120 réponses à ce sujet

[RedNanaki]

refuse81 wrote...

Spoiler alert.

This is a big gief in regards to the ending, yes. It's *exactly* the same ending choices as in Deus Ex. Complete ripoff.

Modifié par RedNanaki, 26 mars 2012 - 09:16 .

[Phattee Buttz]

I took Garrus and Liara with me on the final mission, and a few minutes after we all get blasted by Harbinger's death ray, Shepard talks to the Space child and dies, a but I see them both getting off the Normandy unscathed in some far off world.

There is absolutely no way that makes sense.

Modifié par Phattee Buttz, 26 mars 2012 - 09:15 .

[GunGrave TZA]

flumpet38 wrote...

Icophesis wrote...
just... dude... you either haven't played all the games, or cared much about them/gave them much thought, because seriously, these endings are being discussed as one of the worst in gaming history.

You know, I wasn't going to post in this thread...but y'all really need to stop with this whole "if you like the ending then clearly you don't care or aren't a real fan" nonsense. 

I've played all 3 games at least twice. I've read the books and comics. I love the Mass Effect trilogy. And, I enjoyed the ending. Just because I disagree with you does not mean that my love of the Mass Effect franchise is somehow less than yours. Same goes for the OP. 

Argue all you want about the points folks try to make, but don't attack them or their passion for the game.

Personally, I think unanswered questions are ok. The ending doesn't need to explain EVERYTHING. What happens to your crew? Who knows? Maybe we'll find out later, and that's ok. Squadmates on the Normandy? Well, I'd imagine Joker probably picked them up. I mean...Hackett might not get the memo right away that Shepard was up, moving, or getting towards the Beam, and a decent backup plan is getting folks on the Normandy and trying to fly to the Citadel while Sword punches a hole in the Reaper lines. Joker running? Giant, oddly-colored energy wave...I'd run too. 

Oh My God. I FOUND SOMEONE WHO AGREES WITH ME.

Glad to see I'm not alone!

[EnforcerWRX7]

Egonne wrote...

My summary of the problems with the ending that DON'T involve the Star Kid. This pushes 'suspension of disbelief' well past tolerable levels and into the 'chaotic nonsense' range.

1. Shepard gets hit with the beam. How long did he lay there? How was it that NO ONE, friend or enemy, stubbled on him while he was unconscience? This requires fairly little imagination but the total has begun.

2. Anderson making it to the beam? This is starting to get big. The absolute emphasis that NO ONE made it to the beam and the implication that most if not ALL were killed is too strong. Still tolerable though.

3. Anderson getting beamed to a different part of the Citadel? Really? How did that happen? And how did he get to the Illusive Man's platform when there seems to be only one path to it. This STILL isn't too much of a strain. But it is starting to get big.

4. The Illusive Man's presence on the Citadel. This is a minor one. But still isn't explained (although normally I'd be fine with that) and still adds to the total.

5. How did Hackett know Shepard was on the Citadel? Sure, someone had to open the Citadel's arms but how did Hackett KNOW it was Shepard? Also, what is with their conversation? Didn't Hackett think that Shepard is dead? And he never mentions surprise that Shepard is alive? Did the crew of the Normandy just not want to talk to Shepard or did Hackett not tell them Shepard was alive? This is starting to get out of hand.

6. The Mass Relay's NOT destroying entire systems when they explode. This, again, is a minor one because it can be explain due to the odd way the Mass Relay were being used (to synthesis/control the reapers). But the total is starting to get pretty large.

7. Normandy and Joker in the Mass Relay stream? This is a BIG one. No reason is given on WHY he should be. Didn't Hackett tell him Shepard was alive and on the Citadel? This is out of character in almost EVERY way. This SHOULD have been explained. If Normandy WASN'T in the mass relay system then what is the explosion that he is running from? Wouldn't that same explosion have decimated earth and most of the fleet if it were a local explosion centered on the Citadel? Now we are starting to stretch 'imagination' pretty far.

8. Normandy surving a forced ejection from the Mass Relay system? Wasn't that established to be destructive? This COULD be explained away as well. But the total is starting to get overwhelming.

9. Normandy crashing on a planet? And an inhabitable one at that? In a normal ending this could simply be ignored because it is such a common plot problem (the new Star Trek movie had the same problem). But we are still adding to a VERY big total.

10. My squad mates inexplicably exiting the Normandy after it crashed? Now HERE we have the BIG one. This simply DOESN'T make any sense at all. How did they get there? Why did they leave the battle? This ending, which was already pushing believability, just totally unraveled.

11. My squad mates not only are ON the Normandy but seem UNSCATHED a mere minutes (possibly hours if you stretch it a LOT) after being part of the failed Citadel beam charge? The story just built up how devastating that charge was. Shepard was incredibly hurt. How did they get out alive AND without a scratch? This is HUGE! It is impossible to overexaggerate the problem here.

12. My squad mates, who magically appeared on the Normandy, and who are in remarkable health, also seem quite HAPPY? WHAT!?!?!?! Didn't they just witness what they thought was Shepard's death? Didn't they just witness the destruction of the mass relays? Didn't they lose any chance at all of seeing ANY of their loved ones again (at least for quite some time)? And they seem HAPPY?

The ending is like asking an artist for a painting, and getting a 'color by numbers' sheet that ISN'T colored in.  Sure, I can color it in, but that is what the artist is supposed to do.

The squad mates, getting out of the Normandy and looking around like it was "cool" has to be one of the dumbest, illogical scenes in video game history.

The characters are completely emotionless.  The normandy crashed but they aren't even scratched.  They just look around like "OH HEY GILLIGANS ISLAND.  COOL".

[CaptainZaysh]

RedNanaki wrote...

Also, the relay explosions in ME3 look very much the same as the one in Arrival (which destroys the entire system).

No they don't.  Explosions are caused by a near instantaneous release of energy.  The exploding relay in ME3 discharges its energy before it explodes (the lights go out) while the Aratoht relay had a "tank full of gas" (the lights stayed on) when it was hit by the asteroid.

Further proof that the Sol system wasn't destroyed is given in one of the endings, in which Shepard is still breathing.

[ydaraishy]

GunGrave TZA wrote...

No my point is that they DIDN'T pull a Lost. To me the Lost ending is 10x less satisfying than the ending for Mass Effect 3. It was far from perfect, but it was at least a 7/10 to me. Lost, on the other hand, was a -1/10 to me.

Lost answered a hell of a lot more questions than the ME3 ending did. I still don't know where the Reapers came from and their motivation is full of holes and inconsistent. I learnt nothing about the Reapers from the ME3 ending. I saw *some* ME characters on the planet at the end but don't really know what happened to them, how they're feeling, or anything like that.

Lost however answered the whole Jacob/MIB thing, we got to learn their history, saw how they _grew up_, learnt about their psychology, the societies they formed, etc., etc. I learnt about what happened to all the characters and got a decent character resolution to them.

If they pulled a Lost for the ME3 ending it'd be a hell of a lot more satisfying.

[Greed1914]

[quote]GunGrave TZA wrote...

 [quote]Greed1914 wrote...





snip for space purposes



[/quote]

I'm going to just address the ones that are most important.

1. It's not plausible that the Normandy could outrun the explosion.  It was caught in it, so the ship is, in fact, slower.  Also, it's a beam that comes out, the only explosion is from each relay, and the Normandy was caught in said beam, which was going to each relay.  The beam also fired out immediately after the choice was made, so Joker would have to have left prior to it firing in order to be caught while in a relay.  Also, this is Joker we're talking about.  He doesn't bail when there is even a chance that more can be done.  Then there is the matter of the crew that was with you on the final charge somehow walking off the Normandy.  There is no way for that to happen AND for the Normandy to be where it is at the end. 

2.  I'm willing to accept that it's a different type of explosion, but it's still pretty sloppy to leave something like that up to the player to figure out.  The game started out with Shepard in custody because of what happens when a relay explodes, so explanation is required.

3. The Geth were peaceful before ANY of this started.  They chose not to pursue the Quarians even though they realized they would probably come back.  They were content to be left alone until Sovereign showed up. 

4.  Not everything is a plothole.  A lot of it is just clearly cutting corners.  If you're ok with that much recycled footage for what was supposed to be "wildly different" (Bioware's words) then I guess that's just good for you.  I expect more, though.

5. You really think it's ok for Shepard to just accept what s/he is told?  That has never been good enough for the character throughout the game, why is it ok now?  This is the being that controlled the Reapers, and Shepard doesn't bother to question it? 

Modifié par Greed1914, 26 mars 2012 - 09:20 .

[GunGrave TZA]

ydaraishy wrote...

GunGrave TZA wrote...

No my point is that they DIDN'T pull a Lost. To me the Lost ending is 10x less satisfying than the ending for Mass Effect 3. It was far from perfect, but it was at least a 7/10 to me. Lost, on the other hand, was a -1/10 to me.

Lost answered a hell of a lot more questions than the ME3 ending did. I still don't know where the Reapers came from and their motivation is full of holes and inconsistent. I learnt nothing about the Reapers from the ME3 ending. I saw *some* ME characters on the planet at the end but don't really know what happened to them, how they're feeling, or anything like that.

Lost however answered the whole Jacob/MIB thing, we got to learn their history, saw how they _grew up_, learnt about their psychology, the societies they formed, etc., etc. I learnt about what happened to all the characters and got a decent character resolution to them.

If they pulled a Lost for the ME3 ending it'd be a hell of a lot more satisfying.

True. But something about the whole after-life storyline rubbed me the wrong way. Same thing with the "magic darkness plug". They DID technically answer all the questions, however.

[Cyph3rX]

Hey look, it's this thread again! /facepalm

[anlk92]

GunGrave TZA wrote...

No my point is that they DIDN'T pull a Lost. To me the Lost ending is 10x less satisfying than the ending for Mass Effect 3. It was far from perfect, but it was at least a 7/10 to me. Lost, on the other hand, was a -1/10 to me.

Lost's ending was bad but at least it didn't ruin almost every main character, contradict every theme of the series, left without any kind of closure or promote genocide.

[Dendio1]

take a deep breath and watch the video below

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ythY_GkEBck

Welcome Friend! Hold the line for Indoctrination Theory

Modifié par Dendio1, 26 mars 2012 - 09:22 .

[jess05]

The major plothole (IMO) is the Catalyst itself.

think about the plotline in ME.
What was the purpose of the Keepers?
Why did Saren need to get into the Citadel?
What did the Protheans do to buy the next cycle more time?
Remember the conversation with Sovereign? Each a nation, independant.

the Catalyst said he created and controls the reapers. The Citadel is a part of him, and is is home.


His mere presence unravels everything in ME1.

Modifié par jess05, 26 mars 2012 - 09:24 .

[FellishBeast]

Gun, we don't want to hear it. You have every right to voice your opinion, and we have every right to call you an idiot for having it. We've already been on the forums for weeks now, so you're welcome to stay and fight with us, be we have all the time in the world...until they fix the ending, at least.

OCCUPY BIOWARE SOCIAL NETWORK! WE ARE THE 99%!!!

[RedNanaki]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

RedNanaki wrote...

Also, the relay explosions in ME3 look very much the same as the one in Arrival (which destroys the entire system).

No they don't.  Explosions are caused by a near instantaneous release of energy.  The exploding relay in ME3 discharges its energy before it explodes (the lights go out) while the Aratoht relay had a "tank full of gas" (the lights stayed on) when it was hit by the asteroid.

Further proof that the Sol system wasn't destroyed is given in one of the endings, in which Shepard is still breathing.

You make a point, but, look... in the end we can't prove either point. We just don't have enough information. Looking at the ending cinematic it sure seems like a gargantuan explosion to me, and that is my interpretation. We've only ever seen a relay explosion once before, and the result of that was total annihilation.

About Shepard breathing. Yeah, that's a point. But how did he get there in the first place? Some say it's just an "easter egg". And there's also an ending where the Earth's surface is completely scorched. What then? There are just too many variables here to draw any definitive conclusions.

[alberta]

GunGrave TZA wrote...

 ...And it wasn't anywhere close to what I was expecting it to be.

Left, right and center all I have been hearing is how awful the ending is, how abrupt it is, how many plot holes it creates and how there's no true closure. Immediately upon seeing the ending, I knew it was good. Great? No. I'm sure there was a way they could have improved it so that the emotional impact was stronger and so that the narrative felt more complete. But is it the travesty that many fans of the series are claiming it to be? Far from it.

For one, the issue with closure. You see that your squadmates, the people you have spent years getting to know in the previous entries, are perfectly fine. This was the case in my ending, and the case with at least ten of the other endings. I was satisfied with this because I saw that they would be able to continue their lives, and never forget the sacrafice of Commander Shepard and what he did to save the galaxy. All of the other key characters you had met have their closure as well. You either see them participating in the final battle to save Earth, showing how the numerous galactic races have all bonded together to fight this unimaginable force - thus promising at least temporary peace in all endings - while those that aren't on Earth you have a chance to say goodbye to through the com machine just before the final push. Admiral Anderson dies an honorable death knowing that he has done what he could to save the universe, and you do too for the same reasons. Commander Shepard dies at peace knowing that he's done everything he could have to save everyone. And so I did too. No elaboration is ever needed on the fate of anyone because their fate is clear from the outset. Thay they will all be at peace for at least some period of time. And, if you saw the post-credits sequence, long enough for stories to be told about you "many years" after this has happened. You've made your mark on the galaxy, and changed it for the better.

The other problem is with plot holes. Soverign said "your civilization is based on the technology of the mass relays, our technology. By using it, your society develops along the paths we desire." and some fans are arguing this completely goes against the Catalyst's reasoning for destroying organics with synthetics so synthetics don't destroy organics. The origins of the entity controling the Catalyst aren't explained either, and it comes out of the blue with no previous mention in the earlier games. As an athiest myself, I believe it doesn't need to be explained. Because no matter what explanation is given for what this entity is exactly, the audience will not be satisfied. Need an example? Lost.

SPOILER ALERT: The reason for everything that happened on the island is an ancient plug holding in all evil. And all Jack does is put the plug back in, everything magically becomes better again and then he dies.

Now the execution of that final reveal was pretty good. But my point is that simply calling the Catalyst an all-powerful entity is much better than needing to explain what it is exactly, because no matter what is said there will be a fan out there that is disappointed with it, or see it as rediculous. For thousands of years some human beings throughout the world have believed that there is an almighty being that is the creator of all life - so why would this be so hard to believe in a piece of entertainment created by humans? The fact that it comes out of the blue can be explained by what the Catalyst says themselves. They say that Commander Shepard is the first person to ever have been able to break the cycle, and so naturally he would be the only person aware of their existence outside of the Reapers. Of course the Reapers could have cryptically mentioned some kind of Catalyst in the earlier two entires, but in life nothing goes entirely to plan. It's probably the case that BioWare planned many of the key elements of the story for the trilogy from the begining. But I'm sure they never knew if they would ever get to definitely finish the trilogy from the launch of the first game. And so they would have over-looked including these small links between each game, focusing on the larger links instead. It's entirely possible that they may have over-looked this.

The final issue with it is what happens in the ending itself. People argue that all of the endings are practically the same and that no matter what you do the series ends in the destruction of the galaxy and the end of everything you have been fighting for. The first problem is simply not true - the Crucible acts as a signal sender to all the Mass Relays, and it is only the means to an end. The change in the contents of that signal is what matters, and the changing in the color of the beam reflects this. On the surface the endings may look very similar, but in terms of mythology they offer radically different repercussions to the same problem. The Mass Relays acting as bombs spread across the galaxy was the only possible way the mythology could offer universe-changing decisions in a believable fashion, but with the same focus on choice as the rest of the series. Yes, getting a simple A/B/C choice is a bit arbitrary compared to the choice system for the rest of the game, yet if this wasn't the case there would be no true choice for the player. Their ending would have already been decided based on past decisions rather than decisions chosen in Mass Effect 3, and there would probably be an uproar about their being no choice in what ending you get instead. In the end it is clear that the only way for the Reapers to be deafeated is if all alien races were to work together, and so in this way the choices you made could only lead down one path of conclusions.

But the most important part is how some are saying the endings make the entire trilogy pointless. By saying that, you are ignoring the entire arc of the trilogy. Commander Shepard's journey - your journey - is complete. You have gone from becoming an Alliance soldier to the Commander who sacrificed himself for the greater good. You have made thousands of years of conflict between differing races stop, either through peace or force. Nearly all of the people you cared about and who care about you are safe (or died to make the people they cared about safe), and they remember you for the things you did and the sacrafice you made. At the start of the series there was hope for this current cycle to continue, but instead a brighter cycle with an infinitely brighter future has begun. Not only that, but the cycle that your people have gone through will never be experienced again. And they have never forgotten for you for that. They still speak your name and they still speak about how you saved the galaxy from itself. And you will forever be known as "The Shepard" for that.

Now can someone explain to me what they found wrong with the endings?

Closure? LMAO - the entire fleet is stranded no resourses, food capabilities, insfructure. Earth virtually devestated, Tessia virtually devestated, as are hundreds of other systems, the best of their warrior classes, manpower is left stranded with no way home. Colonies cut off and few able to substain themselves - Sheppard's crew marooned on some planet in some system none of even know. Space magic transported Sheppard's crew to the Normandy. MY Sheppard lived and then what? There are still millions of Reaper troops fighting on all systems including earth. And on and on and on - and YOU call that closure?

[GunGrave TZA]

anlk92 wrote...

Lost's ending was bad but at least it didn't ruin almost every main character, contradict every theme of the series, left without any kind of closure or promote genocide.

How is every main character ruined? Their fate is left unknown but suggested to be a bright one.

What themes are contradicted? Out of genuine interest, because I didn't notice them.

It doesn't promote genocide either. Shepard and/or the Catalyst just see it as a necessary evil.

[zarnk567]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

RedNanaki wrote...

Also, the relay explosions in ME3 look very much the same as the one in Arrival (which destroys the entire system).

No they don't.  Explosions are caused by a near instantaneous release of energy.  The exploding relay in ME3 discharges its energy before it explodes (the lights go out) while the Aratoht relay had a "tank full of gas" (the lights stayed on) when it was hit by the asteroid.

Further proof that the Sol system wasn't destroyed is given in one of the endings, in which Shepard is still breathing.

yea.... you mean the ending where shep some how survived the fall through earth's atmosphere and somehow survived being in space when the citadel exploded........ yup i see no plot holes what so ever....

[GunGrave TZA]

alberta wrote...

Closure? LMAO - the entire fleet is stranded no resourses, food capabilities, insfructure. Earth virtually devestated, Tessia virtually devestated, as are hundreds of other systems, the best of their warrior classes, manpower is left stranded with no way home. Colonies cut off and few able to substain themselves - Sheppard's crew marooned on some planet in some system none of even know. Space magic transported Sheppard's crew to the Normandy. MY Sheppard lived and then what? There are still millions of Reaper troops fighting on all systems including earth. And on and on and on - and YOU call that closure?

The Reaper troops are no longer a threat in every single ending.

[Wifflebottom]

Don't worry OP I think you're in denial, I was too. Just let it sink over a couple of days...

[CaptainZaysh]

zarnk567 wrote...

yea.... you mean the ending where shep some how survived the fall through earth's atmosphere and somehow survived being in space when the citadel exploded........ yup i see no plot holes what so ever....

Oh are you one of those people who think the rubble was made in London?  Can't see it, myself.  It looks like the material that exploded when Shep shot it, to me.

[Sohlito]

You liked it? Awesome. Good for you, and no, not being sarcastic.

Thing is, so many more people didn't. It felt disjointed and out of place when held against previously established continuity. Like the sudden inclusion of a literal Jesus Christ saving Frodo, or Ewoks, or midichlorians. So out of place it was jarring.

And even if you think everything is rainbows after all that, and life will find a way after the resources dry up, and the food is gone, and travel between systems is extremely difficult, and situational stress causing rising tensions and old wounds to mount, and your friends and loved one trapped on Gilligan's Plant, and all the general death and destruction, and the homeworlds that may never recover, there's still dark energy.

That stuff that is part of the established canon in the last two games, and the danger presented in the second. Yeah, its still potentially effing with all those stars out there. So the galaxy (if this ending is canonical) is ****ed. Hard. Which makes our experiences in the last two games, and with the comics and novels, seem meaningless.

Please, don't take this as an attempt to convert you. If you like the ending as is, more power to you and others that enjoy it too. I'm merely giving more examples as to why so many others are dissatisfied.

Modifié par Sohlito, 26 mars 2012 - 09:38 .

[arthurhallam]

i'm not a "retaker", but i'm yet to read anything intelligent in defence of the endings.

[daigakuinsei]

TL; DR

[Athro]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Further proof that the Sol system wasn't destroyed is given in one of the endings, in which Shepard is still breathing.

Um... is this the ending where Shepard is shown as lying in rubble? In a location that makes no sense because the Citadel just got atomised when it exploded?

Yeah... because that's reliable proof.

Edit: Let's just be honest here - the exploding of the Citadel is pretty final - there should not be any surviving rubble - it gets virtually atomised... not just kind of blown up.

Modifié par Athro, 26 mars 2012 - 09:40 .

[aliengmr1]

Would have been nice to know the "destroy all Reapers" tube was on the Citadel in ME1. Shooting a tube is what it all came down to. Shheeeshh. First the Reapers get neutered by god-kid, Shep just goes along with what idiot-god-kid is saying, then I shoot a fricken tube.

Sorry OP, glad you liked it.