459 réponses à ce sujet

[Myrmedus]

I think the issue is with the AMOUNT of plot holes and with the SIZE of them. Mass Effect has always had a few plot holes but they were forgiven and virtually invisible, however the ending is just something else altogether.

There are stories which intentionally have small gaps in the plot. They're put there intentionally for ambiguity, to make the audience think, but they're well placed and usually there's only a couple of them. It is also very risky to have them at the end of an over-arching plot rather than during it, as such holes are a potential opportunity for story-telling "pay-off" later in the plot.

Modifié par Myrmedus, 19 mars 2012 - 06:39 .

[garf]

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

I would just like one answer from OP.

Why would the ME Relays being destroyed be a good thing or something you loved?

Not the OP but I thought it opened the door for the series to go in a wildly different direction from that point on. The galaxy now needs to think for themselves; and if people are as all about choice as they say they are then that is 1000 times better than just using the tech that the Reapers built.

The galaxy is freed of the Reapers in every respect; and while losing the relays looks bad in the short-term; they are certainly not the be-all, end-all of space travel theory and the next story (Mass Effect 4 hopefully) can reflect that freedom.

I'll disagree because MER's were FTL travel, it was only that that allowed the Alliance to get out of the Sol system if I'm understanding the lore correctly.

The story of "ME4" and rebuilding or 50K years into the future....I dont know... I just disagree that it was a good thing.

I could explain more once I gather my thoughts....just recently finished

Actually you misunderstand the lore. FTL travel is available to all races. Any ship with an 'Eezo core' can effectively play games with it's mass and defy the twin equations of Energy Equals Mass times Velocity Squared and Energy Equals Mass times the speed of light squared.

However FTL travel has limitations. What would be day trips with the Mass Relays now are year and decade long journeys.

Also there's a limit to fuel bunkerage and heat disapation. FTL has a firm range limit  based primarly on how far ships can travel before they cook their crews (this is all in the codices)

Citadel space is like loose beads representing the tiny bubbles of FTL accessable space around a given Mass Relay tied in a net by the long strings of the jumps relays provide.

Loss of the relays doesn't necessarily 'destroy' the universe. It does However inflict a phase chagne or paradigm shift in the galaxy so fundamental that any future work would be effectively a new IP co opting the Mass Effect Name.

This is why I say in my tag-line that the ending offers

No Future.

[JasonC Shepard]

nikola8 wrote...

jumpingkaede wrote...

nikola8 wrote...

Luc0s, all of your "plot holes" are actually questions. Just because something is vague doesn't mean that there isn't an explanation for it.

When the only possible explanation contradicts everything we know about the characters and story... then yeah, it's a problem.

Going back to the Normandy: the only possible explanation is that Joker was taking off before the Crucible fired.  Why?  He suddenly turned coward?

There are more explanations than one.  There isn't "only one possible" explanation.  I've read all the complaints people have, but I've also heard those complaints justified quite well within the lore of the ME universe.  I know that the ending raises questions, but people shouldn't hate the ending just because they don't have the answers.  Just because Bioware is ending Shepard's story, they have said that they will continue games in in the ME universe.  They have to keep some of the mystery or all of the future spin offs would be worthless.

About the Normandy- why is the "only possible" explanation that Joker was fleeing?  What is to say that he didn't simply get hit from the blast of the Crucible while flying over Earth in the final battle while fighting the Reapers?  That makes much more sense given Joker's character.

I'd just like to interject for just a moment.  If you watch the endings you can see the damage the explosion does to the Normandy's hull.  The Normandy was relatively unharmed when you see it.  Speculation gets us nowhere really.

[CaptainZaysh]

Myrmedus wrote...

It doesn't matter, it doesn't need to be said. You may not have intended it this way but it comes across the same as these kinds of arguments you see on the web:

"I'm 182 lbs of muscle, I'll kick your ass."

"Yeah, well I'm the Jersey bare-knuckle boxing champion, yuh."

I'd recommend just avoiding it. If the jack-ass who went on about your intelligence wants to go down that route just let him.

You know what, I bet I could kick his ass, too.  Point taken, though.

Myrmedus wrote...
The reason why is because there have been numerous critiques of the endings, well-structured and knowledgable, as to why they're objectively poor. Now, something objectively poor can be subjectively good depending on the audience, but from a literary perspective it commits story-telling crimes at numerous parts from the point where Shepard is lifted up on that elevator.

Sorry, Myrmedus, but well-structured and knowledgeable do not equal "objective".  You guys are totally welcome to say you didn't like it, but just because you don't believe there was enough explanation as to why Shepard could breathe on a part of the Citadel that wasn't the ward arms, or as to why Joker was attempting to outrun the explosion, doesn't make it objectively bad.

[ergonomalous]

OP:

Could you please create a post detailing what makes the ending so deep and thought provoking? I would really like to understand. I hated the endings and maybe you could put it into perspective for me.

thanks.

[Tom Jolly]

I love the idea they were going for with the endings.   They could benefit from some more details though...

[Almostfaceman]

Nobody is going to take you "We like the ending" people seriously unless you debate the flaws of the ending. It's that simple. When Jessica asked us about our feedback, she said telling her "This ending sucks" isn't helpful. So, we're telling her and Bioware, point by point in detail what we don't like about the ending.

I see thread after thread saying basicly this "I like the ending". 

If you are at all interested in why we don't like the endings and if you are at all interested in actually, you know, discussing the ending, here is a baseline to start out at.

If you can't - as a starting point - discuss these baseline problems, then you're not here to discuss, you're here to spam (as the mods here would say).

10 Reasons We Hate Mass Effects Ending

[CaptainZaysh]

garf wrote...

However FTL travel has limitations. What would be day trips with the Mass Relays now are year and decade long journeys.

Also there's a limit to fuel bunkerage and heat disapation. FTL has a firm range limit  based primarly on how far ships can travel before they cook their crews (this is all in the codices)

Citadel space is like loose beads representing the tiny bubbles of FTL accessable space around a given Mass Relay tied in a net by the long strings of the jumps relays provide.

Sure, you're absolutely correct.  But without the relays, we are going to have to start developing new solutions to these challenges.  Whereas before there was little incentive to do so, it's now the key to linking up with our brothers and sisters out there in the stars.  We have to figure out a way to make it happen - just like we do today on Earth.  I think there is a future, and I'm fascinated and excited with the prospect of imagining what it would look like after the Reaper War changed everything.

[nikola8]

Linus108 wrote...

No you haven't. You don't read what anyone really says. You just know you disagree with them, and then find a generic way to say that there COULD be an explanation.

And yet, you still have not found a way to explain why there is a room at the top of somehwere, that can magically fuse organic and robot DNA. A generator that if you shoot it, somehow destroys all synthetics.

You can't defend space magic, because it's space magic. 

Actually, yes I have.  And I do read what everyone else says.  But there are explanations.  

And about "space magic"- Husks, Marauders, Banshee's etc., as well as the Cerberus commandos all have organics and synthetics mixed.  Why is it so hard to believe that the Crucible's radiation blast couldn't do similar things?

About the actual ending choices- they are obviously symbolic.  They easily could have had you push buttons 1, 2, or 3, but the fact that you destroy something for destroy, hold on to something for control, and jump into the middle of something for assimilate are simply literary devices that capture the symbolism of what you're actually doing.

Modifié par nikola8, 19 mars 2012 - 06:45 .

[savionen]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

garf wrote...

However FTL travel has limitations. What would be day trips with the Mass Relays now are year and decade long journeys.

Also there's a limit to fuel bunkerage and heat disapation. FTL has a firm range limit  based primarly on how far ships can travel before they cook their crews (this is all in the codices)

Citadel space is like loose beads representing the tiny bubbles of FTL accessable space around a given Mass Relay tied in a net by the long strings of the jumps relays provide.

Sure, you're absolutely correct.  But without the relays, we are going to have to start developing new solutions to these challenges.  Whereas before there was little incentive to do so, it's now the key to linking up with our brothers and sisters out there in the stars.  We have to figure out a way to make it happen - just like we do today on Earth.  I think there is a future, and I'm fascinated and excited with the prospect of imagining what it would look like after the Reaper War changed everything.

The Protheans spent centuries trying to build the Mass Relays and effectively failed.
The Asari tried and their ideas were considered laughable.

Modifié par savionen, 19 mars 2012 - 06:45 .

[Genera1Nemesis]

Luc0s wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

And you're obviously a top bloke with a winning personality.

Childish insults won't get you very far in life.

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Like what plot holes?

Are you serious that you didn't notice the many many many plotholes yourself when you watched the horrible ending of ME3 unravel?

To list a few plot-holes (there are only a few examples of a much longer list):

1. The Star Child's logic: Using synthetics to spread despair and commit genocide on organics so we organics won't be killed by our own synthetics.

2. The Normandy: What the f*ck whas Joker doing? Wasn't he supposed to be leading the fleets against the reapers? Is Joker a coward?

3. Shepard's Squad: Your entire crew was on earth fighting the good fight. Then in the end they all seem to be teleported to the Normandy. How is this possible? Did Joker pick them up in the middle of the battle?

4. Shepard's Squad 2: Your entire crew was aboard the fleeing Normandy. Do you honestly believe your crew would ever abandon Shepard? 

5. Love Interrest: Same as above. Do you honestly think he/she would ever abandon Shepard?

6. Zombie Squad Members: The 2 squad members you take with you on the final run towards the beacon get shot by Harbinger. They're either horribly wounded or you see them die (depending on your EMS). Yet the same 2 squad members appear to be on the Normandy in the epilogue. They're alive and completely unharmed! Are they Jesus 2.0 and Jesus 3.0?

7. Shepard is Alive... in London?: It's possible to get a Shepard alive scene in the ending. But how can Shepard possible survive the exploding Citadel? At one point Shepard is on the Citadel, then the Citadel explodes and in the next scene Shepard is alive.. in London!? How is that possible?

8. Exploding relays: If you have played the Arrival DLC, you should know what an exploding relay does to a solar system. How come planet Earth is unharmed in the ending of ME3 (if our EMS is high enough). And again, how can Shepard survive this?

CaptainZaysh wrote...

I think there was a variety in the endings.  Sure the very last scenes were similar, but Luke was always going to destroy the Death Star.  The way I got there was very different from yours, and the final choice I made - the one with enormous social repercussions - was likely different from yours.

This is not about the journey, this is about the end.

Yes, the journey was great, but the ending sucked. We all got railroaded into the same endings. The choices you make in the end (red, blue, green) are trivial and we don't even get to see the outcome and consequences of our decisions and ending (except for Joker looking like a cyborg in the green synthesis ending).

The endings would be less horrible if we actually get to see how the galaxy is doing after our ending. But we're completely left in the dark. We can only speculate how thinks worked out after the huge Deus Ex Machina ending (Deus Ex Machina endings are per definition bad). Lots of speculation for everyone!  Yeah... wooptie-doo... what a joy... <_<

CaptainZaysh wrote...

You mean subjectively.  You're allowed not to like them.  Calling somebody ignorant because they don't like them is pretty unpleasant behaviour.

No, I mean OBJECTIVELY. An ending with so many plot-holes is objectively bad.

And yes, you're ignorant. You're not ignorant for not liking the endings. You're completely ignorant about the many plot-holes that made this ending objectively a horrible mess.

1. Reapers are organic hiveminds in synthetic out shells. That's an oversimplified argument right there.


http://en.wikipedia....cal_singularity - what catalyst is trying to defend against.

2. There is a very short clip when the crucible is building up it's power that shows nearly ships being pulled towards it like a black-hole as it were. This does not explain the crew being there; and it was poorly cut/ edited; but Joker may have ran to avoid this fate. (I agree this is hazy at best but it's the only explanation from the actual scenes themselves I can come up with)

3. See number 2. This is the only big plot-hole I agree with.

4. See number 2

5. See number 2

6. see number 2

7. Watch the scene when Shep destroys the 'tubing' or whatever. Note how it explodes around him. Now pay attention to the colour pallette of the structure around that tubing. look familiar?

8. An asteroid that was a converted mining faciltiy would increase the size and yield of the blast signifigantly; and it was only suggested by someone who wasn't certain that any relay explosion would destroy an entire system. Please note that the relay destructions were self-destruct; not a considerable mass increase because of a large asteroid.

The representation on the galaxy map is artistic license to simply show us that this was happening galaxy wide, and not indicative of 'destroying' every solar system.

Modifié par Genera1Nemesis, 19 mars 2012 - 06:46 .

[CaptainZaysh]

ergonomalous wrote...

OP:

Could you please create a post detailing what makes the ending so deep and thought provoking? I would really like to understand. I hated the endings and maybe you could put it into perspective for me.

thanks.

I thought I had in my OP, sorry.  I guess the thing I liked most was the state of the galaxy after the ending.  Shepard was defined by the Reaper War, and that ended for me satisfactorily, but what I wasn't expecting was the relay network going bye bye and all the creative thoughts it sparked in me about what the galaxy might look like.  Not many creative works do that to me, so I found the whole experience quite profound.

[DentedHalo]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

So from the spoiler group, and watching YouTubes after the game had launched, I knew what the ending was.  About an hour ago I played it for myself, with my one and only Shepard, the one I've had right from the start.

And, wow.  For me, it was beautiful.  Seeing the culmination of the million steps it took the galaxy to get Shepard in the right place with a handgun just blew me away.  I think the trilogy was a stunning piece of work and that Mass 3, including the controversial ending, was easily the best game in the series.  

When it comes to the criticisms, I'm really not seeing them myself.  I can see why lots of people wouldn't like them, but the idea that they are objectively bad is nonsense.  The only problem I see with the narrative is how the crewmembers who were with you in the rush to the Conduit got back to the Normandy (in the event you see that ending).  I wonder if it would have been clearer to have whomever was with you defending the missile launchers to have died holding the line.

I guess what impressed and surprised me the most is how thought-provoking the ending was.  I'm left wondering what galactic society will look like when we make it back out to the stars again.  Anything seems possible, like it did for me right at the beginning of the series, which was an incredibly exciting ending for me personally.  Thank you, BioWare, that was one hell of a ride.

good for you... most of us dont agree but we're all glad youre happy anyway...

[Nevaeh15]

Can someone explain why Joker picked up the team and fled? Symbolic or not that's completely the opposite of what the crew was.... Proof of lack of thought put into the ending...
I can take a crap on a canvass and call it art... From what I can tell in this forum quite a few would love it... still stupid though...

[Sainta117]

majormajormmajor wrote...

Notice how all these pro-ending posts use the same language? "Thought-provoking", "memorable", "endless possibility."

Almost as if they had no originality of their own, or were working off a template...

Astroturf?

[The Real Bowser]

OP is like starkid on the citadel. He is clearly right, and we should not argue with his irrefutable logic.

[CaptainZaysh]

savionen wrote...

The Protheans spent centuries trying to build the Mass Relays and effectively failed.

They were close: they built the Conduit.  They just got interrupted.  That won't happen to us.

savionen wrote...
The Asari tried and their ideas were considered laughable.

Yeah, but the idea's not a joke any more.  They've really got to start work.

[Denethar]

I swear half of these people that like the ending must be bough by EA or something, there is no way that there is so many of them that actually spend so much time defending it. A post here and there I get, not whole threads.

[xxskyshadowxx]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Myrmedus wrote...

It doesn't matter, it doesn't need to be said. You may not have intended it this way but it comes across the same as these kinds of arguments you see on the web:

"I'm 182 lbs of muscle, I'll kick your ass."

"Yeah, well I'm the Jersey bare-knuckle boxing champion, yuh."

I'd recommend just avoiding it. If the jack-ass who went on about your intelligence wants to go down that route just let him.

You know what, I bet I could kick his ass, too.  Point taken, though.

Myrmedus wrote...
The reason why is because there have been numerous critiques of the endings, well-structured and knowledgable, as to why they're objectively poor. Now, something objectively poor can be subjectively good depending on the audience, but from a literary perspective it commits story-telling crimes at numerous parts from the point where Shepard is lifted up on that elevator.

Sorry, Myrmedus, but well-structured and knowledgeable do not equal "objective".  You guys are totally welcome to say you didn't like it, but just because you don't believe there was enough explanation as to why Shepard could breathe on a part of the Citadel that wasn't the ward arms, or as to why Joker was attempting to outrun the explosion, doesn't make it objectively bad.

Introducing a "plot twist" at the last minute that forces Shepard to commit the very Galaxy-wide genocide that he/she sacrificed so much to try and prevent throughout 2.95 games....makes it objectively bad.

Also space magic is objectively bad.

[Genera1Nemesis]

Denethar wrote...

I swear half of these people that like the ending must be bough by EA or something, there is no way that there is so many of them that actually spend so much time defending it. A post here and there I get, not whole threads.

It's funny that you'll spend time speculating on this and not any time wanting to speculate on the subject at hand.

You win, obviously.

[CaptainZaysh]

Nevaeh15 wrote...

Can someone explain why Joker picked up the team and fled? Symbolic or not that's completely the opposite of what the crew was.... Proof of lack of thought put into the ending...
I can take a crap on a canvass and call it art... From what I can tell in this forum quite a few would love it... still stupid though...

To me it seemed like he was trying to outrun the energy pulse.  He may well have intended to return immediately afterwards.  I agree it wasn't explicitly shown what he was doing and BW could have been clearer on the exact events, but to me it's not really a big deal.

[Linus108]

nikola8 wrote...

Linus108 wrote...

No you haven't. You don't read what anyone really says. You just know you disagree with them, and then find a generic way to say that there COULD be an explanation.

And yet, you still have not found a way to explain why there is a room at the top of somehwere, that can magically fuse organic and robot DNA. A generator that if you shoot it, somehow destroys all synthetics.

You can't defend space magic, because it's space magic. 

Actually, yes I have.  And I do read what everyone else says.  But there are explanations.  

And about "space magic"- Husks, Marauders, Banshee's etc., as well as the Cerberus commandos all have organics and synthetics mixed.  Why is it so hard to believe that the Crucible's radiation blast couldn't do similar things?

About the actual ending choices- they are obviously symbolic.  They easily could have had you push buttons 1, 2, or 3, but the fact that you destroy something for destroy, hold on to something for control, and jump into the middle of something for assimilate are simply literary devices that capture the symbolism of what you're actually doing.

So symbolism trumps logic?

Oh boy either you are one of the writers that wrote this turd of an ending, or you are the perfect audience demographic for them. 

Modifié par Linus108, 19 mars 2012 - 06:51 .

[garf]

JasonC Shepard wrote...

Xusa wrote...

So a guy comes here to say how he likes the ending and it gets flooded with childish reaction like:

"Notice how all these pro-ending posts use the same language? "Thought-provoking", "memorable", "endless possibility."

Almost as if they had no originality of their own, or were working off a template... "

"lol he's trolling "

"....you are just plain wrong...it is objectively bad...please notice all the plotholes. "

So if someone doesn't agree with you he's wrong? You want BioWare to take your cause into consideration by being a crybaby?

Seriously, people like this are just plain ridiculous and deserve no more than to be ignored (and here I am not ignoring).

To the rest who actually respect who likes the ending: good luck (?).

While I didn't like the ending, everyone in this thread rampaging against this guy just needs to take a serious look at this.  THIS is why Bioware is not taking us all too seriously.

This. Stay strong, Stay CIVIL, Stay on message.

Hold the line.