94 réponses à ce sujet

[viceywicey]

Disclaimer: This is a discussion from a purely "academic" perspective so to speak.  I warn any who read this that I do have a specific preference for the type of ending I would have "liked" to see, but ultimately, the function of my topic is just to discuss the caliber of story telling offered to the player base in Mass Effect 3.


To start off...would I have liked to have a happy ending?  Definitely!  For some of us (the ones perhaps with no lives) who have invested 100s of hours into the Mass Effect saga playing and replaying for all those little nuances that define the diversity and viability of active decision-making within a reality where our choices have consequences, we have come to know and love the characters of the series.  Every character we come across has offered a new dimension to the experience and the fact that so many of us are heartbroken by the fact that we couldn't see an optimistic resolution for our main characters truly describes perhaps the legacy that bioware has left us all, but to me, more importantly and boldy so, the standard for the next generation in role playing games: character development matters.

Too often do we play shallow, shoot-em-up, action types where the characters are so singularly dimensional: universe in peril, hero is born (via destiny or some supernatural force), hero fights things of all shapes and sizes, hero bests every single possible enemy including the potential for God himself, hero walks off into the sunset.  Throughout this narrative, there's no connection to the hero because everything the hero does strides along perfection, where all the pieces fit into place.  In such a world the disconnect occurs because subconsiously we realize that such a perfection is unachievable and so we care less for the characters.  Mass Effect created a universe of consequence where you feel connected to the characters because of that very imperfection.  The fact that failure is possibly lends urgency to the narrative.  Was it a perfect connection?  No.  Was it a step in the right direction?  Yes.

The potential endings, while none of them gave the player the ending of "reconciliation" where what the player wants matches what would realistically happen, the finality of it all touches the player (at least it did for me) on a very deep and personal level.  Despite our refusal to accept it and taking into account the scope of the story, when you're going to war against a synthetic existence whose sole purpose is to exterminate all life in the galaxy in order to reset a war of balance set into motion by a nameless creator, is everything going to be peaches and gravy?  No.  People are going to die.  Mass Effect 3 sets that notion that this war is going to cost lives and is going to hurt, quickly, early, and realistically.  These components of the narrative thus need to define the finale as well.

Yes, it is fiction and in fiction reality doesn't apply.  But I can imagine that the minds behind the Mass Effect universe wanted to craft a hard-hitting narrative.  I would go so far as to praise them for their creation.  I hated the fact that I had to let go of a character years in the making.  But I love the creators for their daring to push the boundaries of comfortable game making.  I applaud their ability to make a narrative so complete that I literally hurt in the cut scenes.  In all fairness, there was no way, at least in my mind, for them to adequately craft an "ending" for the Mass Efffect that the majority would be satisfied with and given this fact, if any developers are reading this thread, I salute you for your efforts.

Summarily, I view the Mass Effect universe as more than a video game.  Mass Effect, in my mind, is first and foremost a story.  It's a story that's been beautifully crafted, painfully heart-felt, and masterfully presented.


-ViceyWicey

[RiouHotaru]

Hear hear. Admittedly, the romantic sucker in me wants their to be a "happy" ending. But then everyone tells you that millions upon millions of people are dying, and galactic civilization is going to be decimated regardless of how well you do. It's just a matter of making sure the least amount of damage is done in the time you have.

Also, while endings are bittersweet, most of them are vague enough (with the exception of any where Shepard dies, to imply that there CAN be a good resolution. I wouldn't mind Bioware coming out with a "Took A Third Option" (to quote TVTropes) ending where you find a way to succeed that doesn't involve the normal choices, but I'm satisfied.

And if you think about it, the endings having such an impact on the players because they WANT to see the happiness of the characters confirmed on-screen speaks to the strength of the writing.

[Vasparian]

The Shepard from ME1 and ME2 wouldn't have let it end the way it did. You can sugar coat this how you want, but that is how it is.

[Smeffects]

To be honest the only end i kinda like is synthesis. As EDI/Geths shows you through out the game, synthetics can evolve. Chaos will be assured to stop since creating new synthetics will simply be viewed as giving life.

Vasparian wrote...

The Shepard from ME1 and ME2 wouldn't
have let it end the way it did. You can sugar coat this how you want,
but that is how it is.

I understand some problems with the ending... but how exactly could shepard end something he has no control over differently? He is given the choise of what the crucible can do, shepard has no influance on the actual ending. There are legitimate complains about the ending, but thats not one of them.

Modifié par Smeffects, 07 mars 2012 - 08:01 .

[Taleroth]

viceywicey wrote...

 Despite our refusal to accept it and taking into account the scope of the story, when you're going to war against a synthetic existence whose sole purpose is to exterminate all life in the galaxy in order to reset a war of balance set into motion by a nameless creator, is everything going to be peaches and gravy?  No.  People are going to die. 

The majority of posters have no issue with people dying. Thane dies, we're okay. Mordin dies, we're okay. Wrex and Grunt may die, we're okay. Legion dies and we're okay.

There is a distinction between meaningful deaths and gratuitous deaths. A gigantic bleeding chasm between the two. The crash of the Normandy and the stranding of her crew has no meaning. They are making no sacrifice. No lives are saved or bettered. They did not choose it and exemplify their bravery by standing to face it head on. A McGuffin decides to strike at them while they are randomly in a location they have no reason to be at.

I want you to really think on this. The ending of the game, the defeat of the Reapers, features the death of Shepard, the destruction of the Relays, and the stranding of the Normandy crew. The Reapers did none of it.

Modifié par Taleroth, 07 mars 2012 - 08:02 .

[yoshibb]

Taleroth wrote...

viceywicey wrote...

 Despite our refusal to accept it and taking into account the scope of the story, when you're going to war against a synthetic existence whose sole purpose is to exterminate all life in the galaxy in order to reset a war of balance set into motion by a nameless creator, is everything going to be peaches and gravy?  No.  People are going to die. 

The majority of posters have no issue with people dying. Thane dies, we're okay. Mordin dies, we're okay. Wrex and Grunt may die, we're okay. Legion dies and we're okay.

There is a distinction between meaningful deaths and gratuitous deaths. A gigantic bleeding chasm between the two. The crash of the Normandy and the stranding of her crew has no meaning. They are making no sacrifice. No lives are saved or bettered. They did not choose it and exemplify their bravery by standing to face it head on. A McGuffin decides to strike at them while they are randomly in a location they have no reason to be at.

Exactly, I love the deaths of Mordin and Thane. But this makes no sense. The ending is still one dimentional, it just happens to be a one dimentional sad ending instead of a one dimentional happy ending.

[viceywicey]

@ Taleroth: True. Their deaths can be construed as "gratuitous", but at least in my perspective, their function was less one of "oh I'm sad so-and-so died" and one of reinforcing "this is war. People die in war. Their deaths may not always have meaning". Don't get me wrong, I certainly did notice that on one level, there could have been a tighter way to hold everything together. I also certainly would ahdere to the notion that time could have been spent away from adding a multiplayer component, to better solidifying the story line. Could it have been improved? Yes. I could personally think of a dozen ways to better tie together all the conflicting points. Perfection aside, the point of my discussion was less of a highlight of what was wrong, but the parts that I connected with, nothing more.

[WizenSlinky0]

You're making the same mistake...the assumptions against the people who disagree with you. "Refusal to accept it" insinuates they need to just get over it, that their subjective experience was actually totally great because you said so. From the tone of your message I doubt that's what you mean to imply but that is what you are doing. You're also assuming we "don't want anybody to die", another incorrect assumption. Some of us have actually advocated for killing ALL of the characters just so long as the send-off is better than what we got. The Normandy crew were treated terribly and got a horrible after-battle send-off. It's sloppy and arbitrary.

The problem with not having a linear narrative from the beginning is that the game's content is supposed to be produced by the fans. Each experience is supposed to encompass something unique. It's the point of a choice based system. I'd argue that we did not at all get a universe of consequence. We got a universe of circumstance but with the illusion of consequence, until that was shattered by ME3. Because all of those "consequences" get partially nullified.

It's not a matter of the ending not giving reconciliation but of satisfaction. I've been plenty satisfied by grim endings, bittersweet endings, and sunshine endings along with everything between. ME3's ending package is not satisfying for a whole lot of people. I say package because different parts have upset different portions of the fans. My issue, as you may have already seen, was with the inescapable Normandy crash. It's a disservice to every single one of those characters on that ship. Would be more satisfying to see them crash into a reaper then watch them get stranded after the battle was already over.

I much preferred a system where you couldn't save everybody but you could prioritize. Emphasize player choice in determining who lives and who dies. They did this very well choosing between Mordin and Wrex. But then they abandoned it.

When it comes down to it you are also still looking at ME3 like a stand-alone story. You can't do that. The theme, the tone, the atmosphere...it's all set up by the entire trilogy. There needs to be consistency. There's a difference between having linear sad endings and having sad endings that allow the player to be satisfied by the choices they made. It's sad, they might be crying, but they made a difference. Even if only two people he cared about made it through it would be a small personal victory that would be closer to the tone of the previous games. That if you work hard enough and prepare enough you can make a difference. These endings tell you the opposite. Do whatever you want but this is your ending.

They pushed no boundaries of gamemaking or writing. All they did was pointlessly push the boundaries of our comfort zone, except without the key part, where they challenge it for a *reason*. To make us think about something. Perhaps the execution was too poor for me to see where I was supposed to be thinking about something other than an inbred colony and the fact everything I did is some kids bedtime story (alien sex included).

Beautifully crafted? You mean filled with bugs. Painfully heart-felt? You mean forced emotion and arbitrary scenes without significant purpose. Masterfully presented? You mean glaring potholes.

The sad part is I don't even dislike ME3. I'd probably give it a 7 or so. It's a decent enough game but it has too many problems, strayed from their own narrative structure in the middle of a trilogy, and throws too many "painful" moments for the sake of being painful rather than to move the story.

[Yakob]

For me it wasn't that the endings were BAD... it's that they make no sense.

WHY was the Normandy in the relay system?

WHY were squad-mates on-board, who I had just spoken to in London?

To stop Synthetic life killing everyone they... kill... everyone with synthetic life?

Not to mention none of your decisions in any game seem to have an effect past "You didn't fail to make it" beyond the final farewells. (I have maxxed paragon and 3% renegade... I had the option to renegade persuade the Illusive Man at the end)

[yoshibb]

viceywicey wrote...

@ Taleroth: True. Their deaths can be construed as "gratuitous", but at least in my perspective, their function was less one of "oh I'm sad so-and-so died" and one of reinforcing "this is war. People die in war. Their deaths may not always have meaning". Don't get me wrong, I certainly did notice that on one level, there could have been a tighter way to hold everything together. I also certainly would ahdere to the notion that time could have been spent away from adding a multiplayer component, to better solidifying the story line. Could it have been improved? Yes. I could personally think of a dozen ways to better tie together all the conflicting points. Perfection aside, the point of my discussion was less of a highlight of what was wrong, but the parts that I connected with, nothing more.

But it wasn't the war that caused it. It was plotholes! Explain to me what the Normandy is doing out there and why everyone is magically on the ship.

[Taleroth]

That's not reinforcement. Reinforcement requires it to be a recurrence. Pretty much by definition. The prevailing theme of the game is one of heroism against adversity. Not random tragedy due to friendly fire.

[Smeffects]

Yakob wrote...

To stop Synthetic life killing everyone they... kill... everyone with synthetic life?

Reapers arent completly synthetic. I though it was one of the only correct part of the ending.  Their idea was that eventually synthetic like geth would come to the conclusion that all organic life was unless and wipe it out completly. Reapers only harvested organic that are at that level of technology with synthetics. It could have been told better for sure, but it still made sense, they are not killing everyone.

Modifié par Smeffects, 07 mars 2012 - 08:13 .

[Yakob]

Smeffects wrote...

Yakob wrote...

To stop Synthetic life killing everyone they... kill... everyone with synthetic life?

Reapers arent completly synthetic. I though it was one of the only correct part of the ending.  Their idea was that eventually synthetic like geth would come to the conclusion that all organic life was unless and wipe it out completly. Reapers only harvested organic that are at that level of technology with synthetics. It could have been told better for sure, but it still made sense, they are not killing everyone.

I feel that if they could make the reapers, Citadel and Mass Relays they could have come up with something better than galactic genocide every 50k years.

I was expecting something along the lines of "Dark Energy causes stars etc to become unstable with all the use of Mass Effect fields every x years, requiring the reset of technological advancement", especially with all the references on the Mass Effect 2 planet info's regarding recently unstable stars.

[Smeffects]

Yakob wrote...

Smeffects wrote...

Yakob wrote...

To stop Synthetic life killing everyone they... kill... everyone with synthetic life?

Reapers arent completly synthetic. I though it was one of the only correct part of the ending.  Their idea was that eventually synthetic like geth would come to the conclusion that all organic life was unless and wipe it out completly. Reapers only harvested organic that are at that level of technology with synthetics. It could have been told better for sure, but it still made sense, they are not killing everyone.

I feel that if they could make the reapers, Citadel and Mass Relays they could have come up with something better than galactic genocide every 50k years.

I was expecting something along the lines of "Dark Energy causes stars etc to become unstable with all the use of Mass Effect fields every x years, requiring the reset of technological advancement", especially with all the references on the Mass Effect 2 planet info's regarding recently unstable stars.

Didnt say it was the best  possible goal for the reaper. But it did make sense at least. We all knew it had to be something that saves us indirectly somehow.

Modifié par Smeffects, 07 mars 2012 - 08:23 .

[Tsantilas]

The thing that bugged me the most is the lack of closure and the illogical plot holes.  I chose the synthesis ending for my first playthrough as I found it the most benefitial ending of the 3.  It's not a bad way to end the series from a plot perspective, the problem is that the way the game itself ends makes no sense and leaves too many unanswered questions. 

I romanced Liara, and I took her (and Garrus) with me on the final mission, so I was pretty surprised to see her alive in the ending clip walking out of the crashed Normandy.  How did she get on the Normandy anyway?  How did she survive the reaper red deathray thing when we were charging to get onto the Citadel?  Say that I accept that she got on a shuttle and went back to the Normandy while I was on the citadel, why the hell was the Normandy randomly trying to outrun the crucible ray-thing?  What was it doing out there anyway?  Last I checked it was fighting the reapers around Earth, so why is it using the relay system?  What happened to the rest of my crew?  Did they survive?  Are they also on the Normandy?  Why do Joker and Edi look happy when walking out of the crashed Normandy?  Why were almost all my awesome comrades from ME2 reduced to cameo appearances?  Did they survive the war?  What the hell is the Catalyst?

That's way too many questions for the end of a trilogy.  I want closure dammit.  ME3 just left me going "Huuuuuh?".  I'm not even sure I want to do a second playthrough because I know that there's no satisfying ending.  All I get is to see my friends and loved ones suffer once more, knowing that in the end nothing matters because the galaxy goes to **** anyway.  Sure I helped organic life reach the apex of it's evolution by merging with synthetics, but none of that matters because I'm dead and I have no idea what happened to the people who actually mean something to me.

Modifié par Tsantilas, 07 mars 2012 - 08:31 .

[Bionic Weapon]

Yakob wrote...

For me it wasn't that the endings were BAD... it's that they make no sense.

WHY was the Normandy in the relay system?

WHY were squad-mates on-board, who I had just spoken to in London?

To stop Synthetic life killing everyone they... kill... everyone with synthetic life?

Not to mention none of your decisions in any game seem to have an effect past "You didn't fail to make it" beyond the final farewells. (I have maxxed paragon and 3% renegade... I had the option to renegade persuade the Illusive Man at the end)

I agree.

Also the Destroy Ending made no sense to me either, because: You kill the Reapers but also all synthetic life... So all that time trying to get the Geth on your side was pointless since you prettty much said "Thanks for all your help, but now I'm gonna kill ya"  To me fels like a betrayal, especailly to EDI

Modifié par Bionic Weapon, 07 mars 2012 - 08:31 .

[Vasparian]

I have to wonder if the sites giving ME3 high reviews have played the game to it's endings. If they have, then I have even less trust in reviewers than I did before.

[J5550123]

Vasparian wrote...

I have to wonder if the sites giving ME3 high reviews have played the game to it's endings. If they have, then I have even less trust in reviewers than I did before.

Agreed. And I've even seen some reviews that say the game has a satisfying ending with no loose ends, which is obviously false since there was hardly any conclusion at all.

[Yakob]

Vasparian wrote...

I have to wonder if the sites giving ME3 high reviews have played the game to it's endings. If they have, then I have even less trust in reviewers than I did before.

I actually LOVED the rest of the game, but I would rather watch the rest of my squad sacrifice themselves heroically for an ending that's well written, explained and makes sense than that.

[Vikali]

Vasparian wrote...

I have to wonder if the sites giving ME3 high reviews have played the game to it's endings. If they have, then I have even less trust in reviewers than I did before.

I don't understand this attitdue of 'If I don't like it, then it's not possible anyone else can.'
I actually like the endings. My only issue the the lolteleport bug, but in terms of the choices, I approve fully.

[Wildhide]

Sad, grimdark, bitter endings for the sake of having them when they have no flow in the narrative do not make good writing. This is what ME3 did. The themes of the game are choices matter and conquering adversity. They take a left turn in the last few minutes of the game, create a bunch of random plot holes, and make you choose between three arbitrary endings that are questionably similar to Deus Ex.

How does this create a well written ending? It's fine for people to die in a story when it's written well. It's very poorly conceived when you just toss them onto an undeveloped world to die abandoned without any closure on the universe just because. People above have summed up the nonsense rather well.

[J5550123]

Wildhide wrote...

Sad, grimdark, bitter endings for the sake of having them when they have no flow in the narrative do not make good writing. This is what ME3 did. The themes of the game are choices matter and conquering adversity. They take a left turn in the last few minutes of the game, create a bunch of random plot holes, and make you choose between three arbitrary endings that are questionably similar to Deus Ex.

How does this create a well written ending? It's fine for people to die in a story when it's written well. It's very poorly conceived when you just toss them onto an undeveloped world to die abandoned without any closure on the universe just because. People above have summed up the nonsense rather well.

Hopefully Bioware will fix the ending. We're trying to get peoples' attention with this poll.

http://social.biowar...06/polls/28989/

[Wildhide]

KitePolaris wrote...

Vasparian wrote...

I have to wonder if the sites giving ME3 high reviews have played the game to it's endings. If they have, then I have even less trust in reviewers than I did before.

I don't understand this attitdue of 'If I don't like it, then it's not possible anyone else can.'
I actually like the endings. My only issue the the lolteleport bug, but in terms of the choices, I approve fully.

The problem is the 'choices' cancel out every other choice in the game and make them superfluous.  The ending invalidates the rest of the series.  And there's no real choice, it's bad ending A, B, or C.  When the theme of ME up till now has been that your decisions and actions influence the results.  If you do things right and work hard enough you can get a good ending, if you don't you can get a bad ending.  And there are varying degrees in the middle.

In ME3 no matter what you do you can't get a satisfying conclusion.  You get a plot hole filled mess and you can get no happy conclusion.

[RiouHotaru]

I'm puzzled by everyone seeing the Normandy crash-land and assuming they're all trapped forever on whatever planet they landed on. The ending doesn't imply they're going to be stuck there forever. Hell, the ending is incredibly vague in that regard.

I think the problem is is that people don't want it to be vague. They want the fate of the characters they've gotten close to spelled out for them in no uncertain terms.

Me personally, I don't mind the vagueness of their fates. More room for headcanon.

[Yakob]

RiouHotaru wrote...

I'm puzzled by everyone seeing the Normandy crash-land and assuming they're all trapped forever on whatever planet they landed on. The ending doesn't imply they're going to be stuck there forever. Hell, the ending is incredibly vague in that regard.

I think the problem is is that people don't want it to be vague. They want the fate of the characters they've gotten close to spelled out for them in no uncertain terms.

Me personally, I don't mind the vagueness of their fates. More room for headcanon.

Normandy trashed.

Looks like a completely random, probably uninhabited planet.

Relays destroyed

No-one except Joker/operating crew should even be ON it... they were with you in London.