Ryokun1989 wrote...
Egonne wrote...
Whether you like the endings or not really boils down to your ability to IGNORE the endings.
The star child was weird, but certainly not unforeseeable. I felt like the Matrix went the same direction (gritty realism to something like New Age spiritualistic 'pantheism'). Possibly a bit disappointing and maybe a little Deus Ex (although the latter is arguable based on the fact that the 'star child' IS the cycle and the cycle was mentioned throughout the series).
The lack of choices certainly was disappointing, but could be a nihilistic philosophical statement on how our little choices may make a difference in the LITTLE things but by themselves are too small to change the outcome in the grand scheme of things. Sort of an anti-'butterfly effect' message. Here although I certainly DO understand the outrage of others because the developers kept pushing the '16 endings' thing. A bit of a 'white lie' on their part.
The unhappy endings were certainly foreseeable. Almost necessary when fighting antagonists such as the Reapers. I can see why people don't like it, and I personally would liked to have seen a happy ending, but an unhappy ending is CERTAINLY well within the realm of reason.
The problem is the gaping wounds in the plot. All stories take a certain 'suspension of disbelief' but the ending stretches credulity to its breaking point. Everything involving the Normandy simply has to be ignored; for it can't even be explained away, let alone reasonably explained. This is the key problem with the ending. It is nonsense, not an ending.
There isn't any philosophical depth to find in teleporting squad mates, Normandy in the slip stream, and Shepard under a pile of rubble (if the ending is to be taken at face value, meaning no indoctrination theory).
For any in depth analysis of the ending to occur, one must start with the agreement to IGNORE half the ending. For with those plot holes there, the story unravels and logical coherence break apart. Making analysis impossible.
I do understand where 'The ending has depth and I like it' crowd is coming from. Their argument is not totally without merit. But ignoring half the ending in order to deeply understand the rest of it seems a bit foolish. I'm certainly glad someone can though, for it is the only way one can 'understand' the ending in any meaningful way.
I see where you're coming from, but the other half of the ending mostly works for me too. I agree it takes *some* leap of the imagination, but it's still very much in line from what I saw in the first half.
For me, it takes much more than 'some' leap of imagination. Allow me to elaborate:
1. Shepard gets hit with the beam. How long did he lay there? How was it that NO ONE, friend or enemy, stubbled on him while he was unconscience? This requires fairly little imagination but the total has begun.
2. Anderson making it to the beam? This is starting to get big. The absolute emphasis that NO ONE made it to the beam and the implication that most if not ALL were killed is too strong. Still tolerable though.
3. Anderson getting beamed to a different part of the Citadel? Really? How did that happen? And how did he get to the Illusive Man's platform when there seems to be only one path to it. This STILL isn't too much of a strain. But it is starting to get big.
4. The Illusive Man's presence on the Citadel. This is a minor one. But still isn't explained (although normally I'd be fine with that) and still adds to the total.
5. The Mass Relay's NOT destroying entire systems when they explode. This, again, is a minor one because it can be explain due to the odd way the Mass Relay were being used (to synthesis/control the reapers). But the total is starting to get pretty large.
6. Normandy and Joker in the Mass Relay stream? This is a BIG one. No reason is given on WHY he should be. And it is out of character in almost EVERY way. This SHOULD have been explained. Now we are starting to stretch 'imagination' pretty far.
7. Normandy surving a forced ejection from the Mass Relay system? Wasn't that established to be destructive? This COULD be explained away as well. But the total is starting to get overwhelming.
8. Normandy crashing on a planet? And an inhabitable one at that? In a normal ending this could simply be ignored because it is such a common plot problem (the new Star Trek movie had the same problem). But we are still adding to a VERY big total.
9. My squad mates inexplicably exiting the Normandy after it crashed? Now HERE we have the BIG one. This simply DOESN'T make any sense at all. How did they get there? Why did they leave the battle? This ending, which was already pushing believability, just totally unraveled.
10. My squad mates not only are ON the Normandy but seem UNSCATHED a mere minutes (possibly hours if you stretch it a LOT) after being part of the failed Citadel beam charge? The story just built up how devastating that charge was. Shepard was incredibly hurt. How did they get out without a scratch? This is HUGE! It is impossible to overexaggerate the problem here.
11. My squad mates, who magically appeared on the Normandy, and who are in remarkable health, also seem quite HAPPY? WHAT!?!?!?! Didn't they just witness what they thought was Shepard's death? Didn't they just witness the destruction of the mass relays? Didn't they lose any chance at all of seeing ANY of their loved ones again? And they seem HAPPY? This synthesis process must be some pretty strong stuff.
In the end, the ending is broken...pure and simple.
Modifié par Egonne, 20 mars 2012 - 12:49 .
Retour en haut
Let's be friends then, 
![=]](https://lvlt.forum.bioware.com/public/style_emoticons/default/sideways.png)
. Also a 1950's song that talks about the end of the world in 2525 because the way the world is going. I typed Blizzard instead of Bioware, big deal? The names both start with B.
