276 réponses à ce sujet

[Lugaidster]

-Area51-Silent wrote...

I do think its clever...I also think its only 50% done! The end to the story of humanity vs. the reapers is done! thats good, and the ending is good for that (even though really there is only 1 and should be a couple more, but thats another story). The problem here is that this game was built with 2 layers, first was Shepard vs. the reapers, and the other was a character driven story which followed Shepard and the backstories and relationships he built with the people he interacted with.

That said, we got not enough in the ending of closing plot holes that usually are closed in an epilogue, as well as some more information about the (still living) crew mates, friends and lives that shepard has been involved in after such a period of time. I suppose having not really enough ending for the character driven part is really the sticking point for a lot of people.

Those three options go against what Shepard ever stood for, either paragon or renegade (although it's a bit more clear for paragons). Sure they end the problem, but the how is completely bonkers, and then you have to discuss the choices. Let's do a small analysis to see if Shepard would actually take any of the options if what his character is, is what was established before:

Control: The real life equivalent is taking a dictator and putting another one in. No matter how good the leader, the problem is really the system. Reapers were created to fulfil a purpose that no longer holds true. Replacing the leader won't change the fact that the reapers are still there. And it doesn't invalidate the problem of "synthetics will kill organics". This new solution doesn't actually take care of the problem the Reapers presented, so it's an empty solution, and would go against everything Shepard (an incredibly strongwilled subject) did in the past.

Synthesis: The whole trilogy is based on the premise that species should evolve at their own pace. Look at the krogan rebellions caused by uplifting them. Look at the conflict the geth had with the heretics. Remember, Legion said that they didn't side with the reapers because they should achieve their future by their own means. After all of that, Shepard is going to make a decision that affects the entire galaxy without their consent? Suddenly "uplifting" everyone to become half synthetic and half organic is the solution? Besides, it's an incredibly racist premise also, because it basically says that sentient beings will fight because of what their constituents are, rather than the content of their character. People fight, synthetics are no different than organics. Peace can't be assured because we are one and the same (humans fight other humans). And, again, it doesn't invalidate the problem of "created will kill the creators", synthetics can still be created by hybrids, and they can still evolve to surpass the hybrids bringing the whole problem again. Just because everyone is a hybrid it doesn't mean that they won't get lazy again, leading them to create new synthetics to do repetitive tasks. Another empty solution.

Destroy: About the only "sane" option except that it also kills (for some weird reason) every synthetic in the galaxy, leading to mass genocide and a technological dark age. So after 90+ hours of playing and uniting the galaxy, bringing the geth together with the quarians and helping EDI you're going to kill them?

Essentially, you're forced to take one of three very bad options that don't fix the original problem (if it existed) to begin with. You are going to tell me that an inherently flawed Deus Ex Machina with three meaningless options is a "clever" ending? After breaking the narrative style presented before it you still think it's a "clever" ending? It didn't even work for clever authors like Shakespeare.

If they wanted to avoid mainstream plots, they should've avoided a Deus Ex Machina.  THAT is mainstream. And then we have the lack of fulfilment at the end of it all. So we get a bad ending, that doesn't make sense, and leaves us with a serious lack of satisfaction at the end. Why build dozens of hours of content for the player to connect with the characters if you won't get closure? (No, a crashland to an unknown location isn't closure, you don't even get to see all your mates there). And what happens to the galaxy there? At least in Deus Ex you get to see what becomes of the world.

I'm sorry if my post seemed blunt or condescending I don't mean for it to be like that and I do respect your opinion, but most of the people that like the end have barely more than a "I thought it was cool because it was deep/not-happy". You present a valid point with the "microcosmos" theory, but it still doesn't address the fact that Shepard is completely out of character and the options make no sense, especially if the one giving them is a million old sentient machine with a cold and calculating mindset. For it to really be clever, it has to address the glaring problems it presents either explicitely or implicitly. AFAIK it doesn't.

Modifié par Lugaidster, 19 mars 2012 - 01:43 .

[Vaktathi]

It was "clever" when DeusEx had the EXACT. SAME. OPTIONS. 12 years ago. Idea for idea, almost word for word Control AI/Destroy AI/Merge with AI options and same Red/Blue/Green color coding.

There's nothing clever about hamfisting it into a game 12 years later and having each option result in the same CG ending sequence.

[Keatstwo]

Not sure how joker running away with all your squadmates who he's magically beamed onto the Normandy is "clever" to name just one awful plot hole.

The only way in which the ending could be seen as clever is if it's all intended to be a dream / indoc, in which case it's a horrible ending because the ending isn't actually there. Having no ending present in the third game of a trilogy seems decidedly unclever to me

[Evercrow]

pistolols wrote...

The ending was clever to me because Shepard's final moments are a microcosm of the entire game. Three choices that all ultimately achieve the same thing, just slightly different. That is how the majority of the games is played out. Conversation choices that often achieve the same thing, but with a different attitude. So I absolutely loved it. To me it was brilliant.

Many people are criticizing the lack of difference in the cutscenes between the three choices. But that is actually what makes it so cool. Replaying the end and choosing something different, and you get to see the subtle differences based on your decision. For example if you chose destroy, you will note that EDI does not emerge from the Normandy at the end (because you killed her, you jerk). And with synthesis Joker emerges clearly sporting some new tech under his skin. That's all the final "jungle planet" scene was meant to achieve.. a simple way to show the outcome of your decision. Could it have been better and more thorough? Sure. But ultimately it's a video game and i feel people are nit picking the Joker escape way too much.

People want to talk about closure... for me, the last little moment between Anderson and Shepard was all the closure i needed.  They did an amazing job with that.  Very heartfelt and genuine.

Thanks for sharing your opinion. It's actually one of the most specific and logical ones I've seen from the endings supporters. I can see how you may like it, and that's entirely a matter of personal taste.

If I've played ME3 as my first game in the series, and never read those interviews about how "diverse" the endings would be, I even might've shared your view. Then again,I might've never bought ME3 in the first place.

[Lightice_av]

The ending was clever because it managed to squeeze all the major themes of the series into a minimalistic frame. It was victory through sacrifice that had been the running theme of ME3. It was the organics vs. synthetics that had been the theme of the entire series. It managed to offer an option between the three core perspectives of how organic-synthetic relationship should work. It wasn't a generic happy ending, or a calculated tearjerker, both which I dreaded before the game came out. It left open questions and raised new ones, like every good ending should.

None of this ofcourse means that the ending was perfect. I feel it missed a great opportunity to fill the end credits with scenes from days to months to years from the climax, showing us scenes of the people we influenced and how they adapt to the world that we left them. That would have made the ending very close to perfect for me, and the lack of that personal touch is what bothered me the most about the whole thing.

[Lugaidster]

Lightice_av wrote...

The ending was clever because it managed to squeeze all the major themes of the series into a minimalistic frame. It was victory through sacrifice that had been the running theme of ME3. It was the organics vs. synthetics that had been the theme of the entire series. It managed to offer an option between the three core perspectives of how organic-synthetic relationship should work. It wasn't a generic happy ending, or a calculated tearjerker, both which I dreaded before the game came out. It left open questions and raised new ones, like every good ending should.

None of this ofcourse means that the ending was perfect. I feel it missed a great opportunity to fill the end credits with scenes from days to months to years from the climax, showing us scenes of the people we influenced and how they adapt to the world that we left them. That would have made the ending very close to perfect for me, and the lack of that personal touch is what bothered me the most about the whole thing.

Read my previous post. Neither option fundamentally answers the purpouse of the reapers. The entire theme of the series has been reapers vs everyone else. The geth were only part of the plot, not a main issue. Neither of the choices present a real solution of how an organic-synthetic relationship should work because there's nothing inherently different between them except for what their constituents are. 

As philosophical or deep as it may seem, the alternatives provided do nothing to solve the underlying issue between organics and synthetics (if there ever was one) while bringing with them a wholenother can of worms. The issues with the endings are way above the fact that we didn't have a happy ending. 

[VAIOMANIAC]

Evercrow wrote...

pistolols wrote...

The ending was clever to me because Shepard's final moments are a microcosm of the entire game. Three choices that all ultimately achieve the same thing, just slightly different. That is how the majority of the games is played out. Conversation choices that often achieve the same thing, but with a different attitude. So I absolutely loved it. To me it was brilliant.

Many people are criticizing the lack of difference in the cutscenes between the three choices. But that is actually what makes it so cool. Replaying the end and choosing something different, and you get to see the subtle differences based on your decision. For example if you chose destroy, you will note that EDI does not emerge from the Normandy at the end (because you killed her, you jerk). And with synthesis Joker emerges clearly sporting some new tech under his skin. That's all the final "jungle planet" scene was meant to achieve.. a simple way to show the outcome of your decision. Could it have been better and more thorough? Sure. But ultimately it's a video game and i feel people are nit picking the Joker escape way too much.

People want to talk about closure... for me, the last little moment between Anderson and Shepard was all the closure i needed.  They did an amazing job with that.  Very heartfelt and genuine.

Thanks for sharing your opinion. It's actually one of the most specific and logical ones I've seen from the endings supporters. I can see how you may like it, and that's entirely a matter of personal taste.

If I've played ME3 as my first game in the series, and never read those interviews about how "diverse" the endings would be, I even might've shared your view. Then again,I might've never bought ME3 in the first place.

I respectfully disagree on many on your points but I agree on the Anderson and Sheppard moment that was a really good scene between the two of them.

[Lightice_av]

Read my previous post. Neither option fundamentally answers the purpouse of the reapers. The entire theme of the series has been reapers vs everyone else. The geth were only part of the plot, not a main issue. Neither of the choices present a real solution of how an organic-synthetic relationship should work because there's nothing inherently different between them except for what their constituents are.

There is only so much that a video game can answer on the more deep, philosophical level about the questions you present, but I find that you exaggerate the problems heavily. The three basic approaches presented to synthetic life throughout the series have been either to reject it, control it or embrace it. Those are the three options we are given at the ending. None of them is a magic solution for happiness and rainbows; all leave open questions and possible problems. If you think that Bioware knows the ultimate answer to the problems of transhumanism and artificial intelligence, there is litte other choice than dissappoinment. The answers aren't supposed to be final or definitive, only good enough to make the Reapers' function obsolete.

[Revanmug]

pistolols wrote...

The ending was clever to me because Shepard's final moments are a microcosm of the entire game. Three choices that all ultimately achieve the same thing, just slightly different. That is how the majority of the games is played out. Conversation choices that often achieve the same thing, but with a different attitude. So I absolutely loved it. To me it was brilliant.

Many people are criticizing the lack of difference in the cutscenes between the three choices. But that is actually what makes it so cool. Replaying the end and choosing something different, and you get to see the subtle differences based on your decision. For example if you chose destroy, you will note that EDI does not emerge from the Normandy at the end (because you killed her, you jerk). And with synthesis Joker emerges clearly sporting some new tech under his skin. That's all the final "jungle planet" scene was meant to achieve.. a simple way to show the outcome of your decision. Could it have been better and more thorough? Sure. But ultimately it's a video game and i feel people are nit picking the Joker escape way too much.

People want to talk about closure... for me, the last little moment between Anderson and Shepard was all the closure i needed.  They did an amazing job with that.  Very heartfelt and genuine.

Hello, my brother's destroy ending had EDI going out...

HOW YA EXPLAIN THAT?!

I guess the same way on how shepard live when he was suppose to die in the destroy ending for being part synthetics... and surviving atmosphere reentering? After eating Harbinger's blast in the face and a bullet from dear marauder shield... One though son of a...

[Lightice_av]

Hello, my brother's destroy ending had EDI going out...

HOW YA EXPLAIN THAT?!

Simple: Bug. One thing this game can definately be blamed for is a large number of glitches.

[Quietness]

Revanmug wrote...

pistolols wrote...

The ending was clever to me because Shepard's final moments are a microcosm of the entire game. Three choices that all ultimately achieve the same thing, just slightly different. That is how the majority of the games is played out. Conversation choices that often achieve the same thing, but with a different attitude. So I absolutely loved it. To me it was brilliant.

Many people are criticizing the lack of difference in the cutscenes between the three choices. But that is actually what makes it so cool. Replaying the end and choosing something different, and you get to see the subtle differences based on your decision. For example if you chose destroy, you will note that EDI does not emerge from the Normandy at the end (because you killed her, you jerk). And with synthesis Joker emerges clearly sporting some new tech under his skin. That's all the final "jungle planet" scene was meant to achieve.. a simple way to show the outcome of your decision. Could it have been better and more thorough? Sure. But ultimately it's a video game and i feel people are nit picking the Joker escape way too much.

People want to talk about closure... for me, the last little moment between Anderson and Shepard was all the closure i needed.  They did an amazing job with that.  Very heartfelt and genuine.

Hello, my brother's destroy ending had EDI going out...

HOW YA EXPLAIN THAT?!

I guess the same way on how shepard live when he was suppose to die in the destroy ending for being part synthetics... and surviving atmosphere reentering? After eating Harbinger's blast in the face and a bullet from dear marauder shield... One though son of a...

Happen to me too, i was already livid than when i saw that i was moments from throwing my monitor through the window next to me. My 2 Squadmates (1 also being LI) Joker and EDI walk off after the destruction ending.... ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

Modifié par Quietness, 19 mars 2012 - 04:21 .

[The Angry One]

Psuedo intellectuals love latching on to things people hate like this, because they can pretend it's so deep that we just don't understand, therefore they are smarter than us.

[Stanley Woo]

It is a bit of a double standard, don't you think, to suggest, request, and demand change so the game fits what you want the game to be, and then turn around and make fun of or belittle those who disagree with you?

Play nice, please.

[The Angry One]

Quietness wrote...

Happen to me too, i was already livid than when i saw that i was moments from throwing my monitor through the window next to me. My 2 Squadmates (1 also being LI) Joker and EDI walk off after the destruction ending.... ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

Clearly what happened is that Marauder Shields warned Joker about the plot holes, told him to flee and said he would take care of Shepard.
Unfortunately the plot hole sucked the Normandy in and destroyed it. Joker, Edi and your squad are in the afterlife.

Hey, this is speculation and therefore valid.

[Lugaidster]

Lightice_av wrote...

There is only so much that a video game can answer on the more deep, philosophical level about the questions you present, but I find that you exaggerate the problems heavily. The three basic approaches presented to synthetic life throughout the series have been either to reject it, control it or embrace it. Those are the three options we are given at the ending. None of them is a magic solution for happiness and rainbows; all leave open questions and possible problems. If you think that Bioware knows the ultimate answer to the problems of transhumanism and artificial intelligence, there is litte other choice than dissappoinment. The answers aren't supposed to be final or definitive, only good enough to make the Reapers' function obsolete.

Please, don't bring the happiness and rainbows into this. I didn't claim I wanted a happy ending.

They (Bioware) are certainly taking a stab at trying to come up with the ultimate answer to transhumanism. If they didn't want to be judged by their poor attempt at it, they should've stayed clear of that path. But in either case, if you actually believe there's an issue between organics and synthetics beyond irreconcilable solution no option given solves it. Control only controls the reapers, not all synthetics. Synthesis only merges them right now, but that doesn't avoid future problems (what's worse is that the game was always fairly grounded for a sci-fi series, magic green light that merges live beings with machines is a whole lot to swallow). Destruction is what you came to do, but for an unfathomable reason it targets everything synthetic (so you can use the catalyst to control the reapers and the reapers only but you can't use it to destroy the reapers and the reapers only?).

What's more, there never was a need for them to provide an answer. Species were fighting for a chance to determine what that answer was through their own means. They didn't need to reveal what that was. The whole story was built on that.

On the third point, just by assembling the crucible with every major species united fighting they rendered the purpose of the reapers obsolete (if you actually brought every single species with you). Or at least as obsolete as the options you're given.

As I said, it would've been more fitting if they actually said "screw you" and fought to the last man. Even if that meant that the reapers won. You built a character that stayed true to his principles, why have him betray that in his final test.

Edit: Maybe I'm being overly dramatic (maybe it wasn't a poor attemt), but that's what the game brought me. I have a lot of passion on the subject, and apparently a lot of people on this forums do so too.

Modifié par Lugaidster, 19 mars 2012 - 04:36 .

[Revanmug]

Lightice_av wrote...

Hello, my brother's destroy ending had EDI going out...

HOW YA EXPLAIN THAT?!

Simple: Bug. One thing this game can definately be blamed for is a large number of glitches.

How could you know if I can ask? Shepard should have die too in the destroy ending. Why didn't he? As long as you can't confirm it with something solid, this is just speculation on an unclear ending.

Shepard lives : Possibility of  fail destruction for other synthetics. It happen once. It can happen more often.

[The Angry One]

Stanley Woo wrote...

It is a bit of a double standard, don't you think, to suggest, request, and demand change so the game fits what you want the game to be, and then turn around and make fun of or belittle those who disagree with you?

Play nice, please.

This person is belittling us, by implying we're too stupid to understand the oh so clever ending, it is not a double standard at all.
You can like the ending all you want, but if you make faulty arguments and insult those who don't you should be held accountable.

[VAIOMANIAC]

Stanley Woo wrote...

It is a bit of a double standard, don't you think, to suggest, request, and demand change so the game fits what you want the game to be, and then turn around and make fun of or belittle those who disagree with you?

Play nice, please.

No this man called the people who disliked the endings for hive minds and he could not give a single reason for why he liked it.

He did that just to troll people so sorry no dice I have talked with several people who did like the endings and they had reasons that I actually could understand, and they had no problem with me disagreeing either.

[Lugaidster]

The Angry One wrote...

Psuedo intellectuals love latching on to things people hate like this, because they can pretend it's so deep that we just don't understand, therefore they are smarter than us.

Let's not go there 

[lasertank]

Stanley Woo wrote...

It is a bit of a double standard, don't you think, to suggest, request, and demand change so the game fits what you want the game to be, and then turn around and make fun of or belittle those who disagree with you?

Play nice, please.

"double standard"  you're talking?

what about those "you guys hate the ending because you don't get it" posts?

I didn't see you post such opinions on those threads. 

[aliengmr1]

The ending is unoriginal and half-assed.

Need only ask yourself 1 thing; Is that ending the absolute best BW could do.

[Kloborgg711]

Stanley Woo wrote...

It is a bit of a double standard, don't you think, to suggest, request, and demand change so the game fits what you want the game to be, and then turn around and make fun of or belittle those who disagree with you?

Play nice, please.

Remarkably few people who are vocal about supporting the ending (a small enough group already) seem able to do so without insinuating the stupidity of those who didn't like them.

[GoblinSapper]

Stanley Woo wrote...

It is a bit of a double standard, don't you think, to suggest, request, and demand change so the game fits what you want the game to be, and then turn around and make fun of or belittle those who disagree with you?

Play nice, please.

Aww **** this threads gonna blow up now *puts on helmet*

[Fame-KIllz]

lasertank wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

It is a bit of a double standard, don't you think, to suggest, request, and demand change so the game fits what you want the game to be, and then turn around and make fun of or belittle those who disagree with you?

Play nice, please.

"double standard"  you're talking?

what about those "you guys hate the ending because you don't get it" posts?

I didn't see you post such opinions on those threads. 

end of line

[Mad-Hamlet]

This person is belittling us, by implying we're too stupid to understand the oh so clever ending, it is not a double standard at all.
You can like the ending all you want, but if you make faulty arguments and insult those who don't you should be held accountable.

I agree in principle, God do I agree. I agree in the most vicious and terrible means possible, but in PRINCIPLE.

In execution, no. Just blow it off. As has been stated: The reviewer in question is not giving direct answers to direct questions ergo he's refusing to be held accountable to the limits of his position knowing they are frail and, possibly, without merit.
Take that realization and move on to doing what you can, where you can to further what you think is right for Mass Effect 3.

And I just realized I'm being the voice of reason....

Which puzzles me.

Hmmmm....