23455 réponses à ce sujet

[dantric32]

Iconoclaste wrote...

Endoctrination is, in my view, the "best" way out.

It could be argued that the Crucibles' blast that destroyed all the mass relays, negated the mass relays destructive force and instead sent out the "colour" you chose. so, synthesizing the organics/synthetics, destroying all reapers in other systems, or allowing the "control" of the reapers in other systems.

It's not a great argument...but, it is possible.

[theoldludwigvan]

Andy the Black wrote...

theoldludwigvan wrote...

Menalaos1971 wrote...

theoldludwigvan wrote...
I don't know if this is waht you're going for, but I personally would've loved to make specific decisions concerning war assests, squad mates etc. Like at the end of ME2, where you chose who led teams, who was the sepcialist etc. If they did that with the war assests? That would add a whole new layer to the ending battle. (ie choosing which fleets to do certain errands/attacks what have you

That's definitely one way the War Assets could have played more of a role than just a stat to build.  I'm not sure your average gamer would make the best tactical decisions in the middle of a major battle, or how the Fleet's Admirals might feel about you taking command.

Then I would just punch them in the stomachs hahaha (a renegade action towards a quarian at one point, in case you didnt know. Everyone here seems to be paragon. I play pretty renegade with exceptions).

Honestly though, I dont like the idea of Shepard taking control of the battle (like how Robin Hood somehow ran the last battle instead of the King's main military advisor in the Russle Crowe Robin Hood movie), but they already crossed that line with Shepard commanding eveyone to fire on his mark when they first engaged the Reapers.

Picard did it in the opening battle of First Contact. Granted the Admiral in command had already been killed, but the fleet deferred to Picard, who wasn't even supposet to be there, because he had the most experience fighting the Borg.

True, but a specialist in an enemy doesn't make him a tatician. If Hackett was dead, maybe, but not before. I dont think  Shepard's Reaper knowledge made him the most likely to say "Fire on my mark."

Picard point well taken tho...

[dantric32]

ugh..duplicate post...

Modifié par dantric32, 19 mars 2012 - 08:14 .

[rickory]

http://arkis.deviant...ILERS-289902125

this would make the perfect addition to the game please take not everything was perfect untill that magic elevator ride

[theoldludwigvan]

taloris wrote...

As for the 'Indoctrination Theory' (I admit I haven't bothered to really look into it) doesn't the Prothean VI itself poke a rather large hole in that idea? Considering it doesn't pick up anything in Shepard on Thessia OR TIM's base, it only get's alerted to an Indoctrinated presence when Kai Leng shows up. Or is there something glossing over this little tid-bit in this apparent theory?

Shepard isn't really indocrinated at that point. He's just having visions. Kai Leng on the other hand is completely invested in TIM's schemes.

That's my take anyway. I'm really not worried about the indocrination theory getting EVRYTHING right, considering nothing in the original ending makes sense anyway...

[Menalaos1971]

Andy the Black wrote...

theoldludwigvan wrote...

Menalaos1971 wrote...

theoldludwigvan wrote...
I don't know if this is waht you're going for, but I personally would've loved to make specific decisions concerning war assests, squad mates etc. Like at the end of ME2, where you chose who led teams, who was the sepcialist etc. If they did that with the war assests? That would add a whole new layer to the ending battle. (ie choosing which fleets to do certain errands/attacks what have you

That's definitely one way the War Assets could have played more of a role than just a stat to build.  I'm not sure your average gamer would make the best tactical decisions in the middle of a major battle, or how the Fleet's Admirals might feel about you taking command.

Then I would just punch them in the stomachs hahaha (a renegade action towards a quarian at one point, in case you didnt know. Everyone here seems to be paragon. I play pretty renegade with exceptions).

Honestly though, I dont like the idea of Shepard taking control of the battle (like how Robin Hood somehow ran the last battle instead of the King's main military advisor in the Russle Crowe Robin Hood movie), but they already crossed that line with Shepard commanding eveyone to fire on his mark when they first engaged the Reapers.

Picard did it in the opening battle of First Contact. Granted the Admiral in command had already been killed, but the fleet deferred to Picard, who wasn't even supposet to be there, because he had the most experience fighting the Borg.

Good example and point.  Shepard and his team are the ones that have been warning the galaxy from the beginning, fighting to save them all, and would know the most about how to battle them, true.

[Benchpress610]

I just finished ME3 a couple of days ago. I have read many well written posts in this thread that describe the colossal disappointment with the ending (no plural here) better that I would ever do. So, I won’t write a lengthy statement stating something that has already been said.
 
First, as many here, I found the game phenomenally epic. I very much enjoyed every minute of it until the last 10 minutes…this ending let me... how should I put it?…EMPTY
 
Let me put it this way: in ME1 and ME2, when I finished them the first time, I was eager to start another play through. In this one, I’m not looking forward to it.
 

Modifié par Benchpress610, 19 mars 2012 - 08:19 .

[Strik3r889123]

sry for my english but i have to ask a question/reflection at bioware
as everyone knows if shepard destroy the reapers you can see him alive in the rubble!
my question is: As is possible if the town is exploded who shepard is still alive!!?? (first: the rubble should be in the space)
the only explanation is that the rubble are situated on the earth so it was only a dream/hallucination ("indoctrination theory" is the only logical explanation)

[vampyyri13]

vampyyri13 wrote...

The biggest plot hole of all, that proves the indoctrination theory:

If you are on the Citadel and chose to destroy the reapers > the Citadel explodes = how in the hell can anything survive on crashing ruble trough the outer space + the reentry in the earth atmosphere and the contact with the ground. With a little luck the broken pieces of the Citadel would burn in the atmosphere . . . with just a little bad luck the impact would be the equivalent of a lot of nuclear bombs.

Is no way that Shepard can be alive if it was on the Citadel:whistle:

shameless bump

[Iconoclaste]

I think the plot holes, at the end, are numerous for one obvious reason : to not let the player be able to connect all the cutscenes together. You know something happened, but with big inconsistencies. The time factor does not fit in, since we can clearly see the Normandy "escape" the Blast, but even that, too, could have been an induced "dream" to let Shepard believe he made the "One Right Choice", and so he can now rest.The good reaction, would be to resist tentation, and it is symbolized by the "destroy Reapers" option. You wake up...

Modifié par Iconoclaste, 19 mars 2012 - 08:20 .

[theoldludwigvan]

Menalaos1971 wrote...

Andy the Black wrote...


Picard did it in the opening battle of First Contact. Granted the Admiral in command had already been killed, but the fleet deferred to Picard, who wasn't even supposet to be there, because he had the most experience fighting the Borg.

Good example and point.  Shepard and his team are the ones that have been warning the galaxy from the beginning, fighting to save them all, and would know the most about how to battle them, true.

I dont necessarily believe Shep should be making all the tactical decisions in the final battle, but as I stated before, it wouldve added a great layer if you could make those decisions.

[harrier25699]

My favorite moment was the 30 hours of quality game I had before I got to the ignominious ending.

[Menalaos1971]

vampyyri13 wrote...

vampyyri13 wrote...

The biggest plot hole of all, that proves the indoctrination theory:

If you are on the Citadel and chose to destroy the reapers > the Citadel explodes = how in the hell can anything survive on crashing ruble trough the outer space + the reentry in the earth atmosphere and the contact with the ground. With a little luck the broken pieces of the Citadel would burn in the atmosphere . . . with just a little bad luck the impact would be the equivalent of a lot of nuclear bombs.

Is no way that Shepard can be alive if it was on the Citadel:whistle:

shameless bump

Unless that "breath" was still on a chunk of the Citadel still in orbit... with air...

[TheK1ng0fK1ng514]

Akael_Bayn wrote...

Quick, deflect the topic to something positive!

...yeah, we're not stupid, you know?
Don't give us this "We don't want to spoil things for people who aren't done" BS.

How about a straight answer about where all the many and varied endings we were promised went?




“There are many different endings. We wouldn’t do it any other way. How could you go through all three campaigns playing as your Shepard and then be forced into a bespoke ending that everyone gets?”

“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.”

“Every decision you've made will impact how things go. The player's also the architect of what happens."

“You'll get answers to everything. That was one of the key things. Regardless of how we did everything, we had to say, yes, we're going to provide some answers to these people.”

EDIT/UPDATE: I've gotten lots of "virtual high fives" from various users for putting this up on the first page of the thread, and I just want you guys to know that I appreciate that you appreciate this post! That said, though, I want to let everyone know after this edit, I'm not going to be continuing to log back in and give personal responses to messages. The recent "buy DLC or GTFO" message was recieved loud and clear, and as I stated elsewhere: I'm GTFO-ing. This game, forum, and the related companies are all a footnote in history for me. Again, I appreciate the support, and I don't mean to ignore your positive messages, but I've got other things to spend my time on.

People want multiplayer, we better do that they won't care how it ends if we give them multiplayer.....

[Leem_0001]

Okay, I finished ME3 for the first (and only) time on Saturday – and I still can’t believe what I saw. I have had to wait a while to post due to the 24 hours you need to wait after sign up to this board, so I thought maybe my anger would have subsided – but no. THIS IS HOW THE SERIES ENDS??? Are you kidding me? Since this thread was set up for specific things we think are wrong with the ending, rather than just saying ‘it sucks’ (which it does, big time), I will go through specific things and try to remove the anger from my points (will probably fail at that), and hope they are constructive. I’m sure they will be repeats of what others have said, but I think that helps highlight exactly where things went wrong. This will be a long read, but then there is a lot wrong with the ending, but is mainly aimed at Bioware in the hope they read it.

Choice – where were the different endings we were promised? Having being stuck with those 3 pathetic ‘decisions’ to make on the citadel, I chose to synthesize organic and synthetic life. Then I looked into the different endings, only to find they are all pretty much the same, except for the colour scheme and who follows Joker out of the crashed Normandy. I am utterly shocked by this after the promises of different endings made by Bioware. They should have been vastly different, with different outcomes, totally different ways for your story to play out taking into account the CHOICES you made throughout the series. That is what we were quite rightly expecting after all the claims made by Casey & Co. Bioware failed massively at this.

Logic – simply put the ending made no sense! Ambiguity is a powerful tool in storytelling, and I love it when done right. But this wasn’t even ambiguity, as it makes no sense at all. Where did the Normandy crash land because, as I understand it from Arrival, destroying a Mass Relay destroys the system it’s in? That means our system is gone (so much for saving Earth), so did Joker skip through the Mass Relay before it went? If that’s the case, I am confused – Ash was on the final No Man’s Land mission with me, yet she followed Joker out of the ship with EDI at the end. Did Joker break from the battle, pick her up, and leave before the relays were destroyed??? Why would he do this, he had no way of knowing what was coming? Or did he just decide all was lost and run, but first make a detour to pick up squad mates? Pretty out of character. No matter which ending you use, none make sense, no sense all. That isn’t ambiguity – that is stupidity.

Story – one of the reasons I fell in love with the first Mass Effect was the story and this fantastic universe Mass Effect had. Talking to Sovereign on Virmire, and Vigil on Ilos stand as two of the greatest moments in video games for me. Speaking with Sovereign and seeing what the threat actually was, how big and ancient of a threat, was amazing – it gave a sense of wonder. Then Vigil explaining more about how the Protheans went down, and that this cycle has repeated countless times, was fascinating. I wanted to know more – so should have really seen the signs when ME2 rolled around. I love that game too, but we didn’t find much out other than the Protheans had been repurposed as Collectors. And when you think of the stakes of the first game – to find out ME2 was simply about stopping one more Reaper being built, well it’s a bit underwhelming. I thought in ME3 we could find out more about the Reapers plan, how if the Collectors were successful in producing their additional Reaper in ME2, nothing we could have done in ME3 would count for anything. Make ME2 mean something! As it stands, it was simply another Reaper to add to the countless that invaded in ME3. Does one additional Reaper really make any difference when talking about this amount of enemy?
There were two points in ME3 where I thought the game was on the right track and we would learn more about the Reapers. The first; when we spoke with the downed Reaper after helping the Quarians, the way he spoke, as if the Reapers had no alternative, no choice, hinted to something bigger behind the whole thing, which again give us some mystery and it reminded me of the conversation with Sovereign on Virmire. ‘This is getting good’ I thought. Then the conversation with the Prothean VI on Thessia before Kai Leng showed up, where it was confirmed something was behind the whole thing, and that the Crucible was a design passed down through the cycles – it gave me goose bumps and the same sense of wonder I got from the first. I was worried Bioware was leaving it late in the day to start getting into the Reaper history though (what they are and where they came from), but hoped that’s what the rest of the game would cover. I was excited about the story again.
Then it ended. Oh dear Lord how badly it ended. Can someone explain to me what the AI KidGod was on the Citadel? I know he must have been some kind of AI consciousness that controlled the Reapers (and the fact he was in kid form was for Shepherds benefit) – but what was he exactly? Where did he come from? Are we saying an AI was behind the whole thing? Another AI, controlling the most advanced AI ever (till that point)? The way he started talking hinted that he was a level above the Reapers and that he controlled them. Fair enough. Then he started talking about them as one, he and the Reapers (‘you could destroy us’). And then he lets Shepherd decide the fate of all synthetics – but why? Why would he do that? And why is he the Catalyst? The Crucible was developed by earlier cycles, but none knew of this ‘entity’ as none got as far as Shepherd, so how would they know that this catalyst was needed and therefore develop the weapon of the Crucible around it? We didn’t really find anything out at all – just more questions and last minute confusion. I’m not sure of the technical terms, so I don’t know if this AI and Catalyst was a Mcguffin, a plot device, a Deus Ex machine (I would think it’s a plot device) but what I do know – it was crap. Oh, and if he was part of the Citadel, this crappy kid Mcguffin Machina, then why did he not intervene in Mass Effect 1 when the signal from the Citadel was blocked?
Again, where did the Reapers come from??? What is their reason, or this creators reason, for the cycles? To bring balance? So that machines wouldn’t wipe out organic life? Are you kidding me? Okay, so where did it start, why was it decided that this is how it should be, how the Galaxy should work? Who made this AI and then the Reapers? So many answers that we were promised and we got nothing. With the Reapers, and what was behind them, Bioware initially created a fantastic Sci-Fi mystery for us to get lost in. They had a brilliant set up. But mysteries are about set up and pay off – they are there to be solved. Bioware did not give us a pay off. They gave us a LAZY, incoherent, garbled mess. One so out of sync with what came before it, I can’t help but wonder what they thought they were achieving. Great endings that make you think only work because they are in keeping with the context of what came before them in the story. None of this was. It was randomness masquerading as thought provoking intellect. And that is what is infuriating. For a series with so much creativity, this ending was, I’ll say it again, LAZY. I never thought I would say that about the end to the Mass Effect adventure.
So what are we left with? The galaxy in the dark ages, countless dead due to the Mass Relays being destroyed, families torn apart as they have no way of reuniting without the relays, the Normandy somehow happening to crash land on a planet that supports life, only God knows where, and a hero (in Shepherd) that acted so far out of character it has left the fans outraged. And this is all we get???

And what amazes me is that on a team as big as the one that worked on Mass Effect 3, in one of the meetings, I can’t believe someone didn’t raise their hand and say: ‘You know the endings we are going with? Well, are we sure they aren’t, um, you know, a little bit sh*t?’

You failed, Bioware – you failed.

[jessej07]

 I thought the ending fit, but then again I let the decisions I made in the previous games frame the context for how I viewed the ending... I  kind of thought that was the point.  I wasn't expecting a long cut scene, nor did I want one, where it laid out all the consequences of my decisions (Wrex, Ashley, Rachni, etc. etc.).  I saw my impression Shepard made on the Mass Effect universe throughout playing ME1-ME3 and I saw how he saved the galaxy at the end- it was fitting; I truly loved it.

[Giluc]

I was hooked on Mass Effect right from the first game. What an awesome game. The combination of a sci-fi shooter and RPG was absolutely perfect. The second game was even better. Yes, it was less of an RPG, but it was still most definitely classic BioWare roleplay. And it simply felt even more awesome, because many of the choices you had made in the first game, actually meant something in this game. The third game felt exactly like that right from the start. Changes had been made, but it was definitely another extremely great Mass Effect game. That is, right until the ending.

Throughout the series, we have seen our choices have an impact. And it looked like it would be the same in Mass Effect 3. But when it came to the end, nothing of what we had done had any impact at all. Yes, I know that if you had less than XXXX war assets, you only had one choice in the end, and the Normandy would be destroyed. And yes, there were a few alterations like if the Big Ben would be destroyed, and stuff like that. But what it all boils down to, is that there is only one ending. No matter what you choose, it's the same, just with a small difference. So it's not the ending in itself, that's so frustrating. Had it been any other game, it would have been totally acceptable. I have no problems with Shepard dying. I have no problems with the decisions in themselves. As I said, what I have a problem with, is the fact that all this time, we have been able to make choices. Make a difference. But when it comes to the end, none of our choices matter.

It doesn't however change the fact that the game is 10/10 right up until the ending, but it's really sad that a game like this has to be ruined this way. I don't even feel like replaying the first game, because I know my choices wont matter. That's definitely not a good sign, seeing as how the Mass Effect has been known for their immense replay value.

[taloris]

Iconoclaste wrote...

And I can sum up why many players don't like this "endoctrination" theory, and what it implies on Bioware's behalf : those players just did not see the shadow of a hint of something going wrong, and maybe they feel dumb. Some even threaten Bioware of boycott or similar actions, which goes on par with their childish, non-reflective attitudes.

I have nothing against plot twists, in fact I rather enjoy them as I like the surprise. But if this whole 'star child forcing you to kill the galaxy no matter what your choices' segment isn't the true ending then they shouldn't have released the game because no matter which way you slice it the product isn't finished. Who in their right mind would ship a title as big as ME and not have the beginning, middle and the REAL ending?

If the whole thing was just a dream I could live with it, since after the choice and ending segment would have played through it could have cut back to what was really going on while Shep was out like a light. Then depending on how well you had been prepared by the finall battle the Indoctrination either works or Shep manages to break free of the control then proceed to kick much Reaper ass. Then you could have a real ending in varying degrees of sad depressing destruction or happy bunnies and rainbows; again depending on how much effort you had gone through to prepare and maybe also on your Renegade/Paragon score.

But if it is really the 'true' ending it's purely absurd. There is no game I've played, EVER, that has had such an automatic and unyielding 'you lose' finality to it no matter what you do.

[Chrisl2424]

 If someone where to ask me about the mass effect ending. I would say harbinger killed him and cycle continues because it would be a lot less disappointing then the complete mess that was given to us. Amazing game but worst ending ever. Choices don't matter so I probably won't ever play the game again since to me I have been robbed of replay value. The quality of the last cut scene seemed rushed. Same endings basically and war assets mean nothing. How earth dies on worst ending with red fireworks make no sence. Plus he bled out before he even got to the catalyst so I would expect it's not real. A good idea would be a new ending where Shepard wakes up from the harbinger attack and add another mission on the citidel. Where war assets matter. Where teammates can die, where consequences of decisions matter and have the illusove man as a end boss. Not have cheesy cut scenes where I could care less about the Normandy fleeing from earth with your squad on the ground (wtf?) and all galactic cizilization being screwed forever. Have ending that are different. Maybe one where reapers win, Cerberus wins, you die/ live. Low assets earth dies, crucible gets destroyed ect.... I just don't get how a great company like bioware would mess up on the ending of a great series and believe you can fix. I'll be glad to play again when you do

Modifié par Chrisl2424, 19 mars 2012 - 08:28 .

[Aravius]

wolfeye7 wrote...

I am sure this link has already been posted, but please, this man deserves your attention: www.youtube.com/watch

Bioware - HIRE THIS MAN! I will pay good money for this DLC!

If something along this line would have happened, ME3 would have been stellar. Now I'm left with an excellent game, where the last 10 minutes ruin it for me.

To say the endings were disappointing, does not even describe it in words for me.

[starjay001]

@jessej07: We respect your views on the ending BUT come on... how did you really feel that Shepard saved the universe when the mass relays are destroyed stranding every species on the SOL system with Joker and the Normandy crash landing on some unknown planet along with ONLY 2 of your squad mates ?? was Shepard's sacrifice worth it ? NO it wasn't. Sure he/she managed to get rid of the reapers but what's the use ? I don't see any point in the endings. Bioware screwed up big time. What a shame !!!

[DrgnLrd187]

Anybody else liked when Legion was saying "I" instead of "we"
was a clear sign that he was truly independent.. I loved it

Hold the line!

[Iconoclaste]

If Shepard is still down on Earth, dreaming after been hit by the laser, then maybe someone else did make it to the Citadel (Anderson? The Illusive man? Anyone?) and make a decision. Based on... your previous choices? Mmm...

There can then be a DLC where you simply "assist" in the last "support" missions, while things are taken care of by non-endoctrinated personnel on the Citadel. Your actions will determine if this "personnel" succeeds or fails, if too many enemies reach the "conduit" to attack them on the Citadel, or other things similar...Explains too why the Normandy escapes. The big explosions are all dream, only the Citadel-crucible explode, forcing the Normandy to go full throttle, and to crash on a random planet. The blast destroyed part of the alliance fleet, but not the planet, and also many vessels that made the jump to full speed, just to escape the radius of the explosion, but still were thrown far into space subsequently.

Since it is almost garanteed that the first ones who finish the game will give away spoilers, it is not so far-fetched to imagine that Bioware would like to spare a "real truth" for another occasion, and the simple fact that we see Shepard (or anyone else) take a breath in the "debris" is a serious hint.

Modifié par Iconoclaste, 19 mars 2012 - 08:34 .

[Leem_0001]

With regards to the talk of Shepherd really been on Earth when we see him 'take a breath' - are we sure that is the case, that he is actually in London amongst the debris? If you watch it close that mess he is in could just as easily be the debris from the explosion he caused during the Destroy ending, after shooting the tube thingy, thus blowing it up.

[theoldludwigvan]

I'm sure everyone has seen this, but it hits the nail on the head. We went into it knowing Shepard could die! That is not why we are mad!