873 réponses à ce sujet

[jonal11]

Just Hold the Line people. We are Commander Shepard.

[ashdrake1]

Skirlasvoud wrote...

ashdrake1 wrote...

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

MakeMineMako wrote...

durasteel wrote...

There are some fundamental disagreements I have with the OP's analysis.

First, I believe that the residual issue of conflict between synthetic and organic intelligence had already been addressed before the end of Mass Effect 3, specifically by the very well told stories of EDI and the Geth. Certainly by the time I had completed the second act of the game, any notion that the created could not live in peace with their creators was demonstrably false.

Second, Shepard is not the champion of meatbags in the struggle against toasters. Shepard's motivation is to save the galaxy, and its space-faring races. He stands for order against the chaos of destructive change. He begins the game fighting for Earth and the human race, but as he adds allies and unifies the diverse peoples of the galaxy (including synthetic peoples) he begins to stand for something more, for peaceful coexistence among different people, and standing together against common threats.

Third, the Reapers are not a menace because they are robots; they are a menace because they are extremely powerful and hell-bent on the destruction of all "advanced" races in the galaxy. If they were a race of giant, immortal, psychic, hive-minded space cockroaches that came every 50,000 years to eat all the advanced races and add their knowledge to the space-roach collective hive mind, do you think that Shepard would embrace them as fellow organics? No.

Shepard is not fighting the Reapers because they're synthetic, he is fighting them because they threaten everything he values. Not just humanity, but all the races of the galaxy, their cultures, and galactic civilization. That's what he's fighting for.

Shepard loses that fight.

No matter which color you choose for the explosions, galactic civilization is plunged into a dark age--it says so in Mac Walter's notes. Without the relays, whole systems will be unsustainable, whole races will perish, and galactic culture and civilization as we know it has come to an end. Earth, in particular, will need a lot of help to rebuild just to a point of survival, and that help will not be coming. What few resources remain in the Sol system will be fought over as the various races of the "Victory Fleet" begin to starve and die, and it is anyone's guess whether there will be a human race left on Earth after a few generations. In his efforts to prevent the decimation of Earth and galactic civilization, Shepard has failed, regardless of whether he lives or dies or the Reapers live or die.

So what does the ending really offer us? It produces a Deus Ex Machina in the form of the star baby who instantly and immediately strips away Shepard's ability to continue his fight. At that moment, Shepard has lost that war. Instead, we are thrust into another conflict, between created and creator, which (see above) Shepard has already proven to be needless. Unable to point that out, or to argue in any way against the Reaper God, Shepard must choose from among three bad outcomes: destroy the galactic civilization and become an AI; destroy the galactic civilization along with all AI, including friends and allies who have a right to exist (does this unit have a soul?); or destroy galactic civilization and strip all diversity from the galaxy by homogenizing all life with Shepard/Reaper code.

Shepard and the player have been anticipating a showdown with the Reaper Harbinger since the end of Mass Effect 2. The Cerberus research into indoctrination could have provided a counter-agent or device, which could have permitted Shepard to get into Harbinger and fight to the central core, and spike it to send a corruptive signal throughout the Reaper fleet and give his allies an opening for attack, much the way the feedback from Saren stripped Sovereign's kinetic barriers for just long enough at the battle of the Citadel. That's just one example of how the central conflict of Shepard's story could have been resolved. Instead, when that central conflict was stripped away and discarded our nemesis Harbinger was also dismissed and replaced by the star baby Reaper god.

Did you care about beating "the Catalyst?" I didn't. I wasn't even the least bit invested in conflict with it. Compare that with my feelings about Harbinger--before the release of the game I told a friend of mine that I was looking forward to kicking him is his big metal daddy bag, and I was serious.

The ending that shipped with this game isn't bad because Shepard died. It isn't bad because it wasn't happy. It's bad because it centered on things we don't care about, and discarded everything we did care about. Organic/synthetic... we've done that, it's over. Star child... who cares, it's just kind of annoying. Control the Reapers, well... we've just had a conversation where we argues what a stupid idea that was. Destroy all AI, sure... let's make any and all effort we put into the Geth and EDI a complete waste of time, and violate Shepard's principals of tolerance and respect for a being's right to exist. Or, we can re-write all genetics and AI code in the galaxy against its will.

And any way you "choose," Shepard loses his fight to save the galaxy.

Now, please... explain to me how this is "bittersweet." Tell me how it's cool to see Shepard fail in the end, no matter what choices you've made along the way. This isn't simply bleak... this is bad. The conflict we care about is handwaved away, while the choice we're presented with is meaningless.

This can't be resolved by making up an explanation of how your crew teleported or re-spawned on the Normandy, or why Joker broke for the relay at the last minute. This can only be resolved by a fundamental change to the end of the game.

It is becoming pretty clear that time constraints forced Mac Walters to just throw something together at the last minute in November of 2011. As good as the rest of Mass Effect 3 is, don't you think that the respectful thing to do, the course of action that will best honor the artistic integrity of the game and the series, is to let Mac, Casey, and the rest of their talented team have this as a do-over? Give them a chance to do this right, not throw together a last minute phone-in. The game is worth it, and they deserve the chance to erase this blot from their otherwise solid-gold track record. Let them take a Mulligan.

Anyway, that's how I feel about it.

Very good post. And one that gets to the heart of the matter.

And points that Bioware seems to be missing.

Agree, almost verbatim my thoughts, appreciate the post sir or mam

Yes shepard loses the fight.  I am sure the billions of people dying each day to the reapers that he stopped would agree.

What billions? Those vaporized in the Mass relays blowing up? The fleet above earth about to starve to death? The life you snuffed out?

Hence my thoughts on it causing reflection and contemplation.  It never says the galaxy are vaporized.  The energy from the destruction of the relay could be used to fuel the beam across the Galaxy.  Even if it did wipe out the solar systems with a mass relay in it, it is still better than extinction.  It was stated throughout the game no standared method would beat the reapers.  The device was the only option.

The fleet above earth was military.  They were willing to lay thier life on the line for the rest of the galaxy.  They knew the risk going in.  Who knows if it ends that way though.  The salarins are a clever lot.

As Garrus put it.  Let 2 million die there so 4 millioin can live there.

[CavScout]

ashdrake1 wrote...

Mahrac wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Cloaking_Thane wrote...
Pessimistic at best. You missed a key point about Legions conclusions and the realizations that they are self aware beings, EDI was for all intents and purposes human. Legion would have shot shepard as much as he would shoot himself. Indeed the paralells between Legion and Shepard are eerie,

Hell, Legion tries to kill Shepard if he doesn't support Legion.

Legion has the right to defend his life

True, but why not have the Geth fleets flee instead of commiting genocide if you side with him?

Why don't they? (other than it's not an option in game)

[RiouHotaru]

NReed106 wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

durasteel wrote...

No matter which color you choose for the explosions, galactic civilization is plunged into a dark age--it says so in Mac Walter's notes. Without the relays, whole systems will be unsustainable, whole races will perish, and galactic culture and civilization as we know it has come to an end. Earth, in particular, will need a lot of help to rebuild just to a point of survival, and that help will not be coming. What few resources remain in the Sol system will be fought over as the various races of the "Victory Fleet" begin to starve and die, and it is anyone's guess whether there will be a human race left on Earth after a few generations. In his efforts to prevent the decimation of Earth and galactic civilization, Shepard has failed, regardless of whether he lives or dies or the Reapers live or die.

But this is just speculation.  There's absolutely NO evidence that proves this is what will take place.

Actually you have no evidence it WON'T. 
Evidence of relays going supernova:
Arrival DLC
Evidence the ships are screwed:
Normandy is hit by the energy wave in EACH ENDING, and EACH TIME is stranded on the planet (how can an undestructive force damage the normandy so thoroughly? ) Common sense means that the same happens to ships orbiting earth
Evidence Earth doesnt have the capacity to sustain population
-Quarians and Turians eat different food (codex)
-Destruction of Reapers (what is seen, talked about, and common sense)

Where is your evidence everything is sunshine and roses?

I never ONCE said sunshine and roses.  I merely said that it's not the doom and demise of the galactic community.

[Adanu]

CamlTowPetttingZoo wrote...

Is it just me, or did this "pro-ender" thread turn into a "retake" thread?

Welcome to the new BSN, where the ****s run rampant now.

Modifié par Adanu, 22 mars 2012 - 02:10 .

[DonJuan2000]

KTheAlchemist wrote...



The way that you do this is by handling the philosophical topics with more finesse.

Now, I'm going to exaggerate GROSSLY for a moment so please keep that in mind. I'm trying to illustrate a point and I am admitting that this is exaggeration.

Casey Hudson's face came on the screen and said "BECAUSE THE UNIVERSE IS COLD AND UNCARING AND YOUR CHOICES DON'T MATTER. GET IT?!?!"

If so I'll definitely give my money to other peoples....... I dont need VG to be more depressed.... Real Life is already enough. And honestly, I'm not interested in VG Soap Opera for delusional peoples....

Modifié par DonJuan2000, 22 mars 2012 - 02:12 .

[Skirlasvoud]

RiouHotaru wrote...

NReed106 wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

durasteel wrote...

No matter which color you choose for the explosions, galactic civilization is plunged into a dark age--it says so in Mac Walter's notes. Without the relays, whole systems will be unsustainable, whole races will perish, and galactic culture and civilization as we know it has come to an end. Earth, in particular, will need a lot of help to rebuild just to a point of survival, and that help will not be coming. What few resources remain in the Sol system will be fought over as the various races of the "Victory Fleet" begin to starve and die, and it is anyone's guess whether there will be a human race left on Earth after a few generations. In his efforts to prevent the decimation of Earth and galactic civilization, Shepard has failed, regardless of whether he lives or dies or the Reapers live or die.

But this is just speculation.  There's absolutely NO evidence that proves this is what will take place.

Actually you have no evidence it WON'T. 
Evidence of relays going supernova:
Arrival DLC
Evidence the ships are screwed:
Normandy is hit by the energy wave in EACH ENDING, and EACH TIME is stranded on the planet (how can an undestructive force damage the normandy so thoroughly? ) Common sense means that the same happens to ships orbiting earth
Evidence Earth doesnt have the capacity to sustain population
-Quarians and Turians eat different food (codex)
-Destruction of Reapers (what is seen, talked about, and common sense)

Where is your evidence everything is sunshine and roses?

I never ONCE said sunshine and roses.  I merely said that it's not the doom and demise of the galactic community.

The above points do lead me to belief it's the demise of the galactic community we've come to known over three different games and dozens of hours of play.

[CavScout]

ZodiEmish wrote...

For everyone who is saying that 50,000 people does not mean everyone as a whole. Let me just point something out. Multiple polls from across the internet between BSN, IGN, G4 and many others have shown a 80% ( on average across the polls ) of the players did not like the ending.

Now before anyone says "well that is just a small minority of 50,000 people " let me point out what a sample size is in a survey is...

A sample size is the amount of people you need to get an accurate reading for group of people. This is used in political polls, surveys, and even polls here. A good example of this is the IGN poll on facebook. That poll was sent out to 680,000 people who are on IGN's follow list.  on that list we have over 12,000 people vote on it ( last time I checked )  Now this was sent out to EVERYONE who follows IGN. Not just to people who hated the ending, or liked the ending, but everyone.

 So IGN's poll is by far the most balanced, but It is still showing an 80% of the population do not like the ending. Now once again before you say " oh that is just a small part of it. " Let me remind you a sample size. The more people you have on your poll. the smaller the margin of error is. For example for a million people you need a sample size of about 2,000 people to get the margin of error of about 3%. Meaning it would be anywhere between 3% of what the poll is saying.  On the IGN poll we have 12,000 people taking the poll. so were way past what is needed for that 3% margin of error.

So according to the polls between 77% to 83% of the fans of Mass Effect 3 are disappointed, and that is reflected here at the BSN, on G4, and across the web.  The problem is most fans, or players who finished and are disappointed most likely won't speak up. They won't take the time to defend their franchise because they just don't care as much as those dedicated fans who do care about this product. They are more likely to just move on to other games instead of speaking up.

So don't let anyone talk you down and say that there is only 50,000 of us. statistical theory is on your side. And if anyone wants to read up on sample size then check out this article here, and there are many more on the internet.

Political polls are scientifically done. These web polls are not. So yes political polls can sample a smaller size and be representative while very large web polls are still crap because they are not scientific. When referring to something (scientific polls) for support actually know what they are. It's helpful

[Mahrac]

CavScout wrote...

ashdrake1 wrote...

Mahrac wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Cloaking_Thane wrote...
Pessimistic at best. You missed a key point about Legions conclusions and the realizations that they are self aware beings, EDI was for all intents and purposes human. Legion would have shot shepard as much as he would shoot himself. Indeed the paralells between Legion and Shepard are eerie,

Hell, Legion tries to kill Shepard if he doesn't support Legion.

Legion has the right to defend his life

True, but why not have the Geth fleets flee instead of commiting genocide if you side with him?

Why don't they? (other than it's not an option in game)

because they don't believe the quarians are willing to accept peace. ie. they believe that the quarians will hunt them down, so they commit genocide to prevent genocide being commited on them. if you convince the quarians to try for peace, the geth have no reason to continue the conflict, and the quarians realize their reason for war is false.

[danistrad]

RiouHotaru wrote...

I lack possiblity?  Conventional FTL is a possibility.  The math's been done, and it's not nearly as far-fetched.  Sure, there is the refueling issue, but overall, conventional FTL is very much an alternative.  Also, as for the Turians and Quarians, the Quarians brought their liveships, which were normally designed to feed MILLIONS of Quarians.  I'm sure they could accomodate the turians.

To the contrary that the Quarians could support the Turians, earlier in the series it is stated that if even a single liveship was lost, the Quarian fleet would starve (this may actually be in the Codex).

[ashdrake1]

RiouHotaru wrote...

durasteel wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

durasteel wrote...

No matter which color you choose for the explosions, galactic civilization is plunged into a dark age--it says so in Mac Walter's notes. Without the relays, whole systems will be unsustainable, whole races will perish, and galactic culture and civilization as we know it has come to an end. Earth, in particular, will need a lot of help to rebuild just to a point of survival, and that help will not be coming. What few resources remain in the Sol system will be fought over as the various races of the "Victory Fleet" begin to starve and die, and it is anyone's guess whether there will be a human race left on Earth after a few generations. In his efforts to prevent the decimation of Earth and galactic civilization, Shepard has failed, regardless of whether he lives or dies or the Reapers live or die.

But this is just speculation.  There's absolutely NO evidence that proves this is what will take place.

I invite you to propose even one reasonably possible alternative. The technology of the Mass Effect universe is well described, and conventional FTL drives would cook a ship's crew with static on a trip between clusters, even if they didn't run out of fuel first. There is specific reference to how badly Earth has been trashed in the game. Turians and Quarians can't even eat Earth's protein. In Red or Green, the Citadel is demolished.

I may not have "proof," but you lack even possibility.

I lack possiblity?  Conventional FTL is a possibility.  The math's been done, and it's not nearly as far-fetched.  Sure, there is the refueling issue, but overall, conventional FTL is very much an alternative.  Also, as for the Turians and Quarians, the Quarians brought their liveships, which were normally designed to feed MILLIONS of Quarians.  I'm sure they could accomodate the turians.

Even more so as it was just thier military that fought.  Quarians are still on the home planet with the Geth helping them so far....

[KTheAlchemist]

Adanu wrote...

CamlTowPetttingZoo wrote...

Is it just me, or did this "pro-ender" thread turn into a "retake" thread?

Welcome to the new BSN, where the ****s run rampant now.

Freedom is the ability to express your opinions, and to have those opinions challenged.

[StartOrange]

GOD CAN YOU GUYS JUST CUT DOWN SOME OF THE QUOTES ALREADY!?

Modifié par StartOrange, 22 mars 2012 - 02:13 .

[pomrink]

KTheAlchemist wrote...

CavScout wrote...

KTheAlchemist wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Bourne Endeavor wrote...
Does it not bother you the Godchild uses circular logic, contradicts himself and in one instance, blatantly lies to you?

You willing to lay these out?

Again, do you want to be taken seriously or not? The information and arguments regarding this circular logic everywhere. If you don't want to be seen just as a troll, don't do the "ask people to spoonfeed me the conterargument". It's a move definitely from Trolling 102, possibly 101.

Arguments that are so easy and so obvious are shockingly always in short supply. I would suggest one who has attacked the poster and not the arguments being made (that would be you attacking me) is the real troll.

Well, I'd address the argument being made if you made one...but you didn't. You implied that the person had to spoonfeed you information that is readily available. I pointed out that doing so wasn't helping your argument and was making you look troll-like.

I wasn't actually calling you a troll.

"Are you suggest the son of a duke is an animal?"
"Let us say I suggest you may be human."

I'm going to poke you with a gom jabbar

[Thornne]

MintyCool wrote...
We feel it's not the public's right to demand that the fiction of the Mass Effect Universe be altered just because they disagree with narratives conclusion.

I bought a product from a company that makes video games.  This product doesn't meet my expectations, based on past experience and on pre-release statements.  I want to know what the company is willing to do to make good on this.  That's all there is to it, IMO.

[panamakira]

Banelash wrote...

I m a graphic designer. I make art too in my job, I will always defend my decisions in artistic direction and convince my customer to see it, but ultimately, if my customer totally disagree with it, I will have to change the art to his liking. Why? Because he is the customer that is why. I am not banksy or Dali, those artist make works of art and sell them to people who love it. I am a corporate designer. Same for bioware, they aren't making art, they are a corporation and they are making games to earn our money. If the customer don't like what they bought, they can demand change. Every artist will always defend their work, but if you are a corporation to the mass market, you have to abide to the customer.

lol Same issue here. As a Graphic Designer many of the things we do can be considered art but if we're working for a client, although we are the ones making the creative work, it's up to the client to decide how they want something to look because we're getting paid because of them. We can guide them to a better design or idea but if they want their logo to be orange, the logo most likely will have to be orange.

There's a lot more artistic freedom as an Artist if you're making a painting or a scultpture because you're only making one or a set not reproduce thousands and thousands of copies of a product that relies strictly on the customer support and money. 

Modifié par panamakira, 22 mars 2012 - 02:14 .

[Keladis]

first off here is something to think about

Interview with Mike Gamble (Associate Producer)

http://www.computera...missing-in-me2/

“And, to be honest, you [the fans] are crafting your Mass Effect story as
much as we are anyway.”


Interview with Casey Hudson (Director)

http://venturebeat.c...fans-interview/

“Fans want to make sure that they see things resolved, they want to get
some closure, a great ending. I think they’re going to get that.”

“Mass Effect 3 is all about answering all the biggest questions in the
lore, learning about the mysteries and the Protheans and the Reapers,
being able to decide for yourself how all of these things come to an
end.”

Interviewer: “So are you guys the creators or the stewards of the franchise?”
Hudson: “Um… You know, at this point, I think we’re co-creators with
the fans. We use a lot of feedback.”

Here are just a couple interviews that point out that the development team point out that we the fans are just as much involved in the story as they are. Hudson even stats that he thinks we are co-creators

That means that work of art is are art too and if we are unhappy with it we the fans as co-creators should have a say on getting it changed if we believe it needs changed.

Hold the Line

Modifié par Keladis, 22 mars 2012 - 02:13 .

[dubdevo]

Its kinda funny when you watch all the "different" endings all together at the same time......they ruined it for me.....thats all i can really say....not a single ending sums up this great franchise in my eyes. I paid attention during the game....maybe im not the smartest guy in world, but I really enjoyed and understood the endings in the previous two games. Where is shepard? Where did the crew and normandy actually go? Who survived? Open endings can be good, but this one lacked substance that we have come to expect. I don't feel betrayed or anything crazy like that, but after 120+ hours (i take my time during some games) some of us just connected with the story. It seemed like our crew wasn't really involved in the final mission. They literally color coded the ending. I also agree with Helnos that it seemed like nothing we did really mattered.

[CavScout]

Noatz wrote...

Artistic integrity argument falls flat on its arse.

I would like to call to the stand Arthur Conan Doyle, Charles Dickens and JK Rowling.

Ms Rowling, is it true that you altered your original plans for the ending to "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" out of respect for fan requests that Harry Potter not die?

"Yes it is"

Thankyou. Mr Conan Doyle, did you bring your hero "Sherlock Holmes" back to life following a long and drawn out campaign by readers of your literature?

"Yes I did."

And lastly Mr Dickens, widely considered among the greatest novelists of all time, did you alter the ending to your masterpiece, "Great Expectations" at the behest of your readers?

"I did."

Well your honour, unless anyone here cares to question the "artistic integrity" of my witnesses, I rest my case.

Checkmate. For real this time. Thread over, go home everyone.

Artists can change their art, I don't think anyone is disputing that. What is being disputed is that consumer have the right to force said changes.

[Adanu]

Mad-Hamlet wrote...

No, no, no, let them speak. The Pro-Enders (Not to be confused with the Pro-Enders, supporters of Ender Wiggins, Xenoicide Extraordinaire) should speak, supported in their speech and praised for their commitment to what they value...whatever that is as I have no intention of listing to anything they have to say.
Their is greatness in diversity; complexity in form, grace in friction and difference. Options palpitate beneath the surface of reality waiting to blossom forth in a cornucopia of colors, a complete spectrum of possibility. The entire hue of choice like...red, blue and green...and the rest too, should be valued. (You see what I did there? I saw what I did there. Yeah, I went there)

I actually don't understand any of their objections but that's fine- though it sounds like if they ever buy a car and it's a lemon they have to take it to preserve manufacturers' integrity. I don't get it, not even a little but I accept it.

I'm just not changing my mind.

Subtle troll is subtle.

[Sassafrass23]

When you raise over 70k in revenue to support your claims like we did then ill view your topic as the majority. Otherwise YOU are the minority here not us
.Hold the line

Modifié par Sassafrass23, 22 mars 2012 - 02:17 .

[Oxy Clean]

Okay, its probably been posted but let me explain this.

We don't feel entitled, and we have the right to demand whatever the hell we want to demand. If a PRODUCT does not meet the expectations of the CONSUMERS(us) we have all the right to demand it be changed/fixed. All we're asking is for a DLC that gives us an alternative ending. You can still choose the endings that clusterf**k plotholes. But as for the rest of us...

Hold the line.

[CavScout]

Phoenix Phire 13 wrote...

Honestly, I just don't really know why people would support the ending. And no, I'm not saying this because of the whole "star-child" thing, its because of the many plot-holes. What about the fleet? Will all of the Quarians and Turians starve to death? Will any of them be able to return home (doubtful)? How did your squaddies get to the Normandy? Why did the Normandy leave? Did the Mass Relays destroy their systems? What happens to your squaddies stuck on that planet? Is the food capable of sustaining them? Why does Shepard not question the Star-child, the master of the Reapers? How the hell does he survive the Citadel detonating? Nevermind re-entry. What exactly does synthesis do, does it put Reaper tech into everyone? And how does it affect their personality? How does the synthetic ending stop synthetics from rebelling, when we can just make more of them? Why does Shepard survive the destroy ending when he is part synthetic?

All of these questions and more make me think that the only people capable of supporting the ending are those who put almost literally no thought into it.

I guess you'll question my like of vanilla over chocolate too...

In any case, unexplained things do not equate to plot holes. Folks raging against the game throw terms around without really knowing what they mean. They read about them and think they sound cool and start using them themselves.

[Arokel]

StartOrange wrote...

GOD CAN YOU GUYS JUST CUT DOWN SOME OF THE QUOTES ALREADY!?

We are getting into "quote pyramid of doom" territory here guys.

[Cloaking_Thane]

CavScout wrote...

Noatz wrote...

Artistic integrity argument falls flat on its arse.

I would like to call to the stand Arthur Conan Doyle, Charles Dickens and JK Rowling.

Ms Rowling, is it true that you altered your original plans for the ending to "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" out of respect for fan requests that Harry Potter not die?

"Yes it is"

Thankyou. Mr Conan Doyle, did you bring your hero "Sherlock Holmes" back to life following a long and drawn out campaign by readers of your literature?

"Yes I did."

And lastly Mr Dickens, widely considered among the greatest novelists of all time, did you alter the ending to your masterpiece, "Great Expectations" at the behest of your readers?

"I did."

Well your honour, unless anyone here cares to question the "artistic integrity" of my witnesses, I rest my case.

Checkmate. For real this time. Thread over, go home everyone.

Artists can change their art, I don't think anyone is disputing that. What is being disputed is that consumer have the right to force said changes.

Of course we can, why would you think otherwise?