286 réponses à ce sujet

[wright1978]

3 colours leading to 1 railroaded galactic dark age future full of plotholes. Mmm no thanks. I want proper variety to endings, not getting to choose between 3 genocidal space hitler agrees to let Shep have.

[No Snakes Alive]

wright1978 wrote...

3 colours leading to 1 railroaded galactic dark age future full of plotholes. Mmm no thanks. I want proper variety to endings, not getting to choose between 3 genocidal space hitler agrees to let Shep have.

1 choice that coincides with Shepard's purpose all along and destroys the Reapers once and for all, saving the universe (and Shep!) as promised, though at a high cost and with a long road ahead.

2 other choices offered up by the voice in your head, as represented by the same image that's plagued your DREAMS throughout the game; choices that coincide with what the Reapers coerced TIM and Saren to believe, with a promise of everything ending up peaches if you choose those, though Shep won't survive.



So keep on reducing the ending to that pile of horse crap, if you like, and people who see more will keep on reducing your ability to read between the lines, and we can go back and forth for pages upon pages. Sound good?

[Reth Shepherd]

Kulthar Drax wrote...

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?).

Actually, wasn't there something in the Final Hours app that stated that they were originally going for an indoctrination sequence and scrapped it because of problems with gameplay mechanics? Maybe they found a more subtle method. Even if it turns out that the ending was originally a "half assed rush job", the indoc storyline was something they considered at some point.

@ the OP. You have your beliefs and feelings, and I have mine. They appear to be too disparate to find any common ground, so I'm not going to bother. I will state this, however. I, and many others, find the current endings unacceptable, to the point where many of us prefer the cliched 'it was all a dream' ending to what we currently have. That trope is usually one of the most hated plot twists around, and yet it is the preferred option in this case? (Though I will admit that given the universe, it's more than a few levels above its usual incarnations.) Even if you personally disagree, can we at least agree that an ending that left that many people unsatisfied deserves revision?

[No Snakes Alive]

@ Reth, Though I think the Mass Effect 3 ending avoids many of the pitfalls of the "it was all a dream" cliche, I can see the merit of some complaints about it going there I suppose. I think it's a measure in reductionism to do so, personally, but I'll give you that nonetheless.

@others: I noticed some of the more civil discussions (which I appreciate) have come from those who would like to believe the indoctrination theory, but just don't have enough faith in Bioware's writing team to believe any of it intentional. I respect that skepticism, but I contest that just too much of it would have to be coincidence then for it to not be deliberate.

Shepard's mission shrugged off as not going to work (and the red choice)? The more positive portrayals of the exact tenets TIM and Saren were babbling about all along (from color to convo-tone)? the sequence occurring right after you slip into unconsciousness at the control panel, right after the most blatant display of indoctrination yet with TIM. The same kid you were chasing in your dreams (wherein everything bursts in flames when you embrace him, as if that's not symbolic foreshadowing of what happens if you "embrace" his recommendations in the end scene)?

Again and as always, it is up to interpretation. Could all be coincidence after all. People are going to think I'm full of **** and Bioware's even worse. That's cool. I just can't imagine that after all that evidence (and probably then some), and after three incredibly well-written, stellar games, that Bioware rush-jobbed the ending and these conclusions people are jumping to are unfounded and were never meant to be Bioware's goal here. That's just me though, and I won't rule out the theory that I may be blinded by fanboyism and essentially indoctrinated by Bioware lol. Could be.


Oh and in response to whoever asked me if I can at least admit that, in the face of this much outrage, the ending deserves to be revised I have to go with no. Obviously I'm in the wrong here and Bioware's already given in, but I believe in preserving the artistic integrity of the writers, no matter how much I or anyone else might dislike the ending. Maybe that's just because I'm usually the only one who likes endings most people around me think are **** (case in point, the smile on my face during the resounding "WTF" the entire rest of the audience spewed at the ending of No Country For Old Men when I went to see that in the theater lol).

In my defense, it was obvious to me he had the money. And I feel the same way about ME3; it's obvious (TO ME, PERSONALLY) the final boss of ME3 is the influence of the reapers' indoctrination attempt. I get that most people hate what we have here but I think it's unfair to assume the writers just dropped the ball after all they've done with the entire series. I may be too optimistic (or indoctrinated) myself, but I don't consider it a bad thing if I came away loving the entire product.

To each his own, though!

Modifié par No Snakes Alive, 30 mars 2012 - 11:55 .

[Fulgrim88]

No Snakes Alive wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

3 colours leading to 1 railroaded galactic dark age future full of plotholes. Mmm no thanks. I want proper variety to endings, not getting to choose between 3 genocidal space hitler agrees to let Shep have.

1 choice that coincides with Shepard's purpose all along and destroys the Reapers once and for all, saving the universe (and Shep!) as promised, though at a high cost and with a long road ahead.

2 other choices offered up by the voice in your head, as represented by the same image that's plagued your DREAMS throughout the game; choices that coincide with what the Reapers coerced TIM and Saren to believe, with a promise of everything ending up peaches if you choose those, though Shep won't survive.



So keep on reducing the ending to that pile of horse crap, if you like, and people who see more will keep on reducing your ability to read between the lines, and we can go back and forth for pages upon pages. Sound good?

Okay, so you're an Indoc man and feel smart about it.

Then tell me; assuming you're all right, the ending is a "clever" way to make us fight indoctrination and see the "good" choice (which somehow also blows up the mass relays and an unknown number of synthetics and half synthetics (Quarians)) - how is that preferable to the 16 different endings we were promised?

What's so brilliant about being railroaded into one "correct" decision?
That's not what Mass Effect is about.

The ending ignores all our decisions up to that point, makes choice completely meaningless in the end - all in favor of a cheap "clean slate" Sci-Fi chliché that has been done to death in hundreds of other stories. And doesn't even fit in this one.

Add to that, the utter lazyness of the ending as a whole. 3 similiar color coded cutscenes - really? Even IF one of these would have been good/thought provoking/philosophical (which it's only by a lot of additional guesswork on our side), that's still a pretty unacceptable conclusion to such a big series.

Modifié par Fulgrim88, 31 mars 2012 - 09:01 .

[Holoe4]

ah yes, it's perfectly logical to end a trilogy with a cliffhanger...

[RiouHotaru]

Fulgrim88 wrote...

The ending ignores all our decisions up to that point, makes choice completely meaningless in the end - all in favor of a cheap "clean slate" Sci-Fi chliché that has been done to death in hundreds of other stories. And doesn't even fit in this one.

Add to that, the utter lazyness of the ending as a whole. 3 similiar color coded cutscenes - really? Even IF one of these would have been good/thought provoking/philosophical (which it's only by a lot of additional guesswork on our side), that's still a pretty unacceptable conclusion to such a big series.

1) ME1 and 2 both completely ignored your decisions with regards to the final choice.  At no point did your decisions make a meaningful impact on that last set of options.  This isn't new for WRPGs.  And really, why should the Catalyst's options be influenced at all by Shepard's decisions.  The Catalyst has NO way of knowing what Shepard's done, and it's quite obvious from it's dialog that telling it won't change it's mind (assuming you had the time to tell it)

2) The "laziness" bit is entitlement, plain and simple.  You got different endings.  That they used similar cinematics to give you those different endings is EXACTLY what happened in ME1 and 2 as well.  Why were there no complaints back then?  You were told you'd get different endings.  You were never told how they would be presented.

These arguments that keep getting repeated over and over are a clear sign that player hype and expectation were never going to match up with the finished product.

[cotheer]

 Sorry for butting-in, but has anyone seen Tazz?
He usually hangs around these kind of threads, but i can't seem to find him here 

[Jassu1979]

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

Wow. It seems that you've failed to even look at people's objections to the ending. (Yes, ending. Singular. There's not enough variation in the red, green, and blue explosions to merit the plural.)

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?

Few people mind an open ending. I certainly do not. 
It's curious that you should cite choice here, though, as most of the negative reactions revolve around the absence of the same in having to pick door one, two, or three without being able to voice objections to the circular logic of the star child.
The problem with the ending is not that it's open.
The main problem is that it does not make much sense, tears huge plot holes into the series as a whole, goes totally against the character of Shepard and the spirit of the game, and pretty much destroys everything you've fought for no matter which option you pick.
The victory fleet? - Stranded in the Sol system, orbiting a devastated planet that could not provide enough resources for all of them. Provided that the destruction of the mass relay was retconned to be far less destructive than what we saw in the Arrival DLC, that is. Otherwise, every available choice has made a better job of exterminating life and civilization than the Reapers could have hoped for. (And given that the Normandy was almost destroyed by a shockwave traveling faster than light, such a retcon would not make much sense.)
The Normandy? - Curiously fleeing the Sol system, rather than fighting alongside the others. And with our squadmates on board as well. Did the Normandy suddenly gain transporter beams? Did the squadmates (including Shepard's LI) simply leave Shep behind and turn tail? That's not an open ending, that's just sloppy writing.
The star child? - Introducing a new character five minutes before the ending virtually never indicates good writing, especially if said character also happens to be an insufferable deus ex machina. Nothing of what he/it says makes any sense, but instead pretty much flies in the face of everything that has been established before. That's not a twist ending, that's just sloppy writing. "I saw that synthetics would completely wipe out organics, so I created a race of synthetics to wipe out organics every 50,000 years."

No. Our issues with the ending do not revolve around its being too open, or too grim. It feels like a tacked-on affair, hastily put together and grafted onto an otherwise perfect game. Give me an open and grim ending that actually makes sense, combine it with a real CHOICE in the matter, and I'll be content.

[Fulgrim88]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Fulgrim88 wrote...

The ending ignores all our decisions up to that point, makes choice completely meaningless in the end - all in favor of a cheap "clean slate" Sci-Fi chliché that has been done to death in hundreds of other stories. And doesn't even fit in this one.

Add to that, the utter lazyness of the ending as a whole. 3 similiar color coded cutscenes - really? Even IF one of these would have been good/thought provoking/philosophical (which it's only by a lot of additional guesswork on our side), that's still a pretty unacceptable conclusion to such a big series.

1) ME1 and 2 both completely ignored your decisions with regards to the final choice.  At no point did your decisions make a meaningful impact on that last set of options.  This isn't new for WRPGs.  And really, why should the Catalyst's options be influenced at all by Shepard's decisions.  The Catalyst has NO way of knowing what Shepard's done, and it's quite obvious from it's dialog that telling it won't change it's mind (assuming you had the time to tell it)

Uh, they did?
Let's take ME2: Wether I did the loyalty missions how I did the loyalty missions, who I picked for which task during the final assault all affected the ending in a meaningful way,
Did it change the plot towards something else entirely? Maybe building a holiday resort on Eden Prime instead of attacking the Collector Base? Nah.
But that was fine, because it was the middle game in a trilogy (or the first game in case of ME1). They NEED to have somewhat predefined endings, so that the developers have some point to start from.
However, they still managed to make the endings reasonably diverse and offer you a fair amount of information what happened due to your decsions (the whole human supremacy stuff at the end of ME1 for example)

However ME3 has none of these restrictions, since it's the final title in the trilogy.  They said so multiple times, and it's not even overinterpretation to say that they "promised us" vastly diverse endings, a total "what if" with all decisions coming to play leading to individual outcomes.
To go back on that promise and deliver 3 similar, color coded cutscenes leading to one predefined ending scenario is why people are raging. That's outrageous in itself.
The fact that the ending is also abysmally written, only makes things worse.

2) The "laziness" bit is entitlement, plain and simple.  You got different endings.  That they used similar cinematics to give you those different endings is EXACTLY what happened in ME1 and 2 as well.  Why were there no complaints back then?  You were told you'd get different endings.  You were never told how they would be presented.

These arguments that keep getting repeated over and over are a clear sign that player hype and expectation were never going to match up with the finished product.

You're really making the same point twice here, so everything written above applies as well. It is much the same as happened in ME1 & ME2, but the first and second title in a series have excuses for that, whereas the third has not.

As for "player expectations": I agree that no possible ending could have pleased everybody. They could have released some 3-4 diverse endings and cutscenes with certain modificators on how they play out, adding up to 16 endings but still really being "only" 4, not covering every possible outcome. I'm pretty sure some people would still have complained then, and in that case I would be right with you calling it entitled BS.

However, I strongly disagree that expecting something at least remotely resembling the numerous promises made prior to release is entitlement.
We were told to expect something along these lines, and many bought the product based on that premise

The ending(s) we got are so incredibly far off the mark of what they stated pre-release that it's not unreasonable to speak of false advertising. And in that, it becomes an issue of consumer rights, not "entitlement".

[Flextt]

I distinctively remember ME 3's Lead Writer promising in January 2012 that the Rachni will play a vast and important role. /thread

[OhoniX]

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?

How DARE you suggest that players bare even a shred of intellectual repsonsibilty! Bioware must chew their food for them until it becomes a drinkable slurry, it is entirely Bioware's fault if they choke on any lumps.

Modifié par OhoniX, 31 mars 2012 - 01:24 .