23455 réponses à ce sujet

[SillyNydia]

After seeing that it is only going to be a clarification of the ending.. I have to say. If you have to make additional DLC to just "clarify" what is going on in your ending. It's a bad ending.

[harrier25699]

Norrin_Radd wrote...

I'm just curious for all the ending haters:

What is the optimal ending, in your opinion?

Having my choices matter, being able to reject the star child's principles and, like ME2, have a variety of endings ranging from everyone dead and the galaxy reaped, to everyone survives and lives happily ever after.  This should depend on how much effort you put into questlines, otaining EMS and choices from ME1 and 2 have ALOT more of an impact other than revealing a secret movie that implies you might not be dead if you chose red flavour, e.g. indoc theory.  If the protagonist HAS to die (bioware canon) then there should be ALOT more to the ending than simply red, green or blue. 

Presently, the ending is like Luke Skywalker throwing himself onto Vader's funeral pyre at the end of RotJ just to make sure the flames don't go out.

[IXITiKiMoNIXI]

Norrin_Radd wrote...

Presently, the ending is like Luke Skywalker throwing himself onto Vader's funeral pyre at the end of RotJ just to make sure the flames don't go out.

Bravo

[harrier25699]

IXITiKiMoNIXI wrote...

Norrin_Radd wrote...

Presently, the ending is like Luke Skywalker throwing himself onto Vader's funeral pyre at the end of RotJ just to make sure the flames don't go out.

Bravo

Norrin didn't write that, i did

[shonefob]

ESGunslinger wrote...



Great video about why the ending of Mass Effect 3 is so unsatisfying. It's 39 minutes long, but it's definitely worth the watch. Hopefully a BioWare employee will watch this.

Thanks!
~ESGunslinger

Great vid man.

[Lordambitious]

 
Just thought I'd toss this up here.

[LeTtotheC]

Dear Bioware....

Watch the final episode of Babylon 5 - 'Sleeping in Light', and then re-write the ending to ME3. I'm not saying you should copy it all, but it at least might indicate what fans of series are looking for in emotional closure. Heck, the ending is incredibly sad with one certain bill being paid in full for one character, but it's a good kind of sadness that means we get to say goodbye even as the final sacrifice is made. Then we get to see a universe go on, and carry on breathing without said character.

...y'know, like how the ME3 universe should have been shown to carry on after Shepherd's sacrifice.

[Norrin_Radd]

harrier25699 wrote...

Norrin_Radd wrote...

I'm just curious for all the ending haters:

What is the optimal ending, in your opinion?

Having my choices matter, being able to reject the star child's principles and, like ME2, have a variety of endings ranging from everyone dead and the galaxy reaped, to everyone survives and lives happily ever after.  This should depend on how much effort you put into questlines, otaining EMS and choices from ME1 and 2 have ALOT more of an impact other than revealing a secret movie that implies you might not be dead if you chose red flavour, e.g. indoc theory.  If the protagonist HAS to die (bioware canon) then there should be ALOT more to the ending than simply red, green or blue. 

Presently, the ending is like Luke Skywalker throwing himself onto Vader's funeral pyre at the end of RotJ just to make sure the flames don't go out.

You don't think your choices mattered? The only reason the Crucible was built was a direct result of all of your choices. A lot of the Mass Effect series has not been the end result, but how you got there (Every choice can be re-written as a result that will be static for all players, somewhere). Did you kill a guy to get there, did you talk him down, did you let him kill himself etc. Your choice is rarely what the outcome will be, but how that outcome is achieved.

In the end of the game, you basically have to destroy the citadel and the relays, and how you choose to do that is up to you. If the Relays were created by the Reapers' masters, and the citadel was created by the Reapers' masters, and the crucible was likely also designed by the Reapers' masters, then it would make some sense that their one stipulation for ending this cycle where you get to live, is that all of their technology may never be used again.

It makes more sense if you think about the crucible as the symbol of breaking the pattern that every cycle before it has followed. If a cycle can create the crucible and use it, than the cycle is broken, and must be altered. The Starchild flat out says that Shepard being there has forever changed the cycle, or something similar.

Bah, I don't know, some how Shepard being able to topple the Reapers, and the Reapers' masters, and do it keeping everyone alive, would only have cheapened the threat in the first place.

[shonefob]

Norrin_Radd wrote...

harrier25699 wrote...

Norrin_Radd wrote...

I'm just curious for all the ending haters:

What is the optimal ending, in your opinion?

Having my choices matter, being able to reject the star child's principles and, like ME2, have a variety of endings ranging from everyone dead and the galaxy reaped, to everyone survives and lives happily ever after.  This should depend on how much effort you put into questlines, otaining EMS and choices from ME1 and 2 have ALOT more of an impact other than revealing a secret movie that implies you might not be dead if you chose red flavour, e.g. indoc theory.  If the protagonist HAS to die (bioware canon) then there should be ALOT more to the ending than simply red, green or blue. 

Presently, the ending is like Luke Skywalker throwing himself onto Vader's funeral pyre at the end of RotJ just to make sure the flames don't go out.

You don't think your choices mattered? The only reason the Crucible was built was a direct result of all of your choices. A lot of the Mass Effect series has not been the end result, but how you got there (Every choice can be re-written as a result that will be static for all players, somewhere). Did you kill a guy to get there, did you talk him down, did you let him kill himself etc. Your choice is rarely what the outcome will be, but how that outcome is achieved.

In the end of the game, you basically have to destroy the citadel and the relays, and how you choose to do that is up to you. If the Relays were created by the Reapers' masters, and the citadel was created by the Reapers' masters, and the crucible was likely also designed by the Reapers' masters, then it would make some sense that their one stipulation for ending this cycle where you get to live, is that all of their technology may never be used again.

It makes more sense if you think about the crucible as the symbol of breaking the pattern that every cycle before it has followed. If a cycle can create the crucible and use it, than the cycle is broken, and must be altered. The Starchild flat out says that Shepard being there has forever changed the cycle, or something similar.

Bah, I don't know, some how Shepard being able to topple the Reapers, and the Reapers' masters, and do it keeping everyone alive, would only have cheapened the threat in the first place.

Okay see right there is the problem.  The game is about choice.  So you should be able to have the choice of everyone dieing and you can be abll happy with that, but another player should be able to have a choice for everyone to love and doing this not only makes everyone happy it gives the game replayability.  Like Ohh to have everyone die I need to do this and this.  But no, the game is not influenced by what you have done at all.  Not only that but you dont even get to see your hard work unfold as in ME2 i saw the shields protect me I saw my choice in Squad make a difrence and my squad members being loyal.

And if my Shepard does doe this is possible the stupidst way to go.  id much rather go fighting lik...I know I may regret saying this cause im sure there are people who hate the game and in no way is it my favorite, but in halo reach the last mission you stand alone and fight off wave upon wave until you die and than an awsome cinematic plays where you kill some even more awsomely. www.youtube.com/watch that's a link if you dont know it.  Now im not saying copy it or even it's a good idea.  But I can say I was much happier dying in that game fighting than dying for no purpose that I can clearly see.

Modifié par shonefob, 04 avril 2012 - 05:32 .

[CuseGirl]

Norrin_Radd wrote...

You don't think your choices mattered? The only reason the Crucible was built was a direct result of all of your choices. A lot of the Mass Effect series has not been the end result, but how you got there (Every choice can be re-written as a result that will be static for all players, somewhere). Did you kill a guy to get there, did you talk him down, did you let him kill himself etc. Your choice is rarely what the outcome will be, but how that outcome is achieved.

In the end of the game, you basically have to destroy the citadel and the relays, and how you choose to do that is up to you. If the Relays were created by the Reapers' masters, and the citadel was created by the Reapers' masters, and the crucible was likely also designed by the Reapers' masters, then it would make some sense that their one stipulation for ending this cycle where you get to live, is that all of their technology may never be used again.

It makes more sense if you think about the crucible as the symbol of breaking the pattern that every cycle before it has followed. If a cycle can create the crucible and use it, than the cycle is broken, and must be altered. The Starchild flat out says that Shepard being there has forever changed the cycle, or something similar.

Bah, I don't know, some how Shepard being able to topple the Reapers, and the Reapers' masters, and do it keeping everyone alive, would only have cheapened the threat in the first place.

To the first part: No, the Crucible got built because you kept completing Priority missions. There's no way to get to the End mission with an unfinished Crucible. Your choices, in all 3 games, affect whether or not you get a high enough EMS score and (for some people), whether your ME-2 squadmates bite the bullet.

To the second part: There should be no requirement to break the Cycle by destroying galactic travel. For me, killing the Reapers while not destroying the Mass Relays wouldn't have cheapened the experience. Because then what was the game for? As the endings stand now, the galaxy is more ripe to extinction than at the Reaper's height.

Modifié par CuseGirl, 04 avril 2012 - 05:08 .

[X Alastar X]

Did he say endingS? Endings is plural meaning more than one. Ive beaten ME3 3 times below 4000 EMS picked all 3 options and gotten almost the EXACTS SAME ending with the only exceptions being the color of the beam of light and in 1 instance the reapers fell over instead of floating into the sky. Beat it once above 4000 ems same story but with that tiny extra cutscene at the end. I dont know about anyone else but that hardly qualifies as multiple endings in my book. Just sayin

[harrier25699]

Norrin_Radd wrote...

harrier25699 wrote...

Norrin_Radd wrote...

I'm just curious for all the ending haters:

What is the optimal ending, in your opinion?

Having my choices matter, being able to reject the star child's principles and, like ME2, have a variety of endings ranging from everyone dead and the galaxy reaped, to everyone survives and lives happily ever after.  This should depend on how much effort you put into questlines, otaining EMS and choices from ME1 and 2 have ALOT more of an impact other than revealing a secret movie that implies you might not be dead if you chose red flavour, e.g. indoc theory.  If the protagonist HAS to die (bioware canon) then there should be ALOT more to the ending than simply red, green or blue. 

Presently, the ending is like Luke Skywalker throwing himself onto Vader's funeral pyre at the end of RotJ just to make sure the flames don't go out.

You don't think your choices mattered? The only reason the Crucible was built was a direct result of all of your choices. A lot of the Mass Effect series has not been the end result, but how you got there (Every choice can be re-written as a result that will be static for all players, somewhere). Did you kill a guy to get there, did you talk him down, did you let him kill himself etc. Your choice is rarely what the outcome will be, but how that outcome is achieved.

In the end of the game, you basically have to destroy the citadel and the relays, and how you choose to do that is up to you. If the Relays were created by the Reapers' masters, and the citadel was created by the Reapers' masters, and the crucible was likely also designed by the Reapers' masters, then it would make some sense that their one stipulation for ending this cycle where you get to live, is that all of their technology may never be used again.

It makes more sense if you think about the crucible as the symbol of breaking the pattern that every cycle before it has followed. If a cycle can create the crucible and use it, than the cycle is broken, and must be altered. The Starchild flat out says that Shepard being there has forever changed the cycle, or something similar.

Bah, I don't know, some how Shepard being able to topple the Reapers, and the Reapers' masters, and do it keeping everyone alive, would only have cheapened the threat in the first place.

For me, the ending was a damp squib and ruined the experience.  God, there are so many things I don't like about it, but I have already posted them on this and other topics I really can't be bothered with doing it again.  Just look on youtube for fan made endings or fan reviews of the endings for level-headed and concise explanations.

How is it a DLC is needed to explain the ending?  I'm not talking about fans requesting the ending be changed, I'm talking about BioWare releasing a PRE-PLANNED DLC that will attempt to answer the questions created by RGB.  Right now the ending relies on Deus Ex Machina and space magic.  Neither of which have any place in the ME universe up til now.

Modifié par harrier25699, 04 avril 2012 - 05:28 .

[X Alastar X]

Really though the biggest thing that bugs me about this destroying the alpha relay annihilated that entire system. Activating the crucible destroys every single (active) relay in the galaxy. What i want to know is how did Shepard not just commit galactic genocide? O.o Im being quite serious i am entirely open to an explanation for how he didnt just kill EVERYONE (that makes sense please)

[CuseGirl]

X Alastar X wrote...

Really though the biggest thing that bugs me about this destroying the alpha relay annihilated that entire system. Activating the crucible destroys every single (active) relay in the galaxy. What i want to know is how did Shepard not just commit galactic genocide? O.o Im being quite serious i am entirely open to an explanation for how he didnt just kill EVERYONE (that makes sense please)

It makes sense if you retcon the explosion into being a different explosion than one we witnessed in the Arrival DLC. So, basically, if you accept bad writing, it makes sense.

[harrier25699]

X Alastar X wrote...

Really though the biggest thing that bugs me about this destroying the alpha relay annihilated that entire system. Activating the crucible destroys every single (active) relay in the galaxy. What i want to know is how did Shepard not just commit galactic genocide? O.o Im being quite serious i am entirely open to an explanation for how he didnt just kill EVERYONE (that makes sense please)

Well not only that but the SOL system is now PACKED with ships, the entire Quarian (for e.g.) fleet is trapped there with no way out.  As are the Turians, who we know cannot eat the same food as humans, korgans etc who are also trapped in a system where the main M-class planet is rubble.  So, retaking the quarian homeworld and settling the dispute with the geth, 3 games in the making, now moot as they are all trapped the other side of the Galaxy with no way home and hundreds of years away using conventional travel.  And that's just one aspect of the Quarian problem.  Don't get me started on Krogans or Aria's mercs running rampant coz they ain't been paid.  RGB does not cut it.  Not by a long shot.

Modifié par harrier25699, 04 avril 2012 - 05:35 .

[akenn312]

Norrin_Radd wrote...

Ball park. Be as general as possible.

I see a lot of fuss over the ending, but no one really offers better solutions (most of the time). But I admit, I have only just started posting in this thread.

Is the fact that the Mass Relays are disableddestroyed the main problem?
Is it the fact that the choice in the end is not what people wanted? What would be better choices?
Is it the issue that the Reapers are not clearly bested, in some endings?
Is it that people want to know what happens after the ending?

Just spit ball something, cause this ending is pretty ripe for interpretation.

The main problem that trickles down to all of these issues is they went away from the original ending of the story. Which we can only speculate about the specific details of the original, but the original writer of the series says what was intended from the beginning. 

"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." 

So this gives Shepard (the player) the chance to finally choose to best the Reapers and believe in humanity or not and let the cycle continue. This stops the forced speculation and gives the story a logical resolution but also makes us wonder what was the better choice for the galaxy or your Shepard?  

If you do it this way now it's easier to show how your choices affected the outcome. Maybe if you save humanity and destroy the Reapers some alien races are forsaken and are obliterated by Dark Energy depending on what state you left them, or if you forsake humanity aliens think you are okay but humans hate you and you are now worse than the Illusive man.

Also he doesn't state in his vision that the Mass Relays would be destroyed which I think was something that was put in against the original narrative like the Catalyst character. 

Makes more sense to me than just throwing in Synergy and a mass explosion of Mass Relays for no reason
Other than we wrote it like that way.

The Crucible is not the issue it's the last choices. 

Modifié par akenn312, 04 avril 2012 - 05:40 .

[Norrin_Radd]

CuseGirl wrote...

Norrin_Radd wrote...

You don't think your choices mattered? The only reason the Crucible was built was a direct result of all of your choices. A lot of the Mass Effect series has not been the end result, but how you got there (Every choice can be re-written as a result that will be static for all players, somewhere). Did you kill a guy to get there, did you talk him down, did you let him kill himself etc. Your choice is rarely what the outcome will be, but how that outcome is achieved.

In the end of the game, you basically have to destroy the citadel and the relays, and how you choose to do that is up to you. If the Relays were created by the Reapers' masters, and the citadel was created by the Reapers' masters, and the crucible was likely also designed by the Reapers' masters, then it would make some sense that their one stipulation for ending this cycle where you get to live, is that all of their technology may never be used again.

It makes more sense if you think about the crucible as the symbol of breaking the pattern that every cycle before it has followed. If a cycle can create the crucible and use it, than the cycle is broken, and must be altered. The Starchild flat out says that Shepard being there has forever changed the cycle, or something similar.

Bah, I don't know, some how Shepard being able to topple the Reapers, and the Reapers' masters, and do it keeping everyone alive, would only have cheapened the threat in the first place.

To the first part: No, the Crucible got built because you kept completing Priority missions. There's no way to get to the End mission with an unfinished Crucible. Your choices, in all 3 games, affect whether or not you get a high enough EMS score and (for some people), whether your ME-2 squadmates bite the bullet.

To the second part: There should be no requirement to break the Cycle by destroying galactic travel. For me, killing the Reapers while not destroying the Mass Relays wouldn't have cheapened the experience. Because then what was the game for? As the endings stand now, the galaxy is more ripe to extinction than at the Reaper's height.

I agree that the relays being destroyed was a VERY bold way to finish the series off. But it also shows a committment to distancing the Mass Effect universe from being Reaper controlled. It is now controlled by the existing races. They do have to start over, but they are the ones in control of this NEW cycle. I don't think it is beyond comprehension that this new, united galaxy, will attempt to create new relays using their own combined efforts.

The galaxy is at least not cut off from communicating with eachother as long as they have those Quantum Entanglers they explained in ME2. And if you chose the synthesis ending (which I feel is the true canon) then it also seems feasible that the geth and the organics will be able to communicate in new ways, and get **** done.

I think that would truly set up the franchise to carry without always having to constantly say "Oh we have no idea how that works, Reapers built it".

I could definitley see the next big game being about building a new relay. And what better way to have fans of the series feel connected to the universe than helping create the new cycle.

[Zombie Chow]

Hi, Bioware, thanks for considering our feedback.

My belief is that you designed the ending to be a hallucination created by the Reapers to trick Shepard into giving up. The game is not over yet and that the correct answer is to choose to destroy all synths. That's the part of Shepard's mind that is still resisting. That's why that ending shows Shepard still alive and back on Earth, taking a deep gasp of breath upon waking up from the illusion. The game's going to continue from that point.

I believe this because I've been a loyal patron to your games since Neverwinter Nights and I saw an almost exact situation in the Hordes of the Underdark expansion, where I had to fight against an illusion created by the Illithid Elder Brain that's very similar to the situation now.

I really am impressed on how well you implemented this mind trick and created so much word of mouth. You left the clues very cleverly to suggest the "Indoctrination Theory" on Shepard. I anticipate you have a DLC planned, but wanted to create the viral effect, to which you've totally succeeded.

With it being almost the 1 month anniversary this Friday, right before the weekend, I think it's time to show your hand, that you have a DLC on the way. I think that'd be great, you really got the fans excited post-purchase, there's no need to keep it a secret any longer, so just go ahead and announce it please.

[shonefob]

Zombie Chow wrote...

Hi, Bioware, thanks for considering our feedback.

My belief is that you designed the ending to be a hallucination created by the Reapers to trick Shepard into giving up. The game is not over yet and that the correct answer is to choose to destroy all synths. That's the part of Shepard's mind that is still resisting. That's why that ending shows Shepard still alive and back on Earth, taking a deep gasp of breath upon waking up from the illusion. The game's going to continue from that point.

I believe this because I've been a loyal patron to your games since Neverwinter Nights and I saw an almost exact situation in the Hordes of the Underdark expansion, where I had to fight against an illusion created by the Illithid Elder Brain that's very similar to the situation now.

I really am impressed on how well you implemented this mind trick and created so much word of mouth. You left the clues very cleverly to suggest the "Indoctrination Theory" on Shepard. I anticipate you have a DLC planned, but wanted to create the viral effect, to which you've totally succeeded.

With it being almost the 1 month anniversary this Friday, right before the weekend, I think it's time to show your hand, that you have a DLC on the way. I think that'd be great, you really got the fans excited post-purchase, there's no need to keep it a secret any longer, so just go ahead and announce it please.

If this is true I hate Bioware.  It means they purposely sold us an unfinished game so they could make more money and I don't think I could trust the company again. Unless the dlc has atleast a quarter of the content in the actual ME3 game.

Modifié par shonefob, 04 avril 2012 - 05:58 .

[jeweledleah]

this is somewhat relevant.

aka one person caused the change by showing what was wrong with the original.  a single person.

movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/titanic-released-james-cameron-made-just-one-change-233907213.html

[Kain82]

Zombie Chow wrote...

Hi, Bioware, thanks for considering our feedback.

My belief is that you designed the ending to be a hallucination created by the Reapers to trick Shepard into giving up. The game is not over yet and that the correct answer is to choose to destroy all synths. That's the part of Shepard's mind that is still resisting. That's why that ending shows Shepard still alive and back on Earth, taking a deep gasp of breath upon waking up from the illusion. The game's going to continue from that point.

I believe this because I've been a loyal patron to your games since Neverwinter Nights and I saw an almost exact situation in the Hordes of the Underdark expansion, where I had to fight against an illusion created by the Illithid Elder Brain that's very similar to the situation now.

I really am impressed on how well you implemented this mind trick and created so much word of mouth. You left the clues very cleverly to suggest the "Indoctrination Theory" on Shepard. I anticipate you have a DLC planned, but wanted to create the viral effect, to which you've totally succeeded.

With it being almost the 1 month anniversary this Friday, right before the weekend, I think it's time to show your hand, that you have a DLC on the way. I think that'd be great, you really got the fans excited post-purchase, there's no need to keep it a secret any longer, so just go ahead and announce it please.

Well Said. I've remained neutral to the idea of indoctrination theory but the more I think about it the more sense it makes (perhaps I'm indoctrinated). It's possible that it was Biowares intention from the beginning to create this ending to have the world talking and have many more DLC content to end the story... or perhaps announce another full Mass Effect game, which of course is unlikely...though would be awesome to have Shepard in more full games 

[Zhuinden]

Honestly, nothing I could say would be well-phrased enough, because Others have already done it for me.
The article that I linked pretty much shows the problems regarding the endings that should be addressed.

The article is about "how not to make a bad ending", as in how to avoid making a bad one.
ME3 brings ALL the points. ALL of them. <_<

Modifié par Zhuinden, 04 avril 2012 - 06:31 .

[SidiusN7]

harrier25699
Presently, the ending is like Luke Skywalker throwing himself onto Vader's funeral pyre at the end of RotJ just to make sure the flames don't go out.

LOL  Well said!

Modifié par SidiusN7, 04 avril 2012 - 06:31 .

[shonefob]

What happend to the reaper that was being built on the citadel? (Reason for the bodies mentioned like 5 seconds before TIM seen) Also why would they choose to build it there?

[darkelightnx01]

The dark energy concept makes so much more sense than the endings we got. My understanding was it was removed because it leaked. (not an issue anymore as the ending controversy is all over the Internet) now EA and Bioware could replace the current widely disliked endings with dark energy ending cheaply as most of it must have been programmed, potentially voiced. I really think the original ending satisfies biowares need for artistic integrity (as this was the original artists intended conclusion) rsarisfies the fans need for a coherent and cohesive ending and allows EA to end the debate without a huge rip on its bottom line as it would effectively be more or less of a patch than a costly to produce DLC