179 réponses à ce sujet

[Biokiipper]

Objectivity wrote...

1) Nothing in the ending relates to the rest of the series.

2) No matter what ending you choose, most of the galaxy is destroyed and interaction between planets is all but eliminated. Also, most of your friends are marooned on a planet with food they can't eat, resulting in starvation or death.

3) The Destroy ending undermines your decision regarding the Geth and Quarians. Did you save the Geth? Doesn't matter, they're dead. Did you show that cooperation between organics and synthetics is possible? Doesn't matter, you were wrong. Die computer scum.

Then, consider this. One rumored piece of DLC is fighting with Aria to retake Omega. What does it matter? With the endings, the only purpose of the DLC is to decide where she dies when the ending takes place - on the Citadel or on Omega. Either way, she's toast.

Thats SO true... Thinking about that, I wouldnt buy the DLC cause it would be pointless to the story. For the shooting and action, I would play multiplayer.

[The Razman]

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

@Father and Razman: You two are either the same person or are sitting literally two feet away from one another. I refuse to believe otherwise.

You need to leave the house more often.

[The Razman]

slyguy200 wrote...

weird thing is that not many have actually tried to take down the lists that people put up about why the ending is bad. Instead they just try to come at people from another angle, and just try to say that they are wrong by some other means.

What? The exact opposite has been happening. Whenever you put forward an argument about something somebody doesn't like about the ending, two more people come in and say "Yeah well, that's not why people don't like the ending really, it's really about this ..."

You see this time and time again, especially when anyone tackles the "happy ending" argument. Any time I've ever said anything on these forums about how wanting the ending changed because it's not happy isn't a legitimate argument, it's dodged by people coming in from different angles about why people don't like the ending.

[The Razman]

slyguy200 wrote...

I noticed that raz only has 1 friend, a secondary account woudn't need many of them.

I lol'd at this ... I have a Facebook for friends.

How many imaginary friends do you have on here slyguy?

[Iakus]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Glancing around my room right now, looking at my movie collection, I see many many movies with bittersweet endings and I'm quite happy with them. Sometimes adding an uberhappy ending to something would do more harm than good.

I've probably said this before, but who said anyhting about an uberhappy ending?  By the end, it's a complete impossibility just by what's happened in the 30+ hours that came before!

Not having a happy ending is valid because ther is no possibility of a happy ending.  At all.  All the choices you make over three games leads to an unhappy ending.  It cannot help but happen.  

The cycle must continue!  There is no alternative!  

For a game series that makes a big deal about hundreds of decisions being imported, you'd think something happier than  "Well, at least the galaxy is safe from the Reapers"  could be tossed to the audience.

[Menethra]

Where to start?

[Your choices matter]
Evidently they don't when it comes to the final hurdle lets look back to mass effect 1 on the planet noveria you are given a choice to save or destroy the last rachni queen. I choose to save it in my first play through and during ME2 you encounter an asari on illum who tells you the rachni are ready to stand at your side when the reapers come.

What happens in ME3? Nothing, the rachni queen gets enslaved again you save her and you gain 100 or so war assets, rather poor for reflecting past decisions huh? So when it comes to the final battle where's the rachni? They are no where to be seen.

The problem wasn't just that infact the rachni is rather a minor one, the main problem i have and many others have is the introduction of the catalyst at the very end of the game that character then proceeded to dictate the end of your shepards story regardless of the choices you made. I believe one person summed it up best in a photoshop style picture.

You know the guy from the matrix? Imagine him appearing at the end of lord of the rings when frodo enters mount doom and then tells frodo that sauron was his solution but apparently for no reason it won't work any more, oh and by the way here's three choices.

The fans were promised 16 endings i personally believed 16 was to good to be true but i did hope the ending wouldn't result in a forced outcome as it does, they can add red,blue or green all they want but it still results in the same thing control, destroy and synthesis. It signed my trilogy off in such a bitter and depressing style.

Stranding the normandy on some random planet is something fans are angry about as well and the fact shepard dies in about 99% of all endings regardless to how you played through your story in mass effect 1 and 2.

I had hoped that our past collection of choices would of been the major deciding factor in how the ending played out.

Modifié par Menethra, 10 mai 2012 - 11:13 .

[The Razman]

slyguy200 wrote...

The Razman wrote...

slyguy200 wrote...

weird thing is that not many have actually tried to take down the lists that people put up about why the ending is bad. Instead they just try to come at people from another angle, and just try to say that they are wrong by some other means.

What? The exact opposite has been happening. Whenever you put forward an argument about something somebody doesn't like about the ending, two more people come in and say "Yeah well, that's not why people don't like the ending really, it's really about this ..."

You see this time and time again, especially when anyone tackles the "happy ending" argument. Any time I've ever said anything on these forums about how wanting the ending changed because it's not happy isn't a legitimate argument, it's dodged by people coming in from different angles about why people don't like the ending.

I never said that it was a legit argument for change.
I was talking about the lists that never seem to get legitimately disputed, which may be because they know that they are indeed legit problems.

... is your last name Murdoch, or something? I've never seen one of those lists posted without it being legitimately disputed.

A case of willful blindness on your part, it seems.

[Falkenburg]

tomp10 wrote...

 so many people are upset with the ending of ME3,  however i injoyed the game. i dident think the end was to bad, it just needed more details on what happed after the current ending(i understand biowere's doing this now). so what is it people dont like about the ending apart from details? 

In the simplest terms, prior to the final scene, Mass Effect is a Science-Fiction (along the lines of Star Trek) series; in it's final moment, the narration becomes a Science-Fantasy (ala Star Wars).

It goes from a series where conflict is resolved by determination, blood, sweat, tears, military action and smart diplomacy, to an epic tale of magic and mystery.

In the final moment, a character is introduced that cataclysmically upsets the pre-established understanding of both the heirarchy and motivations of the antagonists.

Said character is a monster, in the sense of being either responsible for or complicit in the murder of literally uncountable millions of sentients. Yet, despite presenting a series of statements of extremely questionable logic and/or veracity, you (the player) are given no meaningful oportunity to challenge said character.

Ultimately, said character presents 3 options, ranging from the dubious to the outlandish. These are the only options available.

It's also to be noted that the 3 options are not merely artifically limiting, but logically problematic. As mentioned above, prior to this point, the series followed the conventions of science-fiction, where a knowledge of science fact and in-game information could reasonably be applied to understand events. This is turned upside down in the end; the more you know about the Mass Effect universe, or our own physical laws, the more the options presented diverge from the possible.

While people often derisively refer to the ending with the term "Space Magic", the simple, and sad, fact is that there is simply no other term for the available options.

From a narrative and plausability perspective, the final encounter is so outlandish it would be no more or less surprising to meet Shiva the Destroyer ultimately. I would also contend it would at least be more interesting.

Modifié par Falkenburg, 10 mai 2012 - 11:13 .

[The Razman]

Falkenburg wrote...

In the final moment, a character is introduced that cataclysmically upsets the pre-established understanding of both the heirarchy and motivations of the antagonists.

... what pre-established understanding of the hierarchy and motivations of the antagonists?

We didn't know anything about the hierarchy or motivations of the Reapers.

[Menethra]

slyguy200 wrote...

The Razman wrote...

slyguy200 wrote...

I noticed that raz only has 1 friend, a secondary account woudn't need many of them.

I lol'd at this ... I have a Facebook for friends.

How many imaginary friends do you have on here slyguy?

I don't like to go looking through the forums to find a good one, often they just find one for me, it is much easier.

Wannabe my friend? I don't have any :<

[DaJe]

The Razman wrote...

Falkenburg wrote...

In the final moment, a character is introduced that cataclysmically upsets the pre-established understanding of both the heirarchy and motivations of the antagonists.

... what pre-established understanding of the hierarchy and motivations of the antagonists?

We didn't know anything about the hierarchy or motivations of the Reapers.

Now we do. Turns out Reapers are pathetic tools for a non-sensical premise. Not so frightening afterall.
It is disappointing and even worse knowing this makes playing the previous games far less interesting.

But go ahead, keep pulling any kind of far fetched and dismissive argument why it doesn't suck out your ass, just like the only other 3 people on this forum who actually like how this franchise ended.

Modifié par DaJe, 10 mai 2012 - 11:22 .

[MrAtomica]

The Razman wrote...

... what pre-established understanding of the hierarchy and motivations of the antagonists?

We didn't know anything about the hierarchy or motivations of the Reapers.

There is only one antagonist. The existence of the Catalyst removes any "evi" that once applied to the Reapers. They are tools,  nothing more. Since we are never treated to a Reaper not under the influence of the child, and he asserts that he has controlled them for some time, we can only assume that they have never acted of their own free-will since their appearance in this series.

Secondly, we should never have been given any motivation for the Reapers' actions. Their power as villains came primarily from their mystery, and the simple fact that we are constantly told that we cannot hope to understand them. Turns out, we are actually perfectly capable of understanding them (according to Bioware's canon), and they turn out to be quite moronic. Or rather, the Catalyst is quite moronic. Or arrogant. Likely both.

To me, that is an almost irreparable flaw in the endings. The galactic doomsday armada has been reduced to glorified zookeepers under the thumb of a maniacal hologram. Faaaantastic.

Edit: I should mention, Bioware never had a prayer of inventing a satisfactory motivation for the Reapers. Bioware is comprised of a human staff, with a collective human intellect. Sovereign's assertion that "You cannot hope to understand us" (bad paraphrase, but the general gist) would only have worked if no concrete purpose were given. This is true because a human mind cannot possibly create a line of reasoning beyond human understanding. No matter how arcane, we were doomed to be less than amazed, to say the very least.

Modifié par MrAtomica, 10 mai 2012 - 11:29 .

[cyrslash1974]

tomp10 wrote...

 so many people are upset with the ending of ME3,  however i injoyed the game. i dident think the end was to bad, it just needed more details on what happed after the current ending(i understand biowere's doing this now). so what is it people dont like about the ending apart from details? 

I don't want to spoil but the 3 solutions proposed at the end of the game and the explaination of these solutions are not logic with some decision taken in the game. And on the other hand, the end has been rushed.

[The Razman]

MrAtomica wrote...

There is only one antagonist. The existence of the Catalyst removes any "evi" that once applied to the Reapers. They are tools,  nothing more. Since we are never treated to a Reaper not under the influence of the child, and he asserts that he has controlled them for some time, we can only assume that they have never acted of their own free-will since their appearance in this series.

Secondly, we should never have been given any motivation for the Reapers' actions. Their power as villains came primarily from their mystery, and the simple fact that we are constantly told that we cannot hope to understand them. Turns out, we are actually perfectly capable of understanding them (according to Bioware's canon), and they turn out to be quite moronic. Or rather, the Catalyst is quite moronic. Or arrogant. Likely both.

To me, that is an almost irreparable flaw in the endings. The galactic doomsday armada has been reduced to glorified zookeepers under the thumb of a maniacal hologram. Faaaantastic.

Edit: I should mention, Bioware never had a prayer of inventing a satisfactory motivation for the Reapers. Bioware is comprised of a human staff, with a collective human intellect. Sovereign's assertion that "You cannot hope to understand us" (bad paraphrase, but the general gist) would only have worked if no concrete purpose were given. This is true because a human mind cannot possibly create a line of reasoning beyond human understanding. No matter how arcane, we were doomed to be less than amazed, to say the very least.

You never answered the question. You said it was wrong because the Catalyst undid the "pre-established hierarchy and motivations of the Reapers". Which is wrong. Because we never had any understanding of those things. It explained the things we didn't know, it didn't undo anything.

You are, no offence, rambling slightly. Instead of answering the question you've thrown out a bizaare argument that it was wrong because they explained something and you didn't like the explanation (for no reason than apparently "it was moronic", which isn't a very strong case you're making). I could level the same accusation at Javik quite easily; the Protheans main strength was that we didn't know anything about them, then Javik comes in revealing all this stuff about how they were essentially gigantic gits who enslaved the galaxy and their status as mythical predecessors is shattered, turning them into just another Mass Effect race.

If you didn't like/understand the explanation of the Reapers, sure. But it wasn't wrong for them to do so.

[MrAtomica]

Then allow me to present you with a clear and succinct answer, minus the rambling.

There was no hierarchy or motivation to the Reapers, prior to Mass Effect 3. My point is quite simply that it should have stayed that way.

"My kind transcends your very understanding. We are each a nation, independent, free of all weakness. You cannot even grasp the nature of our existence." -Sovereign

Go back and listen to that entire conversation. It was incredibly powerful. Cheesy and not terribly original as well, but still powerful. He actually conveyed a sense of being something more than us. It inspired respect.

In the context of Mass Effect 3, Sovereign is contradicted. We are suddenly told that they are under the command of a single entity, and that they have a pathetically hackneyed purpose for existing.

[legion999]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

legion999 wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

The Razman wrote...

legion999 wrote...

Some does not equal all. (S)he was stating that everyone who disliked the ending because it wasn't happy.

That doesn't matter. The statement "lack of happy ending isn't people's main problem" was made.

There's a serious tendancy to play down the opinions of those who didn't like it because it was depressing in favour of "legitimate" arguments.

Lack of a happy ending is a legitimate reason to want a different ending. And it is certainly one of the reasons I hate it.

It may have been quoted and cited many times before but JK Rwoling changed the ending to Harry Potter to please the fans in this respect.

A lot of people are annoyed by the unhappiness because it was described as 'bittersweet' by the developers, only to turn out just bitter. Endings that are just bitter need to actually lead to that conclusion in order for it to work on a narrative, emotional and thematic level. ME didn't do that.

It really, really isn't a legitimate argument. The day we start treating "That story made me sad, so it should be changed" as a legitimate argument in any conversation is the day we should all shoot ourselves.

If you can't see the sweet because you're obsessed with the bitter, then that's really not the writer's problem. The sweet is there; you beat the Reapers, you save the galaxy, you save your love interest's life and the lives of your crew. All of that happens, and all of that is sweet. If you're saying "that's not sweet, because this bad thing also happened" ... then I think you might have missed the point of the word "bittersweet".

What the actual **** at the bolded part. Also why can't one of the endings be happy? Having variety in the endings would be good no? And my squadmates starving to death is not sweet.

I don't like the ending of Titanic and having all those people die. It made me sad. James Cameron should change it.

Extreme example? Yes. But you don't have the right to demand someone change something THEY made because YOU are sad. 

Glancing around my room right now, looking at my movie collection, I see many many movies with bittersweet endings and I'm quite happy with them. Sometimes adding an uberhappy ending to something would do more harm than good.

<facepalm> Did you actually read what I said?

First off the Titanic is a fixed event in which thousands died. Changing that would be a disrespect to them.

Secondly I stated that a happy ending should be available. It shouldn't be the only ending merely one of the endings AVAILABLE.

Please actually read what people type. Thanks. And I still think the endings should be changed. Not just because they're unneccessarily depressing but they're also stupid as well. And the ending in no way reflects what Bioware promised.

Modifié par legion999, 11 mai 2012 - 12:47 .

[The Razman]

MrAtomica wrote...

Then allow me to present you with a clear and succinct answer, minus the rambling.

There was no hierarchy or motivation to the Reapers, prior to Mass Effect 3. My point is quite simply that it should have stayed that way.

"My kind transcends your very understanding. We are each a nation, independent, free of all weakness. You cannot even grasp the nature of our existence." -Sovereign

Go back and listen to that entire conversation. It was incredibly powerful. Cheesy and not terribly original as well, but still powerful. He actually conveyed a sense of being something more than us. It inspired respect.

In the context of Mass Effect 3, Sovereign is contradicted. We are suddenly told that they are under the command of a single entity, and that they have a pathetically hackneyed purpose for existing.

I never found the Reapers' "mystery" the powerful part of them. They were aesthetically and narratively very powerful, which was what made them scary. The fact that you needed an entire fleet to take down just one, the mind control element, and they physical appearance was what made them scary for me. Not the fact that they said "YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND US!" That's not very terrifying.

They spent the entire series giving us questions about the Reapers which required answers by the end, otherwise the entire premise of the trilogy would've been built on something completely mindless. You can't impose an extremely complicated system of cycles of destruction every 50,000 years without revealing the reason at some point. If the series had ended without the cycles being explained, everyone would be saying "Well, what? What was the reason behind all that? They were doing it ... just because? That's rubbish." Even in the leaked "Dark Energy" storyline the intent to answer the questions was there, and foreshadowing in Mass Effect 2. You can't say that the fact they answered the question they posed is wrong; it wouldn't have made sense not to answer it.

What you're really saying is ... you don't like the answer. Which is fine. But it's not a mistake to have provided it. In fact, it was pretty much expected.

[D24O]

I don't hate the end, I just think it's very abrupt. IMO each choice should've had a completely different cutscene, and a little recap showing the state of the galaxy, and some details on the implications of the major choices made during the series (Genophage, rachni, Quarian & Geth, etc). I also would've liked some cutscenes or something during the final fight with the war assets pushing the reaper's s*** in, but I can live without that.

[MrAtomica]

The Razman wrote...

I never found the Reapers' "mystery" the powerful part of them. They were aesthetically and narratively very powerful, which was what made them scary. The fact that you needed an entire fleet to take down just one, the mind control element, and they physical appearance was what made them scary for me. Not the fact that they said "YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND US!" That's not very terrifying.

They spent the entire series giving us questions about the Reapers which required answers by the end, otherwise the entire premise of the trilogy would've been built on something completely mindless. You can't impose an extremely complicated system of cycles of destruction every 50,000 years without revealing the reason at some point. If the series had ended without the cycles being explained, everyone would be saying "Well, what? What was the reason behind all that? They were doing it ... just because? That's rubbish." Even in the leaked "Dark Energy" storyline the intent to answer the questions was there, and foreshadowing in Mass Effect 2. You can't say that the fact they answered the question they posed is wrong; it wouldn't have made sense not to answer it.

What you're really saying is ... you don't like the answer. Which is fine. But it's not a mistake to have provided it. In fact, it was pretty much expected.

True, their mystery was not the entire reason for the fear they inspired. It was still a necessary element of their existence.

As to why they chose to reap us, I disagree with your assertion that it needed an answer. It was all the more monstrous because we could see no compelling reason for it. They were operating on a level that, at least according to them, we could not comprehend. Whether or not this was true was not important, because there was no specific reason given. We could each have our own interpretation.

The simple fact of the matter is that they are no longer worthy of my respect, nor the fear of the galaxy. The Catalyst is either suffering from erroneous judgement, lying, or flatly stupid. He pushes a subplot from the previous two games forward as his grand impetus for terrorizing organic life for billions of years. He does so without justifying his reasoning with evidence, and Shepard accepts his argument with nothing more than a peep.

I believe it was Mac Walters who was quoted in an interview, poking fun at the idea of asking the Reapers "So...why do you reap?" To turn around after expressing that sentiment and do precisely what he knew was unwise has me scratching my head. The question is laughable. It doesn't matter why they reap. We knew that they came every 50,000 years. We knew that upon their coming, they wiped out all space-faring organic life. We knew, from Sovereign, that they felt no remorse in doing so. That was enough. We were fighting for survival. We didn't need to make some kind of sense of out it. They were evil to us, as well as to the denizens of the ME universe.

Go back and listen to the Sovereign conversation again. Listen to what he says. His words give a distinct impression that the Reapers are out to wipe out all life, to utterly annihilate it. That doesn't mesh too well with the idea of them being "reluctant protectors", as the Catalyst would have us believe.

Modifié par MrAtomica, 11 mai 2012 - 01:26 .

[The Razman]

MrAtomica wrote...

As to why they chose to reap us, I disagree with your assertion that it needed an answer. It was all the more monstrous because we could see no compelling reason for it. They were operating on a level that, at least according to them, we could not comprehend. Whether or not this was true was not important, because there was no specific reason given. We could each have our own interpretation.

I'm sorry ... not knowing is not "monstrous". Movie villains with no purpose, or even worse hideously generic purposes, are boring. Reminds me of this.

It's fine in ME1 and ME2, you're building the mystery with little details and glimpses. Ending the series without any answers at all would've been terrible, considering we're not going to see the Reapers again. Even the original writers who were working on the series from the first game understood the need for it, as the Dark Energy storyline proves.

The simple fact of the matter is that they are no longer worthy of my respect, nor the fear of the galaxy.
The Catalyst is either suffering from erroneous judgement, lying, or flatly stupid. He pushes a subplot from the previous two games forward as his grand impetus for terrorizing organic life for billions of years. He does so without justifying his reasoning with evidence, and Shepard accepts his argument with nothing more than a peep.

He has no reason to lie, his logic is sound which negates the plausibility of him being "stupid", and we're not in any position to be criticising his judgement ... we certainly don't have the information to call it erroneous. I'll accept hatred of the Starchild, but I haven't found or heard a single hole in the logic of its choices. People's complaints are merely that they didn't like it ... which is tough nuts for you, because you're the one going to it saying "can you help me stop the Reapers please?" Beggers, choosers, yada.

Go back and listen to the Sovereign conversation again. Listen to what he says. His words give a distinct impression that the Reapers are out to wipe out all life, to utterly annihilate it. That doesn't mesh too well with the idea of them being "reluctant protectors", as the Catalyst would have us believe.

Sorry, but you've got totally the wrong impression of the Reapers if that's what you took from Sovereign. The idea of them being out to annihilate all life doesn't mesh well with anything the Reapers do ... they're perfectly capable of doing that, but they don't, they just wipe out the most advanced species every 50,000 years. And them being "reluctant protectors" doesn't mesh with anything in Mass Effect 3 either. The Reapers are unaware of their purpose, they're not reluctant ... simply oblivious. This suggests you haven't quite understood the Reapers in any game of the trilogy?

Modifié par The Razman, 11 mai 2012 - 02:10 .

[slimgrin]

 I dunno, let's ask this guy:

https://encrypted-tb...PnMTKz5qAoAzYgg

Modifié par slimgrin, 11 mai 2012 - 02:10 .