Deus Ex.

I have, multiple times. You're led to the same three choices in the original game:

1) "Kill Bob Page" (the "Control" analogue) - you kill Page and assume control of the Illuminati (with Morgan Everett) to protect humanity and guide it into a new age.

2) "Destroy Area 51" (the "Destroy" analogue) - you destroy the cooling systems and run like hell as the place explodes, with your "death" left ambiguous.

3) "Merge With Helios" (the "Synergy" analogue) - merge with the AI and become a new type of lifeform.

It's pretty much the same thing.

Modifié par crazyrabbits, 05 mars 2012 - 04:10 .

[BlackFriar]

The Last Guardian wrote...

Gotta to hand that to Bioware at least. Regardless of the fact that Bioware decided to give a big F.U to people who wanted a more happier ending, I still think that the ending is quite interesting. 

 It's bold, and very different of what we would expect. Sure, in my mind I can imagine the cliched ending where Shepard dies, yet Earth survives and everyone salutes his coffin at the end. I also can see another ending, where everyone is on Earth staring into the sunshine, assured of there victory.

 But the endings we've seen, are different, and very bold. Despite of it's potential excution, I still give Bioware a thumbs up for that. They could've easily taken a safe route which would've pleased all fans, and it obviously would've been the more obvious choice to make...but they didn't.

 I'm sure at the end of the day the consesus will be split on whether the ending was good or bad. But for now, from afar, from not knowing the context, it sounds bold.

Bioware has balls. 

Yes.  Because stealing the ending from a different game is bold and has never, ever been done before...

[Lukanp]

Seriously, I'd be fine with most of the illogical stuff they did with the ending, but crippling the whole galactic community like that is a nail to the coffin of the Mass Effect universe for IMO :/

Modifié par Lukanp, 05 mars 2012 - 04:55 .