4048 réponses à ce sujet

[IntoTheDarkness]

Now with the ending explained, 95/100 plot holes remain. Good Job Bioware. Please hurry up and make 19 more DLC to fill all the plotholes.

[BeastSaver]

Aloren wrote...

DistantUtopia wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

or like if you have the Max number of war assets or more you should win, but if you low EMS you lose, thats how it should have work

the EC still makes War Assets useless again

Agreed. That's how I would have expected Refuse to work.  But nope.  Artistic integrity and all that.  They really want to push for the RGB ending no matter wzhat.  I smell new universe sequel.

Well, I kinda understand why they didn't bother, I don't think it's really because of artistic integrity, especially since it would have been really easy to just kill Shepard in a conventional victory.

The thing is, they required a quite high EMS to get the best ending before EC, and people cried and cried again ... consequently, they insanely lowered the required EMS to get the best ending.
Adding a successful refusal ending based on EMS would have required a much much higher EMS to make any sense, and they would have had to face people complaining again : either they give it to everyone and nobody would pick any of the other endings, and people would complain that the endings are useless and that EMS is not meaningful enough, or they make it hard to reach and people will complain that they can't get the best ending without MP or whatever. Because that's basically the problem, everyone wants the best ending without effort.

Now knowing that, I would have probably done the same : why waste time and resources to build a complete long new ending from scratch when you know that, whatever you do, it's going to backfire anyway ? Instead, they did what they could to improve the three existing endings and just gave us a chance to say "no".

If you like MP, go with it. I have always been a SP person and have no interest in at all in MP. I have no problem with working for it; there just needs to be a way someone who plays SP can achieve it. I replayed all three games as a completionist after ME3 came out to pick up all the points I could and still was always about 300 EMS points short. Besides weapons and armor, there are no advantages to second playthroughs that I can find. If you could get additional EMS percentages from a second playthrough, I'd be fine with that. I'd even play on Insanity mode if that was required. I figure the easiest fix was to lower the EMS required for all possible endings.

[Journeyman313]

Daedalus1773 wrote...

AndrewLBC wrote...

Bioware was given something incredibly rare by an incredibly devoted fan base... the opportunity to throw out the worst ending in video game history... and to replace it with an ending deserving of the name Mass Effect. This meant creating an ending that actually had narrative coherence, didn't introduce a new character, mission objective, and main conflict some 5 minutes before the credits rolled, and most importantly.... was written by a man with a brain... Patrick Weekes.

I still would like to know what led Chris Priestly to send the writers home so he, all by himself, would have the ability to write an ending to Mass Effect that was anything other than a pile of garbage.

Bioware has managed in only 6 months to go from my all time favorite Game Studio to a level on par with 3dRealms.

Yup. The EC ending is a highly polished turd, but a turd nonetheless. I don't hate BioWare per se, but I will never touch another game with Casey Hudson or Mac Walters names on it.

agree I dnt blame everyone at BW but if hudson is still working with them then I have to keep my distance ps did chris priestly really write that crap by himself

[Journeyman313]

if they do ME4 what will be cannon ending? shep wiping out all synthetic life by shooting a tube or shep and starkid deside for everyone to go green by adding himself to the "light" or shep controling all synthetics by simply putting his hands on majic prongs. im a screenwriter and I dnt know which ending is more believable, but I would cannon the destroy ending

[AresKeith]

Aloren wrote...

DistantUtopia wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

or like if you have the Max number of war assets or more you should win, but if you low EMS you lose, thats how it should have work

the EC still makes War Assets useless again

Agreed. That's how I would have expected Refuse to work.  But nope.  Artistic integrity and all that.  They really want to push for the RGB ending no matter wzhat.  I smell new universe sequel.

Well, I kinda understand why they didn't bother, I don't think it's really because of artistic integrity, especially since it would have been really easy to just kill Shepard in a conventional victory.

The thing is, they required a quite high EMS to get the best ending before EC, and people cried and cried again ... consequently, they insanely lowered the required EMS to get the best ending.
Adding a successful refusal ending based on EMS would have required a much much higher EMS to make any sense, and they would have had to face people complaining again : either they give it to everyone and nobody would pick any of the other endings, and people would complain that the endings are useless and that EMS is not meaningful enough, or they make it hard to reach and people will complain that they can't get the best ending without MP or whatever. Because that's basically the problem, everyone wants the best ending without effort.

Now knowing that, I would have probably done the same : why waste time and resources to build a complete long new ending from scratch when you know that, whatever you do, it's going to backfire anyway ? Instead, they did what they could to improve the three existing endings and just gave us a chance to say "no".

some people actually did get their EMS way past the max number, but because they chose to do that with the Refuse option, its basically a middle finger to everyone who hated the Starbrat

[Journeyman313]

IntoTheDarkness wrote...

Now with the ending explained, 95/100 plot holes remain. Good Job Bioware. Please hurry up and make 19 more DLC to fill all the plotholes.

agreed EC closed plotholes but the major and significant holes still exists they may not even try to cover plotholes because they afraid to expose their terrible ending and "artistic integrity" ps does anyone know anything about catalyst and or crucible ?

Modifié par Journeyman313, 05 juillet 2012 - 03:57 .

[3DandBeyond]

The catalyst is a major mess. Just his existence is all over the place.

He was created by creators that he turned into the first reaper.
He is the combination of all of the reaper's intelligence. He is the reapers. He says this if Shepard is to take control-"you will control us."
The Citadel is a part of him.

So, take the 2nd item: He is the reapers but his creators were the first reaper and they created him and he made them into a reaper. So, was he the first reaper-an AI within the thing, the construct that was a reaper, who then had his creators join him? Consider that if both he and his creators are in the reapers, he should know his solution is flawed-their intelligence, should tell him he is wrong in the way he is trying to "fix" things.

He also has created and perpetuated the basis for his own continued existence and solutions. He, in a way rebelled against and destroyed his creators. Again, he should also know that even if he cannot "feel" the effects, because he should be able to understand what his creators thoughts are on it-he is with them in the reapers. He further perpetuates the mistake by sending synthetics to destroy organics and thus cause chaos he supposedly wants to avoid. He can't say the reapers don't care about war. He is the reapers. He understands that war is chaos. He creates conflict and he's supposed to be stopping it.

Since he sees that his prime reason for existence was to find balance between synthetics and organics, nothing he does makes sense. He thinks synthesis is the best way, in somewhat homogenizing all life-not fully, but in effect. Actually, there's one better solution that he used that was his first solution-destroy all that do not conform. I think it would make far more sense for this to be his "desire". If he simply sought to destroy all organics which in effect is what his favorite choice achieves it would fit better with all that he's done. Synthesis destroys what is best about being alive-working to adapt, learn not just to know something but for the joy of learning along the way-finding things out and discovering, love and even pain, soul defining moments.

[Delta_V2]

For me anyway, the EC was the definition of polishing a turd. Sure, it added some clarity and closure (while creating a few new plotholes in the process), but it did nothing to address the fundamental issues that made the ending so unpalatable. For instance:

Ultimately, the Catalyst is a genocidal monster.

Since Refuse simply results in defeat (this whole thing felt like Bioware trolling everyone who didn't respect their "art"), Shepard is basically forced to choose between genocide, slavery, and whatever the hell synthesis is.

So the ultimate message of Mass Effect is that in order to win, we have to work with monsters, and become one ourselves. Terrific message BioWare! [/sarcasm]

Screw it, I'll stick to headcanon.

[3DandBeyond]

Journeyman313 wrote...

IntoTheDarkness wrote...

Now with the ending explained, 95/100 plot holes remain. Good Job Bioware. Please hurry up and make 19 more DLC to fill all the plotholes.

agreed EC closed plotholes but the major and significant holes still exists they may not even try to cover plotholes because they afraid to expose their terrible ending and "artistic integrity" ps does anyone know anything about catalyst and or crucible ?

You really don't learn too much more about either, except that the catalyst is even more messed up than before and that he was aware of the crucible plans.  All of a sudden we are told he thought the ideas for it were gone.  Um, when and why and how?  His whole existence is so flawed.  He lives in the Citadel, but somehow under his nose the Protheans were able to shut off the keepers-keep them from signalling the reapers.  If he is the reapers, why can't he signal them?

And since no one has any idea what the crucible will do or who thought of it, why make it and why trust it?  All the tech they find that's just left laying around has been seeded by the reapers.  But people are so stupid they don't have a problem living in a place that is almost as mysterious as the crucible-the citadel.  They don't understand and won't examine the keepers.  There are whole huge areas of the citadel that are inaccessible.  What kind of moron would just trust that?

What is obvious in the EC is that no matter how much they clung to art and the idea that the endings made sense, they obviously didn't think it at all through.

Major things bear this out.  They never considered that it made no sense that teammates in London were suddenly on the Normandy.  They addressed it in the EC, but in many ways made it look foolish-they hadn't thought through that whole Normandy crash scene and the run up to the conduit was the beginning of their "fix".  Ok, but it's inconceivable that Shepard would call in the Normandy for a pick up at that point.  Have them retreat, maybe.  But, since there were wounded people laying all over, why didn't the Normandy also pick them up?  Nope, just Shepard's 2 teammates.  And right in front of Harbinger.  Ok, I guess we are meant to figure Harbinger can't see the Normandy.  But, that's a big risk to take in an area with no room for the Normandy to maneuver.

Then, in order to fix another thing that springs from that-that clearly no one thought about, Hackett tells everyone to leave.  Well, and go where?  Where exactly is there a pre-determined reaper free zone?  FTL speeds would mean still within the system that is clogged with reapers.  Or using a mass relay would send everyone to another mass relay system clogged with reapers.  The crucible is thought to make reapers go boom so where exactly would "all the ships" meet without crashing into one another that would be safe from all this?

But this sets up one of the least thought out scenes from the first set of endings-the jungle planet.  They hadn't figured out what that original scene was supposed to mean and so they gave it some meaning, but it needn't have even existed at all.  Why it was there originally was to form a basis for the stargazer scene-set 10k years in the future with descendants of those stranded after the crash.  It was part of an originally bleak future that at last had some slim hope.  The devs originally had decided the prothean VI Vendetta was to say that the Crucible would create a galactic dark ages, meaning the galaxy was totally wrecked after the Crucible went off.  The stargazer indicates that 10,000 years later any space travel that exists is still limited.   But, players got very upset.  Even if the Crucible destroyed the reapers or another choice was made, trillions more people would die, the relays were destroyed, and so on.  The devs didn't figure that people would think this was horrible, so they tried to start saying it wasn't so.  And players didn't believe them.  So, they put in the scene of the Normandy flying off the planet.  Well, that's great, but now the stargazer scene doesn't fit anything.  It is unrelated to the story.  I didn't like it before and really don't now.

[i am gustavox]

I just don't understand how Bioware could do such an awesome job on the story for most of the game and then have the ending be so poor. I also did not like the beginning at all, but I will be fine with it if the ending just wasn't anticlimactic. Once you get to Earth, everything that you do feels like rising action to some awesome ending. The part when you are defending the tanks was one of the few challenging moments in the game (Insanity difficulty, imported Shepard), so I was expecting the end fight to be really difficult. For me, the end of ME2 was way more challenging than ME3. I feel as if Bioware let down those who imported saves and tried to make the game enjoyable for those who had never played any other Mass Effect games. In doing so, those who had played the previous games suffered the most.

[3DandBeyond]

Delta_V2 wrote...

For me anyway, the EC was the definition of polishing a turd. Sure, it added some clarity and closure (while creating a few new plotholes in the process), but it did nothing to address the fundamental issues that made the ending so unpalatable. For instance:

Ultimately, the Catalyst is a genocidal monster.

Since Refuse simply results in defeat (this whole thing felt like Bioware trolling everyone who didn't respect their "art"), Shepard is basically forced to choose between genocide, slavery, and whatever the hell synthesis is.

So the ultimate message of Mass Effect is that in order to win, we have to work with monsters, and become one ourselves. Terrific message BioWare! [/sarcasm]

Screw it, I'll stick to headcanon.

Agreed.  In fact, most of the stuff they added dialogue for was stuff I think most of us kind of figured out.  We just didn't think it made any sense in its totality.  It's based on a garbage idea of created/creator and chaos/order "problems".

If these problems exist or have existed, Shepard has at least been able to show that they can be dealt with, one way or another.  EDI and the geth-no matter what your Shepard does with them, the "problem" is solved. 

If a paragon Shepard saves them and helps EDI become alive and then chooses to destroy the reapers (following what is the only goal of 3 games), the best examples of how to solve the "problems" the kid says exist are destroyed.  The fact that Shepard lives means the devs see this as a totally selfish choice.  If the choices are real, it's the one that accomplishes the goal but it totally slams all that Shepard did in proving the kid's logic is wrong.  It's just as much a middle finger to fans as refuse is.

All choices (even refuse) abandon the idea that people may be able to learn, overcome, and achieve on their own.  Control is insane-it makes no sense at all especially for a paragon Shepard or any Shepard that destroyed the Collector Base since it leaves the reapers intact with people goo inside them.  It also makes no sense based upon what the new and improved Shepard reaper says-about Shepard wanting to become something greater.  And, the devs changed up a little bit of some dialogue between Hackett and Shepard when you decide to start Cronos.  You select TIM's base on the map and get sent to talk to Hackett.  Tell him you aren't ready to go and Sam will tell you he's available to talk.  Go back and talk to him and ask him about Cerberus.  He clearly thinks TIM is insane and order you to kill him.  He also says controlling the reapers is not an option and that the only way to solve the problem is "no more reapers".  Hackett's orders.

Synthesis is crazy times infinity.  In London EDI tells my Shepard that she helped her become alive.  In Synthesis EDI says, "I am alive."  Ok, I think EDI forgot all that she and Shepard discussed, because this hybrid mix was not the meaning of life as she learned it.  Organics seek perfection through tech.  That's what the kid says.  No they don't.  Some crazy people might seek perfection and think it exists.  Most rational people don't and don't believe it exists.  And tech is not perfection.  If it was then the end goal of evolution would be for everyone to become fully synthetic and not a hyrbrid.  Synthesis is also "forced" upon people without their knowledge or permission.  Many, including Shepard have spoken out against such a thing.  Shepard has even seen grotesque attempts to achieve it, the reapers for one thing.  And the kid and the reapers want it.  That alone makes it easily a non-choice.

Refuse is a joke.  It says no matter what intelligent objection you have to some pretty awful choices, you lose.  You can't truly win with the other choices either, but this one is so obviously a middle finger to fans.

I can't conceive of any company ever getting a game ending so wrong and leaving such a wonderful series on this note--I mean the series that was Shepard's story.  Shepard becomes either a godlike reaper commander, a total hypocrit by forcing a change upon all people, a selfish mass murderer, or a free victim of suicide.  A game.  These are not fun ending themes in a game.

And ME had such strong themes going into the ending.  Redemption and at last galaxy unity.  It's kind of like what the civil war helped do for the United States.  Prior to the civil war the country was referred to as "These United States", a bunch of loosely combined independent nation states.  Afterwards, it was "The United States", still different states with some autonomous rights, but one nation.  The galaxy in ME could have come out of this in the same way and really fulfilled the speech that Hackett gives in Destroy (what I felt should have been Shepard's speech).  ME2 showed so much redemption of a lot of misfits.  ME3 allowed Kaidan or Ashley to find redemption and then the council, even TIM (if you get him to shoot himself), but Shepard loses all that by making one of these "4" choices.  And galaxy unity is based on the actual inability to truly save everyone and bring the galaxy together.

ME1 and ME2 allowed you to find ways to save everyone mostly (Ashley or Kaidan the exception).  ME3 also allowed you to find ways to save just about everyone but at a cost up until the ending.  There's no victorious sacrifice that gives the deaths that will happen any justification.  They all mean the death of something that is too high a cost to pay merely to finish a game.  They all destroy the hero (even with Shepard lives) and furthermore, they destroy the heart and soul of the game.  Some say they felt good now after finishing the EC and I honestly don't see how that's possible-there's no good choice here except to not play the ending and then it makes playing the games totally worthless.

[3DandBeyond]

i am gustavox wrote...

I just don't understand how Bioware could do such an awesome job on the story for most of the game and then have the ending be so poor. I also did not like the beginning at all, but I will be fine with it if the ending just wasn't anticlimactic. Once you get to Earth, everything that you do feels like rising action to some awesome ending. The part when you are defending the tanks was one of the few challenging moments in the game (Insanity difficulty, imported Shepard), so I was expecting the end fight to be really difficult. For me, the end of ME2 was way more challenging than ME3. I feel as if Bioware let down those who imported saves and tried to make the game enjoyable for those who had never played any other Mass Effect games. In doing so, those who had played the previous games suffered the most.

I agree with you, the beginning of ME3 was horrible, but you could get past that because of the great stuff in the game.  Your thought that they intentionally "forgot" about players with imported games is totally true.  One guy, head of their marketing (Silverman, I think is his last name) said exactly that.  He felt that in playing ME3, most people wouldn't remember anything that happened in the other 2 games and that they didn't need to.  ME3 in his opinion was a great entry game into the ME series.  This makes no sense.  He is head of marketing-that means he tries to put things out there to get the most money for the company that he can.  He should have been saying that in order to experience ME3 fully it would help for PS3 players to get ME2 and for anyone that can to play ME1 and 2 first.  It's like going to a store to buy paint-they will try to sell you a paintbrush too.  That's what marketers do.  But this guy wanted people to forget ME1 and ME2 and you can see why.

Another thing he also said is really ridiculous.  Most of us loved the characters and probably tried out various romances as well.  They were fun and in many ways mattered in making Shepard seem like a real person that we could identify with.  Shepard fought not for that stupid kid in the opening of ME3 (the star kid's flesh model), but for his/her friends and LI and a concept of Earth as home to humanity and the galaxy as a community of souls.  But mostly the faces Shepard saw were obvious to us.  This marketing guy said that at the end of ME3, players would feel like they were in the battle to save the galaxy so who cares about your Love Interest.  Well, 2 problems.  At the end I never felt like I was in a battle at all, except one to keep from laughing and crying at the stupidity, and MY Shepard and I both cared about that Love Interest and all those other friends.  This is the idiocy that seems to have been behind everything that happened.

I also agree with you about the ME2 ending, same goes with the ME1 ending.  In ME2 that ending was a real challenge with adrenaline and choices that mattered.  I lost teammates and had to go back and find out how to make everyone live.  You also get a choice that you think will really matter in ME3, but it means nothing.  Save or destroy the base-it doesn't matter.  But in ME3, TIM and Cerberus become a real threat.  Because TIM somehow reconstructs all of the info you destroyed?  No, what should have happened is if you saved the base, TIM because a horrific threat base upon what he KNOWS.  If you destroyed the base, he should be a threat based upon what he WANTS.  They didn't even need to change a lot of what happens, but merely change Cerberus (TIM) dialogue.  Instead it doesn't matter at all.

[Journeyman313]

3DandBeyond wrote...

The catalyst is a major mess. Just his existence is all over the place.

He was created by creators that he turned into the first reaper.
He is the combination of all of the reaper's intelligence. He is the reapers. He says this if Shepard is to take control-"you will control us."
The Citadel is a part of him.

So, take the 2nd item: He is the reapers but his creators were the first reaper and they created him and he made them into a reaper. So, was he the first reaper-an AI within the thing, the construct that was a reaper, who then had his creators join him? Consider that if both he and his creators are in the reapers, he should know his solution is flawed-their intelligence, should tell him he is wrong in the way he is trying to "fix" things.

He also has created and perpetuated the basis for his own continued existence and solutions. He, in a way rebelled against and destroyed his creators. Again, he should also know that even if he cannot "feel" the effects, because he should be able to understand what his creators thoughts are on it-he is with them in the reapers. He further perpetuates the mistake by sending synthetics to destroy organics and thus cause chaos he supposedly wants to avoid. He can't say the reapers don't care about war. He is the reapers. He understands that war is chaos. He creates conflict and he's supposed to be stopping it.

Since he sees that his prime reason for existence was to find balance between synthetics and organics, nothing he does makes sense. He thinks synthesis is the best way, in somewhat homogenizing all life-not fully, but in effect. Actually, there's one better solution that he used that was his first solution-destroy all that do not conform. I think it would make far more sense for this to be his "desire". If he simply sought to destroy all organics which in effect is what his favorite choice achieves it would fit better with all that he's done. Synthesis destroys what is best about being alive-working to adapt, learn not just to know something but for the joy of learning along the way-finding things out and discovering, love and even pain, soul defining moments.

your completely right the reapers should have just targeted the geth and other synthetics to begin with. Starkid is an exteremist by targeting organics. bottom line I just cant imagine a ME4 without Alternate universe sequel or completely explaining what really happened at the citadel in the final minutes.

[Journeyman313]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Delta_V2 wrote...

For me anyway, the EC was the definition of polishing a turd. Sure, it added some clarity and closure (while creating a few new plotholes in the process), but it did nothing to address the fundamental issues that made the ending so unpalatable. For instance:

Ultimately, the Catalyst is a genocidal monster.

Since Refuse simply results in defeat (this whole thing felt like Bioware trolling everyone who didn't respect their "art"), Shepard is basically forced to choose between genocide, slavery, and whatever the hell synthesis is.

So the ultimate message of Mass Effect is that in order to win, we have to work with monsters, and become one ourselves. Terrific message BioWare! [/sarcasm]

Screw it, I'll stick to headcanon.

Agreed.  In fact, most of the stuff they added dialogue for was stuff I think most of us kind of figured out.  We just didn't think it made any sense in its totality.  It's based on a garbage idea of created/creator and chaos/order "problems".

If these problems exist or have existed, Shepard has at least been able to show that they can be dealt with, one way or another.  EDI and the geth-no matter what your Shepard does with them, the "problem" is solved. 

If a paragon Shepard saves them and helps EDI become alive and then chooses to destroy the reapers (following what is the only goal of 3 games), the best examples of how to solve the "problems" the kid says exist are destroyed.  The fact that Shepard lives means the devs see this as a totally selfish choice.  If the choices are real, it's the one that accomplishes the goal but it totally slams all that Shepard did in proving the kid's logic is wrong.  It's just as much a middle finger to fans as refuse is.

All choices (even refuse) abandon the idea that people may be able to learn, overcome, and achieve on their own.  Control is insane-it makes no sense at all especially for a paragon Shepard or any Shepard that destroyed the Collector Base since it leaves the reapers intact with people goo inside them.  It also makes no sense based upon what the new and improved Shepard reaper says-about Shepard wanting to become something greater.  And, the devs changed up a little bit of some dialogue between Hackett and Shepard when you decide to start Cronos.  You select TIM's base on the map and get sent to talk to Hackett.  Tell him you aren't ready to go and Sam will tell you he's available to talk.  Go back and talk to him and ask him about Cerberus.  He clearly thinks TIM is insane and order you to kill him.  He also says controlling the reapers is not an option and that the only way to solve the problem is "no more reapers".  Hackett's orders.

Synthesis is crazy times infinity.  In London EDI tells my Shepard that she helped her become alive.  In Synthesis EDI says, "I am alive."  Ok, I think EDI forgot all that she and Shepard discussed, because this hybrid mix was not the meaning of life as she learned it.  Organics seek perfection through tech.  That's what the kid says.  No they don't.  Some crazy people might seek perfection and think it exists.  Most rational people don't and don't believe it exists.  And tech is not perfection.  If it was then the end goal of evolution would be for everyone to become fully synthetic and not a hyrbrid.  Synthesis is also "forced" upon people without their knowledge or permission.  Many, including Shepard have spoken out against such a thing.  Shepard has even seen grotesque attempts to achieve it, the reapers for one thing.  And the kid and the reapers want it.  That alone makes it easily a non-choice.

Refuse is a joke.  It says no matter what intelligent objection you have to some pretty awful choices, you lose.  You can't truly win with the other choices either, but this one is so obviously a middle finger to fans.

I can't conceive of any company ever getting a game ending so wrong and leaving such a wonderful series on this note--I mean the series that was Shepard's story.  Shepard becomes either a godlike reaper commander, a total hypocrit by forcing a change upon all people, a selfish mass murderer, or a free victim of suicide.  A game.  These are not fun ending themes in a game.

And ME had such strong themes going into the ending.  Redemption and at last galaxy unity.  It's kind of like what the civil war helped do for the United States.  Prior to the civil war the country was referred to as "These United States", a bunch of loosely combined independent nation states.  Afterwards, it was "The United States", still different states with some autonomous rights, but one nation.  The galaxy in ME could have come out of this in the same way and really fulfilled the speech that Hackett gives in Destroy (what I felt should have been Shepard's speech).  ME2 showed so much redemption of a lot of misfits.  ME3 allowed Kaidan or Ashley to find redemption and then the council, even TIM (if you get him to shoot himself), but Shepard loses all that by making one of these "4" choices.  And galaxy unity is based on the actual inability to truly save everyone and bring the galaxy together.

ME1 and ME2 allowed you to find ways to save everyone mostly (Ashley or Kaidan the exception).  ME3 also allowed you to find ways to save just about everyone but at a cost up until the ending.  There's no victorious sacrifice that gives the deaths that will happen any justification.  They all mean the death of something that is too high a cost to pay merely to finish a game.  They all destroy the hero (even with Shepard lives) and furthermore, they destroy the heart and soul of the game.  Some say they felt good now after finishing the EC and I honestly don't see how that's possible-there's no good choice here except to not play the ending and then it makes playing the games totally worthless.

right syntheses ,control= we got to live with husk now who are made up of our lost  loved ones how stupid is that

[BlueStorm83]

3DandBeyond wrote...

*Sniiiiiiped!*

Another thing he also said is really ridiculous.  Most of us loved the characters and probably tried out various romances as well.  They were fun and in many ways mattered in making Shepard seem like a real person that we could identify with.  Shepard fought not for that stupid kid in the opening of ME3 (the star kid's flesh model), but for his/her friends and LI and a concept of Earth as home to humanity and the galaxy as a community of souls.  But mostly the faces Shepard saw were obvious to us.  This marketing guy said that at the end of ME3, players would feel like they were in the battle to save the galaxy so who cares about your Love Interest.  Well, 2 problems.  At the end I never felt like I was in a battle at all, except one to keep from laughing and crying at the stupidity, and MY Shepard and I both cared about that Love Interest and all those other friends.  This is the idiocy that seems to have been behind everything that happened.

---  Hi!  I've finally migrated over!

Your comment about caring about the Love Interest brings up Gendo Ikari in my mind.  You know, Shinji's dad in Neon Genesis Evangelion.  Skip this if you don't want any EVANGELION SPOILERS.

-------------------Spoiler Zone Begins----------------------

Gendo did everything he could to screw over the entire human race.  Why?  To be with his wife again.  That's all.  He loved his wife.  As the world is under attack by the Angels and his son is becoming a neurotic mess and he's manipulating emotionally damaged children into piloting half human half angel giant robot monstrosity whatevers, none of that matters, he misses his wife.  When I saw that, my reaction was "Yeah, that makes sense to me."  Why is that?

------------------Spoiler Zone Ends------------------

When everything is falling apart, people don't instinctively go to "I have to save the entirety of the galaxy!" or "I have to save the entirety of my species!" or even "I have to save all my family and friends!"  They fixate on whatever's most important to them.  Recently on Deadliest Catch, a crewman on the Time Bandit fell overboard between the ship and the dock.  Andy Hillstrand said, that though it shames him that this was his reaction, his only hope was that it wasn't his son.  The deckhands are all LIKE his family, but his son is the most important person he has.  He didn't know who that was in the water, it could have been his brother Jonathan.  But that was more acceptable to him than losing his son.

So when it comes down to saving the galaxy, peoples' gut reaction is that they're doing this to save (important person X,) and nothing else is really important.  Saying that nobody's going to care about their Love Interest at the end; well, that tells me that this guy doesn't understand good writing AND that, no matter how many people he's ****ed, he's never made love.

[Iakus]

3DandBeyond wrote...

I can't conceive of any company ever getting a game ending so wrong and leaving such a wonderful series on this note--I mean the series that was Shepard's story.  Shepard becomes either a godlike reaper commander, a total hypocrit by forcing a change upon all people, a selfish mass murderer, or a free victim of suicide.  A game.  These are not fun ending themes in a game.

And ME had such strong themes going into the ending.  Redemption and at last galaxy unity.  It's kind of like what the civil war helped do for the United States.  Prior to the civil war the country was referred to as "These United States", a bunch of loosely combined independent nation states.  Afterwards, it was "The United States", still different states with some autonomous rights, but one nation.  The galaxy in ME could have come out of this in the same way and really fulfilled the speech that Hackett gives in Destroy (what I felt should have been Shepard's speech).  ME2 showed so much redemption of a lot of misfits.  ME3 allowed Kaidan or Ashley to find redemption and then the council, even TIM (if you get him to shoot himself), but Shepard loses all that by making one of these "4" choices.  And galaxy unity is based on the actual inability to truly save everyone and bring the galaxy together.

ME1 and ME2 allowed you to find ways to save everyone mostly (Ashley or Kaidan the exception).  ME3 also allowed you to find ways to save just about everyone but at a cost up until the ending.  There's no victorious sacrifice that gives the deaths that will happen any justification.  They all mean the death of something that is too high a cost to pay merely to finish a game.  They all destroy the hero (even with Shepard lives) and furthermore, they destroy the heart and soul of the game.  Some say they felt good now after finishing the EC and I honestly don't see how that's possible-there's no good choice here except to not play the ending and then it makes playing the games totally worthless.

QF frakking T

I get the whole idea of "no ending is perfect" but these endings are so imperfect that they are all repugnant.  I keep hearing Conrad Verner saying "I thought you were a hero!  Heroes don't do things like this!" 

If Bioware claims that we "don't get" the endings, I say they "don't get" why they're so loathed.

[BlueStorm83]

iakus wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

I can't conceive of any company ever getting a game ending so wrong and leaving such a wonderful series on this note--I mean the series that was Shepard's story.  Shepard becomes either a godlike reaper commander, a total hypocrit by forcing a change upon all people, a selfish mass murderer, or a free victim of suicide.  A game.  These are not fun ending themes in a game.

And ME had such strong themes going into the ending.  Redemption and at last galaxy unity.  It's kind of like what the civil war helped do for the United States.  Prior to the civil war the country was referred to as "These United States", a bunch of loosely combined independent nation states.  Afterwards, it was "The United States", still different states with some autonomous rights, but one nation.  The galaxy in ME could have come out of this in the same way and really fulfilled the speech that Hackett gives in Destroy (what I felt should have been Shepard's speech).  ME2 showed so much redemption of a lot of misfits.  ME3 allowed Kaidan or Ashley to find redemption and then the council, even TIM (if you get him to shoot himself), but Shepard loses all that by making one of these "4" choices.  And galaxy unity is based on the actual inability to truly save everyone and bring the galaxy together.

ME1 and ME2 allowed you to find ways to save everyone mostly (Ashley or Kaidan the exception).  ME3 also allowed you to find ways to save just about everyone but at a cost up until the ending.  There's no victorious sacrifice that gives the deaths that will happen any justification.  They all mean the death of something that is too high a cost to pay merely to finish a game.  They all destroy the hero (even with Shepard lives) and furthermore, they destroy the heart and soul of the game.  Some say they felt good now after finishing the EC and I honestly don't see how that's possible-there's no good choice here except to not play the ending and then it makes playing the games totally worthless.

QF frakking T

I get the whole idea of "no ending is perfect" but these endings are so imperfect that they are all repugnant.  I keep hearing Conrad Verner saying "I thought you were a hero!  Heroes don't do things like this!" 

If Bioware claims that we "don't get" the endings, I say they "don't get" why they're so loathed.

---  You know, I'll freely admit that I don't get it.

I don't get why there can't be a winning ending.

I don't get why our only options are to admit that the Reapers were right all along or to lose everything.

I don't get why they reduce the Reapers to a constrained Killbot force.

I don't get why the Starboy was considered a good idea as a character to implement.

I don't get why they're so intent on keeping to a course that's unpopular with people who usually buy their products.

I don't get how they suddenly gutted the narrative.

I don't get how they put in an ending that pretty much says that Paragon Shepard, and all his victories, was wrong all along.

I don't get why Renegade Shepard can get off almost scott free if he's already obliterated the Geth, but every other permutation of Shepard has to be butt****ed.

I don't get how they think that saying "You're too stupid to understand" is a better PR reply than "We did a dumb thing, now we'll fix it."

I don't get why they think they can lie to us, swear they weren't lying, and then release press statements about later DLC that pretty much says, "Yeah, we were lying all along, and then lied again when we said we hadn't lied," and assume that we'll want to give them more money.

I don't get how near total silence from devs is the "community interaction" that they claim they do.

Yeah, apparently BioWare is right.  I really just don't get it.

[Insane_Ivan]

Still has a ton of plot holes but at least it isn't a cut and paste ending with three colors. . . right?

Bioware and EA F*** up again with a terrible ending regarding the catalyst and the whole (I made synthetics to wipe out organics so they can't make synthetics that will wipe them out.) Circular logic irritates me. Because of the ending I guess I will have to wait for a franchise re-boot in 40 years to hope for a better ending. By then hopefully Mac Walters and Casey Hudson will be too old to write it.

-Hold The Line

-Insane_Ivan

[Shepard108278]

Insane_Ivan wrote...

Still has a ton of plot holes but at least it isn't a cut and paste ending with three colors. . . right?

Bioware and EA F*** up again with a terrible ending regarding the catalyst and the whole (I made synthetics to wipe out organics so they can't make synthetics that will wipe them out.) Circular logic irritates me. Because of the ending I guess I will have to wait for a franchise re-boot in 40 years to hope for a better ending. By then hopefully Mac Walters and Casey Hudson will be too old to write it.

-Hold The Line

-Insane_Ivan

God I hope they don't reboot it. ME ended great IMO.

[KALCULATED]

Two words - incredibly disappointed. Even those two words seem like a bit of an understatement. Like someone said above, it's a polished turd.

Perhaps it's just me but the ending cannot be a successful ending if Shepard has to die. It just isn't. I'm sick and tired of these Joan of Arc similarities where you can only be a bloody hero if you're a bloody martyr. That's completely wrong.

In my opinion, scrap the melodramatic catalyst events and have the ending where Anderson and Shepard have their final moments together. The Normandy swings on by and picks Shepard (and Anderson?) up and away they go - with more cinematics to follow of course.

I simply cannot play Mass Effect anymore knowing that the choices I make are completely left aside and ultimately always result in Shepard's death. No thanks, Mass Effect will forever be stowed away on my shelf unless they fix this gd'damn ending.

[cainsrazor]

 I feel obligated to provide my personal opinion about the EC since I am a passionate fan of the series and provided initial feedback regarding the ending of ME3. Here is a brief personal introduction:

Age: 33
female
Played all three ME games.
1st BioWare game played: KOTOR

I have to admit that BioWare did some good things for closure/explanations. I guess I will never be satisfied if hologram kid is not omitted completely and if we are not given options to choose shepard's fate. However, that is only my respectful and humble opinion. 

Nevertheless, the control ending made Shepard into a Reaper or some ambivalent entity and the synthesis was too damn weird. The destroy was the most logical and realistic choice. I still got the breathing scene. But even that doesn't make sense. The Citadel was extremely damaged (clearly not destroyed) but one would assume its artificial atmosphere ceased to exist after the explosion. Shepard should be dead. Or did he divinely fall back onto earth, avoiding being incinerated by re-entry? He should be dead. Or, did he never leave London and the scenes with TIM, Anderson, hologram child, and possibly the "paradise" scene all happened in his mind? Was the Catalyst lying regarding killing all synthetics? We are not shown EDI or any geth dying. There are so many questions still unanswered in the destroy option, but I am hopeful that with time and new stories in the ME universe, we will have them answered. 

PROS:
Clarification on how Shepard's crew mates ended up on the Normandy.
Clarification on why Joker fled the SolSystem. BTW, I am sorry, but Garrus and Ashley (or whoever is the love interest) would NEVER agree to leave Shepard, regardless if ordered by Admiral Hackett. 
Clarification that the mass relays did not blow up (further clarifying space travel is still possible).
Clarification that the Citadel did not blow up.
Clarification that all of Shepard's allies (turians, quarians, etc.) we're not stranded or starved to death.

CONS (just still questions I have):
Why did the stargazer say one day they will be able to travel to the stars when it is clear that the mass relays were not destroyed and the Normandy was up and running? Did I misinterpret this?

The Catalyst is the most confusing thing. He tells Shepard he was created  himself, so why do I have a feeling he is trying to rebel against HIS creators by using the Reapers? Is there a war between the Gods/Creators and the Catalyst is just a small part of this war? He is very illusive about who created him or about anything in the past cycles. Why doesn't Shepard consider this?

Why is Shepard so darn special? The Catalyst says that they already controlled TIM, but why doesn't Shepard think for one second, that HE is trying to be controlled by the Catalyst? Why doesn't Shepard consider this? 

Why did the Catalyst take the form of the little boy? Obviously they knew about Shepard's dreams/past experiences with the boy. (Which brings me to mention Shepard's dream sequences. This was not explained/clarified. I don't want to discuss the indoctrination theory because that is a huge topic to cover. I would love for the IT to be true, but again, that is my humble opinion). The Catalyst chose to manifest himself through the kid because he knew that would make Shepard more vulnerable, naive, and susceptible to cave in and become submissive. Why doesn't Shepard consider the symbolic representation of the hologram child? 

I appreciate the closure and epilogue of some of the characters. The stills make me want more and I can only hope for bigger and better stories. "just one more story."--stargazer.

I will always feel heartbroken because my male Shepard and Ashley were one of my favorite aspects of the entire trilogy. It hurts to see Ashley, once again, being alone and heart broken. However, with the destroy ending, I felt as if Ashley was hopeful and had a feeling that Shepard was really alive. After Shepard's death in ME2, why have Ashley go through this pain again? It was as if I went through this heartbreak as well. This is one of the happy endings I would have loved. I know it is not a soap opera, but I would have loved for them to marry, have little spectre babies (one of the boys named Kaidan or Anderson), and live a long and happy life they deserve. But that is just the romantic and female part of me.

With that said, I wish the players were given the options to choose a perfect and happy ending (a future with the love interest, Reapers destroyed) or an ending in utter destruction (end of earth, human species, death of Shepard). To me, that follows the Paragon and Renegade theme. Or, we could of had an in-between ending of some destruction/happiness with great cost and sacrifice. These were the endings I was hoping for; not an ending with a hologram child (DEUS EX MACHINA). 

But the message I got from BioWare is that organics will always be at war with synthetics (it is inevitable). It just sounds too much like Battlestar Galactica (this has happened before and will happen again).  I wonder, will organics create synthetics again, knowing the cycle?  I appreciated Shepard's response to the Catalyst's statement regarding the consequences of the destroy option. Shepard says, "maybe." That gave me hope and further convinced me that the destroy option was the best and logical choice. I am disappointed with Walters' brave new world ending. There is no denying this because Geoff Kneighly provided a scanned photo of Walters' outline/sketch in his own handwriting of the ending in the app, The Final Days of Mass Effect 3. I am disappointed with Walters in this sense. However, I applaud you BioWare for listening to the fans (even those who are rude, immature, and insensitive douchebags). I know you cannot satisfy everyone. But I don't think there a lot of game developers out there who truly respect and listen to their fans. Do not be discouraged or frustrated with us too much for too long because there are many of us, such as myself, who are passionate and respectful when it comes to games like ME. Thank you for your hard work. Please keep listening to your fans, even if there are some bad apples. 

Modifié par cainsrazor, 05 juillet 2012 - 08:45 .

[3DandBeyond]

KALCULATED wrote...

Two words - incredibly disappointed. Even those two words seem like a bit of an understatement. Like someone said above, it's a polished turd.

Perhaps it's just me but the ending cannot be a successful ending if Shepard has to die. It just isn't. I'm sick and tired of these Joan of Arc similarities where you can only be a bloody hero if you're a bloody martyr. That's completely wrong.

In my opinion, scrap the melodramatic catalyst events and have the ending where Anderson and Shepard have their final moments together. The Normandy swings on by and picks Shepard (and Anderson?) up and away they go - with more cinematics to follow of course.

I simply cannot play Mass Effect anymore knowing that the choices I make are completely left aside and ultimately always result in Shepard's death. No thanks, Mass Effect will forever be stowed away on my shelf unless they fix this gd'damn ending.

2 interesting things here.  One poster recently said he was excited to go through and play all 3 games again after finishing with the EC, to see the differences between his first finish and another one.  I posted that there will be no difference essentially (some different slides and different LI crying or not putting name up).

And a bit ago, one night Mike Gamble posted in the EC announcement thread when someone said that no dev would read the posts and that the endings didn't reflect choices made in the games.  Gamble said they clearly did-the Quarians and the geth, the genophage cure and so on and I tried to point out how the endings actually ignore those things and don't reflect the choices made for them.  Too late, he had moved on, never answered.

A clear cut ending existed and they wanted to appear smart and intellectual.  They achieved the opposite.  Thoughty endings appeal to the emotions that themes within stories build up within the viewer (reader, player).  They are not disjointed, inappropriate, flawed, stuck together, hurriedly created things devoid of the emotions that drove the viewer, reader, player.  Context and emotion drive endings, keeping that player connected to what is important.  Even that floaty, dreamlike, non-urgent walk that Shepard took could have worked had the being at the end been Harbinger who said that Sovereign says hello (his intelligence having been re-absorbed) and that there is no way they will be allowed to start up the crucible.  Then, send in the keepers.  This is more of a joke, but really even the kid could have worked if he had voiced some real choices that the crucible had created that would have led to the kid's possible destruction (with varying shades of sacrifice and victory).  IF the kid had morphed into some thing we had been fighting, revealing his bad self and then if he could attempt to stop Shepard from making a choice.  The kid himself could have told Shepard that if s/he chose the catalyst instead of making a choice that Synthesis would result and no one would die, not even Shepard.  Or, let Shepard shoot him and then have the catalyst transform to his real self and explain that time is now ever shorter to make a decision.  The citadel being a part of the catalyst could have been his to manipulate so that Shepard might have to fight or find how to get through to a decision.  Complete with the dead showing up to try and tell Shepard what choice to make.

I could see real choices being that the crucible is an EMP type weapon that can shut down shields, but it will shut down every ship's shielding.  Or another choice being a conventional explosive type weapon that will result in collateral damage.  Or it being one that may turn the reaper's own indoctrination field back upon themselves that may cause them to begin to self-destruct, but some will remain and need to be fought and destroyed.  And within these risks that Shepard may die or losses will be great-say Shepard cannot get through the Citadel fast enough or give the "right" answers to the dead people that block the way.  I see it as kind of like Shepard going through the geth collective mission.

I use this as an example of how they could have used the idea of making a final choice and then inserting the catalyst as antagonist-they could have returned him to being who we fought and made the choices clearly not his decisions.  Just if the catalyst kid was to be used and so on.

There are many ways they could have played out the ending that would have been more satisfying.  A big huge fight would have been.

[PaxtonFetel]

I am amazed at the talent of the BW two times to do the most stupid ending. In the end, greed and capitalism will make you do ME 4 and it's funny how you may pull through after.

[3DandBeyond]

ME is so much about the characters and very specifically about Shepard. But in the end they tried to take a very simple story of people (a core group and the larger galaxy) fighting to remain wholly themselves in order to save their homes and they morphed it into something that ended up not being about that at all. Javik said it so many times-Shepard wanted to do things while keeping honor intact (he at first thought this impossible) and then he says that the strength of this cycle was in learning to work together. But that has nothing to do with what happens at the end. The choices Shepard is given totally deny that that matters at all. It would have been far easier to make a choice if it were the Protheans or any autocratic regime doing so. Those that strive for better things can't find a decent choice and are denied a decent ending. This is a freaking game. I don't mean utopia, but one path to real success on Shepard's terms.

[BlueStorm83]

cainsrazor wrote...

 I feel obligated to provide my personal opinion about the EC since I am a passionate fan of the series and provided initial feedback regarding the ending of ME3. Here is a brief personal introduction:

Age: 33
female
Played all three ME games.
1st BioWare game played: KOTOR

I have to admit that BioWare did some good things for closure/explanations. I guess I will never be satisfied if hologram kid is not omitted completely and if we are not given options to choose shepard's fate. However, that is only my respectful and humble opinion. 

Nevertheless, the control ending made Shepard into a Reaper or some ambivalent entity and the synthesis was too damn weird. The destroy was the most logical and realistic choice. I still got the breathing scene. But even that doesn't make sense. The Citadel was extremely damaged (clearly not destroyed) but one would assume its artificial atmosphere ceased to exist after the explosion. Shepard should be dead. Or did he divinely fall back onto earth, avoiding being incinerated by re-entry? He should be dead. Or, did he never leave London and the scenes with TIM, Anderson, hologram child, and possibly the "paradise" scene all happened in his mind? Was the Catalyst lying regarding killing all synthetics? We are not shown EDI or any geth dying. There are so many questions still unanswered in the destroy option, but I am hopeful that with time and new stories in the ME universe, we will have them answered. 

PROS:
Clarification on how Shepard's crew mates ended up on the Normandy.
Clarification on why Joker fled the SolSystem. BTW, I am sorry, but Garrus and Ashley (or whoever is the love interest) would NEVER agree to leave Shepard, regardless if ordered by Admiral Hackett. 
Clarification that the mass relays did not blow up (further clarifying space travel is still possible).
Clarification that the Citadel did not blow up.
Clarification that all of Shepard's allies (turians, quarians, etc.) we're not stranded or starved to death.

CONS (just still questions I have):
Why did the stargazer say one day they will be able to travel to the stars when it is clear that the mass relays were not destroyed and the Normandy was up and running? Did I misinterpret this?

The Catalyst is the most confusing thing. He tells Shepard he was created  himself, so why do I have a feeling he is trying to rebel against HIS creators by using the Reapers? Is there a war between the Gods/Creators and the Catalyst is just a small part of this war? He is very illusive about who created him or about anything in the past cycles. Why doesn't Shepard consider this?

Why is Shepard so darn special? The Catalyst says that they already controlled TIM, but why doesn't Shepard think for one second, that HE is trying to be controlled by the Catalyst? Why doesn't Shepard consider this? 

Why did the Catalyst take the form of the little boy? Obviously they knew about Shepard's dreams/past experiences with the boy. (Which brings me to mention Shepard's dream sequences. This was not explained/clarified. I don't want to discuss the indoctrination theory because that is a huge topic to cover. I would love for the IT to be true, but again, that is my humble opinion). The Catalyst chose to manifest himself through the kid because he knew that would make Shepard more vulnerable, naive, and susceptible to cave in and become submissive. Why doesn't Shepard consider the symbolic representation of the hologram child? 

I appreciate the closure and epilogue of some of the characters. The stills make me want more and I can only hope for bigger and better stories. "just one more story."--stargazer.

I will always feel heartbroken because my male Shepard and Ashley were one of my favorite aspects of the entire trilogy. It hurts to see Ashley, once again, being alone and heart broken. However, with the destroy ending, I felt as if Ashley was hopeful and had a feeling that Shepard was really alive. After Shepard's death in ME2, why have Ashley go through this pain again? It was as if I went through this heartbreak as well. This is one of the happy endings I would have loved. I know it is not a soap opera, but I would have loved for them to marry, have little spectre babies (one of the boys named Kaidan or Anderson), and live a long and happy life they deserve. But that is just the romantic and female part of me.

With that said, I wish the players were given the options to choose a perfect and happy ending (a future with the love interest, Reapers destroyed) or an ending in utter destruction (end of earth, human species, death of Shepard). To me, that follows the Paragon and Renegade theme. Or, we could of had an in-between ending of some destruction/happiness with great cost and sacrifice. These were the endings I was hoping for; not an ending with a hologram child (DEUS EX MACHINA). 

But the message I got from BioWare is that organics will always be at war with synthetics (it is inevitable). It just sounds too much like Battlestar Galactica (this has happened before and will happen again).  I wonder, will organics create synthetics again, knowing the cycle?  I appreciated Shepard's response to the Catalyst's statement regarding the consequences of the destroy option. Shepard says, "maybe." That gave me hope and further convinced me that the destroy option was the best and logical choice. I am disappointed with Walters' brave new world ending. There is no denying this because Geoff Kneighly provided a scanned photo of Walters' outline/sketch in his own handwriting of the ending in the app, The Final Days of Mass Effect 3. I am disappointed with Walters in this sense. However, I applaud you BioWare for listening to the fans (even those who are rude, immature, and insensitive douchebags). I know you cannot satisfy everyone. But I don't think there a lot of game developers out there who truly respect and listen to their fans. Do not be discouraged or frustrated with us too much for too long because there are many of us, such as myself, who are passionate and respectful when it comes to games like ME. Thank you for your hard work. Please keep listening to your fans, even if there are some bad apples. 

---  I can answer each and every one of your remaining questions.

For every one, just picture me repeating "Because it was badly written and badly made, without any quality checking."

---  OH!  And when you said, as a pro "Clarification on how Shepard's crew mates ended up on the Normandy."

That wasn't a clarification.  That was them actually CHANGING something.  The first time through, they just 100% never thought about it.  You can, in an un-patched Mass Effect 3, walk backwards in that last conduit approach scene, and your squadmates are with you right up until Harbinger's beam destroys the game.

But as far as the Stargazer, he just says to the grandchild that he can go to the stars "one day."  This could simply be "You're too young to go into space."  Which is probably a good idea: space is HELLA dangerous.