401 réponses à ce sujet

[Unata]

Not happy with these endings either, green, red or white, I'm left with the feeling that the writing of the storyline just flat ran out of steam and someone said "Oh hell, just go with the ultimate sacrifice and be done with it", throw in some different color effects and volia! a few different endings, not working Bioware, a couple word and color changes don't make different endings.

[Carmen_Willow]

Fenwich wrote...

Carmen_Willow wrote...

In the same vein, anyone who believes in technology, who wants to move it forward and sees it as a tool to help us have a better future is painted as evil and power hungry. The first time I played Mass Effect 2 I was shocked to discover that saving the reaper base so that we could learn from its technology was the "Renegade" choice. But you know. for every "evil" use of technology out there, there are many more "good" uses of it and not everyone who wants to move it forward is power mad or evil.
 

Well to be fair, hundreds of thousands of people had died to create the Reaper in that base. Yeah, the technology could've been used for good. In fact, some Reaper technology is taken and used. For example the Thanix cannon which in ME3 is standard on every warship came from Sovereign's weapon.

But TIM was interested in using that base to control not only the Reapers but the galaxy. That's why it was renegade to keep it intact.

And I get that - in fact, it kinda proves my point.  The guy who is most interested in moving the technology forward is ......EVIL....and power hungry.  Just once, couldn't the mad scientist be a good guy?  You know, the one with a vision that reaches so far into the future that everyone thinks he's nuts....until the future arrives....and they discover he wasn't? It would have been really creative to have TIM turn out to be ruthless, but truly working to better mankind's chances.  Nah, he's just the same old cardboard EVIL mad scientist that's been around for about 60 years now.

Oh, and I know that hundreds of thousands of human beings died in that place, but that doesn't change the fact that studying the technology left in the base might have been the key to destroying the Reapers without the devastating consequences of the Paragon ending. You don't have to make more Reapers to study the technology. [edited to add content]

Modifié par Carmen_Willow, 08 mars 2012 - 11:14 .

[dkear1]

Goose1004 wrote...

Jjacobclark wrote...

surprised they didn't try to focus test this on a group of people

Supposedly they did and the group loved it.

That group should be taken out and shot!!!!!

[People4Peace]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Mr. Big Pimpin wrote...
I am honestly mystified as to why they didn't just do this in the first place. It seemed like the logical route for the story to take.

Exactly. The Guardian served no purpose but to give the player a choice for the sake of having a choice.

And really, BioWare. That wasn't needed at all. You could have just let the result of the activation of the Crucible lie in the War Assets.

I know it's almost a tradition to have a choice at the end, but this is the last one. There's no need for it.

Whoever you let write that ending, you should really fire that guy, because he did more harm than good.

Someone With Mass wrote...

If they're working on DLC, they should fix the ending by removing the
Guardian and all his crap and just have the Crucible destroy the
Reapers, as it was intended to do.

Seriously, there's no need to make it more complicated than that.

Exactly to both of your points. It seemed simple enough, really!

As someone else mentioned, they should have tested the endings with players. And I don't mean random gamers that don't care about RPG elements. Any ME fan, hardcore or not, probably would've disliked the endings...

[IanPolaris]

dkear1 wrote...

Goose1004 wrote...

Jjacobclark wrote...

surprised they didn't try to focus test this on a group of people

Supposedly they did and the group loved it.

That group should be taken out and shot!!!!!

That would be too good for them.  Feed'em to the Nak'Nak (sp?).

-Polaris

[Sywen]

I loved every minute of the game until the end.  I don't think I can replay it.  I have never been so depressed after a game or a book as pathetic has that sounds.  I just finished it and the way I am feeling now...I don't wanna touch it again. 

Modifié par Sywen, 08 mars 2012 - 11:26 .

[Xellith]

Sywen wrote...

I loved every minute of the game until the end.  I don't think I can replay it.  I have never been so depressed after a game or a book as pathetic has that sounds.  I just finished it and the way I am feeling now...I don't wanna touch it again. 

Ditto.

[xAGATHONx]

Mass Effect 3 was an awesome game...up until the final 5 minutes or so.
I
understand  Bioware said it would be a darker game with an even darker
ending, but why end the game the way they did...so many plot holes and
unanswered questions. I am all for the hero dying for the sake of saving
everything/everyone, but at least explain what happens after everything
more so than just some quick holo shots.

The endings were terrible, plain and simple...

Has Bioware even said why they decided to end the series with such terrible endings?

[delijoe]

I think Nihilism was a major theme of this series and that's why you got the ending you got. In the end, individual life is meaningless in the overall scheme of things.

[SharlenaSharlena]

HaiknEdge wrote...

GeneraI Ripper wrote...

I don't have the time to go back and replay the ending now, but I could have sworn the epilogue planet had two crescents hanging in the sky, as did the crash-land planet.

Post credits screenshot:



That's one planetary body, right?

http://img641.images...31088051951.jpg

The most disappointing part of this image is that they did not create it themselves. Such a shame really. Bioware and their wonderful team of creative genius's hard at work trolling deviant art for stock imagery. LAME!<_<

[SharlenaSharlena]

I get that but when you have a team or more or less a company working on something of this scale don't you think something original for the ending of a series would be nice? Its kind of insulting in a way, it just all seems slapped together.

[Jonathan Shepard]

101ezylonhxeT wrote...

The endings are trash and always will be.

Wrong. The lack of closure is what makes the appear trashy. There are too many threads on the endings... I've repeated this sentiment enough.

[ticklefist]

Almostfaceman wrote...

First, I respect the creators right to make things in their way.

Second, I respect my right to respond to a creation, either positively or negatively.

Mass Effect was a wonderful creation. Then it was destroyed.

In the end the Reapers (the alien-unexplained-small boy avatar) still wrote our destiny. There is no option to tell the Reapers what we've been telling them all along - screw you we're going to make our own destiny.

Instead, after fighting to give the Krogan, the Geth, the Quarians, the Rachni, EDI a chance to determine their own path, Shepard succumbs to the creator of the Reapers.

Suddenly it doesn't seem to matter that we don't know who this Creator (Reaper) is. We don't know if it's lying or telling the truth. We're not just pidgeon-holed into Cerberus or the Alliance, we're pigeon-holed into making three horrible Reaper/Creator choices. Three, out of endless possiblities. I know it's a game and it has to be limited in scope, but where is that choice that Shepard has made to break free completely of Reaper influence? Choice to merge - could be we're merging with Reaper tech or something else as horrible. Choice to control Reapers - how do we know it's not lying? Why does this kill us? The Creator himself said he'd been opened up to new possibilities. This means the Creator has choices. Choice to destroy - how do we know it's not lying? Again, why does Shepard have to die, if the Creator has free will, why cannot it take its own life? So many questions left unanswered. So rushed. So limiting. So anti-choice. So not tied to any of the decisions Shepard has made about alliances or investments in relationships with others in his galaxy.

All three choices involve destroying the relays, and in the very small limited exchange we have with the Creator the possiblity of these relay destructions wiping out trillions in cataclysmic explosions is very real. This could be - and very logically seems to be - the Reapers on the ropes going out in a bang to give organic life the big middle finger. Shepard would not risk doing on a galaxy-wide scale what happened to the Batarian system in Arrival. He'd take a choice of risking it toe-to-toe in a stand up fight with the Reapers. Period.

I've been playing this game to tell the Reapers or whatever created them that they do not have the right to manage us in any way. And in the end, I get managed by them.

Then, to add insult to injury, the nonsense begins. All of a sudden the Normandy is zapping about on a Relay stream. Ummm, why? It was engaged in a to-the-death fight for Earth. Why would Joker abandon Earth?

All of a sudden the tail end of the Normandy vaporizes in an energy pulse that is faster than the instantaneous travel of relay-to-relay travel. What?

All of a sudden the Normandy survives this assault and makes it all the way to a planet. Then people who have no business being on the Normandy walk off of it. Game bug? Shepard death vision so he see's people he wants to see? Not explained. Joker a survivor? 

Then... we don't know what happens to the rest of the galaxy. I've spent hours and money on all these plots and characters. Bioware, you can spend three minutes telling me what happens in the end.

Then... a grandpa talking to a boy about this story. I already know this is a story. I picked it up in a place that sells video games. I know it's a story. Does this mean this is all a death vision for Shepard? Does this mean that life goes on in a primitive universe where star travel is still a remote possibility, like our own real existence? Is it all a story that was never supposed to mean anything within the universe that Bioware created - a story within a story? What the heck does this mean? Why so ambiguous Bioware?

I don't believe it's going to happen, but I request a do-over. Because you've made games that I like a lot, I'm giving you a chance, Bioware, to put an ending on this story that will please more of your fans. If you don't, I don't think I'm alone in saying you've lost a customer. Anyone who's seen me post on this forum knows I'm not some reactionary who says fantastic things on a forum just to get attention. For me to say something like this, means you've really messed it up. Here, on a Bioware forum, is the place to tell you how I feel about your product. As it stands now, your product capped off with a big fat stinker of an ending and I will not invest my time or money in any more troll endings like this. I'm talking straight to you Bioware, not anyone else, so I hope we're clear on this. 

Fix it.

This should be quoted on every page.

[Sashimi_taco]

Do you think they even care that most people hate the endings? They keep releasing paid reviews saying the endings are great, even now. Why do reviewers keep saying that when they know everyone hates them?

I feel so frustrated, like the people who actually bought the game don't matter. I pre ordered this like 9 months ago for the CE. I thought it was going to be amazing, and it was. Until the end. I'm just sitting at the final mission, refusing the play. I don't want to lose the people my shepard cares about.

[Dean_the_Young]

The endings were open-ended. Painfully so to some, but it does play into the idea of how it's a new, unknown, mysterious galaxy after the Reapers' order. There was certainly enough opening for people to assume a happier ending than the cries of 'the crew is doomed, DOOMED!'

If the first reviewers hadn't put a fatalistic, unfounded spin on the endings, a lot of people would have been spared a lot of grief.

[yuncas]

Carmen_Willow wrote...

I saw a movie some years ago titled "A Thousand Acres" which is a retelling in modern terms of King Lear. As the house lights came up, the woman sitting next to me, a stranger, said "Boy, I'm depressed!"

Truer words were never spoken.

Why do writers seem to believe that the only good technology is medieval technology? If you look at the first Star Trek series, there is an ongoing pervasive theme of "you just can't trust those darn machines" and "life is a paradise when you don't use anything more modern than a stone axe."

In the age of the I-Phone and artificial hips and such, we hear the constant unremitting drumbeat of the Luddites. I know we all dream of Eden (of some other, similar paradise) where the food falls from the trees and so long as you don't want knowledge all will be well, but the reality is that without technology, man's life span is about 30-35 years tops. Oh, and most of your children will die of infectious disease before the age of 10, and half of all women will eventually succumb to a child bearing related illness or trauma. Don't know about you, but the reality of that "garden" living just doesn't sound good to me.

In the same vein, anyone who believes in technology, who wants to move it forward and sees it as a tool to help us have a better future is painted as evil and power hungry. The first time I played Mass Effect 2 I was shocked to discover that saving the reaper base so that we could learn from its technology was the "Renegade" choice. But you know. for every "evil" use of technology out there, there are many more "good" uses of it and not everyone who wants to move it forward is power mad or evil.

It amazes me that writers who make their living writing for one of the most technologically advanced mediums would denounce it, but they have. May I suggest that they go and live on those worlds they just created and let the rest of us have both the Reapers vanquished and our Mass Effect relays back.

Bioware seems to have bought into this philosophy of EVIL TECH. I began this series seeing a possible future where we were members of an intragalactic community, flying to many new planets. It was hopeful and almost joyous. Sure there were evil villians and a terrible threat, but we would pull together with the other life forms in our galaxy, both organic and otherwise, and overcome the threat.

And now it's all ashes, and rubble. Both of my LI's are dead, I'm dead, and people are propelled back to isolation. Nice job, Bioware, of really making a depressing game. [Edited for typo]

Well put.

[Ona Demonie]

Had ME3 been a one-time game, then the endings would have been fine. But many of us spent 5 years with these games, investing time and money into it. Many of us became attached to the characters. Some of us played the game multiple times, trying to make the right decisions for the next game, stressing over it even. Except all that is instantly destroyed in these endings.

[Adanu]

I still can't believe the writers thought that these endings would not destroy customer trust in them.

Seriously. I can see the relays blowing up... fine. Galactic reset? Fine.

But stranding the crew on a planet with no hope of ever seeing Shepard again, and Shepard not with their LI on Earth stranded? Seriously, the game was KILLED by this crap. It's like taking Luke Skywalker and making him destroy the Force in Star Wars.

[Landline]

Goose1004 wrote...

Jjacobclark wrote...

surprised they didn't try to focus test this on a group of people

Supposedly they did and the group loved it.

Then the people who did the test need to be reminded that monkeys aren't people, and that you invalidate the test by shocking them for trying to push the dislike buton and rewarding them with a banana when they push the like button.

[KRAETZNER]

Ona Demonie wrote...

Had ME3 been a one-time game, then the endings would have been fine. But many of us spent 5 years with these games, investing time and money into it. Many of us became attached to the characters. Some of us played the game multiple times, trying to make the right decisions for the next game, stressing over it even. Except all that is instantly destroyed in these endings.

Indeed.

[Nassegris]

The thing about games, for me, is that there needs to be something to struggle for.

There has to be a goal that you look forward to at the end, something exciting or intriguing – or just the whoosh of triumph over beating a game.

An ending doesn’t need to be Disney (it is extremely tiresome to see people refer to it like that, talk about exaggeration), but it needs to have some element that makes you feel good about finishing the game. At least in my eyes.

What is the replay value when everything you have struggled for, all the characters you’ve come to know and everything you ached for is gone? Why should I bother to fight for anything when there is so little to reward me in the end?

I’m not Shep. The universe doesn’t end if I don’t go through with this. My sacrifice of hours, and hours of gameplay for something that leaves me feeling sick to my heart for days doesn’t give me anything.

If I want to engage in a depressing storyline that I have no control over, watching events unfold until the obvious, bitter, ugly end – I’ll switch on Requiem for a Dream, or watch Schindler’s List.

If I play a game, I need something to struggle for that gives me at least a bit of rush of satisfaction.

Replay value of these endings? ZERO. Why on earth would I put myself through that horrid thing again? It gives no proper resolution, it rewards me with nothing, all it leaves me with is a feeling that I’ve wasted a LOT of time and money and I would actually feel happier if I could go back a few years in time and never play the game at all.

Don't need super-happy ending. I do need an ending that gives a sense of accomplishment, however, rather than take away any pleasure I've received from playing the game.

[Fenwich]

Carmen_Willow wrote...

And I get that - in fact, it kinda proves my point.  The guy who is most interested in moving the technology forward is ......EVIL....and power hungry.  Just once, couldn't the mad scientist be a good guy?  You know, the one with a vision that reaches so far into the future that everyone thinks he's nuts....until the future arrives....and they discover he wasn't? It would have been really creative to have TIM turn out to be ruthless, but truly working to better mankind's chances.  Nah, he's just the same old cardboard EVIL mad scientist that's been around for about 60 years now.

They actually do a fairly good job of portraying that you and TIM both want to stop the Reapers. He just wants to put humanity in a dominant position over the rest of the species in the galaxy at the end.

Since "Paragon points are gained for compassionate and heroic actions." And "Renegade points are gained for apathetic or ruthless actions" (from the wiki). I think that taking the collector base and giving it to a guy who wants to promote human interests over everyone else in the galaxy is neither compassionate or heroic. Yeah, he wants to stop the Reapers, but at the expense of everyone besides humanity and himself.

[Cuddlezarro]

An ending doesn’t need to be Disney (it is extremely tiresome to see people refer to it like that, talk about exaggeration), but it needs to have some element that makes you feel good about finishing the game. At least in my eyes.

i find it amusing when people talk about disney always being light hearted... I mean look at frolo from hunchback of notradam his villian song is about how he lusts after a woman and if she doesnt accept him she will burn... and in tarzan the main villian hangs himself... thats pretty grim