2621 réponses à ce sujet

[Gweedotk]

I disagree. I didn't have too much of an issue with the endings to begin with, aside from the lack of explanation. The emotional value of the endings was more important than than how I felt it should have ended.

I don't see what the issue with the catalyst is. I'm not so rigid that I can't accept the reapers as being anything more than killing machines without a purpose. The catalyst's origins and purpose are plausible, it makes sense to me that organics and synthetics are generally bound to fight one another in most circumstances and apparently in the ME Universe that is exactly what happens. It a psychological miracle that Shepard isn't suffering PTSD or cracking under the pressure, let alone capable of feeling any form of compassion toward synthetic beings after watching the fall of Earth and Thessia. Most wouldn't make it as far as he has, far fewer would remain as idealistic (assuming your Shepard was a paragon).

I appreciate the Reapers having a greater purpose in the whole scheme of things. That we can ally with them is even greater reward. Harvesting organics to save them from synthetics... Does it make sense? Honestly I see little to no other way to prevent conflict between synthetics and organics aside from making sure neither of the two ever came into existence, and that doesn't seem like much of a solution to me.

So thank you Bioware for the EC. I have deeply enjoyed it.

Modifié par Gweedotk, 29 juin 2012 - 03:46 .

[Voodoo2015]

The more I think about the 4 ending. The more sad I think it is. Bioware / EA is saying to us through this ending. It is we who decide not you so f u.We have decided that Shepard shall die and then he will die.

You wanted a new ending. So we give you a new ending. But let everyone die, a total failure. How can you do that to us writers, stand there and shoot The Catalyst over and over again. Ha ha ha now you can't shoot him no more. So you try and you'll see all thoes hours you put into the game go up in smoke. And you must start all over again ha ha ha. In you'r Face Fans!

But the other endings, have they spent a great deal. BW has done well there. They could have made ​​things so much better before and made it better now. They made ​​the endings better. Now they are at least playable. BW can listen a bit, anyway.

[darkway1]

3DandBeyond,before the new ending content we had no concept of what our choices at the end actually meant to the universe we so desperately tried to save,in fact the old ending painted a pretty grim picture,no relay system,crashing Normandy,Shepard dead,starving destroyed worlds and a total end to the franchise as we knew it......it was totally depressing.

The new endings give us answers and if you choose an option that unites the races with the reapers I'd imagine the reconstruction of the universe (including relay's) would be pretty swift,I find the new endings a very positive move when compared to what was originally on offer......the Mass universe is once again all systems go.

Not all issues are addressed,not everyone will be happy and many won't forget the way this whole ending sham was handled (I won't) but the new ending DLC is a huge result,taking into account the time Bioware had to produce the ending content I think it's fantastic,they did a great job.

You have a fantastic imagination and communicate extremely well but I just wish you'd reflect on some of the positives from time to time. (there are some,honest).

[Gweedotk]

The first few times I played the game, I was almost disappointed at how easily we seemed to be beating the Reapers. It seemed they were slowly advancing, barely achieving the upper hand. I must not have been paying much attention to what was going on. I decided to actually listen to the news reports. I sobered a little bit after that. After almost every mission a new system has fallen, or a few systems. Every engagement with them seems to be a defeat, especially for the Asari and Alliance. Palaven is the only planet that is by definition contested, though the Reapers are still winning. By the time Thessia falls, over half of the inhabited galaxy is completely under Reaper control.

People wanted an option to defy the catalyst, I remember a lot of folks complaining about that. So the 4th option is it. But since the Reapers are nearly invincible, not using the crucible will certainly result in the cycle being completed. They can't be beaten conventionally, it hasn't happened ever in the millions of years the cycle has existed and it hasn't changed here, regardless of whether your EMS is 1,000 or 10,000.

So it makes sense that refusing to use any and all available means (including the crucible) to defeat them would result in failure. Although he 4th option allows the next cycle to succeed, so I guess it isn't a failure even then.

[3DandBeyond]

Gweedotk wrote...

I disagree. I didn't have too much of an issue with the endings to begin with, aside from the lack of explanation. The emotional value of the endings was more important than than how I felt it should have ended.

I don't see what the issue with the catalyst is. I'm not so rigid that I can't accept the reapers as being anything more than killing machines without a purpose. The catalyst's origins and purpose are plausible, it makes sense to me that organics and synthetics are generally bound to fight one another in most circumstances and apparently in the ME Universe that is exactly what happens. It a psychological miracle that Shepard isn't suffering PTSD or cracking under the pressure, let alone capable of feeling any form of compassion toward synthetic beings after watching the fall of Earth and Thessia. Most wouldn't make it as far as he has, far fewer would remain as idealistic (assuming your Shepard was a paragon).

I appreciate the Reapers having a greater purpose in the whole scheme of things. That we can ally with them is even greater reward. Harvesting organics to save them from synthetics... Does it make sense? Honestly I see little to no other way to prevent conflict between synthetics and organics aside from making sure neither of the two ever came into existence, and that doesn't seem like much of a solution to me.

So thank you Bioware for the EC. I have deeply enjoyed it.

But the fall of Earth and Thessia and all else points out just exactly where the problem is.  Fixing the galaxy's own issues between Synthetics and Organics was easy and a human did that.  The kid however originally created his own problem that he now (or you are now) saying people need to be protected from.  The kid rebelled against his creators and put them into a reaper which they didn't want.  So, now he sends the reapers to keep this kind of thing from ever happening by making it happen.  He should send them to kill himself, because he's the one with the problem.  What happened on Earth and Thessia was because of him, not the geth, not any current synthetic, but the catalyst and the problem he created.

You may not see any way to avoid conflict, but Shepard did.  My Shepard solved a conflict and I can envision others finding other solutions as well.  They have the finest model of how to do things-all that Shepard did.  Consistently getting opposing forces to work together.  If one human could do it, then others should be able to also.

The idea that you can't convince people to work together means you have to give up (which is what Synthesis is in part) is childish.  It's a suggested solution that has been used as the only way to get human races to get along.  It means we will never be adult enough to find better ways to do things, so make us all alike or change us, re-program us so we won't fight.  I have more faith in people than that.  I think people can learn to get along if only for their own self-interest.

And I say this because I lived through the cold war.  Throughout history people (not synthetics and organics), but people have consistently looked for new and improved ways to kill one another more efficiently.  When I was growing up we people almost annihilated the planet and 2 adults decided they couldn't let it happen an decided to talk about it and then backed down and learned.  And then came the arms' race and the idea that if the US and the USSR had the capability to equally be able to wipe each other off the face of the earth, then neither would use their nukes because it would mean the earth would be destroyed.  Another way came about and people came together and talked it over and decided that it was not working.

At present, nothing's perfect and there are still ways that people look for to totally wipe each other out and the capability to destroy the planet still exists.  But, I still wouldn't sacrifice the life we have for some alien's idea of perfection.  I wouldn't give up self-determination for stagnation and someone else's view of utopia.  Conflict is a part of us.  In overcoming it, we learn.  We make a lot of mistakes, but you tell your child to learn from them.  If you are given everything, you don't appreciate it and there's little value in it. 

I am not so fatalistic as to ever believe that anything is a certainty and yet the kid says it is.  But that's only because he sees things in binary.  Things are either yes or no, off or on.  People are not like that.  They see the possibilities, but the kid can't.  Synthesis is agreeing with him, that there is nothing anyone can do no matter what.  I don't believe that.  I also think that was a part of his original flaw-he didn't have an imagination.  He was linear in his thinking and saw a problem (balance being needed), but kept narrowing his own options.  People work in the opposite direction.  We see a problem and start with limited solutions and then keep adapting the options into more solutions.  If one gets closed off, we find another and add to it, expanding the possibilities.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 29 juin 2012 - 04:08 .

[PuppiesOfDeath2]

[/quote]

This is the thing for me as well.  With the initial endings, I still had some desire to play the earlier games and even didn't mind playing ME3 up to Cronos, but only went beyond that to fully understand something I would talk about.  The EC has had the exact opposite effect.  It's made it all so much worse.  It's tried to gloss over the turd that still remains.  And it abandoned even the most basic notion that they decided we wanted-closure.

Beyond that, there was no way to fix what was wrong with it, because what was wrong was tacking this style of ending with its new antagonist onto a different style of game and abandoning the real antagonists.  It was an attempt to through something that sounded smart onto the game to avoid some criticism apparently of their cookie cutter cheery style of ending.  ME1 and ME2 led us to believe that some things might be possible at the end-and other content in ME3 led us to feel that other more dire things might well be possible as well.  They opted for nonsensical and unsatisfying. 

Sure, now a lot of people think all those extra words provide more meaning-but they only added on what we already had figured out.  They didn't change the basic problems.  They made them worse because they authenticated the stuff the kid said.  It's all real (to him) so that makes it better.  Well, what is different?  It was always all real to him and crazy.  It's worse now, he's even crazier.  He destroyed his creators-he's synthetic and sent his creators to become one with a reaper.  He is still the thing he's supposedly trying to protect organics from.

Anyway, what these endings have done this time that they really didn't do before, is make me not want to play the games anymore.  I'd play MP and have some fun with it at times and kept trying to get my galactic readiness to 100% and now, I don't care.  I wanted to get a Vorcha character and now I don't care.  If they release pre-ending DLC that doesn't fundamentally change the endings, I really don't care.

[/quote]

Once again, I completely agree.  One of the things about the EC endings that I really dislike is the attempt to recast the "personality" of the Reapers and their leader, StarBrat AI.  Here are some prior quotes from Harbinger, who presumably is dispositionally in sync with StarBrat, lest you have forgotten the 80 hours of gameplay that preceded ME3:

Harbinger:  "You have become an annoyance."

Harbinger:  "Your leaders will beg to serve us."  [Arrival DLC]

Harbinger:  "Know this as you die in vain."

Harbinger:  "This hurts you."

Harbinger:  "You are vermin."

Now we are supposed to believe that StarBrat and his love interest, Harbinger, are just galactic streetsweepers cleaning up the cosmos periodically to prevent "chaos."  But in every other installment of the trilogy, the Reapers are malevolent jackasses, trash talking Shepard at every available opportunity.  Not exactly beings on a higher plane serving a purpose we just can't fathom.  Why would Harbinger try to "hurt you" if he didn't really care about causing you pain?  Why is causing Shepard pain relevant or important to preventing the "chaos" of organics fighting synthetics?  It isn't.  That's why many players feel taken by these ending.  Until the end of ME3, the Reapers were evil killing machines that hated Shepard and his teammates and that needed to be eradicated.  And they seemed to enjoy having their minions perform experiments on living humans.  Nice way to die.  As test subjects for "twisted aliens."  (ME2, Collector Ship)  Not partners in a future police force.  Not part of a future synthesis.  Evil, deadly, twisted aliens that need to be eradicated.

Now we are supposed to believe that StarBrat and Harbinger are like Judge Smails in Caddyshack: 

"I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them."

In Mass Effect 2 and ME1, we got to do kill Reapers and their minions and have a laugh along the way.  That was the experience we paid for and loved.  But the fundamental narrative disconnect is that the character of the enemy is changed by the writers at the very end of over 100 hours of gameplay.  That's silly, and it is not good art.  And that is why a lot of people feel that they invested a lot of time in order to be rewarded with a non sequitur.  You can't change the fundamental character of the enemy in closing scene. 

In the prior installments the Reapers made it personal.  They were taunting you and it was clear they hated you.  Now, they are supposed to be just doin' their job. 

The Mass Effect 3 Collector's Edition Strategy Guide can be had for $40.  I got it at the same time I picked up my pre-order.  The guide says that the "Destroy" ending with a "Readiness Rating" of 5000 will allow a conclusion where "Shepard lives," regardless of whether you "saved" Anderson.  Clearly, in selling that guide to its players, BioWare told you that "Destroy" was the winning outcome.  It required the highest "Readiness Rating" to achieve a result where "Shepard lives," regardless of how you dealt with Anderson and the Illusive Man.  "Destroy" was the only outcome where "Shepard lives"  and it required the highest threshold score to get there.  Is BioWare now selling outcomes different from those published in its strategy guide?

Any choice other than "Destroy" requires that you believe StarBrat, who has been taunting you and enjoying your pain through two other installments.  Oh, and he can't go into detail about his own existence because he doesn't have the time.  (Does he have business meeting in dark space that he needs to get to?)  Why would you listen or believe BratBoy hologram?

And why would the Crucible not discriminate between the Geth and Reapers.  As 3DandBeyond noted, Reapers are machine filled with the goo of processed organics.  (Nice.)  Why can't the Crucible discriminate between Reapers and goo-free Geth?  Is there a special "goo detector" that needs to be added to the upper left side of the Crucible that someone just overlooked or something?  Really.  It is just too much. 

I don't see any option but "Destroy."  After all, by the time you get to end of ME3, you've spent over 100 hours trying to do just that, kill the Reapers.  Why stop now?

[3DandBeyond]

darkway1 wrote...

3DandBeyond,before the new ending content we had no concept of what our choices at the end actually meant to the universe we so desperately tried to save,in fact the old ending painted a pretty grim picture,no relay system,crashing Normandy,Shepard dead,starving destroyed worlds and a total end to the franchise as we knew it......it was totally depressing.

The new endings give us answers and if you choose an option that unites the races with the reapers I'd imagine the reconstruction of the universe (including relay's) would be pretty swift,I find the new endings a very positive move when compared to what was originally on offer......the Mass universe is once again all systems go.

Not all issues are addressed,not everyone will be happy and many won't forget the way this whole ending sham was handled (I won't) but the new ending DLC is a huge result,taking into account the time Bioware had to produce the ending content I think it's fantastic,they did a great job.

You have a fantastic imagination and communicate extremely well but I just wish you'd reflect on some of the positives from time to time. (there are some,honest).

The problem is they didn't lead clearly into the positive in any way that I can make sense of.  I am unequivocal in stating that they decided Shepard just didn't deserve every form of true closure.  And that is depressing to me.  I can't conceive of it making sense because the choices are the same.  The mass relays were a part of it, but never the biggest part of it for me, ever.  And sure the reapers can help clean things up quickly, but if a guy killed my family, I for one don't want him cleaning my house.  That's me.  Others may feel differently but if even one person has this problem, then it is a problem.  It's insensitive to what suffering has taken place.  And so, now that the galaxy is a utopia with rehabilitated reapers the choices make sense?  They don't to me.  I am happy for you and others that got something that you wanted.  I didn't get anything that I wanted.  Nothing.  And yes, that makes my less generous in my explanation.  One scene would have done for me what has been done for you.  I am sorry I can't reflect on positives I don't see.

They want us to compare this EC ending only with the original ones and the only positive thing I can say is they use more words and put flowers on what we had.  The Normandy picking up the team in London is one example of an attempt to explain what still makes little sense.  Shepard could not care less about the other dead and dying people near the conduit, but his/her 2 teammates must be scooped up right in front of Harbinger.  Ok, I can live with it because it at least shows something that maybe could sorta happen, but it doesn't fix the core thing.  All of these were peripheral issues to me.  The jungle planet scene is ok now-better.  Why they are there is well less stupid, but better.  I've already said this.

But my bare minimum for this EC being positive for me was something I said before it came out.  At least closure.  And you got it, because you didn't have the same fundamental desire as I did.  For me, this ending was sadder.  It provided closure that people can live with for choices I'd never make.  The only choice I could ever make is the same as it was and it's sad, sadder because they didn't care and didn't think many of us would.

I can't be positive when I don't feel that way.  And I know I'm not alone in this.  I am still glad for you and others that got some of what you wanted.  I didn't need any of that and knew certain things couldn't or wouldn't be fixed, but one easy one wasn't.

[Gweedotk]

Humans aren't special. Shepard could do it, but not easily. He had to be brought back from clinical death first, as well as understand that despite seeing what the repaers are doing first hand, not all synthetics are bad, even though Geth attacked Eden prime and killed a lot of people. Most people would have a hard time turning around and saying Geth are capable of peace. Synthetics are so strongly opposed by everyone that it's illegal to even develop AI, and even in the third game the Geth are still for the most part distrusted at best, zealously hated at worst.

The Catalyst was created by a race that believed synthetics and organics would always fight one another, or so he claimed. He was created to oversee and mediate diplomatic exchanges between organics and synthetics to avoid conflict. But apparently, it always resulted in conflict. So he created a new solution.

And that solution worked for him until Shepard arrives. Unsurprisingly there has already been conflict between synthetics and organics (Geth and Quarians). But since Shepard has made it so far, it is time to find a new solution.

Synthesis isn't "giving up". It is evolution. It erases the distinction between synthetic and organic by merging the two, getting rid of racism (it's apparently racist to refer to a synthetic as a "machine").

If you feel that organics and synthetics are diametrically opposed, choose the destroy option.

But I don't see how disagreeing with the politics of the game makes the endings poor. This game has managed to suck you into it's world, involve you in its plot and story. I formed attachments to its characters. I bet you did too. Appreciate that, not many games offer what Mass Effect has given us.

[3DandBeyond]

@PuppiesOfDeath2,

Very well said.  In fact from the beginning Shepard was told the reapers were there to destroy people.  Sovereign said it on Virmire in ME1, in the first conversation Shepard had with a reapers.  "I am the harbinger of your destruction."  Saren in fact was trying hard to make at least himself useful to the reapers so he would not die.  He tried to convince Shepard that service to the reapers was a way to avoid destruction.  Sovereign clearly knew he was causing pain, and not just acting like a shark in the water would act.  The shark just does what it must, the cleansing fire doesn't wonder or take pride in hurting what it destroys, but Sovereign and Harbinger did.  They are either mindless robots or they are active conscious beings and since they supposedly house the essence of thinking and feeling beings and express the desire to hurt people, they do understand the nature of their "work".  They enjoy it.  Sovereign also said the reapers were each a nation unto themselves (to paraphrase). 

But the kid blows this all out of the water.  The reapers are just doing what they must do.  But he contradicts himself.  Shepard says he's just an AI, and he says in as much as Shepard is just an animal.  And he is the sum of all the reapers combined, so he is the reapers.  Oh for God's sake is this convoluted.  He is the reapers, but the reapers are just acting as if on basic instinct like a fire, without thinking, with all those brains inside, but he's not just an AI which implies he understands nuance and knows he's causing something, pain maybe. Or I don't know.  Well, then what is he and what are the reapers?  Mindless automatons or thinking beings?  Pick a concept.

[BlueStorm83]

--- He's there to bring about a state in which organics and synthetics are not in conflict with each other. That's his nature. That is what he is and does.

He's not here to save Organics from Synthetics anymore. Now he's trying to "preserve" them both.

The problem arises in that he considers rendering something down and storing it as preserving it, and taking a scan of something and then blowing it up as preserving it.

Don't get me wrong, including him at all is still changing the nature of the narrative at the last minute, but now at least what they change it to isn't something that is self contradictory.

[3DandBeyond]

Gweedotk wrote...

Humans aren't special. Shepard could do it, but not easily. He had to be brought back from clinical death first, as well as understand that despite seeing what the repaers are doing first hand, not all synthetics are bad, even though Geth attacked Eden prime and killed a lot of people. Most people would have a hard time turning around and saying Geth are capable of peace. Synthetics are so strongly opposed by everyone that it's illegal to even develop AI, and even in the third game the Geth are still for the most part distrusted at best, zealously hated at worst.

The Catalyst was created by a race that believed synthetics and organics would always fight one another, or so he claimed. He was created to oversee and mediate diplomatic exchanges between organics and synthetics to avoid conflict. But apparently, it always resulted in conflict. So he created a new solution.

And that solution worked for him until Shepard arrives. Unsurprisingly there has already been conflict between synthetics and organics (Geth and Quarians). But since Shepard has made it so far, it is time to find a new solution.

Synthesis isn't "giving up". It is evolution. It erases the distinction between synthetic and organic by merging the two, getting rid of racism (it's apparently racist to refer to a synthetic as a "machine").

If you feel that organics and synthetics are diametrically opposed, choose the destroy option.

But I don't see how disagreeing with the politics of the game makes the endings poor. This game has managed to suck you into it's world, involve you in its plot and story. I formed attachments to its characters. I bet you did too. Appreciate that, not many games offer what Mass Effect has given us.

What politics?  I don't see synthetics in the current galaxy as the problem.  The synthetics that are are the reapers, the kid's pets, the kid actually.  And there's this big difference between the geth and the reapers.  The geth did kill, but they never ingested people goo and they do not have people goo riding inside them.  "Look, there goes cousin Bob, he's the goo in that reaper."  Yeah that would work.  And the geth were victims of their creators (there's almost as much disdain for the quarians as for the geth) as well as pawns being used by the reapers to create just the conflict (the synthetic geth killing on eden prime were sent there by sovereign), the kid and reapers are supposed to help keep from happening.  The geth were confined beyond the veil until some (the heretics) were brought out by sovereign.  It may be hard to forgive them, but doable and the quarians who faced extinction at the hands of the geth they tried to destroy did forgive them, because the geth forgave the quarians.  I couldn't forgive someone who ate a sandwich with my brother's heart in it.

Synthesis is not evolution if it is forced upon everyone.  It is evolution when people naturally develop into it.  It is advancement before nature says it is time.  It's similar to the ill thought advancement that was done to the Krogans to fight the Rachni who had also been advanced by the Protheans to fight for them.  This is a problem and even Mordin speaks out against the full insertion of tech as a substitute for what people are.  And he does point out that humans are special.  I am not saying they are the most wonderful people ever, but their diversity is repeatedly a theme of why they are in some ways better than others.  Shepard stood above them all-that's not my feeling, that is what the writers did in the game.  Everyone everywhere knows Shepard.  Even Batarians start working with Shepard after the Arrival.  And Shepard above all could see what the beacon showed and could understand what others could not.  Shepard already achieved a lot of balance between organics and synthetics.  This is the model for the future.

The kid's solution in truth never worked.  His creators didn't see it as a solution and it's not.  Solutions are finite things with end results.  His is cyclical and is never finished.  That's no solution.  It is also fatalistic.  It says that he can't solve the problem in any way other than destruction.  That's not a solution.  It's giving up. 

[PuppiesOfDeath2]

Asking the player, after 100 hours of gameplay, to take the words of StarBrat (who has boasted about how much he's enjoying your pain for two games) on faith is absurd.

[3DandBeyond]

BlueStorm83 wrote...

--- He's there to bring about a state in which organics and synthetics are not in conflict with each other. That's his nature. That is what he is and does.

He's not here to save Organics from Synthetics anymore. Now he's trying to "preserve" them both.

The problem arises in that he considers rendering something down and storing it as preserving it, and taking a scan of something and then blowing it up as preserving it.

Don't get me wrong, including him at all is still changing the nature of the narrative at the last minute, but now at least what they change it to isn't something that is self contradictory.

I appreciate what you are saying but he is self-contradictory because he says he is the collective consciousness of all the reapers (to paraphrase), and he says the reapers are just doing what they are meant to do and have no real feeling about it (they don't care about war).  But sovereign and harbinger that are in him do care about it and want people to feel pain and want to destroy them.  They are sadistic, but he claims they are dispassionate.  Both cannot be true.

Yes, he wants to preserve them both, but still this is a contradiction of all that came before-I know you are saying that.  But the kid is contradicting himself in that he is his own example of why there is a problem at all. He and the reapers are the main example.  He still says the created will rebel against the creator and to keep synthetics from destroying organics he has the reapers, but the only synthetics that are causing problems are him and his reapers.  If all synthetics need to be preserved in order to prevent synthetics from killing organics then who protects organics from the synthetics (reapers) that are killing organics right now?  He needs his programming de-bugged because he dropped a line of code because he doesn't see this preservation as destruction.  And when Shepard says it, he still can't see it.  But Legion saw it, Sovereign saw it, Harbinger saw it.

[PuppiesOfDeath2]

Exactly. These are the problems that are created by a non sequitur. Harbinger is sadistic and evil. He has made no illusions about it. Any new, last-minute character change to the contrary breaks the narrative and breaks faith with the player.

[Archonsg]

The core problem with the first ending was, Starbrat says it controls the reapers, thus its the "head reaper" its telling the reapers to kill your friends, your race and you do what it tells you to do, that is kill yourself with a smile on your face.

Right.

In ECDLC we learn that the starbrat is a flawed AI, insane and homicidal to boot since it forcibly turned its own creators into the first reapers. Now, here is the key to the whole thing, starbrat not just murdered them, it reprogrammed them to do its will and it thinks organics = chaos and thus to bring order to chaos = kill organics.
You are also supposed to go on and kill yourself on its say so...well just because.

Right.

And in both cases, you are asked to take its choices, its solutions, essentially to do what the writers want you to.
Because the ONE choice, Rejection of Starbrat's solutions get an immediate "FU" by the writers.

I defy anyone who has listened to Jennifer Hale's, and oh, Mark Meer's was spot on too, "we fight on our own terms!" speech to say "This is not Shepard!"

Because in that one beautiful moment, it was our Shepard, the Shepard we knew come back to life. You can tell from the acting that both Mark and Jennier must have felt the "EFFF! YEAH!" moment when they read that line.

Now don't get me wrong. I do not hate the ending, neither do I love it.
I can accept it as it is because it was ONE possible direction they could have gone with it, but they could have also made it so that your EMS, your War Assets and Galactic Readiness and everything you did in the past 3 games all come together to play that last huge "Hurrrahh!" and kick Reaper Butt.

Heck they could even use the Rachni Queen whose race is doomed, to make that one last charge, one last assault sending drones, ravagers and workers to rip pieces off individual Reapers then get INSIDE and frack them up from the inside.

So many possibilities to give the Sword Fleet the chance to win on their terms and not because an insane faulty homicidal AI decided what our future will be.

Modifié par Archonsg, 29 juin 2012 - 05:18 .

[PuppiesOfDeath2]

How can you reconcile Harbinger saying, "You are vermin" with the notion that Reapers are just trying to "preserve" something? Is "vermin" supposed to be a neutral term meaning "one who needs to be preserved?"

This StarBrat is a last sequence change of narrative. It is the literary equivalent of "And then he woke up and realized it was all a dream."

[Gweedotk]

3DandBeyond wrote...

And he does point out that humans are special. I am not saying they are the most wonderful people ever, but their diversity is repeatedly a theme of why they are in some ways better than others.

I heard that the genetic diversity was going to be the original ending before it was leaked. I'm glad they didn't go with that. Anyway genetic diversity isn't a special quality; Kahlee Sanders goes on to say in one of the books that it's only due to humanity's recent arrival on the galactic scene. Humans had not had enough time yet to homogenize the population through inter-breeding. She goes on to say that naturally blond hair and blue eyes are increasingly rare and humans are losing their genetic diversity. That can be easily explained in science, which fortunately Bioware decided to go ahead and do.

EDIT: Of course, Harbinger talks a lot of smack on the other races and praises humanity repeatedly in ME2. I think Bioware decided to take a milder approach in ME3, made a plot change decision. Mostly because the Alliance is getting its ass handed to them and the Reapers are indeed harvesting the other species, including the Krogan, and therefore "ascending" them into Reaper form. I'm pretty sure that is contrary to what Harbinger said in ME2.

3DandBeyond wrote...

Synthesis is not evolution if it is forced upon everyone. It is evolution when people naturally develop into it. It is advancement before nature says it is time. It's similar to the ill thought advancement that was done to the Krogans to fight the Rachni who had also been advanced by the Protheans to fight for them. This is a problem and even Mordin speaks out against the full insertion of tech as a substitute for what people are.

The krogan and Rachni were not ready, they were advanced heedless of the consequences to solve immediate concerns. The Salarian Dalatrass and Javik both admitted that, the former explicitly. The catalyst said that they had tried in the past to bring about synthesis, but never succeeded. That's pretty vague and those attempts could have resulted in anything. I won't speculate, but he does claim Shepard and the organics now are ready, and he was right. The Epilogue explains the lasting peace and advancement the galaxy enjoys after.

I prefer this ending, but if you don't thats fine.

3Dandbeyond wrote...

Very well said. In fact from the beginning Shepard was told the reapers were there to destroy people. Sovereign said it on Virmire in ME1, in the first conversation Shepard had with a reapers. "I am the harbinger of your destruction." Saren in fact was trying hard to make at least himself useful to the reapers so he would not die.

Sovereign also says that their purpose is "so far beyond [our] understanding that [we] cannot even begin to grasp the nature of [their] existence." So as far as we can guess, they are here to destroy us. They've wiped out millions of civilizations in millions of cycles, not much point in wasting time explaining the reason why to some organic.


The catalyst was hinted at on Thessia, as the Prothean VI said it suspected that reapers are servants of a greater master or something along those lines. Anyway the catalyst's sudden appearance, as some like to claim, didn't make me go "wtf, we're fighting the reapers and they're going to throw a plot twist on me?!". No I had a more subtle reaction along the lines of "oh cool, something unexpected!".

PuppiesOfDeath2 wrote...

Now we are supposed to believe that StarBrat and his love interest, Harbinger, are just galactic streetsweepers cleaning up the cosmos periodically to prevent "chaos."

I'm sure Shepard has been an annoyance considering he stopped the invasion at the citadel and killed one of them. I would be annoyed too, he is making a routine event take more work and time than it should. Harbinger also claims that they are "the harbinger of [humanity's] ascension" and the catalyst echoed this when it said that previous civilization were ascended into reaper form and preserved.

PuppiesOfDeath2 wrote...

Asking the player, after 100 hours of gameplay, to take the words of StarBrat (who has boasted about how much he's enjoying your pain for two games) on faith is absurd.

Which is why they added option 4. The reapers cannot be beaten conventionally, Shepard is the only person that has had virtually any victories against the Reapers, whom have complete control of over half the galaxy before you even make it to sanctuary (according to citadel news). By the time you head to Earth, the galaxy map looks pretty ugly for the organic races. So option 4 is a no-brainer as to its result.

3DandBeyond wrote...

The kid's solution in truth never worked. His creators didn't see it as a solution and it's not. Solutions are finite things with end results. His is cyclical and is never finished. That's no solution. It is also fatalistic. It says that he can't solve the problem in any way other than destruction. That's not a solution. It's giving up.

It was his solution, so it must have worked for him. Whether it worked for us is not his concern. Since the cycle has continued for millions of years, it was never meant to end until synthesis or so he says. They never intended it to end, as the reapers continually state.

But it sounds like you disagree with this because it doesn't fit your view of the world. Your not satisfied, I get that. Ask for more DLC and more options. We would all benefit from that. But putting Bioware down won't get us anywhere. They are people too and are quite capable of saying "I'm done, to hell with this".

Modifié par Gweedotk, 29 juin 2012 - 05:59 .

[3DandBeyond]

PuppiesOfDeath2 wrote...

How can you reconcile Harbinger saying, "You are vermin" with the notion that Reapers are just trying to "preserve" something? Is "vermin" supposed to be a neutral term meaning "one who needs to be preserved?"

This StarBrat is a last sequence change of narrative. It is the literary equivalent of "And then he woke up and realized it was all a dream."

This for me is the crux of one of my main problems.  I've been so aware of ME as a universe of things that happened (not always accurate in my memory of them) that I can't un-know what I know.  I can't view ME3's ending in a vaccuum and it requires that I forget all that was in 3 games and it must stand on its own.

The kid's view of things still means I must forget what Shepard did in ME3, even if I don't remember what happened in 1 and 2, but I do remember those.  Meeting Sovereign for the first time was a stunning moment even as a VI.  He made me fear him.  I didn't feel I'd ever get to know him and have coffee with him.  I felt he wanted to squash me like a bug.  And further comes what Saren says about his reaction to the geth.  The heretic geth worshipped sovereign like a god and Saren says sovereign, their god was insulted.  They are bugs too.  Well I can think by pinning bugs to a background and displaying them on a wall, I am preserving them, but if I talk to the bug and the bug talks back and I tell the bug I going to destroy you, I have indicated, I want to hurt the bug and I know the bug has feelings.  You cannot reconcile destroy with preserve and I cannot un-see what I have seen.

I know that people that are saying they accept the endings aren't saying they are the best that could have been, but I can't even reach acceptance-I mean one that implies they are ok.  I can accept this is the best they will ever be, but they will never be ok to me.  They require that I shut off my brain (I mean me and not what others must do and am not implying anyone is stupid for liking the EC endings-they are not).  For me it's just that the story was a complete thing.  It had the evil baddies and they were real to me and I wanted them to be truly awesome and frightening in some final moments of catharsis.  Instead they are sheep, and incredibly stupid even though they house the collective consciousnesses of their creators and all others whose goo they hold.  It's worse because the kid is them and thus again is not only his own original programming, but the collective of the others as well.

He is something I can't reconcile with since for me the game has no closure.  I might feel differently if the game did have closure.  I might even say (since I could use my imagination and just shut out all that he says and the other choices) that it was acceptable.  Short of closure, I can't. Closure would have made me more positive about it and you can ignore things more easily if you feel more positive.  It's also much easier to invent things to fill plot holes when the desire is there and only feeling positive could do that for me.

[Gweedotk]

3DandBeyond wrote... I know that people that are saying they accept the endings aren't saying they are the best that could have been, but I can't even reach acceptance-I mean one that implies they are ok. I can accept this is the best they will ever be, but they will never be ok to me... It had the evil baddies and they were real to me and I wanted them to be truly awesome and frightening in some final moments of catharsis.

That's fine. I don't believe in good and evil, such implies underlying justice and that's theology as far as I'm concerned. I like the Reapers being more than mindless bad guys.

I guess at this point it is a matter of taste.

[9Enrico0]

BIOWARE... the new ending is better than the old ending.. but... what happened in destruction ending?in shepard's body has been installed reapers technology? shepard is or isn't alive.... EDI and the geths can be repaired?.... remember.. in mass effect 2
you killed and then resurrected shepard..... can another lazzarus project resurrect ida and the geth??
. sorry but is another plot hole....
IMHO in the Destroy ending you could add the meeting between shepard and romance... that has more sense!!!!!

Modifié par 9Enrico0, 29 juin 2012 - 06:08 .

[PuppiesOfDeath2]

@Gweedotk

First, that was the best attempt I've read to do what I think is impossible, namely to give some colorable coherence to what was an objectively poor ending. Second, I'd like to see BioWare put the writers who wrote the first 99 hours of gameplay back in charge. Finally, I would happily pay for a DLC that provided an ending like those in ME1 and ME2, i.e. an ending faithful to the premise of the narrative and one that is consistent with theme upon which their product was marketed and sold to players.

[PuppiesOfDeath2]

@9Enrico0

The BioWare $40 Strategy Guide says "Shepard lives" in Destroy. I assume they meant it since they sold a guide to players saying it.

[Archonsg]

Gweedotk wrote...

But it sounds like you disagree with this because it doesn't fit your view of the world. Your not satisfied, I get that. Ask for more DLC and more options. We would all benefit from that. But putting Bioware down won't get us anywhere. They are people too and are quite capable of saying " I'm done, to hell with this".

To be fair, it's no less than Bioware putting us down.
Seriously, I watched and replayed those three endings several times each to make sure I wasn't posting from a knee jerk reaction.

From the pure technical perspective you can see where and which parts they retcon because fans pointed out discrepancies and really huge holes in logic such as exploding Relay superstructures, which they compromised with having ONLY the rings blow out.
I can accept that since it is a weak point and I can accept that means the force of the detonation wasn't so catastrophic that it would ravage systems those relays are in.

However, as you watch you'll see "broken AND RUPTURED relay superstructures.
In the Control ending for example you see Reapers putting back together a Relay superstructure that was blown to hell.

What does this tell you logically?
That;

1) Those scenes were made before the original ending brought to light the gaping hole in logic when they had cutscene showing Relays blowing up.

2) Those scenes were either cut from the original ending, or were made to be part of a DLC perhaps to be sold later, but because of the huge unexpected outcry, made available "free".

3) That there are obvious "cut and paste" scenes from earlier leaks such as the Huge reaper mounting that poor doomed alliance Destroyer, I do remember seeing that in a leaked video. That was leaked ....2-3 months before ME3 was released.

It would also be logical to hazard a guess that they delayed the release of the ECDLC because what they needed was time.
Time to defuse hostile feelings, time to allow players to first get angry, get depressed, then anticipate the EC, and lastly just glad that the EC is finally released.

Those who REALLY hated the ending and the game in association, have left long ago.
Those of us who REALLY LOVE the game and think "damn, they could do better" are still here, calling them out on stuff they really should look at.

However, from all indications, Bioware is sticking to their guns on the artistic vision, the theme of the ending. That is, Shepard MUST DIE.
Yes, yes I know, the breath scene.
That scene is meant to give you "hope" without committing to the fact.
In its own way, it's still can be a possible "FU!" moment.
Why they won't commit to that scene being the lead that says clearly "Shepard is alive" is because either they don't want people to just gravitate to this one ending.
It's an ending that I personally, really, really dislike since it has quite a few logic holes.

At least with Control you still have the Reapers around to GIVE you the tech knowhow to rebuild and repair Relays and the Citadel.

In Destroy, there are so many contradictory nexus points, I don't know where to begin. More so for Synthesis.

[3DandBeyond]

Gweedotk wrote...


The krogan and Rachni were not ready, they were advanced heedless of the consequences to solve immediate concerns. The Salarian Dalatrass and Javik both admitted that, the former explicitly. The catalyst said that they had tried in the past to bring about synthesis, but never succeeded. That's pretty vague and those attempts could have resulted in anything. I won't speculate, but he does claim Shepard and the organics now are ready, and he was right. The Epilogue explains the lasting peace and advancement the galaxy enjoys after.

I prefer this ending, but if you don't thats fine.

He says he never succeeded at Synthesis because it could not be forced, but now it's ok to have Shepard force it on people.

There are people in ME that never even wanted tech upgrades and never gave their permission for this.

Someone said that Shepard was there to defeat the reapers for everyone so that should cover it, but again, no, everyone sought the reaper's destruction.  That was the permission given, not permission to change people into part synthetic or whatever.  The goal was destruction but the price for that is unreasonable as the writers have presented.

And as far as what Bioware does or doesn't do about anything, well I have no illusions and am not thinking they care to do anything further on this.  But, as far as anything else, they are a business and have acted very much like one that has not wanted to continue taking the money of a lot of people.

I own a business and part of what I get paid to do is listen and respond to the complaints of my customers and treat them reasonably and rationally.  That is exactly what they have not done throughout all of this and even in the EC, I am not alone in saying Reject is ok, but is a FU to players that didn't like the kid and the choices.  It isn't the intent of what people talked at length about and they know it.  The non-closure for the only case in which Shepard lives is another middle finger to players.  They at first before the EC came out said there would be a reunion for Shepard (Jessica Merizan said it on twitter).  I know better than to believe them on anything, but others did have hope.  They said there'd be closure and she said a reunion.  Clear, right?  But not true at all.  I can no longer find that tweet of hers (it seems to have been deleted) and she's claiming that everyone knew what she meant that a reunion was implied.  That is not what people wanted and she knows it.  She's now included the reason why there's no reunion scene as because people wanted different things in a reunion.  So, they included nothing.  All they had to do was remove the memorial wall scene-just show Anderson's name on the wall and after the Normandy flies off change the memorial wall "reunion" to a scene of friends with Shepard and his/her LI nearby or hugging or what have you.  That wasn't too much to ask for.

She seems like a very nice person but that has caused a lot of hurt---again.  It is why anything they say seems hollow to me.  And I'm not bad mouthing them--these are my feelings backed up with my reasons.

They are a business and again they have shown they do not care about their fans.  It's fact not conjecture.  I don't conduct my business that way.  Someone complains, I respond and do not bad mouth them in public or even outside of my family.  If they ask me a question, I have 3 responses-I don't know but will find out, no, and yes.  And I don't answer until I know exactly what they are asking because I want to be accurate.

I don't wish Bioware any ill, I just wish they'd get a clue and strive to do far better, and treat their fans like they'd like to be treated going forward.  They are showing no signs they care to though.

[Gweedotk]

That was one of the things that irritated me most. I don't like profiteering like what you described and I wouldn't be surprised if they had done that. It could have been the EA guys looking over their shoulders telling them to cut this and that and sell it later, the devs themselves I doubt would do that (willingly at least).

As a business, I'm sure they pulled a GE and looked at the short-term profits and figured they would get away with it.

I don't know if they were profiteering, but if so then I say stick to your guns and get some. But the devs, the ones who actually develop the game, I'm thinking they worked hard on this game and hate-pm's can be quite discouraging.

Modifié par Gweedotk, 29 juin 2012 - 06:25 .