338 réponses à ce sujet

[GreyhameBioware]

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

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.

The note on the tragety part does not really negate the comparison.  If you don't like the Star Wars example, use Bablyon 5.  It showed various amounts of tragedy.  If even had them fighting beings that could swat them around like children, as well as their own version of the Crucible (hell one of the main protagonists even comes back from the dead).  And that managed to end on a highly satisfying note because the writer didn't try to make it out like there was never hope, the writer did not ignore the rest of the theme in the story to end in one a note where everyone is screwed no matter what.  The characters would have kept on fighting to the bitter end, not give in. 

The Reaper technology is not inherently bad, nor is using it.  There is no reason why the Mass Relays need to be destroyed for the galacy to have their freedom or their free will.  The remains of the Mass Relays are there anyway, chances are if any new relays are built at some point again (probably decades or centuries from the end of the game after everyone you cared about is dead).  Just because the relays were used as a trap does not make them bad, nor does destroying them bring some extra mystical freedom that they would not get from just the Reapers (the people who made the trap) were gone.  Technology is not inherently bad, which seems to be the theme the end gives you which is a really tired and cliche thing that is not any deeper than what would have happened without the relays being destroyed.

Modifié par GreyhameBioware, 17 mars 2012 - 04:27 .

[magnutz06]

Sweet lets spend three games and countless hours and lots of cash to collect scan and unify a galaxy! Its not like all that effort will go to waste, im sure that it will all play a major role in the final battle......oooh waait it didnt ?!?! That why the ending is horrible thats fact!


HOLD THE LINE

Modifié par magnutz06, 17 mars 2012 - 04:24 .

[Genera1Nemesis]

GreyhameBioware wrote...

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

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.

The note on the tragety part does not really negate the comparison.  If you don't like the Star Wars example, use Bablyon 5.  It showed various amounts of tragedy.  If even had them fighting beings that could swat them around like children, as well as their own version of the Crucible (hell one of the main protagonists even comes back from the dead).  And that managed to end on a highly satisfying note because the writer didn't try to make it out like there was never hope, the writer did not ignore the rest of the theme in the story to end in one a note where everyone is screwed no matter what.  The characters would have kept on fighting to the bitter end, not give in. 

The Reaper technology is not inherently bad, not is using it.  There is no reason why the Mass Relays need to be destroyed for the galact to have their freedom or their free will.  The remains of the Mass Relays are there anyway, chances are if any new relays are built at some point again (probably decades or centuries from the end of the game after everyone you cared about is dead).  Just because the relays were used as a trap does not make them bad, nor does destroying them bring some extra mystical freedom that they would not get from just the Reapers (the people who made the trap) were gone.  Technology is not inherently bad, which seems to be the theme the end gives you which is a really tired and cliche thing that is not any deeper than what would have happened without the relays being destroyed.

Again, breaking down the fourth wall; Bioware has always said that this is the end of Sheperd's trilogy. That basically says to me that there will be another Mass Effect game down the road (it makes them too much money NOT to make another one) So who is to say that that isn't what the plot of the next game is? Much like the story ahd to remain somewhat static in these three games (you always quit Cerberus, you always save the galaxy) then certain elements have to stay consistent at the end so that they have a clear picture of what the galaxy will look like as they move forward.

I would love for a game to allow me to change EVERY aspect of the plot based on my decisions; we're just not there yet without it taking 20 years to develop. I theorize (which is to say I'm guessing) that the relay destruction is going to play a huge part should they ever do a direct sequel with a new hero.

Modifié par Genera1Nemesis, 17 mars 2012 - 04:30 .

[Killer3000ad]

vertigo72 wrote...

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

But you also make friends with Legion and EDI in ME2, discover that only a portion of the Geth joined the reapers, then help make peace between the Quarians and Geth in ME3 and encourage EDI to embrace Joker.

All of this completely defies the logic of the Reapers. And don't claim,"Oh, the reapers have millions of years of knowledge" The Reapers wiped out civilizations before they advanced far enough. The Reapers are working off their OWN PERSONAL experience and are close-minded and won't embrace a dissenting opinion, no they wipe them out before they have the chance to address the problem they think they might have.

Modifié par Killer3000ad, 17 mars 2012 - 04:31 .

[vertigo72]

Mandemon wrote...

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.

Sorry, it's just a good writing. If they really knew *how* AI can exist, we could build one. With good writing they make it appers like it exists. "Quantum core is a mechanical version of human brain" is bull****. All this talk about geth intelligence it's also bull****. It's just that was explained before and the green beam of light wasn't.  

Now, in-universe, Reapers was sitting here for millions of years, they could invent a lot more than that. And it's quite logical they didn't run everywhere telling everybody: look look I have a green beam that rewrites your dna, let me explain how it works. It all makes sense in-universe.

[Cody]

ghostbusters101 wrote...

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.

What are you talking about? Anyone that died from the first 2 stay dead...if you actually think that the random crew members you see on the ship are the same ones you see on the normandy from the first 2 games...then that logic makes no sense. Especially seeing as the alliance tried to arrest each crew member from ME2 for being with Cerberus.

[vertigo72]

Killer3000ad wrote...

vertigo72 wrote...

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

But you also make friends with Legion and EDI in ME2, discover that only a portion of the Geth joined the reapers, then help make peace between the Quarians and Geth in ME3 and encourage EDI to embrace Joker.

All of this completely defies the logic of the Reapers. And don't claim,"Oh, the reapers have millions of years of knowledge" The Reapers wiped out civilizations before they advanced far enough. The Reapers are working off their OWN PERSONAL experience and are close-minded and won't embrace a dissenting opinion, no they wipe them out before they have the chance to address the problem they think they might have.

Yes, Shep made friends with synthetics, it's probably why he succeed. We know that Protheans destroyed all AI and enslaved all other races. That's probably why Shep win.

Modifié par vertigo72, 17 mars 2012 - 04:34 .

[Genera1Nemesis]

Killer3000ad wrote...

vertigo72 wrote...

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

But you also make friends with Legion and EDI in ME2, discover that only a portion of the Geth joined the reapers, then help make peace between the Quarians and Geth in ME3 and encourage EDI to embrace Joker.

All of this completely defies the logic of the Reapers. And don't claim,"Oh, the reapers have millions of years of knowledge" The Reapers wiped out civilizations before they advanced far enough. The Reapers are working off their OWN PERSONAL experience and are close-minded and won't embrace a dissenting opinion, no they wipe them out before they have the chance to address the problem they think they might have.

These are exceptions; not the rule. Cerberus was constantly making AI weapons; Overlord being one of their more dastardly ones. Using the Geth and EDI as the only examples is short-sighted at best. Plus, the story of the Heretics proves the Catalyst's point; they chose to kill organics in order to advance tehcnologically.

[Mtcool]

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

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.

This almost proves my point. I hope you know I was only being sarcastic. My real concern is that you are never given an option to refute what the starkid says. And he never gives an explanation as to how he is correct in his assertion that organic and synthetics are destined to destroy one another. The only evidence that supports his theory throughout the entire series IS the Reapers. And it is also never addressed why the Reaper AI is in the form of the child that has been haunting Shepard the entire game. The only way the catalyst could have known to use that form was if it had some influence over his mind. This is at least in some way a form of manipulation. 

[The Night Mammoth]

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

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.

So what? As a game built around YOU choosing HOW you interact with people, and Shepard being a character that questions everything for the best possible outcome, the fact that you don't even have the opportunity to question the Catalyst is a lot hole. The fact that Shepard can't just say "no, screw you, we'll fight rather have our fates controlled by the enemy. You've never faced the galaxy united before, have at you!" is a massive plot hole.

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.

The explosions at the end of the game can be seen from outside of the galaxy. They're massive, and the fact that people believe the Relays will always blow up like that is enough for me to believe either is a possibility. 

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.

I don't believe only 10 million people will die. The galaxy is in ruins. Places like Thessia, or Palaven, can't survive without outside help. Earth can't survive with so many people in orbit. 

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.

Given the fact that they don't have enough resources to even begin rebuilding, I doubt this is happening any time soon. The current cycle isn't even close where the Protheans were, and they were only ever able to reverse engineer one prototype. 

[Genera1Nemesis]

Mtcool wrote...

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

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.

This almost proves my point. I hope you know I was only being sarcastic. My real concern is that you are never given an option to refute what the starkid says. And he never gives an explanation as to how he is correct in his assertion that organic and synthetics are destined to destroy one another. The only evidence that supports his theory throughout the entire series IS the Reapers. And it is also never addressed why the Reaper AI is in the form of the child that has been haunting Shepard the entire game. The only way the catalyst could have known to use that form was if it had some influence over his mind. This is at least in some way a form of manipulation. 

And if you refute him and don't take one of the options? Shep bleeds out and dies on the floor while the Reapers wipe out everything around him. Shep couldn't worry at that point about being right or wrong; he needed to end the war, no matter what.

[vertigo72]

Mtcool wrote...

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

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.

This almost proves my point. I hope you know I was only being sarcastic. My real concern is that you are never given an option to refute what the starkid says. And he never gives an explanation as to how he is correct in his assertion that organic and synthetics are destined to destroy one another. The only evidence that supports his theory throughout the entire series IS the Reapers. And it is also never addressed why the Reaper AI is in the form of the child that has been haunting Shepard the entire game. The only way the catalyst could have known to use that form was if it had some influence over his mind. This is at least in some way a form of manipulation. 

You can read his mind without manipulating him. Prothean can speak English after reading and analysing your mind, he cannot ontrol you. 

I really  think they could add some more explanations, but also Shep is already almost dead. Having all those blablabla wouldn't be very realist for me. If he dies before he can't make a choice. What that will prove? That organics are still too week?

Modifié par vertigo72, 17 mars 2012 - 04:41 .

[bearcatfan14181]

Everyone, take a second and look at what Bioware has done. They specifically engineered the ending to be horrible to 90%+ of the fanbase. So honestly, don't worry about Bioware creating an ending DLC because they already have. I might not have any evidence of such an ending DLC but think about how much work it takes to create an ending that is hated by almost everyone.

P.S. I think Bioware is trolling us with the Final Hours of Mass Effect 3 and all of these tweets.

[Cobra's_back]

CodyMelch wrote...

ghostbusters101 wrote...

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.

What are you talking about? Anyone that died from the first 2 stay dead...if you actually think that the random crew members you see on the ship are the same ones you see on the normandy from the first 2 games...then that logic makes no sense. Especially seeing as the alliance tried to arrest each crew member from ME2 for being with Cerberus.

We are not talking about the ME2 dead crew. Act 3 ME3 the two squad members on earth with Shepard fighting in the final act magically disappear and end up in the Normandy. Read all the post. It is stated several times.

[T-0pel]

vertigo72 wrote...

Killer3000ad wrote...

vertigo72 wrote...

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

But you also make friends with Legion and EDI in ME2, discover that only a portion of the Geth joined the reapers, then help make peace between the Quarians and Geth in ME3 and encourage EDI to embrace Joker.

All of this completely defies the logic of the Reapers. And don't claim,"Oh, the reapers have millions of years of knowledge" The Reapers wiped out civilizations before they advanced far enough. The Reapers are working off their OWN PERSONAL experience and are close-minded and won't embrace a dissenting opinion, no they wipe them out before they have the chance to address the problem they think they might have.

Yes, Shep made friends with synthetics, it's probably why he succeed. We know that Protheans destroyed all AI and enslaved all other races. That's probably why Shep win.

Without help from protheans we would have been dead before we even knew it. That same help that actually presents another plot hole. :-P

[Genera1Nemesis]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

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.

So what? As a game built around YOU choosing HOW you interact with people, and Shepard being a character that questions everything for the best possible outcome, the fact that you don't even have the opportunity to question the Catalyst is a lot hole. The fact that Shepard can't just say "no, screw you, we'll fight rather have our fates controlled by the enemy. You've never faced the galaxy united before, have at you!" is a massive plot hole.

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.

The explosions at the end of the game can be seen from outside of the galaxy. They're massive, and the fact that people believe the Relays will always blow up like that is enough for me to believe either is a possibility. 

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.

I don't believe only 10 million people will die. The galaxy is in ruins. Places like Thessia, or Palaven, can't survive without outside help. Earth can't survive with so many people in orbit. 

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.

Given the fact that they don't have enough resources to even begin rebuilding, I doubt this is happening any time soon. The current cycle isn't even close where the Protheans were, and they were only ever able to reverse engineer one prototype. 

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.

[Cody]

ghostbusters101 wrote...

CodyMelch wrote...

ghostbusters101 wrote...

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.

What are you talking about? Anyone that died from the first 2 stay dead...if you actually think that the random crew members you see on the ship are the same ones you see on the normandy from the first 2 games...then that logic makes no sense. Especially seeing as the alliance tried to arrest each crew member from ME2 for being with Cerberus.

We are not talking about the ME2 dead crew. Act 3 ME3 the two squad members on earth with Shepard fighting in the final act magically disappear and end up in the Normandy. Read all the post. It is stated several times.

Oh, right my bad. Just woke up still tired XD sorry.

[Genera1Nemesis]

vertigo72 wrote...

Mtcool wrote...

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

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.

This almost proves my point. I hope you know I was only being sarcastic. My real concern is that you are never given an option to refute what the starkid says. And he never gives an explanation as to how he is correct in his assertion that organic and synthetics are destined to destroy one another. The only evidence that supports his theory throughout the entire series IS the Reapers. And it is also never addressed why the Reaper AI is in the form of the child that has been haunting Shepard the entire game. The only way the catalyst could have known to use that form was if it had some influence over his mind. This is at least in some way a form of manipulation. 

You can read his mind without manipulating him. Prothean can speak English after reading and analysing your mind, he cannot ontrol you. 

I really  think they could add some more explanations, but also Shep is already almost dead. Having all those blablabla wouldn't be very realist for me. If he dies before he can't make a choice. What that will prove? That organics are still too week?

He does die if you don't choose. Seriously,play that part again and just stand there for 20 minutes. You do eventually get a game over screen.

[LUIGI9393]

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.

Bravo!
You said exactly what i tought.

[vertigo72]

bearcatfan14181 wrote...

Everyone, take a second and look at what Bioware has done. They specifically engineered the ending to be horrible to 90%+ of the fanbase. So honestly, don't worry about Bioware creating an ending DLC because they already have. I might not have any evidence of such an ending DLC but think about how much work it takes to create an ending that is hated by almost everyone.

P.S. I think Bioware is trolling us with the Final Hours of Mass Effect 3 and all of these tweets.

I would hate to have Mass Effect 4. This good story is ended, time to move on. Dead Shepard is the best option.

[The Night Mammoth]

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

Killer3000ad wrote...

vertigo72 wrote...

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

But you also make friends with Legion and EDI in ME2, discover that only a portion of the Geth joined the reapers, then help make peace between the Quarians and Geth in ME3 and encourage EDI to embrace Joker.

All of this completely defies the logic of the Reapers. And don't claim,"Oh, the reapers have millions of years of knowledge" The Reapers wiped out civilizations before they advanced far enough. The Reapers are working off their OWN PERSONAL experience and are close-minded and won't embrace a dissenting opinion, no they wipe them out before they have the chance to address the problem they think they might have.

These are exceptions; not the rule. Cerberus was constantly making AI weapons; Overlord being one of their more dastardly ones. Using the Geth and EDI as the only examples is short-sighted at best. Plus, the story of the Heretics proves the Catalyst's point; they chose to kill organics in order to advance tehcnologically.

There is no rule, the Catalyst has a hypothesis at best. 

[Ryokun1989]

_Flipp_ wrote...

Ryokun1989 wrote...

_Flipp_ wrote...

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

To contribute with some useful to this thread - you really call missing helmets in space minor problems? Or any other holes at the end... I mean it's the climax of 100 hours of storytelling. And at those TEN MOST IMPORTANT MINUTES  they start to screw up the details, like missing helmets, humand signs on citadel and a "beaming crew" ? Seriously, whats wrong with them..

Dude you didn't get the ending at all if you think they forgot to put on his helmet in that scene. >_>

Would you mind explaining it to me then? Why are there human signs up there? Is there actually some kind of stasis field? Didnt notice it then. How did the crew come back on the Normandy? And dude remember we are discussing here under the assumption that this ending is real and not just hallucination

Well it is not happening in the physical word. The moment the reaper hit shepard the player is in a metaphysical world. Shepard doesn't need a helmet there since metaphysical worlds defy nature. It is intentionally vague and the characters introduced are metaphors for things now. So trying to look at the ending as if it is real is interesting, but ultimately it probably wasn't happening on a concious level, more on a subconcious metaphysical level.

[Genera1Nemesis]

LUIGI9393 wrote...

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.

Bravo!
You said exactly what i tought.

Star Wars (which I love) is very sci-fi light. Good guys win, black vs white that sort of idea. There is no moral grey in Star Wars (except Han Solo; the original Han Solo and not the pussified version who didn't shoot first) it is cut and dry, good vs evil. Mass Effect doesn't give you this absolute at any point. Even the 'evil' bad guys have good motives; (albeit, twisted ones)

[Cody]

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

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.

So what? As a game built around YOU choosing HOW you interact with people, and Shepard being a character that questions everything for the best possible outcome, the fact that you don't even have the opportunity to question the Catalyst is a lot hole. The fact that Shepard can't just say "no, screw you, we'll fight rather have our fates controlled by the enemy. You've never faced the galaxy united before, have at you!" is a massive plot hole.

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.

The explosions at the end of the game can be seen from outside of the galaxy. They're massive, and the fact that people believe the Relays will always blow up like that is enough for me to believe either is a possibility. 

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.

I don't believe only 10 million people will die. The galaxy is in ruins. Places like Thessia, or Palaven, can't survive without outside help. Earth can't survive with so many people in orbit. 

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.

Given the fact that they don't have enough resources to even begin rebuilding, I doubt this is happening any time soon. The current cycle isn't even close where the Protheans were, and they were only ever able to reverse engineer one prototype. 

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.

This goes with my theory that everyone would technically be alright after any of the endings. The reaper tech can help them out immensely. I mean the Reapers FTL is obviously faster than normal means. As evident byt the fact it did not take them that long at all to get from dark space to the milky way. And I doubt they had much fuel depots to come across along the way.

Then their is the control ending. It is Shepard that is controlling them now. Why wouldn't he use the reapers to help everyone? With the tech and knowledge now available to him he can reconstruct the relays. Or even lend fuel to everyone with the reapers superior ftl systems, give them a ride, etc. So much he can do.

As for synthesis ending? Everyone is now part synthetic and part organic. Which means they could probably live longer than normal, and have a better technological understanding and make further break througs to help themselves out. Plus the reapers would see them as kin of sorts I would assume being just like them so there would be a good chance that they would help out as well.

[vertigo72]

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

vertigo72 wrote...

Mtcool wrote...

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

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.

This almost proves my point. I hope you know I was only being sarcastic. My real concern is that you are never given an option to refute what the starkid says. And he never gives an explanation as to how he is correct in his assertion that organic and synthetics are destined to destroy one another. The only evidence that supports his theory throughout the entire series IS the Reapers. And it is also never addressed why the Reaper AI is in the form of the child that has been haunting Shepard the entire game. The only way the catalyst could have known to use that form was if it had some influence over his mind. This is at least in some way a form of manipulation. 

You can read his mind without manipulating him. Prothean can speak English after reading and analysing your mind, he cannot ontrol you. 

I really  think they could add some more explanations, but also Shep is already almost dead. Having all those blablabla wouldn't be very realist for me. If he dies before he can't make a choice. What that will prove? That organics are still too week?

He does die if you don't choose. Seriously,play that part again and just stand there for 20 minutes. You do eventually get a game over screen.

Really? So it's an ending too, there's some timer or something. Like I said, if you do nothing you change nothing, everybody dies and the cycle restarts.

Modifié par vertigo72, 17 mars 2012 - 04:46 .