148 réponses à ce sujet

[lumen11]

RShara wrote...

 Generally, you don't do that at the end of a story.

'Generally', stories are not open-ended, but plenty of them are. It's perfectly valid.

Modifié par lumen11, 22 mars 2012 - 12:38 .

[Arkitekt]

Naoe wrote...

Some of the things that rub me the wrong way:
- Your choices throughout the series have no impact - we were promised wildly different endings depending on the choices we made. Where are they?

Hear hear.

- The ball of color seems to be traveling at the speed of light or faster (judging from the galaxy wiev when the mass releys light up)... I know Joker is good, but... seriously.

Hear H..... hey what? Who? Wh... hey pal the Normandy travels faster than light. That's what FTL drives are for.

- Picking up team members - I'm sorry no matter how I look at it I can't see them not following Shep into the light...

Only Anderson seems to do so.

- Blue end - when Legion integrated into Normandy in ME2 it didn't explode... I guess the geth are more advanced than the reapers after all...

Ah! Ouch. No, you see, the Citadel version of copulation is a little more brute than the Geth one.

- Reaper reasoning 1 - organic and synthetic beings can coexit. There is NO logical reason for synthetics to fight organics other than self-preservation. There are many reasons for organics and synthetics to cooperate - or join in the form of cybernetic organisms.

Not quite. There's the problem of Van Neumann viruses getting out of hand. Basically, the godchild could speak on behalf of general evolution being a problem. Chaos. The whole galaxy being taken over by a violent "mutation" of the "children" of organics. This part is good. Badly explained, but good scientifically speaking.

- Reaper reasoning 2 - if their goal is what the kid says, Why start a galactic war? I can think of 3 far faster and more efficient ways to get the same results - with zero causalties on the reaper side.

Ok, I'm all hears. You see, the Reapers' problem at this point is that no matter how you can convince the organics "not" to engage in AI research, and even if said organics try to self-manage the issue (research of AI was effectively forbidden by the council races), it will always flourish somewhere in the fringes of the galaxy and might take over.

What spawns this AI monster is obviously Civilization itself. And that's the disease the Reapers are here to "cure", the civilizations themselves. Without civilizations, there won't be AI.

Also remember that this war is significantly different from all the others. They are taking casualties due to the simple fact that the Protheans were able to delay the current invasion and stop the Reapers into entering the Citadel by its back door (with Shep's help).

But I'm curious to your solutions.

- If IM is under control, what was the whole confrontation between him Anderson and Shep? It makes no sense.

Control wasn't absolute. Think Saren.

[dpgimenez]

Come on, he crashes the Normandy in a planet that clearly is not Earth.

To that to happen, he must have done at least one mass relay jump BEFORE the explosion set off.

So, he WAS running way, and YES, it makes no sense.

kelsjet wrote...

Rockworm503 wrote...
Logic would help your argument if you use it.  Joker is running from a color that is specifically targetting mass relays.  

/facepalm

The intial explosion is coming from the Citadel itself, which is parked right above Earth. That is SHOWN. That is what he is running from. He isn't running from the explosion around the relay.

[philippe willaume]

kelsjet wrote...

I mean, seriously, things are kind of getting out of hand.

With Dr. Muzyka's letter today, it seems the whole "the ending was bad" thing is much bigger than I initially thought. At first I wrote it off as just a few people on the forums doing what BSN forums do nowadays, that being, b!tch and moan about absolutely everything and anything that they can. But with the letter, it seems the issue is much bigger then I previously thought.


Now, don't get me wrong, there are things wrong with ME3, even the ending, especially from a 'presentation' standpoint. However, I honestly believe that the actual content of the ending, i.e. the point being made and the potential outcomes we have (given the world of Mass Effect that was presented to us over these past many years), are perfectly consistent.

In short, the ending, as a plot point, makes perfect sense to me. Obviously, this is a non-spoiler forum, so if there is any point you wish for me to elaborate on (i.e. if there is something about the main concept behind the ending(s) that you do not understand) I will be more than happy to explain it to you (at least, as I see it) through PMs. But overall, the ending actually makes a ton of sense.

Again, I am not saying that ME3 is 'perfect'. There are many things that can be improved upon in the game from on many levels. Things ranging from mechanics to presentation (UI) even story, but the ending isn't a giant force of inconsistency that people are making it out to be. It fits in the universe that was created for the game(s), imho.

Sure, we could have had more choice in a few things. Sure, there need to be better resolutions to a few characters and sure, it is questionable the new direction Bioware has gone with their games, but none of this stuff warrents the complete explosion of outrage that people are having.


The best part is, I have spent a lot of time over these past few days trying to read the actual, detailed problems people have with the endings, and you know what, I have up till now not read a single real, well thought out issue that someone has with the content of the ending (i.e. the point being made). A lot of the issues people seem to have are born out of them either;

A) Misrepresenting certain basic facts.
Not having sat down for just even 5 mins to think about what the ending could mean and instead just having a knee jerk reaction to it.

A lot of the criticisms out there right now are just not well thought out. It seems that people are just p!ssed off that they didn't get the "oh everything is happy days" ending. But not all good stories need to have that ending.

Now true, if your only concept of a 'good story' is something like that Twilight saga drivel, then I can understand that you are just not exposed to actual good stories (not saying that ME has an amazing story, but it sure as hell is better than "ZOMG LETS BLOW UP SOME TERROROIZTZ" story of something like CoD).



At the end of the day, I think the entire community needs to take some time off and do the following;

1) Actually THINK about the ending before firing the gun.
2) After that, try to precisely articulate what you still find inconsistent. Back up what you are saying.
3) Come back to the forums and post a long post with your analysis. Remember to keep it respectful.


One last point. No matter what you actually think or believe, you will be listened to much more intently if you keep childish bullsh!te, hyperbole and generally over the top "the sky has fallen" stuff out of your point 3).


Seriously people, you are devolving BSN into something more akin to an XBox live CoD match. Don't be silly.

A little bit like the maturity you would have shown, were you to have asked that question in the  spoiler forum,  so that we could have replied with  concrete example then.

a fair bit of us are ok with the artistic direction and the ending as such the main problem I have is that the ending is much much less well realised that the rest of the game and do not deliver what was advertised.

Just to clarify.
I don't really care where AE/BW takes the story when it ends it is their prerogative to end it as they see fit.
However I do expect that ending to be consistent with the story that has been told so far and I do expect a proper exposition and contextualisation, especially when the premises of the story are changed.
and if you tell me that the ending are going to take my decisions in account, I expect them to do so.
so that there is no misunderstanding between us.
I am fine with end result of ME as it is, however which ever option I choose at then end need to make that ending logical according the choices I have made in the game that are relevant to that ending.

At the moment with my play through only one endings do makes sense, with interpretative effort and the last few minutes of the ending do not fit with the story as we left it when we made the choices.
And yes it does sting even more after all the Epic greatness that is ME3 before that point.
 
 
Phil

Modifié par philippe willaume, 22 mars 2012 - 01:07 .

[SirBob1613]

Theme fine plot holes no

[Naoe]

RShara wrote...

We don't KNOW how long Shepard was unconscious. It could have been minutes or hours. It COULD have caused Joker+Others to go looking and trying to get to the Citadel. Or it COULD be just a few minutes and the entire battle is still going on.

If you watch the animation you can see the battle outside while Shep talks to the star kid.

[dpgimenez]

That is not the way to discuss anything: "I am the smartest person, you that are complaining are just stupid."

You are making no sense, just throwing away hypotesis. Just the fact the you have to guess and try to find marvelous explanations, is clearly a sign that the ending is really bad.

[OdanUrr]

I'm just leaving this here and running away as fast as I can. It's a long read, but I'd appreciate your comments.

[Adanu]

2papercuts wrote...

Um your whole "people just want a happy ending" i think is a bit of a strawman

Many, many, many people have expressed a desire to have the whole ending remade for a happy one. It isn't a strawman.

[RShara]

lumen11 wrote...

RShara wrote...

 Generally, you don't do that at the end of a story.

'Generally', stories are not open-ended, but plenty of them are. It's perfectly valid.

Quote in context

RShara wrote...
My point is, for an ending to a series, there is a LOT that we don't
KNOW and have to either GUESS or INFER just about the very end. Some of
those things have galaxy-wide impact. Generally, you don't do that at
the end of a story.

Generally, you don't suddenly open galaxy-wide impact things to inference at the end of a story. 

[kalle90]

It really is awful when 3 part trilogy started in 2007 with multiple hundred hours on the game clock is driven to the ground during the last 5-10 minutes. It really doesn't matter whether the problem is theme or presentation when ending bombs that bad.

I also liked the concept of the ending, but what matters is that it was no epic conclusion to this trilogy of choice and completely killed my want to replay. Is Bioware planning ME4 or why did they rush the ending so fast? 30 second almost identical videos with no dialogue as epilogue? Oowee.

[Naoe]

Arkitekt wrote...
1.Hear H..... hey what? Who? Wh... hey pal the Normandy travels faster than light. That's what FTL drives are for.-
...
2.Not quite. There's the problem of Van Neumann viruses getting out of hand. Basically, the godchild could speak on behalf of general evolution being a problem. Chaos. The whole galaxy being taken over by a violent "mutation" of the "children" of organics. This part is good. Badly explained, but good scientifically speaking.
...
3. But I'm curious to your solutions.
...
4.Control wasn't absolute. Think Saren.

1. Yes, I know Normandy has FTL drive. Can Joker initiate it AFTER he sees the blast coming? And energy build up was expected, so even if EDI picked it up at best she'd suggest to move Normandy to the far side of the planet imho...
2. We can agree on that it was poorly explained then.
3. A: Offer transportation throughout galaxy. Indoctrinate the passangers as needed. When the time comes, most of the population would come to the slaugterhouse willingly or would be brought there by indoctrinated agents.- resoning - they left mass relays in place to shape galactic civilization. They could do it better if they stayed behind.
B: Survey life supporting planets and place indoctrination deviceson the ground. Activate and use as necessary. - reasoning - no civilisation would find them suspicios if they're there since their prehistoric times
C: Harvest civilizations one at a time - reasoning - any civilization able to reach mass relay is ripe for harvest and is still far too weak to inflict significant damage
4. I am. It still makes no sense. If the kid wanted to talk why not talk to the 3 of them?

Modifié par Naoe, 22 mars 2012 - 01:28 .

[RShara]

Naoe wrote...

RShara wrote...

We don't KNOW how long Shepard was unconscious. It could have been minutes or hours. It COULD have caused Joker+Others to go looking and trying to get to the Citadel. Or it COULD be just a few minutes and the entire battle is still going on.

If you watch the animation you can see the battle outside while Shep talks to the star kid.

Sorry, that was phrased badly.

Or it COULD be just a few minutes.  AND, the entire battle IS still going on.

[SidNitzerglobin]

Here's my semi-disjointed take on this, none of which can be discussed w/o spoilers (so highlight below if you want to read them):

EDIT:Hmmmm... colors not working so ****SPOILER ALERT****





First off it's definitely not about the lack of a happy or even definitive ending for me.  I would have honestly felt much better about the ending if it would have just cut to the credits w/ Shepard and Anderson bleeding out looking at Earth and the battle below through the Citadel window.

The concepts could have worked IMO if they had been expanded on in much more detail, there wasn't this feeling of "let's just get this over with with as little effort and time as possible", and you had some options to roleplay Shepard in a way that aggressively fought for a point of view that contradicted starkid's options and called out his BS and provided a choice that didn't just go along w/ him in husk-like manner.

I really can't understand how the "I built these synthetics to kill organics so that the organics won't build synthetics that kill the organics" loop isn't annoying to anyone paying attention

The idea that somehow both synthetics and organics aren't both subject to propagating chaos also rubs me wrong.  Entropy affects all matter in our universe and one of the big strengths of the ME universe for me has been that they tried hard in most instances to offer some halfway plausible explanation within the same framework throughout the rest of the series.

The synthesis and destroy options (and from what I've heard the control option as well) seem like they are really just playing into the Reapers and starkid's hands. 

The way the Crucible works in the sythesis and destroy options makes no sense or is at least a completely counter intuitive way to design a machine (let me unload a whole bunch of projectiles moving just below the speed of light into this high voltage power conduit to make this thing work better at unleashing a wave of space magic that will only destroy all technology and leave everything else unharmed/let me jump into this high energy beam so to make this thing work better at unleashing a wave of space magic that will fuse the DNA(?!) of synthetics and organics in such a way that leaves both synthetics and organics fully functional, unless the synthetic is a mass relay:unsure:).  I will admit to not having played the control option yet, but from what I've heard it's not much better.

Nitpicky, but why are there human letters and numbers on bulkheads in a section of the Citadel that no organics have ever seen?

There's just way too much information missing:
How do squadmates who were w/ Shepard when he gets hit by Harbinger and part of team Hammer wind up on the Normandy w/ Joker?
Why is Joker is in a different system when the relays go boom?
Why does the destruction of the relays in the ending not cause the same kind of full system destruction seen in Arrival?
I could go on....

Really the only way I can accept the current ending(s) as making any sense is if I subscribe to the theory of Shepard as an unreliable narrator for the whole sequence beyond the point where he gets hit by Harbinger's beam.  It's my understanding that BioWare have categorically denied that this is the case so far.

To sum up, it's not so much the thematic or artistic direction of the ending as incoherence, plot holes, and disenfranchisement of the player from their Shepard that I object to in the current ending(s).

Modifié par SidNitzerglobin, 22 mars 2012 - 01:57 .

[kalle90]

SidNitzerglobin wrote...

Really the only way I can accept the current ending(s) as making any sense is if I subscribe to the theory of Shepard as an unreliable narrator for the whole sequence beyond the point where he gets hit by Harbinger's beam.  It's my understanding that BioWare have categorically denied that this is the case so far.

To sum up, it not so much the thematic or artistic direction of the ending as incoherence, plot holes, and disenfranchisement of the player from their Shepard that I object to in the current ending(s).

"We are fighting for hope"

[catabuca]

Icemix wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...
Funny thing. Ever since Mass Effect 1's Sovereign speech that the term "technological singularity" clinged on my mind perfectly. Sovereign was clearly a product of precisely such an event. In ME2 I was proven right at the end. The whole ME series was about "synthetics vs organics", ever since Eden Prime.

In ME 1 maybe, since then we didn't know much about the Reapers or the Geth, but in ME2 and ME 3, definitely not. I mean come on, we spend hours uniting the Geth and the Quarians in a war that the Quarians started, and yet the argument behind the Reapers is that we have to die now, because our synthetics MAY turn on us someday. That is just stupid, sloppy, lazy, last minute writing and it makes no ****ing sense.

This is where some people are tripping up.

Clearly in ME1 there was a tension set up between organic life and synthetic life, and, further to that, issues around 'natural' versus 'directed' evolution. Our main adversaries were geth, this mysterious and dangerous form of synthetic life. We find out a little about their creation, and how they are being used as tools of these even more mysterious and dangerous things, the reapers. We have run-ins with a rogue AI, a rogue VI, we find out about the genophage, the uplifting of the krogan, we intervene in whether someone should give gene therapy to their child or not. These issues are everywhere. Sometimes very subtly, sometimes hitting you over the head like a big old cricket bat. When playing through ME1 for the first few times, I distinctly thought that it was reasonably obvious the 'point' of the game, and probably the clue to how we would solve the reaper problem, was in how we negotiate those issues.

They are there in ME2 as well. In fact, the game starts out with them: Shepard is brought back from the dead, in some unknown melding of organic 'natural' medicine and synthetic, cybernetic technology. Jacob is pretty sure Shepard isn't a clone, but no one seems all that clear on what Shepard really is anymore, although we're told "she's still Shepard." And so we get the beginning of one of the major themes we see really come to fruition in 3: what makes us 'us?' (In fact, this started in 1, when, as humans who believed in their uniqueness, we are thrust onto the galactic stage and forced to face up to the fact that we are not, in fact, that special at all. This plays out with Terra Firma in 1, and Cerberus in 2: humanity is scared it's not special or powerful.)

The themes of organics versus synthetics and natural versus directed evolution continue through ME2 in other ways more familiar to us as well. We find out more about the geth, with the discovery of Legion being particularly important. A geth we can talk to and reason with! His loyalty mission, whereby we think about the morality of either killing or rewriting the geth heretics (neither of which are necessarily 'good' moral or ethical choices; both of which can be argued for from various pragmatic viewpoints). Legion is presented as both an individual and as something not quite individual, since he is but one platform and instance of his collective. The limits of AI sentience and individuality are tested, and when we make our choice to kill or rewrite, we do so not simply by viewing them as machines, but by considering the implications for deciding what happens to them as sentient beings. We also revisit the genophage, through Mordin's loyalty mission (a personal favourite). Mordin confronts the ethics of directing evolution, placing the salarian actions in the context of war, scientific discovery, and perceived necessity. It develops the themes we saw as foundations in ME1, just as the geth situation does, and just as Shepard's own rise from the dead does. And we shouldn't forget that the presence of the collectors, and the discovery that they were once prothean, also adds to this theme of directed evolution, of changing organic life, refining it, making it something 'other' than what it originally was. There is, as a result, an ever-present fear that organic life isn't as sacrosanct as we would like it to be. Just as humans aren't as special as we thought they were. Synthetic life and directed evolution exist as constant reminder of that.

And so we come to ME3. Right from the beginning, the game shines a spotlight on these issues in a very obvious fashion, most notably through the conversations with EDI. Her first full conversation with us is about making moral choices, something we've been doing through the first 2 games, and something that I believe is priming us for the various moral choices we'll make in 3. Her later conversations deal with her, who she is, what she is, what makes her 'her' and whether that differs in some way from what makes us 'us.' This is expanded upon in the various crew conversations you can influence by picking a side later on. It's clear, not only are we being asked to question what makes us so special, what makes organic life unique (or, in fact, if anything does at all), the barriers between organic and synthetic life are being broken down even further. We consider EDI to be just like us, to be capable of morality, of love, of humility, of all the things we are capable of. We consider if she is more than the Normandy, how she is defined by her presence in the movable platform, and we necessarily ask ourselves how we are defined by our presence in organic bodies as a result. We realise that there isn't, after all, that much difference between organic and synthetic life.

The story arcs dealing with the genophage and geth continue to refine the ideas they started in 1 and 2. The salarians haven't learned from their mistakes with the krogan, they're uplifting the yahg! And yet Mordin, who was struggling with the ethical implications of his research in 2, has realised the folly of directing evolution and wants to try to undo what he can, make it right. We can, of course, decide for ourselves whether we agree with him or not, making that moral call about how we deal with evolution and science. In the geth story arc, Legion gains individual sentience, and again you can decide how to resolve that. We've seen what EDI is, and it's what the geth can become. We know there is a peaceful solution that allows all parties to retain their own agency, and we can achieve that, peacefully. This is the pay-off to the moral stances we took in the previous 2 games, just as the shroud mission is. We've shaped our Shepards' moralities through choices large and small since 2007, whether those choices have had noticable in-game effects or not. These are the issues we've been dealing with, from the big stuff like the geth, through to the small stuff like the gene therapy couple, Dr Saleon, or more passively when encountering rogue AIs funnelling credits off the citadel.

To say that the reapers' argument about reaping to avoid synthetic life turning on us invalidates all of that misses the point. Yes, we have proven that synthetic and organic life can live peacefully, and that we can work to negotiate the inherent problems of having these different kinds of life existing together. And that is the point. In our cycle, we invalidated the case of the reapers. In the previous cycle(s), it may well have been the case that they were not ready to be able to co-exist, as referenced by Javik in all his cautionary missives about how dangerous synthetic life is, and how we should throw it out of the airlock and never trust it. But we are different. We have managed to overcome that. This cycle is different, which is something that has been implied throughout the game. Shepard is the hero that she is precisely because she is the one who has been able to create the circumstances under which the tensions between synthetic and organic life can be negotiated successfully. This is why Shepard is the only hope for the galaxy. And so, when she is stood there listening to the Catalyst explaining its reasons for reaping cycle after cycle, we know the Catalyst is wrong now, and their reasoning no longer applies to our cycle. The Catalyst still believes they are right, which is why they are hear a'reaping again. But we know they are wrong.

That is, if we did, indeed, solve those problems. If we did unite the geth and quarians. If we did agree that EDI is an indivudual capable of as much of whatever we call 'humanity' as we are. If we didn't solve those problems, and we believe that synthetics will always rise up, if we destroyed the geth purposefully, then the 'Destroy' option makes sense to us. We can somewhat agree with the premise of the Catalyst's reasons for reaping, even if we don't agree with the reaping itself. And so, we can kill the reapers, and not be sad that synthetic life is wiped out as well, because we privilege organic life above that of synthetic life. If we did, however, unite the geth and quarians, and if we do believe synthetic and organic life is of equal value, then we have some tough ethical choices ahead of us. We can still destroy it all, ensuring the reapers are dead and gone once and for all, and that's what we've been primed to do all throughout (which is why Anderson is shown for that option). But didn't EDI, during that first conversation with us, ask about objecting to a commanding officer's direct orders on moral grounds? We could tell EDI that following orders is important, or we can say that using judgement is more so. Is our answer to the Destroy ending the same, or different now?

How about if we cured the genophage? If we made that decision based on the ethical stance that directing evolution in that way is wrong, then what happens if we choose the Synthesis ending? If we chose to rewrite the geth heretics, perhaps we would feel more comfortable choosing Synthesis, and if we killed them perhaps we'd feel better about Destroy. But what if we chose the opposite? I cured the genophage and am of the opinion that uplifting the krogan was wrong, and steralising them when that backfired was even more wrong. And yet, I chose Synthesis, whereby I allow Shepard to choose the fate of all life in the galaxy. Not just synthetic life (which is what I would be doing if I chose Destroy), but all life. How can I align that decision with my stance on the genophage? There are no easy, clear cut answers. The Control ending is perhaps the most morally 'good' choice, if you follow this line of reasoning, because it leaves the galaxy to find its own way without imposing anything on it, and takes the reapers away. It neutralises the threat, which is what we set out to do, in the least destructive manner (barring the destruction of the relays). It isn't without its own issues though, as we have to consider what it means to be solely in control of this powerful race of beings, and whether that is the sort of control one person should have.

My point through all of this tl;dr post is that these themes have been there from the beginning, and what the Catalyst explains as being the reapers' reason for reaping doesn't invalidate it at all. In fact, it highlights the fact that our cycle is different, Shepard is special (especially since she is an organic/synthetic hybrid of some unknown sort herself), and while the Catalyst believes that there will be a technological singularity that will wipe out organic life, we know differently, and as a result we are in a position to be able to choose how to end the cycle once and for all. In fact, maybe Shepard is, herself, the final technological/organic singularity that changes everything, once and for all.

All that being said, I fully agree that there are plot holes a'plenty and a lot of issues with the way that this is presented in the game. The fact that it is causing so much confusion, anger, upset, and questions means it didn't work as intended. I understand what they wanted to achieve, but I don't think they managed it in the way they expected or intended. I agree that lots of things don't make sense, and require a little too much stretching of the imagination to make fit: like Joker and your squad being where you didn't expect them to be; the castaway planet at the end; the baffling lack of interaction with the Catalyst when it could have been used to really drive home just what they were intending with these choices (I don't agree that we didn't need to be given answers to the questions we've been asking for 3 games; we should have been able to interrogate the Catalyst); I was interested in the dark energy stuff that was hinted at in 2, but it pales in insignificance in the face of the other themes that have been woven throughout all 3 games; and plenty more. It was executed badly, and I'm really sad about that. But to say the themes came out of nowhere, and that what the Catalyst says invalidates all we've done, just doesn't ring true. The Catalyst believes what it's saying, otherwise it wouldn't be continuing the reaping into this cycle. But it's precisely because of our actions and moral stances throughout the 3 games that we're able to know it's wrong about us in our cycle, and it's precisely because of Shepard being the one to resolve the potential threat of technological singularity that she is presented with the options to be able to end that cycle, it's why she's the only organic to have ever been in that position, it's why she's given the chance at all - because she's the only one who could.

[Vincent Rosevalliant]

kelsjet wrote...

 At first I wrote it off as just a few people on the forums doing what BSN forums do nowadays, that being, b!tch and moan about absolutely everything and anything that they can.

I know, right. We haven't even had time for that yet.

That horrible ending is hijacking these forums. Fortunately I can use your obvious troll thread to b!tch and moan about some of the other stuff that did not make sense to me:
*spoilers so stop reading*
How did the Citadel get towed to Earth?
What happened to all the people on it at the time?
Why didn't the reapers shoot Shepard/Normandy instead of the little boy at the beginning?
Why was no "Direct Control Assumed"?
How did Cerberus assault the Citadel if Saren couldn't do it without the Conduit? Isn't C-sec an army?
Why not use the Conduit to get to the Citadel instead of charging a Reaper on foot?
How do you build a machine without knowing how it is supposed to work? (Crucible)
Why wasn't the ending written at the beginning of the series? They had 5 years to work towards it.
How does KaiLeng stop bullits with his hand? Is heB) "the One"?
Why do personal shields/barriers no longer work in cut-scenes?

*End of Spoilers*

On Topic: No you are not the only one who thinks the ending was fine. Apparently some people don't care about storytelling in games, at all.

Modifié par Vincent Rosevalliant, 22 mars 2012 - 04:02 .

[bennyjammin79]

I think the ending was fine too. A fancy way to say: To Be Continued...

[Dragoonlordz]

I liked the ending though this thread confused me, I could of sworn we were in the non spoiler section. 

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 22 mars 2012 - 03:59 .

[HenchxNarf]

Tazzmission wrote...

imo the ending fit the story but alot of others will argue it dosent

It fits.

[HenchxNarf]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I liked the ending though this thread confused me, I could of sworn we were in the non spoiler section. 

They don't care. They'll spoil it for everyone.

I literally just got done watching a stream of someone finishing the game and they did not let him enjoy it, they spoiled it for him and would not let up and let him just enjoy. He liked it and they BULLIED him into rethinking his stand.

And I saw some of the RETAKE ME3 people in there and it's like they are physically unable to let anyone enjoy the ending. Like it HURTS THEM. And that's sad. They were the ones doing the trolling.

Modifié par HenchxNarf, 22 mars 2012 - 04:36 .

[ErockK92]

catabuca wrote...

Icemix wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...
Funny thing. Ever since Mass Effect 1's Sovereign speech that the term "technological singularity" clinged on my mind perfectly. Sovereign was clearly a product of precisely such an event. In ME2 I was proven right at the end. The whole ME series was about "synthetics vs organics", ever since Eden Prime.

In ME 1 maybe, since then we didn't know much about the Reapers or the Geth, but in ME2 and ME 3, definitely not. I mean come on, we spend hours uniting the Geth and the Quarians in a war that the Quarians started, and yet the argument behind the Reapers is that we have to die now, because our synthetics MAY turn on us someday. That is just stupid, sloppy, lazy, last minute writing and it makes no ****ing sense.

All that being said, I fully agree that there are plot holes a'plenty and a lot of issues with the way that this is presented in the game. The fact that it is causing so much confusion, anger, upset, and questions means it didn't work as intended. I understand what they wanted to achieve, but I don't think they managed it in the way they expected or intended. I agree that lots of things don't make sense, and require a little too much stretching of the imagination to make fit: like Joker and your squad being where you didn't expect them to be; the castaway planet

Well said.  I just finished the game and enjoyed the ending.  It makes sense if you were paying attention.  I agree they could have presented it a lot better.  Mass Effect was sold to the masses and shouldn't have went with a vague ending.

Modifié par ErockK92, 22 mars 2012 - 04:53 .

[Faust1979]

no you're not alone there are others on this board that liked the ending don't let the trolls and the detractors tell you any different

[HenchxNarf]

Faust1979 wrote...

no you're not alone there are others on this board that liked the ending don't let the trolls and the detractors tell you any different

^ Pretty much this

[j78]

kelsjet wrote...

Legion64 wrote...

Pretty much. This is proof that don't know what plot holes are.

There is a vast difference between a plot hole and a travesty. Even if the former exists, there is no reason to make it look like the latter.

Even the single largest "plot hole" that people are complaining about about the ending(s) isn't really as large or crazyZOMG as people are making it out to be.


Did anyone ever bother to think that during the time Shepard is going about his business during the final (post Marauder Shields) sequence that the rest of the universe wasn't just standing around doing nothing? Or that Joker was just chilling up in space twiddling his thumbs?

There was more than enough time in that final sequence for a ship as fast as the Normandy to swoop down, pick up/drop off/do stuff, then swoop back up again.

But then again, people don't even bother to think about that, since they are so intent to "GRR RAGE!!!Rabblerabble"

what ?