496 réponses à ce sujet

[Majin Paul]

It's good to see this thread about liking the ending.
I thought the ending was good myself, it just lacked clarity/explanation what happened to most of the character which is probably the only negative comment I have and I imagine that'll be fixed in the DLC.
I'm not too bothered about how the ending is apparantly just one ending anyway, I was destroying the reapers from the beginning and thought how you got there would be the difference.

[fle6isnow]

The Lightspeaker wrote...

With the greatest of respect, I can demonstrate how the ending fails with one simple sentence:

The ending fails because of the fact that a thread like this has to exist trying to detail why the ending works.

I can appreciate that you and a handful of others may like the ending. But the very fact you're having to go to these kind of lengths to document and bring together all your defence of the ending against literally attacks from every single direction means that the ending didn't work. Because if it worked, this thread would not be necessary.

I never did understand this argument because I could say the same thing about the anti-end side. "The ending doesn't suck because of the fact that threads like this (a looooot of them) have to exist trying to detail why the ending sucks." Honestly, anti-enders have put in waaaaaay more effort detailing why they think the endings are bad than we have in detailing why we liked the endings or why we think they're ok. And again, as I said in the first post, we're not really "defending" the endings or trying to convince anyone; I just have the links here for reference and discussion.

In the end, though, people have made whole essays defending the ending and attacking the ending, and neither side is necessarily correct or wrong--it's just different interpretations. That's the beauty of art.

Optimystic_X wrote...

Of course the ending didn't work as-is. There's not a single person in favor of this thread, who is opposed to the idea of Extended Cut DLC to patch the many holes.

The difference between "pro-enders" and "anti-enders" is simple: The first group knows that with a few additional details explained, the current endings will be fine; the second group wants them thrown out completely and redone from scratch. (Preferably without the Catalyst at all.)

Am I wrong?

In the context of this thread, yeah, you are right. I'm pretty sure some people out there believe the endings were fine as is, but on this thread a most of us are saying that the concepts are sound, even if the delivery was rather iffy.

I think you nailed the difference.

Edit: missed this question

FeriktheCerberus wrote...
With
all respect due though, I have one question: do you believe it's
possible to continue the story of Mass Effect based on current endings
of Mass Effect 3?

I think there are several interesting ways to continue this, actually. Some people have suggested Mass Effect should become a space exploration game. Another person whose thread I really liked, but lost, suggested that the political tension between the factions stuck on Earth would make for a very interesting game. You know, let me go digging for that thread so I can put the "aftermath" threads in its own little section.

Modifié par fle6isnow, 20 avril 2012 - 06:33 .

[tolkienelf]

Well I read some of the links and especially the galacticpillow article that was recommended.  These all seem to address some issues here and there but unfortunately none of the ones I have.  The galacticpillow article actually goes into “deep sci-fi” territory and assumes that Bioware did too as to explain the types of civilization etc.   I don’t buy that because something that complex would need to be explicitly explained (directly or indirectly) in game.  But even if this was the case it doesn’t solve some of the issues.
I personally had no problem with most of what was addressed in the galacticpillow article.  I understood the Reapers motives etc.  My issue is with not being able to tell the catalyst “FU” and why I thought it was wrong.  Shepard just accepts everything too easily when previously he/she argued over everything.  This felt out of place given the freedom previously given.  Regardless of what the crucible does to the catalyst why did it have to bring Sheppard up and tell him about the options?  Was it forced somehow? It sure doesn’t look like it.
Why didn’t the Reapers attack the Citadel early on if it was so easy to do?  This had been there first objective for millions of years yet this time they just let it be until “they are threatened”.  I always understood that Sovereign didn’t take the Citadel by force because it would cause too much destruction to the Citadel and he couldn’t risk it before being able to wake up the others.  Yet it seems I was wrong but then I have to ask, why didn’t Sovereign do the same in ME1?
What was the Catalyst doing in ME1? Some say sleeping, some that it had been inadvertently crippled by what the Protheans did.  Sleeping doesn’t make sense because (based on human logic) why would it go to sleep or continue sleeping while Aliens were on board?  It should have been awaken once the citadel was discovered and never rest again until the cycle was completed.  I could have been rendered unable to communicate with the Reapers etc due to what the Protheans had done but then why say that it controlled the Reapers? Seriously though you would think that such an advanced race would have alternate systems in case of failure, sabotage etc. But the worst offender regarding the existence of the catalyst is that it makes the keepers involvement in opening the Citadel redundant and completely unnecessary.  Why are they needed for that?
There are many others that I am sure have been mentioned yet all that the pro-enders can muster are theories.  Some are good some are not but in the end it is all theories.  Like someone else said I can then choose to believe in the Indoctrination Theory and I would be just as correct as anyone else.  That is a problem.
Finally regarding the “all my choices are invalidated” point this is because most of the Turians fleet, Quarians ships etc are at Earth with no real recourse to get home.  Nobody has even tried (that I have seen) to come up with a good theory as to how they will get enough resources to survive the trip.  Rebuilding the Relays is not possible given existing lore no matter what Bioware says unless they do a big 180 on established lore.  “They can use the dead reapers” some say but ignore indoctrination and where are the resources going to come from to study said technology and then try to apply it.  They don’t even know what the Relays are made of.
Yet it is pointless.  For some unknown reason to us anti-enders, pro- enders don’t see any issues here.  I wish I could not see them too but I can and they tarnish a beautiful experience. 

[KingZayd]

fle6isnow wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Thanks for responding, I truly appreciate it. If there are sensible answers to these questions, then I would like to have them so I too can go back to loving the series. Personally if it turns out the Starchild is a liar or an illusion then that would do it for me.



4) That was the very same one i was referring too. These points are all ME1 things. the ending of ME3 (if taken at face value) seems to clash most with ME1 information 


1) Why not have the starchild wake up periodically himself and investigate? The organic races are living on the Citadel itself (part of its own body). Surely that's an easier way to do things? Also, why be dormant all that time. The reapers don't seem to really care about  power efficiency. (mentioned at some point in the codex too) Also, the chain for activating the Citadel relay would be 1 step smaller, since Sovereign still has to send the signal to the Citadel, before that signal is sent to the Keepers. (Keepers evolved to only obey Citadel signals)

2) The protheans mess with the signal the Citadel sends to the keepers apparently. So the reapers can send signals to the Citadel, and the Citadel can still send signals to the reapers ("I control the reapers", not " I used to control the reapers"), but now the Citadel can't send signals to the Keepers, at least not the "open the damn relay" signals. The keepers still maintain the Citadel.. whether that's automatic, or if they're controlled by other signals, who knows?

3) The arrogance displayed by Sovereign in the game, indicates he wouldn't be afraid of a trap that could end the reapers. As far as he's concerned the idea is ridiculous. He is afraid though, that by himself, he is vulnerable which is why he's been trying to do stuff from the shadows all this time. It's implied that he's responsible for the Rachni wars. Rachni wars were 2000 years ago. Supposedly, the only reason Sovereign acted so boldly now was out of desperation. Sovereign doesn't seem stupid to me.

I think it's more likely though  that the Reapers are controlled by the Starchild through indoctrination (if the starchild is really there), seeing as how that's how the cool kids control things in this universe and that TIM spent his time researching indoctrination and was convinced he could control the reapers. It did seem like he was onto something, if a little deluded as how to complete the last step.

And thanks for the link to that other thread, it's a bit of an entertaining read.

I don't know if Starbrat is outright lying, but at the very least, he is an unreliable narrator. He's definitely putting a negative spin on the destroy choice because it will be bad for the Reapers, and he builds up the other two choices because it would be better.

1) That point could be because non-Citadel races could still be developing synthetic life, so the Starbrat needs Sovereign to check for those races. For example, right now, we humans aren't part of any galactic society, but there is definitely a lot of research into AI--Watson, Deep Blue, Blue Brain Project, Numenta... this is all very interesting stuff, and still far from true AI, but I think it is likely that we will develop AI before we develop more advanced spaceflight.

2) Yeah, who knows indeed! Hopefully this can be explained in the EC, but I find it fun to puzzle over.

3) I wouldn't say afraid--to me, Sovereign seemed more cautious. But yeah, he does get arrogant at the end, probably because with the information he gleaned from the beacon and Ilos, he thinks that organics still have no chance.

And yes, I do think indoctrination of the Reapers by the Catalyst is likely. The info we find on Sanctuary is interesting to think about too--is it really suggesting that the Reapers can be controlled, or are Henry Lawson and co. already indoctrinated, meaning that their findings are false?

Awesome! so there are pro-enders who distrust the Starchild too. If it turns out the Starchild is a liar and the non-destroy options are traps (my first thought when playing the game, I think the fact it appears as the Starchild and not StarSovereign/StarHarbinger to be rather telling personally), then i would probably be a pro-ender. Unfortunately until confirmed in the EC it seems I must remain in  a superposition of the two, hating the end at face value, while liking/loving possible hidden true endings. Thanks for your reply!

1) A valid point, except  the reapers have shown they don't care about the extinction of individual species too much. If 1 organic race gets annhilated by synthetics before the space age, those synthetics will still discover the mass relays when they do truly reach the space age and will reach the citadel. This means the synthetics won't have the opportunity to get close to wiping out ALL organic life in the galaxy before they reach the citadel where the Starchild resides.

2) I'm sure this was in response to another answer, let me see: ah yes, the eternally sleeping AI who can't be woken up  by Sovereign, I believe i dismissed that claim? There is one possibility though:  that Sovereign is unaware of his manipulator due to the indoctrination. 
Indeed Sovereign says "I am Sovereign! And this station is MINE!" There doesn't really seem to be a reason for the Starchild to be sleeping in the first place though.  Now if, the Starchild can indoctrinate reapers, it could also indoctrinate Shepard? if it even exists that is.



3) Still I understand he is cautious when he's been alone all this time, but i struggle to believe that it believed there was a trap awaiting all the reapers.

I don't think Henry Lawson and co. ARE indoctrinated., and the fact that Sanctuary was attacked suggests there was a genuine threat to the reapers. Despite all the unforgivable horrors, Cerberus was the only group REALLY preparing for the reaper invasions. in the Cerberus base, you see video logs in which you get some interesting snippets. He implanted his Cerberus troops months ago,
and Jana (the scientist) says "I'm still concerned about us losing control of our forces. Some of them are already hearing voices".
TIM: When our work at Sanctuary pays off, the only voice they'll be hearing is ours.

TIM was indoctrinated long ago on Shanxi (at first), but he's been fighting it all this time. The research at Sanctuary did pay off (seen in video 3, at Sanctuary itself, and finally on the Citadel where he control Shepard using indoctrination tech) and TIM's convinced that this indoctrination tech will allow him to control the reapers. Interesing question though: TIM said he was aware of the dangers, and that he was sure Jana would keep him in line. We never encountered Jana. Maybe TIM kept Jana with her all along? (interesting possibility if indoc theory is true) or did he go crazy and kill her? Also, he says " complete the procedure, no anaesthetic", I think this indicates that he knows if he's unconscious while being implanted, he's more likely to lose control. TIM is not as weak as you might assume. A second viewing of the Cerberus base video logs, is what really convinced me there's something going on in the background of the story.

I think that the game's actually had a pretty strong indoctrination theme, more so than people realise at first (And i'm not referring to stuff like dream trees in London) and that it's actually quite possible Bioware were thinking of indoctrination being important at the end. Along with stuff like Object Rho (which resembles the artifact that partially indoctrinated TIM when it knocked him out) activating and knocking Shepard out, it feels as if Bioware really were trying to drop some odd hints.


If the Starchild meeting is really an illusion, then it could just represent the Reaper taint, trying to create (using your own mind, it doesn't have full control yet which is obvious since you're not actively trying to help the reapers) a situation where you REJECT destroy in favour of another option. Once you do that, well then you pretty much consider the reapers as friends.

I am aware that in this reply I have mentioned possible types of indoctrination theory, 1 more explored than the other and i know indoc theory can be pretty unpopular, but I think my reasons for believing it are valid. I do believe at the very least that the Starchild lies to you, and the ending animations are in Shepard's head. If my ideas do happen to be close to the truth, then I would certainly be a pro-ender, but like I said before, until that's confirmed, I can't really be sure whether I like the endings, or just what I think the endings might be.

[legion999]

Good lord TLDRs everywhere.

[KingZayd]

legion999 wrote...

Good lord TLDRs everywhere.

sorry. I had a lot of questions/thoughts to put down

[fle6isnow]

legion999 wrote...

Good lord TLDRs everywhere.

Yes indeed! I kinda like it, lol. Free endless entertainment for me.

Anyway, le update for today:

What I Think BioWare Was Trying to Do with the Ending by HBC Dresden
http://social.biowar.../index/11527566

There is perfect continuity between Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 3 by MyChemicalBromance
http://social.biowar.../index/11555820

Next Mass Effect - Space Exploration Ideas. (Positive Thread) by PhotonMaze
http://social.biowar.../index/11550962

I Don't Like it, But .... id, ego, superego by 3DandBeyond
http://social.biowar.../index/11551158

Possible Mass Effect 4 story taking into account the Mass Effect 3 endings by Rartemass
http://social.biowar.../index/11160043

Was the logic behind the final choices in the ending due to "Destroy or... by FlyinElk212
http://social.biowar.../index/11484593

I also put up a separate category for threads exploring the aftermath of the endings and how further games are possible after the end.

@KingZayd: you bring up interesting points about the implications of Sanctuary and TIM's research into indoctrination. Will address the your comments after dinner I guess, lol.

[lx_theo]

I'd love to see a new Mass Effect game based on the galaxy rebuilding. Or at least the setting being that. The story could be something like picking up the last loose ends of the Reaper threat or something.

[ardensia]

FeriktheCerberus wrote...

I understand the reason of you pro-enders'. Thanks for creating this thread.

With all respect due though, I have one question: do you believe it's possible to continue the story of Mass Effect based on current endings of Mass Effect 3?

To continue Shepherd's story? Nope. I think they made it pretty clear they were only ever intending a trilogy for Shepherd's story, and honestly, I'm cool with things coming to a close instead of dragging on until they far outpace both quality and plausibility. BioWare put a lot of work into trying to build a realistic-type world. In such a world, all things have to come to their ends.

To continue to tell post-Crucible detonation stories in the ME universe? Maybe. I don't think BioWare will jump on this any time soon, though, since I don't think they want a cannon ending to their story and this option would prettymuch force one. Though it's fully possible they'll just provide stories that follow each of the three choices. They can actually get a decent amount of overlap if they toss out the synthesis option... but that would require tossing out the synthesis option. 


To tell pre-Crucible detonation stories in the ME universe? Definitely. They've created an incredibly vast world. There's no reason to think there aren't a few other Big Damn Heroes out there, and even if there aren't, there are tons of other ways to get into trouble. Heck, they could even release games like Fleet and Floatilla or Galaxy of Fantasy. There's lots of potential there.

[King_Gabs]

no point playing mass effect 3.. diablo 3 and guildwars2 is coming out... so bioware your not taking any money from me.

[KingZayd]

King_Gabs wrote...

no point playing mass effect 3.. diablo 3 and guildwars2 is coming out... so bioware your not taking any money from me.

a little bit.. offtopic there I believe

[ardensia]

Possible addition? Definitely an interesting, if short, read.

[GuardianAngel470]

The Lightspeaker wrote...

With the greatest of respect, I can demonstrate how the ending fails with one simple sentence:

The ending fails because of the fact that a thread like this has to exist trying to detail why the ending works.

I can appreciate that you and a handful of others may like the ending. But the very fact you're having to go to these kind of lengths to document and bring together all your defence of the ending against literally attacks from every single direction means that the ending didn't work. Because if it worked, this thread would not be necessary.

This is logically flawed and here's why.

If extensive exposition were enough to devalue a position, we would be the losers, not the people that like or didn't mind the ending. We've gone to greater lengths to explain why the ending sucks than "pro-enders" have to explain why it doesn't.

In point of fact what you just did is a fallacy called "Ignore the Evidence." Presented with evidence that contradicts your position, you and others find rationalizations for why that evidence is irrelevant.

I hate the ending as much as the next guy, but logic is my pet pieve.

[Hudathan]

The Game Arena spoilercast of Mass Effect 3.

http://www.gamearena...fect-3-spoilers

Modifié par Hudathan, 21 avril 2012 - 06:49 .

[fle6isnow]

Le bump, with the updates for today. Thanks Ardensia and Hudathan for the first two links!

So what if 1+1 does equal 3? Ending Commentary by MystEU
http://social.biowar.../index/11580033

The Game Arena spoilercast of Mass Effect 3.
http://www.gamearena...fect-3-spoilers

What's Right with Mass Effect 3's Ending by John Walker
http://www.rockpaper...fect-3s-ending/

A Fatty Dose of Hope by MyChemicalBromance
social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/11617303/1

[JShepppp]

Bumping

[ReXspec]

Tovanus wrote...

I have yet to see anyone come up with a pro-end statement that comes close to rebutting this video:

[ardensia]

ReXspec wrote...

Tovanus wrote...

I have yet to see anyone come up with a pro-end statement that comes close to rebutting this video:

That's because a lot of us can agree with his video and not hate the endings. Crazy, I know.

[Hudathan]

ReXspec wrote...

Tovanus wrote...

I have yet to see anyone come up with a pro-end statement that comes close to rebutting this video:

There are plenty of links on the first page of this thread that present the other side of the argument without resorting to sarcastic video editing and loaded language.

[Hudathan]

Nerd Appropriate spoilercast of Mass Effect 3.

http://www.nerdappro...on-the-podcast/

Modifié par Hudathan, 24 avril 2012 - 08:53 .

[fle6isnow]

Le bump, with the update for today. Thanks, Hudathan for the podcast link!

After Playing Through the Entire Series Again, I like the Ending even More by boardnfool86
http://social.biowar...ndex/11652307/1

Nerd Appropriate spoilercast of Mass Effect 3.
http://www.nerdappro...on-the-podcast/

So...I liked the ending by InvertedVantage
http://social.biowar.../index/11619402

[blauwvis]

Thank you so much for maintaining this list.

[Dnayew]

As funny as it is to admit, there has never been as much SPECULATION involiving a video game ending in the history of the medium.

[ardensia]

Dnayew wrote...

As funny as it is to admit, there has never been as much SPECULATION involiving a video game ending in the history of the medium.

Hahahahaha! Yes. For good or bad, yes.

This game is going to be talked about for a good long time, no matter what they do with the extended cut. Which I think is more or less what they wanted when they said they wanted to leave the ending open to speculation. But perhaps with more philosophy and less, "What about THIS plot hole???"

[fle6isnow]

Le bump, with a link rebutting some of the "plot holes" in the ending. To be fair, the writer gets some things wrong, like the Illusive Man's eyes not being indicative of Reaper interference, but I agree with a lot of the points.


https://docs.google....bilebasic?pli=1

Not updating the first post yet though, since I only have this one link.