481 réponses à ce sujet

[Hussain_2012]

This video explain, why do many hate the ending. I believe BW focused on Multiplayer and forget their RPG fans

[Slappy Ya Face]

Astounding video. Mother of god.

[Mythx88]

Vid for this guys views on the new Extended Cut DLC over here. It's pretty funny.

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/11172876

Modifié par Mythx88, 08 avril 2012 - 08:06 .

[joshko]

this thiS thIS tHIS THIS THIs THis This this

[TreguardD]

Mr. Schumahcer; the big problem I (and really, most of the people I've talked to) is that the decision; the *required* decision is based on the premise: "Synthetics will always rise up to destroy organics."

What requires synthetics (or Organics) to dominate or die? (If this sounds familiar, Star Saga 2 asked the same question. I wish Star Saga 3 had arrived to answer it).

If you helped to create peace between the Quarrians and the Geth: You should be asking yourself the same question.

The Cruicible has *Failed*.

We want to fight for the Right of Self-Determination for all species, Synthetic and Organic, without sacrificing the soul of any of them.

Isn't that what Legion wanted, all along? The Geth fought in self-defense. They would admire our attempt to do the same.

The Freedom to Self-Determinate is the right of all sentient species.

...so why not pick Control, you ask? Because it's tantamount to controlling the Geth, as well. (Reaper tech again)... and I don't want to do that to them either.

[WarpedAcorn]

Excellent video. I like that it doesn't offer suggestions, leaving that to the storytellers at Bioware, but states what went wrong and where it went wrong. I also had a good laugh about how Bioware has basically changed its hardcore fanbase from the "TAKE MY MONEY" Fry to the "Not sure if serious" Fry.

[Skyblade012]

TreguardD wrote...


Mr. Schumahcer; the big problem I (and really, most of the people I've talked to) is that the decision; the *required* decision is based on the premise: "Synthetics will always rise up to destroy organics."

What requires synthetics (or Organics) to dominate or die? (If this sounds familiar, Star Saga 2 asked the same question. I wish Star Saga 3 had arrived to answer it).

If you helped to create peace between the Quarrians and the Geth: You should be asking yourself the same question.

The Cruicible has *Failed*.

We want to fight for the Right of Self-Determination for all species, Synthetic and Organic, without sacrificing the soul of any of them.

Isn't that what Legion wanted, all along? The Geth fought in self-defense. They would admire our attempt to do the same.

The Freedom to Self-Determinate is the right of all sentient species.

...so why not pick Control, you ask? Because it's tantamount to controlling the Geth, as well. (Reaper tech again)... and I don't want to do that to them either.

Indeed.  If you ever choose to allow the geth to die, punch yourself in the head now.  Then, go back and remember Legion's line.

"We won't let you direct our future".

The geth have been fighting for their future, and their right to self-determinate all along.  No matter which ending you pick, the geth will hate you, forever.

You destroy the only thing they ever wanted.  Either controlling them through their Reaper tech, fusing them against their will into another form, or destroying them.

Better to let them burn out over Rannoch.

[lajeokki]

This video puts together all my scrambled thougths and emotions. Thanks MrBtongue and whoever posted the vid here. Just added this video to my favourites so I can easily start rubbing salt to my wounds in the future as well . I honestly start to wonder how long it will take before I can just forget this whole mass effect series and "move on"..

[ArchLord James]

Skyblade012 wrote...

TreguardD wrote...


Mr. Schumahcer; the big problem I (and really, most of the people I've talked to) is that the decision; the *required* decision is based on the premise: "Synthetics will always rise up to destroy organics."

What requires synthetics (or Organics) to dominate or die? (If this sounds familiar, Star Saga 2 asked the same question. I wish Star Saga 3 had arrived to answer it).

If you helped to create peace between the Quarrians and the Geth: You should be asking yourself the same question.

The Cruicible has *Failed*.

We want to fight for the Right of Self-Determination for all species, Synthetic and Organic, without sacrificing the soul of any of them.

Isn't that what Legion wanted, all along? The Geth fought in self-defense. They would admire our attempt to do the same.

The Freedom to Self-Determinate is the right of all sentient species.

...so why not pick Control, you ask? Because it's tantamount to controlling the Geth, as well. (Reaper tech again)... and I don't want to do that to them either.

Indeed.  If you ever choose to allow the geth to die, punch yourself in the head now.  Then, go back and remember Legion's line.

"We won't let you direct our future".

The geth have been fighting for their future, and their right to self-determinate all along.  No matter which ending you pick, the geth will hate you, forever.

You destroy the only thing they ever wanted.  Either controlling them through their Reaper tech, fusing them against their will into another form, or destroying them.

Better to let them burn out over Rannoch.

Very well said, I agree wholeheartedly.

I realize shepard wants to stop the reapers but the the horrible things he must agree to do (genocide, forcing everyone to become something they are not) are inexcusable. I would rather die fighting and have a sad ending where I keep my integrity, than compromise who my shepard was by agreeing to exterminate an entire race or forcing every life in the whole galaxy to change against their will into cyborg/husk hybrids.

Everyone ask yourself this question. Would you rather have shepard refuse all 3 options the reapers give him, and die fighting against the reapers? Or would you rather that shepard trusts the reapers, takes their word for it, and without even knowing the ultimate consequences decides to force the reapers plans on everyone, thereby losing the moral high ground? If you take these options, Shepard is agreeing the geth need to be exterminated and that organic life has to forced against its will by the reapers to be cyborg. Translation, shepard is as bad as the reapers and helped them win.

Modifié par ArchLord James, 08 avril 2012 - 09:20 .

[chris fenton]

GdawgTuk wrote...



it's 39 minutes long, but holy cow did it open my eyes to just...everything going on with the ending. It seriously explained why it's so much more than just, "it's sad, I don't like it." Not even close! This seriously says it all, and Bioware employees and fans alike should check this out. 

All of this video poster's videos are like this - just wonderful. 

[whoisthis98]

if you look at other videos from the guy who posted this on youtube the seinfeld lectures bioware on artistic integrity. Priceless. Just Priceless

[Allan Schumacher]

Nykara wrote...


In any case I haven't actually watched the video myself but after having read this post and the exlainations here I don't feel -as- bad about the ending as I first did. Not entirely. There are however, things I still dislike.

Haha that's fair.  My intent in posting is not to convince people that they should change how they feel about the endings.

On the topic of the Reapers not being able to be defeated by conventional means - I actually don't buy in to that explaination at all for a couple of very simple reasons.
- If something can be shot, blown up or destroyed it -can- be defeated it is not immortal.
- The reapers can be shot, they can be killed and their ships can be blown up
For this reason alone i came to the conclusion that the reapers can in fact be destroyed by conventional means - not easily but it can be done. For something to not be able to be destroyed conventionally, to me it means that the weapons we currently have - do not work against it at all. That is not the case with the Reapers, that's been prooven time and time again throughout the game. This is what made it very difficult to stomach that explaination.

Hmmm, I don't mind Hackett's explanation.  For myself, stating that the Reapers cannot be destroyed conventionally was more of an acknowledgement that going toe to toe with them, or even trying guerrilla war type stuff, was ultimately a Fools Errand.  It took an entire Quarian fleet several salvos to take out a Reaper destroyer on Rannoch, so while we can destroy them, it's going to come at a huge cost, and Hackett feels it's a war of attrition we'd never be able to win.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 08 avril 2012 - 09:26 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Yougottawanna wrote...

The Wrex-Shepard bit can never go on too long.

HAHAHA.

About the Crucible: it's true that many of my complaints about the Crucible are ones that go beyond just the ending. The thing is that one of the things I hoped to reinforce in the video was the ending should be changed - and if I start saying that the entire main plot of the game should be changed, then what I'm suggesting starts to get less and less feasible and less and less likely to happen. It's true that these plot points are intertwined, and that it's difficult to change the ending without changing the Crucible plotline. But to me that's just part of the unavoidable sausage-making process of writing for a video game. I don't want to give specific suggestions (I do have my own head-canon though), but I think with a bit of ingenuity these obstacles are not insurmountable.

That's fair.  You could argue that the seed of doubt was planted at the first occurrence enabling other things to disrupt your suspension of disbelief.

About knowing the details of your choices: For me the core of the problem is that not only do I not know the details, almost everything about the ending's overall vibe seems designed to reinforce the idea that details are no longer important. In my video about the extended cut announcement I do some nitpicky whining about how it makes no sense that shooting a tube should be the way to activate the Crucible for the destroy ending.

Now I suspect that the reason shooting a tube was chosen is because they wanted something that thematically was consistent with the idea of destroying something. That's fine, but it's very jarring to see just how counterintuitive the actual events I'm witnessing are. In the rest of the series, thematic consistency and narrative consistency worked together to form a cohesive whole. In the ending, narrative consistency is jettisoned and thematic consistency becomes the only concern. This is part of what I mean when I say that Mass Effect abandons its genre in the end. It becomes something more like a morality play, where abstraction and symbolism are the orders of the day rather than storytelling. You shouldn't end a science fiction story with a morality play; you should end it with more science fiction.

Interesting.  I don't really have a counterpoint or anything as basically you've summed up your experience and detailed why it is you feel that way haha.  Well done.

Okay right there I think you're kind of missing the point. He says that
lots of little things start showing up "how did they move the citadel
above earth" and so on although the one bit about tyhe citadel doesn't
break Narrative coherence it plays a part, just like the large beam of
light, the illusive man's a ability to indroctinate people, the catalyst
so on and so forth.

I disagree.  Part of the reason why I'd like to see the individual questions is more "Are you mad at the ending, or do you really have issues with the plot of ME3 as a whole?"  It also leads to "Are these genuine issues, or are you starting to overanalyze other aspects of the game because you've been fueled by your dislike of the ending?"

From MY perspective, it's not just about "how to fix ME3" but rather "What mistakes do you see in general."  I know the point of the video is to address the ending, but discussing the other parts of it is still a good discussion that helps me understand ALL the issues someone has with the game, rather than just one that's based on the ending.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 08 avril 2012 - 09:57 .

[ArchLord James]

Please BW, watch this video with an OPEN MIND. Everybody makes mistakes, but only the brave can admit them and try to correct.

[lofte_2000]

I've been reading the entire forum with an open mind and I still can't figure any of the ending out.

[OutlawTorn6806]

Hussain_2012 wrote...

This video explain, why do many hate the ending. I believe BW focused on Multiplayer and forget their RPG fans

Seeing as the MP was actually developed by a completely different team for a different ME spin-off game, no. 

And btw, MP is awesomely fun. Its a new age of online Co-Op RPG battles. 

[alayyubi]

The video sums up what majority of the fans thinking, and we may have difficulty in putting it to such words. 99% of the game is great, the last 1% which is the ending is the one needs improving.

Bioware will be viewed as brave and genuinely care for fans if make positive steps vs sidestepping the issue. Make us believe again, I never pre-order games and pay US$79.99 except for Bioware games, even the Elder Scrolls games I always wait for review no matter the hype.

That is how much your reputation means to us.

[Lars Honeytoast]

Alex-

Thanks for having a solid discussion with some of the folks on here, I understand it's a sensitive subject to those who worked on the game, and direct discussion between fan and developer has been tricky because everyone is so riled up.

Now, even I, someone who was pretty happy with the ending, have some gripes. I'll just throw out the biggest.

The nature of the starchild isn't really explained, or never questioned by Shepard. (Who has made a point about asking people to explain things over and over, even if he has heard about them before.) This seems odd, and the whole "new plot device insertion" at end game has always been an issue to me in gaming. People don't typically like when they've been lead astray the whole game, at least when it is not explained with painful detail. (I do expect Bioware is taking care of this in the dlc though. This point is the same for the Normandy's escape and crash, relay overloads/explosions, and Harbinger's absence as well.)

[Wolven_Soul]

This guy says it better than anyone else why the ending was so bad.  Kudos to him.  And yeah, Bioware seriously needs to look at this.

[Trentgamer]

Saw this a few days ago. It definitely is well thought out and shows the fatal flaws in the ending.

[Kroepoek]

Saw this a while ago. It's the best video out there explaining everything wrong with the ending.

[TreguardD]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Okay right there I think you're kind of missing the point. He says that
lots of little things start showing up "how did they move the citadel
above earth" and so on although the one bit about tyhe citadel doesn't
break Narrative coherence it plays a part, just like the large beam of
light, the illusive man's a ability to indroctinate people, the catalyst
so on and so forth.

I disagree.  Part of the reason why I'd like to see the individual questions is more "Are you mad at the ending, or do you really have issues with the plot of ME3 as a whole?"  It also leads to "Are these genuine issues, or are you starting to overanalyze other aspects of the game because you've been fueled by your dislike of the ending?"

From MY perspective, it's not just about "how to fix ME3" but rather "What mistakes do you see in general."  I know the point of the video is to address the ending, but discussing the other parts of it is still a good discussion that helps me understand ALL the issues someone has with the game, rather than just one that's based on the ending.

And that's absolutely fair. After all, how can you fix it, if you don't know what's broken?

An above poster replied to mine with: Whatever you do, the Geth will hate you.

The absolute point of broken-ness to me is can be put this way.

In the end, we want Shepard to, in her own words: Fight for our continued existance, without sacrificing the soul of our species. We want to fight for our OWN right to self determinate.

We do not want to control the reapers. Some of us feel we are not ready, others of us feel that we simply cannot.

We do not want to synthizse, as it absolutely sacrifices the soul of, not only our species, but all species - including the Geth.

While we want to destroy, the price is too high. We do not want to destroy the Geth, nor AIs (which, yes, can be a crapshoot. But they can be friendly).

We want to Refuse: We would rather Die Fighting on our terms, and prove the strength of our own soul.

Maybe we win. Maybe we don't. That part's not important. We've saved our own mortality. That is what's important.

(Personally: Would rather this have all been a Battle in the Center of the Mind. Return of the Jedi ended with Luke defeating the 'Dark Side', the emporer's whispers. Not with a combat victory. But he stayed human. Stayed a hero.)

-Treguard. "TheZorker" on HoldtheLine.com

[GdawgTuk]

alayyubi wrote...

The video sums up what majority of the fans thinking, and we may have difficulty in putting it to such words. 99% of the game is great, the last 1% which is the ending is the one needs improving. 

Bioware will be viewed as brave and genuinely care for fans if make positive steps vs sidestepping the issue. Make us believe again, I never pre-order games and pay US$79.99 except for Bioware games, even the Elder Scrolls games I always wait for review no matter the hype.

That is how much your reputation means to us.

Bioware should take notice that your quote still says "means to us." That 'tense' is not what everyone at this point would use. Some definitely use past tense when referring to their trust towards bioware as of now. Bioware was that company that you didn't have to have any doubt what so ever. They announced a new game, and on that same day you saw that announcement, you were aware that you were obligated as a gamer to buy that game the moment it was available. That was it. You bought that game, loved it, talked about it to your friends who also in turn loved it, and then you returned to anticipating the next Bioware announced release. 

Though I find it hard to fathom, I don't believe they realized that they were basically the only game company that had that type of prestige. This isn't just a 'bad ending.' It's broken trust. The bad ending, lead to the real issue which was us being brutally reminded that we are mere peon consumers, when all these years we grew up with this type of 'friend' in gaming that gave us some of the most memorable gaming experiences. 

Regardless of what they do, from this point on it's recovery. Whether they fail miserably by claiming 'artistic integrity' or comprimise (not caving. IT's NOT CAVING!) and doing right by the fans, and more importantly, the universe of ME.

Maybe EA gives them a cushion of sorts where any backlash or losses from this won't affect them, but either way they will stand as "THE EXAMPLE" for a very long time whether they like it or not. 

[Trentgamer]

For my own head canon with all of this, the Crucible is a trap for a reaper. It will be used to re-program the reapers, much how Legion did with the Heretics. The Geth will do the reprogramming, but in the process destroy themselves. Of course there is a ton more detail in all of that, and I"ve started writing this all down as my 'fanfic' I guess. In my remake of ME 3, the star child no longer exists at all.

Always thought it would be fitting that the Geth helped the reapers at the start, but stop them in the end, at the cost of their own Consensus.

Modifié par Trentgamer, 08 avril 2012 - 11:51 .

[k8ee]

This is an excellent video, I can't believe I missed it.