96 réponses à ce sujet

[GBGriffin]

QuirkyGroundhog wrote...

I was under the impression Thane always died.

I'm curious about this as well. I love watching the scene happen, even tear up, but I thought he always died.

[QuirkyGroundhog]

GBGriffin wrote...

KillSlash45 wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

SilencedScream wrote...

The defenses that I've seen so far:
1.) "It's too mature for most of this audience."
2.) "It's fitting of the theme of Mass Effect."
3.) "You should've seen it coming."
4.) "Not everything in life is butterflies and unicorns."

None of which I find to be reasonable responses; all of these broke down into insults as they tried to defend their points.

That sums up what I've seen as well.

Well, those and people who either get off on schadenfreude, or who just can't understand or concede why people are upset because they themselves don't understand the concept of having a passion.

Holy hypocrite batman, that's a lot of hypocrite!  

How so?

Um, probably because he says that those who defend the ending start with points and then descend into insults, sort of like how he started with semi-valid points and then descended into insults

[Biotic Sage]

Nekroso22 wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...
I disagree with people when they say there are glaring plotholes, although I do find some of the editing at the very final scenes to be a bit questionable; we see no context for how the Normandy ended up blazing through space with all the squadmates on board. The content, however, I am perfectly fine with. Editing, could have been a bit better.

That's not bad editing, friend.

That there's a plot hole.

Bad editing for explaining how squadmates you didn't take with you on the final assault ended up on the Normandy.

Technical glitch when squadmates that you did take with you and got lasered end up on the Normandy.  Or at least I hope so.

[deathscythe517]

Tazzmission wrote...

mainly because its different and not like every story out there where the hero always wins

Explain how "every story" the hero wins. I can literally list off both hands stories and films with a downer ending, hell, there's a whole freaking page devoted to it on TVTropes. This is not a valid reason to like the ending, other people have thought out at least somewhat logical reasons. You're making your point with straw.

[GBGriffin]

QuirkyGroundhog wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

KillSlash45 wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

SilencedScream wrote...

The defenses that I've seen so far:
1.) "It's too mature for most of this audience."
2.) "It's fitting of the theme of Mass Effect."
3.) "You should've seen it coming."
4.) "Not everything in life is butterflies and unicorns."

None of which I find to be reasonable responses; all of these broke down into insults as they tried to defend their points.

That sums up what I've seen as well.

Well, those and people who either get off on schadenfreude, or who just can't understand or concede why people are upset because they themselves don't understand the concept of having a passion.

Holy hypocrite batman, that's a lot of hypocrite!  

How so?

Um, probably because he says that those who defend the ending start with points and then descend into insults, sort of like how he started with semi-valid points and then descended into insults

Ah. I wouldn't call those insults, not on the same level as some of the viciousness from the other camp, though. I'm not directly attacking anyone, and it was meant as a general observation.

I can see your point, though. Probably not the best phrasing.

[KillSlash45]

Nekroso22 wrote...

Tazzmission wrote...

mainly because its different and not like every story out there where the hero always wins.

The arguments against the ending have nothing to do with Shepard dying or that he "doesn't win." The arguments are mostly against the plot inconsistencies and lack of player choice.

Also, there are plenty of stories where the hero doesn't win. It's become so popular its almost cliche. I would suggest Anna Karenina, 1984, and Farenheit 451 as good starting points for stories where the hero suffers.

There are essentailly three reasons people hate the ending

1) Choices don't matter
2) No happy ending for
3) Bad writing (often attributed to not just the ending, but the last hour or two). IE. No closure, lazy writing, etc.

Most people seem to be complaining about 1 and 2. I have seen MAAAANY arguments that they wanted their shepherd to live with his LI and be with his crew.There are plenty of arguments for a happy ending.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That being said I liked the endings.  Though honestly I wish there was closure. I wish ALL endings had shepherd and his crew sacrificing themselves somehow (in a way which is unavoidable if the want to win) to stop the reapers, depending on how prepared you are and what choices you made, this suicide attack is more or less effective. 

[GBGriffin]

deathscythe517 wrote...

Tazzmission wrote...

mainly because its different and not like every story out there where the hero always wins

Explain how "every story" the hero wins. I can literally list off both hands stories and films with a downer ending, hell, there's a whole freaking page devoted to it on TVTropes. This is not a valid reason to like the ending, other people have thought out at least somewhat logical reasons. You're making your point with straw.

He still hasn't gotten to back to me about how the story is even different. o_O

[Nekroso22]

Biotic Sage wrote...

Bad editing for explaining how squadmates you didn't take with you on the final assault ended up on the Normandy

That has nothing to do with editing, that's all plot. You're assuming there's a part of the story you didn't get to see.

Welcome to 97% of the community's world.

[Tessara_Riventi]

Nekroso22 wrote...

Tessara_Riventi wrote...

Again, death = redemption. I feel pretty confident making that a generalization, regardless of the plot details of any particular playthrough.

Wait, you're equating Saren's (egomaniacal/insane antagonist) and TIM's (see previous) suicides with an overarching theme of "death = redemption" over the course of the entire Mass Effect saga?

How do you figure that?

Not equating. Adding them as additional evidence. Both Saren and TIM are supposed to be tragic figures - an at-all-costs servant of the Council who gets sucked into indoctrination by Sovereign and a visionary extremist (TIM) who figures out a huge amount of what's really going on and even comes up with the solution most likely to cause the least damage to the galaxy AND give humanity a huge leg up (control of the Reapers), but who ends up indoctrinated and unable to even follow through on his own solution because he's made too many bloody and perverse compromises along the way. Both of them come to the end of their lives as tools of the Reapers, and you can reach them enough to let them have one last act of free will - ending their lives so they can't be used against you. 

In both of those cases, ending their lives as momentarily free creatures willing to die to help you is a redemptive act. Just like Mordin, by doing what he's doing (and dying) is both making up for what he did in updating the genophage and paying for the original wrong of the Salarians inflicting the genophage on the Krogan to begin with. Just like Legion, who's really innocent in the whole thing, paying with its life to bring an end to all the horrible things the Geth and Quarians have done to each other. Legion's Death = redemption for both species, an escape from their past misdeeds.

Follow now?

[Biotic Sage]

Nekroso22 wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

Bad editing for explaining how squadmates you didn't take with you on the final assault ended up on the Normandy

That has nothing to do with editing, that's all plot. You're assuming there's a part of the story you didn't get to see.

Welcome to 97% of the community's world.

Well whatever you want to call it, it could have been handled better.  All of the other aspects of the ending I am more than pleased with though, so I don't think I'm with 97% of the BSN on that one.

[QuirkyGroundhog]

KillSlash45 wrote...

Nekroso22 wrote...

Tazzmission wrote...

mainly because its different and not like every story out there where the hero always wins.

The arguments against the ending have nothing to do with Shepard dying or that he "doesn't win." The arguments are mostly against the plot inconsistencies and lack of player choice.

Also, there are plenty of stories where the hero doesn't win. It's become so popular its almost cliche. I would suggest Anna Karenina, 1984, and Farenheit 451 as good starting points for stories where the hero suffers.

There are essentailly three reasons people hate the ending

1) Choices don't matter

That's the one that blows my mind. Choices don't matter. Of course they matter! Just because something doesn't play directly into the end game doesn't mean it doesn't matter. Is that how people face their life choices? They're only relevent if they play into some sort of endgame? The lives they touch or how they affect the world are irrelevent? Or they're only relevent if they find out EXACTLY how they touched the world/people?

Some will undoubtedly say, 'That's life, this is a game', but you know what? I roleplay in the game. Shepard's choices matter. He changed lives. He changed CIVILIZATIONS. It doesn't matter whether or not I know exactly what happened after curing the Genophage or making peace with the Geth or what have you. It's enough that I, Shepard, did it.

Ambiguity isn't a bad thing in this case.

Biotic Sage wrote...

Nekroso22 wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

Bad editing for explaining how squadmates you didn't take with you on the final assault ended up on the Normandy

That has nothing to do with editing, that's all plot. You're assuming there's a part of the story you didn't get to see.

Welcome to 97% of the community's world.

Well
whatever you want to call it, it could have been handled better.  All
of the other aspects of the ending I am more than pleased with though,
so I don't think I'm with 97% of the BSN on that one.

Honestly, this wasn't even a question for me until I came onto these forums and found out other people had a problem with it. I assumed I didn't immediately gain consciousness after hitting the Citadel and time had passed. I assumed we were losing the battle terribly when I looked around on top of the Citadel at the space around me.

So when I saw the Normandy in mid jump I just assumed they were retreating. They picked up my squad while I was unconscious. Seriously, these issues only came up after I came here and people pointed to it as a plothole.

Modifié par QuirkyGroundhog, 10 mars 2012 - 04:52 .

[Nekroso22]

Tessara_Riventi wrote...

In both of those cases, ending their lives as momentarily free creatures willing to die to help you is a redemptive act. Just like Mordin, by doing what he's doing (and dying) is both making up for what he did in updating the genophage and paying for the original wrong of the Salarians inflicting the genophage on the Krogan to begin with. Just like Legion, who's really innocent in the whole thing, paying with its life to bring an end to all the horrible things the Geth and Quarians have done to each other. Legion's Death = redemption for both species, an escape from their past misdeeds.

But in all the cases you've described death was meant to atone for a past act. In that context, yes, death = redemption.

How is that context in any way applicable to Shepard and the galaxy at large? Unless Shepard did something horrible to the Reapers or to the galaxy, I don't follow your connection.

[Nekroso22]

QuirkyGroundhog wrote...

I roleplay in the game. Shepard's choices matter. He changed lives. He changed CIVILIZATIONS. It doesn't matter whether or not I know exactly what happened after curing the Genophage or making peace with the Geth or what have you. It's enough that I, Shepard, did it.

You think people that didn't like the ending don't roleplay? 97% seem to disagree with you.

I'm glad for you if you're comfortable with assuming that your efforts in the game were fruitful, but for the rest of us some real closure would be much appreciated.

[Tessara_Riventi]

Nekroso22 wrote...

Tessara_Riventi wrote...

In both of those cases, ending their lives as momentarily free creatures willing to die to help you is a redemptive act. Just like Mordin, by doing what he's doing (and dying) is both making up for what he did in updating the genophage and paying for the original wrong of the Salarians inflicting the genophage on the Krogan to begin with. Just like Legion, who's really innocent in the whole thing, paying with its life to bring an end to all the horrible things the Geth and Quarians have done to each other. Legion's Death = redemption for both species, an escape from their past misdeeds.

But in all the cases you've described death was meant to atone for a past act. In that context, yes, death = redemption.

How is that context in any way applicable to Shepard and the galaxy at large? Unless Shepard did something horrible to the Reapers or to the galaxy, I don't follow your connection.

Ah, I see where I'm losing you.

People are paying with their  lives not necessarily for acts THEY commited (though in many cases, it is), but for wrongs done by other people, too. Mordin, original genophage. Legion, the Quarians trying to genocide the Geth and the Geth fighting back as ruthlessly as they did. Both of those are things they *didn't do,* but they die to make right. Following that?

So, Shepard - and whoever goes down to the final mission with you, whose bodies you can see dead if you look around, and all the people in the fleet who go to Earth with you who get killed, and Anderson - they're all dying not for what THEY did, but for what someone else did. Namely, whoever it was who built the Catalyst and the Reapers in the first place to create the horrible walled-garden cyclical trap everyone's living in without realizing it. The one the Protheans spent themselves dying to the last individual to try to break out of and set right, and whose tools you're using to actually do so. They're redeeming the whole GALAXY for that original wrong, done way back before anyone involved in the game can actually talk about, and since the only way to make things right is with blood (see the theme), they have to die to do it. 

Does that make more sense now?

[dos1990]

I didnt like the ending but ive come to accept it! The reason being that it had great build up towards that point. like someone said the calm before the storm where u say goodbye to everyone was great it added that payoff to the relationships. The kid did give some answers (still i dont understand his logic of machines are bad cause they kill organics so we make machine from organics to kill more organics WTF) When i saw the ending i was shocked at first at how stupid it was but then i digested it and i came to the realization that if the reapers were destroyed then the citadel and mass relays had to go too since they were creations of the reapers. so i accepted that. The thing that really bothered me was no closure. What happened to my squad mates? they landed on an unknown planet but what happened. what happend to the millions of aliens flying over earth. with the relay destroyed they couldnt go home so did they die here on earth. This just made trying to save everyone seem pointless so im holding onto some hope that bioware will release a DLC saying that shepards body moving in the rubble at the end of the game was actually right after the laser attack by harbinger and that the last sequnce was his mind finally giving up hope. maybe they'll do some Dragon age Awakeing disc or something that has the more endings to it or something, but like i said i have come to accepty the ending and if no dlc comes out well FML but what can u do!

Modifié par dos1990, 10 mars 2012 - 05:21 .

[dos1990]

Nekroso22 wrote...

QuirkyGroundhog wrote...

I roleplay in the game. Shepard's choices matter. He changed lives. He changed CIVILIZATIONS. It doesn't matter whether or not I know exactly what happened after curing the Genophage or making peace with the Geth or what have you. It's enough that I, Shepard, did it.

You think people that didn't like the ending don't roleplay? 97% seem to disagree with you.

I'm glad for you if you're comfortable with assuming that your efforts in the game were fruitful, but for the rest of us some real closure would be much appreciated.

Closure is exactly what we need even if the ending stay the same just some confirmation that we didnt fight just so everyone could die in the sol system!

[kjdhgfiliuhwe]

Sanguine wrote...

Can you tell me why? I'm just wondering. There's so much here about how "I hate the ending and this is why" and... some of them are well thought out, have examples, reasoning, and seem to have been meditated on. But every thing I've seen from those who like it are almost all like "well i liked it. You clearly just dont get it because its over your head and not all rainbows and sunshine"

So, like, without insulting anyones inteligence or anything, can you explain to me why you like the endings?

I haven't seen a single well-thought out reason for disliking the ending. It wasn't happy is hardly rational. Nevermind the long discussions one could have about the validity of whether it was happy or not. The second biggest complaint is that it didn't respect your choices, which makes no real sense, since by the very fact that you reached that point, then it logically required you to make choice A, B, C, etc. It's a computer program, and they follow logic. But, it didn't give you more choices. Where do you draw the line? Should we have an ending where you marry a pink unicorn and have twinkly vampire babies?

Passive aggressive attempts at distorting reality to fit your narrative of how only unreasonably stupid people have an opinion different from your own is fun!

Anyways, this forum is obviously going to be a useless place to actually talk much about substantive things until all the drama queens have grown tired with their hissy fits and left. I'll check back in a few weeks. 

[Nekroso22]

Tessara_Riveri wrote...

They're redeeming the whole GALAXY for that original wrong, done way back before anyone involved in the game can actually talk about, and since the only way to make things right is with blood (see the theme), they have to die to do it.

Patronizing tone, much?

Anywho, no. I still don't see how you're getting from point A to point B.

Nowhere in any of the Mass Effect games were the Reapers described as a creation of something.
"Nation unto themselves" and all that. If there was an "original sin" we never got to see it. It was never implied that the Reapers were built, and most of the interaction between Shepard and the Reapers suggests that the entire reason behind their existence was to wipe out all life in the galaxy.

Redemption only works if there's something to be redeemed, and the ending of ME3 certainly doesn't do that.

[Nekroso22]

kjdhgfiliuhwe wrote...

Where do you draw the line? Should we have an ending where you marry a pink unicorn and have twinkly vampire babies?

Nice strawman.

Passive aggressive attempts at distorting reality to fit your narrative of how only unreasonably stupid people have an opinion different from your own is fun!

Pot, kettle, etc.

Anyways, this forum is obviously going to be a useless place to actually talk much about substantive things until all the drama queens have grown tired with their hissy fits and left. I'll check back in a few weeks.

I'm game. Let's talk now.

[QuirkyGroundhog]

dos1990 wrote...

Nekroso22 wrote...

QuirkyGroundhog wrote...

I roleplay in the game. Shepard's choices matter. He changed lives. He changed CIVILIZATIONS. It doesn't matter whether or not I know exactly what happened after curing the Genophage or making peace with the Geth or what have you. It's enough that I, Shepard, did it.

You think people that didn't like the ending don't roleplay? 97% seem to disagree with you.

I'm glad for you if you're comfortable with assuming that your efforts in the game were fruitful, but for the rest of us some real closure would be much appreciated.

Closure is exactly what we need even if the ending stay the same just some confirmation that we didnt fight just so everyone could die in the sol system!

Why do we need confirmation? A little ambiguity is nice. Some of the best pieces of fiction have ambiguous endings. In fact, I'm kind of really enjoying seeing how some people interpret the ending as 'well, everyone dies' whereas I came out of it certain that life goes forward.

How you interpret the ending kind of says a little about yourself, doesn't it? Me? I'm confident life finds a way, that Shep created a better future for everyone, free from outside influence. But if someone sees it another way, they totally can.

[JishanF]

I personally chose the Synthesis ending for the Shepard I have had since the first Mass Effect. Paragon choices (mostly) through out all the games and I had to sit there for a few minutes deciding what I should chose for the entire galaxy. Since my Shepard pretty much was against everything TIM tried to do, Control was not an option. And at any rate, would it truly be total control over the Reapers? And if so, is my Shepard being sacrificed to hold them back for all eternity?

Destruction seemed like a valid option, after all, that's what we've been trying to do ever since we first learned Sovereign was not the only one of his kind. The freedom to make mistakes, hopefully learn from them, and create a better future is what all life in the galaxy should have. Shepard united the Turians, Asari, Krogan, and Geth for the common good, maybe it would stick? Although, based on what happened with the Quarians, it does seem that in some way, the Child was right in that the Created will destroy their creators. Even when the created pose no threat.

In the end, I chose Synthesis. While it is true that you are forcing evolution and change upon billions of trillions of lifeforms, I thought of this as the Paragon option. Would it stop the killing? Maybe. All creatures are now synthetic-organic lifeforms but that doesn't remove any animosity between species or change their fundamental nature, just their physical structure. Does this mean that synthetic life no longer is possible? I don't know. I only know what my Shepard did, and I hope the galaxy is better off for it.

[Tessara_Riventi]

Nekroso22 wrote...

Tessara_Riveri wrote...

They're redeeming the whole GALAXY for that original wrong, done way back before anyone involved in the game can actually talk about, and since the only way to make things right is with blood (see the theme), they have to die to do it.

Patronizing tone, much?

Anywho, no. I still don't see how you're getting from point A to point B.

Nowhere in any of the Mass Effect games were the Reapers described as a creation of something.
"Nation unto themselves" and all that. If there was an "original sin" we never got to see it. It was never implied that the Reapers were built, and most of the interaction between Shepard and the Reapers suggests that the entire reason behind their existence was to wipe out all life in the galaxy.

Redemption only works if there's something to be redeemed, and the ending of ME3 certainly doesn't do that.

 I can come over pedantic in text. Sorry about that - it's not meant to be patronizing, and I'm not trying to give offense. 

Anyway, I think you put your finger on the biggest potential hole in my argument - the Reapers as a "nation unto themselves" fits very badly with the conversations with Reapers and the Catalyst you have in ME3. So either that's a major writing hole (likely) or Bioware substantially changed their core concept for the Reapers somewhere between ME 1 and ME 3 (decidedly possible). Or, three, they think it makes sense and did a poor job of explaining how (again, writing problem). 

But yeah. Presuming they are created (as the Catalyst says) and someone created them to carry out the goal of "pruning" organic life to avoid the creation of synthetics which could destroy all of organic life (as the Catalyst and the Reaper in the Geth/Quarian missions say), then that's a pretty major piece of original sin. We don't get to see it on-stage, and it's not very effectively built up in the first two games, but I think that's clearly the idea that Bioware's working form in the third.

Let me draw a line under the fact that I don't much LIKE that as a theme - I'd rather have something more uplifting, personally - but I think I follow what they're doing and (at least within ME3) it seems to be consistent. Especially since the Reapers clearly *don't* destroy all organic life in the galaxy - the Protheans had observational contact with humans, hanar and turians before their destruction. They just had that contact *before* they became sentient/civilzed, and therefore humans/hanar/turians weren't subject to annihilation in the last round - they didn't meet the target criteria (setient, civilized, on the road to building sythetics).

So reading back from 3 to 1 and 2, I see some of those ideas pre-figured in Saren, in TIM, in the Protheans and their last desperate effort to break the cycle, and so on. That's how I get from A to B.

[Luigitornado]

Biotic Sage wrote...

Jayaa wrote...

*snip*

Great post Jayaa!  Any video game that can make me cry and think this much is amazing in my book.

My friend and I debated/discussed the entire trilogy for 4 hours today.  And we still feel like we haven't begun to scratch the surface of its depth.

It makes me sad because I was hoping for more of this on the forums. Sure there are a few plot holes and the Normady's fate isn't really.......awesome at all. But there is so much depth to the game! GAH!

[Biotic Sage]

QuirkyGroundhog wrote...

dos1990 wrote...

Nekroso22 wrote...

QuirkyGroundhog wrote...

I roleplay in the game. Shepard's choices matter. He changed lives. He changed CIVILIZATIONS. It doesn't matter whether or not I know exactly what happened after curing the Genophage or making peace with the Geth or what have you. It's enough that I, Shepard, did it.

You think people that didn't like the ending don't roleplay? 97% seem to disagree with you.

I'm glad for you if you're comfortable with assuming that your efforts in the game were fruitful, but for the rest of us some real closure would be much appreciated.

Closure is exactly what we need even if the ending stay the same just some confirmation that we didnt fight just so everyone could die in the sol system!

Why do we need confirmation? A little ambiguity is nice. Some of the best pieces of fiction have ambiguous endings. In fact, I'm kind of really enjoying seeing how some people interpret the ending as 'well, everyone dies' whereas I came out of it certain that life goes forward.

How you interpret the ending kind of says a little about yourself, doesn't it? Me? I'm confident life finds a way, that Shep created a better future for everyone, free from outside influence. But if someone sees it another way, they totally can.

I think we are the only two people on the BSN who think this way haha.  I was very surprised when I got on these boards and saw all the hate reactions to the ending.  I thought it was beautiful and completely in Mass Effect style.  The two arguments I can't stand are:

1. None of my choices mattered! - Of course they did.  Like you said in your above post, you touched the lives of millions of individuals, and many on a very personal level.  You saved entire civilizations.  Also, throughout the entire game, in Shepard's remaining months alive, you felt the direct consequences of all the past choices you had made in the other two games.  The relationships you cultivated were felt by you and the people you had them with; yes all life ends, but what happened during life matters in the human experience.  People need to learn to let go.  By this logic, no one's choices ever "matter" in that sense of the word "matter" because all life ends eventually.

2. The Quarians and the Geth are working together so the Catalyst can't be right! - You can choose to not believe the Catalyst, but the fact that these two civilizations happen to be working together at the moment does not disprove the Catalyst's assertion.  They could potentially work together for years or decades, but that doesnt' mean the eventuality of synthetics destroying organics won't come into play.  And even if you decide to reject the Catalyst's premise (which you can in your mind), you are still facing the extinction at the Reapers' hands if you don't at least try one of the Crucible's solutions.  So yes, Shepard could have said "F*** You!" to the Catalyst and watched Earth be destroyed the rest of the way, but Bioware didn't want to make Shepard an idiot so that wasn't given as an option.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 10 mars 2012 - 05:43 .

[Sajuro]

I don't know, this was the one ending where I could think "What would shepard do?" and chose to destroy the Reapers even if it meant destroying EDI and the Geth who I both really liked because he was there to destroy the Reapers. He trusted that even if people in the future made synthetics that they would do better or that calmer heads would prevail thanks to the time capsules Liara leaves all across the galaxy. That is why I liked the ending, My Shepard chose to sacrifice himself in the explosion to make sure that the Reapers would all be destroyed and we would remain our imperfect ugly beautiful fleshy selves.