23455 réponses à ce sujet

[pipemaster9000]

FairfaxLessee wrote...

So you're saying that Shepard is immune to Indoctrination? Everything points to him battling indoctrination. Shepard displays many of the symptoms mentioned in the Codex on Indoctrination. It shouldn't have ended there though, maybe something you deal with prior to the final battle. Dallas is irrelevant unless it consisted of sentient machines taking over your mind and degrading you in the process.

You don't have to like it, but the evidence is there. I get the feeling that most people who bash IT haven't explored the option. 

I'm not saying Shepard is immune or that the theory isn't sound-I'm saying that having the entire third game be a dream is a cop-out of epic proportions.

Also on Dallas, fyi: it was a prime time soap opera in (I think) the late 70's/early 80's-I am referring specifically to the (in)famous "Who Shot JR" season [for more information, check out the Simpsons 2-parter where Maggie shoots Mr. Burns] where, after what (in my understanding) was considered a fairly good season, one of the characters wakes up to someone taking a shower, making the entire previous season (including JR's death) a dream. It was tired then, it's hackneyed now.

Finally, Shepard is NOT necessarily a "him."

I'm not saying all of 3 was a dream. Just after Shep gets hit by Harbinger. The little boy he keeps seeing is just a sign, nobody else acknowledges his existence except for shepard. The boy, in that sense, represents those that Shepard couldn't save, weakening his will. In turn making him more suceptible to indoctrination. Harbinger could have easily made a nice Shep-stain in the dirt. The reapers would get more use out of him indoctrinated than dead, he united the Galaxy. Indocrinating key political or military leaders makes the Reapers' job much easier. I believe this is also mentioned in the Indoctrination codex. If you could explain why Shepard ends up with a bullet in the same location he shot Anderson then I would be more inclined to denounce IT. You can hear both Shepard and Anderson grunt in pain when the shot is fired.

I am aware of the rumor that Indoctrination was scrapped, but why would they leave all the red flags in play? With IT a lot of the holes can be filled. Should it have ended on that note as a monumental cliffhanger? Hell no. Logically can Bioware release DLC that takes place after those endings? No, unless you play as a team member or your LI. IT keeps the door open to them. I don't like that we have so many questions with no answers, but IT makes the most sense right now. Unless they rebuild the ending from the ground up.

[dweomer]

The ending to ME3 would be a let down for an average game. It is an incredible failure of a let-down for the Mass Effect series. Why would you hamstring one of your flagship titles like that?? You guys realize we're buying video games for our four and five year old kids over the next few years, yeah?

[SidesSlides]

I didnt import, so my opinion probably dosent matter here, but I've now recieved the best ending and completed it on Insanity, and it is a amazing game, besides the ending.

My top moments (hard to narrow it down):

Staring down the Reaper on Rannoch
Having to sacrifice the quarian fleet, to get the bigger geth fleet, ruthless calculus
"I'm Garrus Vakarian and this is my favorite spot on the Citadel'
Killing Mordin to get the salarians, ruthless calculus again
Thresher vs. Reaper, place your bets spoiler: Thresher wins
Charging downhill as Harbinger destroys everything
Finally destroying the Reaper bastards
"You should be worried, tell your friends we're coming for them"
Killing Lieutenant Bastard Kai leng

[ShaggySnacks]

 I fine with how the game ended, I am just more annoyed at the lack of closure. The series has always been about decisions and seeing the consequences of those decisions. I want to see the effects of my decisions. All Bioware would have to do just put a black screen and some text stating what happened or if they want to be fancy a montage detailing what happened after the Reapers were defeated. 

I think Shepard dieing proves the main point of the game, that war is about sacfrice and doing what needs to be done when it comes to survival.

[knection]

trogwolf wrote...

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.

Choose an ending and then imagine the future based on the ending you choose.....I almost think that this guy wrote the dialogue of the space kid

[trogwolf]

jeweledleah wrote...

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.

Interesting statements.  To be more accurate, you might have said my own emotionless opinion. There are no assumptions, derisive or otherwise, only guesses based on my limited understanding of human nature and my own experience with the game.  I don't know what any of your thoughts, motivations or anything are, I only know that in my opinion they fall into the two categories that I stated.  lost the argument?  I am not engaged in your argument, so I don't have any compulsion to win it by yours or anyone else's rules.  I am not trying to win an argument.  I am answering a post inquiring as to the point of view of someone who who enjoyed the ending as much as the rest of the game.   In fact, the longer I think about the endings the more satisfied I am with the way the game ended.  There was no intent or desire to show that any of your arguments are invalid.  I posted why, in my opinion, the game ending satisfies the reasonable expectations anyone might have from playing it.  Dissatisfaction stemming from any other expectations are invalid arguments, in my opinion. 

Contrary to your opinion, I don't have to do anything based on your argument.  I can't help it if you feel put down by what I typed.  If you do, maybe you are subconsciously acknowledging that your arguments are exactly as I characterized them - tantrums or based on unreasonable expectations.  Your opinions are yours and as such they are valid to you.  They are invalid for me and to me.   I think they are invalid for the reasons stated, it is that simple as far as I am concerned.  

  

[improperdancing]

ShaggySnacks wrote...

 I fine with how the game ended, I am just more annoyed at the lack of closure. The series has always been about decisions and seeing the consequences of those decisions. I want to see the effects of my decisions. All Bioware would have to do just put a black screen and some text stating what happened or if they want to be fancy a montage detailing what happened after the Reapers were defeated. 

I think Shepard dieing proves the main point of the game, that war is about sacfrice and doing what needs to be done when it comes to survival.

See, I'm with you on the Shepherd dying thing, but I think it's more about how he dies.  If he went out in an epic battle scene where the Reapers were just too powerful for him to handle, that would have been awesome.  The problem is that he goes out with such a boring whimper, in a conversation with a "god child' where he can't even protest the complete lack of logic.  It just feels like he dies for nothing.

If Shepherd had to go out, he should have gone out shooting.

[improperdancing]

knection wrote...

trogwolf wrote...

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.

Choose an ending and then imagine the future based on the ending you choose.....I almost think that this guy wrote the dialogue of the space kid

Haha agreed.  I don't pay eighty bucks for a game so I can brainstorm the ending myself.  If BioWare expects me to come up with the ending, they should be paying me.  I'm sure I could come up with something significantly better than the crap they presented.

[trogwolf]

Omnike wrote...

trogwolf wrote...

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.

Which leads me to understand that you haven't been reading into this. Drew Karpyshyn came out and described what they had originally intended the end of the trilogy to come to. It was all supposed to surround dark energy.

http://www.strategyi...ffect-3-endings 

There's an article describing him talking about it. 

"The original choice was between killing the Reapers and trying to find a way to stop the Dark Energy threat with what little time was left before it consumed the galaxy, or, "Sacrifice humanity, allowing them to be horrifically processed in hopes that the end result will justify the means.""

This raises the interesting question, for purists who think the "Original" ending should have been used.  Looking at however many of these posts you have read, can you imagine their number being any less with THIS ending?  In THIS ending, the Illusive man is right, Shepard is wrong and its lose/lose for everyone.

I definitely like the endings I played better than these two choices.

[jeweledleah]

trogwolf wrote...

jeweledleah wrote...

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.

Interesting statements.  To be more accurate, you might have said my own emotionless opinion. There are no assumptions, derisive or otherwise, only guesses based on my limited understanding of human nature and my own experience with the game.  I don't know what any of your thoughts, motivations or anything are, I only know that in my opinion they fall into the two categories that I stated.  lost the argument?  I am not engaged in your argument, so I don't have any compulsion to win it by yours or anyone else's rules.  I am not trying to win an argument.  I am answering a post inquiring as to the point of view of someone who who enjoyed the ending as much as the rest of the game.   In fact, the longer I think about the endings the more satisfied I am with the way the game ended.  There was no intent or desire to show that any of your arguments are invalid.  I posted why, in my opinion, the game ending satisfies the reasonable expectations anyone might have from playing it.  Dissatisfaction stemming from any other expectations are invalid arguments, in my opinion. 

Contrary to your opinion, I don't have to do anything based on your argument.  I can't help it if you feel put down by what I typed.  If you do, maybe you are subconsciously acknowledging that your arguments are exactly as I characterized them - tantrums or based on unreasonable expectations.  Your opinions are yours and as such they are valid to you.  They are invalid for me and to me.   I think they are invalid for the reasons stated, it is that simple as far as I am concerned.  

  

aaah, again with assumptions.

as far as unreasonable expectations - it seems to be a nice time to repost THIS  coupled with prior games from bioware and their quality?  oh I don't know about that unreasonable part.

your opinion on how satisfying the endings is just that.  your opinion.  you are "entiteled" to it.  it doesn't invalidate options of other people, especialy when they are grounded in logic, prior precedent, developer promises and entirety of the game lore/placement in literary genre.  people who didn't like the endings, explained why.  again, and again and again.  using concrete examples.  calling it a "temper tantrum" becasue you happen to downright ignore those examples and arguments?  reflects badly on you.  not us.

good day, sir.

Modifié par jeweledleah, 02 avril 2012 - 03:41 .

[pipemaster9000]

Trogwolf, you're getting my Troll of the week award. However, you are entitled to your opinion just like everyone else here. You just have a very intricate way of stating it, almost like listening to EDI explain something.

[knection]

trogwolf wrote...

Omnike wrote...

trogwolf wrote...

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.

Which leads me to understand that you haven't been reading into this. Drew Karpyshyn came out and described what they had originally intended the end of the trilogy to come to. It was all supposed to surround dark energy.

http://www.strategyi...ffect-3-endings 

There's an article describing him talking about it. 

"The original choice was between killing the Reapers and trying to find a way to stop the Dark Energy threat with what little time was left before it consumed the galaxy, or, "Sacrifice humanity, allowing them to be horrifically processed in hopes that the end result will justify the means.""

This raises the interesting question, for purists who think the "Original" ending should have been used.  Looking at however many of these posts you have read, can you imagine their number being any less with THIS ending?  In THIS ending, the Illusive man is right, Shepard is wrong and its lose/lose for everyone.

I definitely like the endings I played better than these two choices.

Trogs argument is starting to sound like my dad is stronger than your dad type of validation

[FairfaxLessee]

pipemaster9000 wrote...

FairfaxLessee wrote...

So you're saying that Shepard is immune to Indoctrination? Everything points to him battling indoctrination. Shepard displays many of the symptoms mentioned in the Codex on Indoctrination. It shouldn't have ended there though, maybe something you deal with prior to the final battle. Dallas is irrelevant unless it consisted of sentient machines taking over your mind and degrading you in the process.

You don't have to like it, but the evidence is there. I get the feeling that most people who bash IT haven't explored the option. 

I'm not saying Shepard is immune or that the theory isn't sound-I'm saying that having the entire third game be a dream is a cop-out of epic proportions.

Also on Dallas, fyi: it was a prime time soap opera in (I think) the late 70's/early 80's-I am referring specifically to the (in)famous "Who Shot JR" season [for more information, check out the Simpsons 2-parter where Maggie shoots Mr. Burns] where, after what (in my understanding) was considered a fairly good season, one of the characters wakes up to someone taking a shower, making the entire previous season (including JR's death) a dream. It was tired then, it's hackneyed now.

Finally, Shepard is NOT necessarily a "him."

I'm not saying all of 3 was a dream. Just after Shep gets hit by Harbinger. The little boy he keeps seeing is just a sign, nobody else acknowledges his existence except for shepard. The boy, in that sense, represents those that Shepard couldn't save, weakening his will. In turn making him more suceptible to indoctrination. Harbinger could have easily made a nice Shep-stain in the dirt. The reapers would get more use out of him indoctrinated than dead, he united the Galaxy. Indocrinating key political or military leaders makes the Reapers' job much easier. I believe this is also mentioned in the Indoctrination codex. If you could explain why Shepard ends up with a bullet in the same location he shot Anderson then I would be more inclined to denounce IT. You can hear both Shepard and Anderson grunt in pain when the shot is fired.

I am aware of the rumor that Indoctrination was scrapped, but why would they leave all the red flags in play? With IT a lot of the holes can be filled. Should it have ended on that note as a monumental cliffhanger? Hell no. Logically can Bioware release DLC that takes place after those endings? No, unless you play as a team member or your LI. IT keeps the door open to them. I don't like that we have so many questions with no answers, but IT makes the most sense right now. Unless they rebuild the ending from the ground up.

This is EXACTLY my point on the Nocturne comparison-the entire story of Nocturne is centered around the world coming to cyclical end and the new world being "chosen" from avatars of the old one-the entire story makes sense as a whole and is self contained and cohesive from beginning to end.

In a way, having the last 5 minutes being an indoctrinated hallucination is an even more monumental cop-out than having the whole game being one-it just screams "hey, we couldn't think of an ending in time to make our deadline, sry!"

Read the link on Omnike's post either on this page or the last one-the dark matter ending-much more sense.

And I again reiterate that Shepard is not inherently a "him," and yes I am aware of the trend in modern English vernacular to use he/him/his as neuter pronouns. 

Modifié par FairfaxLessee, 02 avril 2012 - 04:12 .

[Omnike]

knection wrote...

trogwolf wrote...

Omnike wrote...

trogwolf wrote...

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.

Which leads me to understand that you haven't been reading into this. Drew Karpyshyn came out and described what they had originally intended the end of the trilogy to come to. It was all supposed to surround dark energy.

http://www.strategyi...ffect-3-endings 

There's an article describing him talking about it. 

"The original choice was between killing the Reapers and trying to find a way to stop the Dark Energy threat with what little time was left before it consumed the galaxy, or, "Sacrifice humanity, allowing them to be horrifically processed in hopes that the end result will justify the means.""

This raises the interesting question, for purists who think the "Original" ending should have been used.  Looking at however many of these posts you have read, can you imagine their number being any less with THIS ending?  In THIS ending, the Illusive man is right, Shepard is wrong and its lose/lose for everyone.

I definitely like the endings I played better than these two choices.

Trogs argument is starting to sound like my dad is stronger than your dad type of validation

Notice when Drew completely left Mass Effect, things go downhill? And which ending makes more sense? Star child, or the end they've been building up for two games?

[pipemaster9000]

FairfaxLessee wrote...

pipemaster9000 wrote...

FairfaxLessee wrote...

So you're saying that Shepard is immune to Indoctrination? Everything points to him battling indoctrination. Shepard displays many of the symptoms mentioned in the Codex on Indoctrination. It shouldn't have ended there though, maybe something you deal with prior to the final battle. Dallas is irrelevant unless it consisted of sentient machines taking over your mind and degrading you in the process.

You don't have to like it, but the evidence is there. I get the feeling that most people who bash IT haven't explored the option. 

I'm not saying Shepard is immune or that the theory isn't sound-I'm saying that having the entire third game be a dream is a cop-out of epic proportions.

Also on Dallas, fyi: it was a prime time soap opera in (I think) the late 70's/early 80's-I am referring specifically to the (in)famous "Who Shot JR" season [for more information, check out the Simpsons 2-parter where Maggie shoots Mr. Burns] where, after what (in my understanding) was considered a fairly good season, one of the characters wakes up to someone taking a shower, making the entire previous season (including JR's death) a dream. It was tired then, it's hackneyed now.

Finally, Shepard is NOT necessarily a "him."

I'm not saying all of 3 was a dream. Just after Shep gets hit by Harbinger. The little boy he keeps seeing is just a sign, nobody else acknowledges his existence except for shepard. The boy, in that sense, represents those that Shepard couldn't save, weakening his will. In turn making him more suceptible to indoctrination. Harbinger could have easily made a nice Shep-stain in the dirt. The reapers would get more use out of him indoctrinated than dead, he united the Galaxy. Indocrinating key political or military leaders makes the Reapers' job much easier. I believe this is also mentioned in the Indoctrination codex. If you could explain why Shepard ends up with a bullet in the same location he shot Anderson then I would be more inclined to denounce IT. You can hear both Shepard and Anderson grunt in pain when the shot is fired.

I am aware of the rumor that Indoctrination was scrapped, but why would they leave all the red flags in play? With IT a lot of the holes can be filled. Should it have ended on that note as a monumental cliffhanger? Hell no. Logically can Bioware release DLC that takes place after those endings? No, unless you play as a team member or your LI. IT keeps the door open to them. I don't like that we have so many questions with no answers, but IT makes the most sense right now. Unless they rebuild the ending from the ground up.

This is EXACTLY my point on the Nocturne comparison-the entire story of Nocturne is centered around the world coming to cyclical end and the new world being "chosen" from avatars of the old one-the entire story makes sense as a whole and is self contained and cohesive from beginning to end.

In a way, having the last 5 minutes being an indoctrinated hallucination is an even more monumental cop-out than having the whole game being one-it just screams "hey, we couldn't think of an ending in time to make our deadline, sry!"

Read the link on Omnike's post either on this page or the last one-the dark matter ending-much more sense.

I've read it, it's interesting. That ending adds more depth to the Reapers. Gives them more of a purpose than the "Yo Dawg, I heard you didn't wanna get killed by machines so we sent machines to kill you so you don't get killed by machines." If I remember correctly though, that ending still renders your decisions and EMS... Moot I think was the word. That is something that needs to be seen imo. Seeing all the fleets jump in is intense, not seeing anything else out of them is... no so intense.

This ending would be a ground up remake, ground up as just the ending not the entire game. References to dark matter prior to that ending would be needed though. I'm not against that, I just don't see BW remaking the ending that extensively.

[ky0dar]

My favourite bit was when BioWare decided to actually give the game some closure. Remember that bit BioWare? Hmm?

[trogwolf]

pipemaster9000 wrote...

Trogwolf, you're getting my Troll of the week award. However, you are entitled to your opinion just like everyone else here. You just have a very intricate way of stating it, almost like listening to EDI explain something.

Excellent post.

[jeweledleah]

pipemaster9000 wrote...

I've read it, it's interesting. That ending adds more depth to the Reapers. Gives them more of a purpose than the "Yo Dawg, I heard you didn't wanna get killed by machines so we sent machines to kill you so you don't get killed by machines." If I remember correctly though, that ending still renders your decisions and EMS... Moot I think was the word. That is something that needs to be seen imo. Seeing all the fleets jump in is intense, not seeing anything else out of them is... no so intense.

This ending would be a ground up remake, ground up as just the ending not the entire game. References to dark matter prior to that ending would be needed though. I'm not against that, I just don't see BW remaking the ending that extensively.

sadly, those started with Freedom's progress in ME2. Veetor mentions it when talking about his collector's readings, and then its also mentioned by Gianna Parasini on Illium.  Tali's recruitement mission is all about dark energy affecting Hailstrom's sun in a way that it shoudln't.  not only that - Arrival mentions that the reason why Alpha relay is so imprtant is that if its controls are adjusted to use higher ammounts of dark energy - it can reach 16 other relays including the one in Widow nebula.  which kinda makes you think that they have been still concidering that original idea at the time ME3 was already in production for about a year at least.

[Psythorn]

Omnike wrote...
"The original choice was between killing the Reapers and trying to find a way to stop the Dark Energy threat with what little time was left before it consumed the galaxy, or, "Sacrifice humanity, allowing them to be horrifically processed in hopes that the end result will justify the means.""

This raises the interesting question, for purists who think the "Original" ending should have been used.  Looking at however many of these posts you have read, can you imagine their number being any less with THIS ending?  In THIS ending, the Illusive man is right, Shepard is wrong and its lose/lose for everyone.

I definitely like the endings I played better than these two choices.

Yes... You know why ? Because that choice actually would matter !
Instead of red green or blue, mass relays destroyed and very bad things happening for sure - at least there is hope and meaning in both of that endings... For the choices of the past games in this ending - we do not know how they would have played out - we can only guess... However I feel like it would have been more easy to real variations of those 2 endings...

Modifié par Psythorn, 02 avril 2012 - 04:52 .

[FairfaxLessee]

pipemaster9000 wrote...

FairfaxLessee wrote...

pipemaster9000 wrote...

FairfaxLessee wrote...

So you're saying that Shepard is immune to Indoctrination? Everything points to him battling indoctrination. Shepard displays many of the symptoms mentioned in the Codex on Indoctrination. It shouldn't have ended there though, maybe something you deal with prior to the final battle. Dallas is irrelevant unless it consisted of sentient machines taking over your mind and degrading you in the process.

You don't have to like it, but the evidence is there. I get the feeling that most people who bash IT haven't explored the option. 

I'm not saying Shepard is immune or that the theory isn't sound-I'm saying that having the entire third game be a dream is a cop-out of epic proportions.

Also on Dallas, fyi: it was a prime time soap opera in (I think) the late 70's/early 80's-I am referring specifically to the (in)famous "Who Shot JR" season [for more information, check out the Simpsons 2-parter where Maggie shoots Mr. Burns] where, after what (in my understanding) was considered a fairly good season, one of the characters wakes up to someone taking a shower, making the entire previous season (including JR's death) a dream. It was tired then, it's hackneyed now.

Finally, Shepard is NOT necessarily a "him."

I'm not saying all of 3 was a dream. Just after Shep gets hit by Harbinger. The little boy he keeps seeing is just a sign, nobody else acknowledges his existence except for shepard. The boy, in that sense, represents those that Shepard couldn't save, weakening his will. In turn making him more suceptible to indoctrination. Harbinger could have easily made a nice Shep-stain in the dirt. The reapers would get more use out of him indoctrinated than dead, he united the Galaxy. Indocrinating key political or military leaders makes the Reapers' job much easier. I believe this is also mentioned in the Indoctrination codex. If you could explain why Shepard ends up with a bullet in the same location he shot Anderson then I would be more inclined to denounce IT. You can hear both Shepard and Anderson grunt in pain when the shot is fired.

I am aware of the rumor that Indoctrination was scrapped, but why would they leave all the red flags in play? With IT a lot of the holes can be filled. Should it have ended on that note as a monumental cliffhanger? Hell no. Logically can Bioware release DLC that takes place after those endings? No, unless you play as a team member or your LI. IT keeps the door open to them. I don't like that we have so many questions with no answers, but IT makes the most sense right now. Unless they rebuild the ending from the ground up.

This is EXACTLY my point on the Nocturne comparison-the entire story of Nocturne is centered around the world coming to cyclical end and the new world being "chosen" from avatars of the old one-the entire story makes sense as a whole and is self contained and cohesive from beginning to end.

In a way, having the last 5 minutes being an indoctrinated hallucination is an even more monumental cop-out than having the whole game being one-it just screams "hey, we couldn't think of an ending in time to make our deadline, sry!"

Read the link on Omnike's post either on this page or the last one-the dark matter ending-much more sense.

I've read it, it's interesting. That ending adds more depth to the Reapers. Gives them more of a purpose than the "Yo Dawg, I heard you didn't wanna get killed by machines so we sent machines to kill you so you don't get killed by machines." If I remember correctly though, that ending still renders your decisions and EMS... Moot I think was the word. That is something that needs to be seen imo. Seeing all the fleets jump in is intense, not seeing anything else out of them is... no so intense.

This ending would be a ground up remake, ground up as just the ending not the entire game. References to dark matter prior to that ending would be needed though. I'm not against that, I just don't see BW remaking the ending that extensively.

Moot's the right word, and I agree that there's an underlying problem with all the endings tossing your decisions to get there by the wayside, but given the choice I'd rather an ending that ties into the entire trilogy than one that comes off as that paragraph you add to an essay to make the page limit.  I have a problem with hinging the endings on EMS as I don't think a trilogy built on a single-player system should suddenly require multiplayer to fully enjoy in a solo-campaign.

(Side note on the pathetically optimistic chance someone from Bioware's paying attention: use the multiplayer readiness as a multiplyer, not a divider-ie give everyone 100% of the assets they find in the game, but people with high galactic readiness up to 200% of what they've found, or something)

The thing about ending on indoctrination too is that it makes the time and effort I've put into building the story useless.  I enjoy the occasional nihilistic ending too, but I feel that if Shepard ends up indoctrinated it's just dancing on the grave of all the time I've wasted playing the games.

[Lordambitious]

Chrislo1990 wrote...

Lordambitious wrote...

 Guys, This totally explains what happened during development that resulted in the sudden loss of story cohesion and quality that is the ending.

Haha yeah definitely. There's actually a thread here in the forums that has tons of pics demonstrating how outraged we are over the endings. Man Bioware really screwed up here. I just don't understand why they couldn't have negotiatedwith EA for more time if they needed it. I wouldn't have minded if ME3 had been delayed, so long as I got a satisfying and complete game, just as they had promised. Quality should always take priority. 

totally agree, a delay would have been far more preferable to what we have.

Modifié par Lordambitious, 02 avril 2012 - 05:03 .

[pipemaster9000]

FairfaxLessee wrote...

pipemaster9000 wrote...

FairfaxLessee wrote...

pipemaster9000 wrote...

FairfaxLessee wrote...

So you're saying that Shepard is immune to Indoctrination? Everything points to him battling indoctrination. Shepard displays many of the symptoms mentioned in the Codex on Indoctrination. It shouldn't have ended there though, maybe something you deal with prior to the final battle. Dallas is irrelevant unless it consisted of sentient machines taking over your mind and degrading you in the process.

You don't have to like it, but the evidence is there. I get the feeling that most people who bash IT haven't explored the option. 

I'm not saying Shepard is immune or that the theory isn't sound-I'm saying that having the entire third game be a dream is a cop-out of epic proportions.

Also on Dallas, fyi: it was a prime time soap opera in (I think) the late 70's/early 80's-I am referring specifically to the (in)famous "Who Shot JR" season [for more information, check out the Simpsons 2-parter where Maggie shoots Mr. Burns] where, after what (in my understanding) was considered a fairly good season, one of the characters wakes up to someone taking a shower, making the entire previous season (including JR's death) a dream. It was tired then, it's hackneyed now.

Finally, Shepard is NOT necessarily a "him."

I'm not saying all of 3 was a dream. Just after Shep gets hit by Harbinger. The little boy he keeps seeing is just a sign, nobody else acknowledges his existence except for shepard. The boy, in that sense, represents those that Shepard couldn't save, weakening his will. In turn making him more suceptible to indoctrination. Harbinger could have easily made a nice Shep-stain in the dirt. The reapers would get more use out of him indoctrinated than dead, he united the Galaxy. Indocrinating key political or military leaders makes the Reapers' job much easier. I believe this is also mentioned in the Indoctrination codex. If you could explain why Shepard ends up with a bullet in the same location he shot Anderson then I would be more inclined to denounce IT. You can hear both Shepard and Anderson grunt in pain when the shot is fired.

I am aware of the rumor that Indoctrination was scrapped, but why would they leave all the red flags in play? With IT a lot of the holes can be filled. Should it have ended on that note as a monumental cliffhanger? Hell no. Logically can Bioware release DLC that takes place after those endings? No, unless you play as a team member or your LI. IT keeps the door open to them. I don't like that we have so many questions with no answers, but IT makes the most sense right now. Unless they rebuild the ending from the ground up.

This is EXACTLY my point on the Nocturne comparison-the entire story of Nocturne is centered around the world coming to cyclical end and the new world being "chosen" from avatars of the old one-the entire story makes sense as a whole and is self contained and cohesive from beginning to end.

In a way, having the last 5 minutes being an indoctrinated hallucination is an even more monumental cop-out than having the whole game being one-it just screams "hey, we couldn't think of an ending in time to make our deadline, sry!"

Read the link on Omnike's post either on this page or the last one-the dark matter ending-much more sense.

I've read it, it's interesting. That ending adds more depth to the Reapers. Gives them more of a purpose than the "Yo Dawg, I heard you didn't wanna get killed by machines so we sent machines to kill you so you don't get killed by machines." If I remember correctly though, that ending still renders your decisions and EMS... Moot I think was the word. That is something that needs to be seen imo. Seeing all the fleets jump in is intense, not seeing anything else out of them is... no so intense.

This ending would be a ground up remake, ground up as just the ending not the entire game. References to dark matter prior to that ending would be needed though. I'm not against that, I just don't see BW remaking the ending that extensively.

Moot's the right word, and I agree that there's an underlying problem with all the endings tossing your decisions to get there by the wayside, but given the choice I'd rather an ending that ties into the entire trilogy than one that comes off as that paragraph you add to an essay to make the page limit.  I have a problem with hinging the endings on EMS as I don't think a trilogy built on a single-player system should suddenly require multiplayer to fully enjoy in a solo-campaign.

(Side note on the pathetically optimistic chance someone from Bioware's paying attention: use the multiplayer readiness as a multiplyer, not a divider-ie give everyone 100% of the assets they find in the game, but people with high galactic readiness up to 200% of what they've found, or something)

The thing about ending on indoctrination too is that it makes the time and effort I've put into building the story useless.  I enjoy the occasional nihilistic ending too, but I feel that if Shepard ends up indoctrinated it's just dancing on the grave of all the time I've wasted playing the games.

Yeah, I don't really like the MP factoring into the single player. I'm in the Navy, 100% does nothing for me when we are out at sea (no internet.) ME2 was heavy with dark matter references, where as ME3 shows off Shepards degrading will power.  I don't know why there is a major disconnect there.
.

[ytsirc]

In this thread are all the reasons why something must be done with the ending.
I have nothing to add, just posting to support all the players that didn't like the ending and bringed facts to the table.

[trogwolf]

pipemaster9000 wrote...

Trogwolf, you're getting my Troll of the week award. However, you are entitled to your opinion just like everyone else here. You just have a very intricate way of stating it, almost like listening to EDI explain something.

If you are willing, pipemaster9000, I will take this opportunity for enlightenment.

What exactly is a troll, in your opinion?  You must have one, since you have given me an award for being an outstanding one.  It is not something I ever thought I would qualify for, so my programming must be out of date.

[JackLaVaporiera]

I really liked the onslaught on the best final boss ever...Marauder Shields...

...and the deepness of the dialogues.."I'm the catalyst....ehrr..no I'm the citadel...opsie...I meant I'm part of the citadel....sorry, no, no, the citadel is my home...(make up your mind)..the reapers are my solution (Do you call them that way too ? Don't you have another definition for them ? Do they really born like "reapers" ?)....but "you" can stop "US"....(us ?)...(why are you so concerned about "chaos", holobastard ?)...

I can go on forever praising the greatness of this ending, I'm not sure who is the one to thank for this ending but I really wish to thank him assuming direct control of his butt, a scratchy direct control...

It was really difficult to think of an ancient civilization from another galaxy who originally built reapers as ultimately advanced warships until those things gone rough against their creators believing to be better and finding themselves in the need to harvest basic materials from living thing due to their oversophisticated circuitry in the need of various DNA in order to build, power-up, repair, replicate themselves so to justify the need to harvest but not eradicate lifeforms in many galaxies of which milky way is just one of many and explaining this way the cycle and the "beyond your comprehension" ?

Prothean were the only ones having had contact from beings of another galaxy from which they inherited on theyr very last days the project of the so called "crucible" but the lack of understanding between the two races didn't help and they did not made in time to realize it but the reapers were aware of the its existence and delayed the destruction forcing Saren Arterius to investigate and eventually destroy the project, but Arterius failed cause it had no clue on what he was trying to do, they simply cannot made him conscious of their real will, so while harvesting another galaxy they used a more wide approach to the research with a spare resource, some "collectors" or better some descendant of a prothean colony who where succesful in escaping their "cycle" in another galaxy found, transformed and sent to harvest everything and everyone who can have made in touch with an artifact storing the so called "crucible" thing.

The "crucible" thing itself is not more than a "portal" without exit thinked by the creators of the reapers, as an originally galaxy level warfare weapon, something capable of destroy a whole galaxy rearranged to lure without exception the repaers at the time of their rebellion and project them in "the void" of a zero mass channel without exit, obviously the need in this case was to lure the reapers outside the galaxy in the dark space but the original creators of this stuff were extinct before its completion just like the protheans who inherited the thing...

At this point is possible to work on "completion" of the single parts of "crucible" (what a bad name) and the related effectiveness of it leading to every scaled "effect" when its time to use it and every possible effect on its efficiency on the EMS resources defending the project...

Leave God-like theories out of this, this is a game after all a sci-fi game.

This is "fantasy".

Sorry for my bad english, it's not my birth language but I think it could be understandable.

Modifié par JackLaVaporiera, 02 avril 2012 - 05:40 .