23455 réponses à ce sujet

[stcalvin13]

thebatmanreborn wrote...

I noticed they said "talk" and "discuss" the ending. No where does it say the ending will be changed or dlc will be added that ties up the ending. They may explain some of the ending, but don't expect it to be changed.

Then that's like calling your ex-girlfriend, boyfriend or spouse and saying "I know you're sad I broke your heart.  Would you like me to explain why I did it?"

[Zarkovagis9]

When I play video games, I literally just sit in my couch and veg out. Mass Effect 3 (and the entire trilogy for that matter) is the only game where I actually had to stand up and play because I was just that excited.

My favorite part was when I was first encountering the Reaper-Rachni with Grunt. When I thought Grunt was going to die, I literally stood up and shouted "No!" It was so dramatic and badass. Then when Grunt emerged blood soaked and hungry, I just burst out laughing and cheering.

Thank you so much

[Mathias]

The devs can talk about the endings all the want, but in the end, something needs to be done about those endings. They're so horrible.

[majinbuu1307]

EVERYONE PLEASE READ THIS! The Reapers where found out to have their own code, Legion knows and confirms this. When you meet the Catalyst, I wish for DLC content of Paragon and Renegade option in the last dialogue wheel. The paragon option would talk about shutting off only the reaper code.

[Crimson Butterfly]

 The endings were truly ruinous. I have no desire to go back a revisit the universe, which translates to no interest in DLC or merchandise. I wasn't expecting Shepard to survive, I was expecting a hard choice whose chances of success were dependant on (some of) my decisions during the game.

Instead, we were presented with circular logic that not only demystified the supposedly unknowable Reapers, but made them look, to be blunt, stupid. If you set a creature up to have motives beyond the mortal ken, don't then explain them. You'll never do them justice. 

We were shown a Shepard, who after everything (s)he had done, fought and bled for, gives up and mutely accepts the word of the being in control of the monsters (s)he's spent years fighting against. The one who is ultimately responsible for all the deaths that Shepard laments. What's more it inexplicably does it in the form of the child who represents to Shepard all the lives that (s)he couldn't save, and yet that doesn't provoke any reaction at all.

A Shepard, who after brokering peace and alliance between the Geth and the Quarians, doesn't think to point out of a window and say "hey, wait a minute. Look out there, synthetics and organics, allies. More than that, sharing a homeworld and rebuilding a society, together." We spend a significant portion of the game resolving the Geth and Quarian issue and we can't so much as mention it when told that synthetics will always destroy their creators? We can't bring up the fact that the Geth only became actively hostile in the past few years because Sovereign manipulated them into it?

We were given a Normandy/Joker that inexplicably flees from the battle, accompanied by the rest of your team (even those who had been by your side on Earth), despite standing by Shepard through thick and thin. Joker, who knows Shepard can do the impossible, who brought him and the Normandy back from a suicide mission. 

I get that you were going for a dark ending. A dark ending should be one of the options. But we've spent years, in character and out, with a (wo)man who can do the impossible. Who succeeds, often beyond all expectations, when (s)he shouldn't. A Shepard who stopped Saren, barring Reapers from their usual easy and inevitable win by preventing them from controlling the relay network. A Shepard who set out on a suicide mission and defied the odds, not only surviving, but for many gamers, bringing everyone else back, too. A Shepard who united a galaxy, ending conflicts that have lasted hundreds, if not thousands of years, and built an armada the likes of which has never been seen.

Yes, there was always going to be a price to pay. But the person choosing what that price is the same person who has always had the ability to pull astonishing success from the jaws of ultimate defeat. (S)He has never helplessly accepted the inevitable.

To deny that at the climax of the series, no matter how hard you worked during the course of the games, is a slap in the face. There's no hope in the destruction of the relays. There's the devastating realisation that the fleet you worked so hard to build is trapped in a system that has no resources left, orbiting a planet that is likely devasted beyond rescue. That the quarians and turians in the fleet will probably starve to death. That the krogan, without Wrex to unite them, will once again fall into eternal conflict as they overpopulate Tuchunka. That your crew, stranded wherever they are, will suffer from starvation (Garrus and Tali) or a disturbingly inbred colony.

It's dark and grim for the sake of being dark and grim, not because it actually makes sense within the core themes of the game. Anyone who knows a little bit about the universe can see where the destruction of the relays would lead, and it's not to a potentially good place. It leads to untold suffering and ruined civilisations - many of which are the ones I spend a good portion of this game repairing. Never mind the fact I spent the entire game uniting the galaxy under one banner, just to fragment it again.

What did I enjoy? It's hard to tell. It all felt pointless, after that.

Modifié par Crimson Butterfly, 15 mars 2012 - 06:42 .

[DigitalShaman]

I found the game to be brilliant until that monstrous ending.  Combat was improved, enemies improved, some amazing environments.. but the ending was abysmal.

It reminded me of the Battlestar Galactica ending.  The 'did I really spend all this time.. for this' feeling.

The really annoying thing for me was that after playing through all of the games, and porting my saves over, I'd had a massive amount of decisions I'd carefully weighed, expecting them to play a part in my final outcome.

Instead, I got the weird kid as some kind of Reaper projection -giving- me three equally undesirable choices.  I've just arduously worked for peace between the Quarians and the Geth.. no I don't want to wipe out synthetic life.  Also I don't want to synergise them!  That would make what the Illusive man has done seem like fair and reasonable experiments.  Or.. I can have Shep die and disappear off with the Reapers under his control.  They all suck, like a lot.

And then even after choosing one of these horrible conclusions you don't even get a real ending.  Where's the epilogue saying that as a result of X, Y happened?  I'd have settled for a bit of text and some nice still images.. just something to show me that my way of playing Shep lead to these events.

I had none of that.  Three choices.. all bad.

[spacefiddle]

Hydralysk wrote...

Souris wrote...

spacefiddle wrote...

Souris wrote...
you're just proving my point that you're being too dramatic...
make you realize ...
 the ending, although it came out of left field, was okay. It wasn't some horrible terrible thing, it wasn't fantastic, it just was there....
people should not let...

I respect your opinions.  Now respect ours, and stop pretending that the above is anything other than your opinion.  Stop telling me what to think, what to do, what it means, and disguising your own value judgements as absolute truths.  It's insulting and demeans both of us.

Thats not what I'm trying to do. I'm having a discussion. Everything is so pitchforks and fire, doom and gloom, that no one will look at the journey. It's frustrating.

We do look at the journey, hell everyone I've seen said the journey was amazing, but you can't say that the ending being bad has no effect on the journey. When I remember Mass Effect 3, yes I can remember the great moments but every single one of those great moments is overshadowed by the confusion, horror, and emptiness I felt when the game ended on such a poor note ESPECIALLY after having such a great journey. I can't bring myself to replay the games because at every moment that was grand and tearjerking a nagging part of my brain is telling me "Yeah but no matter what you do the galaxy is screwed and you have no say in the matter". The journey itself was amazing, all we want is an ending that is worthy of that journey.

Yes.  You are, yourself, actually the one focusing on the negative, Souris.  You say "all is gloom and pitchforks," when in fact most of us have been saying ALL ALONG that the journey was awesome, and it's *because* of this awesome journey that the ending is all the more disappointing, because it *invalidates* the journey.  Not my enjoyment of the first 99% of the game, but the events of the journey itself.  They are retroactively made meaningless, in the context of the story.  Poof!

[jspiess]

Storming Cerberus and killing that cereal eating punk

[LucidStrike]

azc23 wrote...

Miranda? Why do we get edi sexbot instead of her? or Grunt? or Legion?

I think it was more important to them to show the EDI-Joker (potential?) romance. I'm good with that. I just wish the team was simply larger.

Modifié par LucidStrike, 15 mars 2012 - 06:42 .

[mariosgh]

I used to have few favourite moments, but ending ruined all of them

[Bradeh]

[xcomcmdr]

JulienJaden wrote...

You know, I'm a writer myself. I've got a couple of years of experience and, while I disagree with them, the people I work with say I am pretty good at it.
Now, if I had delivered such an ending, one that explains nothing, leaves everything open and has the characters acting completely different, for example Joker and the crew running when they'd stand by your side to the death for the entire rest of the series, they would laugh and say: "Alright, man, good one. Now gives us the real ending." If I told them it was the real one, they wouldn't even laugh about it anymore. It is bad writing. Simple as that. I had fights with one of them over something that made significantly more sense than these endings, not because it was fantasy but because, in his opinion, it didn't make any sense based on what was established, either.

Bioware established that destroying a Mass Relay results in an explosion that kills everything in the surrounding solar system. Bioware has established that Shepard is either a paragon or a renegade, based on your choices, and argues until either the other is convinced or there is nothing left to argue about, until the very end, where, apparently, the Catalyst won't listen and its better to kill every living thing within a viable distance to the Mass Relays to discover them or their ruins. They established that your crew stands by you: To reach a garden world, the Normandy would have had to jump before the destruction of the Charon Relay, i.e. Joker picked up your crew and got the hell out of there when you might have still needed their help and the fight wasn't over.

This is not conclusive. It is not good writing. What there is to discover is overshadowed by the vast amount of missing information, contradictions and Out-Of-Character behavior. That's why, even if Bioware would have added some text after the last sequence to inform you about the consequences of your choices, everything after teleporting to the Citadel, is unacceptable and needs an overhaul. 

This. Thank you.

[Foulpancake]

TheRealMithril wrote...

Indoctrination doesn't happen due to choices of the player, it happens because Reapers like Harbinger wants to. Small suggestions here, and there and in time you will succumb no matter what. That actually works in real life as well. It's called brainwashing. I don't care who you are, given enough time you will fall. Politicians use it on a daily basis. And the beauty of it all is that you won't even notice a difference.

this^

I think this is real and you guys at bioware are a very very clever indeed

[Polat995]

You can't indoctrinate us Christ Presley, by spouting "what do you think, let's talk" speech.



This picture tells everything.

[Agremont2]

I really can't believe you didn't expect this kind of reaction to the ending. I mean, it must have been seen as at least one possible reaction. It is all so obvious that fans would be angry or dissapointed.

I know I would've gladly waited another year for a proper ending.

[BFG Achilies]

my favorite moment would probably be the actual battles we fought in, the palaven mission when you pick up garrus, the battles to rescue the turian ship on tuchanka, the cerberus bomb, and the fights for rannoch

[jcmuki]

will give opinion to ending when i actually see an ending not just an bunch disconsorting image with different color light

[Painis Cupcake]

majinbuu1307 wrote...

Xerkysz wrote...

Inc Wall of Text, clearing up, and clarifying what Painis Cupcake realised.

If you choose Control, then you, the player -- the one who moves through the game though Shepard's eyes; every choice s/he has ever made in the game has been directly because of you -- have been indoctrinated. It mayhave been because you thought you could save your crew, your LI, or that you really could gain perfect Control over the Reapers because you are Shepard. Regardless, you have been duped. Indoctrinated by the game.Your slow exposure to the Reapers in 2007 culminates to this final choice -- complete and free player agency and determination.



If you choose Synthesis, you face a fate similar to that of Control. It's debatable to me at this point as to whether or not you have chosen to fulfill the Reapers' purpose, but indoctrination is still a heavy possibility with this one. The only reason that I state this with any certainty is because, like the ending we see with Control, Shepard is dead at the final credits.



If you choose Destroy, then the Player Indoctrination Theory submits that this is you, the player, deciding whether or not Shepard overcomes the indoctrination attempt being rained upon him/her by Harbinger/the Catalyst. If you decide this option, and if you have enough EMS to ensure that Shepard has enough real-world time to get through the indoctrination attempt/hallucination -- Shepard lives. We see him/her breathing in the rubble of London streets at the end of the game. Shepard has defied indoctrination. You, yourself, have defied indoctrination.



Does this theory make sense? Maybe not. When we consider BioWare's real-world motivations and risks (profit, losing a large fanbase over the disgusting wretchedness of the endings as they currently exist), then the theory is hard to support. But if, for just one moment, we can let ourselves believe that BioWare may just have lived up to their celebrated philiosophy of Player Choice and Player Acutalization, then this theory becomes awe-inspiring. Is it possible? Could BioWare have sacrificed the potential for safe profits in order to bring the most insane and beautiful gaming experience of all time to its fans? The most unprecedented example of player immersion of our times? Would BioWare have truly allowed the risk for profit and angering a serious amount of their fan population in pure deference to the story, and its lore?



It may explain BioWare's silence on the matter, until "more people have played the game", or until all regions have the game. It may explain Jess M.'s twitter about fans "reacting before having all of the facts". It may.... just may explain these super sh*tty endings in a way that would make BioWare the God of RPGs.

I can't buy the indoctrination. Too many problems, you don't dream when indoctrinated, you see what is going on, you are just influenced otherwise, hence why you can get ilusive man to shoot himself, or saren. They fought it, they didn't dream and then end up in their bed when they woke up. If your indoctrinated and choosing destroy to wake up and your back on earth and "breathe" theres still the slight problem of the reapers being alive. And you dreamed the relays being blown up? Makes no sense. No, wasn't indoctrinated, he was however fighting indoctrination while near the ilusive man, who was himself indoctrinated(hence the black weird stuff on the screen making you shoot anderson once.)

Then how do you explain him waking up in the rubble if you choose the destroy option? The citadel explodes, the blast alone would obliterate shepard if he survived the first blast from destroying synthetics. If he survived that, he'd be hurtling back towards the planet. There's no air in space and he'd suffocate, and falling into the atmosphere at a fast enough velocity would send any object on fire. If he somehow survived entry, the force and velocity of impacting the ground would leave any body in nothing more than a nice gooey and bloody spot all over the ground. If he survived that too, he better be Chuck Norris or else Bioware has some explaining to do...

Otherwise, the Indoctrination Theory is solid, especially if he dreamed everything after surviving Harbinger's attack.

[majinbuu1307]

Bradeh wrote...

Lol thats awesome what is that??

[DigitalShaman]

Oh.. and how do you expect to sell more DLC when the universe has been fubared? On top of being a creative disaster it's an extremely poor business decision. ME2 had DLC you could go back and play months after finishing it.

[TheRealMithril]

Except the Quarians were too busy moving home when the relay blasted... Oh. snap...

[nightwing90]

thank you for the acknowledgement finally! and my favourite moment was watching the fleet you had been slowly building up throughout the game all heading towards earth. hair raising stuff!

[LucidStrike]

Bradeh wrote...
[image snipped]

LMAO. To Tumblr! Awaaay! XD

[RiGoRmOrTiS_UK]

weltraumhamster89 wrote...

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT:

RiGoRmOrTiS_UK wrote...

hellfirexii wrote...

Give credit to the person who wrote this

But this is quite possibly the most beautiful way to end such an incredible series.

http://www.reddit.co...what_im_hoping/

PLEASE, I implore you to read this, it adds so much to the experience. I have loved the series. The writing is powerful and the character have their own personalities that we have come accustomed to. The way you ended the game does not follow the personas that have been created. The way they en now isn't necessarily bad, they are incomplete, they feel like that they lead into a bigger scene, but alas they don't. I can partially understand why this was done, but it doesn't fall under the reputation that you guys at BioWare have created for yourselves.

its a really good example of how we can salvage the ending and far better than what Bioware have achieved with the current endings.

However the disheartening thing is the fact they are asking us what we didn't like about the current ending. Its not the "asking" which is disheartening; its the fact it proves the current endings were actually intended.


Long story short; they never meant for it to mean indoctrination and there are no clever clues placed for us to find or extrapolate from... it simply means they drooled out an asinine script with huge mistakes and plot holes; so many in fact that a huge chunk of the community (me included) were convinced it must all be a clever trick (however this thread now proves otherwise).

Which is really disappointing from at least my perspective as I've always enjoyed what Bioware has written; even DA2.

So before we even address the actual issues with the ending I think most of us (presumptuous of me I know) would like an answer to this:



Care to explain how this is not an A, B or C ending? And why that statement was made a mere 2 months ago?

Also care to explain how changing a colour scheme even warrants saying there are 3 endings?

Now onto the current ending issues:

1)

When picking the Destroy Ending; if you have an EMS score of over 4000 you get the scene where Shepard is alive under some rubble.



Now I understanding when picking Control or Merge you are essentially killing yourself to either spread your DNA or control the reapers long enough to tell them "get lost!". However if you survive in the Destroy ending the rubble you wake up in is not from the citadel or crucible. Its brick work; similar to London with a building visible through a small gap in the background. This simply doesn't make sense.. and offers no closure. Reason being Shepard would have not survived open space or re-entry; no space magic can account for it. Unless the Lazarus project fixed you; beat you up and then buried you in rubble in super quick time!

If they do intend to fix the endings that fine; but I'd still love to know what their original thinking was on this; or was it just a huge blunder?

2)

Then you've got Anderson getting to the control panel on the citadel before Shepard. I've heard lots of people complain about this and while I agree this is an issue there are few points that actually support him getting there first.

When you wake up from being hit by the beam you hear radio chatter saying no-one has gotten to the beam yet; that’s fine; no-one has. Last time those marines had eyes on you; you were a bloody mess on the floor and Anderson later states he entered after you.

When you teleport up Anderson says he followed you up; but came out at a different location. Then he states the walls and rooms are shifting and changing; which could possibly explain how he got to the control panel before you; however it falls apart when he mentions "noticing the control panel" because at that point you can actually see the ceiling and walls of the "control panel room". Neither of which are moving or changing and all which are in your peripheral vision far too soon for his "the walls are shifting and changing statement" to make sense.

So how the hell did Anderson get there first? So again... what was Bioware's original thinking on this; or was it just another huge blunder?

3)

The Normandy crash. One of the bigger points.

Why is Joker taking a relay and running? There is no explanation. No-one else is running from the reaper rainbow and additionally he didn’t have time to run to the relay when the explosion happens. So it means he was (at the very least) already on his way to the relay. Why??

Then when the Normandy crashes; your squad mates get out!.. How? They were all on Earth; scattered in different locations. (Either with you running towards the beam) or elsewhere. When you wake up after being hit by harbinger; your squad mates are either gone or dead on the floor (depending on EMS rating)

So how can they step out of the Normandy on another planet? So once more Bioware; what was your original thinking on this; or was it just another huge blunder?

4)

Minor point; (major to some) Why does Shepard believe everything some ghostly child tells her?. Even when speaking with TIM Shepard is hell bent on destroying the reapers in the paragon or renegade responses.

If these points are not answered directly then whatever response Bioware gives will probably fall short (imo).

I sign all of it. Just does NOT make sense in any way. I was especially mad about the Normandy scene, where my squadmates from Earth step out on a paradise planet. Well, I was mad about f*cking everything. Shepard does not have to stay alive in every ending, that's completely OK, but no epilogue at all, not seeing what happens to the others/ your LI/ you friends? And what's the F*cking point in a reunion with your LI from ME1 (Kaidan for me), when you just don't get anything from it?

They perfectly could have done it like in Dragon Age: Origins where you have different endings depending on your choices in the game (your character sacrificing himself and your "squad" honouring your dead body in the end, or your character surviving and getting reunited with his friends due to some tricky deal...). I mean, honour Commander Shepard like that, and not by asking us what our favourite moments where before that horrific ending!!!! Because BEFORE THAT ENDING EVERYTHING WAS REALLY GREAT!

Yup. Would be nice if we can all adhere to the same list of issues so there is no doubt what questions Bioware should be answering...

[AartB]

wouldnt be suprised if they used this thread as their main info point and claim. look lots of people liked the ending aswell! lets ignore the millions of topics and posts on the rest of the forum.

or perhaps i'm overreacting