Aller au contenu

Photo

ME3 ending is inconsistant


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
6 réponses à ce sujet

#1
Gen.Veers

Gen.Veers
  • Members
  • 23 messages
ME3 ending doesn't make any sense whatsoever. What was the point of Sovereign in ME1, if the catalyst, which controlled the reapers, could have opened the citadel mass relay all along. It makes the entire plot of ME1 useless. How could the protheans even upload a virus to the citadel to prevent it from opening in the first place, if the catalyst was in control all along?

What was the point of all the choices in ME3, if they didn't change the ending? Even ME2 had multiple endings based on what you did for the entire game. If you didn't help your companions, or upgrade the Normandy, you were dead. Each thing you did in ME2 felt like it affected your ending. And here we have the third part of a trilogy that can't even do that? 

ME3 had you running around the galaxy getting everything in order just to fight the reapers. What was the point? In the end none of it mattered.  You might as well not do anything for the entire game, when all 3 choices at the end mean destroying everything you worked hard for, no matter what you wanted "your" Mass Effect story to be.

I really hope that Bioware will at some point fix this ending to a really good triliogy for the most part. Or maybe this was all just a bad April fools joke, and the real ending will be released later. Here's hoping..B)

#2
John Locke N7

John Locke N7
  • Members
  • 856 messages
Honeslty, wall texts about the issue are probaly the most helpful =0

i wasnt around during the DA2 hate, but im asumeing it dint get THIS MENY text wall that are average this size.

atleast not with arguements that dint boil down to "the game is to much like COD" those were arguements before the game even came out

#3
Warp92

Warp92
  • Members
  • 970 messages
No kidding that is why it kills replay value of the ME series

#4
Slappy Ya Face

Slappy Ya Face
  • Members
  • 895 messages
Yep, it's all very confusing. I posted a thread that attempts to break down all the little bits and make sense of it, but I feel my ability to care slipping away with every passing moment.

#5
hawat333

hawat333
  • Members
  • 2 974 messages
The choices do change the endings.
You can loose Earth. You can loose Shepard. These, for example, depend on your choices and what war assets you get.
There are a lot of things you don't take into account.
But I agree that the ending was probably cut here and there, at least some scenes left me with that feeling. Apart from that, it was great.

#6
Byriok

Byriok
  • Members
  • 51 messages
The crucible as I understood it, was just a battery.
Whatever the protheans did (sabotaging the keepers and something else) prevented the citadel from activating properly, thus Sovereign had to come in and fix the problem manually. Once you plugged it back in to the citadel, it's got enough juice to activate the catalyst/final chamber or something along those lines. Honestly when they revealed the catalyst was needed for the crucible, the images of Shepard becoming/turning out to be the catalyst was already there in my head long before I saw the endings.

The problem with ME3's ending was in my opinion, that lack of importance of everything Shepard's done so far. The cinematic narrative option was indicative of this back when the demo came out, but only now do we see the true meaning behind that option, because our choices didn't matter, just what BioWare deemed as appropriate. This was a complete slap in the face to the users and to the mass effect series, where we've had choices that MATTERED, yet with one decision to make it more "cinematic" and newbie friendly, they turned it to just another regular game with that ending. It was an un-ME move on BioWare's part, I don't know what they were thinking when they authorized that ending.

They can pull the "huge undertaking" excuse all they want, but it wouldn't have been that hard had they focused on the core of the game than to split resources on the MP. The MP was fun, but it would have been fine as a standalone game by itself, and I would have preferred it that way if it was a factor in the resulting ending for ME3. We're also not asking for much, just better explanation on the ends and more variations there instead of the same ending no matter what we chose.

#7
Bereman08

Bereman08
  • Members
  • 44 messages

hawat333 wrote...

The choices do change the endings.
You can loose Earth. You can loose Shepard. These, for example, depend on your choices and what war assets you get.
There are a lot of things you don't take into account.
But I agree that the ending was probably cut here and there, at least some scenes left me with that feeling. Apart from that, it was great.


Indeed.  From the moment you go to take back Earth at the end until the decision at the end is essentially what the Collector Base+conversation with TIM was at the end of ME2.  Just like not upgrading the Normandy changes what happens at the start of jumping through the relay, the choices you've made that led to the assets you've gathered or not gathered can affect what happens the moment the attack against the Reapers begins (if you're low on assets, the Reapers apparently tear your fleet to shreds, if you're high they take a beating instead, etc.).

Of course, they also moved major decisions that could impact what happened to other characters to different parts in the narrative, so rather than have a number of choices with serious consequences for characters packed at the end it's spread out.

As for why the skygodkid didn't just open it before?  I would say that it knew that eventually a cycle would be able to rise up against their solution, and so left things to progress as close to identically as possible each cycle to allow for that sufficiently advanced (or lucky, or determined, or whatever) cycle to eventually stop their solution.  Maybe each time it had to be the Reapers that ascended the advanced races into Reaper form and effectively reset the galaxy, so that each cycle could potentially add to a new solution by facing an identical problem.  Heh, galactic, millions of years long crowdsourcing, I suppose.  Perhaps the original creators saw the Reaper solution as an unfortunate but necessary one, and left just enough room for a better solution to take its place should one ever be found.  At least that explanation somewhat works in the context of what we're given.

Either that or plot armor. 

Modifié par Bereman08, 10 mars 2012 - 07:18 .