258 réponses à ce sujet

[VideoGames]

It wasn't even really the ending that was bad, it was the whole plot of 3 that made the ending bad. The Crucible was some crazy idea they brought up in the final game as a way to defeat the Reapers, since they couldn't figure out any other way to beat them. Each standalone mission was absolutely great, but in the larger span of things, all you got from them were War Assets and people to help you with the Crucible.

[vigna]

I will go into 2 areas where I can be constructive.....Pretty much the whole game was as good as I could have hoped for, buttttt...

*Multi-player: Why? This is a single player action/RPG..why change that at the tail end? It seems you are trying to forcibly introduce ME players into MMORPG or MMMOs or whatever they are called. This part doesn't aggravate me as much as I know from a business perspective that the addition of multi-player took a huge chunk of resources from the game as a whole. I will never, never use this part of the game, because I hate going online and playing against people that curse and act like idiots. I get that in "real" life...I want to escape with video games. I view RPGs and pure-shooters as 2 different genres. I can only assume you are looking into developing a ME shooter post-ME3. That's great, but it probably shouldn't have been introduced in the final chapter of a trilogy. I also have this part of my brain that keeps thinking about all those wasted resources on a part of the game I don't think most fans asked for. It seems counterproductive. Ultimately deeply affecting my possible ending because I don't want to be forced to play a bunch of hooligans online to advance my solo game character.

* The Reaper Run before beaming to the Citadel: I completely lost my immersion when Shepard didn't check for his comrades, was he alone, did Shepard leave anyone behind, why didn't he want backup going into an unknown situation, and more questions about the solo set-up? It felt forced, unnatural, and out of character, because we know Shepard said repeatedly that he doesn't leave people behind. I don't bring this up to nitpick, but I think it is the primary reason the end is faulty from the start. "My" Shepard has no choice but to simply walk to the light and shoot stuff on the way. You can't really look around for anyone, defend anyone, check for life, etc. I'm forced into going to the light, just like I'm forced to make 1 of 3 decisions, because Shepard only really gets 1 unique dialogue option after the TIM confrontation..the bit about "hope". There is no one for Shepard to bounce dialogue off of......that feels wrong and a flaw rather than simply being a "lazy" plot device.

Thanks.......for the rest of the game!

Modifié par vigna, 11 mars 2012 - 02:18 .

[Anacronian Stryx]

The entire reaper motivation is to prevent a "singularity" - AI advancement to the point where AI's are vastly superior to organics and everlasting conflict ensues, A technological apocalypse in short - and how do they prevent this apocalypse? ... they by issuing a technological apocalypse and not only that they do this every 50.000 years.. right that's about the same as me saying that in order to save your village i had to nuke it.

The wording is different but that is the end result.

Modifié par Anacronian Stryx, 11 mars 2012 - 02:20 .

[ABCoLD]

I don't think the OP explained their issues with the game very well. But I believe they are correct.

[chambers]

rishnarr wrote...

The only issue for me is the catalyst scene. If that hadn't been there and the crucible just blew up the reapers i'd be shouting about how awesome the ending was.

You know...yeah, me too. Choose between destroying the Reapers or controlling them (I doubt many people would choose the latter, but eh, hardcore Renegades ). After that, your war assets determine whether or not you live or die. Cut scene. Epilogue. Roll credits.

Maybe it's a little too simple, or maybe a little too similiar to how the ME2 suicide mission worked. But I would've been satisfied with that. This was one of the most incredible games I'd ever played right up until the kid showed up.

Modifié par chambers, 11 mars 2012 - 02:21 .

[Starshadow2010]

While i doubt that BW will give us brand-new endings, i think it is constructive to present solutions on how to rectify current endings:
My own list:

1. When i first saw the Catalyst Starchild approaching me, my first thoughs was "Harby, your cheap tricks again"? So if BW insists on leaving the Starchild, they should at least think about changing his motivation. Prevent organics from being wiped by their synthetic creations, by technically wiping the organic life is lame. Like using battleship's cannon for finger amputation.

2. Rob the Starchild of his status as "singularity solution creator" and Reaper controller. Make him some sort of observer and central hub for Reaper control data.

3. During the conversation, let Starchild present the only option - Synthesis, and only if character managed to broker peace between the Geth an the Quarians. Let him say that it is a new data, that makes new choice viable. Otherwise just let him explain the Reapers motives. Yes, Synthesis is basically a space magic, but if you insist on keeping it...

4. Destroy option should be available by, for example, tracing the Starchild's hardware location while talking to him, and destroying it by fleet. EMS check for success/partial success/suicidal success/failure

5. Not sure about what to do about the Control. In fact, i hate this ending most. To think that millions years old species will allow to control them, is quite naive.

6. Clarify, what tech we lose in the endings. Because, if we lose something essential for the spaceflights besides the relays, then no way Normandy can crash-land on the backwater planet. It will just crash, or drift in space.

7. Well, if we started about Normandy - the current sequence should be removed completely. Because its just DOES NOT COMPUTE. Normandy instantly transported to the Charon Relay, and jumping, longer than near-instant jump, FTL beam from Citadel to Charon Relay, successful crash landing in Destroy ending (assuming we lost something more than relays), etc., etc., etc. If you want to get rid of the Normandy - make it go down in battle by some amasing way.

8. ME series story is a story of Shepard AND his/her team. Therefore either go for Virmire 2.0 (after Saren 2.0 I, personnaly, won't be annoyed by that), let them die in case of low enough EMS, and let them mostly survive, while not being taken from Shepard in the best outcome. LI with Shepard in best outcome, on Shepard's grave in worst is also necessary.

9. More detailed epilogue, concerning the fate of the Galaxy, not the Stargaser instead, dammit!

Majority of this can be done by the engine cutscenes, with minimal voiceover.

Modifié par Starshadow2010, 11 mars 2012 - 02:37 .

[McBeath]

My only real issue with the endings was the lack of explanation about our choices/epilogue and the Normandy scene.

If Bioware wants to take the IP in the direction of traditional FTL drives instead of Mass Relays that's ok by me, but explain that to me.

Normandy buggering off into nowhere instead of being in the Sol system? Why oh why? Fix that and I'd be ok with it all.

Cheers. McBeath.

[Craven1138]

Don't forget "happy ending" in ME3 would still come at huge cost, it would still leave good part of galaxy in ashes, with billions of dead, and billions left in despair over dead friends and loved ones.

To me most horrible thing is that this ending is so bad it actually managed to destroy meaning of three games. It's not just bland or underwhelming. It's not unimaginative.

It negates all you've done and that's what hurts the most. Like reaper-sized middle finger to all previous choices and what Shepard stood for.

[Draco2fox]

bump

[hawat333]

RxP4IN wrote...

Biggest issue: The catalyst. AKA "Incoherent, ill-conceived, and completely contrived plot device."

I honestly disagree there.
There were two theories that could prove to be true about the Reapers and the cycles.
They are either gathering strength to oppose an even bigger strength, in their own way being the saviours of the galaxy.
Or they are tools for someone else with an agenda of preserving the universe.
They even said so in the end of ME2. "...salvation through destruction."

I also only have one real issue with the ending, the Normandy scene, that didn't fall together without any explanation at all.

[arisian]

Some of it has been said before, but I'd like to add a couple of points to this discussion.  First, on the ambiguity of the endings; when we make the choice, it's not at all clear what will happen (particularly with the "synthesis" choice; what does that even mean?).  The choices are also presented as "control=paragon", "destroy=renegade", and "synthesis=middle way", using very clear symbolism.  The "red=renegade, blue=paragon" has been consistent since the beginning of ME1, and throughout ME1+2, the arrangement of the paragon/renegade bars was paragon to the left of Shep, renegade to the right.  Both the color and the paths for the final "choice" match this, so it seems odd to me that so many people have concluded that "kill all geth+EDI" is the "good" or "paragon" choice.  That said, trying to control the Reapers doesn't strike me as a very Paragon thing to do (frankly, none of the choices do), which means you have a conflict between the symbolism and the reality of consequence which is totally out of whack with the system that has been set up over the course of three games.

Second, I really think it's important to keep in mind that the ending is not inherently bad, it's just a bad ending *for this game*.  I agree with others who say it feels transplanted; it looks to me like it was an attempt to go for a Planescape: Torment style ending (deep philosophical choice, player dies no matter what).  The trouble is, that worked for PS:T because the entire game was a slow, contemplative, philosophical journey.  Also, the ending was not a surprise to the player; the journey had a clear endpoint from the very start.  ME3 is a very different type of story, and up until the last 15 minutes, there is no evidence that the player is going to wind up dead (at least, no more than in either of the previous games, which we survived).

Whoever wrote this ending should go re-watch Wolf's Rain and Neon-Genesis: Evangelion if they want a sense for what kind of story you need to be telling to have "universe-ending appocalypse followed by rebirth" be a valid way to close your story.  It can be done, but ME3 didn't do it.

[Craven1138]

This ending is bad, in any case it leaves galaxy torn apart, condemns millions to slow death, leaves families torn apart, and pretty much doesn't ensure that previous mistakes won't be repeated after millenia, when civilisations manage to rebuild and maybe reconstruct mass relay technology.

If repers would be defeated, galactic community had at least chance to learn from this. Current outcome (unless total annihilation of central choice is taken) just makes it post-apocalyptic Sci-Fi setting.

[Avaric4]

Bump for great justice.

[dakphillips]

/signed

Especially your points under the Performance segment. Mass Effect 2 had one of the most heart-pounding final chapters BECAUSE all those things you did earlier had weight and it felt like there was much more to the fight than just Shepard. I was hoping for something similar on wider scale (i.e. Shep chooses the vangaurd, support and artillery tropps/ships at key points in the final battle).

[dotupkid]

 signed and backed.

[VerdantSF]

dakphillips wrote...

/signed

Especially your points under the Performance segment. Mass Effect 2 had one of the most heart-pounding final chapters BECAUSE all those things you did earlier had weight and it felt like there was much more to the fight than just Shepard. I was hoping for something similar on wider scale (i.e. Shep chooses the vangaurd, support and artillery tropps/ships at key points in the final battle).

So much this. While I liked ME1 better overall, ME2's final fight system was absolutely top-notch in the way it let you choose how the greater fight would unfold as other teams/individuals provided support for your squad.  It was just so damn cool and it seemed like a natural progression for them to do this again, but with fleets and special squads.

[x-Killision-X]

To the OP,

   I usually have stuff to add but you did an excellent job of staying objective and really voicing what most of us find wrong with the ending. On a personal note, yes i also want the chioce of the hollywood style ending were shepperd lives and is not seperated from his crew, relays stay, total victory since we were able to unites the galaxy.

[Craven1138]

Thanks, but it's not just my notes, I took it from this and other threads.
I just really hope that if they address ending issue they adress every major complaints people have.

[ApophisGoauld]

Craven1138 wrote...

we don't want destruction of Relays or Shepard's death removed. We just want this to be possibilities. Next to other ones, where Reapers win/loose, relays stay, next cycle comes and so on...

YES!! Agree with entire your post, especially part, that I quoted...

[x-Killision-X]

Craven1138 wrote...

Thanks, but it's not just my notes, I took it from this and other threads.
I just really hope that if they address ending issue they adress every major complaints people have.

Bioware has alreday changed the ending of one of it's games before with DLC. Mass Effect 2 the Arrival DLC which in the end was connon and paved the way to Mass Effect 3. If they did it once in a previous game in the series I can't see why they couldn't do it now. Considering the massive backlash.

[Draco2fox]

On one hand i respect bioware for this because if they had given us exactly what we've been asking for in this thread (which I completely agree with btw) people would be complaining about how obvious the end was. This way they at least tried to give us something no one expected and make it more memorable. I can guarantee that it will be a long time before i can forget it (though I will try).

On the other this ending just did not fit despite all the sound reasonings I've been reading for each part considered flawed. To disregard everything because some ancient higher power sounds important isn't how any Shepard, paragon or renegade, would handle their last moment.

[Verkir]

moving the message

[Pottumuusi]

There is a really easy fix to the endings.

Keep these ones but add a paragon/renegade interrupt to make the Catalyst/Shinyboy call off the reapers or stop them or something and then everyone can live happily in peace for the rest of their lives.

The interrupt would only be available if you had max reputation and over 6000 war assets and peace with the geth ect. Shepard could appeal to having gathered all the species in the galaxy, both organics and synthetics, to fight the reapers together and then the Shinyboy would realise that his circular logic is indeed pretty circular and that "organics and synthetics don't have to destroy each other".

[Deltoran]

I agree with a lot of the above statements...bump.

[Billabong2011]

RxP4IN wrote...

Biggest issue: The catalyst. AKA "Incoherent, ill-conceived, and completely contrived plot device."

THIS.