239 réponses à ce sujet

[Heimdall]

MDT1 wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

furryrage59 wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

furryrage59 wrote...

The ending to a trilogy/3 games is quite important.

A poor ending that makes no sense can unravel everything before it, add passionate fans who love the game and you get a lot of upset people.

I don't think they make no sense.

A lot of people including myself think they make no sense, but i'm glad you enjoy teleporting dead team mates and god children.

Seriously, i wish i could like you can.

If there are dead teamates, I'm sure it's a glitch.  The people you charged the beam of light with are not dead.  Coats charged it with you, and he was telling them about how the force was "decimated".  Technically speaking that just means one in ten soldiers died.  It's possible that there was a time gap in one of the three blackouts experienced by Shepard after Harbinger opened fire that was long enough for the squad to fall back and get extracted by the Normandy.  Like I've repeatedly said though, the Normandy part of the ending was the one part I think needs work.

One in ten soldiers died in the most dire situation the live of every advanced organic depends on and the other 9 just turn around?

I don't mean it literally, only to say that not everyone was killed.  Shepard, however, their greatest hope, was apparently killed, so of course they might suffer a sudden drop in morale.  I'm not saying it makes complete sense that they left, only that they aren't dead and it is logistically possible for them to have been extracted.

[MDT1]

Lord Aesir wrote...

MDT1 wrote...


I am saying, that even if the wave that hit the normandy would have consisted of completly normal harmless red/blue/green light, like the light you see on you monitor, when it passed earth it would still have been bright enough to toast it.

Edit: Just imagine yourself sitting in front of a monitor that is 16 million times brighter than yours.

This is where we meet the barrier of not knowing precisely what the wave is.  This is a universe with mass effect fields and FTL.  It's a mysterious discharge of energy that apparently moves at sub-light speeds.  Can you really pretend you have much gronds for applying real world physics to it here?

The point is irrelevant, since it is contradicted by what we see.  Neither earth nor the Normandy are fried by the wave.

We see visible light. Visible light would have had enough energy to toast earth when you can still see it to that scale at this distance.
We didn't see what happened to earth when the relay explosion hit it.
The Normady was so much further away.


Its like taking a sunbath, its nice for a while while you do it on earth, try it on merkur and you are toast.

[vallore]

catabuca wrote...


In ME3, there really is no 'best' or 'correct' or 'real' ending. By not having one path toward complete, happy victory, which most will view as the goal to aim for, or the 'true path,' we're freer to make decisions based on the grounds of ethics, morality, and the type of person we believe our Shepard to be.

It does, however have a nefarious side-effect: if the one ending, (with different flavours and colours) is fated to happen, regardless of the previous choices made by the player. If it all amounts to what a god-like figure allows to happen, in his own terms, then all that the hero strived for is rend pointless.; Very much the point of some Greek plays, I believe, but not what ME
appeared to be about. Certainly I don’t find such very fun to play.

[MDT1]

Lord Aesir wrote...
I don't mean it literally, only to say that not everyone was killed.  Shepard, however, their greatest hope, was apparently killed, so of course they might suffer a sudden drop in morale.  I'm not saying it makes complete sense that they left, only that they aren't dead and it is logistically possible for them to have been extracted.

Again, it might be possible, but it would have made so much more sense to try to reach the beam again instead.

I wont deny that if you work with nearly absurd impossibilities, you can explain ME3's ending up to the point where you see the normandy.
But thats the problem, thas what most people don't find satisfying.
It's ok if you have to chew an improbable explanation once, or twice, it just happens to often during ME3 ending.


And on another topic, some people are also angry because it's just not the end that was advertised for, they said the ending would bring closure and answers, which is somehow the oposit of speculations and questions.

[Heimdall]

MDT1 wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

MDT1 wrote...


I am saying, that even if the wave that hit the normandy would have consisted of completly normal harmless red/blue/green light, like the light you see on you monitor, when it passed earth it would still have been bright enough to toast it.

Edit: Just imagine yourself sitting in front of a monitor that is 16 million times brighter than yours.

This is where we meet the barrier of not knowing precisely what the wave is.  This is a universe with mass effect fields and FTL.  It's a mysterious discharge of energy that apparently moves at sub-light speeds.  Can you really pretend you have much gronds for applying real world physics to it here?

The point is irrelevant, since it is contradicted by what we see.  Neither earth nor the Normandy are fried by the wave.

We see visible light. Visible light would have had enough energy to toast earth when you can still see it to that scale at this distance.
We didn't see what happened to earth when the relay explosion hit it.
The Normady was so much further away.


Its like taking a sunbath, its nice for a while while you do it on earth, try it on merkur and you are toast.

Except that there was no relay explosion.  Treat this as a real world physics problem if you want but when it comes down to it the wave cannot obey the physics as we know it.  Either it doesn't follow physics just like so many things in Mass Effect already don't or it does and you create a whole mess of unnecesary issues and you have to explain why earth isn't destroyed.

Suspension of disbelief.

[Aslanasadi]

Well, the game was very hyped and I admit I got hyped as well. I loved the previous games of the series very much and I was looking forward to play Mass Effect 3. Anyway playing the other games before, I wouldn't have thought, that this game could end in a - for me - personal disappointment. To be honest, if I had known these endings, I wouldn't have bought it.
I didn't expect seeing Shepard leaving into the honeymoon in the end, but I hoped for the option of one more hopeful ending. These are too much alike. Like I said in other threads before:  I don't mind a heroic death as a choice in one playthrough, but also I would have want to see a brighter one in another.

That's what would make me want to play again. Under this circumstances I won't play it again. I have been very depressed about the similar endings and one playthrough is enough. I don't even care about buying DLC's. I see no need in it. I spent money on two CE's and that's enough. 

It's a pity, because besides the endings the game is almost perfect. I enjoyed the journey very much, but the destination ruined it for me. 

Sorry for my English, but it's not my language

[Heimdall]

MDT1 wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...
I don't mean it literally, only to say that not everyone was killed.  Shepard, however, their greatest hope, was apparently killed, so of course they might suffer a sudden drop in morale.  I'm not saying it makes complete sense that they left, only that they aren't dead and it is logistically possible for them to have been extracted.

Again, it might be possible, but it would have made so much more sense to try to reach the beam again instead.

I wont deny that if you work with nearly absurd impossibilities, you can explain ME3's ending up to the point where you see the normandy.
But thats the problem, thas what most people don't find satisfying.
It's ok if you have to chew an improbable explanation once, or twice, it just happens to often during ME3 ending.


And on another topic, some people are also angry because it's just not the end that was advertised for, they said the ending would bring closure and answers, which is somehow the oposit of speculations and questions.

It can be explained without any absurd impossibilities whatsoever up until the Normandy appears as long as you are willing to extend the same suspension of disbelief about physics that has been present throughout the series to the Crucible energy wave. 

Like I said, the Normandy is the only thing I want changed.

Modifié par Lord Aesir, 23 mars 2012 - 07:03 .

[OriginalTibs]

...
Sorry for my English, but it's not my language

You wrote the language well, friend.

[mybudgee]

I think many of us wanted an ending kind of like "Saving private Ryan" with Shep as Tom Hanks, so this discrepancy is causing us frustration...

[vallore]

mybudgee wrote...

I think many of us wanted an ending kind of like "Saving private Ryan" with Shep as Tom Hanks, so this discrepancy is causing us frustration...

As an option, yes, I would agree; but not as the only option either.

[iamthedave3]

Lord Aesir wrote...

iamthedave3 wrote...

That one's more of mechanics being distanced from narrative.

But there is that concern; why does the wave damage the Normandy at all? If it does damage the Normandy, then as MDT says, it ought to have inflicted unspeakable devastation on the allied fleet and earth.

Sooner or later you hit the 'space magic' wall, where you just realize the explosion does whatever is convenient for the narrative.

That's why I don't think it damaged the Normandy.

Then why is there no damage to the Normandy until the wave catches up with it?

The sequence is very clear on this. Wave catches up, Normandy suffers damage. How does that gel with your interpretation?

[Heimdall]

Aslanasadi wrote...

Well, the game was very hyped and I admit I got hyped as well. I loved the previous games of the series very much and I was looking forward to play Mass Effect 3. Anyway playing the other games before, I wouldn't have thought, that this game could end in a - for me - personal disappointment. To be honest, if I had known these endings, I wouldn't have bought it.
I didn't expect seeing Shepard leaving into the honeymoon in the end, but I hoped for the option of one more hopeful ending. These are too much alike. Like I said in other threads before:  I don't mind a heroic death as a choice in one playthrough, but also I would have want to see a brighter one in another.

That's what would make me want to play again. Under this circumstances I won't play it again. I have been very depressed about the similar endings and one playthrough is enough. I don't even care about buying DLC's. I see no need in it. I spent money on two CE's and that's enough. 

It's a pity, because besides the endings the game is almost perfect. I enjoyed the journey very much, but the destination ruined it for me. 

Sorry for my English, but it's not my language

My only argument is that tragic endings lose their punch when there is a better alternative.  Then those ending just become mistakes, the results of bad decision.  Like I said, it's the inevitability that makes them work.

[Heimdall]

iamthedave3 wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

iamthedave3 wrote...

That one's more of mechanics being distanced from narrative.

But there is that concern; why does the wave damage the Normandy at all? If it does damage the Normandy, then as MDT says, it ought to have inflicted unspeakable devastation on the allied fleet and earth.

Sooner or later you hit the 'space magic' wall, where you just realize the explosion does whatever is convenient for the narrative.

That's why I don't think it damaged the Normandy.

Then why is there no damage to the Normandy until the wave catches up with it?

The sequence is very clear on this. Wave catches up, Normandy suffers damage. How does that gel with your interpretation?

The Normandy was damaged, it was the overstressing of the systems that led to the explosions.

[MDT1]

Lord Aesir wrote...

MDT1 wrote...


We see visible light. Visible light would have had enough energy to toast earth when you can still see it to that scale at this distance.
We didn't see what happened to earth when the relay explosion hit it.
The Normady was so much further away.


Its like taking a sunbath, its nice for a while while you do it on earth, try it on merkur and you are toast.

Except that there was no relay explosion.  Treat this as a real world physics problem if you want but when it comes down to it the wave cannot obey the physics as we know it.  Either it doesn't follow physics just like so many things in Mass Effect already don't or it does and you create a whole mess of unnecesary issues and you have to explain why earth isn't destroyed.

Suspension of disbelief.

But it explodes, you can even see it fall apart and then detonate, and as all other systems have a lack of citadels it's the releays that send the waves. And even if it doesn't explode but only emits a wave, a wave that reaches the Normandy at that distance in that scope would still be 16 million times stronger at earth. For the simple reason that it expands in 3 dimensional space and is 16 million times bigger when it reaches the normandy, so whatever form of energy it consits of is 16 million times more thinned out when it reaches the normandy.
And yeah, it is space magic not physics, but the space magic is still at least 16 million times as dense when it reaches earth compared to when it reaches the normandy. And as the space magic obviously contains light, because we can see it and our eyes have only receptors for light and not for space magic, the light would still have been 16 million times brighter at earth.

And I'm not trying to explain the whole mess, I'm just demoonstrating that if you make some logic conclusion under the assumption that ME3's ending makes sense and is consistent, it leads quickly to contradictions.

This implies that my assumption was wrong and ME3's ending doesn't make sense or is consistent.
And again, the developer explicitly wanted us to speculate about the ending.

[catabuca]

vallore wrote...

catabuca wrote...


In ME3, there really is no 'best' or 'correct' or 'real' ending. By not having one path toward complete, happy victory, which most will view as the goal to aim for, or the 'true path,' we're freer to make decisions based on the grounds of ethics, morality, and the type of person we believe our Shepard to be.

It does, however have a nefarious side-effect: if the one ending, (with different flavours and colours) is fated to happen, regardless of the previous choices made by the player. If it all amounts to what a god-like figure allows to happen, in his own terms, then all that the hero strived for is rend pointless.; Very much the point of some Greek plays, I believe, but not what ME
appeared to be about. Certainly I don’t find such very fun to play.

I understand. It's an ending that is at odds with what we've come to expect from the trilogy. I actually just started a thread on something related, if on the off chance you are interested: http://social.biowar.../index/10523700

[Aslanasadi]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Aslanasadi wrote...

Well, the game was very hyped and I admit I got hyped as well. I loved the previous games of the series very much and I was looking forward to play Mass Effect 3. Anyway playing the other games before, I wouldn't have thought, that this game could end in a - for me - personal disappointment. To be honest, if I had known these endings, I wouldn't have bought it.
I didn't expect seeing Shepard leaving into the honeymoon in the end, but I hoped for the option of one more hopeful ending. These are too much alike. Like I said in other threads before:  I don't mind a heroic death as a choice in one playthrough, but also I would have want to see a brighter one in another.

That's what would make me want to play again. Under this circumstances I won't play it again. I have been very depressed about the similar endings and one playthrough is enough. I don't even care about buying DLC's. I see no need in it. I spent money on two CE's and that's enough. 

It's a pity, because besides the endings the game is almost perfect. I enjoyed the journey very much, but the destination ruined it for me. 

Sorry for my English, but it's not my language

My only argument is that tragic endings lose their punch when there is a better alternative.  Then those ending just become mistakes, the results of bad decision.  Like I said, it's the inevitability that makes them work.

I understand that it works for you and it's okay, I respect that. But for me personal it killed my motivation to play again. 

[Sir Fluffykins]

If current endings are the true endings, then they don't make any sense and what happans, exactly, isn't covered.
If Indoctrination Theory is true, ME3 doesn't actually have an ending...which is tragic as this is meant to be the finale.

Which is it? because either way it's painfully apparent there's something missing or wrong with that ending(s)

[Heimdall]

MDT1 wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

MDT1 wrote...


We see visible light. Visible light would have had enough energy to toast earth when you can still see it to that scale at this distance.
We didn't see what happened to earth when the relay explosion hit it.
The Normady was so much further away.


Its like taking a sunbath, its nice for a while while you do it on earth, try it on merkur and you are toast.

Except that there was no relay explosion.  Treat this as a real world physics problem if you want but when it comes down to it the wave cannot obey the physics as we know it.  Either it doesn't follow physics just like so many things in Mass Effect already don't or it does and you create a whole mess of unnecesary issues and you have to explain why earth isn't destroyed.

Suspension of disbelief.

But it explodes, you can even see it fall apart and then detonate, and as all other systems have a lack of citadels it's the releays that send the waves. And even if it doesn't explode but only emits a wave, a wave that reaches the Normandy at that distance in that scope would still be 16 million times stronger at earth. For the simple reason that it expands in 3 dimensional space and is 16 million times bigger when it reaches the normandy, so whatever form of energy it consits of is 16 million times more thinned out when it reaches the normandy.
And yeah, it is space magic not physics, but the space magic is still at least 16 million times as dense when it reaches earth compared to when it reaches the normandy. And as the space magic obviously contains light, because we can see it and our eyes have only receptors for light and not for space magic, the light would still have been 16 million times brighter at earth.

And I'm not trying to explain the whole mess, I'm just demoonstrating that if you make some logic conclusion under the assumption that ME3's ending makes sense and is consistent, it leads quickly to contradictions.

This implies that my assumption was wrong and ME3's ending doesn't make sense or is consistent.
And again, the developer explicitly wanted us to speculate about the ending.

You see a small explosion, that is all.

I think Mass Effect 3's ending makes sense within context.  This is the context of a universe with magic mass effect fields.  It does not have to follow the physics as you insist upon and it only leads to problems when you insist upon it.  You are creating the issues here by insisting.  By your logic, the entire series doesn't make sense because physics gets torn to shred by the very existance of FTL  and magic teleportation ralays.  Reductio ad absurdum.

The developer wants us to speculate but that doesn't mean it  doesn't make sense, it just has to make sense in context and the context I speak of is about the events of the story not physics that apply so selectively in Mass Effect.

I have to go now, so I won't be able to reply for awhile.

[Heimdall]

Also, the wave is not light as you imply. It is moving at sublight speed, implying that is something that give off light rather than light itself.

Which brings us back to not knowing what it is.

[MDT1]

Lord Aesir wrote...

MDT1 wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...
I don't mean it literally, only to say that not everyone was killed.  Shepard, however, their greatest hope, was apparently killed, so of course they might suffer a sudden drop in morale.  I'm not saying it makes complete sense that they left, only that they aren't dead and it is logistically possible for them to have been extracted.

Again, it might be possible, but it would have made so much more sense to try to reach the beam again instead.

I wont deny that if you work with nearly absurd impossibilities, you can explain ME3's ending up to the point where you see the normandy.
But thats the problem, thas what most people don't find satisfying.
It's ok if you have to chew an improbable explanation once, or twice, it just happens to often during ME3 ending.


And on another topic, some people are also angry because it's just not the end that was advertised for, they said the ending would bring closure and answers, which is somehow the oposit of speculations and questions.

It can be explained without any absurd impossibilities whatsoever up until the Normandy appears as long as you are willing to extend the same suspension of disbelief about physics that has been present throughout the series to the Crucible energy wave. 

Like I said, the Normandy is the only thing I want changed.

Simply no.
The moment the starchild introduces itself, I ask myself where it was during ME1.

To let this work you have assume that it sleeps or something.
A more logical assumption would have been that it constantly monitors the galaxy through the relay network, but this simply contradicts ME1.

Next thing, the resaonable reaction to it would be to meet it with a certain value of distrust.
Shepard doesn't, he just accepts everthing the main villain of the entire series tells him.

When the godchild explains his actions, from Shepards point of view and experiences with the geth it would make sense to argue that the starchilds assumption are false.
But Shepard accepts it.

It would make sense to point out that the cycle is an ineffective way to stop synthetics, as
A) Synthetics are created (Geth)
Each civilisation that doesn't emerge in proximity to a relay, could develope and create synthetcs before they find their first relay.
But again, Shepard just accepts everything.

After Arrival you would at least expect Shepard to ask if the destruction of the relay network wouldn't cause a mass genocide, because he can't know it's only different colored space magic, again nothing.

TBH, if the fictory fleet starves to death or not is no plothole, but probable as, with the exception of the quarians perhaps, nobody is prepared for a long journey.

The explosion of the relay network either destroys the systems or is not logically coherent. The first seems extremly dark, the second option is a fail from Bioware if they indeed wanted lots of speculations.

The explosions only depend on war assets, the Crucible is also a war asset, but you can alter the outcome without altering the Crucible, it's war assets can still be the same.

Try to explain how Shepards survival can depend on the fact when Anderson dies.

The Stargazer can be understood as "I just made most of it up to entertain the kid".

Explain the gap between the ME3 ending they advertised for and the ending we got.

I don't say this list is complete, but you would have at least have to explain everything on that list in a consistent satisfying manner to get everyone to like the ending.

Modifié par MDT1, 23 mars 2012 - 07:40 .

[MDT1]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Also, the wave is not light as you imply. It is moving at sublight speed, implying that is something that give off light rather than light itself.

Which brings us back to not knowing what it is.

but the fact that we can see it still implies it radiates it

[Getorex]

Lord Aesir wrote...

MDT1 wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

MDT1 wrote...


We see visible light. Visible light would have had enough energy to toast earth when you can still see it to that scale at this distance.
We didn't see what happened to earth when the relay explosion hit it.
The Normady was so much further away.


Its like taking a sunbath, its nice for a while while you do it on earth, try it on merkur and you are toast.

Except that there was no relay explosion.  Treat this as a real world physics problem if you want but when it comes down to it the wave cannot obey the physics as we know it.  Either it doesn't follow physics just like so many things in Mass Effect already don't or it does and you create a whole mess of unnecesary issues and you have to explain why earth isn't destroyed.

Suspension of disbelief.

But it explodes, you can even see it fall apart and then detonate, and as all other systems have a lack of citadels it's the releays that send the waves. And even if it doesn't explode but only emits a wave, a wave that reaches the Normandy at that distance in that scope would still be 16 million times stronger at earth. For the simple reason that it expands in 3 dimensional space and is 16 million times bigger when it reaches the normandy, so whatever form of energy it consits of is 16 million times more thinned out when it reaches the normandy.
And yeah, it is space magic not physics, but the space magic is still at least 16 million times as dense when it reaches earth compared to when it reaches the normandy. And as the space magic obviously contains light, because we can see it and our eyes have only receptors for light and not for space magic, the light would still have been 16 million times brighter at earth.

And I'm not trying to explain the whole mess, I'm just demoonstrating that if you make some logic conclusion under the assumption that ME3's ending makes sense and is consistent, it leads quickly to contradictions.

This implies that my assumption was wrong and ME3's ending doesn't make sense or is consistent.
And again, the developer explicitly wanted us to speculate about the ending.

You see a small explosion, that is all.

I think Mass Effect 3's ending makes sense within context.  This is the context of a universe with magic mass effect fields.  It does not have to follow the physics as you insist upon and it only leads to problems when you insist upon it.  You are creating the issues here by insisting.  By your logic, the entire series doesn't make sense because physics gets torn to shred by the very existance of FTL  and magic teleportation ralays.  Reductio ad absurdum.

The developer wants us to speculate but that doesn't mean it  doesn't make sense, it just has to make sense in context and the context I speak of is about the events of the story not physics that apply so selectively in Mass Effect.

I have to go now, so I won't be able to reply for awhile.

Sheesh.  Run away before I destroy your argument that "it doesn't have to follow he physics.." blah blah.

Any explosion capable of disassembling the Normandy at such a tremendous distance as it did (how far do you or other defenders of illogic think the Normandy travels at SUPERUMINAL SPEED in the time it was running away from the harmless explosion?!  That explosion was MONSTROUS to affect theNormandy at the distance from ground zero that it did.  You know...SUPERNOVA powerful JUST like in ME2.  

The only magic going on here is NOT biotic magic, but plain magical thinking that has one believe in unicorns and faeries.  The ending DEFIES LOGIC in 100 different ways that magical biotic fields cannot correct.

End. Of. Story.

Like talking to a rock.  Literally.

The sort of thinking that truly thinks this whole thing can be pounded into a self-consistent and "believable" ending is the same thinking that has one believe in a LITERAL Adam and Eve.  GAH!

Modifié par Getorex, 23 mars 2012 - 07:41 .

[Getorex]

Those flash explosions shown in the end when relay after relay DETONATES are nothing but harmless sparkles of faerie dust light. An angel kiss of magic light from every relay. Not a supernova-power explosion as the image actually fits AND as actually matches with the coda provided from ME2.

Magic light flashes and rainbows on a galactic scale.

[Poison_Berrie]

Lord Aesir wrote...

You see a small explosion, that is all.

From each Relay there seems to be an expansion of radiation, which spans several light years. 
Since you seem to think that the relays release all their energy into transfering and releasing this pulse, that would mean its highly energetic. If it has a multi lightyear radius, I dont care what kind of radiation it is it will sterilize part of that distance.

I think Mass Effect 3's ending makes sense within context.  This is the context of a universe with magic mass effect fields.  It does not have to follow the physics as you insist upon and it only leads to problems when you insist upon it.  You are creating the issues here by insisting.  By your logic, the entire series doesn't make sense because physics gets torn to shred by the very existance of FTL  and magic teleportation ralays.  Reductio ad absurdum.

Non-sense. Most things they have done untill now has been universe consistent and except for Element Zero and it properties has not made any great departures from our physics. Element Zero has an in-universe place in physics and is well defined. 
If we are to throw consistency and logic out the window when the other games have tried to remain consistent than we might as well have Shepard regenerate magically after every ending. She transforms into a space ship that brings everyone home in an instant. 

If the Mass Effect games had thrown these things and their own codex into question at every turn, if it made a habit of using strange unexplained super-science to solve all the problems, then you might have had a point. But it's not for the most part Mass Effect tried to keep it's physics grounded and where it didnt it explained and handled it's consequences. 

The idea that everything is fair game, because this is science fiction is an excuse for bad writing and plotholes.

[Vilegrim]

the endings where fine when Ion Storm wrote them for Deus EX.