157 réponses à ce sujet

[Ghost Lightning]

I think all the people complaining about the ending are doing it wrong. The problem with ME3's ending isn't the content. It's the execution. I can see what they were going for, but what I ended up feeling was definitely not what they wanted.....unless they hate their fans. Which they don't! I think....please don't flame me......trololol

[Tallin Harperson]

Siegdrifa wrote...

It does. an artefact that unleash an amount of power far beyond what is knows in the univers where the story take place, is by definition deus (god / divine), ex (from) machina (device / artefact / object).

If, for exemple, they used the lore to find a way through a better understanding of indoctrination, dark energy, eezo and all other source of energy already known or somewhat knwon, or already met, we are not talking anymore about a power from unknown sources. Wich would make the crucible as belivable as the genophage cure or FTL stealth system.

My problem is not the crucible and his repercution itself, it's his introduction and production, wich are totaly given.
The Me lore is rich enough to shape a solution for itself, and IMO understanding why sovereign was left nearly innactive after saren body was destroyed under sovereign's control was a pointer to a reaper fatal weakness.
If they had put those knowledge together with the crucible it wouldn't have been a deus ex, because we would have used knwoledge already etablished in ME to exploit a weakness we already witnessed, and the player would have felt more satisfied because it would have requiere a better understanding and exploiting our experience learned from the previous game and reapers encounter.

Like i said, the genophage cure do it really well, it's a shame the crucible wasn't as convincing.

Just because it is what the Latin words literally mean doesn't mean it is the plot device you refer to. See my edit. A deus ex machina means that the hero has failed at what he set out to do, then something appears out of nowhere that takes things into its own hands and fixes it. It does not mean a literal "god from the machine," nor does it have to be one. Shepard does not fail, he perseveres, and that is the culmination of the story. Shepard succeeds at what he sets out to do in the way he set out to do it. There is nothing inherently wrong with using a device more powerful than anything seen before with a power source not previously established so long as it is built up to be just that, which it is. The Crucible makes sense within the game world because it is established within the game world. It is a tool used to defeat the Reapers by means unknown. Nothing contradicts this within the game world, and it is pointed out at several places throughout the game.

Modifié par Tallin Harperson, 09 mai 2012 - 03:56 .

[Siegdrifa]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Siegdrifa wrote...

It does. an artefact that unleash an amount of power far beyond what is knows in the univers where the story take place, is by definition deus (god / divine), ex (from) machina (device / artefact / object).

No, no, no, no, no, no.........

Seriously. Type it into your search bar, and you'll see mutliple explanations--and none of them that.

Yes, thank you :


Définition
Intervention d'un Dieu descendu de la scène au moyen d'une machine.
Dénouement plus heureux que vraisemblable d'une situation tragique. Dans les tragédies antiques, il arrivait fréquemment que la catastrophe se dénouait tout à coup, à la complète satisfaction des spectateurs, au moyen d'un dieu qu'une machine faisait subitement descendre du ciel sur le théâtre. Dans nos pièces modernes, le notaire qui apporte un héritage, l'oncle d'Amérique, revenant juste à temps pour tirer d'embarras son neveu ou sa nièce, voilà ce qui remplace le Deus ex machina.

It is clearly stated in this definition, and by extent, a deus ex machina is a given solution to solve a problem quicly, here with : " le notaire qui apporte un héritage " but there is numerous exemple, the problem is the introduction of nearly devine essence in a context to remove quickly a problem.
Problem : how do we destroy the reaper ?
Instantanous solution : by building this ubber weapon.
Thanks. how we can stop them is not a problem anymore.

[Tallin Harperson]

Siegdrifa wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Siegdrifa wrote...

It does. an artefact that unleash an amount of power far beyond what is knows in the univers where the story take place, is by definition deus (god / divine), ex (from) machina (device / artefact / object).

No, no, no, no, no, no.........

Seriously. Type it into your search bar, and you'll see mutliple explanations--and none of them that.

Yes, thank you :


Définition
Intervention d'un Dieu descendu de la scène au moyen d'une machine.
Dénouement plus heureux que vraisemblable d'une situation tragique. Dans les tragédies antiques, il arrivait fréquemment que la catastrophe se dénouait tout à coup, à la complète satisfaction des spectateurs, au moyen d'un dieu qu'une machine faisait subitement descendre du ciel sur le théâtre. Dans nos pièces modernes, le notaire qui apporte un héritage, l'oncle d'Amérique, revenant juste à temps pour tirer d'embarras son neveu ou sa nièce, voilà ce qui remplace le Deus ex machina.

It is clearly stated in this definition, and by extent, a deus ex machina is a given solution to solve a problem quicly, here with : " le notaire qui apporte un héritage " but there is numerous exemple, the problem is the introduction of nearly devine essence in a context to remove quickly a problem.
Problem : how do we destroy the reaper ?
Instantanous solution : by building this ubber weapon.
Thanks. how we can stop them is not a problem anymore.

Notice the word "quickly." It doesn't happen quickly. The Crucible requires development and struggle, and that is the difference between the Crucible and a deus ex machina. A deus ex machina doesn't develop, it merely is. If the Crucible arrived fully formed without Shepard having to fight to get it built and protected until it could be used, it would be a deus ex machina.

Modifié par Tallin Harperson, 09 mai 2012 - 04:08 .

[meatsack]

Tallin Harperson wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

That awkward moment when you realize OP isn't aware that how similar all three endings turn out.

How so? One ends with the Geth and Reapers destroyed (and Shep may be alive), another with the Reapers controlled and the Geth potentially still around and yet another with everyone with a little bit of the "other side" built into their makeup. Not to mention the multiple other things that one affects throughout the game. The fate of the Rachni or Krogan, and whether they are for you or against you, for instance. Don't confuse the similarity of the cutscenes with similarity in the endings. The galaxy is as completely different as your Shepard made it. Hopefully the EC will expand on this, but the differences are still there. Whether they are shown in the final cutscene or not, the things you did throughout the game still happened.

Thank you sir.  This was a point I was trying to make in a previous post . . . you just did it so much better than I.

[Siegdrifa]

Tallin Harperson wrote...

Siegdrifa wrote...

It does. an artefact that unleash an amount of power far beyond what is knows in the univers where the story take place, is by definition deus (god / divine), ex (from) machina (device / artefact / object).

If, for exemple, they used the lore to find a way through a better understanding of indoctrination, dark energy, eezo and all other source of energy already known or somewhat knwon, or already met, we are not talking anymore about a power from unknown sources. Wich would make the crucible as belivable as the genophage cure or FTL stealth system.

My problem is not the crucible and his repercution itself, it's his introduction and production, wich are totaly given.
The Me lore is rich enough to shape a solution for itself, and IMO understanding why sovereign was left nearly innactive after saren body was destroyed under sovereign's control was a pointer to a reaper fatal weakness.
If they had put those knowledge together with the crucible it wouldn't have been a deus ex, because we would have used knwoledge already etablished in ME to exploit a weakness we already witnessed, and the player would have felt more satisfied because it would have requiere a better understanding and exploiting our experience learned from the previous game and reapers encounter.

Like i said, the genophage cure do it really well, it's a shame the crucible wasn't as convincing.

Just because it is what the Latin words literally mean doesn't mean it is the plot device you refer to. See my edit. A deus ex machina means that the hero has failed at what he set out to do, then something appears out of nowhere that takes things into its own hands and fixes it. It does not mean a literal "god from the machine," nor does it have to be one. Shepard does not fail, he perseveres, and that is the culmination of the story. Shepard succeeds at what he sets out to do in the way he set out to do it. There is nothing inherently wrong with using a device more powerful than anything seen before with a power source not previously established so long as it is built up to be just that, which it is. The Crucible makes sense within the game world because it is established within the game world. It is a tool used to defeat the Reapers by means unknown. Nothing contradicts this within the game world, and it is pointed out at several places throughout the game.

I agree, that' why i said what matter is how is given the solution, by using a way that we can't achieve on our own.
I'have written it multiple time clearly in my previous post i guess.

For exemple if one character come with the idea that no body heard of from technologie nobody heard before, it would still be a deus ex machina. That the solution fall from the sky, or that a character give you the idea based on knowledge unknwon is the same.
Why you think i insist on using knwoledge based from ME lore ?

[meatsack]

Tallin Harperson wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

Selene Moonsong wrote...

ME 3 wrote...

@meatsack
A deus ex machina is a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly solved with the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability, or object.
It's latin and its the reason the ending is complete rubbish

One fatal flaw in the deus ex machina assertion is that ME 3 is loaded foreshadowing, beginning with the blueprints found on Mars for the device, and it did not come out of the blue. What the device does is a complete unknown and there are multiple conversations having concerns about what it actually does. The only thing they know about it is that it is extremely powerful and are willing to risk it for the sheer fact that conventional means aren't likely to defeat the reapers.

Catalyst, not Crucible.

The Catalyst is the final part of the Crucible, and is mentioned and  foreshadowed to be something unexpected. It is therefore not a DEM. A DEM has no mention or foreshadowing prior to its appearance. A surprise when a surprise is foreshadowed doesn't fall under the definition.

Agreed.  One of the threads throughout the game was the search for the Catalyst.  They didn't know what it was or that it would manifest itself as an actual intelligence.  But it was a story element defined right from the start.

[meatsack]

oFAo HypNoSis wrote...

I hope ME3 ending is good because I have been a hardcore fan for about 2 months and I really like it. The road ahead looks foggy...

Don't let our discussion effect your enjoyment of the game / series.  Best to play through, experience the journey for yourself ( its a hell of a ride )and at the end, form your opinion.

[Siegdrifa]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Siegdrifa wrote...

Yes, thank you :


Définition
Intervention d'un Dieu descendu de la scène au moyen d'une machine.
Dénouement plus heureux que vraisemblable d'une situation tragique. Dans les tragédies antiques, il arrivait fréquemment que la catastrophe se dénouait tout à coup, à la complète satisfaction des spectateurs, au moyen d'un dieu qu'une machine faisait subitement descendre du ciel sur le théâtre. Dans nos pièces modernes, le notaire qui apporte un héritage, l'oncle d'Amérique, revenant juste à temps pour tirer d'embarras son neveu ou sa nièce, voilà ce qui remplace le Deus ex machina.

It is clearly stated in this definition, and by extent, a deus ex machina is a given solution to solve a problem quicly, here with : " le notaire qui apporte un héritage " but there is numerous exemple, the problem is the introduction of nearly devine essence in a context to remove quickly a problem.
Problem : how do we destroy the reaper ?
Instantanous solution : by building this ubber weapon.
Thanks. how we can stop them is not a problem anymore.

The fact that you're using non-English in an English forum makes me think you deliberately stayed away from such classics as Miriam-Webster, or something like Wikipedia...

And, no. you're wrong about that last part. This is it:

Problem 1/3rd into the trilogy (end of ME1): How do we defeat the Reapers?

Solution 2/3rds into trilogy (beginning of ME3): Build this uber weapon.

You're welcome.

My excuse dear lord, i didn't know english had the monople of Deus Ex Machina definition above all language from words not being english.
Fear not, i'll pass the word for you your grace.

And i'm not wrong when i say the solution of destroyng reaper is fixed as quicly as some would ask the question.
Unles you are not intrested about "why and how" the crucible accomplish his task.

[Tallin Harperson]

Siegdrifa wrote...

I agree, that' why i said what matter is how is given the solution, by using a way that we can't achieve on our own.
I'have written it multiple time clearly in my previous post i guess.

For exemple if one character come with the idea that no body heard of from technologie nobody heard before, it would still be a deus ex machina. That the solution fall from the sky, or that a character give you the idea based on knowledge unknwon is the same.
Why you think i insist on using knwoledge based from ME lore ?

It didn't fall from the sky, as I previously established. It came from the Protheans (later revealed to be more than that, but still, from the Protheans) -- an established (and at this point only, outside of the Reapers themselves) source of Reaper lore -- through an established expert on the Protheans. This is knowledge based on ME lore. It didn't come out of nowhere and suddenly make everything better. If Shepard gave up at any point, the Reapers would not have been stopped because his struggle is why the galaxy succeeded, not the Crucible. The Crucible was simply the means he used to do it by gathering what was needed to build, protect and use it with his own sweat and blood...

Modifié par Tallin Harperson, 09 mai 2012 - 04:21 .

[Tallin Harperson]

I feel like we're arguing in circles now, but what it comes down to is this: you didn't feel the lore was enough to support the Crucible, I did. It is opinion, and not some objective truth that makes one of us like (or at least not hate) the ending, and the other dislike it.

[Chapity]

Wow. To give the op props, glad you enjoyed the ride. Now start the ng+ game and get with insanity because that's where the fun is. To the endless debate on plots holes and deus ex machinas, does it get old being right all the time? I mean, are you so smart that nothing surprises you? I bet it sucks not being able to suspend disbelief. Why, sci fi must just be a bore. I believe it was said best by Oscar Wilde: "I thank god every day that I'm not young enough to know everything".

[Siegdrifa]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Siegdrifa wrote...

My excuse dear lord, i didn't know english had the monople of Deus Ex Machina definition above all language from words not being english.
Fear not, i'll pass the word for you your grace.

And i'm not wrong when i say the solution of destroyng reaper is fixed as quicly as some would ask the question.
Unles you are not intrested about "why and how" the crucible accomplish his task.

Oh, it doesn't.

But you're on an English forum. I don't go into the German forums here (that occasionally pop up in my "everyone" feed) and start speaking English.

I though you were talking about when it was introduced. My mistake. You're right about it being fixed very very qickly--but remember all the work it took to get there: all of the work on the Crucible.

No it doesn't, i was on the battle field most of the time, i didn't work on it, i didn't learn how it works, and didn't uncover how it could affect the reapers, i wasn't in charge of the crucible.
And that is the problem. If building was done from our knowledge and experience of ME1 & 2, i would have felt it.
Unknown weapon, unknwon power, unknown use ... nope, i didn't work hard, really.


(off topic:-----------------------------------------------------------
Since you are german, you must be familliar with the nibelungenlied, and you must also know there is other versions, Sigurdr story had variation after all those centuries and different culture interpretation, i can't help but smile when one vouche for "the real / the original" one, as the original is already forgotten in the abyss of history, and the best we can is being aware of all version. Even if it's obvious Siegfried is not the original hero, it doesn't mean his version doesn't bring faire point to the older version.
If you want to deny what other culture state you could miss some intresting new perspective, but it doesn't mean you have to like a agree with them).------------------------

[Tallin Harperson]

Siegdrifa wrote...
(off topic:-----------------------------------------------------------
Since you are german, you must be familliar with the nibelungenlied, and you must also know there is other versions, Sigurdr story had variation after all those centuries and different culture interpretation, i can't help but smile when one vouche for "the real / the original" one, as the original is already forgotten in the abyss of history, and the best we can is being aware of all version. Even if it's obvious Siegfried is not the original hero, it doesn't mean his version doesn't bring faire point to the older version.
If you want to deny what other culture state you could miss some intresting new perspective, but it doesn't mean you have to like a agree with them).------------------------

*smile* While I haven't made an kind of in-depth study of it, I do have a passing knowledge. I first became interested after I read Stephen Donaldson's Gap Cycle, which is sort of a Sci Fi retelling of Wagner's Ring Cycle, which, of course, draws from the Nibelungenlied.

[Siegdrifa]

Tallin Harperson wrote...

I feel like we're arguing in circles now, but what it comes down to is this: you didn't feel the lore was enough to support the Crucible, I did. It is opinion, and not some objective truth that makes one of us like (or at least not hate) the ending, and the other dislike it.

On subjective subject i wouldn't dare argue. If it did for you, then it did, unless you are lyng to me.
I would never argue what color or food you like or should prefer, and how much you need to make it work for you.

For the same i would belive someone telling he like or hate the ending, if this is how he feels so be it.
Now someone sayng he likes and it raise no questions, i wouldn't agree at all, but i wouldn't intend to prove he is wrong to like it.
One can like what is not well made, and hate something but still reconise it is an awesome work.

The best side is to be with those who likes anyway, because they can enjoy it while the other can't.

[Bluko]

meatsack wrote...
So I just finished my first play
through of ME3 last night ( I know, 2 months seems like a long time
but with 2 kids under 6 time is a rare commodity for me )
I first want to say the ME3 in IMHO the
best game of the 3 . . . fantastic story, emotionally engaging ( yes
I teared up a few times, here is my man card, take it ) and great
game play( on a pc, I found the cover system much improved over ME2).
Definite game of the year for 2012 if not the last 5 years.

The cover system is sort of better. Though on the 360 I can attest to the fact that A Button that "does everything" is kind of problematic. I'd roll a little bit more then I would have liked. Also rolling seems a bit silly and honestly I'd rather have a crouch function. As for the emotional engagment that will differ for everyone. Some of the scenes were legitimately touching others felt kind of shoehorned to me. Legion's fate in particular seems odd if not outright dumb to me. Of course one of the biggest problems I have with ME3 is the lack of explanation for anything. Barely anything gets explained via dialogue besides "the mission". Which feels like a step down from the previous two games which if you wanted you could pick people's brain for all the little details.

meatsack wrote.. 
I thought the ending was brillant. Now
before you start shouting "Troll" at me . . . let me
explain.

I think it really boils down to how you
viewed the game ... Mass Effect, to me, has at its core always been a
Sci-fi epic. Although the primary theme through the trilogy has been
focused on the threat of the Reapers, the core sci-fi elements have
always been carried along through all 3 games . . .Who are the
reapers, who built them, why do they repeat this 50,000 year cycle of
destruction, and what does it all mean for the future of humanity.

The Mass Effect trilogy, in my view,
was never destined to be wrapped up in a "we win, and everyone
lives happily ever after " final.

It's funny though none of that is explained yet you still find it "brilliant". Now I'm not saying I expected every single thing about the Reapers to be explained, but what was presented was awfully brief if not insufficient to be convincing. The Reaper's  whole purpose is awfully stupid. Quite frankly I think it's something only people who have an inherent fear of machines can buy. Which doesn't make sense as a greater part of Mass Effect was spent trying to establish that A.I.s are living things too. There simply is no credible evidence for the Reapers claims. And their methods are still horrendous...

The Green Ending is completely impossible and insensible. And I must really question a person's intelligence to even go along with such a thing. Seriously even with a bare minimum High School education you should not be that naive unless you totally slept through Biology. Machines don't and can't have "Genetics". Seriously Red and Blue ending might be plausible... but Green is just total bananas.


Look I'm not someone who needs or even wants a "happy ending" where we just simply beat the Reapers. In fact Shepard dying at the end is a reasonable conclusion and one I would expect. Actually the kind I prefer. Though I do think Shepard should have the possibility to live. But the current ending is so chalk full of nonsense it is intolerable for me.  Even if by some terrible fchance Indoctrination isn't true... I will continue to make that my explanation because it literally is just too stupid to take literally. I'd have honestly preferred that in the end the Reapers always win. To me that would have at least been a proper conclusion.

The current ending makes so many leaps of logic that it's really something I feel needs to be questioned. I can only hope in your second playthrough that you too will finally realize that something is amiss more then just a few "sloppy" scenes. Ignorance may be bliss, but then that kind of negates the purpose of being sentient if you ask me.

[Bluko]

AlanC9 wrote...

Selene Moonsong wrote...
One fatal flaw in the deus ex machina assertion is that ME 3 is loaded foreshadowing, beginning with the blueprints found on Mars for the device, and it did not come out of the blue. What the device does is a complete unknown and there are multiple conversations having concerns about what it actually does. The only thing they know about it is that it is extremely powerful and are willing to risk it for the sheer fact that conventional means aren't likely to defeat the reapers.

QFT. My god, how could anyone not expect some kind of wacky space magic after hearing what we heard? I don't see how Bio could have foreshadowed this any more than they did.

While the Crucible isn't the worst plot device I don't believe it was foreshadowed very well. It's only something we happen to find out about in ME3. Gee ain't that lucky? If something regarding the Crucible had been mentioned in ME1 or ME2 that would have been better. But with ME3 I get the distinction impression it was sort of made up as they went along. I don't consider that high caliber storytelling. Granted I'm aware it's a video game, but when Bioware toutes the "story" aspect so much I'd expect something that's better thought out. Whenever you do anything you must have a clear end goal. And that should apply to writing as well. You may not have every minute detail planned but you should have a very clear idea of what's going to happen with each "Act".


As for the Crucible itself... I expected it's function to be explained. Currently it isn't. It simply allows for "new possibilities". And of those none of those  possibilites make a whole lot of sense either I don't think anybody expects a blueprint of the thing. But it'd be nice to know what it actually does considering we literally spent an entire 30-40 hour game essentially building the thing. To say it just does "stuff" is kind of infuriating. I mean what does it do? Why does it do it? These are real simple questions that should have been answered. You know  maybe the Crucible is a giant laser weapon. Maybe it's a time machine. Maybe it's a mass relay.

Or hell maybe the Crucible doesn't actually do anything and is a clever Reaper mouse trap we fell for. For all intents and purposes the Crucible may as well not exist since it ultimately serves no purpose other then giving Shepard something to do. Which honestly you didn't really need anyways considering the Reapers are here killing stuff. I expected the Crucible to do something a little more then just enable 3 choices. Which is all it does and for no seemingly apparent reason too I might add.


That said I still strongly suspect the Crucible is some kind of a Reaper Trap. The fact the Reapers do nothing to stop it's existence is kind of telling that it's a sort  Death Star II type thing. Like oh gee guys we totally left this thing here that might help you. So uhh don't use it!


It's actually the main reason why I'm convinced the ending is Indoctrination. Everything about it seems way too convenient. And for the Reapers to ignore it just seems extra stupid. Though interestingly enough the ending does basically imply it's a Reaper Device. And err Reaper Devices are usally bad. Be nice if Cerberus did actually have a legitimate reason to oppose us for once.

[Gogzilla]

[quote]meatsack wrote...

[quote]Gogzilla wrote...

I feel sad that you think ME3 had a hardcore Sci-Fi ending
I like hardcore sci-fi and this is not it.

[/quote]

I feel sad you don't think the ending was good Sci-fi and did not like it.

[/quote]

I am sad i don't like it either ,
i usually like most things regardless of critcal disdain or popular opinion. This is the first time i find myself on the other side of the line.

But i want to calrify that i did not write my post to say that you should not like the ending
But i felt i needed to defend Hard Sci-fi. Whatever ME3's ending is its not an example of good Hard sci-fi.

Saying it is just devalues hard sci-fi.

[quote]
[quote]

Mass effect pulls from all sorts of sci-fi , it presents a mishmash which is not star trek not star wars and not babylon 5 but close to all three.
[/quote]
And this is a bad thing.  They may not have nailed it 100% but pulling the best of what made these series great and incorporating them into Mass Effect is, IMHO a good idea.

Can you clarify, did you dislike the game as a whole or just the ending.
[/quote]

In fact i adore the series for it mishmash of everything i like about sci-fi.

I will say that i liked the series as a whole,
I had problems with the execution now and then but i can look past that and appriciate it as whole
but it all ultimately seemed pointless to me by the end.

However my point was while this is a mishmash that has its own style. That style while incorporating hard sci-fi elements now and then, never really focused on them with regards to the main plot. It was never genre or style specific , the ending however trys to be hard sci-fi without any of the set up needed to have it in there.


[quote]
[quote]
The ending tried to be Deus Ex all of a sudden without any of the requisite build up or focus on the ideas in question.
[/quote]

I've never played Deus Ex so the reference is lost on me.
[/quote]

In the most basic sense,
You spend the game being introduced to an issue, getting varrious perspective on said issue, being challenged on your opnnions, All which culminates in 2 more choices on how you want ro resolve the issue given all you have seen and experienced so far.

ME3 does all of that in the span of 5 min while also introducing a new charecter.

[quote]
[quote]
Can you tell me how any of the characters in the game feel about any of the endings ?

Can you at least tell me what their disposition was to any of the endings?

Do you have any idea how you choices have impacted the galaxy at all ?
[/quote]
As I said in my origional post, I still do have quesions, the ones you've raised here being some of them.  It is my hope Bioware can address them all in the EC DLC.
[/quote]

My point was the fact that they had to introduce a charecter in the last 5 min is just to try to be hard sci-fi without any of the set up needed to have it in there.
, No other charecter in the game could have filled that role to move the plot forward. by introucing a new charecter who than had to introduce a new conflict and then explain the background to that conflict and than explain the three possible solutions to that conflict.
The outcomes of all three being unknowns.

If you can't answer how any of the charecters may react or what they think about regarding the final choice in the game.
Then you have something that does not relate to the rest of story.

The point of Hard sci-fi is to pose and issue or scenerio go through it in detail and present a conclusion to challenge what you think.

In ME3 all that is told to you through a few lines of dialogue and from just one single perspective.

Thats not good hard sci-fi and debatable as wether it is hard sci-fi, as there is very little challengeing of views going on.

It is more like the ending of surrogates and gamer which try to be sci-fi.
Than a classic like Blade Runner.

It feels forced artifical and devalues the journey.

[quote]
[quote]
In Me1 and Me2 don't have this problem.
They spend the entire game giving you perspective and subjective reasons to pick one choice or the other.
[/quote]
And your saying that is not the case with ME3?   I was presented with many choices, which resulted in who lived and who died, the future of entire races being decided by my choice, who was with me in the final push etc etc  ( can't be more specific without crossing the spoiler boundry )
[/quote]

In ME1 the issue of you final choice is humanitys place in the galaxy.
You spend the entire game talking about that issue and hearing alost everyones perspective on it. You even hear about the place other species have in the Citadle Council political stucture.

When at a critical point Shepard has to make a choice you can do so with all that you have been told and shown. You know what most species and Charecters feel about what can be decided and what is decided.

In ME2 the question do you trust Cerberus, do the ends always justify the means.
All the charecters deal with this issue(think about all the loyalty missions and the choices you can make) in one way or the other its bought up in almost every sub-polt and at the end You know what you need to know about cerberus and you should have deided as to wether or not the ends can justify the means.

In ME3 there is a war against the reapers which acts a catalyst for change, people and species can live or die based on your choices of what that change is like.
and then the ending borrows from issues talked about in the game at what point ?

How is anything you do in that entire game realated to the ending ?

[quote]
[quote]
I mean what does the ending ultimately mean , its not up to the viewer none of whats happening come up anytime before the ending.
[/quote]
And when it really boils down to it, isn't that the issue.  People had a pre-concieved idea of how the series was to end.  But Bioware decided to take it in a direction of their choosing ( their reason is anyones guess at this point ).
Is it right for all the crap they've taken because of it.  Mass Effect is their story, should they not end it on their terms?
[/quote]

Your right it is not what i expected and not what a lot people expected.

When i watch a movie based on a true story the last thing i expect is for it to end in a zombie apocalypse.

Its not unreasonable to expect consitency in style, format and theme.

Trying to have a Hard sci-fi ending don't make the games hard sci fi. At the same time having hard sci-fi ending on something that clearly can't deal with the themes or issues without a lot more exposition does not make sloppy writing Hard sci-fi.

But you missed the point , i was asking

How anything in the ending is related to whats in the rest of the game ?

[quote]
[quote]
Hard Sci-fi have powerful endings that usually show meaning , add perspective or at the very least make you ask questions you never considered before. They challenge ideas and place the onus on the viewer to think about them.
[/quote]
And for me that is what it did.   For example, everyone saw the reapers as the greatest destructive evil the galaxy faced.  But in those last few minutes, we get a new perspective . . . we see them in a new light.   A "good of the many outweighs the good of the few or the one" scenerio.   What if . . . . ??
[/quote]
[/quote]

well i am not going to say you should not enjoy because of x,y and z. If your happy with what you got all the power to you.

But calling it hard sci-fi does not do justice to hard science fiction.

[M920CAIN]

Scam_poo wrote...

That's what I thought when I first finished the game! Glad to see more people with my opinion. Great game, good ending - Game of the Year.
And, trolls, please stay away from such positive threads.

You suck.

There.

[floppypig16]

Resse wrote...

OP I have serious questions.

What exactly do you like about the ending?

In addition please answer the following:
1. What happened to your crew and why were they in a certain spot when they were supposed to be at your side?
2. Why did a certain ship leave the battle and abandons you when you need them most?
3. What do you think about the character introduced in the very last second and it's comments?
4. What color did you pick and why and what did you think at that moment?
5. Did you feel like your choices mattered?

I could ask you so many more questions, but please answer at least these few.

I'm happy that you're happy with the ending you got, but I want to understand how you can actually be happy with it.

I wanna do it too!

1. Hard to answer without spoilers.... I have speculation as to how they were where they were - and it isn't even a stretch. In any case, this "flaw", as some may call it,  is nowhere near bad enough to make me think "ZOMG, the endings are TERRRIBLE!!!!11"

2, See above - word for word really.

3. At first I thought he was retarded. Then I played through from ME1 to 3, and now I get it. I don't have any problems with him. I think he symbolically represents Shepard's past failures as well as looking to the future and making a choice. 

4. Green. I was excited. Had to pause the game and go out and get some snacks while I thought about what choice I would take. SOme people argue green was "space magic"? I'm not sure how the rest of the game isn't space magic but okay... Apparently if you write a half-scientific codex entry about something it changes from space magic to space-plausible. People are strange.

5. Yes, very much. I don't understand why everyone says the choices didn't matter and only have this fixation on the end. What about the rest of the game? They affected the entire game!! (and the ending, btw). Also, I don't understand this complaint. Did ME1 affect the ending of ME1? Did ME2 affect the ending of ME2? No, you always killed Sovereign, you always destroyed the Collector Base - in that regard, ME3 gave you more choice (ie, you don't have to destroy the Reapers). In my game, The Quarians will be taking their suits off much sooner than hoped. I killed 2 close friends. Did that happen in your game?