23455 réponses à ce sujet

[demonuswolfus]

Careful folksd, don't pleade to have more thigns fixed, look at what the face import patch has done...I just wanna know why relationships form ME2 were treated badly compared to relationships form ME1 and have a better ending and deal with the rachni differently and knwo why Udina is freaking councilor when i never chose him as one. Oh and the BBB has a few words for Bioware too.

[Robert Monk]

Adding closure sceens wont work.
It wont work because, allthough the ending is severly lacking in the closure department, it also lacks in cohesion.

The premise of the story is: Reapers harvest races, to make new reapers. Before races become to powerful to create technology that can challenge them. (this is sci-fi, and they need to slaughter millions for the genetic make-up?)

1, even by todays standards you can make dna replicate in a lab. No need to kill off any race completely and miss out on any inovations their unique viewpoint to grant you.

2, the concept of the "slave shield" would be much more appropriate. Isolate a race behind a forcefield and monitor their evolution, usurp any technology they develop. Or, ****, snack a force field around a solar system. Hell, make a dysonssphere.

Should "the catalyst".
(Awesome job introducing the vilian on the last page btw. Basic writing 1on1, dont do that).
Be intended as the "master mind behind the reapers? I think that is the idea. Then why create new self existing intelligence that you enslave. Why not making every machine a direct extension of yourself? Releasing control to any sort of "self-control" seem a complete detriment to the entire sentiment of the choice.

To ensure survival, by being the only true intelligence in the galaxy, we create ... new intelligence... wait, what?

To usurp their technology, we wipe them out at a certain level of techonology, so  you never really improve anything.
wait what?

If you are going to stagnate your techonoly, why not simply irradiate every world, so you didnt have to fight wars every 50.000 years, and repurpose reapers into more memory or computing power for the catalyst AI?

and it seems that "the catalyst" has decided that if ever an organic lifeform made the cruicble and made it to the citadel with it, and could avoid the reapers for long enough to enter a transportation beam, it, itself, powers, it would simply kill it self, and release control of the reapers to anyone that woud make it that far. Or kill itself off and all reapers in existance, or homogenicing the galaxy under the thesis that no species would wage war on itself...
wait ... what?

So the most brilliant AI in the galaxy that has held organic lifeforms hostages for aeons, is ... retarded?
What the hell kind of ending is that?

I realize "artisic choice" is the creators privilige. But considering the creators would like me to buy a product from them again, perhaps thinking the ending through, might have been a prudent choice?

Either A, the writing team got a serious brain malfuction during the process of writing the ending or
B, the writing team got rushed, so the didnt have time to write a good ending or
C, the team actually did get all the time and ressource they wanted, and the Q&A dropped the ball so hard, it ruptured the earths crust or,
D, they surrounded themselves with "yes men" when the time came to do the Q&A not willing to spend the required amount of ressource on the project required to make the ending great, or
E, they will make another title to explain all the mess up things that makes no sense in this conclusion of the ME series, milking the series for another title.

Or some variation of the themes written.

If you do want to please your customers:

1, write an ending where the villian is inate in the reapers race. The catalyst is a failed antagonist, that should never have been included.
2, make bloody sure there is high cohesion on the plot elements, and that your players have an idea of what the choice of the player meant for the future of the universe they played to improve looks like. Closing relationships to team mates is a vital part of that, but the game spends most of its time doing that up to the finale.
But making sure the story built around the antagonists, ie the reapers, has a meaning is vital.
(the surviving members futures are very uncertain, should only be left unsaid, if a planned future ME titel was planned.)

3, As a final choice. The synthisis ending. The reapers fly off. But to do what?
Without the guidance of the catalyst they become... ? what?
With Shepard, as their "shepard" ... (see what I did there) .. what will their new goal be? Rebuilding the mass effect relays?
Rebuilding the worlds they destroyed?
Moving to another galaxy to start all over? 
What? From never having explained their original motivations, to never having explained what the problem was, a solution was required for, and then not explaining that solution efficiently either...
"the catalyst" fails something awful at displaying any sort of intelligence at all... and so does the ending by extension.

This ending is without doubt, bad writing. Introducting an unknown antagonist at the last second, introducing new conflicts that have a major impact on the understanding of the entire resolution of the series(What happens to the stranded fleets. Will the geth fight with the quarians again, Will the rachni resurface once more, in peace or new war? will the krogan grow more diplomatic with time, or will there be krogan war?
Even if you simply go ... "But the mass effect relays where destroyed" none of it will be resolved. Well, eventually it will. The worlds had the technology to find them in the first place. Once an ideas has been proven, it is merely a matter of time, before it will be replicated.
So eventually the races will meet again. Will they be wiser from the time apart? What about the mixed worlds with multiple races?

What about the multitude of new races that would appear in the mean time.

What about shepard name "being written in the stars" by liara? No race finds this bit of techonoly on a new world? 

Nothing? Just 3 different colors of explosions, with 3 poorly written endings, and then the
"We have our artistic integerity"

Well you might have... But you also have bollocks for brains then.
Unless your integrity compells you to make awful story telling and breaking promises made to the customers prior to the release of the game? As documented on these forums over and over?

Bioware and EA - For you to stick with this ending is to admit defeat. We cant do it better. You are in fact claiming:
"We wrote this ****ty ending, and we will stick with it" to a huge consumer base, that will now think twice before buying any story related game you publish/create.

If  your only change is to add closure content to the current ending, without annoucing a new product that will carry the story forward, you have lost me as a customer.

Regardless, your current actions have diminished your reputation.

Your Q&A dropped the ball on testing the ending. Your writers dropped the ball coming up with it, and you are dropping the ball again, by not acknowledgeing it for the worthless finish it is - to an otherwise - near flawless performance.

Modifié par Robert Monk, 16 avril 2012 - 06:57 .

[Thanatos144]

You know what? Most of you say it isnt about having a happy ending or that shep bites it yet you are all slamming a DLC that hasn't even been made yet.......... Maybe you should take some zoloft and play something like legacy of kain ..great story never finished.

[3DandBeyond]

I tend to believe that some of the direction at the beginning of the games may have been lost, but I hope that Casey Hudson remembers the nuance along the way.

Was the character named Shepard done so by just happenstance or by design? Sure there's the logical connection between the US astronaut Shepard, but I wonder at far deeper meaning. Shepard does act as a caretaker of many flocks of souls, synthetic and organic. A true Shepard does not want to leave one in their care behind and I don't see one being chased by a pack of wolves throwing a lamb at them to keep them at bay.

[WarBeagle01]

Chris, with all due respect, we'll see if you're really listening to the core issues or if you're just hearing the teacher on Charlie Brown talk. I've never seen a Bioware game with this much dissatisfaction (do not own DA/DA2). Sorry if this comes out harsh, but if you say you're listening and change nothing, then I personally will take your words as empty and I wouldn't count on me being a future customer.

[Chrislo1990]

Funny thing is Stanley Woo said that just because they're listening doesn't mean they have to implement the feedback they receive. So... Why ask us got feedback in the first place if anything we say you'll disregard?

[stefanburns]

Personally I like the ending if the entire Mass Effect games where a tv show/film/comic or book I think the whole thing would be my favorite sci-fi story.

But and that's a big but the hole thing that made the game great was that I was in control everything I did mattered or had an outcome and that's why I am disappointed so expanding the ending or trying to enplane the ending wont help what we need is multiple endings some where you can survive beat the reapers and live happily ever after or survive with consequences or die and sacrifice everything and save the world only one of those three ending are on the game and that's my disappointment with the game having so much chose threw all the games and then having none at the end or not having my choices change the ending the reason Mass Effect 2 was good was because you could save everyone or let everyone die your actions had consequences and that's why Mass Effect 3's ending should be changed

BioWare I am not telling you to do what I say I am just telling you why the ending is disappointing for a game would make a great movie but this is a game with choices so bring the choices consequences and control back to use or you will lose us!

[darkway1]

noivoieidoi wrote...

darkway1 wrote...
700 pages is not a waste........it's a clear message that Bioware/EA are doing/done wrong.

That depends on context. In this small world, would seem so. But seeing that the whole established and respectable mass media vastly ignores the complaints on 700 pages (thousands when adding other websites).... it's a clear message that most of the complainers are doing something terribly wrong. That leads back to the concept of waste.

Personally, I couldn't find, so far, any reason why the endings would be objectively awful. Everything has been dismissed already as wrong reasoning, unintentional blindness, bias when making the ending worse than the rest of the series etc. That leads to personal preferences and the largely agreed upon conclusion: a significant majority of the complainers just don't like an unhappy ending, or one where they have to do some thinking on their own. Not psychologically correct, but I might add here the lack of the riot police in a virtual world, unlike the football or hockey matches in real world

LOL.....If you like the ending then that's great but for me the ending is a sloppy,rushed mess that does not make a lot of sense......it's is poor in every way........which is odd.....because the Mass Franchise overall represents amazing depth and wonder,we love it.

After 700 pages you would think that some one from BIOWARE would have stepped forward to answer some obvious plot/story issues but after 700 pages we get NOTHING,we still fail to understand,we still don't have any information to make sense of the ending...........in fact Bioware are going to release free DLC this Summer to help us understand.....which in it's self highlights that the present ending we have does not WORK.

For all I care .....everyone in the Mass universe can die.......the reapers can even win.....hell,why not have Shepard as a Reaper agent,who brings the force of the universe to one place so the reapers can kill them quicker..............I'll go with any ending as long as it makes sense,as long as it doesn't look like the sloppy bolt-on,unfinished ending we currently have.

Do you honestly think the reason why people post here,is because Shepard dies in the end????.....lol......can you read???.....lol......

[Hoopdog]

I finally got to play the ending just two days ago.  I'm playing the ending, and the Illusive Man holds a gun on Anderson.  I'm given the option of a renegade move.  I choose not to do it.  Then Anderson gets shot by the Illusive Man.  Then he turns the gun on me and again, I'm given the option to do a renegade move, but being the ultimate paragon, I choose not to.  So the Illusive Man shoots me dead?  Game over?

And the sad thing is, this is probably the BEST ENDING.  I don't have to deal with that stupid God-child thing.  I don't have to make three choices that make no sense, and I don't have to destroy the mass relays and strand everyone I've claimed to care about over the last 100 hours to starvation and death on a near lifeless earth.

Sadly though, I did resume play and get to meet with the god-child thing with his circular logic and then in true Mass Effect fashion I get to ask (and re-ask) many questions so that I fully understand my three choices.  Oh wait... that didn't happen.  I couldn't go back and ask questions.  So I wander over to the first of my three choices, again thinking in true Mass Effect fashion, I'd get a chance to look at the option before I selected it... but no.  I'm stuck standing by the blue thing.  Can't go back and walk over to the red thing, or the green thing... I'm stuck there with my only option being click the blue thing.  And still I have no idea what this means.

So when the ending does happen, I'm watching with no idea what is actually happening or what it is that I've just done.  And this is the way you guys INTENDED this game to end?  Seriously?  I had to go to the internet to understand the ending.  Pathetic bioware, just pathetic.

[darkway1]

Thanatos144 wrote...

You know what? Most of you say it isnt about having a happy ending or that shep bites it yet you are all slamming a DLC that hasn't even been made yet.......... Maybe you should take some zoloft and play something like legacy of kain ..great story never finished.

Evening Thanatos144.

[silver6kraid]

LiarasShield wrote...

silver6kraid wrote...

sefudargo wrote...

what gets me is that Bioware has stated before that they listen to their fans. and there is proof of that. after mass effect fans wanted to have a relationship with Garrus and tali. Mass effect 2 we have Garrus and tali as possible Love Intrest. we wanted a return to a more RPG style. Mass effect 3 we have more power evolutions and weapon customization and armor stat customization. but when fans cry at the ending. Nope, Artistic Integrity

Try and put yourself in their shoes. If you wrote a story you were proud of and suddenly everybody is telling you to change the ending, wouldn't you feel a bit protective of what you'd created? I mean, at the end of the day this is still their story. As an artist I often grow protective of my work and try not to compromise when it comes to things other people want. That said, if it's a good idea that I like, sure I'll add it in, but to change something that's already finished? Yeah, I might have an issue with that. See, that's the problem, nobody is even trying to see this from their point of view. Was the enidng bad? Yes, but that doesn't mean that the fanbase has the right to demand they change thier work because they weren't satisfied. Or at least I'm sure that's how they feel. 

then obviously they shouldn't have done false advertizing  and making us think our decisions would still matter and effect the ending then let alone break characters from the way they have always acted like joker and crew being loyal and shepard not just giving up and submitting him or herself to this advanced ai or godchild then...

Regardless of all that you still fail to at least attempt to see things from their point of view. I guess it was foolish of me to try and make a raging fan think rationally and be respectful. My mistake. 

[AwefulShot]

The endings were perhaps fine, but we had no context in which to determine this. The main issue is that we have is a lack of motivation (meaning as Shep) and closure. Although in ALL the games we had limited options it never felt like a constraint. Only at the end with the BIG THREE were we rudely reminded, hey this is just a game... The DLC 'may' address these issues.

[noivoieidoi]

Archonsg wrote...

CorpralKarl wrote...

I greatly disliked the final scene as having the Stargazer in the future on the planet Joker landed on. It made the thing seem real distant from what had happened on Earth.

What happened to Earth? Are people reduced to cave men since the Mass Effect technology is gone? Is that far away planet completely reduced to inbred people, or were there other people on it already? Did Joker bang my Love interest?
None of these are answered with just a Stargazer and a child.

Earth is FRIED.
(edit : somehow linking to Bioware's own blog page doesn't seem to work now so, here's the wall of text)

On Exploding Relays
Okies guys, people keep going "this is Not Arrival... it wasn't hit by an asteroid, it got hit by a signal beam, so its explosion is not the same! That it’s a "controlled explosion.”

I agree that this is not an "Arrival scenario since in Arrival you destroyed a Relay by ramming what is essentially a small planetoid into a Relay (Mass + Velocity + momentum vs Stationary object), so please bear with me and read why physics actually puts this scenario where when a relay explodes, on its own might be a lot more powerful than the one in Arrival.

Let’s first all just agree that we ALL do see the Relays explode.
Let’s Watch the video again:
youtu.be/liQV1N7jXis

Citadel fires signal, signal hits relay, relays charges to critical, sends signal along then BLOWS up. Note that Relays are superstructures that can withstand a Super Nova without taking any damage at all.

Refer to your Codex; Secondary : Ilos : Mu Relay

All a Super Nova did to it while vaporising the system it was in and creating the nebulae that hides the Mu Relay was to push the Relay out of position while not doing a single dent to it. (You guys USED it for crying out loud)

So to recap, the Relays in ME3 was NOT hit by a big planetoid (this makes it easier to destroy a Relay presumably since now we have a huge butt load of mass and momentum of said mass added into the equation ...

But we are talking about ME3, which means the RELAYS exploded from kinetic / momentum force or energy ALONE. Which means that force had to had more velocity and momentum to damage a structure then if it was mass AND velocity.

If you want to do the math, here's a link:
]www.stardestroyer.net/Resources/Science/Explosives.html

In short and in lay man's terms, a Relay can take an energy shockwave hit of Super Nova scale and not be structurally damaged.
Relays are tough SOBs.

A structural explosion happens when enough kinetic / momentum force is applied to compromise said structure. Whether its a Big or Small "Kabooom", "kaboom" must be powerful enough to rip things to shreds.

Example, a soda can, will explode if you apply xxx amount of pressure. Does not matter if you want a big or small explosion, but you need a minimal amount of pressure, to make a soda can explode.
Thus an EXPLODING relay you saw = ONE BIG ASS KABOOM!

Logic would dictate that if structure is not damaged by Super Nova Scale energy, energy needed to not just bend but blow apart said structure = force of many orders of magnitude.
REALLY, REALLY big AND powerful KABOOM!

Now to understand just how powerful a Super Nova is
www.nagt.org/files/nagt/jge/abstracts/Dutch_v53n1.pdf

I find this portion interesting:
"Also, the supernova Sun would blast off a significant fraction of its mass at relativistic velocities. When it reaches Earth, it would be pretty effective at helping to strip off mass. The Earth wouldn't vanish instantly in a supernova explosion, but its survival time would be measured in days at best. If the Sun blasts away half of its mass, or 1030 kg, the earth would intercept 4.5 x 10-10 of the ejected mass, or 4.5 x 1020kg. This amounts to 1/13,000 the mass of the earth, but it would be moving at high speed. If it were moving at 10 per cent of the speed of light, its total kinetic energy would be 4 x 1035 joules, or about 75 times the orbital kinetic energy of the earth and 4500 times the energy required to vaporize the earth. Its momentum would be about 3/4 the orbital momentum of the earth.
As the comic strip character Dogbert put it in a different context, it would be "like sandblasting a soup ******."

And just how large a Super Nova scale shockwave can get:
apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap030609.html

NGC 2736 (Pencil Nebula) is part of the Vela Super Nova
apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap960612.html

That happened roughly 11,000 years ago. Has a shell that is roughly 230 light years across and is still expanding at about 500,000 km/h. 11,000 years after initial event. (Time, dissipation, debris and space gas has slowed it down somewhat)

Now back to Mass Effect 3

Essentially a Super Nova as close to as 20-25 light years could take out half of Earth's ozone layer.

Closer than 10 light years a good portion of atmosphere should be blown away, earth's magnetic fields fracked up, climate goes to hell literally, most living things die.

Closer than 1 light years, vaporization is very likely. That or earth and everything in the path of the discharge become galactic kitty litter, pulverised into rock and dust.

The Charon Mass relay is JUST 4 light hours away.

Needless to say ANY system with an Exploding Mass Relay = Toast.
Any cluster with a Mass Relay = fracked up

Basically that ending we saw was producers who just wanted big fracking explosions.

Never mind the science behind it.
Ignoring their own "Issac Newton is the deadliest SOB in space" line (physics DO matter in Mass Effect), threw logic and common sense out the window just to have a "cool looking cut scene"

Lastly exploding relays even if we take the final cut scene at face value still has enough energy to rip apart vessels in space like it did the Normandy. Which is another "looks cool" but badly thought out "action first, logic and science behind construction of a ship (we can use current day Aerospace design rules as a guideline) gets thrown out the window.

Logic and the only conclusion that any shockwave that can flex and rip engines off lateral mounts = severe hull
integrity compromise = the fuselage should not, could not, stay in one piece. The Normandy should have been torn to Shreds not only from the shockwave but from re-entry into ANY planet with an atmosphere.

The same goes to ANY vessel around earth space. That means that whole armada that even if you want to ignore the Super Nova or greater scale energy discharge needed just to compromise a Relay and blow it up, still gets rip to shreds by the current ending's own shockwave.
I call BS on this.

You can't have the Relays or the Citadel explode, EVER.

If or anyone thinks exploding Mass Relays is "good" SCIENCE Fiction and yes, I understand it is fiction so, there is a good amount of leeway given to "space magic" such as oh, "Mass Effect fields" it still has to be explained and follow rules of physics, even made up ones.

Come up with a logical and physics based solution how one can essentially detonate a Relay and not have said energy transfer in the scale and magnitude of a Nova, and I'll accept it.


That was the original post I made some time ago back when all this was still "new" and fresh.

Someone brought up the "Armageddon" thing about a closed fist and explosion which in theory is sound, except that the Mass Relays are not an "enclose box" . It does have a containment field that serves as that box, but as a rule, explosive energy or rather kinetic/momentum energy seeks out the path of least resistance, which in this case would be containment failure and thus out into open space.

Hence the logic that the kinectic energy needed to still rip and tear a superstructre such as a Mass Relay needs to be at least as high as a super Nova, or more.

It doesn't make sense logically or as someone else mentioned, when you do the math, because you just caused a mass genocide even the Reapers could not in their dreams do.

http://en.wikipedia...._black_holes.3F

Colapse, then explode as the black hole vaporised. The mass effect technology seems to be exactly what's required in order to produce mini-black holes. If they are stable enough (say fractions of second), that should do. Theoretically possible  The explosion won't be necessarily of a supernova magnitude, since the relays are cracked already.

Modifié par noivoieidoi, 16 avril 2012 - 08:49 .

[Sou1forged]

The gameplay experience was truly breathtaking up until the final scene, where "the catalyst" appears. I can (if begrudgingly) accept that it takes the form of an innocent victim, but as a writer I have serious issues with the rest. After the climactic encounter with the Illusive Man, the appearance of "the catalyst" seems like a joke. It's outright boring, void of emotional content and whatever is said won't make a difference. The worst, though, is the actual ending, which is incoherent and leaves too many loose ends for my taste, especially after a supposed final episode of a series.
Favourite moment though...?
Either the tragic death of Mordin Solus, curing the Krogan Genophage while singing his "The Very Model of a Scientist Salarian" right before being blown to bits, or when the Quarian and Geth unite and bury the hatchet. Those two events actually brought tears to my eyes.

[Hexley UK]

AwefulShot wrote...

The endings were perhaps fine, but we had no context in which to determine this. The main issue is that we have is a lack of motivation (meaning as Shep) and closure. Although in ALL the games we had limited options it never felt like a constraint. Only at the end with the BIG THREE were we rudely reminded, hey this is just a game... The DLC 'may' address these issues.

It might but who knows?

They haven't deigned to speak to us about anything since this whole mess began. We literally have nothing to go on besides what we know already and that is the fact that they messed up in a HUGE way with the current ending.

It's mind bogglingly awful in almost every respect, an astounding majority have realised this and they all want some answers and yet not a peep from Bioware besides some half-assed doublespeak PR nonsense.

Bioware have damn near deserted the forums. Even the community manager who's job I assume it is is to run this place has not been here in a month, it's baffling how terribly this whole situation has been handled from start to finish.

And that my friend hardly inspires confidence in any EC DLC.

Modifié par Hexley UK, 16 avril 2012 - 08:52 .

[JeffreyCor]

Why is it they can apologize and make changes to a BOOK (http://www.gameinfor...spx?PageIndex=2) yes cling to artistic expression when it comes to the huge errors as to the ending of ME3? Publication of a book is far more permanent in nature than software, which already has DLC and patches making changes to it. Further, a book being a literary work is more an a mater of artistic work than a game which from its inception has focused on player choice to for the story.
Yet more examples of the nonsensical inconsistency BioWare has been putting out in regards to ME3.

[Archonsg]

noivoieidoi wrote...

Archonsg wrote...

CorpralKarl wrote...

I greatly disliked the final scene as having the Stargazer in the future on the planet Joker landed on. It made the thing seem real distant from what had happened on Earth.

What happened to Earth? Are people reduced to cave men since the Mass Effect technology is gone? Is that far away planet completely reduced to inbred people, or were there other people on it already? Did Joker bang my Love interest?
None of these are answered with just a Stargazer and a child.

Earth is FRIED.
(edit : somehow linking to Bioware's own blog page doesn't seem to work now so, here's the wall of text)

On Exploding Relays
Okies guys, people keep going "this is Not Arrival... it wasn't hit by an asteroid, it got hit by a signal beam, so its explosion is not the same! That it’s a "controlled explosion.”

I agree that this is not an "Arrival scenario since in Arrival you destroyed a Relay by ramming what is essentially a small planetoid into a Relay (Mass + Velocity + momentum vs Stationary object), so please bear with me and read why physics actually puts this scenario where when a relay explodes, on its own might be a lot more powerful than the one in Arrival.

Let’s first all just agree that we ALL do see the Relays explode.
Let’s Watch the video again:
youtu.be/liQV1N7jXis

Citadel fires signal, signal hits relay, relays charges to critical, sends signal along then BLOWS up. Note that Relays are superstructures that can withstand a Super Nova without taking any damage at all.

Refer to your Codex; Secondary : Ilos : Mu Relay

All a Super Nova did to it while vaporising the system it was in and creating the nebulae that hides the Mu Relay was to push the Relay out of position while not doing a single dent to it. (You guys USED it for crying out loud)

So to recap, the Relays in ME3 was NOT hit by a big planetoid (this makes it easier to destroy a Relay presumably since now we have a huge butt load of mass and momentum of said mass added into the equation ...

But we are talking about ME3, which means the RELAYS exploded from kinetic / momentum force or energy ALONE. Which means that force had to had more velocity and momentum to damage a structure then if it was mass AND velocity.

If you want to do the math, here's a link:
]www.stardestroyer.net/Resources/Science/Explosives.html

In short and in lay man's terms, a Relay can take an energy shockwave hit of Super Nova scale and not be structurally damaged.
Relays are tough SOBs.

A structural explosion happens when enough kinetic / momentum force is applied to compromise said structure. Whether its a Big or Small "Kabooom", "kaboom" must be powerful enough to rip things to shreds.

Example, a soda can, will explode if you apply xxx amount of pressure. Does not matter if you want a big or small explosion, but you need a minimal amount of pressure, to make a soda can explode.
Thus an EXPLODING relay you saw = ONE BIG ASS KABOOM!

Logic would dictate that if structure is not damaged by Super Nova Scale energy, energy needed to not just bend but blow apart said structure = force of many orders of magnitude.
REALLY, REALLY big AND powerful KABOOM!

Now to understand just how powerful a Super Nova is
www.nagt.org/files/nagt/jge/abstracts/Dutch_v53n1.pdf

I find this portion interesting:
"Also, the supernova Sun would blast off a significant fraction of its mass at relativistic velocities. When it reaches Earth, it would be pretty effective at helping to strip off mass. The Earth wouldn't vanish instantly in a supernova explosion, but its survival time would be measured in days at best. If the Sun blasts away half of its mass, or 1030 kg, the earth would intercept 4.5 x 10-10 of the ejected mass, or 4.5 x 1020kg. This amounts to 1/13,000 the mass of the earth, but it would be moving at high speed. If it were moving at 10 per cent of the speed of light, its total kinetic energy would be 4 x 1035 joules, or about 75 times the orbital kinetic energy of the earth and 4500 times the energy required to vaporize the earth. Its momentum would be about 3/4 the orbital momentum of the earth.
As the comic strip character Dogbert put it in a different context, it would be "like sandblasting a soup ******."

And just how large a Super Nova scale shockwave can get:
apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap030609.html

NGC 2736 (Pencil Nebula) is part of the Vela Super Nova
apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap960612.html

That happened roughly 11,000 years ago. Has a shell that is roughly 230 light years across and is still expanding at about 500,000 km/h. 11,000 years after initial event. (Time, dissipation, debris and space gas has slowed it down somewhat)

Now back to Mass Effect 3

Essentially a Super Nova as close to as 20-25 light years could take out half of Earth's ozone layer.

Closer than 10 light years a good portion of atmosphere should be blown away, earth's magnetic fields fracked up, climate goes to hell literally, most living things die.

Closer than 1 light years, vaporization is very likely. That or earth and everything in the path of the discharge become galactic kitty litter, pulverised into rock and dust.

The Charon Mass relay is JUST 4 light hours away.

Needless to say ANY system with an Exploding Mass Relay = Toast.
Any cluster with a Mass Relay = fracked up

Basically that ending we saw was producers who just wanted big fracking explosions.

Never mind the science behind it.
Ignoring their own "Issac Newton is the deadliest SOB in space" line (physics DO matter in Mass Effect), threw logic and common sense out the window just to have a "cool looking cut scene"

Lastly exploding relays even if we take the final cut scene at face value still has enough energy to rip apart vessels in space like it did the Normandy. Which is another "looks cool" but badly thought out "action first, logic and science behind construction of a ship (we can use current day Aerospace design rules as a guideline) gets thrown out the window.

Logic and the only conclusion that any shockwave that can flex and rip engines off lateral mounts = severe hull
integrity compromise = the fuselage should not, could not, stay in one piece. The Normandy should have been torn to Shreds not only from the shockwave but from re-entry into ANY planet with an atmosphere.

The same goes to ANY vessel around earth space. That means that whole armada that even if you want to ignore the Super Nova or greater scale energy discharge needed just to compromise a Relay and blow it up, still gets rip to shreds by the current ending's own shockwave.
I call BS on this.

You can't have the Relays or the Citadel explode, EVER.

If or anyone thinks exploding Mass Relays is "good" SCIENCE Fiction and yes, I understand it is fiction so, there is a good amount of leeway given to "space magic" such as oh, "Mass Effect fields" it still has to be explained and follow rules of physics, even made up ones.

Come up with a logical and physics based solution how one can essentially detonate a Relay and not have said energy transfer in the scale and magnitude of a Nova, and I'll accept it.


That was the original post I made some time ago back when all this was still "new" and fresh.

Someone brought up the "Armageddon" thing about a closed fist and explosion which in theory is sound, except that the Mass Relays are not an "enclose box" . It does have a containment field that serves as that box, but as a rule, explosive energy or rather kinetic/momentum energy seeks out the path of least resistance, which in this case would be containment failure and thus out into open space.

Hence the logic that the kinectic energy needed to still rip and tear a superstructre such as a Mass Relay needs to be at least as high as a super Nova, or more.

It doesn't make sense logically or as someone else mentioned, when you do the math, because you just caused a mass genocide even the Reapers could not in their dreams do.

http://en.wikipedia...._black_holes.3F

Colapse, then explode as the black hole vaporised. The mass effect technology seems to be exactly what's required in order to produce mini-black holes. If they are stable enough (say fractions of second), that should do. Theoretically possible  The explosion won't be necessarily of a supernova magnitude, since the relays are cracked already.

That might work actually. Kudos. 
Still, causing a singularity event within the Relay should cause first an implosion followed by release of energy. So we should see the Relay FIRST colapse upon themselves THEN explode outwards. 
That didn't happen unfortuately. 

But yes, this scenario might work. 
You'd still have the problem of plunging the Galaxy into a communication and travel blackout, and in theory still have that shockwave with still enough power to down most almost every space worthy fleet equal or less in Mass to the Normandy but hey, they all die a few months later instead of being instantly vaporised. 

Good call on the singularity event first though. Don't know how that can be pulled off but at least its a possibility.

[darkway1]

Hexley UK wrote...

AwefulShot wrote...

The endings were perhaps fine, but we had no context in which to determine this. The main issue is that we have is a lack of motivation (meaning as Shep) and closure. Although in ALL the games we had limited options it never felt like a constraint. Only at the end with the BIG THREE were we rudely reminded, hey this is just a game... The DLC 'may' address these issues.

It might but who knows?

They haven't deigned to speak to us about anything since this whole mess began. We literally have nothing to go on besides what we know already and that is the fact that they messed up in a HUGE way with the current ending.

It's mind bogglingly awful in almost every respect, an astounding majority have realised this and they all want some answers and yet not a peep from Bioware besides some half-assed doublespeak PR nonsense.

Bioware have damn near deserted the forums. Even the community manager who's job I assume it is is to run this place has not been here in a month, it's baffling how terribly this whole situation has been handled from start to finish.

And that my friend hardly inspires confidence in any EC DLC.

Totally agree,the more people want answers the more people go digging and it's suprising what you unearth,do Bioware/EA just expect people to forget this mess and auto buy the next title..........the brand is tainted...you can't mention Mass3 with out thinking....shambles......terrible way to end an epic series.

[Captain_Obvious]

Just wanted to check in again in this thread, and let Bioware know (once again) that most of the game is great, but the endings render the entire series unplayable for me. Yes, that is my opinion, and yes, it is hyperbole. It's still true for me. I really hope that the ending will be fixed, because DLC is pointless with nothing to look forward to but death, death, and mostly death. Anyway, I hope Bioware will fix it. I'll know for sure after I see the extended cut on youtube, I suppose.

[AmstradHero]

noivoieidoi wrote...

Netherspin wrote...
Edit: As for the repeated question about why the reapers doesn't rebel against the catalyst, if the created will allways rebel against the creator, Soverign gives us the answer to that on Vermire - the Reapers believe themselves to be the first, counterintuitive as it may seem, they think they evolved on their own and created by noone.

Moreover, Sovereign says something along the lines: ‘you [organic species] just use the mass relays and the Citadel; they’ve been built by our kind’.
Then the Catalyst says:
- 'the Citadel is my home' and 'it's part of me' 
- ‘the created will always rebel against the creators’ and ‘I control the Reapers; they are my solution’. 
If any creator-created relationship exists between the Reapers and the Catalyst, then the Catalyst is the created. So, if ‘our kind’ means ‘the Reapers’ exactly, that would make the Catalyst the rebel and a very interesting character.

The fact that you like this idea demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of storytelling and plot development that is as bad as the original ending.

One, it still introduces a new character right at the ending - which as has been established time and time again, is a poor plot device for when the writers cannot produce a logical ending that follows on sequentially from previous events. It's a major break in the storytelling to create an arbitrary ending of the writer's choice.

Secondly, you're saying that this character should be allowed to wilfully deceive the player. That's a gross crime against a game series that has revolved around choice. Effectively you're saying it's acceptable to provide the player with deceptive choices in the final minute of gameplay. If he lies about that, what other mistruths is he telling? A lying deus ex machina robs the player off all choice and any degree of closure, because anything presented by it is suspect. It would be better off just finishing the game before the final run to the teleporter beam. If the Space Child is lying, or if any of the parts of the ending are deceptions, then the ending as a whole is worthless unless it will be replaced a la Broken Steel.

Again, I'll reiterate that this is an unequivocably horrible idea from both a storytelling and game design perspective. That fact you think it is good demonstrates no understanding of how to develop either of these.

noivoieidoi wrote...
Personally, I couldn't find, so far, any reason why the endings would be objectively awful. Everything has been
dismissed already as wrong reasoning, unintentional blindness, bias when making the ending worse than the rest of the series etc. That leads to personal preferences and the largely agreed upon conclusion: a significant majority of the complainers just don't like an unhappy ending, or one where they have to do some thinking on their
own. Not psychologically correct, but I might add here the lack of the riot police in a virtual world, unlike the football or hockey matches in real world ../../../images/forum/emoticons/policeman.png../../../images/forum/emoticons/devil.png

You couldn't. That doesn't mean they don't exist. As I've stated above, it's obvious you don't understand storytelling concepts or theory anyway, so I'm not wholly surprised. There's very little incorrect reasoning being presented, because people are trying to correlate all the facts that have been presented to the player, which is not possible to do in any logical fashion or without copious amounts of handwaving.

I expected Shepard to die. So did many people. The difference is that the sacrifice was expected to happen in a logical and coherent fashion. It didn't. The fact that you can't recognise this is not a failing of the people issuing the complaints, it is a failure in your ability to understand them.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 16 avril 2012 - 09:22 .

[Gweedotk]

JeffreyCor wrote...

Why is it they can apologize and make changes to a BOOK (http://www.gameinfor...spx?PageIndex=2) yes cling to artistic expression when it comes to the huge errors as to the ending of ME3? Publication of a book is far more permanent in nature than software, which already has DLC and patches making changes to it. Further, a book being a literary work is more an a mater of artistic work than a game which from its inception has focused on player choice to for the story.
Yet more examples of the nonsensical inconsistency BioWare has been putting out in regards to ME3.

Because people are demanding a complete change to the ending. They want a "happy ending".

The only problem with the ending is the lack of explanation/closure and the relative little impact your decisions have.

I've heard a few people ask for a happy ending. As far as I'm concerned, it was. this game is the end of Shepard's story, the way I saw it he was going to die. The fact that he CAN survive at all should be more than enough.

So yes, I understand them defending that, I even understand the defense of the Architect. It is mentioned several times throughout the games that we cannot comprehend the purpose of the reapers, so a greater meaning behind it all is hinted at. The Reapers are still the antagonist, and this child offers a way to stop them. The fact that the endings are emotionally involved at all means a lot, this is a video game after all.

That said, our choices having a greater impact would certainly be nice.

AmstradHero wrote...

The fact that you like this idea
demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of storytelling and plot
development that is as bad as the original ending.

One, it still
introduces a new character right at the ending - which as has been
established time and time again, is a poor plot device for when the
writers cannot produce a logical ending that follows on sequentially
from previous events. It's a major break in the storytelling to create
an arbitrary ending of the writer's choice.

Secondly, you're
saying that this character should be allowed to wilfully deceive the
player. That's a gross crime against a game series that has revolved
around choice. Effectively you're saying it's acceptable to provide the
player with deceptive choices in the final minute of gameplay. If he
lies about that, what other mistruths is he telling? A lying deus ex
machina robs the player off all choice and any degree of closure,
because anything presented by it is suspect. It would be better off just
finishing the game before the final run to the teleporter beam. If the
Space Child is lying, or if any of the parts of the ending are
deceptions, then the ending as a whole is worthless unless it will be
replaced a la Broken Steel.

Again, I'll reiterate that this is an
unequivocably horrible idea from both a storytelling and game design
perspective. That fact you think it is good demonstrates no
understanding of how to develop either of these.

I found the Catalyst to be strange myself. Its purpose, creation, etc all are very mysterious. Whether it is a manifestation of the Reapers themselves or some greater creator as it implies is curious.

As for the deception, that is inferred. We do not know if he is being deceived. If you would like to believe that way, fine but there is nothing to strongly suggest he is being deceived.

The Synthesis ending for example provides a very logical conclusion, if you can get passed sacrificing Shepard and the natural reluctance to meld synthetic life and organic life. It is all about survival of the fittest and what the Catalyst suggests ; i.e. that our "children" will create synthetic life and subsequently be wiped out is quite possible. It is presented multiple times in fact that in the ME Universe, synthetic life IS superior to organic life both in adaptability and survivability. I see no deception.

But again, more choices and closure (explanation as to what happened to everyone/thing) would be great.

Modifié par Gweedotk, 16 avril 2012 - 09:30 .

[epicalus]

hello everyone .
lets all remember what we know by now.

ME3 ends with a simple statement.
synthetics will always kill organics.
so i ( catalyst ) created synthetics to kill organics to prevent synthetics from killing organics . wait wot?
and yes melting organics down into wichever paste they like , is still killing organics with synthetics.
but lets go back all the way to ME1
so synthetics will always kill organics?
the geth didn't wipe out the quarians did they ? no they didn't .
why did the geth attack organics in ME1 ?
becausse sovereign (a reaper) reprogammed the heretics (geth) to attack organics.
wich basically means that the reapers MAKE sure that synthetics attack organics.
those who played ME2 know this FACT , wich disproves the catalysts statement.

lets all keep in mind that at the end of ME3
there are only 3 things .
sheppard , catalyst , destroy reapers.
the catalyst is the only thing standing between sheppard and destroying the reapers.
so its only option is to tell lies or change the truth by adding lies.
yes you'll destroy us , but you'll destroy all synthetic life aswell.

and why in a series that shows off indoctrination so nicely .
why woulden't it happen to the only character that seems to be the only one that can stop the reapers?
woulden't it make more sence to have it happen to sheppard at least once?

[Spava]

www.youtube.com/watch

best reaction rofled so hard, prolly been linked a few times

"I feel like I just did nothing"

Modifié par Spava, 16 avril 2012 - 09:37 .