286 réponses à ce sujet

[STAG IRONHIDE]

Geneaux486 wrote...

Fighting a larger than life enemy, sacrifice, choice, peace vs. war, organics vs. synthetics, these were all present in the ending and in the rest of the game. 

While that is true, the execution was where it was flawed and it ended up being illogical and none of the things you said above.

Shepard kills many people with the Mass Relays, despite the fact that you just united the Galaxy and resolved the conflict between the Quarian and Geth (peacefully or otherwise). If you just destroyed the Reapers (who's existence is pointless) all problems would be solved. Uniting the Galaxy, curing the Genophage? Everything you did is pointless when the Krogan are just going to die on the rotting planet that is Earth.

You are given 3 illogical choices Shepard wouldn't have made.

Modifié par STAG IRONHIDE, 29 mars 2012 - 10:25 .

[arthurhallam]

who gives a sh*t what anybody thinks about the ending?

this whole discussion is complete & utter toss. it's boring.

the game has been interpreted to death. if that was bioware's intension - well played.

but i can't think of another creative work in recent times that has received this much scrutiny to the point that it has actually ruined the game for many people.

[cogsandcurls]

Geneaux486 wrote...

Take the Synthesis ending for example. What does it do? What doesn't it do? How drastic are the changes? Are the changes actually meaningful? Does it actually stop a synthetic/organic war? A creator/created war?

I find it odd that you chose this as an example, as it was actually pretty straightforward.  Synthesis basically altered and strengthened the DNA of all organics with synthetic tissue.  Looking at Joker tells us that the changes are subtle, which is to be expected, since the changes are occuring on a molecular level.  We also see that it stops the synthetic/organic war because the Reapers leave after the humans and others have been synthesized.

How does the Space Magic know EDI is controlling a human-shaped body? If it doesn't know, how does it know which organic species to base her new organic components on? (And I mean like really basic things like: if she carbon-based? If she had a turian-shaped body, would she have been given dextro-amino DNA?) If EDI hadn't used Dr Eve's body, would the Normandy itself have become part organic, and how?

How does synthesis work on sentient beings like the geth, who don't neccessarily have mobile forms? Are there servers full of geth somewhere that now have living tissue buried somewhere in there? Please explain. I keep asking this and nobody has any answers for me (even theoretical ones). I'm honestly curious.

[Geneaux486]

InfiniteDemise wrote...

CaliGuy033 wrote...

Whoops, I forgot Responder #4: "Straw man, straw man, straw man."  

Do you even know what a strawman is?

He obviously does, seeing as how he used it in the right context.

Shepard kills many people with the Mass Relays, despite the fact that you just united the Galaxy and resolved the conflict between the Quarian and Geth (peacefully or otherwise). If you just destroyed the Reapers (who's existence is pointless) all problems would be solved. Uniting the Galaxy, curing the Genophage? Everything you did is pointless when the Krogan are just going to die on the rotting planet that is Earth.

You are given 3 illogical choices Shepard wouldn't have made.

Earth isn't rotting.  The Reapers hit major cities, then concentrated on London until galactic forces arrived.  Furthermore, Shepard makes one of those choices because at this point, wounded and bleeding out, he can't do anything else.  Innaction would only result in everyone else being overwhelmed by Reaper forces and killed.

How does the Space Magic know EDI is controlling a human-shaped body? If it doesn't know, how does it know which organic species to base her new organic components on? (And I mean like really basic things like: if she carbon-based? If she had a turian-shaped body, would she have been given dextro-amino DNA?) If EDI hadn't used Dr Eve's body, would the Normandy itself have become part organic, and how?

How does synthesis work on sentient beings like the geth, who don't neccessarily have mobile forms? Are there servers full of geth somewhere that now have living tissue buried somewhere in there? Please explain. I keep asking this and nobody has any answers for me (even theoretical ones). I'm honestly curious.

We saw what synthesis did to AIs earlier in the game.  The Reaper tech that turned individual Geth programs into fully evolved, thinking, feeling minds.  I would imagine something similar happened to EDI.  It's most likely that the synthesis energy mutated organics and altered tech.  EDI may not necesarilly have gotten DNA, but her already-actualized personality likely evolved even further.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 29 mars 2012 - 10:31 .

[Ukjack44]

No Snakes Alive wrote...

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.

Oh do go on. Let us analyse this like we would the poems of Edgar Poe or we would Analyse the paintings of Modern Day Artists. I am very analytical, the only metaphor I could see in the ending is "Life's a ****. Then we all die." You may find deeper meaning in it which is great, but when did Art become a dictatorship? Many people are arguing wether the fans have the right to demand a better ending, to which these fans have been ridiculed and likened to hardcore star trek nerd fans when depicted by people on Youtube. 

If I created a piece of Art and presented it to you for free, you have the right to say it's crap, I do not see what you see. Yet you have no right to tell me to go away and repaint it as I have not charged you to see this piece of Art. Although if I charge you $80 to see my masterpiece and you say its crap, change it or provide me with a full refund (or in Mass effects case...complete the ending). Then you are well within your rights. People say entertainment is a risk. 

[InfiniteDemise]

Geneaux486 wrote...

InfiniteDemise wrote...

CaliGuy033 wrote...

Whoops, I forgot Responder #4: "Straw man, straw man, straw man."  

Do you even know what a strawman is?

He obviously does, seeing as how he used it in the right context.

You obviously don't either, as nothing Talogrungi posted in his description of the ending is a strawman. It might have had a satirical slant added to it, but it's pretty accurate.

[No Snakes Alive]

Alright let's not get all our panties in a collective twist because we're incapable of thinking outside the box. The best of most media, from art to literature to cinema to yes, videogames, often relies on the power of interpretation over just plain old closure. And to take just one example (since any I provide will just be kindling for more flames, I'm sure) from the same medium, would Braid have gotten half the praise it did if it weren't for everything its mind-blowing ending made us ask about what we've been doing all along?

I just completely fail to see how the ending rendered everything before it meaningless or worthless. We'd rather have destroying the Reapers lead to It's a Wonderful Life than actually draw parallels to what they were doing to us, and earlier conversations we had with Garrus about the cruel calculus of war? We'd rather them be the black and white evil than ever wonder if there may have been some gray area to them after all?

Or how about controlling them? We'd rather it be as simple as TIM = wrong because it's impossible than have to wonder if it would still be so wrong were it actually possible after all?

We'd rather the idea of synthesis between organics and synthetics remain what the imagery of husks has imprinted in our minds than have that flipped on us with a scene painting the potential harmony of the idea?

And then what if Indoctrination does play a role in it all? Are we as susceptible as Saren or TIM were after all? Can we be convinced that killing them off isn't the optimal decision after all? Do we think WE can control them or that we're better off joining them? Can we make the sacrifice we should have known we might have to and eliminate the species we just found true humanity in to take out the species threatening all humanity?

Does forcing questions upon us about everything we fought for and against in the series devalue all that we've done, or finally ask us to justify it all beyond merely "survival"? There's enough there for me to draw my own conclusions but I guess I'm one of the few.

I'm sorry so many of you didn't like the ending. I'm not sorry I did, though.

[Geneaux486]

InfiniteDemise wrote...

You obviously don't either, as nothing Talogrungi posted in his description of the ending is a strawman. It might have had a satirical slant added to it, but it's pretty accurate.

How 'bout no.  The post exagerated the elements of the ending to sound ridiculous thereby making them easier to refute.  That is precisely what a strawman is.  That's what putting a heavy satirical slant on something is.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 29 mars 2012 - 10:33 .

[Alamar2078]

@ No Snakes: I believe you miss a lot of [valid?] points that are problems with the endings. The biggest one for me is BW made a lot of pre-launch statements about the game that I do not believe they delivered on.

Until this is addressed to my satisfaction I don't see any reason to change my opinion or stance.

BTW: Yes the endings did tarnish the whole series for me. Heck I haven't even played a single video game for the last 19 days which is the longest span that I can remember in I don't know how long

[1Nosphorus1]

Geneaux486 wrote...

InfiniteDemise wrote...

CaliGuy033 wrote...

Whoops, I forgot Responder #4: "Straw man, straw man, straw man."  

Do you even know what a strawman is?

He obviously does, seeing as how he used it in the right context.

Considering that Talo posted his coloured opinion of the ending (All of which are coloured representations of factual plot holes and inconsistencies in the game) and said that for these reasons alone, he cannot enjoy the ending but respects the opinion of the OP. There is no straw man fallacy here.

[CaliGuy033]

InfiniteDemise wrote...

You obviously don't either, as nothing Talogrungi posted in his description of the ending is a strawman. It might have had a satirical slant added to it, but it's pretty accurate.

Oh man.  That's classic stuff right there. 

[Geneaux486]

1Nosphorus1 wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

InfiniteDemise wrote...

CaliGuy033 wrote...

Whoops, I forgot Responder #4: "Straw man, straw man, straw man."  

Do you even know what a strawman is?

He obviously does, seeing as how he used it in the right context.

Considering that Talo posted his coloured opinion of the ending (All of which are coloured representations of factual plot holes and inconsistencies in the game) and said that for these reasons alone, he cannot enjoy the ending but respects the opinion of the OP. There is no straw man fallacy here.

The post exagerated the elements of the ending to sound ridiculous thereby making them easier to refute.  That is precisely what a strawman is. 

[Jackal7713]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Thanks for playing.

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

This

[ahandsomeshark]

I don't think you understand the actual issues people have with the endings.

Also I can use my imagination for free. For 80 bucks they can hold my hand.

[WhiteJoker]

Geneaux486 wrote...
I see this misconception a lot.  All three games give us enough information to work with to make informed discussions about where civilization would go after each of the endings.  It's speculation, yes, but based on a multitude of facts we have been given.
Will the Quarians starve?  We know that they're far away from their home planet, but we also know that they have liveships, and have been feeding themselves without a home planet for centuries.
What about the Turians?  Emergency rations combined with the fact that they're now getting along with the Quarians gives us enough information to infer that they aren't doomed either.
The Mass Relays?  Even if the Reapers perish at the end, not only are they themselves salvageable, but so is the wreckage of the Mass Relays.
The endings are ambiguous, yes, but to say that we don't have any information to go on when we speculate is simply untrue.

I'm talking even more basic.  Did any of them survive the battle?  How devestated are the worlds like Thessia/Palavan?  What about non-capital planets or major population centers?  What else was affected if the Destroy option takes out more then just Reapers and the Geth/EDI?  If Shepard selects Control then just how far does his control reach?  If you pick Synthesis does that mean that over time everything becomes a husk?  The fact that you assume they survived at all is also interpretation is nothing in the ending in upon itself indicates that the relays didn't explode in a similar fashion to the Arrival and yet you can say that it wasn't Bioware's intention because they tweeted about it but that's not in the game; that is a specification after the fact.  Using what is actually in the game there is no singular set of facts involving "what happens now?" because it is lacking.

I find it odd that you chose this as an example, as it was actually pretty straightforward.  Synthesis basically altered and strengthened the DNA of all organics with synthetic tissue.  Looking at Joker tells us that the changes are subtle, which is to be expected, since the changes are occuring on a molecular level.  We also see that it stops the synthetic/organic war because the Reapers leave after the humans and others have been synthesized.

All the endings show is that the Reapers believe it will but the Reapers believed there was no other solution save theirs and they admit they were wrong when the Crucible is attached to the Citadel.  The Reapers are proven to be fallible so just because they believe something does not make it so; that has always been the case the only difference is previously the Reapers wouldn't acknowledge this.

Simply because things have been changed doesn't define how much they've been changed.  Looking at Joker only tells us that his physical appearance hasn't, for the most part, changed, but does that mean he hasn't changed?  Has the alteration to his genetic make up altered how he thinks now?  Has it altered how he develops?  Has it altered how he perceives the world?  Furthermore what's to stop somebody from making another full synthetic AI?  And if Joker hasn't been changed that much then does that mean the Geth haven't been changed that much and thus their supposed predilation towards total war hasn't been changed?  Their advantage over organics not removed?  If he has been changed drastically then does this mean that other things have changed as well since we know the trees on whatever planet he's on have undergone similar alterations?  If the Geth are changed have they lost their ability to network together and form an overmind?  If so, how severely does that change them?  Will they resent Shepard for doing something like that to them?  If it hasn't then does that mean former organics can interface with Geth on a similar level or each other?

If what you consider speculation is immediate results then you might have a point but speculation of the ME3 ending is not about immediate results, it's framed as a big picture and we don't see a big picture results.  Functionally this would be like if you told a story about knights and ended it with the introduction of guns.  The speculation isn't about how whatever fight ended; the speculation is about the ramifications of introducing guns into the world.  Synthesis is the gun; what does it do to change things?

Yes, but that is because the game continued the narrative into a sequel.  Unless Bioware had made it so that there were no choices at all involved in the ending, there was always going to be some ambiguity.  Even then, it's not as bad as it could have been, as the player's perspective outlives Shepard, and we get to see the end-result of the final choice.

A "yes but" doesn't render my point moot as my point remains; Mass Effect isn't about making choices and then coming up with your consequences, it's always been about making choices and then seeing the consequences and after effects occur.  Furthermore a "it's not as bad as it could be" argument is also flawed because it doesn't matter if it could have been worse; simply because I could have lost a leg instead of shattering my knee doesn't make the fact that my shattered knee hurts like hell.

Modifié par WhiteJoker, 29 mars 2012 - 10:39 .

[Mesmurae]

Rogue Unit wrote...

Thanks for the feedback! I still think the ending was terrible though. What did you dislike most about the ending?

+1006

[ashdrake1]

Jackal7713 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Thanks for playing.

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

This

Yup the continued existence of advanced life in the universe is pretty much worthless.

[AtreiyaN7]

Geneaux486 wrote...

The endings are no more objectively bad than they are objectively good. It's understandable why people weren't happy with the endings, they're certainly not what I was expecting, and hell, they wouldn't be any worse off with a little more exposition. Still, you're not alone OP, I liked the ending to.

And I agree as well - while I understand exactly why people who hate the endings are unhappy with it, I actually enjoyed imagining the possibilities of what might happen, but to each their own. Personally, I don't think the endings violated the whole series and were representative of hemes that have been present in previous games.

[AlienSpaceBats]

<_< 

[aliengmr1]

Maybe if you left out the condescending tone people might be willing to discuss it with you.

You certainly aren't the first and its rather tiresome.

Glad you liked it. There are plenty of threads, articles, and videos that explain every detail.

[Zion60660]

It annoys me that people defend this ending. Its bad. Not "well art is in the eye of the beholder" bad, its just plain bad. Not because the ending was depressing, or even filled with plot holes. Its because it didn't do the one thing, THE ONE THING, that an ending is supposed to do. This is called "resolution."

Yes, it resolved the plot with the Reapers (albeit it in a completely awful way). However, it did not resolve the plot with: the Geth, the Quarians, the Krogans, the Turians, the Salarians, the Drell, the Hanar, galactic civilization as a whole, Tali, Liara, Garrus, EDI, Joker, James, Steve Cortez, Javik, Kaidan/Ashley, Aria, Kal'Reegar, Captain Bailey, the Council, Urdnot Bakara, Grunt, Zaeed, Kasumi, or any of a myriad array of other characters whom we've come to know and love.

They spent three video games focusing on the characters with a nice, standard Space Opera plot going on in the background, only to end it abruptly and incompetently. If Return of The Jedi had ended as the core of the second Death Star exploded, if it just cut to credits right there, I can assure you that every patron of every movie theater that played it would stand up, shout WTF?! and walk out. If the Lord of The Rings had cut to credits as soon as the ring fell into the fires of Mt. Doom, no one would have enjoyed the series.

If you say that these endings are good, then you are a sheep. This was not a good ending to Mass Effect, not subjectively, objectively. The opinion that the ending was "good" is objectively wrong. Yes, opinions can be wrong. In fact, many opinions are wrong. The opinion that the average romance novel is good fiction is wrong, just as the opinion that this ending to Mass Effect was wrong.

If Bioware was going for the Indoctrination Theory (which honestly, they should have just gone with, saying "we're really REALLY sorry we didn't fit the ending ending onto the disk, and will be giving it to you free of charge") then this would have been one of the most amazing pieces of writing in a series that has continually shown it can produce such writing.

Instead, we got "pick your color, because the endings are either do what the indoctrinated Illusive Man wants you to do, get rid of all diversity in the galaxy, or kill the Reapers and your synthetic allies. Oh, and heres a few plot holes to go with that."

[Jagri]

Least it will be remembered... Whenever I see a movie and or game and it has a bad ending I would still shrug and say "Well at least it was better then Mass Effect's ending(s)"

That is the legacy they will leave behind.

Modifié par Jagri, 29 mars 2012 - 10:47 .

[Annora]

Look, I get you. I feel you. But it's not worth it, man. This forum is full of people who don't care to hear dissenting opinions. You will be called a troll, contrarian, hipster, idiot, not a true fan, COD fratbro, corporate shill, ****, and much, much more. How dare you not agree with them!

Oh wow, "bio drone" is now censored.

Modifié par Anastassia, 29 mars 2012 - 10:47 .

[InfiniteDemise]

Geneaux486 wrote...

The post exagerated the elements of the ending to sound ridiculous thereby making them easier to refute.  That is precisely what a strawman is. 

Only if he was actually doing that to refute arguements the OP was making. He
wasn't, he was satirizing the end, which content that the OP didn't create, to explain why HE didn't like it.

The worst you could call it is an appeal to ridicule, but it doesn't follow that it automatically is a strawman.

Modifié par InfiniteDemise, 29 mars 2012 - 10:48 .

[Wickwrackscar]

Glad you enjoyed it. I didn't.

It's like the pope in a clowns costume destroying your house by crashing a police helicopter into it. It gives you a lot to think about. That doesn't make it enjoyable though. Not for me at least.