450 réponses à ce sujet

[Aunrielle]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Aunrielle wrote...

A lot of Gainax endings have something like all the people in the universe merging and becoming one being and living forever in eternal peace. This is pretty much what synthesis is.
 

*facepalm*

No, this is not what Synthesis is. Like, at all. Did Joker and EDI merge and become one being?

No but it killed the diversity of the universe. All beings became synthetic/organic hybrids, which takes away what made each race and individual unique. The differences are what make each character and group of characters interesting. So while they might not have a group mind or something, they are all the same now.

Not to mention the fact that is didn't make any sense. How can you press a button somehow make every being in the galaxy magically turn into cyborgs? How do androids instantly develop DNA that makes them partially organic? Where do you get the resources to create the artificial parts for the organics and when and how were they instantly implanted into everyone? 

Maybe a happy Disney-fied ending is cheesy, but I'd take that over the synthesis ending any day. 

[PsyrenY]

Aunrielle wrote...

No but it killed the diversity of the universe. All beings became synthetic/organic hybrids, which takes away what made each race and individual unique.

You're still wrong. Organic/Synthetic is one axis of the diversity spectrum. It is, in fact, the only axis that Catalyst gives a flying fig about.

If Synthesis truly "killed the diversity of the universe" as you claim, Joker and EDI would be twins. Your statement is illogical.

Aunrielle wrote... 

Not to mention the fact that is didn't make any sense. How can you press a button somehow make every being in the galaxy magically turn into cyborgs?

Having never designed or built a Crucible myself, I have no idea. What I can tell you is that it's as irrelevant as knowing all the details of Element Zero. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

[MisterJB]

Aunrielle wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

Aunrielle wrote...

A lot of Gainax endings have something like all the people in the universe merging and becoming one being and living forever in eternal peace. This is pretty much what synthesis is.
 

*facepalm*

No, this is not what Synthesis is. Like, at all. Did Joker and EDI merge and become one being?

No but it killed the diversity of the universe. All beings became synthetic/organic hybrids, which takes away what made each race and individual unique. The differences are what make each character and group of characters interesting. So while they might not have a group mind or something, they are all the same now.

No, it didn't. The different species still look very distinct to each other suggesting the original DNA was untouched except to incorporate synthetic characteristics. So yes, all races are hybrids but that didn't kill diversity anymore than the previous condition of all races being either pure organics or pure synthetics did.
All life on Earth is based on DNA but not all life is the same.

[G Kevin]

Optimystic_X wrote...
Having never designed or built a Crucible myself, I have no idea. What I can tell you is that it's as irrelevant as knowing all the details of Element Zero. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Thing I want to point out is, the crucible was made in previous cycles before the reapers destryoed them. The previous cycles did not advance farther than the current cycle, so I would say either the crucible is just unexplained or the previous cycles had no freakin' clue of what they were building.

[christrek1982]

synthases fits better in doctor who than mass effect in fact the whole star child maguffin fits better in doctor who.

[NedPepper]

christrek1982 wrote...

so you got your fitting ending I don't know why you think Shepherd being alive at the end somehow lessens the ending we where never going to get a 100% win but a bit of hope at the end would of been nice and as for shepherd sacrifice hadn't he/she given enough? though all 3 games to simply expect shepherd to accept the three endings a face value and in turn his/her own death without so much as a protest lessens the writers attempts to make shepherd seem more human.

I don't look at it as what I WANT.  I look at it as "what makes sense to the narrative."  A happy ending, with the Reapers dead and everyone alive and well....THAT would feel like a cop out.  It's not that there's not a part of me that wants to think about my Shepard and Jack partying it up after kiling the Reapers.  Again, I WANTED Tom Hank's character to survive Saving Private Ryan.  But that didn't happen.  And it worked.  What I want is kind of irrelevant.  I'm NOT THE WRITER.  Were the endings perfect.  No.  (But they are not as nearly as bad as this collective hive makes them out to be.)  But were they bad because they weren't happy enough?   No. 

In the end, I was satisfied.  It wasma fictional story that took me on a hell of ride.  It was thoughtful and poignant.  I got three games out of MY Shepard.  That is impressive.  Is it really so bad to have a new protagonist with a new story in this great, imaginative world?  I look forward to it..  And my Shepard is a legend.  That's pretty cool.  So, I just don't get all this complaining.  I never will.  But that's just my opinion.

[MisterJB]

G Kevin wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

G Kevin wrote...
Sad to say that, if Bioware wanted bittersweet, they didn't have to look very far.

A bit off-topic and sure to go downhill but I think it's amazing how a Gears of War game has actually managed to exemplify what I hate about the Destroy ending.
"No answers. Just clever ways to kill."

What do you mean?

The crucible not being explained?

No, what I mean is that Destroy doesn't look for any solution to the Reaper threat other than "Let's kill them all" and also doesn't try to address the underlining problem that created the Cycle in the first place. That is, the conflict between organic and synthetic life. 
I consider it to be simplistic and short-sighted and despise that ending for it. No offense to any one who chose it, which is a common cortesy those who picked the other endings rarely receive.

Modifié par MisterJB, 21 mai 2012 - 03:27 .

[PsyrenY]

G Kevin wrote...

Thing I want to point out is, the crucible was made in previous cycles before the reapers destryoed them. The previous cycles did not advance farther than the current cycle, so I would say either the crucible is just unexplained or the previous cycles had no freakin' clue of what they were building.

The cycle that incorporated the Catalyst (Citadel) must have at least partially understood what the thing did. Pity they weren't able to write it down for the Protheans.

[christrek1982]

I have nothing against a new hero in another ME story in fact I welcome it but you don't have to kill shepherd to move past them and they do need to bring closure to all the others. and final ME's big selling point was choice so it was a big let down when you discover that all roads lead to the same bitter and disappointing place.

[mnomaha]

I wanted a happy ending...also a beginning that made sense (this FemShep did NOT surrender), a middle that didn't suck and bioware to not change trends and kill a LI.

No replayability...

[unoriginalname1133]

 I've said it before and I'll say it again: there is nothing wrong with a happy ending. Was Lord of the Rings ruined because most of the principle characters lived to reunite and live fulfilling lives? Would Star Wars have been better if Luke had to throw himself into the core of the Death Star to save the galaxy? Being able to enjoy the protagonist's happy resolution does not make someone immature. Feeling compelled to prove how "mature" you are by deriding happy endings DOES make someone immature.

There is nothing about Mass Effect that forces the ending to be depressing. Noble sacrifice is one thing, but there is nothing profound about Shepard activating a machine that is apparently powered by suicide. In a game that is supposed to be all about choice, there is no reason to not let Shepard ride into the sunset and get a happily ever after, at least as an option.

Modifié par unoriginalname1133, 21 mai 2012 - 03:44 .

[Aunrielle]

nedpepper wrote...

christrek1982 wrote...

so you got your fitting ending I don't know why you think Shepherd being alive at the end somehow lessens the ending we where never going to get a 100% win but a bit of hope at the end would of been nice and as for shepherd sacrifice hadn't he/she given enough? though all 3 games to simply expect shepherd to accept the three endings a face value and in turn his/her own death without so much as a protest lessens the writers attempts to make shepherd seem more human.

I don't look at it as what I WANT.  I look at it as "what makes sense to the narrative."  A happy ending, with the Reapers dead and everyone alive and well....THAT would feel like a cop out.  It's not that there's not a part of me that wants to think about my Shepard and Jack partying it up after kiling the Reapers.  Again, I WANTED Tom Hank's character to survive Saving Private Ryan.  But that didn't happen.  And it worked.  What I want is kind of irrelevant.  I'm NOT THE WRITER.  Were the endings perfect.  No.  (But they are not as nearly as bad as this collective hive makes them out to be.)  But were they bad because they weren't happy enough?   No. 

In the end, I was satisfied.  It wasma fictional story that took me on a hell of ride.  It was thoughtful and poignant.  I got three games out of MY Shepard.  That is impressive.  Is it really so bad to have a new protagonist with a new story in this great, imaginative world?  I look forward to it..  And my Shepard is a legend.  That's pretty cool.  So, I just don't get all this complaining.  I never will.  But that's just my opinion.

I agree that the ending had to fit the tone of the story which is very dark. I had expected Shepard to die, which would have been the most logical conclusion. It fits with what we know of the Reapers. The destruction of the relays was the more depressing element. I'm not ashamed to say that I'd like to see what happened to everyone else, however.

I'm not one of these people though that feels the entire series is ruined because of the endings and they can never play the games again and blah blah... I'll still love this series no matter what and believe its three of the best video games ever created. I do wonder why Bioware chose to end it this way though. None of the endings leave much room for sequels. They could have made a fortune with more games and novels and comics.

[Nastrod]

I wanted the happy ending and also I am sick of people saying that dark endings are so edgy. Hey guess what it has been done so many times it is not edgy anymore.

I went through 3 games as a paragon and considering Bioware promised our play throughs and choices would reflect the ending I do feel a little robbed.

[NS Wizdum]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Zamnil Blackaxe wrote...

Eat a dick, all of you ohsoedgy punks saying that a happy ending is unrealistic bull****, just eat a dick.

Very mature and rational discourse here 

Zoedoll wrote...

The odds we were up against in Mass Effect 2 for the suicide mission didn't exactly suggest things would go well yet it was still possible to win without any casualties. Mass Effect has continually been about Shepard beating the odds. Not saying I want a flawless victory against the Reapers, just that it wouldn't feel in any way out of place to get a less depressing ending. With things as they stand + a happy ending it would still be bittersweet anyway. There were a lot of losses, much more so than in ME2.

You're making the wrong comparison. Don't compare this war to ME2; the odds aren't remotely similar. Instead, compare it to every other cycle that has come before, where the advanced organics were wiped out to a man.

No matter how many millions or even billions died in this one, we came out very far ahead of the others, simply because we actually defeated them and advanced organics are alive. That is victory.

And I'm glad you mentioned the suicide mission, because I'm willing to bet the tone of that ending was exactly what Bioware wanted to avoid this time around. The ME2 ending became little more than a joke, with players deciding to use it as a way to kill off disliked characters ("You cheated on me Jacob? Guess you're volunteering for the vents in my next save") and every ending where characters die being treated not as meaningful sacrifice, but as Shepard's player screwing up somewhere. ("Oh crap, I should have done Miranda's loyalty. Better reload." "Oh crap, I should have upgraded the ship's plating. Better reload." "Oh crap, should have sent Kasumi back with the crew instead of Thane. Better reload.") There is no artistic value - yes, I said it - in any of those statements.

You can't make that comparison either, since Shepard's cycle was the first in which the Reapers could not simply command the Keepers to open up the Citadel relay to let them through. Other cycles failed because they were separated once the relays were shut down, and their leadership was gone in the first 10 minutes. 

Modifié par NS Wizdum, 21 mai 2012 - 04:00 .

[Aunrielle]

unoriginalname1133 wrote...

 I've said it before and I'll say it again: there is nothing wrong with a happy ending. Was Lord of the Rings ruined because most of the principle characters lived to reunite and live fulfilling lives? Would Star Wars have been better if Luke had to throw himself into the core of the Death Star to save the galaxy? Being able to enjoy the protagonist's happy resolution does not make someone immature. Feeling compelled to prove how "mature" you are by deriding happy endings DOES make someone immature.

There is nothing about Mass Effect that forces the ending to be depressing. Noble sacrifice is one thing, but there is nothing profound about Shepard activating a machine that is apparently powered by suicide. In a game that is supposed to be all about choice, there is no reason to not let Shepard ride into the sunset and get a happily ever after, at least as an option.

Good point.

A happy ending should have been one of the possible outcomes I think. 

Lots of people think that making everything sad and depressing is somehow deeper and more original than an upbeat story,  when the whole grimdark thing has become a cliche just as much as a traditional happy ending is.

[Andsmth85]

I want a happy ending and never been afraid of saying so .

[dreadpiratesnugglecakes]

I don't know how any ending could be considered happy considering the scope of the war. Billions, possibly a trillion beings dead. Even if he had lived, i don't know how Shepherd would have come through that pressure sane. Did he do enough? Could he have done more? How can I still be alive when..ect ect. I didn't expect Shep to live nor do I think he really would have wanted too.
Seeing that kid over and over made me think of Russell Crowe in Gladiator. He had a mission to kill Commodus; but inside, he was getting flashes of his afterlife. Beyond his mission, he didn't care about going on; losing his wife and kid had finished him.

That's what I saw with Shepherd. Not saying I was overly fond of the choices but sometimes that's all you have to work with; making the best choice out of several bad options. But given the slaughter..the people tormented by the Reapers and by Cerberus; I never expected anything happier than relief that it was over and that people had survived.

[Master Xanthan]

It would have been nice if one of the endings was a happy ending.

[Necrotron]

I'm not scared.  If it can be made to work satisfyingly into the narrative, I would love a happy ending.

I'm playing a video game, there has to be a 'win' somewhere at the end.

[G Kevin]

I picked destroy and Shepard lives. If it weren't for the Normandy escaping and stranding part of the ending, I would have actually enjoyed it.

I still think there should have been the choice for a happy ending. Why not? Especially if it's optional.

[Icinix]

I love my happy endings. I don't play games to be miserable at their conclusion.

I don't have anything against games without happy endings or people who love them - but I feel no need to bother with them.


If you give me a happy ending over a bitter sweet or a sad ending. Of course I'll choose the happy ending. Every time.

[Oldbones2]

M25105 wrote...

You afraid you'll be labeled as immature? That you like Disney endings?

Come on, don't give me that crap with "I only like dark and depressing endings" you and I both know, we wanted Shepard to chug a beer with his team and celebrate their victory over a dead reaper corpse.

Choice.


In a word, that is what ME is all about.  Not just hard choices, or big decisions.  But choices.


The endings should have had lots of them, each subtley tailored by previous decisions.



There should be a more uplifting ending option, but it shouldn't be the only option.

[PsyrenY]

NS Wizdum wrote...

You can't make that comparison either, since Shepard's cycle was the first in which the Reapers could not simply command the Keepers to open up the Citadel relay to let them through. Other cycles failed because they were separated once the relays were shut down, and their leadership was gone in the first 10 minutes. 

The Citadel trap was not what made the Reapers unbeatable. It certainly helped them take the various cycles by surprise, but their massive firepower is their true advantage.

Look at this cycle - even with the Citadel and galactic leaders intact, the Reapers were able to effectively wage a war on multiple simultaneous fronts, including taking on the two most powerful militaries in the galaxy (Humans and Turians) without breaking a sweat, and still having enough to spare to mop up lesser races.

[Kaelef]

I'm scared because happy endings are illegal in my state.

[G Kevin]

The reapers seamed invincible till Rannoch pointed out a weakspot. Why was that not exploited at all afterwards?