Aller au contenu

Photo

People who are criticizing the endings: A couple of things to note


325 réponses à ce sujet

#51
realpokerjedi

realpokerjedi
  • Members
  • 84 messages

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/


I do know, about his novels and I own them all, including his Star Wars work.
Nothing in them explains, nor supports the current ending of Mass Effect 3, I have no idea what you read.
He left to work on projects and the old republic.
The fact remains something upset him enough to leave Bioware, that is the only part that is really speculation why he left.
He is a class act and only said it was his choice.
Most would agree, the endings would fit nicely and tie up in with two better.
Even though I am not a huge fan about these endings either, they are far better than what we got.

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


#52
Qutayba

Qutayba
  • Members
  • 1 295 messages
Bioticsage, I'd agree that there is a certain logic to the endings. The notion of the technological singularity, synthetic AI's surpassing of organic life, makes a lot of sense, and it's been an ongoing idea in the series. At a philosophical level, the final choices are not completely from left field.

The problem is that most of Shepard's key choices are not philosophical, but personal. Take the genophage: you might be inclined to consider the philosophical problems of the issue, but for many, the deciding factor is your experience with Wrex and Grunt. Your loyalty to them might override any other considerations. It's what makes the choice hard. The Salarian argument makes sense, on a logical level, but it might not make sense on an emotional level.

The final decisions presented by the Catalyst make some kind of sense on an abstract level. It's high conceptual science-fiction. But it's utterly divorced from the personal. I went with the green ending, because I couldn't bear to destroy the geth with the red path after all I'd been through. The blue ending seemed to validate TIM's agenda, and I couldn't bear that. But both the red and green endings seemed to validate the logic of the Reapers - synthetic and organic CANNOT live together in peace, and so you must enslave, destroy, or homogenize.

It felt that no matter what you choose, you have to surrender to the enemy's logic. For me it wasn't about Shepard living or dying: the game prepared you for Shepard's death, in my opinion. But to give in to their logic felt like a defeat: you have to acquiesce to the hostility of the universe and the impossibility of inter-species/racial harmony. On top of that, the galactic unity that you've worked so hard to build is shattered into isolated star systems no longer connected by the relays. And let's not even get to the likelihood that many star systems are annihilated from the relay explosions (you can see the explosions from OUTSIDE the galaxy, for gods' sake). It just feels like a colossal defeat even in the best of endings.

#53
Biotic Sage

Biotic Sage
  • Members
  • 2 842 messages

RE2_Apocalypse wrote...

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.


Exactly, the preservation factor is overlooked by so many.  Yes, all of us humans think that it's the same as killing, but that's why it's so horrific: because by the logic of the Reapers they are doing us a favor by "preserving us" before we are killed by synthetics.  This logic makes sense based on their belief that synthetics will inevitably destroy organics.

#54
x SteelSaint x

x SteelSaint x
  • Members
  • 6 messages

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.


basically the good ending is conrolling the reapers cause then no one dies lol except you, its retarded i put so much work into helping the geth and **** and now they die after they turned good some bullshiiiit

#55
RE2_Apocalypse

RE2_Apocalypse
  • Members
  • 99 messages

realpokerjedi wrote...

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/


I do know, about his novels and I own them all, including his Star Wars work.
Nothing in the explains, nor supports the current ending of Mass Effect 3, I have no idea what you read.
He left to work on projects and the old republic.
The fact remains something upset him enough to leave Bioware, that is the only part that is really speculation why he left.
He is a class act and only said it was his choice.


He started his original work on Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic stuff before Mass Effect then Bioware moved to ME.  Its only natural that he would like to return to it, if he liked that as well.  He could have had it all set up for them and figured it was ok to leave.  Also my own speculation

#56
realpokerjedi

realpokerjedi
  • Members
  • 84 messages

RE2_Apocalypse wrote...

realpokerjedi wrote...

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/


I do know, about his novels and I own them all, including his Star Wars work.
Nothing in the explains, nor supports the current ending of Mass Effect 3, I have no idea what you read.
He left to work on projects and the old republic.
The fact remains something upset him enough to leave Bioware, that is the only part that is really speculation why he left.
He is a class act and only said it was his choice.


He started his original work on Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic stuff before Mass Effect then Bioware moved to ME.  Its only natural that he would like to return to it, if he liked that as well.  He could have had it all set up for them and figured it was ok to leave.  Also my own speculation


That is a valid point, my assumptions about him leaving aren't any more correct than yours.
However what is correct, Dark Matter was mentioned in Mass Effect 2 but not in Mass Effect 3 at all.
To quote one fan.
"The original plot is what it should have always been, the horrible endings now make sense, now they need to fix it.There wasn't even a need for this plot change, god dammit."

Modifié par realpokerjedi, 11 mars 2012 - 09:55 .


#57
RE2_Apocalypse

RE2_Apocalypse
  • Members
  • 99 messages

Biotic Sage wrote...

RE2_Apocalypse wrote...

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.


Exactly, the preservation factor is overlooked by so many.  Yes, all of us humans think that it's the same as killing, but that's why it's so horrific: because by the logic of the Reapers they are doing us a favor by "preserving us" before we are killed by synthetics.  This logic makes sense based on their belief that synthetics will inevitably destroy organics.


Yes, the whole Mass Effect franchise is woven into novels & comics, not just games.  They were not gonna reveal the full intentions of the reapers in ME1 or ME2, but instead left subtle hints in the games.  Such as above, its worked for me, and am impressed by the franchise and will continue to support it.

#58
Rulycar

Rulycar
  • Members
  • 307 messages

Dreogan wrote...

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


Why wouldn't the player believe it?
You played Shepard ... don't you remember "being" legendary?
You were "shown" life goes on ... because you "were" legendary.
Noone "told" me anything ... I "played" Shepard.
... what do you think?  Too many "s?

#59
Storenumber9

Storenumber9
  • Members
  • 357 messages

Biotic Sage wrote...

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.


Okay, I'm sorry, but this just comes off as bit pretentious.

Be it whatever it is, Mass Effect was suppose to mold to the player's ideals. The ending dissolves that notion.

#60
realpokerjedi

realpokerjedi
  • Members
  • 84 messages

RE2_Apocalypse wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

RE2_Apocalypse wrote...

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.


Exactly, the preservation factor is overlooked by so many.  Yes, all of us humans think that it's the same as killing, but that's why it's so horrific: because by the logic of the Reapers they are doing us a favor by "preserving us" before we are killed by synthetics.  This logic makes sense based on their belief that synthetics will inevitably destroy organics.


Yes, the whole Mass Effect franchise is woven into novels & comics, not just games.  They were not gonna reveal the full intentions of the reapers in ME1 or ME2, but instead left subtle hints in the games.  Such as above, its worked for me, and am impressed by the franchise and will continue to support it.


I personally hated the endings, and seeing the large numbers of posts all over the internet I am not alone.
However I respect your opinion, I am glad someone out of all this loved the endings.
I only wish I did as well and the series wasn't ruined for me.

Modifié par realpokerjedi, 11 mars 2012 - 10:00 .


#61
ChaosMarky

ChaosMarky
  • Members
  • 299 messages
I get what the choices meant! Heck, i'm all for the sad/mature/etc. ending that people rant out there. I just dont like it when your endings are vastly similar with the exception of the "color scheme" you get to pick in the end.

Maybe if there was an epilogue explaining the consequences of the choice (even in text), it would've made the ending more acceptable. And c'mon.. If this really WAS closure for the series.. Can Bioware honestly say this was the best way they could think of to end such a critically acclaimed series?

Definitely not, i refuse to accept that this is the best Bioware could muster for a series finale.

#62
RE2_Apocalypse

RE2_Apocalypse
  • Members
  • 99 messages

realpokerjedi wrote...

RE2_Apocalypse wrote...

realpokerjedi wrote...

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/


I do know, about his novels and I own them all, including his Star Wars work.
Nothing in the explains, nor supports the current ending of Mass Effect 3, I have no idea what you read.
He left to work on projects and the old republic.
The fact remains something upset him enough to leave Bioware, that is the only part that is really speculation why he left.
He is a class act and only said it was his choice.


He started his original work on Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic stuff before Mass Effect then Bioware moved to ME.  Its only natural that he would like to return to it, if he liked that as well.  He could have had it all set up for them and figured it was ok to leave.  Also my own speculation


That is a valid point, my assumptions about him leaving aren't any more correct than yours.
However what is correct, Dark Matter was mentioned in Mass Effect 2 but not in Mass Effect 3 at all.
To quote one fan.
"The original plot is what it should have always been, the horrible endings now make sense, now they need to fix it.There wasn't even a need for this plot change, god dammit."


Honestly I think ME2's mention of Dark Energy was just a throw in for more conversation use, but was there in case they wanted to use it.  Future title use?

#63
Dreogan

Dreogan
  • Members
  • 1 415 messages

Rulycar wrote...

Dreogan wrote...

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


Why wouldn't the player believe it?
You played Shepard ... don't you remember "being" legendary?
You were "shown" life goes on ... because you "were" legendary.
Noone "told" me anything ... I "played" Shepard.
... what do you think?  Too many "s?


I might've seen him being legendary, but that doesn't mean I believe he is a legend. For all I know, my squad still thinks he's dead. Anderson is dead. Hackett lost contact with him.

Modifié par Dreogan, 11 mars 2012 - 10:03 .


#64
realpokerjedi

realpokerjedi
  • Members
  • 84 messages

RE2_Apocalypse wrote...

realpokerjedi wrote...

RE2_Apocalypse wrote...

realpokerjedi wrote...

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/


I do know, about his novels and I own them all, including his Star Wars work.
Nothing in the explains, nor supports the current ending of Mass Effect 3, I have no idea what you read.
He left to work on projects and the old republic.
The fact remains something upset him enough to leave Bioware, that is the only part that is really speculation why he left.
He is a class act and only said it was his choice.


He started his original work on Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic stuff before Mass Effect then Bioware moved to ME.  Its only natural that he would like to return to it, if he liked that as well.  He could have had it all set up for them and figured it was ok to leave.  Also my own speculation


That is a valid point, my assumptions about him leaving aren't any more correct than yours.
However what is correct, Dark Matter was mentioned in Mass Effect 2 but not in Mass Effect 3 at all.
To quote one fan.
"The original plot is what it should have always been, the horrible endings now make sense, now they need to fix it.There wasn't even a need for this plot change, god dammit."


Honestly I think ME2's mention of Dark Energy was just a throw in for more conversation use, but was there in case they wanted to use it.  Future title use?


Guess we won't know until Bioware sheds light on this, and who knows if they ever will?
I do know that it seems people would be happy with most motivations by the reapers, that didn't involve a god child.
Seriously when he got lifted up to the top, and of a flash mob come out with his whole crew, and Harbinger flew down and lowered a disco ball, as they danced about to friday by rebecca black.
And at the end of the song Alduin flies down, colored like falcor from never ending story.
I would have enjoyed it more, at least I would have laughed.

Modifié par realpokerjedi, 11 mars 2012 - 10:06 .


#65
Dragoni89

Dragoni89
  • Members
  • 337 messages
To the OP or whoever keeps saying ME3 had a good ending. Here is a quote on what Mike Gamble defines as a BAD Ending. So you guys can all take a hike.

"There are many different endings. We wouldn’t do it any other way.
How could you go through all three campaigns playing as your Shepard and
then be forced into a bespoke ending that everyone gets? But I can’t
say any more than that…"

Gee! This sounds really familiar. Oh wait this is Mass Effect 3 ending.

#66
deathscythe517

deathscythe517
  • Members
  • 539 messages

Qutayba wrote...

Bioticsage, I'd agree that there is a certain logic to the endings. The notion of the technological singularity, synthetic AI's surpassing of organic life, makes a lot of sense, and it's been an ongoing idea in the series. At a philosophical level, the final choices are not completely from left field.

The problem is that most of Shepard's key choices are not philosophical, but personal. Take the genophage: you might be inclined to consider the philosophical problems of the issue, but for many, the deciding factor is your experience with Wrex and Grunt. Your loyalty to them might override any other considerations. It's what makes the choice hard. The Salarian argument makes sense, on a logical level, but it might not make sense on an emotional level.

The final decisions presented by the Catalyst make some kind of sense on an abstract level. It's high conceptual science-fiction. But it's utterly divorced from the personal. I went with the green ending, because I couldn't bear to destroy the geth with the red path after all I'd been through. The blue ending seemed to validate TIM's agenda, and I couldn't bear that. But both the red and green endings seemed to validate the logic of the Reapers - synthetic and organic CANNOT live together in peace, and so you must enslave, destroy, or homogenize.

It felt that no matter what you choose, you have to surrender to the enemy's logic. For me it wasn't about Shepard living or dying: the game prepared you for Shepard's death, in my opinion. But to give in to their logic felt like a defeat: you have to acquiesce to the hostility of the universe and the impossibility of inter-species/racial harmony. On top of that, the galactic unity that you've worked so hard to build is shattered into isolated star systems no longer connected by the relays. And let's not even get to the likelihood that many star systems are annihilated from the relay explosions (you can see the explosions from OUTSIDE the galaxy, for gods' sake). It just feels like a colossal defeat even in the best of endings.


It doesn't make sense though, surrendering to the Catalyst's logic is WHY most of us are pissed off, paragon Shepard would likely use a paradox to make the thing self terminate and renegade Shepard would do what he always does when the Reapers are involved: shoot things. If the Catalyst were able to present any form of proof on its part MAYBE there wouldn't be such a backlash but as it stands it did not present proof, we are railroaded into agreeing with it despite the evidence WE have gathered from first hand experience over the course of three ****ing long and mostly enjoyable games that AIs don't seek out and attack organics, nearly all the instances of synthetic violence were self defense and the few instances that weren't were  the result Catalyst's solution were the ones responsible for spurring them into violence (Sovereign and the geth).

This is why the ending feels forced, feels wrong, and doesn't fit the tone. At best the man-or-machine thing was a side plot at worst it was barely a footnote, the story has always been about the consequences of your actions brought about what you do via the evidence you have on hand. You can play as an idealist or a cynical realist. In the end that is completely thrown out the window and this is why we're upset.

I don't know why people who support the ending feel the need to butt heads with the many people who don't but more often than not it's the ones who think Bioware didn't do anything wrong in choosing such endings that tend to hold themselves with a smug sense of superiority, which, unsurprisingly annoys people. When you ignore all the well thought out points and only respond to things to - in essence - shout and point "see! see! they're all just unintelligent! they don't get it! and they're just a bunch of violent rabble!" It's the same tactic that news networks use to paint protestors in a negative light to make the cop's job of unjustly breaking up the protest that much easier.

I don't know what your damage is, Biotic Sage, but many people have responded in clear logical and reasonable posts why the endings don't fit with the universe and yet you only seem concerned with arguing with people who do not do such or reaffirming your own ego. I can't tell you to leave, I won't tell you to shut up, but I can say I can see the game you're playing and it's the reason why people get pissed at you.

Modifié par deathscythe517, 11 mars 2012 - 10:07 .


#67
realpokerjedi

realpokerjedi
  • Members
  • 84 messages

deathscythe517 wrote...

Qutayba wrote...

Bioticsage, I'd agree that there is a certain logic to the endings. The notion of the technological singularity, synthetic AI's surpassing of organic life, makes a lot of sense, and it's been an ongoing idea in the series. At a philosophical level, the final choices are not completely from left field.

The problem is that most of Shepard's key choices are not philosophical, but personal. Take the genophage: you might be inclined to consider the philosophical problems of the issue, but for many, the deciding factor is your experience with Wrex and Grunt. Your loyalty to them might override any other considerations. It's what makes the choice hard. The Salarian argument makes sense, on a logical level, but it might not make sense on an emotional level.

The final decisions presented by the Catalyst make some kind of sense on an abstract level. It's high conceptual science-fiction. But it's utterly divorced from the personal. I went with the green ending, because I couldn't bear to destroy the geth with the red path after all I'd been through. The blue ending seemed to validate TIM's agenda, and I couldn't bear that. But both the red and green endings seemed to validate the logic of the Reapers - synthetic and organic CANNOT live together in peace, and so you must enslave, destroy, or homogenize.

It felt that no matter what you choose, you have to surrender to the enemy's logic. For me it wasn't about Shepard living or dying: the game prepared you for Shepard's death, in my opinion. But to give in to their logic felt like a defeat: you have to acquiesce to the hostility of the universe and the impossibility of inter-species/racial harmony. On top of that, the galactic unity that you've worked so hard to build is shattered into isolated star systems no longer connected by the relays. And let's not even get to the likelihood that many star systems are annihilated from the relay explosions (you can see the explosions from OUTSIDE the galaxy, for gods' sake). It just feels like a colossal defeat even in the best of endings.


It doesn't make sense though, surrendering to the Catalyst's logic is WHY most of us are pissed off, paragon Shepard would likely use a paradox to make the thing self terminate and renegade Shepard would do what he always does when the Reapers are involved: shoot things. If the Catalyst were able to present any form of proof on its part MAYBE there wouldn't be such a backlash but as it stands it did not present proof, we are railroaded into agreeing with it despite the evidence WE have gathered from first hand experience over the course of three ****ing long and mostly enjoyable games that AIs don't seek out and attack organics, nearly all the instances of synthetic violence were self defense and the few instances that weren't were  the result Catalyst's solution were the ones responsible for spurring them into violence (Sovereign and the geth).

This is why the ending feels forced, feels wrong, and doesn't fit the tone. At best the man-or-machine thing was a side plot at worst it was barely a footnote, the story has always been about the consequences of your actions brought about what you do via the evidence you have on hand. You can play as an idealist or a cynical realist. In the end that is completely thrown out the window and this is why we're upset.

I don't know why people who support the ending feel the need to butt heads with the many people who don't but more often than not it's the ones who think Bioware didn't do anything wrong in choosing such endings that tend to hold themselves with a smug sense of superiority, which, unsurprisingly annoys people. When you ignore all the well thought out points and only respond to things to - in essence - shout and point "see! see! they're all just unintelligent! they don't get it! and they're just a bunch of violent rabble!" It's the same tactic that news networks use to paint protestors in a negative light to make the cop's job of unjustly breaking up the protest that much easier.

I don't know what your damage is, Biotic Sage, but many people have responded in clear logical and reasonable posts why the endings don't fit with the universe and yet you only seem concerned with arguing with people who do not do such or reaffirming your own ego. I can't tell you to leave, I won't tell you to shut up, but I can say I can see the game you're playing and it's the reason why people get pissed at you.


Perfectly said.
To be fair I think Biotic Sage is just emarking on a journey of denial and rationalization.
So the franchise isn't ruined for him.
I wish I could do that as well, but there is no way I ever could.
I think I speak for all of the let down fans by saying, we wished we could have loved the endings too.
That we want to love the endings just not the ones we got.
We do not want to hate this game.
We do not want to be shattered by the climax of it.
We just wanted to love this game, and see it wraped up with respect and to enjoy it.
Those of us who are uninspired by the endings never wanted to sling hate towards this game.

Modifié par realpokerjedi, 11 mars 2012 - 10:13 .


#68
FoxShadowblade

FoxShadowblade
  • Members
  • 1 017 messages
I read halfway down the first page to where he said "alleged plotholes", and immediately dismissed his argument.

#69
RE2_Apocalypse

RE2_Apocalypse
  • Members
  • 99 messages

realpokerjedi wrote...

deathscythe517 wrote...

Qutayba wrote...

Bioticsage, I'd agree that there is a certain logic to the endings. The notion of the technological singularity, synthetic AI's surpassing of organic life, makes a lot of sense, and it's been an ongoing idea in the series. At a philosophical level, the final choices are not completely from left field.

The problem is that most of Shepard's key choices are not philosophical, but personal. Take the genophage: you might be inclined to consider the philosophical problems of the issue, but for many, the deciding factor is your experience with Wrex and Grunt. Your loyalty to them might override any other considerations. It's what makes the choice hard. The Salarian argument makes sense, on a logical level, but it might not make sense on an emotional level.

The final decisions presented by the Catalyst make some kind of sense on an abstract level. It's high conceptual science-fiction. But it's utterly divorced from the personal. I went with the green ending, because I couldn't bear to destroy the geth with the red path after all I'd been through. The blue ending seemed to validate TIM's agenda, and I couldn't bear that. But both the red and green endings seemed to validate the logic of the Reapers - synthetic and organic CANNOT live together in peace, and so you must enslave, destroy, or homogenize.

It felt that no matter what you choose, you have to surrender to the enemy's logic. For me it wasn't about Shepard living or dying: the game prepared you for Shepard's death, in my opinion. But to give in to their logic felt like a defeat: you have to acquiesce to the hostility of the universe and the impossibility of inter-species/racial harmony. On top of that, the galactic unity that you've worked so hard to build is shattered into isolated star systems no longer connected by the relays. And let's not even get to the likelihood that many star systems are annihilated from the relay explosions (you can see the explosions from OUTSIDE the galaxy, for gods' sake). It just feels like a colossal defeat even in the best of endings.


It doesn't make sense though, surrendering to the Catalyst's logic is WHY most of us are pissed off, paragon Shepard would likely use a paradox to make the thing self terminate and renegade Shepard would do what he always does when the Reapers are involved: shoot things. If the Catalyst were able to present any form of proof on its part MAYBE there wouldn't be such a backlash but as it stands it did not present proof, we are railroaded into agreeing with it despite the evidence WE have gathered from first hand experience over the course of three ****ing long and mostly enjoyable games that AIs don't seek out and attack organics, nearly all the instances of synthetic violence were self defense and the few instances that weren't were  the result Catalyst's solution were the ones responsible for spurring them into violence (Sovereign and the geth).

This is why the ending feels forced, feels wrong, and doesn't fit the tone. At best the man-or-machine thing was a side plot at worst it was barely a footnote, the story has always been about the consequences of your actions brought about what you do via the evidence you have on hand. You can play as an idealist or a cynical realist. In the end that is completely thrown out the window and this is why we're upset.

I don't know why people who support the ending feel the need to butt heads with the many people who don't but more often than not it's the ones who think Bioware didn't do anything wrong in choosing such endings that tend to hold themselves with a smug sense of superiority, which, unsurprisingly annoys people. When you ignore all the well thought out points and only respond to things to - in essence - shout and point "see! see! they're all just unintelligent! they don't get it! and they're just a bunch of violent rabble!" It's the same tactic that news networks use to paint protestors in a negative light to make the cop's job of unjustly breaking up the protest that much easier.

I don't know what your damage is, Biotic Sage, but many people have responded in clear logical and reasonable posts why the endings don't fit with the universe and yet you only seem concerned with arguing with people who do not do such or reaffirming your own ego. I can't tell you to leave, I won't tell you to shut up, but I can say I can see the game you're playing and it's the reason why people get pissed at you.


Perfectly said.
To be fair I think Biotic Sage is just emarking on a journey of denial and rationalization.
So the franchise isn't ruined for him.
I wish I could do that as well, but there is no way I ever could.
I think I speak for all of the let down fans by saying, we wished we could have loved the endings too.
That we want to love the endings just not the ones we got.
We do not want to hate this game.
We do not want to be shattered by the climax of it.
We just wanted to love this game, and see it wraped up with respect and to enjoy it.
Those of us who are uninspired by the endings never wanted to sling hate towards this game.


Well for me, I don't hate the endings, sure they could be touched up a bit.  But its nothing for me to spit on the entire franchise for.  And I'm not in denial.  I respect your opinion on it bro, and I understand some peoples frustration to an extent, some is too far though.  I understand the full scope of the endings, from the entire franchise point of view.  Books, Novels, not just the Games...  Which I'm afraid I don't think most ppl do...  And I'm inclinded to agree with Biotic Sage more.

Modifié par RE2_Apocalypse, 11 mars 2012 - 10:20 .


#70
Hyperz

Hyperz
  • Members
  • 19 messages
 OP probably works for Bioware.  

#71
RE2_Apocalypse

RE2_Apocalypse
  • Members
  • 99 messages

Hyperz wrote...

 OP probably works for Bioware.  


Honestly bro, get off these forums.  What a stupid remark.  Just because 5% of the ppl on the forums don't mind the endings such as myself or Biotic Sage doesn't mean we work for Bioware.

#72
AofTS

AofTS
  • Members
  • 6 messages
The main problem, I think, that Bioware hasn't explained why war between organics and syntetics has the posibility to exist. In time every AI will question creators about purpose of their existence. In fact AI will be plagued by questions of existentialism. And I have big assumption, that syntetics are unable to find answers as their creators can't do this too. So AI will begin hating us only because we have created them. And we have examples in real life. Every day we are cursing our God, our parents, fathers because we don't see any real purpose of existence in our world of violense and hatred. We have no value or importance and we are mortal. We are unable to find our place and everything we can do is to hate. More of it, WE killed Jesus long ago. And in the place of syntetics we will be their Gods. Geth are the only exception. And instead of teaching us Bioware decided to show only destruction. That is why people so depressed with those endings.

Sorry for bad English, but I wanted to tell you about this very much. I hope, you understand me.

#73
WarBaby2

WarBaby2
  • Members
  • 1 019 messages
Ok, again, I do agree! For me, the endings are not bad... what I critizise is:
a) How they came to be (BW needed to change them because of the leak)and thats way...
B) they feel dijointed, incomplete and unsetisfiying... and poorly executed...

Most of us know what the endings implay! But whe didn't whant inplications... whe wanted to see where the whole story goes. You know? Future with hope? One scene, showing random crew members on an unknown planet doesn't cut it there... sorry.

Modifié par WarBaby2, 11 mars 2012 - 10:29 .


#74
Mr. Gogeta34

Mr. Gogeta34
  • Members
  • 4 033 messages
@OP

1.  If Synthetics wiping out Organics is the issue here... why didn't the Reapers just reap synthetics?

2.  No choices made during the end changed anything major... what happened to the wildly diverging paths?  It's simply not there.

3.  Bioware did get lazy... they factored more variables in ME2's suicide mission, than in Shepard's final mission.  They didn't give any sort of epilogue or cover any sort of aftermath.  It was lazy in its handling, could've been far more fleshed out... and previous titles were.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 11 mars 2012 - 10:36 .


#75
krthomps1

krthomps1
  • Members
  • 16 messages
This discussion has been profoundly disappointing to me.  I was never so sure that Mass Effect was a genuine work of art as when I played through the ending.  It was beautiful, heartbreaking, climactic and intense.  But more than these things, it was meaningful.  It just simply wasn't the typical "blockbuster" ending that we have become so accustomed to.  It had weight.  It had thought.  It carried a very metaphysical bent to it.  Do any of you realize how rare that is?  What is the alternative sought by these "fans"? 

The nature of the reapers was said to be far beyond our conception of things.  The events surrounding them span millions of years and the highest stakes imaginable.  Shepard, after a series of events that left her beaten and drained beyond endurance, was forced to grapple with a humbling, heartbreaking, and impossibly deep reality.  These issues are the exclusive realm of god-entities, spanning millions of years and the fates of every civilization that has ever lived and will ever live.  This is science fiction drama as its very best. 

The nature of the catalyst (what we know of it anyway), seemed to me to be a proper embodiment of the kind of entity that could have created the reapers.  It manifested itself as a symbol of loss, a reminder of what is at stake, that has haunted Shepard throughout the war.  Being a god-like entity (in relation to Shepard), it needed to represent itself in a way understandable to a human--and likely also to serve as an anchor for Shepard's mind.  After all, it way about to be blown...It gave Shepard as much information as needed to be said, in a way she could perceptually grasp, to provide for the choice she would have to make.  Time was running out.  This god entity needed to quickly orient Shepard as best it could, to hopefully allow for a new "solution" to be created. 

The decision presented is one of a scale unprecedented for any Mass Effect player, and one fitting in a reality in which the reapers could exist.  The strangeness of it all seems right when put into context.  The details missing, the "plot holes" that people are complaining about--use your imagination people!  These are issues we should have a hard time understanding.  I think it is interesting that I have spent so much time pondering the significance of what happened, rather than having been given all the answers.  The mythical, supremely powerful and ancient machines have always meant to instill a sense of awe and mystery.  And to a certain extent, they still do.  And that is ok. 

This was a thinking man's ending, and I loved it as such.