43 réponses à ce sujet

[amaltheaelanor]

I've seen people commenting that people who like the ending never elaborate on why.  While I think there are people defending the why (and while the context might not always be fair, it can be good for discussion), I wanted to offer my opinion.  Because I feel that it's valid, and I have a number of reasons why I enjoyed the end of this game.

1. I think, as is, it presents an appropriate amount of sacrifice and loss. The more I think about it, the more I love the destruction of the mass relays. I feel anything less would've been too easy, narratively speaking. I mean, these were ancient machines that had been doing the re-purging process for millions of years, and as we learn in this game, the Crucible wasn't even made by the Protheans - attempts to defeat the Repears had been made likely over countless cycles. So I felt that it needed to be hard, with a significant amount of sacrifice. And given the correlation between the Reapers being responsible for the creation of the mass relays, and the
way it demonstrates a sacrifice of technology, yes, that really worked for me.
Taking this a bit further, I think it also worked for me because this is a series that has often demonstrated itself to be one where the cost-ratio is equa lto your success (if that makes sense).  For example, if I want the full support of the Salarians, I have to be willing fake the genophage cure.  Nothing is going to come easy or fair.  Also, narratively speaking, I think it could be argued that the Reapers (and of course the Starchild) are, in a sense, god(s).  And the means by which all civalizations have been allowed access to important technology.  So if you're going to elimnate the Reapers (destroy god) then you should also lose access to that technology as well.

2. Similarly, I enjoyed the idea that it stranded some of the characters on a distant, unknown world. I'm even willing to suspend my disbelief over how it was that the Normandy came to be outside the blast (since we never saw it travel away from Earth) because I think having Joker and whomever else be the ones impacted by the upheaval and the inability to return to Earth was more impactful than if it had been a random ship of strangers.  Heck, I became even more attached to Joker (and his relationship to my Shepherd) than in the two previous games - and I found I was heartbroken to think that, due to the destruction of the Relays, there's no way for them to ever see one another another again.  And I like that it makes me sad.  (Though I realize that can also go hand-in-hand with my number 4.)

3. I've read enough epic fantasy (of which I feel this series is comparable) to know that when you pit a central
protagonist against a larger-than-life (even god-like) evil, it's very, very rare for that protagonist to survive. Even Frodo sacrificed so much in his attempts to destroy the Ring that he found himself unable to return to his own life and, in a sense, died by choosing to go to Valinor. So while I wouldn't have been displeased if my Shepherd had
survived (and I got to see her future), I would've been very, very surprised. I actually find myself incredibly sad that my FemShep won't get to go forward into the new earth, and I found that emotion a reaction that signals to me how much I enjoyed the game and its finale.

4.I'm a fan of bittersweet endings - the kind where the antagonist is defeated, but the cost for the protagonist(s) is so high that it becomes debatable as to whether or not the resolution can be defined as "happy." I would even go so far as to say they're my absolute favorite kind of ending and a lot of my favorite sci-fi and fantasy novels (LOTR,
Ender's Game, the Farseer Trilogy) have them. So this game having a bittersweet ending? Dang right, it worked for me.

5. I'll even admit that I liked the epilogue, in spite of the fact that I the dialogue was cheesy. It gives just a piece of the future, leaving me to imagine the rest.  I love the emotional change and aftermath and loss that comes after dramatic upheaval - for example I love the haunting story that Vigil tells on Ilos in ME1; can you imagine it? Waking up as one of the Prothean scientists and knowing that you're the only ones left of your species in the entire galaxy? It gets me every time. And going hand-in-hand with 1 and 2 on my list, I thought the epilogue represented that, by showing a hint of the future that confirmed a) that Shepherd has a legacy; and that the destruction of the Reapers really did permanently change the future and function of the entire galaxy. And I do feel that had they gone The Matrix route and tried to show or explain too much, it would've diminished the experience, as well as the
sense of loss.  (And I think if they hadn't, if they had just ended after Anderson dies on the Citadel before the conversation with Starchild, it would've been a good ending...but it would've left us with no information regarding the history or motivation of the Reapers, and so, IMO, it wouldn't have been a great one.)

6) I know others are upset that their decisions didn't change how the ending plays out - but I actually feel this is rather comparable to Dragon Age: Origins. Which has a strikingly similar narrative, of struggling to unite disparate races against a larger-than-life evil. In that game, whether or not I saved Connor, or whether I sided with the Mages or Templars, or whether I destroyed the Anvil of the Void had absolutely no bearing on how the ending of that game played out. The Epilogue? Yes. But that's not the same issue - because while the epilogue was nice, it didn't really matter. Ultimately, I feel it came down to something similar this game did (though arguably with a bit more decision making behind it). The Archdemon was going to be destroyed no matter what, the four endings
were primarily dependent upon which sacrifice you chose.

I enjoyed it so much that I'm already on my second playthrough, and even deciding which combination of choices I want to make on future playthroughs.

Please bear in mind none of this is intended to invalidate the opinions of anyone who is unhappy.  This is simply my perspective.  And I do feel that it deserves equal merit.

So there's my two cents.  Disagree or agree, take it or leave it, love me or hate me, that's fine.

Modifié par amaltheaelanor, 05 avril 2012 - 06:06 .

[sp0ck 06]

Format that dude, seriously. I want to read it, but ...argh

[schnydz]

you are not alone, op. you are not alone...

[Leafs43]

 You loved the ending because you are incapable of critical thought.


That's all there is to it.

[Marwood09]

Leafs43 wrote...

 You loved the ending because you are incapable of critical thought.


That's all there is to it.

And...this is the point where the conversation starts to lose any hope of being civilized. You don't have to be a jerk just because someone has a different perspective than you. Part of being capable of "critical thought" is being open to new perspectives.  Aristotle said "It is the mark of an educated mind to be albe to entertain a thought without accepting it." Your post seems to indicate that you're not capable of entertaining such a thought without being rude. Therefore, you're actually the one who lacks critical thinking capabilities.

@OP

I disagree with you but you've got my respect for posting this on the forum as a topic. I hope the coming wave of responses aren't too rude.

Modifié par Marwood09, 05 avril 2012 - 05:52 .

[Nu-Nu]

amaltheaelanor wrote...

3. I've read enough epic fantasy (of which
I feel this series is comparable) to know that when you pit a central
protagonist against a larger-than-life (even god-like) evil, it's very,
very rare for that protagonist to survive. Even Frodo sacrificed so
much in his attempts to destroy the Ring that he found himself unable to
return to his own life and, in a sense, died by choosing to go to
Valinor. So while I wouldn't have been displeased if my Shepherd had
survived (and I got to see her future), I would've been very, very
surprised. I actually find myself incredibly sad that my FemShep won't
get to go forward into the new earth, and I found that emotion a
reaction that signals to me how much I enjoyed the game and its finale.

This is probaly the major reason why you like the ending, because it fits a fantasy genre. I'm fine with sci-fi and fantasy mixing together, just not in the last 5 minutes.

[Mesmurae]

Leafs43 wrote...

 You loved the ending because you are incapable of critical thought.


That's all there is to it.

Also, format your post OP. Where did you copy and paste it from?

[amaltheaelanor]

Whoops, sorry about the format. Fixed!

[JobacNoor]

Uh-oh, OP. You posted something that isn't "RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE" on _this_ forum.

A storm is coming. A storm of crap.

[amaltheaelanor]

Nu-Nu wrote...

amaltheaelanor wrote...

3. I've read enough epic fantasy (of which
I feel this series is comparable) to know that when you pit a central
protagonist against a larger-than-life (even god-like) evil, it's very,
very rare for that protagonist to survive. Even Frodo sacrificed so
much in his attempts to destroy the Ring that he found himself unable to
return to his own life and, in a sense, died by choosing to go to
Valinor. So while I wouldn't have been displeased if my Shepherd had
survived (and I got to see her future), I would've been very, very
surprised. I actually find myself incredibly sad that my FemShep won't
get to go forward into the new earth, and I found that emotion a
reaction that signals to me how much I enjoyed the game and its finale.

This is probaly the major reason why you like the ending, because it fits a fantasy genre. I'm fine with sci-fi and fantasy mixing together, just not in the last 5 minutes.

I'm very interested by this notion.  I don't disagree with you.  But I know I've seen Mass Effect defined by others as a space opera (which I don't necessarily agree with).  And I think it is pertinent that BioWare came to this from a background of making primarily fantasy-themed RPGs (I would even include KOTOR in that).

Just out of curiosity, what do you feel would've been a good, more "science-fiction" kind of ending?

Modifié par amaltheaelanor, 05 avril 2012 - 06:32 .

[amaltheaelanor]

you are not alone, op. you are not alone..

Glad to hear it!

[Kawamura]

amaltheaelanor wrote...

2. Similarly, I enjoyed the idea that it stranded some of the characters on a distant, unknown world. I'm even willing to suspend my disbelief over how it was that the Normandy came to be outside the blast (since we never saw it travel away from Earth) because I think having Joker and whomever else be the ones impacted by the upheaval and the inability to return to Earth was more impactful than if it had been a random ship of strangers.  Heck, I became even more attached to Joker (and his relationship to my Shepherd) than in the two previous games - and I found I was heartbroken to think that, due to the destruction of the Relays, there's no way for them to ever see one another another again.  And I like that it makes me sad.  (Though I realize that can also go hand-in-hand with my number 4.)

I don't usually wish for social creatures to be removed from their society and forced to eek out an existence on a lowtech, lonely planet. 

He's going to die. They're all going to die. Joker has an illness that will kill probably him without medication, and probably painfully. He breaks a bone, how are they going to treat it? Until their high tech supplies run out? He's going to die of infection or an embolism or whatever. 

Actually, they probably will all die of infection, as it's a random world and they're not a part of the ecosystem. All those new bacteria are going to naturally select their butts out of existence. Painfully. 

That is, if your squadmates with d-amino acid-based biochemistries don't die of starvation. I'm not sure if Tali should eat Garrus or if Garrus should eat Tali. I mean, Tali's smaller, but Garrus probably has less nutritional content per cubic centimeter. 

So, yeah, it makes me sad, too. But mostly because I'm distressed at how horrible that's all going to be. 

3. I've read enough epic fantasy (of which I feel this series is comparable) to know that when you pit a central
protagonist against a larger-than-life (even god-like) evil, it's very, very rare for that protagonist to survive. Even Frodo sacrificed so much in his attempts to destroy the Ring that he found himself unable to return to his own life and, in a sense, died by choosing to go to Valinor. So while I wouldn't have been displeased if my Shepherd had
survived (and I got to see her future), I would've been very, very surprised. I actually find myself incredibly sad that my FemShep won't get to go forward into the new earth, and I found that emotion a reaction that signals to me how much I enjoyed the game and its finale.

I never got a chance to feel sad. I got a chance to feel angry because the ending made no sense to me. 

Magic kid pops out, changes the themes, forces me to accept a world view I find reprehensible, and then I don't get a chance to question -any- of that? Is that high fantasy? The god-like evil for me is the justification of destruction of biodiversity, and I don't get to fight that. I get to accept it.

4.I'm a fan of bittersweet endings - the kind where the antagonist is defeated, but the cost for the protagonist(s) is so high that it becomes debatable as to whether or not the resolution can be defined as "happy." I would even go so far as to say they're my absolute favorite kind of ending and a lot of my favorite sci-fi and fantasy novels (LOTR,
Ender's Game, the Farseer Trilogy) have them. So this game having a bittersweet ending? Dang right, it worked for me.

It wasn't bittersweet, though. It was nonsensical. Ender's Game -was- bittersweet. They destroyed a -child- to save the world. But Mass Effect has never really been that bittersweet, has it? 

It's always been "things are awful, people will die, but we -will- win". This wasn't a win. This was a "idk, give them some bs, kids love bs, right?"

I have no information over what happened in the ending outside of the relays exploded and the Reapers are possibly ... what? I dunno. Stopped? Forced into the body every living thing without their consent and so will infect their children? Trippin' balls? I dunno. 

Tuchanka was bittersweet. Mordin died, and you knew why, you knew how, you knew for what purpose. He made that choice knowing what he was doing. He knew his options. He had time to think and ponder and consider. He did it for Eve. He did it for himself. The Krogan had hope after a thousand years of seeing still births. 

In the ending, what did I know? I knew that there was a new, random AI that I'd never heard of or had hinted of. I knew ... uh. TIM was there. And Anderson is probably dead. I knew that I had three choices, but I had no idea what any of those choices would do. I didn't know why the kid knew about them. I didn't know what the kid was. Oh, I did know that synthetic and organic life could work together, but I didn't get a chance to mention that when he told me that was not true. So .. yeah. Bittersweet isn't the word I would use. Confused. Dazed. Angry. Unhappy at the quality of writing. Bittersweet, no. Bitter, yes, but because I saw the ending as technically bad. 

5. I'll even admit that I liked the epilogue, in spite of the fact that I the dialogue was cheesy. It gives just a piece of the future, leaving me to imagine the rest.  I love the emotional change and aftermath and loss that comes after dramatic upheaval - for example I love the haunting story that Vigil tells on Ilos in ME1; can you imagine it? Waking up as one of the Prothean scientists and knowing that you're the only ones left of your species in the entire galaxy? It gets me every time. And going hand-in-hand with 1 and 2 on my list, I thought the epilogue represented that, by showing a hint of the future that confirmed a) that Shepherd has a legacy; and that the destruction of the Reapers really did permanently change the future and function of the entire galaxy. And I do feel that had they gone The Matrix route and tried to show or explain too much, it would've diminished the experience, as well as the
sense of loss.  (And I think if they hadn't, if they had just ended after Anderson dies on the Citadel before the conversation with Starchild, it would've been a good ending...but it would've left us with no information regarding the history or motivation of the Reapers, and so, IMO, it wouldn't have been a great one.)

What information did you get? Because I didnt' get any, except possibly I need to ingest more drugs.

They introduced a new -thing- right at the end and didn't explain what it was. They gave me a choice, but didn't explain my options. They gave me a veiwpoint that was opposite what they'd given me for a hundred hours and didn't explain why. 

You can like the ending, that's fine. Some people like Marmite. But it's... I dunno. It makes me want to punch someone. Because I find it to be so bad. Who makes an ending where you introduce so much **** and don't let anyone ask about it? What's the point of that? Endings are supposed to make me -less- confused, not more, not for this sort of genre. 

Modifié par Kawamura, 05 avril 2012 - 06:52 .

[VoodooDrackus]

Leafs43 wrote...

 You loved the ending because you are incapable of critical thought.


That's all there is to it.

Fascinating. Does having critical thought mean being a troll? That's new to me.

The fact that you have no problem backhanding someone expressing their opinion doesn't speak highly of your critical thought.

[fle6isnow]

You are not alone, OP. I'm glad you enjoyed the ending. I didn't LOVE the ending per se, but I liked it, and I did like the themes put forth in it. I like my space operas tragic too.

[Beliyaal]

amaltheaelanor wrote...
Just out of curiosity, what do you feel would've been a good, more "science-fiction" kind of ending?

One that didn't involve magic. 

If it also addressed any of the primary themes of the game instead of taking a massive left turn to address a different story altogether, I'd also be pretty pleased. 

[Nisiar]

Many of us grew up on reading Asimov, Heinlein, Clarke, Bradbury, Atwood, etc.
We all read and think about the greater themes of the universe, the ethical implications, what it means to be human and artificial. Themes that have been covered for many many decades. It doesn't take a whole lot of thoughts to decipher the "themes" in the game.

I'm surprised people still consider this an argument about "you get it" and "you just don't"

[Catroi]

Asimov quote:
I made up my mind long ago to follow one cardinal rule in all my writing — to be clear. I have given up all thought of writing poetically or symbolically or experimentally, or in any of the other modes that might (if I were good enough) get me a Pulitzer prize. I would write merely clearly and in this way establish a warm relationship between myself and my readers, and the professional critics — Well, they can do whatever they wish.
Introduction to Nemesis (1989)

[Nisiar]

Again, answering the wrong question. How does that quote invalidate the ideas presented in the Foundation series? The idea of evolution, what is the next step for humanity. Is loss of the individuality the way to achieve universal peace and final evolution. Perhaps, even more poignant is if the author didn't even intend it to be deep but people saw greater themes in it. Kind of an ironic reverse for this game.

Or Philip K. Dick. I'm just naming off the top of my head of course. I'm sure there are many artists who I can't recall or not know about.

You can even see great themes in a painting of a fruit bowl if you tried hard enough.

Here are the questions you should be asking:
Why did you play this game?

Edit: I had more but I realized they were redundant and unnecessary if this was answered correctly.  If you truthfully answer this question and be absolutely happy with the game still, then good for you.  You must be Bioware's target audience.  

Modifié par raisinsc, 05 avril 2012 - 07:25 .

[amaltheaelanor]

Beliyaal wrote...

amaltheaelanor wrote...
Just out of curiosity, what do you feel would've been a good, more "science-fiction" kind of ending?

One that didn't involve magic. 

If it also addressed any of the primary themes of the game instead of taking a massive left turn to address a different story altogether, I'd also be pretty pleased. 

Interesting.  I'm curious to know what you found about it to be defined as magic.  

I didn't particularly feel the primary theme (synthetics vs. organics) came out of nowhere, but that may just be a matter of differing perspective.  For myself, I think I'm willing to accept that as being the crux of the series since, among other things, we learn in the second game that the Reapers are made from organics.  That definitely speaks to a larger statement of the relationship between - that machines are made and always turn on their makers (see Quarians v. Gothic and Battlestar Galactica) and how these particular synthethics (more than the others) are dependent upon organics for their very creation. 

[Kawamura]

raisinsc wrote...

Again, answering the wrong question. How does that quote invalidate the ideas presented in the Foundation series? The idea of evolution, what is the next step for humanity. Is loss of the individuality the way to achieve universal peace and final evolution. Perhaps, even more poignant is if the author didn't even intend it to be deep but people saw greater themes in it. Kind of an ironic reverse for this game.

Or Philip K. Dick. I'm just naming off the top of my head of course. I'm sure there are many artists who I can't recall or not know about.

You can even see great themes in a painting of a fruit bowl if you tried hard enough.

Here are the questions you should be asking:
Why did you play this game?

Ironic reverses aren't good at hour 99, minute 50 out of 100 hours. 

[arthurhallam]

Leafs43 wrote...

 You loved the ending because you are incapable of critical thought.


That's all there is to it.

see. this is all the retakers are capable of

Modifié par arthurhallam, 05 avril 2012 - 07:27 .

[Uilleand]

I, too, am a huge, HUGE fan of a bittersweet ending. Actually, I'm a fan of a really good Kick-You-In-The-Gut-And-Tear-Your-Heart-Out ending.
I LOVE them.
But I want them to make sense.
And, in the context of a BioWare game, I want them to reflect the choices I've made in the game.
Case in point, I ended up with possibly THE most gut-tearing Dragon Age: Origins ending possible. And it was PERFECT. I could track every choice, every interaction that led to it - well-meaning or not.
But, my friend whose ME3 gameplay experience was VASTLY different from mine got the EXACT SAME ending. Nothing to show that I had made peace between Quarian/Geth and she had lost Tali and her people. Nothing to say that I had chosen to allow Mordin's sacrifice and she had chosen to make the Krogan deal with the genophage. NOTHING.

[Japkap79]

Guess im in the category of being a loyal fan with no clue according to some people, i liked the ending after having actually noticed the ending period of the game, everything from the emails and vids with goodbyes from your former team members and reading about people you might have saved through out the 3 games doing amazing things against the reapers in the final hours of there lives.

Garrus nemesis where you stop him from killing him in ME2 i believe there is a short terminal entry about him, and the one Jack spares on her loyalty mission if you go paragon, he helps save alot of people when they are evacuating, all those sort of stuff during the end part of the game i found those very appealing, reading the mails at Shepards private terminal, another reason why i might have loved the mass effect universe might be due to my love of Babylon 5 i see alot of stuff in the game and especially in ME3 where my mind goes straight to B5 the chaos and order thing and other things that happen through out the 3 games.

I am okay with Shepard dieing, but yes there are alot of plot holes in the ending that dont make sense, but i feel the need for Shepard needing to die is there because it is an epic battle afterall, i dont see any possible way for Shepard to simply just being able to walk away after having defeated the Reapers, should the crucible have been a magical shutoff button with no real consequence to destroying them, the synthesis and control endings also indicate that in some way Shepard lives on, again adding to the Shepard legacy.

[amaltheaelanor]

One more reason I would add that it worked for me is because I've seen that theme of gods/aliens being the ultimate form of evolution in other science fiction (2001/2010, Stargate SG1) and based on Harbinger's dialogue in ME2, that was their intent - that the Reapers considered themselves the ultimate form of evolution. (Though maybe that's just what I take away from it.) And since I view the Reapers in that gods/aliens role (though considerably more aggressive and destructive than in other texts), then I think that goes hand-in-hand with my feelings about the repercussions if one is going to destroy "god." (Though maybe I'm just re-stating myself here...)

[Beliyaal]

amaltheaelanor wrote...

Interesting.  I'm curious to know what you found about it to be defined as magic.

The giant multicolored wave that changed everything through no mechanism that was ever explained? Especially the green one, that caused people to...grow circuits? By transmogrifying parts of them into...silicon? 

The green ending especially (but all the endings, to some degree) is not any kind of sci-fi, it's sympathetic magic: throw a synthetic/organic hybrid into the sacrificial fire, use a tool to focus some energy, change everyone in the galaxy into synthetic/organic hybrids. That's how you build a magic spell, not a technological device. 

And if anyone brings up that asinine Clarke quote about technology and magic, I will scream. 

I didn't particularly feel the primary theme (synthetics vs. organics) came out of nowhere, but that may just be a matter of differing perspective.  For myself, I think I'm willing to accept that as being the crux of the series since, among other things, we learn in the second game that the Reapers are made from organics.  That definitely speaks to a larger statement of the relationship between - that machines are made and always turn on their makers (see Quarians v. Gothic and Battlestar Galactica) and how these particular synthethics (more than the others) are dependent upon organics for their very creation. 

The "synthetics vs organics" theme didn't come out of nowhere, but the "synthetics will always destroy organics" theme came out of nowhere. It's the direct opposite of what is shown in the rest of the story. Whenever that theme comes up throughout the games, the game seems to be saying "It's not that simple, that's a really childish, backward view that will get you in trouble"

And then, in the end, word of god comes down and says "yeah, actually, it is exactly that simple, and we're not even going to argue about it. Now make a choice about how to deal with it."

Furthermore, apart from addressing that theme in a way that was completely out of step with the rest of the series, it's not even the main theme of the game. Organics vs. Synthetics was a subplot. The game was about, more than anything else, the struggle of all life against its own inevitable dissolution, and if anything the organic vs synthetic subplot was about how, at the end of the day, organics and synthetics are both in that fight together. The ending just spits on that, offers a half-thought out dismissal, and walks away.  

Modifié par Beliyaal, 05 avril 2012 - 07:39 .