23455 réponses à ce sujet

[XwebraiderX]

Hoodoo Guru wrote...

 Loved the ending,  difficult choices and all have their consequences.  The hero can't always save the day, get the girl/guy and have their pudding without eating  their meat.  Sometimes victory isn't pretty and sacrifices have to be made.  Thanks for having the guts to make a game where the story ends without a sugary, sit-com ending.  The needs of the many...

Every ****ing game in the last decade had that ****ty "sacrifice" attitude that forces you to throw away your main character for more drama...
Hell, I wanna have the CHANCE to save him if I do well enough and made good decisions.

At the end, there is nothing. No fighting, no dialogue/parragon renegade interruptions, there is nothing.

So, thanks for nothing, bioware.

[sefudargo]

I'm fine with sheperd dieing. it seems all the people ridiculing the fans that don't like the ending are saying "oh you don't like it because sheperd doesn't have a happy ending" not i'm not happy with the ending because it doesn't make sense. its like a miggit runs up to you and kicks you in the shin. when you ask the miggit why all he says is granola pudding and runs off

[ElMuchu]

XwebraiderX wrote...

Hoodoo Guru wrote...

 Loved the ending,  difficult choices and all have their consequences.  The hero can't always save the day, get the girl/guy and have their pudding without eating  their meat.  Sometimes victory isn't pretty and sacrifices have to be made.  Thanks for having the guts to make a game where the story ends without a sugary, sit-com ending.  The needs of the many...

Every ****ing game in the last decade had that ****ty "sacrifice" attitude that forces you to throw away your main character for more drama...
Hell, I wanna have the CHANCE to save him if I do well enough and made good decisions.

At the end, there is nothing. No fighting, no dialogue/parragon renegade interruptions, there is nothing.

So, thanks for nothing, bioware.

I agree: the possibility of having at least one end where shepard can live with its LI is the most important for me. In addition, taking into account the number of team member deathes, I will not call that a happy end. Just a normal ending.

[LKx]

Hoodoo Guru wrote...

 Loved the ending,  difficult choices and all have their consequences.  The hero can't always save the day, get the girl/guy and have their pudding without eating  their meat.  Sometimes victory isn't pretty and sacrifices have to be made.  Thanks for having the guts to make a game where the story ends without a sugary, sit-com ending.  The needs of the many...

Oh, yeah, very bold, difficult choises, between: f*ck up galactic civilizations without even knowing, f*uck up galactic civilizations knowing it, and f*ck up galactic civilizations without even knowing.

(you can say whatever you want, but that is what it looks like after watching the endings and knowing the tech background)

[BladyMZ]

Ending we got should do fine for people, who just blasted through the game, so the Catalyst would be like "well, your army is really poor, there is no chance you win, so here, these are your 3 colored choices" -> kinda like ending ME2 Suicide Mission with Shepard dying. Yes, mission complete, but your wrong choices and not caring about crewmates got everyone killed. Going through Suicide Mission first time, making those decisions...ME3 y u no copy dat?

[StElmo]

www.youtube.com/watch

Use this ending cut please :3

Thanks

<3

[LKx]

StElmo wrote...

www.youtube.com/watch

Use this ending cut please :3

Thanks

<3

Much better cut than the original!
I could accept that! (even if you and your choises still don't matter... but, well, it would be the lesser evil)

[darkway1]

Is there any reason why we can't come up with 10 simple questions to put to Bioware,nothing to provoke,just constructive questions to give clarity on the ending/game????....and is there any reason why Bioware can't answer them.?????

Are the Mass Relay's destroyed????

Is Shepard dead?

Where was the Normandy going with my team members.?

How did Illusive man turn up on the Citadel?......etc...etc..etc

You see....with out being a Mass nerd,there are some obvious questions that should not be there if this is an ending.......nor does what we see make a whole bunch of sense.

[Archonsg]

LKx wrote...

StElmo wrote...

www.youtube.com/watch

Use this ending cut please :3

Thanks

<3

Much better cut than the original!
I could accept that! (even if you and your choises still don't matter... but, well, it would be the lesser evil)

Second that! Had that been the ending, with a few tweaks AND AN EPILOGUE I would have cried man tears by the buckets and went away somewhat happy. Still want my happy ending but at least it wasn't brain dead stupid.

[majinbuu1307]

Listening. You aren't.

[OldSwede]

 

Sorry, couldn't help myself :innocent:

[darkway1]

I hoped for a Babylon 5 ending......now that was an end battle.....

[Drift Avalii]

So I've just completed Mass Effect 3, and for the most part I had an absolute blast. Loved seeing your choices in 1 and 2 matter, seeing your old squad, all of that.

But man, that ending. It did make sense to me, to a point. Even the weird child thing, in the end. An advanced AI fearing for its future should organics progress too far? Only a machine would be so obsessed with order and chaos. So that bit I followed.

But your 'choices'? Wha? Did the child-thing really have that much say in what the crucible could do, even after telling Shepard that it's own options have changed because of the crucible? The destroy synthetics thing I follow, at least a bit since maybe the beam could not distinguish between the Reapers and others. But the others... It was so totally Deus Ex that it made my head hurt. I chose destroy and was satisfied, until that bit with the Normandy. There are so many chronological and logistical issues with that entire scene that I may choose to pretend the entire thing didn't bloody happen. All of the 'how' questions relating to that have already been asked.

If I'm honest, though I would like a different ending with choices that made sense to players and not just to the developers, I think that if it was done right the extended cut *could* fix it. That's a big 'could' though, and relies on them actually taking opinions on board as to the content of it - I'm looking at you, Casey Hudson - as well as making the damn thing just make sense.

I should have finished the game, sat back and thought 'that was awesome, my Shepard is the best ever and her legend is complete', one way or another. I should have felt like the character we have all invested time and emotion in and in a lot of cases gotten very attached to had finished her story, ends tied, conclusion reached.

Instead, I really do feel like I've been cheated.

[T.Attwood]

BlazingZephyr wrote...

3 - A green light couldn't make every organic (with several different types of DNA and protein designs)partly robotic. And even if it did, how does that guarantee peace? Can't the synthesized life create more advanced Synthetic life, thus continuing the "chaos"?

Your statement made me realise something: The star-child is preventing war between synthetics and organics, but has absolutely no problem when organics fight each other. He does nothing about the Krogan-Turian war, the human-Turian war, or any other war between any other organic race. But the star-child has a problem with organics and synthetics fighting?  Why is that kind of war any worse than an organic-organic war? (not to mention his 'solution' of 'starting a war to end potential future wars' madness)

Something else occurred to me. The whole ending 'must' be an hallucination, because the star-child looks like the child in Shepards dreams, i.e. the one that Shepard saw killed on Earth. So, how would the reapers even know of the existence of that child in order to replicate his appearence during the ending? The only person aware of what this child looks like, is Shepard himself! I would have to conclude that the ending must be happening all inside Shepards head.

Modifié par T.Attwood, 15 avril 2012 - 02:17 .

[Drift Avalii]

[quote]T.Attwood wrote...

[quote]BlazingZephyr wrote...

Your statement made me realise something: The star-child is preventing war between synthetics and organics, but has absolutely no problem when organics fight each other. He does nothing about the Krogan-Turian war, the human-Turian war, or any other war between any other organic race. But the star-child has a problem with organics and synthetics fighting?  Why is that kind of war any worse than an organic-organic war? (not to mention his 'solution' of 'starting a war to end potential future wars' madness)

Something else occurred to me. The whole ending 'must' be an hallucination, because the star-child looks like the child in Shepards dreams, i.e. the one that Shepard saw killed on Earth. So, how would the reapers even know of the existence of that child in order to replicate his appearence during the ending? The only person aware of what this child looks like, is Shepard himself!
[/quote]

I hope you're right, I really do. I want my Shepard to wake up on the streets of London after the blast, job done. Maybe some sort of retirement scene (with/without LI) if she said on Earth that she wanted to retire or back on the Normandy if she said she wanted to Servle." I

.n some scenarios, sure, she dies - but it has to make sense! I really hope Shep imagined the whole thing, staggered to the conduit and blew it up, or tapped a control panel or whatever. Just something that doesn't mock everything we thought we understood about the world.

[Archonsg]

darkway1 wrote...

I hoped for a Babylon 5 ending......now that was an end battle.....

Bab5 is still the king of TV sci-fi. Has its kooky moments, what with Lo'rien and all but, it was mostly good solid hard sci-fi. Fighters keep going in direction opposite of thrust regardless of where its facing, until a new vector of thrust is applied.

Loved that show. And the Minbari are space elves no matter what others say. ^_~

[T.Attwood]

Drift Avalii wrote...

I hope you're right, I really do. I want my Shepard to wake up on the streets of London after the blast, job done. Maybe some sort of retirement scene (with/without LI) if she said on Earth that she wanted to retire or back on the Normandy if she said she wanted to Servle." I

.n some scenarios, sure, she dies - but it has to make sense! I really hope Shep imagined the whole thing, staggered to the conduit and blew it up, or tapped a control panel or whatever. Just something that doesn't mock everything we thought we understood about the world.

I'm now thinking that maybe the star-child is supposed to be illogical (which is odd for a machine, which is based on logic). Maybe the whole point is that the star-child is so insane, that he must be destroyed, hence the good ending when you choose the 'red' option.

Modifié par T.Attwood, 15 avril 2012 - 02:19 .

[Drift Avalii]

T.Attwood 

I'm now thinking that maybe the star-child is supposed to be illogical (which is odd for a machine, which is based on logic). Maybe the whole point is that the star-child is so insane, that he must be destroyed, hence the good ending when you choose the 'red' option.

That would make sense, EDI did go totally ape-poo on Luna. Not the same since then she was becoming aware but still. But why no explanation of that, or anything really? Also he's either a megalomanaical AI or a hallucination - and it still doesn't make sense how he appears to Shepard as the boy she has nightmares about.

[Archonsg]

T.Attwood wrote...

Drift Avalii wrote...

I hope you're right, I really do. I want my Shepard to wake up on the streets of London after the blast, job done. Maybe some sort of retirement scene (with/without LI) if she said on Earth that she wanted to retire or back on the Normandy if she said she wanted to Servle." I

.n some scenarios, sure, she dies - but it has to make sense! I really hope Shep imagined the whole thing, staggered to the conduit and blew it up, or tapped a control panel or whatever. Just something that doesn't mock everything we thought we understood about the world.

I'm now thinking that maybe the star-child is supposed to be illogical (which is odd for a machine, which is based on logic). Maybe the whole point is that the star-child is so insane, that he must be destroyed, hence the good ending when you choose the 'red' option.

Think about it. You are *still* accepting a choice given by the AI who is controlling the things that are killing you. That ARE STILL KILLING your people down on Earth and other parts of the Galaxy. It could just stop everything right there, why the eloborate need to get you to accept *any* choice at all?

Because, if you did, accept any one of those 3 choices, you are accepting his logic, his will, his solutions. Which if you buy into IT, then all this is AN ATTEMPT to indoctrinate you.

Had Bioware ran with this they could easily put in refusal option, which, I will point out now, IS NOT PRESENT.

Do understand, that for the Indoctrination Theory to work and keep Shepard, Shepard, meaning he or she becomes the first to resist and break an indoctrination attempt, it is imperative that Shepard MUST NOT accept any of those original three choices.

So far, you copy all that and realize that any acceptance of ANY choice given by the god-child  holo = Shepard's surrender of will and acceptance of god-child/Harbinger's will.

It was a trap.

[3DandBeyond]

Archonsg wrote...

@nickkcin11

Just shows which reviewers are shills and or aren't exactly honest when it comes to reviews. Like it or not, professional reviewers rely on advertising revenue so subjective reporting goes out the window.

Best cases I have seen are hedged reviews with statements like "not everyone will like the ending.." or " Bioware went with a different approach with the ending and will not please everyone..." the rest, just either didn't finish the game or are just repeating PR material.

It's a real trend lately for "reviewers" to shamelessly continue the hype of advertising.  It is happening everywhere and it's what makes it so hard for the consumer to know what's what.  It is beginning to have the opposite intended effect. 

There are a lot of people out there that waited to get ME3 and didn't listen to what reviewers have said.  They are however being swayed by what fans say.

The game is fantastic up until the point where the catalyst kid enters the picture.  Logic must be suspended to buy into this.  People that are fine with the ending have that right, of course.  But, the last of the game does not live up to all that has gone on before.  And the end does not give appreciation for what we are supposed to believe was the sacrifice of all and the growth of many.  The game sets deadly enemies against one another and teams them up.  Not only do the Geth evolve, but so do the Quarians and they put aside their long-standing animosity.  This is at the core of what is wrong with the VI child's logic.  The Quarians were the creator and the Geth, the created.  But, they learned ultimately there was a better way than that one or the other had to be destroyed (if your Shepard chose this).  In their "war" Shepard was a catalyst for change and it worked. 

The Salarians and Turians and the Krogan were bitter enemies.  And in some ways the Salarians and Turians were the creators of the Krogan (their untimely advancement).  But, ultimately they learned there was a better way because of Shepard, Mordin, and Wrex.

Even the Batarians put aside their feelings over the horrible destruction of their homeworld and 300k people, for the better good because of and in spite of Shepard.

The endings just put a lie to all that.  The endings leave you with the idea that everything was futile.  It's a great way to end an art house movie.  I don't think this is a good way to end a video game.

What would be nice is if those that are ok with the ending would stop calling people names or saying others are self-entitled brats or worse.

People here (and all of us are fans of these games) have loved the ME series.  It's insulting to say that just because they are asking that the ending make sense, that it live up to the universe bioware created and the logic within it, and that it in some way do what it was supposed to do and not be A,B,or C choices, that people have no lives, or are ungrateful or whatever.

It is not possible to make sense of the endings.  They don't fit in with the rest of the games.  They don't fit in with character definition throughout the games.  Ultimately, the only thing that matters is War Assets.  Even the Paragon/Renegade decisions don't really do much as far as the A,B,or C choices.

I think in the end they chose 3 totally simplistic options, which only depending on war assets can have some different impact. 

I agree with the idea of a refuse option along with the best option which would be the shutdown of the reapers (total irreversible shutdown and/or disintegration).  If the created always rebels against the creator (ugh), then a logical device would have some failsafe device built into the reapers that would shut them down.  I don't recall if the star child said it created the reapers, but I know it said it's older than them, so still it would have created such a thing to shut them down.  If it can control them, it can hit an "off" switch.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 15 avril 2012 - 03:09 .

[Archonsg]

@3dandbeyond

I would be fine with an A,B and C choice IF IT'S;
a) Shepard wins, saves all who can be saved, saves the galaxy from self destruction (no exploding relays, citadel intact) retires with LI to the adoration and adulation of galaxy. Shepard becomes a living legend

Shepard saves the galaxy at a cost. Perhaps himself and or those close to him. Essentially this is the "bittersweet" ending.

C) Shepard fracks up and while the Galaxy might be saved, technically, everyone dies, and we see the galaxy in a state where Shepard's name is more of a curse then reference to a hero.

Yup. If those were my ABC choices, I'm good. But it's not what we got. Bioware screwed up. They know it, we know it. They just don't want to admit to the fact nor do the right thing and FIX, not clarify the ending.

[T.Attwood]

3DandBeyond wrote...
I agree with the idea of a refuse option along with the best option which would be the shutdown of the reapers (total irreversible shutdown and/or disintegration).  If the created always rebels against the creator (ugh), then a logical device would have some failsafe device built into the reapers that would shut them down.  I don't recall if the star child said it created the reapers, but I know it said it's older than them, so still it would have created such a thing to shut them down.  If it can control them, it can hit an "off" switch.

Noting that the star-child did create the reapers, you raise an interesting question: The star-child says "the created always rebels against the creator", then aren't the reapers likely to attack the star-child at some point? I guess this is what you mean that there must be some way to shut them down, i.e. the star-child must have built in an 'off' switch somewhere.

All this adds to the inconsistencies of the ME3 ending...

@Archonsg: Those choices are a lot better than the ones we got. At least they are clear.

Modifié par T.Attwood, 15 avril 2012 - 03:32 .

[kal_reegar]

I report here some very wise and realistic advices about the star child
I think they should do this AT LEAST, if they really want to fix the ending.

pjotroos wrote...
Few things would be absolutely necessary.

First, don't make reapers "his solution". Make him impartial, make him a remnant of the old race left to watch over the Citadel. If he defends their reasoning, the choices he offer make no sense and make it feel like we're being snatched out of the jaws of defeat just for the sake of it.

Second, make it absolutely clear he's incapable to act on his own. He only serves as an exposition fairy, everything you get to do, you do because the weapon you worked on actually works, and can fire different kinds of space magic through the Citadel.

Third, go back to the old attitude of the Reapers - where they just felt so high above us they didn't have to explain themselves and didn't think us capable of understanding. If the current reasoning behind them is presented, make sure Shepard gets to disagree in no uncertain terms. Don't make him stand there like a sheep. Let us argue with that little tool and his bull**** ideologies.

Fourth, do away with the child model. Some people said it feels insulting being talked down by a small kid. I just see it as cheap pulling at heart strings, failed drama 101, basically something completely disconnected from the player. If he has to impersonate the dead, replace him with Kaidan or Ashley, or Mordin, or Legion, or all of them taking turns. With someone we actually care about.

more clusure, war assett in action, choiches matters etc. yes we all want that, but changing the starchild is absolutely necessary.
And pjootros post seems to me a fair compromise between artistic integrity and and an endig that makes sense.

[jeweledleah]

honestly, and this was mentioned pages ago - I would have been completely 100% fine with NO ending choice, but rather seeing consequences of my choices through all 3 games coming to fruition in the ending mission - no just arbitrary number that's been acquired in arbitrary way, but actual choices with actual consequences (like if you managed to save both Geth and quarians - you could see a geth ship, saving one of quarians, preserving the lives on it, could be Shala Raan's ship for example, but if you didn't make peace - ship gets destroyed). the funny thing is, it would have given us those 16 endings and then some.. but it would have been much MUCH harder to pull off.

worth it though IMO.

[LKx]

This was the kind of script depth that i was expecting from you for the finale, bioware:

http://social.biowar...ndex/10966771/1

Modifié par LKx, 15 avril 2012 - 03:53 .