Aucune réponse à ce sujet

[Khevan77]

Ok, I've done quite a bit of thinking over the last couple of days, and I wanted to throw something by the BSN, see what y'all thought.  I'm never going to like the ending, but I've come to accept what Bioware tried to do, in my opinion.  As I've done before, I will start with a disclaimer that all opinions expressed in this OP are my own, and I do not presume to suggest I am right or that my way is the only way.  Alternate opinions are welcomed, even encouraged.

First of all, my reasons for disliking the ending are similar to, but distinct from, what everyone's been talking about for the last couple of weeks.  To understand my thoughts, I want to first distinguish my reasons for disliking the ending.

From the charge to the beam (which in and of itself was epic, in my opinion) to the conversation with TIM, things are wierd (Anderson showing up at the console before you do, etc) but I can accept them without too many problems.  Anderson followed you up the beam, but maybe it put him closer to the console than where you arrived.  So, I can deal with that.  I don't like it, but it's acceptable.  Having TIM show up on the Citadel was a WTF moment that I can't explain, but the conversation itself with him is good.  It's a throwback to ME1 with the conversations with Saren, and it worked well, if you disregard the context in which the conversation took place.

From there, I have a hard time accepting how Bioware presented the choices (destroy/merge/control) to us, the players.  Introducing a new character at the last possible moment is poor writing, period.  The entire climax to the story was stretched wierdly.  The run to the beam was exciting and climatic, the drawn out slow shuffle up to the beam (Marauder Shields.  Long may he be remembered), and then to the console,  was too slow for a climax, then the high emotions of the TIM confrontation, then the emotional relaxation with the Anderson conversation, then suddenly you're up with this new character in yet another attempt at a climax...

It was too drawn out, it stretched emotions too tightly and let them loose too often, and then to introduce a new character that basically destroys the plot of ME1 entirely?  Any explanation that describes how the Catalyst couldn't control the Citadel's relay function to the Reapers in dark space has been a stretch to me so far.  I've yet to hear one that really makes sense.  The Catalyst is in control of the Reapers, in control of the Citadel, and he needs Sovereign and Saren to open the relay?  How does this make sense?  MAYBE Bioware can explain this in whatever DLC they're planning to explain the endings, and if it makes any sense, I can go with it, but this is my primary beef with the ending. 

The choices themselves are meh, but ok in my opinion.  The Catalyst specifically says that the Crucible changed it, opening up new possibilities.  This should have been given more attention in my opinion, because one of the reasons I hated the endings at first was because of the Catalyst being behind the Reapers.  Why should we believe him?  I still don't like how it's presented now, since we still shouldn't believe him, but that's what Bioware was trying to do, I think.  It tried to present the Catalyst in as neutral a way as possible, they just didn't get it right.  More emphasis on how things are different with the Crucible, less schtick about an organic reaching the Catalyst making the current solution untenable. 

IF we can be persuaded that the Catalyst really was changed by the Crucible (instead of just one line), perhaps by foreshadowing (The Crucible appears to be a complex hacking device, although we're not sure about the nature of what program it's designed to hack....blah blah blah) then it would be more reasonable to accept the choices the Catalyst offers.  And those choices themselves aren't that bad, actually.

The ending cinematics, up to Joker and the Normandy, are ok, in my opinion.  Yeah, it's three versions of the same thing, with pretty colors, but I can live with that.  Joker and the Normandy running from a beam along the relay network when they should have been at Earth in the battle with the Reapers...yeah, that's gotta go.  Joker wouldn't have run, and there's no way he had time to pick up your crew since, yanno, they were all on the ground with you with Hammer.  So, I choose to ignore that part, and pretend that the Normandy crash landed on Earth, in a remote part where at the moment they're stuck, but they have the ability to be rescued/find civilization/whatever.

The only other thing I can think of at the moment that I'd change or add is some sense of what happened to the universe after the red/blue/green choice.  Even a DA:O style epilogue with written text would have worked, and it would take next to nothing to implement, at least in comparison to creating the game in the first place.

So, yeah, that's it.  I can respect what Bioware tried to do with the ending to Mass Effect 3.  But there were too many plot holes created to set up the circumstances where the choice was relevant, and there were too many inconsistancies with the ending cinematics. 

One last thing I want to touch on was the consequences of your choices throughout the ME series.  I actually kind of like what Bioware did with this, which was to end the different plot-lines during the game itself.  It made for a game filled with a series of epic moments which were awesome.  I just wish that there had been some reference to this in an epilogue type thing.  Nothing too elaborate, but something to show me that ok, the game is over, here's how it all turned out.

Oh, and I lied, there's one more thing I want to touch on, the supposed Catalyst circular reasoning.  To keep you from being destroyed by synthetics, I'll create some synthetics to destroy you.  This is a simplification of what's actually said in the ending, and it's an oversimplification that makes the endings worse than they actually are. 

What's actually said is this, and I'm paraphrasing because I'm tired and don't wanna look up the verbatim conversaion:  We (the catalyst) almost destroyed all life in the galaxy by creating synthetics that rebelled.  So we became Reapers (synthetic/organic hybrids) and defeated the synthetics that we created.  That cycle will always be repeated, organics creating synthetics, and sythetics will rise up and destroy all organic life.  So to keep that from happening, to allow organic life to continue in some form, we harvest advanced civilizations that are in danger of destroying all life by creating synthetics, so that less advanced races can live in peace  (until the next reaperization).

It's harsh, it's a fallacy that fate is destined to repeat, but it's a coherent philosophy that I can understand, even if I disagree.  It's not a plot hole or bad writing in my opinion, it just got twisted by people who are rightly upset at the endings, and went a bit too far, again in my opinion.

Sorry for the wall of text, but I had to get this out there.  I sure as hell hope that Bioware fixes the endings by cleaning up the loose ends I listed above, and fixing the sheer idiocy that was Joker running away in the end cinematic, but I have to give credit where credit is due.  I personally feel that it was a decent idea that was (very) poorly implemented. 

I mostly wanted to write this to clarify my thoughts on the matter, and now that it's all written down, I feel like posting it, to see what others think.. Have at it, BSN!

And if you read the whole thing, congradulations, you have earned an internet AND a cookie...