355 réponses à ce sujet

[Fawx9]

Wuppie wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Darth Malignus wrote...

The Razman wrote...

PanzerDivision wrote...

a_guy_on_teh_interweb wrote...

Most people are mad that there is no "happy" ending. Each option involves major losses.

I personally am not a fan of them, but i'm not really that mad about it. It could have been better, but it could have been worse.

That's not the point, I'm totally OK with desperate and depressing ends, but I wouldn't mind a proper epilogue showing the outcomes of my decisions, and there's none. Just fade to black and credits rolling, with a lot of unanswered questions.

So ... because it leaves us with some questions unanswered, that makes it a bad ending?

No, but when pretty much ALL questions you'd might have about the characters you've teamed up with or met in the 3 games are unanswered, then it's a bad ending.

Don't get me wrong, I couldn't care less about how many kids Garrus has 20 years after the final showdown or if EDI and Jeff get married. But some closure of ANY kind would be nice.

The future is pretty uncertain for the whole galaxy by the end.

We had closure just before the final mission. More would just be fanservice. In fact, a lot of the game was already fanservice, showing us where the characters from the series are now and where they're going in the future. What more do you want?

Clearly they want their hands held and get walked through each companions "life after them reaper thingies". Something some people dont.
The ability to read-between-the-lines is a lost art. Unless it is subtitled and captioned its crap nowdays (yes I am over 30yrs old and a gamer, with children, and a spouse - the HORROR!)

How are we even supposed to begin at guessing with what happened when the cinematics and game scenes don't match up at all? If I could post spoilers the biggest offender for this point would be the Normandy+crew itself.

Also no matter what end you take the logistics of the outcome bascially doom all those that survived on earth.

Finally look where you end up if you do 'live', thats not physically possible considering the choice to get that ending. 

Applying any kind of lgic to the ending doesn't make it more clear, it breaks it.

[Senario]

Without spoilers, Knots not tied up. No sense of closure. And well...I don't think I can say more than that without spoilers. Finish the game, you will understand.

[The Razman]

Fawx9 wrote...

Wuppie wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Darth Malignus wrote...

The Razman wrote...

PanzerDivision wrote...

a_guy_on_teh_interweb wrote...

Most people are mad that there is no "happy" ending. Each option involves major losses.

I personally am not a fan of them, but i'm not really that mad about it. It could have been better, but it could have been worse.

That's not the point, I'm totally OK with desperate and depressing ends, but I wouldn't mind a proper epilogue showing the outcomes of my decisions, and there's none. Just fade to black and credits rolling, with a lot of unanswered questions.

So ... because it leaves us with some questions unanswered, that makes it a bad ending?

No, but when pretty much ALL questions you'd might have about the characters you've teamed up with or met in the 3 games are unanswered, then it's a bad ending.

Don't get me wrong, I couldn't care less about how many kids Garrus has 20 years after the final showdown or if EDI and Jeff get married. But some closure of ANY kind would be nice.

The future is pretty uncertain for the whole galaxy by the end.

We had closure just before the final mission. More would just be fanservice. In fact, a lot of the game was already fanservice, showing us where the characters from the series are now and where they're going in the future. What more do you want?

Clearly they want their hands held and get walked through each companions "life after them reaper thingies". Something some people dont.
The ability to read-between-the-lines is a lost art. Unless it is subtitled and captioned its crap nowdays (yes I am over 30yrs old and a gamer, with children, and a spouse - the HORROR!)

How are we even supposed to begin at guessing with what happened when the cinematics and game scenes don't match up at all? If I could post spoilers the biggest offender for this point would be the Normandy+crew itself.

Also no matter what end you take the logistics of the outcome bascially doom all those that survived on earth.

Finally look where you end up if you do 'live', thats not physically possible considering the choice to get that ending. 

Applying any kind of lgic to the ending doesn't make it more clear, it breaks it.

I don't really understand any of what you just said? None of that is true?

[Wuppie]

Fawx9 wrote...

Wuppie wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Darth Malignus wrote...

The Razman wrote...

PanzerDivision wrote...

a_guy_on_teh_interweb wrote...

Most people are mad that there is no "happy" ending. Each option involves major losses.

I personally am not a fan of them, but i'm not really that mad about it. It could have been better, but it could have been worse.

That's not the point, I'm totally OK with desperate and depressing ends, but I wouldn't mind a proper epilogue showing the outcomes of my decisions, and there's none. Just fade to black and credits rolling, with a lot of unanswered questions.

So ... because it leaves us with some questions unanswered, that makes it a bad ending?

No, but when pretty much ALL questions you'd might have about the characters you've teamed up with or met in the 3 games are unanswered, then it's a bad ending.

Don't get me wrong, I couldn't care less about how many kids Garrus has 20 years after the final showdown or if EDI and Jeff get married. But some closure of ANY kind would be nice.

The future is pretty uncertain for the whole galaxy by the end.

We had closure just before the final mission. More would just be fanservice. In fact, a lot of the game was already fanservice, showing us where the characters from the series are now and where they're going in the future. What more do you want?

Clearly they want their hands held and get walked through each companions "life after them reaper thingies". Something some people dont.
The ability to read-between-the-lines is a lost art. Unless it is subtitled and captioned its crap nowdays (yes I am over 30yrs old and a gamer, with children, and a spouse - the HORROR!)

How are we even supposed to begin at guessing with what happened when the cinematics and game scenes don't match up at all? If I could post spoilers the biggest offender for this point would be the Normandy+crew itself.

Also no matter what end you take the logistics of the outcome bascially doom all those that survived on earth.

Finally look where you end up if you do 'live', thats not physically possible considering the choice to get that ending. 

Applying any kind of lgic to the ending doesn't make it more clear, it breaks it.

You do realise this whole story may be being told by an unreliable narrator?

[akasheppy]

Yeah, I don't need to see "life after the reapers", I just kinda wanna know how it's even possible after the endings~

[Heimdall]

Mx_CN3 wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

I thought it was clever.

Come on, we've been repeatedly confronted with the impossibility of defeating the Reapers conventially.  No solution has ever been alluded to.  A deus ex machina type solution was somewhat unavoidable.

Your choices, thoughout all three games, have always had only minimal effect on the ending save for the last mission.  I was quite happy.  I shaped my Shepard as he lived.  In the end ME3, I was able to shape Shepard as he died.  That provided some contentment to me.

But most of the complaining isn't about the Crucible.  I actually thought the idea of the superweapon was handled very well, as it was introduced early on and was the crux of your plans the whole time.  That said, there could have been much better ones, such as the Klendagon weapon/the thing that killed the derelict Reaper from ME2 (I think they're the same thing?), which was already an established part of the universe.

And you are right about your choices not really having an effect on the final decision.  No matter what you do in ME1, you either save or kill the council.  No matter what you do in ME2, you either save or destroy the Collector base.  What I think people thought they would get is something like the outro to ME2, where your decisions end up with the possibility of somebody dying, and effecting what you see when the game is done.  And really, in a game that advertises itself as one where you make decisions, and they have consequences, doesn't it feel a bit odd to, at the end of an epic trilogy, have all of those decisions just... forgotten?

In regards to what happens to Shepard, I think that that is the only thing that anyone can agree on having closure on.  We know what happens to him/her.  It might not be what some wanted, but it is closure nonetheless.  What people want (again, I think) is that same kind of closure for the rest of the story.

Of course, I don't complain to be the spokesman for all Mass Effect players, but this is what I've felt, judging from these forums alone.

I honestly felt most of my decisions had found closure before the actual end of the game.  So I don't feel they were forgotten, I just don't feel they needed to have anything to do with the final decision.  Maybe they should have implemented something close to the suicide mission in terms of player input, but the effect would be minimal as it was then.

Well, this was advertised as Shepard's story.  So closure for Shepard's fate is closure for the game's story.  What is not provided is closure for the rest of the universe, and I'm content to leave that to my imagination.

[Darkeus]

The Razman wrote...

Actually, it does make the ending bad.  If it had to be changed, then it was not up to snuff.  Causing an emotional response in someone does not make teh ending good, especially if the response is hate and revulsion.  Conjuring sadness and hate and vitriol is not a good ending my friend.

Not if it was trying to make you happy, no. If it was trying to make you sad ... then it's spot on. If you're going to accept games as an art form, then you have to accept that they're not always going to pander to our emotional desires. And that's good, because that's what makes the best art ... things which make us feel things we don't want to.

It is a bad ending that usually creates those emotonal responses.  Sad ending?  Whatever, it was never a good prognosis for the galaxy.  Shepard dies?  There was always the possibility.

But that has nothing to do with poor writing, plot holes, lack of resolution, lack of effect from all of your choices and the other myriad of issues people have with teh ending that has nothing to do with if it was a sad ending or not.

I think people really want to believe that, you included. Because it being a sad ending simply isn't a complaint you can air ... the response is too obvious. So a lot of people are legitimising their feeling of disappointment and sadness with complaints about plotholes and such. If we had a happier ending ... I believe a lot of the complaints would've failed to emerge.

I'm not saying that complaints about plotholes and such aren't legitimate ... but it's not logical to have seen the Normandy at the end and immediately gone "OMG WHAT? THAT MAKES NO SENSE THIS IS A RUBBISH ENDING". It's simply not that jarring and inexplicable a factor ... it's not a massive leap of logic to explain why the Normandy is doing what it's doing, is it? The sheer ferocity of the complaints against the ending seem to be stemming from another place, an emotional one ... which comes out occasionally, in posts which suggest things like "don't ask for a brighter ending, ask for a more satisfying one" or ones which detail sheer unhappiness at not having proper "closure".

All I'm saying is ... the fact that you feel this strongly is a sign that the emotional aspect of the ending worked. How you channel that is your own choice.

We will have to agree to disagree.  Again, emotional response does not mean that an ending is good.  There are bad emotional responses and good emotional respones that a story and ending can evoke.  A sad ending can evoke these good emotional responses.  A happy ending can evoke the bad emotional responses.  Just because the ending evoke a response does not mean it worked.  It could mean it failed quit badly, which most people tend to think of ME3's ending.

It is all about the context of the ending to the story.  There are such things as anti-climaxes and cop-out endings.  We just disagree if Mass Effect 3 is one of those types of endings.  There are a majority of people who do not agree with you, at least what I have seen around the net and not just here. 

The game may have evoked an emotional response, but it is not the good one.  If you fail to see why there is so much backlash, I can't help you.  But let us say this, Mass Effect 3 is not getting the type of emotional response it would if the ending was good and presetned a relevant and satisfying climax.  If it did, the response and backlash would not exist at all.  Not in the capacity it exist as of right now.

[Heimdall]

Fawx9 wrote...

Wuppie wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Darth Malignus wrote...

The Razman wrote...

PanzerDivision wrote...

a_guy_on_teh_interweb wrote...

Most people are mad that there is no "happy" ending. Each option involves major losses.

I personally am not a fan of them, but i'm not really that mad about it. It could have been better, but it could have been worse.

That's not the point, I'm totally OK with desperate and depressing ends, but I wouldn't mind a proper epilogue showing the outcomes of my decisions, and there's none. Just fade to black and credits rolling, with a lot of unanswered questions.

So ... because it leaves us with some questions unanswered, that makes it a bad ending?

No, but when pretty much ALL questions you'd might have about the characters you've teamed up with or met in the 3 games are unanswered, then it's a bad ending.

Don't get me wrong, I couldn't care less about how many kids Garrus has 20 years after the final showdown or if EDI and Jeff get married. But some closure of ANY kind would be nice.

The future is pretty uncertain for the whole galaxy by the end.

We had closure just before the final mission. More would just be fanservice. In fact, a lot of the game was already fanservice, showing us where the characters from the series are now and where they're going in the future. What more do you want?

Clearly they want their hands held and get walked through each companions "life after them reaper thingies". Something some people dont.
The ability to read-between-the-lines is a lost art. Unless it is subtitled and captioned its crap nowdays (yes I am over 30yrs old and a gamer, with children, and a spouse - the HORROR!)

How are we even supposed to begin at guessing with what happened when the cinematics and game scenes don't match up at all? If I could post spoilers the biggest offender for this point would be the Normandy+crew itself.

Also no matter what end you take the logistics of the outcome bascially doom all those that survived on earth.

Finally look where you end up if you do 'live', thats not physically possible considering the choice to get that ending. 

Applying any kind of lgic to the ending doesn't make it more clear, it breaks it.

I've heard the Normandy crew business is a bug.

Doom for all those that survived on earth?  False

Is that the DESTRUCTION ending?  Improbable, but not impossible.

[The Razman]

Put it this way. BioShock had a bad ending ... a catastrophically bad ending. Did it evoke this kind of emotional reaction from fans? No.

You can try and deny it ... but you've got people on the other forum almost in tears over their emotional reaction to the end of the story. That's not normal for "a couple of plotholes and a bit of an unsatisfactory ending". That ending was an emotional experience ... and it can only be called a success in those terms.

If you want to attack it in terms of plotholes, go right ahead. But I can't be hearing any tripe about the sheer volume of response to the ending merely being "because it's bad". This isn't the reaction that bad endings get.

[TheShadowWolf911]

a_guy_on_teh_interweb wrote...

Most people are mad that there is no "happy" ending. Each option involves major losses.

I personally am not a fan of them, but i'm not really that mad about it. It could have been better, but it could have been worse.

no........this is untrue (granted there are SOME that are like that), but the real reason is every ending contradicts what the entire series stands for, makes every choice we made in all 3 games pointless, has several plotholes, and leaves multiple loose ends.

and to top it all off, it contains a Deus Ex Machina, something no self respecting writer should ever use.


this ain't about a happy ending, it's about brutally destroying everything in a garbled mess of nonsenseicle writing.

[Heimdall]

Darkeus wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Actually, it does make the ending bad.  If it had to be changed, then it was not up to snuff.  Causing an emotional response in someone does not make teh ending good, especially if the response is hate and revulsion.  Conjuring sadness and hate and vitriol is not a good ending my friend.

Not if it was trying to make you happy, no. If it was trying to make you sad ... then it's spot on. If you're going to accept games as an art form, then you have to accept that they're not always going to pander to our emotional desires. And that's good, because that's what makes the best art ... things which make us feel things we don't want to.

It is a bad ending that usually creates those emotonal responses.  Sad ending?  Whatever, it was never a good prognosis for the galaxy.  Shepard dies?  There was always the possibility.

But that has nothing to do with poor writing, plot holes, lack of resolution, lack of effect from all of your choices and the other myriad of issues people have with teh ending that has nothing to do with if it was a sad ending or not.

I think people really want to believe that, you included. Because it being a sad ending simply isn't a complaint you can air ... the response is too obvious. So a lot of people are legitimising their feeling of disappointment and sadness with complaints about plotholes and such. If we had a happier ending ... I believe a lot of the complaints would've failed to emerge.

I'm not saying that complaints about plotholes and such aren't legitimate ... but it's not logical to have seen the Normandy at the end and immediately gone "OMG WHAT? THAT MAKES NO SENSE THIS IS A RUBBISH ENDING". It's simply not that jarring and inexplicable a factor ... it's not a massive leap of logic to explain why the Normandy is doing what it's doing, is it? The sheer ferocity of the complaints against the ending seem to be stemming from another place, an emotional one ... which comes out occasionally, in posts which suggest things like "don't ask for a brighter ending, ask for a more satisfying one" or ones which detail sheer unhappiness at not having proper "closure".

All I'm saying is ... the fact that you feel this strongly is a sign that the emotional aspect of the ending worked. How you channel that is your own choice.

We will have to agree to disagree.  Again, emotional response does not mean that an ending is good.  There are bad emotional responses and good emotional respones that a story and ending can evoke.  A sad ending can evoke these good emotional responses.  A happy ending can evoke the bad emotional responses.  Just because the ending evoke a response does not mean it worked.  It could mean it failed quit badly, which most people tend to think of ME3's ending.

It is all about the context of the ending to the story.  There are such things as anti-climaxes and cop-out endings.  We just disagree if Mass Effect 3 is one of those types of endings.  There are a majority of people who do not agree with you, at least what I have seen around the net and not just here. 

The game may have evoked an emotional response, but it is not the good one.  If you fail to see why there is so much backlash, I can't help you.  But let us say this, Mass Effect 3 is not getting the type of emotional response it would if the ending was good and presetned a relevant and satisfying climax.  If it did, the response and backlash would not exist at all.  Not in the capacity it exist as of right now.

My emotional respone to the ending was fantastic, and I did find it satisfying.  This is a very subjective topic.

[Bluefuse]

LeTtotheC wrote...

Urdnot Grim wrote...

Shinwolverine wrote...

umm yeah it is pretty bad. Ive put so many hours into the mass effect series and ive been nickle and dimed by bioware because I want the best possible experience. But then to find out that none of that **** mattered and that the ending comes down to 3 choices none of which are good at all. All of them leave you disappointed. Its like they just got lazy or something. I could think of a million better endings that actually make sense.

Well, about only two of the writers who'd been working on the story up to ME2 remained when ME3 started going into development.

Well that just about explains everything - from the drop in the quality of the general script, to the "What the...?" ending.  Look, you need someone with either vision or to have the whole thing planned out in advance if you want continuity in your storyline.  Take for example the 90s show Babylon 5.  It's one of the few sci-fi shows to have kept a consistent story arc going, mainly because it was the brainchild of just one guy who had planned it out roughly before hand.  Yes the acting could be ropey, melodramatic and the sets were cheap, but it made up for it with one hell of an emotional punch - things mattered and had huge repurcussions.  ME1 & 2 felt like that, that it was building to something epic.  Only they didn't.  They built towards a somewhat messy and pieced together third act that made a mockery of the story telling up until then. 

I even said after playing ME2 two years ago that Drew Karpyshyn needed to stay as the lead writer because Mass Effect did make too sharp of a turn even at the start of it. Mass Effect 3 redeemed and justified almost everything about Mass Effect 2's story, but it shot itself in the head at the end. In conclusion, the real answer to avoiding this problem is to have a SINGLE person develop the bulk of the story and be in total control of the story, because the initial creator is the only one who has its own unique and creative concepts in mind. That goes for my music too. I never do covers; I make my own songs because I have a distinct vision for what I'm trying to create. Mass Effect was mainly Drew Karpyshyn's idea and it should have stayed that way for the whole series because it carried his own unique vision inspired by the creative ideas that made sense to him.

Modifié par Bluefuse, 13 mars 2012 - 02:45 .

[nevar00]

I just finished playing the game. I have to agree with those who say turn it off right before the end. It's truly THAT bad.

I love the games. I even love the third game: except for the last 10 minutes. I have 6 playthroughs, yet now I lost any reason to playthrough with the other 5.

There are 3 endings, and they are all HORRENDOUS. Every decision you have ever made in the game not only has no impact, but is rendered completely obsolete.

And here I was worried we'd get a dues ex machina pulse shot out from the Crucible that would automatically destroy every Reaper.

How I would take that in a heartbeat right now.

[Heimdall]

TheShadowWolf911 wrote...

a_guy_on_teh_interweb wrote...

Most people are mad that there is no "happy" ending. Each option involves major losses.

I personally am not a fan of them, but i'm not really that mad about it. It could have been better, but it could have been worse.

no........this is untrue (granted there are SOME that are like that), but the real reason is every ending contradicts what the entire series stands for, makes every choice we made in all 3 games pointless, has several plotholes, and leaves multiple loose ends.

and to top it all off, it contains a Deus Ex Machina, something no self respecting writer should ever use.


this ain't about a happy ending, it's about brutally destroying everything in a garbled mess of nonsenseicle writing.

Honestly, most of the loose ends in the series were resolved within the game itself.

[Darkeus]

The Razman wrote...

Put it this way. BioShock had a bad ending ... a catastrophically bad ending. Did it evoke this kind of emotional reaction from fans? No.

You can try and deny it ... but you've got people on the other forum almost in tears over their emotional reaction to the end of the story. That's not normal for "a couple of plotholes and a bit of an unsatisfactory ending". That ending was an emotional experience ... and it can only be called a success in those terms.

If you want to attack it in terms of plotholes, go right ahead. But I can't be hearing any tripe about the sheer volume of response to the ending merely being "because it's bad". This isn't the reaction that bad endings get.

See, you are making the mistake of dismissing the emotional investment in teh GAME SERIES and that effect on the emotional response to a bad ending.  Yes, it is the response bad endings get, especially if it does not do anyting to satisfy the emotional investment of a game series people have been playing since 2007....

People are flipping out because the ending does the series no justice, and in return do the investment of the player no justice as well.  Not hard to see....

[Fawx9]

The Razman wrote...

Fawx9 wrote...

Wuppie wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Darth Malignus wrote...

The Razman wrote...

PanzerDivision wrote...

a_guy_on_teh_interweb wrote...

Most people are mad that there is no "happy" ending. Each option involves major losses.

I personally am not a fan of them, but i'm not really that mad about it. It could have been better, but it could have been worse.

That's not the point, I'm totally OK with desperate and depressing ends, but I wouldn't mind a proper epilogue showing the outcomes of my decisions, and there's none. Just fade to black and credits rolling, with a lot of unanswered questions.

So ... because it leaves us with some questions unanswered, that makes it a bad ending?

No, but when pretty much ALL questions you'd might have about the characters you've teamed up with or met in the 3 games are unanswered, then it's a bad ending.

Don't get me wrong, I couldn't care less about how many kids Garrus has 20 years after the final showdown or if EDI and Jeff get married. But some closure of ANY kind would be nice.

The future is pretty uncertain for the whole galaxy by the end.

We had closure just before the final mission. More would just be fanservice. In fact, a lot of the game was already fanservice, showing us where the characters from the series are now and where they're going in the future. What more do you want?

Clearly they want their hands held and get walked through each companions "life after them reaper thingies". Something some people dont.
The ability to read-between-the-lines is a lost art. Unless it is subtitled and captioned its crap nowdays (yes I am over 30yrs old and a gamer, with children, and a spouse - the HORROR!)

How are we even supposed to begin at guessing with what happened when the cinematics and game scenes don't match up at all? If I could post spoilers the biggest offender for this point would be the Normandy+crew itself.

Also no matter what end you take the logistics of the outcome bascially doom all those that survived on earth.

Finally look where you end up if you do 'live', thats not physically possible considering the choice to get that ending. 

Applying any kind of lgic to the ending doesn't make it more clear, it breaks it.

I don't really understand any of what you just said? None of that is true?

Imagine lets say you were on a space station in orbit over Earth and that space station blows up? Do you expect to be alive and one piece waking up on Earth?

Lets say you and a friend were out jogging. You get knocked over and winded but get up with a small headache and can't find your friend. You then receive text message from them talking about how great their cruise ship is out in the Pacific.

Lets say you and an expidition went out in search of a new land, but all you found was a small Island that could only support a quarter of you're crew, however before you get back to the ship it sinks? What happens to everyone since there isn't enough supplies to go around and no one can leave?


This are the types of question the ending gives us. All of them either make no sense, you're friend magically transporting to a cruise ship, are impossible, you falling from space and surviving, or are hopeless, at least 3/4 of the people die because of lack of supplies.

[Darkeus]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Actually, it does make the ending bad.  If it had to be changed, then it was not up to snuff.  Causing an emotional response in someone does not make teh ending good, especially if the response is hate and revulsion.  Conjuring sadness and hate and vitriol is not a good ending my friend.

Not if it was trying to make you happy, no. If it was trying to make you sad ... then it's spot on. If you're going to accept games as an art form, then you have to accept that they're not always going to pander to our emotional desires. And that's good, because that's what makes the best art ... things which make us feel things we don't want to.

It is a bad ending that usually creates those emotonal responses.  Sad ending?  Whatever, it was never a good prognosis for the galaxy.  Shepard dies?  There was always the possibility.

But that has nothing to do with poor writing, plot holes, lack of resolution, lack of effect from all of your choices and the other myriad of issues people have with teh ending that has nothing to do with if it was a sad ending or not.

I think people really want to believe that, you included. Because it being a sad ending simply isn't a complaint you can air ... the response is too obvious. So a lot of people are legitimising their feeling of disappointment and sadness with complaints about plotholes and such. If we had a happier ending ... I believe a lot of the complaints would've failed to emerge.

I'm not saying that complaints about plotholes and such aren't legitimate ... but it's not logical to have seen the Normandy at the end and immediately gone "OMG WHAT? THAT MAKES NO SENSE THIS IS A RUBBISH ENDING". It's simply not that jarring and inexplicable a factor ... it's not a massive leap of logic to explain why the Normandy is doing what it's doing, is it? The sheer ferocity of the complaints against the ending seem to be stemming from another place, an emotional one ... which comes out occasionally, in posts which suggest things like "don't ask for a brighter ending, ask for a more satisfying one" or ones which detail sheer unhappiness at not having proper "closure".

All I'm saying is ... the fact that you feel this strongly is a sign that the emotional aspect of the ending worked. How you channel that is your own choice.

We will have to agree to disagree.  Again, emotional response does not mean that an ending is good.  There are bad emotional responses and good emotional respones that a story and ending can evoke.  A sad ending can evoke these good emotional responses.  A happy ending can evoke the bad emotional responses.  Just because the ending evoke a response does not mean it worked.  It could mean it failed quit badly, which most people tend to think of ME3's ending.

It is all about the context of the ending to the story.  There are such things as anti-climaxes and cop-out endings.  We just disagree if Mass Effect 3 is one of those types of endings.  There are a majority of people who do not agree with you, at least what I have seen around the net and not just here. 

The game may have evoked an emotional response, but it is not the good one.  If you fail to see why there is so much backlash, I can't help you.  But let us say this, Mass Effect 3 is not getting the type of emotional response it would if the ending was good and presetned a relevant and satisfying climax.  If it did, the response and backlash would not exist at all.  Not in the capacity it exist as of right now.

My emotional respone to the ending was fantastic, and I did find it satisfying.  This is a very subjective topic.

A subjective matter than many do not agree with you on.  Some will like the ending, I have found that most across the net do not....

Even if it is subjective, there is a point where that turns near universal.  We are approaching that point.

[Wuppie]

TheShadowWolf911 wrote...

a_guy_on_teh_interweb wrote...

Most people are mad that there is no "happy" ending. Each option involves major losses.

I personally am not a fan of them, but i'm not really that mad about it. It could have been better, but it could have been worse.

no........this is untrue (granted there are SOME that are like that), but the real reason is every ending contradicts what the entire series stands for, makes every choice we made in all 3 games pointless, has several plotholes, and leaves multiple loose ends.

and to top it all off, it contains a Deus Ex Machina, something no self respecting writer should ever use.


this ain't about a happy ending, it's about brutally destroying everything in a garbled mess of nonsenseicle writing.

As I have said and at least one other, given the nature and power of the reapers, a deus ex machina was almost a sure bet.

[Mx_CN3]

Lord Aesir wrote...

I honestly felt most of my decisions had found closure before the actual end of the game.  So I don't feel they were forgotten, I just don't feel they needed to have anything to do with the final decision.  Maybe they should have implemented something close to the suicide mission in terms of player input, but the effect would be minimal as it was then.

Well, this was advertised as Shepard's story.  So closure for Shepard's fate is closure for the game's story.  What is not provided is closure for the rest of the universe, and I'm content to leave that to my imagination.

A lot of them were addressed during the course of the game, yes.  What I've been seeing is that people were thinking that their decisions affected the outcome of the story.  However, the outcome of the story is affected by nothing much other than a short walk in a chosen direction.  And I do think people wanted it to be closer to the suicide mission; it's logical to assume that BioWare showed us how "decisions mattered" in one game, they would do something similar in the next.  But they didn't.  They made the entire outcome based on one decision only.  (I'm not referring to the differences you get from War Assets in this case, btw.  Those only have a minimal impact on the climax and possibly outcome, but even in that case, we still don't know what happened as a result of them.)

And I think that people that, like you, see this as only Shepard's story, will feel content with the ending.  And that's fine, I'm glad at least someone was happy with it.  But a lot of us felt that this was about much more than Shepard, and yet at the end, all we know for certain is what happens to him/her.

[Psychlonus]

Judging from the ME2 forums from about a year ago, everybody was all set to complain about the reapers being the new Borg: a lot of invincibility hype being undermined by a relatively painless resolution.  Bioware was damned if they did and damed if they didn't.

[Bluefuse]

See, you are making the mistake of dismissing the emotional investment in teh GAME SERIES and that effect on the emotional response to a bad ending.  Yes, it is the response bad endings get, especially if it does not do anyting to satisfy the emotional investment of a game series people have been playing since 2007....

People are flipping out because the ending does the series no justice, and in return do the investment of the player no justice as well.  Not hard to see....


[/quote]

This

[LeTtotheC]

The Razman wrote...

Put it this way. BioShock had a bad ending ... a catastrophically bad ending. Did it evoke this kind of emotional reaction from fans? No.

You can try and deny it ... but you've got people on the other forum almost in tears over their emotional reaction to the end of the story. That's not normal for "a couple of plotholes and a bit of an unsatisfactory ending". That ending was an emotional experience ... and it can only be called a success in those terms.

If you want to attack it in terms of plotholes, go right ahead. But I can't be hearing any tripe about the sheer volume of response to the ending merely being "because it's bad". This isn't the reaction that bad endings get.

Just because it provokes an emotion it doesn't mean that it was a job well done.  What matters is the kind of emotion the writers were trying to provoke in the participant, and I'm severly doubting that anger and confusion was the aim of the ending.

There were points in the game that had me sad - Mordin and Legions passing were both bittersweet affairs.  But the ending was just a case of "Huh?" and kind of lazy in having similar endings to cut down on the time needed to produce the CGI for significantly different out comes. 

If it wasn't a spoler free zone it'd be possible to go into this with greater depth, as well as provide how the endings could have gone with the same choices, and provided significantly more satisfying out comes.

[Fawx9]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Fawx9 wrote...

Wuppie wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Darth Malignus wrote...

The Razman wrote...

PanzerDivision wrote...

a_guy_on_teh_interweb wrote...

Most people are mad that there is no "happy" ending. Each option involves major losses.

I personally am not a fan of them, but i'm not really that mad about it. It could have been better, but it could have been worse.

That's not the point, I'm totally OK with desperate and depressing ends, but I wouldn't mind a proper epilogue showing the outcomes of my decisions, and there's none. Just fade to black and credits rolling, with a lot of unanswered questions.

So ... because it leaves us with some questions unanswered, that makes it a bad ending?

No, but when pretty much ALL questions you'd might have about the characters you've teamed up with or met in the 3 games are unanswered, then it's a bad ending.

Don't get me wrong, I couldn't care less about how many kids Garrus has 20 years after the final showdown or if EDI and Jeff get married. But some closure of ANY kind would be nice.

The future is pretty uncertain for the whole galaxy by the end.

We had closure just before the final mission. More would just be fanservice. In fact, a lot of the game was already fanservice, showing us where the characters from the series are now and where they're going in the future. What more do you want?

Clearly they want their hands held and get walked through each companions "life after them reaper thingies". Something some people dont.
The ability to read-between-the-lines is a lost art. Unless it is subtitled and captioned its crap nowdays (yes I am over 30yrs old and a gamer, with children, and a spouse - the HORROR!)

How are we even supposed to begin at guessing with what happened when the cinematics and game scenes don't match up at all? If I could post spoilers the biggest offender for this point would be the Normandy+crew itself.

Also no matter what end you take the logistics of the outcome bascially doom all those that survived on earth.

Finally look where you end up if you do 'live', thats not physically possible considering the choice to get that ending. 

Applying any kind of lgic to the ending doesn't make it more clear, it breaks it.

I've heard the Normandy crew business is a bug.

Doom for all those that survived on earth?  False

Is that the DESTRUCTION ending?  Improbable, but not impossible.

How is it a bug? One second I know exactly where a character is, the next they are on another planet.

You have a large number of ships with no real way out of the system with one life bearing planet. How to you split up supplies?

YOU FALL FROM SPACE THROUGH THE ATMOSPHERE AFTER BEING BLOWN UP IN A HALF A SUIT. YOU DON'T LIVE.

[bleachorange]

My beef with Bioware now is tying the war score AND the correct choice into a cutscene that has revelatory implications AS WELL as not in my opinion actually delivering what they promised, the finale to Mass Effect. And no, none of this spoils anything.

[Wuppie]

Darkeus wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

My emotional respone to the ending was fantastic, and I did find it satisfying.  This is a very subjective topic.

A subjective matter than many do not agree with you on.  Some will like the ending, I have found that most across the net do not....

Even if it is subjective, there is a point where that turns near universal.  We are approaching that point.

Just because it seems like "most people hate xyz" because the internet is full of people spewing bile at it does NOT make it representitive of the masses.

If you are happy with a coffee do you go back and say "awesome coffee dude"? unlikely. If it tastes like crap you probably will go back and say something.

People generally only make noise about things they dont like, rarely do they yell and scream because they like something or are indifferent towards it.

Food for thought....