395 réponses à ce sujet

[firebreather19]

This is where the conflict goes wrong:

Someone trying to explain why the endings are good and why you should maybe reconsider is only trying to make you happier, or more content.

Someone trying to make you hate the ending or lobby for its changing are trying to make you upset with it.




Please don't tell me none of you have even considered that.

[Iwillbeback]

Zix13 wrote...

BiancoAngelo7 wrote...

OP im tired of these threads, they're all like this:

"Ending was great and I will not explain why because I cant"

honestly these threads are troll threads to me

+1

Its actually funny how they can't go into detail.

[ZombifiedJake]

I just can't get into the mindset of somebody who enjoyed the ending. This isn't a case of "everybody who thinks differently from me is wrong", I'm just genuinely confused. It hurts my head even more to think about bioware's satisfaction with putting it out there.

[Disciple888]

Vaktathi wrote...

Amioran wrote...

Again, no. We are not talking here about a thing that you can comprehend with just a simple dialogue or explanation and/or in 5 mins of time .

Then they didn't allocate enough time to it. Plain and simple. If your ending is that complex, don't try to hamfist it into 5 minutes.

It requires study and knowledge assimilated in a moderate-long amount of time. You can only provide the references (and there are A LOT, I've already highlighted some) and have people make the connections if they can.

Two things.

First, they had 30+hours of game + a couple hours of DLC content, on top of 2 previous 30+hour games and 6 or 7 other DLC's. If they couldn't manage it in that,

Second, it's a game. It's a Shoot'em'up, Explosions Galore Space Opera. Not "War and Peace", not "The Republic", not "Les Miserables", not "Das Kapital", not "The Leviathan" or any other such work.  Nobody is looking for some deep philosophical ending, and the tempo of the game certainly wasn't building up to anything like what it eventually presented.

If you need to "study" for the ending, then it's not a good ending, that's not what people play for. It wasn't necessary for ME1. I didn't need to do homework to understand ME2. Hell, when I played DeusEx, which ME3 copy/pasted a huge amount of the ending from (Destroy AI/ControlAI/Merge with AI, in Red/Blue/Green) I didn't need to "study" for the ending. These games built up the an ending that made sense within the narrative paradigm of the rest of the content. ME3 did not. Even taking the points brought up in support of the ending, it only makes sense if you're currently trying to piece just about every iota of ME universe content together in a very specific and subjective mannger at the same time, of which no indication was given during the events that that's what was occurring.

Same as what it happens with "easter-eggs". Do you imagine if everytime they had to explain to what they refer to and what they mean specifically (and those are much less complex than this)? If the reader doesn't comprehend them then too bad.


The only difference is that "easter-eggs" are not required to understand a story, instead this other thing is, but the methodology is the same.

Easter eggs are bonus content, usually inside jokes, often completely unrelated to the game content.

If you design the ending in such a way that you treat it *anything* like an Easter Egg, you're doing it wrong. Easter Eggs aren't supposed to be gotten by everyone or experienced by everyone. They often aren't deep or witty either. The methodology of Easter Eggs shouldn't have anything to do with the ending of a trilogy. 

And all those people know nothing about the philosophical theme in the background.

I played through ME1/ME2 and all associated DLC content three or four times. I played through pretty much everything ME3 and it's DLC had
to offer. I'm not a stupid guy, I don't profess to be a genius, but I'm
not stupid. I got through college and a masters degree along with a
couple of publishing credits. If I couldn't piece it together, or any of
my friends/acquantances with simialr backgrounds who all also thought
it was rather arbritray and nonsensical, perhaps the idea that it's just
"too complex" is hooey, and if it isn't, then it's *WAY* too complex
for a video game.

If someone like me, with close to probably 500 hours played in the game world through the trilogy over 5 years, sporting two degrees, "knows nothing about the philosophical theme in the background", then perhaps it wasn't properly put together, because most people with less education and experience in the game universe aren't going to have a prayer in hell of getting it.

I'm sorry, but that's about the most insulting, conceited, and ridiculous line of thinking I think I've seen.

As I repeat you can think the authors at fault for expecting too much from the audience but that's really a fault? Who likes to be treated as an idiot?

Applying Occam's Razor, what's more likely?

That the ending is just so cerebral that only a small proportion of the millions strong player base "gets" it and the rest are just too stupid though they "got" pretty much all of what happened up until the last 5 minutes of the last game, or that they just didn't write a good ending?

One will notice that pretty much no other video game has gotten a reaction so negative to an ending, do you really intend to assert that it's because ME3's ending was just so much more complex and deep that every other game story ever, or rather is it much more understandable that the ending just deflated the narrative tempo and player investment at what otherwise would have been its peak through being poorly devised and executed, resulting in very unfavorable views?

qft.

The ending is not "deep."  It is not "complex."  I "get" the themes just fine.  They still suck.  Execution was terrible.

[Dakahn]

The fact that until a point you can do this it doesn't mean that you can do it till the end. Also in this case, in fact, this is perfectly in conformity with the philosophical theme behind. In the philosophical theme in question man can oppose to the "will of God" or anyway act on "free will" up until the point where there's a resolve to be made and where there is no other way around. All the choices made in the past return and there is no escape from resolving the conflict in a already prescribed way.

This "last conflict" is explained actually very well by the choices in the end that are perfectly consistent with the philosophy behind the theme.

Destruction: Rebellion, this is the opposition path (to be clear the path chosen by Lucifer in the theme's use in the christian mythology). The two points of view cannot no more coexist. For this, in fact, the choice have the destruction of all synthetics as a consequence. It methaphorically explain this lack of coexistence between the two points of view. There are no more ways to come to an agreement, there are no more middle grounds. Where you exist I cannot, and the contrary.

Control: This is the path that simulates the pow of the esoteric occidental tradition (that arise from this theme). While you not necessarily agree with one or the other point of view (or you agree with both at the same time) you put yourself as a master of both, and try to control the power behind to do your will. The consequence is that you become yourself a sort of God, a thing you probably opposed with all your will until then (this path in the narrative is usually brought to momentum having the protagonist opposed to the role of the leader with all his might, as an example).

Synthesis: This is the path of union with God, the mystical one. It is probably the most moderate path because you try to assimilate the two point of views and make them coexist. However also if at first sight it may seem the path with the "best for all" consequences it is not properly so because in doing so you give up your individuality and in a certain sense you admit that "it is not your will to be done, but that of God". 

And up until this point you think "there's always another way" and you pity those that think otherwise. This is explained perfectly by having villains in the saga having made already the choice (having thread the path before and coming to the same point) that you oppose one way or another, until finally you come to the same end and understand that "they were right all along" (do you remember it, don't you?) in the sense that indeed there's no other way around (this same thing is contained also in the Paradise Lost of Milton that use the same theme).

Tell me now that you know all of this that the story is badly written. It has a lot of complexity and inner meaning and it talks of a very complex philosophical theme that constitutes (amongst other things) our occidental major religion.

And in Mass Effect 3, Shepard consistently defies claims that conflict X can't be resolved, in addition to potentially convincing TIM to take his own life. That's the resume` of a man (or woman) who does not simply accept what others claim without proper backing.

But in the philosophical theme you have to arrive to a point where the thing cannot be resolved without consequences. It comes a point where you have to accept the consequences of an action no matter what, and those consequences are already written. Why that's so? It would be too long to explain and a discussion like this will be off-topic, but there's a motivation why this happens and no matter what's your mileage you come to the same conclusions because those are the only way around. 

Again, this is all contained within the philosophical theme that is behind the saga from beginning. You have free will until a point, after you have to decide what it matter most: this "free will" or "peace" or "power" (not the exact words, but bear with me).

I.. think I get it now
Thanks so much for this.

One of the things that bothered me about the ending was how it made every choice until then seem pointless. It felt that way because every choise chosen until then actually didn't really have any consequnce.. the game only made you feel this way.
In the end they show you this in a very clear (and a bit upsetting) way. Then they force you to make a "real" choise, that has very significat consequences.
Nice!

I guess it's still bothering me a bit that the end-cinematics are so similar..

Modifié par Dakahn, 09 avril 2012 - 11:33 .

[Mushufasa1512]

I wish I could like the ending =(

[2484Stryker]

Common arguements put forth by pro-enders:

1. The ending was deep & beautiful, and was consistent with the themes of Mass Effect
[/u]Umm no.  That ending was broken.  It had neither beauty nor deep philosophical meaning.  It was a haphazard collection of twisted or partial themes & nonsensical plot elements thrown together at the last second to give the illusion of a deep & beautiful ending.  I could see what they were trying to do - leaving room for reasonable speculations and interpretations, effectly letting each player craft their own person conclusion to the journey - this would have been a great achievement.  But what they got at the end were too much ambiguities & contradictions - FAIL.

The main themes of Mass Effect may vary from person to person, and that's fine, but it seems to me that the ending as it is contradicts what many players would consider to be the core themes of Mass Effect.

For myself, I'd say building alliances, overcoming impossible odds, organics vs. synthetics, and friendship to be the main themes of this epic series.  The ending as it is right now contains poorly presented residual elements of these themes, and none in their entirety.

2. The Catalyst gave Shepard options - but Shepard was the one that made the choice
No.  Shepard was free to choose from the choices that the Catalyst gave him.  None of those choices were Shepard's own.  The illusion of choice =/= real choice.

Imagine yourself as a WWII Allied soldier entering Hitler's bunker and finding him still alive.  Instead of arresting him and charging him with war crimes, however, you pick from one of HIS three choices
1) Shoot him with his gun
2) Use him as a puppet leader while you gain control of Germany
3) Merge all Jews with Germans
Would you really be making your own choice if you picked from his choices?  No.
*Note: before some idiot say "hey, you can't arrest a Reaper!"  Well, duh...this is called "an analogy".  Look it up.  (Yes, someone actually asked me this question)

The Catalyst is a HOSTILE CHARACTER simply for his role as the creator of the Reapers - you CAN'T TRUST HIM.  Even if Shepard were to figure out that destroy is the proper *choice*, he still can't know that shooting the tube would indeed destroy the Reapers.  Not to mention that he does not question why the Geth & EDI must also die in the process.

The choices given by the ending would only be palatable IF the Catalyst was a neutral or even sympathetic character.  He isn't.

3. What else could Shepar do?  He's broken & bleeding, and the fleet was getting pummled.  He HAD to choose[u]
This is the most irritating arguement I've heard.  You're basically saying "fix the ending within the framework of the broken ending".  You can't.

Can you fix a car (e.g. the ending) with a completely broken engine (e.g. the Catalyst) WITHOUT replacing that engine?  No!

The writers wrote themselves into a corner here, not the players who hate the ending, so saying that the fact the Shepard made a choice based on the Catalyst's word is OK because it was written in such as way so that he has no other options available doesn't make the ending good.

Bad ending is just bad.

Modifié par 2484Stryker, 09 avril 2012 - 11:38 .

[kaisterbahn]

Demonstrably false.

[ultimo andrade]

your intoctronatied

[TheMerchantMan]

floppypig wrote...

100% Agree. And it looks like the extended cut should give us that closure. 

Also, mostof the plotholes can be answered with just a little bit of imagination - it really isn't that difficult. 

Those who say that I think, are either unaware of what a plothole is, or are unaware of the necessary elements of plot and story development.

Leaving an open-ending up to the gamer's imagination is one thing. It can be done well, when the ending is such that you have recieved the information from the game to extrapolate where it will go, even if they don't explicitly show you.

Yet the ending of the Mass Effect 3 did not do this. When people say plotholes, at least when people who understand what a plothole is reference a plothole, it is when the game has not done a sufficient job in setting up the player's imagination, or as is the case with a true plot hole, the information presented in one scene is contradictory to another.

The most grevious example being the Normandy's "escape" and subsequent destruction. It is a plothole because it occurs no matter what the ending, even when the beam is implicitly treated as benign to both machine and organics, and there is no explanation for how and why they got there.

One cannot use their imagination to explain this, they have to break canon, either with the notion that the beam is harmless, or with the entire factuality of the scene. It cannot be answered, thus it is a plot hole.

The "Everyone starves" however isn't a plot hole because we can rightly imagine that food supplies will be scrounged up sufficient to feed everyone. It's a bleak imagination of the scenario we are left in, but it does not break canon to assume that enough food is stored on each ship to make it back home. Unlikely as that may be, while rationally hard to accept, it does not break canon to assume it so.

Most plot holes are not plot holes, just very poorly thought out aspects and elements of the ending, what are plotholes are such things as EDI surviving the Red Beam blast. The Normandy crash, the Relays not going supernova, and Shepard waking up in what appears to be London not the Citadel. These contradict what we were told and what we knew about the universe before, rather than simply being implications of the endings, they are very simply elements contrary to the narrative of this story.

[Butane9000]

I believe I can make an argument that you either have no idea what your talking about (with context to proper narrative or story creation) or that you have no personally will of your own and only accept what others give you as "good."

[HooblaDGN]

Man, I WISH I could like that ending. Sober and clear-minded, it makes no sense to me, completely abandons genre and game themes, feels rushed and poorly-produced, and is just generally terrifyingly bad. If I didn't have asthma and could thus afford the risks, I would totally smoke some sweet and awesome stuff and then play through the ending again so it made more sense and was more awesome. Hopefully. Maybe. I'm assuming that might work. Alack, I do have asthma, and so I cannot smoke some sweet and awesome stuff, and so I am unable to make that final attempt at liking the ending To be fair, I haven't tried playing the ending while drunk, and that might help, too. I'll give it a shot this weekend.

I'm happy for you that you're able to like the ending OP, but that doesn't mean that you've gotta hate on all of the people giving BW flak for the ending we got. Just read all of the pre-release stuff and that alone is reason enough to give them flak.

Modifié par HooblaDGN, 09 avril 2012 - 11:44 .

[Kanon777]

The Bioware post in this thread said anything interesting, or just usual moderating?

[2484Stryker]

tobito113 wrote...

The Bioware post in this thread said anything interesting, or just usual moderating?

You know you can click on the Bioware icon under the thread title on the forum page to view only the mod posts, right?  Saves a lot of time.

[Dridengx]

lx_theo wrote...

 *Readies Omni-Shield of Invulnerability*

Yes, I said it. The ending was good. It wasn't great. It wasn't amazing. It wasn't the quality the series deserved to end on after such a great run. But it was good.

Many of the so called "plotholes" can easily be explained relatively easily without creating a whole conspiracy around it. There are a few that seem like oversights, like the sudden appearance of certain characters in ending scenes.

The whole Indoctrination Theory is just silly, and while it would be cool, it would also make no sense for Bioware to do without having actual content afterwards in the released title. Not to mention much of this "proof" is nothing of the sort, and a lot of it is non sequitur even when together.

Other than that, the greatest failing was that it didn't provide enough closure. The universe had many ways it could develop afterwards based on how things turned out on many different fronts throughout the game. The problem with the ending is that it doesn't reference these and specify what happens to provide said closure. Bioware is doing the smart thing is offering an ending that gives more closure.

So, the ending was good. All this hate for it is absolutely ridiculous.

EDIT: Here is me addressing the issue of "plotholes"
http://social.biowar...3404/4#11197542

excellent post and I agree with you. The ending was good. infact, I applaud Hudson and the rest of them for using such a mature storyline and ending.

Modifié par Dridengx, 09 avril 2012 - 11:48 .

[Sohlito]

tobito113 wrote...

The Bioware post in this thread said anything interesting, or just usual moderating?

Moderating. You can usually just click the "Bioware" under a thread title to read their posts specifically.

[Mr Indivisible]

The best proending position is inDakahns post above, however while it explains the themes (which most of us did get) the ending itself is still sloppy. Its Tali's photoshop x100.

Poor textures, cut and minimal dialogue, railroad, dramatic change in theme and pace, lackluster ending sequence.

Your railroaded down a corridor with poor textures (the body piles are hilariously bad), conversation is pretty much auto, which is a tragity in the end.
The gameplay breaks down to limping down a road until you see the final movie. The final movies are pathetically similar.
You experience no victory, bitter, sweet or otherwise, because there is no last challenge, no last hurdle.
Also the choices are contrived and stupid, the only reason destory hurts ai and geth is to make you pause. Sloppy writing trying to grasp at cosmology (not christianity).

[Mr Indivisible]

Also, you have no idea what your banner is saying "shepard deserves better fans" because your actually saying bioware. Shepards fans are pretty damn dedicated to be demanding more, new and better, all for shepard.

[Kanon777]

TheMerchantMan wrote...

Most plot holes are not plot holes, just very poorly thought out aspects and elements of the ending, what are plotholes are such things as EDI surviving the Red Beam blast. The Normandy crash, the Relays not going supernova, and Shepard waking up in what appears to be London not the Citadel. These contradict what we were told and what we knew about the universe before, rather than simply being implications of the endings, they are very simply elements contrary to the narrative of this story.

EDI survives : The red beam causes less damage to nonreapers the more EMS you have, this is why Shep can surivve even tho much of his body is made of synthetics (i even heard that cerberus used reaper tech to remake Shep during the lazarus project-need to confirm this)

Normandy Crash : .... derp, i have no clue about that

Relay not going supernovae : The release of energy on each of the epxlosion was diferent in Arrival. In the DLC the internal energy of the relay crashes with the astoroid and causes the explosion we saw. In the ending you can clearly see most of the energy jumping out of the relay before the relay explode, so we have 2 diferent types of explosions going on. The ME3 one dosent have to cause the same damage as the Arrival one 

Shep waking up: he survived and took the reverse path of the conduit, going back to where he was before. OR the synthetic parts of his body gave him extra endurance to survive a fall that was just as bad as the one in the begining of ME2

[MaverickPerry]

lx_theo wrote...

This may take a while... spoilers likely to follow

Nothing Regarding the Assault...
1. Irrelevant. if you didn't notice, in that scenario, Shepard was also alive. It just means they didn't see him.
2. Being unconscious in the thick of battle likely could mean you seem dead. Once you wake up its a different story. Considering there were enemies attacking you by then... It makes sense. As for it ebing able to be shut off. That's assuming they had a good reason to shut it off. It could easily take forever to turn on, and it would be bad to have off if they needed to get someone in. Its not explained, but its not a plot whole.
3. Not a plot hole. Just an event that can be taken in any context a person wants.
4.  Odd, but hardly proof of anything. Mind you, it was a moving laser beam. Its movement could have lead to movement from the blast sending you forward. Or, better yet, it didn't move you basically at all because there's not explosion in itself, and its just not perfect placement before and after by Bioware.
5. Just seemed like a standard model they made that could work for everyone's armor when destroyed. Seemed fine to me.
6. Answered the reasonable answer in it. It was probably due to the actual beam. I doubt they wanted to go through the trouble of showing the process in which it transfered him. Probably easier way fro Bioware without making a plothole.

Every Single Line of Dialogue Spoken...
1. Again, they could have easily have not seen him, as they did with Shepard. A bit of the answer is given in there, as there are multiple paths to central chamber. They dismiss it as unnecessary because there would be a simpler way to have him rach there first. I suggest that it was done that way becuase they wanted to have them talking about what they were seeing and for Anderson to make it there first. Otherwise they would have made it at the same time.
2. This addresses certain parts of dialogue.
For the first one... Without seeing more of the area, the writer of this has no idea if this is true or not. So, i call BS on that...
For the second one... This is a nonsensical argument. Walls can realign if they want them to...
For the third one... Also fine with the idea what Anderson is taking a different route into the center area.

The Confrontation with the...
1. He was hurt before. Him bleeding there doesn't need to be anything more than coincidence to make sense. Not a plothole.
2. The Illusive Man understands how to control people. That was made clear earlier in the story with his research. Unfortunately he happens to be under their control while using it on the two to the extent he is able to now. I see no problem here.
3. They don't have to be indoctrinated. He didn't have a huge grasp over the control of them, obviously, since Shepard has the chance to shoot him later. Its a first steps type of ability from the impression I got.
4. I got the impression that this was when the Illusive Man was asserting his basic understand of control. The fact that this happens at all adn isn't constant shows that it has to be from him.
5. He's been preaching that it can do it the entire game. Obviously the indoctrination implanted the idea in his head strong enough for him to think it. that way he'd undermine Shepard's efforts.
6. Eh, probably just light turned on. This is assuming its traffic. Or that Bioware would go through the effort to make a whole new texture for a less active citadel. hardly a worthwhile problem. One that wouldn't be seen if people didn't look so far into it.
7. The whole thing just opened and attached to each other. I'd be shocked if Hackett didn't know about this. It only means that Hackett assumed Shepard was the one to make it.

Every Single Thing the Child Says...
1. This assuming that the starchild even wanted to take part in it. Maybe he wanted to leave the Reapers to do it themselves. Maybe that was the point of creating a whole species to do the dirty work. Given his intelligence (evident from creating the Reapers), he probably knew they still were coming. The Reapers are patient, why wouldn't their creator?
2. ------
A) This is assuming that species like the Geth would have been kept afterwards. I remember Javik mentioning a geth like species in his time. Do we see them around now? No. The only reason the Reapers stick around are because they are tools of this plan.
You can't control people to that extent. The reason they have them develop on those certain paths is so that... One... They have the same setup so that they can be harvested more efficiently... and Two... So they are generally along the same amount of development each time. 
C) All he is saying that its ineviatable. Even if one synthetic life leads to a peaceful co-existence (assuming the Geth Quarian lasts, or even happens in your playthrough. It didn't in mine), he's saying inevitably one will come along in some way or another. The assumption here is that this child, old enough and intelligent enough to be the creator of the Reapers, as seen enough of history to know this as an inevitability. 
D) Well, this one is just stupid. Mass Effect obviously takes up the idea of evolution in how life comes to fruition. Life does not need to exist for it to start up again with evolution.
E) If its such a simple concept, why is there so much arguing about how it doesn't make any sense? This is also assuming there isn't more to it, adn the child just gave the stuff Shepard needed to know. Also, I'd liek to point out that this would be even worse if the starchild wasn't involved somehow.
F) I don't remember the scene with Harbinger saying that. Though if you think about it, they're using organic life to create synthetic life. Why couldn't you use synthetic life to create synthetic life as well?
G) Different way of thinking. Harvesting can be seen as a better solution than total death. Don't see the problem here.
H) No, he doesn't. He actually counters the child several times in regards to what it means to be organic in contrast to the view the child is putting forth. In the end, they obviously can't agree one way or another. They do seem very much from a purely logical way of thinking, or synthetic. He treats them as normal because he has dealt with synthetic before, mind you.
3) I don't hear it when I listen to the scene. Even if its true, I also remember the voice actor for male Shepard commenting on how he did all the Varren (or something) for ME2. Another conspiracy! If it means anything at all, it means that they wanted to not have to cast new voice actors for this role, wanted to keep the ending involving the child on the downlow and not with some rarely used voiced actors, and/or that (this one is a maybe) they were rushed so they might not have time to find voice actors
4)
A) Assuming the Reapers even knew. They didn't even know what the Catalyst was.
Wasn't that their justification for Harvesting? That the organics becoming them was the optimum solution. The idea of Synthesis doesn't really cross this line in my mind. The idea that it gave me was that the fundmental building blocks of each type of life (Like DNA and whatever synthetics use), would become the same, making the distinction between synthetic adn organic the same as, say Human to Turian.
C) I'm assuming they don't leave the synthetics to do what they want. I don't see the earlier synthetics like the Geth still going around space.
D) if they have no end, they they couldn't be killed either. Sort of tripped up on himself there in the same game. The beginning sort of goes with it too. I assume they just don't know. Or something more complex. How they'd have been created would have to be explained.
5) These don't seem like plotholes, just what happened to happen. And I assume the child isn't all powerful. If he was, he wouldn't need the Reapers.
6) ...
A) New Form just means a new Reaper.
This is assuming a few things... The mortaility rate is consistent with other periods... That it takes many to create the Reapers... That dead Reapers cannot be salvaged for making of new Reapers.
C) The impression I got from ME2 (yes, ME2) is that Shepard's activities made Humanity a species of extreme interest. In this regard, the collectors focused on them, and the main focus of their attack (and therefore best place to defend the Citadel) was Earth. Their purpose for doing it doesn't have to have anything to do with the strategies they use for doing it.
D) The Collector's purpose were as more like field scouts than anything. The creation of the human reaper in ME2 was likely more a test than anything.
E) Does seem like their could have been a better strategy. There's a lot of factors to consider. Like that there were still people on the citadel. If they just closed it, then they could have had someone open it from the inside. To stop that, they'd want to convert the populace. They'd need to be able to sedn reinforcements if they needed.
7) I got the impression he was at the very least identifying with the Reapers, if not one of them (in some way).
8) Shepard being able to make it to the Citadel means that a situation that had not been proven to be possible before, that someone could get to the state of actually stopping them, was possible was enough to show the plan could not be forever lived.
9) I get the feeling the Reapers are unaware of this child's existence. Or there is another connection (considering the child itself may well be a Reaper in some way ior form). How do you rebel against something you don't know exists? Or you see as one of you?

Everything about the Three Choices
1) Your assuming the child has direct control over the Reapers. It could have easily been that he simply set up the Reaper's with the logic and plan and then let them do their job. He could easily not have the ability to control the Reapers like that himself.
2) Its takes a bit of imagination, but how I see I;ve already explained, in that the fundamental building blocks like DNA align as the same between the two, making being Organic or synthetic no more special than being human or turian.
3) Seems not important.
4) It was probably part of the design of the different species. The control would have had to been designed (and could have been added to the citadel), the destroy just requires something important enough to blow up to make the whole area go boom, adn synthesis just needed the energy stream, which wasn't a contraption in itself.
5) Perhaps there wasn't a person with the mix of synthetic and organic like Shepard has? It doesn't mean its not reproducable, just not thought of.
6) I'm assuming they didn't want to just kill all the synthetics either. Harvesting was likely the compromise they saw between total destruction of organics and total destruction of synthetics. Wouldn't have been my choice, but I can see why they'd pick it.
A) The species could have easily modified the Citadel as well. Or did that not come to your mind?
7) You're assuming that it was intended that way. The synthesis happened to involve the beam that was the energy of the crucible, the destroy was likely just a vulnerable part. The control is the only real contraption they'd have to make.
8) Your over thinking the effect of this option.

Nothing About the Post...
1) You're assuming the Mass Relays are being destroyed in a way that'll cause the same effect. Arrival has it actually blow up. This could easily be a more contained destruction.
2) While I don't know the series of events that led him there. I do know that it looks like the crucible's effect was that it was effecting Mass Effect based technology. The Normandy is largely based on this.
3) You don't know that. When each exploded, it sent out a wave that wasn't going as fast as a mass relay. The onthing that did was when it went to other mass relays, which wasn't the wave. Joker was outrunning the wave, so he couldn't have been doing this.
4) This is one of the few I have no answer for. I assume it was an oversight in design. This is an actual plothole.
5) This one is so easily countered. You don't know anything about the planet adn you assume it can't support them. Who knows, it could be a planet with both Dextro adn Carbon based life.
6) It is an intriguing scene. There are a number of possibilities. There is, of course, the Indoctrination Theory's spin on it. It could very well be Shepard falling back to Earth (and surviving, somehow). I'd like to think of it as the second. Why? Because I see the synthesis as the best choice morally, but its ally the most sacrificing. Destroy is the worst choice morally, but it could also be the least sacrificing, in that Shepard somehow survives because you chose the most jerk option.


That's a lot of writing

The simple fact that you had to write all of this (and it's all conjecture and zero fact) just to attempt to explain/defend the ending proves just how awful of an ending it was.

[Spectre Impersonator]

Thread is wrong and you should feel wrong!

[Kanon777]

Mr Indivisible wrote...

Also, you have no idea what your banner is saying "shepard deserves better fans" because your actually saying bioware. Shepards fans are pretty damn dedicated to be demanding more, new and better, all for shepard.

I couldnt say this the last time so here is my chance...

I believe that the ME franchise/creators deserve fans who wont:

-Attack developers/ call for firings;
-Misquote the devs/ purposedly misread what they say as "insults to the fans" of "slap to the face";
-Bomb metacritic/amazon with ridiculous reviews (trying to sabotage the company);
-Make frivolous FTC/lausuits (again, trying to sabotage Bioware);
-Constantly bash Bioware and laugh at the idea that that they will someday stop working;
-Not respect Bioware's desire to tell THEIR story (you cant "retake" something that was never yours) even if you disagree with many of their ideas;

I dont give a crap if you hate the endings, as long as the anti-ending crowd behaves like this i will proudly use this banner. If you want to spin the banner to support your desire for more content, fine, i dont really care (in fact i WANT more content )...

Modifié par tobito113, 09 avril 2012 - 11:58 .

[Reptilian Rob]

Iwillbeback wrote...

Zix13 wrote...

BiancoAngelo7 wrote...

OP im tired of these threads, they're all like this:

"Ending was great and I will not explain why because I cant"

honestly these threads are troll threads to me

+1

Its actually funny how they can't go into detail.

"It was good because stuff, and things."

[MaverickPerry]

Starts off with: 

lx_theo wrote...

Yes, I said it. The ending was good. 

But then immediately follows it up with: 

lx_theo wrote... 

It wasn't great. It wasn't amazing. It wasn't the quality the series deserved to end on after such a great run. 

There are a few that seem like oversights, like the sudden appearance of certain characters in ending scenes.

the greatest failing was that it didn't provide enough closure. The universe had many ways it could develop afterwards based on how things turned out on many different fronts throughout the game. The problem with the ending is that it doesn't reference these and specify what happens to provide said closure. 

 

So it's "good" except for the part where it's not great, amazing, multiple oversights, lack of closure, no answers, and, to quote you, "
wasn't the quality the series deserved".

But other than that, it was good? That's like saying Hitler was a nice guy except for that whole global war, genocide, **** thing for a few years. But other than that, he was nice, and all the hate towards him is ridiculous.

I hope you're trolling, otherwise you're just absolutely, mind-numbingly retarded. 

Modifié par MaverickPerry, 10 avril 2012 - 12:00 .

[MegaSovereign]

The simple fact that you had to write all of this (and it's all conjecture and zero fact) just to attempt to explain/defend the ending proves just how awful of an ending it was.

That's a terrible counter argument. The only thing you can possibly argue is that Bioware executed it horribly, hence all the "speculating."