449 réponses à ce sujet

[ardensia]

savionen wrote...

ardensia wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

Pro-enders, answer the Joker dilemma. y'know the one where he flies off like a coward, which unless they completely ruined his Character at the end, should not have happened.

sorry if this was already brought up.

Oooh. I'll take this one.

Apparently I'm the only person who felt this way on any side of the ending debate lines, but I wasn't really surprised by his running away. After all, at the beginning of ME2, I had to literally twist his arm and drag him off the old Normandy, and he wasn't sleeping with that one. (And even if he's not sleeping with the SR-2 in your ME3 playthrough, he'd like to be). It wasn't like I hadn't already given him orders to abandon ship. But no. He's still up there punching buttons while there's a GIANT HOLE TO SPACE above where the galaxy map used to be.

And if a giant wave of light that does who knows what is coming at me, and I have a chance to run like hell from it, I'm probably going to run like hell from it, especially if I have the fastest ship in the Alliance fleet and might actually be able to outrun it. I mean, it's not like shooting a thanix cannon at it's going to help. And if it ends up being mostly harmless... well, hey. I've still got the fastest ship in the Alliance fleet. I'll be back there in no time.

Meanwhile, Shepard is supposedly at the center of this ball of light. Which means if it's bad, no one is going to be able to help her, and her troops will be wasting their strength trying. And if it's good/relatively harmless, then assuming Shep's still alive, she can probably take care of herself until help arrives.

Kind of a moot point since they were supposed to be fighting to the death, and this all happens around the time that Shepard is assumed dead or in need of support.

Aside from that I'm one of the people that had dead squadmates suddenly appear on the Normandy.

In the Control ending the explosion/wave also doesn't do any damage, since it just takes control of the Reapers. Why are they still running? Why is there still damage to the Normandy? "Oh god, this flash of light that seems to be making the Reapers retreat, but isn't damaging Alliance ships, LET'S FLEE ANYWAY."

I don't have a lot of time to address this the way I'd like to, since I've got to go see the Avengers (yay!). But I'll try and cover most of it briefly.

First off, a retreat was already called when the team running to the beam got utterly wiped out (except for Shepard and Anderson, but we have no proof anyone knew that). It's fair then to say that a full regrouping and retreat was already under way until the point when Shepard opened the arms of the Citadel and everyone went, "Holy crap! Maybe Shepard actually DID get through!"

But then the Crucible doesn't fire. Hackett tries to get Shep to do something about this, but Shepard passes out before she can reacch the control panel. If you're talking to someone who you expeced to be dead a few minutes earlier, and they are talking in strained sentence fragments and then go dark, you kind of have to assume the worst.

So, why is Shepard able to look out past the Crucible and still see people fighting? 'Cause it takes time to call a full retreat, and let's face it; some of the troops probably aren't going to be keen on listening to Hackett's orders to begin with. Some would rather die than give up, which is what some of them will see retreating as. But as an Alliance soldier on an Alliance ship, Joker's pretty likely to liste to Hackett and follow order.

I realize that bit contains Lots of Speculation, but while there's no proof for it, there's also no proof against it. It is supported both by in-game events and by the nature of battles.

Regarding him fleeing from harmless light like in the Control ending; Joker has no way of knowing the light is harmless until after it hits. Unless some Reapers are flying out past that wave and broadcasting messages saying, "Hey, guys. Shepard convinced us not to kill all y'all after all, so no need to run from the shiny wave of space magic coming toward you!" Joker (and everyone else, really) has no way of knowing what that light will do. All he knows is it looks like a giant shock wave and it's coming for him and his ship.

He can feel like an ass after it hits and does nothing, sure, but until it hits, he has no way of knowing what it will do.

[Samzo77]

 The problems all listed here are based on interpretation of the ending choices. Those interpretations are not at all what I got from the ending.

1.  The first issue I take with this argument is the tying of the red option to the catalysts explanation of the Reapers existence. Personally, I felt the explanation was a bit iffy at best, but I didn't choose red because I thought the Reapers were right. If you get to this point you are asking yourself, "will I sacrifice all current synthetic life to prevent the reapers from ever harvesting again?" It creates a conundrum because you don't want to kill the Geth, or EDI, who have proved to be above dominating organic life. It's about sacrifice, and the cost of sacrifice.

2.  The second issue is the interpretation of the conversation with TIM. TIM thinks he can control the reapers, and you tell him he cannot because it is clear that he is indoctrinated. You also take issue with the means he used to get to this end. Shepard did not do the horrific things that TIM had to gain the ability to control the reapers, and if he had, he would probably be indoctrinated too. TIM shoots himself, not because he realizes he's evil, but because he realizes he is under reaper control the catalyst then confirms his indoctrination is why he could never control them. In this option, Shepard sacrifices himself, but gains control over synthetic life, blocking them from free will.

3.  Finally, you have the view of the green ending. In this ending you thrust a husk like state of being onto all organic life, right? Well Joker didn't look like a husk to me. In this option, Shepard sacrifices only himself, allows synthetic life to keep free will, and creates a link between synthetics and organics. This link could serve as the basis for long lasting peace. We don't know how it plays out, but it allows us to speculate this.

So those are my interpretations.

[botfly10]

Challenge?  Pro-ender?

WTF is this?

Are people that were dissapointed seriously trying to argue others that weren't out of their enjoyment?

Seriously?

This thread is everything that is wrong with the internet.

You just aren't going to prove whether people should or shouldn't like ME3 or its ending.

Its about a personal relationship with the game.  Deal with it.

[Cypher_CS]

Botfly, while I heartily agree with your last statement, this particular topic, though started as you describe it, has become something pretty damn cool.

Read. Read.

[botfly10]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Botfly, while I heartily agree with your last statement, this particular topic, though started as you describe it, has become something pretty damn cool.

Read. Read.

Really?  Is it worth it?  This forum is starting to effect the very positive relationship I have with ME...

[botfly10]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

alienatedflea wrote...

Third, being pro-ending does not mean I would not want to see some changes to the endings (if the endings we have is the real dea) but I am not going to sit around for 2 solid months ****ing about a damn video game either.

And there we go.

You consider it nothing more than "a damn video game." 

Up until the end, it was one of the most moving stories I had ever experienced in my life, in any medium.

So of course we have different levels of investmet. Most pro-enders I meet consider this "just a video game," whereas I considered it a work that had a decent chance of completely vindicating the medium and revitalizing the science fiction genre.

Its still that even if you don't like the last 5 minutes.

[botfly10]

Well, I read through and still think this is an excercise in silliness.

To me it is very interesting to discuss the assumptions people brought
to the final choices and how that affected the meaning of each one for
them.

But, imo, there is no proving exactly what each option means and which
is thus the correct choice. 

To me the whole idea of proving anything in
this context is just silly and a little over the top.

And I'm ok with that,

[ardensia]

botfly10 wrote...

Well, I read through and still think this is an excercise in silliness.

To me it is very interesting to discuss the assumptions people brought
to the final choices and how that affected the meaning of each one for
them.

But, imo, there is no proving exactly what each option means and which
is thus the correct choice. 

To me the whole idea of proving anything in
this context is just silly and a little over the top.

And I'm ok with that,

Well said, and thank you for reading. I think several of us  "pro-enders" are not trying to prove this or that about the exact interpretation of the endings should be so much as trying to get anti-enders to open up to the idea of what the interpretations of the ending can be, since a lot of them are just casting them aside as giant flaming piles of poo.

But as you said, a lot of it has to do with what we each personally brought to the endings, both from the way we played the game and from our own lives. When an experience is that personal, coming around to understanding another person's point of view on it can be difficult, at best. So, while this all says a great deal about the depth of immersion and storytelling BioWare was able to create with this game, trying to convince other people to take a different approach to the end may very well be an exercise in futility.

But it's also lead to some very interesting discussion from both sides... when it's not leading to pettiness and name-calling.  When they ask for discussion, such as the OP here did, I might step in because I like to discuss... but in the end, it's always to each his own.

[Hudathan]

Psile_01 wrote...

The problem with everything you've stated is that it basically requires the player to guess at what is going to happen. Are the mass relays going to be rebuilt? Is most of the international fleet going to die a horrible starving death? What, exactly, is going to happen to your crew? Answer: we don't know. Every argument is just as valid as the last because we are combing though every codex entry and inane line of dialogue trying to find out. At the end of the day we don't know so it leaves more questions than answers which is always a fail ending.

It will be a waste of time trying to list all the great works of fiction with open endings that did not give all the answers. Saying that a story must follow a particular formula and then complaining that it's bad simply because it's not formulaic according to arbitrary rules is plain wrong at the end of the day.

Modifié par Hudathan, 06 mai 2012 - 12:11 .

[Taboo]

Being Pro-ending is not a crime.

Disliking the endings is not a crime.

Acting like an amorous baboon that can't be satisfied is.

[Shaigunjoe]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Being Pro-ending is not a crime.

Disliking the endings is not a crime.

Acting like an amorous baboon that can't be satisfied is.

Don't think thats a crime either, probably would fall under party foul though.

[Saint Op]

Hudathan wrote...

Psile_01 wrote...

The problem with everything you've stated is that it basically requires the player to guess at what is going to happen. Are the mass relays going to be rebuilt? Is most of the international fleet going to die a horrible starving death? What, exactly, is going to happen to your crew? Answer: we don't know. Every argument is just as valid as the last because we are combing though every codex entry and inane line of dialogue trying to find out. At the end of the day we don't know so it leaves more questions than answers which is always a fail ending.

It will be a waste of time trying to list all the great works of fiction with open endings that did not give all the answers. Saying that a story must follow a particular formula and then complaining that it's bad simply because it's not formulaic according to arbitrary rules is plain wrong at the end of the day.

But is it wrong in the early morning?  Its an odd thing to me when people are complaining that all these negitive things are happening when it's what they created for themselves. While also saying that the game forces them into an ending that they can't create themselves... But oh well live by the sword..

[Holger1405]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

alienatedflea wrote...

Third, being pro-ending does not mean I would not want to see some changes to the endings (if the endings we have is the real dea) but I am not going to sit around for 2 solid months ****ing about a damn video game either.

And there we go.

You consider it nothing more than "a damn video game." 

Up until the end, it was one of the most moving stories I had ever experienced in my life, in any medium.

So of course we have different levels of investmet. Most pro-enders I meet consider this "just a video game," whereas I considered it a work that had a decent chance of completely vindicating the medium and revitalizing the science fiction genre.

I don't consider Mass Effect "a damn video game", I consider it the best damn video Game I ever Played, (beside BG2) and I Play Computer games for 30 Years now.
Still, I have only small Problems with the ending, and only with the delivery, not with the overall logic.  Furthermore, and with all due respect, imho your assumption that the most pro-enders, have less " investmet" is , well, a assumption.

[ardensia]

Holger1405 wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

alienatedflea wrote...

Third, being pro-ending does not mean I would not want to see some changes to the endings (if the endings we have is the real dea) but I am not going to sit around for 2 solid months ****ing about a damn video game either.

And there we go.

You consider it nothing more than "a damn video game." 

Up until the end, it was one of the most moving stories I had ever experienced in my life, in any medium.

So of course we have different levels of investmet. Most pro-enders I meet consider this "just a video game," whereas I considered it a work that had a decent chance of completely vindicating the medium and revitalizing the science fiction genre.

I don't consider Mass Effect "a damn video game", I consider it the best damn video Game I ever Played, (beside BG2) and I Play Computer games for 30 Years now.
Still, I have only small Problems with the ending, and only with the delivery, not with the overall logic.  Furthermore, and with all due respect, imho your assumption that the most pro-enders, have less " investmet" is , well, a assumption.

I'm going to have to second Holger1405's statement.

I have never been as invested in a story in any medium than I was in the entirety of Mass Effect. No, the ending isn't perfect, and honestly, I've never thought the storytelling was perfect. But at the same time, I think it's the closest I've experienced to date.

I actually found myself genuinely mad at BioWare for a bit after the game... not because of the endings, but because they made me fall so deeply in love with a world that will never truly exist. I'll never get to ask a salarian to talk slower, or a turian if I can touch their crest... just once, so I know what they feel like, or make terrible jokes about the way krogan smell with my friends, or a hundred other things.

And even if, at some point in my lifetime, we run into another sentient alien race, and we manage to work through the cultural and language barriers to reach the sort of understanding most of the advanced races in Mass Effect have reached, I won't have the experience of growing up with them, or going to school with them, or anything like that.

I've read stories and watched shows and movies where I wanted to experience the world, but never so much and so personally as I've wanted the world of ME to be real... enough that I was genuinely mad at the creators of the world for painting such a beautiful lie for me. I'm not mad about it anymore, but it does still make me a little sad.

I guess the best we can hope for is that future generations will get to experience something similar in their real lives, and that some of them, at least, won't take it for granted.

Modifié par ardensia, 06 mai 2012 - 09:30 .

[Orumon]

Sisterofshane wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

All of these are incredibly, amusingly easy to attack, but I don't really have the time. I'm playing Myst IV!

If you accept the Catalyst's Logic and prophecy, then the ending makes sense.  Simple as that.

At least that's the only real counterpoint I've ever heard

Trouble, being with that counterpoint is: the catalyst brings no examples to back up his statement. He just assumes you'll take his word, OR he's simply lying.

[Cypher_CS]

No.... *bashes head into the table*

You don't actually need to accept it's logic and prophecy, just accept that it believes this logic.

Completely different things.

[Shaigunjoe]

Cypher_CS wrote...
No.... *bashes head into the table*

I feel your pain.

[Holger1405]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...
No.... *bashes head into the table*

I feel your pain.

Me too.

[psrz]

Cypher_CS wrote...

No.... *bashes head into the table*

You don't actually need to accept it's logic and prophecy, just accept that it believes this logic.

Completely different things.

So someone believes in their own logic, regardless of its value.
That's fantastic. How's is that relevant ?

[Mcfly616]

Whether he believes his own logic or not, the endings suck for so many reasons that have been listed so many times....the ending sucks because so many people are even taking the time to list the reasons it sucks, all off the top of their heads

If you can find somewhere in yourself to love the ending in some dark ambiguous light, well I'd have to assume that you probably think the Matrix sequals were great or maybe you are just a nihilist or even a sadist....

Bottom line, the endings are so well known beyond the video game medium, not because they're good....but because they're so awful that the backlash was echoed worldwide....

The sadists, nihilists, and fans of the Matrix sequals are in the minority....no matter how much they deny it or fight it, its just an obvious fact.

A dark ambiguous ending has no place as the conclusion of a trilogy. It works with a stand-alone story(Inception) or in the middle part of a trilogy (Empire Strikes Back)....but not to the end of Space Opera trilogy or any trilogy from any genre for that matter....

It doesn't work and there's never been a time when it has....

The ending sucks not only because of how poorly executed it was, but because Bioware even had that type of ending as the sole ending of the entire Shepard saga....not one of the "endings"....it was "the" ending....

And it sucked....

[Cypher_CS]

psrz, it's relevant because you don't actually have to believe it's right, but that it believes it's logic, to make a choice.

Then it's a matter of Game Theory, really.
You think it's bull****ting and you just want to destroy it.
You think it's bull****ting and you crave the power over the Galaxy.
You think it's bull****ting, yet you don't want to take the risk and want to see for yourself.
You think it's bull****ting, yet you'd rather hedge your bets and maybe fulfill or achieve another sort of peace.

Whatever, it becomes a matter of hedging bets.
That's the point of accepting that it believes that logic.

McFly, cool sweeping statements. Got any shred of data to back it up?
Like all the minority talk?
I mean, surely, if these facts are so obvious, they'll be really easy to find, won't they?

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

[Eire Icon]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Orumon wrote...

Trouble, being with that counterpoint is: the catalyst brings no examples to back up his statement. He just assumes you'll take his word, OR he's simply lying.

That's the single real problem with the ending, imo. Lack of exposition.

But I think the point is that the Catalyst dosen't need to back up his statement or logic. He believes it to be true, from his point of view he does not need Shepard to believe it also

Why does Shepard not argue or debate the point with him ? - He can't, the catalysts logic cannot be disproved, Shepard has no option but to accept it (ie accept the catalyst believes it)

If someone is pointing a gun at my head and telling me they are going to shoot me because I wronged them when I know full well that I did not, my primary concern is not convincing them that they're wrong or trying to work out why they believe what they believe, its making sure they don't kill me

Modifié par Eire Icon, 08 mai 2012 - 04:41 .

[ardensia]

Eire Icon wrote...
Why does Shepard not argue or debate the point with him ? 

Also, Shepard is bleeding out at this point. Debate is all well and good when you are sure you're not going to keel over and die in the next 5 seconds, but... it takes metagame knowledge to think you actually have that time.

The rest of your point was good, too. I'm just feeling lazy about formatting tonight.

[Hudathan]

There HAS been plenty of examples in Shepard's personal experience for him/her to not be sure when it comes to questioning the Catalyst's logic.

Even though it's possible to gain the support of the Geth in ME3, it's nothing more than an isolated example and not a sound argument against the Catalyst. In Shepard's own time, he/she has personally seen the potential for conflict between organics and synthetics.

The Overlord AI and pre-Cerberus EDI went far to show that advanced synthetic life is simply more capable and more powerful than organic life can possibly measure up to. Just one of those can potentially destroy organic life on the level the Catalyst is trying to prevent, and we react violently in the game by stomping out such threats every time they appeared in the story.

Outside of Shepard's own experiences, Javik also gives insight into similar conflicts in his cycle, showing that the progress of technology is terrifying in its uncertainty. So the Geth either gets wiped out or become friendly, does that mean they will stay friendly for all eternity? It's plausible to assume that they will continue advancing, what if they do so in a dangerous way and reach a different consensus down the line?

What if another form of synthetic life arise in a part of space not under council supervision and goes on to obtain control and proceeds to enact its own form of dominance over the galaxy? They would be like Reapers who do not limit themselves to only advanced forms of life. They might wipe out all life in one broad stroke while not having a second thought about it along the way.

Knowing what we know about the potential dangers of synthetic life as presented in ME, can anyone really say for sure that it will NEVER get out of hand even though we've already come frighteningly close in our own time?

If Shepard assumes that eternal peace between organics and synthetics has been reached simply because the Geth was convinced to cooperate, then Shepard has the most gullible child-like mind in the galaxy.

Shepard didn't bother arguing with the Catalyst because he/she was tired, dying, and honestly wasn't really sure that the Catalyst was wrong. Arguing to the contrary would actually be ignoring everything we've been shown in the story and turning a nuanced, interesting premise into a black/white perspective on the universe when it's anything but.