23455 réponses à ce sujet

[csb1968]

I'm with those that got involved with the rich characters, the choices you could make. And even choose certain party members for missions not because they were the best to "beat the game" but rather because you liked their company.

For almost 3 full games, BioWare's writers, the voice actors and my choices gave me a story to vest myself in.

Then the ending comes and the bubble burts. Protestations aside, Bioware writers, there isn't a literary professor anywhere that'd give you any more than an F for that ending. It is a shame, too, as the 99.9 percent that comes before that point is great.

Do I think BioWare will take the mulligan of Extended Cut to overhaul the ending post-Anderson (almost to the end and yet another tear-jerking moment! Anderson speaks of me (Shepard)  as a loving father would? Awesome!) I doubt it. But yet, I hope they do! And thereby also prove that they truly care not about their fans ... or customers -- if you're inclined to the profit-loss, wrapped in the cold calculus of market niche crowd of naysayers. (Sorry Garrus, I couldn't help but say that!)

Tempus vertias, right? We shall see. -- Cora

Modifié par csb1968, 24 avril 2012 - 10:42 .

[PaxtonFetel]

Already there were many attempts to why the end of the game is terrible. Were already in a large number of logical analysis and emotional analysis. Instead of victory over the reapers, in fact. I (and other players) forced to make a pretty spectacular suicide. Stop. It is important to note this is not a heroic death in the battle, this is not a sacrifice (Sacrifice may claim the gods, but not exactly starkid). It is senseless suicide of the hero. That is a sin in all religions. And on the conscious and unconscious level just can't be acceptable normal person.

Modifié par PaxtonFetel, 24 avril 2012 - 10:47 .

[Gweedotk]

PaxtonFetel wrote...

That is a sin in all religions. And on the conscious and unconscious
level just can't be acceptable normal person.

This game doesn't care about religion, and neither do I. It's probably the only game I know of that simply wrote human religion off as what it is: mythology, not different from the Nordic and Greek mythologies.

The endings were illogical but the emotional impact was well tailored for me. Shepards death, the fact that he FINALLY met his match, both were completely acceptable and even desirable imo.

Modifié par Gweedotk, 24 avril 2012 - 11:00 .

[Nardur]

I think this statement pretty much sums up the ending -

"This is the way the world ends: Not with a bang but a whimper."

[gaminazn]

It was amazing up until the god-child part. Did expect to see some sort of meaning with the war assets. Other than opening up the other two choices & changing the dialogue at the very end, they don't do anything.

[jakenou]

So if we are in the practice of expanding and clarifying key aspects of the game in the form of DLC, I'm hoping they will come out with a DLC that explains the rocket science behind the war assets system, and how one is supposed to achieve completion in the game through it - because I found it a bit perplexing that I couldn't gain enough assets to have this elusive unique ending each individual is supposed to get depending on the choices you've made throughout the trilogy, and everywhere I look for answers or even clues, I instead find more people confused and frustrated. Do I need to go back to ME2 and make my femshep have an affair with Kelly Sanders so my fish won't die? Do I need to buy an iPhone? The only possibilities I've found seem completely convoluted.

- This is coming from someone who doesn't have their Xbox connected to the internet, and does not own an iPhone, Pad or Pod Touch. It would be really great to know how to just play the game and get the full experience. kthnx

Modifié par jkthunder, 24 avril 2012 - 11:45 .

[Gweedotk]

jkthunder wrote...

Do I need to go back to ME2 and make my femshep have an affair with Kelly Sanders so my fish won't die?

I just assumed Shepard has dinner with her, a date so to speak. It seemed harmless enough so I went with it. Got tired of feeding my fish after every mission.

[3DandBeyond]

jkthunder wrote...

So if we are in the practice of expanding and clarifying key aspects of the game in the form of DLC, I'm hoping they will come out with a DLC that explains the rocket science behind the war assets system, and how one is supposed to achieve completion in the game through it - because I found it a bit perplexing that I couldn't gain enough assets to have this elusive unique ending each individual is supposed to get depending on the choices you've made throughout the trilogy, and everywhere I look for answers or even clues, I instead find more people confused and frustrated. Do I need to go back to ME2 and make my femshep have an affair with Kelly Sanders so my fish won't die? Do I need to buy an iPhone? The only possibilities I've found seem completely convoluted.

- This is coming from someone who doesn't have their Xbox connected to the internet, and does not own an iPhone, Pad or Pod Touch. It would be really great to know how to just play the game and get the full experience. kthnx

It's space magic.  In truth, you can't.  At least I don't see how.  I know there were a couple of wrong choices I made, but nothing severe, might amount to the loss of a less than a hundred in assets at the very most (as near as I can tell), from everything I have since read.  My EMS with 100% readiness is over 7300.  I got the ultra super secret, scintillating, and oh so satisfying, gasp ending, and then the stargazer.  I was impressed, amazed, and astonished, to say the least.  At last, the game was worth it.  EET EES ALIVE!!  Game over.

From everything I have seen and read, at most people get to somewhere around 3700 to 4000 without MP.  A very serious flaw to be sure.  And, a real nasty way to get people to play MP.  But, then again it's one freakishly short gasp that is so sad because many of us hold onto that as some sort of possibility.  I think it stinks because many people do not have the capacity nor the desire to play multiplayer.

[Benchpress610]

csb1968 wrote...

I'm with those that got involved with the rich characters, the choices you could make. And even choose certain party members for missions not because they were the best to "beat the game" but rather because you liked their company.

For almost 3 full games, BioWare's writers, the voice actors and my choices gave me a story to vest myself in.

Then the ending comes and the bubble burts. Protestations aside, Bioware writers, there isn't a literary professor anywhere that'd give you any more than an F for that ending. It is a shame, too, as the 99.9 percent that comes before that point is great.

Do I think BioWare will take the mulligan of Extended Cut to overhaul the ending post-Anderson (almost to the end and yet another tear-jerking moment! Anderson speaks of me (Shepard)  as a loving father would? Awesome!) I doubt it. But yet, I hope they do! And thereby also prove that they truly care not about their fans ... or customers -- if you're inclined to the profit-loss, wrapped in the cold calculus of market niche crowd of naysayers. (Sorry Garrus, I couldn't help but say that!)

Tempus vertias, right? We shall see. -- Cora

On that note, read the OP on this thread writen by a college lit professor:
http://social.biowar...ndex/11435886/1

This is one of the most brilliant analysis on the ME3 ending I've read.

[3DandBeyond]

Benchpress610 wrote...


On that note, read the OP on this thread writen by a college lit professor:
http://social.biowar...ndex/11435886/1

This is one of the most brilliant analysis on the ME3 ending I've read.

You nailed it, it is absolutely brilliant.

The end of that post sums it up:
"The obscurities in the ending of Mass Effect 3 have not been similarly
earned by its prior narrative. This narrative has not until this point
been about dominance, extermination, and the imposition of uniformity –
indeed, Shepard has spent over a hundred hours of narrative fighting
against precisely these three themes. And if one of these three (and
only these three) options must be selected in order to sustain life in
the universe, then that life has been so devalued by that act as to make
the sacrifice meaningless."

He rightly states the fatal flaws in each of the 3 choices.  Control is dominance, destroy is extermination, and synthesis is the imposition of uniformity.  None of these is anything Shepard would have fought for or would have rallied all the forces to as a cause.

[Benchpress610]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Benchpress610 wrote...


On that note, read the OP on this thread writen by a college lit professor:
http://social.biowar...ndex/11435886/1

This is one of the most brilliant analysis on the ME3 ending I've read.

You nailed it, it is absolutely brilliant.

The end of that post sums it up:
"The obscurities in the ending of Mass Effect 3 have not been similarly
earned by its prior narrative. This narrative has not until this point
been about dominance, extermination, and the imposition of uniformity –
indeed, Shepard has spent over a hundred hours of narrative fighting
against precisely these three themes. And if one of these three (and
only these three) options must be selected in order to sustain life in
the universe, then that life has been so devalued by that act as to make
the sacrifice meaningless."

He rightly states the fatal flaws in each of the 3 choices.  Control is dominance, destroy is extermination, and synthesis is the imposition of uniformity.  None of these is anything Shepard would have fought for or would have rallied all the forces to as a cause.

Absolutely,… your summation is brilliant as well.  The main reasons for the ending failure simplified in three lines. …I have been reading your posts. You have the gift of words and eloquence.
 
BTW, I read your fan fiction: I loved it!!

[Gweedotk]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Benchpress610 wrote...


On that note, read the OP on this thread writen by a college lit professor:
http://social.biowar...ndex/11435886/1

This is one of the most brilliant analysis on the ME3 ending I've read.

You nailed it, it is absolutely brilliant.

The end of that post sums it up:
"The obscurities in the ending of Mass Effect 3 have not been similarly
earned by its prior narrative. This narrative has not until this point
been about dominance, extermination, and the imposition of uniformity –
indeed, Shepard has spent over a hundred hours of narrative fighting
against precisely these three themes. And if one of these three (and
only these three) options must be selected in order to sustain life in
the universe, then that life has been so devalued by that act as to make
the sacrifice meaningless."

He rightly states the fatal flaws in each of the 3 choices.  Control is dominance, destroy is extermination, and synthesis is the imposition of uniformity.  None of these is anything Shepard would have fought for or would have rallied all the forces to as a cause.

I completely agree. I did not like the choices at all; synthesis was for me the best choice and even THAT was not much. They should have allowed room for another hero AFTER Shepard, perhaps an alien one to conform with diversity and uniquety. And it could have been just as good as the original trilogy, instead they want to settle with supporting games that players will not and cannot get nearly as attached to because of their supporting role in the mass effect universe.

[BlazingZephyr]

I believe this guy has an excellent idea for amending ME3's conclusion. He suggests incorporating the "Dark Energy" plot into the game without totally rewriting multiple elements:

Aethgeir wrote...

Hell yes, here's how I think it could be done:

Release the planned extended cut DLC containing not only extended cinematics, but one all-new mission as well. In this mission (which could be initiated any time after the galaxy map becomes available), Shepard must rescue a group of scientists from Cerberus or Reaper attack on Noveria (or another location, although Noveria has already been foreshadowed and offers the chance to reunite with some familiar faces). Through the course of the mission, Shepard learns that the scientists are studying dark energy and the premature death of stars (referenced in Tali’s recruitment mission, and by Gianna Parasini in Mass Effect 2). At the end of the mission Shepard learns from one of the scientists (perhaps a colleague of The Arrival’s Dr. Amanda Kenson) that this phenomenon is in fact being caused by the Mass Effect itself (perhaps the Mass Relays are somehow powered by siphoning energy from the stars, or are causing a critical build up of dark energy). The more the Relays are activated and used, the faster the process occurs.  In theory, this process will ultimately result in a cataclysm of galactic proportions. The mission ends and Shepard goes on with trying to unite the galaxy.

Now, fast-forward to the end of the game. Instead of revealing that Reapers destroy life to ironically save it from annihilation by synthetics; they are revealed to be keeping older civilizations from destroying the galaxy by abusing the Mass Effect technology.  The cycle itself likely exists to prevent other civilizations from developing the technology themselves. As Sovereign said, "By using the Mass Relays your civilization progresses along the paths we desire."  In other words, just as the Keepers are the caretakers of the Citadel, the Reapers are the caretakers of the galaxy and the Mass Effect. By carefully culling older civilizations and preserving their legacies (or DNA) in themselves, they preserve galactic stability and allow new life to flourish.  In other words, “We are your salvation through destruction!”  This gives the Reapers sufficiently logical and benevolent motivations to give the player pause.

But now the player must make a choice:

1. Control the Reapers:
Shepard merges with the catalyst to command the Reapers. In this way, Shepard essentially becomes the conscience of the machine, granting him/her the power to regulate the use of the Mass Relays to forestall or prevent the galactic cataclysm without destroying all life in the galaxy. This decision makes Shepard effectively immortal but at the expense of his/her humanity. This may be what The Illusive Man was intending all along with ‘securing human dominance’, it might also be opposed by characters like Anderson or Shepard’s own squad-mates, possibly even precipitating a violent conflict between them.  In the long term, this choice may save the galaxy but cause wide spread animosity towards humanity and between the races used to having free access to the relay network. Something Shepard may be forced to put down violently using the Reapers power.

2. Destroy the Reapers:
Shepard uses the Crucible’s power to destroy the Reapers (and only the Reapers) as he/she planned and hopes that the races of the galaxy can find a new solution to the ‘Mass Relay/dark energy problem’ established in the DLC. Shepard survives and lives to witness the fruit of his/her choices, love interests, etc. This may seem the natural decision for players as it breaks the galactic extinction cycle and ends the Reaper threat. However, since it comes with potentially devastating long-term consequences, this decision is ultimately selfish as Shepard chooses life and love over the bigger picture.

3. Destroy the Network:
Shepard releases the crucible’s energy to destroy the Citadel (and him/herself with it). As the central hub of the Relay Network this destroys (or permanently disables) the Mass Relays. This may also destroy the Reapers or - deprived of their purpose - they may retreat or simply shutdown. This decision has obvious and immediately devastating consequences. But it permanently ends the extinction cycle and secures a potentially bright and limitless future for the survivors.

After making their choice, players are treated to a cinematic where they witness the immediate consequences of their choice. This is then followed by a sequence where they can see their previous decisions reacting with this ultimate final decision. Credits role, Buzz Aldrin says his piece, and Mass Effect 3 comes to a very satisfying close.

As you can see, these choices differ very little from those that already exist in the game.  And the new mission changes nothing beyond giving the player greater perspective and context when making their final choice (something the extended cut is intended to do anyway).  Nothing would have to be changed in the existing game beyond the ending cut-scenes and a few lines of dialogue in the final sequence.  This would effectively round out the whole story, tie up several loose ends and return to the player the sense that their choices made all the difference.

[Jianni]

Honestly I would just be happy to know what happened to the reapers in the Synth Ending.

Do they Join the Galactic Community? Do they leave to another Galaxy in hopes of finding other organics to save? After destroying the AI controlling them via the destruction of the citadel are they free to self determine? If so, do they start another heretic/geth style war? Did I just make things worse? (no assumptions, in game facts only please)

This is just about the Reapers. The main antagonist. What happened to them?

Did I stop the Reaper conflict? Did I win? What did my sacrifice accomplish? I want this answered in game without making an assumption. If nothing else, this.

[Goaliebot]

Finally finished it. Took the red path, got the gasp bit. YouTube'd the other endings.

I can now only come up with 2 guesses:

1) They ran out of time and slapped this ending together last minute.

2) Mass Effect 4.


Honestly nothing else makes sense.

Ah well.

[xjmz250]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Voodoo-j wrote...

Honestly, the Indoctrination Theory, makes me almost as upset as the ending that is currently in place. The only difference is it make more sense. Who wants to play a game that gives you choices to make, only to find out they were not your choices? If this is the last ME with Shepard, they would need to add so much more to the game for when you are brought out of it. I think too many of us are desperate for a decent ending, we are accepting sub par as well.

That is the main problem with Indoctrination Theory.  It tries to make sense of the crap we've been given, but in and of itself does not create a satisfying ending.  In fact, it isn't an ending at all, because if you make a choice under Indoctrination, what did you just do?  If you are weak enough to have been forced to kill Anderson, a very real, up close and personal killing of someone you cared about, what would you have done to nameless, faceless beings under Indoctrination?  And how can it be believable that Anderson's death was not real, but that the Reapers would allow you to get that close to their "off" button, even under Indoctrination.  There were many chances to kill you.  And neither choice that you are given is particularly good for them.  They seem to enjoy killing, so being sent away isn't satisfactory to them, destruction certainly isn't.  So these can't be real choices if Indoctrination is true.

So, when Shepard wakes up fron Indoctrination if that theory is correct, what point are you then back at in the game?

The point you would be returned to is immediately after shepard gets blasted by harbinger. Also that means Anderson wasnt shot by you because that was all inside shepards mind. Hope it helps a little bit :/ (sorry for the half assed answer but im a bit sleepy xD)

[DanFu]

     The more time that passes, the more upset I've become with the ending to this once wonderful franchise.  I played ME1 multiple times to see the different options and then when ME2 came out, I played ME1 over again to create different import scenarios.  I also played through ME2 multiple times to setup different imports for ME3.  I was looking forward to replaying ME1 & ME2 all over again to setup the "perfect" import for ME3, but I find that I have no interest in playing through ME3 multiple times, much less the entire series, because the ending was so poorly written. 

      The ending comes out of nowhere, doesn't make any sense, and none of your prior choices have any impact on the ending.  I know you have said it was an artistic decision to let players come up with their own endings, but that's just a cop out.  We buy art to appreciate the artist's vision.  We don't buy art to insert our own vision.  Yes, its an interactive game, so the players have an impact on the ending - but you didn't deliver.   I've heard about the extended cut DLC, but if you are not going to
"change", the ending, I don't see how that will help.  Why is a
god-child living in the Citadel?  There's no reason for the events in
ME1 if the master of the Reapers was always in control of the Citadel. 
Why is it impossible for synthetics and organics to co-exist? Shepard was able to accomplish it twice with the Geth and with EDI.  How is it
possible to instantly destroy all synthetic life or merge all organic
life with synthetic life?  Your ending is so flawed that there is no way
of fixing it short of a time machine.

      You got me to pre-order the collector's edition of ME3 but I'm am so disappointed with how you ended this franchise that I am not sure BioWare can win me back as a customer.  It's not only the poorly written ending, but also the decision to require multi-player to get the "best" ending.  I am only interested in single player games and there is no way to get a 5000 score even with the added content included in the CE.   I've got a ME2 romance with Tali that I don't think I'll ever see through to the end except on someone else's You-Tube videos.  The only chance you have to win me back is if you tell the truth about what happened and convince me that it will never be repeated.   We ran out of time and stuck a crapping ending on at the last second;  we chose not to show the ending so we can sell more DLC; we were forced end it this way by some corporate executive, etc.   If you stick by the story that the writers who wrote such wonderful characters and such a rich storyline for 99.9% of this franchise are happy with the way this franchise ended - I will never be able to trust a BioWare product again.

[Jdude384]

DanFu wrote...

     The more time that passes, the more upset I've become with the ending to this once wonderful franchise.  I played ME1 multiple times to see the different options and then when ME2 came out, I played ME1 over again to create different import scenarios.  I also played through ME2 multiple times to setup different imports for ME3.  I was looking forward to replaying ME1 & ME2 all over again to setup the "perfect" import for ME3, but I find that I have no interest in playing through ME3 multiple times, much less the entire series, because the ending was so poorly written. 

      The ending comes out of nowhere, doesn't make any sense, and none of your prior choices have any impact on the ending.  I know you have said it was an artistic decision to let players come up with their own endings, but that's just a cop out.  We buy art to appreciate the artist's vision.  We don't buy art to insert our own vision.  Yes, its an interactive game, so the players have an impact on the ending - but you didn't deliver.   I've heard about the extended cut DLC, but if you are not going to
"change", the ending, I don't see how that will help.  Why is a
god-child living in the Citadel?  There's no reason for the events in
ME1 if the master of the Reapers was always in control of the Citadel. 
Why is it impossible for synthetics and organics to co-exist? Shepard was able to accomplish it twice with the Geth and with EDI.  How is it
possible to instantly destroy all synthetic life or merge all organic
life with synthetic life?  Your ending is so flawed that there is no way
of fixing it short of a time machine.

      You got me to pre-order the collector's edition of ME3 but I'm am so disappointed with how you ended this franchise that I am not sure BioWare can win me back as a customer.  It's not only the poorly written ending, but also the decision to require multi-player to get the "best" ending.  I am only interested in single player games and there is no way to get a 5000 score even with the added content included in the CE.   I've got a ME2 romance with Tali that I don't think I'll ever see through to the end except on someone else's You-Tube videos.  The only chance you have to win me back is if you tell the truth about what happened and convince me that it will never be repeated.   We ran out of time and stuck a crapping ending on at the last second;  we chose not to show the ending so we can sell more DLC; we were forced end it this way by some corporate executive, etc.   If you stick by the story that the writers who wrote such wonderful characters and such a rich storyline for 99.9% of this franchise are happy with the way this franchise ended - I will never be able to trust a BioWare product again.

Lovely post and great thoughts, truly. I agree with every point. Bioware got me hooked onto the series with a very generous offer when they gave ME2 away to DA2 players. I tried it, liked it a lot, and when ME3 came out I jumped right at it. Partway through I got interested in the -whole- Mass Effect experience, going back and purchasing the original to play it through and move through 2 another time to shift into 3.

It's absolutely no wonder the game received such high praise, as Mister Hudson cared to address us with in his last post regarding the ending. The story is deep, involved, everying a real RPG fan adores. There's details and links and things that you kept bringing up to remind and reward people for their dedication to the series. Little things, mind you. The little things do add up, though, and brought a smile to my face every time I remembered something from a previous game. The combat is fluid, tactical, intense, unique, thoroughly enjoyable at all skill and difficulty levels. The diversity of weapons, powers, squad combinations, everything added up. I don't think the team needs a lesson in how to design a game; you hit the nail on the head.

But.

That doesn't make it 'Okay' to- as someone mentioned just a few posts ago- end a series with a whimper, not a bang. Surely many of you disagree. After all the hard work and positive feedback, why would you want to see our point of view? You have to think about who you're catering to. Of course you love games, not a lot of people design them for the money and nothing else, but you can't just block out those who may not exactly agree with your likes and your preferences. Should a dramatic and sad martyr ending be available? Sure, heck yeah, that's fine. Should another be available, though? Absolutely. If you want a good example I'm sure a lot of people have played Fallout 3. The wanderer from 101 -can- die, can be a martyr if you want after his long journey. But you have another choice, he/she can keep going.

"
We always intended that the scale of the conflict and the underlying theme of sacrifice would lead to a bittersweet ending—to do otherwise would betray the agonizing decisions Shepard had to make along the way. " Quoting Mister Hudson, here. I just wanted to comment further on it. Doesn't the massive loss of life, destruction of worlds and ruining of cities make it bittersweet enough? I like -very- dark chocolate but even I have my limits. Earth is in ruins, as is Palaven and Thessia. The number of soldiers, ships, people slain by the Reapers reminds us of the immense cost at every turn. Frankly, it wasn't necessary to slaughter Commander Shephard to drive that home. It pushed it a little too far, like everything you fought for didn't even matter. I felt the "decisions Shephard had to make along the way." no longer mattered. What's the point of impacting the galaxy if my character is no longer there to be a part of it? Like I said, not -everyone- cares for a martyr. From the size of this thread, it seems most don't. Not in this situation at least.

Now I'd like to address some of the major plot issues that a lot of people seem upset with- myself included. God child; why a child? Why some god? Every race in ME had a unique religion, does this mean they're all wrong and that the true power of the universe is some anti-organic 'thing'? When I thought more on it I actually found my own reason to his representation as a child- specifically the one that died, that haunted Shephard's dreams. Clearly that memory and particular image was what he most closely attributed to the Reapers and their destruction. If this god represented them, -was- them, then perhaps it was Shephard's own feelings on it that made this image of a child like the one on Earth, from his dreams. Just a thought, maybe it was some random coincidence; if so, I like my version better. More thought to it. But more importantly his logic for -why- the Reapers exist is the killing point. "Sythentics will kill all organics, so I made sythentics to harvest organics so they may live on as sythentics." <<<Perfect example of circular logic. It's like this all-powerful, omni-potent force can't comprehend organics. If sythentics would wipe out all organics, why do some still exist? Doesn't that mean he's acting on the -idea- that it would happen? Preemptively murdering everything for fear of what they -might- do? And why doesn't he just wait and see? Allow the 'cycle' to prove whether they can or cannot exist with sythentics.

Plus, the mass relays and Citadel that propelled civilization forward to the point he wanted them to (where they could begin making sythentics at some point perhaps) were created by the Reapers; by him. It. In that case, it seems like he wants them to destroy themselves with sythentics. Or is it just a lie, like they've established before with Sovereign? That the Reapers helped civilization advance to that point -so- they could harvest their bodies and technology. A far more solid theory, when put in direct comparison.

At every point in the conversation with the god child, I'm sitting there -begging- for him to make me understand his logic. But he can't, he doesn't even try; he just says Shephard is incapable of comprehending and leaves it there. What that screams to a lot of people, is "You're too dumb to get it so just smile and nod". On a game built around in-depth lore that's a -bit- of a cut corner.

Another problem is why Shephard would- willingly- destroy all the mass relays. But wait, didn't they say the destruction of a mass relay would annhilate an entire star system? And wouldn't that mean every ship would be permanently stranded, eventually running out of supplies and dying? (Like the Victory Fleet, for example. Except the Geth maybe) I don't see any version of Commander Shephard obliterating trillions of lives in a matter of seconds when his/her goal is to save the galaxy. Tad counterproductive, don't you think?

Then we move to the Normandy running from a mass relay explosion. Remind me when and how Joker managed to pick up your squad from Earth, in the middle of a battle he's trying to fight for the galaxy, and then managed to jump into a mass relay AT THE PRECISE TIME Shephard activates the Crucible. If that was part of the ending I surely must've missed it. But it wasn't, was it? Breaking every character in the game to accomplish that scene so there's something resembling a cliffhanger is -not- how you design a cliffhanger. They should at least make sense, even if partial sense. That doesn't make any, unfortunately. Joker was fighting with Sword Fleet, battling Reaper forces on the Normandy. It's doubtful he had any idea where on the ground Shephard's squad was; not that he really had time to go pick them up. Or a means, either, as their shuttle pilot was grounded and I don't think they'd have immediate access to any of Hammer's other shuttles while on the ground, fighting alongside the remaining forces; or dying, I don't know. That wasn't very clear. Add that list of facts to the character's you designed who'd probably -never- do that when everything was on the line, and it makes Joker and the crew running away completely unfeasible.

I truly hope and pray that Bioware's Mass Effect team is going to do something, and realizes that telling gamers to 'Shut up'...? I heard that from a friend, one who's rarely misinformed. But that isn't how you go about dealing with this sort of feedback.  You have jobs and make games because people buy them. When those people aren't happy you need to do something- that isn't throwing a slightly glitchy multi-player DLC back at us for free. Was it neat? Sure, I liked the new maps. classes I'm iffy on, but some people like them so it's a plus I guess but that doesn't address the issue. You have to think of it another way. Say you're the chefs for a restaurant, and your customer sends back a meal; they're not satisfied. Telling them to shut up and like what they got isn't a great way to handle the situation. You have to give them something else, another option they might enjoy. Should it be free? Maybe, people aren't unreasonable we realize that things take time, and you're not working for free yourselves so asking them to pay for another meal is rather understandable. I would.

What's so unreasonable about releasing another ending option? What's so impossible about it? You designed a game that got incredible reviews, was insanely popular, but there is an overwhelming number of people who disliked one VERY important part of it. Shouldn't you be concerned with their satisfaction? As a business, you certainly should. As people, you certainly should.

Thank you if you read all this, I can be long-winded. I hope you take this feedback and build on it, if others back the topics I brought up. Fixing this mess isn't impossible, Bioware. Just swallow a little pride like everyone else once in a while.

[AmstradHero]

noivoieidoi wrote...
Still beyond our reach? Let’s try another example: this light bulb (mine, I own it) is my solution to your corner’s darkness. Does this make me the creator of the light bulb? Somebody invented it, some factory made it and so on; I bought it at Home Depot. See it now?

On the bright side, we began to understand some differences though, judging by the way we try to bury the changes in our discourse under a great deal of nonsense, isn’t it? (Now we talk about ‘implied’ instead of ‘directly stated as true’, ‘misleads’ instead of ‘lies’). Good. Once we fully understood it all, we can deepen our knowledge by putting things in different contexts so we can see how the implications may differ under various circumstances. But you need to work with me here, OK? Don’t be afraid, I’ll hold your hand...

"Our reach?" "We begin to understand"... "You need to work with me here". Spare me your useless condescension when you apparently can't even master the English language.

Misleading is exactly the same as lying when it comes to an apparently omniscient being introduced in the final 5 minutes of the game. No matter how you spin it, the Catalyst's words don't hold up to scrutiny. Your light bulb argument is so utterly ridiculous that it's impossible to use logic to refute it. It's like arguing against someone saying "shovels are a type of food because you can put one in your mouth."


You want hand-holding? Here, I'll give it to you.

Here's a simple question that serves to highlight the idiocy of the ending. Answer me this:

Are the Reapers synthetic or organic?


If they're synthetic then how do they "store organic life in Reaper form"? They don't store it in some little test tube, because people just get ground up into paste to make Reapers. Reapers consume organic matter in their creation. But the Catalyst insists they retain this organic matter. So surely they must be organic.

Or perhaps they are organic? In which case, how come they refer to themselves as machines? How come they can be used to upgrade the Geth? They must be synthetic.

Wait! Maybe the Reapers are both organic and synthetic. A kind of... wait... synthesis, if you will. Wait, that can't be true, because the Catalyst insists that synthesis is a new option that Shepard has only just made it realise is possible. So they can't be.

Which is it?

Regardless of your answer, compare it to the Catalyst's assertion that synthetics will always kill organics.

If the Reapers are synthetics, then the Catalyst's assertion is false. The Reapers are synthetic, and they don't kill ALL organics. Them killing organics is just a self-fulfilling prophecy, which undermines the whole argument.

If the Reapers are organics, well, that disproves the theory too, because nothing comes along to kill them. There are no synthetics killing organics. So synthetics won't always kill organics.

Simply put, no matter which way you look at it, the entire premise of the ending is undermined by the ending itself.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 25 avril 2012 - 07:47 .

[Chrislo1990]

Brilliant analysis ArmisradHero just freaking brilliant! If only you could say that to Casey and Mac in person. I would love to see how their artistic integrity argument would hold against that!

[Aeschylus08]

The ending virtually wrote off the 20ish hours spent completing ME3 and the 5 years playing/waiting for ME series.

Should of just let Saren win and be like "screw you guys, I'm going home"

[Enya_Cousland]

Aeschylus08 wrote...

The ending virtually wrote off the 20ish hours spent completing ME3 and the 5 years playing/waiting for ME series.

Should of just let Saren win and be like "screw you guys, I'm going home"

alas, You are right.

[ghost9191]

choices seemed close to the ones at the end of mass effect 2(besides synthesis) you either control the technology betraying the lives that were lost trying to destroy the reapers (and coincidence that everyone that tried to do so turned out to be indoctrinated) or you well destroy them. which if destroying them didn't cost the geth and edi i think that is a given,

but why not just give us a option to sit back and watch the fleet do the best they can, in the codex it even says the reapers could be beat conventionally with the right tactics. I personally think people would prefer that over having their dna forcibly merged with synthetics destroying whatever their species once was and screwing up the whole diversity thing. or drop a paragon/renegade on that starchild and get him to just shut down the reapers, convince him to look up and see the geth and quarians fighting alongside eachother. Which in my opinion disproves his logic that the created will always rebell against their creators.

[khardrueth]

Having had to wait for a new PC to arrive before I could play ME3, I'd had plenty time to read all about the endings before finally completing the game myself last night. Despite being prepared for it I still felt pretty disappointed in those last 10 minutes.

I have no problem with the basic three options of Destroy, Control or Synthesis, but I would have preferred if you were only presented with the options by some use of your War Assets.

For example you only get the chance to control the Reapers if you successfully recruited the Geth to your cause and then let millions of networked Geth analyse Henry Lawson's research from Horizon. Once Shepard makes it to the Citadel she/he uses the power of the Crucible to allow the Geth to 'hack' the Reapers and gain control.

That makes actual use of one of your allies as something other than cannon fodder and shows the massive impact of actually successfully ending the synthetic/organic conflict that weakened previous cycles.
The Geth hardware may not be as advanced as the Reapers, but the Reapers are carrying out their millions of years old programming whereas the Geth have already evolved beyond their Quarian programming and as seen with Legion they are acheiving true sentience by the end of the game. In all the cycles of destruction the Reapers have never had to face a united force where Synthetics and Organics have chosen to stand side by side have they?

I've only really skimmed this thread, but there's some quality posts in there, so I'm sure I'll read some far better possibilities already posted.

[Voodoo-j]

xjmz250 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Voodoo-j wrote...

Honestly, the Indoctrination Theory, makes me almost as upset as the ending that is currently in place. The only difference is it make more sense. Who wants to play a game that gives you choices to make, only to find out they were not your choices? If this is the last ME with Shepard, they would need to add so much more to the game for when you are brought out of it. I think too many of us are desperate for a decent ending, we are accepting sub par as well.

That is the main problem with Indoctrination Theory.  It tries to make sense of the crap we've been given, but in and of itself does not create a satisfying ending.  In fact, it isn't an ending at all, because if you make a choice under Indoctrination, what did you just do?  If you are weak enough to have been forced to kill Anderson, a very real, up close and personal killing of someone you cared about, what would you have done to nameless, faceless beings under Indoctrination?  And how can it be believable that Anderson's death was not real, but that the Reapers would allow you to get that close to their "off" button, even under Indoctrination.  There were many chances to kill you.  And neither choice that you are given is particularly good for them.  They seem to enjoy killing, so being sent away isn't satisfactory to them, destruction certainly isn't.  So these can't be real choices if Indoctrination is true.

So, when Shepard wakes up fron Indoctrination if that theory is correct, what point are you then back at in the game?

The point you would be returned to is immediately after shepard gets blasted by harbinger. Also that means Anderson wasnt shot by you because that was all inside shepards mind. Hope it helps a little bit :/ (sorry for the half assed answer but im a bit sleepy xD)

A few points -
If your indoctrinated, how do we know anything after that is not a dream as well?
Also if your indoctrinated why would you have any choice all along?