325 réponses à ce sujet

[dallicant]

Biotic Sage does bring up a valid point in that Quarian/Geth cooperation does not disprove the Catalyst's assertion. The problem is more that the assertion is simply taken at face value. At the very least, the Quarian/Geth union gives some means of contesting what the Catalyst says.

Granted, Shepherd is near death at that point, but to not give players the option of bringing this up as a challenge is extremely frustrating. It also goes against the general theme of cooperation that's been carried through the series (more on Paragon than Renegade). Everything you've seen and done is rendered moot by some random AI.

[Dresden867]

This is a pretty solid post, and sums up my thoughts more or less on the three choices. I ended up going with Synthesis for my first run. It seemed to me that the Geth and Quarians post-peace-process were slowly heading this route already.

I really feel like at least some of the Catalyst's premise was kind of self-fulfilling (AI wasn't exactly a major threat to us in this cycle, save the heretics, which was arguably the Reapers' fault in the first place). This doesn't necessarily make it "bad writing" in my mind, but suggests that, over the course of many, many cycles, that the Catalyst's original motives may have slipped from "noble intentions" to "knights templar" over time. This is a thing that can happen. /grin

[Razgriz9327]

Sage, thank you for a well thought out and well worded post... I still support a new ending, but we need to show the devs the support they deserve. Calling them lazy is childish and shows a lack of understanding of what they had to go through. I can't count the number of times i have heard a dev say that they would never finish a game if they didn't have deadlines... always want to tweak something to make it better. I prefer having the vast majority of the game be fantastic than a mediocre game with a good ending. Perhaps they were pressured by EA to create a standard ending that would translate well into an extension of the franchise... they may have had little choice

[Beliar86]

Don't give a damn about a happy ending. The deaths of Mordin, Thane, and Legion definitely weren't happy and I would actually HATE if they didn't have great touching moments like that. It's just that it marginilized previous choices, had little dialogue to explore it, and no closure afterwards (even if sad and/or depressing, don't care). And thats with all of them in a very general basis, not nitpicking it to death on whether it fit in with the universe and/or plot because of blah blah blah. Hell I would be fine with the exact same endings if it had those elements, and I have a feeling people for the most part wouldn't have overanalyzed it to nitpick it to death out of frustration if those elements were in place.

Why am I voicing this here? Because there is a bioware post in this thread, which means it has been read once, might be read again. And that's my part.

[J4N3_M3]

I already said it in some other discussion: I don't find the endings bad per se, just confusing. I don't think that I was betrayed or cheated, I just don't know what to make of all this. There's something missing, an explanation or something as to why. I also don't understand how my number of war assets determines if Shepard lives or dies in the destruction ending.

I chose destruction because I felt that each species should be given the chance to evolve on its own, destroy itself or live in peace, whatever they make of their time given on their homeplanets.

I do understand that saving all organic life comes at a cost. It also basically shows how much things like mass relays are taken for granted; how technology in general is taken for granted. Do organics want to survive if it means giving up things that make certain things such as space travel, etc. possible. Are organics willing to sacrifice a certain number of their own to save others? I certainly like this as food for thought.

All in all I really loved Me3 and will enjoy a couple of more playthroughs.

[ReachEtaruN74]

Biotic Sage wrote...

I've seen some fair criticisms of the endings (most that I disagree with but they are fair), and then I've seen some criticisms that have not been thought out at all.  Here are the three that annoy me every time I see them:

1. "Obviously the Catalyst is wrong in thinking that synthetics will always destroy organics because look at what's happening with the Quarians and the Geth!  They are getting along!"

The geth are a good example--*not* definitive, but still good. (Also, don't forget about EDI)

Here's why.
The idea of Technological Singularity (of which the catalyst describes rather poorly), it isn't just the timeline of the actions, it is the motivation of the synthetics. The geth that weren't manipulated by the reapers from the beginning of their sentience to the end of the rannoch section wanted to make peace with the quarians. Their motivation cannot reasonably fit within the idea of Technological Singularity.

But here's my bigger reason why that description by the catalyst is absolute rubbish (and ironically it's the same reason I look at the entire Technological Singularity with disdain): It treats AI like machines. Just because they are machines (which all organic life is by a technical standpoint) we're talking about self-determinating life--synthetic life. This explaination has very little difference from racism. "What? Catalyst, are you saying that AI are actually not self-determinating? So they're not actually AI?"

Biotic Sage wrote...


2. "Nothing mattered!"

You may as well extend this logic to real life.  If everything ends, including life itself, and infinite continuation is necessary for you to feel something "matters," then nothing you do in your real life matters either.  None of the relationships you have, none of the decisions you make, nothing.  Everything mattered in Mass Effect; Shepard touched the lives of thousands of individuals, and some on a very personal level i.e. Love Interest and squad/crew. 

As for our choices in the game resulting in direct consequences, we saw these consequences throughout the game.  Throughout the entire game we saw the consequences of our actions over the past 2 games.  We saw the result of the relationships we've nurtured, we saw the result of saving the council, saving Wrex, or keeping our crew alive in ME2.  Granted, the Collector Base choice from ME2 could have been integrated better, but we saw a great deal of direct consequences.  Now, the end game, that's a huge decision.  All 3 decisions may look the same with a wave of energy, but just think of the ramifications for the future of the galaxy.  I like that Bioware left that part, the part after Shepard's story, up to us.  And yes, the ripples of your decisions are still going on even though you don't get to personally witness them.  The Krogan are either cured of the genophage or doomed to extinction.  The Quarians could be alive to rebuild or dead since the middle of the game.  This is huge, and I scoff at anyone who says "nothing mattered."  Just because you'd like to see more direct evidence of what you do (which is a fair criticism) doesn't mean that "nothing mattered."

No. You're right. Absolutely nothing mattered. The comparison to real life is true, but if I wanted real life, I wouldn't have bought a video game in the first place--especially a sci-fi fantasy rpg video game.

And I realize some people really believe that the relays didn't blow up, but the relays cannot be the most powerful mass effect field generators in the galaxy (surpassing even the reapers--otherwise the reapers wouldn't use the relays) to just doing nothing. All that energy had to go somewhere. And honestly, according to ME2:Arrival, the entire galaxy is screwed.

The wishful thinking that the relays didn't blow up is due to the idea "maybe the relays are going to do something that bioware never even mentioned was possible. ever." We know only one possible option within the universe. If bioware releases a statement or codex update or anything saying that it is possible for the relays to not blow up in this ending, fine. I'll go with it. Right now, anything else is reaching for threads.

Biotic Sage wrote...

[i]3. "Bioware got lazy!"

Whether you agree with the ending or not, how can you call something that was so masterfully crafted lazy?  When I hear people say "Bioware got lazy!" all I am hearing is them saying (in a whiny voice I might add) "I disagree with the direction Bioware took with the series!"  That's fine, you can say that.  But don't insult them by saying they "got lazy."  The team poured so much energy into this project and it was of such high quality in so many areas that I'm sure they just want to burst into frustrated tears when they read something like that.  I guarantee you they didn't "get lazy;"  that's how they wanted to end their magnum opus, and I guarantee you if they were going to cut corners anywhere in the game it damn well wouldn't be the final 5 minutes.

They did. There is absolutely no way to get around the plot holes that nearly tear through my LCD like bioware divided by zero at the end of the game. It would be one thing if they had cleaned up the plot holes, but there are too many. Way too many. In fact, while ME3 had some of the best moments in the series as far as character development (e.g. Mordin--so very well done), ME3 in absolutely no way compares to ME1 or 2. ME3 is linear. Sure you can pick in what order you'd like to do your next 5 missions or if you'd like to go scan some planets (that system's still broken bioware. we have an AI on the ship and you're having me manually scan and manually shoot probes? Would we even do that today?) but in the end, you go back to the same hub and just collect another 5 missions.
And then there's dialogue. It's one thing for DLC characters to have Auto-dialogue. Zaeed and Kasumi? Fine in ME2. Every character in ME3 having auto-dialogue at some point? Wow. It does not get more impersonal.

The gameplay was better and it was a little prettier and the music score was fantasic as usual (even with the new composer) but those do not make up for what happened to ME3.

HOWEVER, this could also be entirely EA's fault. "We want you to make a Transhumanism political ending, Bioware. Also, do it in 4 months."

This is my take on the ending: (you can say endings if you want--they all still end with the galaxy turning into a massive ball of fire with it spinning apart and throwing matter into dark space but if we decide to conveniently ignore that plot hole nugget...)
Don't ever do a deus ex machina ending. Ever. Unless you actively *want* your fans to hate the game.

Modifié par ReachEtaruN74, 12 mars 2012 - 09:02 .

[Moodath]

While I understand how people are feeling disappointed, I found the ending(s) to be great.

A few plot holes and the deus ex machima crap they pulled aside, I liked it. By sacrificing basically everything Shepard preserves the chance for life to continue now, and more importantly, later. Mass Effect was never about Earth, or the Citadel, or Asari, or Turians, it was about the galaxy as a whole.

The decisions mattered. At least to me. I enjoyed every second of it. It would of been impossible to get where Shepard did if he didn't do the things he did. Stopping Saren and Sovereign ensured the Crucible (the Citadel) wasn't destroyed and that the reapers weren't going to show up early. Destroying the collectors stopped the harvesting of the 'primary species' (the only ones showing any fight). Brokering peace between Geth and Quarian, curing the genophage and uniting the Turians and Krogan, it still mattered. 

Ultimately I still feel as though I saved the galaxy, and even with some nasty plot holes popping up (especially regarding 'god' and the reapers) I still feel like I got some sort of closure. Do I want to know more about how life continued after that? How the Normandy managed to outrun an explosion that should of destroyed it? Yes, I would. I think that is what bothers most people (beyond the ones that just simply didn't like the ending.) Sometimes its best to go all or nothing. The normandy should of been eradicated.

TL;DR - Plot holes are present and that sucks; I totally get why people were disappointed; I personally liked it, though it could of been better (Good idea, medicore execution)

Bonus Side Note - Anderson telling Shepard he was proud of him kicked my feelings in the nuts. "Take this, Moodath's feelings!' the game said, delivering a swift kick to my feeling's nuts. My feelings clutched it's nuts in agony. And stuff...

Modifié par Moodath, 12 mars 2012 - 09:09 .

[Skaan]

I understand many things, i can accapt Shepard death, i can accept "the matrix style" solution (3rd one), but hey give us our epic final. it ìs no difficult. look everyone on Earth to celebrate him. No i believe creative have mistaken someting, how you suppose a mega fleet of wath? 1.000.000 ship can be survive in Solar system without portals? Ok, Quarian and Geth can survive on their Ship but Asari Volus, Elcor and the other? condamned to a 200 years trip?
Great game at least until the last 30 min and i don't want to speak about illusive men and it's stupid plan. There is about 90% of fan disappointed by "your" great final. im so sad about this that don't play on multi, is useless.
I've played ME1 and ME2 many times, paragorn and renagade for male and female, but ME3 only one time (female paragorn) and i don't want play again so pls give us a decent DLC with alternative ending.

[xtorma]

Paxcorpus wrote...

 OP, you deserve a pat on the back. Finally somebody here is thinking with reason. I, too, chose the "destruction" ending because it was the ONLY ending that made real sense, to me. Although, I wiped out the Geth. The only thing I really felt bad about was that I had spent time uniting Joker and EDI, only to kill her. 

I was glad to see Tali alive when she came out of the ship on "Eden," but wondered where Liara had gone. This part made me feel a bit sorrowful as well. At the beginning of the mission, right after Mars, Liara asked me what it is that I wanted from her. She asked about my relationship with Tali. I told her that we needed to simply be friends.

And then I come to find that she is possibly lying in the ruins of London, where I had originally been nearly beamed to death by a Reaper. 

But, in my decision, I freed the galaxy, "took back Earth," and gave organic life a chance to pave their own path. I may not have gotten a "real" goodbye to the people I cared about, but to them, I'm a legend.

But in doing so , you damned the geth, and edi. The catalyst and the reapers won. They got you to put more value on organics than synthetics. They got you to sacrifice millions in order to ensure the survival of organics.

In the other two endings, shepard need only sacrifice himself, to stop the slaughter. his very reason for killing the 300k batarians was that it was better than the trillions that the reapers would kill. then when he was presented with the same choice, in a different scenario, he chose to kill millions, that did not need to die.

If any race deserved annialation in this story , it was the quarians.

[J4N3_M3]

xtorma wrote...

But in doing so , you damned the geth, and edi. The catalyst and the reapers won. They got you to put more value on organics than synthetics. They got you to sacrifice millions in order to ensure the survival of organics.

In the other two endings, shepard need only sacrifice himself, to stop the slaughter. his very reason for killing the 300k batarians was that it was better than the trillions that the reapers would kill. then when he was presented with the same choice, in a different scenario, he chose to kill millions, that did not need to die.

If any race deserved annialation in this story , it was the quarians.

How did the Reapers win? I'm not sure I follow your chain of thoughts. 

[xtorma]

J4N3_M3 wrote...

xtorma wrote...

But in doing so , you damned the geth, and edi. The catalyst and the reapers won. They got you to put more value on organics than synthetics. They got you to sacrifice millions in order to ensure the survival of organics.

In the other two endings, shepard need only sacrifice himself, to stop the slaughter. his very reason for killing the 300k batarians was that it was better than the trillions that the reapers would kill. then when he was presented with the same choice, in a different scenario, he chose to kill millions, that did not need to die.

If any race deserved annialation in this story , it was the quarians.

How did the Reapers win? I'm not sure I follow your chain of thoughts. 

Because they got you to destroy synthetics, in order to assure the survival of organics. Thier whole goal was to prevent the assention of synthetic life , to the point where it becomes sentient. Thats exactly what you did by destroying the reapers and the geth/edi.

In order to save your own type of life , you damned an entire race to extintion. That is exactly what the reapers were doing, they were just solving the problem at it's base.  

It was exactly what cerberus was doing , only it was humans instead of organics.

When you choose destroy , you kill millions to save trillions, but it isn't necessary.
The other two endings only require the death of shepard.

When i say the reapers won , i mean so with shepard. by choosing destroy you become what you have been fighting against from the beginnig.

[Provident_1]

About the whole geth/quarian war disproving the singularity:

The reason they gave for the Reaper cycle was to prevent the singularity. That means the cycle resets before the singularity ever happens. Since they gave the galaxy that predictable technological progression line, they would have worked out that it takes 60k, 75k, 100k years to reach the singularity so they chose to reset the cycles at the 50k mark, preventing the singularity from ever happening. The geth/quarian conflict is really no reflection of it. It's like saying a robot uprising will never happen because our vacuum cleaners aren't trying to kill us right now.

There are far, far bigger issues than this about the ending - lack of closure, lack of logic, lack of theme continuity, lack of choice, use of an arbitrary deus ex machina etc.

Modifié par Provident_1, 12 mars 2012 - 12:41 .

[maxulic]

HKR148 wrote...

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

maxulic wrote...


Replying to the colored part since I guess the issue basically comes down to this.

Why? Because EDI and Legion are unique. Because EDI had come a long way to show signs of humanity it doesn't mean that every single AI is going to follow the same path. Because Legion went through that route too, it doesn't mean that the whole Geth specie is going to follow, on the contrary they still share that hive mind (well that's how I felt) and it still proves that Legion was special, he has his own personality, something that the other Geth don't have.

And as Javik proved when talking about a same conflict that happened during his cycle and as the Catalyst reminded you: the created always rebel against their creators (the idea itself being at the core of a huge part of the Fantastic / Sci-Fi genres). There is always a moment when you are going to rebel against your parents, there is always a moment when you are going to question your faith in God if you are a believer, etc. there is always a moment when it does happen.

That "new random character" is something beyond our comprehension, something that lived for millions of years and saw these conflicts raise so many times that well... maybe he is right? Maybe it is true, the created always rebel against their creators.

I'm not going to debate with you any more, mostly because you don't like to address my main points and you're cherry picking your arguments. But I just want you to know that while this explanation may work for you, and maybe it's correct and you're right after all, it is still all very contrived and a horrible horrible example of writing.

"Here is a god thing that is wise beyond your comprehension, so don't question the logic of what he is saying or concern yourself with the internal consistency of the narrative cause he's the magical space wizard god kid thingy "

Just doesn't cut it for me as good writing. Hey, maybe it does for you and that's your perogative. But I can't accept it for what it isn't to me, and what it isn't is quality.

But hey you're probably right about what they had in mind when they wrote it.

Yeap... this isn't Bible. I cannot stand logical problems that are present in the storyline.

Yet it is clear that you can't take out religion and faith from the Mass Effect universe. The 3 games are filled with religious connotations: that talk about God with Ash in Mass Effect 1, all the various species believing in their own god, "does this unit have a soul?" and so on.

So once again that god-like entity that is the Catalyst is certainly not disconnected from the rest of the series.

[maxulic]

xtorma wrote...

J4N3_M3 wrote...

xtorma wrote...

But in doing so , you damned the geth, and edi. The catalyst and the reapers won. They got you to put more value on organics than synthetics. They got you to sacrifice millions in order to ensure the survival of organics.

In the other two endings, shepard need only sacrifice himself, to stop the slaughter. his very reason for killing the 300k batarians was that it was better than the trillions that the reapers would kill. then when he was presented with the same choice, in a different scenario, he chose to kill millions, that did not need to die.

If any race deserved annialation in this story , it was the quarians.

How did the Reapers win? I'm not sure I follow your chain of thoughts. 

Because they got you to destroy synthetics, in order to assure the survival of organics. Thier whole goal was to prevent the assention of synthetic life , to the point where it becomes sentient. Thats exactly what you did by destroying the reapers and the geth/edi.

In order to save your own type of life , you damned an entire race to extintion. That is exactly what the reapers were doing, they were just solving the problem at it's base.  

It was exactly what cerberus was doing , only it was humans instead of organics.

When you choose destroy , you kill millions to save trillions, but it isn't necessary.
The other two endings only require the death of shepard.

When i say the reapers won , i mean so with shepard. by choosing destroy you become what you have been fighting against from the beginnig.

I am not sure at all that this is their motive, I think you missed the point. IMO their goal was synthesis, heck that's already what they were doing by harvesting organics, the synthesis option being straight in front of Shepard with a big ray also clearly tells that this is the goal that is seeked, control and destruction are side options.

To further prove this assertion, remember what 2 main indoctrinated agents talking for the Reapers, Saren and The Illusive Man, were saying about it: this is how organics have to evolve.

So I have no doubt that synthesis is actually the goal along, it has nothing to do with preventing synthetics from becoming sentient, on the contrary it is also inevitable, this is how organics and synthetics are meant to evolve.

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

maxulic wrote...

Kloborgg711 wrote...

Mass Effect was about a human getting his race recognition in the galactic government,and then doing his best to save organic life from apocalyptic robot monsters. They certainly deal with synthetics, but you're lying to
yourself if you think that was some consistent underlying theme the whole way. And really, the fact that TIM has some robotic implants is somehow "proof" that the story is about synthetics living amongst organics? Really, if that's not a stretch I don't know what it is.

I am sorry you missed the point of the whole series.

No wonder that people are disappointed in the endings since they expect the end to deal with a different matter.

Just out of curiosity, what did you think the main theme of ME was?

And if you say AI vs Organics, you're completely and utterly wrong.

I did prove how this is was the central theme of the series (more than once, and I hate repeating). What do you have to prove the contrary except your "you are utterly wrong"?

You know, the way a story starts tells a lot and Mass Effect 1 doesn't randomy starts by keeping you up to date about the situation with the Geth...

Kloborgg711 wrote...

maxulic wrote...

Kloborgg711 wrote...

Mass Effect was about a human getting his race recognition in the galactic government, and then doing his best to save organic life from apocalyptic robot monsters. They certainly deal with synthetics, but you're lying to
yourself if you think that was some consistent underlying theme the whole way. And really, the fact that TIM has some robotic implants is somehow "proof" that the story is about synthetics living amongst organics? Really, if that's not a stretch I don't know what it is.

I am sorry you missed the point of the whole series.

No wonder that people are disappointed in the endings since they expect the end to deal with a different matter.

I like that you ignored the second, more important part, just so you could call me out as being an idiot. Really neat.
Yourlittle paragraph about Legion and EDI being unique is absolutely moot. All of Geth were passive, they were NEVER aggressive until the reapers created the heretic Geth.

I did not deal with the second part for the simple reason that your sarcasm to reject my claims was completely uncalled. The reason why the antagonism between organic and synthetic life forms is at the core of the trilogy is not due to one specific example (like your sarcastic example of the Illusive Man... which I never came with by the
way) but a whole list of examples: the Geth/Quarian conflict, rogue AI, Legion and EDI gaining what could be called a soul. That's the addition of these examples through the 3 games not one in particular that makes this question the central theme of Mass Effect.

And about Geth being passive, for all we know the rebellion has yet to happen. I am glad that the mention of Geth offering to kinda melt in the Quarian suits if you saved both rang a bell to a few people: it reminds a story told by Javik that happened in his cycle and how synthetics used this way to control their creators.

Once again EDI and Legion are unique in their kind. No other AI has shown the humanity we have seen in EDI, no other Geth has shown the unique personality that Legion had. So being unique you cannot tell that every AI and every Geth are going to follow their path. That's where the endings come into play to ensure this path.

Modifié par maxulic, 12 mars 2012 - 02:23 .

[CDHarrisUSF]

Biotic Sage wrote...

This does not disprove the Catalyst's assertion.

Two words: Russell's teapot.

Modifié par CDHarrisUSF, 12 mars 2012 - 02:03 .

[rhevakeane]

Let me preface this post by saying that this is my personal opinion... I felt cheated at the endings, and here's why.

For me, a good resolution has to have several characteristics, the most important being the sense of satisfaction/closure. I don't think it has to be happy or optimistic, but it has to satisfy the audience (or at least enough of them). For instance, the plotlines featuring the genophage and the quarian/geth conflict were practically perfect to me, because they were equally laced with pathos and triumph and they did not feel like cop outs or attempts at emotional manipulation. There was sense in the sacrifices made and this was very well done because it there was a discernable evolution of plotlines, characters and themesi from the previous game. Mordin died because he was the only one who could do it right, and he died reversing a decision that had haunted him for years. Legion sacrificed himself to bring self-awareness and independence to the geth. Those endings made sense, they required no leaps in logic or debate to qualify for audience-understanding. Similarly, they very much seemed like natural progressions. Not predictable in a narrow way, but after I saw the end of those plotlines I felt like things could have gone no other way. Like you could see how much Mordin was tortured about his role in the Genophage, and how desperate he was to make things right. You could also see how Legion was dedicated to the Geth, and to showing that they were beings who possessed the potential for a soul, for life equal to that of the organics who created them. There was an evolution that culminated, and that made their resolutions satisfying, even though they were immensely sad. You got to see an awesome story full of exquisite thematic layers and richness finish in an awesome way, where there is just the right touch of bittersweet. That is what Bioware is more than capable of, and that is what I expect from a Bioware game.

The endings did not touch on any of these points, namely, they were not satisfying, they did not bring closure, and they did not seem like a natural progression. They were not satisfying because they did not bring a resolution to the individuals' plots that had been building since the earlier games; i.e. no epilogue, no sense of what happened to all those people you emotionally invested in and were fighting for. They were also not satisfying because Shepard's sacrifice/choice is ultimately left unexplained, which is also why the endings brought no resolution. The Catalyst's monologue was vague, contradictory, and frankly absurd on certain instances. What makes him say a synthesis of DNA is the ultimate evolutionary ideal? What makes him say that after destroying the Reapers, the antagonists responsible for the cycles to begin with, that the cycle will somehow repeat again? Just because synthetic life will reappear doesn't mean the same thing will happen. There were no logical justifications to his words, and the game's events certainly did not even illustrate the inevitability of his warnings. This is also why the endings did not seem like a natural progression, because there was no unifying theme that was addressed by the catalyst. The notion of a technical singularity was not foreshadowed sufficiently in the other games to warrant it being the massive answer that resolves all, or at least a significant part of the questions posed from the beginning. In other words, the Catalyst did not address the themes set by the main narration in ME1. It merely interposed a theme that had no significant grounding in the previous two games.

So I am left with no answers as to why there was even a cycle to begin with. I am also left with no notion of what happens to a team of people (not just the crew, but all the people in ME2 as well) that Bioware spent loads of resources making me emotionally invested in. Most importantly, I am left with no answers as to what was Shepard's role in the ending; what was he destroying and why/ what was he controlling and why/ what was he sacrificing himself for and why. When I make choices, I'd like to know what exactly my options are, and the lack of a conversation between Shepard and the Catalyst (which I see no reason to justify) makes me feel seriously cheated. I would also like to see what the consequences of my actions are, and as far as I am concerned, the departure/destruction of the reapers, the destruction of the mass relays and the stranding of my crew on a random planet, does not constitute consequences significant enough to encompass or close this epic trilogy.

I'm not accusing Bioware of being lazy, or stupid or whatever. I KNOW they are capable of truly awesome story-telling, that's why I love them, and why I love the ME universe. As a dedicated fan, ME3's endings seriously broke my heart because it invalidated my entire experience and made me feel like I just spent days playing only to be left baffled and disappointed. As to the people defending the endings, I have no beef with you. But I think the fact that there has to be significant leaps in logic (It was all a dream! Or Shepard was indoctrinated) to be evidence of the weaknesses in ME3's endings. The people playing the games are reasonably intelligent (or at least, that's how I like to think of myself). The endings should be clear (if open to interpretation), at the very least.

I seriously hope they address this. I don't think I've ever felt this disappointed before. Not even with DA2.

Modifié par rhevakeane, 12 mars 2012 - 02:39 .

[Reznore57]

I really think the ending was poorly done.
The choices weren't that bad , but the whole thing with the child , the surreal Normandy crash (they were probably trying to show some hope there but it looks like some real bad advertising for some paradise island vacation) and the child and grandpa were lame too ("yeah child everything A ok because of Hero Shepard but i won't go into details of what happened to the galaxy ...)

When i finished the game , I was really tired and i didn't even notice there were different path , i made my Shepard walk straight to the light.I had the green ending .
I can say it's bad when something ends and you don't understand what's happening.
I don't know if i save earth , or the turian , krogan etc...i don't know anything except now some people have wierd little green light writing all over their body , at least Joker looked happy about it!

Huge lack of closure and i don't understand it.It wouldn't be difficult to write an epilogue about what happened .
I mean the whole rewriting DNA had a lot of potential and they could have written pages about the fate of the galaxy after the mass relay sort of blow up , but no.

So i guess joker and EDI fix up the normandy , everybody get back to earth to pick up the pieces of my Shepard.Since Everybody is half synthetinc , they rebuild her .And she ends her life drinking margarita with Garrus on Dreamy Island Colony .Oh and she write a book with Prothy the Prothean."Shepard and the Reaper ,a bad ass mushroom trip".The books became really famous and ages later grandpa still tell of the legendary Shepard to kids all over the world!

Anyway , i may sound bitter but i'm not , I really liked the game .But the ending felt surreal.

[Anthony102890]

rhevakeane wrote...

Let me preface this post by saying that this is my PERSONAL opinion... I felt cheated at the endings, and here's why.

For me, a good resolution has to have several characteristics, the most important being the sense of satisfaction/closure. I don't think it has to be happy or optimistic, but it has to satisfy the audience. For instance, the plotlines featuring the genophage and the quarian/geth conflict were practically perfect to me, because they were equally laced with pathos and triumph. There was sense in the sacrifices made. Mordin died because he was the only one who could do it right, and he died reversing a decision that had haunted him for years. Legion sacrificed himself to bring self-awareness and independence to the geth. Those endings made sense, they required no leaps in logic or debate to qualify for audience-understanding. Similarly, they very much seemed like natural progressions. Not predictable in a narrow way, but after I saw the end of those plotlines I felt like things could have gone no other way. Like you could see how much Mordin was tortured about his role in the Genophage, and how desperate he was to make things right. You could also see how Legion was dedicated to the Geth, and to showing that they were beings who possessed the potential for a soul, for life equal to that of the organics who created them. There was an evolution that culminated, and that made their resolutions satisfying, even though they were immensely sad. You got to see an awesome story full of exquisite thematic layers and richness finish in an awesome way, where there is just the right touch of bittersweet. That is what Bioware is more than capable of, and that is what I expect from a Bioware game.

The endings did not touch on any of these points, namely, they were not satisfying, they did not bring closure, and they did not seem like a natural progression. They were not satisfying because they did not bring a resolution to the individuals' plots that had been building since the earlier games; i.e. no epilogue, no sense of what happened to all those people you emotionally invested in and were fighting for. They were also not satisfying because Shepard's sacrifice/choice is ultimately left unexplained, which is also why the endings brought no resolution. The Catalyst's monologue was vague, contradictory, and frankly absurd on certain instances. What makes him say a synthesis of DNA is the ultimate evolutionary ideal? What makes him say that after destroying the Reapers, the antagonists responsible for the cycles to begin with, that the cycle will somehow repeat again? Just because synthetic life will reappear doesn't mean the same thing will happen. There were logical justifications to his words, and the game's events certainly did not even illustrate the inevitability of his warnings. This is also why the endings did not seem like a natural progression, because there was no unifying theme that was addressed by the catalyst. The notion of a technical singularity was not foreshadowed sufficiently in the other games to warrant it being the massive answer that resolves all, or at least a significant part of the questions posed in the beginning.

So I am left with no answers as to why there was even a cycle to begin with. I am also left with no notion of what happens to a team of people (not just the crew, but all the people in ME2 as well) that Bioware spent loads of resources making me emotionally invest in. Most importantly, I am left with no answers as to what was Shepard's role in the ending; what was he destroying and why/ what was he controlling and why/ what was he sacrificing himself for and why. When I make choices, I'd like to know what exactly my options are, and the lack of a conversation between Shepard and the Catalyst (which I see no reason to justify) makes me feel seriously cheated. I would also like to see what the consequences of my actions are, and as far as I am concerned, the departure/destruction of the reapers, the destruction of the mass relays and the stranding of my crew on a random planet, does not constitute consequences significant enough to encompass or close this epic trilogy.

I'm not accusing Bioware of being lazy, or stupid or whatever. I KNOW they are capable of truly awesome story-telling, that's why I love them, and why I love the ME universe. As a dedicated fan, ME3's endings seriously broke my heart because it invalidated my entire experience and made me feel like I just spent days playing only to be left baffled and disappointed.

I seriously hope they address this.

I have to give you credit for really laying out your opinion here because you touched every single problem I had noticed with the ending. I believe a majority of us feel this way. I would like to add though that along with no logical progression in the ending, but the writers had written themselves into a corner with what they decided to do with the ending. For example, one of the main issues can be found with the destruction of the Mass Relay. We learned in Arrival that if a Mass Relay was destroyed, an entire system would be wiped out from the blast. Also, the Catalyst had stated that only with the choice for synthesis that the Mass Relays would be destroyed. He never mentioned that was an outcome with either destroying or controlling the Reapers. In some ways, I get the feeling that a writer was brought on later in the process of constructing the end and that writer had no knowledge of the order or build up the story had accomplished already. On top of that, the original ending that Bioware had for Mass Effect 3, even unfuilffilling in its own right, still was a logical conclusion to the story Bioware made. 

The endings killed me. For a game that emphasized so much that Commander Shepard was your Shepard. He was the culmination of your choices and your personality, having the cookie cut shaped endings completely ruined that nostalgic ending that Bioware was trying really hard to give us as can be seen with the secret ending of the child and stargazer after the credits. 

[NilsJeppe]

Biotic Sage wrote...

Mass Effect exists eternally as a great science fiction trilogy.

Not after the way it ended it won't.

[Natureguy85]

I just watched the ending again, same Readiness, but this time I did control instead of destroy. The music at the start of the ending movie does a great job at pulling heartstrings, but that's all the good I can say for it.

The kid made me mad, his annoying, lispy voice made me mad. He reminded me of movie scenes like in X-Men 2, inside Cerebro when the guy makes himself look like a little child to Storm and Nightcrawler. To add insult to injury, the little kid asking the old man about Shepard and the stars is the same voice. I can't be the only one who noticed this, but haven't seen it brought up. Also wondering if that planet is supposed to be the one the Normandy lands on. Just a guess with the two moons.

The last little text box says Shepard has become a legend. But the death doesn't feel satisfactory like sacrificing yourself in Dragon Age. Also, there are so many issues for the rest of the galaxy rebuilding, but we are just king of told it happens anyway. Lame.

[Meltemph]

 

Its not illogical we are talking about a hypothetical future. Hell if you want to be pedantic you cant bring people back to life either.

In this hypothetical future the tech is somwhat explained with other already existing tech in the universe.  He was broguht back to life with synthetic biology, where litterally synthetics REAPLACE what is normally major organ function(which Miranda clearly states at the beginning of 2). 

Ok so you still need the pins but in 2184 would there be no medical advances that might mean you no longer need those pins. Is that entirely inconceivable. Let me try another analogy;

When a baby is born it requires care breast milk etc. If you simply birthed a baby and bailed it would die. It is completely dependant. However as it grows it becomes better equipped to take care of itself. The implants could be analgous to this care. Shepard died and required extensive surgery/implants to resurrect him. As he recovered his/her body became less reliant on said implants to the point where it was essentially functional without them.

But your anology isnt applicable.  What you are suggesting is the equivalent of having a synthetic liver and while that synthetic liver is doing its job, the body learns to no longer need a liver...  You are infering that Shep had what is equivalent to a stent put in his body and that the synthetic organs are no longer needed because of a stent.

Perhaps now whilst still posessing said implants they might serve an auxilliary function now. Not crucial for life support but assist. Im not saying that when Shep destroys it all he wont experience a loss of function, memory loss, motor control etc. It just may no longer be fatal

Again what you are suggesting is that the body itself can live without major body funtioning organs.  Go back and play ME2 again, jsut the begginning and listen and watch all the things that got patched up with synthetics.  You are not just suggesting the synthetic organs are only no longer necessary, but that the body can live without major organs.  He is human, not Krogan.

Isnt the point supposed to be that we dont understand how the mass relays work. The codex represents the knowledge of the galactic civilisation. As I understand it the codex is information Shepard has access to not us outside of the universe. As such I believe knowledge of the relays was limited to a mysterious porting ability. The lasers were an unknown feature of the relays and their relationship to the crucible.

This is a major logical leap.  The ME fields were explained with-in the scope of ME.  They didnt know how to duplicate it, but they understood the science behind it in the universe, they just couldnt replicate it. What the laser beams are, is the equivalent of having a Q(Star Trek) being in the universe all the sudden be a part of the ME universe.  

Star Trek VERY early in the series made it known that these types of beings exist, so when we see Q do some crazy things, it did not break the series because of something not congruent with-in the Star Trek universe.  What this is doing , is litterally watiing till the end of a series and say, "Oh, BTW, Q not only exists in Star Trek, but also exists in ME".

Modifié par Meltemph, 12 mars 2012 - 09:55 .

[Tethys_Grenz]

I feel there is a lot of hope in the OP, but not a lot of reality to it. It sounds more like a long-winded justification and defense of the bad choices we were given in the end. I mean, if it lets you sleep better at night, beleive what you want. But I like seeing with my eyes open, and reconizing that the company ran out of time... Here is what I think:

This whole Trilogy built on our choices, but in the end it does nothing to effect the final outcome. Shep is given a hard 3-way choice, which leaves millions dead and trillions stranded, or a forced evolution for all, which still seems like a creepy techno-facist outcome. So much for our hero saving the galaxy, he is forced to destory, control or force 'evolution'.

It seems to me, that however 'the grand vision of ME3' looked on paper, in the end the Bioware team had too many choices and too many outcomes to make a complete and closure-filled ending, so we got this Godchild and a 3 way nightmare with the same movies and cutscenes, just a bit different light and last breath on one.

I have read about the lost audio files of Joker flying in to save the day and others who posted a scripted 4 way ending before he walks into the light, but it seems like all those ideas were aborted and left on the editing room floor. EA had deadlines folks, and Bioware cracked under the pressure. Hence the nonsensical ending and hook for quick-money DLC with the , "well, one more story..." line.

If they re-write this or add a "new ending DLC", it is only because so many people are upset at how it wrapped up. I agree with the many who feel that Bioware dropped the ball on this one and they are reeling in the crap-storm now, unsure what to say or where to go from here. and they are hopeing it will all blow over, which it probably wont.

So much for a fulfilling trilogy... Just dream up whatever you want to in your head as you drift off to sleep, because you probably won't see it in the game.

[Meltemph]

The ending to ME3 was actually the opposite of complex and honestly quite shallow. It gave you concepts without actually ever extrapolating those concepts. If gave you choices that, by all intence and purposes, was magic(not by our standards, but ME standards). It intoduced an entity with the equivalency of Q from star trek to remove the need to explain the rationel behind the meaning of the choices and essentially appealed to authority, because this entity is millions of years old.

It explained nothing and only left concepts that barely ever scratched the surface in the series. It was only as deep as it showed and the only way you could draw more from it, is by YOU drawing more from it, cause the game did not supply it. It gave you implications and left you to assume the implications to the point where it makes you take a look at the writers to try and understand the implications, which in turn defeats the purpose of the medium.

Unless this ending was a trap/fake, then the ending was someone trying to get metaphsyical on a very elementry level and tried to disguise it as deep.

[Bowie Hawkins]

Dreogan wrote...

Bowie Hawkins wrote...

The reason why all three endings of the game are badly done is simple: No matter what you choose, you destroy the entire galactic civilisation that you have been fighting to protect against the Reapers. This is why people feel cheated - we were hoping for an ending that didn't involve destroying every Mass Effect relay in existence, with the resultant isolation of all systems from each other.

I strongly disagree. The reason all three endings are badly done is they are nonsense.

You're not actually disagreeing with me here - I was going into detail about how they're nonsense, not saying that they weren't such a thing.

[J0urn3y]

Something else has been bothering me about the catalyst. He says that the Reapers are "their" solution to chaos. "Their" is plural, so who the heck else is he talking about?

Gah, why am I still trying to make sense of any of this?