873 réponses à ce sujet

[Geneaux486]

Great thread, OP. I liked the endings, nice to see there are others who do as well. You've done a great job of giving the endings a fair and level-headed review.  I've also glimpsed a few retake ME3 people posting in here who aren't batcrap crazy, so that's a refreshing change to.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 22 mars 2012 - 01:27 .

[warrioronfire66]

Minty-while I am glad you found the ending to be satisfactory many others did not.

 If this is art work, which I do believe video games are capable of being (note, they aren't art because they exist, they can be art if they cause a visceral reaction in the person playing them thou.) And it was produced for people or person to enjoy, then it can be critique and the beholder(we the gamers) can say I don't like this or that and it should be changed like that and this.

Now because we payed for this work of art; (I agree that this game ,Mass effect 3,  is art because it has caused visceral reactions to not only myself but many people) we have a right to tell the artist what we don't like and do like; and we are well within our rights to demand changes. This piece of art wouldn't be here without both my and your support (financially, voicing for more games, etc) we could both reasonably make demands for changes in the art work that we are paying or have payed for. The artist can either decide to make the changes or not and the consequences of such a decision are for a different conversation. I feel that you are saying that people who are asking for  a different ending have no right to do so and I strongly disagree with you on that point.

[starscreamerx31]

All i got to say is check this out. Its an interesting read. Though i disagree with you the utmost of the word. If the link i provided is true it would certainly explain this god awful ending.

http://www.gameranx....versial-ending/

[sargon1986]

Nicely written!

Or so they say.. can't really be sure because I wouldn't waste my time reading it.

[Targonis1]

The problem with the ending isn't about the choices offered, or sacrificing everything. The primary complaint is that there is no final "this is how your decisions in ME3 affected the galaxy", which WOULD have provided the sense of closure that EVERYONE was looking for.

Going from ME1 to 2, you could discover how your decisions played out, even letting certain characters live or die in ME1, you had a chance to see what happened. Going from ME2 to ME3, you also had a chance to talk to most of the people you knew in ME2, so there was a nice follow-up that was very satisfying. Now, with no ME4, and the main character being DEAD due to the ending to ME3, there is a feeling that there is no sense of completion. What happened to all the major species after Shepard dies? Wars, rebuilding, cooperation? This is what most of us expected at the very least, and we got none of it.

Now, if Shepard is dead, then DLC is problematic. Does it get added before the final mission, just as filler? It can't be added after the final mission, because you get reset to before your assault to end Cerberus(without changing that reset). Or can the technology that brought Shepard back for ME2 be used to bring him back again? Or could the ending be modified SLIGHTLY, just to eliminate the issue of it killing Shepard(while still providing that closure)?

With the level of technology available to the Reapers, it should be possible that Shepard is re-created as either a pure biological or an even better version of him/herself for DLC. Even the idea of the relays going offline could be addressed since they may not have EXPLODED. A planned shutdown does not have to follow the same rules as an unexpected and destructive destruction of a mass relay. Case in point, take a computer that is running, open it up while it is still running, and now throw a glass of water into the electronics. That would clearly destroy the machine in a rather catastrophic way, while sending a signal to shut down would NOT be nearly as bad.

[CavScout]

JasonC Shepard wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Again you are presuming that artists who promote their art are somehow degrading it. The premise is false.

But isn't there enough promotion with the Mass Effect 3 ads and with the actual game?  My view on promotion is, if you can't win someone over with the experience you've already provided then there is no reason to further promote it.  Pushing a consumer to buy more of your work isn't right from my stand point.  They either enjoy it and will buy more, or not.

It being art or not is related to how much promotion or advertising went on. The notion that promoting your work is bad is just weird.

[Baronesa]

RiouHotaru wrote...


*snip  snip and more snip*


Hello Nesa 

Anyway, there's a difference.  With CoX, we're given all the context and all the background, but it doesn't matter, we're still forced into making terrible choices.  We know the who/what/when/where/why in that case.

Here, we don't.  I'll openly admit, I think the Catalyst doesn't have enough background.  So in this case, you can't say for certain the decisions are bad decisions when we don't know enough about what's happening.  The endings would likely make MUCH more sense if there was some context to go with them.  Like we had with ME2 (I blew up the base because TIM had a consistent record of being a lying jackass.  Thus, context.)

I disagree, regarding the decisions presented by the catalyst. I can say those are bad decisions. In the game we have seen synthetics and organics able to cooperate, we even saw how the Geth, and Quarians that supported the Geth, were the real victims of attempted genocide during the morning wars. The premise that "the created will always rebel against the creator" or that organics and synthetics will always be at odds, is nonsense. In fact, if you think about the premise, it is the same (albeit slightly modified) premise that  the Dalatrass Linron tried to use to convince Shepard to NOT cure the genophage. X will always attack Y, or X will always behave in Z way.

By taking away this basic premise, then the whole "force to choose" one of the 3 presented solutions, follows too. It is out of character for Shepard to blindly accept whatever  the "child" is presenting, even more after it introduces itself as the entity behind the Reaper's actions, basically the main antagonnist... So the confrontation with the main antagonist, ends with the Hero/ine bowing his/her head and accepting whatever this genocidal mania tells him/her?

P.S. We need more Mike and "The Directive"

[pomrink]

CavScout wrote...

pomrink wrote...

CavScout wrote...

pomrink wrote...

CavScout wrote...

KTheAlchemist wrote...

I'm sorry, but this entire thing simply feels like arguing for the sake of arguing. If there is DLC which adds to or creates the possibility of new endings, and you don't care for it...

Don't. Install. The DLC.

It's really just that easy.

Let test that premise: If you don't like the games endings and you don't care for them...
Don't. Install. The Game.

Was it really just that easy?

That argument is invalid. The game was already purchased.

Oh really? How will one know they won't like the DLC without purchasing it then?

Again, invalid argument. Endgame DLC will be released to much fanfair. It is not possible to preorder DLC. People will be knowledgeable about it far before they buy it.  Ending leaks were said to be incorrect. They were accurate.

The argument is valid. You're saying folks should buy something they don't like. Except you won't hold your self/side to the same "rule". At best you pandering with crappy logic at worst just a hard-on hypocrite.

If "don't buy it if you don't like it" is valid for the DLC it's valid for the game as well. Hell, the game had "much fanfair" too. Yet here you are, with it purchased, crying to high-heaven about how much you dislike it.

Where did I say folks should buy something they didn't like? I'm missing that somewhere, where I even implied that. Infact, I would not have purchased the game had I read the leaks. You're just resorting to ad hominems.

I should have elborated much fanfair, I meant it will likely be known what the new endings will be before they are purchased.

It is not valid for the game because many of us pre-ordered the game. At that point, the game was purchased before we knew what problems it had. Many people will no longer pre-order games. Please, do not insult anyone.

[Keltikone]

OP, nicely presented, however, videogames are designed to entertain, and while certain games can make a valid claim to art status ( I'm looking at you Journey ) Mass Effect is not in thier number.

Mass Effect is a pure Sci Fi character driven soap opera and the ending ruined the entertainment value for many of the devoted fan base.

[KTheAlchemist]

ashdrake1 wrote...

KTheAlchemist wrote...

I'm sorry, but this entire thing simply feels like arguing for the sake of arguing. If there is DLC which adds to or creates the possibility of new endings, and you don't care for it...

Don't. Install. The DLC.

It's really just that easy. The rest your post is just a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between player and developer on games...they are art, yes, but a fundamentally different sort of art.

And the real bottom line here is that Bioware lied to us. They sold us an ending experience that they apparently had no intention to provide. You can't hide that behind "artistic integrity".

Don't install the DLC has nothing to do with artistic integrity.  This whole movement is a giant leap forward in mediocrity.  Why try something deep, when shallow sells.

Now...we could get into a big argument about whether or not the ending they gave is "deep". Honestly, I don't think it is. It used a method of creating an end that's been shown and agreed to be a bad trope for many, many centuries. It didn't create a philosophical discussion, it forced a philosophical viewpoint down the character's throat and the character...a character whose byline has been "you the player make the decisions" from the get go..doesn't get a chance to disagree and reject what many have argued and illustrated is a deeply flawed argument.

The bottom line for me though, past alllll of that, is this:

Bioware promised an ending with a large number of widely divergent possibilties determined by the actions of the player. Bioware promised an ending that wasn't simply "A, B, or C", but something that would truly reflect the game's theme of the player's choices being significant.

Making good on that promise when they, for whatever reason, failed to initially in no way damages artistic integrity. If anything it would show that they still have some.

This isn't really I think, a simple argument of what options were there, but what options were not. Endings that take a very different path shouldn't be added because of any particular artistic vision be it the developers or the players...they should be there because that's been a major selling point of the series, and one that was sold to us right up to release day.

[111987]

Joush wrote...

111987 wrote...

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

Why cant organics and synthetics co-exist? Shep proves they can

The fact that for out of the 300 years the Geth have been in existence, they've been at odds against organics, disproves your assertion. A week of cooperation diesn't guarantee anything in the long term.

The Geth stopped fighting the Quarians when the Quarians left orbit and stayed in their own small area of space. So they had a few decades of war followed by 250+ years of peaceful coexsistance, followed by attacking organics only under the control of Reapers. EDI never, when allowed to act as a free willed being, made an attempt to oppose all organic life. 

The Geth butchered anyone that came near their territory, even those that came in peace. The 'true' Geth also didn't feel the need to warn the galaxy about the Reapers in ME1, or even if they didn't want to cooperate with organics, they still let the rest of the Geth proceed unchallenged.

The Heretic Geth were also never under the control of the Reapers; they chose to side with Sovereign.

Modifié par 111987, 22 mars 2012 - 01:28 .

[Mad-Hamlet]

Hey, Ender didn't know what he was doing when he committed the Xenoicide!

Hey...whoa...I just had an epiphany. Remember that game Ender played? As a mouse exploring this fairy world, ripping apart the giants face, getting eaten by children who turned into wolves? That sort of thing?

You remember the ending to that one? I think he had to pick up a snake that would poison him and give it a kiss?

Yeah, that ending was wwaaayyy....

No. Wait.

Nope, still better than ME3 ending.

Hold the Line.

[ashdrake1]

Ashilana wrote...

If we accept that ME3 was art that should not changed.... this means that the take home messages from the ending are

A) The Illusive Man was right, even if he was indoctrinated to think the way he did.

Free will is unimportant, all life in the universe has to be fundamentally altered without consent.

C) Massive genocide is a great option... it even rewards you by living!

A)  why is this an issue?

The consent was they wanted the reapers gone.  No one knew what the device did but they were willing to use or or face extinction.

C) Rewards you by living with the memory of killing a entire species and a close friend.

[silverspirit2001]

Look, I understand that the ending was meant to be an epic discussion on three questions,

Will AI out compete organics?
Is synthesis between organics and AI the future?
Will we be able to control AI?

The big problem is, art is defined by context and imagery. The context and imagery used to promote this discussion failed, because it was presented at the wrong time, and place. In a game, at the end, emotions and adrenaline are understandable high.

To change the tone and imagery from one perspective to another so rapidly is not good art. In fact, it is as seen, counter productive. Can you think of one art project which changes from one perspective to another, without it being used as a counterpoint...And the philosophy of the questions the ending raises is not a counter point, it is abrogating the philosophy of the game before, the individualism and co-operation.

What does not help is the characters interaction with EDI and the Geth.

The fact is, even if it is a valid artistic choice, it is invalid. And more so, if it is art, and art cannot be challenged on its merits, then we as consumers have the right not to purchase it once we have seen the work.

Are you claiming if we are disappointed with an artwork we are forced to pay before we view it, we should have the right to get our money back?
Are you saying when a riot broke out at the first production of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring, that no-one had the right to have an opinion on it?
And how do you classify the difference between art, and asking a philosophical question the game tries to end with?

No, the end was not art, it was more oratory. Art makes people realize what the questions the artist is bringing up, not state an argument and asks people to discuss it.

[CavScout]

111987 wrote...

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

Why cant organics and synthetics co-exist? Shep proves they can

The fact that for out of the 300 years the Geth have been in existence, they've been at odds against organics, disproves your assertion. A week of cooperation diesn't guarantee anything in the long term.

^. This.

A moment of temporary peace proves nothing. France and Germany made peace in 1918... they still got together for war a few years later.

Modifié par CavScout, 22 mars 2012 - 01:33 .

[ZodiEmish]

HenchxNarf wrote...

ticklefist wrote...

OK fine. We don't have a right to ask people to change the ending. Fine. We have the right to wave money in their face though. Now which do you think matters more to your precious artists?

I'm pretty sure 50,000 won't make EA bat an eyelash about sales. You all could not buy anything from them and it wouldn't make a difference. 3.5+ Million people bought the game. 50k is nothing.

Sorry but I have to play the fact police here. You have your facts wrong. There is a difference between untis shipped and units sold. Units ship are copies of the game sent to stores. Units sold ( which is around a million right now ) are the units that were bought by people.

It is important to get the facts straight, so here is a link to an article That has a report on the units sold.  Anyway I hope that helps. If were going to debate. we might aswell debate in the truth.

Modifié par ZodiEmish, 22 mars 2012 - 01:29 .

[111987]

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

111987 wrote...

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

Why cant organics and synthetics co-exist? Shep proves they can

The fact that for out of the 300 years the Geth have been in existence, they've been at odds against organics, disproves your assertion. A week of cooperation diesn't guarantee anything in the long term.

Clearly we played far different games. I dont even know where to address it but lets start here

The quarians started the war, and once legion uploaded the complete consensus all was well

For like a week, when both of their existences were threatened. They even said they would try to be seperated because they realize the threat of conflict between the two was a real concern.

Who knows how long their cooepration would have lasted? It could have been permanently; it could have been a few months of years after the war.

[RiouHotaru]

Baronesa wrote...

P.S. We need more Mike and "The Directive"

When there's more people for it, sure.  I'm a bit burnt out though over this whole ending fiasco<_<

[JasonC Shepard]

CavScout wrote...

JasonC Shepard wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Again you are presuming that artists who promote their art are somehow degrading it. The premise is false.

But isn't there enough promotion with the Mass Effect 3 ads and with the actual game?  My view on promotion is, if you can't win someone over with the experience you've already provided then there is no reason to further promote it.  Pushing a consumer to buy more of your work isn't right from my stand point.  They either enjoy it and will buy more, or not.

It being art or not is related to how much promotion or advertising went on. The notion that promoting your work is bad is just weird.

No, promoting isn't bad.  My point is that they've put enough promotion into this game where once the player finally sits down and beats the game, they should be able to make their own decision.  Adding more promotion after that is unnecessary and seems wrong.  Thats pushing the player.

Modifié par JasonC Shepard, 22 mars 2012 - 01:29 .

[Machazareel]

ashdrake1 wrote...

pomrink wrote...

ashdrake1 wrote...

KTheAlchemist wrote...

I'm sorry, but this entire thing simply feels like arguing for the sake of arguing. If there is DLC which adds to or creates the possibility of new endings, and you don't care for it...

Don't. Install. The DLC.

It's really just that easy. The rest your post is just a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between player and developer on games...they are art, yes, but a fundamentally different sort of art.

And the real bottom line here is that Bioware lied to us. They sold us an ending experience that they apparently had no intention to provide. You can't hide that behind "artistic integrity".

Don't install the DLC has nothing to do with artistic integrity.  This whole movement is a giant leap forward in mediocrity.  Why try something deep, when shallow sells.

It's not deep though.

Bull.  I have never seen the speculation for what occurs after the end, or outright conspiracy theory's that this game has generated.  It's awesome that you did not think about what path to take for the future of a civilization, but I had really had to contemplate what path I chose.

The depth is not the cause of the speculation, though.

[RiouHotaru]

rhyddhau wrote...

Oh good, it's turned into an "Us vs. Them" thing amongst the community. That's mature and helpful.

Honestly, the "Us vs. Them" was present back when this first started.  If you were a fan of the endings you were apparently of little intelligence and lacking taste of any kind.

Apparently it's somewhat improved from that into "Well you can have your opinion, but you're still wrong, so stop talking."

[Baronesa]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Baronesa wrote...

P.S. We need more Mike and "The Directive"

When there's more people for it, sure.  I'm a bit burnt out though over this whole ending fiasco<_<

Yeah, I hear you. Still need to finish Silk's story and so on, so kind of on the same boat

[ashdrake1]

JasonC Shepard wrote...

CavScout wrote...

JasonC Shepard wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Again you are presuming that artists who promote their art are somehow degrading it. The premise is false.

But isn't there enough promotion with the Mass Effect 3 ads and with the actual game?  My view on promotion is, if you can't win someone over with the experience you've already provided then there is no reason to further promote it.  Pushing a consumer to buy more of your work isn't right from my stand point.  They either enjoy it and will buy more, or not.

It being art or not is related to how much promotion or advertising went on. The notion that promoting your work is bad is just weird.

No, promoting isn't bad.  My point is that they've put enough promotion into this game where once the player finally sits down and beats the game, they should be able to make their own decision.  Adding more promotion after that is unnecessary and seems wrong.  Thats pushing the player.

How are there not choices?  There are three of them, even if you did not like them.  Shepard has always had to make the tough choices.

[CavScout]

pomrink wrote...

CavScout wrote...

The argument is valid. You're saying folks should buy something they don't like. Except you won't hold your self/side to the same "rule". At best you pandering with crappy logic at worst just a hard-on hypocrite.

If "don't buy it if you don't like it" is valid for the DLC it's valid for the game as well. Hell, the game had "much fanfair" too. Yet here you are, with it purchased, crying to high-heaven about how much you dislike it.

Where did I say folks should buy something they didn't like? I'm missing that somewhere, where I even implied that. Infact, I would not have purchased the game had I read the leaks. You're just resorting to ad hominems.

I should have elborated much fanfair, I meant it will likely be known what the new endings will be before they are purchased.

It is not valid for the game because many of us pre-ordered the game. At that point, the game was purchased before we knew what problems it had. Many people will no longer pre-order games. Please, do not insult anyone.

"Don't buy it if you don't like it", your words. Good ones to live by. You shouldn't have bought ME3.

[Aisynia]

What artistic integrity?