1291 réponses à ce sujet

[MartinPenwald]

Velocithon wrote...

Wowlock wrote...

Yep that is the point.

NO ONE in this world do things for 10000 YEARS LATER.....

They do things that may help the PRESENT and those they CARE ABOUT.

''Cycle is broken ... everything you care about is screwed but you might saved the next species in 50000 years ! '' Guess what ? I DON'T CARE about 50000 years later ! I will be dust and bones by then. And who is to say that another crazy machine-organic hybrids won't come out as ,say TERMINATORS , and do the same thing ?

If I can't see the results of my actions , what is the point of it ?

No, we're doing stuff for the future.

But we just don't CARE about it, in a sense. We'd MUCH RATHER see how it affects the people we KNOW and have come to love. Not some old fart and a kid on some whatever planet.

Yup, absolutely agree. Considering how much the characters of the ME universe were discussed on this board and how many people rallied to have so-and-so as a squadmate or LI or whatever for ME3, it's surprising that Bioware didn't anticipate the IMO worthless ending to cause such a ruckus.

I mean, to me, the ending seemed like "Oh, you like the characters? Whatever, here's an ending about stuff you don't care about. But hey, it has Buzz Aldrin" /one-trick pony.

[Baronesa]

Orthodox Infidel wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Radiation shielding technology. It's a space ship: it's inherent in the design.

There's also the point that 'shed' doesn't mean 'inernalized and cooked.'

Then why would the effects be catastrophic?
The energy is to be shed somewhere, if it was harmlessly shed into space with no consequence, why make a big deal out of it?

I feel compelled to point out to everyone pondering this point that Cherenkov radiation is a real physical phenominon that occurs anytime charged particles travel through a medium faster than the speed of light in that medium ("that medium" is usually not vacuum).

The Normandy itself and its crew are filled with charged particles. If there is any Cherenkov radiation produced from falling out of FTL speed as suggested in the codex, it's going to come from electrons within the ship and people. No ammount of shielding is going to protect anybody, because the radiation isn't coming from outside the ship.

The only good news for the Normandy crew is that the radiation will be so intense that they'll die instantly.

This need to be highlighted again

[alx119]

MartinPenwald wrote...

Velocithon wrote...

Wowlock wrote...

Yep that is the point.

NO ONE in this world do things for 10000 YEARS LATER.....

They do things that may help the PRESENT and those they CARE ABOUT.

''Cycle is broken ... everything you care about is screwed but you might saved the next species in 50000 years ! '' Guess what ? I DON'T CARE about 50000 years later ! I will be dust and bones by then. And who is to say that another crazy machine-organic hybrids won't come out as ,say TERMINATORS , and do the same thing ?

If I can't see the results of my actions , what is the point of it ?

No, we're doing stuff for the future.

But we just don't CARE about it, in a sense. We'd MUCH RATHER see how it affects the people we KNOW and have come to love. Not some old fart and a kid on some whatever planet.

Yup, absolutely agree. Considering how much the characters of the ME universe were discussed on this board and how many people rallied to have so-and-so as a squadmate or LI or whatever for ME3, it's surprising that Bioware didn't anticipate the IMO worthless ending to cause such a ruckus.

I mean, to me, the ending seemed like "Oh, you like the characters? Whatever, here's an ending about stuff you don't care about. But hey, it has Buzz Aldrin" /one-trick pony.

Actually, I see the whole Normandy crashing a proof that they tried to do a "new and thought provoking" ending while at the same time caring for all those characters in the Normandy you cared the most about by having them surviving. But it honestly feels like an insult to me, like: "Oh you liked the characters right? Well here, they survived! The whole galaxy is probably doomed but heyyyy the Normandy survives, aren't we all caring and ****?"

[Velocithon]

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

[quote]Velocithon wrote...

I said "a lot of people". Not "everyone". Therefore if you don't fall in the category it's ok. 


Try reading carefully next time. 

[quote=Dean]
Well, this has a simple answer in regards to me.
[/quote]You're welcome. Try returning the favor next time.
[/quote]

What makes you think I was directing my original post at you? I was speaking generally, yet for some reason you completely dissected my post saying what you did. 

Thats why I reiterated I just meant a lot of people.

Modifié par Velocithon, 01 avril 2012 - 05:18 .

[Kreidian]

I support the OP's comments.

[DarkShadow]

Exactly what I feel about the ending. Great job, OP.

[Unit-Alpha]

Well said.

[MartinPenwald]

alx119 wrote...

MartinPenwald wrote...

Velocithon wrote...

Wowlock wrote...

Yep that is the point.

NO ONE in this world do things for 10000 YEARS LATER.....

They do things that may help the PRESENT and those they CARE ABOUT.

''Cycle is broken ... everything you care about is screwed but you might saved the next species in 50000 years ! '' Guess what ? I DON'T CARE about 50000 years later ! I will be dust and bones by then. And who is to say that another crazy machine-organic hybrids won't come out as ,say TERMINATORS , and do the same thing ?

If I can't see the results of my actions , what is the point of it ?

No, we're doing stuff for the future.

But we just don't CARE about it, in a sense. We'd MUCH RATHER see how it affects the people we KNOW and have come to love. Not some old fart and a kid on some whatever planet.

Yup, absolutely agree. Considering how much the characters of the ME universe were discussed on this board and how many people rallied to have so-and-so as a squadmate or LI or whatever for ME3, it's surprising that Bioware didn't anticipate the IMO worthless ending to cause such a ruckus.

I mean, to me, the ending seemed like "Oh, you like the characters? Whatever, here's an ending about stuff you don't care about. But hey, it has Buzz Aldrin" /one-trick pony.

Actually, I see the whole Normandy crashing a proof that they tried to do a "new and thought provoking" ending while at the same time caring for all those characters in the Normandy you cared the most about by having them surviving. But it honestly feels like an insult to me, like: "Oh you liked the characters right? Well here, they survived! The whole galaxy is probably doomed but heyyyy the Normandy survives, aren't we all caring and ****?"

Call me a heretic, but I believe that the last 5 minutes of a 120 hour epic are not the best point in a storyline to try new and thought provoking things

And yeah, "they survived" (well, at least the whooping total of three characters you see) does not satisfy anyone, and if Bioware really thought it would, then it just shows the disconnect between them and the people who buy their product (and by "buy", I don't just mean purchasing the game, I mean getting collectors editions, DLC, merchandise, the whole shebang, which is what we, the core audience, do, and not Joe Shmoe who picked up the game because the cover looked cool to him).

[snakeboy86]

The more I think about it, the more this damn ending makes less and less sense...you saved the galaxy, great, now what?

[Orumon]

Quietness wrote...

Rolando93 wrote...

Brian Lewis wrote...

I agree with the OP. I did not spend 3 games getting to know the characters and caring about the galaxy just to sentence all of them to death in the last 5 minutes. My Shepards were fighting to preserve as much of the galaxy and save as many of their friends as possible, not just so future races won't have to face the Reapers.

Shepard doesn't sentence anyone to death since destroying the relays really is his only option and also destroying the relays kill nobody.

Wow, I get how you work now. You use your own opinion as fact and than just keep re-inforcing your own opinion with your own opinion. You use virtually no facts from the actual game.

That pretty much sums up a good proportion of people on both sides of the argument, I enjoy you snarkily lampooning every act of stupidity regardless of what side of the argument it's from.

[Fros7bite]

Anyone else wonder how in hell they're going to make a game after ME3? It'd have to be a prequel to be anything like the games we know and love.

[DJBare]

Quietness wrote...
The center of it blows up and explosions all over the station :

http://youtu.be/Pm5RdU9_suc?t=1m49s

Yup, that would be my definition of almost total destruction.

[Nezzer]

Good to know I'm not the only one that thinks that way. The "victory" we get makes me feels as bad as if the Reapers had won.

[The Angry One]

Orthodox Infidel wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Radiation shielding technology. It's a space ship: it's inherent in the design.

There's also the point that 'shed' doesn't mean 'inernalized and cooked.'

Then why would the effects be catastrophic?
The energy is to be shed somewhere, if it was harmlessly shed into space with no consequence, why make a big deal out of it?

I feel compelled to point out to everyone pondering this point that Cherenkov radiation is a real physical phenominon that occurs anytime charged particles travel through a medium faster than the speed of light in that medium ("that medium" is usually not vacuum).

The Normandy itself and its crew are filled with charged particles. If there is any Cherenkov radiation produced from falling out of FTL speed as suggested in the codex, it's going to come from electrons within the ship and people. No ammount of shielding is going to protect anybody, because the radiation isn't coming from outside the ship.

The only good news for the Normandy crew is that the radiation will be so intense that they'll die instantly.

Thanks for pointing this out. Instant hm?
That explains the jungle planet, it really is the afterlife!

[Kulthar Drax]

Good post, Op. Sums up pretty much what I feel about the ending.

[StormenDK]

I have only played through the game once, and chose to destroy the Reapers, so I can only assume how the other two endings are. I just know I think the ending sucks .... plain and simple. And I don't really care whether that "made sense" or not and that happy ends shouldn't be possible etc.

I just didn't like it. As others have pointed out, I wanted to save my comrades and the galaxy, and I wanted to see what my crew decided to do afterwards. How would Joker feel when EDI died because I chose to destroy all synthetic life ... Would Garrus and Tali survive the final assult, and if so, would they find a way to live together on Rannoch?? ... what would happen to my LI after my death?? ... those kind of things.

Now all I know is that Joker, Ash and Traynor stepped out of the Normandy on a planet somewhere that wasn't destroyed ... Maybe they all got eaten 7 minutes later by a big critter. Are the Normandy crew supposed to have started a new civilization on this planet, where the Stargazer eventually tells the kid about Shepard?

I don't want the end of the series to leave everything open to interpretation. I want to know what happened to Grunt, Jack and Miranda. Did they die in the fight or survive somewhere, somehow?

I think the effects of each choice should have had more difference .... as I read on the boards, the end effect is pretty much the same.

[YeGodz]

So...if I'm to understand this correctly, the folks in this thread never cared about the thing has been the central plot of the entire series from like 20 minutes into the first game...spent 100-plus hours playing it anyway, bought a bunch of tie-ins about the same plot that they didn't care about...and are now shocked and disappointed that the ending of the last game in the series resolves...the main plot of the series.

Yeeeeaaahhhh......

[Bleachrude]

Serious question:

Given that in ME1, Sovereign EXPLICITLY said that the relays and the citadel were a trap, why exactly are so many surprised that dealing with the reapers would ALSO mean the end of the relays AND the citadel?

The starchild sequence made no sense but the loss of the relays and citadel was foreshadowed since meeting sovereign back in ME1

[pjotroos]

YeGodz wrote...
So...if I'm to understand this correctly, the folks in this thread never cared about the thing has been the central plot of the entire series from like 20 minutes into the first game...spent 100-plus hours playing it anyway, bought a bunch of tie-ins about the same plot that they didn't care about...and are now shocked and disappointed that the ending of the last game in the series resolves...the main plot of the series.
Yeeeeaaahhhh......

Point me to anything that happens before the last minutes, that confirms the main point of the game is proving to faulty VI impersonating a child that his reasoning is obsolete by slowly limping to him after an elevator ride we couldn't take if not for the faulty VI? Because - as far as I can tell - we didn't even defeat the reapers in the end, we just happened to stop them by resolving entirely different problem that was only presented to us one minute prior.

But that's a separate point entirely. The reason why stopping the reapers the way it's done proved to be so unsatisfying - even downright depressing - comes down to something else entirely: That they will be stopped was never put in doubt. It was a foregone conclusion from the moment they were introduced as a threat. The only question was "how?", and boy if the answer to that one didn't get pulled out of the great cosmic behind!

[G Kevin]

Bleachrude wrote...

Serious question:

Given that in ME1, Sovereign EXPLICITLY said that the relays and the citadel were a trap, why exactly are so many surprised that dealing with the reapers would ALSO mean the end of the relays AND the citadel?

The starchild sequence made no sense but the loss of the relays and citadel was foreshadowed since meeting sovereign back in ME1

They were only a trap as long as the reapers existed. With the reapers gone, there is no need to destroy the relays and the citadel.

[TheMerchantMan]

Precisely what was forgotten by the developers in the end game.

It seems as though they all the sudden skipped the notion that the reason you were playing the game was because of the RPG/Story elements and gave us a poorly written, badly executed action ending.

"You beat the bad guys! You win."

Well no. We all knew it wasn't that simple, so we wanted real and definitive endings that reflected the characters and the universe we were in, not merely the resolution to the conflict, which was at it's core merely a device to move along our own character development.

I can't imagine anyone played Mass Effect just for the Reapers. There are more than enough games with a sci-fi apocalypse super-soldier killing a seemingly unbeatable enemy, Mass Effect was never a true shooter, if your not attached to the story, I have to question why you'd play at all.

[ragnorok87]

i totally agree... except bioware and ea do not.

[pistolols]

G Kevin wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...

Serious question:

Given that in ME1, Sovereign EXPLICITLY said that the relays and the citadel were a trap, why exactly are so many surprised that dealing with the reapers would ALSO mean the end of the relays AND the citadel?

The starchild sequence made no sense but the loss of the relays and citadel was foreshadowed since meeting sovereign back in ME1

They were only a trap as long as the reapers existed. With the reapers gone, there is no need to destroy the relays and the citadel.

i disagree.  it was never meant to be in the first place.  it wasn't real.

[pjotroos]

Bleachrude wrote...

Given that in ME1, Sovereign EXPLICITLY said that the relays and the citadel were a trap, why exactly are so many surprised that dealing with the reapers would ALSO mean the end of the relays AND the citadel?

Personally I don't see how the two are related. If an army uses tanks for an ambush, does defeating that army also mean the end of tanks AND armored vehicles?

But I wouldn't mind an ending where the relays go away, if the logic and narrative behind it made sense. Similarly, I'd like the positive aspect of the ending - that will still make it feel like a victory at such a high price - to be equally logical and coherent. Most importantly, I was certain there will be more variety in the outcomes presented, based on our EMS, since so much weight was put on it before the game was released and all the way through the campaign. Ideally, some endings would involve Shepard dying, some would see the crew dead or stranded, and one - the perfect one - would give a glimpse of hope that either of them get to live their lives afterwards.

That there's no such variety, that the personal side of the conflict was so carelessly brushed aside, is big part of the issue. It's not even that Bioware didn't realise it. They explained how it works via Mordin in ME2. Remember his talk about nephew shortly before suicide mission? That's precisely what got so many people invested into the game. We didn't just try to save the galaxy - we tried to save Ashley, Kaidan, Liara, Tali, Garrus, Wrex, Anderson and all the other guys. Heck, we tried to have Shepard come out top at the end. Shepard's our avatar in the story, after all, what's so wrong with rooting for him/her?

Modifié par pjotroos, 01 avril 2012 - 08:00 .