16 réponses à ce sujet

[Kulzar8]

The endings of Mass Effect may have been poorly executed for many reasons listed in the link below. However, in the larger context of science fiction stories, it was full of good ideas.

http://social.biowar.../index/9749689 

Also imperative to read : 
http://social.biowar...5/index/9746186 

Like a lot of people here, I was severely disappointed at first with the ending of the game. Especially since Mass Effect 3 is probably the best game in the series. Apart from a few design choices during the course of the game
(for example, not being to talk as much as in other games to your crew on the Normandy), the writing is near perfect. Afterall, they keep killing characters you loved and cared for in Mass Effect 2, and it's ok. Mordin's death and the release of the cure (Paragon all the way!) is one of the most moving moments I've ever seen in … well,
anything really. The writing team have good reasons to be proud of their work, even if you disagree with the ending.

Things start to go “bad” once you almost get killed, and then you get in the citadel. I was feeling acutely distressed and despaired. Sure, I had made peace with the fact that Bioware was probably going to kill Shepard anyway, but it was the first time I've felt that Shepard was utterly powerless. THIS IS NOT NECESSERALY A BAD THING. I'm quite sure it was fully intended to bring strong emotions to the player, and in my case it worked. As some have stated that they would have been happy if Shepard had just died there, and maybe they are right. The “DA:Origins” kind of ending with an epilogue wrapping everything, and maybe even the motivation of the reapers still unknown.

However, the writers were bold and wanted to leave a mark. So they tackled the Reapers' motivation, and
this is where you can argue all hell broke loose. The major flaw of the ending is that it feels disconnected and rushed, without any sort of epilogue. But I don't want to go into specific details, since so many before have done a much better job than me. 

We can't blame the writers for wanting to be original. Who knows, maybe the ending felt rushed because it
lacked resources due to a producer's decision? In any case, they did have some good ideas. The synthesis ending is similar in a way to the end of Asimov's foundation series, where the entire galaxy becomes interconnected through Gaia. Or in the case of the Reapers, they were a solution to a larger-than-life problem, typical of a Stephen Baxter's storyline. More specifically his novel Space, where you
realize organic life lacks the longevity and synthetic life lacks the purpose of solving long term problems on a galactic scale.

From what I gathered from hints throughout the trilogy and from the way too brief catalyst explanation, the Reapers are probably the creation of an extinct Type-II civilization on the Kardashev scale.

http://en.wikipedia....Kardashev_scale

This civilization probably got wiped out because of a large-scale conflict with an AI they created, and the only solution they saw from stopping a complete galactic domination of synthetic life was to destroy future advanced
civilizations before they could do similar errors. Thus why the Reapers and the Catalyst exists. But the catalyst, even if it's an AI, is shackled in its mission. They have been repeating the cycle for millions of years, and it worked. Until humanity steps in as commander Shepard, that is.

Shepard was almost dead, the catalyst could have left him there and the Reapers would have won. However, as
the child states, the fact that for the first time the organic civilizations managed to find an effective way to resist means that the cycle is broken. Shepard won by just “being there”, even half dead, because the Reapers now know that enough information survives the cycles in order for them to be defeated, eventually. However, the
catalyst probably can't take a decision by itself (if it was conceived by previously hypothesized civilization). I guess that's why it offers Shepard the only solutions it can foresee : destroy all synthetic life, control the reapers or synthesis. Destruction and Control are the “status quo” options, the Reapers have failed and the only hope is that organics will find a way to not destroy themselves with a technological singularity. You can be satisfied that you saved everyone (except the Geth and EDI if you choose destruction, which is totally unacceptable in the case of a Paragon Shepard), but there is the feeling that it only delays the inevitable.

Synthesis is the only true solution, the only way the galaxy as a whole can truly move on toward a resolution of bigger galactic problems. Some people are really displeased with this option, saying it is the “Reapers won” option. On the other hand, you have to remember the Reapers where never made inherently evil. They were always presented like they had a mission that transcended mortal comprehension. In a way, it's true. We tend to forget they are entities millions of years old, probably created by a civilization that had really good reasons to do so. Shepard can only be powerless in this situation, the Reapers just put him in charge of finding a better solution to their problem, everyone's problem, when the only thing everyone has been doing in the game is think about short term survival.

There is a reason why the synthesis option is the last one unlocked, it is what the writers decided would be the real ending of the series. Just like in Foundation Trevize decides the only way to save humanity is to “interlink” every living being in the galaxy and in The End of Eternity when they realize the extinction of all life is a very real possibility on long timescale. (Both Asimov books.)

Synthesis is the only ending that brings hope on a long term. It is the one that ultimately defeats the technological singularity. It is why the old man at the end is optimistic about the future.

What is your opinion on the subject?
Were the writers right to try something like this?

------

It does not in my opinion excuse the fact the ending seemed rushed, and the epilogue at the end almost non-existent. I may be a grown man, but I admit I cried a little when I realized Tali would never get her home on Rannoch. And that the Mass Effect universe we learned to love was completely obliterated.

This is the result of two sleepless nights trying to find a justification to the ending of Mass Effect 3, so you can bet I was emotionally involved in the game. I would also love to see if they could make a better ending.

About said technological singularity : http://en.wikipedia....cal_singularity

Modifié par Kulzar8, 11 mars 2012 - 09:11 .

[Kulzar8]

Sorry about the initial format, the copy/paste from the text editor didn't work out too well.

[archvonbaron]

I kind of agree with you but I believe the whole Synthetics vs Organics thing came out of nowhere, I never saw it as a theme of the game. Yes in ME1 the Geth went on a bit of a killing spree but they were operating under the orders of Saren and Sovarin. In ME2 you work with Legion and find the Geth are more then happy to live in peace with the Quarians if they stopped attacking them. And in ME3 you find the Protheans were winning their war with the Synthetics and you can have the Quarians and Geth live in peace on Rannoch with the Geth helping the Quarians adapt and build their settlement.

I always saw ME as a critical look at world politics with different species being metaphors for countries and assumed it would boil down to humans dominating the galaxy with the other races being subserviant or having an era of prosperity and all races entering a golden age of growth.

[Mariquis]

Synthetics vs. Organics places a fairly substantial role in all three games. The reapers themselves are an organic/synthetic construct, you have: the geth in all three games, Shepard's heavy cybernetic alteration in the second, Overlord in the second, Legion in the second, the experiments during Tali's loyalty in the second, the Geth/Quarian resolution in the third, EDI in the second, Saren (and his heavy augmentation) in the first, Luna base in the first (which comes full circle with EDI), EDI in the third, and probably more I've forgotten about.

There has been a huge focus on the line between synthetic and organic and all the qualities which either might express.

[Jadebaby]

I somewhat agree but they still could have ended it better, it should also be noted that the grandpa looks up to the sky with hope even if you pick destroy, happened to me.
Personally I don't think it should have come down to synthetic vs. organic. But what's best for the galaxy right now. 
Obviously they have broken the cycle so that could mean they could break the 'Technology singularity' theory too... Which if you ask me, sounds a bit outdated by Mass Effect standards.
They were going to end it with this game anyway, why not just make it obliviously happy? Or at the VERY least, have the option to do so..

Also, the mass relays exploding in every ending? *puts hand to mouth and runs away crying*.

Modifié par Jade8aby88, 11 mars 2012 - 07:16 .

[Aedan276]

archvonbaron wrote...
I always saw ME as a critical look at world politics with different species being metaphors for countries and assumed it would boil down to humans dominating the galaxy with the other races being subserviant or having an era of prosperity and all races entering a golden age of growth.

Quoted for truth. 

[-Merk-]

I found peace by simply learning my lesson: Never pre-order another EA game again.

[Makatak]

I somewhat agree in that they handled the endings well for what they set up during the game.

When one compares this entire game of ME3 to what could have been had the focus not changed at some point during ME2 from the Reapers to The Illusive Man and Cerberus, things would look different. They pulled a Titanic and at least prettied up the curtains before the ship went down.

We talk about the three endings and hope to explain them like they were the only possibilities. Like, somehow, buried in the dialogue or codex of ME1, there rests the Crucible. Some hint, some sign, perhaps, that the blossom of ME3 came from the seeds of ME1...but it doesn't, if you look at it. So I don't want to talk about Destroy/Control/Synthesis like those were our only options. Let's go deeper, let's look at the original writings of Drew Karpyshyn, let's look at the original ending; let's look at all of the proposed endings and hold up what we were given versus what we could have had.

Yes, when regarding the options as given, there are some redeeming elements about the state of the universe and so on and so forth and it's not all bad (but no one really cares because that world exists only in your mind). But when one holds up the options presented versus all of the options that existed when ME1 first came in to our lives...these are atrocious.

[Kileyan]

Mariquis wrote...

Synthetics vs. Organics places a fairly substantial role in all three games. The reapers themselves are an organic/synthetic construct, you have: the geth in all three games, Shepard's heavy cybernetic alteration in the second, Overlord in the second, Legion in the second, the experiments during Tali's loyalty in the second, the Geth/Quarian resolution in the third, EDI in the second, Saren (and his heavy augmentation) in the first, Luna base in the first (which comes full circle with EDI), EDI in the third, and probably more I've forgotten about.

There has been a huge focus on the line between synthetic and organic and all the qualities which either might express.

Except that in almost all of your examples, the game lets us choose to solve those problems. The whole premise of the space magic squids is they are protecting life by wiping out life before they are killed by machines. Yet in the game we prove several times that machines and organics can get along, there is no need for this ridiculous tech singularity doom doom single ending the reapers and space magic wizard god are forcing over and over.

It was stupid to put in several examples of dealing with tech life vs organic life in the same fuggin game that ignores every bit of it at the end. The last 10 minutes of the game and the technological singularity hocus pocus, came across as if the all knowing space magic soothsayer has had his fingers in his ears while humming loudly the whole game. None of what he is spouting makes sense in light of what has happened in most peoples playthroughs. Quite the opposite, the ending pretty much happens as if the character creation screen ended with teleporting you to the last 10 minutes of the game.

Modifié par Kileyan, 11 mars 2012 - 07:23 .

[Jadebaby]

Suffice to say I never found peace in the embrace of the Goddess.

[MattFini]

Can't find peace with the ending as they are. No excusing them being completely sloppy and unfinished.

[Kulzar8]

Makatak wrote...

Let's go deeper, let's look at the original writings of Drew Karpyshyn, let's look at the original ending; let's look at all of the proposed endings and hold up what we were given versus what we could have had.

Yes, when regarding the options as given, there are some redeeming elements about the state of the universe and so on and so forth and it's not all bad (but no one really cares because that world exists only in your mind). But when one holds up the options presented versus all of the options that existed when ME1 first came in to our lives...these are atrocious.

I agree, I would have prefered the Drew Karpyshyn's explanation of "dark energy" because then it would truly fit as a galactic-scale problem that cannot be easily solved. They could keep the exact same choices and it would have made more sense, since you can show in game that AI don't necesseraly want to destroy organics.

The "technological singularity" trope they are using works too, but they should have done better than just say : "Yeah, trust me, I'm not going to tell you why, but there is no other way." Yes, like doing that is NOT going to alienate the fans.

Since the actual motives are told at the last minute, they could actually redo the end completely without changing anything else in the game.

[Gruzmog]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The ending has the possibilty to be good or even great, but it was ver badly executed

[Rafe34]

The problem is, it's not original AT ALL.

It's a blatant rip off from the endings of Deus Ex, and from an anime that has the exact same plot and motivations if you just change the name reapers to antispirals.

[Kulzar8]

Rafe34 wrote...

The problem is, it's not original AT ALL.

It's a blatant rip off from the endings of Deus Ex, and from an anime that has the exact same plot and motivations if you just change the name reapers to antispirals.

Yeah, I saw that. Kinda disappointing. However, you could argue those aren't that original either. These are rather popular themes in science fictions nowadays.

But you're right, doesn't make the ending that original either. Maybe they just wanted us all to cry and be angry? 

Modifié par Kulzar8, 11 mars 2012 - 07:37 .

[iamheartbroken]

I will say on the ending, it seemed telling that it shows Anderson destroying the Reapers, it shows TIM controlling them, and then it tells you about the middle option.

What Anderson would do.
What TIM would do.
What Shepard will do.

P.S. In an increasingly connected society, the the idea of originality is going to continue to lose it's meanings. I've had original ideas, that I came up with on my own without any outside source I can point to as maybe having influenced me, and then seen something very similiar come along. Not stolen from me, but merely that while I'm kind of unique, I'm not really. Many people have similiar interests, are influenced by similiar things... we end up thinking alike.

In the end, the trick is to take something... and make it your own as best you can.

Modifié par iamheartbroken, 11 mars 2012 - 07:42 .

[Kulzar8]

That's true. In this context, I don't think it's really the originality but more the way it was delivered that was a problem.

Modifié par Kulzar8, 11 mars 2012 - 08:46 .