1309 réponses à ce sujet

[HenchxNarf]

webhead921 wrote...

shurikenmanta wrote...

Guys, you know how you don't like to be called self-entitled babies or spoiled brats?

You really shouldn't be calling people who like the ending idiots or casual gamers, or you really have nothing to stand on.

100% agree.  

Agree.

[Johnners91]

HenchxNarf wrote...

webhead921 wrote...

shurikenmanta wrote...

Guys, you know how you don't like to be called self-entitled babies or spoiled brats?

You really shouldn't be calling people who like the ending idiots or casual gamers, or you really have nothing to stand on.

100% agree.  

Agree.

Yep. 

[piemanz]

Ryokun1989 wrote...

I thought this post was pretty awesome and I completely agree with it:
http://social.biowar...ndex/10270489/1

That's an exellent post and I agree 100% with it.

[Shaigunjoe]

Meltemph wrote...

Are you actually saying there are good scfi books that ends like this game does? Are you kidding me? Jerry tried to make this same point and I don't get it. I have read a LOT of classic scifi and scifi in general and I cant think of a single story that tried to argue that you need a singularity to control a singularity so a singularity doesn't destroy the galaxy. About the ONLY book you can compare this ending to is 2001:Space Odyssey, but that ALWAYS was ambiguous, so it is not a good comparison.

.

Yes, that is what I am saying.  Some Gene Wolfe book spoilers to follow, FYI.

Wolfe likes to use the literay device called the unreliable narrator (http://en.wikipedia....liable_narrator)
At the end of one of his books, it is revealed that the narrator of the story is not the protaganist, that is followed throughout the entire book, but somebody else.  After I found that out, that completely changed my perspective, and was worth another read through to try and figure what parts were real, embellished, or lies.

Something similiar happened when I saw the end of ME3 ending with the stargazer.  I realized that Shepard makes a bigger impact than what I could have originally imaged.  He/She basically becomes the religous authority that governs morality in the far future.  What parables are people using in the far future?  All of the decisions and choices He/She made leading up to the final.  How many love interests?  Council Saved? Killed?  T

Turned the story upside down for me, so now, when I replay it,  I don't think ," hey, If I save the queen, maybe she will come back and help me fight those pesky reapers", instead I think "What would future generations take away from the act of me saving the queen?  Would they believe in the power of redemption?  Everyone gets a second chance no matter how bad the first grieveance is?"  To generalize what I am saying even further: Now I look at all the decisions I made earlier as being interpreted as religous doctrine far down the road.  That to me is huge, a question I never thought I would ask myself, and well worth another play through of the trilogy, as my perspective of the importance of the decisions has changed.  Similiar to after I finished the Gene Wolfe book.

The wikipedia article starts by saying: "An unreliable narrator is a narrator, whether in literature, film, or theatre.."  I think  now we can add games to the list!.

[Meltemph]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

Are you actually saying there are good scfi books that ends like this game does? Are you kidding me? Jerry tried to make this same point and I don't get it. I have read a LOT of classic scifi and scifi in general and I cant think of a single story that tried to argue that you need a singularity to control a singularity so a singularity doesn't destroy the galaxy. About the ONLY book you can compare this ending to is 2001:Space Odyssey, but that ALWAYS was ambiguous, so it is not a good comparison.

.

Yes, that is what I am saying.  Some Gene Wolfe book spoilers to follow, FYI.

Wolfe likes to use the literay device called the unreliable narrator (http://en.wikipedia....liable_narrator)
At the end of one of his books, it is revealed that the narrator of the story is not the protaganist, that is followed throughout the entire book, but somebody else.  After I found that out, that completely changed my perspective, and was worth another read through to try and figure what parts were real, embellished, or lies.

Something similiar happened when I saw the end of ME3 ending with the stargazer.  I realized that Shepard makes a bigger impact than what I could have originally imaged.  He/She basically becomes the religous authority that governs morality in the far future.  What parables are people using in the far future?  All of the decisions and choices He/She made leading up to the final.  How many love interests?  Council Saved? Killed?  T

Turned the story upside down for me, so now, when I replay it,  I don't think ," hey, If I save the queen, maybe she will come back and help me fight those pesky reapers", instead I think "What would future generations take away from the act of me saving the queen?  Would they believe in the power of redemption?  Everyone gets a second chance no matter how bad the first grieveance is?"  To generalize what I am saying even further: Now I look at all the decisions I made earlier as being interpreted as religous doctrine far down the road.  That to me is huge, a question I never thought I would ask myself, and well worth another play through of the trilogy, as my perspective of the importance of the decisions has changed.  Similiar to after I finished the Gene Wolfe book.

The wikipedia article starts by saying: "An unreliable narrator is a narrator, whether in literature, film, or theatre.."  I think  now we can add games to the list!.

I'm sorry, but it comes across to me like you are stretching the narrative of the ME trilogy as far as it can go, just so you can fit the ending into a box that actually fits its shape.  Thre was no pretense in the writing of the world of Mass Effet, all you ahve to do is read the ME books to understand this.

[Shaigunjoe]

Meltemph wrote...



I'm sorry, but it comes across to me like you are stretching the narrative of the ME trilogy as far as it can go, just so you can fit the ending into a box that actually fits its shape. 

If it wasn't for the SG scene I would agree with you, but there it is, and instead of a stretch its a snug fit.

Thre was no pretense in the writing of the world of Mass Effet, all you ahve to do is read the ME books to understand this.

Not discussing the books here, they are just there to flesh out the universe more, but yea, that last book.....had some problems.

[Ryokun1989]

I agree that Shepard being a creation/savior myth for the Stargazer is hinted at.

@Meltemph
Sooo.. .you're saying the ending was way too epic? :3
Well, that's a criticism I hadn't heard before for sure

[Meltemph]

Ryokun1989 wrote...

I agree that Shepard being a creation/savior myth for the Stargazer is hinted at.

@Meltemph
Sooo.. .you're saying the ending was way too epic? :3
Well, that's a criticism I hadn't heard before for sure

Seriosuly?  Epic? It doesnt even bother you that the endings are the exact same from Deus Ex?

[stabbykitteh]

Almostfaceman wrote...

Flummox wrote...

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.

Discuss is the key word here. If you're not ready to discuss the ending of the game, don't post. The vast majority on this board hate the ending. So, if you post on this board, you're going to have to justify your position with discussion and debate - just like any forum. That's what it's here for. That's why this place exists. It's a place to give your feedback with reasons. Nobody respects "The ending sucks" just as nobody respects "I liked the ending". You have to tell us why. Because that's what you're doing - you're announcing your opinion to thousands of people. This isn't a personal email to Bioware. So stop acting surprised that you'll have to defend your position if you post it on a message board.

Not surprised that I'd have to defend my position. That's how debate works. In a real debate though, one doesn't just get to stick one's fingers in their ears and shout "you must be a stoopid casual shooter fan lalalalalalalala". That 's what I was responding to.

More than happy to discuss it, and I have tried in a few other threads. I suppose what I was doing here was reacting (which is dumb really, I barely post here so why bother) to being accused of being a casual fan (which I am not), stupid (nice), or a Bioware employee (I wish) because I'm part of the minority that enjoyed something others didn't.

Trying to defend the ending seems pointless here. People who call it speculation are correct. It is. But some of us enjoy that aspect of it. Not to say I didn't have any problems with the ending (squad teleporting to the Normandy)  but there are some interesting discussions to be had if you are not instantly shouted down with "bad writing" or "you aren't a real fan". As I see more of those discussions surface I'll get involved in them.

As I said, we are discussing a video game. The vitriol I see is uncalled for.

[Ryokun1989]

Meltemph wrote...

Ryokun1989 wrote...

I agree that Shepard being a creation/savior myth for the Stargazer is hinted at.

@Meltemph
Sooo.. .you're saying the ending was way too epic? :3
Well, that's a criticism I hadn't heard before for sure

Seriosuly?  Epic? It doesnt even bother you that the endings are the exact same from Deus Ex?

There's a superficial similarity, which is I am 99% sure purely coincidental.

The games deal with very different themes and the ending of Mass Effect has *everything* to do with what went before. The final question in the game can only be understood through the questions that went before it. The world that was build up throughout the series. The choice in context is simply very different, with very different considerations and very different outcomes in play.

To suggest they are the same or stolen or anything seems quite strange to me.

Modifié par Ryokun1989, 20 mars 2012 - 04:14 .

[webhead921]

Gunslinger01101 wrote...

Reiella wrote...

Diablos2525 wrote...

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?

A lot of the rage was simply repackaged rage from folks on the spoiler boards.  And it seems to largely continue the circle-rage aspect.  Folks got more upset about it the more they ruminated on it, and the forums provided more than ample opportunity for such.

That and there's such a nice bit of dismissive hostility to folks who actually like the ending and a feeling that they need to justify it that some probably just didn't want to get involved in a war on the internetz.

That said, I think ME3 is the worst to stand on it's own merits of the series.  There's far too much in the game that builds on previous content.

Maybe so but at least it didn't have a....giant f***ing terminator reaper.

Haha yea. I think ME3's ending is VERY flawed.  But it is nowhere near as anticlimactic as the end of ME2.  The entire suicide mission I was sitting right in front of my TV, covered in sweat because I knew that any of my team mates might die.  I had grown to care for them over the course of the game, and I wanted to do everything I could to ensure their survival.  Then all of a sudden I get melted humans=human reaper?  WTF?  

I love the Mass Effect series more than any other game of the current console generation.  However, sine ME2, I have never taken the main plot threads very seriously.  The main plot for ME2 wasn't very good, and the ending was ridiculous.  Still, the universe, the characters, and their interactions are great and this is what keeps me coming back to ME3 (and the trilogy as a whole).  I thought the dialogue and character interactions were great.  
 
The only Mass Effect game with a great ending is ME1.  For me, human reaper has more WTF than Star child.

[Dreogan]

webhead921 wrote...

Gunslinger01101 wrote...

Reiella wrote...

Diablos2525 wrote...

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?

A lot of the rage was simply repackaged rage from folks on the spoiler boards.  And it seems to largely continue the circle-rage aspect.  Folks got more upset about it the more they ruminated on it, and the forums provided more than ample opportunity for such.

That and there's such a nice bit of dismissive hostility to folks who actually like the ending and a feeling that they need to justify it that some probably just didn't want to get involved in a war on the internetz.

That said, I think ME3 is the worst to stand on it's own merits of the series.  There's far too much in the game that builds on previous content.

Maybe so but at least it didn't have a....giant f***ing terminator reaper.

Haha yea. I think ME3's ending is VERY flawed.  But it is nowhere near as anticlimactic as the end of ME2.  The entire suicide mission I was sitting right in front of my TV, covered in sweat because I knew that any of my team mates might die.  I had grown to care for them over the course of the game, and I wanted to do everything I could to ensure their survival.  Then all of a sudden I get melted humans=human reaper?  WTF?  

I love the Mass Effect series more than any other game of the current console generation.  However, sine ME2, I have never taken the main plot threads very seriously.  The main plot for ME2 wasn't very good, and the ending was ridiculous.  Still, the universe, the characters, and their interactions are great and this is what keeps me coming back to ME3 (and the trilogy as a whole).  I thought the dialogue and character interactions were great.  
 
The only Mass Effect game with a great ending is ME1.  For me, human reaper has more WTF than Star child.

Some would argue the interaction between characters is plot. To these people, the ending of ME3 fails because we don't see the events unfold through the eyes of anyone but Shepard.

It does make a bit of sense. What was Mordin's quote in ME2? "Can't anthromorphize entire galaxy. Fighting for favorite cousin." We don't have a "favorite cousin" in ME3.

Modifié par Dreogan, 20 mars 2012 - 04:24 .

[HenchxNarf]

Meltemph wrote...

Ryokun1989 wrote...

I agree that Shepard being a creation/savior myth for the Stargazer is hinted at.

@Meltemph
Sooo.. .you're saying the ending was way too epic? :3
Well, that's a criticism I hadn't heard before for sure

Seriosuly?  Epic? It doesnt even bother you that the endings are the exact same from Deus Ex?

They aren't exactly the same. It's called paying homage to something they admire. Not the same.

[saracen16]

Meltemph wrote...

Ryokun1989 wrote...

I agree that Shepard being a creation/savior myth for the Stargazer is hinted at.

@Meltemph
Sooo.. .you're saying the ending was way too epic? :3
Well, that's a criticism I hadn't heard before for sure

Seriosuly?  Epic? It doesnt even bother you that the endings are the exact same from Deus Ex?

The endings of Deus Ex are the following...

- Technological Dark Age (Deus Ex) / Darrow's Message (DXHR) / Templar's winning (DXIW)

- Technological Singularity (Deus Ex) / Sarif's Message (DXHR) / JC Denton ending (DXIW)

- Technological Control (Deus Ex) / Taggart's Message (DXHR) / Illuminati ending (DXIW)

The similarity, as Ryokun said, is superficial.

[Xeranx]

Ryokun1989 wrote...

Egonne wrote...


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.

You noticed all those things and you DIDN'T think it was intentional? 

I'm pretty certain the Major was telling the truth when he said noone made it through.

I think that list needs to be highlighted because it shows how there was a major disconnect.  This list highlights why I believe the later scenes were in Shepard's head.  

And I'll say it again, everything that happened during that sequence of being on the Citadel was referenced in some way during the game.  Meaning a lot of what happened in the series stuck in Shepard's mind.  The "catalyst" is a huge clue considering he looks exactly like the boy that died in the beginning who also happened to be in every single one of Shepard's nightmares after that event.  The last one communicating a chilling concept.

[Poison_Berrie]

Shiran wrote...

Uh, this entire Universe is pretty far away from Hard Sci Fi. It is not quite as blatantly science phantasy as say Star Wars are, but it still not anywhere close. FTL drive, loud space explosions, asari (everything about them) etc etc. Also consider solar arrays build around uninhibited blue giants because your own stars just don't have enough "umph" vs Reapers taking over cities one street block at time.

Overal the game has been fairly consistent. Not to the extent of being considered hard Science Fiction, but through the codex we knew what to expect and they've done a fair good job.
FTL drive is one of the more common impossibilities that even hard science fiction often employs and they've got it fairly well detailed. Space explosions are a bit hit and miss, in that they sometimes add them for dramatic effect, while at other times employing silence (though that's got more to do with dramatic license).

rtv053 wrote...

Yes, hard-sci does include 11-th hour rewrites. Blood Music? Eleventh hour 'singularity' of the noocytes, whose intense observation of the known universe means they have to shift our local reality into an entirely new dimension before the laws of physics are totally ruined. The final novel in the Revelation Space trilogy? The greenfly nanomachines appear and destroy the Inhibitors, but only just before transforming all the galaxy's matter into vegetation, ending life as we know it.
Most of Greg Egan's (who is the hardest sci-fi writer I can think off) work ends with huge, unforetold and unforeseen paradigm shifts at the end of the novels.

Haven't read Blood Music, but Revelation Space ends a bit differently.
They destory the Inhibitor machines with alien weapons. These aliens have decided to hide from the Inhibitors and still do so.
But the galaxy's greatest threat ends up coming from their own Von Neumann Terraformer robots (the greenfly) which through faulty programming turn solar systems in a collection of small vegetation habitats.

EDIT: And my point remains that this is better explained and more founded than the Synthetis ending or magical selective radiation pulses that span several lightyears quite intensively yet do not kill of everything in the at least part of it.
Also the pulse would still have to travel years before the reached neighbouring stars. The energy/information would be transmitted across the relay network long before no relay system were hit.

Modifié par Poison_Berrie, 20 mars 2012 - 08:47 .

[Shaigunjoe]

Yea, it seems kinda odd that, hey the ending is very much Deus Ex Machina....and employs something similiar to a game called Deus Ex, in which games protagonist was named JC.....Jesus Christ.....

I agree with Ryokun, for some slightly different reasons, but I agree.

[Diablos2525]

Sp3c7eR wrote...

There's a whole lot of inconsistencies and plot holes in the ending described in numerous videos which cannot be explained by people who "liked" the endings. They cannot be ignored either, so it's either:

1. Those people who are fine with the endings can suspend disbelief exceptionally well unlike the rest of us. Like, overlook the most glaring plotholes likes Normandy teleporting to the edge of the solar system and Joker being a coward, and not care.

2. They are not as emotionally attached to their squad as most of us - because saying the ending is fine and provides closure means you really don't care to find out what your decision have created.

3. They think the promises Bioware made were fulfilled and player choice mattered by choosing A, B or C and getting a different coloured explosion.

4. They love SPECULATION!

So if you are in 1 of those 4 camps, more power to you. Even if you are not and still like the ending, I'm ok with it.

But for me personally, I'll hold the line.

Thanks for this post, holding the line with you :happy:

[Diablos2525]

HenchxNarf wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

Ryokun1989 wrote...

I agree that Shepard being a creation/savior myth for the Stargazer is hinted at.

@Meltemph
Sooo.. .you're saying the ending was way too epic? :3
Well, that's a criticism I hadn't heard before for sure

Seriosuly?  Epic? It doesnt even bother you that the endings are the exact same from Deus Ex?

They aren't exactly the same. It's called paying homage to something they admire. Not the same.

Other more sane people might call it a poor copy-and-paste job for uninspired writers or writers who had EA's interests in DLC/etc. in mind, a copy and paste job which doesn't even FIT the story.

[Clayless]

Johnners91 wrote...

HenchxNarf wrote...

webhead921 wrote...

shurikenmanta wrote...

Guys, you know how you don't like to be called self-entitled babies or spoiled brats?

You really shouldn't be calling people who like the ending idiots or casual gamers, or you really have nothing to stand on.

100% agree.  

Agree.

Yep. 

Completely agree.

[Diablos2525]

Deus ex endings actually made sense in their context, but not in Mass Effect.
Taken from Gamefaq's board. Posted by oztington.

1. Synthesis Ending - Helios Ending.

Synthesis bring the organic and synthetic creatures together to form a new form of evolutionary step in human.

Helios ending has JC Denton fuse with the Helios super computer/AI to form a new being of untold power and intelligence and yet has the same sensibilities and ambition of a human being. In Deus Ex 2; JC Denton's ending is to link all humans on earth so they can share thoughts and feeling so they can understand each other better.

2. Controlling the Reaper Ending - Illuminati Ending

Controlling the Reapers and sending them off in space under your control. It is kind of unknown if Sheppard dies or he becomes a Reaper himself being some kind of king of the Reapers.

The illuminati ending has you maintaining the status quo in the balance of power. J.C becomes one of the major heads controlling the world with the illuminati's influence. One might say hes is one of the Kings of the world.

3. Destroying all synthetic life Ending - Tracer Tong Ending

By destroying all synthetic life, Sheppard also destroy all synthetic components and technology in the world making it regress by several years. This is also aggravated by the fact that the Citadel AND the mass relays are also gone leaving no way to recover these technologies. Also, this effect is Galaxy wide meaning some planets like those of the Krogan, are set back to the stone ages.

Finally, the Tracer Tong ending ends all meanings of communication and technology in the world. Some kind of kill-switch that disables electricity, power plants and everything starts to explodes sending the earth back to the dark ages.

[dfstone]

I found it odd that after beating the last mission instead of sending you back to the galaxy map to finish up side quests, it sends you back to the beginning of the final mission. Almost as if they want you to play the end again.

[Tommytsunami]

Before I knew all the endings were essentially the same thing I was wondering what all the fuss was about them. I would have been able to put up with plot holes had the endings been different... when I went online to watch the others and noticed they were all pretty much the same, well that is when I went from liking the ending to basically hating it.

[amaltheaelanor]

As someone who liked (I would daresay even loved) the ending, I'll tackle this one.

Please bear in mind, I realize these might not necessarily run counter to why others disliked the ending - these are the reasons why it worked for me.

1. I think, as is, it presents an appropriate amount of sacrifice and loss. The more I think about it, the more I love the destruction of the mass relays. I feel anything less would've been too easy, narratively speaking. I mean, these were ancient machines that had been doing the re-purging process for millions of years, and as we learn in this game, the Crucible wasn't even made by the Protheans - attempts to defeat the Repears had been made likely over countless cycles. So I felt that it needed to be hard, with a significant amount of sacrifice. And given the correlation between the Reapers being responsible for the creation of the mass relays, and the way it demonstrates a sacrifice of technology, yes, that really worked for me.
2. Similarly, I enjoyed the idea that it stranded some of the characters on a distant, unknown world. I'm even willing to suspend my disbelief over how it was that the Normandy came to be outside the blast (since we never saw it travel away from Earth) because I think having Joker and whomever else be the ones impacted by the upheaval and the inability to return to Earth was more impactful than if it had been a random ship of strangers.
3. I've read enough epic fantasy (of which I feel this series is comparable) to know that when you pit a central protagonist against a larger-than-life (even god-like) evil, it's very, very rare for that protagonist to survive. Even Frodo sacrificed so much in his attempts to destroy the Ring that he found himself unable to return to his own life and, in a sense, died by choosing to go to Valinor. So while I wouldn't have been displeased if Shepherd had survived (and we got to see her/his future), I would've been very, very surprised. I actually find myself incredibly sad that my FemShep won't get to go forward into the new earth, and I found that emotion a reaction that signals to me how much I enjoyed the game and its finale.
4. I'm a fan of bittersweet endings - the kind where the antagonist is defeated, but the cost for the protagonist(s) is so high that it becomes debatable as to whether or not the resolution can be defined as "happy." I would even go so far as to say they're my absolute favorite kind of ending and a lot of my favorite sci-fi and fantasy novels (LOTR, Ender's Game, the Farseer Trilogy) have them. So this game having a bittersweet ending? Dang right, it worked for me.
5. I'll even admit that I liked the epilogue, in spite of the fact that I would agree the dialogue was cheesy. I love the emotional change and aftermath and loss that comes after dramatic upheaval - I love the haunting story that Vigil tells on Ilos in ME1; can you imagine it? Waking up as one of the Prothean scientists and knowing that you're the only ones left of your species in the entire galaxy? It gets me every time. And going hand-in-hand with 1 and 2 on my list, I thought the epilogue represented that, by showing a hint of the future that confirmed a) that Shepherd has a legacy; and that the destruction of the Reapers really did permanently change the future and function of the entire galaxy. And I do feel that had they gone The Matrix route and tried to show or explain too much, it would've diminished the experience, as well as the sense of loss.
6) I know others are upset that their decisions didn't change how the ending plays out - but I actually feel this is rather comparable to Dragon Age: Origins. Which has a strikingly similar narrative, of struggling to unite disparate races against a larger-than-life evil. In that game, whether or not I saved Connor, or whether I sided with the Mages or Templars, or whether I destroyed the Anvil of the Void had absolutely no bearing on how the ending of that game played out. The Epilogue? Yes. But that's not the same issue - because while the epilogue was nice, it didn't really matter. Ultimately, I feel it came down to something similar this game did (though arguably with a bit more decision making behind it). The Archdemon was going to be destroyed no matter what, the four endings were primarily dependent upon which sacrifice you chose.
And I would agree with the arguments that the choices were about the journey - the choices affect the military readiness, which in turn plays a role in the ending. It worked for me. I'm not saying it's improbable (and others may have very good ideas I can't think of) but it's difficult for me personally to imagine an appropriate ending that would've lead to adequate destruction of the Reapers while still being influenced by the multitude of decisions from throughout the game.

Do I think there are holes? Sure. I had Garrus and Liara in my squad at the end, and found it heartbreaking when I believed they died in the attempt to enter the Citadel. I though it would've been better to have everyone but my two squad mates step off the Normany at the end.  And I was disappointed to learn that all three endings are essentially the same, regarding of which path is taken from Starchild.

I even understand why others hate it. But for me, it really, really worked.

Modifié par amaltheaelanor, 20 mars 2012 - 02:00 .

[kww75]

YOu heard the saying  " Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"?, that is the answer to the OP's question.

Just cause one person doesn't like something does not imply that everyone also doesn't like that thing. There are those who genuinely enjoyed/liked the ending. Their reasons can vary a lot. Mine is simply it's different and an a front to Holywood's happily ever after scenarios many of the west has grown up upon. Not all things have a happy conclusion.

I can't say I love the ending. I dislike the fact there's a lot of ??? over the ending. However I like the fact it is different and that Bioware are willing to try something different from the cookie cutter we are always fed.. The bottom line regardless of me liking the ending or not, I actually enjoyed the story and it's conclusion. I know it is gonna be hard for people to understand how I can dislike something yet enjoy it. It's not exactly easy to put in words other than I can have a subjective opinion and objective opinion on something and am able to distinguish the two.

As for other people. I can guess some are willing to defend Bioware for whatever reason, perhaps they dont agree with the mass of people who have appeared on the forum to complain. Just cause a person feels a certain way about something doesn't mean they are right. We all have opinions about things, and more often than not we don't always agree.

As an example, someone might think jumping into a room full of cobras as fun, for many people they think it's utterly insane. Everyone has an opinion, just cause yours or someone elses is different doesn't mean they or you are wrong.