650 réponses à ce sujet

[Jenetic]

The ending of ME3 is, ultimately, a victory for all since the reaper threat is now gone or abated. The problem I had with it, however, is not that it was a "sad" ending, but that it never FELT like the victory it was supposed to be.

I understand that the ending was trying to match the overall theme of sacrifice for the greater good (and I totally get what the writers were trying to do), but I didn't expect as much soul-destroying bleakness as I got with the end. Again, that's how it FELT regardless of the writers' intentions. So I agree to a point with you OP.

[Subject M]

It would have been great if it was made clear that the fleet was really just buying them time, that they were sacrificing themselves to keep the reapers busy so they focused less on Earth and those trying to activate the crucible. You know, updates on them getting pummeled, how the lines are falling only to have other allies taking up the fight to hold the line a few minutes more, which ships are going down and so on. Depending on your EMS, parts of the fleet survives or it gets destroyed and hell breaks loose on earth when more reapers land.

Modifié par Subject M, 30 mars 2012 - 06:26 .

[NKKKK]

I know that a low EMS will have sword fleet getting screwed by reapers, including a destroyer riding a ship like a **** and lasering it. And the fighters getting shot down by the Ocullus.

I haven't seen the outcomes of Hammer.

[Kakita Tatsumaru]

Dagasi wrote...
I understand that the ending was trying to match the overall theme of sacrifice for the greater good.

Too bad the writers forgot that they make Shepard tell that his was fighting for his own survival in ME2 (Yes, it is a Renegade choice, the Paragon one being fighting to save the Galaxy).

[The Razman]

Because Bioware wanted the game to end on a bittersweet note; it's their obvious intention. Whatever people's arguments about wanting a changed ending because of narrative plotholes or literary unsatisiying writing ... changing the ending because you want a happier one would 100% be violating the artistic integrity of what Bioware set out to achieve.

They set out make us feel sad with the ending. They shouldn't change that just because some people feel they "worked hard" at the game and so "deserve" a happy ending.

[freestylez]

I don't and never have cared how Bioware decided to end ME3, as long as it was given proper justice and made sense. That continues to be my only complaint with regards to the ending. I think because the ending was so poorly done the people felt invited to offer their demands on what the believed should be in the ending. In this instance I (only) partly agree with the whole 'art' perspective and why I wouldn't consider myself as someone associated with the "Take back ME3" movement.

For me, it's up to Bioware to direct how this story ends (and however many endings they choose). I think there should be serpeation between:

- Identifying the severe issues around the effort put into this ending by Bioware
- Demanding BW to tailor the ending to people's demands

While it's nice for devleopers to take input received from their fanbase, I don't necessarily think they are olibged to actually do so.That being said, I don't think anyone from Bioware can truthfully look at the ending to ME3 and say that this is what they intended, and the this ending was complete.
At worst, it was lazy sloppy, rushed, and introduced inconsistencies and plot holes. At best, if the indocintrination theory is true, it was very poorly executed and communicated.

I think Bioware has to come out and either defend the product they put out or admit that they dropped the ball. That's all I personally want. if they decide to change or clarify the ending (FREE DLC) then I wouldn't mind either.

[Subject M]

The Razman wrote...

Because Bioware wanted the game to end on a bittersweet note; it's their obvious intention. Whatever people's arguments about wanting a changed ending because of narrative plotholes or literary unsatisiying writing ... changing the ending because you want a happier one would 100% be violating the artistic integrity of what Bioware set out to achieve.

They set out make us feel sad with the ending. They shouldn't change that just because some people feel they "worked hard" at the game and so "deserve" a happy ending.

Shepard surviving with his or her LI and the rest of the team in a galaxy devestated by war would be bittersweet. Especially as Anderson dies.

Modifié par Subject M, 30 mars 2012 - 06:43 .

[ile_1979]

AlanC9 wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

I've seen a lot of people on this board who either say, "Don't change the ending to something happy," or "I hope the ending DLC doesn't have a happy ending."  I say, if you have to work for it, why not have a happy ending.

Because then I have to either get the happy ending or deliberately screw up my game to avoid getting it. This really is a zero-sum game. You getting your happy ending means I get one crammed down my throat or deliberat4ely make mistakes to avoid it.

Unless, that is, Bio makes a DLC with only a happy ending in it. Then people DL it or they don't; it's like Javik, who either exists or doesn't exist. What I'm worried about is that they'll do clarification/expansion stuff and add a happy ending in the same package.

You completely misconstrued what I said.  I said that the happy ending should be something you have to work hard for.  Someone on an earlier part of this mentioned a timing system, which I think could work well, if implemented correctly.

And why wouldn't any Shepard work hard? A tragic ending that can be avoided with better play isn't a tragedy, it's a mistake.

Now, if a timing system makes it explicit that getting Shepard's happy ending means hundreds of millions more people getting killed, I don't have a big problem with that.

Every tragedy is a mistake on someone's part. Every tragic hero could forsake it's journey at any point, but made a mistake and didn't. This is what tragedy is actually. The ability to avoid the event, but not doing it for some reason. Once the tragedy as a given thing it stoppes being tragic, it's just depresive...

[Subject M]

ile_1979 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

I've seen a lot of people on this board who either say, "Don't change the ending to something happy," or "I hope the ending DLC doesn't have a happy ending."  I say, if you have to work for it, why not have a happy ending.

Because then I have to either get the happy ending or deliberately screw up my game to avoid getting it. This really is a zero-sum game. You getting your happy ending means I get one crammed down my throat or deliberat4ely make mistakes to avoid it.

Unless, that is, Bio makes a DLC with only a happy ending in it. Then people DL it or they don't; it's like Javik, who either exists or doesn't exist. What I'm worried about is that they'll do clarification/expansion stuff and add a happy ending in the same package.

You completely misconstrued what I said.  I said that the happy ending should be something you have to work hard for.  Someone on an earlier part of this mentioned a timing system, which I think could work well, if implemented correctly.

And why wouldn't any Shepard work hard? A tragic ending that can be avoided with better play isn't a tragedy, it's a mistake.

Now, if a timing system makes it explicit that getting Shepard's happy ending means hundreds of millions more people getting killed, I don't have a big problem with that.

Every tragedy is a mistake on someone's part. Every tragic hero could forsake it's journey at any point, but made a mistake and didn't. This is what tragedy is actually. The ability to avoid the event, but not doing it for some reason. Once the tragedy as a given thing it stoppes being tragic, it's just depresive...

Like captain Ahab.

[ile_1979]

Subject M wrote...

ile_1979 wrote...


Every tragedy is a mistake on someone's part. Every tragic hero could forsake it's journey at any point, but made a mistake and didn't. This is what tragedy is actually. The ability to avoid the event, but not doing it for some reason. Once the tragedy as a given thing it stoppes being tragic, it's just depresive...

Like captain Ahab.

Indeed. And Romeo and Juliette. And Hamlet.
Pere Goriot. Oedipus. You name it.

[canarius]

As long as it makes sense...unlike what we have now

[JBONE27]

AlanC9 wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

I've seen a lot of people on this board who either say, "Don't change the ending to something happy," or "I hope the ending DLC doesn't have a happy ending."  I say, if you have to work for it, why not have a happy ending.

Because then I have to either get the happy ending or deliberately screw up my game to avoid getting it. This really is a zero-sum game. You getting your happy ending means I get one crammed down my throat or deliberat4ely make mistakes to avoid it.

Unless, that is, Bio makes a DLC with only a happy ending in it. Then people DL it or they don't; it's like Javik, who either exists or doesn't exist. What I'm worried about is that they'll do clarification/expansion stuff and add a happy ending in the same package.

You completely misconstrued what I said.  I said that the happy ending should be something you have to work hard for.  Someone on an earlier part of this mentioned a timing system, which I think could work well, if implemented correctly.

And why wouldn't any Shepard work hard? A tragic ending that can be avoided with better play isn't a tragedy, it's a mistake.

Now, if a timing system makes it explicit that getting Shepard's happy ending means hundreds of millions more people getting killed, I don't have a big problem with that.

Okay, so I guess Hamlet, Othello, Romeo and Julliette, The Lorax, and Death of a Salesman don't count as tragedies by your definition.

[The Razman]

Subject M wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Because Bioware wanted the game to end on a bittersweet note; it's their obvious intention. Whatever people's arguments about wanting a changed ending because of narrative plotholes or literary unsatisiying writing ... changing the ending because you want a happier one would 100% be violating the artistic integrity of what Bioware set out to achieve.

They set out make us feel sad with the ending. They shouldn't change that just because some people feel they "worked hard" at the game and so "deserve" a happy ending.

Shepard surviving with his or her LI and the rest of the team in a galaxy devestated by war would be bittersweet. Especially as Anderson dies.

No matter whether it would be bittersweet ... it would be a different emotion to the one Bioware obviously set out to instil.

[Suspire]

Because Bioware tries SO HARD to be gritty and dark. It's deep, you just don't understand it! *sobs*

It is hella weird that people don't want others to have the OPTION, and actually seem to want people to all have the same ending not so differently with how it is now...but hey remember optional gay romances?

[Subject M]

The Razman wrote...

Subject M wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Because Bioware wanted the game to end on a bittersweet note; it's their obvious intention. Whatever people's arguments about wanting a changed ending because of narrative plotholes or literary unsatisiying writing ... changing the ending because you want a happier one would 100% be violating the artistic integrity of what Bioware set out to achieve.

They set out make us feel sad with the ending. They shouldn't change that just because some people feel they "worked hard" at the game and so "deserve" a happy ending.

Shepard surviving with his or her LI and the rest of the team in a galaxy devestated by war would be bittersweet. Especially as Anderson dies.

No matter whether it would be bittersweet ... it would be a different emotion to the one Bioware obviously set out to instil.

Confusion? Disappointment? powerlessness? Anger?

[kalle90]

"Work for it"? Sure.

My fear is that it's way too easy to get the happy ending like in most games. The bad endings are the ones you actually need to work for. For example failing suicide mission (Shep dying) is near impossible unless you want to fail.

Also, definition of happy varies. Most think of it as the generic "Total victory with minimal casaulties, ones no one cares about" while some seem to imagine it as Shepard and his/her LI living.

I think we need to sacrifice something Virmire style: Shepard, LI, squad, entire race, millions of needless casaulties, Relays, populated planets, technology, freedom, travel, good species relationships, future... You can sort of pick your "happiest" ending.

[NM_Che56]

The notion of a "happy ending" violates some peoples' individual "canons". Or they listen to the Cure waaaaaaaaaaaay too much.

This series is based on choice. Having a predetermined outcome violates the very thing that underpins what makes the games so awesome.

[MrAtomica]

There shouldn't be anyone refusing to support choice in the Mass Effect universe. Choice is the byline of the whole trilogy. We were always under the impression that our decisions, and the amount of effort we put into the game, would pay off.

As other posters have mentioned, there is no opportunity for a truly happy ending in this game. At best, we have lost billions of innocent lives, and countless friends along the way. We have sacrificed. We have fought and bled to keep the galaxy alive. We did so for a better tomorrow. Instead, we get a future that is little brighter than the horrific present we tried to escape from. The Reapers are gone, but the synthetic "problem" still exists. The Relays are gone, Earth is hugely crowded, and our crew is marooned. Worse still, Shepard is likely dead.

The choice of an ending where these things did not happen, in part or as a whole, would be appreciated. If you feel that this type of conclusion is unfitting, don't pick it or try and achieve it. There really isn't any reason why things need to be so bleak when all is said and done, unless the aftermath is a new canon that Bioware is setting up for another trilogy (which would be inappropriate, considering the claims that this game would feature a wide variety of endings).

Think about this: we have already played through two installments in this universe. In both, the endings were hopeful. Provided you put some thought and time into ME2, you could even escape relatively unscathed. This precedent SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET if the intention was to drop a dismal ending bomb onto everyone at the end of the final game. If we were always going to get this kind of conclusion, there should have been some hint of that prior to this.

Even within the narrative of ME3 as an individual story, there wasn't very much indication of just how BAD the galaxy would wind up, until the last few minutes -- that is simply poor storytelling.

Let me use some examples of points that I take issue with, largely dealing with deaths:

- The Citadel being invaded. According to Mac Walters, everyone on board is "probably dead". That includes all of the people we spend nearly every side mission helping, whether to "prepare for war" or find some comfort from the war. Millions of people lived on the station.

• Aethyta
• Jondam Bau
• Bailey
• Aria
• Jacob
• Dr. Michel/Dr. Chakwas
• The Blue Rose of Illium
• General Oraka
• Assorted sidequest givers
• The Council
• Emily Wong
• Kelly Chambers
• Kalisah al-Jilani
• Barla Von
• Sarah Williams
• Michael and Rebekah

You get the point. These are only the ones I can remember. This does not include the countless civilians.

- The Normandy crashing. It adds nothing to the plot. It directly contradicts what we know of Joker. It also damns every character we have considered a friend through the whole story, all at once. Some would argue that there are simply missing details that would explain why Joker was escaping through the Charon Relay during the largest battle in the history of the current galaxy. They would also point out that Gilligan's Planet could well be within easy rescue distance. Since we have no evidence to add context to the situation, we are stuck with the assumption that everyone in our crew is screwed.

• Traynor
• Cortez
• Liara
• Garrus
• James
• Ashley/Kaidan
• EDI
• Joker
• Tali
• Javik
• Dr. Michel/Dr. Chakwas
• Engineer Adams
• Donnelly and Daniels
• Allers

Not exactly a short casualty list. This is way beyond a 'meaningful sacrifice', and well into the realm of excessive. I sincerely hope this is remedied.

* Note that the two squadmates you have with you are teleported back for no explicable reason.

- The relays being destroyed/exploding. What gives? From the looks of it, the blast is similar to the Alpha Relay explosion. Ya know, the one that wiped out an entire system. Judging from the number of pulses across the galaxy, we could have wiped everything and everyone out. Not a great place to speculate, if you ask me. Barring a massive wave of death from the explosions, every race in the galaxy has a significant portion of their fleets/people stranded in the Sol System. This is almost certain to cause widespread problems, such as starvation for dextro or amino based races, or infighting among races desperate to survive. There is also little hope of the shorter-lived peoples making it home.

There isn't any compelling reason given as to why the relays must be destroyed in this manner. The Catalyst casually mentions this, then moves past it. Not a single fact or justification is presented. The only argument I have heard is that "The relays were Reaper tech, thus they need to go." The problem with this line of reasoning is that the relays are simply tools, nothing more. They have no inherent moral alignment, nor would they be a symbol of control if the Reapers were gone.


These are some of my gripes. I have more, but these are the ones that bother me the most. As things stand, I can be reasonably assured that I have FUBARed the entire universe. Hooray for me.

For those claiming "You just want a Disney ending", you are incorrect. What I would like is something less akin to a barren wasteland.

Modifié par MrAtomica, 30 mars 2012 - 07:23 .

[MrAtomica]

Dagasi wrote...

The ending of ME3 is, ultimately, a victory for all since the reaper threat is now gone or abated. The problem I had with it, however, is not that it was a "sad" ending, but that it never FELT like the victory it was supposed to be.

I understand that the ending was trying to match the overall theme of sacrifice for the greater good (and I totally get what the writers were trying to do), but I didn't expect as much soul-destroying bleakness as I got with the end. Again, that's how it FELT regardless of the writers' intentions. So I agree to a point with you OP.

Except that it isn't really a victory. Consider this:

Destroy - You destroy all advanced technology. This does nothing to prevent it from being rebuilt. Simultaneously, you are betraying the synthetics you have befriended earlier on (EDI and the Geth). You have committed genocide, both of the billions of lives trapped inside the Reapers, and the friends you turned on. You may have stayed true to your original goal, but at what cost?

Control - You perpetuate the enslavement of the Reapers. Essentially, you become the Catalyst. There is no guarantee that you will retain control, nor that you will not be corrupted by the process. The Reapers are not gone for good, they are simply waiting. Synthetics can still be built, and they will be. Everything you have fought for is for nothing. You have become the enemy.

Synthesis - Supposedly the "best" ending. Except, you have just turned all life into Reaper form. You have become a mirror image of Saren, who preached the merits of such an end in Mass Effect 1. Without consulting anyone, you have just fundamentally altered the entire universe. There is no guarantee of peace, since pure synthetics can still be built. Again, you have fought for nothing. You have capitualted.

None of these is promising. Not to me, at least. The information here is subjective to some extent, but not terribly farfetched. I didn't feel any shred of pride after finishing this story.

[DeinonSlayer]

I think a reasonable way to go would be that, the larger your fleet is, the better chance you have of earning an ending where the relays are preserved and/or Shepard gets to reunite with his/her crew/LI. However, the trade-off (which would be completely logical) is that the longer you take, gathering assets, running around the galaxy fixing everyone else's problems, the greater the devastation is on Earth by the time you get back - the Reapers have been there the whole time. It makes no sense that the size of the fleet you gathered determines the severity of the damage caused when the relays cook off.

[Sebbe1337o]

Sure, I have nothing against a happy ending, it should at least exist, just very hard to obtain since the reapers are a lot stronger than us organics.

[DeinonSlayer]

Sebbe1337o wrote...

Sure, I have nothing against a happy ending, it should at least exist, just very hard to obtain since the reapers are a lot stronger than us organics.

The biggest obstacle, really, is uncompromising grimdarkers who want their ending to be the best ending attainable. The existence of a better ending would make them feel inadequate, thus Bioware should side with them. Personally, I don't want every ending to be a "happy" ending - leave their outcomes alone - but give us something worth earning.

[The Anti-Saint]

dantesfire10 wrote...

i think of it as an unspoken middle ground between those who want the ending completely changed and those who like the game as is.

Don't want lollipops and rainbows for a gritty, and generally dark toned series...would seem inappropriate. I am open to more shades of gray though.

Modifié par The Anti-Saint, 30 mars 2012 - 09:12 .

[Squallypo]

i think people overreact towards happy Finals/endings its not like they gonna have literally Rainbows in it or happy meals for everyone... Jesus Christ, Joseph and Marie. *facepalm with the power of chuck norris*

[Iakus]

Subject M wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Because Bioware wanted the game to end on a bittersweet note; it's their obvious intention. Whatever people's arguments about wanting a changed ending because of narrative plotholes or literary unsatisiying writing ... changing the ending because you want a happier one would 100% be violating the artistic integrity of what Bioware set out to achieve.

They set out make us feel sad with the ending. They shouldn't change that just because some people feel they "worked hard" at the game and so "deserve" a happy ending.

Shepard surviving with his or her LI and the rest of the team in a galaxy devestated by war would be bittersweet. Especially as Anderson dies.

QFT

it's supposed to be bittersweet.  Not "Eat your vegetables, they're good for you"

Four (or more) dead companions, at least three Council homeworlds devasated and billions dead throughout the galaxy closes off any possibility of a completely "happy" ending.