858 réponses à ce sujet

[AlienSpaceBats]

ReggarBlane wrote...

Speculations based on sloppy work is equally sloppy.

This.

[AcesRedd]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

AcesRedd wrote...

sp0ck 06 wrote...

 If you hated/disliked/didn't understand/were let down by the ending, read this editorial.

http://galacticpillo...ffect-3-ending/

It really might make you look differently at not just the ending but the whole of ME3.  If you want to love the conclusion to the series but just can't, please give this a read.  It's long but worth it.  

The length of this article vs. the length of the craptacular ending reinforces the amount of fail in the ending.
I wish there was a mathematician/scientist guy that could lay out the formula for me, but I'll try my best to explain.

article + ending = more fail than article and ending put together

wait wait

article + ending < (article + ending) ?

damn I think what we need is a physicist in here? 

Instead of wasting time in endless threads about the same subjects, why not waste time reading something that's actually incredibly well thought out and could possibly make you look at the ending is a slightly positive way?  

Do you guys just WANT to hate everything Mass Effect now?

Just give it a chance.

I don't WANT to hate Mass Effect.
Mass Effect WANTS me to hate it. 
Well not Mass Effect, more like EAware wants me to hate Mass Effect. Why? Maybe we should ask Casper the space magic ghost.

edit: had extra question mark.

Modifié par AcesRedd, 19 avril 2012 - 04:21 .

[Beernun]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

 If you hated/disliked/didn't understand/were let down by the ending, read this editorial.

http://galacticpillo...ffect-3-ending/

It really might make you look differently at not just the ending but the whole of ME3.  If you want to love the conclusion to the series but just can't, please give this a read.  It's long but worth it.  

read it… horrible and pointless.

the ending of a game should be IN THE GAME, not in some editorial on-line that does a good job at orgainzing bad ideas.

[daftPirate]

MattFini wrote...

When you have to start referencing the work/theories of astrobiologists as a means of suggesting this was ALWAYS the intended direction of the series, you have absolutely failed.

Those who hated the ending do the same though, when explaining all the reasons the galaxy is now doomed. I doubt, though, that this was always the intended destination.

[sdfgdsfsdfsfs]

If you have to explain a joke, it probably wasn't a good joke. Same thing applies here. Only I'm pretty sure these explanations weren't something the writers had in mind when they wrote the ending in the first place, so it's even worse.

[sp0ck 06]

MattFini wrote...

Because it wasn't necessary to "grasp" the whole of 1 or 2, and 95% of 3. And that is going to fly over the heads of the majority of people playing the game.

Yes, ME consists of some hard science fiction (crossed with more space opera-y fantasy) but when you're essentially saying you need to take classes to "understand" how we should've seen this coming it's a narrative failure.

Also, no amount of hard science can explain the farce of synthesis anyway.

Of course you shouldn't have to read lengthy third party explanations to appreciate the ending.  The author doesn't claim the ending as it stands is in any way good and points out all the plot holes and mistakes made.

But the fact is, this is the ending we got.  This article illustrates how the ending is conceptually sound and doesn't abandon logic or reason.  If you just want to love to hate on the game and the ending, fine.  But if you want to try and improve your perception of it, read it and you might be of a different mindset.

[LucasShark]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

sp0ck 06 wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

Yeah, we get it. We're not too dumb to understand what they changed their story to attempt to say at the last minute. That's not the problem with the ending. Sorry.

This is listed in the pro-ending compendium, by the way. You might find other interesting reading there.

I know its listed there, so is my take on the endings.  But I really believe if people read this article it might at least make the ending bearable.  I honestly just want to help people, I'm not trying to prove anything.

you want to "help" people by lowering their standards?  Sorry, but people's standards are low enough.

Not sure what you mean.  Lowering standards?  

Even IF, everything in this article were true (which it isn't by any stretch of the imagination or bend of space time), th ending would still be terribly written, terribly executed, a complete betrayal of the central themes of ME1 and 2, a betrayal of the central design choice of all 3, unsatasfying, unclear, riddled with plot holes, contradict in-universe lore, and a lot of other mean things I won't bother to list.

[Menalaos1971]

The "theme" was never the problem with the Ending. The problem with the Ending is and always has been that of player choice and its complete lack of impact on the Ending. ALL of the pre-launch marketing for the game that talked about the Ending talked about how varied it would be due to all of our choices across the three games, how we could even lose. All of those pre-launch statements were LIES, and THAT is the problem with the Ending. It could have still be about extinction or whatever and I wouldn't minds that. It's the lack of impact of my choices that makes the Ending bad... that and the giant glaring plot holes in this one, too.

[AcesRedd]

daftPirate wrote...

MattFini wrote...

When you have to start referencing the work/theories of astrobiologists as a means of suggesting this was ALWAYS the intended direction of the series, you have absolutely failed.

Those who hated the ending do the same though, when explaining all the reasons the galaxy is now doomed. I doubt, though, that this was always the intended destination.

You're right, the galaxy isn't doomed because mass relays blew up its doomed because someone somewhere wrote a crappy ending and then chose money over quality control. Wow, I actually feel better.

[ArchDuck]

I read it. It didn't change my mind.

The article did its best to make excuses for what happened but really had no convincing argument on why the ending needed to happen the way it did and why it was good.

[wantedman dan]

Douchebag Editorialist wrote...

It’s hard to appreciate the ending without knowing a thing or two about the rather esoteric field of astrobiology,

Got it, we're all either too ignorant or stupid to understand the ending.

Moving on.

[MattFini]

daftPirate wrote...

MattFini wrote...

When you have to start referencing the work/theories of astrobiologists as a means of suggesting this was ALWAYS the intended direction of the series, you have absolutely failed.

Those who hated the ending do the same though, when explaining all the reasons the galaxy is now doomed. I doubt, though, that this was always the intended destination.

Not really.  They're using in-game evidence to support their theories, such as the Arrival instance to suggest WHY the relay issue at the end is bad for the galaxy.

Sure, that's might not be what BioWare meant, but there's nothing in the game to suggest otherwise.  

If the article in question had been culled from in-game codexes or something, I'd be okay with it.  But it's just a bunch of pointless hot air. 

[Joeybsmooth4]

I had to stop for sec when he spoke of Astrobiology. You can not have... and go around saying you need to understand this before you can get the ending . When they use the Final stage of a Evolution .

1.0 Scientific basis of the Catalyst and Reapers story

To say that is the only logical ending is the slap in the face of any one who has ever put pen to paper to write a story . I insults story telling more than my grammar .

1.1 Some terminology: the Kardashev Scale

This parts hurt him/her more than it helps . Since he highlights blowing up a Mass Rely = supernova.

He also said the the write fails to tell why EDI lives if you go the destory to rout .

[Spectre-00N7]

Can't tell if the op thinks we don't understand what the ending was trying to be about or just wants to give us something to read.

[MattFini]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

MattFini wrote...

Because it wasn't necessary to "grasp" the whole of 1 or 2, and 95% of 3. And that is going to fly over the heads of the majority of people playing the game.

Yes, ME consists of some hard science fiction (crossed with more space opera-y fantasy) but when you're essentially saying you need to take classes to "understand" how we should've seen this coming it's a narrative failure.

Also, no amount of hard science can explain the farce of synthesis anyway.

Of course you shouldn't have to read lengthy third party explanations to appreciate the ending.  The author doesn't claim the ending as it stands is in any way good and points out all the plot holes and mistakes made.

But the fact is, this is the ending we got.  This article illustrates how the ending is conceptually sound and doesn't abandon logic or reason.  If you just want to love to hate on the game and the ending, fine.  But if you want to try and improve your perception of it, read it and you might be of a different mindset.

Fine.  But the article is wrong right away when it says this was always foreshadowed.  It wasn't.  Because we know the original concept was Dark Energy and not SpaceBaby and nonsense. 

I am fine with someone making a case for the ending, but this isn't a particularly good one. 

[phat0817]

*shrug*...thanks for the read no I didn't change my opinion but I don't mind reading other peoples ideas anyways we now return you to your regular thread bashing....*rings the bell*

[NM_Che56]

sp0ck 06,

No one wants to guess or theorize as to what happened at the end or afterwards. We want to know. We did not pay $50-$79 on this just to imagine an ending. We wanted to see the conclusion. This isn't a conclusion. It is speculation of a conclusion. This is not what we were promised.

[NM_Che56]

wantedman dan wrote...

Douchebag Editorialist wrote...

It’s hard to appreciate the ending without knowing a thing or two about the rather esoteric field of astrobiology,

Got it, we're all either too ignorant or stupid to understand the ending.

Moving on.

Since when do I need to show my college transcripts to get a damn videogame?

[phat0817]

*shrug*...thanks for the read no it didn't change my opinion but I don't mind reading other peoples ideas anyways we now return you to your regular thread bashing....*rings the bell*

Modifié par phat0817, 19 avril 2012 - 04:36 .

[sp0ck 06]

Spectre-00N7 wrote...

Can't tell if the op thinks we don't understand what the ending was trying to be about or just wants to give us something to read.

Just something to read.

But it seems most people are so firmly entrenched in their hated of the ending that it was a pointless endeavor.  Oh well.  

[Myrmedus]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

MattFini wrote...

When you have to start referencing the work/theories of astrobiologists as a means of suggesting this was ALWAYS the intended direction of the series, you have absolutely failed.

Why?  Its a game about space faring civilizations and galactic cycles of evolution and extinction.  Astrobiology seems relevant.

Because less than 1% of your playerbase will know about astrobiology.

The purpose of art is to convey complex and meaningful themes, ideas and statements to people without them needing specialist or otherwise high level knowledge. If the story requires you to know about the topic astrobiology to understand its message then it's not done a very good job, even if it incorporates concepts from astrobiology.

Also, even if on a scientific level it can function, on a thematic/narrative level the ending still fails. Even if the message conveyed and the conclusion itself are OK, the means in which it is delivered to the player/viewer is poor, and in an entertainment media this is vital.

This is entertainment not science. If you want take the option of going over into science, which I fully condone, then you need to make it intelligible to more than 1% of your playerbase. It would be like requiring knowledge of Super String Theory and the M-11 Theory in order to understand a game's story - I'm sure it'd go down a storm.

Modifié par Myrmedus, 19 avril 2012 - 04:32 .

[M.Erik.Sal]

None of the "scientific basis" was esoteric. It was actually all fairly entry level pop science, also it's not really "science".

The Drake Equation is a question, not an answer itself. Almost all of the variables in the equation are unknown, the Kardashev Scale is all purely speculative. Granted it's based in some fairly well thought out speculation but none of it is "proven".

All of this is stuff you can find in virtually every NatGeo article, or documentary ever produced on the subject of aliens, alien life, and space. This is stuff you can find explained fully on TVTropes for goodness sake.

[jumpingkaede]

 Article is lengthy, but:

An interesting side effect of the extinction cycle is that all the civilizations are in lock step. Everyone, except the Reapers, are Type 0 or Type I. This is what makes Mass Effect one of the few stories to ever successfully answer the infamous question that has plagued science fiction since the inception of the genre: why are all the aliens so similar to us?  If that doesn’t make the ending awesome, I don’t know what would.

Bold/underline is mine.  Is that really an infamous question?  I've never given it any thought because aliens are similar to humans in sci-fi because it's a work of fiction with human readers.  The Mass Effect "explanation" then is interesting as a footnote but not really "awesome".  

Also on that note, the explanation for that (i.e., that civilizations develop along predicted cycles) was given in ME1.  It has nothing to do with the ending.  The ending may have reiterated that point but it doesn't establish it or support it in any way further than what we learned in ME1.

Further on that note, it's also incorrect since as far as we know the development of humans has nothing to do with the extinction cycles.

Also: volus, elcor, hanar, vorcha.

The ending is very strongly foreshadowed throughout the whole series

Incorrect, since, as pointed out beforehand, the ending -- and the basis for the ending i.e., synthesis v. organics, wasn't even conceptualized until after ME2.  Of course, you can go through the series and cherry-pick incidences to support your conclusion.  That's the Hackett indoctrination theory, btw. 



The Hackett indoctrination theory is essentially, that Hackett was always indoctrinated.  I can go through the entire series and find "foreshadowing" elements to support it, but they obviously weren't intended.  (e.g., Hackett sending Shepard to be indoctrinated in Arrival, Hackett wasting Shepard's time with meaningless missions in ME1, Hackett not supporting Shepard in between ME2/ME3).

Modifié par jumpingkaede, 19 avril 2012 - 04:33 .

[Flextt]

I agree with the post (read all of it), but the author only partly acknowledges the core fact:

Mass Effect itself has numerous plot holes not just in the ending but all throughout, yet we all overlook them because we understand that the authors have more important things to express than the plot, such as the themes and the drama and the gameplay.

and

Yes, I do think the presentation of the ending could have been better. It could have been improved so that everyone knew what was going on, not just people who have an interest in astrobiology.

The fact that they failed to prepare the grounds for the ending properly is what lead to the ending's downfall. The fact, that we were able to suspend disbelief earlier was because we got the general idea and the authors successfully made their point.