1291 réponses à ce sujet

[MrHibachi]

Guys we WILL wake up from this nightmare.....50,000 years from now...

[Sidney]

aliengmr1 wrote...

I didn't like how the ending neuters the Reapers. I think it was absurd to make them "unbeatable".

Am I the only one who wanted to be slogging knee deep in Reaper guts after a very close victory?

The overhwleming power of the reapers in ME1 made a space magic ending almost inevitable. I mean one reaper vs the entire citadel fleet was a mismatch (with some assorted Geth) so 1000's of Reapers was clearly not going to be a gunfire solution type problem. I was expecting a virus ala Independence Day myself since we'd already shown that rewriting "bad" synthetics was possible.

[viperabyss]

101ezylonhxeT wrote...

There. Is. No. Valid. Reason. To. Like. The. Endings.

I have to chime in. A lot of people don't like the ending, me included. But that is only our opinion. Some people found reasons to like the ending, and their opinion is about as valid as yours.

Seriously, although we're in the same camp, but please, grow up.

[Dendio1]

The Angry One wrote...

It's come up in a few discussions now and then from various people that, no matter what the consequences of the ending, the cycle is in fact broken, Reapers are no longer a threat and future races will be free of bad Reaper influence, being culled etc. etc.

There's one issue I have with this: I DON'T CARE.

I got into Mass Effect because I became invested into the galaxy, it's various races and the galaxy.
I don't care whether the Yahg are now free to expand across the galaxy and eat puppies or whatever it is they do.
I don't care that in 10, 20, 30,000 years there'll be some form of galactic society again and I certainly don't care what some senile old man has to say to his naive grandson 10,000 years in the future on some backwater world I don't know and don't give a damn about!

I care about this galaxy, as is. I care about Garrus, about Liara, about Kaidan, about Tali building her home on Rannoch, about Wrex raising his new children. I care about Jack and her students, about Conrad, about Bailey. I care about the Turians, the Asari, the Quarians, the Geth, the Krogans.
Heck I even care about Vega and his N7 promotion.

That's what I care about, the characters I've gotten to know for 3 games. Not some nebulous, unseen and uneeded future. For that, you might as well let the Reapers win, because it amounts to exactly the same thing in the end. This isn't just about Shepard's unhappy ending. I want a happy ending, but even if it had to be a sacrifice, then I want that sacrifice to mean something other than some alien I don't care about not fearing the robotic squids from hell.

Agree on everything but Kaiden. The man died a hero on virmire let him rest in peace.

[Texhnolyze101]

Nathan_41 wrote...

101ezylonhxeT wrote...

Karrie788 wrote...

101ezylonhxeT wrote...

Karrie788 wrote...

101ezylonhxeT wrote...


There is no valid reason for liking the endings.

Actually, there are. The themes that are introduced are interesting. Personally I think they're completely out of place but some people can appreciate or even love them. No need to attack them or hate them for having an opinion. Freedom of speech is important.

There. Is. No. Valid. Reason. To. Like. The. Endings.

Look, I loathe the endings just as much as you do. But people have different opinions. Please aknowledge that. It's not a terrible thing.

Sure I'll acknowledge them once they realize liking the endings is a stupid thing to do.

You're hardly helping to discredit the endings with your behaviour. Most people are only going to look at you and think of us as a whole as whiny and childish.

I hated the endings. I think they completely disregarded the themes of the series, robbed the players of the option of choice that we came to expect and were a misuse of the term 'bittersweet'. But my opinion does not hold higher ground or count for more than that of any player who enjoyed the ending. And neither does yours.

You can't enjoy the endings so i will not acknowledge such trash.

[AtreiyaN7]

The Angry One wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

It's very short-sighted to say that the future doesn't matter when it did matter and does matter. Why did Garrus, Wrex, Tali, etc. help you in the first place? Because they saw the danger of the Reapers. They didn't up and decide to help Shepard because he/she was such an awesome person that they wanted to hang out with you. Those friendships develop naturally during the course of Shepard's fight to stop the Reapers, but those people initially stay with Shepard because they want to make really sure that there's a future for themselves and their people.

1. Well yes. Themselves and their people. This is the future the endings take away completely.

I certainly didn't fight against Sovereign or the Collectors because I loved Kaidan or because I developed a deep and abiding friendship with Garrus. I was fighting for something bigger than any of that. My friends and LIs inspired loyalty and feelings of camaraderie and were an important part of the journey. They gave me a reason to keep going in what seemed like a futile fight to be sure, but it was ultimately about finding a way to break the cycle and to make certain that there would be a future for others - even if that didn't include my Shepard or my friends.

2. If you're not fighting for your friends and your people, then who are you fighting for? Somebody in the distant future? Human nature does not work that way. We fight for what we know, not for what might become.

If you're a determined pessimist, then of course you believe that there's no future or hope and that everything you love is gone, in which case so be it. Some of us just don't see it that way and have an optimistic outlook as far as that goes.

3. If you choose to manufacture a better reality, more power to you. But that just proves how bleak and pointless the ending is, because the ending as given shows no future for the characters were grew to care about. None.

On point one: The endings don't do that at all. See, here's where you're going to say that everything's destroyed, ruined and hopeless. Then I point out that the Normandy crash indicates that planets clearly survive the death of the relay system and that by logical extension Palaven and all those many other worlds with people still exist, which means that there is a future. So, let's just get that out of the way now and agree to permanently disagree about it.

On point two: You're an expert on human nature now? People fight for various reasons, and sometimes it's because of their principles or for larger ideals or for flat-out survival. What was US participation in WWII about? We were basically isolationists until Pearl Harbor kicked our butts into gear. After things finally hit close to home, people finally realized that their way of life and their future was threatened by one man in Germany. All our soldiers who fought in WWII likely found inspiration in friendships and family, but they did what they did for a much bigger reason - to make sure we would have a future that didn't involve living under the banner of the Third Reich.

And what did Martin Luther King, Jr. fight for in the Civil Rights movement? He fought for ideals and principles - he wanted to ensure that his people had a future in which they and others would be treated as equals and not be judged by the color of their skin. He didn't do it solely for his children - he did it for all children and all people, even at the cost of his life. Do I have to throw in Mahatma Gandhi too and point out how he wanted a better future for his people with India freed from British rule?

I'm going to repeat that Garrus, Kaidan, and everyone else gave me motivation to keep fighting but that they were not what I was actually fighting for. What I fought for was to ensure the survival of our collective people and to stop the Reapers from continuing the Cycles. Maybe you and others have different goals, but I believe that there are things that are bigger and more important than my personal life or my friendships, etc. What provides motivation is not necessarily the same as what you fight for, but there's a whopping huge divide between those of us who believe that the future matters and those who are focused solely on their companions.

On point three: Being optimist does not prove that the endings are bleak and pointless, but we're just going to go around in circles again a la point one because this is entirely subjective. I see the Normandy survivors as proof that worlds continue to exist unharmed and capable of sustaining life and that even on war-ravaged worlds, there's still life. I see the Stargazer and know that there's a future for us, even if it will take time to get galactic civilization back on its feet. Your position is diametrically opposed to mine, and neither of us is going to budge an inch on it, so there's really not much to say unless you want to point out again that you think it's all hopeless. *shrug*

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 01 avril 2012 - 03:48 .

[Sidney]

Karrie788 wrote...
You know, I was also disappointed with the endings because we didn't have an option in which THE REAPERS WON.

Why didn't we have an option in which Shepard completely failed? We had it in ME2 (granted, the Collectors didn't win but Shepard could die, thus ending the story completely), why not in ME3?

Failure condition is that Shep dies along the way. Like you said there is no game where the bad guy can win per se (well Jade Empire does IIRC) only where you are dead.

[Texhnolyze101]

viperabyss wrote...

101ezylonhxeT wrote...

There. Is. No. Valid. Reason. To. Like. The. Endings.

I have to chime in. A lot of people don't like the ending, me included. But that is only our opinion. Some people found reasons to like the ending, and their opinion is about as valid as yours.

Seriously, although we're in the same camp, but please, grow up.

Liking the endings makes any opinion  you have invalid so it doesn't matter.

Modifié par 101ezylonhxeT, 01 avril 2012 - 03:48 .

[Karrie788]

Sidney wrote...

Karrie788 wrote...
You know, I was also disappointed with the endings because we didn't have an option in which THE REAPERS WON.

Why didn't we have an option in which Shepard completely failed? We had it in ME2 (granted, the Collectors didn't win but Shepard could die, thus ending the story completely), why not in ME3?

Failure condition is that Shep dies along the way. Like you said there is no game where the bad guy can win per se (well Jade Empire does IIRC) only where you are dead.

The bad guys could win in Fallout 1. I miss that game.

[Vhalkyrie]

Sidney wrote..

The overhwleming power of the reapers in ME1 made a space magic ending almost inevitable. I mean one reaper vs the entire citadel fleet was a mismatch (with some assorted Geth) so 1000's of Reapers was clearly not going to be a gunfire solution type problem. I was expecting a virus ala Independence Day myself since we'd already shown that rewriting "bad" synthetics was possible.

I would have liked a story that demonstrated thematically there is no such thing as invincible.  They seemed to start to head that way in Rannoch with the Reaper "eye".  And the Thresher Maw on Tuchanka.  They just needed to build up more momentum.  Honestly, I expected the most we could hope for at the end was a strategic retreat from the Reapers.  But then that wouldn't necessarily finish Shepard's story, and they seemed hell bent on closing it.  Even it if meant introducing a deus ex machina.

[LastFadingSmile]

MrHibachi wrote...

Guys we WILL wake up from this nightmare.....50,000 years from now...

My god, Garrus was right!

Commander Shepard has gone into Prothean statis and become a legend! Buy more DLC to wake up in a fresh, new Hell!



On topic, I fully agree with the OP, which I will articulate with a listless sigh.

[Quietness]

Sidney wrote...

aliengmr1 wrote...

I didn't like how the ending neuters the Reapers. I think it was absurd to make them "unbeatable".

Am I the only one who wanted to be slogging knee deep in Reaper guts after a very close victory?

The overhwleming power of the reapers in ME1 made a space magic ending almost inevitable. I mean one reaper vs the entire citadel fleet was a mismatch (with some assorted Geth) so 1000's of Reapers was clearly not going to be a gunfire solution type problem. I was expecting a virus ala Independence Day myself since we'd already shown that rewriting "bad" synthetics was possible.

The thing about that is the technological leaps that have been made since me1 that keep being ignored.  Thanix cannons come standard, the barriers/shields and armor have also jumped by leaps. None of this is used in the current cut-scenes. Yes the ME1 ships were weak, but the current military is a beast of a completely different color now.

[Billabong2011]

I agree, though I still would have liked the ending better if the writing had made me care about the future of the galactic races that succeed those in ME3 at the expense of their sacrifice. But the writing was so atrocious I didn't give a Turian's left nut about any 'higher purpose' there was to be had in the end of the game.

Modifié par Billabong2011, 01 avril 2012 - 03:51 .

[jvara]

viperabyss wrote...

101ezylonhxeT wrote...

There. Is. No. Valid. Reason. To. Like. The. Endings.

I have to chime in. A lot of people don't like the ending, me included. But that is only our opinion. Some people found reasons to like the ending, and their opinion is about as valid as yours.

Seriously, although we're in the same camp, but please, grow up.

I do agree with this guy, I can't find any reason why this endings can be liked by anyone, from a proffesional sight they'r ejust plain broken in basic concepts. People CAN like them, but I'm sure there are NO valid reasons at all to like them, people just like them and that's all, they don't need a reason, and that's a good thing for them, because there is NONE. Period. I mean, I'm sure there is some crazy guy out there who liked Superman64, and that doesn't make it reasonable.

[alterIncogn1T0]

Persephone wrote...

alterIncogn1T0 wrote...

Persephone wrote...

It's nonsense like this why the Retakers are called whiny, entitled and rude.

Similar words were spoken about the American colonists of the late 17th century.

Do NOT compare a movement over a VIDEO GAME to people fighting for basic rights like freedom and independence. They are NOT alike at all.

The goals are different, yes, but the principles remain the same. It's a valid comparison.

[Sidney]

The Angry One wrote...
Even if we kept the current horrid endings, I could fix the issue of closure and the fate of the galaxy in 1 minute.

- Leave the mass relays alone (LEAVE THEM ALONE WALK A MILE IN THEIR SHOES ETC.)
- delete the Normandy scene

Add a few Fallout: New Vegas (I'd say Fallout 3 but New Vegas did it MUCH BETTER) style backgrounds and voiceovers.

The end.
Not perfect, but it'd go a long way to making me not feel like crap after finishing it.

The Normandy scene was awful no doubt. Bad in so many ways but the fact that people who were on earth with me being on the ship was #1 with a bullet on that front.

The relays - well the relays had to go that was no shocker. Again, that seemed like a given from very early one once you found out that:
a. They are Reaper tech
b. They have a f#$kload of power stored in them

Either they had to go to remove the reaper presence OR they would be the only things with enough energy to wipe out the reapers.

[Persephone]

101ezylonhxeT wrote...

viperabyss wrote...

101ezylonhxeT wrote...

There. Is. No. Valid. Reason. To. Like. The. Endings.

I have to chime in. A lot of people don't like the ending, me included. But that is only our opinion. Some people found reasons to like the ending, and their opinion is about as valid as yours.

Seriously, although we're in the same camp, but please, grow up.

Liking the endings makes any opinion  you have invalid so it doesn't matter.

Extremes....they ALWAYS work out SO well....

Oh wait....

[viperabyss]

101ezylonhxeT wrote...


Liking the endings makes any opinion  you have invalid so it doesn't matter.

And how is alienating everyone, including people that share the same opinion as you, conductive? We've tried our best in the past 3 weeks to show everybody that we're not just 12 year olds who think their opinions carry significantly more weight than everyone else's.

You're not helping our case here. Stop it. If you want to blow off some steam, go outside.

[aliengmr1]

Sidney wrote...

aliengmr1 wrote...

I didn't like how the ending neuters the Reapers. I think it was absurd to make them "unbeatable".

Am I the only one who wanted to be slogging knee deep in Reaper guts after a very close victory?

The overhwleming power of the reapers in ME1 made a space magic ending almost inevitable. I mean one reaper vs the entire citadel fleet was a mismatch (with some assorted Geth) so 1000's of Reapers was clearly not going to be a gunfire solution type problem. I was expecting a virus ala Independence Day myself since we'd already shown that rewriting "bad" synthetics was possible.

I mostly do agree. I wanted to weaken them then kill them. I also felt that uniting the galaxy could count toward an unexpected victory.

My thing is I wanted fight them. Win or lose. They don't get to destroy this cycle without a good fight.

[The Angry One]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

On point one: The endings don't do that at all. See, here's where you're going to say that everything's destroyed, ruined and hopeless. Then I point out that the Normandy crash indicates that planets clearly survive the death of the relay system and that by logical extension Palaven and all those many other worlds with people still exist, which means that there is a future. So, let's just get that out of the way now and agree to permanently disagree about it.

I have never particularily endorsed the mass relay nova idea, though the game doesn't tell us otherwise to any satisfying degree.

On point two: You're an expert on human nature now? People fight for various reasons, and sometimes it's because of their principles or for larger ideals or for flat-out survival. What was US participation in WWII about? We were basically isolationists until Pearl Harbor kicked our butts into gear. After things finally hit close to home, people finally realized that their way of life and their future was threatened by one man in Germany. All our soldiers who fought in WWII likely found inspiration in friendships and family, but they did what they did for a much bigger reason - to make sure we would have a future that didn't involve living under the banner of the Third Reich.

Yes. Their society's future. Their nation's, their people's, their famly's. Not some nebulous society of the far future.

And what did Martin Luther King, Jr. fight for in the Civil Rights movement? He fought for ideals and principles - he wanted to ensure that his people had a future in which they and others would be treated as equals and not be judged by the color of their skin. He didn't do it solely for his children - he did it for all children and all people, even at the cost of his life. Do I have to throw in Mahatma Gandhi too and point out how he wanted a better future for his people with India freed from British rule?

I'm going to repeat that Garrus, Kaidan, and everyone else gave me motivation to keep fighting but that they were not what I was actually fighting for. What I fought for was to ensure the survival of our collective people and to stop the Reapers from continuing the Cycles. Maybe you and others have different goals, but I believe that there are things that are bigger and more important than my personal life or my friendships, etc. What provides motivation is not necessarily the same as what you fight for, but there's a whopping huge divide between those of us who believe that the future matters and those who are focused solely on their companions.

Again, all the examples you give cite their people. Their societies. They fought for what they knew and loved in whatever manner they could. They did it for the here and now, and for the future of that here and now.

On point three: Being optimist does not prove that the endings are bleak and pointless, but we're just going to go around in circles again a la point one because this is entirely subjective. I see the Normandy survivors as proof that worlds continue to exist unharmed and capable of sustaining life and that even on war-ravaged worlds, there's still life. I see the Stargazer and know that there's a future for us, even if it will take time to get galactic civilization back on its feet. Your position is diametrically opposed to mine, and neither of us is going to budge an inch on it, so there's really not much to say unless you want to point out again that you think it's all hopeless. *shrug*

Stargazer represents a distant future where the characters we know are little more than fables. "The details are lost in history".
That's too vague, and to distant to care about. You call me a pessimist, but I know much of the codex, and I know the rules by which the ME universe operates, and I can't see a future if you take the basic backbone of that universe and throw it away, I just don't. The game doesn't deign to show us otherwise, so I will assume the worst.

Modifié par The Angry One, 01 avril 2012 - 03:55 .

[curufinwe03]

KustomDeluxe wrote...

101ezylonhxeT wrote...

Karrie788 wrote...

101ezylonhxeT wrote...


There is no valid reason for liking the endings.

Actually, there are. The themes that are introduced are interesting. Personally I think they're completely out of place but some people can appreciate or even love them. No need to attack them or hate them for having an opinion. Freedom of speech is important.

There. Is. No. Valid. Reason. To. Like. The. Endings.

1) It made me think.

That IS a valid reason and a response the ending got from pretty much everyone on the forum. Whether the thought was "WTH is this?" or "Interesting, philosophically they're saying ______" doesn't matter. The endings did accomplish this.

I understand how people could like the ending. I abhor it for a variety of reasons, but their tastes are not mine. In the spirit of cooperation, we need to let them have the cake they like while we return ours to the chef because we don't like it. Everyone's happy, no reason to hate each other because of different taste.

I like this analogy. So a retaker and a proender are going to a restaraunt together. The retaker orders a steak, the proender a burger. The waiter messes up the order and they both get burgers, so retaker complains and wants his steak. But now the proender i griping too. So the retaker wants to know, "Why do you complain, you got the meal you ordered?" "Because i don't like steak, and if you order one, I have eat it too" "...What?"

So apparently, illogical endings appeal to illogical people.

Satire<_<

[Lookout1390]

Can someone please just explain 1 thing to me...

What was the point of the crucible?

What exactly did it do?

[viperabyss]

jvara wrote...


I do agree with this guy, I can't find any reason why this endings can be liked by anyone, from a proffesional sight they'r ejust plain broken in basic concepts. People CAN like them, but I'm sure there are NO valid reasons at all to like them, people just like them and that's all, they don't need a reason, and that's a good thing for them, because there is NONE. Period. I mean, I'm sure there is some crazy guy out there who liked Superman64, and that doesn't make it reasonable.

I disagree. People do like them for their reasons. Their reasons may not be valid in our opinion, but they are their reasons, and they are entitled to that.

Saying their reasons are invalid because they like the ending begs the same argument of, "what makes you think your reasoning is valid?"

[Nathan_41]

Persephone wrote...

alterIncogn1T0 wrote...

Persephone wrote...

It's nonsense like this why the Retakers are called whiny, entitled and rude.

Similar words were spoken about the American colonists of the late 17th century.

Do NOT compare a movement over a VIDEO GAME to people fighting for basic rights like freedom and independence. They are NOT alike at all.

I think you're very much over-reacting here. There's nothing wrong with using an analogy that varies in terms of moral importance so long as a parellel exists that can be reasonably agreed upon to be similar enough that one can make a point relevant to their argument.