325 réponses à ce sujet

[Vilegrim]

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 they where not different, it was 3 ways to kill billions of beings by switching off the relays, and none to say to the child 'you are wrong'

[Valo_Soren]

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.

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."

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.

My Take on the Endings
Destruction - Implies you reject the Catalyst's premise because organic society is going to rebuild and eventually create synthetics/AI again.  This means that if the Catalyst is correct, you are dooming future generations to extinction.  But that's why I chose it, because I don't think the Catalyst is correct, and I am giving organics a chance to
treat AI with dignity and respect and trusting AI to value all forms of life as well.  My experiences with the Quarians and the Geth shaped my Shepard's thinking here.  That makes it even more sad that the Geth and EDI have to die in this ending.

Control - Implies that you don't know what to think about the Catalyst's premise.  The Reapers will be around
anyway, just in case some Reaping needs to be done, so it's the "safe" option if you aren't sure.  I considered it "unsafe" because I don't want Reapers around anymore, period.

Synthesis - Implies that you accept the Catalyst's premise and that in order to get out of the fatalistic doom of synthetics rising up we need to create a new paradigm for life in the Milky Way Galaxy.  Or conversely that you just believe this is the next natural step in the evolution of life.

I'm sure there's a lot of facets that I've missed too.  There's just so much to think about!

Preaching to the choir here, you took the words right out of my mouth my friend. Agreed, 100 percent.

[Vasparian]

Shepard would never just say.. HEY COOL.. Then run to do something.

[nonlethalbizzle]

Didn't the protheans build a mini relay on ilos, so given enough time i think at least one of the current or future races may well to. I personally see a new ME franchise set a hundred years in the future where some of the relays are being rebuilt and the galaxy has recovered from the reaper war.

[J0urn3y]

I've only seen the Synthesis ending and it confused the heck out of me. On the one hand it gave me pause that Shepard was so ... obedient concerning the god child's explaination. But on some level I can understand. She was so close and so tired. For all she knew her entire team had just died in the blast that almost killed her, including her LI. She was horridly injured and had lost a lot of blood which only added to her confusion in this surreal situation. Still, I can't just wave off her lack of questions. That is simply not Shepard's style no matter her moral alignment  persuasion is so deeply entrenched in the series that it isn't even a skill, it's just a tool naturally used by Shep to get out of situations. It's one of the reasons so many people follow her. She can almost indoctrinate people herself just by using the right words and tone of voice.

Also, why the heck is my LI who  just got fried (by the same beam as I did) on the planet stepping out of the Normandy fully healed and emotionless? And didn't the shockwave from those exploding relays just take out the bulk of the fleets (both Reaper and organic), populated star systems, and cut communications completly off from one measly planet to the next. Sure the reapers are no more and no one has to worry about machine/ organic confilicts ever again, but does anyone KNOW that? There is no communication at all now. Previously it was spotty at best. A giant shockwave just hit causing massive destruction, probably earthquakes and tidal waves. People who survive look down at themselves and around at other survivors and see that they are suddenly PART MACHINE. Considering what they know about indoctrination wouldn't some of them panic? Wouldn't they think perhaps the Reapers set off those shockwave explosions in some sort of viral bomb? Wouldn't you lose even more people because some would kill themselves rather than live as the Reaper slaves they think themselves to be? Or does Shepard's "essence" immediatly let them know exactly what is happening at the moment they change?

And why does Shepard have to die? The reward for doing the impossible and getting all the possible allies is that you get killed and lose most of the populace anyway. It would make more sense that if for the moments that her essence is spreading she also has access to the vast power that is the weapon combined with the relay tech. That could explain why her LI ends up on the Normandy. You could be given the option to use what is left of the rapidly disinigrating power to transport your crew back with the all consuming mass effect field you have become. With a high enough rating you could even chose to live and transport yourself back in the end moments of the destruction. Of course this could have concequences like the synthesis would not be perfect. Some individuals would be more organic, others more synthetic because you keep part of yourself to live. This could cause problems in the future. Shepard would also be diminished in the process. She'd live, but so much of her was needed that she would basically be back to level one. Maybe part of the reaper tech even imprints on her leaving her with their secrets hidden and locked away somewhere in her new genetic code. It leaves the possibility for more games in the future. This would, of course, need an explaination and not just a cut scene. It would satisfy the need for a massive and strange ending without pissing so many off. Sure it's crazy, but so are the other endings.

I expected lots of death and sacrifices, but not this. Without the relays there is literally no "mass effect" so it would seem the universe is dead in more ways than one.

[Makatak]

Biotic Sage wrote...

mushoops86anjyl wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

mushoops86anjyl wrote...

It's not an ending. It's a cliffhanger full of plotholes.

Thanks for reading!

You didn't satisfactorily address this.

That's not what this thread is about.  I'd be happy to go into a discussion about the alleged "plotholes" with you in a different thread or over PM.  This thread is about the three ridiculous arguments that I see all over these forums lately.  And I guarantee that even if you did somehow read my entire post in 1-2 minutes that you could not have properly reflected and considered what I was saying.  In other words, you may have heard but you didn't listen.

It's fine to address "ridiculous" arguments. But the moment someone brings up a legitimate one, you backpedal your way out.

4/10.

[WarBaby2]

You can rationalize everything to the point where it makes sense... even if the ending wouldn't have been more then a big explosion and the line "the end".

The facts are: We got a weaker, new ending after the original leaked, and it feels incredibly lazy and inconclusive...

Modifié par WarBaby2, 11 mars 2012 - 07:12 .

[Promchek]

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.

exactly !!

[QuirkyGroundhog]

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

Completely the opposite actually. I was shown the Geth and Quarian make peace, I was shown Wrex and Eve ready to rebuild the Krogan species, I was shown cooperation amongst species as never before, and the destruction of the Mass Relays gave this new galaxy back self determination...

I did not need to be told, "Eventualy the peace blah blah blah" "The Krogan expanded until blah blah blah" "The Galaxy is connected again by ____ blah blah blah"

[QuirkyGroundhog]

Makatak wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

mushoops86anjyl wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

mushoops86anjyl wrote...

It's not an ending. It's a cliffhanger full of plotholes.

Thanks for reading!

You didn't satisfactorily address this.

That's not what this thread is about.  I'd be happy to go into a discussion about the alleged "plotholes" with you in a different thread or over PM.  This thread is about the three ridiculous arguments that I see all over these forums lately.  And I guarantee that even if you did somehow read my entire post in 1-2 minutes that you could not have properly reflected and considered what I was saying.  In other words, you may have heard but you didn't listen.

It's fine to address "ridiculous" arguments. But the moment someone brings up a legitimate one, you backpedal your way out.

4/10.

The only legitimate plot hole in the ending is the Normandy questions. The ONLY legitimate plot hole.

[Promchek]

QuirkyGroundhog wrote...

Completely the opposite actually. I was shown the Geth and Quarian make peace, I was shown Wrex and Eve ready to rebuild the Krogan species, I was shown cooperation amongst species as never before, and the destruction of the Mass Relays gave this new galaxy back self determination...

I did not need to be told, "Eventualy the peace blah blah blah" "The Krogan expanded until blah blah blah" "The Galaxy is connected again by ____ blah blah blah"

and then i was shown how this all doesn't matter anymore...

[QuirkyGroundhog]

Promchek wrote...

QuirkyGroundhog wrote...

Completely the opposite actually. I was shown the Geth and Quarian make peace, I was shown Wrex and Eve ready to rebuild the Krogan species, I was shown cooperation amongst species as never before, and the destruction of the Mass Relays gave this new galaxy back self determination...

I did not need to be told, "Eventualy the peace blah blah blah" "The Krogan expanded until blah blah blah" "The Galaxy is connected again by ____ blah blah blah"

and then i was shown how this all doesn't matter anymore...

No. You weren't. That's just...incorrect. Mass Relays are convenient, but FTL still exists, though travel will be far longer. Most importantly, removing the Relays was the most important thing that had to happen. The Relays, the Citadel, they were methods of controlling life by the Reapers. If they're still around life doesn't have control of its own destiny.

And on a more abstract level, I'm going to die someday and so is everyone I know. Do my actions have no meaning?

Modifié par QuirkyGroundhog, 11 mars 2012 - 07:39 .

[Vasparian]

I love how people just buy into the nonsensical endings.

[Natureguy85]

The OPs argument against "Nothing matters" is flawed. First, its a game, not real life, so toss that part out the window.

OP is correct that we saw the consequences of ME1 and ME2 in ME3, but they stopped there. They don't affect the OUTCOME of ME3 in the least, that I can see.

[Vasparian]

The events in ME3 don't even affect the outcome of ME3.

[Natureguy85]

Vasparian wrote...

The events in ME3 don't even affect the outcome of ME3.

Sadly, I can't argue that.

[RiouHotaru]

...While a lot of people seem to think you should be able to "reject" the Catalyst's logic, what's the point? Or rather, what's the alternative? Flip the Catalyst the middle finger and let the cycle go on unhindered?

Try to argue with an AI that seems dead-set in it's ways?

[maxulic]

Vasparian wrote...

The events in ME3 don't even affect the outcome of ME3.

Wrong.

The events of the whole series shape how Shepard stands towards the synthetics question. Right from the first minutes of Mass Effect 1 you are presented the whole premise of the series with the Geth getting out of the Perseus Veil: Mass Effect is about the conflict between organic and synthetic life forms.

The theme becomes more and more obvious through the games and especially in ME3 with the resolution of the Geth/Quarian conflict, the love affair between Joker and EDI and ultimately the war against the Reapers.

So I can't see how you can think that the events of the whole series including and especially in ME3 are disconnected from the endings that bring a conclusion to the synthetics vs. organics question.

RiouHotaru wrote...

...While a lot of people seem to think
you should be able to "reject" the Catalyst's logic, what's the point?
Or rather, what's the alternative? Flip the Catalyst the middle finger
and let the cycle go on unhindered?

Try to argue with an AI that seems dead-set in it's ways?

Especially when it seems that the Catalyst is beyond organic and synthetic. I wouldn't call him an AI

Modifié par maxulic, 12 mars 2012 - 03:56 .

[Ainyan42]

RiouHotaru wrote...

...While a lot of people seem to think you should be able to "reject" the Catalyst's logic, what's the point? Or rather, what's the alternative? Flip the Catalyst the middle finger and let the cycle go on unhindered?

Try to argue with an AI that seems dead-set in it's ways?

My Paragon Shepard managed to talk not one, but TWO heavily indoctrinated people not only into seeing and admitting that they were indoctrinated, but did so in such a way that they realized that they had become what they most hated and thus took their own lives.

Why wouldn't she even give a shot at convincing the AI that it is wrong and that she has proof that its assertions are flawed?

Though the real mind-bender for me is that if everyone with me while running to the Citadel is dead, how did Kaidan and Garrus (one of whom was my LI) end up on the Normandy going through a Mass Relay which is, what, two, three hours away from Earth? Those were the two squadmates I took with me on the run.

[GodChildInTheMachine]

maxulic wrote...

Vasparian wrote...

The events in ME3 don't even affect the outcome of ME3.

Wrong.

The events of the whole series shape how Shepard stands towards the synthetics question. Right from the first minutes of Mass Effect 1 you are presented the whole premise of the series with the Geth getting out of the Perseus Veil: Mass Effect is about the conflict between organic and synthetic life forms.

The theme becomes more and more obvious through the games and especially in ME3 with the resolution of the Geth/Quarian conflict, the love affair between Joker and EDI and ultimately the war against the Reapers.

So I can't see how you can think that the events of the whole series including and especially in ME3 are disconnected from the endings that bring a conclusion to the synthetics vs. organics question.

Vasparian is actually correct. The ending exists in a total vacuum apart from anything that happened before it. And no don't tell me that the whole transhumanism thing was the point all along. That's not what I'm talking about. Even you have to admit that the entire game didn't just boil down to that.

Anyway, why resolve the synthetics question using continuity and the logic of ME3 as a work of fiction in a satisfying and positive way over and over if you're just going to say "welp, we know what we just showed you about this subplot and how it worked out, but now in the last act you're just going to have to take starchildgod's word for it bro. That ain't how it is."

It is bad writing when you consistently show the audience one thing, over and over, then at the end tell them something completely contrary. In the end it doesn't matter what is realistic, because this is a work of fiction and literally all it has to do to make sense in that context is to not go back on its own narrative and rules.

Don't tell me that the peace might not last forever. Don't tell me that transhumanism was the central theme of ME. And don't tell me that this theme was properly explored to come to the conclusion that is reached in the edn of ME3. Even if that were all true, it doesn't change the fact that the ending is a textbook example of sloppy, self-indulgent writing.

If it were that good, they wouldn't need you to come here and explain it, would they? No, because a good piece of fiction explains itself. It doesn't have to introduce characters (catalyst) whose sole purpose is to tell you in words and expositionary dialogue what the story is actually about. It establishes its themes and logic early on and it doesn't suddenly invert them without a reason. The ME3 ending is poorly conceived and this may as well be a matter of objective fact.

Maybe I'm just ****ed for imposing literary standards on a video game, and I should just accept the fact that all major games from now on will be mindless and weak narratives. But for the time being, I know crap writing when I see it, and not from a subjective understanding of it, but from the objective rules of storytelling which the ME3 ending violates with a childlike glee.

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

Vasparian wrote...

I love how people just buy into the nonsensical endings.

I love how people have proven on this forum that they clearly lack intelligence to come out with anything but sad little one liners like this.

The fact you don't understand how the events of ME3 and its predecessors didn't shape the ending of the game clearly extends the aforementioned point..

[GoblinSapper]

 *just quotes himself again*

Mass Effect has, since it's beginning, been an experiment into the concept of continuitous player agency - that is, that players will have the decision to make large or small changes to the story and it's details as it progresses along it's narrative arc, and that these decisions will be respected over the course of the trilogy. This has been the expectation from day one and thus far has been the most successful of Bioware's forays into continuitous player agency. Dragon Age followed a similar idea thread but did not center on a central character which the player maintains agency over, rather it is a set of different tales and different characters placed in the same World Setting in which player agency has ripple effects on that setting.

One of the problems of course, with any game that focuses on Player Agency, is that the same thing will mean different things to different people. People have expectations based on 'their' story, and the way you avoid stepping on 'their' story is to maintain player agency and give them the free will to choose their outcomes. This creates certain limitations on you as the author - you must maintain contingency plans for every player agency point you provide. Certain narrative and organizational devices can make this much easier, such as a binary 'morality' system (paragon/renegade points) and condition flags (companion loyalty/approval). This allows you to frame the narrative arc that your players will undergo while providing the illusion of complete choice. While this form of Player Agency is by design limited (your arc of control is more akin to 180 degrees than 360 degrees of movement, if you follow) it is an effective way of allowing your players to exercise their agency over the narrative while still establishing a general story arc which you can follow and plan for.

Over the past three games Bioware has done what, in my opinion, can be considered a masterful job of faithfully representing the continuity of player agency, referencing player choices in meaningful and meaningless ways via datapoints. Mass Effect 3 was the penultimate example of this, borrowing choices from the previous two games to almost completly form the narrative arc of the third - that is, your choices have finally become the definition of the setting (wether or not you saved the council, the rachni, etc) influences the characters that appear and how events play out in these games. Mass Effect 3 is exceptionally well polished (barring some frustrating bugs and annoying UI and quest tracking issues) and represents the continuity nerds wet dream - a universe of their own creation, the punultimate choose your own adventure.

However...

In the last 10-15 minutes of the game there was an abrupt genre convention shift (more in line with the metaphysical pulp sci-fi of the 1900's than the Space Opera / Military Drama we had thus far experianced), a fundamental violation of one of the tenants of the Writer-Reader contract. This abrupt genre shift has left fans feeling disoriented, confused, and dissapointed - which swiftly leads to bitterness and anger. Their suspension of disbelief and expectations have not been adequatly serviced, and thus the ending causes the story of Mass Effect - from beginning to end, from 1-3 - to fail. Many are now observing plot holes and inconsistancies - those plot holes were always there, but were forgiven. However a bad ending damns a story, it causes a blowback in the reader where their tension and emotional involvement does not achieve catharsisand they're left to take it out on the author.

And this is why, I, and many thousands of other individuals have been so upset by the ending to Mass Effect 3. Our genre expectations and player agency have been violated, the finale of the story is uninfluenced by the continuity of our decisions and follows an unfamiliar narrative trend. 

[maxulic]

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

maxulic wrote...

Vasparian wrote...

The events in ME3 don't even affect the outcome of ME3.

Wrong.

The events of the whole series shape how Shepard stands towards the synthetics question. Right from the first minutes of Mass Effect 1 you are presented the whole premise of the series with the Geth getting out of the Perseus Veil: Mass Effect is about the conflict between organic and synthetic life forms.

The theme becomes more and more obvious through the games and especially in ME3 with the resolution of the Geth/Quarian conflict, the love affair between Joker and EDI and ultimately the war against the Reapers.

So I can't see how you can think that the events of the whole series including and especially in ME3 are disconnected from the endings that bring a conclusion to the synthetics vs. organics question.

Vasparian is actually correct. The ending exists in a total vacuum apart from anything that happened before it. And no don't tell me that the whole transhumanism thing was the point all along. That's not what I'm talking about. Even you have to admit that the entire game didn't just boil down to that.

Anyway, why resolve the synthetics question using continuity and the logic of ME3 as a work of fiction in a satisfying and positive way over and over if you're just going to say "welp, we know what we just showed you about this subplot and how it worked out, but now in the last act you're just going to have to take starchildgod's word for it bro. That ain't how it is."

It is bad writing when you consistently show the audience one thing, over and over, then at the end tell them something completely contrary. In the end it doesn't matter what is realistic, because this is a work of fiction and literally all it has to do to make sense in that context is to not go back on its own narrative and rules.

Don't tell me that the peace might not last forever. Don't tell me that transhumanism was the central theme of ME. And don't tell me that this theme was properly explored to come to the conclusion that is reached in the edn of ME3. Even if that were all true, it doesn't change the fact that the ending is a textbook example of sloppy, self-indulgent writing.

If it were that good, they wouldn't need you to come here and explain it, would they? No, because a good piece of fiction explains itself. It doesn't have to introduce characters (catalyst) whose sole purpose is to tell you in words and expositionary dialogue what the story is actually about. It establishes its themes and logic early on and it doesn't suddenly invert them without a reason. The ME3 ending is poorly conceived and this may as well be a matter of objective fact.

Maybe I'm just ****ed for imposing literary standards on a video game, and I should just accept the fact that all major games from now on will be mindless and weak narratives. But for the time being, I know crap writing when I see it, and not from a subjective understanding of it, but from the objective rules of storytelling which the ME3 ending violates with a childlike glee.

So you missed all the examples of synthetics looking for free will through the whole series?

The Quarian/Geth conflict is one of the first things you hear about when you start Mass Effect 1. Later in the game as you talk with Tali Shepard is going to make his first stand about this question with one line being something like: "your people attacked the Geth, they are only trying to preserve their life."

Then you are going to face a rogue AI on the Citadel that was about to blow up in your face when you tried to shut it down. Then you are going to face a rogue VI on our Moon. And don't get me started with the fight against the Reapers.

Then you have ME2 that goes much further about this question with Legion and EDI. Both of them showing signs of free will, of personality... Of soul like the Geth asked their creators? (I did underline "soul" because it is an obvious hint at the Catalyst entity that is beyond the synthetic and organic life forms). And it culminates in ME3 with the resolution of the Geth/Quarian conflict and the love affair between Joker and EDI and all the question that EDI asks about what makes you a person.

And you are here telling me that Mass Effect is not about synthetics and organics... that's something that kept being debatted during the whole series.

Modifié par maxulic, 12 mars 2012 - 04:27 .

[jcmccorm]

QuirkyGroundhog wrote...
The only legitimate plot hole in the ending is the Normandy questions. The ONLY legitimate plot hole.

Plot holes. Normandy questions. (I like the rare cases where dead people make an appearance.)

Some of my personal favorite plot holes...

Medigel vanished from the ME3 universe. Not explained in game. Medigel would have been helpful at the end.

Suddenly unlimited ammo.

The Star Child, which admits his last plan was a failure, comes up with 3 new brilliant plans. He very quickly presents them. Most important choices in the galaxy ever. Commander Shepard doesn't inquire beyond what is given. Even further out of character, he refuses to fight for a better choice. He is no longer under time constraints because the Star Child controls the reapers. Yet he makes an impusive choice which is only disguised by the fact it isn't a menu selection, but that he has to slowly walk to the choice he has unilaterlly made for the galaxy. Commander Shepard's entire character goes blank when he needs it most.

We have the most important decision in the galaxy, and there isn't even a dialogue tree to explore it?

Modifié par jcmccorm, 12 mars 2012 - 04:40 .

[New Generation]

Promchek 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.

exactly !!

This is exactly how I feel. To me the mass effect series was all about making choices that not only decided who was at your side when the battle began but who would also be there at its conclusion and that that conlusion would bear the scars of all your choices good, bad, and morally grey.

These endings don't fit in with what mass effect is all about. They are merely a different coloring of the same thing (unless you buy in to the hallucination/indoctrination theory about the endings), the reality that hardly anyone is left standing and the frame work that makes up the fabric of the mass effect universe being anhilated. These endings are unaffected by any of the choices the player has made. Yes the path leading up to these endings is direct reflection of player choice, with the possible exeption of a lack of a more personal final battle with harbinger, but none of the three endings are a similar reflection and as such they invalidate all the time, energy, and emotion we as a fan base have poured into this series.

Similarly with the ending being a differnt coloration of the same result, they have, at least for me, removed and drive to play the game again with any of my other saves as the varity of choice reflected in those characters will have no bearing on the final outcome.

An example of what would have been an appropiate and fan applauded ending that follows what we know to be the example of mass effect's choice and consequence system is this piece of fanfiction by Anne Whynn http://www.fanfictio...1/Ad_Infinitum.

Not only is this work beautiful to read and envison but it follows the formula of choice and consequence that we have come to expect from the ME series. It acknoledges the work that bioware has performed in the "3-Choices" concept and puts it in an acceptable perspective but it also gives the player the choice to resist all of them and attain an ending that is not only unexpected but fullfilling, emotional, and a fitting final triumph that bears the marks of every choice they have made in the series.

So successful is this work that for me, with slight alterations, it will be the framework of my "Cannon" ending for my  shepard unless Bioware can repare/fix/explain their ending in such a way that they can repair the damage they have done to the series and insult they have paid to us, the fans, who trusted them to bring a fitting and beautiful end to our journeys.