4048 réponses à ce sujet

[V-rcingetorix]

Thank you BlueStorm83 and iakus,

Perhaps it is difficult to find the postings that are constructive? This thread, for example, is on page 159 already, and it's only a few months old! How many posts is that?

Still, if there are people reading each thread (divided into maybe 5 people whose occupation is to read threads), shouldn't they be able to tell when constructive criticism is being used?

Regardless, I have seen some excellent points made in polite manners, from Bluestorm83, iakus and others (3DandBeyone is usually pretty good). Few of us (at least the polite ones) are truly "incapable of articulating" ourselves.

[Iakus]

I honestly don't know what their criteria is for "constructive" For all I know that just means "agrees with us"

At the time, there was a stickied thread supposedly dedicated to thoughts about the endings which we were assured was being read. But hinestly, I don't recall any dev posts that confirmed that besides an occassional "yes we're still reading" post. Nothing that indicated any of our feedback was being taken in at all.

In my line of work, we have something called the "Reference Interview" When someone needs information, you don't just listen to what they need, you ask questions yourself, and try to refine what they want to it's most precise meaning.

Because, to give credit where it's due, Ms Merizan is right in one thing. Not everyone can precisely articulate what they want. But that doesn't invalidate their thoughts or expectations. It does mean that more must be done than to make a thread and invite people to start typing. It means you have to actively seek feedback.

The ending is "too depressing? Why?" Is it due to Shepard's fate, the Normandy's, the galaxy as a whole?

What specifically did you not understand or confused you about the endings?

What defines a "bittersweet" ending for you?

What kind of ending were you expecting for Shepard? For Earth? For the Galaxy? For the Reapers?

Would the ending be better for you if the Catalyst explained ::topic:: better?

How important is it to you that Shepard be able to survive?

What do you mean when you say you want an option to refuse the Catalyst's choices?

What did you think of the ending as compared to the endings of the first two games?

Aside from that one thread, I saw no real effort to understand why the endings were so reviled. I saw no surveys, no one from the Mass Effect team asking questions. As far as I know, there was nothing on Twitter or Facebook (though with these two I may be mistaken) Any surveys that were out there were purely fan-driven. All we got from Bioware itself were vague assurances of "We're listening" Nothing about who they were listening to or with what. Or even what they were getting out of it. We were talking to statues, uncertain that anything was getting through at all.

Clearly, they must have gotten some information from wherever they get their data, because EC manages to tell us "Hooray! We didn't kill the galaxy with our choice!" which was one of the problems with the original ending. But the fundamental weaknesses are still there. The insane choices, the lack of closure for a living Shepard, the general futility of everything Shepard tried to do to stop the Reapers.

Some of it no doubt came from a lack of resources. It's understandable that they couldn't remove the Catalyst, for example. But more I think came from Bioware being unable, or simply unwilling to address, or even bother to try to understand, customer complaints. They skimmed the complaints, slapped a bandaid on some of the more obvious problems, then broke their own arms patting themselves on the back.

Modifié par iakus, 26 août 2012 - 05:13 .

[3DandBeyond]

You guys are all right on the money. I just had to control my rage and still do when I think of that comment about people's education. Well, you know what? People can be taught to write better, they can be taught ways to articulate better, but that kind of, I don't know, arrogance cannot be un-taught.

The, pre-EC, "Yes, we're listening" thread had over 900 pages. People explained at length what was wrong in their opinion and others that weren't so able or inclined agreed or didn't agree. The one thing above all else that existed across the forums in all kinds of threads was the need for closure for a living Shepard. It is incredible and infuriating to me that anyone that could write or produce or promote content as poignant as Mordin's and Legion's and EDI's, could willfully ignore the hero of 3 games. This is the player's stand-in in the game. The one whose face we tweaked and fretted over, the one people got mad about when importing it didn't work. This was the person whose decisions sometimes took us hours to make. And this was a person who nearly stopped our hearts by dying in the beginning of ME2. This person, the one that sold countless copies of ME1, 2, and 3 for Bioware is laying in a pile of rubble, dying, and waiting to be brought home to friends. We're still waiting to say goodbye to the face we made and the person we spent a heck of a lot of time with.

There's one thing I learned in management-I had to take a lot of courses geared toward this and a popular training course at one time was Total Quality Management. It said that you treat everyone like a customer (in work relationships) and you never stop asking "how are we doing and how can we do better?" And that the loudest, angriest customers are your best friends. They alluded to something like this in the podcast, but I don't think they believe it. Unhappy customers will fully explain what they liked and what they didn't. They will help you fix what's wrong. It's a fool that ignores this especially with so many obviously unhappy customers.

[shodiswe]

I think this is how I feel about it. It could be better but it's ok after the EC. I also like the fact that Shepard asks why he/she should trust the catalyst... There's of course no good answer to the question, but for the player it tells them that Shepard is still him/herself, at least to the point where shepard is able to question what's being said.
One of the things that ticked me off the most about the original ending was the Sheapard/catalyst relationship.

If im going to be nitpicky however the whole ending starting from the attack on the Reapers above earth where sword fleet engages the reapers to the point where you meet the catalyst, the problem with the larger ending of taking back earth was how simplistic it was designed, it was basicly hordemode, I was hoping to get some minor objectives, help some people on theway towards the end, sabotage the reapers communications and help the troops in some way other than just gunning my way from point A to point B.
The radio commuinications from other troops dying and getting wiped out by reaper forces made the battle field slightly more alive but at the same time it was far too static and invarable, and shepard couldn't affect any single part of the event's that unfolded by choices or actions or lack there off.. This took away some playeragency.
So all in all im ok with the EC ending because it wraps up the whole mess in an acceptable manner, however I was hoping for a much more satisfying gameplay and ending to the series and more "lively" content during the endgame back when I bought the game.

Also the war assets and extra troops you bring never seem to affect the comms going on on the battlefield.
Maybe one of the plutoons could get some Geth reinforcements while antoher get's some Krogan reinforcements.. And maybe some Quarian engineers to help the tanks.. to make it seem more alive and emotional, you brought those people and it's helping.
Maybe some N7 Ops forces (multiplayer promotees) arriving after Harbinger has blasted the people trying to enter the beam and helping the survivors regroup and evacuate.

[BlueStorm83]

shodiswe wrote...

I think this is how I feel about it. It could be better but it's ok after the EC. I also like the fact that Shepard asks why he/she should trust the catalyst... There's of course no good answer to the question, but for the player it tells them that Shepard is still him/herself, at least to the point where shepard is able to question what's being said.
One of the things that ticked me off the most about the original ending was the Sheapard/catalyst relationship.

If im going to be nitpicky however the whole ending starting from the attack on the Reapers above earth where sword fleet engages the reapers to the point where you meet the catalyst, the problem with the larger ending of taking back earth was how simplistic it was designed, it was basicly hordemode, I was hoping to get some minor objectives, help some people on theway towards the end, sabotage the reapers communications and help the troops in some way other than just gunning my way from point A to point B.
The radio commuinications from other troops dying and getting wiped out by reaper forces made the battle field slightly more alive but at the same time it was far too static and invarable, and shepard couldn't affect any single part of the event's that unfolded by choices or actions or lack there off.. This took away some playeragency.
So all in all im ok with the EC ending because it wraps up the whole mess in an acceptable manner, however I was hoping for a much more satisfying gameplay and ending to the series and more "lively" content during the endgame back when I bought the game.

Also the war assets and extra troops you bring never seem to affect the comms going on on the battlefield.
Maybe one of the plutoons could get some Geth reinforcements while antoher get's some Krogan reinforcements.. And maybe some Quarian engineers to help the tanks.. to make it seem more alive and emotional, you brought those people and it's helping.
Maybe some N7 Ops forces (multiplayer promotees) arriving after Harbinger has blasted the people trying to enter the beam and helping the survivors regroup and evacuate.

---  I agree wholeheartedly with your first assertion that at the least, Shepard isn't an unquestioning moron.  He's still stuck in a **** situation with no actual good way out, but he can question and demand an explanation and even refuse.  Though I would like to point out that he COULD still destroy the Catalyst's logic by sayingone word, and one word only (Geth,) but curiously never does.  But they had to work with what was there.

I had never realised it, but yeah, London is a handful of corridors that connect Horde Mode zones.  And Horde Mode areas in single player are the easiest, and honestly laziest ways to give gameplay.  The entirety of London and everything afterward still reeks of being rushed and pushed out the door before it was ready.  And when you're rushing to push out something disappointing, you don't have time to add all the touches for everything else.  And that's the key- all those little touches were the main draw of Mass Effect, ever since we run into a tiny little quest that has to do with the personal background that we pick when creating Shepard, or when we hear references to surviving the Skyllian Blitz, or being born on a colony, or whatever.  That's why the EC does a little to help- it at least shows us some of our hard earned assets, but they never really do anything, and in the end don't truly matter.

---  It would be so much better if BioWare had even said "We can't go back and redo the ending of Mass Effect 3, and we realize why you guys are dissatisfied.  We'll learn from this mistake and try to never repeat it again in future products."  I'd have been able to write it off and give them another shot.  But since then the constant line from them is that I'm too stupid to get it, that there was never anything wrong with the endings, even pre EC.  Then why did the EC remove the exploding relays?  Why did they remove the complete destruction of the Citadel?  Why did the EC remove the Normandy Crash?  Why did it add engines to the Normandy on the planet?  Why did they add Refusal?  Why did they let Shepard ask the Catalyst what the **** he was talking about?  Why did they add the Evac Scene to rectify the Magical Teleporting Garrus and Tali?  Why did they alter the "Buy more DLC" screen?  Even after taking measures to fix things, they still maintain that there were no problems to fix, that the EC only adds clarity.  Crash to No Crash is not clarity, it's a change.  Exploding to Not Exploding is a change.  An Evac Scene replacing "And then somehow Garrus was there!" is a huge change.

Around 90% of the endings of Mass Effect 3, pre EC, came from Head Canon, Twitter, Blogs, and forum posts.  Only 10% was supplied by the game, and the 10% provided by the game, following the game's own established game-science, ended in every system that hosted a Relay being destroyed, either Tali and Garrus or the rest of the crew starving on a planet, the Citadel being destroyed, and the victory fleet either being anihilated by the explosion of the Charon relay or starving to death after Earth is ravaged for food and left barren and lifeless.

Now, post EC, the majority of the ending is provided by the actual game.  The only thing left to Twitter or Headcanon is Shepard's Survival.  This is a good thing.  However, these endings do not mesh with 99.995% of the game's story and mood, and that is why people are still disappointed.

---  Some would wonder why I'm still here after so long.  This is Mass Effect 3's fault as well.  I still play the Multiplayer.  And every time I see the game's title screen, with that damnable Galactic Readiness Map, I am reminded of how Multi used to be needed to get the "best" ending, and that rememberance brings up the endings in general, and that's the shame.  That their own good gameplay and interesting multiplayer keep me remembering the old problems, and the ones that still persist.

[3DandBeyond]

BlueStorm83 wrote...



---  I agree wholeheartedly with your first assertion that at the least, Shepard isn't an unquestioning moron.  He's still stuck in a **** situation with no actual good way out, but he can question and demand an explanation and even refuse.  Though I would like to point out that he COULD still destroy the Catalyst's logic by sayingone word, and one word only (Geth,) but curiously never does.  But they had to work with what was there.

I had never realised it, but yeah, London is a handful of corridors that connect Horde Mode zones.  And Horde Mode areas in single player are the easiest, and honestly laziest ways to give gameplay.  The entirety of London and everything afterward still reeks of being rushed and pushed out the door before it was ready.  And when you're rushing to push out something disappointing, you don't have time to add all the touches for everything else.  And that's the key- all those little touches were the main draw of Mass Effect, ever since we run into a tiny little quest that has to do with the personal background that we pick when creating Shepard, or when we hear references to surviving the Skyllian Blitz, or being born on a colony, or whatever.  That's why the EC does a little to help- it at least shows us some of our hard earned assets, but they never really do anything, and in the end don't truly matter.

---  It would be so much better if BioWare had even said "We can't go back and redo the ending of Mass Effect 3, and we realize why you guys are dissatisfied.  We'll learn from this mistake and try to never repeat it again in future products."  I'd have been able to write it off and give them another shot.  But since then the constant line from them is that I'm too stupid to get it, that there was never anything wrong with the endings, even pre EC.  Then why did the EC remove the exploding relays?  Why did they remove the complete destruction of the Citadel?  Why did the EC remove the Normandy Crash?  Why did it add engines to the Normandy on the planet?  Why did they add Refusal?  Why did they let Shepard ask the Catalyst what the **** he was talking about?  Why did they add the Evac Scene to rectify the Magical Teleporting Garrus and Tali?  Why did they alter the "Buy more DLC" screen?  Even after taking measures to fix things, they still maintain that there were no problems to fix, that the EC only adds clarity.  Crash to No Crash is not clarity, it's a change.  Exploding to Not Exploding is a change.  An Evac Scene replacing "And then somehow Garrus was there!" is a huge change.

Around 90% of the endings of Mass Effect 3, pre EC, came from Head Canon, Twitter, Blogs, and forum posts.  Only 10% was supplied by the game, and the 10% provided by the game, following the game's own established game-science, ended in every system that hosted a Relay being destroyed, either Tali and Garrus or the rest of the crew starving on a planet, the Citadel being destroyed, and the victory fleet either being anihilated by the explosion of the Charon relay or starving to death after Earth is ravaged for food and left barren and lifeless.

Now, post EC, the majority of the ending is provided by the actual game.  The only thing left to Twitter or Headcanon is Shepard's Survival.  This is a good thing.  However, these endings do not mesh with 99.995% of the game's story and mood, and that is why people are still disappointed.

---  Some would wonder why I'm still here after so long.  This is Mass Effect 3's fault as well.  I still play the Multiplayer.  And every time I see the game's title screen, with that damnable Galactic Readiness Map, I am reminded of how Multi used to be needed to get the "best" ending, and that rememberance brings up the endings in general, and that's the shame.  That their own good gameplay and interesting multiplayer keep me remembering the old problems, and the ones that still persist.

I agree mostly.  I'd say it explained things but created more holes in logic if you will.  Of course, I know you know that.  It also makes some points such as survival in all 3 choices rather trite and contrived.  The relays and all damaged tech are easy to repair post-destroy.  The Many have a nanny and reapers are repairmen and the police, ominous in tone, but some players see it as happy, post-control.  EDI is alive (ok, she already told me that and it wasn't because of synthesis) and everyone can see eye to eye, they may transcend mortality, they all will hold hands and sing campfire songs post-synthesis.

I'd almost really rather fall off the original cliff than fall off this velvet coated pile of garbage cliff.  Part of the issue for me is the questions Shepard asks don't get real answers, so Shepard seems to accept minor clarifications for how something happens rather than forcing the points as to why it must and what exactly will happen.  One really need to know answer is given in the purposely poor way.  Shepard is told about synthesis and the question s/he asks is "how" which for me meant how in the universe can synthesis be achieved-how is this not magic.  The kid just says some junk about Shepard's energy being joined with that of the crucible, blah blah blah.  Well that doesn't explain it.  The question is how can all organics have tech fully integrated inside them (at what a molecular or subatomic level) and how can all synthetics gain full understanding of organics?  Last part first.  Do they get that understanding from the kid-he isn't the brightest crayon in the box?  Or from Shepard-Shepard is one human so s/he can't give what s/he does not have.  Now the first part-how is everyone in the galaxy changed in this way and what exactly will happen?

This is just one point-synthesis.  But each choice has a lot of new problems.  The word geth is the problem with the whole basis for the choices.  And it drives Shepard back into moron status.  The further idea that Shepard would accept the explanations given at face value solidifies that status.  If Shepard chooses destroy it's simply because it kills reapers and Shepard ignored everything else.  It is horribly explained as if a 3 year old was trying to get out of being punished for eating all the cookies.  And the payoff is a joke, a really bad one.  This is what passes for clarity and closure.  A finger up to players because Shepard is the player's avatar in the game.  Shepard is you. Dead Shepards are seen having the skin flayed from them.  Destroy Shepard is treated like garbage.  And the memorial wall scene if you have an LI other than Liara, makes no sense.  She at least can have a psychic bond of some sort (implied), but the others.  Since when.  And Joker's pain isn't even addressed at all.

I wholeheartedly agree that this set of endings do not mesh with everything that came before.  As was said so well here they remove one very necessary element of story telling at the time when it should be the most potent.  Immersion.  There's a disconnect from the foe and from the hero, but it seems obvious that there's this physical disconnect from everything else as well.  And that is THE problem.  You could maintain cohesion if you had at least some remaining immersion and identification with the characters or location.  If the kid had shown up in front of Harbinger with Shepard, Anderson, and teammates, it might have held together a bit better.  Might have.  But having everything so removed from what was in the game before and then inserting 3 false futile choices just smashes the game to bits.  You get RGB choices (still), but part of the problem is RGB does not exist in the game any longer for the most part.  Even so, the end should only ever have been about what you have to do to destroy the reapers.  The goal never was getting to understand them and then trying to help them and their boss achieve their goal.  Dead reapers are the solution.  But not as a choice.  It's the goal.

[V-rcingetorix]

Changing the goal, I can understand. Changing the goal with no foreshadowing, however, is also known is incompetent writing.

I have hesitated to use the word "incompetent" since some foreshadow is used. TIM's Control obsession and the subtle reference to communication between Reapers ("Harbinger speaks of you"~Rannoch Destroyer) help. Even in ME2 there is a veiled (heavily) suggestion that Reapers might have either an overlord or sympathetic goal (Collectors are re-purposed Protheans, Humans used to make a Reaper).

However, this is not real foreshadow. Claiming it's just too "intelligent" for the reader makes not difference. Example: the first Matrix movie.

The traitor wears a different color, stands apart from the crew and is always off to one side,,,distantly. The LI is named after a unity formation (as in marriage), and the leader is named for a god of dreams.
That's Foreshadowing. That's good writing.

In Mass Effect, there has been some fantastic writing; Sovereign is the single biggest threat; Harbinger is only a warning of what is to come, Normandy is "storming the beaches" in multiple fronts. The name Shepard is even symbolic, guiding people to victory. I could write a paper on the fantastic writing.

Casper the Kidly Ghost? No foreshadow. No symbolism, except for the kid shape, but that's more of Freudism than true literary symbolism. The suicide, suicide and suicide (wait, one breath?) options have some symbolism (bull by the horns, kill big oil barrel or however you want to read into it), but it's a completely different symbolism.

It's like going into Medieval Europe and saying that Ulysses was a good guy; Dante put Ulysses into the lowest circle of Hell for Pete's sake! In Mass Effect 3 we are given that the Reapers are Bad Guys, and then we are told in no uncertain terms that in order to kill the Bad Guys (very traditional, goes back to Epic of Gilgamesh), we must kill friends. Or, we could join with the Bad Guys, or just Control the Bad Guys. Or, we could refuse to do anything and die.

I get it, Ancient Greek/Roman tales end bad sometimes. We've learned from their mistakes, I hope.

EDIT: grammar, clarity

Modifié par V-rcingetorix, 26 août 2012 - 04:05 .

[3DandBeyond]

@ V-rcingetorix,

Exactly right. I should amend my assertions as to goal. It was merely that as I saw it (same as you), there was no idea that this would end up being the goal. It's like you could make a case that it is nice to know the origins and motivations of the reapers, but nowhere is it held up as essential in order to defeat them. It's extracurricular.

I think any one of us could come up with a way to have made the kid and his goal not obvious, but relevant and meaningful. And thus the choices would have made some sense, though I still reject the notion that they will always be artificial. They could have been natural outcomes of Shepard types and choices. The kid could have existed in various states-to either help Shepard use the crucible or try and hinder that use-so that Shepard's past and current performance would have led to Control, Synthesis, or Destroy as natural reflections on Shepard's POV. The crucible would merely set Shepard's natural choice in motion. And the kid could have been there to explain what would happen and why it should or should not happen-to try and get Shepard to make it happen or not.

In order to make the choices as they are now and the goal they seek to fulfill relevant, it needed to be strongly hinted at, like pieces of a puzzle that you can't quite figure out. There needed to be the knowledge of past looming threats by synthetics (other than reapers) that sought the extinction of all organic life. Perhaps the notion that at some point all life was nearly extinguished with some trail that leads to synthetics and an idea somewhere front and center that all races perhaps evolved from one common survivor. I could make the case even now that this is so since all organics mostly are far more similar than they are different. And there are some hints that the Protheans helped advance all the other races. The problem here is that the Protheans also helped partly extinguish an awful lot of other races.

If the writers were trying to hint at this goal, then they totally botched it. They didn't even make it known in ME3 until that dying reaper on Rannoch and he isn't even believed by my Shepard. They needed to make reaper origins relevant and then really explain their origins in the main game and they needed to heavily plant the idea in the main game that synthetics have been the dominant problem throughout the cycles. The only synthetics that have been are the reapers so the goal of helping their boss is laughable.

At the end you should be shouting, "Aha!  I wondered about that" or "I thought so" and not "what?  WTF?  Who the heck?  Geth, what about the geth?"

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 26 août 2012 - 04:41 .

[V-rcingetorix]

@3DandBeyond

The goal could've been more clear, definitely. Short of that, the character (Casper) should've been better written. But...that's done. Nuke's been launched, no shutdown codes left.

So then, DLC fixes to the EC fix. Leviathan is set for the 28th of this month, so it's a bit late for adding fixes to that (hope they already have), so what fixes to the EC would be good (ie, Shepard lives/w EDI/Geth...potentially)?

1. Geth; adding to visual fleet coming to save the Alliance, add to visual infantry charging through London, add to Shepard soliloquy with Casper the Kidly Ghost, with its logical repercussions.

2. Admiral Xen is said to have "issues" with the Crucible. Admiral Raan also says Admiral Xen is "brilliant" if "unstable," and could improve the Crucible.

3. Leviathan, depending how it goes, could get an original pre-Reaper programmer/mini-Death Star. With its help, the Crucible could be improved.

4. Aria's fleet...missing entirely. Retaking Earth is kinda the point of the game after the "Call To Action"...no Vorcha, mechs or Eclipse/Blue Suns/Blood Pack?

5. Geth armatures/Colossus...where are they? They played a common role in ME1, and played a significant role in the Tali acquisition on Haestrom in ME2. Where did they go in ME3? Primes, Destroyers, Rocket troopers and regular mooks were there, where were the tanks?

6. FTL suicide craft...really? Nothing? It is proven in the Turian Unification War (and in the acquisition of a specialized Turian commando unit) that FTL suicide craft were highly destructive to CAPITAL CITIES. Presumable, these planetary capitals were on..planets. Therefore, the no-crashy-into-gravity-wells rule goes out the window.

7. Shepard surviving Synthesis. "Adding energy to the **~~*..*~88~~* ".....sorry, no comprendo. Organics are meat and electricity, with a soul. Soul =/= energy harvest. Memories can possibly be stored organically, like a wet cell memory stick, which is why the Control option works logically.

Synthesis...no. Illogical death for Shepard.

Destroy: should be able to improve Crucible/w option 1-5 to aim only at Reapers.

I could think of more, but the first five would be game changers in minor extent for me. They could change for good, or bad, depending on the Paragon/Renegade score.

I don't want a happy ending for required everyone, that would be tyrranical, despotic. I want a happy ending as an option. What we have isn't even bittersweet, it's just bitter.

[3DandBeyond]

V-rcingetorix wrote...

@3DandBeyond

The goal could've been more clear, definitely. Short of that, the character (Casper) should've been better written. But...that's done. Nuke's been launched, no shutdown codes left.

So then, DLC fixes to the EC fix. Leviathan is set for the 28th of this month, so it's a bit late for adding fixes to that (hope they already have), so what fixes to the EC would be good (ie, Shepard lives/w EDI/Geth...potentially)?

1. Geth; adding to visual fleet coming to save the Alliance, add to visual infantry charging through London, add to Shepard soliloquy with Casper the Kidly Ghost, with its logical repercussions.

2. Admiral Xen is said to have "issues" with the Crucible. Admiral Raan also says Admiral Xen is "brilliant" if "unstable," and could improve the Crucible.

3. Leviathan, depending how it goes, could get an original pre-Reaper programmer/mini-Death Star. With its help, the Crucible could be improved.

4. Aria's fleet...missing entirely. Retaking Earth is kinda the point of the game after the "Call To Action"...no Vorcha, mechs or Eclipse/Blue Suns/Blood Pack?

5. Geth armatures/Colossus...where are they? They played a common role in ME1, and played a significant role in the Tali acquisition on Haestrom in ME2. Where did they go in ME3? Primes, Destroyers, Rocket troopers and regular mooks were there, where were the tanks?

6. FTL suicide craft...really? Nothing? It is proven in the Turian Unification War (and in the acquisition of a specialized Turian commando unit) that FTL suicide craft were highly destructive to CAPITAL CITIES. Presumable, these planetary capitals were on..planets. Therefore, the no-crashy-into-gravity-wells rule goes out the window.

7. Shepard surviving Synthesis. "Adding energy to the **~~*..*~88~~* ".....sorry, no comprendo. Organics are meat and electricity, with a soul. Soul =/= energy harvest. Memories can possibly be stored organically, like a wet cell memory stick, which is why the Control option works logically.

Synthesis...no. Illogical death for Shepard.

Destroy: should be able to improve Crucible/w option 1-5 to aim only at Reapers.

I could think of more, but the first five would be game changers in minor extent for me. They could change for good, or bad, depending on the Paragon/Renegade score.

I don't want a happy ending for required everyone, that would be tyrranical, despotic. I want a happy ending as an option. What we have isn't even bittersweet, it's just bitter.

I agree.  I always wanted endings that ran the gamut from full on depressingly sad, we lost, to sacrificial bittersweet, to full on victory (that would not even have been super happy given all the devastation).  I wanted to see the costs of war and see endings that showed some people were not ready to meet the peace honorably while in other places Shepard could be the rallying point (living or dead) for rebuilding and redemption.  A galaxy that rose from the ashes like the Phoenix from the war and the ignorance of their unquestioning past.  This is a galaxy that never questioned anything, never thought solely on their own, never created innovation based on self-reliance.

We got what we got.  I think an ending that made use of DLC to add to EMS or unlock EMS you already obtained and that fixes or finishes the crucible so that it destroys only reapers could give one additional finish.  It wouldn't involve major changes to anything.  It could alter the kid's dialogue to make destroy a more authentic choice, but would never make it the only choice.  Just as now you could purposedly avoid getting enough EMS to make for some "worse" outcomes.  Or you could make choices to ignore the supposed "rightness" of just destroying the reapers.  I see a lot of people that think many of us should never have a Shepard lives ending because it would somehow ruin their choice-that makes no sense to me.   Having an additional ending does not need to change anything they now have, they'd always be free to choose that.  It would merely make a lot of people somewhat enjoy the game again and make more DLC viable, something pro-enders do want.  The alienation of a lot of fans, and the complacency of even those that thought the endings were ok might kill future DLC.  I don't want that to happen.  I'd like more DLC and ME4 and 5 and so on, but only if ME3 is "fixed" to a point that would help me like it again.  If Shepard could destroy only reapers and live and if the implication is that rebuilding will be tough but Shepard will be there to help keep people on track and united in the wake of such devastation, I'd buy all that DLC.  But, it may be that if they don't resurrect this game, DLC will be limited and ME will be gone.  I don't want that.

[Iakus]

V-rcingetorix wrote...

@3DandBeyond

The goal could've been more clear, definitely. Short of that, the character (Casper) should've been better written. But...that's done. Nuke's been launched, no shutdown codes left.

So then, DLC fixes to the EC fix. Leviathan is set for the 28th of this month, so it's a bit late for adding fixes to that (hope they already have), so what fixes to the EC would be good (ie, Shepard lives/w EDI/Geth...potentially)?

1. Geth; adding to visual fleet coming to save the Alliance, add to visual infantry charging through London, add to Shepard soliloquy with Casper the Kidly Ghost, with its logical repercussions.

2. Admiral Xen is said to have "issues" with the Crucible. Admiral Raan also says Admiral Xen is "brilliant" if "unstable," and could improve the Crucible.

3. Leviathan, depending how it goes, could get an original pre-Reaper programmer/mini-Death Star. With its help, the Crucible could be improved.

4. Aria's fleet...missing entirely. Retaking Earth is kinda the point of the game after the "Call To Action"...no Vorcha, mechs or Eclipse/Blue Suns/Blood Pack?

5. Geth armatures/Colossus...where are they? They played a common role in ME1, and played a significant role in the Tali acquisition on Haestrom in ME2. Where did they go in ME3? Primes, Destroyers, Rocket troopers and regular mooks were there, where were the tanks?

6. FTL suicide craft...really? Nothing? It is proven in the Turian Unification War (and in the acquisition of a specialized Turian commando unit) that FTL suicide craft were highly destructive to CAPITAL CITIES. Presumable, these planetary capitals were on..planets. Therefore, the no-crashy-into-gravity-wells rule goes out the window.

7. Shepard surviving Synthesis. "Adding energy to the **~~*..*~88~~* ".....sorry, no comprendo. Organics are meat and electricity, with a soul. Soul =/= energy harvest. Memories can possibly be stored organically, like a wet cell memory stick, which is why the Control option works logically.

Synthesis...no. Illogical death for Shepard.

Destroy: should be able to improve Crucible/w option 1-5 to aim only at Reapers.

I could think of more, but the first five would be game changers in minor extent for me. They could change for good, or bad, depending on the Paragon/Renegade score.

I don't want a happy ending for required everyone, that would be tyrranical, despotic. I want a happy ending as an option. What we have isn't even bittersweet, it's just bitter.

If Bioware really does read and take notes on posts, I hope they do so with yours.

[V-rcingetorix]

^flatterer 0_0

[magneticpolarshift]

The EC is certainly far better than what we got originally, but for me it's still very anti-climatic. The end of ME1 was absolutely phenomenal, epic, hell at first I thought Shepard had died and I thought, I'll be playing a new guy in ME2, then there comes shepard, badly hurt but still alive! I actually cheered it was such a great ending, best RPG for me in history. Even more fun than KOTOR.

ME2 ending was very good, not quite as epic as the first I thought but still very entertaining. I always thought more clarity was needed on the human reaper thing or what the goal even was of building it.

ME3 was hell on wheels until the very end, a few odd moments here and there, but over all exceptionally well done and entertaining. It was absolutely great until I experienced one of the most anti-climatic endings ever, no boss to fight, can't talk to or fight harbinger, can't fight TIM, it made me feel the complete opposite of ME1 and 2. Instead I have to think about 3 choices, none of which fit shepards character at all.I don't feel any satisfaction from beating it because I still don't have a clue what happens to Shepard when he lives, though I know we'll find out eventually whenever they do another ME game.

I certainly haven't written BW off, they've put out too many great games and any great company can make very grave errors, as they did in ME3's ending. I personally blame EA for rushing it, had they had a few more months they could have made a gem of an ending. The problem these days is that everything is rushed, and it's more than obvious that the ending was certainly rushed here and thrown together quite quickly. Publishers and studios really need to take a look at this issue, what's the point of releasing a game and rushing it and getting all this criticism, when if they had simply taken some more time all of this never would have happened.

I was POSITIVE that the ending would give us 2 different choices to choose from just as the first 2 did, completely opposite and with completely different consequences, leading up to the final moment, instead were forced into 3 new decisions within the last 5 minutes of the game. That's too short a time to even digest anything we've just heard.

Note to BW, please take this advice, always stick to lore, clarify, and make sure the ending is epic and provides real satisfaction like you did in the first 2 games.

[Hobnob1978]

Having been a big Mass Effect fan when I bought the first one for PC (when it was a great unknown) it's strange that I've only just managed to a) buy it and complete it. Probably because, thank goodness, I read a lot of reviews and was warned off ME3 as being "unfit for purpose due to ending" especially at £35. Luckily bought it during the recent sale as I did wish my Shepard to bring ME to its final conclusion.
 
It must be noted that for myself, I did not play "vanilla" ME3, as in I was able to download the EC. So, this personal comment on the game and the (sigh) ending(s) will be with this in place (and I will be honest, being of middle age and tired of seeing enough suffering in the real world, I went for a Paragon Shep.  )
 
So, up to the final assault on earth, I was enjoying the game. Played well, great atmosphere, felt I was truly trying to save everyone (let alone earth) and forming alliances to bring to bear against the Reapers... and then I played it. I could write a whole essay on it (I'm sure nobody here would want to read it though:) ), so I'll try to boil my issues with Earth and the Citadel to certain points that annoyed/do not make sense to me at all.
 
Main earth issues
 
a) Two missions (being generous here, making taking out the Reaper Anti Air destroyer a single mission... it was a little short) on earth? That's it? The big finale and we get one mission? Yeah... lack of time/money shows a little.
 
No input/appearance from the races you get on board except in movie sequences. Could have been done, would have massively added to the "we're all in this together!" feel BW kept trying to push. Only affect getting races on board, the choices you make are a number added to the total number you have to slightly (and I mean slightly) change the ending cutscene you get.
 
c) Why does Harbinger/ Reaper wait for the Normandy to pick up my crew members? It's blasting away quite happily and nothing hits the Normandy? I know it's shielded, but still... this scene needs one heck of a suspense of disbelief for it work. (I will say I did like the dialogue in the goodbye to my Love Interest)
 
Citadel
 
a) I got the feeling the story/script writers and the level designers had a slight misunderstanding here. Unless it was deliberate (and I doubt it) someone did not mention to the level designers that having a way for Anderson to be there before you would have been a good idea. (Yes, I've read the IT threads. Don't buy it, sorry. This was simple mis-design)
 
The Catalyst. I just do not understand this idea at all. Whoever thought introducing this... thing, literally minutes before the ending made a huge mistake. Some god AI program (as many have mentioned) telling me what to do, and Shepard not being allowed to argue with it or even question its decisions.
 
c) The AI/Organic perpetual war/cycle solution. Yeahhhh.... ME3 raises this as the storyline base. I didn't see any warning of this in ME1. True, we had the Geth, okay, but I always felt there was more to it via comments from Tali in some Geth missions about what they were doing, etc. They were a big unknown.
 
But the writers for 3 suddenly add that the Protheans had the same AI war issue (well, they do if you bought the DLC or you watch youtube.) This is NEVER hinted at in ME1 or ME2... Hello! Liara, our Prothean expert doesn't know this? No hint at all on Ilos? The Prothean archives on Mars don't mention it?
 
Mnnnn.... Sorry no. This feels massively tacked on to support this AI war/cycle idea. Awful frankly. They try to bolster this by having the Catalyst say other races have always had this issue as well. It just does not work when forced on the player at this late stage!
 
I got the impression in ME2 that the Suns collapsing was going to be the main issue/storyline resolution in taking on the Reapers. But no.
 
d) The Catalysts solution for the above Cycle. So, his race have a war. Fail to come to a peaceful solution (we never find out why). They create another AI to try and mediate between them. (What? WHY???!). This fails (though we don't know WHY!) and it, frankly, seems to go insane and forces its race to be turned into goo and made into a organic/synthetic ship (something that hasn't worked before (synthesis ending comment). It then goes around killing advanced races, turns them into goo to "preserve" them and... okay, stop! Just stop. This makes no sense. If it's preserving a race, how come every single reaper ground trooper looks, frankly, like a Geiger creation?  That's NOT preservation!
 
If it stores the races in Reaper form (helps them ascend apparently) are there (somehow) masses of personalities/memories of the race trapped in a reaper (does this happen when you are turned to goop?), screaming for release while the Reaper they make is made to butcher their people and then future races?
 
None of that, at all -what it says it's doing! - makes sense!!!
 
The whole of ME then, boils down to the claim that Synthetic and organics are incapable (For some reason I just can't figure out) of living peacefully together. Due to this happening to a previous race not being able to find peace, hundreds of thousands of years of butchery happen. Why can you not argue against this? If you play paragon, you should have the option. As others have mentioned, this makes no sense. If you want the catalyst to dismiss this, fine! But at least it could have been discussed!
 
f) The idea that organics can only evolve via synthetic creations... yeahhh. What about using tech to ascend to high planes of being that has often been forwarded  by high thinkers as a potential "evolutionary" goal for organic life? This is writer bias of opinion that  is bound to have caused writer/player conflict.
 
g) Killing all Synthetic life (destroy option) - Doesn't make sense. It's frequently commented on in ME1 (by Sovereign), ME2 and ME3 that the Reapers are so different to all other life that they're a huge unknown. They combine organic and synthetic in their tech combining it in ways unknown to ME science (EDI's comments in ME2). As for their minds? Nobody knows. The Geth say they are "unknowable, vast"... so they're so different to an AI mind that they're also vastly unique.
 
(NB: I cannot help but think code written by reapers, although greatly more complex and able to enhance an AI to catalyst level thinking, is way, way different to a reaper itself. )
 
Due to this, the Crucible's inability to latch onto reapers alone makes no sense. It should be able to... and frankly with the Shepard inhale at the end (as he/she has synthetic parts) this is made null and void. It's another event that just doesn't make sense!
 
Anyway, I could continue, refine every point I want to make,  and write far more eloquently as well. But I'd like someone to read this, even in a glance.

Overall, this felt good to get off my chest. A great game ruined by an atrocious, plot holed, and logically conflicted ending. A terrible shame... and, I feel, unfixable in it's present state. (sigh)

Modifié par Hobnob1978, 26 août 2012 - 08:16 .

[V-rcingetorix]

Hobnob1978 wrote...


Overall, this felt good to get off my chest. A great game ruined by an atrocious, plot holed, and logically conflicted ending. A terrible shame... and, I feel, unfixable in it's present state. (sigh)

Excellent assessment Hobnob1978. This seems to be the majority opinion of players; based on my observations of polls (done a few, watched a few) and comments. Even if you remove 80% of the comments that criticize the ending, the "crits" still outnumber the gung-ho ending supporters (excluding Father_Jerusalem, he can outnumber a crowd by sheer passion alone *grin*). While it is easier, and more likely that people will complain, most complainers will not agree on what exactly is wrong.

ME3 fans generally agree that the problem is a dead Shepard. I'd say 95% agree, way more than the number of "lost pizza order complainers."

I think BW can save ME3, though, with DLC. If Bethesda can make a retcon, so can BW. BW already has multiple teams working on DLC, releasing Multi-Player programs and reading feedback (hopefully here), so they have the resources, the skills, and the motivation to do so.

I don't think the fix will be Leviathan (though Priestly did say that he was surprised some of the L:eviathan content didn't make it into the EC), but I hope so.

Way I figure it, we have about 1.3 years from release date for DLC. Multiplayer cuts down on the single player DLC probability, but also extends the time period for DLC releases. In my opinion, anyway. When in doubt, hope!

Modifié par V-rcingetorix, 26 août 2012 - 10:39 .

[BlueStorm83]

--- Indeed, Hobnob! Well said, all around.

My biggest problem with the "AI will always rebel!" idea that's thrust upon us at the end is that the Geth are absolutely the antithesis of this. They never Rebelled. Their original fight against Quarrians was only because Quarrians were killing Quarrians who tried to protect Geth. If Quarrian = Quarrian, and one of two Qarrians has to die, you save one that wants to protect life and kill one that tries to end life. Even the Geth's original questions and claims weren't about rebellion. They asked if they had SOULS. They wanted to know if they were really just like their creators, as they suspected. It was never "You're not as worthy to survive as I am," it was always, "Hey, look at that, we're equals! Isn't that nifty?"

"AI will always rebel" is as viable an argument as "Every Christmas, Santa Claus will eat your pets and beat you to a pulp." If even ONE Christmas goes by where you wake up the next day unbeaten with living, non-devoured pets, then the statement is observably false. The fact that the Geth BEGAN trying to get along with Quarrians and (in my Shepard's life,) ENDED trying to get along with Quarrians, that means that the Starboy is 100% wrong in his assumptions. And everything that proceeds from those assumptions is invalid.

Also: As far as the Protheans warring against their Synthetics... so what? They fought them, they beat them, the end.

A HA!!! LOOK AT THAT! The Protheans BEAT their Synthetics! They learned their lesson, and they won. There would BE no more Synthetics if the Reapers hadn't stuck their big ****ing cuttlefish noses in and ruined everything AGAIN.

Starboy is still a Deus Ex Machina, the Crucible is still a MacGuffin, the ending is still unworthy to bear the title of the game.

[V-rcingetorix]

looks like this thread is almost done. Wonder what the next big one will be?

Regardless, it has been a pleasure reading/responding with the usual suspects here

[Dubozz]

So i want to express my feelings about ME3 and EC. I got to say i finished me3 march 7 but sadly (or may be for good) i didnt have much time to write about it until now.

Good things. ME3 is a very good game. In many cases there is a lot of improvements over his predecessor. Combat feels fluent and intence, combos are interesting to use and enemies are rather diffirent from each other. Lots of guns, skills, and combinations to use them. Multiplayer was a pleasant surprise, but it requires another game mode and more room for progression. Game looks good, it often shows you some very impressive views, background filled with war with the reapers, magnificent music, amazing cinematics, all this creates very suitable and believable atmosphere. A lot more of Squadmates banter, characters conversations on the Normandy, dialogs after missons, I found out that there is only a few "real" conversations with squadmates, this is understandable but sad, i wish there were more. Topnoch voice acting. Tuchnka arc, ME1,2 squadmates cameos(Grunts ressurection), Little things. Joker's sister and asari commando, Mordin and Eve, letter about interrogating cerberus operative, other letters, Conrad and Jena (when i saw this i was like "oh God, Bioware this is just great"), Jokers dialogs on the citadel, lots of other little beautiful things. It shows how much love and effort were put into this game. And I literally enjoed every moment of it, every mission, every little conversation. I explored the galaxy to find war assets, old friends, new allies and wondered "how would this all play out?". Dare i say i was a bit shoked about what followed after Cronus station.

Bad things. Little complains: Сrucible.. - oh whatever, but more info is required, space ninja(lol) kai leng - just unsuccessful character transfer from a book, small squad and...strange roster - understandable, day one dlc ripped content - well its your game bioware, cut it if you like, but face the consequences, ME2 squadmates, no Jack and Miranda?
This is realy disapointing. No last boss, because its too "video gamey"...in a video game..if you say so, sometimes generic dialogs(introduction of crucible), Ashley cuted dialog about afterlife, without it she feels shallow as a character, Reapers are all the same - disapointing, Tali's face-same, Stargazer-the same(nice wallpaper guys) horrible quest journal in Bioware game, thats something new. I understand the game is too big and time is too short so we got what we got, i can live with crucible and kai leng but there is something i can not live with.

Big Decisions doesnt matter, Collectors base? Rachni queen? At first i could't belive that such important decisions have no real impact on the game (or ending) at all. Aren't they like 200 war assets combined? Didn't i recently find 2 cruisers for exact the same amount. You know what? I would gladly cut all n7(hi I'm a multiplayer bro!) missons just to add some kind of influence on the story for those two.

Priority Earth and war assets. For me, the last missons of me3 was the worst mission in the whole me trilogy, may be my expectations was too high, maybe something else but, the more i played it the more i wanted to leave the game. It is clear that Misson was rushed, horrible textures, no light, no music, no special gameplay mechanics, just some 20th sentury rubble everywhere. Just another city wasted by war, but its not polished like in CoD, or Crysis, or Battlefield....its just unfinished. And its a shame. Priority Earth has so much potential when combined with war assets. It could be the best mission ever in the history of video gaming. Imagine your squadmates, and your allies cower your flanks while you getting through,imagine Krogans and Geth assaulting the barricades or Samara killing banshees, or reaper forces that have been cought in ambush by Zaeeds Blue Suns, imagine burning reaper falling on London if your Fleet is powerful enogh(or alliance ship if not), imagine Suicide Mission 2.0. We have war assets for fleet, for ground forces, for the Citadel and the crucible. But all we got are numbers in menu and wasted potential and this is what i personally cant not forgive. There is so much what could have been.

Catalyst and the endings. In Short. Me3 has the worst ending i ever expirienced. Its so unfulfiling, so out of place, i cant even describe how much i was depressed and disapointed after i finished the game. Its absolutley nonsensical, and totaly destroyed the whole franchise for me. Worse, it was a rip off from deus ex(old one) and this Spacekid...lets just say i hate him more every time i see him. I'm seek of him. And yeah, Synthesis makes no sense at all(yes, even with EC)

On Extended Cut: Two words - Much Better, it clears some of the most horrendous plotholes, adds some great scenes (thank you Bioware!), cinematics and conclusion. Thank you for making ME3 playable for me again. Oh yeah, thanks for removing ''Buy DLC" inscription -much better. Still no ME2 squadmates goodbye. Nonsensical starchild is still in place (please remove him somehow, dont know how, maybe shepard will have to change something on the citadel to prevent him from appearing, and somehow get information about him from the other sources). But now i can at least play the game. (I found a good "high ems destroy no starbrat" video on youtube).

On Leviathan and future DLC: Going to buy it. But mark my words. In two days every messege on BSN will be finished with words "Leviathan is great, but then i played through the ending again". May be some day some one at bioware will take a charge for War Asssets Earth dlc or something, oh well. Dreams. And please Bioware, i dont want to expirience ending like this ever again.

p.s. Please forgive me my gramma, im not good at English at all.

Modifié par Dubozz, 27 août 2012 - 04:21 .

[deaths origin]

they say they meant for this game series to have a sad ending from the beginning, BULL****. They only started forshadowing that something bad would happen in ME3 NOT ME1

[3DandBeyond]

V-rcingetorix wrote...

Hobnob1978 wrote...


Overall, this felt good to get off my chest. A great game ruined by an atrocious, plot holed, and logically conflicted ending. A terrible shame... and, I feel, unfixable in it's present state. (sigh)

Excellent assessment Hobnob1978. This seems to be the majority opinion of players; based on my observations of polls (done a few, watched a few) and comments. Even if you remove 80% of the comments that criticize the ending, the "crits" still outnumber the gung-ho ending supporters (excluding Father_Jerusalem, he can outnumber a crowd by sheer passion alone *grin*). While it is easier, and more likely that people will complain, most complainers will not agree on what exactly is wrong.

ME3 fans generally agree that the problem is a dead Shepard. I'd say 95% agree, way more than the number of "lost pizza order complainers."

I think BW can save ME3, though, with DLC. If Bethesda can make a retcon, so can BW. BW already has multiple teams working on DLC, releasing Multi-Player programs and reading feedback (hopefully here), so they have the resources, the skills, and the motivation to do so.

I don't think the fix will be Leviathan (though Priestly did say that he was surprised some of the L:eviathan content didn't make it into the EC), but I hope so.

Way I figure it, we have about 1.3 years from release date for DLC. Multiplayer cuts down on the single player DLC probability, but also extends the time period for DLC releases. In my opinion, anyway. When in doubt, hope!

It was indeed a great post.  I do think there is essential agreement in what is wrong with the ending.  It's basically everything that happens post-conduit.  TIM was rather 2 dimensional, the drug addict (in this he's indoctrinated not on drugs) who wants to keep you from getting to the mob boss.  He makes you shoot Anderson and Shepard gets all emotional over that-well, not actually.  The Anderson dies scene is touching, because players found it so.  Shepard is as emotional as a turnip and Shepard shot him. 

But everything goes really wrong from the moment the words, "wake up" are spoken".  Ok, not asleep, idiot.  Almost everything that is wrong with the ending could be fixed if the kid was gone.  As Hobnob rightly said or implied (true wisdom here), it makes no sense for the kid's creators to even create him.  The problem was they were most likely idiots.  They were apparently having a recurring problem with synthetics that they created, so to fix that they created another one.  Good idea.

And the kid becomes a contradictory mess.  He contradicts the story, he contradicts the original goal with no real, authentic reason for his goal to become our goal.  Shepard doesn't blink when glow boy says he controls the reapers.  What pathos.  The questions that need to be asked, aren't and the answers that need to be given are not the ones given when Shepard does question the kid.

The geth were a refutation of the basis for the kid's actions, but so is the idea of conflict as a whole.  Conflict and chaos are not inherently bad things and most of the crap created in this cycle has involved organics vs. organics or geth that have been compelled to fight against organics by reapers.  Logic is supposed to mean something.  The kid's creators should not have ever been allowed to create anything, let alone advanced AIs.

The most direct comparison to the kid and his creators is not the geth, it's the Krogan and even that was still the fault of the Krogan's "creators", the Salarians who advanced them without considering the ramifications.  And with synthesis, the kid is all too eager to repeat this error.  He's not omnipotent or even very smart or logical, so doing what he wants is just chock full of problems.

I do agree that a great many people feel that what is wrong is that there's no clear "Shepard lives" satisfying ending.  But that's a bare minimum and only something that could make the endings slightly less depressing.  That would not fix what's wrong with them.  It would have been far better to have had an ending that made sense and had good, bad, and in between, but Shepard living would have made many of us at least feel better.  I for one would still look at the choices and the kid as the greatest mistake they could have made and I wouldn't look at that as salvaging the mess, because the cost for that is agreeing with a fool's logic and killing friends (this is a gratuitous cost). 

Just removing the kid, making the choices not be choices but extensions of Shepard's character that automatically decides what the crucible would do (with good or bad versions of each thing) would have worked far better than having them be solutions to help the kid.  The goal is changed because the choices are not meant to primarily stop the reapers; they are meant to stop killer robots from killing all organic life.  Remove the kid and they are imperfect ways to stop the reapers.  But they could have had good and bad versions in which Shepard could live or die and the reapers might even be successful in all 3 cases.  All I'm saying is just removing the kid and his goal could have helped to fix this.  That's the one part most who dislike the endings do agree on-not my suggested implementation of it, just that he and his logic needed to be gone.

[3DandBeyond]

@Dubozz, great post.  Well said and never fear your English was fine.  You bear out the point that the game suffers from the kid primarily.

[3DandBeyond]

BlueStorm83 wrote...

--- Indeed, Hobnob! Well said, all around.

My biggest problem with the "AI will always rebel!" idea that's thrust upon us at the end is that the Geth are absolutely the antithesis of this. They never Rebelled. Their original fight against Quarrians was only because Quarrians were killing Quarrians who tried to protect Geth. If Quarrian = Quarrian, and one of two Qarrians has to die, you save one that wants to protect life and kill one that tries to end life. Even the Geth's original questions and claims weren't about rebellion. They asked if they had SOULS. They wanted to know if they were really just like their creators, as they suspected. It was never "You're not as worthy to survive as I am," it was always, "Hey, look at that, we're equals! Isn't that nifty?"

"AI will always rebel" is as viable an argument as "Every Christmas, Santa Claus will eat your pets and beat you to a pulp." If even ONE Christmas goes by where you wake up the next day unbeaten with living, non-devoured pets, then the statement is observably false. The fact that the Geth BEGAN trying to get along with Quarrians and (in my Shepard's life,) ENDED trying to get along with Quarrians, that means that the Starboy is 100% wrong in his assumptions. And everything that proceeds from those assumptions is invalid.

Also: As far as the Protheans warring against their Synthetics... so what? They fought them, they beat them, the end.

A HA!!! LOOK AT THAT! The Protheans BEAT their Synthetics! They learned their lesson, and they won. There would BE no more Synthetics if the Reapers hadn't stuck their big ****ing cuttlefish noses in and ruined everything AGAIN.

Starboy is still a Deus Ex Machina, the Crucible is still a MacGuffin, the ending is still unworthy to bear the title of the game.

Exactly, the moral of the geth story is that within ME3 they are shown to be better people than organics in so many ways, but they are made to be the villains and they either must pay the highest price for getting rid of the beings that are completely wrong about them (destroy) or they must be forced to "understand" organics better (synthesis) or the reapers must be allowed to remain in order to protect organics from them (control).  The geth in all cases pay for not doing anything wrong.  This is one example among many of the better nature of people being smashed to bits.  The better nature of the geth is, one way or another, demolished. 

And the choices also demolish the better nature of organics and all life.  In Destroy, organics are selfish and the geth and EDI and all synthetics are disposable.  But it's just the cost of war as some people say-no, it's the cost of the soul and heart.  In Synthesis, organics and synthetics are imperfect and need augmenting internally and irrevocably.  This is the cost of the body.  In Control, totalitarianism is the only way to protect organics from killer robots, but this also means reaper tech will be more of a standard since it must be guided to keep organics from making killer robots.  This is the cost of the mind. 

It's like the idea of the reapers as one imperfect whole solution has been split into 3 imperfect solutions.  All of them eventually kill.  They just go about it different ways.  The reapers kill the mind, soul (and heart), and the body as one unit.  This destroys the galaxy.  All 3 choices destroy a part, but still, by virtue of what they do, will ultimately destroy the galaxy.  They devalue one part of what makes us alive and that will cause the destruction of the other parts.  Take away the heart and soul, and you have an unfeeling being that is already partly dead.  Take away the body and it's evident what you've done-death and destruction may be slow in coming, but it will come.  Take away the mind and destruction will happen without recognition that it is even taking place.

[AngryFrozenWater]

@BlueStorm83 and 3DandBeyond: Let's also not forget that the reapers turned the zha'til against the zha. Take Javik on the geth dreadnought mission and he will tell you that. The zha'til already had proven the brat and its boys wrong because the zha and the zha'til had a symbiotic relation and thus both benefited from each other's existence.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 27 août 2012 - 03:47 .

[ham89]

The last thing I want to say before I'm done with this is that, the EC did exactly what it was supposed to do. Make the people who didn'y fully understand what happened understand so that they can like the ending. The people who don't like it (which are half the people in here) your S.O.L (sorry about your luck) 

It wasn't the ending you hoped for, I didn't even hope for that ending, but I'm okay with the ending, so I don't have to hope for one that I would like. It's okay to keep voicing your opinions but quit telling Bioware to change the ending. Their not, and they won't, EVER. 

Modifié par ham89, 27 août 2012 - 05:46 .

[CitizenThom]

I don't think it's dead Sheppard that made the ending unsettling really, I think it's just that the ending in many ways doesn't 'join' well with the rest of the story. Sheppard could certianly be a martyr and hero and still given the Mass Effect story a satisfying conclusion. I even think a cliche 'avante-garde' ending where everyone loses could have made for a satisfying enough conclusion. But the ending wasn't consistent with the rest of the game.

The ending would have been better by simply showing a result for all of Sheppard's efforts, whether those results were all doomed to fail or not. That connection was just missing.