23455 réponses à ce sujet

[daveyeisley]

I am concerned, personally, that the endings as presented.... and possibly even after they are "clarified" by the extended cut DLC, do not tell the story that I wanted to experience.

In the case of other mediums, like a book, for example, if one purchases a book from an unknown author and is not satisfied, they may avoid that author in the future.

If the advertising blurbs and author's foreward for said book also imply the book will be "an amazingly deep and satisying read", then the person will most likely feel they were mislead after they finish it, and be upset as a result.

Now, if that book is not from an unknown author, but rather is the third and final installment of a trilogy, and the purchaser has come to respect and admire the vision and storytelling ability of the author based on their affection for the first two installments... they will naturally develop expectations. Those expectations will lead to anticipation for, and an all-but-guaranteed purchase of the final installment

This would be further solidified by the author making public statements about the final installment that bill it as being the answer to those expectations, implying that due care and consideration was being given to satisfying the audience in the conclusion of the story.

When a large portion of the audience responds by showing they are not satisfied, and explaining why in specific detail, it would seem to indicate that the story somehow deviated in a very significant fashion from the expectations of a majority of its audience.

This begs the question of how a story told by the same author could be well received through the first two installments and even most of the last, only to be undone in this portion of the audience's mind by the author's choices for the conclusion. How could this happen? Especially considering the afore-mentioned public statements that would seem to have confirmed that the audience's expectations were being taken into heavy account in the crafting of this final installment?

If the author were to respond that they would publish a "supplement" to "clarify" the story's conclusion for their fans, it would seem to imply that the author believes the audience has "missed" something. This would potentially resolve dissatisfaction for those in the audience who were confused, or felt the conclusion was "incomplete".

If the author were to respond by offering a new release with a different conclusion, it would seem to imply they were admitting that they had perhaps made mistakes in choosing how to conclude the story. It could also mean that while their vision of the conclusion was not popular, they acknowledge that the audience is not satisfied and hence, they have failed to entertain effectively, and are attempting to make up for it.

While I respect the author who chooses the former method of resolution, I would be more likely to remain a loyal part of the audience of the latter author. Call it "catering to whiners", "caving in to entitled nerds", or whatever you wish.... but I know that the latter author actually prioritizes my satisfaction with his offering over his "artistic vision". Not to say his artistic vision is not important, but rather that he is willing to be flexible to satisfy expectations.

In other words, he may love his artistic vision, but if he believes, or discovers, that his audience does not appreciate it, he respects their investment in him, and allows that perhaps the original vision he had may not be as popular with his audience as some of the other ways he might have chosen to conclude the story. That his audience came to expect things more along the lines of those other possible outcomes, and is willing to explore those other possibilities to deliver something that remains true and consistent with his intent, but satisfies the audience at the same time.

I would gladly pay another $60 for Mass Effect 3.5 if it delivered on the conclusions that were stated Mass Effect 3 would provide. The problem is, after Mass Effect 3 didn't deliver what I was looking for, and the author has chosen the former method of resolution rather than the latter, I now find it hard to credit any claims they might make regarding their desire to provide the kind of story I want to experience.

If the extended cut were provided at a cost to me, I would wash my hands completely, but thankfully, it will be free. I hold some modicum of hope, but also deep concern, that the story I felt I was experiencing from the first two games (and the reason I anticipated and pre-ordered the third) and most of the last is being supplanted by a different story - one that, if its message had been made clear before I made my purchase, I would have steered clear of, because I do not find it entertaining or satisfying.

[Flubberlub]

The ending needs fixing and additional endings
No plot holes please. Its too good a series to be ruined by little things

[Voodoo-j]

Ok I see where this is coming from.. 2 different sets of dialogue

Depending on how you answer this, depends on how it explains the destroy option.

We don't want to be preserved!
You'll never understand.


You can wipe out all synthetic life if you want.
Including the geth.

[Voodoo-j]

So it does consider the Geth and if part of Shepard is synthetic, it highly likely EDI is as well.

[Voodoo-j]

Now.. something else It specifically states, using the Catalyst will destroy all the Mass Relays.

Now maybe there is still some unknown key to getting specific dialogue where things are changed.
Perhaps the dialogue that doesn't include the Geth being destroyed is an ending where the Geth are not considered synthetic.

Maybe there is more to pick apart, maybe some hidden ending. Maybe not.
More stuff to pick apart.

[daveyeisley]

I believe the Catalyst leaves out his statement of "including the Geth" if the player's Shepard had chosen to allow the Quarians to destroy the Geth.

If Shepard made peace bewteen the Quarians and Geth, or if he let the Geth destroy the Quarians, then that line is spoken by the Catalyst, I believe.

[claudio]

every choice = destruction of Mass relays = obliteration of all star sistems = annihilation of all life (both organic and inorganic)...even if you choose the blue one.....

It doesn't make any sense = Indoctrination thoey is correct ('cause is the only way possible) = if you choose destruction + 100% galactic reaction = Shepard wake up from Arbringer mind control = then Reapers can pray their gods!

[sbricca]

I dont understand the part where the kid says: "The fact you are standing here, the first organic ever, proves it (you dont need hope), but is also proves my solution wont work anymore" 

Shepard is here because the child brought him there with the elevator..and what proves that? Or here in the citadel?
This proves that this cycle deserves to be saved?why?


To back in theme...i think if you choose "destruction" EDI and geth should be dead..i dont see EDI out of normandy with this ending, but with synthetic i do, with control i dont know, never choose that, it's to much opposite with Shepard
But Shepard should be dead too.... 

Modifié par sbricca, 04 mai 2012 - 11:13 .

[Voodoo-j]

daveyeisley wrote...

I believe the Catalyst leaves out his statement of "including the Geth" if the player's Shepard had chosen to allow the Quarians to destroy the Geth.

If Shepard made peace bewteen the Quarians and Geth, or if he let the Geth destroy the Quarians, then that line is spoken by the Catalyst, I believe.

Yeah I bet you are correct, so many videos out there, it's hard to tell for sure unless you test it yourself.
But that makes more sense.

[sbricca]

daveyeisley wrote...

I believe the Catalyst leaves out his statement of "including the Geth" if the player's Shepard had chosen to allow the Quarians to destroy the Geth.

If Shepard made peace bewteen the Quarians and Geth, or if he let the Geth destroy the Quarians, then that line is spoken by the Catalyst, I believe.

sorry read wrong, now im going  to check it

I made peace with quarian and geth and the catalyst says "including geth"

Modifié par sbricca, 04 mai 2012 - 11:25 .

[Archonsg]

Voodoo-j wrote...

Ok I see where this is coming from.. 2 different sets of dialogue

Depending on how you answer this, depends on how it explains the destroy option.

We don't want to be preserved!
You'll never understand.


You can wipe out all synthetic life if you want.
Including the geth.

Note: Depending on EMS, space-child also differs on what it says, from "...will be destroyed, including most of the technology you rely on..." to " ...even you, are part synthetic..."

Why and how EMS has a bearing I do not understand but, apparently what SC says will determine how much damage earth suffers and if Shepard has a chance to live. Assuming of course on how they'll explain Shepard's transportation to the ground amongst the rubble in London.

But EDI, and the Geth are still presumably removed. Now, if I was forced to choose 1 of these 3 endings, why then can't the Control option allow me to destroy the Reapers, cause their core to go critical and blow up or simply fly them into the sun? Wouldn't this negate the 3rd choice and actually save both the Geth and EDI? We could even have the reapers tow the Citadel into the sun, thus removing SC and the Crucible from future ME games if that was the intention of the writers for the current ending.

[RMP _]

Bioware, I hope you're reading this, you've got some major explaining to do with that Normandy scene!

1. Why is it flying off leaving in the first place? There's a battle going on. They know Shepard made it to the Citadel (since Hacket told him the Crucible wasn't firing.)
If they saw the crucible finally start to do something, they're going to assume it's finally going to let loose a can of whoop-ass on the reapers.

2. How is it every squad member, including the ones that were with you on the final mission, were totally OK. If they were alive at all, they'd be in Shepard's state, badly wounded, barely walking. Look how long it took Ashley to recover from EVA's attack; weeks in a hospital bed. But they walk out after the crash landing without a scratch. If by some miracle they weren't badly injured, why didn't they get to Shepard or go up the beam?

3. Why are they aboard the Normandy in the first place? If the Normandy left the space battle to check on Shepard after Harbinger's attack, they would have found Shepard and got him. Apparently, they got his two squad mates...

4. Again, if Normandy is at the beam after Harbinger leaves, why not put let Shepard's companions out so they could go up the unguarded beam?

5. Why did the wave (regardless of color) disable the Normandy? The catalyst didn't mention it would disable ships. Does that mean every ship in the entire galaxy crash land or end up dead in space?

Everything after Harbinger's attack is weird (and the dream theory fits best I think) but more than any of it, the Normandy scene is the worst, it makes no sense at all. I expect the EC to completely answer these questions.

Modifié par RMP _, 05 mai 2012 - 12:15 .

[chomicze]

For me, every possible explanation just brings more questions. It's sort of "picking what suits you" ending. And it's bad for that well organised and build up universe. Part of us will believe that AI are synthetics and EDI should be dead in destroy ending, others don't. Ones believe that synthesis is the best option because it brings peace forever, others say that's bs and asks how it even works. Those who played Arrival remember that when Mass Relay is destroyed, it destroys whole system, but BioWare employees says it doesn't (why? i don't have a goddamn idea).
I hope that EC will bring answers, because this is uncomplete, and I really care little about having happy ending, though it will be fun to have possibility to achieve such. For now, after +100 hours gameplay, I know less than at beginning...

[Archonsg]

@chomicze

I think you are referring to Patrick Weekes, correct me if I am wrong.

As I understand it, he mentioned that the Relays weren't destroyed, that they DIDN'T BLOW UP, but overloaded and shut down, he also mentioned that we were supposed to have seen our war assets in action, you know Krogan charging reaper Rachni, combined Turian, Human, Salarian and yes, Batarian forces in close quarter combat with Asari and Turian air support taking out Banshees.

So ... My guess is that things were changed, and he didn't see, till later.

The ending we got, was made more as "visual" candy really. Relays exploding, shockwave Normandy chase scene, Companions, especially your Love Interest on board and crash landing on a "paradise planet" all speaks of getting Holywood action type scenes in without a care towards the lore and story's integrity.

I do feel sorry for the writers now tasked to give the ending some semblance of logic and to try to fill in the holes. Would be better to just retcon the whole thing, but since that statement that there will be no new endings, I just don't see how they can truly clarify it all without asking the player for further suspension of disbelief.

Modifié par Archonsg, 05 mai 2012 - 02:37 .

[Johnend]

Sometimes there have been films like this. I can't remember the name of the one I'm thinking about but it involved some hit men in Britain. The ending, which I won't divulge (not because it would spoil the story but because it is son convoluted and non-sensical that it would require an entire new forum for it). But that, in a way is my point. There was all this great story behind the film and the characters were dark and full of emotion.It led you on a roller coaster ride and then at the end of the film said roller coaster ran out of track and you were left wondering what the hell was the point in watching this piece of garbage.

Personally, I don't think the Mass Effect 3 ending falls into this category. It does, however, make you sit there and think? WHAT!? Now I haven't played the first two games, and having played this one I will definitely be buying Mass Effect 2 (I'm on PS3 so ME1 won't be an option). I really enjoyed the game and BioWare obviously have a knack for writing in depth emotionally driven scripts and stories. For someone who had never played any of the previous games it was, I suppose, not such a bad ending, but even I was left wanting a little more clarification. Indoctrination seems like a viable option but sometimes developers (including film developers) need to realise that debate will ensue if the target audience is not "led down the garden path" as it were.

Yes, I do believe in lively debate and discussion but this could have been achieved with the endings being slightly more varied and allowing players to discuss and debate the merits of playing in a certain way. I am now on my second play through. I chose synthesis the first time around and it remains to be seen whether the different options will leave me as baffled as that option. Perhaps the DLC in the summer will shed a bit of light on the situation. Who knows? Maybe Mass Effect 4 will eventually come out and then we will see how many of us EA have indoctrinated....

[chomicze]

@Archonsg

Both Patrick Weekes and Jessica Merizan said, that exploding Mass Relays do not cause systems destruction (so why it was like this in Arrival? Who knows...). Also reading through tweets, there was a statement, that noone starves to death (which keep me wondering, considering lack of dextro food on earth, and lack of FTL technology on most of quarian ships). Guess if you have high enough EMS you will be seeing "happy" extended ending, that will be more focused on characters that we cared about, and in destroy option, on yourself.

I also feel like all the good writing, that I've encountered through these three games suddenly vanished for the last 10 minutes. It makes me sad, and I start to believe, that this ending wasn't written and approved by whole squad, but just one or two executives to leave door open for next franchise.

[3DandBeyond]

Voodoo-j wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Here is speculation I can see as a possibility, but again it is full of holes. But, it's just to show that everyone creates a lot of "maybes".

The creator will always rebel (destroy) the creator. We think the kid, whoever he really is, created the reapers. Perhaps, it is impossible for him to destroy the reapers and he is acting out of fear of them. Maybe, the advent of Sovereign and then Harbinger, is the foretelling of his own doom, but he has no power himself to act against them.

Maybe, he needed the Crucible to create the option to destroy them. And, just maybe he needs you to make it work-you have to do it. It may also be a reason he specifically had them target advanced organics-those who would fight back, in the hopes they would figure it all out and help him avoid his own annihilation. Maybe. He said he needed Shepard to make it work (paraphrasing). And his statements may have only been directed at Shepard to try and explain what was happening to him. Kind of like the Elcor who have to explain their emotions or in Star Trek, the Next Generation-there was that race of people that spoke in stories to explain things.

Ok so it states it will destroy all synthetic life the open question of does that affect Geth/Edi/Shepard.
So another big Huh to throw into that.. 

"So the reapers will be destroyed"
"Yes"
"But the peace will not last, soon your children will create synthetics"  

So this bring up a question that I havn't seen addressed yet : Geth/AI are not considerd synthetics?
If Shepard is part sythentic how are Geth/AI not synthetic?

I was just showing I could make up stuff is all.  In my made up scenario, the kid doesn't care about anything but himself-the creator.  Organic beings are a means to an end.  I actually should have added several smiley faces, because I didn't mean this seriously at all.

[3DandBeyond]

@daveyeisley,

All that you have said is quite true.  There are expectations based upon previous volumes in a series that buyers have a "right" to well, expect.  This is furthered by explicit promises made.

I liken it to a Heavy Metal rock group that announces to its fans that their next release is going to blow them away and be their best yet.  It is going to be just what they've waited for.  People stand in line, pre-order it, and when they get it, it's a collection of spoken nursery rhymes.  You venture away from the genre (ME was SF and in the end became fantasy as someone else put it) and you have lied to your fans.

But, beyond that, the new release could be just the greatest collection of nursery rhymes ever sold, but what good is it if the only people that listen to it are the ones that made it?  If a tree falls in a forest and there's no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?  If an artist creates art, but no one's there to view it, is it art?

We all understood the implication of using words like clarify (it was over our heads-we didn't "get" the message), artistic (same thing), and so on.

I don't think truly they meant them that way, but I think all too often people just talk and don't consider the weight of their words.

I see it happen all over the place-but it stands out here.  The statements by the development team shouldn't even have been statements, but rather questions-to the fans.  What do you find wrong with it?  And then state what their vision was-even if just briefly.  The best sentence is a question especially when there's disagreement.

[Gothic Saint]

The problem is the writers didn't write the ending. It was Casey hudson and Mac walters. They decided to choose the ending themselves. The problem is Casey Hudson is a smart guy, So smart that he actualy thinks fans are mad with the ending because they don't understand it, Because he's so smart..... Really Casey? I understood what you were doing as soon as I saw the 3 arbitrary decisions from the energy kid AI thing. You were trying to amaze me with the idea that reapers have been doing this for a very long time. Millions of years in fact. Wow. I'm so amazed.... But the problem with that is that you expect me to care about the ME universe more than Shep and crew. I could care less about it. I wanted to save Shep! I wanted to see my 3 games worth of choices make a massive impact on what ending I saw. But no. Instead we get this OTHER ending Casey hudson and Mac walters thought would make us happy.... We saved the galaxy. Yay... But what happened to ANYBODY I cared about? Why why why? How how how? wtf wtf wtf? That is what this ending leaves me asking myself. I've been watching bioware respond to this and have not been pleased. Here is an example:

"Casey, What are your thoughts on the reaction to the game’s endings?"

I didn’t want the game to be forgettable, and even right down to the sort of polarizing reaction that the ends have had with people–debating what the endings mean and what’s going to happen next, and what situation are the characters left in. That to me is part of what’s exciting about this story. There has always been a little bit of mystery there and a little bit of interpretation, and it’s a story that people can talk about after the fact.

You would not be alone in thinking that Hudson’s answer doesn’t actually address the controversy in any significant way, nor does it accurately characterize the substance of criticism. But it is at least an early, tepid response. Whether further examination of the issue will occur is not clear. Hudson’s next response seems to indicate not:

"How closely do you keep track of the fan reaction when it comes to that kind of stuff?"

"Oh, we pay very close attention to it. It’s very important to us and we will always listen to feedback, interpret it and try and do the right thing by our fans. That’s why if you look at Mass Effect 2 we knew that people wanted to spend more time with a character like Liara, and so we created an ongoing storyline with her as part of the comics and then built it into the DLC stuff, and we’re always listening to fans. We have some really great multiplayer content and some really great single-player content coming over the air, and their feedback will become part of how we design that."

Sorry Casey, You just don't get it.... I respect your "Artistic Vision" but you must understand if I respect your "Artistic Vision" than you must respect my choice to "Never invest time and/or money into anymore of your "Art" I WAS a massive fan. Now I'm just gonna download your games via bitTorrent Congrats Casey you have cost bioware more fans than you know. Dragon Age3 being made HA! I wonder how many fans expect bioware to wrap the ending up well in your next trilogy. pffft.

Rant Over.. Thanks for reading

Modifié par Gothic Saint, 05 mai 2012 - 04:43 .

[UKillMeLongTime]

Been a while since i chimed in on the ending but after beating it again this week it still SUCKS

[daveyeisley]

I really just want one of two things. Either an acceptable (to me) explanation of why the choices were made to end the game this way (I am not sure there is such a thing, at least not until I actually hear it), or for the shot-callers to admit the endings didn't live up to their statements and the standards set by the rest of the trilogy/change their minds about providing new and improved endings. For folks who cant download DLC, it wouldnt be the end of the world to pay the cost of a disc and shipping to have the new ending content sent to them.... not ideal, sure, but better than nothing.

As to how to make this financially workable, there has to be some way to make it work. In-game advertising is tough for sci-fi (and might not go over well in ME3), but some kind of alternative revenue mechanism must be possible that wouldn't impact the fans' wallets. Some kind of initative to sell X additional copies of the game by word of mouth, and if that goal is hit, then BW can put a development budget together...or something.

[Blackvista]

I’ve posted on here a number of times… adding vitriol and ideas in equal measure. It’s taken me a while to pin point why I’m so upset with this. I’ve seen movies with stupid endings, I’ve seen movies with depressing but intelligent endings… and I’ve never been this upset about them. When I beat ME3 for the first time, I was a dazed, (“what, that’s it?”)and I knew something was very wrong. But then, feeling that I was going to have to get used to the endings if I was to ever play the game again, I tried to rationalize them. I argued, to myself, that they made a certain thematic sense; I tried to explain to myself why Bioware felt compelled to produce this star child, destroy the relays, and crash the Normandy. I tried, I really did, but in the end, after reading and watching a ton of criticism, I decided that I was just kidding myself. The endings are awful (and there are so many excellent explanations on youtube or around the blogosphere that I won’t get into it). But even worse than this realization, was the second guessing of the rest of the game. I started to find faults and missed opportunities everywhere. I still like the game, but what’s driving this anger now is the sheer number of missed opportunities, coupled with Bioware’s unwillingness to properly address its shortfalls. Hiding behind “artistic integrity,” trying to spin the outrage off into a selling point(“hey… this game is ‘controversial!’”), and promising to “clarify” endings. Bioware is missing an incredible opportunity here. The public outcry has given them the perfect reason to justify (to their EA overlords) reworking parts of the game. They could dramatically improve the quality of their story telling, and link it more profoundly with gameplay… they could do so much if they weren’t too busy choking on pride… So if they continue their course, and their “clarification” doesn’t pull off a bloody miracle… well… Mass Effect is what introduced me to Bioware, and it seems that Mass Effect 3 will be where we part ways.

Modifié par Blackvista, 05 mai 2012 - 06:12 .

[daveyeisley]

Here is another thing that for whatever reason I haven't seen mentioned anywhere.... and even I have continually neglected to bring it up....

In the Destroy ending where you see "the Gasp" at the end.... am I the only one who sees there is no head on the body? Am I just blind? Am I not seeing where Shepard's head is? Before the rubble conceals the upper left corner of the screen, as the camera is panning, you see the spot at the neck of Shepard's armor and there is just empty space where the head should be.... no?

If I am not seeing the head, somebody please help me spot it..... and well, if its not there..... the only reason for "the Gasp" that I can think of is that Shepard's synthetic parts are sort of keeping his body alive.... and if that is true, by extension, perhaps the Geth and EDI have not been wiped out?

That last bit is speculation of course... and the fact that I even have to ask is maddening to me.... but really, I am confused about the 'missing head' more than 'the Gasp'.

Anyone have some input for me?

[Sir Fluffykins]

@daveyeisley: You don't see his head, it's behind some concrete. It's also the main reason behind the IT, saying it shows shepard alive in London just after being wounded by Harbinger.

Obvious reason, it's a vid so they cover the face so you don't notice custom face or gender

Modifié par Sir Fluffykins, 05 mai 2012 - 07:03 .

[daveyeisley]

My first thought was actually, "Where is Shep's head? Wait, it must be blocked by rubble..." but I have beaten the game 4 times now, and watched all the endings several times each on top of that.... and I am just not seeing any rubble blocking the head as the camera pans....

I agree with and understand the fact that it is a video segment and they might not have been able to show the custom face, etc .... but if there is rubble blocking Shep's head, I am not seeing it..... and I am looking closely on an HD TV....