23455 réponses à ce sujet

[epicalus]

Archonsg wrote...

Synthesis and why it's wrong.

Anyone else thought about how Synthesis even if you accept the"space magic" involved for this to happen, would actually stop a war between organics and synthetics? Because, if you really think about it, all synthesis does is make everyone the "same" racially.

And we know just how much at peace, we the Human Race have been.

Unless of course every single being in the galaxy have their identity, believes, prejudices and individuality wiped.
Seriously do not think the krogans and salarians will sit at a campfire singing kumbaya just because they could now interface with each other.

yes your right i completely agree . 
yes it merged organic and synthetic together .
but as shown in the vid joker is still more oganic then synthetic and EDI is still more synthetic then organic .
just by that how am i supposed to believe they can actually have childeren.
plus if you think about it deeper . a new dna based life. will eventually still build things to make life easier and that will always evolve to the creation of machines and later on AI's or synthetics . or are we to put as much faith into it as we should the battlestar galactica ending ?
and who's to say that if the geth had the chance to evolve further . woulden't they eventually build something to do the work for them ?

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

1) in all endings the mass relays are destroyed.

2) only in the control ending the citadel is not destroyed because Shepard dies and becomes the Catalyst. I found this repulsive.

3) the Green synthesis ending is the union of flesh and steel as Saren talked about prior to the final boss fight in ME1. I found this repulsive.

4) in all three endings Shepard dies although you get a gasp of air if your EMS was high enough.

5) with the relays all destroyed, all the fleets if they weren't destroyed by the relay explosions are stranded on a poisoned polluted earth. The Citadel in two of them has crashed to the earth or has exploded catastrophically and wiped out all life on earth and probably destroyed everything in the system.

6) I don't see how Javik who was on my ground team made it onto the Normandy and now gets to have little blue babies with my LI. Of course the gene pool is too small so they'll all die.

7) so in all the endings as they stand, Shepard becomes the villain because Space Hitler gives her no other choice.

8) Conclusion: it would have been better to simply let the reapers win. This game is one that the player cannot win. It is like playing tic tac toe. The only way to win is to not play it. The ending, once seen cannot be unseen.

So the only way Bioware can fix the problem is to say "okay, it's indoctrination theory," and add the real ending to it. Yes it's a cop out, and it's the only way out.

The player should be able to win the game. Shepard should be able to survive. Do it like the suicide mission if necessary to make the war assets count for something. If that's too videogamey, so what? It's a video game.

[CuseGirl]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

1) in all endings the mass relays are destroyed.

2) only in the control ending the citadel is not destroyed because Shepard dies and becomes the Catalyst. I found this repulsive.

3) the Green synthesis ending is the union of flesh and steel as Saren talked about prior to the final boss fight in ME1. I found this repulsive.

4) in all three endings Shepard dies although you get a gasp of air if your EMS was high enough.

5) with the relays all destroyed, all the fleets if they weren't destroyed by the relay explosions are stranded on a poisoned polluted earth. The Citadel in two of them has crashed to the earth or has exploded catastrophically and wiped out all life on earth and probably destroyed everything in the system.

6) I don't see how Javik who was on my ground team made it onto the Normandy and now gets to have little blue babies with my LI. Of course the gene pool is too small so they'll all die.

7) so in all the endings as they stand, Shepard becomes the villain because Space Hitler gives her no other choice.

8) Conclusion: it would have been better to simply let the reapers win. This game is one that the player cannot win. It is like playing tic tac toe. The only way to win is to not play it. The ending, once seen cannot be unseen.

So the only way Bioware can fix the problem is to say "okay, it's indoctrination theory," and add the real ending to it. Yes it's a cop out, and it's the only way out.

The player should be able to win the game. Shepard should be able to survive. Do it like the suicide mission if necessary to make the war assets count for something. If that's too videogamey, so what? It's a video game.

you only get the breath scene by picking the destroy option with an EMS of 5000 (or allegedly an EMS of 4000 while Anderson lives).

[Archonsg]

garytwine wrote...

Archonsg wrote...

garytwine wrote...

Thanatos144 wrote...

Lets face it you are all mad cause this ends the universe as you know it.

Nope. If you read the codex in Mass Effect 1 it states that "There are many dormant primary relays whose corresponding twins have not yet been located. These are left inactive until their partner is charted, as established civilisations are unwilling to blindly open a passage that might connect them to a hostile species".

If a relay was inactive and not linked to others in the network its possible it was never destroyed. So, it may not mean the end of the relay network and the end of the galactic community and therefore the "end of the universe". It's already been established that the citadel could be moved so with a little effort so could a Mass Relay which is a lot smaller than the Citadel.

We just don't like the ending because it makes no sense and a ton of other reasons as stated thousands of times before :-)

So, what you are saying, is that, the reapers and the AI who controls them, having built and placed the Mass Relays (or so claimed Sovereign) have no idea where these Relays are, nor way to "switch on" these "inactive" Relays?

Well, according to Mass Effect 1, the Reapers needed the Keeper's to activate the inactive Relay which sat at the Presidium in the Citadel. So, that would indicate that the same applies for all of the other Relays.

Unless Godchild waved his holographic space magic Chupa Chup and made all of the inactive ones suddenly activate  - which I didn't see in the ending and is contrary to Mass Effect 1 (which would be yet another plot hole).

 
Which is why that whole star-child AI thing is a mistake.

Besides the obvious problem of actually Mass Relaying itself to Earth Space, which might still be possible, they should have just left the Citadel alone, asa tool. Not host of the "controller AI" of the Reapers.

[Benchpress610]

jeweledleah wrote...

/rubs temples... its like trying to explain calculus to someone who barely has understanding of basic arithmetic.

why do I even try.

oh right. in hopes that developers might actually poke their heads in there, especially codex writers and go.. hmm, we really do need to address those points.

jeweledleah my friend, I hate to see you wasting your intellectual energy with this err…guy. He’s been trolling this thread for days. He always loses the argument miserably when presented with irrefutable facts…no matter, he keeps at it. He isn’t interested in a reasonable discussion, he’s just trolling. Just ignore him.

[MrNose]

Having actually played through all three endings now, I find "synthesis" rather interesting. While the ambiguous concept of machine/organic synthesis is rather disturbing (biological manipulation without consent; ethnocide), the actual result looked pretty innocuous (of course, we actually can't tell what happened other than on the most superficial level). I certainly didn't feel as if I had committed an atrocity the way I committed one with the "destroy" option (robot genocide).

I almost felt like it was intended as the "best" ending, the emblem of Shepard's work to unite the galaxy. But without proper explanation my interpretation is weak speculation at best.

While I understand that BioWare wanted to leave the decisions vague, this one most of all could have benefited from a more detailed explanation. I'd like to know the truth behind what happened there in more detailed terms. Unlike with the other two options, the ramifications of the choice are not clear either before or afterwards in even the broadest strokes.

[EvilMind]

Bioware I dont mean to insult you, but problem with "listening" is that you're not taking any actions. You know what your fans want, new endings. What is it you're listening to exactly?

This looks like already mentioned PR damage control, waiting and watching if this thing just dies out. Your fans don't need empty promises or draging this issue any longer. Still haven't seen anywhere from you guys anythnig like - "we WILL do something about the ednings"

Modifié par EvilMind, 01 avril 2012 - 10:25 .

[Tojax]

There's actually a question I wanted to ask the people who enjoyed the ME3 ending:
Why did you like it?
I'm not asking this to poke fun at anyone. I'm just curious to see how anyone managed to find logic and/or closure in it. I've already heard a million and one reasons stating why the ending was bad, so now I would genuinely like to hear the other side of the conflict. How does anything past the Harbinger beam explosion make sense? How does it fit the lore of ME? Why one should see the final sequence as satisfactory?
I'd be grateful for any reasonably argued answers.

[Energycell001]

WOW, I was really shocked when I red this one http://www.rockpaper...ct-1-after-all/

Nice!

[Omnike]

Benchpress610 wrote...

jeweledleah wrote...

/rubs temples... its like trying to explain calculus to someone who barely has understanding of basic arithmetic.

why do I even try.

oh right. in hopes that developers might actually poke their heads in there, especially codex writers and go.. hmm, we really do need to address those points.

jeweledleah my friend, I hate to see you wasting your intellectual energy with this err…guy. He’s been trolling this thread for days. He always loses the argument miserably when presented with irrefutable facts…no matter, he keeps at it. He isn’t interested in a reasonable discussion, he’s just trolling. Just ignore him.

Yeah you can't argue with him. He starts them but can't keep them up. He loses, and then starts another one. Ignore Thanatos, he's just a bad troll.

[Blackvista]

I’ve been asking myself how the final missions (everything after the forward operating base in London) could be improved.  I think the end portion of the game could be deepened by the addition of extra missions set during the final ground offensive.  These missions would be played from the perspective of the other forces fighting on Shepard’s flanks ,or perhaps set slightly before Shepard sets out, (to “set the table”). The “hook” here would be that for these missions you would be able to play as one of the character’s you’ve already leveled to 20 and promoted to war asset status (and perhaps another two characters who would act as your squad mates).   Not only would this be a great way to really show the players how their multiplayer efforts have paid off, but it would be another opportunity to depict how the allied forces played a role in the ground war. For instance in one such mission Geth reinforcements would be “drop in”... and save the day (I read that Shadow broker intel report, and I know whoever wrote it thinks that would be an awesome scene) , or even better --> these side missions could involve one of Shepard’s past team members like Miranda, Jack or Samara. Or perhaps some combination.. for instance, if Jack didn’t survive, the Geth would drop in instead.  (or maybe.... the ELCOR!..)


There are many different ways these missions could interact with/impact the game’s climax…  Having accomplished their mission, and secured their sector,  that international fire team wouldn’t get wiped out by the destroyer; or perhaps Shepard would have fewer people to contend with when trying to arm the missile battery; or maybe Shepard would make it to the beam relatively unscathed.  Alternately… your mission could take you further than just securing secondary objectives.  In one of these missions a team could actually make it to the beam while the destroyer is otherwise occupied (he can only face one way at a time, and there’s only the one of him at the beam… any reason why a team of infiltrators couldn’t get in?)  The team would probably get teleported to some seemingly useless location on the citadel… maybe Zakara ward, but they could reach some console and ensure that the next reinforcements get teleported somewhere useful… like.. say... citadel control. (would explain how Shep got there so easily.. if you’re not doing the whole indoctrination theory thing)

Anyway, I thought this would be a good way of further integrating your multiplayer gameplay into the campaign while simultaneously giving you a chance to see what your other squadmates were up to during the London  offensive.  From a dollars and cents perspective… (I’ve read that EA likes multiplayer a lot) it would certainly keep us playing the multiplayer… and it would be an easy bit of DLC to sell (at least.. I'd buy it ).
 

P.S.
 

I’d still like to see Shep’s mom added... at least to the holo calls at the FOB (spacer) … what kind of thoughtless child would phone everyone else but their mother before the end of the world? “Even bad men love their mamas.”  

Modifié par Blackvista, 01 avril 2012 - 11:37 .

[its foggy]

everything's been said about the endings of ME3. i just finished the game my first time, maxed out galactic readiness, synthesis ending. i've read about all the hate towards the endings before i finished my own game, but i didn't read the spoilers and tried to keep an open mind.

yup. the endings are just as bad as everyone said. i've been a fan of the game since the beginning. whether it strayed from being an rpg, i don't care about that. what kept me playing the game was the story. there was this fleshed out universe. i had my unique story that i carved out through the 3 games. i grew to like the supporting characters, even have my favorite party members. i want to know what happened to them. i want to know what my every effect had on the rest of the galaxy. none of that mattered in the end. not even represented. i feel we deserve more.
all that effort to designing this amazing game, creating this epic story....i don't know why or how you could end it like that. give us our endings.

[Thanatos144]

Omnike wrote...

Benchpress610 wrote...

jeweledleah wrote...

/rubs temples... its like trying to explain calculus to someone who barely has understanding of basic arithmetic.

why do I even try.

oh right. in hopes that developers might actually poke their heads in there, especially codex writers and go.. hmm, we really do need to address those points.

jeweledleah my friend, I hate to see you wasting your intellectual energy with this err…guy. He’s been trolling this thread for days. He always loses the argument miserably when presented with irrefutable facts…no matter, he keeps at it. He isn’t interested in a reasonable discussion, he’s just trolling. Just ignore him.

Yeah you can't argue with him. He starts them but can't keep them up. He loses, and then starts another one. Ignore Thanatos, he's just a bad troll.

It is called having a life you should try it. I have ststed my posistion consistantly....It is you that just reverts to calling people a troll. Thats when I just go to other things cause the fact is you know you have no standing.

[trogwolf]

Tojax wrote...

There's actually a question I wanted to ask the people who enjoyed the ME3 ending:
Why did you like it? I'm not asking this to poke fun at anyone. I'm just curious to see how anyone managed to find logic and/or closure in it. I've already heard a million and one reasons stating why the ending was bad, so now I would genuinely like to hear the other side of the conflict. How does anything past the Harbinger beam explosion make sense? How does it fit the lore of ME? Why one should see the final sequence as satisfactory?
I'd be grateful for any reasonably argued answers.

fair question, I suppose.  I can't speak for anyone but myself.

commentary before response.

Commentary:
First, I still don't get all the fuss.  I understand the words, I don't get the point of it, I guess.  Emotionalism? I don't know.  Half of the criticism seems ridiciulous to me on its face - a gret deal of it I classify as tantrums.  The other half seems like disappointment based on some set of expectations that weren't met.  This half seems equally ridiculous to me.  I have a feeling it all boils down to the fact that you just don't want it to be over; therefore, you want the ending to keep telling you a story.  But it doesn't.  It's THE END.  Hey, it's up to you now. Choose an ending and then imagine the future based on the ending you chose.

I had one expectation of the game that I could not realize on my Paragon Shepard because I chose Jack as my love interest, but I was able to realize on my renegade Shepard because I chose Liara as my love interest.  The expectation was that of enjoying a last lovemaking session before the final assault.  I can't blame any disappointment with my first playthrough on the game - the outcome was determined by my choice.

Response:
This game produced two reasonable expectations for the ending:
1) Shepard will stop the Reapers, if it kills him.  Based on one comment at the beginning and one at the end of ME3, you should have exppected that it will kill him, or otherwise cease his existence as we understand it.
2)Shepard will be faced with a hard decision to make before he can stop the Reapers.
The game delivered on both reasonable expectations.   I could stop there with "What more do you want?"  I am quite satisfied.  The entire trilogy was fantastic and I don't find anything about the ending repulsive or that makes me never want to play again.  This sort of reaction seems childish to me.  But that's just me.

The left and right options are presented as extremes - preserve the galaxy for organic life by destroying not just the Reapers, but by destroying all synthetic life - including the Geth and EDI and maybe all AI and VI; or preserve the galaxy for all life by controling the Reapers and possibly having to learn that the Catalyst is right and 50,000 years from now you will be back to start over because the synthetics have destroyed organic (sentient) life.

Option left: As a renegade, you might choose this because, in spite of his indoctrination, The Illusive Man makes sense to you.  As a paragon, you might choose this because it doesn't destroy the Geth, and you believe that the Catalyst is wrong about the Geth ultimately destroying organic life, if left unchecked, since you have seen them cooperate with the Quarians.
Option right: As a paragon, you might choose this if your singleminded purpose is to STOP THE REAPERS and save organic (sentient) life in the galaxy.  As a renegade, you might choose this if your singleminded purpose is to STOP THE REAPERS and save humanity.

Option center: regardless of your paragon or renegade inclinations, you might choose this if you believe that the Catalyst is right - that synthesis is the natural ultimate evolutioin of life in the galaxy and that the dark energy produced by the Crucible will in fact trigger this mutation/evolution.

Option fourth: If, like me, you are disgusted by the greed and politics of the dominant races of this cycle that made the Alliance withhold infomation about the Mars Archives and made the Asari withhold information about the Thessian Beacon until their "hand was forced", when both of these governments had been presented with enough information about the impending Reaper invasion to make a reasonable human being see the need to get every possible resource into the hands of a team like Shepard and Tasoni; and you are disgusted that such greed and politics make it necessary to betray and kill friends and allies, to secure the help you need  from races who are withholding aid because they can't see past their petty fears and prejudices, in order to stand any kind of chance of stopping the impending Reaper invasion, then you might conclude as I did, that this cycle doesn't deserve to live beyond their 50,000 year allotment, and you may just let the Reapers destroy the crucible and wish the next cycle better luck, thanks to Liara's data capsules.

"Releasing the energy of the crucible will end the cycle, but it will also destroy the mass relays." - the Catalyst

It will destroy the Mass Relays. It will not destroy the knowledge of the Mass Relays. Given time, each sentient race can rebuild themselves and their Mass Relays. How much time? Who cares? The cycle has ended. They have all the time in the galaxy.

Every dominant race is faced with a post-apocalyptic rebuild,, but that was expected. The Reapers have been stopped. Game over. I am quite satisfied. Everyone who wants the story to continue may pursue, in their own fashion, how their favorite races will cope. Write stories, epics even. This is the end of the Mass Effect game trilogy. It doesn't have to be the end of the Humans and Asari and Turians and Krogans and Salarians and Elcor and Volus, etc. unless you choose option four.

[AlexJK]

@trogwolf: "Option 4", also known as "turning off the game" really isn't an option at all is it? I mean, why did you bother playing all the way to end if you didn't feel that life was worth saving?

[Lordambitious]

The star-child pretty much contradicts ME1, the foundation for the entire series.

[trogwolf]

Energycell001 wrote...

WOW, I was really shocked when I red this one

http://www.rockpaper...ct-1-after-all/

Nice!

Thanks for posting this.  I tried to make this point in an earlier post - that saying the ending was a result of being rushed doesn't make sense - the whole trilogy has been in development for over three years.

[JackLaVaporiera]

I wonder who is the white collar who fired the good ones of ME3 team.

I want to give him an advice.

Never ask for suggestions to someone you've just fired otherwise you could end up thinkin' "just spit out of the blue an holo-child ranting something and change the eplosion's colour" it's a good and cheap idea...but the biggest mistake was the "noone will notice" part.

You weren't enough satisfied to have rebuilt the whole game on a different graphic engine not really suited for the purpose, you had to fill the game with the flattest dialogues ever possible and to stick an unviewable ending with the glue at it ?

Many ones here are just complining the ending is pointless, well the ending is only the icing on the cake cuse the whole plot is unbalanced.

I hope you can understand your mistakes mr. "production manager" from the start point you don't know a single thing about "videogames" nor "making money", I just hope you could go fishing soon.

A good game could keep the fanbase alive and a huge fanbase alive means money, this move was instead a "egg today" compared to a "chicken tomorrow" and this is not the right way to preserve a seat.

Think a bit about it. Today you've earned a lot of money due to cuts in ME3 production costs, tomorrow noone will trust anymore a new Bioware franchise 'nd you'll not cover even printing costs....good move.

[SpartanCommander]

This guy has a great idea for an ending I'm not sure if anyone else posted this link but it's very awesome. I hope this one is chosen because this guy kept careful track of the entire plot of all 3 games and what would have been the best result to what we need and what would be the best way Bioware could have made the ending.

[trogwolf]

AlexJK wrote...

@trogwolf: "Option 4", also known as "turning off the game" really isn't an option at all is it? I mean, why did you bother playing all the way to end if you didn't feel that life was worth saving?

Since you bothered to post this, I will reply to it.  NOT "also known as "turning off the game"".  If you let time run out without choosing any of the three options, the Crucible gets destroyed.  Making no decidion is a decision, in this game and in real life, and it has its consequences: in Mass Effect 3 making no decision allows the cycle to continue and about 45,000 years later, the dominant race(s) of the new cycle will either be preparing for the reapers or beginning to gather information and pass down knowledge so that others can be prepared for them when they come.

The game is awesome.  All three were awesome.  Why wouldn't I want to see how the writers choose to end the game?  How does not feeling that the current cycle's life is worth saving equate to the game is not worth playing? 

You're funny.

[FreshRevenge]

Got to love the TEXT WARS!

[Omnike]

Thanatos144 wrote...

Omnike wrote...

Benchpress610 wrote...

jeweledleah wrote...

/rubs temples... its like trying to explain calculus to someone who barely has understanding of basic arithmetic.

why do I even try.

oh right. in hopes that developers might actually poke their heads in there, especially codex writers and go.. hmm, we really do need to address those points.

jeweledleah my friend, I hate to see you wasting your intellectual energy with this err…guy. He’s been trolling this thread for days. He always loses the argument miserably when presented with irrefutable facts…no matter, he keeps at it. He isn’t interested in a reasonable discussion, he’s just trolling. Just ignore him.

Yeah you can't argue with him. He starts them but can't keep them up. He loses, and then starts another one. Ignore Thanatos, he's just a bad troll.

It is called having a life you should try it. I have ststed my posistion consistantly....It is you that just reverts to calling people a troll. Thats when I just go to other things cause the fact is you know you have no standing.

And you revert to name calling. I've seen countless times you calling us children. And then you say I have no life? You don't know me. And I do have standing. In fact, I recall each time I bring up a bad point about the ending, you can't even argue it. You stop arguing and try to start another argument. So, let's recap:

- You can't argue your standing on the ending
- You start saying that I have no life
- You say I can't argue my standing, even though you have not provided a counter arguement except "The writers put it in"
-Lastly, you can't type worth ****. It's much easier to type on a keyboard than it is to write with a pen/pencil

Lol, good try kid. You're bad at this.

[Omnike]

trogwolf wrote...

Energycell001 wrote...

WOW, I was really shocked when I red this one

http://www.rockpaper...ct-1-after-all/

Nice!

Thanks for posting this.  I tried to make this point in an earlier post - that saying the ending was a result of being rushed doesn't make sense - the whole trilogy has been in development for over three years.

You know they changed the ending from the original inended ending... right?

[jeweledleah]

trogwolf wrote...

Commentary:
First, I still don't get all the fuss.  I understand the words, I don't get the point of it, I guess.  Emotionalism? I don't know.  Half of the criticism seems ridiciulous to me on its face - a gret deal of it I classify as tantrums.  The other half seems like disappointment based on some set of expectations that weren't met.  This half seems equally ridiculous to me.  I have a feeling it all boils down to the fact that you just don't want it to be over; therefore, you want the ending to keep telling you a story.

this is where you lost me.  I still read the rest of your post and all of it is your own emotional opinion.. which is fair,. but it doesn't adress our concerns any.    but the moment you started making derisive assumptions about motivations of people who don't like the endings?  you lost the argument.  if you cannot show why our argument is invalid, you have to do so based solely on our argument.  NOT by putting down people in order to invalidate their statements.

Modifié par jeweledleah, 02 avril 2012 - 12:41 .

[trogwolf]

How many "intended" endings do you suppose they were considering throughout the three or more years that they have been creating this game? Comments like this: "You know they changed the ending from the original inended ending... right?" strike me as naive.