239 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

OriginalTibs wrote...
The endings currently entail either Shepard's willing suicide or else massive genocide.

And without MP you can have both on the "red" path.

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.

This doesn't  follow. Shepard's willing suicide is simply not futile. And to call willing sacrifice "nihilistic" is just badly confused.

[OriginalTibs]

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.  

You also have the option to make Shepard commit genocide, which is also a contradiction to all that has gone before. Even the arguably genocidal destruction of Saren's cloning facility wasn't genocide, though it did assert a dubious distinction between clones and originals.

The rest of the series entailed sacrifice, but was not about sacrifice. It was about peseverance and hope, courage and duty. It was an affirmation of organic life. These endings are about quitting, surrender, assimilation, subservience, and trinary machine logic.

I believe these endings were originally a marvelous puzzle leading to the climax, not the climax. They were a false ending laced with the forcefully asserted nihilism Harbinger always pushed at Shepard. These were false choices designed to break Shepard, and to trick him into become a willing victim of Harbinger's indoctrination. They were built to look like an ending, and I infer, based on the contradiction in underlying pholosophies that these false endings have been pressed into service because what was planned became for some reason impractical.

Sacrifice does not equal suicide, but neither does suicide equal sacrifice.

[Heimdall]

MDT1 wrote...

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 that 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 sytsem 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.

There's a significant hole in that theory.  We see the energy wave from the Citadel.  It has no destructive effect on the earth unless it's red.  So why then, would it take down the Normandy?  Unless you're trying to say that the Charon Relay exploded much like the Alpha Relay and changed colors just for kicks.  Your idea fails to account for the color change.  Not to mention the Normandy's engines don't break away, the clip on the planet shows the whole ship intact if a little worse for wear.  I always attribute the crash of the Normandy to an overstressing of all systems while trying to get away from the mysterious glowing wave of energy combined with damage from the battle and a burst of energy from the Crucible being the straw that broke the camel's back.

Consider aslo, if the closest stars are 4 lightyears away as you say, there is no way the Normandy could possibly have reach them with a top speed of 12 lightyears per day in FTL.

Also, metagame for just a moment.  There is no point in even having seperate endings if the genocide idea is correct.  Regardless of what you think of Bioware, they aren't going to give you three options to save the galaxy and then destroy it.

[Getorex]

OriginalTibs wrote...

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.  

You also have the option to make Shepard commit genocide, which is also a contradiction to all that has gone before. Even the arguably genocidal destruction of Saren's cloning facility wasn't genocide, though it did assert a dubious distinction between clones and originals.

The rest of the series entailed sacrifice, but was not about sacrifice. It was about peseverance and hope, courage and duty. It was an affirmation of organic life. These endings are about quitting, surrender, assimilation, subservience, and trinary machine logic.

I believe these endings were originally a marvelous puzzle leading to the climax, not the climax. They were a false ending laced with the forcefully asserted nihilism Harbinger always pushed at Shepard. These were false choices designed to break Shepard, and to trick him into become a willing victim of Harbinger's indoctrination. They were built to look like an ending, and I infer, based on the contradiction in underlying pholosophies that these false endings have been pressed into service because what was planned became for some reason impractical.

Sacrifice does not equal suicide, but neither does suicide equal sacrifice.

Perhaps...and believable.  But is it true?  I don't know and we'll see how Bioware digs their way out of this, IF they do.  

Suicide USUALLY is just giving up.  It RARELY has anything to do with some great sacrifice and then it is usually not the intended outcome, but just incidental.

My Shepard doesn't do suicide anymore than I do.

[Getorex]

Lord Aesir wrote...

MDT1 wrote...

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 that 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 sytsem 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.

There's a significant hole in that theory.  We see the energy wave from the Citadel.  It has no destructive effect on the earth unless it's red.  So why then, would it take down the Normandy?  Unless you're trying to say that the Charon Relay exploded much like the Alpha Relay and changed colors just for kicks.  Your idea fails to account for the color change.  Not to mention the Normandy's engines don't break away, the clip on the planet shows the whole ship intact if a little worse for wear.  I always attribute the crash of the Normandy to an overstressing of all systems while trying to get away from the mysterious glowing wave of energy combined with damage from the battle and a burst of energy from the Crucible being the straw that broke the camel's back.

Consider aslo, if the closest stars are 4 lightyears away as you say, there is no way the Normandy could possibly have reach them with a top speed of 12 lightyears per day in FTL.

Also, metagame for just a moment.  There is no point in even having seperate endings if the genocide idea is correct.  Regardless of what you think of Bioware, they aren't going to give you three options to save the galaxy and then destroy it.

Synthesis...apparently you convert humans and synthetics into an amalgam of both, the best of both, via mere radio transmission.  No direct contact necessary, just transmission of a magic signal through the relays.

This is considered THE pinnacle of evolution by starbrat.  So...why didn't he just send the signal way way WAY back when and skip the entire destruction cycles entirely?  Saves a lot of pain and suffering and skips right to the penultimate evolutionary tippytop to boot (according to His Toddlerness).

[OriginalTibs]

AlanC9 wrote...

OriginalTibs wrote...
The endings currently entail either Shepard's willing suicide or else massive genocide.

And without MP you can have both on the "red" path.

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.

This doesn't  follow. Shepard's willing suicide is simply not futile. And to call willing sacrifice "nihilistic" is just badly confused.

That wasn't willing self-sacrifice, that was unwilling self sacrifice. Shepard would have sought another way but another way wasn't present in the puzzle: it was a Kobayashi Maru scenario set up to break Shepard.

Willing sacrifice isn't nihilistic: that was your construct presented as if I said it. Futility and despair are nihilistic, and contradict the main story.

Even the vision of false hope at the end where your team and LI emerge from the crashed Normandy is (currently) preposterous when they were by your side at the Hammer forward base.

Given the historically wonderful artistry of Bioware's writing, how can any thoughtful player imagine they would have chosen these as final endings? These endings appear to me cobbled together to try and cauterize the wound left by a meataxe of a business decision. 

[GoddessLunatic]

Lord Aesir wrote...

GoddessLunatic wrote...

If you liked the endings, fine. But a great number of people did not, that's just a fact. Me included. What I'm fighting for is a solution that will make both sides happy, which in my opinion is a DLC. People can skip it if they liked the ending, people who want it can pay for it. Simple. But arguing that nothing should be done just because you don't share the opinion that the ending wasn't what it should be is unfair.

GoddessLunatic, if you are going to post in a thread I'd appreciate it if you read the original post.  I never said the endings were perfect or that no additions should be made.  I don't think there should be any new endings, but that is not the point of this thread and I never argued that nothing should be done.

I did read. You said that you don't understand why people are so up in arms about this and that it bothers you that people create such a stir. Me, I was trying to say that the obsession can be channelled into constructive outcomes and that you should understand that while you yourself are not that angry to obsess over the ending it's not your place to tell people how to react. Sorry if I didn't word that clear enough. 

[OriginalTibs]

Getorex wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

MDT1 wrote...

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 that 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 sytsem 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.

There's a significant hole in that theory.  We see the energy wave from the Citadel.  It has no destructive effect on the earth unless it's red.  So why then, would it take down the Normandy?  Unless you're trying to say that the Charon Relay exploded much like the Alpha Relay and changed colors just for kicks.  Your idea fails to account for the color change.  Not to mention the Normandy's engines don't break away, the clip on the planet shows the whole ship intact if a little worse for wear.  I always attribute the crash of the Normandy to an overstressing of all systems while trying to get away from the mysterious glowing wave of energy combined with damage from the battle and a burst of energy from the Crucible being the straw that broke the camel's back.

Consider aslo, if the closest stars are 4 lightyears away as you say, there is no way the Normandy could possibly have reach them with a top speed of 12 lightyears per day in FTL.

Also, metagame for just a moment.  There is no point in even having seperate endings if the genocide idea is correct.  Regardless of what you think of Bioware, they aren't going to give you three options to save the galaxy and then destroy it.

Synthesis...apparently you convert humans and synthetics into an amalgam of both, the best of both, via mere radio transmission.  No direct contact necessary, just transmission of a magic signal through the relays.

This is considered THE pinnacle of evolution by starbrat.  So...why didn't he just send the signal way way WAY back when and skip the entire destruction cycles entirely?  Saves a lot of pain and suffering and skips right to the penultimate evolutionary tippytop to boot (according to His Toddlerness).

That is an easy one: starchild said it was only now possible because  of what the Allies achieved with Shepard, but it would require both Shep and the Reapers to achieve it.

Synthesis is the single best solution, but unfortunately Shepard wouldn't have killed himself to do it. He shouldn't have needed to. He should simply have been 'read', just like the Prothean VI did. But that wasn't present as an option because the object wasn't to achieve an out-of-control condition, the object was to break Shepard's will with futility.

[Heimdall]

Getorex wrote...
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. 

That only proves that they are isolated.  It does not prove anything about the descendants of the Normandy crew.  The sky is also not the same.  Even if it is, all that proves is that there is a settlement on the same planet the Normandy crashed on at a later date.  Possibly even at the before they landed on it, there was a settlement.  It wouldn't be surprising given what a green and verdant world it was.

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're the one using a grandfther's story to his young grandchild as proof.  I simply don't take it as gospel truth nor do I believe it has the implications you attach to it. 

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.

  You're relying on even more supposition than you claim I am.  The stargazer never doubts the existance of alien life, he only comments on the endless possibilities what one might find in the galaxy.  Pay close attention to his actual words. 

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.

To assume a lot you mean?

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".

Do you actually read my posts?  I have only stated what the Catalyst told you quite directly.  I also told you it doesn't matter if Shepard agrees with the Reapers.  In fact, if you disagree you can take the red or the blue option and get rid of them or make them do what you want.  The green option removes their reason for objection.  Also, the quarians aren't stranded.

And what "laws of synthetics" are you refering to? You're beginning to sound hysteric.  I never made any claim that the Reapers were right, only that there was precedant in the Mass Effect universe for this mode of thinking.

[Heimdall]

GoddessLunatic wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

GoddessLunatic wrote...

If you liked the endings, fine. But a great number of people did not, that's just a fact. Me included. What I'm fighting for is a solution that will make both sides happy, which in my opinion is a DLC. People can skip it if they liked the ending, people who want it can pay for it. Simple. But arguing that nothing should be done just because you don't share the opinion that the ending wasn't what it should be is unfair.

GoddessLunatic, if you are going to post in a thread I'd appreciate it if you read the original post.  I never said the endings were perfect or that no additions should be made.  I don't think there should be any new endings, but that is not the point of this thread and I never argued that nothing should be done.

I did read. You said that you don't understand why people are so up in arms about this and that it bothers you that people create such a stir. Me, I was trying to say that the obsession can be channelled into constructive outcomes and that you should understand that while you yourself are not that angry to obsess over the ending it's not your place to tell people how to react. Sorry if I didn't word that clear enough. 

I understand why people are upset, I just think the sheer vehemence is unwarranted and does them no credit, detracting from their own points and coming across as hysterical.

[MDT1]

Lord Aesir wrote...

MDT1 wrote...

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 that 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 sytsem 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.

There's a significant hole in that theory.  We see the energy wave from the Citadel.  It has no destructive effect on the earth unless it's red.  So why then, would it take down the Normandy?  Unless you're trying to say that the Charon Relay exploded much like the Alpha Relay and changed colors just for kicks.  Your idea fails to account for the color change.  Not to mention the Normandy's engines don't break away, the clip on the planet shows the whole ship intact if a little worse for wear.  I always attribute the crash of the Normandy to an overstressing of all systems while trying to get away from the mysterious glowing wave of energy combined with damage from the battle and a burst of energy from the Crucible being the straw that broke the camel's back.

The citadel didn't explode completley, the relays do, the same way, in every ending, except for the color.
It
is obvious that the Citadel wave can not be the reason the normandy
flees, as, if you have enough ems, it leavs earth undamaged. But yes, you only see how the engins explode when the wave reaches the normandy.
Its still save to asume that FTL capacity is gone, the Normandy wouldn't just crash somewhere if the engine would still work. So the Normandy would still be hit near another system.
The rest is simple physics. If its able to cause damage over such a distence, the energy set loose in its origin must be enormous.

Consider aslo, if the closest stars are 4 lightyears away as you say, there is no way the Normandy could possibly have reach them with a top speed of 12 lightyears per day in FTL.

Congratulations, you have found a plothole in the the only logical reasoning the ending alows us, thus a contradiction in the ending itself.

Also, metagame for just a moment.  There is no point in even having seperate endings if the genocide idea is correct.  Regardless of what you think of Bioware, they aren't going to give you three options to save the galaxy and then destroy it.

And yes it changes colors just for kicks, thats for many people one of the main reasons the ending istn't good, because its more or less only one ending.

Modifié par MDT1, 23 mars 2012 - 04:09 .

[Heimdall]

MDT1 wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

MDT1 wrote...

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 that 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 sytsem 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.

There's a significant hole in that theory.  We see the energy wave from the Citadel.  It has no destructive effect on the earth unless it's red.  So why then, would it take down the Normandy?  Unless you're trying to say that the Charon Relay exploded much like the Alpha Relay and changed colors just for kicks.  Your idea fails to account for the color change.  Not to mention the Normandy's engines don't break away, the clip on the planet shows the whole ship intact if a little worse for wear.  I always attribute the crash of the Normandy to an overstressing of all systems while trying to get away from the mysterious glowing wave of energy combined with damage from the battle and a burst of energy from the Crucible being the straw that broke the camel's back.

The citadel didn't explode completley, the relays do, the same way, in every ending, except for the color.
It
is obvious that the Citadel wave can not be the reason the normandy
flees, as, if you have enough ems, it leavs earth undamaged. But yes, you only see how the engins explode when the wave reaches the normandy.
Its still save to asume that FTL capacity is gone, the Normandy wouldn't just crash somewhere if the engine would still work. So the Normandy would still be hit near another system.
The rest is simple physics. If its able to cause damage over such a distence, the energy set loose in its origin must be enormous.

Consider aslo, if the closest stars are 4 lightyears away as you say, there is no way the Normandy could possibly have reach them with a top speed of 12 lightyears per day in FTL.

Congratulation, you have found another plothole in the the only logical reasoning the ending alows us., thus a contradiction in the ending itself.

Also, metagame for just a moment.  There is no point in even having seperate endings if the genocide idea is correct.  Regardless of what you think of Bioware, they aren't going to give you three options to save the galaxy and then destroy it.

And yes it changes colors just for kicks, thats for many people one of the main reasons the ending istn't good, because its more or less only one ending.

It's only a plot hole because you insist on making it one.  If the energy from the relays is merely coopted then it makes for vastly different implications for life in the galaxy.  That was the entire point of my first post, some these grievances are not real, they are based off misinterpretation.  The relays did not destroy entire star systems when they exploded, that is the sole rational conclusion unless you are outright searching for a reason to complain.  The explosions appear to change color because they were no explosions at all, merely extensions of the crucible energy pulse.

Also, there's no reason to assume that FTL capacity is gone or that the engines cannot be repaired.  The crew could repair it after crashing on the Collector base after all.

Like I said though, the Normandy scene is the one thing I wish they had done differently.

Modifié par Lord Aesir, 23 mars 2012 - 04:14 .

[Prince Keldar]

Lord Aesir wrote...

I can fully understand why one might not be completly satisfied with the endings.  I count myself amongst those that where content with them for the most part.

What I cannot understand and find frustrating is the sheer hysteria and outrage expressed on these boards towards the endings.  I can understand claiming you were mislead by the idea of every choice allowing you to construct your ending.  Some of you might have been dissapointed that it translated into the war asset system, but I hardly think claiming bioware knowingly attempted to outright decieve you is merited.  Consider also that the level of control you had in the ending of Mass Effect 3 was greater than the previous two games.  In Mass Effect we had a single choice between two alternatives, saving or killing the council.  In Mass Effect 2 we had a similar choice between destroying or saving the Collector Base.  In Mass Effect 3 we had three choices, really, this is a repeat of what Bioware has been doing all along.  If choice was your complaint you should have brought it up in Mass Effect.

Others complain about the tragic nature of the endings.  Really, I would have been more dissapointed by the presence of a happy rainbows and sunshine ending.  A magic button that annihilated the Reapers and nothing else would have rendered the Crucible an even worse Deus Ex Machina then it already is.  It is the inevitable nature of each ending that makes them work as tragedy and reinforces the idea that the Reapers can't be defeated without sacrifice, which Shepard isn't immune to.  A "Happy" ending renders them simple mistakes that could have been avoided.

Some complaints focus on the Normandy's portion of the ending.  Admittedly, this is the one portion I wish they had done differently, but I really don't think this scene matters very much.  The point is that your crew is alive and kicking, having survived the Reaper war and now they can help rebuild.

That brings me to my last point, some have focused off the incorrect assertion that the allied fleet is stranded in Sol and that this will lead to a war over resources.  This is simply untrue.  First of all, they still have FTL.  It may take years, decades for the quarians and geth, but all of them can return home.  Their ships will just need expanded fuel reserves and possibly the equipment to refine fuel.  No doubt the quarians can help with that, and the crucible brought with it the galaxy's finest engineers.  There will be no food shortage.  The Reapers focused on population centers, so it stands to reason that most of the Earth's farmland is intact.  The quarians have giant agri-ships for this purpose as well and could probably feed both themselves and the turians given that they left the civilians at home.  The geth don't need food.  The turians would think of something if the quarians aren't there I suppose.  The high casualties of the fleet and the reduced population of the earth actually helps in this regard.  As for raw materials, they have an entire solar system and lots of wreckage to salvage from, they'll be fine.  Actually a scenario I plan on using for a post-ME3 fanfiction is the allied fleet harvesting advanced FTL tech from Reaper corpses (They did cruise in from dark space after all), but that's just a single wild possibility.  The point is that they are far from doomed, it's just going to take them awhile to get home.

Also, the galaxy isn't destroyed.  The energy of the relays was coopted into the benign (Unless you chose destruction) energy wave of the crucible rather than exploding outward and obliterating star systems, hence why the color of the "Explosions" changed with each ending.

I'm just trying to express why the outrage has me flustered.  Offer your two cents at your leisure.

Chris Hudson??? Is that you??? lol  It is just that we're so passionate about this series.  Bioware has done something remarkable with Mass Effect.  It has made people care about these characters.  The way that the game ends is not the way you end a trilogy. 

[Martin the Warrior]

OriginalTibs wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

OriginalTibs wrote...
The endings currently entail either Shepard's willing suicide or else massive genocide.

And without MP you can have both on the "red" path.

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.

This doesn't  follow. Shepard's willing suicide is simply not futile. And to call willing sacrifice "nihilistic" is just badly confused.

That wasn't willing self-sacrifice, that was unwilling self sacrifice. Shepard would have sought another way but another way wasn't present in the puzzle: it was a Kobayashi Maru scenario set up to break Shepard.

Willing sacrifice isn't nihilistic: that was your construct presented as if I said it. Futility and despair are nihilistic, and contradict the main story.

Even the vision of false hope at the end where your team and LI emerge from the crashed Normandy is (currently) preposterous when they were by your side at the Hammer forward base.

Given the historically wonderful artistry of Bioware's writing, how can any thoughtful player imagine they would have chosen these as final endings? These endings appear to me cobbled together to try and cauterize the wound left by a meataxe of a business decision. 

I didn't get a sense of futility or despair at the end of ME3. I'm not an expert on the endings, and even for the one I picked, I could probably get a better sense of what was going on if I watched the cutscene again. However, I think what's going on among the fans right now is a clash of worldviews. Some people think that death automatically equals doom, futility and nihilism, therefore Shepard's death means he must have been indoctrinated and the Reapers won. I disagree with this; it seemed to me like Shepard's final sacrifice was what stopped the Reapers once and for all. I see nothing nihilistic about Shepard giving his life so that trillions more might have a chance to live. Maybe I simply chose a different ending than you did.

But I agree that it would help a great deal if we could see how our team got from the Hammer forward base to the Normandy.

EDIT: Lord Aesir, thank you for that OP; it summed up my feelings on ME3's ending quite well.

Modifié par Martin the Warrior, 23 mars 2012 - 04:20 .

[MDT1]

Lord Aesir wrote...

It's only a plot hole because you insist on making it one.  If the energy from the relays is merely coopted then it makes for vastly different implications for life in the galaxy.  That was the entire point of my first post, some these grievances are not real, they are based off misinterpretation.  The relays did not destroy entire star systems when they exploded, that is the sole rational conclusion unless you are outright searching for a reason to complain.  The explosions appear to change color because they were no explosions at all, merely extensions of the crucible energy pulse.

Also, there's no reason to assume that FTL capacity is gone or that the engines cannot be repaired.  The crew could repair it after crashing on the Collector base after all.

Again Mac Walters notes about the ending state they wanted us to speculate, and they also use this as excuse for the ending we got.
I wont apologize for using basic physics and logical conclusions in my speculations.

Sure, Bioware intended to change the destructivity by using space magic, but they escaping normandy scene unfortunatley contradicts this. They just did a poor job.

And I'm not even talking about the implications the existence of the godchild causes for the story arc of ME1.
Or why Shepard just buys everything without beeing given a single reason to do so.
This could as well have been the first 3 things that came to his mind to make Shepard commit suicide.
Or why Shepard didn't ask simple questions like "why not just kill the synthetics instead?".

This is exactly what people complain about, the ending is a sequence of plotholes and inconsistencies when you think about it. If you want spceulation make it consistent.

If not give us the ending you actually advertised for, you know, the one full of answers and closure.

Modifié par MDT1, 23 mars 2012 - 04:26 .

[OriginalTibs]

Martin the Warrior wrote...
...
I didn't get a sense of futility or despair at the end of ME3. I'm not an expert on the endings, and even for the one I picked, I could probably get a better sense of what was going on if I watched the cutscene again. However, I think what's going on among the fans right now is a clash of worldviews. Some people think that death automatically equals doom, futility and nihilism, therefore Shepard's death means he must have been indoctrinated and the Reapers won. I disagree with this; it seemed to me like Shepard's final sacrifice was what stopped the Reapers once and for all. I see nothing nihilistic about Shepard giving his life so that trillions more might have a chance to live. Maybe I simply chose a different ending than you did.

But I agree that it would help a great deal if we could see how our team got from the Hammer forward base to the Normandy.

EDIT: Lord Aesir, thank you for that OP; it summed up my feelings on ME3's ending quite well.

I'm happy that you were able to find the ending satisfactory, and certainly I don't wish to damage that.

I thought they were marvelously crafted, but was made uneasy because of a discord between the end and the balance of the saga. Thinking about it I found it likely that it wasn't a matter of artists choosing an end for their tale, but something else that dictated an end that violates their artistic integrity, and I do not wish to support the thought that business decisions should take an axe to art, then walk away demanding the artists clean up his or her mess.

If I am mistaken and the writers chose this as the ending out of artistry, then I have to admit I was simply not equal to the task of following their twist. If, however, it was EA, or especially if it were Bioware who should have known better, who took an axe to the story, then I consider that a significant betrayal of Art (capital intended) has occurred and should be dissed.

Was it Michaelangelo taking a pickaxe to the David? No. But it was a tragedy nonetheless. YMMV.

Modifié par OriginalTibs, 23 mars 2012 - 04:37 .

[Heimdall]

MDT1 wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

It's only a plot hole because you insist on making it one.  If the energy from the relays is merely coopted then it makes for vastly different implications for life in the galaxy.  That was the entire point of my first post, some these grievances are not real, they are based off misinterpretation.  The relays did not destroy entire star systems when they exploded, that is the sole rational conclusion unless you are outright searching for a reason to complain.  The explosions appear to change color because they were no explosions at all, merely extensions of the crucible energy pulse.

Also, there's no reason to assume that FTL capacity is gone or that the engines cannot be repaired.  The crew could repair it after crashing on the Collector base after all.

Again Mac Walters notes about the ending state they wanted us to speculate, and they also use this as excuse for the ending we got.
I wont apologize for using basic physics and logical conclusions in my speculations.

Sure, Bioware intended to change the destructivity by using space magic, but they escaping normandy scene unfortunatley contradicts this. They just did a poor job.

And I'm not even talking about the implications the existence of the godchild causes for the story arc of ME1.
Or why Shepard just buys everything without beeing given a single reason to do so.
This could as well have been the first 3 things that came to his mind to make Shepard commit suicide.
Or why Shepard didn't ask simple questions like "why not just kill the synthetics instead?".

This is exactly what people complain about, the ending is a sequence of plotholes and inconsistencies when you think about it. If you want spceulation make it consistent.

If not give us the ending you actually advertised for, you know, the one full of answers and closure.

I already gave you an explanation that explains the apparent Normandy contradiction.

That first question is actually answered by the Catalyst itself.  Organics inevitably create synthetics.  So you'll have to try again.

I have given an explanation that makes the ending consistant without genocide and without strange indoctrination theories.  So I don't really feel a problem with plotholes.

[OmegaBlue0231]

I would have liked at least one sunshine and rainbows ending instead of three dark, "Galactic life is over as we know it because it takes decades to reach another world" endings that we got. At least give us the option instead of three endings that are the same.

[Pride Demon]

MDT1 wrote...

*snip*
The citadel didn't explode completley, the relays do, the same way, in every ending, except for the color.
*snip*

>>SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS<<
>>Read the post at your own risk<<
>>Jump to the end to avoid spoiling<<






This is just a clarification on this point...
Actually in both the Green "synthetize" and the Red "destroy" ending the Citadel is shown blowing up, with several wards coming off, even if we didn't see it obliterated, it's safe to assume it's gone... The relays are shown as recieving the beam from the crucible, beaming it in turn and then blowing up...

In the Blue "control" ending however, not only the Citadel is left apparently completely intact (we see it closing the wards), but the relays appear to only be damaged insted of completely destroyed: unlike the other relay scenes we see them getting overstressed with power, but not exploding afterwards. So it could be inferred, since the Citadel is more or less intact and the relays not totally destroyed, that they can be repaired (especially considering the reapers who built them are now apparently controlled by Shepard).

This is how I got it anyway...





>>SPOILER END HERE<<

Sorry for the spoiler, but I really couldn't respond to this without them... :/

Modifié par Pride Demon, 23 mars 2012 - 04:50 .

[Heimdall]

Pride Demon wrote...

MDT1 wrote...

*snip*
The citadel didn't explode completley, the relays do, the same way, in every ending, except for the color.
*snip*

>>SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS<<
>>Read the post at your own risk<<
>>Jump to the end to avoid spoiling<<






This is just a clarification on this point...
Actually in both the Green "synthetize" and the Red "destroy" ending the Citadel is shown blowing up, with several wards coming off, even if we didn't see it obliterated, it's safe to assume it's gone... The relays are shown as recieving the beam from the crucible, beaming it in turn and then blowing up...

In the Blue "control" ending however, not only the Citadel is left apparently completely intact (we see it closing the wards), but the relays appear to only be damaged insted of completely destroyed: unlike the other relay scenes we see them getting overstressed with power, but not exploding afterwards. So it could be inferred, since the Citadel is more or less intact and the relays not totally destroyed, that they can be repaired (especially considering the reapers who built them are now apparently controlled by Shepard).

This is how I got it anyway...





>>SPOILER END HERE<<

Sorry for the spoiler, but I really couldn't respond to this without them... :/

Possibly, but the Catalyst says that no matter the choice the burst from the crucible will destroy the relays.

[Heimdall]

OmegaBlue0231 wrote...

I would have liked at least one sunshine and rainbows ending instead of three dark, "Galactic life is over as we know it because it takes decades to reach another world" endings that we got. At least give us the option instead of three endings that are the same.

They aren't the same.  Each has vastly different implications for the galaxy at large.  Also, decades is only the time it'll take to get across the galaxy, like from Earth to Rannoch.  One could probably go from Earth to Tuchanka in under a decade

[iamthedave3]

Lord Aesir wrote...

That first question is actually answered by the Catalyst itself.  Organics inevitably create synthetics.  So you'll have to try again.

I have given an explanation that makes the ending consistant without genocide and without strange indoctrination theories.  So I don't really feel a problem with plotholes.

The Catalyst's logic is ass-backwards at best.

The reapers/catalyst freely admit to using their tech to manipulate the way the universe's organics develop. So in other words they know organics always create synthetics because they manipulate organics in such a way as to insure that they make synthetics. Is this how it works? You could argue not, but it's a logical extrapolation from what the reapers say and it goes unchallenged in the narrative.

But then the catalyst makes an insane jump to 'synthetic life will inevitably annihilate all organic life in the universe' despite the fact the only significant case of such violence in this cycle was caused by the creators attacking their creations and during the events of the game it's possible to settle the conflicts with all aggressive synthetics in the universe.

Oh, and the Geth from the first game were aggressive because of direct intervention from the reapers.

And this is the logic that drives the endings, which must be accurate for any of those events to make even one iota of sense. That does follow the standard definition of a plot hole.

The relay explosions are a definitive plot hole. We have seen one explode, we know the consequences of this. There is no explanation of why this would be any different. You can provide an explanation yourself, but that doesn't stop it being a plot hole, because the narrative contradicts itself.

The ground team teleporting to the normandy is a plot hole.

The normandy fleeing the greatest battle of its time is a plot hole. It goes against every piece of characterization that has occurred for every character on that ship across three games.

Can you ignore the plot holes? Yes. You can just shrug and accept them. but don't pretend they aren't there.

[MDT1]

Lord Aesir wrote...

MDT1 wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

It's only a plot hole because you insist on making it one.  If the energy from the relays is merely coopted then it makes for vastly different implications for life in the galaxy.  That was the entire point of my first post, some these grievances are not real, they are based off misinterpretation.  The relays did not destroy entire star systems when they exploded, that is the sole rational conclusion unless you are outright searching for a reason to complain.  The explosions appear to change color because they were no explosions at all, merely extensions of the crucible energy pulse.

Also, there's no reason to assume that FTL capacity is gone or that the engines cannot be repaired.  The crew could repair it after crashing on the Collector base after all.

Again Mac Walters notes about the ending state they wanted us to speculate, and they also use this as excuse for the ending we got.
I wont apologize for using basic physics and logical conclusions in my speculations.

Sure, Bioware intended to change the destructivity by using space magic, but they escaping normandy scene unfortunatley contradicts this. They just did a poor job.

And I'm not even talking about the implications the existence of the godchild causes for the story arc of ME1.
Or why Shepard just buys everything without beeing given a single reason to do so.
This could as well have been the first 3 things that came to his mind to make Shepard commit suicide.
Or why Shepard didn't ask simple questions like "why not just kill the synthetics instead?".

This is exactly what people complain about, the ending is a sequence of plotholes and inconsistencies when you think about it. If you want spceulation make it consistent.

If not give us the ending you actually advertised for, you know, the one full of answers and closure.

I already gave you an explanation that explains the apparent Normandy contradiction.

No, you have only said that the explosion was altered by using spacemagic and contradicts simple physic laws:
The surface of a sphere is 4*pi*radius²( approximatly 12*radius²).
Now as explained the Normandy was more than 30.000.000 million km away from pluto relay.
Pluto is at most 7.500 million Km away from Earth.
So when the explosion hit Earth the energy was evenly spread over a surface of 675.000.000 trillion km², when it hit the Normandy 10.800.000.000.000.000 trillion km².
So whatever hit the normandy it was 16.000.000 times stronger when it passed Earth.

That first question is actually answered by the Catalyst itself.  Organics inevitably create synthetics.  So you'll have to try again.

This was actually the last question, and no, killing the organics obviously does not prevent synhthetics from beeing created as the Geth are over hundered years old. And on top of that nearly as peacful as Ghandi, which somehow contradicts the need for the cycle at all.

I have given an explanation that makes the ending consistant without genocide and without strange indoctrination theories.  So I don't really feel a problem with plotholes.

I envy you if you can ignore the plotholes, I unfortunately can't.

Modifié par MDT1, 23 mars 2012 - 05:08 .

[iamthedave3]

And a further, gaping, bleeding plothole: the reapers only harvest organic life, and leave synthetics alone.

So what's to stop the Geth - if they weren't peaceful (not that this doesn't plant demolition charges on the ending logic enough) - from advancing to the point that they purge the galaxy of all organic life?

Why don't the reapers come back to destroy synthetic life and leave organic life alone? Organics aren't the actual problem here, SYNTHETICS ARE.