2621 réponses à ce sujet

[9Enrico0]

PuppiesOfDeath2 wrote...

@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.

really?? ok.. and ida and the geths? the guide say nothing about they? (sorry for the english if it is incorrect)

[PuppiesOfDeath2]

@Archonsg

Why would you make a game where the "Destroy" ending with the "breath" was the hardest ending for the player to achieve if it wasn't also the "best ending"?

[BlueStorm83]

3DandBeyond wrote...

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.

Right, exactly.  Starboy is retarded.  To him Preserving isn't necessarily SAVING, just RECORDING.  It's saving in much the same way one saves their game: there we go, we copied the data, doesn't matter if we die in the next attempt.  He's not afraid the the created will destroy the creators, just that they'll never have that non-conflict state again.  It's like how I'm in "conflict" with my parents.  They've moved to Pennsylvania.  I'm in New York.  Those two truths are exclusive of each other.

The thing that I say to Starboy is: So what?  Who the **** are you to say that conflict is absolutely unacceptable.  Maybe I made up with the Geth, maybe they moved away, maybe they'll be friendly for a thousand years and then we get into a fight again.  Who ****ing CARES?

The kid is the collective intelligence of the Reapers, right.  And he controls them, he says he gave them function.  But he also predates the Reapers, in a way.  He says that he made his creators into the first "True Reaper."  That would be Harbinger.  Makes sense in the name: a Harbinger is a herald of things to come.  But that's a side note.

Anyway, Starboy supercedes the Reapers.  I view him as the Reaper version of Admiral Hackett.  He gives out the quests, and the Reapers find ways to complete them.  His quest is always "Go there, take a picture of that, and once it's preserved, get rid of it so it isn't in conflict anymore."

I'm rewatching the Sovereign conversation from ME1 right now.  Sovereign sounds pretty dispassionate to me.  He states rather matter of factly that Organic life is small and weak, and eventually withers and dies.  He says Reapers are eternal and unfathomable.  He says that they are "the end of all things."  End may mean cesation, sure, but end might also refer to the result.  One could say that the Taco is the end of Mexican Night at my house.  It's the result, the purpose.  All that came before (grating cheese, slicing tomatoes, cooking meat) must go into the end, the Taco.  I'll watch more.  "We impose order on the chaos of organic evolution.  You exist because we allow it.  And you will end because we demand it."  End here definitely means cease.  But it doesn't automatically mean complete obliteration.  When Mass Effect 3 ends, it still exists.  It doesn't become completely obliterated (as much as even I might want that, so they could take another crack at it) but it exists.  Nothing new will come of it (other than additions) because it's just a recording.  So it's there... but it's ended.  Kaiden then interjects:  "They're harvesting us!  Letting us advance to the level we need, then wiping us out!"  That's actually cool: I don't remember having Kaiden there to say that.  I've only ever brought Tali/Liara or Garrus/Wrex.  So the Harvesting angle actually WAS in ME1 and wasn't necessarily a retcon of the Reaper Purpose in ME2.  Shep asks "What do you want from us?!"  And Sovereign gives his whole, "You couldn't understand it," speech answer.  Shep asks "who built you," Sovereign replies that they have no begining and no end.  Is he being truthful in that?  Obviously not; he's a physical device.  Physicality has to have a begining.  Maybe he's trying to scare Shep into capitulation, or trying to bargain?  Probably.  That's how he got Saren to play along.  He doesn't seem sadistic.  He just kind of says, "We're going to kill you all.  There's nothing you can do.  I don't care what you think of that.  And now I am ending the conversation."

I was going to watch the Harbinger conversations again, but there's no room in this post.  But so far, nothing previous actually contradicts the things that Starboy says, as long as "preserving" is the same as "recording."

[3DandBeyond]

9Enrico0 wrote...

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!!!!!

This is it.  All they had to do to satisfy the majority who wanted a simple reunion was to show Anderson's name on the wall, the Normandy flying off, and no sad people holding Shepard's name plate-replace that with friends standing around Shepard, parting as his/her LI enters-fade out after one emotional moment of your choice--maybe one final decision, a hug or a heartfelt smile.  I see it but I wanted to see it.

[PuppiesOfDeath2]

@9Enroco0

The strategy guide is silent on EDI and the Geth as far as this "Destroy" ending (with "breath") is concerned. It is, however, the "hardest" to achieve in that it requires the highest "Readiness Rating" of any ending.

[BlueStorm83]

3DandBeyond wrote...

9Enrico0 wrote...

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!!!!!

This is it.  All they had to do to satisfy the majority who wanted a simple reunion was to show Anderson's name on the wall, the Normandy flying off, and no sad people holding Shepard's name plate-replace that with friends standing around Shepard, parting as his/her LI enters-fade out after one emotional moment of your choice--maybe one final decision, a hug or a heartfelt smile.  I see it but I wanted to see it.

---  Even a scene of Shepard in the ICU at a hospital, unconcious, but alive, with a scene of the Normandy landing in the parking lot outside.  DAMMIT, they crushed my station wagon!

[gabbie]

PuppiesOfDeath2 wrote...

 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.

Seconded

For me, Comander Shepard was always a Mary Sue trope. But IMHO as a paying customer, I did not see that as a bad thing. If you no longer want to portray our hero as such anymore then fine - but don't do in the last 5 mins of the story!!!

[3DandBeyond]

@BlueStorm83,
I have to correct something I said.  Sovereign says he is the vanguard of "your" destruction.  I said he said harbinger, but it's vanguard.  But then Harbinger says and seems to realize he is hurting people when he does things.  There seems to be clear intent to cause pain.

But the point is, reconciling destruction with preservation is not something easily done.  And any "message" that was meant to be carried through to the end of ME3 as far as harmony or balance is lost or so subtle as to be all but non-existent.  Of course, foreshadowing is subtle but it is built upon until the end when it is rationally clear that that was the meaning.  There is an "AHA" moment of realization.  That doesn't exist and you have to look for needles in haystacks to even find extremely subtle references.  If preservation was the thing even under some other euphemism, then why the use of the geth who can't ascend or preserve anything-they merely kill.  That is more in keeping with what harbinger and sovereign say and the implication of their appearance all along.

Also, since the contain the essence (consciousness, intelligence) of people that came before there should be some understanding of the implication of their actions.  I get it that they wouldn't care and that the kid wouldn't, but it would be obvious that they are causing pain.  And they would have knowledge of war and that war is chaos.

[seitani]

EC salvages a lot from the original endings. Im ok with the ending now, but one thing that bothers me is why give reapers motives so much deeper important meaning. Why can't they just be force from the dark space who destroys galaxy every 50 000 years for their own unknown reasons(maybe for their own amusement). It ruins so much of their mystique and intimidation to know that some AI controls them for his own flawed reasons. Why can't harbinger,sovereign and their buddies just be machines who like to hurt all organic, synthetic, living or dead etc...etc...for their own reasons that we don't or can't understand.

Modifié par seitani, 29 juin 2012 - 06:54 .

[BlueStorm83]

3DandBeyond wrote...

@BlueStorm83,
I have to correct something I said.  Sovereign says he is the vanguard of "your" destruction.  I said he said harbinger, but it's vanguard.  But then Harbinger says and seems to realize he is hurting people when he does things.  There seems to be clear intent to cause pain.

But the point is, reconciling destruction with preservation is not something easily done.  And any "message" that was meant to be carried through to the end of ME3 as far as harmony or balance is lost or so subtle as to be all but non-existent.  Of course, foreshadowing is subtle but it is built upon until the end when it is rationally clear that that was the meaning.  There is an "AHA" moment of realization.  That doesn't exist and you have to look for needles in haystacks to even find extremely subtle references.  If preservation was the thing even under some other euphemism, then why the use of the geth who can't ascend or preserve anything-they merely kill.  That is more in keeping with what harbinger and sovereign say and the implication of their appearance all along.

Also, since the contain the essence (consciousness, intelligence) of people that came before there should be some understanding of the implication of their actions.  I get it that they wouldn't care and that the kid wouldn't, but it would be obvious that they are causing pain.  And they would have knowledge of war and that war is chaos.

Right!  That's all why it still sucks.  I'm sure that the Starboy KNOWS he's causing pain; he just doesn't care.  It's not his INTENT to cause pain, so the pain is just a consequence of him doing his big important job that only he gives half a **** about.  Again, he's a COMPLETE IDIOT.

He says that he preserves even Organics' creations, so he'd be preserving the Geth.  As a memory.  Again, total idiot.

Also, yes, you don't throw all of this at someone in the last 10 minutes of a story.  If they really, REALLY wanted Starboy to be a valid part of the story, he should have been revealed during hour 20 of Mass Effect 2, the exact half way point of the series.

And even if you DO throw an idiotic AI who only cares for his end result, misdefines preservation, and is quite obviously the villian of the series right at the end, you have a way to just outright DEFEAT HIM.  Satan Ex Machina should be beaten by well prepared main character.

Remember the end of the first Harry Potter?  Where we find out that Professor Squirrel, or whoever the hell he was, had Voldemort on the back of his head?  That was WAY out of left field.  And then he was soundly defeated without Harry also having to kill Rom, or without having to CONTROL Voldemort, or without having to make everyone half Muggle half Voldemort.  And when Harry refused to be beaten by whatever the hell Voldemort was saying or doing, we didn't get a "20 years later" thing where some Chinese kid is going to Hogwarts and then HE beats Voldemort.

---  Mass Effect 3 is a working, complete story.  But due to a less than satisfying climax moment, it's not a fantastic one.  The game as a whole now is like a 7 or an 8 to me.  Just because, while not breaking the narrative or the gameplay, the last few moments are still a betrayal of the themes and characters to this point.

[Archonsg]

PuppiesOfDeath2 wrote...

@Archonsg

Why would you make a game where the "Destroy" ending with the "breath" was the hardest ending for the player to achieve if it wasn't also the "best ending"?

It really depends what you deem to be the "best".
Look at what they made you do to get the "best" originally, you HAD to play MP to get "the best". 
That is fact. 
Why? Because people who wanted "the best" had to play MP, and probably banking on these same people who "wanted" the best equipment in MP, would buy Supply Packs with Bioware points.

Now if you meant that the ending in "Destroy" is the best, I'll have to ask, "best for whom and in what context?"
Because to a person playing a full Paragon, Destroy forced that person to first betray an ally, and in doing so commit a war crime of genocide against a sentient race. 
Secondly, you will be willingly murdering a friend, whom have fought beside you and saved your butt, (remember Chronos base and the her preventing your sorry arse being vented out into space?) not to mention that, you are probably doing so just because you wanted to get that "breath" scene.

Is it really the best just because they made it harder? 
No. 
From its original concept, it was meant to get you to play MP, and in doing so, hope that you will continue to play MP and possibly spend money on supply packs. 

Now that this is no longer the case, and anyone who do a full run, with all side quests done CAN get it, is it still the "best"? 
It'll all boil down to what character, Renegade or Paragon, whether you are just choosing this option just because it alludes to Shepard being alive. 

That scene is badly thought out, and is filled with contradictory cues, like Asphalt and concrete rubble. I don't remember the Citadel using Asphalt. 
So he has to be on earth, on the ground. 
How did Shepard get there? 
How did he survive the explosion.
Why didn't anyone find him?
Wasn't there search and rescue, wouldn't his torso suit still have an location beacon?

If this
 


is what happens to someone in full and functional armor, (note the multiple spinal and neck joint breaks)
why do you think its less for someone without a helmet and full armor?

And more....
Seriously. 
That last breath scene is a red herring and people should not just focus on it as the reason why "Destroy" is the "best".

Modifié par Archonsg, 29 juin 2012 - 06:50 .

[Voodoo2015]

PuppiesOfDeath2 wrote...

@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.

They also say.

At a 5000 readiness rating, if you choose to destroy the reapers and did not "Save" Anderson, Shepard lives.

Wait can you SAVE Anderson. I always shoot Anderson cus TIM force me! And Anderson dies.

Modifié par Voodoo2015, 29 juin 2012 - 06:56 .

[BlueStorm83]

--- Sovereign conversation, with the added benefit of Mass Effect 3!

Shepard: "Why are you doing this!?"
Sovereign: "You could not understand."
Shepard: "We're not as stupid as you think."
Sovereign: "No, that's not what I meant. It's not really understandable."
Shepard: "Try me, I can understand a lot."
Sovereign: "Well... (Deep sigh) Okay. We're doing this to save you."
Shepard: "This is the opposite of that."
Sovereign: "Not save as in rescue. Save as in like a computer file. Have you ever seen the Doctor Who two part episode, "Silence in the Library" and "Forests of the Dead?" It's like that. Donna Noble has been saved."
Shepard: "I haven't seen that, no. But that still doesn't tell me why you're "saving" us!"
Sovereign: "It's because Organics and Synthetics shouldn't be in conflict."
Shepard: "YOU'RE the ones MAKING the conflict!"
Soveriegn: "No, we're making a war. See, you're in conflict with AI at this very moment."
Shepard: "No I'm not! There's no AI here besides you, and that plays into my insistence that you're the problem!"
Sovereign: "Right. There's no other AI. Because you've made them illegal. You don't accept them. When is the last time you hugged an AI?"
Shepard: "So you're saying that even separation from AI is unacceptable? That's incredibly-"
Sovereign: "Stupid, yes, I know. But that's why we do this. We record things, grind people up, and save everyone by putting them in repositories on one of us."
Shepard: "That's the stupidest- What the hell, man?! Who thought this was a good idea?"
Sovereign: "An AI that was built to facilitate the end of conflict between Organics and Synthetics. He's... he's kind of a literalistic dick."
Shepard: "Why do you accept that?"
Sovereign: "We have to. He controls us. Sort of. I mean, I don't know. He is us. He is us and he controls us. Well, except ol' Levi. He was like, "Listen, Nazara, you need to stop this crap. I'm gonna go and crash on some planet. One day Batarians will find me. You should come, it'll be cool." So maybe the AI doesn't control us. But he probably does. Does that sound stupid?"
Shepard: (has already walked away and applied for a job at Bethesda.)

[BlueStorm83]

Voodoo2015 wrote...

PuppiesOfDeath2 wrote...

@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.

They also say.

At a 5000 readiness rating, if you choose to destroy the reapers and did not "Save" Anderson, Shepard lives.

Wait can you SAVE Anderson. I always shoot Anderson cus TIM force me! And Anderson dies.

---  Right, you SAVE Anderson from The Illusive Man, so he can die 20 seconds later.

FUNNY how many definitions of SAVE BioWare has!!!!!!!

[PuppiesOfDeath2]

@BlueStorm83

That is true. With respect to saving Anderson, BioWare puts the word "save" in quotation marks. With respect to "Shepard lives," no quotation marks.

[RinuCZ]

3DandBeyond wrote...
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 agree. Improved endings made the situation way better but they still lack the certain something. Due to EC's 4th option I can at least make peace with myself - without directly looking at other options - that there is a valid closure. If I evaluate all epilogues as whole, it's saddening to see that Shepard was used as a fine item for a twist, rather than as a character. Series deserved a better denouement. But I reached the point where I feel better if I overlook certain connections and simply focus on what is good (i.e. use "the tunnel view").
EC tried and it didn't exactly work but BW made it much less paintful to experience compared to the previous thing. I appreciate that. Now I want to move on with the book left open but this chapter closed.

Modifié par RinuCZ, 30 juin 2012 - 12:08 .

[3DandBeyond]

Here's a link someone else posted to a fan made Liara and Female Shepard closure ending.

If Liara was the LI and you had a femShep it's actually very good.



And I'd never say Destroy is the best choice.  For me, it comes down to being the only choice among horrid choices.
Partly it is because as dumb as it is, Shepard "lives".  And partly while it compromises My Shepard's values it also is possible to consider there is implied consent for what must be done with this choice.  It's horrid, I don't like it, and I cried over killing EDI-I felt like I drowned my own child.  And I absolutely hate Bioware for making these the choices in a game.

That being said, the torso in rubble is ridiculously stupid and not going beyond that once again, is a slap in the face of all fans that complained about MP as I see it, just as reject was for the hatred of the kid.  I bet they are having a real laugh over all this.

It's a sad state of affairs when so many people only wanted something that actually shows their kinder natures.  It was about love and life.  It was about something good and it's done to make you feel you did something horrendously bad (and you must if paragon).

The only reason I can live with it is because everyone knew Earth was a suicide mission.  EDI told my Shepard she would die for the team if needed.  The geth-Legion showed what they would do for a good cause.  Everyone was headed to Earth to use the Crucible as a weapon of destruction, to kill, destroy the reapers.  That was the goal, not synthesis (the kid's choice) and not control (TIM's choice), and not reject (no choice, but great speech).  Destroy was Anderson's choice and he died for it.  Everyone who died before died with that goal in mind.  My Shepard (and I) could not conceive of allowing the reapers and possibly the kid to remain in existence.  And as abhorrent as it is, since it is the hardest choice, not an easy out, it is the one I have to choose time and again. 

The control speech Shepard gives is not Paragon no matter what anyone says, because Shepard says partly that the person s/he was always wanted power (something like this), but no Paragon ever did.  I don't think any option is so Paragon as all that, but Destroy is in keeping with what everyone wanted all along.  Sure, for me for selfish reasons I want Shepard to have a chance to be alive afterward, but I also have to feel somewhat right (not good) in making a choice.  The others do not offer that.  They are easier choices even if Shepard dies.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 29 juin 2012 - 07:18 .

[Voodoo2015]

BlueStorm83 wrote...

Voodoo2015 wrote...

PuppiesOfDeath2 wrote...

@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.

They also say.

At a 5000 readiness rating, if you choose to destroy the reapers and did not "Save" Anderson, Shepard lives.

Wait can you SAVE Anderson. I always shoot Anderson cus TIM force me! And Anderson dies.

---  Right, you SAVE Anderson from The Illusive Man, so he can die 20 seconds later.

FUNNY how many definitions of SAVE BioWare has!!!!!!!

Hahaha Yeah.

So Save really means Shepard kills. So if I choose the fourth ending then I really Save the universe.
At least according to Bioware.

[PuppiesOfDeath2]

BlueStorm83 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

@BlueStorm83,
I have to correct something I said.  Sovereign says he is the vanguard of "your" destruction.  I said he said harbinger, but it's vanguard.  But then Harbinger says and seems to realize he is hurting people when he does things.  There seems to be clear intent to cause pain.

But the point is, reconciling destruction with preservation is not something easily done.  And any "message" that was meant to be carried through to the end of ME3 as far as harmony or balance is lost or so subtle as to be all but non-existent.  Of course, foreshadowing is subtle but it is built upon until the end when it is rationally clear that that was the meaning.  There is an "AHA" moment of realization.  That doesn't exist and you have to look for needles in haystacks to even find extremely subtle references.  If preservation was the thing even under some other euphemism, then why the use of the geth who can't ascend or preserve anything-they merely kill.  That is more in keeping with what harbinger and sovereign say and the implication of their appearance all along.

Also, since the contain the essence (consciousness, intelligence) of people that came before there should be some understanding of the implication of their actions.  I get it that they wouldn't care and that the kid wouldn't, but it would be obvious that they are causing pain.  And they would have knowledge of war and that war is chaos.

Right!  That's all why it still sucks.  I'm sure that the Starboy KNOWS he's causing pain; he just doesn't care.  It's not his INTENT to cause pain, so the pain is just a consequence of him doing his big important job that only he gives half a **** about.  Again, he's a COMPLETE IDIOT.

He says that he preserves even Organics' creations, so he'd be preserving the Geth.  As a memory.  Again, total idiot.

Also, yes, you don't throw all of this at someone in the last 10 minutes of a story.  If they really, REALLY wanted Starboy to be a valid part of the story, he should have been revealed during hour 20 of Mass Effect 2, the exact half way point of the series.

And even if you DO throw an idiotic AI who only cares for his end result, misdefines preservation, and is quite obviously the villian of the series right at the end, you have a way to just outright DEFEAT HIM.  Satan Ex Machina should be beaten by well prepared main character.

Remember the end of the first Harry Potter?  Where we find out that Professor Squirrel, or whoever the hell he was, had Voldemort on the back of his head?  That was WAY out of left field.  And then he was soundly defeated without Harry also having to kill Rom, or without having to CONTROL Voldemort, or without having to make everyone half Muggle half Voldemort.  And when Harry refused to be beaten by whatever the hell Voldemort was saying or doing, we didn't get a "20 years later" thing where some Chinese kid is going to Hogwarts and then HE beats Voldemort.

---  Mass Effect 3 is a working, complete story.  But due to a less than satisfying climax moment, it's not a fantastic one.  The game as a whole now is like a 7 or an 8 to me.  Just because, while not breaking the narrative or the gameplay, the last few moments are still a betrayal of the themes and characters to this point.

Well said. 

I doubt that version of Harry Potter would have been quite so lucrative for J.K. Rowling.  And I suspect that some, if not most, of the bloom is off of the rose in this series because of the ending.

And speaking of Harry Potter, Rowling sold seven books to readers, an enormous investment of their time (and hers).  What happened at the end?  Despite incredible odds and an seemingly overwhelming opposing force, a kid overcomes evil.  What a novel concept?  How gratifying for those who invested so much in the compelling journey.

[3DandBeyond]

PuppiesOfDeath2 wrote...

BlueStorm83 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

@BlueStorm83,
I have to correct something I said.  Sovereign says he is the vanguard of "your" destruction.  I said he said harbinger, but it's vanguard.  But then Harbinger says and seems to realize he is hurting people when he does things.  There seems to be clear intent to cause pain.

But the point is, reconciling destruction with preservation is not something easily done.  And any "message" that was meant to be carried through to the end of ME3 as far as harmony or balance is lost or so subtle as to be all but non-existent.  Of course, foreshadowing is subtle but it is built upon until the end when it is rationally clear that that was the meaning.  There is an "AHA" moment of realization.  That doesn't exist and you have to look for needles in haystacks to even find extremely subtle references.  If preservation was the thing even under some other euphemism, then why the use of the geth who can't ascend or preserve anything-they merely kill.  That is more in keeping with what harbinger and sovereign say and the implication of their appearance all along.

Also, since the contain the essence (consciousness, intelligence) of people that came before there should be some understanding of the implication of their actions.  I get it that they wouldn't care and that the kid wouldn't, but it would be obvious that they are causing pain.  And they would have knowledge of war and that war is chaos.

Right!  That's all why it still sucks.  I'm sure that the Starboy KNOWS he's causing pain; he just doesn't care.  It's not his INTENT to cause pain, so the pain is just a consequence of him doing his big important job that only he gives half a **** about.  Again, he's a COMPLETE IDIOT.

He says that he preserves even Organics' creations, so he'd be preserving the Geth.  As a memory.  Again, total idiot.

Also, yes, you don't throw all of this at someone in the last 10 minutes of a story.  If they really, REALLY wanted Starboy to be a valid part of the story, he should have been revealed during hour 20 of Mass Effect 2, the exact half way point of the series.

And even if you DO throw an idiotic AI who only cares for his end result, misdefines preservation, and is quite obviously the villian of the series right at the end, you have a way to just outright DEFEAT HIM.  Satan Ex Machina should be beaten by well prepared main character.

Remember the end of the first Harry Potter?  Where we find out that Professor Squirrel, or whoever the hell he was, had Voldemort on the back of his head?  That was WAY out of left field.  And then he was soundly defeated without Harry also having to kill Rom, or without having to CONTROL Voldemort, or without having to make everyone half Muggle half Voldemort.  And when Harry refused to be beaten by whatever the hell Voldemort was saying or doing, we didn't get a "20 years later" thing where some Chinese kid is going to Hogwarts and then HE beats Voldemort.

---  Mass Effect 3 is a working, complete story.  But due to a less than satisfying climax moment, it's not a fantastic one.  The game as a whole now is like a 7 or an 8 to me.  Just because, while not breaking the narrative or the gameplay, the last few moments are still a betrayal of the themes and characters to this point.

Well said. 

I doubt that version of Harry Potter would have been quite so lucrative for J.K. Rowling.  And I suspect that some, if not most, of the bloom is off of the rose in this series because of the ending.

And speaking of Harry Potter, Rowling sold seven books to readers, an enormous investment of their time (and hers).  What happened at the end?  Despite incredible odds and an seemingly overwhelming opposing force, a kid overcomes evil.  What a novel concept?  How gratifying for those who invested so much in the compelling journey.

There are similarities as funny as that is-look at how all of Harry's peers grew to become real people, not the flawed kids they were at the start.  The same is the case in ME, with Shepard's friends.  Harry was always the adult, leading.  Shepard, the same.  But Rowlings remembered who people were following and why.  We see Neville at the end almost die, think Harry has died, and the jolt is that neither did.  I'm not such a great fan of HP, but she did it right in the end.  Epic battle, sacrifices, clear choices as to what must be done, impossible odds, but an epic hero.  In any fantasy or SF such as ME, the hero is superhuman and Shepard always was until s/he wasn't anymore, then a rubble pile is all that is deserved.

[Benchpress610]

The EC does a good job in giving some closure and resolution to some of the problems with the original endings. However it fails to address the main issue why the ending fails: the Catalyst.
 
The Catalyst cheapens the story and the terrifying threat the reapers represented. It is superfluous to the story and breaks its narrative. I think whoever came up with the idea of the God child thought that the narrative was flowing in a simple-linear pattern and tried to make it more interesting by introducing this character with its crazy logic at the worst possible moment, botching the ending ant the whole story with it.
 
Why did they see the need to go all philosophical and way into fantasy land with the notion that the reapers were preserving the “essence” of advance civilizations in a reaper form?  By doing what…? Killing them and making them into a DNA paste? Are you serious…? This breaks with the concept and genre Mass Effect was based on from the beginning.   
 
So what’s wrong with a simple-linear story? They have been around since primitive men sat around the campfire telling stories. The reason they are still used is because they work. Simplicity has a beauty on its own… The reapers were the perfect enemy and didn’t need to be explained away. They were awesome killing machines from a remote past bent on absolute destruction. Their unknowable unflinching resolve on total extermination made them the stuff of nightmares. Paraphrasing one my favorites lines from “The Terminator”… Those reapers are out there, they can’t be reason with, they can’t be bargain with. They absolutely won’t stop until we are exterminated….what can be more frightening and terrifying than that? … The shiny blob (as I like to call it) just waters down and dissolves that awesomeness and cataclysmic anticipation for the final resolution of the plot…
 
 OK, you want to explain the reapers motives? This is how I would explain them: They were created as war machines by an ancient civilization and somehow became self-aware and exterminated their creators before they could deactivate them. Ring ay bells?...They are in an infinite logic loop of self preservation and return every 50K years to purge the galaxy of any civilization advanced enough to acquire the technology to destroy them … there simple, no magic, no shiny blob, just hard sci-fi . I know it’s not an original concept and it has been done, but hey… it works every time.

[9Enrico0]

BlueStorm83 wrote...



---  Even a scene of Shepard in the ICU at a hospital, unconcious, but alive, with a scene of the Normandy landing in the parking lot outside.  DAMMIT, they crushed my station wagon!

mmmm. isn't a bad idea... the entire crew to the hospital around the bed of shepard, while waiting to wake up.and next shepard opens his eyes and the first person he looks at is the romance ... and then says. "we did it" THE END... is difficult to think and realize this... ? need a genius?? <_< (this only for the destructon ending)

Modifié par 9Enrico0, 29 juin 2012 - 07:47 .

[PuppiesOfDeath2]

That works for me. And it makes much more sense.

So does this, which is very well done for trying to splice together a video. I am amazed when people do this.

[Jnpacblo]

IMO The problem with the Ending were not the lack of endings or the explanation for them. In Fact there are all flavours of outcomes, you can Destroy, Control, Merge and now, even Refuse. The lack of explanation was not the main problem of the finale. I did not need to see the reapers defeated on krogan, Asari, Quarian etc home planets to know they were. or a picture of Zaheed to know what he did next etc.
For me, the problem with the finale is that It was so mediocre with the series expectations, even with the 1.9 gb EC add on.
Remember those feelings at the end of ME2 where you had all your squadmates participating in the final push?, or even in ME1 when you were trying to reach the Citadel controls with Sovereing in the backgroung? well, that feeling was not here.
The main problem for me was the presentation of the final mission, not the outcome of it.
ME3 finalle was not memorable and does not invite you to play the series again.

[Archonsg]

PuppiesOfDeath2 wrote...

That works for me. And it makes much more sense.

So does this, which is very well done for trying to splice together a video. I am amazed when people do this.

Yeah that is good.
Still waiting for someone to do the Reject option leading to a victory cut.  

Because that reject speech, Frackalisticingly AWESOME in full Shepardness. The REAL Shepard and not the Moron we got in the original ending and the half moron in ECDLC.