218 réponses à ce sujet

[Megachaz]

So... you think the ending was good, not because it was written well in the context of the story, but because it was written in a way that encourages people to pretend it never happened and make up their own endings? Interesting....

[Isichar]

The Angry One wrote...

Clearly, any ending that motivates the fanbase to construct entire theories based on the premise that it never happened is good, right?

Double-facepalming right now.

From now on if someone asks me why i think the ending was a failure im just gonna say "IT theory shows why"

A whole chunk of the fanbase is in complete denial that it was even a real ending, GENUINE denial, thats pretty impressive.

[fle6isnow]

Mcfly616 wrote...

fle6isnow wrote...

Smitridel wrote...


I actually thought that this feeling of incomplete (whether it was narratively intentional or not) was beneficial to my liking the ending. It led me to further thinking and rather than absorbing "given knowledge", I ended up enjoying it more discovering it on my own.

As I said before, the only thing that still remains a complete mystery to me, is what was Joker doing travelling away from the system. That could surely use some clarification.

Same here, although I realize not a lot of people want to do the discovering on their own.

Btw, could you explain more about the about that hubris-ate-nemesis-tisis theme? I think this is the first time I've seen it brought up in relation to the whole game. I can definitely see how it works for the Saren and The Illusive Man/Cerberus story arcs, but I'm trying to see how it fits Shepard and other characters.

Edit: and if you get tired of the ending hate, you can always hang out in my "pro-ending" thread, lol.

Please do tell....share your discoveries with us....inform us all of what we do not understand by simply looking at the screen....

Er, read the posts on the thread linked in my sig? I don't have the patience to type up yet another essay right now because my CTS is acting up and I'm using the often derpy Win7 dictation tool.

[Mcfly616]

I know crap when I see it....I don't need it explained to me on how and why it is crap, in order to understand that it is in fact CRAP.....if you need to explain the ending or even worse, if your fans need to come up with ideas in their imagination in order to figure out what came of their decisions, then it is a terrible ending.....period

[Flextt]

There are big differences between incomplete, abruptly-ended or open-ended stories. Mass Effect 3 has elements of all three, but not in a satisfying manner.

Thanks though for the implication I cannot think for myself. Statistically speaking, that is untrue.

[Mcfly616]

Megachaz wrote...

So... you think the ending was good, not because it was written well in the context of the story, but because it was written in a way that encourages people to pretend it never happened and make up their own endings? Interesting....

This...

Haha seriously, the reason he thinks its good, is the exact reason why its anything but.....

Not for the end of a trilogy anyways.....didn't people learn anything from the garbage that was the Matrix sequals.....I feel like Mac Walters had a meeting with the Wachowski Brothers before writing the finale.....way to mimic the worst ending ever....

[Gruzmog]

https://encrypted-tb...jpRVSgX0C20r9VQ

[TheKbob]

 Wait, the Matrix was a trilogy?

(I thought we all agreed to never speak about those "other 2' moves again.  Cmon people!)<_<

[AlexXIV]

fle6isnow wrote...

Er, read the posts on the thread linked in my sig? I don't have the patience to type up yet another essay right now because my CTS is acting up and I'm using the often derpy Win7 dictation tool.

It's too painful to read through all this BS and wrong assumption. Yes, some things anti enders hate that are just nitpicky and can be explained, but other things can't.

Explain why Shepard's arrival at the Crusible invalidates Starboy's solution.

Explain why Shepard gets to make the choice.

Explain why these three choices are the only possible choices.

Explain why Starboy suddenly isn't bothered by synthetics wiping out organics anymore. The cycles of destruction were established because synthetics may eventually wipe out organics. And it may still happen no matter which color Shepard chooses unless the Reapers keep doing what they did so far.

Explain how the Catalyst can change nature of the world/life. Especially considering how the Reapers and mass relays only exist in one galaxy, while in all other galaxies, life is still split in organic and anorganic.

Explain why Shepard agrees with the Starchild even though he/she is not even supposed to understand the reasoning behind the Reapers. And why, if so, does the Starchild give Shepard the control.

Or, more importantly. Why was organic life so important for Reapers to begin with? I mean they established the cycles to keep organics from being wiped out by synthetics. But why care? It's not the end of the world if organics get wiped out, the galaxy will continue existsing. Why is it a problem for the Reapers and the Starchild? Can't there be a galaxy in which only artificial life exists and why not?

[kalasaurus]

I'm glad you enjoyed the ending, OP. I felt disappointed after I finished and I still do . I like indoctrination theory, but only as a fanfic "bandaid" to headcanon the ending as is. Open endings can work, but I personally felt the ending was too vague, random and nonsensical for the ending if a trilogy I became emotionally invested in. The lack of closure (Normandy retreat???) was the worst part for me.

[fle6isnow]

Short answers for now, because again, my CTS is acting up.

AlexXIV wrote...

It's too painful to read through all this BS and wrong assumption. Yes, some things anti enders hate that are just nitpicky and can be explained, but other things can't.

Explain why Shepard's arrival at the Crusible invalidates Starboy's solution.

Because with the completed Crucible, the races are suddenly more powerful than the Reapers. If the races are more powerful than the Reapers, then the solution won't work.

Explain why Shepard gets to make the choice.

Explain why these three choices are the only possible choices.

Because Bioware says so, gosh. But seriously though, I'm pretty sure Bioware meant the choices to be reflections of what the races have wanted to do with the Reapers. Remember how on Thessia, Vendetta tells us that even in their cycle, some wanted to control and others wanted to destroy the Reapers? Vendetta also says that each cycle adds to and improves upon the Crucible design. The way I interpret this is that Control and Destroy have been there becuause countless races have wanted to do so in the past, but Synthesis is the "high EMS" choice because this cycle finally had organics and synthetics working together, and Bioware meant this choice is a reflection of this unity. Yes, it is badly explained in the current ending, but if you read the leaked script it made a bit more sense. I'm kinda pissy they changed it, actually.

Explain why Starboy suddenly isn't bothered by synthetics wiping out organics anymore. The cycles of destruction were established because synthetics may eventually wipe out organics. And it may still happen no matter which color Shepard chooses unless the Reapers keep doing what they did so far.

Starbrat is still bothered. It just knows his solution won't work any more, because again, the Crucible made organics more powerful thatn the Reapers.

Explain how the Catalyst can change nature of the world/life. Especially considering how the Reapers and mass relays only exist in one galaxy, while in all other galaxies, life is still split in organic and anorganic.

But seriously, we don't know, and IMO, for the scope of the story, we don't need to know. Maybe the Reapers are in other galaxies too, who knows.

Explain why Shepard agrees with the Starchild even though he/she is not even supposed to understand the reasoning behind the Reapers. And why, if so, does the Starchild give Shepard the control.

With certain interpretations of the ending, you can disagree with Starbrat. I've posted this before so apologies if you've already read it.

fle6isnow wrote...

You can interpret the ending choices in terms of free will. The Catalyst pronounces the organic vs. synthetic conflict as fated, but we have the choice to reject that.

Destroy: the galaxy needs to be truly self-determining. Reject the cycle. Off with the Reapers. The geth are an unfortunate collateral damage, but Shepard can determine that it is a fair price to pay so that future organics and synthetics can choose peace or war for themselves.
Control: maybe Starbrat is right, but maybe it's wrong. Play it safe and control the Reapers, but let the galaxy have a chance to prove itself with the current ceasefire between all the races. If the conflict goes away, then Shepard can order the Reapers to self-destruct or something.
Synthesis: agree with the Starbrat, combine synthetics and organics so that there will be a greater understanding between both factions.

Of course, this is not the only interpretation of the ending choices. You are free to disagree.

Or, more importantly. Why was organic life so important for Reapers to begin with? I mean they established the cycles to keep organics from being wiped out by synthetics. But why care? It's not the end of the world if organics get wiped out, the galaxy will continue existsing. Why is it a problem for the Reapers and the Starchild? Can't there be a galaxy in which only artificial life exists and why not?

I think the reasoning is similar to the reason why the Geth did not destroy all the quarians--they cannot compute the possibility.

[Zix13]

fle6isnow wrote...

Explain why Starboy suddenly isn't bothered by synthetics wiping out organics anymore. The cycles of destruction were established because synthetics may eventually wipe out organics. And it may still happen no matter which color Shepard chooses unless the Reapers keep doing what they did so far.

Starbrat is still bothered. It just knows his solution won't work any more, because again, the Crucible made organics more powerful thatn the Reapers.

Why? Starbrat could have just left Shep at the bottom of the elevator and the crucible wouldn't have done anything. 

[JKA_Nozyspy]

Even if you like the theme of the ending, i do not understand how you can justify the glaring plot/lore/technology holes that riddle the last 10 mins like swiss cheese.

Truth is, any story ending that forces the reader/player to actually have to invent their own endings to make themselves feel like they havent completely wasted their time investing in a story, has done somethething wrong.

Mass Effect was never some artsy fartsy thing, nor was it one of these great metaphysical stories that bends the mind, it was a space opera, it was Star Wars, it was Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, all of these things and more. The ending just does not belong in the Mass Effect universe as it violates everything that made it great in the first place.

- Its like Luke deciding that he is going to turn to the dark side and save the death star at the end of Return of the Jedi, then throwing HIMSELF down the reactor shaft so he can 'bond' with the Death Star and turn it into a giant self aware space station.

- Or maybe it is like the Klingon assassin at the end of The Undiscovered Country actually not being dead, and then jumping up and killing the entire crew as they stand triumphantly on the stage just before the credits roll.

- Or maybe its like if at the end of BSG, when they make the final jump, they dont actually end up at Earth, but actually travel back in time and land on their own home world in the distant past, actually becoming their own ancient ancestors.

Endings like that would just voilate the entire premise and theme of the fictional universes they are set in. Somehow, i dont think if Star Wars Return of the Jedi had ended with the above mentioned ending, Episodes 1, 2 or 3 would ever have been made, and if they were, who the hell would have wanted to watch them?

Modifié par JKA_Nozyspy, 29 avril 2012 - 08:32 .

[Smitridel]

fle6isnow wrote...

Smitridel wrote...


I actually thought that this feeling of incomplete (whether it was narratively intentional or not) was beneficial to my liking the ending. It led me to further thinking and rather than absorbing "given knowledge", I ended up enjoying it more discovering it on my own.

As I said before, the only thing that still remains a complete mystery to me, is what was Joker doing travelling away from the system. That could surely use some clarification.

Same here, although I realize not a lot of people want to do the discovering on their own.

Btw, could you explain more about the about that hubris-ate-nemesis-tisis theme? I think this is the first time I've seen it brought up in relation to the whole game. I can definitely see how it works for the Saren and The Illusive Man/Cerberus story arcs, but I'm trying to see how it fits Shepard and other characters.

Edit: and if you get tired of the ending hate, you can always hang out in my "pro-ending" thread, lol.

Its more like a general theme in the Mass Effect lore rather than being focused in Sheppard and humans.

Hubris: Galactic Civilization cause hubris through evolution beyond its Reaper allowed terms - through everlasting war and constant evolution through AI, biotics and elements of progress that position organics in a god-like situations.

Ate: The Rachni War (Rachni were supposed to be indoctrinated in the first war)  The Krogan Genophage, the Quarian-Geth War and the Reaper Intervention through Geth apostates. Indoctrination is essentially "ate" which in ancient greeek means clouding of the mind, confusion struck down by the Olympian gods which also according to the ancient greek lore leads the character to act foolishly, resulting in even more hubris and the greatest form of all hubris (see again Genophage, wiping out Rachni) resulting in tisis.

Nemesis: Sovereign. The destruction of Citadel, the Collector abductions, and  the entanglement of Sheppard and Cerberus in it, the triumph of human nature and accordingly the innevitable progress to "Tisis".

Tisis: The Reaper Invasion. Direct intervention of the Gods themselves punishing every being with all their power, for their contribution in Hubris. And finally and most importantly, the 3 choises that we are presented with. Each one has it's own form of punishment. Galactic Middle Age in Destroy Option and fight for survival, Wiping out every organic being and organic diversity through Synthesis and lastly a form of apotheosis with the danger of being able to do the gods' will once again, through Control.

The only focus is indeed on humans and that is actually because, Sheppard (name is not a coincidence as is already known) is the representative "courier of the story", of the last two stages in the Hubris procedure.


I may be forgetting something, but feel free to contibute and or disagree with.



EDIT: Typo confusion in the order between Tisis and Nemesis, now fixed.

Modifié par Smitridel, 29 avril 2012 - 08:22 .

[Bill Casey]

The Angry One wrote...

Clearly, any ending that motivates the fanbase to construct entire theories based on the premise that it never happened is good, right?

Double-facepalming right now.

IT doesn't state that "it never happened"
Shepard is really fighting the Reapers in his mind...
It's a very real struggle with very real consequences...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 29 avril 2012 - 08:12 .

[Smitridel]

JKA_Nozyspy wrote...

Even if you like the theme of the ending, i do not understand how you can justify the glaring plot/lore/technology holes that riddle the last 10 mins like swiss cheese.

Truth is, any story ending that forces the reader/player to actually have to invent their own endings to make themselves feel like they havent completely wasted their time investing in a story, has done somethething wrong.

Mass Effect was never some artsy fartsy thing, nor was it one of these great metaphysical stories that bends the mind, it was a space opera, it was Star Wars, it was Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, all of these things and more. The ending just does not belong in the Mass Effect universe as it violates everything that made it great in the first place.

Its like Luke deciding that he is going to turn to the dark side and save the death star at the end of Return of the Jedi, then throwing HIMSELF down the reactor shaft so he can 'bond' with the Death Star and turn it into a giant self aware space station.

Or maybe it is like the Klingon assassin at the end of The Undiscovered Country actually not being dead, and then jumping up and killing the entire crew as they stand triumphantly on the stage just before the credits roll.

Or maybe its like if at the end of BSG, when they make the final jump, they dont actually end up at Earth, but actually travel back in time and land on their own home world in the distant past, actually becoming their own ancient ancestors.

Endings like that would just voilate the entire premise and theme of the fictional universes they are set in. Somehow, i dont think if Star Wars Return of the Jedi had ended with the above mentioned ending, Episodes 1, 2 or 3 would ever have been made, and if they were, who the hell would have wanted to watch them?

As with everything else, it depends.
Would you like a story that leads you to your own conclusions, or would you like a story that is giving de facto story endings?
I for once, feel more intrigued and satisfied with the first case.

P.S. Oh By the way and BSG related - who/what was really Starbucks aka Kara Thrace? Did everything happen again and will happen again? |
Especially this example, is a master form of meta-series speculative thinking  procedure.

[TheKbob]

Bill Casey wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Clearly, any ending that motivates the fanbase to construct entire theories based on the premise that it never happened is good, right?

Double-facepalming right now.

IT doesn't state that "it never happened"
Shepard is really fighting the Reapers in his mind...
It's a very real struggle with very real consequences...

So when does the imaginaryland world dream part end and the "real" ending happen?  When everything explodes in colorful manners?  Or is that part of the dream, too? Is it just the dialog between Anderson and the IM?  How does Shepard make any change if she is still on Earth, hallucinating in rubble?  Or is that where the EC is supposed to pick up?  If you accept that theory, then you are accepting you paid somewhere between $60~$80 USD for a game without a real ending (or at least a massive gap between "waking up" and people telling stories about "the Shepard"). 

It's compelling fanfic, but it's not obvious in any regard and requires so much digging and leaps of logic that it's either the case of even worse writing than what's apparant or just hopeful fans plugging fingers in their ears and going "LALALALALA".  As previously stated, look at Inception.  Fans argue about the outcome within the story itself, not the delivery method. Plus, it's completely out of the context of the first 2.99 parts of the games. 

This isn't high art, it's video games.  If it was supposed to be IT all along, there would be a massive amount of genitalia waving on EA/Biowares part at the end to show "look how smart we are, boy we sure fooled you!".  There would be a scene of cohesive flashbacks tying together into one big mind blowing reveal that would have left myself and many players floored.  As it stands, I think it's just people looking for an answer to justify their time put in. Nothing more. 

[fle6isnow]

Smitridel wrote...

Its more like a general theme in the Mass Effect lore rather than being focused in Sheppard and humans.

Hubris: Galactic Civilization cause hubris through evolution beyond its Reaper allowed terms - through everlasting war and constant evolution through AI, biotics and elements of progress that position organics in a god-like situations.

Ate: The Rachni War (Rachni were supposed to be indoctrinated in the first war)  The Krogan Genophage, the Quarian-Geth War and the Reaper Intervention through Geth apostates. Indoctrination is essentially "ate" which in ancient greeek means clouding of the mind, confusion struck down by the Olympian gods which also according to the ancient greek lore leads the character to act foolishly, resulting in even more hubris and the greatest form of all hubris (see again Genophage, wiping out Rachni) resulting in tisis.

Nemesis: Sovereign. The destruction of Citadel, the Collector abductions, and  the entanglement of Sheppard and Cerberus in it, the triumph of human nature and accordingly the innevitable progress to "Tisis".

Tisis: The Reaper Invasion. Direct intervention of the Gods themselves punishing every being with all their power, for their contribution in Hubris. And finally and most importantly, the 3 choises that we are presented with. Each one has it's own form of punishment. Galactic Middle Age in Destroy Option and fight for survival, Wiping out every organic being and organic diversity through Synthesis and lastly a form of apotheosis with the danger of being able to do the gods' will once again, through Control.

The only focus is indeed on humans and that is actually because, Sheppard (name is not a coincidence as is already known) is the representative "courier of the story", of the last two stages in the Hubris procedure.


I may be forgetting something, but feel free to contibute and or disagree with.



EDIT: Typo confusion in the order between Tisis and Nemesis, now fixed.

Ah, thanks for clearing it up! It does make a lot of sense.

[Smitridel]

TheKbob wrote...

This isn't high art, it's video games.  If it was supposed to be IT all along, there would be a massive amount of genitalia waving on EA/Biowares part at the end to show "look how smart we are, boy we sure fooled you!".  There would be a scene of cohesive flashbacks tying together into one big mind blowing reveal that would have left myself and many players floored.  As it stands, I think it's just people looking for an answer to justify their time put in. Nothing more. 

I wont quote the rest as it has been discused above.

I will stand to this though.
When did art, start being exclusive on other forms? What is art? What isn't art ? These are long unanswered questions, that will remain that way as long as "art" progresses - thus as long as human civilization progresses.

I am not advocating that ME 3 was artistic in any way, but surely we cant exclude the possibility of them developers wanting to immitate artistic tendencies of obscureness and/or vagueness.

I for once, am not looking to justify my time spent in the game - I feel like it was well spent.And I know that it is also a given fact that  there are others like me.
It's also a fact that are also others applying this kind of behavior, in which you're reffering to.
Maybe the developers wanted that kind of "schizm". Or maybe they didn't.
After all there is no "bad publicity". Only "publicity",  if you know what I mean.

[TheKbob]

Games as art, whole different subject (and subjective). If you want to stickler me on that one point without getting what I mean, then it's a lost cause from point one.

Secondly, aiming to divide your player base is not a good goal, intended or not. You'll have angst in multiplayer titles with game balance, but to make a universally hated ending out of poor, out of context contrivances? Again, good schism: Inception. Bad schism: Mass Effect 3. (PS: the schism is narrow, only a very few people are going to like this ending. More so with players trying to headcanonize an even poorly contrived ending)

There is bad publicity. Hearing everyone poopstorm the ending on every major forum and video game venture across the internet, printed media, and word of mouth will definitely have negative repercussions. The crap storm of Dragon Age II has caused me to delay that purchase for quite some time. Might get it when it's $5 someday. Might.

It's a bad ending any way you cut it. If you enjoyed a bad ending, then so be it. While not a scientifically measurable fact, there is plenty forms of literary criticism that says it's foul.

[therealdeal77]

I think the ending was really about what sacrifice you were willing to give in order for there to be peace. There really wasn't a happy ending to be had with this game if you really think about what it would take to take down the reapers who have repeated this cycle a bajillion times. Blowing up the Mass Relays only makes sense because they were a huge part of why the Reapers were able to come back to begin with. Yes, it will isolate all the systems and the fleet in the Sol System won't ever make it home but if that is what it takes, then you have no choice in the matter.

I am kind of in the middle on whether I liked the ending or not. The Normandy crash baffled me as well so I would like to know what the hell happened there. I just didn't understand how Joker and whoever came out with him didn't seem at all concerned that they had just crash landed on some random planet. In fact they seemed happy for some reason. Curious.

I am really really curious though as to why you see Shepard breathing on the planet after you choose the destroy option. The way Bioware created that scene, it's almost like they intended for you think that this is indeed a Cliffhanger of some sorts and that more content was going to come anyways. I mean think about it, they will be releasing DLC for this game as they did for ME2. The problem is they really can't release DLC to be added to the main single player game because for most folks, the game is already beaten and it wouldn't make sense to do some random mission such as (Overlord, ShadowBroker, etc.) The DLC in my opinion would have to be something you can do after Shepard wakes up. I don't know what that would be but that is my take. Otherwise the only DLC we are going to ever get are weapon and armor downloads, and multiplayer crap.

[Smitridel]

TheKbob wrote...

Games as art, whole different subject (and subjective). If you want to stickler me on that one point without getting what I mean, then it's a lost cause from point one.

Secondly, aiming to divide your player base is not a good goal, intended or not. You'll have angst in multiplayer titles with game balance, but to make a universally hated ending out of poor, out of context contrivances? Again, good schism: Inception. Bad schism: Mass Effect 3. (PS: the schism is narrow, only a very few people are going to like this ending. More so with players trying to headcanonize an even poorly contrived ending)

There is bad publicity. Hearing everyone poopstorm the ending on every major forum and video game venture across the internet, printed media, and word of mouth will definitely have negative repercussions. The crap storm of Dragon Age II has caused me to delay that purchase for quite some time. Might get it when it's $5 someday. Might.

It's a bad ending any way you cut it. If you enjoyed a bad ending, then so be it. While not a scientifically measurable fact, there is plenty forms of literary criticism that says it's foul.

Having read all your post, even though I'd like to answer sentence by sentence, only one question comes to my mind: 

Do you really think that they would be creating this schism, if they thought it would hurt their sales, even when they have a full team of marketing advisors behind them backing them and advising their every move?
Do you really think them as naive and or rookie, in marketing terms?

After all we are talking about Bioware here, even if it's owned by EA in that matter.


Also, there is no proof whatsoever that the dissapointed customers are more than the satisfied ones.
The only measure is what you see on that forum and that really isnt that representative.

[JKA_Nozyspy]

Smitridel wrote...

JKA_Nozyspy wrote...

Even if you like the theme of the ending, i do not understand how you can justify the glaring plot/lore/technology holes that riddle the last 10 mins like swiss cheese.

Truth is, any story ending that forces the reader/player to actually have to invent their own endings to make themselves feel like they havent completely wasted their time investing in a story, has done somethething wrong.

Mass Effect was never some artsy fartsy thing, nor was it one of these great metaphysical stories that bends the mind, it was a space opera, it was Star Wars, it was Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, all of these things and more. The ending just does not belong in the Mass Effect universe as it violates everything that made it great in the first place.

Its like Luke deciding that he is going to turn to the dark side and save the death star at the end of Return of the Jedi, then throwing HIMSELF down the reactor shaft so he can 'bond' with the Death Star and turn it into a giant self aware space station.

Or maybe it is like the Klingon assassin at the end of The Undiscovered Country actually not being dead, and then jumping up and killing the entire crew as they stand triumphantly on the stage just before the credits roll.

Or maybe its like if at the end of BSG, when they make the final jump, they dont actually end up at Earth, but actually travel back in time and land on their own home world in the distant past, actually becoming their own ancient ancestors.

Endings like that would just voilate the entire premise and theme of the fictional universes they are set in. Somehow, i dont think if Star Wars Return of the Jedi had ended with the above mentioned ending, Episodes 1, 2 or 3 would ever have been made, and if they were, who the hell would have wanted to watch them?

As with everything else, it depends.
Would you like a story that leads you to your own conclusions, or would you like a story that is giving de facto story endings?
I for once, feel more intrigued and satisfied with the first case.

P.S. Oh By the way and BSG related - who/what was really Starbucks aka Kara Thrace? Did everything happen again and will happen again? |
Especially this example, is a master form of meta-series speculative thinking  procedure.

I dont begrudge you the choice to like the ending, but if you are prepared to defend it, you need to be able to explain why the plot holes and thematic inconsistancies to not break the suspension of disbelief for you.

Personally i went into ME3 knowing the ending was being almost universally panned (having been playing through ME1 and 2 and having to finish off 2 before i could play through 3 after its release) so i went in braced. it didnt make any difference. I knew there was a good chance Shep would die or have to sacrifice hiumself, or that companions would die, but i accept that as a necessary part of a bittersweet ending (though it is always preferable if the CHOICE is there for a happy ending). Again i went in braced and ready, but bracing myself for THAT ending was about as effective as a man bracing himself to be slapped on the cheek and then being hit by a bus.

I have never heard anyone complain that the ending to Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade was too'disney-ish'? Or that the ending to Return of the Jedi was unsatisfying? The whole power of these 'adventure' series' was that the heroes fight against tough odds, but through courage and sacrifice come out on top and 'earn' the ride off into the sunset. That is why they are popular in the first place. That was also the entire theme of all 3 Mass Effect games, the entire trilogy was built on the whole idea. The last 20 mins of ME3 is the ONLY part of the entire story of the entire series, whether the games, novels, or comics that did not follow that story arc/theme.

Bioware were in the World Cup final, they had a completely open goal with not a single player in theor side of the field, all they needed to do was put the ball into the back of the net.

What did they do?

They stopped 3 feet away, then proceeded to perform a complicated display of acrobatics, sung a piece from the Marriage of Figaro, made baloon animals for children in the crowd then waited for the goalkeeper to get back in his net, and then decided to show of their mad ball skillz only to trip over their own feet and have the goalkeeper casually walk up and pick up the ball.

To condense that rediculous piece of hyperbole, they snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. They tried to be smart and ended up looking like idiots.

If they had written the entire trilogy as some kind of mind bending metaphysical adventure, then the ending would have fitted in just fine, but they didnt. The wrote the trilogy as a grand space opera, a great adventure. It should have ended with a magnificent crescendo, instead it ended with a fizzle and a a pop. And then a cough and a shuffle of feet instead of raucous applause.

[JKA_Nozyspy]

Smitridel wrote...

Also, there is no proof whatsoever that the dissapointed customers are more than the satisfied ones.
The only measure is what you see on that forum and that really isnt that representative.

I get what you mean, but i think the forum population can be used as a reasonable sample size. Afterall, those who like the endings have equal opportunity to post as well as those who dont like them, but we see more posts about what is wrong with the endings rather than what is right.

Similarly, the majority of gaming and even none gaming news/reviews sites that have covered the topic have gone towards agreeing that the endings were terrible rather than that they were brilliant.

I think the whole idea of a 'vocal minority' is a fallacy. Using an argument like that simply presumes that those that actually like something simply cant be bothered to say so, which seems baffling, usually when you like something you want to tell other people about it, right?

Flipping that on its head, you could say that the 'silent majority' also hates the endings, they just either cant be bothered to say so or they dont know where to go to do so.

[TheKbob]

Glad you don't go quote by quote, because I don't read those style posts as they eventually end up trivial. 

If you don't understand how games are developed and how publishers can force even the best developers into strict milestones dates that cause rushed projects, and thus crap endings, then you're out of touch.  

Does/did Bioware want to create a crap ending?  I will venture a strong guess and say no.  Did it happen? Yes.  Why? Business. 

If you think the number of people who like the ending are even on par with the people who don't, then there is no helping your way of thinking.  Even anecdotal as it is, I just posted my completion of the title and had plenty of folks coming out of the woodwork, good, trust friends, telling me how abhorrent the game ending was.  The kind of folks that would never venture to an official forum to debate at length.  These are also the same folks who would never put in time or effort into going onto a forum to find a solution, meaning even if true, Indoctrination Theory is a failure.

This game isn't FEZ, it's not an ARG; it definately is not Inception.  It is supposed to be self contained.  As it stands, it's a bad ending.  The rest of the series and greater portion of the third entry is amazing as it stands, just the last 20 minutes were put together probably in a combination of running out of resources and publisher constraints out of all likelihoods.  Remember, Occam's Razor. I suggest you look into it. 

Modifié par TheKbob, 29 avril 2012 - 09:20 .