23455 réponses à ce sujet

[Abispa]

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

you are wrong, if they had supernovaed, the at energy would have vaporised the ship instead of damaging it plus the explosions on the galaxy map arent supernovas, they are the crucibles energy being spread throughout it sector so that every reaper in the galaxy is effected.

Again, why would the Normandy be hauling ass to get away from the explosion? It may NOT be a supernova, but if the system, or Earth at least, were safe, why not stay THERE and NOT fly within range of the explosion?

[Apollo-XL5]

other than edi, everyone had had synthetic parts and bright eyes, even the plants had synthetic parts.

[JulienJaden]

luci90 wrote...

blueduck1982 wrote...

Did anyone notice in the synthesis ending, Joker had very bright eyes and synthetic implants when he got off the ship?

Yeah.

No idea why.

...STD from EDI?

She's got a virus. And now, with the green ending, it can spread... 

[Evil Minion]

4n4k1n wrote...

I am still amazed at how some people still claim that the endings are fine and that they go well with the ideas of the mass effect universe.

I think using a fictional end to dragon Age: Origin would help showing how the endings were wrong.
.

There's no such thing as a "wrong" ending.

That implies a level of objectivity that doesn't exist.

[Evil Minion]

blueduck1982 wrote...

Did anyone notice in the synthesis ending, Joker had very bright eyes and synthetic implants when he got off the ship?

RE: The "Synthethis Ending"

"Does everybody remember Shepard? What a tool he was! We have to stand around all day calculating pi because he plugged in the overlord!"

Hence, why I went with the "blue" option.

Modifié par Evil Minion, 18 mars 2012 - 05:56 .

[4n4k1n]

Evil Minion wrote...

4n4k1n wrote...

I am still amazed at how some people still claim that the endings are fine and that they go well with the ideas of the mass effect universe.

I think using a fictional end to dragon Age: Origin would help showing how the endings were wrong.
.

There's no such thing as a "wrong" ending.

That implies a level of objectivity that doesn't exist.

please read the rest of my post and do not only quote small extracts from it as this completely kills the whole argumentation I was trying to make.Then maybe you can start speaking about objectivity.

[DannyGloverfromPredator2_]

 Don't just listen to us, literary reviews struggle with the ending:

calitreview.com/24673

Modifié par DannyGloverfromPredator2 , 18 mars 2012 - 05:57 .

[Apollo-XL5]

Abispa wrote...

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

you are wrong, if they had supernovaed, the at energy would have vaporised the ship instead of damaging it plus the explosions on the galaxy map arent supernovas, they are the crucibles energy being spread throughout it sector so that every reaper in the galaxy is effected.

Again, why would the Normandy bed hauling ass to get away from the explosion? It may NOT be a supernova, but if the system, or Earth at least, were safe, why not stay THERE and NOT fly within range of the explosion?

mate you are preachingt to the choir with taht one, that is the one thing i could not wrap my mind around, it is just so out of character.  the only positive i took from it was that liara (love interest) was safe when she got off the normandy.  i didnt take her with me for the conduit run.

[InfiniteJusticeG]

The thing that makes me disappointed is everything in the ending mission that includes earth. I think that (presumably others aswell), "it's time now. Time to take back earth!" ...-And what do we get? Guard a missletruck for 30minutes... And then the ending starts.
We get no time to battle on earth!?
No more missions? .. We just go to London and guard this piece of **** truck for 60% of the time..
Fine with that. If their would be more missions like:--
-> Guard that truck -> Take out some reapers -> Take back some grounds with support from the Dreadnoughts and other spaceships -> Move to another location or country -> Do some epic stuffs there -> Last location -> MOAR EPIC STUFFS -> Ending and conclusions

Mass Effect 3 whole slogan are "Take Back Earth" and I know I repeat the whole **** over again, but.. guarding a truck for 30 minutes is not to take earth back.

[Evil Minion]

4n4k1n wrote...

Evil Minion wrote...

4n4k1n wrote...

I am still amazed at how some people still claim that the endings are fine and that they go well with the ideas of the mass effect universe.

I think using a fictional end to dragon Age: Origin would help showing how the endings were wrong.
.

There's no such thing as a "wrong" ending.

That implies a level of objectivity that doesn't exist.

please read the rest of my post and do not only quote small extracts from it as this completely kills the whole argumentation I was trying to make.Then maybe you can start speaking about objectivity.

There is no such thing as "objectivity" in relation to art.

The rest of your argument is irrelevant.

"Wrong" endings do not exist, only endings that you personally don't like.

[TheRazgrez]

Evil Minion wrote...

blueduck1982 wrote...

Did anyone notice in the synthesis ending, Joker had very bright eyes and synthetic implants when he got off the ship?

RE: The "Synthethis Ending"

"Does everybody remember Shepard? What a tool he was! We have to stand around all day calculating pi because he plugged in the overlord!"

Hence, why I went with the "blue" option. 

Hence, why I went with the Red Option. 


Something I just thought of while playing the last part of the game, things that should be added.


Adding in some kinda speach when hammer is decending down to earth, like something to rally the troops for combat. the ride down is just to silent for a bunch of humans ready to beat the crap out of the reapers and retake there home world.

Adding scenes of your promoted MP characters in the final fight to see how that particular war accet plays out. weather they live or die based on how many there are and how powerful they are. it would add another reason to play the MP to see your customized N7 teams assaulting and fighting on earth, supporting one another this way you can go "that was worth playing X amount of hours on MP." 

Modifié par TheRazgrez, 18 mars 2012 - 06:01 .

[Evanz]

Deganis76 wrote...

GavinUK86 wrote...

as soon as someone mentions "art" i just facepalm, shake my head and then skip it. thats such a stupid response. it isnt art. its a game. a game which storytelling should take center stage.

Is a book art?  Is a movie art?  What makes a video game any different?

There is no source-code for a book or a movie. Once you complete the movie or a book you can't just make a DLC to insert an unicorn shooting rainbows.

In game industry, everything is possible. You have source code, you have assets, you have people.
There were games where the endings were changes after fanbase demands (can think of fallout 3 atm) so it is not unheard of.

it is just a question of will and common sense.

For BioWare going rambo over their "artistic" endings (nothing artistic there) or putting some philosophical crap there (I have over 20 books of different philosophers sitting right next to me) is simply naive.

In the long run, this whole history will likely end for BioWare like Mess Effect 3 did for Shepard.
Wonder if they will be given a choice of a colors.

And I totally agree with that movie here:

[madtotheskills]

[Deganis76]

My brief thoughts on the ending. While not perfect, I found it acceptable. Here are my reasons

What I liked::

1. It followed an overarching theme of organic vs synthetic life that was prevalent in all 3 games

2. Shepard's death. Since the end of Mass Effect 2, I have always thought that Shepard would more than likely have to make the ultimate sacrifice to save the galaxy. My Shepard did so with no hesitation. It was the final, noble gesture of a hero to save as many people as he could. And I chose "control", although "synthesis" was an option. I felt that if I removed the Reapers from the equation that organic and synthetic life would have a chance to continue to evolve, and perhaos, coexist. The Geth and EDI gave me hope for this.

3. The destruction of the mass relays was a nice touch. In Mass Effect 1 Sovereign tells you that you evolve based on their parameters and according to their plan. The destruction of the Mass Relays is, in essence, a "clean slate" for galactic civilization and allows them to evolve and develop more on their own terms.

4. I felt each squadmates story was told adequately and that their story arc with Shepard had come full circle. I actually teared up during my final farewells to my two most stalwart companions: Tali and Garrus. Tali was my love interest so the final goodbye with her was especially poignant.

What I did not like:

1. Did the Mass Relays wipe out the systems they were in as per Arrival? Or were these more "controlled explosions"? If the Mass Relays destroyed the systems entirely, it would make Shepard's sacrifice meaningless as he was not able to save Earth (or Palavan, Thessia, Tuchanka. etc for that matter).

2. If the Mass Relays did NOT destroy the systems they were in what happens to the massive fleet that is surrounding Earth? Was the Normandy the sole survivor of that armada? If so, that is just plain depressing and can completely understand my fellow gamers ire.

3. No resolution to the "dark energy" mystery that was started in ME2 on Haestrom. The phenomenon that is causing stars to die early. As far as I can tell, this was never resolved and I felt it was a fairly significant plot point.

I liked more about the ending than I disliked and could accept it "as is." I do realize that things are rarely perfect. It does not dethrone "Planescape Torment" as my favorite video game ending of all time.

I don't think the ending should be changed...I would feel that as a cop out. However more post-facto explanation as to what happened before, during, and after the Crucible fired (outside of Shepard's perspective) would go a long way to sating a lot of the disappointment with the ending.

[TheRazgrez]

Evil Minion wrote...

4n4k1n wrote...

Evil Minion wrote...

4n4k1n wrote...

I am still amazed at how some people still claim that the endings are fine and that they go well with the ideas of the mass effect universe.

I think using a fictional end to dragon Age: Origin would help showing how the endings were wrong.
.

There's no such thing as a "wrong" ending.

That implies a level of objectivity that doesn't exist.

please read the rest of my post and do not only quote small extracts from it as this completely kills the whole argumentation I was trying to make.Then maybe you can start speaking about objectivity.

There is no such thing as "objectivity" in relation to art.

The rest of your argument is irrelevant.

"Wrong" endings do not exist, only endings that you personally don't like.

yea that makes sense, thats why a large amount of people are saying the ending sucks? honestly there are wrong endings, they are endings that people generaly don't accept. so far everyone I've talked to says the endings suck. and I agree so if thats not a "Wrong ending" I don't know what is. its a wrong ending in the sense that it doesn't do the franchise anything in the way of good. its like eating banna cream cake and finding out that after the first two bites the filling of the cake went bad a week ago.

[Cypher333]

Evil Minion wrote...

4n4k1n wrote...

I am still amazed at how some people still claim that the endings are fine and that they go well with the ideas of the mass effect universe.

I think using a fictional end to dragon Age: Origin would help showing how the endings were wrong.
.

There's no such thing as a "wrong" ending.

That implies a level of objectivity that doesn't exist.

It must be the same people who think DA2 is a great immersive role playing game....

[N-Seven]

Geez, lets stop arguing semantics.  The endings were ****e, all 3, regardless of reputation, paragon/renegade ratings, past decisions, or military strength.

Modifié par N-Seven, 18 mars 2012 - 06:06 .

[Abispa]

InfiniteJusticeG wrote...

The thing that makes me disappointed is everything in the ending mission that includes earth. I think that (presumably others aswell), "it's time now. Time to take back earth!" ...-And what do we get? Guard a missletruck for 30minutes... And then the ending starts.
We get no time to battle on earth!?
No more missions? .. We just go to London and guard this piece of **** truck for 60% of the time..
Fine with that. If their would be more missions like:--
-> Guard that truck -> Take out some reapers -> Take back some grounds with support from the Dreadnoughts and other spaceships -> Move to another location or country -> Do some epic stuffs there -> Last location -> MOAR EPIC STUFFS -> Ending and conclusions

Mass Effect 3 whole slogan are "Take Back Earth" and I know I repeat the whole **** over again, but.. guarding a truck for 30 minutes is not to take earth back.

That's a complaint I have no sympathy for. This is a FPS, my friend, and any battle to save Earth in a ME would require it be a battle waged by Shepard and two buddies shooting things with machine guns. And the battle to take back Earth need not take place ON Earth. I would argue that the entire game was a long series of battles to take back Earth. The fight to conquer Germany during WWII started in Africa after all.

[4n4k1n]

Evil Minion wrote...



There is no such thing as "objectivity" in relation to art.

The rest of your argument is irrelevant.

"Wrong" endings do not exist, only endings that you personally don't like.

So in art when a master's work is copied by someone unknown you dare to say both works are of equal values?
If someone redo the monalisa they will not be granted the same amount of recognition as DA Vinci because their work cannot truly be compared to the original hence their work can't be considered as right which implies it because inherently "wrong".

[Radwar]

"On the Mass Effect 3 endings. Yes, we are listening." Sorry but I'll believe that when I actually see results.

[Kaeos]

Hey wanted to share a video. Maybe everyone here know it but it doesn't matter. It 's a good explanation of the situation.



Mass Effect is one of the greatest series of this generation. It's can't wasted like it is know. I want to remember those game for the great adventure they are. Not for those endings.

[N-Seven]

Abispa wrote...

InfiniteJusticeG wrote...

The thing that makes me disappointed is everything in the ending mission that includes earth. I think that (presumably others aswell), "it's time now. Time to take back earth!" ...-And what do we get? Guard a missletruck for 30minutes... And then the ending starts.
We get no time to battle on earth!?
No more missions? .. We just go to London and guard this piece of **** truck for 60% of the time..
Fine with that. If their would be more missions like:--
-> Guard that truck -> Take out some reapers -> Take back some grounds with support from the Dreadnoughts and other spaceships -> Move to another location or country -> Do some epic stuffs there -> Last location -> MOAR EPIC STUFFS -> Ending and conclusions

Mass Effect 3 whole slogan are "Take Back Earth" and I know I repeat the whole **** over again, but.. guarding a truck for 30 minutes is not to take earth back.

That's a complaint I have no sympathy for. This is a FPS, my friend, and any battle to save Earth in a ME would require it be a battle waged by Shepard and two buddies shooting things with machine guns. And the battle to take back Earth need not take place ON Earth. I would argue that the entire game was a long series of battles to take back Earth. The fight to conquer Germany during WWII started in Africa after all.

It's a legitimate complaint.  The 'Battle for Earth' or 'To Take Back Earth', implies the player taking part in conflicts on Earth, even though it is not explicitly stated.  The back of the box art features Earth.  It's not an unrealistic to think there would be more than escaping at the beginning, and then defending a truck at the end.

[Wildhide]

Deganis76 wrote...

My brief thoughts on the ending. While not perfect, I found it acceptable. Here are my reasons

What I liked::

1. It followed an overarching theme of organic vs synthetic life that was prevalent in all 3 games

I stopped here, because it doesn't.  The organic vs synthetic theme has been presented as "Are Synthetics alive, and do they have a right to freedom and for that life to be acknowledge."  You see it in 2 major plotlines over the serires.  

The Quarians and the Geth.  The geth who are passive unless attacked or controlled by Reapers that the Quarians attempted to kill as soon as they realized they were gaining sentience is the first.  

The second is EDI and her development from ship computer to a thinking, feeling character with relationships and concerns for the other characters.

The overarching theme is are they alive, and do they really have those feelings.  Do we have to take them into consideration.

The ending tries to tell you it's Synthetics are evil and want to destroy all life, so the Reapers are being nice and just destroying all life so the Synthetics can't.  Even Javik if you have him offers a strong counterpoint, showing the clash of ideas between his tolitarian empire from 50k years ago to the tolerant, cooperative one today that actually attempts to work with and undrestand the AI they've created.

The ending runs in utter contrast to Synth vs Organics theme in the game.

Edit:  I will say I think the ending needs to be changed because it doesn't fit with the rest of the story at all.  It's a cop-out that hurts so much of the rest of a good story and for me (as well as many others) sullies the entire story by painting it with pointlessness.

Modifié par Wildhide, 18 mars 2012 - 06:13 .

[Evil Minion]

4n4k1n wrote...

Evil Minion wrote...



There is no such thing as "objectivity" in relation to art.

The rest of your argument is irrelevant.

"Wrong" endings do not exist, only endings that you personally don't like.

So in art when a master's work is copied by someone unknown you dare to say both works are of equal values?
If someone redo the monalisa they will not be granted the same amount of recognition as DA Vinci because their work cannot truly be compared to the original hence their work can't be considered as right which implies it because inherently "wrong".

There is no such thing as "art" that is "inherently wrong."

As for "copying" other people's work, that still doesn't make it "wrong," it makes it a "copy." Not getting the same amount of reconition as the original still doesn't make it "wrong."

There is no "objectivity" in art.

[JediMike2372]

I read a post earlier (wish I could find it now) that I totally agreed with. The endings should not be dependent on the multiplayer aspect of the game. Paragon/Renegade yes, completion of certain missions-yes, collection of the war assets-most definitely. But to hinge the 'best endings' on the multiplayer, which, lets face it so many of us are either unable to get on or are getting glitches or are booted by a 'server disconnect' is just not right. I get where they were going with that but it's implementation was shoddy at best. There should be an option to include the multiplayer if you want to in order to enhance your readiness score. Otherwise it should hinge upon the other things that I mentioned above.

As for the endings themselves, perfectly fine with them. But let what you do in the single player campaign determine your ending, not the multiplayer.