459 réponses à ce sujet

[Edje Edgar]

Wonder he didn't actually notice the fact that Shephard is being forced to choose out of 3 options which would all lead to "prison for life" in the real world. And for good cause.

[Qutayba]

Let people who like the ending go ahead and like the ending. There's no need to ruin it for them. There's the stickied user-review thread at the top of this forum if he wants to know more about our position.

[goose2989]

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...

Not to mention the ending goes against so many established themes of the Mass Effect series.


- Defying impossible odds for absolute victory (Defeating Sovereign, Suicide Mission)

- Uniting different races (Geth/Quarians, Turians/Krogan)

- Player choice (Red, Blue, Green)

- Creating and inspiring hope (Not leaving the galaxy in a total mess)

Those are some of the big ones. The ending as-is leaves the player feeling as if he/she left the galaxy in a worse position than before. One of the biggest parts of an RPG is giving the playey a feeling of positive impact on the environment they just spent 30+ hours playing in, not a negative impact

[detroitmechworks]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

But ME3 wasn't panned by the critics.

Of course!  They all loved their free copies... played with a Bioware employee sitting over their shoulder... and their salaries are paid by advertising from the company that they're reviewing...

Why oh why would they ever give the game a high rating?

[CaptainZaysh]

AzaZeLgaming wrote...

Unfortunately you are wrong. It's clearly stated in the ME Wiki: 

"Prior to the events of Arrival, however, Dr. Amanda Kenson and her research team calculated that if a large enough mass impacts a relay with enough force, the relay should not be able to withstand it.  The consequences of destroying a mass relay are immense: as a huge mass effect engine manipulating massive quantities of energy, a relay could  produce an explosion of supernova proportions. This proves true when during Arrival, a large asteroid is purposely steered into the Bahak system's Alpha Relay. The resulting impact tears apart the relay, causing an explosion which annihilates the Bahak system and kills its more than 300,000 inhabitants."

Like it says, it doesn't matter how a Relay gets destroyed, since it WILL produce explosion close to supernova REGARDLESS.

Firstly, it's just the wiki.

More importantly: note the word "could", there.  Nobody really knows what will happen when we blow a Relay.  Kenson proves that smashing an asteroid into one causes a supernova-type explosion.  That doesn't mean that every other method of destroying the relays would have the same result.

[Genera1Nemesis]

AzaZeLgaming wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

My take was that crashing an asteroid into it is different from what the Crucible did.

Unfortunately you are wrong. It's clearly stated in the ME Wiki: 

"Prior to the events of Arrival, however, Dr. Amanda Kenson and her research team calculated that if a large enough mass impacts a relay with enough force, the relay should not be able to withstand it.  The consequences of destroying a mass relay are immense: as a huge mass effect engine manipulating massive quantities of energy, a relay could  produce an explosion of supernova proportions. This proves true when during Arrival, a large asteroid is purposely steered into the Bahak system's Alpha Relay. The resulting impact tears apart the relay, causing an explosion which annihilates the Bahak system and kills its more than 300,000 inhabitants."



It doesn't matter how a Relay gets destroyed, since it WILL produce explosion close to supernova REGARDLESS.

Specifically it says it "COULD" produce an explosion of supernova proportions; it didn't say it 'would'. That sounds pretty nonconclusive to me....

[CaptainZaysh]

jmarkows wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

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).  

You were playing ME1.  ME1 had a fantastic ending.  We're not disputing that.

EDI calls it a Conduit.  It functions like the Conduit.  So...to me, it's a Conduit.

[DannyGloverfromPredator2_]

Fellow ending-dislikers. Don't chime in on the ending support threads, just let them get buried. No one is going to provide new evidence in support of them liking the endings, and the people who are satisfied with the endings are wholly in their right to do so. There is no reason to try and convince them that their opinions are wrong (because they aren't), so just let it alone.

Every time we post on an ending support thread, we allow it not to get buried on the forums. Consider this my last post on a thread in support of the endings.

[Vasparian]

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.

I guess some people just recuse to see or can not see the bad writing, circular logic, plot holes and more in ME3's ending. I wish I could blindly love it. But having paid attention to ME1, ME2, and all of ME3... It's impossible not to see how badly done the ending was for the ME story.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Guys let the thread die, stop responding. All this guys has to say is "Well, i interpreted it as...".

Let's play Op's game. I choose to believe that Joker and co landed on a planet with food that can magically feed both Turians AND humans. I also choose to believe they all had a nice big orgy and spawned a new civilisation. I also choose to believe as soonas the Relays blew up, every Alien race suddenly found a HUGE pocket of fuel hat would sustain them for their decade long journey back home.

What a lovely ending.

[HighScore 2600]

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.

If you ignore a lot of the ending and look at the big picture than you can take heart that the Reapers are destroyed and the cycle is broken. However, why did I accept 3 options? Controlling the Reapers is not what I came here to do, so thats out of the question. Choosing to blend organics and synthetics into a new DNA is not a choice one person can make for the rest of the galaxy. The only logical ending is choosing to Destroy the Reapers once and for all, end the threat for good. The repercusions however if that the Geth are destroyed (never shown), EDI dies (never shown), and Shepherd would die because he is part synthetic.

So right here you are thinking, "Huh, but choosing to Destroy all synthetics is the only way Sheperd can live". Here is the main reason that people are so upset. We have to choose between not A, B, C... but instead R, G, B. The entire trilogy boils down to agreeing with this absurd logic of the Catalyst. Where is the epic conflict? Why does Shepherd just agree with him? 

So while that was reason enough leet me just add that our faithful crew abandoned us in the Fight For Earth. Escaped (somehow) in the Normandy and flew away. Its extremely out of character for Joker to leave. He didn't bug out in the fight against Soverign, infact he was the one to deliver the final blow with the Normandy. He didn't run when we faced a uncertain future passing through the Omega 4 Relay and taking on the Collector Ship and base. He blew that damn ship up.

So now we are to believe that just when the battle is in full effect Joker is going to run? Don't think so. The ending is a insult to Shepherd, Joker, and your loyal crew. As well as a insult to the intelligence of dedicated fans wanting closure to their companions stories and not more questions.

[Edje Edgar]

nikola8 wrote...

The Star Child's logic isn't something that is supposed to be understood - Sovereign says that all the way back in ME1.

You will never understand my logic.

I am always right, this is now a fact. Your life is best served by serving me as best you can, because I say it is so.

[ek5000]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Wait a second.  Choices did matter.  I bet the way my Shepard stopped the Reapers is different from the way your Shepard did it.

There is a 33% possibility that your Shepard chose exactly the same as mine did, as the "A, B or C" are the choices you are untimately left with, no matter what the journey was like.

I'm glad people can find satisfaction with the current "choices", I personally was left confused, with more questions than answers - and I don't think it's fine to expect the players to fill in the blanks using their imagination when we were told there would be closure storywise.

Modifié par ek5000, 19 mars 2012 - 05:37 .

[PleaOfInsanity]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

SlyTF1 wrote...

I don't see how you can like something that contradicts itself in the same second. The "Star Child" created synthetics to kill organics so that other synthetics wouldn't kill them.

They're not just killing them, though.  They convert them into Reapers, into gods.  Then they reset the galaxy so new forms of organic life can rise.  Without them, many people believe a technological singularity is inevitable.

SlyTF1 wrote...
The mass relays exploded, and if they explode, they destroy the entire system. Yet there was still a random planet the Normany crashed on.

My take was that crashing an asteroid into it is different from what the Crucible did.

Excuse me they converted them into gods? I do not see how the Protheans became gods they were made into empty husk. From my point of view the evidence throughout the series shows that the Reapers "absorbing" other races is turning them into a synthetic husk of their formerself.

[CaptainZaysh]

DannyGloverfromPredator2 wrote...

Fellow ending-dislikers. Don't chime in on the ending support threads, just let them get buried. No one is going to provide new evidence in support of them liking the endings, and the people who are satisfied with the endings are wholly in their right to do so. There is no reason to try and convince them that their opinions are wrong (because they aren't), so just let it alone.

Every time we post on an ending support thread, we allow it not to get buried on the forums. Consider this my last post on a thread in support of the endings.

And I'm the activist with an agenda here, apparently.

[Troubleshooter11]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

SlyTF1 wrote...

I don't see how you can like something that contradicts itself in the same second. The "Star Child" created synthetics to kill organics so that other synthetics wouldn't kill them.

They're not just killing them, though.  They convert them into Reapers, into gods.  Then they reset the galaxy so new forms of organic life can rise.  Without them, many people believe a technological singularity is inevitable.

Their genepool lives on, but their free will, their consiousness, it's gone, dead, turned to grey paste and stuffed into a Reaper shell.

Reapers kill trillions and use their combined genepool to build a synthetic/organic AI in the form of a space ship. Nothing remains of those individuals and their lives, for all intents and purposes they are dead, their civilization is dead, their art and legacy gone. And the Reapers just use them as building blocks for their own numbers.

And Reapers arent gods, or even godlike, not when 3-4 dreadnaughts can shove pieces of metal through your shipform and kill you.

Unless you consider your DNA to be the only thing you really are. I'd like to think we are more than just genetics, as Shepard pointed out to Miranda in ME2.

[Aggressor01]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Erethrian wrote...

The other stuff, its okay, think what you want but this... Well it's objective to me, given the personality of Shepard and the fact that a human cant breathe/survive in outer space. Other than that, glad you liked the endings, I can only believe in a theory that gives them some sense (The indoctrination theory), and can only wait for a continuation DLC. If the theory isn't true, then the ending makes no sense to me (none of the current ones).

When was Shep exposed to vacuum?  I thought the ending was all in the Citadel interior?

When walking over to the Geth dreadnaught in his magneticboots. But later in the game they have to hurry from a hangar when a security-prg is about to venting it on air.  Shepards breathermask has nothing to do with vacum of space the second time.

[Pallid]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Serious; not trolling. The fact you have trouble believing that somebody could genuinely like a piece of creative work you disliked says a lot about you.

It's not easy to belive that somebody could like a really(really) bad piece of "creative" work.

[AzaZeLgaming]

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

Specifically it says it "COULD" produce an explosion of supernova proportions; it didn't say it 'would'.

The very next line says it PROVED to be true, so yes, it WOULD. So they were right, a destroyed Relay will cause a supernova like explosion. Did you even play the "Arrival" DLC?

Modifié par AzaZeLgaming, 19 mars 2012 - 05:36 .

[Genera1Nemesis]

ek5000 wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Wait a second.  Choices did matter.  I bet the way my Shepard stopped the Reapers is different from the way your Shepard did it.

There is a 33% possibility that your Shepard chose exactly the same as mine did, as the "A, B or C" are the choices you are untimately left with, no matter what the journey was like.

I'm glad people can find satisfaction with the current "choices", I personally was left confused, with more questions than answers - and I don't think it's fine to expect the players to fill in the blanks using their imagination when we we're told there would be closure storywise.

And there is a 100% possibilty that at the end of ME2 we quit Cerberus and decided to go back to the alliance....

[majinbuu1307]

demin8891 wrote...

This. I respect your opinion, but. Dislike the ending(s) really its just one ending, especially for colorblind people lol

[Myrmedus]

Again, I point you to this rather simple piece of logic:

In a game that was advertised as having "multiple endings" why can we not all be relatively happy with what we got as an ending?

I'm glad you enjoyed it but there are ALOT of people who did not, and there's no reason why they needed to be left out in the cold considering there should've been multiple endings that we earned through decisions made throughout the game, and chances are we'd all be happy with at least one type of ending.

The issue is very simple: let's just forget the arguments about plot-holes, poor execution etc. this game has what essentially amounts to one ending. It is also one ending that was a gamble. There is no good reason to not have more than one ending, and in doing so BW would've given themselves breathing room to impliment a couple of abstract and potentially polarizing endings without the risk of backlash.

It would be akin to giving us only a happy ending where everyone is happy, free and all smiles! I'm sure there'd be alot of people who'd throw their controller down going "What the fux?" - having said that, there'd be some who would be happy.

This series has attracted a varied demographic of players due to the ability to "choose your own path" - it is therefore natural that its demographic will have different ideas of what constitutes a good ending and was therefore virtual suicide to only include one, ESPECIALLY when it was advertised to the contrary.

Modifié par Myrmedus, 19 mars 2012 - 05:36 .

[AttaBoyTroy]

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...

Or they like it for the same reasons. Kind of like how people dislike it for the same reasons. Try thinking things out instead of spewing that conspiracy crap.

[CaptainZaysh]

Vasparian wrote...

I guess some people just recuse to see or can not see the bad writing, circular logic, plot holes and more in ME3's ending. I wish I could blindly love it. But having paid attention to ME1, ME2, and all of ME3... It's impossible not to see how badly done the ending was for the ME story.

Actually, I paid a great deal of attention.  If you search for my past threads you will find many that are ridiculously nerdy and boring.  So this idea of yours is obviously wrong!

[Genera1Nemesis]

AzaZeLgaming wrote...

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

Specifically it says it "COULD" produce an explosion of supernova proportions; it didn't say it 'would'.

The very next line says it PROVED to be true, so yes, it WOULD.

Proved it by smashing a massive asteroid (mining facility) and generating an exponential increase in the amout of mass produced and expanded by said explosion. Yeah, that's the same as a 'self-destruct' explosion.

Modifié par Genera1Nemesis, 19 mars 2012 - 05:36 .