338 réponses à ce sujet

[GreyhameBioware]

Ooops.

Modifié par GreyhameBioware, 17 mars 2012 - 05:12 .

[vertigo72]

Wolven_Soul wrote...

vertigo72 wrote...

Doctor Uburian wrote...

vertigo72 wrote...

Kronner wrote...

Three words: geth, quarians, peace.

Destroy is the only right answer. The Guardian is full of **** and the red magic obviously does not kill geth.

Not sure if I understand. If you choose to unify there will be no war because there will be no organics and no synthetics but a new form of life. Probably there will be some new war, but not his one.

But those species didn't chose to ¨evolve¨!

It's their decisison, not the Starchild's or Shepards decision.

They trust him, it's like a democracy. But if you don't think so you can just destroy Reapers or do nothing. Plenty of choices.

They trusted him in the effort to destroy the Reapers.  They never have any knowledge of this choice.  If they did have a knowledge of it, I have no doubts they would be screaming at Shepherd to blow the Reapers up.

He actually can destroy Reapers, there is an option? But, probably, that will change nothing, as I said before. New synthetics will be created, followed by war, followed by new Reapers. Or maybe it will, you choose to destroy them or not.

[Genera1Nemesis]

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

Doctor Uburian wrote...

vertigo72 wrote...

Kronner wrote...

Three words: geth, quarians, peace.

Destroy is the only right answer. The Guardian is full of **** and the red magic obviously does not kill geth.

Not sure if I understand. If you choose to unify there will be no war because there will be no organics and no synthetics but a new form of life. Probably there will be some new war, but not his one.

But those species didn't chose to ¨evolve¨!

It's their decisison, not the Starchild's or Shepards decision.

Indeed.

To the OP, could you ever imagine homogenizing all the people on earth for the promise of ending human conflict? If you can, then you've already lost. It's diversity and unity in the face of adversity that's inspiring and powerful, not "if everyone is the same, then people won't fight anymore".

Ever see The Day the Earth Stood Still? It's basically the same theme as what the Reapers represented...

[The Night Mammoth]

Care to elaborate on that point?

[xeNNN]

vertigo72 wrote...

irishScott3 wrote...

vertigo72 wrote...

Doctor Uburian wrote...

But that's not what they promised.

What they promised?

*sigh*
http://www.gameinfor...x=2&PageIndex=2

With the ending in Mass Effect 2, there were so many different
variables and possibilities for the outcome and what could happen. As
players reached the end, they started comparing notes and trying to
figure out how it worked. A few months after it came out, we ran a chart in the magazine
that showed the layout of how to get the different endings and how
things happened. Is that same type of complexity built into the ending
of Mass Effect 3?

Yeah, and I’d say much more so, because we have the ability to build
the endings out in a way that we don’t have to worry about eventually
tying them back together somewhere. This story arc is coming to an end
with this game. That means the endings can be a lot more different. At
this point we’re taking into account so many decisions that you’ve made
as a player and reflecting a lot of that stuff. It’s not even in any way
like the traditional game endings, where you can say how many endings
there are or whether you got ending A, B, or C.

It’s more like there are some really obvious things that are
different and then lots and lots of smaller things, lots of things about
who lives and who dies, civilizations that rose and fell, all the way
down to individual characters. That becomes the state of where you left
your galaxy. The endings have a lot more sophistication and variety in
them. It would be interesting to see if somebody could put together a
chart for that. Even with Mass Effect 2’s...

Ending of ME2 was very simple: you destroy the Collector base or not. It wasn't even a blue or red answer. I don't see any diffence. And you can also loose people in ME3, i lost Tali.

indeed mass effect 2 was a simple ending but it was clear and made sense as by the end of mass effect 2 you were left with the 2 choices you knew youd have to make through out the game which was destroy it or keep up as there was sufficient build up and momentum to it (even if it was pretty basic), what he means is that because they envolved colours its not part of the problem when a choice is clearly paragon but mark with renegade colours with an illogical consequence which makes no sense. yes they had reaper code blahblahbalh but it doesnt just effect the geth it effect all technology but yeah the endings are messed up and many people including myself have listed reasons why and they continue to mount up. 

PS: according to the mass effect 3 universe ... you do lose people yes.... everyone dies >.> also the mass effect 2 ending wasnt even a happy ending it was more of a temporary victory feeling but it was still good enough, mass effect 3 however.....  jeez.

Modifié par xeNNN, 17 mars 2012 - 05:16 .

[vertigo72]

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

Doctor Uburian wrote...

vertigo72 wrote...

Kronner wrote...

Three words: geth, quarians, peace.

Destroy is the only right answer. The Guardian is full of **** and the red magic obviously does not kill geth.

Not sure if I understand. If you choose to unify there will be no war because there will be no organics and no synthetics but a new form of life. Probably there will be some new war, but not his one.

But those species didn't chose to ¨evolve¨!

It's their decisison, not the Starchild's or Shepards decision.

Indeed.

To the OP, could you ever imagine homogenizing all the people on earth for the promise of ending human conflict? If you can, then you've already lost. It's diversity and unity in the face of adversity that's inspiring and powerful, not "if everyone is the same, then people won't fight anymore".

You are arguing against synthesis choice. As I said before, you don't homogenizing people, you create new kind of life. All people and animals and plants are organics but all are different. Same with new form of life. 

[Cody]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

CodyMelch wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

Again, this is a glass is half empty perspective at best. And not have the resources? What about all those destroyed reapers everywhere? What about all those detroyed ships? All they would need to build is one ship capable of jumping faster than normal FTL; and again; even if that took 10-100 years to do it would still be better than letting the Reapers continue on for another fw million years killing an infinite number of people.

The destroyed Reapers are only around in one of the three 'options' you're given. Doesn't matter anyway, destroyed Reapers are proven to indoctrinate people. 

Destroyed ships can't exactly do much. Some salvagable metal, big woop. How do they extract it? How do they process it? 

They could solve the FTL problem, sure. 
In a few hundred years.

Wrong. Once dead indoctrination is no loner a problem. And it does not take that long to create some useful tech off of a dead reaper. The Thanix Cannon proves this.

The derelict Reaper in ME2 indoctrinates the Cerberus science team, turns some into husks and scions. 

As for the Thanix Cannons, well, that's one piece of tech to improve on one very small part of a single ship, a piece of tech the crew were already extremely close to being abel to create themselves. 
That doesn't mean there's a wealth of other easily extracted information which can ensure people's survival from starvation.

The derelict reaper was still alive is why. It was close to death but alive. This is why they blew it up. This was hinted at throughout the mission on it. The reapers at the end of ME3, if destoryed are deactviated and such. There is nothing left going on.

Modifié par CodyMelch, 17 mars 2012 - 05:17 .

[Genera1Nemesis]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Care to elaborate on that point?

In taht film (the original is considered a classic) an advanced alien comes to earth to wipe out all humanity because we are destroying the earth with our technology and thus they concluded that the earth was too valuable to let us destroy it outright because of our limited perspective.

[Vergil_dgk]

vertigo72 wrote...

 
People pick the details but don't see the whole picture. So, there is how I understand the whole story and why I think the ending is very good:


You, Shepard, are here to solve a big problem that you don't even understand before the end. Which is this problem?

The main problem of the ME Universe is that organic life creates syntetic life then tries to destroy it. Always. It's like an axiom in this ME Universe, you have to trust Reapers (and Bioware writers) on that. Syntetic life is like organic life, but it is not limited by the body. Most important thing it is immortal. So any AI can evolve as much as they can, because they don't have time constraints. Because of that they are immensely superior. Also, they don't have emotions, at least not much. So we have this hopeless and very very ancient war, that's our problem.


(Don't say that you didn't see that coming because you fight syntetics in all 3 ME games. Reapers, Geth, husks, indoctrinated people, ...)


AIs are like Legion, they don't really need to fight but they will protect their life. So some ancient AI found a solution: a way to unify synthetic and organic life. The problem with this solution is that AIs don't want to unify themselves with some retards (would you like to unify yourself with your pocket calculator?) Also, they don't want to make a choice themselves, maybe they don't have consensus or something. Also, they don't want to force organics.


So, they gave organics a test: evolve enogh and you will have a choice what to do. To pass the test you have to build a big stick, put it on the Citadel and press a button. That's all. Then you will have 3 choices. You have 50000 years to do it, now go and evolve. Every 50k years we (Reapers) will come and give you an exam. When you fail we will copy your software and some DNA into a new reaper then use you for some purpose. 

The Citadel, the little boy, is like the examiner who will judge you. That's why it doesn't inferfere.


And Shepard was the first organic to do it, unify everybody to build the stick and arrive to the exam to press a button.


About 3 choices: it's a part of the exam,  only one choice is correct. 


If you choose to destroy or control the Reapers, then the problem will rise again sooner or later. Synthetics will always evolve into AI and the war will start again, eventually new Reapers will be created and so on. 


If you choose to unify both races then there will be no war anymore and only one form of life that will inherit best parts of both forms. Something like immortal people with all their emotions.


So, to ensure that you really really gave the answer you have right to only one answer, after you die. (If you don't choose you die too, as every 50000 years)


That's my view of this story and that's why I believe the ending is perfect, despite some minor problems, like no helmets...

I think the explanation from the star-child is nonsensical and stupid in many ways, but that's not my main problem with the ending. My main problem is the horrible delivery. A new character is introduced literally minutes before the end. This guy would seem to be a clear enemy having just killed billions of sentients all over the galaxy. Yet we are somehow only able to take everything he says at his word and have almost no choice of how things end (after a game in which the whole point has been your free choice). Then there are all the plotholes/unanswered questions with the teleporting crew, the jungle planet, Shepard breathing at the end, galatic civ. destroyed etc. I really cannot fathom how anyone can think the ending is good - perhaps some people might not have a strong, negative reaction to it - but good?

[vertigo72]

xeNNN wrote...

vertigo72 wrote...

irishScott3 wrote...

vertigo72 wrote...

Doctor Uburian wrote...

But that's not what they promised.

What they promised?

*sigh*
http://www.gameinfor...x=2&PageIndex=2

With the ending in Mass Effect 2, there were so many different
variables and possibilities for the outcome and what could happen. As
players reached the end, they started comparing notes and trying to
figure out how it worked. A few months after it came out, we ran a chart in the magazine
that showed the layout of how to get the different endings and how
things happened. Is that same type of complexity built into the ending
of Mass Effect 3?

Yeah, and I’d say much more so, because we have the ability to build
the endings out in a way that we don’t have to worry about eventually
tying them back together somewhere. This story arc is coming to an end
with this game. That means the endings can be a lot more different. At
this point we’re taking into account so many decisions that you’ve made
as a player and reflecting a lot of that stuff. It’s not even in any way
like the traditional game endings, where you can say how many endings
there are or whether you got ending A, B, or C.

It’s more like there are some really obvious things that are
different and then lots and lots of smaller things, lots of things about
who lives and who dies, civilizations that rose and fell, all the way
down to individual characters. That becomes the state of where you left
your galaxy. The endings have a lot more sophistication and variety in
them. It would be interesting to see if somebody could put together a
chart for that. Even with Mass Effect 2’s...

Ending of ME2 was very simple: you destroy the Collector base or not. It wasn't even a blue or red answer. I don't see any diffence. And you can also loose people in ME3, i lost Tali.

indeed mass effect 2 was a simple ending but it was clear and made sense as by the end of mass effect 2 you were left with the 2 choices you knew youd have to make through out the game which was destroy it or keep up as there was sufficient build up and momentum to it (even if it was pretty basic), what he means is that because they envolved colours its not part of the problem when a choice is clearly paragon but mark with renegade colours with an illogical consequence which makes no sense. yes they had reaper code blahblahbalh but it doesnt just effect the geth it effect all technology but yeah the endings are messed up and many people including myself have listed reasons why and they continue to mount up. 

PS: according to the mass effect 3 universe ... you do lose people yes.... everyone dies >.> also the mass effect 2 ending wasnt even a happy ending it was more of a temporary victory feeling but it was still good enough, mass effect 3 however.....  jeez.

I think you nailed the problem. The people are angry because Shep dies. Shep dies implies they lost. Critical mission failure. In my opinion it's not true in this case, Shepard dies and you win. 

Modifié par vertigo72, 17 mars 2012 - 05:18 .

[Wolven_Soul]

vertigo72 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

vertigo72 wrote...

Now why it's garbage? I'm talking about the middle answer, Jooker, EDI, even plants was rewritten, they all have glowy bits.

So? Plants are still plants. Humans are still humans. Machines are still machines.
It literally changes nothing, other than everyone has glowy bits.

Okay, to borrow from another's analogy, if you go back in time and take a black slave who has been used and abused by white people, and suddenly make him white, is he going to forget about all the crap that the white people put him through? 

A better one might be, take a jewish man who has been through the concentration camps.  Then Hitler says to the jewish fellow, hey, we changed our minds and are going to make you a full fledged German citizen.  Is suddenly everything going to be all hunky dorey?  I don't think so. 

In the synthetics, the organics and synthetics are still going to be suspicious and distrustful of each other.  You cannot get over millenia of distrust and war by swapping some DNA.  It just does not work that way.


I'm sorry, I don't see it like this. There is no humans and no machines anymore, they are all unified. All life is unified, so nothing will evolve into some intellegent creature and create some new AI. It's a new form of life and their physical form is irrelevant.

[Wolven_Soul]

vertigo72 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

vertigo72 wrote...

Now why it's garbage? I'm talking about the middle answer, Jooker, EDI, even plants was rewritten, they all have glowy bits.

So? Plants are still plants. Humans are still humans. Machines are still machines.
It literally changes nothing, other than everyone has glowy bits.

I'm sorry, I don't see it like this. There is no humans and no machines anymore, they are all unified. All life is unified, so nothing will evolve into some intellegent creature and create some new AI. It's a new form of life and their physical form is irrelevant.

Okay, to borrow from another's analogy, if you go back in time and take a black slave who has been used and abused by white people, and suddenly make him white, is he going to forget about all the crap that the white people put him through?

A better one might be, take a jewish man who has been through the concentration camps. Then Hitler says to the jewish fellow, hey, we changed our minds and are going to make you a full fledged German citizen. Is suddenly everything going to be all hunky dorey? I don't think so.

In the synthetics, the organics and synthetics are still going to be suspicious and distrustful of each other. You cannot get over millenia of distrust and war by swapping some DNA. It just does not work that way.

Sorry for the double post, the other one messed up.

Modifié par Wolven_Soul, 17 mars 2012 - 05:24 .

[GreyhameBioware]

vertigo72 wrote...

I think you nailed the problem. The people are angry because Shep dies. Shep dies implies they lost. Critical mission failure. In my opinion it's not true in this case, Shepard dies and you win. 

I fully expected Shepard to die to be honest.  Even with him dying it would not have felt like a loss if they didn't throw in the fact that you pretty much destroy everything you spent the last 3 games trying to save.

Right up until Hackett said that the Crucible wasn't firing, I was happy with the end.  Sad, but happy.  I fully expected the game at that point to end with Shepard and Anderson dying next to eat other while the Reapers are destroyed/disabled by the crucible.  It's when Hackett said it wasn't firing that things went down hill to the point where the ending feels like a loss no matter what.

[vertigo72]

Vergil_dgk wrote...

vertigo72 wrote...

 
People pick the details but don't see the whole picture. So, there is how I understand the whole story and why I think the ending is very good:


You, Shepard, are here to solve a big problem that you don't even understand before the end. Which is this problem?

The main problem of the ME Universe is that organic life creates syntetic life then tries to destroy it. Always. It's like an axiom in this ME Universe, you have to trust Reapers (and Bioware writers) on that. Syntetic life is like organic life, but it is not limited by the body. Most important thing it is immortal. So any AI can evolve as much as they can, because they don't have time constraints. Because of that they are immensely superior. Also, they don't have emotions, at least not much. So we have this hopeless and very very ancient war, that's our problem.


(Don't say that you didn't see that coming because you fight syntetics in all 3 ME games. Reapers, Geth, husks, indoctrinated people, ...)


AIs are like Legion, they don't really need to fight but they will protect their life. So some ancient AI found a solution: a way to unify synthetic and organic life. The problem with this solution is that AIs don't want to unify themselves with some retards (would you like to unify yourself with your pocket calculator?) Also, they don't want to make a choice themselves, maybe they don't have consensus or something. Also, they don't want to force organics.


So, they gave organics a test: evolve enogh and you will have a choice what to do. To pass the test you have to build a big stick, put it on the Citadel and press a button. That's all. Then you will have 3 choices. You have 50000 years to do it, now go and evolve. Every 50k years we (Reapers) will come and give you an exam. When you fail we will copy your software and some DNA into a new reaper then use you for some purpose. 

The Citadel, the little boy, is like the examiner who will judge you. That's why it doesn't inferfere.


And Shepard was the first organic to do it, unify everybody to build the stick and arrive to the exam to press a button.


About 3 choices: it's a part of the exam,  only one choice is correct. 


If you choose to destroy or control the Reapers, then the problem will rise again sooner or later. Synthetics will always evolve into AI and the war will start again, eventually new Reapers will be created and so on. 


If you choose to unify both races then there will be no war anymore and only one form of life that will inherit best parts of both forms. Something like immortal people with all their emotions.


So, to ensure that you really really gave the answer you have right to only one answer, after you die. (If you don't choose you die too, as every 50000 years)


That's my view of this story and that's why I believe the ending is perfect, despite some minor problems, like no helmets...

I think the explanation from the star-child is nonsensical and stupid in many ways, but that's not my main problem with the ending. My main problem is the horrible delivery. A new character is introduced literally minutes before the end. This guy would seem to be a clear enemy having just killed billions of sentients all over the galaxy. Yet we are somehow only able to take everything he says at his word and have almost no choice of how things end (after a game in which the whole point has been your free choice). Then there are all the plotholes/unanswered questions with the teleporting crew, the jungle planet, Shepard breathing at the end, galatic civ. destroyed etc. I really cannot fathom how anyone can think the ending is good - perhaps some people might not have a strong, negative reaction to it - but good?

The argument about delivery, I can agree. They could explain it better. Well, for me it will be a little bit too much explanations, but I think it would help people to understand.

Reapers don't kill, they collect and store most of the people. For them it's not that horrible, it's like format a disk. 

We have all really  important choices and also we can choose nothing and die.

As I said before, we don't know how much time it took for Shep to wake up on the Citadel, we don't know how much time passed before the Crucible started to work. There is time for them to quit Earth. Or maybe it's all a dream.

[vertigo72]

GreyhameBioware wrote...

vertigo72 wrote...

I think you nailed the problem. The people are angry because Shep dies. Shep dies implies they lost. Critical mission failure. In my opinion it's not true in this case, Shepard dies and you win. 

I fully expected Shepard to die to be honest.  Even with him dying it would not have felt like a loss if they didn't throw in the fact that you pretty much destroy everything you spent the last 3 games trying to save.

Right up until Hackett said that the Crucible wasn't firing, I was happy with the end.  Sad, but happy.  I fully expected the game at that point to end with Shepard and Anderson dying next to eat other while the Reapers are destroyed/disabled by the crucible.  It's when Hackett said it wasn't firing that things went down hill to the point where the ending feels like a loss no matter what.

Sorry, I didn't play every ending, but can't you destroy the reapers?

[Wolven_Soul]

vertigo72 wrote...

pharsti wrote...

You can read what is wrong with the ending everywhere, literally, no need for me to go into details here.

But, to everyone who is perfectly fine with the ending i say this.
First, right now i am so envious of you its not even funny. Its good that you liked it. Its awesome that you can ignore some.... minor inconsistencies and rationalize the ending, its good that you didnt expect anything of what they promised... me? I can not.

Second, since you liked it.... so.... what was up with the Normandy and your squad >_>?

Normandy and squad was transported by a blast of green quantum ionic FTL field into a parallel universe. Or maybe it was Shepard's last dream, in fact they all dead. Or maybe some time passed between Shepard's death and their escape. Or maybe ... Why people want everything explained like in scool? Use your imagination. For me it's not very important because it happens after the logical end of the story.

If I wanted to use my imagination I would read a book, and I do, quite often.  This is a video game, I do not want to speculate on how things might end up after spending hundreds of hours workings towards the resolution.  I want to see some definitive and clear closure for all the time that I spent on this.

[The Night Mammoth]

CodyMelch wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

CodyMelch wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

Again, this is a glass is half empty perspective at best. And not have the resources? What about all those destroyed reapers everywhere? What about all those detroyed ships? All they would need to build is one ship capable of jumping faster than normal FTL; and again; even if that took 10-100 years to do it would still be better than letting the Reapers continue on for another fw million years killing an infinite number of people.

The destroyed Reapers are only around in one of the three 'options' you're given. Doesn't matter anyway, destroyed Reapers are proven to indoctrinate people. 

Destroyed ships can't exactly do much. Some salvagable metal, big woop. How do they extract it? How do they process it? 

They could solve the FTL problem, sure. 
In a few hundred years.

Wrong. Once dead indoctrination is no loner a problem. And it does not take that long to create some useful tech off of a dead reaper. The Thanix Cannon proves this.

The derelict Reaper in ME2 indoctrinates the Cerberus science team, turns some into husks and scions. 

As for the Thanix Cannons, well, that's one piece of tech to improve on one very small part of a single ship, a piece of tech the crew were already extremely close to being abel to create themselves. 
That doesn't mean there's a wealth of other easily extracted information which can ensure people's survival from starvation.

The derelict reaper was still alive is why. It was close to death but alive. This is why they blew it up. This was hinted at throughout the mission on it. The reapers at the end of ME3, if destoryed are deactviated and such. There is nothing left going on.

No it was dead alright. It was genererating a huge Mass Effect field which kept it from tumbling through space, but it was dead. You blew it's core up so you could deactivate the shield and escape. 

Aside, the Reapers only stay around if you destroy them. In the 'other' endings they fly away, so you don't have any tech to apparently scavange.

[GreyhameBioware]

vertigo72 wrote...

GreyhameBioware wrote...

vertigo72 wrote...

I think you nailed the problem. The people are angry because Shep dies. Shep dies implies they lost. Critical mission failure. In my opinion it's not true in this case, Shepard dies and you win. 

I fully expected Shepard to die to be honest.  Even with him dying it would not have felt like a loss if they didn't throw in the fact that you pretty much destroy everything you spent the last 3 games trying to save.

Right up until Hackett said that the Crucible wasn't firing, I was happy with the end.  Sad, but happy.  I fully expected the game at that point to end with Shepard and Anderson dying next to eat other while the Reapers are destroyed/disabled by the crucible.  It's when Hackett said it wasn't firing that things went down hill to the point where the ending feels like a loss no matter what.

Sorry, I didn't play every ending, but can't you destroy the reapers?

Sure I can.  But in doing so I also destroy galactic civilization, making everything I did previously mostly pointless.  So no matter what, I lost.

[Wolven_Soul]

vertigo72 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

vertigo72 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

vertigo72 wrote...

Now why it's garbage? I'm talking about the middle answer, Jooker, EDI, even plants was rewritten, they all have glowy bits.

So? Plants are still plants. Humans are still humans. Machines are still machines.
It literally changes nothing, other than everyone has glowy bits.

I'm sorry, I don't see it like this. There is no humans and no machines anymore, they are all unified. All life is unified, so nothing will evolve into some intellegent creature and create some new AI. It's a new form of life and their physical form is irrelevant.

Oh really? Is the Normandy now the same kind of lifeform as a human?
Can it reproduce?
Can it eat?
If not then IT'S STILL DIFFERENT.

Hybrid creates machine.
Machine has AI.
AI kills hybrids.

Nothing changed.

I should say AI, not machine. Sorry. EDI and Joker are the same. Hybrid don't need to create anything. But maybe you right, after all it's a new form of life and nobody knows how it will work. It's a leap of faith.

I'm sorry, I do not see Edi and Joker as the same.  She still looks like a metal robot.  And tell me this, if Joker is all of a sudden 50% synthetic, shouldn't his disease be all better?  Shouldn't the synthetic part of him be able to fix his bones?  Yet he is still limping around the same as ever.

[Genera1Nemesis]

Wolven_Soul wrote...

vertigo72 wrote...

pharsti wrote...

You can read what is wrong with the ending everywhere, literally, no need for me to go into details here.

But, to everyone who is perfectly fine with the ending i say this.
First, right now i am so envious of you its not even funny. Its good that you liked it. Its awesome that you can ignore some.... minor inconsistencies and rationalize the ending, its good that you didnt expect anything of what they promised... me? I can not.

Second, since you liked it.... so.... what was up with the Normandy and your squad >_>?

Normandy and squad was transported by a blast of green quantum ionic FTL field into a parallel universe. Or maybe it was Shepard's last dream, in fact they all dead. Or maybe some time passed between Shepard's death and their escape. Or maybe ... Why people want everything explained like in scool? Use your imagination. For me it's not very important because it happens after the logical end of the story.

If I wanted to use my imagination I would read a book, and I do, quite often.  This is a video game, I do not want to speculate on how things might end up after spending hundreds of hours workings towards the resolution.  I want to see some definitive and clear closure for all the time that I spent on this.

There's no denying that at all. Even those of us who find it to be a decent ending can agree that we didn't get enough closure for all the characters we had grown to love.

[Silveralen]

vertigo72 wrote...

I think you nailed the problem. The people are angry because Shep dies. Shep dies implies they lost. Critical mission failure. In my opinion it's not true in this case, Shepard dies and you win. 

People are angry because we were promised an ending of compelxity and depth. Someone posted the quote where he said we would have more than a simple A, B, or C choice at the end, and then they gave us that exactly. They gave us something they specifically promised us they wouldn't, and took away the impact of our choices up to that point. IF they had left the endings more open, we could infur what happened based on our choices. That';d be fine. If they ahd tailored the endings to match our choices, that'd be fine. Instead they devalued the entire 120+ game, and gave us three choices, all of which completely nullified many of the important descions we made. Curing the geophage, keeping wrex alive instead of wreave, making peace between the geth and quarians, Saving the Rachni, etc. Hell does saving the collector base or destroying it even have an effect on the game?

It'd be like ME3 being turned into a racing game. It'd be the complete opposite of what we expected and what we were told would be delivered, so of course we are disppointed. It doesn't matter if it is the best damn racing game ever, we still won't be happy. In a game about choices and cosquences, the devalued every choice made and removed the consquences.

[Genera1Nemesis]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

CodyMelch wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

CodyMelch wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

Again, this is a glass is half empty perspective at best. And not have the resources? What about all those destroyed reapers everywhere? What about all those detroyed ships? All they would need to build is one ship capable of jumping faster than normal FTL; and again; even if that took 10-100 years to do it would still be better than letting the Reapers continue on for another fw million years killing an infinite number of people.

The destroyed Reapers are only around in one of the three 'options' you're given. Doesn't matter anyway, destroyed Reapers are proven to indoctrinate people. 

Destroyed ships can't exactly do much. Some salvagable metal, big woop. How do they extract it? How do they process it? 

They could solve the FTL problem, sure. 
In a few hundred years.

Wrong. Once dead indoctrination is no loner a problem. And it does not take that long to create some useful tech off of a dead reaper. The Thanix Cannon proves this.

The derelict Reaper in ME2 indoctrinates the Cerberus science team, turns some into husks and scions. 

As for the Thanix Cannons, well, that's one piece of tech to improve on one very small part of a single ship, a piece of tech the crew were already extremely close to being abel to create themselves. 
That doesn't mean there's a wealth of other easily extracted information which can ensure people's survival from starvation.

The derelict reaper was still alive is why. It was close to death but alive. This is why they blew it up. This was hinted at throughout the mission on it. The reapers at the end of ME3, if destoryed are deactviated and such. There is nothing left going on.

No it was dead alright. It was genererating a huge Mass Effect field which kept it from tumbling through space, but it was dead. You blew it's core up so you could deactivate the shield and escape. 

Aside, the Reapers only stay around if you destroy them. In the 'other' endings they fly away, so you don't have any tech to apparently scavange.

That last paragraph ignores the fact that many of the Reapers were killed previous to catlyst being activated; the one on Rannoch for instance.

[deathscythe517]

*Sigh* This again...

[sadako]

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

There's no denying that at all. Even those of us who find it to be a decent ending can agree that we didn't get enough closure for all the characters we had grown to love.

Yeah, it took a fan named flammenpanzer 11 days to come up with 3 closure FMVs that's loads better than the Stargazer ending. Now this is bittersweet melancholic ending with closure. Not Grandpa Bioware + winter sky fmv.

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/10124402/1#10125057

For some of the fans that loved the ending, we never even got closure for our LIs, and that's an acceptable ending? I can't believe this!

[Genera1Nemesis]

I will say this about the ending; it certainly inspired a helluva lot of debate, lol.