24 réponses à ce sujet

[rilzik]

The way I see it is that the series is all about organics struggling against the cycles. The cycle the games took place in was always doomed to fail, as was shepard. This is the theme throughout the games. The games were about, ultimate sacrifice, suicide missions, impossible odds that are actually impossible. They stayed true to this with 'winning' results in the destruction of the galactic way of life. Given that most of the war happens off screen they needed the ending to be not optimal to maintain this theme.

The choice at the end and the reveals were pretty cool to me.

First you find out that the Organics are doomed to be completely exterminated by AI's without the reapers. That the only reason organic life itself exists at all anymore is because the cycle. Is because of limited genocide by non organic
life. That the cycle isn't just about keeping the reapers dominate in the galaxy. Although that should have been the story arc of the second game and not a few lines at the end of the third game it is the question, Is life itself more valuable then anyone species or even the accomplishments of a species.

The two real choices (destruction and control) are to continue the cycle while advance organic life will be killed, organic life forms will still get the chance to love, make art, watch their children grow up. That itself is something that has great value. It might be around a camp fire instead of on a spaceship, but it will happen. The other choice is one of hope. Ending the cycles and letting organics play the odds stacked against them but giving them a chance to play at least on their own terms. The third choice, of merging I too think to ridiculous but it doesn't bother me because multiple ending are a good thing even if some are just weird. I can live with it.

The fact that the ending limits possibilities for future games set in a similar world to me are overblown. The games are about sacrificing yourself for the greater good. Given the scale of the story/games I think it was necessary. I think people are missing the scale this story is told on. Cycles of 50k years, entire civilizations dying (including the current galactic one). You aren't saving life as we know it, as it has no chance to be save, it's about saving galactic-wide organic life itself. Truly an epic tale.

I understand not liking the ending. I don't think it was ideal but it wasn't that bad. Ultimately ME3 did not live up to my expectations. A lot of things were left unsaid, not explored, and really I think they made some big mistakes on where and how they focused the story. The ending could have used some more explanation of the fate of the characters, humans, the galaxy.

Modifié par rilzik, 11 mars 2012 - 04:07 .

[Evil_medved]

http://oi40.tinypic.com/8vrri9.jpg

[John Locke N7]

rilzik wrote...


First you find out that the Organics are doomed
to be completely exterminated by AI's without the reapers.

that pretty much were you should have said, " WTF?"

firstly, the geth disprove this with their allying with the quarians.

secound, how does en masse genocide stop a single genocide?

[lasertank]

rilzik wrote...


First you find out that the Organics are doomed
to be completely exterminated by AI's without the reapers.

You never find out this. This is simply BS from the crap the kid AI gave you. 

[Oddlyotter]

I don't get the raging out. I was quite pleased by my ending.

[SpiritualOdyssey]

rilzik wrote...

I thought the ending was pretty good.

rilzik wrote...

Ultimately ME3 did not live up to my expectations. A lot of things were left unsaid, not explored, and really I think they made some big mistakes on where and how they focused the story.

[rilzik]

Your right and that's one reason bioware shouldn't have made all races (including machines) more or less humans emotionally. Why they shouldn't have given everybody the ability to be good or evil.

It does prove the geth might be potentially peaceful, but it doesn't show that another AI might not come to a different conclusion, if infact they are real AI with free will.

Because one genocide ends with no organic life at all and the other allows organic life to live for thousands of generations, while experience love, hate, that can appreciate life.

Say our sun is dying in 1000 years, you wouldn't just kill yourself, you would live life to it's fullest. Because regardless if humanity will ultimately will die out, our lives still have value. Planet earth itself is more valuable then mars, because even without humans it has life.

[Adamantium93]

They said we were getting multiple, vastly different endings depending upon our choices up to the end. They lied.

[The Angry One]

What life? The Citadel impacted on it. Do you realise what that means?
Everything on Earth will die.

[aimlessgun]

I could argue with you, and try to 'convince' you that the ending sucked. But that would be horrible and petty. I'm glad at least some people are enjoying it

[carnage4u]

I would love to know how people that like the ending make sense of stuff like the Normandy being knocked out of space by the shockwave, and the assumption, that this effects all ships that were fighting the reapers.

Do you just assume the tens of thosands of ships and millions of people fighting the reapers were simply standared on random planets, or killed by the shockwave?

Do you assume the Mass Relays didnt wipe out the various systems (even thought his would be the effect as showin in ME2) or the fact that ships may have survived the explosion, but are trapped in the sol system?

I honestly would love to know this. I would love to believe there is more good in the ending.

thank you for your thoughts.

[bsisko]

I think the "Destroy" option actually like you said frees them from the cycle set by the reapers. I don't think the earth or the other systems were destroyed. In my ending at least the red radiation passed by two soldiers and big ben with no damage and then the soldiers actually got up and cheered. I think it only affects technology or synthetics.

Another thought, does any one know how much time actually passed between Shepard's blackouts. For all we know enough time for the course of a battle might have changed or a general order might have been issued to clear the citadel/crucible because they didn't know what would happen.

I could accept the ending as is if they add a thoughtful epilogue that summarized your playthrough from Mass Effect 1 - 3 and possibly show some of the outcomes depending on your final choice. What I am thinking of is kind of like the ending for Dragon Age: Origins.

Modifié par bsisko, 11 mars 2012 - 05:05 .

[rilzik]

carnage4u wrote...

I would love to know how people that like the ending make sense of stuff like the Normandy being knocked out of space by the shockwave, and the assumption, that this effects all ships that were fighting the reapers.

Do you just assume the tens of thosands of ships and millions of people fighting the reapers were simply standared on random planets, or killed by the shockwave?

Do you assume the Mass Relays didnt wipe out the various systems (even thought his would be the effect as showin in ME2) or the fact that ships may have survived the explosion, but are trapped in the sol system?

I honestly would love to know this. I would love to believe there is more good in the ending.

thank you for your thoughts.

I don't assume. Who cares that's for the developers of future ME games to explain. Personally I am thinking they all died in explosive, horrid deaths. This is what I mean, the story about wasn't about them. Granted I agree they should have explained a bit about the fate of the playable and maybe a few other non playable characters at the end. They show the normandy getting messed up so I assume joker was able to land it on a nearby planet. I would think most ships weren't that lucky and as this is a video game I am able to suspend belief to understand that the chances of joker being that lucky of non exsistant.

The Angry One wrote...

What life? The Citadel impacted on it. Do you realise what that means?
Everything on Earth will die.

Humans
have colonies all over the place. They can act as a source for new
characters of ME games. The recolonization of earth might be a interesting plot
line in future games. Earth littered with old alien and reaper tech. Given they come up with a new way to travel between
star systems which I'm sure the devs can make something up for that.

aimlessgun wrote...

I could argue with you, and try to
'convince' you that the ending sucked. But that would be horrible and
petty. I'm glad at least some people are enjoying it

I don't think it sucked. Was it the best? no, was it interesting, yes. I can settle for that. My problems are with things they should have settled long before the ending. No matter how good the ending, it couldn't make up for the things they should have done. Hell personally I think the entire story arc of ME2 was crap. ME3 was a step up, in the end, ME1 was the best for story by far.

Modifié par rilzik, 11 mars 2012 - 04:53 .

[Tartilus]

I don't assume. Who cares that's for the developers of future ME games to explain. Personally I am thinking they all died in explosive, horrid deaths. This is what I mean, the story about wasn't about them. Granted I agree they should have explained a bit about the fate of the playable and maybe a few other non playable characters at the end. They show the normandy getting messed up so I assume joker was able to land it on a nearby planet. I would think most ships weren't that lucky and as this is a video game I am able to suspend belief to understand that the chances of joker being that lucky of non exsistant. 

As I pointed out just the other day, one of the rules of writing (someone is going to yell at me for suggesting there are rules of writing) is that the extent to which a bad ending can be accepted is proportional to the inverse of the extent to which the reader needed to suspend their disbelief. In other words, if I want to have a big brutal ending, I need to do a fantastic job of making that ending flow well and make great sense -- otherwise, it ceases to feel like you're making statements about the realities of conflict and more like you're deliberately bending me over the nearest table and calling for Zed.

[JasonTan87]

Tartilus wrote...

As I pointed out just the other day, one of the rules of writing (someone is going to yell at me for suggesting there are rules of writing) is that the extent to which a bad ending can be accepted is proportional to the inverse of the extent to which the reader needed to suspend their disbelief. In other words, if I want to have a big brutal ending, I need to do a fantastic job of making that ending flow well and make great sense -- otherwise, it ceases to feel like you're making statements about the realities of conflict and more like you're deliberately bending me over the nearest table and calling for Zed.

I agree with Tartilus.  The problem is not really what really happens during the ending but the lack of a resolution itself.  At the moment; the last sequence feels just like sloppy writing.  Which is a great pity; because there are some really powerful moments in the game (I found Liara's project the most brillant bit of video game writing ever, for example). 

Cutting and pasting my reply from another thread:

Shepard's death (or the lack thereof) is inconsequential: what matters the most is that we do not see his/her motivations behind the choice and/or the effect of his/her act of sacrifice. We are only given fragments of what happened; none of which leads to any form of closure. This lack of closure is not only disorientating for the viewer, it is also robs any sense of satisfaction for people who have grown fond of their Shepards.

 The final sequence of images before the credits added absolutely nothing to the narrative. I kept wondering: what motivated Shepard to pick his/her choice? What was he thinking in his defining moment? What did he hope to achieve? They could have answered this actively (through monologue -- as the ending did in Deus Ex) or retroactively (through the reactions and thoughts of the supporting cast -- as the ending did in Metal Gear Solid 4).
 It was a waste of a fantastic opportunity; if they managed to nail the resolution, the ending could be as powerful as Solid Snake's farewell at the end of MGS4.

Modifié par JasonTan87, 11 mars 2012 - 04:57 .

[rilzik]

Yes the rules of writing. I am not a writer, but I know a bit of what your talking about. What is your problem with the belief? that joker makes it to a planet? The ultimate weapon that kills all the reapers? Something else?

Look if it is one thing that Bioware have proven with ME and DA it's that video games are not near the story telling that say GRRM is or any decent writer is and it doesn't look like they will get there soon.

Really the only thing they could have done to fix it isn't a new ending, but adding 10+ hours to the game. Well, that or scarping the ending and making a ME4 that continues the story. Can anyone direct me to a page that is a good description of the problem with the ending? That talks of the rules of writing and such?

Edit: Thanks JasonTan87 I was posting and didn't see your post.

JasonTan87 wrote...

I agree with Tartilus.  The problem is
not really what really happens during the ending but the lack of a
resolution itself.  At the moment; the last sequence feels just like
sloppy writing.  Which is a great pity; because there are some really
powerful moments in the game (I found Liara's project the most brillant
bit of video game writing ever, for example). 

Cutting and pasting my reply from another thread:

Shepard's
death (or the lack thereof) is inconsequential: what matters the most
is that we do not see his/her motivations behind the choice and/or the
effect of his/her act of sacrifice. We are only given fragments of what
happened; none of which leads to any form of closure. This lack of
closure is not only disorientating for the viewer, it is also robs any
sense of satisfaction for people who have grown fond of their Shepards.

 The
final sequence of images before the credits added absolutely nothing to
the narrative. I kept wondering: what motivated Shepard to pick his/her
choice? What was he thinking in his defining moment? What did he hope
to achieve? They could have answered this actively (through monologue --
as the ending did in Deus Ex) or retroactively (through the reactions
and thoughts of the supporting cast -- as the ending did in Metal Gear
Solid 4).
 It was a waste of a fantastic opportunity; if they managed
to nail the resolution, the ending could be as powerful as Solid
Snake's farewell at the end of MGS4.

But didn't you just roleplay your shepards for 130 hours or so. Don't you know your motivations? Because I know that I wanted organic life to live without the cycle, AI be damned, I picked to destroy it all. I never played MGS. Again, I think your right in that the ending wasn't as emotional as even some of the minor secnes in the game. I'd agree they drop the ball... again. But still I don't know that the ending specifically was bad enough to get the kind of reaction on the forums it has.

Modifié par rilzik, 11 mars 2012 - 05:19 .

[archvonbaron]

Even ME3 disproves God kid in multiple way;
1. The Quarians and the Geth can ally and the Geth actually help them rebuild Rannoch and even help kick start their immune systems by downloading to Quarian volunteer's environmental suits.
2. EDI and Joker
3. If you have Jarvik he will tell you about the Prothean's war against synthetics and will tell you that the tide was turning in the Prothean's favor when the Reapers showed up.

Also the ending doesn't fit with the rest of the story as it was never about Synthetics vs Organics I always saw it more as a look at humanity in a way. Do you integrate with the rest of the galaxy or do you seek to control it?

[rilzik]

archvonbaron wrote...

Even ME3 disproves God kid in multiple way;
1. The Quarians and the Geth can ally and the Geth actually help them rebuild Rannoch and even help kick start their immune systems by downloading to Quarian volunteer's environmental suits.
2. EDI and Joker
3. If you have Jarvik he will tell you about the Prothean's war against synthetics and will tell you that the tide was turning in the Prothean's favor when the Reapers showed up.

Also the ending doesn't fit with the rest of the story as it was never about Synthetics vs Organics I always saw it more as a look at humanity in a way. Do you integrate with the rest of the galaxy or do you seek to control it?

Of course it was a 'look at humanity' All stories are, considering they are written by humans for humans. In the end all the characters and species in the story are reflections of humans. It's how well you can hide that fact which makes a good story or at least one aspect of it. In other words we have to be able to accociate with the characters on a emotional level, meaning they have to resemble humans... even bad guys. The geth and Quarians are a good example. Bioware didn't have the stones to make the geth actually evil, especially after they decided to make a character of one. That does not conflict with the overall story arc. The geth themselves come to different conclusions within the hive mind (ME's version of free will for machines). The games bring up the question of AI being actual life. If all AI's come to the conclusion that peace is good then do they have free will? No. The situation is that numerous species across the galaxy will independantly develop AI and that eventually one of them will be powerful enough to dominate organic live because it isinherently more powerful, given free will it is only a matter of time before one of them act on it. This is shown by the fact that organic life can only defeat the reapers by unconventional means, a magical ultimate weapon.

[JasonTan87]

rilzik wrote...

But didn't you just roleplay your shepards for 130 hours or so. Don't you know your motivations? Because I know that I wanted organic life to live without the cycle, AI be damned, I picked to destroy it all. I never played MGS. Again, I think your right in that the ending wasn't as emotional as even some of the minor secnes in the game. I'd agree they drop the ball... again. But still I don't know that the ending specifically was bad enough to get the kind of reaction on the forums it has.

The player-character relationship in the Mass Effect universe is interesting; because the character is playing the player as much as the player is playing the character.  I think the relationship warrants a whole doctorate thesis, but that's another matter.

In short, ME3 is essentially an evolution of the pick-your-adventure books that was all the rage in the past.  You choose your path, and you are shown what happens next.  Your character and the game talks back to you, echoing your choices and desires.   This 'talking back' is the game/character playing the player by reinforcing certain ideas, themes and emotions.  The reason why ME is so good at getting people to roleplay their sheps is because the game is very effective at talking back to the players; providing them with the necessary suspension of disbelief that is needed to be emotionally invested in their sheps.  You believe in your shep because your shep does what you believe in.

Now that we know that having our Shepards on screen emulate (ie. talking back) our motivations and desires is important to roleplaying, the ending of ME3 is a perfect example of what happens if your shep on screen fails to talk back to you.  Shepard is essentially mute for the rest of the game after his final words to Anderson.  This disconnect affects our relationship with our on-screen persona; the suspension of disbelief falters, and the narrative fails to keep us engaged. We go from being our shepard to becoming an observer of our shepard precisely because the game does not talk back our motivations, emotions and desires to us.

This is the exact reason why the ending falls flat: because it does not provide us with the necessary narrative in which we need to roleplay our shepard.  We do not know his motivations, his emotions or his desires in his final (and finest) moments. We become disconnected from our shepard because he no longer echos our thoughts. This disconnect results in a feeling of disempowerment (thus the misplaced rage about 'not enough choices'), and leaves the viewer suddenly disorientated and fustrated. 

That was why I suggested the following solutions: (1) a monologue as shepard was shooting the conduit / jumping into the beam / getting zapped at the coils that outlines his reason for his choice and his hopes for the future. (2) a retroactive look at shepards' motivations and hopes through the reaction of support characters to his sacrifice.

The massive outpouring of rage that we see on the forums about the ending comes simply because of how sloppy the resolution was to the rest of the game.  If the game wasn't as engaging and involving as it was, the ending wouldn't have drawn anyone's attention.  It is precisely because ME has been so successful at engaging players through its narrative that the breakdown of narrative at its most crucial moment has sparked such an outcry.

PS: I would give anything to have Liara's name on my Femshep's lips as she blew up the power conduit.

Modifié par JasonTan87, 11 mars 2012 - 06:26 .

[Dreogan]

Jason above and I seem to agree, though we use different wording.

The Violation of the writer-reader contract is why this ending is wrong for mass effect 3: not a bad ending, a wrong one. If you look at the linked page, Bioware violated points 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8. To make matters worse, this isn't even an exhaustive list. Look below, and you'll realize there's many more obligations for Bioware in this case since this is the third part of a trilogy.

This is why people are so furious about the last 10 minutes of a 30 hour game. It's not bad writing that's the issue; it's bad storytelling-- a much worse offense.

Modifié par Dreogan, 11 mars 2012 - 06:41 .

[ticklefist]

Oddlyotter wrote...

I don't get the raging out. I was quite pleased by my ending.

What do you mean "my" ending? Your ending is mine, it's all of ours. That's a big part of the problem.

Modifié par ticklefist, 11 mars 2012 - 06:32 .

[JasonTan87]

Dreogan wrote...

Jason above and I seem to agree, though we use different wording.

The Violation of the writer-reader contract is why this ending is wrong for mass effect 3: not a bad ending, a wrong one. If you look at the linked page, Bioware violated points 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8. To make matters worse, this isn't even an exhaustive list: look below, and you'll realize there's many more obligations for Bioware in this case since this is the third part of a trilogy.

This is why people are so furious about the last 10 minutes of a 30 hour game. It's not bad writing that's the issue; it's bad storytelling. A much worse offense in this case.

This is correct. Dreogan is absolutely right in saying that the ending is a violation of the writer-reader contract.  
 
Kudos to him for point it out; it never crossed my mind when I was trying to explain what was wrong with the ending.

[rilzik]

Thanks [to jasons long post above], a good post I enjoyed reading.

I agree with you for the most part. I think the problems your talking about are problems with the game, not just the ending. I guess I was looking at the ending and saying, well that was kind of cool. People are complaining about what I now consider standard for bioware. When ME1 and DA1 were coming out I had high hopes. ME1 really, made me go wow. ME2 and DA2 killed those and a part of me knew that video games wouldn't progress as much as they could, considering their budget.

Maybe they deserve it, I just think it was something lost in ME2 and didn't expect more from ME3. To some degree I understand why people would focus on the ending of a trilogy, but it really doesn't make sense, because the story was broke for so long now. ME3 was on the right track, while it derailed other tracks... idk

If not for the characters, I think the ending was interesting, if not so much on a emotional level as a intellectual one. I find the ending ok, while I find the character development and conclusions through ME2 and 3 to be lacking.

Modifié par rilzik, 11 mars 2012 - 07:07 .

[MRedfield]

I'm not entirely sure how I feel about the ending (Destroy), on one hand I really enjoyed it, on the other I felt like the only other choices forced my hand on the matter. I wasn't going to control them, because that was something my Shepard never wanted to do, and the idea of uniting all life in the entire universe based on the actions of a single human in a single galaxy is just retarded. I brought up the fact that ME only takes place inside a single galaxy before ME3 dropped, and now they go and do that.

Another thing I noted, was that the 'control' option was blue, and the 'destroy' option was red. Considering my entire story from ME1-ME3 was based on killing the reapers and getting paragon points for doing it, I find it odd that they insinuate that the 'good' option is to control them. Maybe Tim had it right all along.

[rilzik]

Tartilus, Jason, Deogan.

Thanks for your posts but I may be done. Forget Bioware, have at them... the ending sucks. The DLC (which I bought) and my concerns in the following thread may turn me off the company completely. Which is rather surprising, considering my great admiration for bulders gate, kotor and even ME1 and DA1 and more or less any epic scifi, I considered Bioware as the third best developer, after paradox and stardock. Sad to see so much potential... sink so far.

http://social.biowar...64526/1#9766940

Is this actually true?

Modifié par rilzik, 11 mars 2012 - 08:24 .