325 réponses à ce sujet

[BahamutZ]

I can see where you are coming from Biotic Sage... and I agree that some imagination could be used to fit the endings into the game. I'm not totally against the end of the mass relays, or the crucible in the story.

The place where I will disagree with you is on the execution of the ending. Part of what Bioware does so well is emotionally connect us to this galaxy and its characters. I know they can do this well, because their treatment of the geth, the genophage, and the characters mordin, thane, and legion do incredible justice to their characters.

My issue is that the ending sort of takes the agency out of shepard's and by that nature our hands and provides an incredibly sterile ending to something that if they providing an emotional catharsis and closure to this story would have had fans swarming to bioware games for the next ten years. I'm mostly just dissappointed at the execution of that ending.

[Biotic Sage]

Dreogan wrote...

It's an ending. Maybe even a good one. Just not the right ending for Mass Effect's trilogy.

Bioware violated the writer-reader contract it has strengthened throughout three games. While what you've posted are fairly decent and well-thought-out, it doesn't change the fact that Bioware didn't live up to its end of the bargain of player choice. You can attempt to extend Mass Effect 3 to real life, but that doesn't apply-- what's important to fiction is self-consistancy, not being "like real life." Taking away player choice at the end of Mass Effect 3 is not self-consistant. Showing the results of one decision after a trilogy consisting of over 1000 variables is not self-consistant.

Well you make a fair point.  You want more direct evidence of your decisions which is perfectly fine, whereas I was satisfied with seeing my past choices come to fruition throughout the game.  We would have to disagree on your assertion that Bioware "takes away player choice at the end of ME3."  To me, it looked like 3 hugely different choices that alter the paradigm of all life in the Milky Way Galaxy in fundamentally different ways.

[thoaloa]

Edit: woah dont know where that formatting code came from.

Biotic Sage wrote...



This does not disprove the Catalyst's assertion.  Just because they happen
to be working together at the moment doesn't mean that an organic genocide at
the hands of synthetics isn't an inevitable eventuality.  Hell, they could
get along for hundreds of years, thousands of years, but if they eventually end
up destroying organics then the Catalyst assertion holds.  No obviously,
the Quarian/Geth situation doesn't prove anything either, it doesn't
prove the Catalyst right.  But don't use it as emprical evidence that the
synthetic uprising eventuality scenario is false, because that is
illogical.  Another thing on this argument that people say: "The
Quarians started it!"  It doesn't matter who "starts
it."  I'm sure that if the inevitability is true, then it can play
out in a number of different ways.  The point is that the ultimate
result is the same: organics dead at the hands of synthetics.  Now I
personally reject this, which is why I chose the destruction ending, but there
is nothing to prove or disprove the assertion other than my own beliefs and way
of thinking.

Actually there is a way to disprove it he is speaking about absolutes that no
matter what synthetics in any situation or cycle would destroy each other. This
is logically impossible as the current cycle has begun but the synthetics have
not tried to wipe out organic life (other than the reapers themselves, geth non-indoctronated have a crowning moment of heartwarming registered for preserving the homeworld in the hopes that they could one day get along with their creators). There
may be countless times when AIs go wrong and wipe out life but eventually
something will get them too (Kinda like life really). Obviously nothing lasts forever but to say it will
"Always" happen like clockwork is wrong on many different levels.

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. 

People are complaining that the three outcomes contain results that are fixed.
And that all of them involve that god kid thing and a pulse of energy. There
was insufficient variety to satisfy many people. Life luckily has so much
variety it’s impossible quantify.



Life has a lot more realism than any game can achieve due to the fact that it
is reality (By definition it is real as we can perceive). A game within life
trying to show the merit of choice should try to emulate that verity. You
cannot say you must have expected something when in life it can range from
beyond bleak to unrealistically happy. (Life strange like that sometimes it doesn’t
even seem real)

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."

The nothing mattered may be due to the perceived inferred holocaust that is now
going to happen that will set back the galaxy so far that by the time you get
to stand on the moon and look up at the stars the world of Mass Effect is no
longer. Not to mention earth is isolated and lacks resources to sustain itself
as the relays brought earth the materials to continue growing. (Not even
counting all the fleets stranded there) And any system without slow FTL fuel is
screwed period.

Modifié par thoaloa, 11 mars 2012 - 09:30 .

[Biotic Sage]

BahamutZ wrote...

I can see where you are coming from Biotic Sage... and I agree that some imagination could be used to fit the endings into the game. I'm not totally against the end of the mass relays, or the crucible in the story.

The place where I will disagree with you is on the execution of the ending. Part of what Bioware does so well is emotionally connect us to this galaxy and its characters. I know they can do this well, because their treatment of the geth, the genophage, and the characters mordin, thane, and legion do incredible justice to their characters.

My issue is that the ending sort of takes the agency out of shepard's and by that nature our hands and provides an incredibly sterile ending to something that if they providing an emotional catharsis and closure to this story would have had fans swarming to bioware games for the next ten years. I'm mostly just dissappointed at the execution of that ending.

Now that's one of the fair criticisms I was talking about.  "Closure" and "emotional satisfaction" are subjective and differ depending on what each individual brings to the table.  That's fine if you didn't feel that emotional catharsis from the end of the game, and you are right to criticize if you didn't.  For me, I felt all of my emotional catharsis from the relationships I'd cultivated in the rubble of London where I said my final goodbyes to my squad.  The ending was more about awe and hope for the future for me personally.

[Dreogan]

Biotic Sage wrote...

Dreogan wrote...

It's an ending. Maybe even a good one. Just not the right ending for Mass Effect's trilogy.

Bioware violated the writer-reader contract it has strengthened throughout three games. While what you've posted are fairly decent and well-thought-out, it doesn't change the fact that Bioware didn't live up to its end of the bargain of player choice. You can attempt to extend Mass Effect 3 to real life, but that doesn't apply-- what's important to fiction is self-consistancy, not being "like real life." Taking away player choice at the end of Mass Effect 3 is not self-consistant. Showing the results of one decision after a trilogy consisting of over 1000 variables is not self-consistant.

Well you make a fair point.  You want more direct evidence of your decisions which is perfectly fine, whereas I was satisfied with seeing my past choices come to fruition throughout the game.  We would have to disagree on your assertion that Bioware "takes away player choice at the end of ME3."  To me, it looked like 3 hugely different choices that alter the paradigm of all life in the Milky Way Galaxy in fundamentally different ways.

Except we were told how things would change, not shown. That is the core of bad storytelling: just an old man saying "Shepard is a legend" doesn't mean the reader will believe it.

There's so much more to it than player choice, though. 

Moved Repost

Modifié par Dreogan, 11 mars 2012 - 09:41 .

[BahamutZ]

I agree with you the choice did have impact... however it is left to you to fill in the blanks. I also can see how it alters the paradigm of life. To reiterate the point from my post... I feel the reasons gamers feel disappointed is because of the lack of an emotional catharsis to the ending. It left it on such a reasonably random note (I feel the conclusion wasn't foreshadowed or anything, meaning we feel no connection to it, and therefore we feel like we've been screwed with).

[NoUserNameHere]

#1 -- can be used for any point in time. Let's say that one cycles' AI servants have lived in peace with their organic creators for 10,000 years. Well, they could rebel, so who are we to question the God-Kid?

#2 -- Hey, it's the journey and not the destination! You may all die alone, but building a house on Tali's homeworld while you can still breathe is what's really important.

#3 -- They've already used at least 2 stock photos for assets of varying plot-importance. They seem to have reused some level assets as well... 

You're probably just miffed because you -- both as Shep and as a player -- got indoctrinated into the Control or Synth ending while we're fighting the powah over in Destroy.

[lasertank]

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!"

This does not disprove the Catalyst's assertion.  Just because they happen to be working together at the moment doesn't mean that an organic genocide at the hands of synthetics isn't an inevitable eventuality.  Hell, they could get along for hundreds of years, thousands of years, but if they eventually end up destroying organics then the Catalyst assertion holds.  No obviously, the Quarian/Geth situation doesn't prove anything either, it doesn't prove the Catalyst right.  But don't use it as emprical evidence that the synthetic uprising eventuality scenario is false, because that is illogical.  Another thing on this argument that people say: "The Quarians started it!"  It doesn't matter who "starts it."  I'm sure that if the inevitability is true, then it can play out in a number of different ways.  The point is that the ultimate result is the same: organics dead at the hands of synthetics.  Now I personally reject this, which is why I chose the destruction ending, but there is nothing to prove or disprove the assertion other than my own beliefs and way of thinking.

People are upset not because what Catalyst said is wrong. People get confused because why there's no argument made between Shepard and the Catalyst. Especially after all accomplishment Shepard did, do you think it's logic that Shepard accept what Catalyst said so quickly? 

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."

Of course the ending MUST reflect to my decisions made in previous games. A direct evidence of what I did is what most players expected and Bioware failed to deliver. If you are OK with that so be it. But don't expect others to ask anything less than that.

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.

As I said, Bioware failed to deliver a multiple ending to satisfy its fans. In DA:O they did a wonderful job but they failed to do so in ME3. If you think LAZY is inappropriate, fine. I will always use "failed to deliver" afterward.

[The Angry One]

Biotic Sage wrote...

dakka dakka wrote...

my question is how does any of this matter when the relays, fast travel system, is destroyed. Especially in the light of "Arrival" which had shown that the destruction of a relay = destruction of all life in the sector.

You made a load of choices but in the end it didn't really matter because everyone died.

you cured the Krogan...... GG they were incinerated
saved Earth..... oh wait, they died as well when the Relay went
Geth and EDI were murdered outright if you chose the destroy ending
how about all those nice folks trapped on the Citadel...... they are dead as well 

all the choices and progress you made in the entire series didn't amount to squat.

In my mind I considered destruction by an asteroid to be different than deactivation by the Crucible.  No where in the ending scene does it suggest that the Relays' energy being negated will result in a cataclysmic explosion like in Arrival.  I agree that Shepard should have asked the Catalyst about this just to clarify, that would have been nice.

Nice choice of words there. The relays are not deactivated. They are ripped apart. How that isn't going to lead to a massive release of energy is beyond me.

[Mev186]

That is the common fallacy of the apologists. "It's more Realistic" or like in this case "It's just like life itself" But heres the thing, I don't play games to be reminded of those things. I play Mass Effect to become the hero I can't be in real life. It's escapism. I'm not suggesting they change anything, simply add a DLC which I'll gladly pay for.

[RE2_Apocalypse]

Casey Hudsons words "Victory through Sacrifice" We lost a leader, a hero, and much for more, for life to preserve. Sacrifice.

Would you sacrifice your life for your Wife/Child? If it mean't they lived?

Shepard sacrificed his life in the only way he could at a huge cost to make sure humanity and the other species have a future.

[DemonsSouls]

I was fine with the ending up until the Normandy crashing scene. That was sloppy, out of place, and added nothing but confusion and annoyance to the end of the game. It was out of character for Joker, it had no explanation leading up to it, and it left more questions than answers.

The ending would have been so much more emotional if that whole scene was cut out or replaced with something much better like a montage of your crew (whoever survived based on your choices), looking up from earth and thinking of Shepard and the sacrifices he's made.

The ending was obviously rushed though. They didn't even bother to program a picture of Tali when Shepard makes his final decision. Why is he thinking of Liara and not Tali? Oh right, because programming a picture for all the love interests would be too much work so they fell back on Liara by default.

And then of course, Tali comes strolling out of the Normandy like everything is all good. No sadness in her face whatsoever. Not to mention, how the hell she got on the Normandy when she was with me on Earth...

It's like they ran out of time but felt they needed to add something with the crew and this is the best they could come up with... even though it makes no sense at all.

[realpokerjedi]

Drew Karpyshyn's original outline he had been working on since Mass Effect 1 was scrapped after he finsihed work on Mass Effect 2 to work on the old republic.
He then retired from Bioware and he was with them since knights of the old republic.
The original story was involving dark matter, that the reapers were ancient races fused together horribly to stop the spread of dark matter of organics.
They would harvest organics at the peak of the dark matter cycle, before it destroyed the universe.
At the end you would of had to chose between the saving the reapers and letting them harvest organics or...
Put your faith in organics to find a way to stop it the spread of dark energy.
Happy and tragic endings on both ends.
No relays were destroyed in these endings.
Mainly because they would destroy every system they were around.
Remember arrival?
I respect your points, however you were wrong.
Lets just accept the original endings planned out for 3 were scrapped in favor of a large batch of ass cookies.
The reason fans complain is the ending is a mutated plothole monster of a once amazing vision.

Modifié par realpokerjedi, 11 mars 2012 - 09:40 .

[Eurhetemec]

BahamutZ wrote...

I can see where you are coming from Biotic Sage... and I agree that some imagination could be used to fit the endings into the game. I'm not totally against the end of the mass relays, or the crucible in the story.

The place where I will disagree with you is on the execution of the ending. Part of what Bioware does so well is emotionally connect us to this galaxy and its characters. I know they can do this well, because their treatment of the geth, the genophage, and the characters mordin, thane, and legion do incredible justice to their characters.

My issue is that the ending sort of takes the agency out of shepard's and by that nature our hands and provides an incredibly sterile ending to something that if they providing an emotional catharsis and closure to this story would have had fans swarming to bioware games for the next ten years. I'm mostly just dissappointed at the execution of that ending.

I would agree with this, and add two other criticisms of the endings that the OP didn't address:

1) I didn't feel that the endings made thematic sense. They didn't FEEL like Mass Effect endings. Subjective? Yes, but that matters, in the end, if a lot of people feel the same way. They were weird and hard to explain (not impossible - hard) and seemed mystical in a very "70s Sci-Fi" way, when the whole ME series has been solidly in '80s/90s SF and 80s/90s action/war movie territory. So that felt really off.

2) Shepard inexplicably wasn't allowed to argue with choices presented, when all through the game, Shepard has been arguing with the choices presented, and up to that point, the game almost never fails to provide all the logical choices and then some. This was particularly weird because there was no "But I just want to turn off the Reapers, nothing else!" option. Even if there was no ending for that, the fact that Shepard couldn't say this, that he HAS to murder the Geth and EDI (and god knows who else!), really seemed completely wrong and out-of-character. I would have been fine with Shepard saying that and the Catalyst saying "Nah, suck it, pick from these three, ****!" (which is basically what he's doing), but no, suddenly Shepard just decides to go along, in a way Shepard never normally does.

[Eurhetemec]

realpokerjedi wrote...

Drew Karpyshyn's original outline he had been working on since Mass Effect 1 was scrapped after he finsihed work on Mass Effect 2 to work on the old republic.

Any proof for this, or should we assume that you're just making it up? That sounds a lot like Fanon to me.

[GodChildInTheMachine]

I have no idea how you could say that it is masterfully crafted. It IS lazy. It is an almost perfect example of poor writing choices. It does not follow the established story, there is absolutely no connection between the ending and the rest of the series, and it uses disingenuous plot devices to deliver an objectively contrived conclusion. Deus ex machina... ever heard of it? The entire story, no matter what preceded it, is suddenly resolved by some arbitrary force that was not foreshadowed or set up at all.

I also don't understand how you can say that the choices matter. First of all, I did not buy this game so that I could play Mass Effect imagination fun time in my own head and make believe the ending based on my own assumptions about what might happen. Secondly, the proof is in the mechanic. No matter what you do throughout the entire series, let alone ME3, the only thing that limits which color you blow up the galaxy with is you effective military rating. At that point, before you even push the magic button to make the game end, the illusion of choice and consequence is already washing its mouth out with a .45. No matter what choices you made you get exactly the same ending as anyone else, and no matter which color you choose the results are almost identical. The only real difference between any of the endings is whether or not the Geth and EDI die.

If you liked the ending, fine. But I don't comprehend how someone could so belligerently defend what is objectively bad writing from a critical perspective.

[The Angry One]

RE2_Apocalypse wrote...

Casey Hudsons words "Victory through Sacrifice" We lost a leader, a hero, and much for more, for life to preserve. Sacrifice.

Would you sacrifice your life for your Wife/Child? If it mean't they lived?

Shepard sacrificed his life in the only way he could at a huge cost to make sure humanity and the other species have a future.

Except that's a load of crap.
Shepard sacrificed alright. Sacrificed as the pawn of the leader of the Reapers.
Gave up and submitted to a genocidal maniac and let him control the situation.

All for what? Nothing. A devastated, cut off galaxy. All the races Shepard united betrayed to the god child's will.

[realpokerjedi]

Eurhetemec wrote...

realpokerjedi wrote...

Drew Karpyshyn's original outline he had been working on since Mass Effect 1 was scrapped after he finsihed work on Mass Effect 2 to work on the old republic.

Any proof for this, or should we assume that you're just making it up? That sounds a lot like Fanon to me.

Dark Matter was a subplot of mass effect 2, so already there is some truth in what I say, if I didn't prove it.
This was the original ending Bioware changed, some say it was due to a hacker, and it was speculated that is why Drew retired from bioware . "We want the original ending." forum topic here.
Will explain all this, with proof.

The facts remain though.

Dark Matter was explained in Mass Effect 2, not to be mentioned again in 3.
Drew retired from bioware, but not from writing and now the ending doesn't fit.
It's true.

Modifié par realpokerjedi, 11 mars 2012 - 09:45 .

[Dreogan]

Eurhetemec wrote...

realpokerjedi wrote...

Drew Karpyshyn's original outline he had been working on since Mass Effect 1 was scrapped after he finsihed work on Mass Effect 2 to work on the old republic.

Any proof for this, or should we assume that you're just making it up? That sounds a lot like Fanon to me.

This is the closest I can get at the moment, but it's been circulating for a while.

Linkies.

[RE2_Apocalypse]

Eurhetemec wrote...

realpokerjedi wrote...

Drew Karpyshyn's original outline he had been working on since Mass Effect 1 was scrapped after he finsihed work on Mass Effect 2 to work on the old republic.

Any proof for this, or should we assume that you're just making it up? That sounds a lot like Fanon to me.

Yea, apparently there is a bit about this change, but he apparently he doesn't know that Drew also did 3 of the novels, 2 of them were released after Mass Effect 2 not in the middle of it.  I'm sure, this was one of his ideas, but I'm sure they had others.

Heres the link I know someone posted about it:

http://www.ign.com/b...lers.250066288/

[Storenumber9]

Gonna try and make a good Rebuttal here:

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!"

This does not disprove the Catalyst's assertion.  Just because they happen to be working together at the moment doesn't mean that an organic genocide at the hands of synthetics isn't an inevitable eventuality.  Hell, they could get along for hundreds of years, thousands of years, but if they eventually end up destroying organics then the Catalyst assertion holds.  No obviously, the Quarian/Geth situation doesn't prove anything either, it doesn't prove the Catalyst right.  But don't use it as emprical evidence that the synthetic uprising eventuality scenario is false, because that is illogical.  Another thing on this argument that people say: "The Quarians started it!"  It doesn't matter who "starts it."  I'm sure that if the inevitability is true, then it can play out in a number of different ways.  The point is that the ultimate result is the same: organics dead at the hands of synthetics.  Now I personally reject this, which is why I chose the destruction ending, but there is nothing to prove or disprove the assertion other than my own beliefs and way of thinking.

Like someone else posted here, the Geth, at one point, chose to exile the Quarians instead of killling them. In fact, they wanted to avoid all contact with organics until Sovereign arrived. The fact that the Geth were willing to help in the last fight is a sure sign that things could be different, along with EDI and Joker.

Either way, it's not explored enough to give much notice. Another problem with this scenario is that it kind of comes out of left field. That's one of the main reasons why it's so jarring to a lot of people. The supposed original ending actually made a lot more sense story wise, as it seemed ME1 and 2 were building up to that. (Although, I'm not sure how true it really is.)

Lastly, there is the problem that a highly advanced civilization came up with this, but also had the technology to create the Reapers. Without any information of the civilization before, how do we even know what he says is true?  Was there genocide? Did the singularity bring about an apocolypse? If so, how long did it take for this advanced race to come up with this plan, and why didn't their perspective change over time?

There's just a whole lot of information missing here.  And this missing information creates holes in the story, and personally, I believe it devalues the reapers a bit.

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."

If you're going by the "oh well, that's life" excuse, then Shepard might as well died in Mass Effect 2. Because you know what? Oh well, that's life.

When you spend three games in a universe, with various characters, surrounded by cultures that continue to clash, and spend one game trying to fix them, most people want to know how it all worked out.  From a story perspective, it's a bad idea to cut off the audience right after the big climax, especially when they've been following them around for so long.

Like someone said, it would be like ending Lord of the Rings with Frodo throwing the ring into the fire. 

So, saying "just because we don't see it doesn't mean your choices don't matter," is kind of a stretch to defend the ending.  That's implying the audience doesn't need or is undeserving to see how the story ends both on a personal and galactic level.

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.

That, I can agree on. 

I don't think Bioware just said "Oh, well F-it" and spewed out this ending from no where. I think they did work hard on it, but I don't think they took enough time to sit back and see what it actually was before they released it.

Or at least, none of the writers did. If they did, they must have been smoking something, because everything else in the game is nearly perfect.

[Greed1914]

1: Maybe the Geth do end up deciding to attack organics. Maybe it does take thousands of years. The thing is, at a minimum, what we've seen has shown that the Catalyst's assertion is not necessarily true. We have at least earned a stay of execution until the point that the Geth do turn on organics.

The Catalyst simply isn't willing to acknowledge that perhaps, after countless cycles, this time is different.

2: I do genuinely believe that everything else makes it worth playing again. However, the "nothing mattered" attitude has some weight considering how we were led to believe that all our big decisions would weigh in on the ending, only to have that not be the case.

3: The "lazy" comments aren't really directed at the rest of the game or series. 99.9% of the time I was having a blast.  Most folks complaining about the ending will tell you that they were loving it until the last few minutes. Then we get to the end and see how the different endings we were promised were cosmetic. Yeah, the implications of the three options might be big, but we don't see how they play out. What we see is the same scenes with different colors.

Modifié par Greed1914, 11 mars 2012 - 09:50 .

[viperabyss]

Biotic Sage wrote...

[/i]This does not disprove the Catalyst's assertion.  Just because they happen to be working together at the moment doesn't mean that an organic genocide at the hands of synthetics isn't an inevitable eventuality.  Hell, they could get along for hundreds of years, thousands of years, but if they eventually end up destroying organics then the Catalyst assertion holds.  No obviously, the Quarian/Geth situation doesn't prove anything either, it doesn't prove the Catalyst right.  But don't use it as emprical evidence that the synthetic uprising eventuality scenario is false, because that is illogical.  Another thing on this argument that people say: "The Quarians started it!"  It doesn't matter who "starts it."  I'm sure that if the inevitability is true, then it can play out in a number of different ways.  The point is that the ultimate result is the same: organics dead at the hands of synthetics.  Now I personally reject this, which is why I chose the destruction ending, but there is nothing to prove or disprove the assertion other than my own beliefs and way of thinking.

Sure, you can claim that. But again, how would you know? No one can see the future, and history is written everyday. Just because people have been doing in the past couple cycles doesn't mean it will repeat again. Personally I think the Catalyst (or Star-brat) is wrong on that account, but arguing against a fictional character is pretty pointless.

Therefore I think Bioware forgot to add the option to "refuse". In the past 2 games, Shepard is often seen as someone who can do "the impossible", such as finding Ilos, or everyone surviving the suicide mission. Even in ME3, Shepard cured the genophage, brought turian and krogan together, and ended the war between Quarian and Geth. Bioware gave Shepard the option to do all those, but did not allow the users to refuse the choices offered by the Star-brat? That seemed a bit odd.

[/i]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."

I don't think that's what they meant. When they said "nothing mattered", they meant their hours of hardwork did not transform into something concrete. For instance, saving Wrex is a huge variable that was imported from the first ME. What concrete benefit does it have for the ending of ME3? Practically none. If Wrex died, Wreave would take over, and you can still attempt to cure the genophage, although you'd lose out on some interesting dialogues. Either way, if you choose to cure the genophage, you'd gain the support of Krogan. Frankly, that is quite unacceptable. What is the point of saving Wrex in ME if there's no other added benefits that gamers can actually use?

Furthermore, assuming the ending is canonical, then that means all the mass relay is destroyed, Earth is devastated, and everyone is stranded in the Sol system. All the species that were fighting to take back Earth ended up dead from the explosion of the mass relay. So what's the point of reuniting the factions, if everyone is going to die anyway?

[/i]
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.

I agree that they didn't get lazy, but they did cut corners (to meet the deadline I presume), and it can be seen throughout the game: less dialogue, less choices, and the journal system (really, Bioware?). The most obvious evidence would be Tali. As opposed to hiring another model, Bioware simply took a photo from royalty free photo website, photoshopped out the fingers, added some lines, and voila, the face of the most anticipated reveal of the trilogy. 

And I'm pretty damn sure Bioware doesn't want to end one of the most celebrated games of this decade with an ending like that. The ending was a straight lift from the ending of Deus Ex, down to the very last detail. Anyone who has played all of the installment would know the ending is simply unacceptable. The ending introduced a new character, a new plot line, and no attempt to finish the original plotline. 

[RE2_Apocalypse]

RE2_Apocalypse wrote...

Eurhetemec wrote...

realpokerjedi wrote...

Drew Karpyshyn's original outline he had been working on since Mass Effect 1 was scrapped after he finsihed work on Mass Effect 2 to work on the old republic.

Any proof for this, or should we assume that you're just making it up? That sounds a lot like Fanon to me.

Yea, apparently there is a bit about this change, but he apparently he doesn't know that Drew also did 3 of the novels, 2 of them were released after Mass Effect 2 not in the middle of it.  I'm sure, this was one of his ideas, but I'm sure they had others.

Heres the link I know someone posted about it:

http://www.ign.com/b...lers.250066288/

But think about this from the whole scope of the series, which I'm inclined to believe most ppl raging don't

The Reapers aren't hypocrites (in concept) in the Singularity Motivation because they don't perceive themselves as machines wiping out organics. They see themselves as immortal vessels that preserve a civilization forever that just happens to be synthetic. They see themselves as the saviors of organics for letting them grow and prosper and then harvesting them before they evolve to the point of singularity. "Imposing order on the chaos of organic evolution" as Sovereign said.  Another thing he says is "You live because we allow it, you die because we demand it" Something to that extent.

[Biotic Sage]

Mev186 wrote...

That is the common fallacy of the apologists. "It's more Realistic" or like in this case "It's just like life itself" But heres the thing, I don't play games to be reminded of those things. I play Mass Effect to become the hero I can't be in real life. It's escapism. I'm not suggesting they change anything, simply add a DLC which I'll gladly pay for.

I approached Mass Effect in a fundamentally different way than you.  I approached it as interactive cinema, whereas you approached it as a story-based RPG like DA:O.  Both are great to me, but I like my films with ambiguity, powerful imagery, and an impactful finale so I was satisfied on all fronts. 

As for escapism, you are misusing the term.  You were playing Mass Effect for wish-fulfillment, which is fine because video games are great at this; they can make you feel empowered and invincible unlike any other medium.  Escapism isn't synonymous with this though.  Escapism is being immersed in the universe of a work of fiction, so I was experiencing just as much escapism as you, we just had different expectations.