7052 réponses à ce sujet

[Atrocity]

I am rather sure most of the things I am about to type have been said at one point or other, but I won't let that stop me, if only to show that indeed a major part of the gamers feel the ending, as it is now, is inadequate in many ways.

Like many before, I'll start by stating that over 90% of the game was fantastic, from mechanics (Bioware actually got me to play multiplayer, and that is no small feat), to dialogue, and everything in between. The atmosphere was, right up until the ending, which I shall address later, breathtaking, reflecting in the best ways possible the situation in ME universe. Voice actors did amazing job, I wish more 'regular' actors (though I feel there is truth to what Keith David said, there is not voice acting and 'normal acting', only good acting and bad acting) could do half as good a job as the actors did in this game solely wth their voice.  
The sense of urgency and war was executed nicely, from the missions themselves to the snips of news one can hear when roaming around Citadel. All this served to create a strong feeling of me, the player, being inside this world.
I was touched by the plight of Palaven, I actually shed a solitary tear when Mordin died and was overjoyed to see all the 'small people' from earlier games. In short, I cared deeply for this world, and still do.

However, as good as the game was, or indeed, because the game was so good, I felt hollow when finally seeing how it all would end. Not only do I feel the ending is nonsensical, illogic and poor dramatically speaking in general, it also is not an ending to the story being told. It does not occur at the same universe as rest of the games even if it set there. Indeed, set, since I would never describe ME universe as the setting for it. Plotwise it has many holes in it, and I feel it not only breaks Shepards character, but that it has no place whatsoever in the game's lore.

Even bigger problem, for me and most, if not all, of the players dissappointed with the ending, is the fact the ending has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with out choices. And as we all know, Mass Effetcs have always been about the choices, and how they affect the game experience and indeed the very world they exist in. It throws them all out of the window, and even though someone could argue that 'the choice' we have at the end is indeed a player choice, I beg the differ. None of our earlier choices matter with these, not in reaching them, not after them, they are nothing to this ending. I feel the endings, and I must emphasize I am using the plural in my opinion very loosely here, are similar, nearly identical, and most importantly, each and every one of them fails to bring any reasonable closure, or closure at all, to otherwise a truly maginificent story arc. They actually manage quite the opposite: they kill any desire to play anything ME related ever again. Why should anyone be interested in investing their time, money and emotions to a thing which does not matter on any level in the end?

There has been talk that this ending is not, and has never been ment to be, the 'true' ending. I for one truly do wish that. I do not mind seeming a little foolish, if it means the series getting the ending it deserves, and the loyal gamers the epic pinnacle they deserve. I do not mind it in the slightest, if it means I can once again invest my time, money and emotions to a truly great game, to a great piece of art and to a fictive story, which has kept me hooked for the past 5 years.

Unfortunately I have little to no concrete suggestions (storywise) how to fix this, though what I have read about 'the indoctrination theory', has been close to what I consider good storytelling. However, I can give some general suggestions, which are for the most part also supported by the Retake Mass Effect 3 movement:
1) Make our choices count
2) Give us different endings, preferrably ranging from horrific to happiest possible
3) Give us closure, we need to know what become of the characters we know and care about

As from a completely personal and subjective perspective, I would like one of the endings to be a happy ending: as much people surviving as possible, Shepard united with his/her love interest, galaxy at peace for the time being and rebuilding. As I said, this is me, personal, petty and self-centered player speaking. The rational me aknowledges that this scenario might not be possible and it might not happen. I can live with that, if the ending is good, logical and in the spirit of the game otherwise. That is what I wish for most.

I appreciate you taking the time to read this message, and I hope this feedback will be some use.

[ThePasserby]

I'll keep it simple.

1. Shepard is an epic hero, not a tragic hero. Epic heroes have epic endings.

There is nothing that sets Shepard up as being fatally flawed or having committed a flawed act. Many of us, especially Paragon Shepards, play him as an epic hero. As such, the expectations that the player brings to the game is one that includes an epic ending, not one in which Shepard perishes in his bid to achieve what is at best a pyrrhic victory.

2. The ME series are games, and as games, players want to win.

Shepard single-handedly destroying the galactic economy and stranding the biggest armada ever assembled in the Sol system is not winning; it is a pyrrhic victory. In other words, he gave his life to secure a doubtful win.

3. Follow conventional story structure. You don't have to break away from it just to be "artistic"

It worked for ME1, didn't it? Keep to the structure:

i. The setting and introduce main characters.

ii. Rising action

iii. Climax

iv. Falling action

v. Resolution (<----- Not the right place to introduce new characters and plot devices)
 
4. Make players' choices matter. Don't negate them with an ending that drastically alters the galaxy and putting them in question

The quarian and geth peace is all for naught when they can't get back home, for example.

[aj2070]

with 160+ pages of responses, I will keep my comments brief since the spirit of them have been repeated ad nauseum. I want an ending that does not contain plot holes big enough to put Harbinger or Sovereign through. Most prominent hole that sticks out in my mind is where in the world is Joker going with the Normandy in the middle of the battle to save earth and how are characters I have with me in London magically transported to the Normandy? I would also like an ending that is consistent with your own fiction. It is an established "fact" in the Mass Effect universe that destroying a mass relay unleashes enough energy to wipe out the star system it is in (established in Arrival). In order for the universe to continue, the player has to make one of two assumptions; 1) the star child who was not perceptive enough to figure that organics may figure out in the end how to counter the cycle builds a fail-safe system for a contingency he did not by his own admission see coming, or 2) and this is feasible, the relay in the Bahak system was more powerful than a standard relay and the results of destroying a "standard" relay as they say, may vary. Either way leaves the player guessing as to what happens and effectively destroys the Mass Effect Universe either through galactic extinction or through destroying the very features that enable it to exist.

There are far deeper analysis available as to what I for one see as wrong with the "endings" as they exist so I will merely re-post the urls. Feel free to read.

A Logical Breakdown of Why the Mass Effect 3 Ending Makes No Sense
https://docs.google....s/preview?pli=1

Mass Effect 3 Ending Hatred 5 Reasons the Fans are Right
http://www.gamefront...-fans-are-right

Let me say I am not necessarily looking for a "happy" ending; if Bioware feels Shepard and or the galaxy as a whole should die in a flaming, screaming fit of futility, indulge yourselves. Please just follow your own fiction. Most importantly, honor what you have advertised from the inception of Mass Effect; honor our choices from the whole series.

Modifié par aj2070, 21 mars 2012 - 05:39 .

[Christianswe]

Hi bioware.
I really disliked the ending, like so many people out there. The game didn´t end, it just stopped.
Im not a nitpicker, or a winer. Usually there always are some fans who complain about stuff people do. And there is nothing wrong with either. It´s just that people are different, think different..
It´s just that in this case, regarding the ending to mass effect 3, there are so many people out there, that think the ending is lacking, to say the least. I think it´s hard to imagine this all going away, so i really hope that you add some things to the ending portion of the game. Im just saying, you would save fans, face and money. But, it´s not like i know anything about having a videogame company. : D I just want to point out that i care, i love the games you put out there. : D

Since some people also like the endings as they are, maybe you should add things to the ending portion. The whole earth mission. Add some scenes with the other races fighting to, your squadmates to, that would be cool. Just to show that war assets just aren´t numbers, add some scenes depending on what you gatherd, or haven´t. And maybe add something more with Harbringer, he was downplayed a lot in this game.

But i hope you could add conversation options to the dialog with the catalyst. That you can ask him questions. You can agree with him, but foremost, that you can disagree. Since the whole reaper planning uses circular logic, i does´t add up. That you could mention that you ended a 300 year war between synthetics and organics. And the whole thing with EDI to, show it that it is wrong. And being able to get the reapers to back of destroy themselves, since it is up to them to take a bet on life.

And maybe a renegade option, were you choose to control the reapers and dominate the galaxy?
Im a paragon myself so. : D So give the player more choice, to make his or her story different.
And add a good ending to, that would be great. Were sheperd lives, and retires with the money from the vids. And were the mass relays don´t explode, that would be great.

But most importantly, add things about events after the battle. The aftermath. Show your squadmates a bit, some soldiers on earth, a scene with the victory fleet. And then things around the galaxy, depending how you played. The geth and quarians building together on rannoch, and the geth helping them with their suits. The krogan on their new planet. The turians piceing together palven. Stuff like that. And some scenes with you squadmates, what they do after. Depending on what you did in your saga.

I often think about Dragon Age Origins, that ending was great. That ending had it all really. You could choose your own path as the grey warden, and the game, and the endings were different, depending on how you played, and what you chose. The keyword for mass effect, choice.

Now this is all my personal feelings about the ending of mass effect 3, though many other people out here feel the same way. There are also those who love/like the ending. There´s nothing wrong with that. Im not here to fight with other opinions.

Despite what we feel, we are all here for the same thing. The love we all have for the games. These charecters and worlds, that bioware has created. Well, that´s enough of my thoughts for now, i really hope someone from bioware reads this. I hope that you are able to fix the ending.
Add to it?? Please??

[lduraj]

All right, let's do it. I'm one of the people Ms. Merizan mentioned in this post, coming out of passive 90% to active 9% of players. Even wrote a couple of small posts to muster my courage Time for a (really) long post, hoping that at least anyone reads it

I have come through the whole series, including preparing a "perfect" save by playing through ME1 and ME2 with all the missions and all DLC. I loved ME1 for the great, innovative story. I was absolutely awed by the first talk with live Reaper, but what really, really moved was Vigil's tale. The story of the last Protheans, who sacrificed themselves to save the unknown races of the next cycle...though very sad, this always remained for me the top moment of all videogaming stories I experienced.
I also truly enjoyed ME2 for its "Wild West" atmosphere. I got the "what a big, diverse galaxy" feeling, and scouring it all from Citadel to Far Rim was really fun. Though the main story itself was not as appealing as in ME1, it didn't matter. The ending of ME2 may have lacked the same ingenuity, but it was a decent piece of work, and encouraged me to complete the game again. And again. And again...I'm not sure which ME game I enjoyed more. Tough choice

ME3, however, left me with drastically different feelings. "Mixed" is a good word. I share the general feeling of the community that while the game itself was excellent, the ending did a pretty good job of spoiling the joy.
Before engaging in criticism, let me justify the positives first. I liked the shape of the story: its pace, narrative and the significantly darker atmosphere. I approved of the elegant way the ME2 loose threads (especially the former squad) were introduced into the story. I liked the fact that my Shepard must have pushed for peace for both ME2 and ME3 to avoid the Geth/Quarian tragedy. It would be fine even if it couldn't be averted - the history of these two races is established through the series well enough for us to know that some grudges are just to hard to overcome. And I got some uncommon feeling after the Thessia mission - a pretty sad, desperate moment, when Kai Leng kicks Shepard's arse and seconds later all these helpful and brave asari are just brutally overrun. Though a bitter moment, I would name it the best of the game, especially if including the following Normandy interactions.

But the ending just crossed the line of bleakness. An invisible (and probably varying among different people) thin border between "bittersweet" and "just bitter". Shepard may choose between destroying Reapers (which includes a genocide - why did I bother for the geth peace...), controlling Reapers (which is for the whole game clearly stated as something inherently wrong) and synthesis (to me personally, it seemed a really weird and unappealing solution). And, in any case, Anderson is killed, the last squad (Ashley & Garrus, in my case) is apparently obliterated, the Hammer soldiers are brutally decimated. Forget that, the whole damn Citadel, millions of people, including some good supporting characters of the story, is wiped out without any comment or even acknowledgement (why did I bother helping the refugees, remind me please?) Shepard also dies (unless you commit a genocide AND play some multiplayer) - this alone would be justified, but combined with all the other things it gives me the feeling that, despite the victory, everything is lost and the Galaxy burned to ashes. Yes, this concept fits the general "any survival is victory, if at least one human is alive then we won" pattern, but as it is, I failed to see any "sweet" in "bittersweet".
A common trick in such endings would be to provide some summary/epilogue/words of hope, especially about the fate of the galaxy without relays, but we get nothing like that. As we did for the most of the game, in the end we only see death and destruction. Without that smart one-liners to keep spirits up, but including one very important crash-landing...

...which brings the second issue - logic/plot flaws. "How Joker got there?" is one problem, but not the main one. The hardest fact for me to understand is "how exactly" and "why" War Assets affect the outcome? Why on earth the number of attacking ships can affect how the Crucible works, the number of Shepard's choices or the survival of Shepard? There may exist some explanation to this problem and the other ones too, although every single one I can think of seems pretty lame. This is not a proper way of "leaving room for speculation". Speculation arises when there are multiple valid explanations, not when none are present.
Yeah, when the story is that big, it is not easy to hold it without minor scratches that nitpickers can always find. But again, some line has been crossed, this isn't just nitpicking. The ending is apparently inconsistent with ME canon, and cannot even withstand simple and obvious logic.
And finally, the supposed "variety" of endings. Reusing so many of the animations and graphics and making the endings so similar inevitably gives the feeling that either my decisions was not supposed matter, or for some reason the other endings just couldn't be created. Regardless of that, you had earlier given a clear message about "wildly diverging endings". I'm sorry to bring that up, but why make promises that you have no intention of keeping?
To sum up, I've got three main issues. While the first one (bleakness) may have been a creative decision (certainly not one that I would like, but a free artistic choice nonetheless), the other two seem like a big neon saying "TOO SHORT DEADLINE, WRITERS TOO STRAINED". As if you only had one fixed idea on the ending, with desperate and unsuccesful attempts to patch it up with the rest of the game (and no, I certainly can't be sure if my guess is true, but I'm just stating how the things look like).

The saddest thing is that I have completely no idea if, and how, the problem should be "fixed". I feel a little uncomfortable with making any demands for the writers (yeah, and what's next? should I also demand better ending for "Harry Potter" or "Lord of the Rings"? It just doesn't feel fair.) Besides, you clearly have better writers in your team than me (in fact, most people are better writers than me ), so any proposals would be ridiculous. But you asked for feedback, and here it is: to me, Mass Effect 3 ending seems logically flawed, inconsistent and narratively failed, while the rest of the game is quite the opposite. The ending is, though, enough to prevent me from replaying the game or seeking any additional DLC experience. Sorry, Bioware folks I still like you and I may try another game of yours one day, but not this one. Nevertheless, you deserve my thanks for tremendous and very hard work on your part.

[harvestboygoobus]

I appreciate the comments by Ray Muzyka about "closure" or further clarification, but I really don't think that is the majority of the problem. To be sure, it IS a problem, and those things can only help, but I, personally, don't feel it will be enough to salvage Mass Effect 3's ending.

There are lore issues, not to mention just logical issues. Anderson enters Citadels before Shepard, yet ends up ahead of him when there are no other paths? The two squadmates end up on the Normandy and Joker runs full-tilt away from the battle/explosion?

This bothers me quite a bit, to be honest. At first, I assumed that he was following orders to retreat, but upon further inspection, the orders to retreat seem to be for the ground forces, so that they can regroup and replan. I don't think the fleet ever showed any signs of turning and running with their tails between their collective legs. And how is that a victory in any sense of the word? Yes, Shepard defeated the Reapers, but only after being abandoned by the fleet s/he bled, sweated, and sacrificed to put together? Should we have done more loyalty quests or something? Did we forget to rescue the Primarch's space dog on Palaven? A tactical ground retreat makes sense, but I just don't understand why Joker would be running. After all, while on the Citadel, we can still see a battle raging, so clearly the fleet hasn't all turned tail and run. You'd think Joker would be made of tougher stuff than that--he did, after all, go toe-to-toe against the Collector ship and was even willing to die in an effort to save the Normandy from the original Collector attack. Furthermore, apparently Hackett knew Shepard survived in the end, whether because someone saw Shepard walk into the Conduit, or because the Citadel opened. Wouldn't that mean a renewed push against the Reapers, to keep them away from the Citadel? But, again, Joker ran.

To shift focus away from the Normandy's "escape", I have to bring up the Catalyst. The fact is that I loved the final confrontation with TIM and Anderson. I loved it! The writing was top-notch and the lore issues with indoctrination (TIM controlling Anderson/Shepard, for example) can be mostly explained away with the uncertainty of that mysterious procedure that TIM had done on himself. However, I cannot understand why my Shepard--or any Shepard!--would intentially side with some kid that actually refers to himself as a Reaper. He refers to them as "we" and "us". And Shepard takes his word for everything without question! That's why I'm so convinced by the Indoctrination theory (among the other ridiculous wealth of evidence they've found). Heck, we already know the kid lies to us because he indicates that Shepard will die from the Destroy ending, yet we already know that it is, in fact, the only ending in which Shepard can live! ...Somehow. More on that later!

In the end, we did have a choice, I'll concede that... but it was a pointless choice, with little meaning to us players. I could spout the color argument, but I won't. I mean, I get it! The galaxy changes dramatically depending on the choice made! But what I don't get, what I simply can't understand, is why there wasn't more variety? Why did he Relays have to be destroyed in every instance? Why did the Normandy have to crash? In ME2, our decisions and actions could result in everything from total victory without loss of any crew, to the loss of all crew, but no one in our party, to the loss of individuals or the entire party (but not the loss of crew!), to Shepard's death. In Mass Effect 3, our decisions amount to the ability to make an additional choice, and whether or not Earth is totally ravaged or not by the explosion (which, by the way, is a lore error in itself. I thought the explosion would only affect synthetics? Why does that change? And why in the world would our EMS affect it?). I'm sorry, but I just don't think that is the wildly branching endings that we were promised before the game launched.

In the end, the Earth sequence was almost exactly the same, regardless of your choices. Sure, certain characters might live or die, but that just means you won't have a meaningful final good-bye with them--it doesn't affect anything in the long run. And our final choice resulted in galaxy-wide changes, but very, very little difference for the players, which leaves us, frankly, very little reason to care. That's why fans are panning the multi-colored explosions. If those explosions meant something to us, then we'd be far more willing to accept them! But, as it is, while, yes, synthesizing organics and synthetics together certainly is a pretty wild change, it doesn't affect the ending one way or another. We get treated to a pretty green explosion, and EDI steps off the Normandy and cuddles with Joker. That's it. That's the only difference. For the ME galaxy, life has been forever changed. For us players, it's a slap in the face.

Finally, this is a suggestion thread, so I'll make a suggestion. Make the Indoctrination theory a reality. I'm not going to pretend that I still believe Bioware planned it all along. If they did, bravo--that's one heck of a surprise! But I don't think the facts add up. What does add up, however, is the suggested evidence for the Indoctrination theory. Let's face it, the theorists have dug into this and made an extremely compelling argument for it. Is it perfect? Probably not. But it is pretty close! And it fits extremely well with the final shot of Shepard waking up. After all, I simply don't understand how he could live otherwise! I mean, he certainly did not live being spaced out of the Normandy, did he? And that was with a full suit of (compromised) armor! In this ending, however, Shepard takes a massive explosion to the face after nearly dying after taking a Reaper beam to the face, somehow survives the vacuum of space, reentry, and landing amongst the rubble of wherever he landed. How is that possible? His armor was gone. He had no shields or barriers, no armoring to speak of, certainly no air supply. There was nothing to let him survive in space, nothing to protect him from the explosion or intense heat of reentry, nor anything to soften his fall. It is completely impossible for him to survive. ...Unless he never got up from Harbinger's beam. If the whole Citadel sequense was a dream, if that last shot was him waking up to discover himself still at the foot of the Conduit, then all can be made right. It makes sense, it fits with the ending, and it is a perfect way to maintain artistic integrity while being able to provide fans with the ending that we want and need.

In closing, I will say this. I loved Mass Effect 3. Almost every minute of it was bliss. The gameplay is awesome, the story and execution is incredible, and the characters are more memorable than ever (maybe not all of the characters, but most of them). I will be reminiscing about this game for years to come. But the ending failed miserably. It did not give any closure, but worse still, it made no sense. The final choice was awful, and the results of that choice held absolutely no meaning for many of the players. There was no sense of accomplishment or victory, unlike the two previous games. Maybe I am suffering from a severe case of self-entitlement, but after the endings of the last two games, I was expecting another victory, another win against all odds. I was expecting to be able to embark on a suicide mission and come back with the whole crew.
I haven't forgotten that sacrifices had to be made in the previous two games. In ME1, the fleets took a massive beating and only won when Shepard disabled Sovereign through Saren's death. Millions died that day in the fleet or on the Citadel. In ME2, we were unable to save a single colonist. Countless fathers, mothers, and children were harvested. We saved only our crew. We can handle those bittersweet thoughts, as long as there is a victory to be had. In ME3, there was no victory. There was massive death, a crew stranded, and galactic civilization destroyed. Simply put, we need a victory in the end, and we need our friends and crew to be able to participate in it!

[emoxband]

My take on the recent and welcome statement
http://rpgamex.com/n...endings-coming/ 

[guacamayus]

Twinzam.V wrote...

guacamayus wrote...

That's what I thought aswell, I'd like to see how they got there. That and Anderson magically appearing in the citadel are the biggest issues I have with the endings.

My issue at the time (before knowing that there wasnt even an happy ending) was that many things didnt make sense. For example, Shepard accepts everything the Starchild says and doesnt question about it, as far as i know that could be a Reaper, just because is a child doesnt mean it cant be anything dangerous, after all it wouldnt be new the encounter of indoctrinated agents of the Reapers or specifically created Reaper technology to break our will.

I think Shepard accepts it because those are really the only choices left; the crucible was their last hope and that turned out to be some piece of hardware designed to modify the catalyst. There's something interesting in the original script about that;

the AI says; "The Crucible has altered my function. I can't proceed. I can only guide you in it's use.
Go. If you don't, the cycle will continue, but I will no longer control the Reapers."

This kinda explains why shepard must choose quickly and doesn't really have room to look for a different solution, too bad they removed that part

[ChristianTh]

I think you should check what muzyka said about the "overworked" ending.
Nearly nobody wants to see the starchild again in an ending. This simply will not work. The rage will grow while BW will loose over 2/3rds of their fanbase. The most opinios I have read here are that C. Hudson told about 16+ endings that show our decisions from over 100+ gaminghours per run. So please, don' t only update or extend the current ending. The starchildplottwist to make things easier for your creativeteam has gone horribly wrong 'cause nearly nobody wanted it.

[stimatobou]

I finally finished Mass Effect 3 last night. I have been keeping up with the ending debacle over the past few weeks, so I thought I would voice my opinion. I am sorry if some of these points have already been made (I am sure that they have)--I simply do not have time to sift through all of the previous responses.

Overall, ME3 was an excellentt game and experience. The BioWare team set out to make an epic space-war game to conclude the ME trilogy, and I fully believe that they succeeded. I still get goosebumps when I think about the Palavan, Tuchanka, Thessia, and London missions. My favorite part of the entire game was Shepherd's ascent to Anderson's "office" near the end. Having the opportunity to have a final conversation with all of Shepherd's current and former teammates was a great way to conclude Shepherd's story. 

However, like many others, I still feel that there are some pretty overt problems with the endings. My concerns are three-fold and are based upon the information that BioWare has given to us at the present time. Firstly, Shepherd's "sacrifice" at the Crucible seems pointless; that is, the destruction of the Reapers brought forth an equally devestating problem: the destruction of the Relays. The Reaper war surely plunged the galatic civilizations in to social, political, and economic chaos. Over time, the current generation of space-faring species could have used the Relays to help each other recover. However, since the Relays were destroyed, it seems as though those living in the Mass Effect universe are screwed. Shepherd's "sacrifice" will ultimately have catostrophic effects on the current species, and one has to wonder if they would have been better off sucumbing to the Reapers. I wouldn't necessarily change the final choices or the destruction of the Relays, but would at least attempt to assure my audience that the universe they have come to sincerely care about is not absolutely doomed. Give us some hope (the "epilogue" is not sufficient in this manner). 

Secondly, the final parts of the game are riddled with plotholes. How did Javik and Vega, the two squadmembers I had with me for the final mission, end back up on the Normandy? Moreover, why was the Normandy running away from the battle? Given what we have been told over the ME trilogy, not a single one of Shepherd's crew members would abandon him/her or the battle with the Reapers. As it stands, Joker is one of the biggest cowards in the history of fiction. I would suggest that you help your audience 1.) understand why the Normandy was leaving the battle or 2.) change this segment all-together. 

Finally and simply, help us understand how the sum of our decisions changed the galaxy! We have been told that Shepherd's story ends with ME3. I feel great about how Shepherd's personal story ends. But Shepherd's story is about so much more than himself/herself. It is also about his closest companions, such as Garrus, Wrex, Ashley, Tali, Grunt, etc. We have no idea how any of these characters are going to recover from the war/spend the rest of their lives. If there are no plans for games that chronicle the lives of these particular characters, then should at least be given glimpses into their futures. 

tl;dr ME3 is a great game, but I think its current ending needs to be expanded upon. 

P.S. With all of this said, I think the indoctrination theory is awesome and would love it if it was implemented into the game. 

Modifié par stimatobou, 21 mars 2012 - 08:51 .

[Twinzam.V]

guacamayus wrote...

Twinzam.V wrote...

guacamayus wrote...

That's what I thought aswell, I'd like to see how they got there. That and Anderson magically appearing in the citadel are the biggest issues I have with the endings.

My issue at the time (before knowing that there wasnt even an happy ending) was that many things didnt make sense. For example, Shepard accepts everything the Starchild says and doesnt question about it, as far as i know that could be a Reaper, just because is a child doesnt mean it cant be anything dangerous, after all it wouldnt be new the encounter of indoctrinated agents of the Reapers or specifically created Reaper technology to break our will.

I think Shepard accepts it because those are really the only choices left; the crucible was their last hope and that turned out to be some piece of hardware designed to modify the catalyst. There's something interesting in the original script about that;

the AI says; "The Crucible has altered my function. I can't proceed. I can only guide you in it's use.
Go. If you don't, the cycle will continue, but I will no longer control the Reapers."

This kinda explains why shepard must choose quickly and doesn't really have room to look for a different solution, too bad they removed that part

To that my Shepard would answer "Then all of us humans, krogan, turians, asari and all those other species will win without your aid. We WILL make the impossible happen! We WILL break the cycle and we WILL make a tomorrow without the Reapers and other forces that may threathen our existence.".

Of course i didnt have the choice to say that.

Modifié par Twinzam.V, 21 mars 2012 - 05:52 .

[guacamayus]

Twinzam.V wrote...

To that my Shepard would answer "Then all of us humans, krogan, turians, asari and all those other species will win without your aid. We WILL make the impossible happen! We WILL break the cycle and we WILL make a tomorrow without the Reapers and other forces that may threathen our existence.".

Of course i didnt have the choice to say that.

Yeah but it will not have much effect since the catalyst lost all the control it had, the crucible is not an AI it would be like yelling at your microwave

[VibrantYacht]

I wrote this in my review, but somebody summed up the ending nicely. We (the fans) want an ending that is worth fighting for. I think that is a very nice and compact statement. While it certainly doesn't address ALL the problems, it does address the primary one in an effective way.

Sorry for posting on here again.

[bindermir]

First, thanks to Bioware for designing this amazing, interactive universe we care so much about. I have never posted on a game-related forum before, because my thoughts and emotions have never been so deeply invested in the outcome of a fictional narrative. This is truly a remarkable feat, and it's why I must add my voice to this thread.

Everything I have to say has been said already, in greater detail and with greater eloquence. I have struggled to make sense of the current endings at great length, but I simply cannot reconcile them with the overarching philosophy of the series, right up to the gallant speech delivered by Commander Shepard in front of his loyal squadmates before the final push.

By far, I see the most important theme in the series to be one of unity in the face of hardship--of races ultimately discovering respect for one another and learning to live in harmony. Mass Effect 3 as a whole brought this theme forward triumphantly with the resolution of centuries-old animosities. But in the ending sequence, this theme appears to be replaced--or, at the very least, eclipsed--by an unequivocal statement that recasts the cosmos as a hopeless battleground between organics and synthetics.

I cannot accept this in light of how the entire rest of the series presents itself. We are given powerful examples that refute the logic of the star-child over the course of our journey, but are forced to watch as our hero fails to bring up these examples as evidence. I can see this as a possible outcome for an unprepared Shepard, but not for one who actually witnessed peace between the Quarians and the Geth, or Joker and EDI's romance. Perhaps the synthesis ending was meant to be a way to resolve this alleged and heretofore unemphasized eternal conflict, but I find it unfulfilling--the problem is removed, rather than solved.

In light of all this, here are my most heartfelt requests:

- The overarching theme of unity in the Mass Effect series must be preserved; I believe this can only be done by removing or invalidating the star-child's logic.

- For those who truly prepared for the final confrontation, doing everything right throughout three long narrative arcs... they deserve to live happily ever after, badassfully or heroically. Death must also be an option, but in a series based so heavily on the consequences of action and inaction, it should not be essentially inevitable.

- The mass relays should remain intact, and the Reapers should remain unknowable. As many have said already, destroying the relays effectively destroys the Mass Effect universe, and renders all your unifying efforts for nought. Giving clear purpose to the Reapers belittles them.

[jones81381]

Twinzam.V wrote...

But Legion said that the Reapers accepted some of the Geth, besides in the geth hub you can see that the Geth never intended to harm the Quarians, the creators. All of the actions have always been in self defence till the end.

I agree; the Geth didn't want to destroy anyone. But the reapers' logic was that if synthetics like the Geth decided to wipe out all organics, they wouldn't stop with just the advanced civs.

[Twinzam.V]

guacamayus wrote...

Twinzam.V wrote...

To that my Shepard would answer "Then all of us humans, krogan, turians, asari and all those other species will win without your aid. We WILL make the impossible happen! We WILL break the cycle and we WILL make a tomorrow without the Reapers and other forces that may threathen our existence.".

Of course i didnt have the choice to say that.

Yeah but it will not have much effect since the catalyst lost all the control it had, the crucible is not an AI it would be like yelling at your microwave

True, but it would give me the same satisfaction has when Shepard punched Han'Gerrel for shooting the geth dreadnought while he and the squad were still inside.
Best renegade option ever.

Modifié par Twinzam.V, 21 mars 2012 - 06:19 .

[pho3nlxl]

After having thought about the ending:

First of all, after having dwelled on it, seeing fan speculation, and in particular a couple of youtube video's that spliced audio and scenes from the first game into the end, I need to say:

Fantastic job on the ending. Remarkable. I really think it's one of the best endings to a video game of all time.


That said. A couple of constructive criticisms: I understand now (finally) what you were trying to achieve with it. I see the subtleties that went into making that particular end for the series. And I appreciate the help we got towards the end of the third game in getting there.

That said - I didn't "get" it at first for two reasons, and I think this should have factored into the design process a little more (maybe).

1) If the ME trilogy were a movie, it would make sense (it's also very easy to rewatch movies back to back). But it isn't.. it's a game. I haven't played the original ME since '09ish. I know you don't need to remember every single detail to appreciate the ME3 ending. But it helps. These events aren't exactly fresh in my mind, or in the mind of most gamers, I imagine. Hearing Saren or Sovereign's words really made an impact in helping me find closure.

2) Most games don't require any thinking so to speak to interpret the ending. It just hasn't been done. I applaud you guys for your use of novel story telling and unique gameplay to deliver like no one else has before you. But I think the fact that its uncharted territory, with a very large fan base that is unaccustomed to having to think in a video game has led to this outrage. Everyone wanted a straightforward ending, because that's what we've grown accustomed to.

At the very least - i'm cheering you on for your uncompromising vision. It'll probably stand the test of time as a result.

[Silasqtx]

Subject M wrote...

sizuka2 wrote...

You asked what worked and why it worked?

Mordin worked. In almost all scenarios, he dies... but his death means a very great deal. It's the price of curing the genophage... or the price of Salarian support. It's his greatest success coming full circle.

Thane worked. He dies to (very badly conceived) villain, placing himself between an assassin and his prey - just as his wife did so long ago. He dies praying for the absolution of another, a killer. It's his whole career coming full circle.

Rannoch - all of it - worked. Legion's inevitable death, either as sacrifice or injustice, worked. Tali's suicide, if she inadvertently destroyed her people, worked. And brokering peace worked too - all of it came back to the very beginnings of the revolt: does this unit have a soul? And can the Quarians answer that question without existential terror?

(Joker at the very end doesn't work for the simple reason that it makes no sense whatsoever. No part of it is in any way consistent with what he, or any of the other characters, were doing when last seen. Either write the middle or leave it out.)

Shepherd... doesn't work. In all scenarios (barring a very cryptic high war-assets destroy), he dies - which is, actually, just fine. It's not the only way this had to end, but it's not a bad way at all. Dragon Age did that exactly right - a choice to live, with a real and ominous cost, or a choice to sacrifice.

What has Shepherd been doing this whole time that might come full circle? Uniting the whole galaxy against the Reapers. That's the main plot of ME3. So let that happen - you helped the Turians? Show the Turians helping. You helped the Rachni repeatedly? Show the Rachni helping. Show the STG teams. Show the Spectres. Show the elcor. Show the Omega mercenaries. Show all of them as more than a number on the war assets screen. You can have in-engine interventions in the fight on Earth, or if that's too hard you can definitely have radio chatter about Hammer. A large explosion somewhere in the skybox followed by a Salarian voice would go a long way to showing the STG is there; a large explosion followed by a Volus voice would establish the bombing fleet. Chatter about being overwhelmed followed by a laughing Krogan charge would do a great deal to show that yes, the Krogan are actually fighting. Geth Primes breaking a Cannibal line - so many neglected possibilities. You can even have audio chatter from Sword about the battle in the sky.

Incidentally, if any ally had a voice made for radio, it's the Elcor. Desperate chatter about being overrun, followed by 'Slightly terrified: Hold your ground, humans. We are now firing danger close support.' Cue explosions in the distance. I do get that elcor are hard to animate, but there are alternatives.

Very definitely show your squadmates and ex-squadmates - the ones you don't take on the mission have their own things to do on the battlefield, and should get their moments of heroism. Take a leaf from ME2 - they can live, or die, depending on what you assign them to do and what kind of support from war assets they get. (Grunt getting saved by swarming Rachni seems... appropriate, but there are lots of other opportunities for character beats.) Whether they live or die, though, they should make a difference - force an opening, blunt an attack, turn a flank, take out a gun position - something.

Hell, show the Crucible assets themselves from time to time.

At the very end, when Shepherd reaches the Crucible, directly through the efforts of all those Shepherd helped before... well. Personally, I favor the idea that the Crucible doesn't work, because building a superweapon that no one understands doesn't seem likely to end well. Maybe it's a Reaper trap, or maybe it's just incomplete. Set that aside, though. The existing choices are fine (despairing and horrific, but not wrong as options); the problem is that they are insufficient. Add one option (or a paragon/renegade variation) to reject the premise of the Reapers/Starchild, and the ending works. Give Shepherd the option to say 'your assumptions about the universe are wrong, and we'll fight you to the last.' Maybe the Reapers are right, and this means the fleets lose due to insufficient assets. Maybe the Reapers are right, and this means that even if the fleets win, someday they create a rampant AI and lose (leave that as stinger for the epilogue, though).

But coming all this way, to meet the (underwhelming!) master of the Reapers and then simply give up and accept his terms and his options? That's... not good at all. Shepherd could have given up back in ME1 and gotten the same results - so what was the point?

The epilogue doesn't have to be immense, or lengthy (though it could be, and that would be good as well) - it just has to call out the consequences for what's happened. Funerals, friendships, efforts... and a new beginning.

And, if you have any attention to spare after fixing that - please, apply this show-don't-tell idea to Kai Leng. He's unbeatable in cutscenes and underwhelming outside them, and that's exactly how it shouldn't be.

Excellent points. But following the "show, not tell tradition", which is central to games and interactive stories like this, it seems to me that the following is given:

1. Shepard should be able to survive and reunite with his team and eventual LI. Survival is apparently already possible as the game is now, its just that it is rather meaningless.

2. You should be able to challenge the catalyst (you can have a persuasion check that can fail)
Even though it (the catalyst) theoretically might be right, what we are SHOWN in the game contradicts it, especially if we make peace between Guarians and Geth. This is a "paragon" edning, giving the catalyst food for thought, making it reassess the situation and leave with the threat of returning if the new and unprecedented situation changes.

A renegade ending would involve destroying the reapers and al their knowledge. How? The reapers are clearly unbeatable as a force. Well, you look for inspiration in what has already been established in the story. Remember Saren and how soverign fell when its link to Saren was cut when Shepard destroyed the Saren-avatar? The catalyst could be a similar weak point. If it is destroyed somehow, the reapers might go down..

3. If your EMS is too low, I see no reason why the fleet should not be completely destroyed to the last ship over Earth, and everyone killed, including Shepard. That would constitute an early death and end where the reapers win.

[braisbr1]

I would like to start this topic by declaring that, everything that I write from here on, is meant to be taken as a constructive way to help better understand the conflicts that have arisen from the Mass Effect 3 ending controversy. If anyone from the Bioware staff is considered offended, I'm deeply sorry for that, and believe me that's not what I mean with the following words.

Having said so, I would like this words to be a vehicle for the Bioware team to understand what's behind this movement. Not that I am in any case its leader or the one who started it - but I think that, after the words from Ray Muzyka earlier today, that after all this time you still don't understand what this is all about. Let me be clear about it.

Just as you can hear some people saying that our movement is not entitled to demand a change of the ending and bla bla bla bla... let's stop right here. We do not demand that you change the ending, we demand that the promises made to us are fulfilled. If you don't remember those, you just need to check some of the other topics around here. So it is not about change, it's about coherence. And, as you said earlier today, this coherence can be reached from many different points - changing the ending or expanding upon it, or anything else you can think of. Even stating your mind about what it was suppossed to achieve on its own so we can also see it.

The second point is that, in order for us to see your point in the ending, it need to get rid of the plotholes. Same way, it can be done by expanding the endings, and not changing them.

Now, I want you to know this - even if a lot of the players think that the endings are bad, they are also open to understand them if they had more data to put tugether. But you can't expect us to do so when we have none.

I wanted to say all of those things because, from the things I read on the internet, I believe that you are not near understanding what's going on with your players. Being a student myself, I can compare the situation to when I fail at a given job - my teachers tell me why it's bad, and in order to arrage it I have to listen to them in order to not fail again. And in a career like mine, architecture, which involves treating people and thinking about them, you have to know when you've done something wrong and how to fix it. And I'm saying this because you have to realize that the endings are bad - from an objective point of view. They betrayed the promises that had been made, and they destroyed the lore that came with the universe.

Now my question is, how can you not see this?

Maybe it's because the information is being mislead by some parties in this controversy. Maybe it's because you are trying to know what players really want. But here comes the basic principle:

It's not about what the players want. It's about when something is right and when something is wrong.

And you can say that a lot of people are enjoying the games and bla bla bla... that doesn't make it right. A lot of people can love a bad building - even worst, a lot of people can despise a good building! But that doesn't change it from being a good or a bad piece of architecture.

Time puts things in their place - don't let what could be considered one of the greatest sagas of our generation be remembered as one of the greatest fails.

I really aprreciate your work, Bioware. Make Us Proud.

Hold the Line.

[R3MUS]

My reaction to no conversation with Harbinger in Mass Effect 3.

http://img193.images...onversation.jpg

We need more Reaper conversations!

Modifié par R3MUS, 21 mars 2012 - 06:17 .

[Elodin123]

Dragon age spoilers below.

I made the ultimate sacrifice in Dragon age because it meant something. The arch daemon was dead and I had saved everyone from the blight. It was a bittersweet ending; I died so everyone else could live. Watching the funeral later on and reading about what happened to the different races and my former companions gave me the closure I needed. I actually knew beforehand that I didn’t have to die for all the good things to happened, but I did it anyway because I like bittersweet endings.

As I said in another post: The ending in Mass effect 3 isn’t bittersweet, it’s just depressing. In the end your “sacrifice” dooms the entire galaxy to isolation, starvation and death. There’s nothing sweet in that whatsoever. It would even have been better to let the reapers finish the job, just in order to save the mass relays and put your faith in the future races.

So the only suggestion I have is this: Please make Shepards sacrifice count for something,
anything.

Modifié par darhedarna, 21 mars 2012 - 06:17 .

[firekiwifly]

 Dear Mass Effect Team,

I have never posted within a forum before (nor, I believe,
will I again), but this is something I feel passionate about. And if I truly
expect more from you, I can only do so by helping you understand my position on
the hotly debated endings of one of the best games I have ever played.

I would like to start this off by saying that first and
foremost, you have made a beautiful game. The final act of Shepard’s fight
against the Reapers moved me to tears on more than one occasion; and it is a
credit to your team as a whole that the game maintains its humor and poignancy
without sacrificing the bittersweet tone of the story.

That being said, I will admit that when I reached the finale
of this epic tale I was… underwhelmed, to say the least. The game ends
abruptly, and elicits more than a little confusion. We understand the mass
relays are destroyed, but we do not understand how that affects the characters
we have left behind. Are they simply stuck on Earth, or do they attempt to
travel back to their respective planets with their FTL drives, though that may
take years or even (as the codex mentions) centuries?

Without an epilogue for the game, we are simply left with
too many questions and too few answers. I wanted to know how my friends and
squadmates faired after the end of the Reapers. And on a larger scale, I wanted
to know how my decisions for the galaxy inevitably affected the Mass Effect
universe. Have the Geth and Quarians managed to make co-existing on Rannoch
possible? As the Krogans repopulate, do they pose a threat to many established
worlds and colonies as the Salarians felt they would? Are the Rachni ever accepted
by the majority of the galaxy? To ask for an animated scene to each of these
questions is, I know, ridiculous. But perhaps a text epilogue, as seen in the
end of Dragon Age: Origins, would help cover what must be numerous potential
endings for a varied galaxy.

In regards to the animated ending, I also felt that they
lacked distinction and were too similar. I felt that once Shepard made his or
her decision, we should see the repercussions of that decision (assuming there
are any). Should Shepard choose to “destroy the Reapers,” we should witness the
consequences of such an action and sadly watch the scenes of the Geth’s
destruction and (most heartbreaking of all) EDI’s death.

Another concern is whether Commander Shepard can live once
the game finally comes to a close. I will admit, I was one of the many who
hoped (and frankly, still hopes) that Shepard could survive the end and retire
on a beach somewhere with their love interest. I acknowledge however, that that
ending is artistically dead. There are consequences to every action, even to saving
the galaxy, and Shepard has to pay his or hers. So in this one area, though I
struggle not to beg for a happily ever after, I concede to your vision in
Shepard’s noble sacrifice. In that light, it is appropriate that Shepard can
only live through an ultimately selfish choice (to willingly choose organics
over synthetics) in destroying the Reapers. I’m not happy that my paragon
Shepard (who fought for organics and EDI
and the Geth) cannot live, but I am
mature enough to admit that I just need to, “Suck it up.”

(On a side note however, if you do decide to create an
ending in which Shepard lives without willingly destroying another species in
the process... well, I wouldn’t object.)

Finally, there are many who believe, or wish to believe, in
the Indoctrination Theory. I admit, I think the idea is genius. It’s another
trial that Shepard has to face before conquering the Reapers once and for all,
and I love the idea that Shepard finds the will to break from attempted
indoctrination. However, if the theory is canon, then our first and final
meeting with the Illusive Man was nothing more than “a dream.” I believe that
you did a spectacular job with our final confrontation with the Illusive Man
and to simply discount that entire scene would be a shame. So unless the Indoctrination
Theory begins when Shepard loses consciousness (and just before meeting the
Catalyst), I will not be joining the band wagon on that idea (just in case you were
wondering).

To close this “little” forum post, I immensely enjoyed Mass
Effect 3 overall. I am currently working on yet another playthrough of the Mass Effect trilogy. I fully anticipate
any and all future content for such a wonderful game, no matter whether that content
addresses the end or not.

Your loyal fan,
firekiwifly

[hyperforce99]

One thing that I might have neglected to talk about is that the ending should revolve around the near future.
Its nice to know people will somehow still be alive 100.000 years in the future, but its irrelevant.Mass effect has always revolved around the people and (later) the civilizations you interact with. Mass effect 1's ending focused on this and Mass effect 2's ending did even more. 

I'll give you an example of the way I first had expected (and how I would like) to see the game end.
This is kindof what I expected the end to be like while I was playing the final level.
Personally I hope to see the following ending setup, or something similiar: 

The current ending is an indoctrinated dream sequence after Shepard is hit by Harbingers beam.
The choices you made during this dream sequence will change the way shepard behaves after he awakens in london. If you are indoctrinated your choices will be corrupted and it could lead you to betraying your squad members and/or allies later on if you can't stop yourself.

You then start the final segment where you go up the conduit (with your squad members and if you have a high enough EMS on ground forces the surviving HAMMER forces). You enter the Citadel but have to fight Reaper ground forces or completely corrupted Cerberus troops.
Depending on the citadel defence force EMS level the council is stil alive and C-Sec still have hold-outs.
If possible establish a "beach-front" and fight your way through the Citadel  to its control room (council chamber?)
Where you encounter the illusive man who is controlling the citadel for the reapers as their drone. Fight him, kill him and dock the crucible. You will find out it does contain the power to destroy the reapers in some way using the Citadels mass relay, (perhaps by effecting their specific mass effect cores galaxy wide).

Then Harbinger shows up again, with the illusive man gone he will try to take controll over the citadel and the crucible by itself. Distorting the crucibles purpose into a different one, indoctrinating every single being in the galaxy simultantiosly. 

Depending on your choices in the dream sequence, you are indoctrinated and this could lead to you being forced to fight your squad members and if you win giving harbinger control over the crucible. (A reversed seran moment from ME1), If you can regain control over yourself at this point you can still fight Harbinger, and activate the crucible which leads to the destruction of the reapers. But you will die in the proces.
If your choices int he dream sequence caused you to break the indoctrination you fight harbinger and survive.


Different endings can then happen next.
If your FLEET EMS was low, the crucible will have been damaged. it will lead to the destruction of the citadel or even the nearby mass relay (which equels the destruction of the sol system), but also the destruction of the reapers (not the geth). However due to the Citadels mass relay, The rest of the galaxy is still safe.
In this ending the scene with the normandy escaping the super nova could still be used, perhaps with the crew members that escaped the explosion of the citadel, but it would have to be water tight.

If your FLEET EMS is high enough then the Crucible will fire correctly, allowing you to win without destroying the SOL mass relay or the citadel and Shepard will survive.

Depending on if you survived an interactive epiloge will take place with some kind of cerimony.
However, if you didn't survive it will be a funeral. if the sol system was destroyed due to its relay exploding the ending will be darker but still hopefull for the rest of the galaxy. 
Finally (considering we saved the galaxy) we get to know what happened to allt he people and civilisations that we influenced. (via Text or something like that.)


Thus the endings would range from:

• Reapers instantly win because you are indoctrinated, don't fight Harbinger and use the crucible for the reapers to indoctrinate everyone in the galaxy. (You get the worst ending.)
• Shepard overcomes his indoctrination like Seran did, fights Harbinger, uses the crucible to kill the reapers but dies in the process.
• You are not indoctrinated, fight Harbinger, survive and activate the crucible.

Different results can then happen depending on the status of the crucible:

• The Crucible is critically damaged, It still kills the reapers but its energy release causes the destruction of the SOL mass relay (not the other relays) and thus the entire SOL system and everything in it in a SUPER NOVA event. (You get the second to worst ending) Perhaps Joker could outrun the explosion of the SOL relay like in the current ending.
• The crucible has taken some damage, causing it to succesfully fire without damaging the SOL relay but it does destroy the citadel. Perhaps some squad members manage to escape the station (depending on the citadel defense force EMS) but Shepard is inevitably killed.   (You get the second to best ending)
• The crucible fires correctly because your fleet managed to defend it. The reapers are destroyed throughout the galaxy. The Citadel and the SOL relay survive.   (You get the best ending)

It allows for player to get a full spectrum of endings. Whoever survived the final mission gets a segment in the epiloge (like in Dragon Age 1). 

My reasons why I would like to see an ending like this.

The story comes full circle. (in different possible ways depending on if your indoctrinated or not)
It raises the stakes even further. (Harbinger trying to use the crucible to indoctrinate the entire galaxy at once.)
It gives full closure. (the Epiloge.)
You get to face off with the games main anthagonists. (Harbinger and TIM)

Modifié par hyperforce99, 21 mars 2012 - 07:24 .

[Big Grumpy]

I am neutral to the ending, in part because what it did well I think it did very very well, and what it did poorly it did very very poorly.

The Good:

• Kill Shep--I think it just has to happen.  Shep is linked to the reapers.  Over and over we are told killing them is what he was born to do.  The Illusive Man even went so far as to resurrect him to kill the reapers.  The foreshadowing here is huge and adds a poignency to the story that few stories match.  I love that Shepard dies because as a player I don't want him to die.  The sense of sacrifice (that my character died to save all these other characters that I love) is, in many ways, why he should die.
• Not Mere Wish Fulfillment--Mass Effect is at its best when hard choices are being made and even seemingly the right thing to do leads to negative results.  Even going pure paragon often leads to decisions that do not sit well with me.  I think the people calling for a perfect wish fulfillment 100% cheary ending are wrong and it is unbefitting the series as a whole.  For the invasion to be meaningful and Shepard's victory worthwhile, there must be bad consequences even with the best of intentions.
• Illusive Man--while I think he was dialed a bit too high on the evil-meter, I am very pleased with his story arc in ME3.  When I was flipping through the art book and saw that at some point bioware played with the idea of making him another reaper construct I growned.  Cuddos for giving the character a fitting end: allowing him to remain a monster but giving him some measure of redemption when he takes his own life.

The Neutral

• Harbinger-- I do not want ME3 to be Shep vs. Harbinger.  Harbinger is only 1 reaper among many, but Harbinger is also special to Shepard's team.  The big reveal that Harbinger was in direct control of the Collectors in ME2 was super slick.  Plus it seems that Harbinger may be the Prothean reaper given its sensor light configuration and ability to control the collectors so Javik-Harbinger interactions would be awesome.  I understand and agree that the focus needs to be on stopping the reaperS (all of them), but I just wish Harbinger was used a little more.  There are a few shout-outs in game, but I feel like it is a little more personal than what is portrayed.
• Mass Relays-- I understand why the mass relays were destoryed.  Sovereign tells the player that by controlling how the organics move the Reapers effectively control how the organics evolve.   It is a very cool concept, and I can see why the creative team felt to truely end the cycle the mass relays had to be destoryed.  BUT, as others have pointed out, it dooms trillions to die.  No matter the choice of deeling with the reapers it seems that the vast majority of the galaxy will die cold starving and alone.  It makes the final choice feel like a non-choice because the consequences of each chioce are the same in the long run.  Who cares if Earth is destroyed by killing the reapers or allowed to slowly starve to death without the mass relay to bring in supplies?  The choice to handle the reapers is completely rendered null because of the consequences of the mass relays.  Perhaps rather than have them destroyed they go offline for x years, or each system can choose to reactivat them if they wish.

The Bad

• Why did I think of those people?--  As Shep ends the war he thinks of Anderson, Joker, and Liara.  Anderson makes sense--a father figure.  Joker makes less sense given that Garrus is my BFF and I have always treated him as such (I'm mean to Joker), and Liara just made me mad.  Since ME2, I was fanatically loyal to Tali in my playthrough.  The Tali romance had some high points but also felt like it was written lazily at times.  The fact that my Shep thought of Liara rather than the woman I had ACTUALLY professed my love to, is a key example of that.  I think it would also be powerful it Shep thought of Tali without her mask with a clear shot of her face if you romanced her.  The whole "these are the people you care about!" flashes felt like bioware was, for the first time, making a one-Shep-fits-all.  I like the idea but if Shep is going to think about those he loves at least make it the actual people he loves based on how the game was played!
• The Star Child-- I despise hitherto unknown super powers that have actually been pulling the strings from the beginning being revealed at the zero hour.  I have rarely seen this type of big reveal done effectively, and ME3 does NOT do it effectively.  The Star Child has been hammered to death as a bad idea and I agree.
• "And they have a plan"--what I loved (ABSOLUTELY loved!) about the Reapers is that they were unknowable.  Throughout the series it is masterfully suggested that the Reapers are god-like, and I thought that was the perfect reason why the reapers do what they do: they are god-like.  Gods do not explain themselves.  Gods do not have origin stories that explain their motivations.  Gods just are.  Gods just do what they do.  The unknowable, unstoppable, uncompromising reapers made for some of the most intense villains in a game series.  Any attempt to give them a backstory is going to cheapen them.  Think Darth Vadar.  In the original trilogy he was this kind of avatar of evil springing forth onto the screen fully formed and monstious made only more so by vague references to him being human.... once.  Then the prequels came along and suddenly gave him a backstory involving being an annoying kid and a man that was made out of wood before he has made out of metal.  The origin story weakened the character.  I think any attempt to create a reaper backstory is likely to weaken/cheapen the characters.  Leave them unknowable and god-like.
• Gilligan's Island Crash Landing--The end with Joker has been hammered to death by others and I'll leave it with what they said.  It was a bad idea and should be changed.
• Characters, Characters, Characters--  For me, ME works best when it is about the characters.  ME3 was most powerful when it was showing me the fate of the characters I actually care about.  I've seen giant machines destroy Earth in a video game before.  As the reapers decended I said, "Oh @#@$@#!" but then I kept playing.  But when the elevator doors closed on Mordin the last time, I had to put the controler down and gather myself because I care about Mordin.  When I thought Grunt had fallen to his death, I felt terrible.  ME is about characters.  So it came as a real dissapointment that I never learn the fate of the characters I so dearly care for.  Instead we are given resolution to the PLOT rather than resolution to the CHARACTERS.  Given that ME's plot is pretty standard video game fair (big bads coming to kill everything lone hero and cast has to set it right), what makes ME one of the best franchises in history is that the characters are so thoughtfully crafted.  The fate of the universe and the plot is important, but what I really want to know is how it ends for those characters that make the series engaging, thought provoking, challenging, and so much fun.  I would rather have the game end with all these characters sitting around the bar raising a glass and sharing their favorite Shepard stories (pulled from saved data to be accurate) then the most epic of epic cutscenes.
• Consequences--I was disappointed by how little we saw the consequences of the final decision.  It overly focussed on the mass relay explosions.   Greater emphasis should be placed on what these decisions actually do.  For example, if Shep kills all synthetic life, we should see EDI die in Joker's arms, we should see Geth helping the Quarians suddenly go offline.  We should feel the impact of making a hard decision.  Similarly if synthesis is choosen, perhaps the Quarians are able to emerge from their suits thanks to Geth tech, the Krogen find enlightenment, etc.  The point being, that the Gilligan's Island ending is not sufficient to show the repocussions of your actions.  Obviously you are re-making the universe, but just having Joker crash land and have green viens was not enough in my opinion.

Hopefully that has provided some constructive feedback.

Modifié par Big Grumpy, 21 mars 2012 - 06:35 .