481 réponses à ce sujet

[surleygentelman]

good video... point is a little overblown at this point though

[Obllivian]

i just finished watching the video I can say only this : very well said (it's not about Mass Effect 3, it's about how the whole series ends)

Modifié par Obllivian, 08 avril 2012 - 12:43 .

[Kalas82]

Yougottawanna wrote...

Hey all: I'm the guy that made that video.

I made another one! What the hell is wrong with me? Dunno. But this new one covers the extended cut DLC announcement.

Here's a link: www.youtube.com/watch

Great work, got every point across with actual stayin polite, intelligent and understandable.
I also realy start to love your ironic and sarcastic humor, the qualite is fine, videos like this don`t need to be all fluffy.
Thanks for the effort, your ME3-ending analisys pawns nearly every "professional"-review-site hard..and i do mean this as honestly as it can get..,,that`s constructive not ass-liking to get more review-copies and early-acess like most review-sites do nowadays.
What ever is wrong with you..i sure hope you don`t get it fixed.

[ImmovableMover]

Allan Schumacher wrote...Many things

Great post Allan! I only wish that more staff (Particularly of interest would be the ME3 writers) would respond to criticism and comment on the endings in such a direct, honest and personal way. Many Kudos to you

The part that stuck out for me as being extra important was this

But I was also expecting the ending to be more in line with the first
two games, where you aren't really presented a choice like we are, but
rather we accomplish the goal (defeat reapers) and that experience we
see events that demonstrate the reactivity of our playthroughs.

I couldn't agree more and it is definitely one of the instantly noticeable things about the ending that was so poorly done. I didn't analyse the ending as I was playing it, but two things stood out without needing analysis as being "Odd" (to say the least)

- Why is that kid from Earth and my dreams here? That-makes-no-sense-please-explain-it...oh, no explanation...
and
- So I Just have to choose which of three endings I'd like?

I was fully expecting, if not hoping, that I would have no choice about the ending of the game - I'd already made a thousand decisions which should have decided my ending and it was very disappointing that I would get to outright choose which ending I got in a vaccuum. In the end, it boiled down to "Well done, you've got to the end of the game, would you like what's behind door number 1, 2 or 3?" and possibly worst of all thats exactly how it was presented. In the previous games decisions like this would have been woven into the narrative as to not feel like i'm just ticking a box for the next game to take into account...or in this case, which cinematic plays. But no such luxury was afforded here.

But how could such a luxury been afforded? There was no narrative to weave these choices into, no preceeding context for them to make sense in, the entire final section was almost entirely self-contained and introduced, basically, a brand new plot. Whoever wrote the ending wrote themselves into a corner by going this route.

Modifié par ImmovableMover, 08 avril 2012 - 12:26 .

[Versidious]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Okay, my thoughts.  Initial high level stuff:  (NOTE: GIANT WALL OF TEXT ALERT, AND I WROTE IT WHILE TIRED SO IT MIGHT GET WEIRD BY THE END)

I enjoyed the attempts to add some humor.  In general that was good, although I would have liked to have seen all the questions he had posed that challenged narrative coherence.  And Wrex-Shepard went on a bit too long...  But alas!


I'll make my comments mostly in the same order points are brought up in the video.


His first serious beef is about the uncertainty of the Crucible's abilities.  He even states there isn't a codex entry.  Say what you will about the psuedo-Macguffin, for myself part of the intent of it was that it was mysterious and unknown.  Hackett even discusses with Shepard that he has uncertainties because he's not even sure if it will do what we want it to, so I'm not sure I entirely agree that this is a justified attempt at being nitpicky due to a lack of description.  Nitpicky justification comes at the inclusion of the Crucible in general as a plot device, but that's not an issue related directly to the ending.  I think it's fair to think the Crucible is lame, but I suppose a refutation is that we don't have any choice but to go with it.

Though the reason I don't mind a superweapon is that I did buy in that the Reapers could not be defeated conventionally.  Perhaps other alternatives could be explored, but this is what we were given as game players.  The feeling that it doesn't belong in the setting I think is a fair one, which the video does touch on.  Though IMO if you have issues with the Crucible in general, it undermines some of the events that happen in the ending because it's kind of liking counting twice.  If you think the Crucible is lame, then it stands to reason you're going to find other aspects of the Crucible lame as well.


As result, I do not agree with his concerns that the results of the consequences are arbitrary.  Yes, they are arbitrary, but not for no particular reason, but because it's part of the uncertainty that Hackett alluded to when discussing the Crucible.  We created a device we didn't fully understand and it led to consequences that we may not have been expecting.  I do not feel this undermines the narrative coherence, or makes the choice poor (in the other thread I discuss why I appreciated the fact that the Geth would probably die too).

This leads to a point that, at this poitn in the film, what he's really looking for is an explanation of what will happen.  Since he's not in favor of the idea of the extended DLC, he feels that this type of choice should be made explicit for the gamer prior to making the choice.  I disagree, but it's also clear to me that I am much more willing to accept that things were not entirely defined.  My conclusion is that the Catalyst is not an all knowing being, so even if he were to spend more time detailing out all the consequences, I have no problem if not every consequence is brought up.  I think the Catalyst's falliability is demonstrated in that Shepard can survive the decision.  This leads me to believe that it's possible with enough EMS that our Crucible is perhaps more precise than the Catalyst appreciated.  I do think that any resolution that the ending DLC may have (which I am also eagerly awaiting) may help a lot of people in this regard.  So I actually don't necessarily think "will this kill the Quarians" at the time is as reasonable as he feels.  Agree to disagree in that regard.

Concerns for the control ending are valid, although from a Shepard stand point I hesitated with it because my Shepard had doubts about what exactly it meant.  What level of control would I have?  What does it mean to control something even though I am dead?  That these questions existed, coupled with being uneasy with the Catalyst's intentions, made it hard for my Shepard to understand.  This goes double for the synthesis ending.  I can't really comprehend it as a person myself, which makes it difficult for me to decide to choose it.  Personally I think the choices were too similar to Deus Ex, and with the Catalyst being a Diabolus Ex Machina, I did have reservations with the situation.  I don't know why they were necessary, though I don't believe they're as logically inconsistent as others feel.  It's an easy cop out, which isn't a good thing, but unexplained things can be rationalized due to the unexplained nature of the Crucible itself.

Although, I think that spending a large amount of exposition detailing the consequences of my decision wouldn't have seemed right.  In my opinion, there is actually still a sense of urgency here, that needed to be better explained.  The Crucible is vulnerable, and delays will completely undermine it from doing anything as it is destroyed.  So I can understand a lack of additional explanation about the options themselves.  What I think would ahve been really good here is an opportunity to explicitly refuse these ideas.  You can sort of due this by just dying on the Crucible, but an ending that is "Critical Mission Failure" isn't really an ending.  Some sort of sequence of Shepard preserving the knowlege of this cycle for the next cycle would have been great.


Number two Character focus

I totally agree that caring about characters helps us care about what happens to them.  It's actually why I like the sacrifice of the Geth, because I do care about them.  It made me think about choosing destroy.

As for the Normandy scene, it's a scene I don't understand either.  I actually don't like it because it just seems so random and confusing.  I would have liked it for those scenes to have not existed at all.

The rest of this sequence I think details with closure, which is something I think is pretty subjective.  I am pretty indifferent and don't really feel a burning need to know the details of what happened, though at the same time I would have still enjoyed it if I did know.  The reason why I don't mind not knowing the details is I appreciate the idea of really not knowing any more than Shepard knows, and the idea that I have to make my choice with the hope that it is the right one, which I liked because the idea of hope is prevalent throughout the series.

Number Three: Central Conflict

I actually entirely agree that the Reapers didn't really need to be explained.  SImilar to how The Force didn't need to be explained, in doing so you diminish the mystique and potentially create additional confusion and questions.  I think this may have happened... hahaha.  (For the same reasons I would never have shown Tali's face).

Though I do feel that the Catalyst is the antagonist of the scene, not the protagonist.  I don't feel that the end choices are meaningless either.  

Unfortunately, combined with it being late (and me now being sleepy... haha) and some of his drawing parts out for humor, I think this area loses some steam after getting off to a really good start.


Narrative Coherence

I find this part more difficult to address based on preferring to see all the questions he had.  My concern was that to prove his point he starts to bring up issues the lie more with the general plot (what was the Crucible supposed to do) or issues that I didn't consider relevant (How did the Citadel move) to strengthen his point.

Narrative coherence does fall apart, but I think it's still maintained pretty well right up until Shepard is on the lift to see the Catalyst.  That's when the OMGWTFBBQ moment starts to happen and the uncertainty that the Crucible allows us to have goes really extreme. 


I definitely don't think that he hates Mass Effect.  No one that has spoken out with as much passion as the people that have hate the game.  If they hated the game they wouldn't care.  They wouldn't be posting clamouring for any type of response, and hanging on every announcement and making 30+ videos and sharing this video on several different threads.

I do agree that, while there's a unified movement for something to change for the ending, there are differences in what people want that complicate things.  I actually like the ending, and I had an interesting discussion with a friend of mine that said she respected the ending, as she said it made her feel sheepish about how much she really wanted a happy ending which she said surprised her.  In this sense I suppose you could argue it's an artistic interpretation, but I came away thinking it wasn't fantastic, but I don't hate it either.  To be fair, I did go into the ending expecting it to be very bad based on the internet rumors, which definitely predisposed me to going into the ending with a more open mind than I otherwise would have.


My personal opinion of the ending is that an ideal solution of Shepard and his teammates all surviving, with minimal cost, undermines the Reaper threat as much as the Reaper explanation is, so I'm definitely a "tough choices" type of guy.  But, I'm not a complete nihilist because I actually never interpreted the galaxy as going to **** at the end.  A large part of this is that I never played Arrival, so I had no expectation of what would happen with the destruction of a relay.  Even then, though, I never felt it was as cataclysmic, as the explosions in the videos definitely didn't seem to be of the supernova variety.  But I was also expecting the ending to be more in line with the first two games, where you aren't really presented a choice like we are, but rather we accomplish the goal (defeat reapers) and that experience we see events that demonstrate the reactivity of our playthroughs.


I do think I'm probably more harsh than I should be.  I do prefer his breakdown than some of the other videos I have seen.

Anyways, I'm starting to fade pretty fast now and I should probably stop as the last several paragraphs probably make less and less sense... haha.  I'll have to stop by tomorrow and explain whatever gigantic confusing mess I've put myself into!

Hello! Glad you watched it, and I assume you will not be replying to anything else until tomorrow...

I think one of the key points to take away from the video is not just that the ending is bad, but that it's not the only ending that there could have been. They've made choices in the ending which were not the best choices they could have made, and that, whilst individually most of these features are not neccesarily game spoiling, together they add up to a big problem. This is similar to the point he makes about narrative coherence. I agree with you, I'd like to hear some of the later objections he makes, though I think he was simply not interested in discussing specifics, as the specifics were irrelevant to his point, so much as the fact that there *were* all these questions piling up very quickly, which the game doesn't answer at all. It's one of the principles of fiction, especially in sci fi, that there's only so much an audience can just gloss over and go 'Well, there's probably some explanation for all of this, I'll think about it later.' before they start to feel like it's a bad story, and in my opinion (And it is just my opinion of course, but it is an opinion which is clearly shared by many) the ending sequence crosses that threshold very quickly, especially since the action/storyis still progressing quite rapidly. There is, as you say, that sense of urgency, that everything's exploding and you've got to sort things out quickly enough. I may not be able to understand why some people have objections to certain points (For example, I had assumed that the energy of the Mass Relays was being discharged differently, and that's why they didn't kill *everything*, and that the Reapers had simply towed the citadel with the Reaper equivalent of tractor beams), but this is precisely why the ending should have been focus tested, to allow the games designers to know what people would get puzzled by, because they, presumably, know exactly what has happened in their heads, and nothing will puzzle them. The audience doesn't have that advantage.

For me, the chief issue is still the 'new' premise of the game. All along, I've been fighting the dreaded Reapers, and now I've got to resolve the technological singularity, which most actual real-lifeexperts do not currently believe will pose the kind of problem that the Starchild claims. And, indeed, within the game itself, it's been demonstrated that this is not the case. Even the AI in ME1 lashes out in fear, under the belief that organics exist to destroy AI, because we've demonstrated that we do. To technophiles, scientists, and philosophers, it is simply an absurd notion, and, whilst you could argue that Shepard wouldn't neccesarily know this, or have considered it before, players may have. Behind every Shepard is a fleshy mind, with its own thoughts, expertise, and opinions. While you may be prepared to accept a character's ignorance in a book or film, in a game it is much harder to accept that the lead character, which previously has had his limits, skills, and characteristics defined by you is now defined by a narrative constraint that in your opinion is unjustified. It detaches the player from their character, takes decisions out of their hands. This is precisely the opposite of what most long-time Bioware fans buy Bioware products for. There's a quote from ME1 which is quite helpful here: 'You can't predict what other people will do, but you can decide how you'll react to it.', as well as a valid moral point, it's worth remembering for games, when deciding how to force a player into a certain situation or choice. It must all be from external sources, and if you make an exception in the normal rules (Something the video discusses) for your capabilities, you must explain to the player why they can't do that. Even if it's not perfect, players will be willing to gloss over small things, especially if what they get entertains them, and ultimately rewards them. For example, in ME3, when Kai Leng had invincible shields, and you can't stop him taking the VI, this frustrated me at first, but eventually it paid off when the following sequence was thoroughly enjoyable and allowed me to finally paste his smug face all over the floor. The ending takes away player control, but doesn't give anything back.

The catalyst's motivation castrates the Reapers, turning them from enigmatic robot elder gods, artifical intelligences of exceptionally advanced consciousness, to slaves trying to 'help' us in a really bizarre way. For me, that is an issue which should have been considered more deeply, as it affects all three games quite dramatically. If I replay ME1 now, I'm going to be sniggering throughout pretty much everything Sovereign says, because you know he's basically lying/deluded, and nodding 'Yeah, you're basically right' when Saren monologues at me about cooperating with them, and the ultimate evolution of mankind. This is the real 'crime' of the endings, and why it has so upset people: The writers of Mass Effect 3 have effectively retconned things people really liked out of all three games. It provides questions like 'Why can't the catalyst control the citadel if that's its home?', or 'Why haven't the Reapers rebelled against their creator and enslaver if they're true AIs? Why do they stick with this plan if they're uploaded organics?' 'Just what *was* so important about what the Collectors were doing?' All of which could have been avoided by simply not revealing the Reapers' motives.

None of the endings, of course, are solutions to the Catalyst's professed problem. Even synthesis...  Unless every machine ever made will now gain glowing green tats and be part organic, there is nothing to prevent new pure-synthetics being created, and then rebelling, if that were inevitable.

(Incidentally, about Tali's face: I think that ought to have been made a choice by individual players, and should have been done in more detail. I know *I* really would like to see her face, and I think, while there are a number of players who don't, it *is* the chief benefit of games as a narrative medium that you *can* please more than one group of people).

In short, for me it is not simply that the ending has bad narrative qualities, which it does (The inclusion of the Geth, and presumably EDI, for example, feels like it was just to make the Destroy ending feel less like the obvious moral choice, and it's never good to be able to see something as primarily a narrative device instead of as in-game logic), but that it is poor game design. In Dragon Age: Origins, for example, there was a variety of endings, all of which allowed the player to pick what they felt better suited their character, providing the player with a variety of emotional types. You couldn't truly object to the ending, because there wasn't a 'the ending', there were several, each of which gave the player full closure and epilogue information about what happened to the characters and factions in the game after their death, and allowed an individual to ahve the bittersweet/uplifting ending that they wanted. I think this is the 'artistic decision' that the ME team talks about, the deliberate decision to restrict the player's choices, to communicate the desperation. Which, as I've said on here many times before, was brave, but ultimately foolish, and bound to alienate at least one portion of their audience, especially since the lead writers touted obviously different multiple endings during the development cycle.

[ImmovableMover]

jojimbo wrote...

1.get rid of star child and three choice ending
2.end the game at Andersons (proud of you) scene and Shep activates the crucible from console.
3.initiate the destroy ending as Shep collapses
4.final cinematic scenes of battle with Hackett voice over (never in the field of galactic conflict...) etc
5.show what happens to survivors, friends, love interests, plot holes etc with cinematics and text
6.delete the joker / normandy paradise scene/breathe clip altogether
7.newly promoted commander ashley williams aboard the normandy, shepards name added to the list of fallen
8.a final tribute to shepard, "hackett out"
9.stargazer buzz scene can stay

job done

Fine until point 9. The stargazer scene, IMO, kills the universe as it almost outright states that galactic civilisation is dead, that people don't travel from planet (or cluster) to planet anymore and that people don't have any idea if there is life on other planets. Heck it also implies that Shepards story isn't seen as "Something that happened" but a myth or legend - Something that couldn't possibly happen without all technology having been reduced to pre-industrial revolution era standards.

None of the ending previous to this scene, including the one you just wrote, has any meaning if the stargazing scene comes a long and goes "At some point after that scene you just watched, and this scene now, everything went to **** anyway despite what you did. It's as if the reapers won regardless of whether they did or not"

It needs to be removed. More so than the Godchild.

Modifié par ImmovableMover, 08 avril 2012 - 12:35 .

[Keltikone]

Its a good vid, coherent, makes good points. Its also nice one of the DA team gave some personal opinions as its humanised the company a little for those of us that feel they let us down.
If only the ME team were as forthcoming.

*EDIT*

I really love the narrators voice, as he just has the whole "mid west American on prozac" feel <3

Modifié par Keltikone, 08 avril 2012 - 12:36 .

[jbauck]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
<snip>

Though I do feel that the Catalyst is the antagonist of the scene, not the protagonist.  I don't feel that the end choices are meaningless either.  

<snip>

I'm shamelessly picking this part out because Catalyst-as-antagonist is my main problem with the ending.  Overall, I thought the video rocked, but this point could have been emphasized more.  Why do I hate the Catalyst-as-antagonist?  Because he's the one who presents Shepard with his options, and then Shepard picks one.  Why the hell would Shepard accept anything the Catalyst says?  If the Catalyst is the antagonist, why does Shepard cooperate with him instead of opposing him?  Antagonist/Protagonist scenes are not supposed to be about cooperation, collaboration, or anything else that resembles hero-not-kicking-bad-guy-in-the-quad.

Taking into account that the Catalyst is the entity that created the Reapers and felt that harvesting all advanced organic life every 50,000 years was a reasonable solution to a real problem, the only way the Catalyst being the character that presents Shepard's final options could have felt >more< wrong is if the Catalyst had said "Hey, my Reapers and I will leave everyone else alone if you a) shoot yourself in the head, slit your own throat, or c) stab yourself in the heart.  But those are your only options.  You're stuck here, because I control the elevator."

For me, there's a storytelling disconnect when the antagonist doubles as the wise guide with the answers.  Also, the video maker really nailed it when he talked about the ending altering the core conflict from "stop the reapers from killing everyone" to "resolve the tension between organic and synthetic life", and that's jarring because the tension beteween organic and synthetic life as played out with the quarian and the geth over the course of three games was used as a metaphor for racism, and then abandoned as a metaphor for racism (assuming that the overall message of ME3 is not "racists really have a point, and we can't peacefully co-exist with people who are different"). 

And then the options for resolving that conflict were just bizarre.  I found the concept of reverse-indoctrinating an immortal race of sentient starships or recreating all life in the galaxy as synthetic/organic hybrids even more unbelievable than the idea that the united forces of the galaxy could beat the Reapers in a stand-up fight.  The Reapers have never faced a united galaxy before: they usually pour through the citadel relay and topple galactic government to "divide", before they move on to "conquer".  They had to jump straight to "conquer" this time, so it's different.

But now I'm wandering off-point ... the antagonist should not be used as the character who presents the options for the resolution of the core conflict of the story, because the antagonist - by definition - does not have the same values and goals as the protagonist and cannot be trusted to present options that coincide with the protagonists values and goals.

[Grimwick]

ImmovableMover wrote...

jojimbo wrote...

1.get rid of star child and three choice ending
2.end the game at Andersons (proud of you) scene and Shep activates the crucible from console.
3.initiate the destroy ending as Shep collapses
4.final cinematic scenes of battle with Hackett voice over (never in the field of galactic conflict...) etc
5.show what happens to survivors, friends, love interests, plot holes etc with cinematics and text
6.delete the joker / normandy paradise scene/breathe clip altogether
7.newly promoted commander ashley williams aboard the normandy, shepards name added to the list of fallen
8.a final tribute to shepard, "hackett out"
9.stargazer buzz scene can stay

job done

Fine until point 9. The stargazer scene, IMO, kills the universe as it almost outright states that galactic civilisation is dead, that people don't travel from planet (or cluster) to planet anymore and that people don't have any idea if there is life on other planets. Heck it also implies that Shepards story isn't seen as "Something that happened" but a myth or legend - Something that couldn't possibly happen without all technology having been reduced to pre-industrial revolution era standards.

None of the ending previous to this scene, including the one you just wrote, has any meaning if the stargazing scene comes a long and goes "At some point after that scene you just watched, and this scene now, everything went to **** anyway despite what you did. It's as if the reapers won regardless of whether they did or not"

It needs to be removed. More so than the Godchild.

It also diminishes the reality. it makes the games some kind of fairytale story, with meaningless consequence, rather than events that are actually happening and events that actually mean something.
Tbh the stargazer scene was just another kick in the crotch <_<

[Joccaren]

Ok, a question:
Why do so many people feel that it is impossible to defeat the Reapers conventionally. Yes, they are strong, but I was always given the impression from the game that we could defeat them if we united the Galaxy against them, so could someone please provide some compelling evidence for why a 100% completionist fleet at 7.8K EMS would be unable to defeat the Reapers.

Firstly, a few disclaimers:
-No "Hackett says so".
Saren says its impossible to stop Sovereign. Did you stop Sovereign?
It is said to be suicide to attack the Collector base. Can you get your whole squad out alive?
-Secondly, use in game stuff to prove your point. For example, 4 Dreadnoughts without Thanix guns take down 1 Reaper Capital Ship. In Codex, check it. Thanix guns are more effective, and thus less Dreadnoughts are needed. It also cites that most ships have been outfitted with Thanix guns.
-No "Another cycle would have done it were it possible". There are numerous refutes to this. 1: Attrition. Another cycle failed, but they weakened them enough for us to succeed. 2: We are the first cycle to have not had the Citadel taken and Relays shut down. Every other cycle has had to rely on conventional FTL travel and isolated planet defences, whilst we get the Relay network and united fleets.
-Assume the beset possible fleet to fight the Reapers. Highest EMS possible, every ship from every fleet.

I will accept a "It would take away from the power of the Reapers IMO" thing - as that is a legitimate opinion. I, however, feel opposite. Not every enemy devastates Thessia, Earth, Palavan, Dekuuna, Irune, Kar'Shan, [Forgotten name of Hanar Homeworld]. Not a single enemy has killed a member of Shepard's squad before [Remember, assuming best case until now] - but Thane and Legion MUST die, whilst Mordin, Grunt, Jack, Miranda, Morinth {Actually, Morinth is turned to a Banshee in the end no matter what so...} Ashley/Kaiden - all can end up dead. Yeah, that's Cerberus too. Cerberus are working for the Reapers however, thanks to Indoctrinated TIM.

So. Why can the Reapers no be defeated conventionally. I'm not saying it should be easy. It should require every damn fleet in the Galaxy and most of them will still die. However, I see comments saying not only that we wouldn't win the war against the Reapers, but many saying we wouldn't even win the battle for Earth. I don't see why.

So, respectfully, could someone explain this to me? Thanks.

[Erield]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
...(snip!)
Some sort of sequence of Shepard preserving the knowlege of this cycle for the next cycle would have been great.

The reason why I don't mind not knowing the details is I appreciate the
idea of really not knowing any more than Shepard knows, and the idea
that I have to make my choice with the hope that it is the right one,
which I liked because the idea of hope is prevalent throughout the
series.

I agree with what I bolded 101894798235897%, especially after learning what the consequences of activating the Crucible would be.  As it stands now, it's pretty easy to tell that things in the galaxy are going to be, at best, grim.  More than all of that, though, without the Mass Relay network, it becomes increasingly likely that races will not necessarily ever encounter each other.  There are hundreds of systems that are 'close' to Earth by the non-Relay FTL standard.  With no Relays, there is no incentive to ignore the exploration and exploitation of these systems. 

No Relays, no great galactic civilization.  No great galactic civilization, and pretty much all of the good that happened in Shepard's Cycle becomes nearly meaningless to me.  Sure, I cared about humans and Earth in a general kind of way; I cared about my squad-mates (especially the alien ones.  Tali, Garrus, Wrex, Grunt, Mording, and Liara outshine all of the human squadmates imo) in a much more direct, and visceral way.  The very things that I cared about in the ME universe would never have had an opportunity to occur without the Relays.  Early on I said that I firmly believe that rejecting the Star Child's three choices, and trusting to a future Cycle to do better would be an ending that I would prefer. 

I actually really like your reasoning of why the endings worked for you to the extent that they did.  Without giving details of things you specifically liked, you've done a decent job of capturing the reason for the emotion behind it.  I disagree, in large part because I have such a strong connection to the characters.  What I feel the fatal flaw of the ending is is the abandonment of the focus on characters for the nebulous idea of saving the galaxy.  Maybe I was playing the game wrong, but I was never saving the galaxy for the galaxy; I was always saving it for my crew, and the characters that I cared about and came to love. 

[ImmovableMover]

Grimwick wrote...

It also diminishes the reality. it makes the games some kind of fairytale story, with meaningless consequence, rather than events that are actually happening and events that actually mean something.
Tbh the stargazer scene was just another kick in the crotch <_<

Agreed.

Its almost impressive that they managed to put in a scene, completely cut off from the rest of the series in every way possible, that actually takes all meaning away from the series. I feel sorry for Buzz though, his cameo was in the worst scene in the entire series (IMO)

[Dark_Caduceus]

GnusmasTHX wrote...

Guy has a weird voice.

Also doesn't seem to realize film grain was there because the game looked ugly.

Was that really why they added film grain? i guess it makes sense in the context that the option was removed in ME2 when the graphics got an uggrade...

[proffrink]

Just. Change. The. Ending D:

[Rolling Flame]

ImmovableMover wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

It also diminishes the reality. it makes the games some kind of fairytale story, with meaningless consequence, rather than events that are actually happening and events that actually mean something.
Tbh the stargazer scene was just another kick in the crotch <_<

Agreed.

Its almost impressive that they managed to put in a scene, completely cut off from the rest of the series in every way possible, that actually takes all meaning away from the series. I feel sorry for Buzz though, his cameo was in the worst scene in the entire series (IMO)

Agreed, it also sours the most iconic piece of Mass Effect music for me.

[DerberAuner]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
Okay, my thoughts.  Initial high level stuff: 
(NOTE: GIANT WALL OF TEXT ALERT,
AND I WROTE IT WHILE TIRED SO IT MIGHT GET WEIRD BY THE END)
.....

im not quoting the entire wall of text, since ill be writing one as well , just want people to know, that im responding to it

But let me say in advance that this is probably the best response to the ending critique ive seen from a bioware employee (even if he doesnt post in official capacity) and for the most part i can respect this opinion.

however let me make some points as well


first off the superweapon part:

while i do agree conventional war against the reapers wouldve been implausible, i also think that there were other options besides "ancient prothean superweapon".
also, i think if you examine the thing closely, youll see its possible, if somewhat elaborate, to replace the crucible with another superweapon, simply by altering a few key dialogues and keeping the name crucible for the superweapon.
other options may include:
a) supernova-weapon; general idea: bottle reapers up in one system, detonate the sun while somehow preventing them from entering FTL, forcing you to sacrifice earth or palaven or thessia or some other council homeworld (or rannoch maybe) (wouldnt that be bittersweet?)
giant mass accellerator cannon (like the one that made the rift on klendagon)  or cannons, strong enough to kill reapers, ems boiling down to whether or not you can protect them in the final fight.
c) giant selfpropelled projectiles the size of dreadnoughts.
d) anti - reaper virus and its delivery system (kind of a rip-off of independance day, but hey, better than ripping off deus ex)
and so on...

but i never thought they were going to change that (like i said, somewhat elaborate).

second : the consequence are arbitrary:

they are. simply because there was no way to predict them, and there is no elaboration on why these three endings. im counting the destroy ending as not predictable, because you cant predict that this will kill the geth as well, though i actually agree that the whole geth get killed too adds difficulty to the decision. but also more frustration, since its the only option where you survive, indicating, that they WANT paragon shepard to sacrifice himself, since no other endings allow me to live, essentially telling me "sacrifice yourself, or make a choice out of character".......

the idea that the mass relays are destroyed, well, i COULD live with that, they essentially are used as a conduit for the energy released by the crucible, which makes a certain kind of sense, in that the blast cant possibly spread through the entire galaxy without them. the kind of energy released essentially is the reason the whole thing doesnt end as a supernova, small loophole, but its there. i never completely agreed that the mass relay destruction inevitably means doom all around them, and yes ive played arrival.

however, dont let joker leave, thats just idiotic, doesnt make sense in the current ending and frustrates people even more (i think the video covers that pretty well).

third: character focus:

video nails it, and i think thats that

forth: central conflict:

i dont know about the rest of you, but for me the central conflict of mass effect were decisions and outcomes. given that we dont see our outcomes, i really dont think that outcomes were covered at all in that ending and the entire conflict is shifted to something, that i feel i already have the answer to, whereas the catalyst tells me "nuh-uh, youre wrong, im right" and my shepard responds with "maybe" instead of "what the hell are you talking about? look at edi and the geth?", he doesnt debate it in any form. which was REALLY out of character for a shepard who convinced tali to give the geth a chance, and brokered peace between the quarians and the geth,  despite the easy way for him to get into talis suit was to basically doom all the geth (i romanced tali, just to point that one out as well).
and suddendly i have to make a choice on a conflict, that ive already decided on and doesnt include my choice (
coexistance), since its already ruled out and my shepard turned into a **** all of a sudden
thats what i hate on that part.

as for the reapers needing an explanation..... not sure, if its a good idea to give one....(compare duke nukeem 3d)
nothing that will be given to us will live up to the expectations, seeing as in the previous games the reapers motives were made out to be beyond our comprehension.
one that i could get on board with was that whole dark energy crap, seeing as there was no mention in ME1 and in me2 it suddendly became very important, yet not immediate (it takes a while for DE to affect a star and so on...). it seems like something only a species with a very long lifespan can comprehend and only one with the reapers resources can solve. in short, it seems plausible.
however im not sure if you can actually give an explanation for the reapers without DE, which was never mentioned in ME3 and hence unfortunately seems implausible as well......
as for them needing one, i dont think they need one, to me they seem like a force of nature, and you dont have to explain that.

fifth: narrative coherence

i also agree that the one on "how did the citadel move" is more of a minor issue, but thats the thing, there are a LOT of minor issues with this ending.heres my personal list (may be incomplete)
1. how did the citadel move?
2. why did they bring it to earth?
3. why wasnt the conduit (teleporter to the citadel) better guarded? (sure harbinger does a good job defending, but there couldve been a lot more reaper forces there, given how important it seems)
4. why would the reapers use a single conduit to transport all the humans to the citadel? wouldnt it be easier to make more or transport them via ships?
5. how the hell did shepard survive harbingers beam? (not complaining, just seems arbitrary)
6. where did TIM come from?
7. where did anderson come from? (there is one entrypoint and im walking towards it constantly, dont see anderson)
8. wtf is the catalyst? is it an ai? if so, is it within the citadel? if so, why didnt it just undo the prothean damage to the citadel in the first place to preserve its "solution"? in its not within the citadel, the logical remaining conclusion is, that its part of the crucible, how did no one pick up that they are building something akin to an ai?
9. why these three options for shepard?
destroy? ok seems logical, was a good chance from the very beginning that this would be included?
control? seemed logical, considering that TIM always goes on about it and a renegade shepard might be stupid enough to try.
synthesis? wtf is this ****? anorganics dont have dna, they have schematics. ok reapers seem half organic, but still, do want to turn the entire galaxy into minireapers?
10. why does shepard believe this stupid kid?
11. why is this the stupid kid? from a writers point of view: easy, you want something that repersents the sorrow and hard choices shepard had to make and all the people that you lost, which was chosen to be the kid for the third game. BUT: wouldnt the guy you sacrificed on virmire have been a better choice here? especially since this is the first point at which shepard has to make such a hard choice. it gains significance over the second game as well and in the third game, too. after one of the "nightmare-cutscenes" this individual (kaiden or ashley) is pointed out by name.
12. the destroy ending specifically:
      a) why am i running towards the explosion?
      why do i need to shoot something to trigger the probably innitially designed function of the crucible?
      c) how the the can shepard survived that? why is he on earth (rubble indicates london, not the citadel)?
EDIT:
13. the statrgazer scene. wtf is this ****?
14.the BUY MORE STUFF message. with this ending why should i?

the whole thing on the citadel isnt half bad, it just seemed like a lazy solution and very familiar to saren in the first game when TIM shot himself. but i couldve lived with that. the catlyst is what bugs me and what throws off the entire ending (covered that above and its covered in the video)

sixth: villains

i know this isnt in the original video, but i would like to make this point as it seems important to me, and i think its being overlooked for the most part due to the ending being godaweful.

the villains in me3 suck. and by suck i mean suck donkey balls. as in they are crazy mother****ers who seem more like some stupid retard you cant possibly take seriously. their arguments are weak (TIM) and they seem incompetent at best (kai leng bossfights are so easy its laughable).
also, personally, i never felt defeated on thessia, i felt annoyed, as in "why the hell did i have to let that guy stay alive until now? why cant i go after cerberus earlier in the game? its obvious im going to have to deal with them sooner or later, so i might as well do it now to have as little interventions by them as possible". the whole thessia thing can be easily fixed simply by giving kai leng an army of henchmen to command, that will slowly push you away from the beacon, making him more the "brains" villain than the brawns villain, since a villain that has only strength seems kind of pointless against shepard, who, badass that he is, killed 4 reapers until that point (sovereign, reaper larva in the collector base, the one on rannoch and the one on tuchanka).
but the one with TIM......


sorry long rant.....

TLDR: ending sucks here are my reasons and why i largely agree with the video

Modifié par DerberAuner, 08 avril 2012 - 01:10 .

[lofte_2000]

To be completely honest, the music was the best part of the ending. I agree with so many of you and enjoying reading this thread but the biggest 'upset' other than starchild being introduced in such a way was the lack of control over the character I've controlled for the last 3 games, being funnelled into a vaccuum and being forced to chose 1 of 3 options without knowing anything about what would happen if chosen was the complete opposite of how we've been playing the game previous to that part.

[OnlyHazeRemains]

Best.
Video.
Ever.

PS:

This Alan Schumacher smells like a plant trying to mind**** us into liking what theyre attempting to do with the DLC.

Modifié par Samurai_Smartie, 08 avril 2012 - 01:39 .

[Kalas82]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I think one of the major problems with the crucible (while still beeing a macguffin in my opinion) is that it makes no actual sense for them to work on it and it makes no sense, that reapers and/or TIM did not learn of it and/or tried to destroy it (while it was build and while it was moved to earth).
It actualy didn`t make a lot of sense how it`s creation-plans came into beeing aswell, it`s back-story etc. .
But as this is a sci-fi-game not hi-pitched literature one should be able to still roll with it and i think if someone realy liked ME1-2 this is a minor complaint.

The problem is that nothing after crucible+citadel=magic makes sense, look even if you accept the crucible (or look over it) it was build by the reapers victims, it doesn`t make much sense that it is able to unite with the citadel in the first place, but even if we accept that why/how could it give the catalyst more "choices/possibilitys"?
This literal means that at some point races who helped create the crucibles schematics understood the citadel completly and/or new of Space-God (A.i.whatever).
I get that you might randomly generate a cinch-cable (it`s unlikly but well) but i cannot fathom what sort of chance it would need that you to actualy now where it`s put or which slot fit`s where if you have never seen the other end and you could never manage to get it working without knowing the basics beside the cable itself (theory before creating it) and the box you put it into (again the theory-machincs behind it or atleast schematics).
The whole apperatus at the citadel doesn`t make any sense either...why should the reapers put the A,B,C device there or did Space-God just create it as crucible+citadel=spacemagic?..so he is God i guess.
There was no need for them to create something like that, he clearly states Shep beeing the first organic up there, he clearly states that the crucible offerd new solutions so he didn`t know what it did, but he was kinda enough to create a fitting opposite atop the citadl.....cmon.

The result about crucible+citadel= spacemagics fits this theme, 2 of the 3 choices are absolutly magic.
1 turns dead things into living by giving them DNA and/or untig them with living things and DNA.
Whoever thought bout that choice..well didn`t think about it. So Space-God can now alter all creation in the galaxy cause of his new magic-wand? Seriously how ridiculous is that? Trees, Plants, Flowers, Rocks..yeaa ha....guess what Space-God could do if he did have more colours for explotions.
1 kills a specific type of beeing -> Synthetics, it`s not the fact that you have to doom Geth,Reapers or EDI, it`s again magic.
So this magical explosion targets only well this type of machine but not v.i driven things ..what about the Space-Ships, elevators..well isn`t that explosion selective. Synthetics work as more developed calculators..so how in gods name can this explosion target one specific type of calculator in the whole galaxy..at the creation of the crucible there were not Geth, no EDI so you cannot even argue that it was tuned at the Geth, Reapers or EDI-like a.is ..soo again magic.

Choice 3 is actualy kinda a neat idea..but here comes another major problem with the ending.

Why would Shepard believe anything Space-God told him? Just try to get in his shoes for 2min.. So after all this fighting all this 1sided-major-enemy-crusade you stand before a reaper A.I and it tells you to kill yourself to do something (perhaps) good?
Imagine a hostage-situation where the guy with the gun tells you to shoot yourself to safe everyone else..yes he killed already 2 dozen people but hey normaly he is a reasonable guy.
Get how this makes Shepard look like a total moron?
Space-God comes literaly out of nowhere, is part of the enemy-force, says couple of sentences which barly make sense and Shep goes..ye right Sir ...selfsacrifice ftw. ? Realy?

Yes if you think the reapers couldn`t be killed by "normal" warfare you have a problem when you try to create a scenario to beat them.
But
you had the dark-energy sub-plot
you had established how the reapers strategy works (and Shep prevented most of it) -> Surprise attack via the citadel, turning off massrelays to divert the galaxys-forces
you had established that reapers can be killed right at the start of your series.
you had us seeing that some reaper-forces have weak-points (achilles)
you had the whole subplot bout TIM and the reaper-signal (even great artwork for a TIM-reaper)
you had a major gamemechanic that actualy should give you the feeling of massing out your forces (warassets).
Yes you have magic -> Biotics, but guess what it was established through 3 games, well explained and kept down...there`s no biotic who can affect the whole galaxy and give live.

And this hillarious ending-scenario was all the writer could manage?

It seems so out of place cause it start 10minutes (+/-some) before the credits roll and is completly out of place.
It puts the center of attention away from the war that is going and this not just cause of it`s "surprise-attack",
it puts the center around space-god, cause he is a unknown factor and the one holding a gun at you/sheps/the protagonists head...in this amazingly short span of time your protagonist becomes the complete opposite of what he was in 2 and 9/10 of other games.

Yes there are loads of more "problems" with the ending, but my opinion is that this works just as a ****-slap does..you get slapped and you wake up and start to think..wonder...question...etc. .

It´s not the sacrifice, cause this is not a leap of faith but of stupidity (the game literaly makes it look like that)
It`s not some bittersweetwhatever things...i bet you 50bucks even if some people are demanding a "happy"-ending..presented right even a "bad"-ending would`ve worked.
It`s not closure or clarity....there are tons of not well explained endings out there and they worked.

It`s literaly bad-writing..honestly all the lazy copy-and-paste work everything else wouldn`t be mentioned that often if the ending itself wasn`t written like some bad fan-art.
ME2 ending gave you nearly nothing bout what comes after it..it was short...but it wasn`t the ending of the whole trilogy..you gotta put some more effort into this..the writer does atleast.

That`s what makes so many people realy going out of their normal way and realy beeing pissed bout a game,
they spend so much time (ME1-3) with this universe, this chars, this plot and then the end comes and slaps you in the face..i`m not one of them..i just think that Bioware is hurting themselves if they keep this bad-writing quality up and i don`t want to play games written that bad (in a game bout story), but i can relate.

There`s a major difference between techy-understandable sci-fi which lets you dive in and completly out of the place sci-fi like mentioned killertomatoes.
This is not fantasy where magicand thinks like that are established..even then you gotta stick to some formula.

Your mentioning of the force was the perfect analogy just the other way round.
Lucas tried to explain magic with tech -> it backfired horribly
The ME3 ending tries to bring magic in a techy-setting -> it backfired horribly

This works within a fantasy-game where magic is established (important) but not within techy-sci-fi..it makes everything chaotic..next thing you know pink ponys are everywhere..cause at this point we established that there are no "rules", no "story-coherence", no "canon" and at this point Star Wars becomes Attack of the killertomatoes.

Countered Wall of Text with Wall of Text..bääm.
Nice to see a DA-employee taking part in the forums..realy i think that`s the way to go and it doesn`t matter if i think you are wrong, you state your opinion and i respect that, i can relate to that and i think this gives you bonus points...look how much human-interaction can achieve instead of PR-babble.

[Nykara]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Okay, my thoughts.  Initial high level stuff:  (NOTE: GIANT WALL OF TEXT ALERT, AND I WROTE IT WHILE TIRED SO IT MIGHT GET WEIRD BY THE END)

I enjoyed the attempts to add some humor.  In general that was good, although I would have liked to have seen all the questions he had posed that challenged narrative coherence.  And Wrex-Shepard went on a bit too long...  But alas!


I'll make my comments mostly in the same order points are brought up in the video.


His first serious beef is about the uncertainty of the Crucible's abilities.  He even states there isn't a codex entry.  Say what you will about the psuedo-Macguffin, for myself part of the intent of it was that it was mysterious and unknown.  Hackett even discusses with Shepard that he has uncertainties because he's not even sure if it will do what we want it to, so I'm not sure I entirely agree that this is a justified attempt at being nitpicky due to a lack of description.  Nitpicky justification comes at the inclusion of the Crucible in general as a plot device, but that's not an issue related directly to the ending.  I think it's fair to think the Crucible is lame, but I suppose a refutation is that we don't have any choice but to go with it.

Though the reason I don't mind a superweapon is that I did buy in that the Reapers could not be defeated conventionally.  Perhaps other alternatives could be explored, but this is what we were given as game players.  The feeling that it doesn't belong in the setting I think is a fair one, which the video does touch on.  Though IMO if you have issues with the Crucible in general, it undermines some of the events that happen in the ending because it's kind of liking counting twice.  If you think the Crucible is lame, then it stands to reason you're going to find other aspects of the Crucible lame as well.


As result, I do not agree with his concerns that the results of the consequences are arbitrary.  Yes, they are arbitrary, but not for no particular reason, but because it's part of the uncertainty that Hackett alluded to when discussing the Crucible.  We created a device we didn't fully understand and it led to consequences that we may not have been expecting.  I do not feel this undermines the narrative coherence, or makes the choice poor (in the other thread I discuss why I appreciated the fact that the Geth would probably die too).

This leads to a point that, at this poitn in the film, what he's really looking for is an explanation of what will happen.  Since he's not in favor of the idea of the extended DLC, he feels that this type of choice should be made explicit for the gamer prior to making the choice.  I disagree, but it's also clear to me that I am much more willing to accept that things were not entirely defined.  My conclusion is that the Catalyst is not an all knowing being, so even if he were to spend more time detailing out all the consequences, I have no problem if not every consequence is brought up.  I think the Catalyst's falliability is demonstrated in that Shepard can survive the decision.  This leads me to believe that it's possible with enough EMS that our Crucible is perhaps more precise than the Catalyst appreciated.  I do think that any resolution that the ending DLC may have (which I am also eagerly awaiting) may help a lot of people in this regard.  So I actually don't necessarily think "will this kill the Quarians" at the time is as reasonable as he feels.  Agree to disagree in that regard.

Concerns for the control ending are valid, although from a Shepard stand point I hesitated with it because my Shepard had doubts about what exactly it meant.  What level of control would I have?  What does it mean to control something even though I am dead?  That these questions existed, coupled with being uneasy with the Catalyst's intentions, made it hard for my Shepard to understand.  This goes double for the synthesis ending.  I can't really comprehend it as a person myself, which makes it difficult for me to decide to choose it.  Personally I think the choices were too similar to Deus Ex, and with the Catalyst being a Diabolus Ex Machina, I did have reservations with the situation.  I don't know why they were necessary, though I don't believe they're as logically inconsistent as others feel.  It's an easy cop out, which isn't a good thing, but unexplained things can be rationalized due to the unexplained nature of the Crucible itself.

Although, I think that spending a large amount of exposition detailing the consequences of my decision wouldn't have seemed right.  In my opinion, there is actually still a sense of urgency here, that needed to be better explained.  The Crucible is vulnerable, and delays will completely undermine it from doing anything as it is destroyed.  So I can understand a lack of additional explanation about the options themselves.  What I think would ahve been really good here is an opportunity to explicitly refuse these ideas.  You can sort of due this by just dying on the Crucible, but an ending that is "Critical Mission Failure" isn't really an ending.  Some sort of sequence of Shepard preserving the knowlege of this cycle for the next cycle would have been great.


Number two Character focus

I totally agree that caring about characters helps us care about what happens to them.  It's actually why I like the sacrifice of the Geth, because I do care about them.  It made me think about choosing destroy.

As for the Normandy scene, it's a scene I don't understand either.  I actually don't like it because it just seems so random and confusing.  I would have liked it for those scenes to have not existed at all.

The rest of this sequence I think details with closure, which is something I think is pretty subjective.  I am pretty indifferent and don't really feel a burning need to know the details of what happened, though at the same time I would have still enjoyed it if I did know.  The reason why I don't mind not knowing the details is I appreciate the idea of really not knowing any more than Shepard knows, and the idea that I have to make my choice with the hope that it is the right one, which I liked because the idea of hope is prevalent throughout the series.

Number Three: Central Conflict

I actually entirely agree that the Reapers didn't really need to be explained.  SImilar to how The Force didn't need to be explained, in doing so you diminish the mystique and potentially create additional confusion and questions.  I think this may have happened... hahaha.  (For the same reasons I would never have shown Tali's face).

Though I do feel that the Catalyst is the antagonist of the scene, not the protagonist.  I don't feel that the end choices are meaningless either.  

Unfortunately, combined with it being late (and me now being sleepy... haha) and some of his drawing parts out for humor, I think this area loses some steam after getting off to a really good start.


Narrative Coherence

I find this part more difficult to address based on preferring to see all the questions he had.  My concern was that to prove his point he starts to bring up issues the lie more with the general plot (what was the Crucible supposed to do) or issues that I didn't consider relevant (How did the Citadel move) to strengthen his point.

Narrative coherence does fall apart, but I think it's still maintained pretty well right up until Shepard is on the lift to see the Catalyst.  That's when the OMGWTFBBQ moment starts to happen and the uncertainty that the Crucible allows us to have goes really extreme. 


I definitely don't think that he hates Mass Effect.  No one that has spoken out with as much passion as the people that have hate the game.  If they hated the game they wouldn't care.  They wouldn't be posting clamouring for any type of response, and hanging on every announcement and making 30+ videos and sharing this video on several different threads.

I do agree that, while there's a unified movement for something to change for the ending, there are differences in what people want that complicate things.  I actually like the ending, and I had an interesting discussion with a friend of mine that said she respected the ending, as she said it made her feel sheepish about how much she really wanted a happy ending which she said surprised her.  In this sense I suppose you could argue it's an artistic interpretation, but I came away thinking it wasn't fantastic, but I don't hate it either.  To be fair, I did go into the ending expecting it to be very bad based on the internet rumors, which definitely predisposed me to going into the ending with a more open mind than I otherwise would have.


My personal opinion of the ending is that an ideal solution of Shepard and his teammates all surviving, with minimal cost, undermines the Reaper threat as much as the Reaper explanation is, so I'm definitely a "tough choices" type of guy.  But, I'm not a complete nihilist because I actually never interpreted the galaxy as going to **** at the end.  A large part of this is that I never played Arrival, so I had no expectation of what would happen with the destruction of a relay.  Even then, though, I never felt it was as cataclysmic, as the explosions in the videos definitely didn't seem to be of the supernova variety.  But I was also expecting the ending to be more in line with the first two games, where you aren't really presented a choice like we are, but rather we accomplish the goal (defeat reapers) and that experience we see events that demonstrate the reactivity of our playthroughs.


I do think I'm probably more harsh than I should be.  I do prefer his breakdown than some of the other videos I have seen.

Anyways, I'm starting to fade pretty fast now and I should probably stop as the last several paragraphs probably make less and less sense... haha.  I'll have to stop by tomorrow and explain whatever gigantic confusing mess I've put myself into!

Giant wall of text indeed!

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.

I personally don't think much of the use of  'super weapons', not in a game like this one. That really is personal taste though and in playing through ME1 and ME2 it really wasn't what I expected. I guess because at the end of ME2 for example Shepard goes in to a location that no one else had ever come out of - and survives it. I kind of expected something similiar ( with sacrifices along the way like Leigon and Mordin ) at the end of ME3 on Earth.

Even when first talk of the cruicible in ME3 started - I still expected more from the actual conflict itself then what we got, especially on Earth. I honestly felt like the missions and battles on earth where somewhat lacking. This was where the main reaper forces where supposed to be located, we killed a bunch of the reapers we had already come across throughout the game but  - I expected it to be more difficult and to come across -extra- difficult guys along the way ( on normal even the brutes didn't seem that hard) - more of them then what we came across. Even, at the risk of being video gamey, since it is a video game, a couple of bosses as well. This was the final conflicts of Shepard's stories after all, I expected far more from them. Maybe my expectations where too high. This was the end of Shepard, I expected it to feel epic and it really didn't.

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.

Then there is the Normandy issue. I get that Joker would not have left Shepard without a good reason but to not explain that reason in game at all? That felt like a major oversight. Something big that really should have been explained properly. Even the crew members who were on the ground team - whom by all intents and purposes appeared to be dead - something should have been shown of them being picked up by the Normandy and how they managed to survive it at all before it flew off in to the great unknown. I am all for mysteries but this is one that was so huge in terms of the team we had been fighting without throughout the games that it should not have been left unexplained.

As for the Reapers - I don't really need them to be explained either. They are an ancient race or creation and a lot stronger then any one species in the current universe - so no they didn't really need to be explained beyond that. Keeping them a mystery would have made far more sense then some of the other 'mysteries' that the ending had.

I don't -hate- the current ending, I just don't think much of it. Explainations seemed to be missing and fights seemed to be truely lacking depth. Of course I would have liked a happy ever after 'ending' - I don't know that I fully expected one though. I just hoped for one, especially with the bittersweet scenes that I had already experienced ( Legion, Mordin and Thane) The Shepard breath scene should have been extended upon to Shep being rescued and reuinited with his / her LI and the rest of the crew. In my case Kaidan.

I understand that there are budget restrictions but heck I would have rathered pay an extra $10 or $20 for the game for it to be able to have had a third disk to include more game play, dialogue options with crew mates and love interests as well as better ending cinematics. I am sure we all knew, with the varibles from other games that this would be a huge project to able to fit everything in, but it should have been released that way at a higher cost rather then releasing a lesser game for fear of going above the current game prices.

Anyhow, that's just my take on the endings.

[Kamuchi]

The follow up

[OnlyHazeRemains]

Nykara wrote...

[...]

I understand that there are budget restrictions but heck I would have rathered pay an extra $10 or $20 for the game for it to be able to have had a third disk to include more game play, dialogue options with crew mates and love interests as well as better ending cinematics [...]

One could think that maybe theyre testing how far they can go to squeeze out your wallet. ME is perfect for is as you demonstrate. Players are so attached to it they'd swallow the greatest bull**** just to get what they want.

[Ponei]

I had already whatched this one but thanks for posting it again. Bioware could take a few lessons from this, mabye hire this guy to help them write the endings or something lol

[GdawgTuk]

Dendio1 wrote...

yahtzo wrote...

guys he just made a new video on the Extended Cut DLC

Thx for the heads up. Another great watch.

Great watch in the informative sense. Beyond that this makes me so hopeless that I just don't know what to say. I boycotted this game until they announced a resolution. I even am playing through it as a different shep so I don't send my beloved version to a terrible ending. Now we get the biggest "FU" since the ending to ME3. This can only say they don't care :/. They need to watch how they handle it, because this could easily, and I mean easily, make or break my future support of any bioware game. I don't care how good any of them are, be it dragon age 3 or even a new Mass Effect, I'll boycott for sheer principle alone.

[Qutayba]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I've not seen this. Watching now. Thanks for posting!

Please pass the word.  This, more than any other single video or critique, encapsulates the problems many of us have with the ending.  It's intelligent, civil, but doesn't hold any punches, either.