1309 réponses à ce sujet

[savionen]

saracen16 wrote...

And mine, too. I liked the fact that the ending was really involving, and forced you to think about your previous decisions in the game.

lol, how did it make you think about your previous decisions? None of them even mattered. The only thing that could POSSIBLY matter is that the Geth might get destroyed if you pick the Synthetic ending, and even then they don't show the repercussions of that. They never show the Geth live or die. God-Kid even says that Shepard will die on the Destroy ending, and theres an explosion in his face, how can you even trust that the Geth would indeed die?

[Shiran]

mghjr6 wrote...

I say this as someone who never said one negative thing before finishing the game myself, and who always supported it during development: The lore conflicts are well documented at this point and beyond argument, to be honest with you. That's not a matter of opinion. I'm not trying to come across unreasonable or angry, it's just the way things are. We shouldn't HAVE to make up part of the story in our minds to figure out how the nonsense in the ending came to be.

That being said, it wasn't the lore conflicts that bothered me quite as much. That "10 reasons we hate the Mass Effect 3 endings" video by Angry Joe that I saw last night seemed to explain most of all that really well, including my own problems with the endings.

I wasn't expecting an ending with rainbows, just the chance for an ending with hope. Not my crew somehow being stranded light years away...and looking happy about it. I got everything right, did everything I could. Looked in every nook and cranny, only to get, for all intents and purposes, the same ending I'd have gotten if I'd started Priority: Earth without doing anything extra.

I wasn't even't looking for a major epilogue. Like I've said, I imagined something similar to Shepard, even Shepard and an LI, looking out over the wreckage and knowing that if nothing else, we're still alive. I would even have understood if the Mass Relays had been disabled somehow, but it all left me feeling empty.

I actually understand and appreciate your view point very well. It is this longing feeling of wanting more closure and explanation. I would agree that over dependence on GAW in leiu of all other things might be seen as problem with game in awhole. But I disagree that there is no hope. It is full of of it. At least for the next cycle until Synthetics rise again.

[Lankist]

piemanz wrote...

[Why can't you just accept that some things are not within yours or shepards control.

Uh, because that's sort of counter-intuitive to interactive fiction advertised as allowing the player to "decide how it ends."

AKA a cop-out.

Nothing else was really out of the player's control throughout the entire series, so why do you think this argument flies in the eleventh hour?

Modifié par Lankist, 19 mars 2012 - 06:49 .

[Persephone]

The Angry One wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

And mine, too. I liked the fact that the ending was really involving, and forced you to think about your previous decisions in the game.

The ending makes all of those decisions irrelevant, so I guess it does make you think about them..

According to which dogma? Your opinion?

[dfstone]

For me, the problem I think people are having with the ending is they think they are being given a paragon or renegade choice. I don't think they are. You're being presented with a philosophical choice.

Throughout all the games from ME1 to ME3 you are presented with 3 very clear options on how to deal with the reapers. Saren/Geth wanted Synergy, The Illusive Man/Cerberus wanted Control, Anderson/Alliance wanted to destroy them. Thats the choice you are making.

I have 2 big continutity problems with the ending, one...where the hell did the Normandy come from and why is it crashing on a planet?

And second, i thought they said destroying a relay destroys the star system its in?

Other than those 2 things, the ending makes perfect sense to me.

[stabbykitteh]

Diablos2525 wrote...

I've been seeing a lot of people like the endings of Mass effect 3. I have to wonder though, are they really big fans of the series or have they just picked up the latest one and put "action mode" or whatever on. Because the ending makes no sense... at all, and goes against the lore established by previous mass effect games and dlc. Are these people just ****s, or simply ignorant? Every time they say they like the ending they never give a reason why. Is it the fact that it was ripped straight from Deus Ex 1. Or the fact that it creates 10 plotholes, or the fact that it goes against the whole purpose of the series where you collect forces to stop the Reapers only to make the collection of those forces pointless since we all get 98% the same ending.

I am seriously so confused, how can people be so stupid? Have they not finished the game?

EDIT: I'm wondering if all the people who finished the game first were mostly series fans, whereas now we are seeing a bunch of first time fans finishing the game weeks later?

This is exactly why people who didn't hate the ending have probably hesitated to post about it.

It's a video game series, one I happen to love and have invested hundreds of hours in, but it's a game.
It's entertainment. Why in the world would someone want to put up with being called a drone or stupid
for not agreeing with the mob when they could be, you know, enjoying another playthrough of the last
installment of their favorite game series instead?

I really feel for the people who hated the ending. Waiting years, putting countless hours into something
and being disappointed stinks. I get that. I'm actually grateful that I didn't hate the ending. An epilogue
would be nice. In a rational world people get to have differing opinions.

We aren't discussing life or death here - it's a game.

To answer your question, when I finished my first playthrough I came here excited to discuss it and
was greeted with endless hate threads... So I went back to playing the game... It does seem to have
eased up a bit (but not enough, really) so maybe people are coming out of the woodwork.

Modifié par Flummox, 19 mars 2012 - 06:54 .

[The Angry One]

Persephone wrote...

And what are the endings you were promised? List them, all of them. I sure am curious to find out.

We were promised that we would get significantly different endings depending on our choices.
Instead we got 3 variants of one ending, with 2 more colours being unlocked as you raise an arbitrary score.

No.

Just no? Another reason why you're not taken seriously.

Intolerance? Hardly. Against whom?

Against everything different. Synthesis presumes that the only way to achieve permanent peace is to make everybody the same.

The genocide (Destroying the Reapers is genocide too) is an OPTION. As it was in ME1. It's not endorsed.

Destroying all synthetic life is genocide. Moreover, the Catalyst's "solution" is repeated genocide, and Shepard does not ONCE get to tell the Catalyst that it's reasoning and justification are wrong.

Way to excuse such a disgusting comparison. ACTUAL suffering compared to pixels and people not getting theeeeeeeeeir endings. YEESH!

I excused nothing, and you are strawmanning the issue to imply that people are equating real life horror with this issue. Stop it.

[saracen16]

The Angry One wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

 I love the ending because it was so emotionally powerful for me. I agree that it had plenty of inconsistencies, but it did not have any more inconsistency than the games have had in the past (and that ME3 had up to that point).

Come at me bros.

Shepard surrendering and Joker abandoning Shepard are major lore-breaking inconsistencies. 
They are two things neither character would ever do.

They are not "lore inconsistencies".

- Shepard didn't "surrender". He knew that the Crucible was the only way to end the cycle (as it was stated from the start), and the Catalyst even gave him his options after the Catalyst himself realized that he would need a new solution AFTER Shepard told him that organics need hope and/or have choice. To reject the Crucible would be downright stupidity, just like leaving the Rachni alone in the lab in ME1 would be downright stupidity... or something tells me you didn't realize that Mass Effect was all about hard decisions from the very beginning? About sacrifice?

- Joker retreated. He didn't abandon Shepard. All forces of Hammer and Sword were ordered to regroup and retreat while Shield makes its advance.

Pay attention to the ending and the entire game, and don't just limit your memory to the last 10 ****ing minutes.

[savionen]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

The Angry One wrote...


Shepard surrendering and Joker abandoning Shepard are major lore-breaking inconsistencies. 
They are two things neither character would ever do.

Shepard did not surrender to anything. The options were presented to him, and he chose one.

Try to look at it logically. Shepard was presented with the three choices. Shepard chose one.

Nowhere in that is "surrender." Now, you may feel that simply choosing a choice is surrender, but that's entirely subjective.

As for Joker, we don't know WHY. If we know WHY, you might in fact agree. But that isn't a plothole, just something left unexplained.

And, consider that EVERY. BIG. CHOICE. in the other two games was railroaded in ME3. that's far worse than an ambiguous ending.

Why does Shepard have to choose 3 predermined choices from somebody you have no reason to trust? It's like if Saren asks you if you wanted to side with him, or kill the council, and you had no other choice.

Why doesn't Shepard actually question anything? Even though you can basically question everything else. Shepard puts up no resistance. All 3 choices are BAD. All 3 have major consequences (basically the same one). The Protheans took hundreds of years to die out. Why would Shepard decide to quickly end this Reaper conflict after what we can presume is a few weeks, and effectively destroy the Milky Way in the process without even asking any questions or having any doubts?

[Ryokun1989]

The Angry One wrote...

Lightice_av wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

I submit that you should keep the insults to those insulting you or - better yet - do not sink to their level at all.
I take lowest common denominator as an insult. I am not looking for an action flick with a cliche ending. I'm looknig for meaningful resolution and an outcome affected by my work that I put into the game.

I have made effort to avoid insulting anybody. I am not, however at best of moods after the aforementioned volleys of insults, so you just have to accept that I'm being rather prickly at the moment.

Then you'll have to accept that I too have a headache from constant derision and am touchy over the subject.
In any case there's no need to lump either side into one ball and attack them because of it.

And it's the action flick cliché ending that you will get with your behaviour. If Bioware publishes a new ending, they will make it as boringly inoffensive as humanly possible to avoid the same fan reaction again. They'll aim straight at the lower reaches of the lowest common denominator and give the ranters exactly what they've been wishing for: something entirely predictable, ready-chewed garbage. Because nothing less will satisfy even half of the complainers at this point.

We have stated quite clearly that what we want is a reflection of our actions upon the ending.
Bleak endings should be for those who don't gather war assets or make certain choices, better endings should be for those that do. I trust BioWare to not repeat their mistakes IF they admit they made one, and to make endings their way as they always have.

Your problem is that you're not 'we'. There's a lot of different people hating the ending for a lot of different reasons.

Besides that, if they followed through with what you said, that would probably constitute a lot of meaningless exposition that doesn't actually explore any of the themes...

[The Angry One]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Joker is not abandoning Shep. For all he knows Shep is dead AND he needs to ESCAPE that blast.

If Joker wasn't in the relay he wouldn't have to escape any blast.
Why was he in the relay?

Surrender? He all but surrendered to Cerberus in ME2 when he NEVER walked away!

Shepard required the tools provided by Cerberus to resolve a crisis, and used them their way. You can actively work against Cerberus at several points.
Moreover, Cerberus' status in ME2 was ambigious at best. The Reapers' is not.

[Alamar2078]

I would imagine the folks that like the ending fall into one of several camps:

-- Those folks that are not hip-deep in the ME franchise [I.E. newer customer]
-- Customers that do NOT want standard endings and want something / anything REALLy different
-- BSG or Duex Ex fans
-- Writers & artists defending their brothers [maybe possibly liking the ending]

Edit:  A drunk monkey could type with fewer typos than I'm having ....

Modifié par Alamar2078, 19 mars 2012 - 06:56 .

[The Angry One]

Persephone wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

And mine, too. I liked the fact that the ending was really involving, and forced you to think about your previous decisions in the game.

The ending makes all of those decisions irrelevant, so I guess it does make you think about them..

According to which dogma? Your opinion?

According to the fact that the galaxy was destroyed and the entire armada was stranded in Sol to wither and die.

[Lankist]

Alamar2078 wrote...

I would imagine the folks that like the ending fall into one of several camps:

-- Those folks that are not hip-deep in the ME franchise [I.E. newer customer]
-- Customers that do NOT want standard endings and want something / anything REALLy different
-- BSG or Duex Ex fans
-- Writers & artists defending their brothers [maybe possibly liking the ending]

No writer is going to act as though criticism is irrelevant, at least not one that has made it far enough in their career to work with an editor.

[Kabraxal]

Gunslinger01101 wrote...

tmsolberg wrote...

I think the main difference between the "haters" and the "likers" is this;
"Ending likers" just play the game for the action. No time to think about stuff, just play through and go back to #insert any COD-title here".
"Ending haters" reflect on what they are experiencing, read the codex, play the game with lore in mind. "Ending haters" take a part in the wonderful world.

Thats what I think, anyway.


Hold the line!

PS. I have been a huge Bioware fan and I really enjoy the ME series. But if this isn't fixed I really don't think I'll buy more Bioware titles... Tragic really.

This is so epically false I can't even begin to address the falsehood. If anything the ending haters are the ones that beat the game in a day and didn't actually think about anything that happened. I've been playing ME since before they had computers (alternatively/more realistically since it came out in 2007...the very day of). SO you can take your theories about who has what opinions and shove them somewhere uncomfortable.

P.S. "Hold the Line" was so lame MORDIN made fun of Kirrahe for it. I love that you people chose THAT one.

All you going to do is basically insult the intelligence of the people that hated the endings?  

I was okay with the endings, though they need epilogues still, but even I can admit there are a lot of plot inconsistincies and holes.  SO stop acting llike you are the intelligent one and any that disagree just have to be too stupid to understand.

[The Angry One]

saracen16 wrote...

- Shepard didn't "surrender". He knew that the Crucible was the only way to end the cycle (as it was stated from the start), and the Catalyst even gave him his options after the Catalyst himself realized that he would need a new solution AFTER Shepard told him that organics need hope and/or have choice. To reject the Crucible would be downright stupidity, just like leaving the Rachni alone in the lab in ME1 would be downright stupidity... or something tells me you didn't realize that Mass Effect was all about hard decisions from the very beginning? About sacrifice?

This assumes that the Catalyst was telling the truth. It's logic was circular and disprovable.
To not even challenge the Catalyst's foolish assumptions is why Shepard surrendered.

- Joker retreated. He didn't abandon Shepard. All forces of Hammer and Sword were ordered to regroup and retreat while Shield makes its advance.

Sword fleet was part of the battle, it was blatantly NOT ordered to flee through the relays. Try again.

Pay attention to the ending and the entire game, and don't just limit your memory to the last 10 ****ing minutes.

No, YOU pay attention and stop making wild assumptions to justify everything. Take the ending at face value, or your claims that the ending is solid have no merit.

[Persephone]

The Angry One wrote...


We were promised that we would get significantly different endings depending on our choices.
Instead we got 3 variants of one ending, with 2 more colours being unlocked as you raise an arbitrary score.

No.

Just no? Another reason why you're not taken seriously.

Intolerance? Hardly. Against whom?

Against everything different. Synthesis presumes that the only way to achieve permanent peace is to make everybody the same

I excused nothing, and you are strawmanning the issue to imply that people are equating real life horror with this issue. Stop it.

Lies.

Aw, YOU are not taking me seriously? It HURTS. It burnssssssss!<_<

Except, that's not true. Joker is still Joker. Edi is still Edi. They still love each other. ETC.

Aw, another favorite word your "movement" keeps abusing. Yeesh.

No. Not while they are actively doing this.

[Persephone]

The Angry One wrote...

Shepard required the tools provided by Cerberus to resolve a crisis, and used them their way. You can actively work against Cerberus at several points.
Moreover, Cerberus' status in ME2 was ambigious at best. The Reapers' is not.

Not after ME1, it was NOT.

And we knew little to NOTHING about the Reapers at the beginning of ME3. All we know are the cycles. Nothing else.

[Lightice_av]

The Angry One wrote...


Against everything different. Synthesis presumes that the only way to achieve permanent peace is to make everybody the same.

Synthesis doesn't make everybody the same. It just gives everybody a glimpse of others' perspective. The way they evolve from there is their own choice.

Destroying all synthetic life is genocide. Moreover, the Catalyst's "solution" is repeated genocide, and Shepard does not ONCE get to tell the Catalyst that it's reasoning and justification are wrong.

Shepard is bleeding to death and Earth's last defenses are falling. There is no time to argue against a completely determined machine when it does no good. And yes, the Catalyst's actions are genocide from our perspective, but it is trying to preserve all life as best as it can. The only method it could work with just ended up being completely horrifying. The Catalyst acknowledges that it's methods are far from ideal, which is why it gives you so much decisive power in the first place.

[iceman6773]

I can understand why some people could like the ending. I just don't know how a true Mass Effect fan could with such little difference and choice in the endings.

My Shepard would have shot that ghost kid for making me chose between suicide, suicide, and suicide. Just my thoughts.

[Persephone]

The Angry One wrote...

Persephone wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

And mine, too. I liked the fact that the ending was really involving, and forced you to think about your previous decisions in the game.

The ending makes all of those decisions irrelevant, so I guess it does make you think about them..

According to which dogma? Your opinion?

According to the fact that the galaxy was destroyed and the entire armada was stranded in Sol to wither and die.

Not a "fact" at all.