7052 réponses à ce sujet

[Ruusaar Cin]

Also, I'm ok with the idea that the Reapers follow a circular and incorrect logic. People have some pretty crazy and illogical ideas about how the world should be run sometimes, so I don't see why the Reaper's argument needs to make sense. They are welcome to believe whatever they like, however wrong it is.

That said, forcing my Shepard to choose between options that are based on the idea that the Reapers are correct is not ok. We need to be able to say "NO. You're wrong, and I won't go along with you".

Two of the options presented actually go against the Reaper's ideals. Why would the god-child even allow you to choose Destroy if it's counter to what he believes? It's like he's not really committed to this "cycle" deal, or doesn't really know what he wants. Destroy, arguably the only option where you really defeat the Reapers, forces you to commit genocide against your allies. Many Shepards wouldn't accept this.

The god-child doesn't really explain how he personally feels about Control, just that it is an option. I don't see how it's any different than Destroy. The "cycle" can still continue, why does the god-child allow this option? Only difference is that the Reapers survive, the Geth survive, and Shepard has 0 chance to survive.

Synthesis, arguably the "best" choice, is actually a victory for the Reapers. They accomplish their goal to their own twisted logic. (Why didn't they just make Synthesis their "final solution" in the first place instead of the Reapers?). My Shepard, and many others, have serious moral issues with forcing this homogenization apon the galaxy, however. The idea that this will somehow create a lasting peace just because everyone is now the "same" is nonsense.

And last but not least, the Mass Relays being destroyed is just problematic from all points of view. It robs us of any sense of victory and more than anything else, undoes our choices and denies the galaxy a good future for a long time to come.

In short, new, different choices are required that actually reflect the different values that different Shepards have. In fact, the ending choice should not be the deciding factor in the ending, but rather a contributing factor that builds off previous choices. And just don't destroy the mass relays.

[Omega Torsk]

All I really want is the option to have a happy ending with my closure. Give Shepard a life with his LI. I think he's deserved it by now.

[shanosaurus]

What I really want is my Shepard to have a chance at her happy ending and not break Kaidan's heart (again). I want her to overcome insurmountable odds like she's always done, to not let defeat be an option.

At the very least, please give us some closure. I'm dying to know what happened to the rest of the crew. You really did a fantastic job with character development. I can honestly say that no other game has gotten me this attached to the characters, to the point where they feel like close friends (that rooftop scene with Garrus was especially perfect). That's why the ending hurt so much.

[RedRacoon]

The fact that you make multiplayer important to the singleplayer campaign feels like a smack on the nose. Provide me whatever incentives you want, it's not gonna change my outlook on multiplayer. If I see a game that requires me to play with another person to experience the story, I will keep on walking. I follow that line strictly, and it's only because Mass Effect's previous games didn't have multiplayer that I take an exception to Mass Effect 3(also because it's damn good). I can't comprehend whatever reason anyone would have for making multiplayer required, or at least mandatory for the survival of the PC. I would advise against it in any upcoming or future games you may create.

[jess05]

I just want promises made to be fullfilled. Thats all.

And yes... get rid of the MP requirement.
Dont get me wrong, having a MP is fine. I could care less personally.
But dont force us to play to get the best outcomes. There are quite a few of us that simply hate it and have no interest in it. 

Optional, fine.  Required: Not cool.

Modifié par jess05, 23 mars 2012 - 06:01 .

[Darknessfalls23]

I think my biggest problem with the ending is Shepard in the last 5 mins , why does he seem to give up and go down one of paths laid out to him without a fight, Maybe Bioware just explained that better....

Modifié par Darknessfalls23, 23 mars 2012 - 06:15 .

[FilmDirector554]

Now that I think about it (and someone else probably posted this somewhere within these pages), the last goodbyes sequence seems really out of place. Shepard's just walking around saying goodbye to everyone oblivious to the fact that the fleets in space are still waging a war against the Reapers. Maybe he should have said his goodbyes before they launched the assault? That way the action flows better. Just my thoughts on it.

PS The random turret in the middle of the goodbye sequence was a little out of place. Probably put in to break up the goodbyes, but it felt too forced.

[Ye Elder Geeke]

Just read the first two and last ten pages of this thread. Looks like everything has been well-said already.

I'll just add that I'd gladly pay $10 for a DLC with alternate conclusions, $20 if it was particularly well-made.

[Geneaux486]

Gonna assume this thread isn't just for changes to the ending. Since Shepard wears his casual stuff more often (including on the Citadel), I think at least one casual suit who's colors you could alter would be cool. You know, shirt, pants, jacket, choose color for each.  Also maybe even add some hats in there.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 23 mars 2012 - 06:27 .

[Kargsure]

One thing I do believe is important, and can't be emphasized enough, is that as much as I dislike the current ending, I don't believe it should be removed entirely. Doing so would infringe on the choice of those who do actually like it as it stands. In no way should my desire to have a new ending invaldiate their acceptance of the current one.

In that respect I think the Indoctrination Theory is one fo the best suggestions on how to move the story forward. By running with it, it's possible to leave the current ending exactly as it is, but also to provide a DLC that can in effect "dismiss" or explain away everything that happened between Shepard being hit by the beam and taking "the breath" in what appears to be London, and then adding a new ending(s) on from there. This gives those who are happy with the current ending the chance to stick with it if that's what they want, and the rest of us a chance to get an ending we are happy with (though not necessarily a happy ending).

Considering the involvement of the community in the #solcoms event prior to the game launch (the invasion became "real" due to community involvement), it's not entirely beyond the realms of possibility that the IT was in fact planned this way (to in effect indoctrinate the community for a while at least). The only problem with that logic, is that if that was the original plan, the current backlash would warrent an announcement to this effect already.

If it wasn't the plan, then due to the hard work of a number of people explaining how it fits the circumstances it is definitely the easiest and probably the most plausable way out of the current mess.

Modifié par Kargsure, 23 mars 2012 - 06:40 .

[paxxton]

balance5050 wrote...

If you guys don't reveal indoctrination theory as your own I'm going to flip because it is a miracle of god how well it fits with all the clues left throughout the series. Seriously, I think I'll have to check myself into the local asylum.... The odds that you guys just lost all narrative direction and common sense in the last ten minutes, and weren't planning this massive troll, just seems insane.

It would just be beyond reason to me and my mind would be broken... I want to believe you guys... but I'm losing more hope every day...

Well written! Totally agreed!

Modifié par paxxton, 23 mars 2012 - 06:34 .

[Scelous]

Well, I'm not sure how helpful my feedback is after 187 pages, but here goes nothing.

1) I don't mind an ending where Shepard dies. In fact, right up until Shepard floats away on the elevator, I was completely engrossed; I liked stumbling, bloody, into the citadel. I liked sitting there, bleeding to death beside Anderson. It felt like a very reasonable ending. Then of course came the craziness.

2) Personally, I am perfectly fine with you guys at Bioware completely throwing out the current ending and changing it. It doesn't have to be this indoctrination junk, although there's a fair argument for it. I just want something good; I don't want you to feel beholden to the current ending you have.

3) An epilogue on how anyone is doing anywhere would be great. Teammates, planets, any sort of wrap up would be nice.

4) I'll say I'd like an ending where our choices mattered, but it may be difficult to do that with the game already finished and everything.

5) Have it make sense. I had absolutely no idea why Joker was outrunning... the magical ray or whatever it was. I had absolutely no idea how my squad got onto the Normandy.

I have to admit that seeing other fans complaining specifically about how they want a happy ending for Shepard does make me cringe. It's one thing to have an ending make sense -- which is what I'm really looking for -- and have some closure. It's another thing to dislike an ending just because it's sad. An ending that makes sense makes us fans seem rational, whereas a Pollyanna ending just makes us seem like children. And really, I think most people are fine with Shepard dying.

I know you guys at Bioware have caught a lot of flak from pretty much everyone, and I wanted to say I appreciate you reaching out to your fan base and trying to make ME3 the best game possible. Respect to you guys.

Edit: Oh, and I would be perfectly happy paying for an ending DLC.

Modifié par Scelous, 23 mars 2012 - 06:47 .

[misleduse]

First  just want to start off by saying that I have been a fan of this series since the day the first one released and will remain a fan until the day I die. The Bioware team should be proud of this series, I beleive that it is this generations star wars and in my opinion the greatest Sy-Fi saga ever told. Thank you Bioware for giving me many many hours of enjoyment. I will be waiting somewhat impatiently Mass Effect 4 (fingers crossed).

I am writing this based on my first playthrough which was TOTAL MILITARY STRENGTH over 7000 REDINESS 50% (need to get on that multiplayer) EFFECTIVE STRENGTH 3400. So mid level ending and i will say that if all other ending differed greatly I would have no problem with the ending at all. I dont have to much to add to what has already been said, and if someone has already pointed this out forgive me there are to many posts to read lol.

My biggest problem is as anyone who played The Arrival DLC for Mass Effect 2 would be aware that when a mass relay blows up it kills just about everything in that system. I feel like there is a great contradiction because in the arrival one blew up and whiped out nearly all the batarians at the end of 3 the all blow sky high and im suppose to belaive anyone survives. Forget about being stranded in the sol system everyone in any system with a relay would be killed out right. I would also like to see a way to save the geth I spend all this time bringing them into the mix of things and Legions scarificed himself for the cause just to see them all destroyed. Other then that I would just being repeating what many others have already said.

[Iakus]

Omega Torsk wrote...

All I really want is the option to have a happy ending with my closure. Give Shepard a life with his LI. I think he's deserved it by now.

Options are always good things.  Especially with endings.

[Ghost-Hack]

(There is nothing in this, that is an attack against, or intended to defame or discredit any member of Bioware. I am sorry in advance, if anything comes across that way.)
 
Mass Effect 3: My thoughts:

First, the positives (what I liked or what worked):

I really feel like the gameplay captures exactly what Bioware intended in the evolution from ME1, to ME2. It felt refined, meaty. I do feel, however, that since the option was given to “skip” the story/rpg elements, that those elements could have been delved into even more than they were (not that it’s necessarily something to consider in ME3, but in future products, perhaps)
I loved the idea of helping out your past squad mates as they furthered their own stories, but I felt that six months was far too short a time to have passed. Given the events of the Alpha Relay, I would have liked to see a significant time pass between games 2 and 3, (wherein Shepard’s allies would have NEEDED to move on from their time on the Normandy, now that the collector threat and the cooperation with Cerberus had ended. A year or a year and a half would have felt more… credible.)

I would have preferred (even as a download) to get a deeper, fuller experience with my past teammates. I feel like there was a missed opportunity to (like tali, and to a lesser extent Miranda) tie a personal story of the characters past with the greater war of the present. Jack, in particular, felt like a miss. Too short, too “one off”, I would have loved to have seen a bigger, fuller story there.I really liked that everyone finally had stuff to say. I can’t tell you how frustrated I was, in past games, when your squad mates had nothing to talk about unless you’d completed one of the major quest missions, or wanted to pursue LI (or the personal missions in 2). I really liked seeing the reactions to events that weren’t directly related to them (like tali being effected by Miranda’s mission.) I also love how “going back to the citadel” (with messages inviting you back) was handled, something I wish had been in ME1, and really preferred the “non-com” atmosphere of the locations. I did miss the old presidium from ME1, and wish more of it was in evidence (even if it had been rebuilt) just to give it that sense of coming full circle.I really liked the Synthesis option ending. It and the “destroy them all” were the two options that felt “right”, in my opinion. In saying that, though, I feel there is a lot missing. I just wanted to preface my complaints/comments with the ending, by saying that I did like the options provided, just not necessarily their execution.


What I didn’t like (didn’t work):

Galactic readiness meant nothing.
Honestly, if you’d never had the notion of galactic readiness, the dues ex machina….ness of the ending wouldn’t have been as bad. (Not to say it would be “good”, but it would have made the rest of the game feel less frivolous, somehow (again, in my opinion.))

Dream sequences weren’t credible for the character.This was something that struck me immediately. Shepard, whether played as a paragon or renegade has never been a haunted person. The only time the character has ever been disturbed, is after s/he first interacts with the prothean beacon at the beginning of Mass Effect 1, and even then, it was only because the dream was confusing and disturbing. Since then, s/he’s experienced the kidnapping of entire colonies walked through piles of decomposing corpses, sent friends to die, watched people violated by horrid experiments, died, and destroyed star systems. Now, suddenly, s/he is wracked by nightmares of some kid dying in the midst of hundreds of thousands of others? It just didn’t fit. It wasn’t substantiated by the character we’ve known, and (more importantly) apart from these random dream scenes it wasn’t substantiated in Shepard afterwards, either. It was never relevant; it never affected how Shepard acted or composed him/herself under fire. More importantly, it didn’t add anything to the character or the story. You got more information about Shepard’s internal feelings from her conversations with his/her love interest, and his/her reactions to Thessia than anything some pointless “running through a shadowy wood” sequences provided. 

The dream boy being the personae of the Citadel/Catalyst/Conduit.To me, this just felt like someone was being clever. “Let’s have the AI of the citadel be a child…OOH, lets make it like the child that died on earth….”It didn’t work on its own. It made no sense. It wasn’t justified or substantiated by anything in the lore or history of all three games…. And it felt clichéd and trite. All in all, bad call. It could have worked “ok”, if there had been some justification “you could see me as what ever you wished, strange that you choose this form…” or something, but it still would have felt tacky (just justified in game.)

The post-credits sequence.I’m not sure what this scene was meant to achieve. It not only undermined everything that was accomplished in the game, it (again) felt utterly cliché. “Grandpa, you tell such silly stories about space people of the past. Pfft, everyone knows that doesn’t exist!”Not to mention the instant, INSTANT knee-jerk “Long ago, in a Galaxy Far Far away….” OH.MY.GOD…The scene turns everything that’s happened into the internal story of an anecdotal frame. But you already HAVE a frame story: the initial captions of every game are in the tone of historical accounts. You have already established that this game is NOT just some ‘stargazers’ story, passed down from lorekeeper to lorekeeper through the ages. This is a factual account of a person’s life, and their pivotal importance in the history of the galaxy.

The ending choices.I actually don’t specifically dislike the choices themselves, but as presented, they make no sense. The whole point of the reapers, as explained, is to preserve organics before removing them, to allow new organic life to rise up and thrive. Concurrently, this prevents the conflict between the haves and have-nots (the game says creators and created, but truly the concept is logically extended to the situation between the krogan and council races, as well.)The first problem, of course…. IF that is the intended goal of the reapers, why do they “attack?” Why do they create monstrosities of the races they’ve come to assimilate? (While the husks could, vaguely, be considered sterile modifications of humans, cannibals, praetorians, brutes, etc definitely aren’t) Logically speaking, if they arrived in a non-invasive, non-grotesque form, they could “ascend” the races with relative ease through subtle indoctrination, rather than brute force.They don’t cause order, the maintain chaos…

Now, the second problem……Is “Says Who?” As far as we know, the Catalyst is just an AI with the Citadel as a host, like Edi and the Normandy are both separate and the same. So the Catalyst creates the reapers, yet the reapers don’t rebel against the Catalyst (which would have been awesome, actually)… So who says that this is the way it “must be?”SO, because the Catalyst’s logic is inherently flawed (on both counts), we (the player) instantly reject everything it says. None of the choices have any validity, because we only have the Catalyst’s word that they are A.) The only choices and B.) Will actually do, what they Catalyst says they will do.

Controlling the reapers makes no sense, because Shepard has to die (and we’re never given any reason “why” we’d die) which defeats the purpose of controlling them (the puppets can’t dance if the puppet master’s dead.)
Destroying them makes no sense, because (as per the Catalyst) the reapers provide a necessary function of maintaining the status quo, and With our actions in the game between the Quarians and the Geth, we’ve proven that while the created may rise up against their creators, peace can be achieved if they are given time.
The third choice, Synthesis, is the only one that actually makes sense, given what we’ve been told by the Catalyst. In a sense, all beings are made equal (both organic and synthetic). However, it instantly loses integrity because A.) That doesn’t stop the species that exist from creating new things, which would “inevitably” rise up against them and B.) For no explicable reason, destroys the mass relays (if everything becomes “equal”, there’s no reason to stop using the mass relays, as that technology is a part of all the new life that exists.)
But there’s no reason to believe the Catalyst, nothing it says is accurate or justified by the events of the game (in fact, the Catalyst is pretty efficiently proven wrong on every possible point.)
And I’d like to point out, this is just discussing the ending from a purely logical perspective in THIS game alone. When combined with two more full games of lore and evidence and exposition, the Catalyst makes no sense at all. It’s reasoning is unfounded, it’s conclusions wont solve it’s problem, and the three choices provided, while logical in the sense of “I should be able to do X” make no sense for the situation, the setting, or the characters.


Some ways to “fix” the game:
(just my opinions, of course)

Firstly, we really DO need a different ending. But it doesn’t have to be a “happy” ending, per say. It could be a “fourth choice” to the current ones, but personally I’d rather see a restructuring of the three choices, if possible:Choice 1: Renegade (red light), destroy all synthetic life, the mass relays and most technology. Shepard dies as the citadel is rendered inert, watching the explosions, sitting next to Anderson, maybe.Choice 2: Paragon (Blue light), synthesis, mass relays survive, reapers fly up into space and break apart into space junk floating around earth (citadel survives, Shepard survives)Choice 3: Neutral (center) “We’ll take our chances”. Shepard rejects the Catalyst’s logic, and its choices. Shepard then calls Hackett and tells him to fire everything at the citadel, because it controls the reapers (may need to include a line of dialogue in the Shep/Catalyst exchange to justify that little leap of logic). Then, your “readiness” score determines what happens. If you have over the minimum, you succeed but the toll is heavy. The Citadel, Reapers and relays are destroyed, but organics (and geth) win the day. The destruction of the citadel destroys half the earth (and in the future, may make the planet unlivable.) Prologue is of Geth and other races building a space station (or repairing earth’s relay). If you have near max readiness, the chain reaction destroys the reapers and the citadel but the relays remain intact. Shep is, of course, killed along with the citadel, but goes out a totally bad ass hero.I know that would probably take a pretty hefty re-write, but I think it would be more like what the playerbase was hoping for out of the final game.

DLC that expands upon the battles across the galaxy for the single player experience. I wanted to take back Omega (I really felt like Aria was wasted in this game), wanted to fight alongside Kal’regaar (especially so I got to have some camaraderie with him, before he dies heroically off screen), I another mission arch with jack, and I wanted her time at my back when we stormed Cerberus. I wanted to go help Garrius save his sister or cousin or something, dropping into pavalen’s chaos and maybe having to play it like a stealth mission (ala rescuing Kenson.) I wanted to do something similar with Ashley, MAN I wanted a loyalty-type mission with Ashley and Kaiden… really barked my buns that after finally getting them back, if they weren’t your love interest, they didn’t have too much going on… I wanted something more meaningful with James, too. I felt like he was tacked on, a little (granted, I haven’t romanced him yet) and would liked to have done something to help him out. 

Elaborate on the prologue cutscene and make it make some sense
(like, why the heck is joker flying through a mass relay in the first place? He was AT the fight, AT earth… where’s he going?)This is the END of a saga. It needs more weight than “and they survived the crash…” (Granted, I haven’t seen all the endings yet, but indications are, they don’t change much.)
In that same breath, get rid of the post-credits clip. I know that sounds harsh, and I know it might be a lead in to something you’re planning in the future… but it really isn’t good. It would be lame, even if it did work, but it’s REALLY not working here. 


And there are little things, too, that would help the game, and the feeling of a solid close to the series, a lot: 

Make it so that Shepard had been dry-docked, and under house arrest for a year or more (maybe give us a better idea of the time having passed, since the events of the past game). Time enough to get used to being out of the loop, for his squad to go their own ways, for Cerberus to disseminate what they’d learned from the collector base and for a bond to form with James Vega.Give the Catalyst a line of dialogue that explains its form has been chosen by Shepard’s subconscious (or something similar). It’s been done in other stories, but this whole Catalyst thing has been done before, already, so might as well make it feel credible, here.  
I remember in the first two games, the player’s backstory choices lead to little side missions on the citadel… an old gang member, or slaver survivor… and if you were a navy brat, you could hear stuff about your mom in the news….I wanted to experience that in the third game. It would have been awesome to get a call from your mom’s ship, or have that scummy gang leader be a part of the resistance fighters… I wanted to see Parsini again, maybe help her find a useful place in the alliance.I guess I just wanted MORE things to tie this game to the previous ones. It really felt like a lot of subtlety was swept under the rug to make the game more accessible to new players…. But I don’t think they would have cared and, for me, it really stole some of the soul of the series from its closing act. This probably sounds silly, but I would have liked to drive a mako tank one last time…






I do agree with most people that the ending needs work, but I wanted to point out something I’ve noticed over the years. Bioware has had a habit of seeing a complaint, and (seemingly) assuming that it is the WHOLE element that is the problem (re: Mako. The problem was how much time was spent in it, not the tank itself (I personally loved it’s use in the story missions in ME1, it was just boring to hop down onto a bunch of palate-swapped rocks and look for one thing on each))The same is true here, and (I feel) part of the reason bioware was so surprised by the backlash from the core fans.It is not (speaking for myself, at least) that EVERYTHING about the ending is “bad”, but rather it completely neglects our actions up to that point. 

If all our actions lead up to those options (i.e. the information we discover about the crucible is contradictory, one saying it is a tool to control the reapers, another to destroy synthetic life… or something) then the choices would make some sense. As it stands, all our actions are building up an army to fight a war that doesn’t matter, only getting to the Catalyst matters, and we only find out why that matters, in the last moments of the game. And because it is all that matters, EVERYTHING else in the game…. Doesn’t.
So, there needs to be balance, the rest of the game has to matter.

We traveled around the galaxy hunting Saren to prove the reapers were coming, and to stop them from catching us unaware… And we DID hunt down Saren, and proved the reapers were coming, and stop them from catching us unaware (even if people refused to listen/believe)We joined up with Cerberus to form a badass squad that could survive a suicidal attack on the collectors and find out why they did what they did… And we DID form a badass squad that could survive the suicidal attack on the Collector’s base and found out that they were Protheans repurposed by the reapers, creating a human reaper.

We traveled around the galaxy, uniting all the spacefaring spieces into one massive army to save earth, and the galaxy, and the future from the reaper threat…. But then we’re asked to choose door one, two, or three… none of which involve a massive army, saving earth, the galaxy, or the future….



It doesn’t have to be a happy ending (to me, anyway), but it has to make sense. I know the writers of this game have taken a creative writing class in their past. All fiction demands that the reader finds the story credible. Right now, this story lacks Credibility, the Evidence doesn’t support the conclusion. The events of the game must foreshadow and justify the ending, for the story to work.

Modifié par Ghost-Hack, 23 mars 2012 - 07:07 .

[Mortifus7]

I'd just like to start by saying that I loved mass effect 3, regardless of how fan reactions to the end were it is an impressive, ambitious and very emotionally engaging piece of work. The team that produced mass effect 3 should be especially proud of their achievements, because the work shows with every battle, with every beat in the dialogue and every player choice, a real desire to create something extraordinary. I know, from experience on both sides of the fence how damn important a project you devote years to becomes in your heart, so I want to make sure that while my opinions might rankle in places, that I am nothing if not supportive of the team, not the company or the outcome of the product. The people who make these entertainments, little escapisms, deserve some credit and some praise for their hard work.

Sadly, onto suggestions.

Look, without decending too much into the debate over whether the ending was good or not, it's fairly clear to me that this ending was either rushed, not subject to peer editing or simply a "what the hell were you thinking?" moment on behalf of whoever or whomever was responsible for the writing for this. To me, I look at it as an issue with structure in narrative, because that's what the game boils down to- an interractive narrative.

Apart from the illogical end cutscenes, "bespoke" ending, the main problem to me seems to be small niggling matters that happen within the first and second act that have cause the third act issue. Fixing the problem with the ending, as any good published professional, hobbyist or writing student will tell you is often the cause to re-write monumental amounts of work, or really go through with a scalpel and excise the problems that make the work suck.

Firstly, it's clear that the reapers are the primary antagonistic force within the narrative. (Durr) Regardless of whether or not the Illusive man achieves his ends, the point is moot. There are two kilometer killer robots from dark space destroying all life in the galaxy. The stakes are high and that's really what carries the narrative- the sheer amount that can be lost.

So why was Harbinger muzzled? I can understand that the reapers are now an unstoppable force with higher priorities, but as with Harbinger's actions on Horizon and his already established hate-on for shephard his inaction as an antagonist to thwart the protagonist is non existent. Why? It wouldn't even have to be more than a minor encounter, hell, you could have Harbinger talking to all the little mortals as you escape in the first level. It wouldn't even have to be directly aimed at shephard. His sheer proximity would be enough, to put a face to the name and to have a moment where we as the player goes "Crap, we're going to have to actually fight this thing at one point".

I think that's one of the main problems with the final showdown with Harbinger and why it misfires as a narrative device. There's no connection between the two characters that establishes a need for harbinger to be there personally. Clearly harbinger thinks he should be, but why? if he wasn't actively trying to stop shephard in the first three quarters of the game, knowing how much of a threat he was (sending reapers, indoctrinated assassins, you name it at him) why would he care now? Unless he had an "oh crap" moment, which we as the player wouldn't see, Believe me it's still a massively explosive moment, but I felt at that point that it was just thrown in. Sure, have an unwinnable fight, a laser dodge derby. That's fine- you'd know more about creating an encounter than me. But I spent the majority of the game going "Oh man, I can't wait to face off against harbinger, is he going to just show up at one point while i'm on a planet or...". This build up of anticipation backfires, in my opinion. To the point where I actually went "well, I haven't seen him all game/story, I don't care any more".

It just lets down the player in a small way at the back of your mind until you go "well, actually, how good WAS the final battle?:

Second issue, the introduction of Kai Leng. Now, i'm not against the use of his character at all, but he was introduced far too late game to really warrant any importance. He is a mini boss at best. His inclusion and tie in to the novels (of which, I must confess I have not read), might make more sense to those who have read the literature, but to the rank and file he was an unknown. A little more light on him may have helped, instead he just comes across as the liquid snake of the series, minus the semi-interesting big bad story. He just had an inferiority complex with shephard.

So why is he basically the last boss fight? Think about it, beyond the hold out and take down of the reaper in the streets of london (another throw away character), there is no real sense of defeating an enemy. And even that fight is yet another mini boss, because we, the player and shephard, have absolutely no investment in it's destruction beyond it being an obstacle to overcome- which is essentially the mechanic of a game. There is no real final struggle, no push. If the hold out section was meant to be it- then why wasn't it harbinger we took down? He would have been a sufficient enough narrative threat (the reaper was still an intimidating bastard) to warrant the exchange with the illusive man. The real villain of this story.

In prose, film and in games, there must always be some form of reckoning, some struggle. A few exchanged words and then a gunshot can be an amazing finish, because it simply is so cut and dried- the character has paid his dues to earn his victory. In Mass Effect 3 though?... it's like watching a rubber balloon deflate.

Now, don't get me wrong. At the time you're riding the anticipation train going "Oh wow, what's going to happen next?" because you don't know. The moment with anderson killed me emotionally, such a good scene. It works. But as I said, on relfection it, actually doesn't. By itself it's a fantastic scene in a story that is misplaced, misused, out of context or is suddenly inserted where it shouldn't be. When you don't know what will happen next, it's great. When you do, it retroactively becomes stupid. Why would you care about the illusive man and his gambit when ultimately you get to choose one of three endings? It devalues his actions, it devalues his death as the primary antagonist.

As far as the star child... it was a poor choice of a cathartic moment. I could have just watched the crucible fire as shephard slowly died, radio chatter confirming the victory, a smile on his face a final moment of victory. Then he passes. Maybe a small montage of moments prior in the game, along with some dialogue. Then you could cut to the bit after the credits talking about the shephard.

Finally, the choice at the end is possibly the theme that you wanted to explore with the trilogy about the nature of synthetic life, etc. But it's not the primary theme in this story.Why throw that at the player from left field at the end? I thought it was explored nicely with joker and edi, you didn't need any more than that. I felt that the main theme was unity in the face of destruction, putting aside old hatreds to face a common foe. It loses it's punch when you go "hey, the reapers are actually pretty cool guys, we should totally throw ourselves in the giant laser." The "moral choice" system at the end is so simplistic it verges on insulting when you look at the intricate check and balance you as the player have spent probably over a hundred hours experiencing with the first second and third game up to that point.

Anyway, that's the more expanded version

I suppose my suggestion boils down to the following points:

- Create harbinger as more of a threat within the piece and EARLIER GAME, don't have to do much more than import some dialogue earlier game during the initial assault on earth if you want to save money and time developing encounter. Maybe also not reveal their inner workings as they lose their menace when you can understand their reasons- it humanises a giant killer robot. probably not what you want.

- Character development for Kai Leng and why is he the final ACTUAL boss fight? he's a robot ninja when I have eldritch machine-things from beyond to kill.

- Narrative structure needs to be re-examined, NOT just the end.

- If we know why the reapers are doing something, it makes their boasts of "you cannot comprehend us" hollow. If we must find out their reasons, make it better that "bringing order to chaos". Because we actually can grasp that concept, if not the monstrous methods.

- Remember what your core theme is. I personally felt it was about unity in the face of destruction (synthetic or organic or whatever), but if it isn't, approach it in a better way!

I hope that this helps you improve the game, whether as a vote of confidence that you can, or fromt eh actual suggestions.

Modifié par Mortifus7, 23 mars 2012 - 07:11 .

[xdognatex]

 hallelujah! SPECULATIONS!

[Spartan_472]

Our choices should matter especially in the end...

As written in a private message 12:22 PM 2012-03-21 before I gained forum access:

After a week away from most things electronic, I managed to return to my humble abode with my wife. We arrived anticipating to complete an amazing final episode in one of the gaming industry's most epic sagas. Up until the very end of the game, the entertainment and story value were absolutely astronomical. Unfortunately, those things were all but forgotten toward the end of the day due to such a controversial ending. We were shocked. After two days of searching for answers all over the web, a certain few Twitter comments warranted intervention.

Please civilly inform EA/Bioware, and more specifically Ms. Merizan, that this "lurker" shall not go silently into the night. The current ending of Mass Effect 3 strays too far from the decision-based formula each installment built upon. That portion of the game (last 15~ minutes) is so disheartening, in our eyes, one may easily believe Mass Effect 3 to be an unfinished, rushed, or faulty product. Add the current way EA/Bioware and its PR department seem to be handling things, and you've got yourself one heck of a corporate nightmare...yet, hope remains.

Within the gaming industry, we are witnessing the collapse of a barrier falsely erected to alienate gaming fans from even being considered actual humanistic consumers. (All it took was an abrupt ending to a globally adored entertainment product.) Each one of us comes from our own walks of life with personal requirements we must meet on a daily basis. For some, those engagements force us to allocate the majority of our time (free or not) outside the realms the gaming industry communities call home. We individuals aren't always able to comment on our emotions outside of our own local tribes. Nevertheless, we do have our limits and understand when our rights as both a fiscal consumer and an informed human being are being altered outside of our control. That is a line my wife and I feel EA/Bioware, a leader in the gaming industry, has pushed too far.

As a consumer, I am very much entitled to receive a service or product as advertised or promised should I provide the proper credits to receive said item. I am also entitled to politely inform the creator/provider of said product if the item does not hold true to its original description. Furthermore, I expect to receive respect and treatment a sensible human would receive during any form of communication between myself and the creator/provider concerning any fallacies from said service or product. It matters not what the dialogues between myself and the other entity entail; companies must communicate with their consumers as they would someone they see everyday. Being respected as a human being, treated as a valued consumer, and provided options to sate any dissatisfaction with the product or service are an absolute must. Although we remain civil, we have yet to see this organization fully take these ideals into account. That is why we are here.

Bioware/EA, a growing number of your consumers feel confused, betrayed, and disappointed with the Mass Effect 3 ending. It was not what was advertised or expected. Moreover, we believe the way your company is handling the issue to be disappointing. You've got a grand opportunity on your hands. We require a direct 2-way communication with answers and solutions to this fiasco. This community has taken the first step to provide your organization with plenty of data and civil points of meaningful dialogues to interact within. All you need do is make some non-linear decisions by thinking outside the gaming industries' box. The balls in your court now. What will you decree the relationship status become between your gaming organization and its human fans/consumers? You know where to find us...Holding the Line.

Sincerely,
Spartan 472

-Always Hope


EDIT - Repaired Formatting

Modifié par Spartan_472, 23 mars 2012 - 07:13 .

[captainchimp]

Thank you for having this feedback space!  It's much appreciated.
 I would not mind if the Destory ending, where Shephard lives, could be achieved without multiplayer.  I mean, down the line, if I want to replay the game, I wouldn't mind being able to achieve that ending without having to go into the multi mode.  Either that, or simply give our squads more EMS every time we promote them.  Having to promote them a 1000 times just to get enough EMS at 50% Galactic readiness is kind of a pain.  I'm just thinking about games I've enjoyed in the past that don't have dedicated servers anymore, or no more players.  Down the line I'd like to be able to get that ending without having to go through multiplayer.
Anyway, thanks for having made this game to begin with!  I've not had as much fun with a game in the past few years as I have had with ME3.  I look forward to seeing what else you guys bring to the table!

[I. C. Wiener]

The final: hero/neutral/renegade
not A (Blue) B (Green) C (Red) equal and ugly

[VigilancePress]

Upon much consideration and interaction with others on these forums, I have the following things to say in addition to what I said in my earlier posts:

The narrative should belong to the player until the end. During the so-called "Indoctrination Theory" part of the story, where everything goes slow-mo and things become erratic, you start taking that control away from us. By distorting reality, by changing the meaning of paragon/renegade responses, and so forth. Then, after the climactic moment, you whisk past us and show a series of events without context and then introduce a mysterious narrator and his "gandchild" to explain the whole thing as being part of a narrative we never really had control over.

This is unfair. This is a large part of what made me so angry, and it took me a while to put it into words.

If you ever take narrative control away from a player, you *have* to give it back. The only reason for doing so is to create a thematic shift (like when Scarecrow steals control of the game away from the player in Arkham Asylum). You don't do this at the end of a game because it leaves the player feeling impotent, like a burglary victim. I sat there numb for several minutes, waiting for the game to return, but all I got was an advertisement for more DLC.

Gaming is a new medium, and you are making bold, experimental strides in it. But this was a huge, huge misstep.

What I wanted from the game was a sense of closure and victory. A sense that I had won the day and would get to retire from combat to enjoy my retirement with the love interest of my choice. I wanted to 'get the girl' and ride off into the sunset.

What I *needed* was to feel I *owned* that ending, like it mattered because of something *I* chose. Instead, you stole the narrative authority from me bit by bit, finally handing it over to some unnamed "Stargazer." That doesn't make me feel like *I* shaped the ending. That makes me feel like you were mocking me for caring about the story.

I don't like that.

[dwilson031]

I think it's important that Bioware makes it clear the new endings are alternatives to the ones already in place. While I'm not one of them, there are people who like the endings already in place, and should not have those taken away or altered.

[Sanrei]

dwilson031 wrote...

I think it's important that Bioware makes it clear the new endings are alternatives to the ones already in place. While I'm not one of them, there are people who like the endings already in place, and should not have those taken away or altered.

If you read Muzyka's blog post he makes it pretty clear they have no intention of removing the original ending. See: Sacrificing artistic integrity.


What scares me is that it may also mean they have no intention of providing us with alternative endings. Just explanations and 'closure.'

Modifié par PedEgg, 23 mars 2012 - 07:48 .

[Gotthammer666]

Yeah, I think that would be worse in some ways- just getting more of the same than what the game deserves.

On a second play through and it's honestly really depressing knowing that no matter what I do I can't, as I did in ME1 & 2, get a 'happy ending'. Making all those promises to characters about little blue children when it can't happen, saving people on the citadel when the damn thing gets blown up no matter what... it's so against everything I love about the series and breaks my heart that these characters I've grown to love are so casually discarded and there's nothing I can do, no matter my choices.

[I. C. Wiener]

PedEgg wrote...

If you read Muzyka's blog post he makes it pretty clear they have no intention of removing the original ending. See: Sacrificing artistic integrity.


What scares me is that it may also mean they have no intention of providing us with alternative endings. Just explanations and 'closure.'

I think so too