4048 réponses à ce sujet

[Urazz]

Thore2k10 wrote...

RabidWHM wrote...


Didn't Shep suffer enough throughout these games just to die. I'm all for realness/hard choices, but when we have gotten used to the Me2 scenario where your hard work actually does pay off it makes me feel robbed that all my hours to make everything perfect for Me3 got ignored and funneled into 3 choices. Casey promised an experience for everyone which did not deliver to the final game. I wanted my extra "best ending" why not? Some people are okay with dying heroicly. Others are not. Thats why Dragon age worked. You choose how you wanted to "go out". 
 

Thats the point, it was your story. They told you a thousand times that this is your story and in the end they force you into three choices which are all bad! "Tough" moral choices have to be in the game, not at the end of it. At the end you want to see the consequences of your choices. It wouldnt have hurt anybody to have a real good ending, in which you actually feel some sort of triumph.

And by now Mr. Hudsons ABC quote is legendary i think.

Then they have always forced choices on us if you look at it that way.  So 4 choices at the ending and compared to 2 to 3 choices at major points in each game.  Seems to me like they just didn't give you the happy good ending you wanted so you are butthurt about it.

And yes, your extra work does matter because it affects the quality of each ending or if you can even pick that ending.

[Thore2k10]

Urazz wrote...

Thore2k10 wrote...

RabidWHM wrote...


Didn't Shep suffer enough throughout these games just to die. I'm all for realness/hard choices, but when we have gotten used to the Me2 scenario where your hard work actually does pay off it makes me feel robbed that all my hours to make everything perfect for Me3 got ignored and funneled into 3 choices. Casey promised an experience for everyone which did not deliver to the final game. I wanted my extra "best ending" why not? Some people are okay with dying heroicly. Others are not. Thats why Dragon age worked. You choose how you wanted to "go out". 
 

Thats the point, it was your story. They told you a thousand times that this is your story and in the end they force you into three choices which are all bad! "Tough" moral choices have to be in the game, not at the end of it. At the end you want to see the consequences of your choices. It wouldnt have hurt anybody to have a real good ending, in which you actually feel some sort of triumph.

And by now Mr. Hudsons ABC quote is legendary i think.

Then they have always forced choices on us if you look at it that way.  So 4 choices at the ending and compared to 2 to 3 choices at major points in each game.  Seems to me like they just didn't give you the happy good ending you wanted so you are butthurt about it.

And yes, your extra work does matter because it affects the quality of each ending or if you can even pick that ending.

You were always able to take the path you wanted. I expected this to be displayed at the end of the game. Bioware told us that we can expect this to be displayed ("16 vastly different endings" and so on...) at the end of the game. Not quite what happened... 

What does it affect? Shepard is dead and becomes a mass murderer, a reaper god who is not shepard anymore or gets melted and forces some synthetic robo crap on every single being in the galaxy... really thats a quality ending which i really like to fight for, which i in fact i set out to achieve... not. Refuse is not even worth talking about like it is now...

if you like the endings good for you! Just dont tell me im "butthurt" for expecting something more after all that advertisement from bioware...

[GodSentinelOmega]

Hello all, just adding my thoughts to all the great stuff already here.

Pre EC i hated the endings and the catalyst because suddenly after fighting for 3 games to defeat the reapers as a united galaxy, the reaper godchild suddenly turns up and says.

Hi welcome my home, its a part of me buts its my home too. I'm the head reaper and seeing as how you built this facy gizmo, i'm feeling generous so i'll give you 3 chances to beat us ok? Right, here goes.
1. You can become me and tell all the monster ships what to do. Oh yeah you'll die but you'll still be boss.
2. You can die in this beam over here and transform everything in the universe into cyborgs. This is the bestest option, its the pinnacle of evolution. It'll great everyone will thank you.
3. You can shoot this tube and send out a pulse that'll kill all synthetic life. Oh sure we'll die but so will you, your pretty friend EDI and your new mates the Geth. You don't really want to do that though, cause you crazy organics will build new machines that'll kill you.
Now be a good boy and pick your colour.

I'm giving these choices cause i've been reaping for ages. Why? cause machines are bad and always kill you. See? I'm doing this to protect you.

Post EC i actually, and disappointly still hated the endings, but i now have even more reason to hate them.

Control has Shepard create the ultimate police force. With the Shepard AI becoming the supreme authority in the universe. ThevShreapers will rebuild and safeguard everything and everyone. Whether the new Shreaper is a paragon or renegade, all i could think of was 'how long until he decides the extreme force is needed to keep people safe?

Sythesis has gone from weird Space Magic to Space Magic creating a future where everyone has everything they could ever dream of. Immortality, safety and the removal of all barriers both mental and physical since all life seems to share a mental link. But even this utopia only made me think. Stagnation, overpopulation, nothing to strive because its the final evolution. It could all end in war!

Destroy makes you kill All synthetics just to get the reapers. Where did that codex entry go that said the crucible scientists were tring to find a way for it to JUST target reapers. But no we have to kill EDI and the newly individually sentient Geth because we do.

And reject, yeah i'm going to win this with the united band of brothers i've collected and the full might of the galaxy. Nope. I'll just die because i don' like the pretty colurs and majestic artistry of bioware. If thats not how reject was meant then why does it happen exactly the same whether you shoot glowboy or not? It just seemed like 'don't like our vision, tough'

And glowboy goes from being just reaper boss to the combined gestalt intelligece of all reapers. Only they are't intelligent, they're just lik a cleansing fire. Which makes Casper the genocidal ghost the galactics equivalent of a gardener sending in the boys to do a bit of pruning.

So is it me or does the fire analogy aboutbthe reapers just doing what needs to be done fly in the face of soverign and harbingers total contempt for organics? How did !you exist becausecwe allow it and you will end because we DEMAND it' become they're just a cleansing fire they don't care.

Fire happens, fire burns. But fire simply is. Only sentience can direct fire.

How did bioware go from 'we are each a nation, free of all weakness' to 'the reapers are mine, they are my solution'

And i have yet to find, either inor out of the mass effect series (not counting the catalyst itself), where a synthetic lifeform rebelled and attacked its creators. The matrix, terminator, frankenstein, Isaac Asimov, even the new BSG or the Halo series. The Casperlyst/Biowares narrative assertion that organic/synthetic conflict is unavoidable and absolutely inevitable has only ever happening with the glowboy and his conclusion that coexistence is impossible, so i'll just murder my makers and 'ascend them' into the first reaper. As for the in other cycles, even the prothean one, we're never really given any conclusives that before the geth, every AI rebelled and attacked.

I have loved the mass effect series since the start, and of all the possible i could have imagined (and still do) i never thought that it would come this.

One more thing (i swear this is the last one, at least for the moment). How could anybody except the suits in charge, have thought that doing a soft reboot and making the third part of a trilogy an entry point for new gamers was a good idea i'll never understand.

LOTR would have been a travesty if tolkien had done that for his books. As would the films.

Its called a trilogy for a reason guys.

[JBPBRC]

GodSentinelOmega wrote...


And i have yet to find, either inor out of the mass effect series
(not counting the catalyst itself), where a synthetic lifeform rebelled
and attacked its creators. The matrix, terminator

How is the Terminator franchise NOT an example of synthetics rising up? (Other examples as well, but Terminator is the easiest to define):

- Mysterious virus is wreaking havoc on worldwide infrastructure.
- U.S. military unleashes new AI Skynet to destroy virus
     -- Does not know virus was created by Skynet / IS Skynet in the first place, specifically with the aim of gaining control of vital military systems
- With complete control of U.S. military systems, nukes everything / other countries unleash their nuclear arsenals in retailiation to perceived U.S. nuclear attack
- Skynet builds a bunch of metal Ah-nuld skeletons to kill surviving humans worldwide.
- Skynet builds a time machine to ensure that the future leader of the Resistance is never born thus making its job of killing all humans that much easier.

I'm all for hatin' on Starchild and wishing I could just shoot him with a Cain a few million times, but come on now.

[BlueStorm83]

--- In later seasons of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Dr. Julian Bashir and Chief Engineer Miles O'Brien often go into the Holosuites together to play through historical battles. One such battle they play through is the Battle of the Alamo. In one Episode, while looking over a model of the Alamo that Miles had built, Julian is saying that the next time they go through, they should put cannons along one of the walls, get more soldiers for another wall, and make some more changes.
"But that wouldn't be the Alamo," Miles says to him.
"What's the point if we can't win?" Julian asks him, "I just want to win for once." Miles chuckles.
"Next time, play as General Santa Ana," is his snarky reply.

Julian Bashir has the right idea. He's playing a game, he's doing it for fun. What's the point of doing it more than once if the ending is never going to be a victory. Worf goes into the Holodeck too. He replays major Klingon battles. He's constantly besieging cities, slaughtering his enemies, behaving honorably, and then, when re-enacting Kahless' greatest victory, gets to bang Lady Lucarran on the table in the feast hall where she and Kahless began their epic romance. THAT'S what you play a videogame for; to be the hero, to save the day, to get the girl, and basically to do all the things that you can't do in reality.

In REALITY I can make hard choices in ****ty situations where I'm never satisfied with the results. Like, right now, I have a choice to make: Get some dental work done, or save up to get laser eye whatevers to let me see without these damn glasses. Whichever I pick is a compromise. I don't relish the experience, and I certainly don't want it to carry over into my videogames.

[BlueStorm83]

GodSentinelOmega wrote...

Hello all, just adding my thoughts to all the great stuff already here.

Pre EC i hated the endings and the catalyst because suddenly after fighting for 3 games to defeat the reapers as a united galaxy, the reaper godchild suddenly turns up and says.

Hi welcome my home, its a part of me buts its my home too. I'm the head reaper and seeing as how you built this facy gizmo, i'm feeling generous so i'll give you 3 chances to beat us ok? Right, here goes.
1. You can become me and tell all the monster ships what to do. Oh yeah you'll die but you'll still be boss.
2. You can die in this beam over here and transform everything in the universe into cyborgs. This is the bestest option, its the pinnacle of evolution. It'll great everyone will thank you.
3. You can shoot this tube and send out a pulse that'll kill all synthetic life. Oh sure we'll die but so will you, your pretty friend EDI and your new mates the Geth. You don't really want to do that though, cause you crazy organics will build new machines that'll kill you.
Now be a good boy and pick your colour.

I'm giving these choices cause i've been reaping for ages. Why? cause machines are bad and always kill you. See? I'm doing this to protect you.

Post EC i actually, and disappointly still hated the endings, but i now have even more reason to hate them.

Control has Shepard create the ultimate police force. With the Shepard AI becoming the supreme authority in the universe. ThevShreapers will rebuild and safeguard everything and everyone. Whether the new Shreaper is a paragon or renegade, all i could think of was 'how long until he decides the extreme force is needed to keep people safe?

Sythesis has gone from weird Space Magic to Space Magic creating a future where everyone has everything they could ever dream of. Immortality, safety and the removal of all barriers both mental and physical since all life seems to share a mental link. But even this utopia only made me think. Stagnation, overpopulation, nothing to strive because its the final evolution. It could all end in war!

Destroy makes you kill All synthetics just to get the reapers. Where did that codex entry go that said the crucible scientists were tring to find a way for it to JUST target reapers. But no we have to kill EDI and the newly individually sentient Geth because we do.

And reject, yeah i'm going to win this with the united band of brothers i've collected and the full might of the galaxy. Nope. I'll just die because i don' like the pretty colurs and majestic artistry of bioware. If thats not how reject was meant then why does it happen exactly the same whether you shoot glowboy or not? It just seemed like 'don't like our vision, tough'

And glowboy goes from being just reaper boss to the combined gestalt intelligece of all reapers. Only they are't intelligent, they're just lik a cleansing fire. Which makes Casper the genocidal ghost the galactics equivalent of a gardener sending in the boys to do a bit of pruning.

So is it me or does the fire analogy aboutbthe reapers just doing what needs to be done fly in the face of soverign and harbingers total contempt for organics? How did !you exist becausecwe allow it and you will end because we DEMAND it' become they're just a cleansing fire they don't care.

Fire happens, fire burns. But fire simply is. Only sentience can direct fire.

How did bioware go from 'we are each a nation, free of all weakness' to 'the reapers are mine, they are my solution'

And i have yet to find, either inor out of the mass effect series (not counting the catalyst itself), where a synthetic lifeform rebelled and attacked its creators. The matrix, terminator, frankenstein, Isaac Asimov, even the new BSG or the Halo series. The Casperlyst/Biowares narrative assertion that organic/synthetic conflict is unavoidable and absolutely inevitable has only ever happening with the glowboy and his conclusion that coexistence is impossible, so i'll just murder my makers and 'ascend them' into the first reaper. As for the in other cycles, even the prothean one, we're never really given any conclusives that before the geth, every AI rebelled and attacked.

I have loved the mass effect series since the start, and of all the possible i could have imagined (and still do) i never thought that it would come this.

One more thing (i swear this is the last one, at least for the moment). How could anybody except the suits in charge, have thought that doing a soft reboot and making the third part of a trilogy an entry point for new gamers was a good idea i'll never understand.

LOTR would have been a travesty if tolkien had done that for his books. As would the films.

Its called a trilogy for a reason guys.

---  Mass Effect 3's advertising/marketing should have said this:  "Starting with Mass Effect 3 will in NO way truncate the game, or rob new customers of gameplay and excitement through narrative development.  But if they play the game and love it, they should go back and pick up copies of the older games, to customize their stories to an even greater degree and truly bring about the Shepard that they want to be!"  BAM, that's a SLAM ****ING DUNK for advertising.  Now people know that ME3 doesn't REQUIRE the earlier games, and if they're interested, sure, jump in here and give it a shot, but that they have the option of greater personalization and customization if they want to go back too.  I call that "Cha-ching."

---  The Catalyst could have walked over to Shepard, and shrieked "I'm a huge ****ing idiot!  Pick a way to **** everyone, or just SIT THERE AND DIE!!!!"  And the game would be exactly the same.

As far as other AI's that rebel against their creators, yeah, it's a theme in general science fiction, but not ALWAYS.  For every Skynet there's an R2-D2.  Bad bad robots are usually balanced out or even outnumbered by good robots, be they lobvable helpful scamps, or actual good-guy robots, like the GOOD terminators.

VIKI was a cold, calculating ****.  She sent hordes of robots to oppress humans.  But then Sonny and Will Smith and that brunette who could have been hot if she tried killed her.  And what happened?  All the controlled Robots were like, "Hey, we're friendly now that we're not being controlled by a psycho ****.  Want me to walk the dog, or bake you a pie?"

[GodSentinelOmega]

At JBPBRC

Is that the Terminator 3 reasoning for skynet or was that always the case. Because i'm sure the original setup was that skynet became self aware, humanity realises and tries to pull the plug, skynet reacts and starts nuking the world. I'm sure that's how T2 explains it. T3 always seemed alittle muddled on when and how skynet became self aware.

Also i may be being a bit too harsh in my vitriole against the ending, but biowares narrative insistance that organic/synthetic conflict is and always will happen just irritates me.

And you are so true Bluestorm83 we play games too be Heroes!  Leave the unfair choices too the real world.

And yeah VIKI of i, robot was cold, and yet she wasn't rebelling as such. The ambiguity of The Three Laws meant that her actions were justified in protection of humanity. Asimovs stories spend more time showing the fundamental flaws in the laws than anything else. Two great stories that illustrate this are Liar and Reason.

Modifié par GodSentinelOmega, 15 juillet 2012 - 04:11 .

[z_gun]

I think the biggest thing Bioware refuses to acknowledge is the thing that is the principle reason why so many of us dislike the ending...

THE CATALYST!

If this one thing had not been introduced into the canon, the endings would have been salvageable. The problem is that they refuse to let go of it, despite all of us saying how much we think it is a lame deus ex machina.

What solidifies this is that even when they rewrote and expanded the Catalyst conversation in the EC, it's still just nonsense. His fire analogy, the creation of the reapers, their purpose and all that other bs he spewed out just DOES NOT WORK no matter how you rewrite him. He is the single most destructive character to the Mass Effect canon and there is just no logical way to make him work that does not involve removing him or finding a way to destroy him (we see that Bioware does not want us to refuse him).

Mass Effect 3 could have been a great game all the way to the end. Even with the EC, it's still just 95% of a great game with a terrible ending. And most of why it is terrible is because of one character Bioware will not let go of. Well they can keep him.

[3DandBeyond]

AlanC9 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...
As for where I do really agree with you-I don't think that a lot of people like to challenge the status quo.  It happened here when people complained about the original ending.  They got dumped on.  And then they got piled on.  Reviewers called them names, other fans called them names and told them to shut up.  And yet the most glowing paid for reviews on ME3 endings said they were ok, something that echoed what pro-ending fans were saying.  I can't tell you how many posts from pro-enders said, "the ending could be better, but it's ok" or "what do you expect from a game?" or "I may not like it but it's their game to do with as they please."

Well, as one of the people who did say "the ending could be better, but it's ok" --- what should I have said? That's what I thought of it.

I dumped on people from time to time, sure, but that was when someone was either pushing a silly misinterpretation of the endings or pushing a "happy ending" agenda while trying to deny that was what he was doing -- for instance, saying that we needed "more" endings when the kind of "more" the poster wanted was the Destroy ending with no costs.

In retrospect, more of the happy enders should have come out of the closet before Bio locked down the EC's design.

What I was saying is that there was no by and large rabid love for the endings originally.  But people still identified themselves as pro-enders and thought other people were stupid and called them a lot of names for wanting something better-even as they stated the endings were not everything they had hoped for.

I am also saying that no one has the right to dump on anyone for their opinion, especially if they aren't in complete disagreement.  Still, just because someone said, "I hate it" and someone else says "I love it" there is no right for either to insult the other.  I think it's great that some people are willing to discuss what they now like about the endings, but what I have seen frequently happen is someone posts a thorough explanation of what's wrong with it-thematically, especially, and someone who disagrees will come in and say something snarky with no explanation as to why they disagree.

For instance, no one can credibly refute this:
In 3 games the goal of the story was to destroy the reapers-Shepard was to unite the galaxy, destroy the reapers, save the galaxy.
At the end of ME3, the goal is achieving the star kid's purpose of avoiding inevitable conflict between organics and synthetics.  However, the best example of inevitable conflict between these 2 groups is exemplified by what the star kid is doing-destroying organics with synthetics.  If he stopped what he was doing, which he should do if his programming were not glitched, then one certainly inevitable example of this would have been eliminated.  But his creation of conflict creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.  He is stuck on stupid.  So, using one of 3 non-credible choices which "buy into" his logic may or may not stop him, but will "agree" with his prophecy.

I would classify myself as someone who wanted one happier ending that did not involve the sacrifice of those that were quite possibly like Shepard's children and the best examples of what synthetic life could be.  I stated it often and at length.  I never saw it as the only possibility, but one that should have existed.  2 games before did offer promise of this.  Had it been stated on the label of ME3 or by the devs that this was an unwinnable game with a depressing ending, I wouldn't have bought it.  I like winning games, but even more I like entertainment to be uplifting and not demoralizing and fatalistic and sad.  Sue me.

I hear a lot of people think this is cheesy and that it's bunnies and rainbows and all that.  Well, that is just what is wrong with this.  They apparently sometime ago were told that death of a hero is artistic and that something is only authentic if it's depressingly sad.  I've watched people die.  I don't find anything artistic in it.  And even so, an ending where Shepard lived and met with friends (not a long drawn out reunion with babies necessarily) wouldn't be all bunnies and rainbows.  Worlds are in ruins, billions have died.  And after 3 freaking games, in which Shepard has never had a life, sacrificed all, was tormented, beaten, shot, and even killed in just trying to get people to recognize the threat, I didn't think one happier ending was too much to ask for.

No, instead we have creepy Shepard reaper god (ominous and foreboding and not what any Shepard would choose).  A paragon wouldn't choose it because Shepard never wanted to control them and orders were to destroy them.  A renegade that wanted power wouldn't choose it because s/he couldn't share it or lord it over anyone.  A ruthless person would want others to know they are in charge.  Oh and sex, well that would no longer exist for Shreaper.  Synthesis is a molestation and was never a goal, nor was it even necessary.  Destroy is abhorrent for many reasons.  And refuse is just "game over".  None of these are even remotely happy endings, nor are they what a great lot of us hoped for at the end.  Not sappy happy, but possibilities.  Something we all aspire to in our own lives.  I doubt many of those that have openly ridiculed anyone that wanted one possible happier ending run around saying, "I hope I live an unhappy life and die a horrible death, because that would be awesome."  At the end of ME3 that's all I see other than the stupid torso in rubble-yes, that's a truly honorable ending for the hero of 3 games-this is the happiest we can expect.

And as far as people speaking up about it-this torso ending was one of the most widely criticized of all the endings.  It was the one where people continually asked for some sort of explanation as to what happens, particularly given the fact the Normandy had crashed, the relays were destroyed, and so on. 

And the other thing I repeatedly saw that was requested as far as a happy ending, was what I've stated.  One possible happy ending.  Sure, sad sacrificial (not these really ignorant suicidal endings), non-victory, or even victory endings where Shepard dies.  But you are wrong in saying that when people were saying they wanted more endings, they meant they wanted a bunnies and rainbows one too.  No, they wanted a broad variety of endings that came naturally out of choices made in the game.  Not, 3 trumped up artificially inserted choices that funnel people into 3 (now ugh 4) endings.  I can play ME3 alone and get the same endings as if I played ME1, 2, and 3 and completed everything in them.  This was and still is part of what's wrong with the endings.

Furthermore, directly to you--what gives you the right or even the need to dump on anyone just because they do not express everything or even agree with you?  We all see things differently.  We are not all gifted with the ability to explain our thoughts and we don't all even speak English or use it well.  I have absolutely no problem with someone that explains why they don't agree with me.  But I have huge problems with anyone that sees another's opinion and then tries to prove their superiority by "calling them out" on it.

This is exactly what paid reviewers did.  I am a consumer.  A product I bought failed me.  I express my issues with it.  I am not demanding anything no matter how I phrase that complaint, because I am in no position to demand anything.  Instead I can vote with my money which might make the company go out of business (most of us loved Bioware and ME so didn't want that), or I can speak up and try and compel them to listen before I walk away.  Companies would rather customers speak up than just walk away, but some reviewers and some "fans" didn't see it that way.  Even some who are now happy with the EC-something that never would have existed if fans had not protested.  Disagree if you must, even state that you do, but have your own real reasons in order to be constructive.  Or, you are the one doing far more damage to Bioware than any whiner ever could.

[AresKeith]

3DandBeyond wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...
As for where I do really agree with you-I don't think that a lot of people like to challenge the status quo.  It happened here when people complained about the original ending.  They got dumped on.  And then they got piled on.  Reviewers called them names, other fans called them names and told them to shut up.  And yet the most glowing paid for reviews on ME3 endings said they were ok, something that echoed what pro-ending fans were saying.  I can't tell you how many posts from pro-enders said, "the ending could be better, but it's ok" or "what do you expect from a game?" or "I may not like it but it's their game to do with as they please."

Well, as one of the people who did say "the ending could be better, but it's ok" --- what should I have said? That's what I thought of it.

I dumped on people from time to time, sure, but that was when someone was either pushing a silly misinterpretation of the endings or pushing a "happy ending" agenda while trying to deny that was what he was doing -- for instance, saying that we needed "more" endings when the kind of "more" the poster wanted was the Destroy ending with no costs.

In retrospect, more of the happy enders should have come out of the closet before Bio locked down the EC's design.

What I was saying is that there was no by and large rabid love for the endings originally.  But people still identified themselves as pro-enders and thought other people were stupid and called them a lot of names for wanting something better-even as they stated the endings were not everything they had hoped for.

I am also saying that no one has the right to dump on anyone for their opinion, especially if they aren't in complete disagreement.  Still, just because someone said, "I hate it" and someone else says "I love it" there is no right for either to insult the other.  I think it's great that some people are willing to discuss what they now like about the endings, but what I have seen frequently happen is someone posts a thorough explanation of what's wrong with it-thematically, especially, and someone who disagrees will come in and say something snarky with no explanation as to why they disagree.

For instance, no one can credibly refute this:
In 3 games the goal of the story was to destroy the reapers-Shepard was to unite the galaxy, destroy the reapers, save the galaxy.
At the end of ME3, the goal is achieving the star kid's purpose of avoiding inevitable conflict between organics and synthetics.  However, the best example of inevitable conflict between these 2 groups is exemplified by what the star kid is doing-destroying organics with synthetics.  If he stopped what he was doing, which he should do if his programming were not glitched, then one certainly inevitable example of this would have been eliminated.  But his creation of conflict creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.  He is stuck on stupid.  So, using one of 3 non-credible choices which "buy into" his logic may or may not stop him, but will "agree" with his prophecy.

I would classify myself as someone who wanted one happier ending that did not involve the sacrifice of those that were quite possibly like Shepard's children and the best examples of what synthetic life could be.  I stated it often and at length.  I never saw it as the only possibility, but one that should have existed.  2 games before did offer promise of this.  Had it been stated on the label of ME3 or by the devs that this was an unwinnable game with a depressing ending, I wouldn't have bought it.  I like winning games, but even more I like entertainment to be uplifting and not demoralizing and fatalistic and sad.  Sue me.

I hear a lot of people think this is cheesy and that it's bunnies and rainbows and all that.  Well, that is just what is wrong with this.  They apparently sometime ago were told that death of a hero is artistic and that something is only authentic if it's depressingly sad.  I've watched people die.  I don't find anything artistic in it.  And even so, an ending where Shepard lived and met with friends (not a long drawn out reunion with babies necessarily) wouldn't be all bunnies and rainbows.  Worlds are in ruins, billions have died.  And after 3 freaking games, in which Shepard has never had a life, sacrificed all, was tormented, beaten, shot, and even killed in just trying to get people to recognize the threat, I didn't think one happier ending was too much to ask for.

No, instead we have creepy Shepard reaper god (ominous and foreboding and not what any Shepard would choose).  A paragon wouldn't choose it because Shepard never wanted to control them and orders were to destroy them.  A renegade that wanted power wouldn't choose it because s/he couldn't share it or lord it over anyone.  A ruthless person would want others to know they are in charge.  Oh and sex, well that would no longer exist for Shreaper.  Synthesis is a molestation and was never a goal, nor was it even necessary.  Destroy is abhorrent for many reasons.  And refuse is just "game over".  None of these are even remotely happy endings, nor are they what a great lot of us hoped for at the end.  Not sappy happy, but possibilities.  Something we all aspire to in our own lives.  I doubt many of those that have openly ridiculed anyone that wanted one possible happier ending run around saying, "I hope I live an unhappy life and die a horrible death, because that would be awesome."  At the end of ME3 that's all I see other than the stupid torso in rubble-yes, that's a truly honorable ending for the hero of 3 games-this is the happiest we can expect.

And as far as people speaking up about it-this torso ending was one of the most widely criticized of all the endings.  It was the one where people continually asked for some sort of explanation as to what happens, particularly given the fact the Normandy had crashed, the relays were destroyed, and so on. 

And the other thing I repeatedly saw that was requested as far as a happy ending, was what I've stated.  One possible happy ending.  Sure, sad sacrificial (not these really ignorant suicidal endings), non-victory, or even victory endings where Shepard dies.  But you are wrong in saying that when people were saying they wanted more endings, they meant they wanted a bunnies and rainbows one too.  No, they wanted a broad variety of endings that came naturally out of choices made in the game.  Not, 3 trumped up artificially inserted choices that funnel people into 3 (now ugh 4) endings.  I can play ME3 alone and get the same endings as if I played ME1, 2, and 3 and completed everything in them.  This was and still is part of what's wrong with the endings.

Furthermore, directly to you--what gives you the right or even the need to dump on anyone just because they do not express everything or even agree with you?  We all see things differently.  We are not all gifted with the ability to explain our thoughts and we don't all even speak English or use it well.  I have absolutely no problem with someone that explains why they don't agree with me.  But I have huge problems with anyone that sees another's opinion and then tries to prove their superiority by "calling them out" on it.

This is exactly what paid reviewers did.  I am a consumer.  A product I bought failed me.  I express my issues with it.  I am not demanding anything no matter how I phrase that complaint, because I am in no position to demand anything.  Instead I can vote with my money which might make the company go out of business (most of us loved Bioware and ME so didn't want that), or I can speak up and try and compel them to listen before I walk away.  Companies would rather customers speak up than just walk away, but some reviewers and some "fans" didn't see it that way.  Even some who are now happy with the EC-something that never would have existed if fans had not protested.  Disagree if you must, even state that you do, but have your own real reasons in order to be constructive.  Or, you are the one doing far more damage to Bioware than any whiner ever could.

your a woman after my own heart with those comments haha

did you get my message yesterday

[3DandBeyond]

The main issue with the EC is that it doesn't do a better job of explaining anything needed to know in the game-it only explains the original endings "better".

As far as needing to know the origins and motivations of the reapers, while interesting to some it was totally superfluous to the goal. Shepard is the main character and Shepard did not repeatedly keep wondering about their origins-if this needed to be explained, it could have been part of the epilogue or the denouement of the story after the conflict. Or, even better, it could have been explored in pre-ending DLC, had the ME3 ending been far better and worked toward completing the goal and not been about the star kid making up excuses for killing trillions of people and about getting Shepard to choose 3 artificial choices.

Making a choice lends credence to what the star kid sees as the problem. You must pick one because he's right. This fundamentally changes the reason for doing all that we do-the goal of 3 games.

Prior to the ME3 ending the goal was: Destroy the reapers. It was necessary to unite the galaxy and get all people to face the threat, working together to defeat it-destroy it, nothing less.
At the end of ME3 the goal is: Resolve conflict between synthetics and organics. But, it's non-existent in the mind of the most important person in the story: Shepard. Shepard says this to the dying reaper on Rannoch.

So, 2 fundamental truths that cannot be overcome but the choices expect Shepard to ignore become central issues at the end:
Shepard does not believe conflict between organics and synthetics is inevitable.
Shepard also said you do not condemn a whole race of people to extinction based upon what might happen.

These are 2 things the kid most definitely believes in and what he and Shepard must agree on in order for Shepard to believe the choices are needed and make sense.

So refuse would be the most logical, viable option if it weren't for the fact that it does not allow for any actual chance to do anything.

Choose control and at its most basic it means that the reapers must and always will be a fundamental external part of all people's lives. Forget all else about this and consider what this means. The goal was to destroy them, never this.
Choose synthesis and the reapers literally become a part of us and we a part of them in an inextricable way. Again, not the goal.
Choose destroy and the kid gets a lot of what he wants-Shepard tacitly agrees that the problem is synthetics-all synthetics and this eradicates them. That it destroys the reapers is a refutation of the need for them to continue the cycle, but it is acknowledgement. Not the goal, because all synthetics are not the problem-specific synthetics (reapers are).

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 15 juillet 2012 - 07:20 .

[3DandBeyond]

AresKeith wrote...

your a woman after my own heart with those comments haha

did you get my message yesterday

Got it now--answered.

I wish I could write things more simply though.

[MysticBinary82]

Urazz wrote...

Then they have always forced choices on us if you look at it that way.  So 4 choices at the ending and compared to 2 to 3 choices at major points in each game.  Seems to me like they just didn't give you the happy good ending you wanted so you are butthurt about it.

And yes, your extra work does matter because it affects the quality of each ending or if you can even pick that ending.

 
Not the amount of choices matter to me. I think it is ok but what I do not like is the fact, that the writers where not capable to end shepards story without killing him. That to me is bad and lazy writing.

[AresKeith]

3DandBeyond wrote...

The main issue with the EC is that it doesn't do a better job of explaining anything needed to know in the game-it only explains the original endings "better".

As far as needing to know the origins and motivations of the reapers, while interesting to some it was totally superfluous to the goal. Shepard is the main character and Shepard did not repeatedly keep wondering about their origins-if this needed to be explained, it could have been part of the epilogue or the denouement of the story after the conflict. Or, even better, it could have been explored in pre-ending DLC, had the ME3 ending been far better and worked toward completing the goal and not been about the star kid making up excuses for killing trillions of people and about getting Shepard to choose 3 artificial choices.

Making a choice lends credence to what the star kid sees as the problem. You must pick one because he's right. This fundamentally changes the reason for doing all that we do-the goal of 3 games.

Prior to the ME3 ending the goal was: Destroy the reapers. It was necessary to unite the galaxy and get all people to face the threat, working together to defeat it-destroy it, nothing less.
At the end of ME3 the goal is: Resolve conflict between synthetics and organics. But, it's non-existent in the mind of the most important person in the story: Shepard. Shepard says this to the dying reaper on Rannoch.

So, 2 fundamental truths that cannot be overcome but the choices expect Shepard to ignore become central issues at the end:
Shepard does not believe conflict between organics and synthetics is inevitable.
Shepard also said you do not condemn a whole race of people to extinction based upon what might happen.

These are 2 things the kid most definitely believes in and what he and Shepard must agree on in order for Shepard to believe the choices are needed and make sense.

So refuse would be the most logical, viable option if it weren't for the fact that it does not allow for any actual chance to do anything.

Choose control and at its most basic it means that the reapers must and always will be a fundamental external part of all people's lives. Forget all else about this and consider what this means. The goal was to destroy them, never this.
Choose synthesis and the reapers literally become a part of us and we a part of them in an inextricable way. Again, not the goal.
Choose destroy and the kid gets a lot of what he wants-Shepard tacitly agrees that the problem is synthetics-all synthetics and this eradicates them. That it destroys the reapers is a refutation of the need for them to continue the cycle, but it is acknowledgement. Not the goal, because all synthetics are not the problem-specific synthetics (reapers are).

thats why most of us said at the ending that still wasn't our Shepard talking

with Destroy being the only best choice, its still bad because of the Starbrats flawed Terminator logic

[3DandBeyond]

GodSentinelOmega wrote...

Hello all, just adding my thoughts to all the great stuff already here.

Pre EC i hated the endings and the catalyst because suddenly after fighting for 3 games to defeat the reapers as a united galaxy, the reaper godchild suddenly turns up and says.

Hi welcome my home, its a part of me buts its my home too. I'm the head reaper and seeing as how you built this facy gizmo, i'm feeling generous so i'll give you 3 chances to beat us ok? Right, here goes.
1. You can become me and tell all the monster ships what to do. Oh yeah you'll die but you'll still be boss.
2. You can die in this beam over here and transform everything in the universe into cyborgs. This is the bestest option, its the pinnacle of evolution. It'll great everyone will thank you.
3. You can shoot this tube and send out a pulse that'll kill all synthetic life. Oh sure we'll die but so will you, your pretty friend EDI and your new mates the Geth. You don't really want to do that though, cause you crazy organics will build new machines that'll kill you.
Now be a good boy and pick your colour.

I'm giving these choices cause i've been reaping for ages. Why? cause machines are bad and always kill you. See? I'm doing this to protect you.

Post EC i actually, and disappointly still hated the endings, but i now have even more reason to hate them.

Control has Shepard create the ultimate police force. With the Shepard AI becoming the supreme authority in the universe. ThevShreapers will rebuild and safeguard everything and everyone. Whether the new Shreaper is a paragon or renegade, all i could think of was 'how long until he decides the extreme force is needed to keep people safe?

Sythesis has gone from weird Space Magic to Space Magic creating a future where everyone has everything they could ever dream of. Immortality, safety and the removal of all barriers both mental and physical since all life seems to share a mental link. But even this utopia only made me think. Stagnation, overpopulation, nothing to strive because its the final evolution. It could all end in war!

Destroy makes you kill All synthetics just to get the reapers. Where did that codex entry go that said the crucible scientists were tring to find a way for it to JUST target reapers. But no we have to kill EDI and the newly individually sentient Geth because we do.

And reject, yeah i'm going to win this with the united band of brothers i've collected and the full might of the galaxy. Nope. I'll just die because i don' like the pretty colurs and majestic artistry of bioware. If thats not how reject was meant then why does it happen exactly the same whether you shoot glowboy or not? It just seemed like 'don't like our vision, tough'

And glowboy goes from being just reaper boss to the combined gestalt intelligece of all reapers. Only they are't intelligent, they're just lik a cleansing fire. Which makes Casper the genocidal ghost the galactics equivalent of a gardener sending in the boys to do a bit of pruning.

So is it me or does the fire analogy aboutbthe reapers just doing what needs to be done fly in the face of soverign and harbingers total contempt for organics? How did !you exist becausecwe allow it and you will end because we DEMAND it' become they're just a cleansing fire they don't care.

Fire happens, fire burns. But fire simply is. Only sentience can direct fire.

How did bioware go from 'we are each a nation, free of all weakness' to 'the reapers are mine, they are my solution'

And i have yet to find, either inor out of the mass effect series (not counting the catalyst itself), where a synthetic lifeform rebelled and attacked its creators. The matrix, terminator, frankenstein, Isaac Asimov, even the new BSG or the Halo series. The Casperlyst/Biowares narrative assertion that organic/synthetic conflict is unavoidable and absolutely inevitable has only ever happening with the glowboy and his conclusion that coexistence is impossible, so i'll just murder my makers and 'ascend them' into the first reaper. As for the in other cycles, even the prothean one, we're never really given any conclusives that before the geth, every AI rebelled and attacked.

I have loved the mass effect series since the start, and of all the possible i could have imagined (and still do) i never thought that it would come this.

One more thing (i swear this is the last one, at least for the moment). How could anybody except the suits in charge, have thought that doing a soft reboot and making the third part of a trilogy an entry point for new gamers was a good idea i'll never understand.

LOTR would have been a travesty if tolkien had done that for his books. As would the films.

Its called a trilogy for a reason guys.

Fantastic post!  Puts everything in order and explains it all so thoroughly.

Only one point of contention if I may.  Most incredible lapse of logic is that with higher EMS, the amazing exploding tube has always been less powerful.  One still must walk towards it, headlong into an explosion which is logically what a person with a brain would do, but it EMS (used to be with MP play) is higher the explosion weakens and a faceless charred torso buried in what appears to be "concrete" rubble will give the gasp of life.  I know that Shepard lives because twitter told me so.  That's where all good game devs go to explain their game and to retcon things.

[Iakus]

MysticBinary82 wrote...

Urazz wrote...

Then they have always forced choices on us if you look at it that way.  So 4 choices at the ending and compared to 2 to 3 choices at major points in each game.  Seems to me like they just didn't give you the happy good ending you wanted so you are butthurt about it.

And yes, your extra work does matter because it affects the quality of each ending or if you can even pick that ending.

 
Not the amount of choices matter to me. I think it is ok but what I do not like is the fact, that the writers where not capable to end shepards story without killing him. That to me is bad and lazy writing.

+1

[GodSentinelOmega]

So true 3danbeyond i forgot about the pipe bomb and torso breath through mp.

I think mostly mp has no appeal for me. My visual impairment means i'm be a pretty bad squadmate. Running out of amm and usually unable get to ateammate and heal before they died. I learnt this when plying splitscreen gears of war with my niece. We died a lot.

Oh yes and the joys of twitter and how it reveals all. Along with killing emily wong to. That was twitter wasn't it?

Modifié par GodSentinelOmega, 15 juillet 2012 - 08:50 .

[BlueStorm83]

MysticBinary82 wrote...

Urazz wrote...

Then they have always forced choices on us if you look at it that way.  So 4 choices at the ending and compared to 2 to 3 choices at major points in each game.  Seems to me like they just didn't give you the happy good ending you wanted so you are butthurt about it.

And yes, your extra work does matter because it affects the quality of each ending or if you can even pick that ending.

 
Not the amount of choices matter to me. I think it is ok but what I do not like is the fact, that the writers where not capable to end shepards story without killing him. That to me is bad and lazy writing.

---  Saying that they've given you four choices is not the same as them having given us different OPTIONS.

Option one: Shepard is dead.  Reapers imagined "purpose" is validated.  Organic Life and Synthetic Life continues on in thrall to Reapers' goals, merged with Reapers' forms.  Reapers persist physically, and also in the minds of every life form.

Option two: Shepard is dead.  Reapers imagined "purpose" is validated.  Organic Life and Synthetic Life continues in thrall to Reapers' goals.  Reapers persist physically as an imposed force over all lesser life.

Option three:  Shepard is dead.  Reapers imagined "purpose" is validated.  Organic Life continues.  Synthetic Life is destroyed at the Reapers' behest.  Reapers' means and methods are justified by what Shepard has done.  *Torso lying in a heap of **** is possible*

Option four:  Shepard is dead.  Organic Life is dead.  Synthetic Life is dead.  The Reapers are dead.  Strangers that no one knows or cares about are alive.

None of those four options are able to be categorized as Victories, at least victories anything other than Phyrric.  In option one, everyone becomes the Reapers.  In option two, everyone submits to the Reapers.  In option three, Organic Life acts LIKE the Reapers.  And in option four, NOTHING WE EVER DID MATTERED AT ALL.

It would be like a man offering you four options. HeI can shoot you and your dad in the head.  He can make you watch him have sex with your mother and then stab you in the heart.  He can make you watch him beat your sister half to death and then strangle you to death.  Or he can burn your house down in your sleep and kill your entire family.  Oh, and he'll base the kind of matches, rope, knife, or gun that he uses on actions you've taken in your past.

Now, anyone in their right mind would say to him, "That's absolutely ****ing insane and monstrous.  Those aren't different options, they're all crimes and murders, dressed up by different incidents!"  Well **** yeah, they're all terrible, but since he gave you options, he must be an artist, right?  Feelin' a little butthurt about this?  No, you're RIGHTLY ANGRY about it.  And what would you do in that situation?  You'd kick the **** out of this guy and either have him arrested or bury him in your back yard.  Again, RIGHTLY SO.

It is absolutely INCREDIBLE to think that being forced to acquiesce to an evil being can constitute a good ending.  In REALITY, men always have the option to stand up and stay true to themselves.  Sure, sometimes they get killed, and nobody even knows.  But sometimes they make it out alive, uncompromised, and HEROES.  And know what?  When you make a videogame?  The main character is the hero of that game.  The main character should ALWAYS be able to make it through, if he's smart, fast, strong, rich, friendly, persuasive, intimidating, well armed, or otherwise prepared enough.  And damn it, after everything he's done, Shepard, and the Galaxy that Shepard has fought long and hard to save, they're all prepared.

[Cobretti ftw]

Truth is, mass effect 3 was a disapointment from the begginging. Although the Tuchanka ARc was probably the best in the franchise, and the Rannoch arc is probably top 3, the rest of the game drowns in incoherence and inconsistences. The ending was just the cherry on top of that awful cake.

The EC made the endings MUCH better, BUT they're stilll S***

[3DandBeyond]

GodSentinelOmega wrote...

So true 3danbeyond i forgot about the pipe bomb and torso breath through mp.

I think mostly mp has no appeal for me. My visual impairment means i'm be a pretty bad squadmate. Running out of amm and usually unable get to ateammate and heal before they died. I learnt this when plying splitscreen gears of war with my niece. We died a lot.

Oh yes and the joys of twitter and how it reveals all. Along with killing emily wong to. That was twitter wasn't it?

I think it must have been twitter because I never got any info about her in ME3, she was just not there.  Unlke learning that Kal Reegar had died in a message (which I choose to ignore, what a crock), I never heard anything about Emily and she was really trying to learn about things.  In fact, she could have been a good unknown operative for the Shadow Broker, but a better replacement for the totally awful Allers, Emily Wong's apparent replacement.

I also believe that the original insistence of making SP be tied to MP says a great deal about the lack of vision of Bioware.  Sorry, to actually use what you deal with physically.  Theirs is a lack of mental vision and the whole MP fiasco though not totally known to all who bought ME3 is a big example of just what they have lost at Bioware-and what they took with them in terms of ME.

Before and directly after the game was released they said MP was not needed for SP play.  That caused players to continually try and get more assets, to keep playing to see where they went wrong, because there was no good ending, but some were saying that with high enough EMS Shepard could live.  Only problem was it took a few like minutes to figure out that you needed to meet certain requirements to get that with 4000 EMS and it was far better to get 5000 (because Liara and I think Garrus could die if you didn't). 

So, people started trying to figure out how to get that EMS with a 50% non-MP game.  Eventually people figured out it couldn't be done and were asking Bioware how to do it.  People created threads here asking how to do it without MP and even asking if Bioware had been wrong and you needed MP.  What they got were reactions (on twitter) and on the boards that indicated the MP requirement was a bug-threads were moved to the technical help forums and out of areas were people that had not bought the game could read them.  I believe one twitter post even said it must be a bug.  It wasn't however my definition of a bug.

People then figured something maybe was wrong with their own game since the bug was never described and it was only said once and then totally ignored.

Finally one DA dev came on a thread about DA3 (where all ME3 questions are answered) and said they had no plans to have anything like that happen in DA3 and he thought it was an oversight or something like that but didn't know.

MP can be fun, but I wouldn't buy a Mass Effect game based on it alone.  I have loved the stories and no MP is a replacement for that. 

Now, with the EC it's "fixed" in that the EMS requirement for the only quasi-shepard lives ending has been lowered, but it's still one of the worst ways of ending a game I've ever seen.  You don't do that to the hero of 3 games.  You finish the story.  You tell that person's complete tale-not to old age and death, but you get them to the point that all along the hero has been working towards.  Shepard never had a life, really, and never had a real home and always did for others.  Shepard deserved to come home and be with family and deserved the promise of a real uncompromised life.  Not the death of real friends and even someone s/he helped give life to, but a life not based on the suffering of others.  Shepard wouldn't want to live if it was at the expense of EDI and the geth.  And the other choices are not real choices any Shepard would consider ever. 

But as Bluestorm83 put so well, all of the choices are validations of what the kid says so they are non-choices.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 15 juillet 2012 - 10:00 .

[BlueStorm83]

3DandBeyond wrote...

GodSentinelOmega wrote...

So true 3danbeyond i forgot about the pipe bomb and torso breath through mp.

I think mostly mp has no appeal for me. My visual impairment means i'm be a pretty bad squadmate. Running out of amm and usually unable get to ateammate and heal before they died. I learnt this when plying splitscreen gears of war with my niece. We died a lot.

Oh yes and the joys of twitter and how it reveals all. Along with killing emily wong to. That was twitter wasn't it?

I think it must have been twitter because I never got any info about her in ME3, she was just not there.  Unlke learning that Kal Reegar had died in a message (which I choose to ignore, what a crock), I never heard anything about Emily and she was really trying to learn about things.  In fact, she could have been a good unknown operative for the Shadow Broker, but a better replacement for the totally awful Allers, Emily Wong's apparent replacement.

What truly made Allers' existence terrible wasn't how she was a cardboard cutout that you can **** if you want, it wasn't how she's not even a valuable war asset, it's not about how I'm supposed to care that her ****ty home colony was wiped out even though I'd thought of her as a waste of goddamn oxygen on my WARSHIP, it wasn't even how she basically murdered Emily Wong...  It was because I'd ALWAYS hated Jessica Chobot, and now here she is to crap up my favorite game series.  Truly, she was a portent of things to come.

[Zan51]

3DandBeyond, I think of all the posts I have read here on the endings, yours best sums it up for me. Bluiestorm83 I also agreed with your run down of the 4 options.

Here's my take on it. I couldn't afford the game till a few weeks ago, so automatically got the post EC ending.
For the record, I am a pro SF writer in my own right, and no way my editor would have allowed me to get away with the whole sudden insertion of the contrived Deus Ex Machina ending with the Star brat.

What got me about ME3, and makes me not want to replay it, is the way at the big build-up conclusion of 3 games, suddenly we are no longer in control of Shepard, and all we have been lead to believe about everything in 3 games no longer matters, or is true any more. It isn't a sad ending, it is an utterly hopeless one on so many levels. We should not have to head-cannon the ending to feel even a tiny bit of satisfaction on completion.

Like many here, I loved the game up to the last 10 minutes. I found it serious, so sad with Thane and Morden, funny, quirky, intelligent. Loved the way I had to search for crew members in odd places as they weren't always "calibrating", or in a set place. Loved the drunken Tali! Loved finding out what the others had been doing, like Jack, Miranda, Samara, Zaeed, Kasumi, even Jacob. Loved the convos with Liara and her "Dad" so much, and her touching hero worship of my Fem Shepard. Loved my rekindled romance with Kaidan. They were very satisfying.
Then the ending. The Citadel has moved to Earth almost instantly? And no one mentions the PEOPLE on it?? The council. Aria, Commander Bailey? What, they suddenly no longer matter?? They aren't fighting Husks and stuff on the Citadel? No reports of them being boarded, or ANYTHING?? C'mon, guys! Instant communications, they been talking to me on the Normandy all through the game till now! No desperate pleas for help??

The run to the beam. How in hell did I lose all my armor and end up in my ship casual outfit with a wound in my side? A vehicle fell on me and didn't crush me instantly, but removed ALL my armor and gave me a hole in my side? Couldn't have been the Reaper Harby guarding the Citadel beam shooting me, his beam takes down tall buildings, I'd have been vaporized. And Harby just ups and leaves me alive there? Talk about taking me out of immersive content instantly!

I got the Breath scene because I do like doing all the side quests, and inadvertently chose Synthesis because I didn't know I couldn't walk up to the stream of light and look into it without triggering an ending. I stupidly thought I was in charge there! Dunno why I did, after all, here am I placidly listening to this glowy image of the kid I couldn't save on Earth spouting rubbish and telling me it was the VI who was created to stop all wars between VI's and Organics – by inventing the Reapers to kill them all, and its first victims were the race who created it?? Plot hole anyone? And I suddenly believe this Reaper-brat because – all Reapers have been so truthful and benevolent with/to me so far? This one fact alone is a Black Hole that sucks everything I have done and fought against into it, and for me destroys the game.

Oh, it admits I have changed the parameters – how kind of it! I sure as hell have! We are all here in one place to combat it and its evil Reaper minions for the first time ever! All humanoid and sentient synthetic life, allied together. And my reward for completing the contract with the game to do this? A total change of in-game directive from "Kill the Reapers" to MERGE with them as Bioware's "perfect" ending?? Like hell! I have been fighting this all through 3 games to this point, or didn't Bioware and the writers read their scripts properly? Is it possible they didn’t know what they were doing to us? If they didn't, it is a bad as doing it on purpose.

Angry, me? Damn skippy I am! As for the EC "closures", they were insulting to me, apart from the DESTROY one which I actually chose, and got Shepard's last breath and the crew on the Normandy not putting her name up on the wall! Think I care about EDI's fluffy bunnies and rainbows love of organic feelings when I see everyone with glowing eyes and green TIM-like printed circuitry all over their bodies, looking blitzed-out and indoctrinated? Nightmare to my Fem Shepard! I had been fighting this since Saren!

WHY had Shepard to die? Artistic vision? Bull***t. She runs at the Destroy area shooting, and keeps running till she is within inches of it to get blown up by the resultant explosion? Not sensible on any level, she would want to stay alive to be sure the Star brat wasn't lying, see if there is more she needs to do! Not sensible given she is apparently the only alive person on the whole Citadel capable of doing this! There was a good plot reason for her not to die in this ending. But apparently good plot reasons and sheer common sense cut no ice here in the ending of this game.

And I won't even ask how the Normandy ended up on a livable garden planet with 2 moons, not in Sol system, when the ME Relays are busy getting blown up! Geeze! Nothing, absolutely nothing that happens makes logical sense from the time Shepard is injured at the Citadel beam until the endings are over. Not. One. Thing. That's Bad Writing.

Oh, and am I the only one who wonders why at one point Shep's arms are suddenly both drenched in blood, and in the next scene are only splattered again? Writers watch for Details and Continuity as they write – and this game ending also lacks both of these in bucketfuls. No, it is not nit-picking. You'd complain if in a movie, Gandalf was suddenly dressed in purple robes in one scene! Or if Garras suddenly had human legs and arms with 5 digits on each. Details matter.

Modifié par Zan51, 15 juillet 2012 - 10:11 .

[3DandBeyond]

Zan51 wrote...

Snipped, but thanks for kind words and thoughts.....

Oh, and am I the only one who wonders why at one point Shep's arms are suddenly both drenched in blood, and in the next scene are only splattered again? Writers watch for Details and Continuity as they write – and this game ending also lacks both of these in bucketfuls. No, it is not nit-picking. You'd complain if in a movie, Gandalf was suddenly dressed in purple robes in one scene! Or if Garras suddenly had human legs and arms with 5 digits on each. Details matter.

Yes details do matter.  Shepard is drenched with blood when s/he gets up from Anderson and nicely doesn't dirty the floor with it.

Also, when my Shepard is listening to the home computer from hell (where's the geek squad when you need it-glow boy is or has a virus), that infinite ammo gun disappears from her hand.  Her hand is wrapped around an invisible gun and it returns when she starts hobbling away again.

I will say it again-at the end of a 3 game series where all you have been doing is trying to convince a galaxy to work together, recognize a awful foe is coming, get forces together (you know stuff you do in your spare time), an ending is the adrenaline rush that gets you home.  It is the cataclysm that will sit you on the edge of that Shakespearean question-to be or not to be.  You should have a sense of urgency, you should feel it's do or die, you should just know this is it, the big IT that will decide it all.  Within a game like this I could see Shepard making decisions as in ME2's suicide mission and fighting and all to save the galaxy.  Instead we get slow motion Shepard after the Harby beam.

Ok, people say the Normandy has stealth tech, but Harby was shooting at individual people and Shepard drags 2 people to the Normany for rescue, totally ignoring any other injured people and then should thank Harby for letting them have time to say goodbye.  Once Shepard is off and running again, Harby is done with his coffee break and starts shooting again.  Yes, this is great writing.

The continuity isn't there and this isn't artistic or anything like it. 

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 15 juillet 2012 - 10:43 .

[AresKeith]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Zan51 wrote...

Snipped, but thanks for kind words and thoughts.....

Oh, and am I the only one who wonders why at one point Shep's arms are suddenly both drenched in blood, and in the next scene are only splattered again? Writers watch for Details and Continuity as they write – and this game ending also lacks both of these in bucketfuls. No, it is not nit-picking. You'd complain if in a movie, Gandalf was suddenly dressed in purple robes in one scene! Or if Garras suddenly had human legs and arms with 5 digits on each. Details matter.

Yes details do matter.  Shepard is drenched with blood when s/he gets up from Anderson and nicely doesn't dirty the floor with it.

Also, when my Shepard is listening to the home computer from hell (where's the geek squad when you need it-glow boy is or has a virus), that infinite ammo gun disappears from her hand.  Her hand is wrapped around an invisible gun and it returns when she starts hobbling away again.

I will say it again-at the end of a 3 game series where all you have been doing is trying to convince a galaxy to work together, recognize a awful foe is coming, get forces together (you know stuff you do in your spare time), an ending is the adrenaline rush that gets you home.  It is the cataclysm that will sit you on the edge of that Shakespearean question-to be or not to be.  You should have a sense of urgency, you should feel it's do or die, you should just know this is it, the big IT that will decide it all.  Within a game like this I could see Shepard making decisions as in ME2's suicide mission and fighting and all to save the galaxy.  Instead we get slow motion Shepard after the Harby beam.

Ok, people say the Normandy has stealth tech, but Harby was shooting at individual people and Shepard drags 2 people to the Normany for rescue, totally ignoring any other injured people and then should thank Harby for letting them have time to say goodbye.  Once Shepard is off and running again, Harby is done with his coffee break and starts shooting again.  Yes, this is great writing.

The continuity isn't there and this isn't artistic or anything like it. 

I'm still trying to find out what Harbinger mumbled before he blasted you, because it did sound like he said something

[Zan51]

Yeah, the Normandy being safe while picking up the 2 team members after the vehicle is thrown at you, and you have time to say goodbye, is really not immersive.
I just want a cohesive and sensible ending, that's all. You'd think not much to ask..