338 réponses à ce sujet

[GreyhameBioware]

You know, I've read various different types of sci-fi, and some with very open endings that make you ask questions and all. And they worked great because those types of ends fit the story they were telling. The ending of Mass Effect 3 does not fit with the rest of the story. It's getting the end 2001: A Space Odyssey at the end of Return of the Jedi rather than the Death Star being destroyed.

[Genera1Nemesis]

novaseeker wrote...

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

JerkyJohnny14 wrote...

So there aren't too many plot holes, right?

Crew being on Normandy at the end is a plot hole. Other than that there are no other plot holes; just difference of opinion on sequence of events.

Why Joker is fleeing is a plot hole. How Joker manages to reach a Relay is a plot hole. How he somehow crashes on a random habitable planet is a plot hole. How anyone of the ship is supposed to suvive is a plot hole. That the Relays don't instantly vaporise everyone in their respective systems in a giant supernova is a plot hole. That the Star Child needs Sovereign to activate the Citadel is a plot hole. That the Star Child apparently controls the Reapers despite their insistence that they're all individual is a plot hole. 

Do you want me to continue? 

Joker leaving is not a plot-hole; it was poorly edited though. If you watch the end, when Crucible is 'building up' it's energy it is sucking all the nearby ships towards it like a black-hole; ripping them apart. At that point I'm sure Joker had to run or die just like all those other ships that Crucible was ripping apart.

As I've said in many other threads the ending is by no means perfect. There are editing mistakes throughout; it's far too short etc. That said; the Normandy was the fastest ship ever built and arguably had the best Alliance pilot at the helm. He had a good five to ten seconds to hit FTL and thuse hit the relay before it went boom. I don't see it as a plot-hole, just a poorly edited sequence of events.

I take it you would agree that having Shepard's squadmates emerge from the Normandy at the end is a plot hole?

Yes, that is the biggest plot-hole in the game, and it didn't make sense given what I know of those characters.

[vertigo72]

After 6 pages of discussion the ending is still very good for me. I still don't see anything that changes my mind.


The only arguent that I can accept is that the ending is sad. That's honest.

[ian528]

The major problems here are fairly basic. The end sequence is very hard to be invested in. The story telling up until that point has been so good that when you abruptly see the mcguffin step out and say hello I am the mcguffin it disconnects the story. It seems like many players, including me, go on to pick the right choice for whatever their PC would do but they have little emotional investment in it because their connection to the story has ended.

The other major problem is that the story end with the Geth/Quarian conflict is an exact mirror of this same issue. You are going to be asked to pick out what is the ending you most want to finish that conflict. The emotional investment there is pretty huge and the story telling is excellent as Legion refers to himself as I and you get that a great sacrifice is required to make the change. This is really well done. I liked legion and the quarians as a race are ****s though I really like the characters who are quarian. The emotional investment of me into that situation was right and the results were sad but rewarding.

So you have players disconnected watching an ending they have already seen better done earlier in the game. It makes the final ending worse because of this. I really like the rest of this game. I think with this ending it is a good game. If they had figured out a way to more closely attach me to the end of the game then it could have be a transformative game. The worst part is we are seeing that the majority of this game really is transformative. There has never been a series that delivered so much on the promises it made to have a series. Most sequels tell the story a little farther or do a complete reset. There is not this movement of unique pieces of the story from one game to the next. The end is just such a clunker that I almost would have preferred a Bowser battle to end this. My friends and I have all kind of felt that final meeting with TIM was the right way to go. That was a gutsy call but it felt right to the story. It is literally only from the time you start dealing with the starchild that the game goes into the crapper.

[Mtcool]

It seems that anyone who says they like the endings starts off their argument by saying that you can't refute what the Reapers have said and you must trust them for they are much wiser than you. What? Have they been indoctrinated IRL. If this was BioWare's plan all along, a kind of thought experiment that uses the player as a subject, then I have to say kudos BioWare.

Modifié par Mtcool, 17 mars 2012 - 03:58 .

[Genera1Nemesis]

GreyhameBioware wrote...

You know, I've read various different types of sci-fi, and some with very open endings that make you ask questions and all. And they worked great because those types of ends fit the story they were telling. The ending of Mass Effect 3 does not fit with the rest of the story. It's getting the end 2001: A Space Odyssey at the end of Return of the Jedi rather than the Death Star being destroyed.

That is a poignant point, and from a certain perspective it is correct. However I will say that this is not Star Wars; this game always had elements of tragedy (Sarens final speach; Mordin's morales on Genophage; the sacrifice of all those throughout ME3) It was a much grittier take on the horrors of war and one man's desperate need to stop that war, even if it meant sacrificing himself. No game has ever represented a 'war' like Mass Effect did; they didn't glamorize and they certainly never shied away from how tragic it was.

Point being that the galaxy was still saved, and trillions of lives that would have been lost to the Reapers can now find a way to rebuild the galaxy by their own rules. The Catalyst dealt in absolutes; thus was the representation of fate. Sheperd dealt in uncertaintly; and thus was the avatar of free-will. He gave the galaxy their 'freedom' from the technology and subsequent path that the Reapers had used to pigeon hole the galaxy into an elaborate trap. I'd say that's a pretty huge victory; but that is just my opinion.

[T-0pel]

vertigo72 wrote...



After 6 pages of discussion the ending is still very good for me. I still don't see anything that changes my mind.


The only arguent that I can accept is that the ending is sad. That's honest.

That is beacuse you are ok with not knowing much and imagining the rest for yourself + choosing to ignore plot holes as "not significant enough" :-)

And I can understand, all I ask of you is that you understand that not all of us feel this way.

[Grayvern]

All endings feature massive thematic dissonance, due to the fact mass effect is semi hard lore based sci fi basically star trek but more fun, the point being sci-fi has it's own internal consistency usually based on you know some science.

People are calling crucible + catalyst space magic because even the Reapers are explained in universe, particle beams, massive cores, many trawled organic minds etc, wheras the catalyst is an energy wave that can somehow convey Sheperds conscious will into the reapers, shut them down, or put pcb overlays on people.

If the destruction end is correct and the reapers are ancient why has no other species discovered by accident the shutdown waveform failsafe.

It's as if the Inhibitors in Revelation space were defeated because humanity developed FTL even though Alistair Reynolds spends 2 books basically going on about how FTL probably isn't possible and any method could erase you from existence by accident.

Hell it's actually more like Picard killing himself in return for Q ending the threat of the Borg if you take out logical science lore based stuff, although the Q make more sense than the energy wave.

Never mind the mystical crap surrounding the cruicible, and the fact that the catalyst was unknown even though it affects the citadel directly and would not function without it. And that anthying capable of creating tech that can produce that energy wave should be way more powerful than the Reapers.

Modifié par Grayvern, 17 mars 2012 - 04:03 .

[Genera1Nemesis]

Mtcool wrote...

It seems that anyone who says they like the endings starts off their argument by saying that you can't refute what the Reapers have said and you must trust them for they are much wiser than you. What? Have they been indoctrinated IRL. If this was BioWare's plan all along, a kind of thought experiment that uses the player as a subject, then I have to say kudos BioWare.

Breaking down the fourth wall; when you come to the 'big reveal' portion of a story, you don't fill it with lies. The Catalyst expressed it's own perspective and based off of millions of years of perhaps trial and error this was the best solution it had. Speculation of course; but if you want to see nothing but what's wrong then that's what you'll see.

[The Night Mammoth]

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

JerkyJohnny14 wrote...

So there aren't too many plot holes, right?

Crew being on Normandy at the end is a plot hole. Other than that there are no other plot holes; just difference of opinion on sequence of events.

Why Joker is fleeing is a plot hole. How Joker manages to reach a Relay is a plot hole. How he somehow crashes on a random habitable planet is a plot hole. How anyone of the ship is supposed to suvive is a plot hole. That the Relays don't instantly vaporise everyone in their respective systems in a giant supernova is a plot hole. That the Star Child needs Sovereign to activate the Citadel is a plot hole. That the Star Child apparently controls the Reapers despite their insistence that they're all individual is a plot hole. 

Do you want me to continue? 

Joker leaving is not a plot-hole; it was poorly edited though. If you watch the end, when Crucible is 'building up' it's energy it is sucking all the nearby ships towards it like a black-hole; ripping them apart. At that point I'm sure Joker had to run or die just like all those other ships that Crucible was ripping apart.

As I've said in many other threads the ending is by no means perfect. There are editing mistakes throughout; it's far too short etc. That said; the Normandy was the fastest ship ever built and arguably had the best Alliance pilot at the helm. He had a good five to ten seconds to hit FTL and thuse hit the relay before it went boom. I don't see it as a plot-hole, just a poorly edited sequence of events.

Illogical speculation, it remains a plot hole. 

Joker is Shepard's friend, his ally. He's flown to Illos and back, deserted the Alliance Navy and joined Cerberus to help him, and flown him through the jaws of death too many times to count. Why the hell did he suddenly decide to abandon Shepard at the most crucial moment in the story? He's not going to leave unless Shepard tells him to. He isn't told anything. Why he flees is a gigantic plot hole. Therefore, how he manages to actually reach the Charon Relay in the middle of a huge space battle before the Crucible has even fired is another. 

Thanks for not adressing any of the others. 

[Grayvern]

Fiction shouldn't produce dissonance so great as to make you question the entirety of a section of the story to begin with.

I may think the end of new BSG is bullcrap but at least the god angle and the characters being morons was hevily in some cases unintentionally foreshadowed.

Modifié par Grayvern, 17 mars 2012 - 04:07 .

[Mandemon]

vertigo72 wrote...

Mandemon wrote...

 Synthesis makes no sense, because:
1) This spce magic:wizard: has no explanation anywhere.

2) How do you "fuse" synthethic(machine) and organic into new DNA? DNA is inheritly biological. This "solution" assumes that whatever "conflict" that will rise is based on what someone is made of. 

3) "Shepards essence", WTF? Shepard is organic, not synthethic. The Walking Plot Hole says s/he is part synthethic, but as far as I know, there is no trace of anything synthethic in his/her DNA.

4) How this happens? Control and Destroy atleast can handvawe this by having it affect Reaper programming, but this... I mean, pulse goes out and space magic:wizard: does something impossible to DNA?

Synthetics are software, people are some other kind of  computers (biochemical computers), why not to merge them? How? Well, Reapers had millions of years to find out. How it happens? You know, it's a little bit late to ask. You spent 150 hours believing that AI can exist (and Mass Effect fields too), so why this question now? Somehow using FTL core and Mass Effect fields.

Damn I'm late. Anyway, The Walking Plot Hole speficly refers to DNA, not minds. So it doesnät change "software", it changes "hardware". Also, Reapers don't have DNA as far as we know. They melt down biological lifeforms into goo and pump them to serve as brains.

Also, Element Zero and whole Mass Effect is explained in-universe why and how. Also, several times it is explained how AI can exist. EDI has Quantum core, that is like saying she has mechanical version of human brains. Geth, untill Reaper upgrades, are collective of smaller programs that together can achieve larger and larger intelligence. Signular Geth is no smarter than your phone. Thousand Geth working together can form a concessus and appear sentient.

There is limit on how much you can suspend your disbelief. If world remains consistent with itself, it is easier. This thing? Never even theorised in-universe, it simply comes out of nowhere.

[Genera1Nemesis]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

JerkyJohnny14 wrote...

So there aren't too many plot holes, right?

Crew being on Normandy at the end is a plot hole. Other than that there are no other plot holes; just difference of opinion on sequence of events.

Why Joker is fleeing is a plot hole. How Joker manages to reach a Relay is a plot hole. How he somehow crashes on a random habitable planet is a plot hole. How anyone of the ship is supposed to suvive is a plot hole. That the Relays don't instantly vaporise everyone in their respective systems in a giant supernova is a plot hole. That the Star Child needs Sovereign to activate the Citadel is a plot hole. That the Star Child apparently controls the Reapers despite their insistence that they're all individual is a plot hole. 

Do you want me to continue? 

Joker leaving is not a plot-hole; it was poorly edited though. If you watch the end, when Crucible is 'building up' it's energy it is sucking all the nearby ships towards it like a black-hole; ripping them apart. At that point I'm sure Joker had to run or die just like all those other ships that Crucible was ripping apart.

As I've said in many other threads the ending is by no means perfect. There are editing mistakes throughout; it's far too short etc. That said; the Normandy was the fastest ship ever built and arguably had the best Alliance pilot at the helm. He had a good five to ten seconds to hit FTL and thuse hit the relay before it went boom. I don't see it as a plot-hole, just a poorly edited sequence of events.

Illogical speculation, it remains a plot hole. 

Joker is Shepard's friend, his ally. He's flown to Illos and back, deserted the Alliance Navy and joined Cerberus to help him, and flown him through the jaws of death too many times to count. Why the hell did he suddenly decide to abandon Shepard at the most crucial moment in the story? He's not going to leave unless Shepard tells him to. He isn't told anything. Why he flees is a gigantic plot hole. Therefore, how he manages to actually reach the Charon Relay in the middle of a huge space battle before the Crucible has even fired is another. 

Thanks for not adressing any of the others. 

AS I said, poorly edited sequence of events. I'm only addressing it how I saw it. I certainly would have preferred more than what we got regarding joker's need to run at that moment; believe me.

Also I've said that the crew being there is a BIG plot-hole. There is no explanation for that based on what I know about the characters. Aside from that, what else did you percieve as a plot hole?

[The Night Mammoth]

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

Point being that the galaxy was still saved, and trillions of lives that would have been lost to the Reapers can now find a way to rebuild the galaxy by their own rules. The Catalyst dealt in absolutes; thus was the representation of fate. Sheperd dealt in uncertaintly; and thus was the avatar of free-will. He gave the galaxy their 'freedom' from the technology and subsequent path that the Reapers had used to pigeon hole the galaxy into an elaborate trap. I'd say that's a pretty huge victory; but that is just my opinion.

Trillions more are lost now that the Relays have been destroyed, regardless of whether you think they went supernova or not. 

Shepard being the avatar of free will with the Catalyst being the representation of inevetibility is correct. 
Why Shepard then goes along with everything at the end like a robot is a plot hole and contradiciton. 

As for the last point, well, that the Reapers used the Relays to control our technological development is irrelevant now that the Reapers are gone. 

[UltmtBiz]

Yeah just being the hero, and only that, works for a faceless character you don't know. Works for a story you don't make significant decisions and relationships in.

[Cody]

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.

I take your 3 words and show you a name that refutes the kids entire arguement!

EDI

[SuperTeal]

Doctor Uburian wrote...

But that's not what they promised.

If I had known the ending was going to be so far off from what Bioware and Casey promoted than I wouldn't have purchased it new on day one.

[The Night Mammoth]

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

AS I said, poorly edited sequence of events. I'm only addressing it how I saw it. I certainly would have preferred more than what we got regarding joker's need to run at that moment; believe me.

Then it's a plot hole. Plot holes can be nullified by appropriate explanation. Since none of that exists in the game, it remains a plot hole. 

Also I've said that the crew being there is a BIG plot-hole. There is no explanation for that based on what I know about the characters. Aside from that, what else did you percieve as a plot hole?

Everything else in that list, and more, but I don't want to list them all right now, it hurts. 

[Cobra's_back]

wombat_stalker wrote...

Do I 'understand' the ending? Certainly. Four years of college-level literature courses aren't anything to sneeze at. In terms of the "whole picture" the only thing that's just not making sense is the suddenly-resurrected Normandy crewmembers.


The problem actually *appears* the moment you stop analysing it logically and sensibly and get back to, "what does the ending feel like?" vs "what would I like the ending of a magnificent trilogy to feel like?". Most players went in expecting victory, preferably a spectacular one where we kick the Reapers out of the galaxy with the biggest nutkick ever delivered. We went in expecting adrenaline-rushes and a butt-from-chair elevating "YES!!!".

Didn't happen. Cue disappointment. It's not stupidity talking.

No. I really got turned off with the suddenly-resurrected Normandy crewmembers.  I love detailed writers.


Fine details are important to a story. It makes it seem real. When things happen that don’t make sense the story doesn’t seem real.

[Genera1Nemesis]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

Point being that the galaxy was still saved, and trillions of lives that would have been lost to the Reapers can now find a way to rebuild the galaxy by their own rules. The Catalyst dealt in absolutes; thus was the representation of fate. Sheperd dealt in uncertaintly; and thus was the avatar of free-will. He gave the galaxy their 'freedom' from the technology and subsequent path that the Reapers had used to pigeon hole the galaxy into an elaborate trap. I'd say that's a pretty huge victory; but that is just my opinion.

Trillions more are lost now that the Relays have been destroyed, regardless of whether you think they went supernova or not. 

Shepard being the avatar of free will with the Catalyst being the representation of inevetibility is correct. 
Why Shepard then goes along with everything at the end like a robot is a plot hole and contradiciton. 

As for the last point, well, that the Reapers used the Relays to control our technological development is irrelevant now that the Reapers are gone. 

Sheperd was dying. He was bleeding out and could barely stand. Hackett said they could never win conventionally, and that they needed Crucible to work or they were going to lose. I didn't see Shep give in; he acted out of desperation to make sure the war was over. He didn't have time to find a console and reprogram Crucible or anything like that...for all he knew he was going to pass out again and never wake up.

On the issue of the relays; I don't think they destroyed solar systems like the one in Arrival. In Arrival you smashed a massive asteroid into it that was a mining facility. It created a much larger blast wave that took out the solar system.

Even if; say; 10 million people died because the relays were gone and they were desperate for resources and food; wouldn't that be better than the infinite number of lives the Reapers would take if they had continued the cycle? Shep saved every cycle, not just his own. Mass Relays were but one way space travel was possible; who's to say that the Asari or Salarians couldn;t come up with something better because now they kinda have to.

[Cosmar]

OP, while I'm glad you found peace in your own speculation, I need more concrete answers.

Because, you have to face it, nothing you have said has any proof, it was just what you came up with in your own mind to explain it.

[vertigo72]

Mtcool wrote...

It seems that anyone who says they like the endings starts off their argument by saying that you can't refute what the Reapers have said and you must trust them for they are much wiser than you. What? Have they been indoctrinated IRL. If this was BioWare's plan all along, a kind of thought experiment that uses the player as a subject, then I have to say kudos BioWare.

No you can. But you will die in any case. If you do nothing they will kill everyone, including you. BTW, you are almost dead already. You have to do some simple actions, in worse case  that change nothing. So, what do you risk? 

[Genera1Nemesis]

CodyMelch 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.

I take your 3 words and show you a name that refutes the kids entire arguement!

EDI

Which is just ONE synthetic. And if you renegade her in conversations; treat her like a servant; she starts looking at things a little differently than if you paragon her the whole way.

[vertigo72]

Cosmar wrote...

OP, while I'm glad you found peace in your own speculation, I need more concrete answers.

Because, you have to face it, nothing you have said has any proof, it was just what you came up with in your own mind to explain it.

Well, that matches with the rest of the story. For example war with synthetics, it's what we do for all 3 games.

[vertigo72]

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

Point being that the galaxy was still saved, and trillions of lives that would have been lost to the Reapers can now find a way to rebuild the galaxy by their own rules. The Catalyst dealt in absolutes; thus was the representation of fate. Sheperd dealt in uncertaintly; and thus was the avatar of free-will. He gave the galaxy their 'freedom' from the technology and subsequent path that the Reapers had used to pigeon hole the galaxy into an elaborate trap. I'd say that's a pretty huge victory; but that is just my opinion.

Trillions more are lost now that the Relays have been destroyed, regardless of whether you think they went supernova or not. 

Shepard being the avatar of free will with the Catalyst being the representation of inevetibility is correct. 
Why Shepard then goes along with everything at the end like a robot is a plot hole and contradiciton. 

As for the last point, well, that the Reapers used the Relays to control our technological development is irrelevant now that the Reapers are gone. 

Sheperd was dying. He was bleeding out and could barely stand. Hackett said they could never win conventionally, and that they needed Crucible to work or they were going to lose. I didn't see Shep give in; he acted out of desperation to make sure the war was over. He didn't have time to find a console and reprogram Crucible or anything like that...for all he knew he was going to pass out again and never wake up.

On the issue of the relays; I don't think they destroyed solar systems like the one in Arrival. In Arrival you smashed a massive asteroid into it that was a mining facility. It created a much larger blast wave that took out the solar system.

Even if; say; 10 million people died because the relays were gone and they were desperate for resources and food; wouldn't that be better than the infinite number of lives the Reapers would take if they had continued the cycle? Shep saved every cycle, not just his own. Mass Relays were but one way space travel was possible; who's to say that the Asari or Salarians couldn;t come up with something better because now they kinda have to.

I also think they was destroyed in some other way. Mass Relay explosion is like a supernova, and all Reapers are just here in Sol system. I don't think they can survive a supernova and I don't think they are so suicidal.