286 réponses à ce sujet

[Geneaux486]

Yeah, I haven't found a reason to buy into the indoctrination theory yet either.

[TiaraBlade]

Really? REALLY?

THIS much outrage over endings that leave a lot up to interpretation in a game series that has stressed player choice from the start?

Did you try to link "player choice" to "interpretation"? Really? REALLY? One has NOTHING to do with the other. One makes a CHOICE and then you see the CONSEQUENCES of those choices. To not show the consequences renders that CHOICE irreleavent just as the ending made all those choices we made across the game meaningless. What do you want? For us to make a choice and the screen goes blank so you can interpret how you think your choices were taken and then go on to the next gaming section thinking, "well I guess the Krogan gave me the data I wanted when I shoved my fun in his face."

So let me get this straight: we want obvious black and white choices that answer everything for us in a game about player choice? We don't want thought-provoking endings that leave enough up to our own interpretation that we can come up with theories that reach 10,000+ responses in these forums?

Umml..clearly not. As noted above, you are conflating CHOICE with INTERPRETATION when there is not only no meaningful link but the reality is that not seeing the consequences of your choices undermines choice.

Also, you are trying to use the logical fallacy of a false choice, ala "well if you don't support this new tax for the kindergarten then you MUST hate kids! So support the tax orhate kids, which is it?" Similarl is your claim that we must be upset since we all clearly wanted a "black and white" choice or that we can't handle a "thought-provoking" ending. The ending was only thought provoking in a WTF way when there are many, many other ways to deliver a story that is both thought provoking yet concludes in an emotionally satisfying way.

Back to your "interpretation" comment, why would we want to guess the ending? Why not see the results of our actions so we can play out the story that we helped Bioware to create whether it's having little blue children with Liara or seeing the empowered Krogan sweep across the galaxy without Wrex and the Krogan females to temper them?

Story is setup and pay off; guessing an ending lacks payoff, closure, and emotional catharsis.

After 100+ hours of some of the very best gaming I've experienced in a life spent gaming, I'm still thinking about the ending more than anything else, and I at the very least love that about it. The ending ties in symbolically, metaphorically, philosophically, etc. with everything from the characters, dialogue and gameplay design of the series itself to real life ideologies about the nature of technology, humanity, theology, and so on.

Without a doubt, one of the most foolish and untrue things that I have heard in this whole debate. The ending clearly violates the themes of Bioware such as:

1. that diversity can be strength: you unite a galaxy to stop a common enemy, possibly ending centuries old emnities such as the Geth and Quarians. That Starchild proclaims that "synthetics and organics will always fight despite your own actions undermining my nonsensical arguement", violates this. You must instead commit genocide of possible allies, send the reapers away with no guarantee that they won't overcome your control, or FORCE (remember, a game of choice) a merger between organics and synthetics even though the entire trilogy has been about working together of one's own choice and in understanding of one's respective differences as well as common grounds. Heck, if you want to talk "metaphorical", forcing two groups to merge sounds a bit like rape to me. Shepherd, the rapist of trillions.. .wow.

2. player choice/dialogue/gameplay design: the only "choices" are what the Starchild gives you. No investigations, no paragon/renegade choices, no ability to debate or tell it to go f*** off  No chance to show how fallacious its stance if. Heck, if it's powerful to create the reapers, should it not be powerful enough to come up with a better solution? Or use the Reapers as peacekeepers between organics and synthetics? Instead we get "to stop synthetics from killing organics, I'm going to create synthetics to kill organics." HUH?!?!?

3. The theme of the hero: the hero overcomes, not submits, and proves their philosophy/view point.  Sheperd submits to the Starchild's viewpoint of perpetual antagonism between synths and organics. When has he/she EVER done that? Shep has been firm: even if impossible, we will fight and find a way. When confronted with impossible odds, SHEPHERD FINDS A WAY! Shep has killed Reapers on foot and ended "impossible dilemnas" by refusing to submit to someone else's view of the impossible. Here should have been no different.

There's a lot to think about, a lot beneath the surface of the final choices and how they were presented, and a lot to decide for ourselves, which is what Mass Effect has always been about. Shepard and co. told us all along that nothing about our victories in this war would come easy, and I'm glad that carries over to the ending too. I'd much rather figure it all out days - even weeks - later than have Bioware go against everything this series has taught me gaming is capable of and figure it all out for me.

A "lot to decide for ourselves", I suspect you mean "a lot to interpret" has NEVER been part of Mass Effect. Seriously, show us where. NO! It's about delivering a satisfying experience on a gameplay and emotional level. You aren't left up in the air to whether you stop Sovereign at the end of ME1 or which team members survived ME2's sucide mission. Therefore, how is a just imagine ME3 ending "what Mass Effect has always been about?"

As for "Shepard and co. told us all along that nothing about our victories would come easy," how does THAT reflect on a non ending? Heck, should Bioware come in and hold you down while you try to beat the game? Or it messes up your screen and delete your save if you die? Can't let that victory come easy! No, you are wrong. The victory might not come easy but to see the victory and know what it is, that was not promised and to think that to obscure the ending somehow "goes against everything..." is just irrational and untrue. ME showed how deeply a game can move us, how we can shape it,  and how rich a galaxy can be. Leaving gamers in a lurch undercuts that emotional tug and to not see how the universe or how our many, many decisions shape it actually toses out everything that the series stood for.

I may be in the minority but I'm okay with that. I'd just like to thank the writers of the ending just as much as everyone else involved in this project for keeping this journey my own until the credits rolled, and helping cement Mass Effect as the best series I've ever played.

Yes you are in the minority for reasons I cited above. Look, enjoy it if you want but if you are going to defend it, at least be truthful and intelligent about it.

[fle6isnow]

fle6isnow wrote...

I don't think all anti-enders want black and white, hand-holding per se, but some do. And some do want happy endings.

I do definitely think that the endings tied in with the themes from the rest of the series.  I've read an interesting thread that got buried super fast about how the endings are basically analogues of the endings of the first 2 games--Destroy is the ending in the first game, Destroy vs. Control is the ending of the second game, and Synthesis is foreshadowed in our choices in the third game, where we can fundamentally change the Krogan and/or the Geth if we choose. Even in ME3 we are given hints--Garrus and his ruthless calculus, the Geth uploading themselves into the Quarian suits as a kind of synthesis, and of course TIM and his whole schtick about controlling the Reapers. In fact in my 3rd replay now, where I'm actually paying a whole lot of attention to dialogue, the endings are pretty much strongly hinted at (almost bludgeoned, really) on Thessia with your conversation with TIM and Vendetta.

I don't think my choices from the previous games were worthless--in fact they were validated throughout the whole game! And like you, I definitely liked that the ending was very open and had lots to think about. One of the more interesting threads I've read was that thread saying that the endings were racist and offensive, because hell yes, there were parallels with TIM and n-a-z-i-s in WWII and the Starkid AI definitely has racist (or xenophobic) premises. Another interesting read was that thread about the planet Klencory and how it foreshadows the "beings of light" behind the Reapers.

We may be in the minority, but whatever. I liked the endings, I understand how other people can dislike the endings, and liking vs. disliking doesn't make anyone ignorant, uncaring of lore, not a true fan, or whatever.

Just requoting something I posted waaaay earlier in the thread, because I don't think anyone addressed it. There are reasons why I think the ending made sense, because there was some pretty heavy-handed foreshadowing during ME3.

[Billabong2011]

It's not about lack of choice. It's about poor writing, sh*t narrative, lack of sense, and convoluted plot devices that insult my intelligence as a player.
Oh, and the self-righteous entitlement Bioware has put forth as the game's being deserving of nothing but praise and denying any and all criticism, constructive or not, has helped to add a little to my frustration.
You know. If we're being honest, here.

[Geneaux486]

Billabong2011 wrote...
Oh, and the self-righteous entitlement Bioware has put forth as the game's being deserving of nothing but praise and denying any and all criticism, constructive or not, has helped to add a little to my frustration.
You know. If we're being honest, here.

Bioware has been very encouraging of criticism and have been trying to work with their fans every step of the way.

[malra]

for sixty plus dollars a little hand holding is in order. and a kiss, a little hand holding and a kiss.

[T0X]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Thanks for playing.

I respectfully disagree. The endings make everything I felt like I was doing before worthless.

I'm sorry. Did anyone guarantee that your decisions wouldn't be worthless? Shep is saving the goddamn galaxy, and some people want everything to go just swimmingly?

95% of the people in this forum are so idealistic and cranky, just reading the posts here gets me feeling rather niggly, to the point where I can't take anything posted here seriously.

[Valo_Soren]

No Snakes Alive wrote...

Really? REALLY?

THIS much outrage over endings that leave a lot up to interpretation in a game series that has stressed player choice from the start?

So let me get this straight: we want obvious black and white choices that answer everything for us in a game about player choice? We don't want thought-provoking endings that leave enough up to our own interpretation that we can come up with theories that reach 10,000+ responses in these forums?

After 100+ hours of some of the very best gaming I've experienced in a life spent gaming, I'm still thinking about the ending more than anything else, and I at the very least love that about it. The ending ties in symbolically, metaphorically, philosophically, etc. with everything from the characters, dialogue and gameplay design of the series itself to real life ideologies about the nature of technology, humanity, theology, and so on.

There's a lot to think about, a lot beneath the surface of the final choices and how they were presented, and a lot to decide for ourselves, which is what Mass Effect has always been about. Shepard and co. told us all along that nothing about our victories in this war would come easy, and I'm glad that carries over to the ending too. I'd much rather figure it all out days - even weeks - later than have Bioware go against everything this series has taught me gaming is capable of and figure it all out for me.

I may be in the minority but I'm okay with that. I'd just like to thank the writers of the ending just as much as everyone else involved in this project for keeping this journey my own until the credits rolled, and helping cement Mass Effect as the best series I've ever played.

-hi5's- Love the endings to brother, keep the faith.

[aliengmr1]

T0X wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Thanks for playing.

I respectfully disagree. The endings make everything I felt like I was doing before worthless.

I'm sorry. Did anyone guarantee that your decisions wouldn't be worthless? Shep is saving the goddamn galaxy, and some people want everything to go just swimmingly?

95% of the people in this forum are so idealistic and cranky, just reading the posts here gets me feeling rather niggly, to the point where I can't take anything posted here seriously.

Then the ending should have been idealistic then. How was 1 grimdark ending ever going to work?

[WhiteJoker]

Geneaux486 wrote...

It's both.  We see Earth not be destroyed.  We see the Normandy, and the planet it lands on intact.  That is showing us the outcome.

Again, after the Citadel does it's thing.  Earth is not seen again in any way after the relays go.  Not shown.  Not implied.  Nothing.

The game has always referred to AI as "synthetic".  There's even a codex entry or something where society decided that "synthetic" was the PC term for it.  That is what the Catalyst is referring to.

The game also says Shepard is partly synthetic.  Shepard is not an AI.  The Catalyst says that Shepard will likely die if he picks Destroy.  The reasoning the Catalyst uses for why Shepard will likely die is not because everything will go boom but because Shepard is partly synthetic.  Implication being that a wide range of technology will get shorted out by the energy wave.  As it is not defined exactly what, just as we have no idea what synthetic bits are in Shepard that would short out, it is not twisted or faulty logic that this can include the VIs which run ships or the central processing cores or whatever other bits of tech which make advanced space ships run or any other bit of advanced technology.

"Activating the Crucible will end the cycle."  Shepard activates it, the Reapers stop fighting and withdraw from the battle.  That's pretty damn straightforward.

The cycle it refers to is the cycle of Reapers killing things then going away and coming back later on to kill more things.  The cycle does not refer to why the Reapers started the cycle in the first place.  We aren't speculating about why the Reapers left, I never brought that up, we're speculating about what comes after and that is difficult to do on account of the fact that we have little to no information to go off of.

How about the fact that mere seconds before the Normandy was outrunning one of the blasts.  Of course it landed on a planet near a relay.  The ship didn't get damaged, fly to a system with no relay, *then* crash.  Yes, that planet would have been caught in the blast, no, it was not obliterated, so my point still stands.

Mere seconds before the Alpha Relay exploded the Normandy entered it and got away from the shockwave.  Hmm.  that's shown.  That's implied.  Where's the shown and implied here?  You interpret that the Normandy landed within the same system but you have as much basis for that assumption as I do for claiming that Joker got into the relay and because relays allow for near instantenous travel to near any point in the galaxy a second into it means lightyears away which means far out of the system of the origin relay.

Aside from Anderson I've given you a multitude of in-game examples, both lines that are spoken and things we can see.  *You* are choosing to reject them.  That's a problem on your end, not mine.

You realize everything you've said applies to what I've said to you as well right?  Including this?  And my point has never been about the specifics, my point has always been that Bioware has not provided sufficient information to determine one way or another on far too may important factors that any discussion or speculation relating to "what comes next" will inevitably result in this exact same conversation over and over again which is why it is not conductive to speculation or discussion.

I redefined nothing.  What I said was very straightforward:  We see end results because we have sequels.  When a narrative ends, if the universe it's in keeps going, there is going to be a degree of ambiguity.  That's not related to what your argument was or was not, that's just a statement of fact.

Which does not address my point at all and that makes it a straw man.  My point is that Mass Effect is about Cause and Effect.  We have Cause here, we do not have Effect.  It does not matter if the game has ended, the point remains.  We have Cause.  We do not have Effect.  That is my point.  Quoting it and then arguing something different is disingenuous.  If you don't want to address it and bring up another point then do that.

[Billabong2011]

Geneaux486 wrote...

Billabong2011 wrote...
Oh, and the self-righteous entitlement Bioware has put forth as the game's being deserving of nothing but praise and denying any and all criticism, constructive or not, has helped to add a little to my frustration.
You know. If we're being honest, here.

Bioware has been very encouraging of criticism and have been trying to work with their fans every step of the way.

I would argue that they've only been putting up a front of cooperation to combat the backlash over the endings so they can still maintain their 'artistic integrity' and keep the endings as is (showing to us their tragic flaw of pride), but that's all opinion-based in regards to wording of released statements and attitudes in interviews and such.
Lol...LOTS OF SPECULATION FROM EVERYONE!

[BeLana]

pretty much says it all...

[Foulpancake]

ImmovableMover wrote...

Obvious troll is obvious. It is blatantly clear "What we want" and if a person had read a few of the "10,000+" comments on the ending in this forum they'd know that "A black and white hand holding" ending is not "What we want"

This^

[Geneaux486]

Again, after the Citadel does it's thing.  Earth is not seen again in any way after the relays go.  Not shown.  Not implied.  Nothing.

The Citadel is a relay.  A big one.

The game also says Shepard is partly synthetic.  Shepard is not an AI.  The Catalyst says that Shepard will likely die if he picks Destroy.  The reasoning the Catalyst uses for why Shepard will likely die is not because everything will go boom but because Shepard is partly synthetic.

Yes, Shepard is not an AI, hence why he is partly synthetic.  Furthermore, when does the Catalyst say that Shepard will likely die if he picks destroy?  Third, Shepard can potentially live through the destroy ending, even if it still kills all synthetics.

but you have as much basis for that assumption as I do for claiming that Joker got into the relay and because relays allow for near instantenous travel to near any point in the galaxy a second into it means lightyears away which means far out of the system of the origin relay.

I have much more basis.  For one thing, we never see Joker hit a relay.  More likely that he's using faster than light travel on the Normandy.  If he did hit a relay, he would still be outrunning a blast because they came out of every relay.  No matter what, he'd have crashed in a system that had a Mass Relay.  Remember, Mass Relays do not allow for travel to any point in the galaxy, they allow for travel to other relays.

 And my point has never been about the specifics, my point has always been that Bioware has not provided sufficient information to determine one way or another on far too may important factors that any discussion or speculation relating to "what comes next" will inevitably result in this exact same conversation over and over again which is why it is not conductive to speculation or discussion.

And I have continued to cite in-game reasons for why that is not true, and will continue to do so.  Your assertion that Bioware gives us no information to work with is still a false one.

My point is that Mass Effect is about Cause and Effect.  We have Cause here, we do not have Effect.

But we do have effect.  We see the effect.  At best you can argue that we do not see enough of an effect, and that is a legit complaint, though I happen to disagree with it.  My response is and has been completely relevant to yours.  I have not employed strawmen, and my point about the long-term effects of our choices in previous games being shown in a sequel is still completely relevant and valid.  The end of a narrative is just that:  the end.  It means we won't get to see long term effects of the choices we make at the end of the game.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 30 mars 2012 - 05:34 .

[Sir Hecubus]

Geomon19 wrote...

I'd also like to thank the writers for giving me half a story and giving me the opportunity to pay them so I can fill in the rest with my imagination. That's just awesome.

This is too funny. 

[T0X]

aliengmr1 wrote...

T0X wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Thanks for playing.

I respectfully disagree. The endings make everything I felt like I was doing before worthless.

I'm sorry. Did anyone guarantee that your decisions wouldn't be worthless? Shep is saving the goddamn galaxy, and some people want everything to go just swimmingly?

95% of the people in this forum are so idealistic and cranky, just reading the posts here gets me feeling rather niggly, to the point where I can't take anything posted here seriously.

Then the ending should have been idealistic then. How was 1 grimdark ending ever going to work?

I do agree, however, that there should've been more endings (12-16 different ones). BioWare has been remarkably lazy in their inability to make decisions matter. Examples:

• Udina is councilor regardless (saves BioWare $$$)
• Liara is plot proof
• No new characters from ME2 are perma squadmates (Saves BioWare $$$). What are the chances that Shep would run into all 10 ME2 squadmembers within a few weeks?
• Inconsequential minor decisions (Mostly paragon). I can got further in depth if someone requests it of me

[WhiteJoker]

Geneaux486 wrote...

The Citadel is a relay.  A big one.

And in one of the low EMS endings it does indeed kill everybody which means the potential is there which means the potential is there for all the relays if we're going with that reasoning.

Yes, Shepard is not an AI, hence why he is partly synthetic.  Furthermore, when does the Catalyst say that Shepard will likely die if he picks destroy?  Third, Shepard can potentially live through the destroy ending, even if it still kills all synthetics.

Catalyst: You can wipe out all synthetic life if you want.  Even the Geth.  Even you are partly synthetic.

Yes not outright saying "you'll likely die" but in that sequence of phrases the implication is Shepard can die by using Destroy due to the synthetic parts in him.  What the Catalyst means by Shepard being partly synthetic is up to interpretation since EDI, Miranda, and the Illusive Man (who is admittedly questionable but he also admits it via the recordings on Horizen while dictating how he wants Shepard resurrected so it's not unreasonable to assume he means what he says in that particular instance).  Are they lying?  Is there something else in Shepard's make up that they aren't aware of?  Does the Catalyst mean not just synthetic life but things similar to synthetic life like VI systems?  How about basic computer systems?  Again, it says something but it is so nebulous that speculation with regards to it's statements are going to be equally nebulous.

And as above, if we count variance then Shepard being able to survive it also means that he can die from it.

I have much more basis.  For one thing, we never see Joker hit a relay.  More likely that he's using faster than light travel on the Normandy.  If he did hit a relay, he would still be outrunning a blast because they came out of every relay.  No matter what, he'd have crashed in a system that had a Mass Relay.  Remember, Mass Relays do not allow for travel to any point in the galaxy, they allow for travel to other relays.

No, you don't, you have as much basis.  We don't see him hit a relay and we don't see him use the FTL drives so either works and since we're talking near instantenous travel from one relay to the next but which does not involve instant teleportation but physical travel via sci-fi physics that means that he could hit a relay, have the corridor collapse as the relays destroy themselves, and fall out of the corridor anywhere between the origin relay and the exit relay which depending on the relay could be a huge stretch of area.

And I have continued to cite in-game reasons for why that is not true, and will continue to do so.  Your assertion that Bioware gives us no information to work with is still a false one.

As have I and mine are as valid as yours.  My point was never to disprove you, my point was that any evidence you point to is so vague and nebulous that it can point to any number of contradictory outcome even justify my points, which by the way I don't personally believe, I'm simply using them to illustrate the point.  My point is that within the frame work of "the ME3 ending is supposed to encourage speculation" is that it does not encourage speculation because it does not provide sufficient information for interested parties to speculate on a common ground and that is not conductive for discussion.

But we do have effect.  We see the effect.  At best you can argue that we do not see enough of an effect, and that is a legit complaint, though I happen to disagree with it.  My response is and has been completely relevant to yours.  I have not employed strawmen, and my point about the long-term effects of our choices in previous games being shown in a sequel is still completely relevant and valid.  The end of a narrative is just that:  the end.  It means we won't get to see long term effects of the choices we make at the end of the game.

Except that's not the case unless you claim that a superficial effect of green circuitry showing up on Joker's skin is effect the I'll grant you that.  To put another way, effect is ramification and/or consequence and those do not exist without context; the endings lack that very thing.

None the less, if you want to use the "this is the end of the narrative" then that's the very problem with using "speculation is the point" because speculation needs a basis.  Using Synthesis, how do you speculate on what the future of the ME universe could be with just what ME provides?  You cannot because how Synthesis is defined is so nebulous and vague it can fully allow that random thought I plunked in about people gradually turning into husks because it does not define in any fashion Synthesis beyond a metaphor likening it to alterating DNA.  That is poor basis for speculation.

[No Snakes Alive]

I'd like to address the fact that I'm condescending for blatantly stating that the ending is up for interpretation on a lot of ways and then matter-of-factly defending the way I interpreted, myself.

You know who needs to "get over it?" The people who don't want to go the extra mile with what they've been given and think that means the ending is objectively bad and the dissenting opinions of those who actually liked it can be belittled to no end.

Are there obvious reasons thrown in our faces that convinced so many separate people to jump to the conclusion that the whole starchild sequence is a manifestation of Indoctrination? Obviously. You don't have to accept the theory as THE ending but if you can't even see why it's floating around out there or accept that people who were able to figure that out for themselves ad then come here and see so many other people sharing the same thoughts might like the ending, I reiterate that the writing may not be the problem here.

I apologize for combatting so much obnoxious with a whole lot of condescending but I never once said the ending wasn't up for interpretation. I only defended how easy it is to come to the same conclusion I and many others did, on our own, just by experiencing the ending.

People keep going on and on about how the game didn't end but Shepard's tale did end for me. He defeated the reapers and even survived himself. The rest is not part of HIS story. The state of the universe and synthetics and the mass relays has nothing to do with the trilogy that was told.

If you can't come up with a way to find the closure you need from the ending, that's fine. I don't expect to convert haters here. I just wanted to say I was able to find the closure I needed from what I was given and therefore liked it, and here's why. It's not even an argument.

[No Snakes Alive]

I actually feel pretty stupid for letting the quality (or lack thereof) of troll posts, flames, and other general ignorance deteriorate the quality of my own here. Enough people have been keeping it civil that I should have been able to ignore the others entirely but I guess I got trolled. I have a few more points to make before I abandon my post here.

"Up for interpretation" does not mean the game left us a blank canvas for us to draw our own conclusions on entirely from scratch. I think the game actually painted a pretty complete picture and the aspect of interpretation comes into play when deciding what to make of that picture and why. There's really only a few possibilities of what exactly happened here.

And to address one of them again: the idea of the ending sequence being a fabrication of the indoctrination process does not "fly in the face of the narrative that came before it." Unless you think you were teleported to a forest to chase the ghost of a boy in a game of fire-tag, the parallels between the game's earlier dream sequences and the ending should provide enough reason to at least consider the confrontation with starchild an occurrence within Shep's mind. You mean to tell me that the meaning of dream sequences where you meet your fiery death upon catching up to and embracing the same ghost child that appears at the end is that lost on that many of you in regards to embracing his argument in the ending? He's pretty much like "sure you could destroy the reapers but that wouldn't be good; here, try some synthesis or control instead!"

And people are mad that you can no more object to the child as you can resist chasing after him in the earlier dreams. Is it really THAT much of a stretch to think you're unconscious in front of the control panel that can change everything, and your only options are to succumb to Indoctrination or wake up and destroy the reapers? There's PLENTY of empirical evidence and foreshadowing to support such a theory.

That doesn't make it the definitive be-all-end-all of options to believe here. But if you choose to ignore the evidence or can't accept the idea of fighting off indoctrination within Shep's own mind in the final sequence without knowing the how's and why's of it all, then you're only left with so many alternatives to believe.

To me, personally, TIM was obviously a living, breathing, human beacon of indoctrination sent to the Citadel as a last ditch effort by those controlling him. I mean there are just so many things that scream indoctrination about that scene with him, from his reaperized look to your inability to control your own movement. I can accept that as the catalyst (no pun) to Shepard's collapse and subsequent Indoc dream sequence. It might have some holes in it, there might be evidence like noticeable humming in the Normandy that suggests earlier Indoctrination, but for me that's the way it adds up to all work out perfectly.

I didn't just come up with some random idea. I used what the game gave me to draw the same conclusion a bunch of other people have. That's what's up for interpretation: whether the ending events actually, physically happened, or whether they, like the dreams featuring the same character before them, took place in Shepard's mind. I think the writing did a good job of leading us down that path to that fork in the road and not too many others. I also think I'd hate the ending too of I couldn't see a way to take the Indoc path over the other. And finally, I think the writing made it easy enough to take the path I did.

Plenty will disagree and that's cool. Let's just be civil and respectfully agree to disagree. I've done all I can to present some of the game's evidence as to why I jumped to the conclusion I did and why I liked how the game led me almost all the way to it, but made me press A myself at the ledge to actually reach it. That's all.

Modifié par No Snakes Alive, 30 mars 2012 - 11:40 .

[Kulthar Drax]

No Snakes Alive wrote...

Really? REALLY?

THIS much outrage over endings that leave a lot up to interpretation in a game series that has stressed player choice from the start?

So let me get this straight: we want obvious black and white choices that answer everything for us in a game about player choice? We don't want thought-provoking endings that leave enough up to our own interpretation that we can come up with theories that reach 10,000+ responses in these forums?

After 100+ hours of some of the very best gaming I've experienced in a life spent gaming, I'm still thinking about the ending more than anything else, and I at the very least love that about it. The ending ties in symbolically, metaphorically, philosophically, etc. with everything from the characters, dialogue and gameplay design of the series itself to real life ideologies about the nature of technology, humanity, theology, and so on.

There's a lot to think about, a lot beneath the surface of the final choices and how they were presented, and a lot to decide for ourselves, which is what Mass Effect has always been about. Shepard and co. told us all along that nothing about our victories in this war would come easy, and I'm glad that carries over to the ending too. I'd much rather figure it all out days - even weeks - later than have Bioware go against everything this series has taught me gaming is capable of and figure it all out for me.

I may be in the minority but I'm okay with that. I'd just like to thank the writers of the ending just as much as everyone else involved in this project for keeping this journey my own until the credits rolled, and helping cement Mass Effect as the best series I've ever played.

You are by all means allowed your own opinion, just as myself and everyone else here is allowed theirs. I am in no way trying to be offensive (and I sincerely do apologise if I come across as such), but the ending isn't thoughtful, it isn't amazing, it is just bad writing in my opinion. For instance, the three endings are pretty much ripped straight from the end of the original Deus Ex game from the year 2000.

But this whole argument IS about player choice. In the end, we have our choices yanked away from us and told to "pick A, B or C". And A,B or C aren't even different, besides from a few different colours and 1-2 seconds of variation. That is pure laziness on Bioware's part. Not to mention our war assets didn't count for crap in the end. You get the same ending if you didn't do anything throughout the game as you did if you did absolutely everything. You get the same ending whether you maxed out galactic readiness in multiplayer or not (a 5 second clip of MAYBE Shepard surviving is an easter egg, not confirmation). Your decisions from previous games end up not even really mattering. Why bother saving the Council? Why bother even picking Anderson as Councilor? Why bother saving the Rachni queen? Why bother saving the Collector Base? Once you realise how bad the ending was, you start realising that they wrecked a lot of things, and not just because of the ending.

There are many plotholes that simply cannot be overlooked. If the Catalyst is the Citadel, then it could have just opened the Citadel Relay to Dark Space when Sovereign failed. Why didn't it do this, or at least alert Harbinger, since it clearly controls the Reapers. The Reapers only took six months (roughly) to reach the galaxy and begin their assault, so if they had been warned by the Catalyst at the end of ME1 then they could have arrived while Shepard was lying dead in a Cerberus lab. And yes, if Harbinger can control and contact the Collectors while it is out in Dark Space, the Catalyst certainly ought to be able to contact the Reapers out there.

The Earth is screwed. Don't argue, yes it is. It is a plain, unarguable fact that if a 7 billion plus ton space station that is over 44km in length blows up in Earth orbit, all that debris is going to be very shortly impacting the planet, and in very definitely negative, mass extinction kind of way. Yet, somehow, Shepard can (presumably, in the aforementioned ambiguous 5 second clip) survive the destruction of the Citadel, re-entry into the atmosphere and hitting the surface, without armour or a helmet or anything really. And then the wreckage will be landing on him shortly afterwards. And that also presupposes you didn't get the "super crappy" ending where the Crucible incinerates the planet before the station blows up and deposits 7 billion plus tons of wreckage on it (not to mention the wreckage of all those Reapers and dreadnaughts etc blown up in orbit slowly crashing to the surface).

The Normandy. Why is Joker fleeing? A guy in one topic worked out using the ingame mechanics and universe lore found in all three game codex to determine that Joker had exactly one second to reach the Sol Mass Relay from Earth before the crucible destroyed it. It would take nearly 2 minutes in hyperspace from Earth to reach the relay. This would mean that, using the game's own internal lore and mechanics, Joker would have had to have left Earth before you even made your choice or talked with the starchild. Yet before then he was fighting in orbit. Even if he just decided to use FTL instead of the Mass Relay, he would still have had to have gotten quite a long way in FTL to even crash land on another habitable planet that isn't Earth (it would take roughly eight hours in FTL to reach Alpha Centauri alone). Thus it is reasonable to assume he was using the Mass Relay at the time, and so it becomes just another example of extremely poor storytelling.

Oh, and then of course there's your squadmates he somehow extracts, even though they were all fighting on Earth. Yeah, they'd totally leave Shepard behind. It is a complete break in their characters' personalities. How does Joker even crash land on the planet? The cutscene shows the Normandy wrecked in hyperspace (perhaps in the Mass Relay's tunnel?) How does he even conveniently end up on a habitable planet?

The closest habitable planet I know of in the ME universe (It even states this in the ingame codex) to Earth is the planet Benning in the Euler system, which is accessible once you reach the Arcturus system through the Mass Relay from Earth. The cutscenes all sure looks pretty, but total nonsense from a narrative point of view. So if they didn't crash land on Benning, then they must have used the Arcturus Mass Relay to jump somewhere else. The Arcturus system is only 36 light years from Sol and you can reach it in barely more than three days in normal FTL, so the humans WILL have explored every system in dozens and dozens of light years in every direction from Sol and Arcturus already.

Since the Catalyst has never before considered the new viewpoints it says you have suddenly provoked, why then is there magically the option to pick them right in front of you in the form of a ready made synthesis device, a ready made control device and a power conduit to blow the crap out of? If it had never before in the entire existence of the Reapers considered those choices, as it clearly spells out to you, then why would those options exist to appear in front of you? Why does the Crucible even have to "dock" with the Citadel? What, the Reapers just designed the Citadel to be used like that? They didn't think of this massive design flaw? They never once, in all the many cycles that the Crucible has been worked on, managed to capture the Crucible schematics and go "Hey, we're looking at a pretty big flaw in the Catalyst here guys..." (especially considering Javik even says their Crucible was sabotaged from within by indoctrinated agents, so they could easily have obtained the plans for the Reapers to study).

The plotholes are just too many and too ridiculous. It is just bad writing, that's all.

EDIT: Fixed formatting.

Modifié par Kulthar Drax, 30 mars 2012 - 12:18 .

[No Snakes Alive]

@ Kulthar Drax

You're choosing to accept the ending events as something that actually happened rather than a fabrication that took place within Shepard's mind. That's your own call. There's plenty to suggest it's nothing more than a matter of fighting off the Reapers' influence and choosing to destroy them rather than embrace their viewpoints. The endings are different in subtle but very meaningful ways. If you destroy the reapers with full galactic readiness you survive and save the universe. If you do not, those things don't happen.

If the ending doesn't make sense and has that many poorhouse when you look at it the way you are, why not look at it a little differently? I disagree with your entire argument, respectfully, and don't think this is an example of objectively bad writing so much as one of subjectively bad "reading," so to speak, on your part.

[KingZayd]

No Snakes Alive wrote...

@ Kulthar Drax

You're choosing to accept the ending events as something that actually happened rather than a fabrication that took place within Shepard's mind. That's your own call. There's plenty to suggest it's nothing more than a matter of fighting off the Reapers' influence and choosing to destroy them rather than embrace their viewpoints. The endings are different in subtle but very meaningful ways. If you destroy the reapers with full galactic readiness you survive and save the universe. If you do not, those things don't happen.

If the ending doesn't make sense and has that many poorhouse when you look at it the way you are, why not look at it a little differently? I disagree with your entire argument, respectfully, and don't think this is an example of objectively bad writing so much as one of subjectively bad "reading," so to speak, on your part.

ah.. you like the ending because of indoctrination theory? i can understand that. indoc ending is a lot more satisfying. the problem is without confirmation from bioware there is still a significant probability that the ending sucks. Do you believe that Shepard breaks free of indoctrination if you pick destroy? and if so do you think that the true ending is on it's way? Otherwise, is it your interpretation that the reapers won?

[nevar00]

The ending ties in symbolically, metaphorically, philosophically, etc. with everything from the characters, dialogue and gameplay design of the series itself to real life ideologies about the nature of technology, humanity, theology, and so on.

heheheheh.

You trollin', or just blindly defending ARTISTIC INTEGRITY?

[The Night Mammoth]

No Snakes Alive wrote...

Really? REALLY?

THIS much outrage over endings that leave a lot up to interpretation in a game series that has stressed player choice from the start?

Choice and eventual consequence. Most people were excepting their choices to have an effect on how their game concluded. Evidently, their expectations were crushed.

So let me get this straight: we want obvious black and white choices that answer everything for us in a game about player choice? We don't want thought-provoking endings that leave enough up to our own interpretation that we can come up with theories that reach 10,000+ responses in these forums?

Correct.

Although exactly what 'thought provoking' details is arguable. To me, it provoked feelings of anger and confusion. 

After 100+ hours of some of the very best gaming I've experienced in a life spent gaming, I'm still thinking about the ending more than anything else, and I at the very least love that about it. The ending ties in symbolically, metaphorically, philosophically, etc. with everything from the characters, dialogue and gameplay design of the series itself to real life ideologies about the nature of technology, humanity, theology, and so on.

No, it did not. It invalidated and contradicted everything you've spent time pondering about. Unity through diversity? Pfft, that can't happen, it's whether you're synthetic or organic that really matters, even though you've just spent hours proving that completely wrong, and a whole trilogy proving that diversity makes you stronger. Self-determination versus fate? That doesn't matter either, because your only options are presented by a being you've never even hear of before, who represents everything you stand against. Hope against despair? Again, that doesn't matter, because Shepard has to bend his knee and give up. Can synthetics stand with us as equals emotionally? Yes, you prove that with EDI at least, and the Geth even more so. That is, obviously, irrelevant, because synthetics will always try to overcome you and you can't coexist under any circumstances.

There's a lot to think about, a lot beneath the surface of the final choices and how they were presented, and a lot to decide for ourselves, which is what Mass Effect has always been about.

That made me laugh. 

Mass Effect has always given you clear conclusions to things, allowing you to interpret the outcome. 

It has never left things deliberatly open ended. 

As for 'deeper meanings', I challenge you to find one. Specifically Sythesis, the most morally abbhorent thing given to the player as a choice. 

Shepard and co. told us all along that nothing about our victories in this war would come easy, and I'm glad that carries over to the ending too.

Ah, you're talking about bittersweet now. 

There's a difference between that and what we have, which is nihilistic. There is no 'sweet' part. 

Even then, a 'happy' ending is always going to be bittersweet, just with a lot more sweet. Millions are dead, the galaxy has been devestated, all there is afterwards is mouring, relief, and rebuilding. That actually fits Mass Effect infinitely better than what we have, because it isn't a fatalistic, sactifical, or bitter setting. It's about you, as Shepard, uniting the diverse species of the galaxy, against homogenization and fate, to spit their faces and choose your own paths. 

I'd much rather figure it all out days - even weeks - later than have Bioware go against everything this series has taught me gaming is capable of and figure it all out for me.

Clearly, you've been playing a completely different game from me. 

Or, you haven't actually played any of the previous games (or maybe you have, just with the volume down, subtitles off, whilst skipping the cut scenes) and certainly not the ending to this game. Bascially, you'd rather they didn't go agains everything this series is, despite them having done exactly that in pretty much every conceivable way. 

It's not just on a purely plot and theme basis. It's bad writing. Leaving a story open to interpretation when the premise doesn't support it is asinine. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 30 mars 2012 - 01:53 .

[Kulthar Drax]

No Snakes Alive wrote...

@ Kulthar Drax

You're choosing to accept the ending events as something that actually happened rather than a fabrication that took place within Shepard's mind. That's your own call. There's plenty to suggest it's nothing more than a matter of fighting off the Reapers' influence and choosing to destroy them rather than embrace their viewpoints. The endings are different in subtle but very meaningful ways. If you destroy the reapers with full galactic readiness you survive and save the universe. If you do not, those things don't happen.

If the ending doesn't make sense and has that many poorhouse when you look at it the way you are, why not look at it a little differently? I disagree with your entire argument, respectfully, and don't think this is an example of objectively bad writing so much as one of subjectively bad "reading," so to speak, on your part.

I'm cool with the indoctrination theory, and there is a lot of evidence to support it. I would like it to be true, because if nothing else it is way better than what we actually got. Unfortunately, I am of the opinion that while Indoctrination Theory is nice (and I support it), I think that ultimately they never intended anything of the sort and the ending is just a half assed rush job that Hudson and Walters thought would be good (speculation for everyone?).