239 réponses à ce sujet

[OriginalTibs]

Lord Aesir wrote...
What I cannot understand and find frustrating is the sheer hysteria and outrage expressed on these boards towards the endings...

The endings currently entail either Shepard's willing suicide or else massive genocide. They bear a nihilistic philosophical basis one might expect from a Reaper.The philosophical basis of the story these are supposedly to end is anything but about nihilistic futility. Instead the whole series has been based on hope, survival, perseverance, tolerance, liberty (choice), and meaning. As masterfully wrought as these ending versions are, they are not appropriate endings to the story that led up to them. These would serve wonderfully to end a different and much darker series, but not Mass Effect.

It is as if there was a problem with the originally intended ending, whatever that may have been, and to solve that problem efficiently someone unfortunately decided to truncate the game at the point of the indoctrination sequence, and then told the writers/artists to make it work. If true then they did a marvelous job given the limitations imposed.

Bioware's writers are superb, wonderful artists, and it is completely incongruous that they would have ended the series with a scenario that promotes a choice between suicide and genocide. Inconcievable. More likely it was not an artistic decision to end it with the indoctrination sequence, but a management decision and worse, that administrator was clearly (to me) not a competently considerate writer. There are far too many inconsistencies, and the voice of the story, the meaning of the content, the philosophy and message are radically changed and alien to Mass Effect.

I suspect the 'real' ending would have made the game much longer, much more expensive, and to build it all out would have required more time than Bioware had, so someone in authority made a decision to truncate the ending to what we now have.

If my suspicions are right, then it wasn't artistic license that chose these endings, it was instead a business decision.

As a business decision it does not appear to have adequately factored for risk.

Modifié par OriginalTibs, 23 mars 2012 - 02:38 .

[MDT1]

Lord Aesir wrote...

MDT1 wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

MDT1 wrote...

Why are such discussions always in the no spoiler section?
But ok, the next star is at least 4,2 lightyears away from earth.
Why would a "bening" explosion still be able to damage an alliance frigat over such a distance in EVERY ending?

The problem is people always claim we shouldn't rip everything apart and go into such detail, but then Bioware themselfs state the ending makes no sense so we could speculate...

...What?

What?

I don't really understand what you said.

Which part? That no explosion, no matter how "bening" it is would leave a solar system intact when its still able to cause serious damage over a distance of at least 4,2 lightyears?

Or the part referring to Mac Walters notes , where he states that this ending should lead to lots of speculation? Though they promised us answers and closure in pre release PR?

Modifié par MDT1, 23 mars 2012 - 02:44 .

[HolmesLovesGuinness]

Lord Aesir wrote...

]Frankly, I don't think consistency of tone has ever been a strong point for this series.  I feel there is a massive gap in tone between ME1 and ME2, the former being very 'good feelings' while the latter seemed to fit in an awkward position between 'good feelings' and attempting to be dark and dire.  I felt ME3 did a better job at the dark and dire part, so I wasn't expecting a happy ending, indeed I was partially hoping for an inevitable tragic sacrifice.  I recall being split as to whether or not I actually wanted the option of a happy ending.  Did the existential dark scifi fit into that tone?  I'd say partially.  Then again, at the time I had just finished reading Halo: Primordium, which is basically existential dark depressing scifi from cover to cover and I enjoyed it.  Incidently, it was about a human that had been converted into an AI.  I think they were just at a loss as to how to end it in a way that would be memorable and not cliche while also definitively ending Shepard's story.

Weeeeell, agree to disagree. Sure, ME2 was a little bit 'darker' than ME1 (in the same way The Empire Strikes BAck was darker than SW A New Hope), but still - you kick ass and take names in grand Hollywood action cinema style. ME3 is obviously a bit darker still (which given the circumstances makes sense).

Thing is - the ending WAS still cliche to an extent (since the whole 'God in the machine' trope is well established). It just felt out of place here. I do agree that they were trying to do something different and break the mold so to speak, I just don't think it worked that well in this instance. Again, just my opinion.

[JasmoVT]

99% of the hatred of the endings is based on speculation and assumptions about what the implication of the choices are. Before Bioware wastes resources redesigning the endings, they need to provde epilogues which make clear what the different endings are and what the resulting state of the galaxy, Shepard Normandy and the crew and Shepards love interest is. As they stand I simply do not see how any rational person can decide whether they like them are not. Bioware simply stopped the game three minutes too early and did not tell us what happened.

[HolmesLovesGuinness]

JasmoVT wrote...

99% of the hatred of the endings is based on speculation and assumptions about what the implication of the choices are. Before Bioware wastes resources redesigning the endings, they need to provde epilogues which make clear what the different endings are and what the resulting state of the galaxy, Shepard Normandy and the crew and Shepards love interest is. As they stand I simply do not see how any rational person can decide whether they like them are not. Bioware simply stopped the game three minutes too early and did not tell us what happened.

I think you are as out of touch with the majority of the ME fan base as Bioware appears to be. Just sayin'.

[JasmoVT]

HolmesLovesGuinness wrote...

JasmoVT wrote...

99% of the hatred of the endings is based on speculation and assumptions about what the implication of the choices are. Before Bioware wastes resources redesigning the endings, they need to provde epilogues which make clear what the different endings are and what the resulting state of the galaxy, Shepard Normandy and the crew and Shepards love interest is. As they stand I simply do not see how any rational person can decide whether they like them are not. Bioware simply stopped the game three minutes too early and did not tell us what happened.

I think you are as out of touch with the majority of the ME fan base as Bioware appears to be. Just sayin'.

Given the behavior, conduct and language of the majority of the vocal anti ending fan base I consider the above the highest possible complement I could be paid.

[Heimdall]

ohnoyoudidnt wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

Texansamurai wrote...

I think my biggest objection with the ending is that with the missing components that make Mass effect, Mass effect are now gone. This makes it hard to have EU(Expanded Universe) fan content or stories.

It would be like Starwars suddenly without the force. Would there still be jedi/sith

Same can be applied to ME 3. Will such and such ever return home. Can you still have alliances between species in isolation? Who knows its hard to tell.

I actually thought that was a good stroke.  The relays were part of the Reapers' scheme to control organic development.  By destroying them and the Citadel you force the organic species to break free of the path set forth by the Reapers.

you actually genocide all the solar syste-
oh wait who cares, not fanatics anyway!

also no spoilers allowed here remember?

Read the first post., good sir.  The whole thing, I already explained that genocide is not the case.

[MDT1]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Read the first post., good sir.  The whole thing, I already explained that genocide is not the case.

Why? Because you came up with fanfiction that can be denied with simple logic deduction based on what the ending actually shows us?

[Getorex]

JasmoVT wrote...

99% of the hatred of the endings is based on speculation and assumptions about what the implication of the choices are. Before Bioware wastes resources redesigning the endings, they need to provde epilogues which make clear what the different endings are and what the resulting state of the galaxy, Shepard Normandy and the crew and Shepards love interest is. As they stand I simply do not see how any rational person can decide whether they like them are not. Bioware simply stopped the game three minutes too early and did not tell us what happened.

Really?  You don't see how any rational....?  What is "rational" about "I created synthetics to destroy advanced organics so they wouldn't be destroyed by their own organics"?  Even if you are GENEROUS and expand this to mean the Reapers "harvest" the advanced organic civs and STORES them safely in a Reaper Vault...WHY?  What's the point?  They aren't DOING anything with them but storing their record.  Woohoo!  That makes it good!

What is "rational" about, "Synthetics will always turn on their creators" in the VERY same story where you have TWO solid examples (Geth and EDI) that DIRECTLY contradict that nonsense!  That isn't "rational" on its face and cannot be turned rational.

What is "rational" about the Normandy crashing WITH ALIENS ON BOARD (Tali, Garrus, Liara) on some planet that then, as directly and unquestionably implied by the stargazer and kid sequence at the VERY end, is populated by the children of that Normandy crash?  THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE ON THE NORMANDY TO DO THIS!  The entire planet IS populated by generations of children resulting from brother-sister INCEST.  It cannot be rationalized away!  And Stargazer is answering the kid's question about "what will we find if we ever go back to the stars?" by telling him we MAY find all kinds of different alien civilizations.   WHAT?!  The Normandy crashed with THREE distinct aliens on it, including one (Liara, an Asari) who can mate with literally ANYONE.  Besides the multitudes of incest babies all over the place, there would be MANY Asari all over the place too...unless ALL the aliens died shortly after the crash.  This, in fact, HAD to happen to explain stargazer's answer to the kid's question!  IN ADDITION, the planet cannot be both compatible with humans and Asari AND Turians and Quarians (Garrus and Tali) so they most assuredly DID die soon after the crash.  

Where's the possible rationality in ANY of that?  Fleshing out the ending cannot fix these gaping black holes.  

Modifié par Getorex, 23 mars 2012 - 03:07 .

[Getorex]

HolmesLovesGuinness wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

]Frankly, I don't think consistency of tone has ever been a strong point for this series.  I feel there is a massive gap in tone between ME1 and ME2, the former being very 'good feelings' while the latter seemed to fit in an awkward position between 'good feelings' and attempting to be dark and dire.  I felt ME3 did a better job at the dark and dire part, so I wasn't expecting a happy ending, indeed I was partially hoping for an inevitable tragic sacrifice.  I recall being split as to whether or not I actually wanted the option of a happy ending.  Did the existential dark scifi fit into that tone?  I'd say partially.  Then again, at the time I had just finished reading Halo: Primordium, which is basically existential dark depressing scifi from cover to cover and I enjoyed it.  Incidently, it was about a human that had been converted into an AI.  I think they were just at a loss as to how to end it in a way that would be memorable and not cliche while also definitively ending Shepard's story.

Weeeeell, agree to disagree. Sure, ME2 was a little bit 'darker' than ME1 (in the same way The Empire Strikes BAck was darker than SW A New Hope), but still - you kick ass and take names in grand Hollywood action cinema style. ME3 is obviously a bit darker still (which given the circumstances makes sense).

Thing is - the ending WAS still cliche to an extent (since the whole 'God in the machine' trope is well established). It just felt out of place here. I do agree that they were trying to do something different and break the mold so to speak, I just don't think it worked that well in this instance. Again, just my opinion.

Cliche applies to more than "happy endings".  It also applies to the "fallen hero" ending.  Done. To. Death.

Pun intended. 

A fairly happy ending is 100% in tune with the entire ME series and books.  ME1 = happy ending ONLY (except for bittersweetness on Virmire).  ME2 = full gamut of endings from disastrous (all die, including Shepard) to SOME die, to no one dies at all.  Thus, objective reality demonstrates that there is no such thing as ONE type of ending (dark only) that is compatible with the storyline.  That is hooiey.

[sangy]

@ Lord Aesir

In response to your post:

[Pride Demon]

Lord Aesir wrote...

This might actually deserve to be in the spoiler section, but i created the thread before i registered my copy of the game, so I just posted it here.  I understand what you mean.by conflicting feelings.  I felt conflicted about whether I wanted a happy resolution or a tragic sacrifice before I got to the ending.  After though, I found I prefered tragic sacrifice.

Perhaps after letting it sit for a bit I'll reach your same conclusion, like I said I already like it from an aesthetic and artistic point of view, so...

Only one thing I can safely say I found lacking: that one very specific ending doesn't have a very specific ME1 villain as a "poster boy", especially considering that ending means doing in essence what he advocated, even if not in the same way...
That part should have had Shepard going "You mean... Like X? I don't know...", rather than just saying "I don't know...", but that's just my opinion...

[Heimdall]

Getorex wrote...

HolmesLovesGuinness wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

]Frankly, I don't think consistency of tone has ever been a strong point for this series.  I feel there is a massive gap in tone between ME1 and ME2, the former being very 'good feelings' while the latter seemed to fit in an awkward position between 'good feelings' and attempting to be dark and dire.  I felt ME3 did a better job at the dark and dire part, so I wasn't expecting a happy ending, indeed I was partially hoping for an inevitable tragic sacrifice.  I recall being split as to whether or not I actually wanted the option of a happy ending.  Did the existential dark scifi fit into that tone?  I'd say partially.  Then again, at the time I had just finished reading Halo: Primordium, which is basically existential dark depressing scifi from cover to cover and I enjoyed it.  Incidently, it was about a human that had been converted into an AI.  I think they were just at a loss as to how to end it in a way that would be memorable and not cliche while also definitively ending Shepard's story.

Weeeeell, agree to disagree. Sure, ME2 was a little bit 'darker' than ME1 (in the same way The Empire Strikes BAck was darker than SW A New Hope), but still - you kick ass and take names in grand Hollywood action cinema style. ME3 is obviously a bit darker still (which given the circumstances makes sense).

Thing is - the ending WAS still cliche to an extent (since the whole 'God in the machine' trope is well established). It just felt out of place here. I do agree that they were trying to do something different and break the mold so to speak, I just don't think it worked that well in this instance. Again, just my opinion.

Cliche applies to more than "happy endings".  It also applies to the "fallen hero" ending.  Done. To. Death.

Pun intended. 

A fairly happy ending is 100% in tune with the entire ME series and books.  ME1 = happy ending ONLY (except for bittersweetness on Virmire).  ME2 = full gamut of endings from disastrous (all die, including Shepard) to SOME die, to no one dies at all.  Thus, objective reality demonstrates that there is no such thing as ONE type of ending (dark only) that is compatible with the storyline.  That is hooiey.

Nobody ever said there was.  I just feel a tragic ending fits more with the notion that the Reapers cannot be defeated without sacrifice.  It ensures that Shepard is no exception to that rule.

[sangy]

OriginalTibs wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...
What I cannot understand and find frustrating is the sheer hysteria and outrage expressed on these boards towards the endings...

The endings currently entail either Shepard's willing suicide or else massive genocide. They bear a nihilistic philosophical basis one might expect from a Reaper.The philosophical basis of the story these are supposedly to end is anything but about nihilistic futility. Instead the whole series has been based on hope, survival, perseverance, tolerance, liberty (choice), and meaning. As masterfully wrought as these ending versions are, they are not appropriate endings to the story that led up to them. These would serve wonderfully to end a different and much darker series, but not Mass Effect.

It is as if there was a problem with the originally intended ending, whatever that may have been, and to solve that problem efficiently someone unfortunately decided to truncate the game at the point of the indoctrination sequence, and then told the writers/artists to make it work. If true then they did a marvelous job given the limitations imposed.


Bioware's writers are superb, wonderful artists, and it is completely incongruous that they would have ended the series with a scenario that promotes a choice between suicide and genocide. Inconcievable. More likely it was not an artistic decision to end it with the indoctrination sequence, but a management decision and worse, that administrator was clearly (to me) not a competently considerate writer. There are far too many inconsistencies, and the voice of the story, the meaning of the content, the philosophy and message are radically changed and alien to Mass Effect.

I suspect the 'real' ending would have made the game much longer, much more expensive, and to build it all out would have required more time than Bioware had, so someone in authority made a decision to truncate the ending to what we now have.

If my suspicions are right, then it wasn't artistic license that chose these endings, it was instead a business decision.

As a business decision it does not appear to have adequately factored for risk.

Very well said.  I couldn't agree more. Thank you.

Modifié par sangy, 23 mars 2012 - 03:13 .

[Heimdall]

sangy wrote...

@ Lord Aesir

In response to your post:

?

[HolmesLovesGuinness]

JasmoVT wrote...

HolmesLovesGuinness wrote...

JasmoVT wrote...

99% of the hatred of the endings is based on speculation and assumptions about what the implication of the choices are. Before Bioware wastes resources redesigning the endings, they need to provde epilogues which make clear what the different endings are and what the resulting state of the galaxy, Shepard Normandy and the crew and Shepards love interest is. As they stand I simply do not see how any rational person can decide whether they like them are not. Bioware simply stopped the game three minutes too early and did not tell us what happened.

I think you are as out of touch with the majority of the ME fan base as Bioware appears to be. Just sayin'.

Given the behavior, conduct and language of the majority of the vocal anti ending fan base I consider the above the highest possible complement I could be paid.

Considering the condescending nature of your post above you are just as bad as the 'anti ending' fan base. Just sayin' - Pot. Kettle. Starchild.

[gallenger]

Yeah poor asteroids getting the job done :/ Haven't played through arrival yet unfortunately (actually just bought that instead of buying me3 - gave the rest to child's play lol). Could always rip off free space 2 even harder and just make it a weapon that causes a star to go super nova - then you've still got the mass relay floating in space even (as in the first game I believe they discuss the Mu relay surviving a super-nova).

My ending hate primarily comes from the whole instance with the star child. I'm fine with loose endings and etc (it's probably better that way tbh, although the company will probably release DLC relating to epilogue type materials regardless of what they decide to do with the ending) and with shepard dying. I don't need them to tell me about Liara's blue children or grunts eventually cosmic conquests, etc.

It's really just a huge let down that the whole series comes to this machine that lives on the citadel that ropes you into making choices at the last second, because it brings up a lot of plot holes and various other questions. Like why not try to destroy the citadel or hack the star child AI, or die in glorious battle etc, etc. I didn't like it when this same thing was done in Deus Ex, or The Matrix, (but at least the Matrix had a half-assed decent reason considering the entire world was imaginary anyways and blah blah blah) or KOTOR 2 (although the ending didn't fit as badly there if you played a Sith and picked #3 lol). Or the innumerable other times this device of the last second - God-like intervention instigates a plot twist. 

Modifié par gallenger, 23 mars 2012 - 03:17 .

[Heimdall]

sangy wrote...

OriginalTibs wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...
What I cannot understand and find frustrating is the sheer hysteria and outrage expressed on these boards towards the endings...

The endings currently entail either Shepard's willing suicide or else massive genocide. They bear a nihilistic philosophical basis one might expect from a Reaper.The philosophical basis of the story these are supposedly to end is anything but about nihilistic futility. Instead the whole series has been based on hope, survival, perseverance, tolerance, liberty (choice), and meaning. As masterfully wrought as these ending versions are, they are not appropriate endings to the story that led up to them. These would serve wonderfully to end a different and much darker series, but not Mass Effect.

It is as if there was a problem with the originally intended ending, whatever that may have been, and to solve that problem efficiently someone unfortunately decided to truncate the game at the point of the indoctrination sequence, and then told the writers/artists to make it work. If true then they did a marvelous job given the limitations imposed.

How is self sacrifice not in line with the philosophical basis of the story?

Modifié par Lord Aesir, 23 mars 2012 - 03:16 .

[gallenger]

On another note I'm just not buying the "indoctrination" thing because the prothean VI tells you at TIMs base that you're free and clear of indoctrination - and unless it just happens to be broken in a way that doesn't allow it to detect subtle traces of indoctrination - it just doesn't fit with the lore that shepard suddenly becomes fully indoctrinated because they talk time and time again through the first game especially about how indoctrination is a subtle thing that takes a long time to work.

[Getorex]

Mass Effect 1 was a superb bit of work. GREAT story, solid intro to the story universe, great pacing, good reveal, solid setup for more. LOVED it. I also thought at the time that it would be a tough act to follow.

Clearly it was because the only things that have improved since are graphics quality and some game mechanics. The STORIES have suffered. The ME3 ending was IRRATIONAL (no way to argue out of that) and totally contrary to everything in the game up to the ending point! ME3's ending even contradicts incidents you CLEARLY experienced just previously in the very same game!

Lots of people who worked at Bioware on ME1 bailed out after ME1. More still bailed out or were shifted around during and after ME2. The fact that many who were there for ME1 were not there subsequent shows. The attrition is most evident in the ending to the ME saga. It was lazy, it was NOT thought out beyond the very VERY cursory level (or they would have spotted the MANY ridiculous self-contradictory aspects of it).

Perhaps the developers are simply tired of Mass Effect and want to do essentially the same work on some other project (no doubt with swords, arrows, magic, and wizards in it...AGAIN). They washed their hands of all things Mass Effect and figured they'd move on to the next thing with the adoration of cheering fans.

Some of us actually think about things. Sure, we can suspend disbelief and ignore the absolute impossibility of Asari mating practice or the idea that aliens can intermix AT ALL. That was easy suspension because the rest was so fun, engrossing, and well laid out. But the slapdash ending went WAY beyond the ability to suspend disbelief. I am not someone who can hold in his mind two thoughts that are DIRECTLY contradictory of each other. They CLASH. One must fall and the other must reign. Bioware figured we'd all be able to completely NOT think, at all, about the endings and just take them on faith. Do NOT think about them. Do NOT think about previous ME games, the codex, basic logic, 1+1 = 2, etc. DON'T DO IT.

Many can't help BUT do this. Thus the ending(s) fail and cannot be dressed up in shiny new shoes and a petticoat.

[Heimdall]

Getorex wrote...

JasmoVT wrote...

99% of the hatred of the endings is based on speculation and assumptions about what the implication of the choices are. Before Bioware wastes resources redesigning the endings, they need to provde epilogues which make clear what the different endings are and what the resulting state of the galaxy, Shepard Normandy and the crew and Shepards love interest is. As they stand I simply do not see how any rational person can decide whether they like them are not. Bioware simply stopped the game three minutes too early and did not tell us what happened.

Really?  You don't see how any rational....?  What is "rational" about "I created synthetics to destroy advanced organics so they wouldn't be destroyed by their own organics"?  Even if you are GENEROUS and expand this to mean the Reapers "harvest" the advanced organic civs and STORES them safely in a Reaper Vault...WHY?  What's the point?  They aren't DOING anything with them but storing their record.  Woohoo!  That makes it good!

What is "rational" about, "Synthetics will always turn on their creators" in the VERY same story where you have TWO solid examples (Geth and EDI) that DIRECTLY contradict that nonsense!  That isn't "rational" on its face and cannot be turned rational.

What is "rational" about the Normandy crashing WITH ALIENS ON BOARD (Tali, Garrus, Liara) on some planet that then, as directly and unquestionably implied by the stargazer and kid sequence at the VERY end, is populated by the children of that Normandy crash?  THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE ON THE NORMANDY TO DO THIS!  The entire planet IS populated by generations of children resulting from brother-sister INCEST.  It cannot be rationalized away!  And Stargazer is answering the kid's question about "what will we find if we ever go back to the stars?" by telling him we MAY find all kinds of different alien civilizations.   WHAT?!  The Normandy crashed with THREE distinct aliens on it, including one (Liara, an Asari) who can mate with literally ANYONE.  Besides the multitudes of incest babies all over the place, there would be MANY Asari all over the place too...unless ALL the aliens died shortly after the crash.  This, in fact, HAD to happen to explain stargazer's answer to the kid's question!  IN ADDITION, the planet cannot be both compatible with humans and Asari AND Turians and Quarians (Garrus and Tali) so they most assuredly DID die soon after the crash.  

Where's the possible rationality in ANY of that?  Fleshing out the ending cannot fix these gaping black holes.  

You are creating plot holes where there are none with your assumptions.

First, the Geth did nearly wipe out their creators, the Reaper's point was that each peace is temporary and eventually synthetics will turn on organics.  EDI is a single entity, not a whole race of synthetics.  Javik actually recounts instances in his time when synthetics did try to wipe out organic life.  There's a great conversation for him on the subject.

They state this quite clearly for you so I'm not sure why you don't get it.  The Reapers don't destroy organic life, they harvest it into Reaper form, preserving it for all time.  If they did not, organics would eventually create a synthetic race capable of wiping out organic life entirely.  Hell, they almost did with project overlord.   Either way, you don't have to accept that the Reaper's logic is true, you just have to give them a reason to stop the cycle, hence the Synthesis ending.

Where are you getting the idea that the stargazer is a descendant of Shepard's crew?  That's an assumption I've never even heard before.  All we know about the stargazer is that it is far into the future, there is no reason to assume the Normandy's crew was never rescued or repaired the ship or to assume that it is even the same planet.

Modifié par Lord Aesir, 23 mars 2012 - 03:27 .

[Getorex]

Lord Aesir wrote...

sangy wrote...

OriginalTibs wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...
What I cannot understand and find frustrating is the sheer hysteria and outrage expressed on these boards towards the endings...

The endings currently entail either Shepard's willing suicide or else massive genocide. They bear a nihilistic philosophical basis one might expect from a Reaper.The philosophical basis of the story these are supposedly to end is anything but about nihilistic futility. Instead the whole series has been based on hope, survival, perseverance, tolerance, liberty (choice), and meaning. As masterfully wrought as these ending versions are, they are not appropriate endings to the story that led up to them. These would serve wonderfully to end a different and much darker series, but not Mass Effect.

It is as if there was a problem with the originally intended ending, whatever that may have been, and to solve that problem efficiently someone unfortunately decided to truncate the game at the point of the indoctrination sequence, and then told the writers/artists to make it work. If true then they did a marvelous job given the limitations imposed.

How is self sacrifice not in line with the philosophical basis of the story?

How is suicide the ONLY end that fits with the story when the entire series objectively shows otherwise?  Sacrifice doesn't equal suicide.  

[Heimdall]

Getorex wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

sangy wrote...

OriginalTibs wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...
What I cannot understand and find frustrating is the sheer hysteria and outrage expressed on these boards towards the endings...

The endings currently entail either Shepard's willing suicide or else massive genocide. They bear a nihilistic philosophical basis one might expect from a Reaper.The philosophical basis of the story these are supposedly to end is anything but about nihilistic futility. Instead the whole series has been based on hope, survival, perseverance, tolerance, liberty (choice), and meaning. As masterfully wrought as these ending versions are, they are not appropriate endings to the story that led up to them. These would serve wonderfully to end a different and much darker series, but not Mass Effect.

It is as if there was a problem with the originally intended ending, whatever that may have been, and to solve that problem efficiently someone unfortunately decided to truncate the game at the point of the indoctrination sequence, and then told the writers/artists to make it work. If true then they did a marvelous job given the limitations imposed.

How is self sacrifice not in line with the philosophical basis of the story?

How is suicide the ONLY end that fits with the story when the entire series objectively shows otherwise?  Sacrifice doesn't equal suicide.  

Who ever said that it was the only ending that fit?  Ultimate self sacrifice is quite within the philosophical basis of the story, that was my point, not that it was the only possible result.

Modifié par Lord Aesir, 23 mars 2012 - 03:29 .

[MDT1]

OK, in this case I have to go the long route to explain why the color doesn't effect the destructivity of the explosion. And I do this in the complexity Bioware obviously intended me to do this:

First: To avoid the embarrassing discussion why the Normandy would chicken out and fly from Earth to Pluto to use the mass relay before the final fight was decided, we assume she uses her normal FTL to escape.
Now as I pointed out, the next solar systems are more than 4 lightyears away, this is an enormos distance you would need generations to fly without FTL.
So we can assume the Normandy is very close to those systems, when its heavily damaged and the engines break away.
This means on the other hand that the explosion she's escaping from, which happend in sol system is still destuctive after spreading over 100.000.000.000 km in free space in every direction.
This also happens in every ending and leavs us only the conclusion that the explosion oblitterated sol system and the following chain reaction every system with a mass relay in it.
Now the ME series gives us data for the systems we can visit someone was kind enough to add up, that at least 65 billion people lived in those systems before the reaper invasion.

Edit: Sry, 100.000.000.000 km would have been after 4 lightdays, 4 lightyears are 37.842.921.890.320km

Modifié par MDT1, 23 mars 2012 - 03:39 .

[Getorex]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Getorex wrote...

JasmoVT wrote...

99% of the hatred of the endings is based on speculation and assumptions about what the implication of the choices are. Before Bioware wastes resources redesigning the endings, they need to provde epilogues which make clear what the different endings are and what the resulting state of the galaxy, Shepard Normandy and the crew and Shepards love interest is. As they stand I simply do not see how any rational person can decide whether they like them are not. Bioware simply stopped the game three minutes too early and did not tell us what happened.

Really?  You don't see how any rational....?  What is "rational" about "I created synthetics to destroy advanced organics so they wouldn't be destroyed by their own organics"?  Even if you are GENEROUS and expand this to mean the Reapers "harvest" the advanced organic civs and STORES them safely in a Reaper Vault...WHY?  What's the point?  They aren't DOING anything with them but storing their record.  Woohoo!  That makes it good!

What is "rational" about, "Synthetics will always turn on their creators" in the VERY same story where you have TWO solid examples (Geth and EDI) that DIRECTLY contradict that nonsense!  That isn't "rational" on its face and cannot be turned rational.

What is "rational" about the Normandy crashing WITH ALIENS ON BOARD (Tali, Garrus, Liara) on some planet that then, as directly and unquestionably implied by the stargazer and kid sequence at the VERY end, is populated by the children of that Normandy crash?  THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE ON THE NORMANDY TO DO THIS!  The entire planet IS populated by generations of children resulting from brother-sister INCEST.  It cannot be rationalized away!  And Stargazer is answering the kid's question about "what will we find if we ever go back to the stars?" by telling him we MAY find all kinds of different alien civilizations.   WHAT?!  The Normandy crashed with THREE distinct aliens on it, including one (Liara, an Asari) who can mate with literally ANYONE.  Besides the multitudes of incest babies all over the place, there would be MANY Asari all over the place too...unless ALL the aliens died shortly after the crash.  This, in fact, HAD to happen to explain stargazer's answer to the kid's question!  IN ADDITION, the planet cannot be both compatible with humans and Asari AND Turians and Quarians (Garrus and Tali) so they most assuredly DID die soon after the crash.  

Where's the possible rationality in ANY of that?  Fleshing out the ending cannot fix these gaping black holes.  

You are creating plot holes where there are none with your assumptions.

First, the Geth did nearly wipe out their creators, the Reaper's point was that each peace is temporary and eventually synthetics will turn on organics.  EDI is a single entity, not a whole race of synthetics.  Javik actually recounts instances in his time when synthetics did try to wipe out organic life.  There's a great conversation for him on the subject.

They state this wuite clearly for you so I'm not sure why you don't get it.  The Reapers don't destroy organic life, they harvest it into Reaper form, preserving it for all time.  If they did not, organics would eventually create a synthetic race capable of wiping out organic life entirely.  Hell, they almost did with project overlord.   Either way, you don't have to accept that the Reaper's logic is true, you just have to give them a reason to stop the cycle, hence the Synthesis ending.

Where are you getting the idea that the stargazer is a descendant of Shepard's crew?  That's an assumption I've never even heard before.  All we know about the stargazer is that it is far into the future, there is no reason to assume the Normandy's crew was never rescued or repaired the ship or to assume that it is even the same planet.

Are you serious?  Stargazer and kid are looking at the exact same sky as the Normandy crew saw when they climbed out of the wrecked Normandy!  There are NO mass relays and NO significant interstellar travel either because of the kid's questions showing otherwise.  Stargazer's answers to the kid's question also demonstrates clearly that they don't know FOR A FACT that there are alien civilizations out there, just that there very well MAY be.  

You are filling in gaping holes with your own unsupported supposition while I am merely using logic based on the words of stargazer himself.  They are not interpretable in any other way.  You either know for a FACT that there are alien civilizations out there because...there were aliens on the Normandy AND one of them was able to breed with anyone (and would thus have blue people all around as direct examples of said aliens)...or you don't know because you've never seen any evidence.  No space travel of any significant extent is going on from this planet, therefore the Normandy crew WERE marooned there.  The people that include stargazer and the kid are the descendents of the Normandy crew.  In just a few generations of such baby-making ALL the people on that planet were brother and sister.  Stargazer is saying the details of Shepard's story are "lost in history" indicating a LONG time has passed.  A long long time without interstellar travel, without any contact with any aliens.  A long history of incest.  Those are automatic and inescapable logical deductions from what is actually there.  There's no filling in the cracks and crevices with hope and nonsense.  The exact words of stargazer provide MORE than enough information to conclude a LOT.

Your filling in for why Reaper synthetic destruction of civilizations when that was NEVER stated also doesn't do anything but make the Reapers out to be the GOOD GUYS and Shepard and crew as the bad guys for opposing them!  The Geth and EDI are DIRECT contradictions of the "law of synthetics" you mention too.  EDI LOVES organics so much she is romantically involved with one!  The Geth and Quarians are holding hands and, until the ENTIRE Quarian fleet (every last ship) was stuck in the Earth system, rebuilding the homeworld in absolute peace and harmony!  The very transformation of the Geth, plus the interaction with Legion, show that there was absolutely NO plan or desire for destruction whatsoever against organics. Finally, the QUARIANS turned on the Geth, NOT the other way around!  Another direct contradiction of the "law of synthetics".

Modifié par Getorex, 23 mars 2012 - 03:40 .