120 réponses à ce sujet

[spacefiddle]

I'm glad - really - you were satisfied, because I don't want more upset people... but it makes me a little sad.

You're okay with not seeing any real resolution to the characters or their stories, because in your head you imagine them all being fine.

You're OK with the idea of a last-second God being coming in without any explanation, because no matter how you try to explain a God-being it doesn't make sense, so no explanation will work, so it's pointless to try explaining it.

This latter I don't understand why you don't take a step further in your thinking, because *that is exactly the point.*  It's where the literary term Deus ex Machina comes from in the first place.  It's not a compliment.

It's good that you have an active imagination that can smooth over the various places the story doesn't jive with itself and fill in happy endings for everyone, but... we didn't need an ending to do that.  I could have done that on my own.

And, of course, more importantly: this didn't all happen in a vaccuum.  BW needs to take ownership of the unavoidable fact that so much of the ire here comes from everything they said about how this would go down being 100% the opposite of how it went down.

Many people were hoping for real engagement with the ending(s) - endings that stood up to critical analysis, and would have generated discussion and (polite) argument, while still matching the bill of goods we were sold.  We didn't get that.

[Athro]

aymlam79 wrote...

Been scanning the forum threads about the ending, and I haven't seen anyone mention that the Prothean VI on Thessia said that someone/thing else was controlling the Reapers. Then at the end we find out that it's the Catalyst ghostchild. Do folks still think that the reveal of the Catalyst came out of the blue? I remembered that scene as I was approaching the endgame and was wondering if Shepard would find out who was controlling the Reapers.

This has been addressed before. That element was a single throw away line about 5 hours out from the end in a 100+ hour trilogy. That's not foreshadowing, that's ass covering.

It amounts to not a lot, and really is used as a last minute retcon to try and make the Starchild make sense - except that the entire motivation and plot of the Reapers is inconsistent both with what Sovereign and Harbinger have stated in the previous games as well as running completely in contradiction to the actions of the Reapers.

The ending is a disaster on so many levels, I often find it hard to believe a professional writer had anything to do with it. Because as many have pointed out - not only is it full of plot holes, but from a pure technique level it is a sloppy mess.

[flumpet38]

[quote]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.

[/quote]

Because I'm in a weird mood today, I'm gonna try to knock these down and see if we can't rebuild that suspension of disbelief a little bit. I'll admit, there are some things in the ending I don't understand, but a lot of it can be easily explained. It maybe SHOULD have been explained inside the game, but a little critical thinking will provide some answers...

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

We don't know how long he laid there. When he gets up, he looks mostly dead. If he were unconscious, it's entirely possible he's been mistaken for a casualty, amongst the piles of corpses that got caught in that beam.

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

Not really starting to get big. If Shep survived the blast, it's entirely plausible that someone else did. I'm not 100% sure, but we don't necessarily have a crystal clear view of where Anderson was when the beam hit. 

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

Still not starting to get big. I'll quote from the game "Woah..this wall just moved. This place is..changing. Rearranging itself." Anderson says that to Sheperd almost as soon as you get up there.

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

Now you're just looking for things deliberately....The Illusive Man knew what the Catalyst was, knew it was the key to controlling the Reapers, hours, days even, before Shepard did...why wouldn't he go there? And the Reapers wouldn't mess with him, grind him up with the rest of the humans...he was still doing exactly what they needed him to do.

[quote]
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?
[/quote]

First, someone had to open the arms, as you said. Second, Shepard's communication device, presumably registered to Shepard (and probably patched to a big red button on Hackett's personal terminal labeled "call this dude when we're f**ked...) was still active and would've been reading as transmitting from the Citadel. Sure, Anderson's was there too...but he didn't pick up the phone when Hackett called.

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

Fair points. Although, I don't think I've ever seen Hackett surprised by anything. He seems relatively unflappable. RE: the Normandy crew, it's possible (even likely) they were fighting for their lives and didn't have time for a chit-chat. Hackett's JOB in battle is to coordinate forces.

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

You answered this one for me. I'm pretty certain a being capable of creating the Mass Relays is capable of using them, and even breaking them, in a way that won't obliterate the galaxy.

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

I...ok, I don't have much on this one. I mean, motive is easy. Shepherd's not alive on the Citadel. It blew up. Like, a LOT. Like "nobody on there is possibly still alive" blew up. (That Shepard survives in the Destroy ending is...well, dude lived through atmospheric re-entry. If you can believe that, you can believe this...but it's entirely reasonable to conclude that death is inescapable). At that point, you can't save Shepard, you can't help your friend...you can help your crew and all Shepard's friends, by getting out of the blast radius.

I don't know if the Normandy is in the Mass Relay system, using FTL drives, or what. Much, much less of a stretch though. To me, less enough that it no longer strains credulity.

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

Assuming it was in the Mass Relay system rather than FTL. I'm leaning towards it being FTL drives that are failing. If the ship was in the Mass Relay system, the shockwave wouldn't be able to keep up. The blast looked like a wavefront, not the beam the Relays shot to each of the other Relays. It also explains how the Normandy initially escaped the blast radius but was eventually caught, if the FTL drives began to fail and dropped the ship back to sublight speeds. The ship was certainly under a heavy strain, and we don't know what sort of damage she took in the battle.

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

I'll refer back to Shepard surviving atmospheric re-entry in glorified kevlar. Yes, the writers could've gone 100% realistic and made the Normandy crash on an uninhabitable ball of super-pressurized gas. But then the potential for future story is gone, and the ending's a little *too* bleak.

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

Ahh, this one's easy! Nobody made it to the Beam, right? Shepard's there buried under a pile of rubble and corpses, but to all appearances he's dead. Far as Hackett knows, the push to the Beam has failed. So what...give up? Just lay down and die? Seems unlike, well, anyone, when the existence of all sentient life in the universe is at stake. So we still need folks on the Citadel, right? How do we get them there? Normandy's the fastest ship in the fleet, it's got stealth drives (that admittedly Reaper tech seems to render invalid), and it's got the most badass pilot in the galaxy. Who to send? How about the team that beat Sovereign, the Collector Base, and the Illusive Man's base. Seems like the guys to get the job done. I will admit I'm assuming that the Normandy is close by for the push to the Beam, and can easily and quickly pick up the Squad. Not too big a stretch, considering you used Normandy's targeting computer to aim the Thanix missiles, it'd have to be relatively close I'd think.

Now, why would Shep's squad leave him? They'd NEVER do that, right!? Well, unless they thought he was cooked toasty by Harbinger's beam. I know MY Squad, at least, would do whatever they could to finish the fight if Shepard went down. Because they know my Shepard would want them finishing the fight rather than searching in vain for him while the galaxy burns. Some might argue, or fight against it, but Garrus with his cold calculus of war, or Kaiden, stepping up as the next Spectre to fill your shoes? Entirely reasonable they'd band the team together and get back in the fight.

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

I think it's entirely possible to over-exaggerate the problem here. Yeah, it was an oversight in the animation. Compared with other issues, hardly game-breaking or series-destroying. Should they be torn up, bruised, bloody, battered? Yes. But countless heroes in countless movies have come away less injured and fazed from things they should've died from. What can I say...medi-gel's a he** of a drug?

[quote]
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?
[/quote]

If I just survived a spaceship crash, a battle that claimed ENORMOUS casualties, and eliminated the biggest threat the galaxy's ever seen...I'd crack a smile. I'd be glad I was alive. I'd be sad so many died, and that I'd lost close friends, but I'd also be pretty happy to be alive myself because it sure beats the alternative. I also think you're reading emotion into them that I didn't see. They looked curious to me. Relieved to be alive, but not happy necessarily.

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

...

That's what you've been asking Bioware for all along. A painting that YOU pick the elements of. It's what makes Mass Effect, well,  Mass Effect, the fact that you as a player and I as a player have entirely different experiences and make entirely different choices...and in some cases interpret things in different ways. That's one of the interesting elements of this ending, that it's open to a interpretation, that you get to fill in the blanks from there.

Guys...for those of you who want every single storyline answered, to know the outcome of every life Shepard encountered...go read a few good books. Most of them don't tie everything off in a neat package like that. They let you, the consumer, build that fantasy yourself if you want to. Pirates of the Carribean doesn't end with a montage of what happens to Jack, Elizabeth, and Will through the rest of their lives...Star Wars (I'm ignoring the Extended Universe) doesn't wrap that all up either. Neither does Lord of the Rings....ok, maybe Lord of the Rings does, but that's because Tolkein was writing a history more than a story...my point is, the ending doesn't need to answer every single question to be an ending...the BEST endings are the ones that leave you with questions, make you think. What exactly is the ramification of a galactic dark age with no Mass Relays? What does fusing Synthetic and Organic life at the DNA level mean? What would that world look like? Was Deckard a Replicant? Can robots have souls, and at what point does code become a person? That's what good science fiction DOES. It gives the reader questions, not answers.

[flumpet38]

FS3D wrote...

They still should have included the option.

Besides, where are you getting that 50% option? Did you have 7000 EMS?

I had over 7000 EMS and a 90% readiness rating. 50% wasn't an option, it was a line in the game.

After you take out the cannon and head to the forward operating base, Anderson says something along the lines of "Only half of the Hammer forces have checked in on the ground."...you get the option to ask if any more are going to make it, and Anderson says "no."

Point being, you've rounded up all the warriors in the Galaxy, and half of them just died getting to the ground. We don't get an accurate casualty report of ground forces, but if the Reapers don't get stopped by the Crucible, it's a certainty that they don't get stopped at all. Walking away from the Star-Child-Thingy means loss, complete and total. No matter how defiant my Shepard is, he wouldn't let the Galaxy burn just to give a kid the finger. Even a really pompous, arrogant star-kid (no really, that kid's a jerk).

[Zix13]

lyssalu wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

GunGrave TZA wrote...

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 is where I stopped reading. If you cannot even get how ridiculous their situation is, how they are not "perfectly fine" and how this leads to no closure whatsoever I'm not bothering with the rest. Good day.

basically

Yeaaaaaa......

[Gaddmeister]

GunGrave TZA wrote...
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.

This reminds me of that good old Carl Sagan quote, so inspired by that, here it goes:

Why introduce the God Child at all? If we decide that the origin of the God Child is an unanswerable question, why not save a step and conclude that the origin of the Reapers is an unanswerable question?

To me, the God Child serves no purpose. It does not help the story in any way as far as I can see. It only nullifies the Reapers as the greatest threat in the Galaxy. So they were just lap dogs all along? All those smug, condescending Reapers were controlled by another being? That's a weak plot twist imo. That's the worst part of the ending for me. Oh yeah, and the way we are presented with the three choices: You can do A, B or C. Which one do you pick? It just seems like sloppy writing. Too bad that a really good series had to end this way. And I don't have the energy to start picking on the other plot holes.

Modifié par Gaddmeister, 26 mars 2012 - 11:16 .

[cyrrant]

The amount of speculation in this thread is very polarizing. I know that I will find this particular argument unforgettable.

[Egonne]

flumpet38 wrote...

'SHOULD have been explained inside the game...
don't know how long...
If he were...
it's entirely possible he's been mistaken...
entirely plausible...
I'm not 100% sure...
but we don't necessarily have a crystal clear view...
I don't think...
it's possible (even likely)...
I'm pretty certain...
I don't have much on this one...
If you can believe that...
entirely reasonable...
I'm leaning towards...
we don't know...
I will admit I'm assuming...
unless they thought...
entirely reasonable...
an oversight in the animation...

This amount of speculation and doubt?


It took critical thinking skills to COME UP with my list in the first place.  Do you truly think I lack the skills or imagination to answer my own questions? (That's a rhetorical question by the way )

Sure, imagination CAN fill in the holes.  But  imagination is REQUIRED for the MAJORITY of the ending, and that is a problem for me.

Modifié par Egonne, 26 mars 2012 - 11:42 .

[SovereignWill]

Wow OP, I admire your appreciation of the ending.
I wish I could have shrugged it off and overlooked all of my grievances with the ending and instead move on. It is impressive how the same footage can invoke closure and hope for some while others feel like being stabbed in the brain with a derpdagger. It all could have been avoided with clarity and an actual epilogue. But no, Mac Walters wanted vague terms and speculation from everyone. I'm sure he's glad how things turned out!

But,the thing is the ending is bad on multiple levels.
For me the Crucible is a terribly weak plot device. An ancient superweapon, built across cycles, with no indication as to what it's purpose was and apparently each civilization added to it? Every time the Crucible was mentionned during the campaign I was starting to worry that it would be a cheap way out to resolve a threat that we spent so long acquiring loyalties and forming alliances to defeat an incredible foe. Making the the citadel the Catalyst (initially) gave me the impression that the Crucible was simply a Reaper trap, since they relocated the Citadel to Earth. When Anderson told Shepard that the Catalyst wasn't doing anything I was like HA! Nicely done Reapers! All of the pointless war assets acquired during the trilogy spent their time building this thing with no idea what it would actually do. But then the elevator came down...

Introducing the Catalyst within the final 10 minutes of the game with no prior foreshadowing and revealing that it was actually the one controlling the reapers, painting the reapers as simple pawns obeying the will of a stupid Deus Ex Machina with retarded logic. The Reapers were threatening on their own, sentients machines of incredible power, having lived for aeons. Merely tools to conduct a program set to run every 50000 years in order to maintain order? If they are so worried about synthetics eradicating all life, then simply eradicate synthethics as they appear. This slash and burn approach to clearing out organic life capable of creating synthetic life while leaving other civilizations is non-sensical. The assimilation of organic matter into a new reaper fitted their motives. It provided purpose for this mass genocide.

I didn't want a godlike entity dictating the fate of the universe and to explain it in such a contrived way, without place for argumentation from Shepard... Solving the Dark Energy expansion threat related to Mass Effect use (Entropy) was already a much more stimulating approach for the motivations of the Reapers. They were beings who we're battling a threat no organic mind could even begin to comprehend let alone solve. Instead they were in a couple sentences simply dismissed as pawns of a VI/AI living in the Citadel no less (making the whole premise of Sovereign and Saren having to interact with the Citadel moot). So for me both the Crucible and Catalyst came out as excessively weak plot devices to conclude this otherwise fantastic story. That conclusion came out of nowhere, and offered 3 choices that weren't that original (Deus Ex) and really didn't need to be applied to the universe of Mass Effect! We had a fantastic time interacting with the Geth and EDI.

The resulting space magic has destroyed all Mass Relays (and maybe even entire systems if you go with the way Arrival painted a relay exploding destroying, however as others have pointed out the Space Magic apparently transmits the energy of the relay then crumbles, you still see a cluster wide explosion at each relay) making interstellar flight impossible (FTL is still available but imagine shutting down all highways, with no way to resupply fuel depots, galactic civilizations have been crippled beyond repair. Nothing will ever be the same and fleets are all left stranded, cut from reinforcements, food, their homeworlds by several years of non-stop FTL flight, assuming they could manage it. This is not a victorious and uplifting ending. The outcome is terribly bleak.

The Normandy scene has been nitpicked to hell, but then again why is Joker fleeing, in a Mass relay? He swooped in near the London beam to pickup up Liara's corpse (she died by Harbinger's beam and came out of the marooned Normandy alive) while heading to the Charon Relay near Pluto it a matter of seconds. Having choosed Synthesize because at this point after hearing Starchild casually say that he his responsible for this galactic cycle and somehow this mysterious machine allows me to choose the color of my Space Magic, my Shepard was pretty much going F*ck it, we'll all be robot people. A single man, given the ability to affect every single living beings in the galaxy to the molecular level, he makes this choice for all living things after hearing a few lines from some AI he just met that has eradicated life for countless cycles? No I don't believe in IT. After witnessing all the cut corners in this game, no way they attempted to pull something as intricate and elaborated as this. If they did, they failed poorly at conveying the point across. 

I did a 100% insanity playthrough with imported ME/ME2 saves with 100% galactic readiness... and to have all of these quotes from the developers how war assets would impact greatly the endingS, how it wouldn't be a ABC choice, how it wouldn't be a Lost ending... to have the game end on such a terrible note was soul crushing for me. It instantly killed my desire to import any further Shepards and have them go through that again.

The ending to ME3, was alot worse then Lost and Battlestar Galactica in terms of sheer deception and unfulfilled promises. The StarGazer scene was just adding fuel to the already burning rage... and the final screen inviting me to purchase additional Downloadable Content was the final nail in the coffin. If that wasn't enough the game then proceeds to reload a savegame prior to the Illusive Man's base attack. This quick succession of dissapointements and blatant disregard of anything I've ever cared about in this story is why for me the ending was an insult to this game that had so much potential. They instead took a wierd spin near the end and it was a total miss.

I've gotta say I enjoyed reading your reasons why you liked the ending, one of the most elaborate I've seen while browsing BSN lately. But it boils down to personnal perspective, understanding and prior expectations. Probably even what works of fictions each individual as seen beforehand will affect their appreciation of the endings. Having seen the Matrix, played Deus Ex, watched Lost explode into non-sense at it's final stage, Battlestar Galactica throw away all technology, read various sci-fi stories... all lead to the unfulfilled promises and dissapointing experience most of us had to sit through.

Modifié par SovereignWill, 27 mars 2012 - 03:24 .

[SovereignWill]

Gaddmeister wrote...

GunGrave TZA wrote...
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.

This reminds me of that good old Carl Sagan quote, so inspired by that, here it goes:

Why introduce the God Child at all? If we decide that the origin of the God Child is an unanswerable question, why not save a step and conclude that the origin of the Reapers is an unanswerable question?

To me, the God Child serves no purpose. It does not help the story in any way as far as I can see. It only nullifies the Reapers as the greatest threat in the Galaxy. So they were just lap dogs all along? All those smug, condescending Reapers were controlled by another being? That's a weak plot twist imo. That's the worst part of the ending for me. Oh yeah, and the way we are presented with the three choices: You can do A, B or C. Which one do you pick? It just seems like sloppy writing. Too bad that a really good series had to end this way. And I don't have the energy to start picking on the other plot holes.

Upvote for Sagan, Death to God Child.

[flumpet38]

Egonne wrote...

This amount of speculation and doubt?


It took critical thinking skills to COME UP with my list in the first place.  Do you truly think I lack the skills or imagination to answer my own questions? (That's a rhetorical question by the way )

Sure, imagination CAN fill in the holes.  But  imagination is REQUIRED for the MAJORITY of the ending, and that is a problem for me.

*Shrug* you're the one who asked the questions, not me. Also, while you may have the imagination to answer your own questions, it seems like some others on this forum and in this thread are genuinely unsure how these things could be explained. 

If you don't want to have to think about the ending, and don't want to seek answers yourself, and have them offered up to you on a platter instead, it's not really worth my time to keep debating the issue with you. You and I are just looking for fundamentally different things from our entertainment. And that's perfectly ok. Just means I'm unlikely to convince you specifically that my argument has merit, and that the ending isn't "disastrous". Not that arguing on the internet ever really changes opinions:P

I injected "speculation and doubt" into my responses as a consolation to the fact that Bioware didn't explicitly spell out the answer to any of those questions. I offered a conciliatory tone in my response to illustrate that I understand where one might have questions and not be sure what the answers were. You choose to burn me with it, I'll find someone else to debate with, no offense. 

[WeatheredSoap]

GunGrave TZA wrote...

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!

You are not alone.

[FS3D]

flumpet38 wrote...

FS3D wrote...

They still should have included the option.

Besides, where are you getting that 50% option? Did you have 7000 EMS?

I had over 7000 EMS and a 90% readiness rating. 50% wasn't an option, it was a line in the game.

After you take out the cannon and head to the forward operating base, Anderson says something along the lines of "Only half of the Hammer forces have checked in on the ground."...you get the option to ask if any more are going to make it, and Anderson says "no."

Point being, you've rounded up all the warriors in the Galaxy, and half of them just died getting to the ground. We don't get an accurate casualty report of ground forces, but if the Reapers don't get stopped by the Crucible, it's a certainty that they don't get stopped at all. Walking away from the Star-Child-Thingy means loss, complete and total. No matter how defiant my Shepard is, he wouldn't let the Galaxy burn just to give a kid the finger. Even a really pompous, arrogant star-kid (no really, that kid's a jerk).

Fail.

Half of Hammer failed to get boots on the ground. You're taking a throw-away line in the game that you only hear if your EMS is above 4000 (for the record, if it's less, that 50% gets progressively worse), and applying it to all the other war assets in the game. Without the information confirming if this is the case or not, the statement "Point being, you've rounded up all the warriors in the Galaxy, and half of them just died getting to the ground." is nothing more than guess-work on your part...

And it still doesn't validate "Walking away from the Star-Child-Thingy means loss, complete and total."

Sorry... No matter how many times you tell us you're satisfied with the ending, or you don't see a problem with not being able to have choice, it doesn't invalidate our concerns and our complaints.

So stop trying to justify why you don't think we should have the right to demand what we were promised and what was advertised to us through the press.

OK?

[Egonne]

flumpet38 wrote...

Not that arguing on the internet ever really changes opinions

I injected "speculation and doubt" into my responses as a consolation to the fact that Bioware didn't explicitly spell out the answer to any of those questions.

Sorry, didn't mean to 'burn you with it.  But the point of the list is NOT that answers CANNOT be imagined....it is that so many answers HAVE to be imagined.  You would have been a fool to answer with more surety.

I strongly disagree with internet debate.  I personally have learned a TREMENDOUS amount about Deus Ex Machina and Deus Diablo.  I think I agree that the star child isn't technically Deus Ex Machina.  Utterly fascinating experience.  Love the learning. 

[flumpet38]

FS3D wrote...

Fail.

Half of Hammer failed to get boots on the ground. You're taking a throw-away line in the game that you only hear if your EMS is above 4000 (for the record, if it's less, that 50% gets progressively worse), and applying it to all the other war assets in the game.

First, the entire point of the War Asset system is that it's a list of people who will help you take Earth back. That's what the War Asset system represents. If my list of people willing to help me includes all available assets, it means there's nobody else I can convince to unify behind my banner to help my cause. There may be other warriors out there, granted. They won't work with the other races to activate the Crucible, because it's not possible to collect them. 50% of the folks willing to work with Shepard and unite to fight the Reapers at Earth die before landing. Hard to see that as anything but horrific casualties. For comparison, the official estimate for casualties on D-Day is roughly 10,000 Allies. Out of 156,000. Less than 10%, and it's the first battle that comes to mind for most when we say "high casualty rate." 50% is downright apocalyptic.

Second, we know a unified strike and activating the Crucible is the only hope of victory. The game explains that, again and again. 

Without the information confirming if this is the case or not, the statement "Point being, you've rounded up all the warriors in the Galaxy, and half of them just died getting to the ground." is nothing more than guess-work on your part...

Educated guess-work. I'm going off the information that's provided by the game. The game is pretty blatant about this strike, and the Crucible, being pretty much our only hope.

And it still doesn't validate "Walking away from the Star-Child-Thingy means loss, complete and total."

I don't really need to validate that statement. I'm just pointing out the obvious. Like I said (...ok, in retrospect, maybe I said it in another thread), I'd have loved an option to tell the Star-Child-Thingy to go do horrible things to himself in a corner. But, given the information we're given in the game, there isn't a viable answer for Shepard beyond using the Crucible one way or the other.

That in no way invalidates or denies your right to request Bioware change the facts.

Sorry... No matter how many times you tell us you're satisfied with the ending, or you don't see a problem with not being able to have choice, it doesn't invalidate our concerns and our complaints.

So stop trying to justify why you don't think we should have the right to demand what we were promised and what was advertised to us through the press.

OK?

Whoah dude. I never said y'all don't have the right to express your displeasure, request a different ending, or dislike the ending. Disagree with me all you want. I'm expressing my viewpoint, I'm not calling anyone names, and I'm trying to be respectful of the fact that not everyone agrees with me.

All I'm saying is that, like the OP, I like the ending. And, for the unanswered questions, there's enough information for me to put the pieces together into a narrative that works for me, and that I don't mind putting those pieces together. "Some Assembly Required" is fine by me. It's not for you? Cool. Ask for more from Bioware to your heart's content. I'm just sharing my viewpoint, not attacking you.

[flumpet38]

Egonne wrote...

Sorry, didn't mean to 'burn you with it.  But the point of the list is NOT that answers CANNOT be imagined....it is that so many answers HAVE to be imagined.  You would have been a fool to answer with more surety.

I strongly disagree with internet debate.  I personally have learned a TREMENDOUS amount about Deus Ex Machina and Deus Diablo.  I think I agree that the star child isn't technically Deus Ex Machina.  Utterly fascinating experience.  Love the learning. 

Hey, no worries. Turn of phrase is all. I generally try not to get bent out of shape over forum posts. Like I said, I'm not too put out by imagining answers (clearly I get a kick out of it since I'm spending so much time on internet forums doing just that...) but that sort of ending isn't your cup of tea. I respect that, just means I'm unlikely to convert you 

The Crucible's a little...convenient, but I agree, not quite Deus Ex Machina...we've got hints in a few places that there'r things older than even the Protheans.

Truth be told, I'm excited to see what Bioware's got coming down the pike for Mass Effect. I liked the endings, but I definitely see room for improvement. And, the whole...saga...over the endings is interesting as hell. I'm kinda glad this is happening with a company that is actually taking fan opinion into consideration and actively considering how to give us what we want.

[Dominator24]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

RedNanaki wrote...

The Turians and Quarians will never be able to make it home before they run out of dextro food for instance

Yes.  It is inconceivable that the Migrant Fleet could survive without a homeworld.  

Yeah the the reprocesed food ships with zero armor and puny shilds. Im sure they were in the just fine after the battle.

[CaptainZaysh]

Dominator24 wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

RedNanaki wrote...

The Turians and Quarians will never be able to make it home before they run out of dextro food for instance

Yes.  It is inconceivable that the Migrant Fleet could survive without a homeworld.  

Yeah the the reprocesed food ships with zero armor and puny shilds. Im sure they were in the just fine after the battle.

There's no information on fleet casualties, is there? Personally I think Hackett would have arranged his forces so the Liveships were in the least danger.

[GunGrave TZA]

anlk92 wrote...

GunGrave TZA wrote...

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

They are ruined because they ditch you at the final battle for no reason. Shepard's character is ruined because he gives in to the main villain of the trilogy without showing any kind of protest.

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

Self determination and unity through diversity. Also the entire approach to the synthetics issue does a 180 during the conversation with the catalyst.

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

I'm sure most of the real life people who committed genocide also saw it as a necessary evil.

The catalyst is a genocidal maniac who commits galactic genocide every 50k years because he believes the synthetics are evil, yet is presented to the player as an entity with superior knowledge than any other character and the player too. As I said Shepard doesn't protest to catalyst's ideas and he is easily willing to accept them. This further proves that the writers were trying to pass these arguments to the player as truth.

Also synthesis ending which suggests that two different species cannot coexist peacefully and in order to establish peace they need to become the same thing requires the highest ems to unlock. This gives the impression that it is the optimal ending and the only way to have permanent peace. The whole notion of synthesis is racist and awfuly close to cultural genocide. Not to forget that it is something Shepard forces on to the entire galaxy.

All fair arguments, I just personally don't agree with them. Thanks for explaining the problems, though.

Gaddmeister wrote...

GunGrave TZA wrote...
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.

This reminds me of that good old Carl Sagan quote, so inspired by that, here it goes:

Why introduce the God Child at all? If we decide that the origin of the God Child is an unanswerable question, why not save a step and conclude that the origin of the Reapers is an unanswerable question?

To me, the God Child serves no purpose. It does not help the story in any way as far as I can see. It only nullifies the Reapers as the greatest threat in the Galaxy. So they were just lap dogs all along? All those smug, condescending Reapers were controlled by another being? That's a weak plot twist imo. That's the worst part of the ending for me. Oh yeah, and the way we are presented with the three choices: You can do A, B or C. Which one do you pick? It just seems like sloppy writing. Too bad that a really good series had to end this way. And I don't have the energy to start picking on the other plot holes.

But they were being smug and condescending because they believed that what they were doing was truly the right thing. They were designed as nothing more than slaves to the Catalyst who obviously believes his solution of the cycle is the only correct one, and so therefore do the Reapers. And when he is proven wrong, he gives Shepard the chance to offer an alternative. They ARE alternatives only the Catalyst offers... But they are alternatives the player is given nonetheless. And I believe Shepard went along with it because he has already been through so much already and he has lost all hope. He starts to believe the Catalyst because it is so simpler to believe that the cycle is unstoppable and these are the only three solutions. And so too does the player.

But do you guys know what? Watch my original post.

I'm going to try my hand at editing and attempt to create an alternative ending to the game as a little experiment. It'll most likely fail spectacularly. But I'm going to try and see if it is possible to offer an ending with the Catalyst entirely removed. Then you guys can let me know what you think.

I'll try and get it done by the end of the day, but no promises.

Modifié par GunGrave TZA, 27 mars 2012 - 04:52 .

[FS3D]

[quote]flumpet38 wrote...

[quote]FS3D wrote...

Fail.

Half of Hammer failed to get boots on the ground. You're taking a throw-away line in the game that you only hear if your EMS is above 4000 (for the record, if it's less, that 50% gets progressively worse), and applying it to all the other war assets in the game.

[/quote]

First, the entire point of the War Asset system is that it's a list of people who will help you take Earth back. That's what the War Asset system represents.[/quote]

I know this already. This invalidates my point... How, exactly?

[quote]If my list of people willing to help me includes all available assets, it means there's nobody else I can convince to unify behind my banner to help my cause. There may be other warriors out there, granted. They won't work with the other races to activate the Crucible, because it's not possible to collect them. 50% of the folks willing to work with Shepard and unite to fight the Reapers at Earth die before landing.[/quote]

Wait... What?!

Are you making the assumption that every single war asset listed on the War Assets page is going to put boots on the ground? So let me get this straight...

Pilots are going to go out with firearms in marine formation?

Engineers?

Maybe we'll have all the dreadnought and destroyer commanders just jump into escape pods and put boots on the ground now, too, shall we?

[quote]Hard to see that as anything but horrific casualties. For comparison, the official estimate for casualties on D-Day is roughly 10,000 Allies. Out of 156,000. Less than 10%, and it's the first battle that comes to mind for most when we say "high casualty rate." 50% is downright apocalyptic.[/quote]

And... Once again, because you clearly didn't pay attention... That quote in-game was the same as I got for just over 4000 EMS, for HAMMER squadron. In other words, the people who were SUPPOSED to land on the planet.

Hammer squadron is not the entirety of the military assets that went to Sol in order to take the fight to the Reapers... Not even close. The VAST majority of combatants were fleet ships that engaged the Reapers in orbit.

So when I say you have made a baseless assumption... I mean you made a baseless assumption.

[quote]Second, we know a unified strike and activating the Crucible is the only hope of victory. The game explains that, again and again. [/quote]

It is often the case that a claim made within the game by a specific character does not mean that said character is a God of any kind. That you would treat Admiral Hackett as an infallible God-type figure, just because he stated twice in my play-through that the Reapers cannot be beaten conventionally, is to completely and utterly accept everything presented at face-value.

No wonder you just accepted the ending.

I on the other hand expect a bit better from a story than that.

[quote][quote]
Without the information confirming if this is the case or not, the statement "Point being, you've rounded up all the warriors in the Galaxy, and half of them just died getting to the ground." is nothing more than guess-work on your part...
[/quote]

Educated guess-work. I'm going off the information that's provided by the game. The game is pretty blatant about this strike, and the Crucible, being pretty much our only hope.[/quote]

As I previouly explained... This is nothing of the kind. You can pretend it is all you want, but even a complete and total moron could see that when Anderson talks about 50% of Hammer Squadron landing on the planet... That means 50% of HAMMER Squadron... Not 50% of every single war asset that took the fight to the Reapers.

Not to mention the mechanics and logistics of taking combat against a space-faring race. Just because 50% of the forces designated for landing were taken out in one play-through (and that number could go up a lot higher if you do relly badly) doesn't mean that this number applies all across the board.

Either you're unable to see that blatantly obvious fact...

Or you've chosen to ignore it in order to make your argument.

And frankly, I don't know which is worse.

[quote][quote]
And it still doesn't validate "Walking away from the Star-Child-Thingy means loss, complete and total."
[/quote]

I don't really need to validate that statement.[/quote]

Yes you do, if you're going to make the argument... Which is what you are doing by stating that refusing the star-child's choices is not an option.

Sorry.

[quote]I'm just pointing out the obvious. Like I said (...ok, in retrospect, maybe I said it in another thread), I'd have loved an option to tell the Star-Child-Thingy to go do horrible things to himself in a corner. But, given the information we're given in the game, there isn't a viable answer for Shepard beyond using the Crucible one way or the other.[/quote]

Except for all of the above.

[quote]That in no way invalidates or denies your right to request Bioware change the facts.

[quote]
Sorry... No matter how many times you tell us you're satisfied with the ending, or you don't see a problem with not being able to have choice, it doesn't invalidate our concerns and our complaints.

So stop trying to justify why you don't think we should have the right to demand what we were promised and what was advertised to us through the press.

OK?
[/quote]

Whoah dude.[/quote]

Yawn...

[quote]I never said y'all don't have the right to express your displeasure, request a different ending, or dislike the ending. Disagree with me all you want. I'm expressing my viewpoint, I'm not calling anyone names, and I'm trying to be respectful of the fact that not everyone agrees with me.[/quote]

Who said anything about name-calling? Don't infer something from my responses that isn't explicitly written.

Maybe that's your problem? You've inferred something that I hadn't explicitly stated, just as you had apparently done in the game itself.

Doesn't mean it's correct or true.

[quote]All I'm saying is that, like the OP, I like the ending. And, for the unanswered questions, there's enough information for me to put the pieces together into a narrative that works for me, and that I don't mind putting those pieces together. "Some Assembly Required" is fine by me.[/quote]

"Some assembly required" is not the issue. "A lot of assembly, along with additional raw materials and a blue-print that you have to get from elsewhere is required" is what the issue is here.

[quote]It's not for you? Cool. Ask for more from Bioware to your heart's content. I'm just sharing my viewpoint, not attacking you.[/quote]

Except that you just outright inferred that the ending itself explained sufficiently everything we needed to know, and that if I don't agree, it's because I'm not looking deeply enough.

Please don't ****** in my ear and tell me it's raining.

[flumpet38]

[quote]FS3D wrote...

[quote]flumpet38 wrote...

First, the entire point of the War Asset system is that it's a list of people who will help you take Earth back. That's what the War Asset system represents.[/quote]

I know this already. This invalidates my point... How, exactly?

[/quote]

You asked how it was that I was applying that to all the other war assets in the Galaxy.


[quote]
[quote]If my list of people willing to help me includes all available assets, it means there's nobody else I can convince to unify behind my banner to help my cause. There may be other warriors out there, granted. They won't work with the other races to activate the Crucible, because it's not possible to collect them. 50% of the folks willing to work with Shepard and unite to fight the Reapers at Earth die before landing.[/quote]

Wait... What?!

Are you making the assumption that every single war asset listed on the War Assets page is going to put boots on the ground? So let me get this straight...

Pilots are going to go out with firearms in marine formation?

Engineers?

Maybe we'll have all the dreadnought and destroyer commanders just jump into escape pods and put boots on the ground now, too, shall we?

[/quote]

My bad. In my earlier post in this thread, I stated:
[quote]
 50% of ALL the ground troops you rounded up 
[/quote]

Thought I had been that specific in my response to you, but on re-reading it, I see that I wasn't. I'm aware that the 50% figure only applies to ground troops.

[quote]
[quote]Hard to see that as anything but horrific casualties. For comparison, the official estimate for casualties on D-Day is roughly 10,000 Allies. Out of 156,000. Less than 10%, and it's the first battle that comes to mind for most when we say "high casualty rate." 50% is downright apocalyptic.[/quote]

And... Once again, because you clearly didn't pay attention... That quote in-game was the same as I got for just over 4000 EMS, for HAMMER squadron. In other words, the people who were SUPPOSED to land on the planet.
[/quote]

See above.

[quote]
Hammer squadron is not the entirety of the military assets that went to Sol in order to take the fight to the Reapers... Not even close. The VAST majority of combatants were fleet ships that engaged the Reapers in orbit.

So when I say you have made a baseless assumption... I mean you made a baseless assumption.
[/quote]

Agreed that the majority of combatants were in the Sword attack group. While we don't exactly have figures, from the cutscenes, it also looks like the vast majority of Reaper forces are in space as well. 

It took the combined might of 3 Alliance fleets and the Council fleet to take down 1 Sovereign-class Reaper in Mass Effect 1. Sure, in ME3 we've got more fleets, but the number of Reapers in the Sol system space battle is rather ridiculously large.

My assumption's not baseless. I will admit the assumption's not well-based, but that's because this is a friggin' video game. I don't have accurate numbers, troop deployment plans, strategies, or casualty figures. I've got the information the video game provides. Basing my assumptions off of the data I have.

[quote]
[quote]Second, we know a unified strike and activating the Crucible is the only hope of victory. The game explains that, again and again. [/quote]

It is often the case that a claim made within the game by a specific character does not mean that said character is a God of any kind. That you would treat Admiral Hackett as an infallible God-type figure, just because he stated twice in my play-through that the Reapers cannot be beaten conventionally, is to completely and utterly accept everything presented at face-value.
[/quote]

Ah, what a clever rhetorical trick, trying to pull a reasonable argument to an absurd extreme to make me look silly. Never seen that one before.

I never claimed Hackett was an 'infallible God-type figure', or that he can't possibly be wrong. Again, we're dealing with a video game. We don't have hard numbers on how many of X types of ships it takes to bring down Y type of Reaper, or exact figures on types of ships in both forces present at the battle. We've got to go off of the information provided to us. 

Hackett's not God. But, as one of the best strategic minds in the Alliance military, he's probably the character best-suited to make an accurate assessment of the fleet's chance of victory via conventional warfare/tactics. 

If I can recommend some reading, you might check out Strategy by B.H. Liddel Hart, of Sun Tzu's The Art of War. Both classic strategy books, well-known and well-regarded, that teach as a core principle that decisive victory cannot come from conventional tactics. And a victory that's not decisive at Earth doesn't leave the fleet with the capability to retake Thessia, Palaven, or the Batarian homeworld (Ket'osh, I think).
 


[quote]
[quote][quote]
Without the information confirming if this is the case or not, the statement "Point being, you've rounded up all the warriors in the Galaxy, and half of them just died getting to the ground." is nothing more than guess-work on your part...
[/quote]

Educated guess-work. I'm going off the information that's provided by the game. The game is pretty blatant about this strike, and the Crucible, being pretty much our only hope.[/quote]

As I previouly explained... This is nothing of the kind. You can pretend it is all you want, but even a complete and total moron could see that when Anderson talks about 50% of Hammer Squadron landing on the planet... That means 50% of HAMMER Squadron... Not 50% of every single war asset that took the fight to the Reapers.
[/quote]

Addressed this above. 

[quote]
Not to mention the mechanics and logistics of taking combat against a space-faring race. Just because 50% of the forces designated for landing were taken out in one play-through (and that number could go up a lot higher if you do relly badly) doesn't mean that this number applies all across the board.

Either you're unable to see that blatantly obvious fact...

Or you've chosen to ignore it in order to make your argument.

And frankly, I don't know which is worse.
[/quote]

For clarity's sake, I'll point it out again. I'm aware that the 50% figure only applies to ground forces. I didn't "ignore" that fact in order to strengthen my argument. We don't have casualty figures for the space battle. I'd be willing to wager that the space casualty figures are probably pretty high as well, but it's a pointless wager, because we're unlikely to ever see numbers.

Without the Crucible, there are more battles to come. Palaven and Thessia especially, but many other planets the Reapers had already taken or were working on taking. Without the Crucible, winning the battle for Earth doesn't mean winning the war for the Galaxy.

[quote][quote]

I don't really need to validate that statement.[/quote]

Yes you do, if you're going to make the argument... Which is what you are doing by stating that refusing the star-child's choices is not an option.

Sorry.
[/quote]

No, I don't need to validate that statement. The game does it for me. Hackett says the Crucible's the only real option. Anderson says the Crucible's the only real option. The sheer scope of Reaper forces arrayed at Earth show the Crucible's the only real option. The fact that every single previous cycle in the galaxy (where, of course, nobody else could possibly have tried the "let's fight them together" approach, right? Because "we're all in this together" is such a novel sentiment Shepard's bringing to the galaxy) was defeated by the Reapers, even the significantly more technologically-advanced Protheans, validates that statement. 

[quote]
[quote]I'm just pointing out the obvious. Like I said (...ok, in retrospect, maybe I said it in another thread), I'd have loved an option to tell the Star-Child-Thingy to go do horrible things to himself in a corner. But, given the information we're given in the game, there isn't a viable answer for Shepard beyond using the Crucible one way or the other.[/quote]

Except for all of the above.
[/quote]

...I continue to disagree with you.


[quote]
[quote]I never said y'all don't have the right to express your displeasure, request a different ending, or dislike the ending. Disagree with me all you want. I'm expressing my viewpoint, I'm not calling anyone names, and I'm trying to be respectful of the fact that not everyone agrees with me.[/quote]

Who said anything about name-calling? Don't infer something from my responses that isn't explicitly written.

Maybe that's your problem? You've inferred something that I hadn't explicitly stated, just as you had apparently done in the game itself.

Doesn't mean it's correct or true.

[/quote]

Merely trying to point out that I'm attempting to provide my spin on things in a respectful manner. I'm not inferring or implying anyone's calling me names, or anyone thinks I'm calling them names. Although, a few folks in this thread have gotten around to calling those who liked the ending "idiots". That was mostly for their sake, not yours.


[quote]
[quote]All I'm saying is that, like the OP, I like the ending. And, for the unanswered questions, there's enough information for me to put the pieces together into a narrative that works for me, and that I don't mind putting those pieces together. "Some Assembly Required" is fine by me.[/quote]

"Some assembly required" is not the issue. "A lot of assembly, along with additional raw materials and a blue-print that you have to get from elsewhere is required" is what the issue is here.

[/quote]

I don't think it's quite as severe a problem as you make it out to be, but, much like the other guy I've been going back and forth with in this thread, that's probably, in the end, just going to boil down to the fact that you and I disagree on how much work, inference, and thought should need to go into an ending. Clearly, I'm comfortable with having to put a few pieces together to find an interpretation that works for me. You're not? Cool. Continue to request more from Bioware. I'm interested to see how it plays out, and what Bioware comes back with.

[quote]
[quote]It's not for you? Cool. Ask for more from Bioware to your heart's content. I'm just sharing my viewpoint, not attacking you.[/quote]

Except that you just outright inferred that the ending itself explained sufficiently everything we needed to know, and that if I don't agree, it's because I'm not looking deeply enough.

Please don't ****** in my ear and tell me it's raining.
[/quote]

Yup. I drew some conclusions on the ending and decided that if I analyzed it in a given fashion, it made enough sense to me that I can be happy with it and move on with my life. I don't think you're not looking deeply enough. Our conversation is evidence to the contrary. You've got a different spin on some things than I do. But I think more than that, you're looking for ways the ending is wrong, whereas I'm looking for ways it's right. Do I think my approach is better? Not necessarily, but I do think I'm more satisfied with ME3 than you are.

So, in the interest of defending my position, let's try this: I've defended my argument that the Council/Earth/Alliance forces can't conventionally tackle the Reapers, thus leaving the Crucible as Shepard's only viable option. You disagree. So, what's your evidence that the Reapers CAN be beaten conventionally and Shepard can ignore the Star-Kid and walk away without dooming the galaxy? Let's swap the playing field, and see if your argument holds any more water than mine. 

Modifié par flumpet38, 28 mars 2012 - 01:05 .