429 réponses à ce sujet

[Madecologist]

Except in Xenosaga 3, by beating 'the final boss' you prove you might have the will and power to stop the universe from collapsing on itself. So there is still some hope that Shion and Co will find a means to save the universe.

As for this topic, the answer would be yes. The Reapers are gone forever (hopefully... Control has me Leary), and the current races have a chance to survive. So you still have Asari, Salarian, Krogans, and Humans instead of another cycle with a 50K clock ticking away.

[Calamity]

Lankist wrote...

If they're dead-set on galactic dark ages, it needs to be established and cemented in the player's mind that the story is heading in that direction from the get-go.

There was a lot more "we're going to save the day and then get drinks!" talk in all three games (particularly ME3) than there rightfully should have been were this the planned to be the definitive conclusion.

How to leave a fictional world on a satisfactory note:

Awesome, nigh-utopian world --> Is changed further for the better / Revealed to be flawed and flaws confronted or completely expelled.

Crapsack world --> Is improved greatly, though still not perfect.

Hopelessly depressive world --> The world still sucks, but it's a tiny bit better thanks to the hero.

Mass Effect 3 ended with the world in worse shape than it began, which is why it is fundamentally unsatisfactory. You did more damage to the galaxy than the Reapers did, and the "Dark Age" is plainly your fault, which not only diminishes the lives of existing species but all of the species the Reapers WEREN'T going to obliterate this time around.

Well put! ^5

[Esquin]

AxisEvolve wrote...

I'm fine with the dark age. A high price can, and should be payed for stopping the Reapers.  But I don't think we paid a high price.  The Protheans were more advanced than us and their war raged for centuries. How long did our cycle's last? A year? Come on... they could have made several more games out of the Reapers. What this is about is sacrificing storytelling just to conclude a trilogy. It could have been something much greater.. but again, TRILOGY. 

Yeah. The ending should have been either losing. Doing something to totally destroy everything and give the next cycle a chance. Or win a victory at Earth of varying levels of success but with the reapers only weakened and not defeated. So just saying "Now we can win. We haven't yet, but we probably will. Oh and Shep is dead."

[AxisEvolve]

Esquin wrote...

Yeah. The ending should have been either losing. Doing something to totally destroy everything and give the next cycle a chance. Or win a victory at Earth of varying levels of success but with the reapers only weakened and not defeated. So just saying "Now we can win. We haven't yet, but we probably will. Oh and Shep is dead."

I would have taken the losing option and fought to live another day. Bioware has a great formula created with the Mass Effect world. I think it's too soon to throw that away. But I am but an egg. I have no idea what is coming next. 

[Warhawk7137]

Link to a thread I started a while back addressing this.

Modifié par Warhawk7137, 23 mars 2012 - 08:44 .

[Calamity]

I was expecting to beat the reapers on earth, then each of the other systems in DLC. They definitely would have gotten their DLC $$s then

[Tregon]

Ser Bard wrote...

Which is just another reason to hate that cut scene, it makes no sense that space travel isn't possible. Yeah FLT is much slower and what took hours would take months or years but given the state of the galaxy trade would be essential.

Personally I'm assuming that Stargazer's planet is some backwater, too far out and lacking in the resources that would have made travelling to it worthwhile.

Yes, trade would be essential but that does not mean it can be achieved. FLT is so slow and limited that trade is barely possible within clusters. Any cluster which is not self sufficient in both materials, production and f transportation will be hard pressed to build up the infrastructure before their civilizations collapse.

[Hudathan]

Destroying the relays is NOT a worse alternative to total annihilation. The whole game was dark and depressive, with literally every single character in the game facing destruction. The only slimmer of hope was that a mysterious device of immense power can do something epic enough to stop the Reapers. All of this was woven into the entire third game, they did not 'change the tone' of the game in the ending. Fighting the Reapers was not going to be like blowing up Harbinger's lackies and the game makes this painfully clear right from the get go.

[Greed1914]

If we're talking just within the context of the plot, then it's worth it.  When the alternative is extinction or being made into a Reaper, it's worth it.

If we're talking about dark age as a trope, personally I've never been a fan of it.  It always seemed a bit too easy to use it to show "everything changed, YAY."  To me, it seems more like condemning the technology than anything.  In this instance, sure the Reapers provided the tech to dictate how society advanced, but what if we had the tech and just no Reapers?  Seems like we'd do all right.  Plus, it gets into the whole question of whether the premise of the cycle is their own self-fulfilling creation.

[KingNewbs]

Chk-2000 wrote...

There's an option to not use the Crucible? Where?

Sure. Just sorta hang around after talking to the Star Child for a bit. Eventually the Citadel gets blown up and you get a mission fail. The end.

[Harbinger of your Destiny]

If Bioware truly wanted to go with a dark age space game they should have made a new IP and not ruin Mass Effect

[Lanay]

Personally I don't think the dark age was worth it, but I know that's because I'm coloured by my hatred of the whole way that went down. It's foolish, but I can't help but feel it would be better to die fighting for everything - for the civilizations and culture and communication that's been built between all of the worlds and species of the galaxy - than to give in and make one of three heinous choices. Especially since only Destroy guarantees that the Reaper threat will never continue (Control may well be very finite, and how long before the Reapers realize that the hybrids of Synthesis can create their own synthetics and just as easily go to war with them?). I find betraying the geth wholly repugnant.

Some people would rather go down fighting the Reapers than give in. Fact is, what I was attached to in Mass Effect were three things - the characters, the story, and the setting. At the end, you can't save any of them. Your friends are stranded, the story's gone and abandoned its own themes, and civilization is unrecognisable. It's an all-around failure in terms of player investment, the only difference is whether or not you give in and pick a card, too, making your Shepard essentially the puppet of a character who's worth a billion Hitlers in terms of atrocity. So for us, if it's all going to happen anyway, well, might as well flip the bird to the ghost boy while we go down, and wish some luck to the next cycle. That's why there are people who would like the choice to refuse, even if it was futile.

I mean, we know from ME2 that Reaper corpses last a long time, and that there can't be many of them (because we've only found one). So this cycle has probably killed more Reapers than all the others put together, and likely way more than they could rebuild by 'ascending' everyone left. Particularly if we go down guns blazing. Take out as many as we can, and if the next cycle heeds Liara's warnings, us lowly organics might be able to break this sadistic cycle.

Considering that 'we'll find a way to beat the Reapers on our own' was kind of what we thought we were doing for two whole games, it makes sense to me, even though I know, intellectually, that having some survivors is better than having none.

[OneWithTheAssassins]

I can tell Bioware where they can shove there galactic dark age if they want.

[Militarized]

As a history major I would kill myself before having to live in the now laymen term "Dark Ages".

I do not view it as a trade of, I view it as the Reapers winning in 3/3 endings.

[majormajormmajor]

A strange game.

The only winning move was not to play.

[deimosmasque]

It's funny. Many see a "Dark Age" but I see it from going from "Star Wars travel" to "Star Trek travel."

It's going to go from one united galaxy to a factionalized galaxy where there are areas that are Krogan Space, Turian Space, Quarian Space, Asari Space, etc. And since travel isn't nearly instantaneously easy anymore.resources will be fought over, either in actual wars or through diplomatic channels.

So yes, maybe that is a "Dark Age" compared to what Mass Effect had already shown us, but it's my preferred form of Sci-Fi space growing up preferring Star Trek, Star Control, Dune and the Foundation Trilogy.

[count_4]

Not worth it.

It's not just a dark age, it's genocide. A lot of races will go extinct, billions of beings will starve to death or perish in other ways, maybe even trillions. A lot of planets can't sustain themselves without their garden worlds from which they are now cut off. Those planets that were kinda autarchic are now devastated and unable to preserve life as well.

Honestly, the Crucible should have never been built. Build a sh*tload of Thanix cannons and missiles and blow them Reapers to hell.
If it works, great and the cost would still be significantly lower than with the Crucible solution. If not, we saved everyone from a lot of suffering, a very short life without any hope and, ultimately, a painful death.

Modifié par count_4, 23 mars 2012 - 09:06 .

[DarklightZERO]

Remember that Mass Effect 3 is not a novel.

I would have accepted a "Dark Age" ending if it was ONE of the endings. If manage to gain enough war assets the crucible would have been tuned to the point where the Mass relays don't explode.

[wright1978]

Galactic dar kage is far too high a price.

[Militarized]

deimosmasque wrote...

It's funny. Many see a "Dark Age" but I see it from going from "Star Wars travel" to "Star Trek travel."

It's going to go from one united galaxy to a factionalized galaxy where there are areas that are Krogan Space, Turian Space, Quarian Space, Asari Space, etc. And since travel isn't nearly instantaneously easy anymore.resources will be fought over, either in actual wars or through diplomatic channels.

So yes, maybe that is a "Dark Age" compared to what Mass Effect had already shown us, but it's my preferred form of Sci-Fi space growing up preferring Star Trek, Star Control, Dune and the Foundation Trilogy.

Intragalactic travel is impossible without the Mass Relays, it's stated in Mass Effect 1. That goes out the window. The Star Gazer also seems to think space travel is a myth with the way he talks ot his grandchild... so all the tech seems to be destroyed, hoozah. 

You end up with this. 



Enjoy. 

Modifié par Militarized, 23 mars 2012 - 09:07 .

[Harbinger of your Destiny]

I think I would have preferred being reaped.

[Tregon]

deimosmasque wrote...

It's funny. Many see a "Dark Age" but I see it from going from "Star Wars travel" to "Star Trek travel."

It's going to go from one united galaxy to a factionalized galaxy where there are areas that are Krogan Space, Turian Space, Quarian Space, Asari Space, etc. And since travel isn't nearly instantaneously easy anymore.resources will be fought over, either in actual wars or through diplomatic channels.

So yes, maybe that is a "Dark Age" compared to what Mass Effect had already shown us, but it's my preferred form of Sci-Fi space growing up preferring Star Trek, Star Control, Dune and the Foundation Trilogy.

You are forgetting that civilization relied on fast travel. How many worlds and/or clusters are set up to be fully self sufficient? Specially with Reapers having caused massive destruction.

It is bit like denying use of engines tomorrow. Would Tokyo be able to feed itself if everything had to be carted there by foot? New York?

What happens to Samoa when there is no ability to replace parts for failing toasters, fridges and whatnot?

Interdependency of world, or in case of ME worlds, means it will collapse totally if connections are suddenly severed.

[majormajormmajor]

BUT OUR SLOW AS FECK ALL FTL WILL SOLVE EVERY PROBLEEEEEEEEM

[Kmead15]

deimosmasque wrote...

It's funny. Many see a "Dark Age" but I see it from going from "Star Wars travel" to "Star Trek travel."

It's going to go from one united galaxy to a factionalized galaxy where there are areas that are Krogan Space, Turian Space, Quarian Space, Asari Space, etc. And since travel isn't nearly instantaneously easy anymore.resources will be fought over, either in actual wars or through diplomatic channels.

So yes, maybe that is a "Dark Age" compared to what Mass Effect had already shown us, but it's my preferred form of Sci-Fi space growing up preferring Star Trek, Star Control, Dune and the Foundation Trilogy.

I thought Star Wars had regular FTL too?

[admcmei]

Well, don't be so negative, guys. After all there were some pretty good agricultural innovations around the year 1000!

PS: I'm joking, be negative, it totally sucks.