831 réponses à ce sujet

[Kevin Lozandier]

Good point. I too felt that a little too much emphasis was given to Cerberus and the Illusive Man rather than the Reapers. You only talked to one Reaper throughout the entire game; which was entirely jarring to me considering it's quite clear to players that they are the main threat.

You don't even necessarily speak/argue with the Harbringer this game which is super odd considering the fact that it was hinted in ME2 as a possibility .

Finally, the entire game hinted that some of your choices are long-term as far as what their consequences are, but that's completely ignored with this ending...

[Cavalier66]

Thanks for taking the time to write this. It was very well thought out and explains a lot.

[Zoedoll]

This is a good post and you should feel good

[GodChildInTheMachine]

Very good read. In light of the Mass Effect 3: Final Hours information I'd say you've got it totally right.

The worst part isn't just that they violated story telling convention in ways that are detrimental to the plot and resolution, but that they did it intentionally.

I just have to strike this point home to everyone:

The Mass Effect 3 ending is an intentional attempt to evade making creative decisions about the resolution of the plot and to stir up controversy and speculation.

I too hope that it continues to backfire, as I don't take getting trolled for playing 150 hours of a developer's games very lightly.

[ElwingDorthonion]

That OP neatly expresses how I feel about the ending. That, and the bittersweet tone of it, and the rest of the story leading up to it. ME3's ending felt much like the ending to the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica, only it was executed poorly, tied up less ends, and raised far more issues (some of them brand new) than it answered. All I really know is that my FemShep sacrificed herself in an attempt to make the best out of what was presented to her in the shoehorned conclusion. I'm not actually certain what the outcome was, aside from that the Cycle was beaten (in the Synthesis ending I went for). And, even there, I have to go on faith.

[Uratxekatlitza]

Great post. You perfectly explain why the ending feels so incongruous.

[awpdevil]

I can't really add anything to what you already said Steel, so I will just say, thanks, good job, and I agree.

Edit: Maybe there is. In my opinion, it would have made more sense to wrap up things with the illusive man at the Cerberus base. Where Kai is the boss, and the illusive man is the resolution to that mission. Then instead of this kid that comes from no where - Harbinger, since he was the big guy from two. He was identifiable as the guy you were fighting after Sovereign, not the Citadel's creepy keeper.

It just seems ridiculous that after all this struggle, we meet someone we didn't even see coming the entire time, who allegedly runs the show, but allows people to live on the Citadel without a peep? I guess if you factor in the dreams you could see it coming through foreshadowing if you wanted nothing to make sense, but ya...

My mind is still trying to comprehend this stuff even after going through it twice, and nope, nothing...

Modifié par awpdevil, 16 mars 2012 - 12:44 .

[N7Raider]

SyxxByNyne wrote...

Fwiw, I haven't seen anyone claim that The Crucible is the deus ex machina of the game; the general implication is that The Catalyst - specifically the "starchild" representation of the Catalyst - is.

I don't see how the space brat could be a deus ex machina when he himself was not the solution to anything, he simply presents you with 1-3 options the crucible creates.  

[Doomhams]

yes

[Tovanus]

I disagree with the point about the Crucible not being a McGuffin or Deus Ex Machina.

The Crucible is never explained. They throw it in our faces that "we have no idea what this thing will do." When it finally gets used, we still have no idea why it did what it did, or why we get to interact with the Catalyst. It's a very, very unexplained plot point.

The Crucible is a deus ex machina. IF this story were the only Mass Effect story, I could agree with the point made that it is not. But this is the third game in a trilogy. They built up a threat for untold hours (depending on how long your playthroughs were of Mass Effect 1 and 2). Mass Effect 3 begins by saying, "Hey, you know that race of invaders that seems impossibly strong? We've discovered, at the start, the plans for a device that will grant us total victory. We have no idea what it does."  Had Mass Effect not been a trilogy, and this was some random stand-alone title, I think you would be right.

Someone else mentioned that people only refer to the Catalyst god-child as the Deus Ex Machina and not the crucible, but I felt like the use of the Deus Ex Machina was signalled with the introduction of the Crucible, because all dialogue indicated no one knew what it did AND that it would win the war that seemed impossible to win.

There should have been a huge story to discovering the plans for a device that could stop the Reapers, and there should have been an explanation as to why the Protheans BELIEVED it could stop them as you seek it. Instead, it was introduced with no foreshadowing (nothing in ME 1 or ME 2 indicated a single superweapon had been worked on by the Protheans that would win the war), then kicked to the side until the very end of the game (war assets assisting in its construction does not really develop backstory to it or any notion of what it will do), then when it is used in the end it still isn't explained. Instead, a literal "god from the machine" appears and ends the war.

Long story short: The sudden appearance in the third game of a trilogy of a super-weapon to immediately win the war with no explanation as to how or why is what indicts it as a deus ex machina. The fact that the game ends without explaining it is what convicts it.

Modifié par Tovanus, 16 mars 2012 - 12:49 .

[Meltemph]

Wow...I actually learned things from this. Bravo.

[raeting]

Very much agree with OP

[Relwyn]

@OP
Well written.

[phrizek]

Excellent post. Thank you for taking the time to write it up.

[Brahlis]

Excellent post.

[garf]

I am Comander Shepherd and this is my favourite post about my fate.

[MaskofSkin]

Thanks for posting!

[RavenWoodRCOM]

Good read

[Ares14916]

* Stands *

* Applauds *

* Sits *

* Stands and applauds again *

[Meltemph]

Hopefully this can stay where people can see it. This is probably the best mouthpiece to help everyone understand, why we don't like the ending.

[DeffFace]

Great explanation. I knew I didn't like the ending, but you've put the "Why" so clearly.

[zarnk567]

I approve this thread

[TitchIX]

Need more posts like this actually explaining why the ending was bad and how it has nothing to do with people wanting a super happy/solve all problems ending.

[Sparkky]

4. Nothing is gained by breaking convention and attempting to make the ending enigmatic or profound. Assuming this was the writers' goal, this is another failing. Some believe, myself included, that the writers' tried to use the jarring impact of an unconventional, imperfect ending to hammer home a message or theme (presumably: pre-destination, the uncontrollable nature of fate, and the individual's limited ability to impact the world). This, however, come at the cost of the story and the audience's pleasure, a cost that is far too high for the nature of storytelling.

I cannot agree with this more

[jerobolod]

That was an absolutely fantastic post. Thank you so much for taking the time to write it!