152 réponses à ce sujet

[Saint Op]

What I find funny is the amount of people who dislike the ending would be so different if a ship crashed on earth. Which is very telling considering everything after that happen in your head either way...

[SandTrout]

GodWood wrote...

And why am I seeing so many "Everything else was fine - then the endings ruined it" comments?

Because none of the other mistakes completely invalidate everything you did up to that point, and the railroading everwhere else can be reasonably filed under necessary resource constraints, and do make a marginal amount of sense. The ending, however, was just anti-climactic, out of left field, destroyed the future of the series, and invalidated every 'big decision' that we made throughout all 3 games.

If the ME3 ending had just happened at the end of ME, then people wouldn't be nearly as upset as they are because they wouldn't have any real expectations for the ending because no one would be as intimately familiar with the games and the universe as we are. However, the trilogy had so many themes more emphasized throughout the 3 games, the biggest being meaningful decisions, that most people are shocked and infuriated by the last minute shift in focus to what ammounts to one of the most minor themes in the series, and having all their meaningful decisions turn out to be completely pointless.

[Il Divo]

Seboist wrote...

That's not true for Renegade Shepard. S/he can flat out say in ME1 s/he killed the council to empower humanity, not to mention the whole point of becoming a spectre in the first place was to advance human interests.

But that's just stating why he chose to manipulate a bad situation to his advantage. Shepard becoming a Spectre was in large part before the Reapers emerged as a primary threat. His refusal to submit to TIM's plan doesn't need to be on moral principles, which renegade morality is centered around. It's simply due to the risk involved in trying to control the milennia old machines with a god complex.

Modifié par Il Divo, 10 mars 2012 - 08:38 .

[Bad King]

Il Divo wrote...

Bad King wrote...

Not exactly, my renegade Shepard used the reapers to his advantage in moving towards human dominance in ME1 (he let the Ascension die in Sovereign's attack in order to give humanity the chance to seize power) and he'd only be too happy to do it again.

But which still resulted in their destruction. It was essentially about making the best of a bad decision. Shepard's primary concern has always been with being a Reaper killer, whether it called for Paragon and Renegade actions. But TIM doesn't want to kill Reapers, he wants to manipulate them.

"The council was always holding us back, when I saw the opportunity to get rid of them I took it" -- Shepard in ME1. Shepard has never been established as a reaper 'killer' but rather as a reaper 'stopper' (he was happy to preserve the reaper tech in the collector base rather than destroy it to give humanity an advantage). Controlling the reapers stops them and achieves human dominance.

[jaza]

hawat333 wrote...

GodWood wrote...

Christ, I've always had a low opinion of the majority of the ME fanbase but these "ending threads" have lowered it to a point I didn't think was possible.

You're not alone with this.
While I stick with my statement that the Normandy's fate was either unexplained or nonsensical (along with the teleporting squad), I did like the ending, and these ending threads are actually making me going back to my exile, just like they did before the release.
Man, I love that the ending we got is actually serious.
I do agree with a lot of points in your post. Still, you'll go down in flames, be preapared for that. But you aren't alone out there.
But I wouldn't say the majority of the fanbase is "bad". That's a harsh statement.
Let's just say we have a bunch of really, really, really loud people out there who are really, really, really vocal about everything that doesn't please their juvenile ego.
It was always like this. If you do create something, some whiners will appear.

Kind of have to agree with this guy Godwood, we should avoid insults.

Not because they aren't true though ( I've seen some of the ending threads. Good Lord).

[GodWood]

SandTrout wrote...

GodWood wrote...
And why am I seeing so many "Everything else was fine - then the endings ruined it" comments?

Because none of the other mistakes completely invalidate everything you did up to that point.

Renegade Shep says hi.

hawat333 wrote...
I do agree with a lot of points in your post. Still, you'll go down in flames, be preapared for that. But you aren't alone out there.

I wouldn't have it any other way.

[Il Divo]

Bad King wrote...

"The council was always holding us back, when I saw the opportunity to get rid of them I took it" -- Shepard in ME1. Shepard has never been established as a reaper 'killer' but rather as a reaper 'stopper' (he was happy to preserve the reaper tech in the collector base rather than destroy it to give humanity an advantage). Controlling the reapers stops them and achieves human dominance.

The two terms are synonymous, for our purposes. Shepard's refusal to work with TIM doesn't have to be built on moral grounds, but on the idea that the Reapers cannot be effectively controlled. In which case, fighting for humanity means destroying the Reapers.

I realize this is a copout. But thinking about it more, I'm actually going to concede this point.

Modifié par Il Divo, 10 mars 2012 - 08:51 .

[Sebby]

Bad King wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Bad King wrote...

Not exactly, my renegade Shepard used the reapers to his advantage in moving towards human dominance in ME1 (he let the Ascension die in Sovereign's attack in order to give humanity the chance to seize power) and he'd only be too happy to do it again.

But which still resulted in their destruction. It was essentially about making the best of a bad decision. Shepard's primary concern has always been with being a Reaper killer, whether it called for Paragon and Renegade actions. But TIM doesn't want to kill Reapers, he wants to manipulate them.

"The council was always holding us back, when I saw the opportunity to get rid of them I took it" -- Shepard in ME1. Shepard has never been established as a reaper 'killer' but rather as a reaper 'stopper' (he was happy to preserve the reaper tech in the collector base rather than destroy it to give humanity an advantage). Controlling the reapers stops them and achieves human dominance.

Renegade Shepard can also keep David in Overlord with the intent of supporting a means to manipulate/control the Geth.

[veramis]

OP, I agree 90% with first post. However, a lot of people know that asking bioware to fix the entire game is out of the question, the most practical thing would be simply to try to ameliorate the ending, and even this simple task I don't think bioware is any longer capable of. Just look at how low ME3's metacritic score is, a few times more negative reviews than ME2 and just after a few days of release. In this poll, 21% think that the endings' concept was acceptable, but just poorly implemented.

http://social.biowar...43/polls/29023/

Much as I'd like to complain and petition bioware to take ME3 back to the drawing board and rehire Drew Karpyshyn to fix it, it is pretty much out of the question, even if the majority of players thought it was necessary.

[AxholeRose]

The entire end level was boring. Take Back Earth? yeah right... running through some dark ruins just like any other planet. the enemies and bosses were boring as well. ME2 was pretty epic in that aspect, although it might not have had as much hype as ME3.

[CenturyCrow]

Only 1 play through so far. After ME and ME 2, there's a lot more to like and enjoy in ME 3. A few minor quibbles and complaints. But the ending doesn't offer a lot, whether I was looking for the so called rainbow or a hero's sacrifice. The epiloque of DA:O provided a lot of answers and closures to event.

I don't think the ending really fits the full 3 game series. It seems more like it was rushed or aimed at people who never played ME and/or ME2. Tying the multi-player into the Galactic Readiness also seemed aimed at new players rather than existing fans. And the way some of the side-quests are set up, it's not easy to get them all for the so-called 'complete' single player game. So while I have no complaint of the co-op portion itself, I didn't favor the way it was tied in from a single player's perspective.

ME 3's ending didn't provide me any satisfaction for ME 3, let alone the complete series.But I do have to give kudos to all the artists who worked on it. A lot of that excellent effort really 'completed' the series for me.

[Il Divo]

AxholeRose wrote...

The entire end level was boring. Take Back Earth? yeah right... running through some dark ruins just like any other planet. the enemies and bosses were boring as well. ME2 was pretty epic in that aspect, although it might not have had as much hype as ME3.

Another issue I had. The scope of taking back Earth was kinda weak.

Modifié par Il Divo, 10 mars 2012 - 08:52 .

[jaza]

Seboist wrote...

Bad King wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Bad King wrote...

Not exactly, my renegade Shepard used the reapers to his advantage in moving towards human dominance in ME1 (he let the Ascension die in Sovereign's attack in order to give humanity the chance to seize power) and he'd only be too happy to do it again.

But which still resulted in their destruction. It was essentially about making the best of a bad decision. Shepard's primary concern has always been with being a Reaper killer, whether it called for Paragon and Renegade actions. But TIM doesn't want to kill Reapers, he wants to manipulate them.

"The council was always holding us back, when I saw the opportunity to get rid of them I took it" -- Shepard in ME1. Shepard has never been established as a reaper 'killer' but rather as a reaper 'stopper' (he was happy to preserve the reaper tech in the collector base rather than destroy it to give humanity an advantage). Controlling the reapers stops them and achieves human dominance.

Renegade Shepard can also keep David in Overlord with the intent of supporting a means to manipulate/control the Geth.

Best part of that DLC. Almost gave me the abillity to overlook the forced, overdone horror of David's experiment.

[Valadar6986]

Yes some people want rainbows and unicorns, but some just want a real ending. The last 10 minutes of ME3 are not an ending, its a cliff hanger. So many questions unanswered. Only 2 questions were actually answered, and after the ending you probably have around 20 questions.

Personally I see 2 there being 2 possibilities to the ending we received.

1.) EA/BioWare determined that they could get more money out of the game by releasing it with a ****ty ending.

2.) BioWare seriously thought that this would be a good ending to the trilogy which scares me.

I seriously have thought about how BioWare would seriously consider this a good ending to their epic trilogy that built up relationships through hard work and time. The answer I come to is there is no way. The biggest selling point of BioWare games are the choices, and for them to put an ending that totally invalidates the choices just makes no sense.

[Dave of Canada]

The ending is symbolic, it represents everything wrong with the script but without the pandering. This shatters the beliefs of a lot of people, they're perfectly fine with other people being screwed until it starts impacting them. The relays, just like how them blowing up represents freeing the galaxy from the reapers, represents fan delusions shattering.

[veramis]

LOL

[gabe2gg]

The worst type of people are the Bio-drone who defend Bioware to no ends, even when blatant mistakes are made.

[upsettingshorts]

Well said, OP.

That isn't to say that all the complaints about the ending are so motivated, but many are and reading them is tiresome and frustrating.

Also nice - and predictable - to see that the responses began misunderstanding and mischaracterizing your post immediately.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 mars 2012 - 09:05 .

[Sebby]

jaza wrote...

Best part of that DLC. Almost gave me the abillity to overlook the forced, overdone horror of David's experiment.

That really foreshadowed the "trying too hard" attempt at emotional manipulation with the kid in ME3.

And while we're on that subject, it really irked me how my Shepard started acting all self-righteous and high and mighty against Gavin Archer in ME3 even though she agreed to keep David in the program! Even Gavin notices this and is dumbfounded by it.

[safrrr]

adawg828 wrote...

I don't think the endings are that great, but think about it did you guys honestly expect an ending with unicorns and rainbows coming out of Shepard butt.

hell, if unicorns and rainbows came out of shepards butt, i think it would be possible for the reapers to turn hippys and sing kumbaia arround a camp fire. great idea for a youtube clip.

eitherway, everyones expectations were that there are several endings, some where shepard would die but save the galaxy eitherway, and some where he lives happily ever after facking tali or miranda, or even jack with her new hair style, having babies and prepare for the next threat. after the battle with the reapers, do you really think that pirates will stop, just becouse they helped out with the grand finale? plus, the shot down reaper ships could really have some tech that makes shepard life a little bit harder.

Modifié par safrrr, 10 mars 2012 - 09:09 .

[AlexXIV]

tldr

Just saying, OP, you're the worst kind.

[The Big Nothing]

Dave of Canada wrote...

The ending is symbolic, it represents everything wrong with the script but without the pandering. This shatters the beliefs of a lot of people, they're perfectly fine with other people being screwed until it starts impacting them. The relays, just like how them blowing up represents freeing the galaxy from the reapers, represents fan delusions shattering.

The thing is, no matter your choices, the cutscenes and results are all the same. It would have been wiser to start with ME3, because the other games had no impact. That is what pissed most people off.

I like the ending where Shepard activates the Crucible and destroys the Reapers and the relays, but the rest was confusing and made no sense. The Child? The Reaper purpose?

The series was far from flawless, and nobody really expected some great story after Mass Effect 2, but we were all looking forward to seeing how our choices affected the ending. The truth is, choice didn't matter; people who started with Mass Effect 3 get the same result as someone who played all three games.

And criticizing people for being unsatisfied with a product they invested in is inconsiderate, to say the least.

Modifié par The Big Nothing, 10 mars 2012 - 09:26 .

[malkuth74]

Finished the game, even though I didn't like it oh well.  Its there ending and they can end it the way they want.

If they add more ednings to expand on the game choices I might buy that too.

My real only complaint about the ending is basically it does not make any sense.

[Foulpancake]

OP reads a few posts a whining people and suddenly we're all whiners? Awesome

My ****ing about the endings simple. Bioware said that MY actions would shape the game, that MY actions would shape the outcome, and that MY actions would shape the ending.

Well guess what? They didn't. I WANT a happy fluffy ending. I WANT to see my Shepard with little blue Babies running around. Why? Because that's MY choice.

If you are happy with your 3 different flavors of vanilla, great, fantastic, enjoy them because you earned them, and that is YOUR choice. But its not mine.