265 réponses à ce sujet

[dgumb]

 C'mon guys, so OP liked the ending. You (we) disagree, no reason to start flaming him.
Here's a few articles I think explain some of the problems/plotholes, and a pretty good (and funny) video as well. Enjoy OP.

[Reth Shepherd]

No where near as Dramatic as the majority of posters here are being over the ending of a video game. Can't say that the artistic direction the developers steered the game towards invoked negative emotions...because it has been well been established on THESE forums that this game is not art and that artistic integrity does not apply.

I bet all of you 100 credits that if the endings where just how you imagined them...you'd all be singing praises on how artistic and moving this game was. You all are so upset with the ending that you are nitpicking every detail of the game..pointing out every inconsistency and making a fuss about it. It's ridiculous. There was a post earlier today about someone who fell into depression because of the ending. Other's post that video gaming has been ruined for them. Now THAT's dramatic.

I got curious the other night and looked up the symptoms of PTSD. It wasn't picture-perfect, but many of the symptoms lined up with the threads I've been seeing pop up (along with symptoms I've noticed in myself and my bf). I'm...honestly rather impressed that Bioware managed to actually traumatize this many people! Achievement unlocked?

'Oh, and for the 100 credits..just how we imagined them...etc', yes and no. I tend to nitpick a bit on the minor details. I prefer if my plots at least TRY to make sense given that universe's laws. That said, yes, I will Rule of Awesome something sufficiently epic, and I will accept same even if it wasn't . For the record, the Marauder Shields comic isn't how I'd pictured the series ending, yet it's so compelling that I'm actually considering changing my head-canon to adopt it.

[Fliprot]

We should just ask the producer directly wether the relays went supernova or not. Any answer other than yes or no means no. IMO.

[Elishiaila]

Opsrbest wrote...

I know people think thats bad writing but it really isn't. Maybe people don't like fatalism and determinism in writing but that's neither here nor there for how ME3 ends.

Promising something for money, taking money, not delivering the promised values is called fraud. And it is a crime. It isn't bad writing. It isn't art either. It is fraud. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't support fraud.

But bad writing problems aren't there. Look at Blue ending, your choice to control is there to protect mass relays and key stuff for your civilization, yet in the end the child asks when will space travel possible again. Something you saved is lost. As you see Bioware promised how our choices will be important, and how they are ignored here. And ignored with Normady crash. With a control (without any damage to relays) everyone would be safe.

Red, green, etc. might have different issues.

But if we take this part serious: One man told the story to a kid, the story is solid where he knows what happened, and it is strange where he fills the gaps. Makes sense? Makes sense to portray catalyst as a child when you tell the story to a child? Probably the end of story is strange and looks inaccurate because there is no eyewitness reports. But Shepard would have a change to explain things. Remember "assuming direct control" is an option. And you can try to assume direct control of a cloned body based on your actual DNA data.

[K1llm1n1on]

t_skwerl wrote...

Here's the crucial thing. The bottom line for most anyone regardless of whether or not you liked the endings. Replay value. The endings pretty much take everything you've done in the entirety of three games and tosses it right out the window. No matter what you've done, or how you play, you get the same endings with slight variations. Shep dies, (yes, yes, brief breath cutscene) relays explode, Normandy marooned. It's so depressing, people are saying they have no will to import all of their saved games. Or they play through once and return or trade it in.

The endings suck all replay value out of the entire series. More endings, more options, yes a happy ending or 3 would greatly alleviate this problem.

Yeah, I agree on that, to the extent that the univers is so different after the endings that anything that happens before it seems kind of trivial.

The part about choice and endings, though, I see differently. Mass Effect definitely is about choice to a degree, but on major issues the difference (i.e. paragon/renegade optione) is more about showing how Shepard is taking things, less on actually making a choice one way or another. I feel like it's unfeasable to make a game that is pervasively about major choices changing outcomes, especially cumulatively over 3 games. I don't feel like that's what they were trying to do in ME3. That was more the case in 2, and 1 and 3 it seems less so.

[NReed106]

Oh so art can't be criticized when it is terrible? Great writers like Charles Dickens never changed their works? Films never change their own endings and have test viewings?

The "artistic integrity" argument is awful. It is saying that artists should be lazy in their writing, insult their consumers with gaping plot holes that go unexplained, lie to consumers before a game ships, and consumers should not demand improvements because something "artistic" was sold to them and they have no right to tell someone to change it.

Fine, if BW doesn't change anything okay, but don't expect people to support BW in the future, in fact you can expect them to try to hurt BW sales

Overall, here is an analysis of why the ending is awful, and it has nothing to do with galactic dark age etc, but the STRUCTURE of the narrative itself:

http://jmstevenson.w...-mass-effect-3/

Modifié par NReed106, 27 mars 2012 - 01:07 .

[Cheviot]

DJBare wrote...

Cheviot wrote...
An explosion that is distributed across the relay network, something that did not happen in Arrival.

The explosion does not transfer to the relays, energy transfers to the relays then the citadel explodes right after the energy transference.

I should have descibed it better.  How about: energy that would have contributed to a supernova was distributed across the relay network, so that the resulting explosions were not on the scale of the one in Arrival.  Having watched the ending again, the relay does explode, but it's not a huge, system-destroying affair.

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Cheviot wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Cheviot wrote...


The
energy that would've created the supernovas was, in this case,
distributed along the Mass Effect corridors to help the order from the
Crucible pass from relay to relay and stop the galaxy from blowing up. 
You can see this in how the pattern started by the Crucible is repeated
by the relays: it releases a shockwave that does whatever Shepard has
chosen; a narrower beam is fired at the nearest relay; the Crucible
falls apart.  If the galaxy was blown up, then you'd have to explain why
the crew of the Normandy survived, and also how life survived long
enough for the post-credits bit.  And also that "Shepard breath" scene.

Speculation.



From everyone. 

I argued using evidence presented in the ending.  The idea that systems would be destroyed ignores this evidence.

You speculated on some barebones facts. 

I could speculate too. 

Energy
is sent to Mass Relays. Signal is sent to reciever. There's enough
energy left to cause the Relay to explode. Normandy is fleeing the
blast, it is causing a fair bit of damage to the ship. Precedence
established by Arrival DLC. Large shockwave from Relay is seen from
outside the galaxy. Therefore the Relay has gone supernova. Scene after
credits from a system not linked to a Relay. 

That's some more speculation, remember. 

I
didn't argue that you weren't right, just that whatever interpretation
you think up will invariably be based on a whole lot of speculation.
Whether the Relays go supernova or not is up in the air, hence why it is
a plot hole.

Notice that the shockwave "opens" and there is what looks like space behind it.  Damage only occurs to the Normandy when it is pulled into that space.  There are two types of shockwave: the one that ripples out, and the beam-like one that travels between relays.  The shockwave that the Normandy is escaping is a beam, therefore the Normandy is in a Mass Effect corridor, which explains the damage: the corridor is collapsing (the "opening" of the shockwave) and the damage is the effect of a low-mass object gaining a lot of mass very quickly.

Shockwaves visible from outside of the galaxy are the ripples that share the color of the choice Shepard made.  We know they don't destroy star systems because we saw one of them hit earth without destroying them (unless the Crucible is poorly-made (i.e. you've got a low EMS)).

Even if you are right about the post-credits scene being in a system without a relay, you've still got to explain how Shepard could be breathing in one ending.

So there is further evidence that supports my interpretation.  Your case for a plot hole seems to be based on the situation in Arrival being exactly replicated in ME3, which it is not.

[streamlock]

ME3 endings-Taste the rainbow.

[SandSkorpion]

Reth Shepherd wrote...

No where near as Dramatic as the majority of posters here are being over the ending of a video game. Can't say that the artistic direction the developers steered the game towards invoked negative emotions...because it has been well been established on THESE forums that this game is not art and that artistic integrity does not apply.

I bet all of you 100 credits that if the endings where just how you imagined them...you'd all be singing praises on how artistic and moving this game was. You all are so upset with the ending that you are nitpicking every detail of the game..pointing out every inconsistency and making a fuss about it. It's ridiculous. There was a post earlier today about someone who fell into depression because of the ending. Other's post that video gaming has been ruined for them. Now THAT's dramatic.

I got curious the other night and looked up the symptoms of PTSD. It wasn't picture-perfect, but many of the symptoms lined up with the threads I've been seeing pop up (along with symptoms I've noticed in myself and my bf). I'm...honestly rather impressed that Bioware managed to actually traumatize this many people! Achievement unlocked?

'Oh, and for the 100 credits..just how we imagined them...etc', yes and no. I tend to nitpick a bit on the minor details. I prefer if my plots at least TRY to make sense given that universe's laws. That said, yes, I will Rule of Awesome something sufficiently epic, and I will accept same even if it wasn't . For the record, the Marauder Shields comic isn't how I'd pictured the series ending, yet it's so compelling that I'm actually considering changing my head-canon to adopt it.

Marauder Shields is the BEST thing to come out of the ending drama. I nearly died laughing when the youtube vid and comics were released. I will never forget.

I have no doubts that Bioware intended for a polarizing conclusion to the series. They stated they wanted people talking about the ending..well they're getting what they asked for but I think they under-estimated the effect it would have on those not happy with it.

[K1llm1n1on]

dgumb wrote...

 C'mon guys, so OP liked the ending. You (we) disagree, no reason to start flaming him.
Here's a few articles I think explain some of the problems/plotholes, and a pretty good (and funny) video as well. Enjoy OP.

Thanks. The vid is funny.
Still feel like a lot comes down to interpretation, though.

[James9749]

Sirakou wrote...

I still cannot wrap my head around everyone saying the relay should have supernova'd. Yes, that happens when you smash an asteroid into it. But when a signal gets sent out from the Citadel, same "unknown" type of technology, its not going to react the same way.

If you smash a battery with a hammer, its going to be bad and messy. Dispose of battery properly, much more contained reaction. Why can't the same thing happen here?

Then why did the Normandy crash if it was a more contained explosion? In either case, whether you believe the Relay's go supernova and destroy a system, and hence would make the Normandy crash or desintigrate from the explosion and wipe out all galactic life that lived near the explosion, or if you believed it was more contained, and wouldn't destroy galactic civilization, then why would the Normandy crash if it was this "contained" explosion?
I'll continue my point of view in a latter post. I just wanted to reply to this guy.

[Clayless]

First page and already you got called a Bioware employee by the retake movement.

Has anyone called you a troll yet OP? I just skipped to the end after I saw that Bioware Employee thing.

[palanora]

This guy explains my feelings ..it's good you dont have them

www.themetagames.com/2012/03/why-you-enjoy-art-and-one-problem-with.html

[Lankist]

Omilophile wrote...

We don't necessarily want snapshots of the team at a club. We want an ending that make sense.

That said, I would settle for snapshots of the team at a club.

[Geneaux486]

I liked the ending because the sacrifice involved in achieving it fully acknolweged the strength of the larger-than-life enemy we were fighting, you got to say goodbye to all the important characters one by one beforehand, your hero is forced to swallow his pride and cooperate with a supposed enemy in order to save the galaxy, and the theme of evolution presents itself once and for all on a galactic scale.

[Cheviot]

James9749 wrote...

Sirakou wrote...

I still cannot wrap my head around everyone saying the relay should have supernova'd. Yes, that happens when you smash an asteroid into it. But when a signal gets sent out from the Citadel, same "unknown" type of technology, its not going to react the same way.

If you smash a battery with a hammer, its going to be bad and messy. Dispose of battery properly, much more contained reaction. Why can't the same thing happen here?

Then why did the Normandy crash if it was a more contained explosion? In either case, whether you believe the Relay's go supernova and destroy a system, and hence would make the Normandy crash or desintigrate from the explosion and wipe out all galactic life that lived near the explosion, or if you believed it was more contained, and wouldn't destroy galactic civilization, then why would the Normandy crash if it was this "contained" explosion?
I'll continue my point of view in a latter post. I just wanted to reply to this guy.

Because it wasn't the explosion that damaged the Normandy, it was the collapse of the mass effect corridor it was in.

Our_Last_Scene wrote...
First page and already you got called a Bioware employee by the retake movement.

Has anyone called you a troll yet OP? I just skipped to the end after I saw that Bioware Employee thing.

No one's called the OP a troll, but I think someone who agreed with him was accused of being one, on page 2.

[K1llm1n1on]

Durontan wrote...

Sirakou wrote...

Durontan wrote...

K1llm1n1on wrote...

demin8891 wrote...

Summary for those who don't want to read this massive wall of text: Artistic integrity.

I'm glad you liked it, OP. I really am. I'm just incapable of accepting mediocrity and plot holes the size of the Collector Base.

What specifically are your referring to when you say mediocrity? What plot holes do you see?

So you want to see plot holes?

Okey. So as that final conversation starts the Super wonder God child says he controls the reapers. His exact words are CONTROLS them, and now all of a sudden Shepard is given 3 choices and can't even make a case about some other 4th choice of co-existance. But fine, I can accept that they forgot to explain that the kid is only an AI and not a God-child that really controls them.

Okey, so my Shepard decides on one of the three colors... oh wait 3 totally different endings where he/she sacrifices himself/herself. In all three endings Mass relays explode. Okey, awesome! Mass relay explosion has been said throughout the series (Arrival best example) of what happens when Mass relays explode. SUPERNOVA! **** yea! Shepard just became biggest mass murderer and butcher of the galaxy, bigger then Reapers in this cycle. Fine, fine, I can accept that this is not the same explosion and it didn't go Supernova, again they forgot to explain that (hence the MEDIOCRITY of the ending).

But what I LOVED the most was seeing Normandy and Joker running through mass relay and when it crashed OH LOOK! My LI who was on a suicide run with me on Earth is all of a sudden there on the planet with Joker and EDI is hugging him... wait WHAT! Joker was with the fleet fighting the reapers! My squad was on Earth fighting to get to Citadel. Yes... hmmm... Oh to hell with it, this one I can't explain, MAJOR PLOT HOLE!

Half-sarcasm off. I am really tired of explaining people all the plot holes that endings have.

StarChild/GodChild whatever was already stated in last post.
Three different endings having a very similar outcome? Because we all know that similarity and plothole are the same thing.
Normandy "running" away from blast? Minor plothole at best, nowhere near HUGE. As for crew that I supposedly took with me? Assumed they got evacuated rather than ran for the beacon.

Minor bugs you say? Fine. Get them explained. On no LOGICAL way can you explain Normandy escape with MY entire squad that was on Earth. Even worse is the NEED to explain it. That is mediocrity in itself. Why are players who through entire game do not need to accept anything for granted all of a sudden need to fill in that it ain't a supernova, that my squad got evacuated, that Normandy escaped.
And yes, I actually am one of the people who understood that the kid is just an AI that can do only one of those 3 things. Point is again mediocrity of it, as it was so badly written and terribly explained that it looks like I am placed at Godchild who is omnipotent and tells me choose one of this 3 as I can't be bothered to tell you anything else.

I myself am fine with the 3 choices, don't care that Shepard has to die, but please, I can't accept their "bittersweet" ending of Normandy escape as it is obvious ploy, we will sacrifice Shepard and we will give players a show how their crew survived... only problem is that they didn't show HOW they survived but that they did. Retarded.

I need closure, I can accept endings (even do I find them lacking). Better ending would be IMO that after Anderson's death Shepard turn on the catalist and dies. Simpler, doesn't go into bigger deeper meaning (which failed in all directions) and I'd still have closure. I died, but did it, saved the galaxy. This endings with destruction of mass relays is off the charts retarded, with both supernovas and destroying entire mass effect universe as a whole.

First off, the Crucible destroys the mass relays while containing their destruction, to preserve the systems nearby, so the whole universe isn't destroyed.
Secondly, what you're saying is that you prefer if the game would have ended without the deeper concepts esplored byt the scenes with the "star child," which basically comes across as you wanted the ending to show victory but weren't interested in understanding what that victory meant.
A lot of what you are saying is completely subjective. You don't like the ending because you don't like it.
I'm not criticizing you for that, mind you- you don't have to like it.
I agree with you that it seems like some parts of the ending seem more like mini- teasers for future DLC. I'm still sore about day 1 DLC for some pretty major content.

[K1llm1n1on]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

First page and already you got called a Bioware employee by the retake movement.

Has anyone called you a troll yet OP? I just skipped to the end after I saw that Bioware Employee thing.

Not yet.

My mouthguard is in, though...

[Geneaux486]

First off, the Crucible destroys the mass relays while containing their destruction, to preserve the systems nearby, so the whole universe isn't destroyed.
Secondly, what you're saying is that you prefer if the game would have ended without the deeper concepts esplored byt the scenes with the "star child," which basically comes across as you wanted the ending to show victory but weren't interested in understanding what that victory meant.
A lot of what you are saying is completely subjective. You don't like the ending because you don't like it.
I'm not criticizing you for that, mind you- you don't have to like it.
I agree with you that it seems like some parts of the ending seem more like mini- teasers for future DLC. I'm still sore about day 1 DLC for some pretty major content.

Really nice to hear actual sanity in regards to the ending. Your opening post was great to, you were dead on with pretty much all of it.

[The Night Mammoth]

Cheviot wrote...

James9749 wrote...

Sirakou wrote...

I still cannot wrap my head around everyone saying the relay should have supernova'd. Yes, that happens when you smash an asteroid into it. But when a signal gets sent out from the Citadel, same "unknown" type of technology, its not going to react the same way.

If you smash a battery with a hammer, its going to be bad and messy. Dispose of battery properly, much more contained reaction. Why can't the same thing happen here?

Then why did the Normandy crash if it was a more contained explosion? In either case, whether you believe the Relay's go supernova and destroy a system, and hence would make the Normandy crash or desintigrate from the explosion and wipe out all galactic life that lived near the explosion, or if you believed it was more contained, and wouldn't destroy galactic civilization, then why would the Normandy crash if it was this "contained" explosion?
I'll continue my point of view in a latter post. I just wanted to reply to this guy.

Because it wasn't the explosion that damaged the Normandy, it was the collapse of the mass effect corridor it was in.

How do you know it was in a Mass Effect corridor? 

[AtreiyaN7]

I felt similarly - but some people just can't accept it when other people enjoy the endings and don't get OCD about the plot holes/inconsistencies (I am aware of them and DO want some exposition, yet it did not take away from my overall enjoyment). It seems as if they won't be happy unless they insult others, condemn them and make sure that they're as miserable as they are. If I were you, I'd just write off those people who act like jerks and ignore them.

Editing-wise, you might want to go in and remove the paragraph returns that sometimes get inserted when you copy & paste from a word processor. It will make your post neater and condense it a bit.

[K1llm1n1on]

Reth Shepherd wrote...

No where near as Dramatic as the majority of posters here are being over the ending of a video game. Can't say that the artistic direction the developers steered the game towards invoked negative emotions...because it has been well been established on THESE forums that this game is not art and that artistic integrity does not apply.

I bet all of you 100 credits that if the endings where just how you imagined them...you'd all be singing praises on how artistic and moving this game was. You all are so upset with the ending that you are nitpicking every detail of the game..pointing out every inconsistency and making a fuss about it. It's ridiculous. There was a post earlier today about someone who fell into depression because of the ending. Other's post that video gaming has been ruined for them. Now THAT's dramatic.

I got curious the other night and looked up the symptoms of PTSD. It wasn't picture-perfect, but many of the symptoms lined up with the threads I've been seeing pop up (along with symptoms I've noticed in myself and my bf). I'm...honestly rather impressed that Bioware managed to actually traumatize this many people! Achievement unlocked?

'Oh, and for the 100 credits..just how we imagined them...etc', yes and no. I tend to nitpick a bit on the minor details. I prefer if my plots at least TRY to make sense given that universe's laws. That said, yes, I will Rule of Awesome something sufficiently epic, and I will accept same even if it wasn't . For the record, the Marauder Shields comic isn't how I'd pictured the series ending, yet it's so compelling that I'm actually considering changing my head-canon to adopt it.

Yeah, I mentioned some of that in my OP. That's kind of where I am on it- I'm not completely reconciled with the ending and how it played out, but the effect it had on me makes it pretty spectacular.

[Vyndral]

I guess i look like it like this.

In ME2 when the Collector base is falling in and they are running running. And Shepard makes the dive on to the Normandy.

Now Imagine Instead of that great scene, you got Oh no its falling in!! *cut to scene of Shep flying off in the Normandy*

Yes the ending is exactly the same. The same freaking thing happens. Shepard flies away the hero. But so much is left out, that it just leaves you sitting there going, 'huh, well i guess that was it.'

This ending might be the greatest one yet. But it is so cut at the end I cant find myself really caring about much of anything, because it doesn't really feel like i did anything. And as i finish I just shrug.

[Cheviot]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Cheviot wrote...

James9749 wrote...

Sirakou wrote...

I still cannot wrap my head around everyone saying the relay should have supernova'd. Yes, that happens when you smash an asteroid into it. But when a signal gets sent out from the Citadel, same "unknown" type of technology, its not going to react the same way.

If you smash a battery with a hammer, its going to be bad and messy. Dispose of battery properly, much more contained reaction. Why can't the same thing happen here?

Then why did the Normandy crash if it was a more contained explosion? In either case, whether you believe the Relay's go supernova and destroy a system, and hence would make the Normandy crash or desintigrate from the explosion and wipe out all galactic life that lived near the explosion, or if you believed it was more contained, and wouldn't destroy galactic civilization, then why would the Normandy crash if it was this "contained" explosion?
I'll continue my point of view in a latter post. I just wanted to reply to this guy.

Because it wasn't the explosion that damaged the Normandy, it was the collapse of the mass effect corridor it was in.

How do you know it was in a Mass Effect corridor? 

My previous reply to you outlines the reasons I think this.

[The Night Mammoth]

K1llm1n1on wrote...

Durontan wrote...

Sirakou wrote...

Durontan wrote...

K1llm1n1on wrote...

demin8891 wrote...

Summary for those who don't want to read this massive wall of text: Artistic integrity.

I'm glad you liked it, OP. I really am. I'm just incapable of accepting mediocrity and plot holes the size of the Collector Base.

What specifically are your referring to when you say mediocrity? What plot holes do you see?

So you want to see plot holes?

Okey. So as that final conversation starts the Super wonder God child says he controls the reapers. His exact words are CONTROLS them, and now all of a sudden Shepard is given 3 choices and can't even make a case about some other 4th choice of co-existance. But fine, I can accept that they forgot to explain that the kid is only an AI and not a God-child that really controls them.

Okey, so my Shepard decides on one of the three colors... oh wait 3 totally different endings where he/she sacrifices himself/herself. In all three endings Mass relays explode. Okey, awesome! Mass relay explosion has been said throughout the series (Arrival best example) of what happens when Mass relays explode. SUPERNOVA! **** yea! Shepard just became biggest mass murderer and butcher of the galaxy, bigger then Reapers in this cycle. Fine, fine, I can accept that this is not the same explosion and it didn't go Supernova, again they forgot to explain that (hence the MEDIOCRITY of the ending).

But what I LOVED the most was seeing Normandy and Joker running through mass relay and when it crashed OH LOOK! My LI who was on a suicide run with me on Earth is all of a sudden there on the planet with Joker and EDI is hugging him... wait WHAT! Joker was with the fleet fighting the reapers! My squad was on Earth fighting to get to Citadel. Yes... hmmm... Oh to hell with it, this one I can't explain, MAJOR PLOT HOLE!

Half-sarcasm off. I am really tired of explaining people all the plot holes that endings have.

StarChild/GodChild whatever was already stated in last post.
Three different endings having a very similar outcome? Because we all know that similarity and plothole are the same thing.
Normandy "running" away from blast? Minor plothole at best, nowhere near HUGE. As for crew that I supposedly took with me? Assumed they got evacuated rather than ran for the beacon.

Minor bugs you say? Fine. Get them explained. On no LOGICAL way can you explain Normandy escape with MY entire squad that was on Earth. Even worse is the NEED to explain it. That is mediocrity in itself. Why are players who through entire game do not need to accept anything for granted all of a sudden need to fill in that it ain't a supernova, that my squad got evacuated, that Normandy escaped.
And yes, I actually am one of the people who understood that the kid is just an AI that can do only one of those 3 things. Point is again mediocrity of it, as it was so badly written and terribly explained that it looks like I am placed at Godchild who is omnipotent and tells me choose one of this 3 as I can't be bothered to tell you anything else.

I myself am fine with the 3 choices, don't care that Shepard has to die, but please, I can't accept their "bittersweet" ending of Normandy escape as it is obvious ploy, we will sacrifice Shepard and we will give players a show how their crew survived... only problem is that they didn't show HOW they survived but that they did. Retarded.

I need closure, I can accept endings (even do I find them lacking). Better ending would be IMO that after Anderson's death Shepard turn on the catalist and dies. Simpler, doesn't go into bigger deeper meaning (which failed in all directions) and I'd still have closure. I died, but did it, saved the galaxy. This endings with destruction of mass relays is off the charts retarded, with both supernovas and destroying entire mass effect universe as a whole.

First off, the Crucible destroys the mass relays while containing their destruction, to preserve the systems nearby, so the whole universe isn't destroyed.

Speculation.

Secondly, what you're saying is that you prefer if the game would have ended without the deeper concepts esplored byt the scenes with the "star child," which basically comes across as you wanted the ending to show victory but weren't interested in understanding what that victory meant.

Assuming the kid actually brings in any 'deeper concepts'. It does not. 

A lot of what you are saying is completely subjective. You don't like the ending because you don't like it.
I'm not criticizing you for that, mind you- you don't have to like it.

Everyone here knows why they hate the endings, it's just that most people aren't going to spend too much time detailing why when there are plenty of other sources. You mayhaps should have looked at a few of them. 

In saying that, there are a lot of things that aren't quite subjective. Plot holes, for example, Shepard not arguing the Casper's faulty logic being another. Sythesis being a pet peeve of mine, basically the most morally abhorent thing I've heard out of this game presented to the player as a choice. 

Saying there's a final stage, or peak of evolution is the most asinine thing I've ever heard.