4048 réponses à ce sujet

[TamiBx]

I was left with a question(regardless of the ending you pick): what happened to everyone on the Citadel? Are they all dead? What about the council?

I'm assuming they are all dead, but if TIM survived long enough to see Shepard...

[AmstradHero]

thearbiter1337 wrote...

IxSITHxI wrote...

Why did Harbinger not kill the Normandy when it was hovering a couple hundred yards away?

Remember the Normandy has a stealth system /and/ the Reaper IFF which might mean that the Harbinger thought the Normandy was a friendly vessel or just didn't see it at all and Jokers flying skills

The Collectors saw through the stealth system and didn't care a whit about the IFF. The Reapers still chase the Normandy through space despite its stealth systems. 

There is absolutely zero reason to think Harbinger or any other Reaper lack the ability to detect or spot the Normandy.

If people actually bother to analyse the ending at all (like they were before), they will immediately realise that virtually all the "clarifications" (btw, changing something is NOT clarifying it), create new problems that are just as non-sensical as before. Moreover, the utterly flawed premise of the ending, the internal inconsistencies of the Catalyst's arguments, and the complete rejection of all the themes of the series up until this point still exist.

The extended cut is not a redemption, nor a salvaging of the existing ending, or in any way better than the vanilla release except on a purely superficial level of providing pointless bandaids and cheap "direct explanations of how everything worked out for the best" because you blindly followed choices provided to you by the collective consciousness of the enemies of the entire series.

There is nothing here that saves the ending on a fundamental level.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 28 juin 2012 - 07:23 .

[Asari]

bahamutomega wrote...

Asari wrote...

As for the Synthesis ending. The ideal ending. The thing I noticed first about this ending was that none of the organics/preorganics was happy about winning the war, which was in fact a good detail to add..but still the entire ending felt so depressing. 
Yay megacheer for EDI and Joker but for some reason everyone feels like robots. "we will advance and evolve and become even greater" ...to me that feels kinda cerberusish only not just in humanitys favor but for all. 

uh...  didn't starchild state that the synthesis was it for evolution?

ya know...  aside from the whole Cosmic Imperative thing... yeah...  synthesis still seems like a very socialist / dictatorist / i'm-in-charge-do-things-the-way-i-say-to-do-them choice.

as for the "SO BE IT" line...  did anyone else notice some Sovereign / Harbinger-i'm-really-pissed-off notes there?

Yeah but thats the thing, at least in my opinion. Aside for the thought that there will be no more fighting or negativity whatsoever, it's like everyone or everything will be programmed to just become something greater than it is.



As for the "SO BE IT" line: Yeah I felt the same, but the reapers always sound grumpy. But why would he say that line with a reaper voice?

[mzs2002]

Okay i thought it was pretty well done I enjoyed the extra explanations at the end and through out however, I still don't know if Shepard is really dead after destroying the reapers.

Here's why:

1. You never see him/her die

2. Ashley or who ever is holding his name for the memory area never actually puts shepards name on the monument

3. You still see shepard breath at the end

thoughts?

[Roboviking]

While I'm glad they decided to clarify one of the most annoying holes in the ending, i.e. how the heck did my teammates get to the normandy, It does require quite the leap of logic. For instance:

Shepard: Guys, there's a killing field in front of us, Harbinger is gonna shoot at us, but someone's got to get to that magic teleport laser. We have no choice but to make a no holds barred, all out, mad dash for it.
Soldiers: Yeah! Alright! Let's do this!

<As they race down the hill many soldiers are vaporized, and some just get blown back. It's starting to look hopeless when Shepard's crew members very nearly get a truck dropped on them.>

Shepard: Time out!
Soldiers:What?
Harbinger: What?
Shepard: Time out! Hey Harbinger! Stop shooting for a sec!
Harbinger: .....okay....
Shepard: Hey Joker, I know you are out fighting in space and all but could you traverse the 100,000 miles from there to here through reaper controlled space in like 10 seconds? My teammates almost got hit by a truck.
Joker: Sure thing!

<The Normandy flies over and opens it's doors to pick up the crew members.>

Shepard: Alight, on ya go.
Garrus: Hey shepard, think we got time for one more macho/dramatic goodbye?

<Shepard looks to Harbinger who's patiently waiting.>

Shepard: Sure, don't see why not.
Garrus: cool. Ummm.. I want to go with you.
Shepard: Nope, someone's got to live.
Garrus: Won't be you! Taste the rainbow Shepard!
Shepard: Eat it Garrus!

<The Normandy flies off slowly while the crew waves goodbye to everyone>

Shepard: Alright! Game on!
Soldiers: Game on!
Harbinger: GAAAAAAME OOOOOOON!

<Harbinger shoots Shepard in the face with a giant laser>

[IxSITHxI]

Spartas Husky wrote...

This... so much this


By "Made Nightwing"

So, my lit professor and I are nerds. I throw in 'but the prize' references on my essays about Odysseus and Achilles, he throws in Firefly references in his lectures, we get on great. Now, I've previously mentioned that he disliked the endings EDIT: He dropped in on the forum to correct my paraphrasing of our conversation, so I'm updating the OP to have his infinitely superior original words replace my own feeble attempts:

Drayfish, p.13:

I've never posted on this forum before, so I hope I don't embarrass myself or this discussion entirely – and I apologise for the wall of text that is to follow, but I'm an academic, and tedious tracts of self-important linguistic gymnastics is what we do.

My name is Dr. Dray, and I should start by saying: oh, dear, I've been cited for my nerd indignation. I'm surprised Made Nightwing didn't mention that my little fists were shaking with rage. But they were. They did. With feeble, pointless nerd rage.

I must point out though, that as flattered as I am to be referenced, were I still marking Made Nightwing's work I would have to circle this passage and remind him that these words are not in fact directly attributable to me: his phrasing is a paraphrase of our conversation rather than a quotation. ...However, he has an attentive mind, and I must admit that he has captured the majority of my issues with the ending, my penchant for hyperbole, and the general dislocation of the thematic threads that I felt violated the larger narrative arc of the trilogy. And I'm sad to say I did use the words 'thematically revolting' – although I've watched both the Matrix sequels and Godfather 3, so I've probably said that phrase quite a lot.

If you'll permit me then, I did just want to write quickly in my own words to clarify some of my issues with these endings, and why I thought that they erode the themes heretofore at the core of their series. Of course, all of these arguments have no doubt been stated numerous times by voices far more worthy than mine over the past few weeks, but as someone intrigued by the production and reception of literature in all its forms this has been a fascinating – if disheartening – time to be an enormous fan of this fiction. I'd also like to particularly commend Strange Aeons for the fantastic post. And that analogy: 'It’s like ending Pinocchio with Geppetto stuffing him into a wood chipper'. What an exquisite image!

So, putting aside all of the hanging plot threads that rankled me (where was the Normandy going? why did my squad mates live? Anderson is where now? wait, the catalyst was Haley Joel Osment? etc), I would like to explain why, when I was offered those three repellent choices, I turned and tried to unload my now infinite pistol into the whispy-space-ghost's face. It was not because I was unhappy that my Shepard would not get to drink Garrus under the table one last time, or get to help Tali build a back-porch on her new homestead, nor that I was pretty sure no one was going to remember to feed my space fish – it was because those three ideological options were so structurally indefensible that they broke the suspension of disbelief that Bioware had (up until that point) so spectacularly crafted for over a hundred hours of narrative. Suddenly Shepard was not simply being asked to sacrifice a race or a friend or him/herself for the greater good (all of which was no doubt expected by any player paying attention to the tone of the series), Shepard was being compelled, without even the chance to offer a counterpoint, to perform one of three actions that to my reading each fundamentally undermined the narrative foundations upon which the series seemed to rest.

In the Control ending, Shepard is invited to pursue the previously impossible path of attempting to dominate the reapers and bend them to his will. Momentarily putting aside the vulgarity of dominating a species to achieve one's own ends (and I will get to complaining about that premise soon enough), this has proved to be the failed modus operandi of every antagonist in this fiction up until this point – including the Illusive Man and Saren – all of whom have been chewed up and destroyed by their blind ambition, incapable of controlling forces beyond their comprehension. Nothing in the vague prognostication of the exposition-ghost offers any tangible justification for why Shepard's plunge into Reaper-control should play out any differently. In fact, as many people have already pointed out, Shepard has literally not five minutes before this moment watched the Illusive Man die as a consequence of this arrogant misconception.

The Destroy ending, however, seems even more perverse. One of the constants of the Mass Effect universe (and indeed much quality science fiction) has been an exploration of the notion that life is not simplistically bound to biology, that existence expands beyond the narrow parameters of blood and bone. That is why synthetic characters like Legion and EDI are so compelling in this context, why their quests to understand self-awareness – not simply to ape human behaviours – is so dramatic and compelling. Indeed, we even get glimpses of the Reapers having more sprawling and unknowable motivations that we puny mortals can comprehend...

To then end the tale by forcing the player to obliterate several now-proven-legitimate forms of life in order to 'save' the traditional definition of fleshy existence is not only genocidal, it actually devolves Shephard's ideological growth, undermining his ascent toward a more enlightened conception of existence, something that the fiction has been steadily advancing no matter how Renegadishably you wanted to play. This is particularly evident when the preceding actions of all three games entirely disprove the premise that synthetic will inevitably destroy organic: the Geth were the persecuted victims, trying their best to save the Quarians from themselves; EDI, given autonomy, immediately sought to aid her crew, even taking physical form in order to experience life from their perspective and finally learning that she too feared the implications of death.

And finally Synthesis, the ending that I suspect (unless we are to believe the Indoctrination Theory) is the 'good' option, proves to be the most distasteful of all. Shepard, up until this point has been an instrument though which change is achieved in this universe, and dependent upon your individual Renegade or Paragon choices, this may have resulted in siding with one species or another, letting this person live or that person die, even condemning races to extinction through your actions. But these decisions were always the result of a mediation of disparate opinions, and a consequence of the natural escalation of these disputes – Shepard was merely the fork in the path that decided which way the lava would run. His/her actions had an impact, but was responding to events in the universe that were already in motion before he/she arrived.

To belabour the point: Shepard is an agent for arbitration, the tipping point of dialogues that have, at times, root causes that reach back across generations. Up until this moment in the game the narrative, and Shepard's role within it, has been about the negotiation of diversity, testing the validity of opposing viewpoints and selecting a path through which to evolve on to another layer of questioning. Suddenly with the Synthesis ending, Shepard's capacity to make decisions elevates from offering a moral tipping point to arbitrarily wiping such disparity from the world. Shepard imposes his/her will upon every species, every form of life within the galaxy, making them all a dreary homogenous oneness. At such a point, wiping negotiation and multiplicity from the universe, Shepard moves from being an influential voice amongst a biodiversity of thought to sacrificing him/herself in an omnipotent imposition of will.

(And lest we forget that the entire character arc of Javik (the 'bonus' paid-DLC character that gives unique context to the entire cycle of destruction upon which this fiction is based) is utilised to reveal that a lack of diversity, the failure to continue adapting to new circumstances, was the primary reason that his race was decimated. ...So I guess we have that to look forward to.)

And this was the analogy I made to Made Nightwing in our discussion (and which I have bored people with elsewhere): this bewildering finale felt as if you had been listening to a soaring orchestral movement that ended in a cacophonous blast, the musicians tossing down their instruments and walking away. I find it hard to conceive how the creators of such a magnificent franchise could have made such a mess of their own universe. The plot holes, thematic inconsistencies and a deus ex machina that was unforgivable in ancient Greek theatre, let alone in any modern narrative, all combine to erode the foundations upon which the rest of the experience resides. (It's a disturbing sign when apologists for such an ending have to literally hope that what they witnessed was just a bad dream in the central character's head.)

I'm sure in my diatribe with Made Nightwing I would have cited Charles Dickens being alert to, and adapting his writing in response to the floods of letters he received from his fans in the serialised delivery of stories such as The Old Curiosity Shop. And I know I mentioned F.Scott Fitzgerald extensively redrafting Tender is the Night for a second publishing after receiving negative critical feedback. Indeed, whatever you think of the final result, Ridley Scott was able to reassert a definitive vision of Blade Runner in spite of its original theatrical release. Despite what critics might burble about artistic vision there is innumerable precedent for such reshaping, even beyond fundamental industry practices such as play-testings and film test-screenings. If a work of art has failed in its communicative purpose (and unless angering and bewildering its most invested fans was the goal, then Mass Effect 3 has done so), then it cannot be considered a success, and is not worthy of regard.

And for those who would respond that I, and fans like myself, are simply upset because the endings do not offer some irrefutable 'clarity' that would mar the poetic mysteries of the ending, I would point out that I am in no way against obscure or bewildering endings: if they are earned. In contrast to a majority of viewers, I happen to love the ending of The Sopranos for precisely this reason – because, despite the momentary jolt of surprise it engendered, that audacious blank screen was wholly thematically supportable. The driving premise of that program was a man seeking therapy (a mobster, yes, but a psychologically damaged man) – indeed, the very first beat in that narrative was Tony Soprano walking into a psychiatrist's office. The principle thematic tie of the entire series was therefore revealed to be a mediation upon the underlying psychological stimuli that produces identity: whether the capacity to interpret and understand one's impulses can impact upon the experience of one's life; whether one can attain agency over one's life.

That ending might have been agonising, but it was entirely fitting that the series ended with a loaded ambiguity, inviting a myriad of interpretations in which we the audience were now placed into the role of the psychiatrist, suddenly compelled to reason out the ending of those final thirty seconds with the cumulative experience of the preceding six years of imagery. Did Tony die? Did he have a second plate of onion rings and enjoy his family's company? Did Meadow ever park that car? In its final act The Sopranos gives over the interpretive, descriptive function of its narrative to its audience, intimately binding the viewer to Tony Soprano's own (perhaps failed) attempts to comprehend himself and attain authorship over his life. ...But the only reason that they could even try this is because every minute of every episode to this point has been propagated upon the notion that Tony Soprano was a man with a subconscious that could be explored, and that motivated his actions whether as a loving father or brutal criminal.

The obscurities in the ending of Mass Effect 3 have not been similarly earned by its prior narrative. This narrative has not until this point been about dominance, extermination, and the imposition of uniformity – indeed, Shepard has spent over a hundred hours of narrative fighting against precisely these three themes. And if one of these three (and only these three) options must be selected in order to sustain life in the universe, then that life has been so devalued by that act as to make the sacrifice meaningless.

And that is why I shall continue to go on shooting Haley-Joel-Osment-ghost in the face.

...Sorry again for the length of this post.

This right here BioWare, this ^

[IxSITHxI]

AmstradHero wrote...

thearbiter1337 wrote...

IxSITHxI wrote...

Why did Harbinger not kill the Normandy when it was hovering a couple hundred yards away?

Remember the Normandy has a stealth system /and/ the Reaper IFF which might mean that the Harbinger thought the Normandy was a friendly vessel or just didn't see it at all and Jokers flying skills

The Collectors saw through the stealth system and didn't care a whit about the IFF. The Reapers still chase the Normandy through space despite its stealth systems. 

There is absolutely zero reason to think Harbinger or any other Reaper lack the ability to detect or spot the Normandy.

If people actually bother to analyse the ending at all (like they were before), they will immediately realise that virtually all the "clarifications" (btw, changing something is NOT clarifying it), create new problems that are just as non-sensical as before. Moreover, the utterly flawed premise of the ending, the internal inconsistencies of the Catalyst's arguments, and the complete rejection of all the themes of the series up until this point still exist.

The extended cut is not a redemption, nor a salvaging of the existing ending, or in any way better than the vanilla release except on a purely superficial level of providing pointless bandaids and cheap "direct explanations of how everything worked out for the best" because you blindly followed choices provided to you by the collective consciousness of the enemies of the entire series.

There is nothing here that saves the ending on a fundamental level.

Come on everyone get the Retake Movement started up again.

The ending is still complete garbage if not slightly less smelly garbage. Its like they sprayed fabreeze on it and hoped no one would notice. At first I liked the EC, sort of. There were still a lot of plotholes and stuff, but as I began to think about it I started hating it more and more. The same thing happened with the original ending. A lot of the stuff that angered people is still there and the choppiness of the new stuff adding really takes away from it.

Continue to Hold the Line (again)

[Rockstarblunt]

CONTROL: Tim was right all along? So the bad guy in ME2/ME3 was the good guy?
SYNTHESIS: Saren was right all along? So the bad guy in ME1 wanted organics and machines to fuse together for evolution.
DESTROY: Only option that kills the reapers and disproving them, Saren, and Tim.

Regardless the endings we got didn't stick to Core ME themes. Fail.

[DeadlyDodo]

IxSITHxI wrote...

Spartas Husky wrote...

This... so much this


By "Made Nightwing"

So, my lit professor and I are nerds. I throw in 'but the prize' references on my essays about Odysseus and Achilles, he throws in Firefly references in his lectures, we get on great. Now, I've previously mentioned that he disliked the endings EDIT: He dropped in on the forum to correct my paraphrasing of our conversation, so I'm updating the OP to have his infinitely superior original words replace my own feeble attempts:

Drayfish, p.13:

I've never posted on this forum before, so I hope I don't embarrass myself or this discussion entirely – and I apologise for the wall of text that is to follow, but I'm an academic, and tedious tracts of self-important linguistic gymnastics is what we do.

My name is Dr. Dray, and I should start by saying: oh, dear, I've been cited for my nerd indignation. I'm surprised Made Nightwing didn't mention that my little fists were shaking with rage. But they were. They did. With feeble, pointless nerd rage.

I must point out though, that as flattered as I am to be referenced, were I still marking Made Nightwing's work I would have to circle this passage and remind him that these words are not in fact directly attributable to me: his phrasing is a paraphrase of our conversation rather than a quotation. ...However, he has an attentive mind, and I must admit that he has captured the majority of my issues with the ending, my penchant for hyperbole, and the general dislocation of the thematic threads that I felt violated the larger narrative arc of the trilogy. And I'm sad to say I did use the words 'thematically revolting' – although I've watched both the Matrix sequels and Godfather 3, so I've probably said that phrase quite a lot.

If you'll permit me then, I did just want to write quickly in my own words to clarify some of my issues with these endings, and why I thought that they erode the themes heretofore at the core of their series. Of course, all of these arguments have no doubt been stated numerous times by voices far more worthy than mine over the past few weeks, but as someone intrigued by the production and reception of literature in all its forms this has been a fascinating – if disheartening – time to be an enormous fan of this fiction. I'd also like to particularly commend Strange Aeons for the fantastic post. And that analogy: 'It’s like ending Pinocchio with Geppetto stuffing him into a wood chipper'. What an exquisite image!

So, putting aside all of the hanging plot threads that rankled me (where was the Normandy going? why did my squad mates live? Anderson is where now? wait, the catalyst was Haley Joel Osment? etc), I would like to explain why, when I was offered those three repellent choices, I turned and tried to unload my now infinite pistol into the whispy-space-ghost's face. It was not because I was unhappy that my Shepard would not get to drink Garrus under the table one last time, or get to help Tali build a back-porch on her new homestead, nor that I was pretty sure no one was going to remember to feed my space fish – it was because those three ideological options were so structurally indefensible that they broke the suspension of disbelief that Bioware had (up until that point) so spectacularly crafted for over a hundred hours of narrative. Suddenly Shepard was not simply being asked to sacrifice a race or a friend or him/herself for the greater good (all of which was no doubt expected by any player paying attention to the tone of the series), Shepard was being compelled, without even the chance to offer a counterpoint, to perform one of three actions that to my reading each fundamentally undermined the narrative foundations upon which the series seemed to rest.

In the Control ending, Shepard is invited to pursue the previously impossible path of attempting to dominate the reapers and bend them to his will. Momentarily putting aside the vulgarity of dominating a species to achieve one's own ends (and I will get to complaining about that premise soon enough), this has proved to be the failed modus operandi of every antagonist in this fiction up until this point – including the Illusive Man and Saren – all of whom have been chewed up and destroyed by their blind ambition, incapable of controlling forces beyond their comprehension. Nothing in the vague prognostication of the exposition-ghost offers any tangible justification for why Shepard's plunge into Reaper-control should play out any differently. In fact, as many people have already pointed out, Shepard has literally not five minutes before this moment watched the Illusive Man die as a consequence of this arrogant misconception.

The Destroy ending, however, seems even more perverse. One of the constants of the Mass Effect universe (and indeed much quality science fiction) has been an exploration of the notion that life is not simplistically bound to biology, that existence expands beyond the narrow parameters of blood and bone. That is why synthetic characters like Legion and EDI are so compelling in this context, why their quests to understand self-awareness – not simply to ape human behaviours – is so dramatic and compelling. Indeed, we even get glimpses of the Reapers having more sprawling and unknowable motivations that we puny mortals can comprehend...

To then end the tale by forcing the player to obliterate several now-proven-legitimate forms of life in order to 'save' the traditional definition of fleshy existence is not only genocidal, it actually devolves Shephard's ideological growth, undermining his ascent toward a more enlightened conception of existence, something that the fiction has been steadily advancing no matter how Renegadishably you wanted to play. This is particularly evident when the preceding actions of all three games entirely disprove the premise that synthetic will inevitably destroy organic: the Geth were the persecuted victims, trying their best to save the Quarians from themselves; EDI, given autonomy, immediately sought to aid her crew, even taking physical form in order to experience life from their perspective and finally learning that she too feared the implications of death.

And finally Synthesis, the ending that I suspect (unless we are to believe the Indoctrination Theory) is the 'good' option, proves to be the most distasteful of all. Shepard, up until this point has been an instrument though which change is achieved in this universe, and dependent upon your individual Renegade or Paragon choices, this may have resulted in siding with one species or another, letting this person live or that person die, even condemning races to extinction through your actions. But these decisions were always the result of a mediation of disparate opinions, and a consequence of the natural escalation of these disputes – Shepard was merely the fork in the path that decided which way the lava would run. His/her actions had an impact, but was responding to events in the universe that were already in motion before he/she arrived.

To belabour the point: Shepard is an agent for arbitration, the tipping point of dialogues that have, at times, root causes that reach back across generations. Up until this moment in the game the narrative, and Shepard's role within it, has been about the negotiation of diversity, testing the validity of opposing viewpoints and selecting a path through which to evolve on to another layer of questioning. Suddenly with the Synthesis ending, Shepard's capacity to make decisions elevates from offering a moral tipping point to arbitrarily wiping such disparity from the world. Shepard imposes his/her will upon every species, every form of life within the galaxy, making them all a dreary homogenous oneness. At such a point, wiping negotiation and multiplicity from the universe, Shepard moves from being an influential voice amongst a biodiversity of thought to sacrificing him/herself in an omnipotent imposition of will.

(And lest we forget that the entire character arc of Javik (the 'bonus' paid-DLC character that gives unique context to the entire cycle of destruction upon which this fiction is based) is utilised to reveal that a lack of diversity, the failure to continue adapting to new circumstances, was the primary reason that his race was decimated. ...So I guess we have that to look forward to.)

And this was the analogy I made to Made Nightwing in our discussion (and which I have bored people with elsewhere): this bewildering finale felt as if you had been listening to a soaring orchestral movement that ended in a cacophonous blast, the musicians tossing down their instruments and walking away. I find it hard to conceive how the creators of such a magnificent franchise could have made such a mess of their own universe. The plot holes, thematic inconsistencies and a deus ex machina that was unforgivable in ancient Greek theatre, let alone in any modern narrative, all combine to erode the foundations upon which the rest of the experience resides. (It's a disturbing sign when apologists for such an ending have to literally hope that what they witnessed was just a bad dream in the central character's head.)

I'm sure in my diatribe with Made Nightwing I would have cited Charles Dickens being alert to, and adapting his writing in response to the floods of letters he received from his fans in the serialised delivery of stories such as The Old Curiosity Shop. And I know I mentioned F.Scott Fitzgerald extensively redrafting Tender is the Night for a second publishing after receiving negative critical feedback. Indeed, whatever you think of the final result, Ridley Scott was able to reassert a definitive vision of Blade Runner in spite of its original theatrical release. Despite what critics might burble about artistic vision there is innumerable precedent for such reshaping, even beyond fundamental industry practices such as play-testings and film test-screenings. If a work of art has failed in its communicative purpose (and unless angering and bewildering its most invested fans was the goal, then Mass Effect 3 has done so), then it cannot be considered a success, and is not worthy of regard.

And for those who would respond that I, and fans like myself, are simply upset because the endings do not offer some irrefutable 'clarity' that would mar the poetic mysteries of the ending, I would point out that I am in no way against obscure or bewildering endings: if they are earned. In contrast to a majority of viewers, I happen to love the ending of The Sopranos for precisely this reason – because, despite the momentary jolt of surprise it engendered, that audacious blank screen was wholly thematically supportable. The driving premise of that program was a man seeking therapy (a mobster, yes, but a psychologically damaged man) – indeed, the very first beat in that narrative was Tony Soprano walking into a psychiatrist's office. The principle thematic tie of the entire series was therefore revealed to be a mediation upon the underlying psychological stimuli that produces identity: whether the capacity to interpret and understand one's impulses can impact upon the experience of one's life; whether one can attain agency over one's life.

That ending might have been agonising, but it was entirely fitting that the series ended with a loaded ambiguity, inviting a myriad of interpretations in which we the audience were now placed into the role of the psychiatrist, suddenly compelled to reason out the ending of those final thirty seconds with the cumulative experience of the preceding six years of imagery. Did Tony die? Did he have a second plate of onion rings and enjoy his family's company? Did Meadow ever park that car? In its final act The Sopranos gives over the interpretive, descriptive function of its narrative to its audience, intimately binding the viewer to Tony Soprano's own (perhaps failed) attempts to comprehend himself and attain authorship over his life. ...But the only reason that they could even try this is because every minute of every episode to this point has been propagated upon the notion that Tony Soprano was a man with a subconscious that could be explored, and that motivated his actions whether as a loving father or brutal criminal.

The obscurities in the ending of Mass Effect 3 have not been similarly earned by its prior narrative. This narrative has not until this point been about dominance, extermination, and the imposition of uniformity – indeed, Shepard has spent over a hundred hours of narrative fighting against precisely these three themes. And if one of these three (and only these three) options must be selected in order to sustain life in the universe, then that life has been so devalued by that act as to make the sacrifice meaningless.

And that is why I shall continue to go on shooting Haley-Joel-Osment-ghost in the face.

...Sorry again for the length of this post.

This right here BioWare, this ^

I ratify, agree, endorse, commend and approve this message.

[GabrielK]

IxSITHxI wrote...

Sooo unless Harbinger became deaf and blind there is no way in hell that Harbinger shouldnt have been able to kill the Normandy.

Maybe Harby played the original cut of ME 3 as well, and was so depressed he just lost the will to keep fighting!


OK that was probably a cheap shot.



Anyway the EC is much better than the original material, and Bioware did retcon some of the more depressing and ambiguous plot points. However the fundamental problems in terms of story logic that were present in the original cut is still present here.

You get things like Starchild claiming that Synthesis wasn't possible before because organics weren't ready for it. "It's not something that can be forced," he says. What the hell does that mean? Define "forced" in this context. Because it sure seems like it's being forced now.

Starchild claims that the Reapers are the solution to the problem of synthetics destroying organics. When asked why the Reapers do what they do (blowing stuff up and turning people into slurry), Starchild claims "we are helping your races to ascend. Without us, synthetics would destroy all organics." What the hell kind of insane moon logic is that? OK it's great that you're taking an active interest in what happens to us organics little guy. But if you're really that concerned about us not being wiped out by synthetics...ummm, couldn't you have come up with a better "solution" than creating a bunch of synthetics to wipe us out? (Umm, I mean help us ascend)

So yeah, still better than what we got before, but the fundamental problems are still there. They're just covered by a few more layers of talky talk.

[Asari]

That wall of text

[AmstradHero]

GabrielK wrote...
You get things like Starchild claiming that Synthesis wasn't possible before because organics weren't ready for it. "It's not something that can be forced," he says. What the hell does that mean? Define "forced" in this context. Because it sure seems like it's being forced now.

What I like more is the fact that the Catalyst says Shepard " changed the variables" and "created new possibilities" but then says "we've tried synthesis before but it didn't work".

Huh?

Which one is it, Catalyst?

[Isendel111]

I think that BW did a great job with this EC. The previous ending was a cluster**** of plotholes and unexplainable things. Many of them (not all, but enough to be satisfied imo) have been fixed with this EC. And regard the ending this is what i thought when i choose my ending (the one i felt like mine, ofc i've tried them all after this), the control one: "the mass effect series could not end another way". The control ending is simply awsome. The little useless child tells you that your body will die but you will be able to look for those who you love and so you do, by transforming the reapers from..reapers:P to a defensive force watching for the galaxy.
Many would have wanted sheppard to survive, i was one of them in the nerd-rage moments after the 1st ending. All i wanted was sheppard and tali in their little house on rannoch. But with EC i realized that this was not possible. Sheppard was destined to became something more than a father, a husband, a man.
So thank you Bioware, you didn't gave me the ending i would have written for this game but you have given me a great ending, perhaps even better than mine, which would have been a little trivial.

And to EA, a few words: next time Bioware's quality assurance (assuming that they have one and that they said something about the 1st ending) tells you "dudes, the game won't be ready on march, it will be finished on late june", you shut up and let them work. You don't release the half a game (because those 10 minutes ruined half the game) so the next week ME3 can be found used for 15 bucks in every game shop, you loose money, do you understand this? You wait, it's better for everyone..for you, so you can sell more copies of the game, for us, so we can't eat our liver when we finish the game..

[Jarlan23]

I just beat ME3 for the first time about an hour ago. I got the game a couple weeks late thanks to wal-mart. So by the time I received the game everyone was complaining about the ending already.  I didn't want to taint the me3 story in my mind if I could avoid it.

So coming from someone who didn't see the old ending, I thought it was just fine. The ending is what I expected, but not what I wanted. Like most people here, I wanted Shepard to survive, start a family with his romance choice, and like someone already said here, play golf with Garrus.

But you never know what Bioware is up to. You know they are going to continue to release DLC for the game, perhaps they will continue to explain the ending a bit more. Maybe Shepard survived after all, or maybe it was all just a dream like some people suspect.

Bioware has created this awesome world. ME 1-3 are among my favorite games of all time, so I will give them the patience and the benefit of the doubt on this. And I will continue to go on hoping that they will create some awesome DLC for the game.

Modifié par Redgoon23, 28 juin 2012 - 08:38 .

[SkitSkit]

DeadlyDodo wrote...

IxSITHxI wrote...

Spartas Husky wrote...

This... so much this


By "Made Nightwing"

So, my lit professor and I are nerds. I throw in 'but the prize' references on my essays about Odysseus and Achilles, he throws in Firefly references in his lectures, we get on great. Now, I've previously mentioned that he disliked the endings EDIT: He dropped in on the forum to correct my paraphrasing of our conversation, so I'm updating the OP to have his infinitely superior original words replace my own feeble attempts:

Drayfish, p.13:

I've never posted on this forum before, so I hope I don't embarrass myself or this discussion entirely – and I apologise for the wall of text that is to follow, but I'm an academic, and tedious tracts of self-important linguistic gymnastics is what we do.

My name is Dr. Dray, and I should start by saying: oh, dear, I've been cited for my nerd indignation. I'm surprised Made Nightwing didn't mention that my little fists were shaking with rage. But they were. They did. With feeble, pointless nerd rage.

I must point out though, that as flattered as I am to be referenced, were I still marking Made Nightwing's work I would have to circle this passage and remind him that these words are not in fact directly attributable to me: his phrasing is a paraphrase of our conversation rather than a quotation. ...However, he has an attentive mind, and I must admit that he has captured the majority of my issues with the ending, my penchant for hyperbole, and the general dislocation of the thematic threads that I felt violated the larger narrative arc of the trilogy. And I'm sad to say I did use the words 'thematically revolting' – although I've watched both the Matrix sequels and Godfather 3, so I've probably said that phrase quite a lot.

If you'll permit me then, I did just want to write quickly in my own words to clarify some of my issues with these endings, and why I thought that they erode the themes heretofore at the core of their series. Of course, all of these arguments have no doubt been stated numerous times by voices far more worthy than mine over the past few weeks, but as someone intrigued by the production and reception of literature in all its forms this has been a fascinating – if disheartening – time to be an enormous fan of this fiction. I'd also like to particularly commend Strange Aeons for the fantastic post. And that analogy: 'It’s like ending Pinocchio with Geppetto stuffing him into a wood chipper'. What an exquisite image!

So, putting aside all of the hanging plot threads that rankled me (where was the Normandy going? why did my squad mates live? Anderson is where now? wait, the catalyst was Haley Joel Osment? etc), I would like to explain why, when I was offered those three repellent choices, I turned and tried to unload my now infinite pistol into the whispy-space-ghost's face. It was not because I was unhappy that my Shepard would not get to drink Garrus under the table one last time, or get to help Tali build a back-porch on her new homestead, nor that I was pretty sure no one was going to remember to feed my space fish – it was because those three ideological options were so structurally indefensible that they broke the suspension of disbelief that Bioware had (up until that point) so spectacularly crafted for over a hundred hours of narrative. Suddenly Shepard was not simply being asked to sacrifice a race or a friend or him/herself for the greater good (all of which was no doubt expected by any player paying attention to the tone of the series), Shepard was being compelled, without even the chance to offer a counterpoint, to perform one of three actions that to my reading each fundamentally undermined the narrative foundations upon which the series seemed to rest.

In the Control ending, Shepard is invited to pursue the previously impossible path of attempting to dominate the reapers and bend them to his will. Momentarily putting aside the vulgarity of dominating a species to achieve one's own ends (and I will get to complaining about that premise soon enough), this has proved to be the failed modus operandi of every antagonist in this fiction up until this point – including the Illusive Man and Saren – all of whom have been chewed up and destroyed by their blind ambition, incapable of controlling forces beyond their comprehension. Nothing in the vague prognostication of the exposition-ghost offers any tangible justification for why Shepard's plunge into Reaper-control should play out any differently. In fact, as many people have already pointed out, Shepard has literally not five minutes before this moment watched the Illusive Man die as a consequence of this arrogant misconception.

The Destroy ending, however, seems even more perverse. One of the constants of the Mass Effect universe (and indeed much quality science fiction) has been an exploration of the notion that life is not simplistically bound to biology, that existence expands beyond the narrow parameters of blood and bone. That is why synthetic characters like Legion and EDI are so compelling in this context, why their quests to understand self-awareness – not simply to ape human behaviours – is so dramatic and compelling. Indeed, we even get glimpses of the Reapers having more sprawling and unknowable motivations that we puny mortals can comprehend...

To then end the tale by forcing the player to obliterate several now-proven-legitimate forms of life in order to 'save' the traditional definition of fleshy existence is not only genocidal, it actually devolves Shephard's ideological growth, undermining his ascent toward a more enlightened conception of existence, something that the fiction has been steadily advancing no matter how Renegadishably you wanted to play. This is particularly evident when the preceding actions of all three games entirely disprove the premise that synthetic will inevitably destroy organic: the Geth were the persecuted victims, trying their best to save the Quarians from themselves; EDI, given autonomy, immediately sought to aid her crew, even taking physical form in order to experience life from their perspective and finally learning that she too feared the implications of death.

And finally Synthesis, the ending that I suspect (unless we are to believe the Indoctrination Theory) is the 'good' option, proves to be the most distasteful of all. Shepard, up until this point has been an instrument though which change is achieved in this universe, and dependent upon your individual Renegade or Paragon choices, this may have resulted in siding with one species or another, letting this person live or that person die, even condemning races to extinction through your actions. But these decisions were always the result of a mediation of disparate opinions, and a consequence of the natural escalation of these disputes – Shepard was merely the fork in the path that decided which way the lava would run. His/her actions had an impact, but was responding to events in the universe that were already in motion before he/she arrived.

To belabour the point: Shepard is an agent for arbitration, the tipping point of dialogues that have, at times, root causes that reach back across generations. Up until this moment in the game the narrative, and Shepard's role within it, has been about the negotiation of diversity, testing the validity of opposing viewpoints and selecting a path through which to evolve on to another layer of questioning. Suddenly with the Synthesis ending, Shepard's capacity to make decisions elevates from offering a moral tipping point to arbitrarily wiping such disparity from the world. Shepard imposes his/her will upon every species, every form of life within the galaxy, making them all a dreary homogenous oneness. At such a point, wiping negotiation and multiplicity from the universe, Shepard moves from being an influential voice amongst a biodiversity of thought to sacrificing him/herself in an omnipotent imposition of will.

(And lest we forget that the entire character arc of Javik (the 'bonus' paid-DLC character that gives unique context to the entire cycle of destruction upon which this fiction is based) is utilised to reveal that a lack of diversity, the failure to continue adapting to new circumstances, was the primary reason that his race was decimated. ...So I guess we have that to look forward to.)

And this was the analogy I made to Made Nightwing in our discussion (and which I have bored people with elsewhere): this bewildering finale felt as if you had been listening to a soaring orchestral movement that ended in a cacophonous blast, the musicians tossing down their instruments and walking away. I find it hard to conceive how the creators of such a magnificent franchise could have made such a mess of their own universe. The plot holes, thematic inconsistencies and a deus ex machina that was unforgivable in ancient Greek theatre, let alone in any modern narrative, all combine to erode the foundations upon which the rest of the experience resides. (It's a disturbing sign when apologists for such an ending have to literally hope that what they witnessed was just a bad dream in the central character's head.)

I'm sure in my diatribe with Made Nightwing I would have cited Charles Dickens being alert to, and adapting his writing in response to the floods of letters he received from his fans in the serialised delivery of stories such as The Old Curiosity Shop. And I know I mentioned F.Scott Fitzgerald extensively redrafting Tender is the Night for a second publishing after receiving negative critical feedback. Indeed, whatever you think of the final result, Ridley Scott was able to reassert a definitive vision of Blade Runner in spite of its original theatrical release. Despite what critics might burble about artistic vision there is innumerable precedent for such reshaping, even beyond fundamental industry practices such as play-testings and film test-screenings. If a work of art has failed in its communicative purpose (and unless angering and bewildering its most invested fans was the goal, then Mass Effect 3 has done so), then it cannot be considered a success, and is not worthy of regard.

And for those who would respond that I, and fans like myself, are simply upset because the endings do not offer some irrefutable 'clarity' that would mar the poetic mysteries of the ending, I would point out that I am in no way against obscure or bewildering endings: if they are earned. In contrast to a majority of viewers, I happen to love the ending of The Sopranos for precisely this reason – because, despite the momentary jolt of surprise it engendered, that audacious blank screen was wholly thematically supportable. The driving premise of that program was a man seeking therapy (a mobster, yes, but a psychologically damaged man) – indeed, the very first beat in that narrative was Tony Soprano walking into a psychiatrist's office. The principle thematic tie of the entire series was therefore revealed to be a mediation upon the underlying psychological stimuli that produces identity: whether the capacity to interpret and understand one's impulses can impact upon the experience of one's life; whether one can attain agency over one's life.

That ending might have been agonising, but it was entirely fitting that the series ended with a loaded ambiguity, inviting a myriad of interpretations in which we the audience were now placed into the role of the psychiatrist, suddenly compelled to reason out the ending of those final thirty seconds with the cumulative experience of the preceding six years of imagery. Did Tony die? Did he have a second plate of onion rings and enjoy his family's company? Did Meadow ever park that car? In its final act The Sopranos gives over the interpretive, descriptive function of its narrative to its audience, intimately binding the viewer to Tony Soprano's own (perhaps failed) attempts to comprehend himself and attain authorship over his life. ...But the only reason that they could even try this is because every minute of every episode to this point has been propagated upon the notion that Tony Soprano was a man with a subconscious that could be explored, and that motivated his actions whether as a loving father or brutal criminal.

The obscurities in the ending of Mass Effect 3 have not been similarly earned by its prior narrative. This narrative has not until this point been about dominance, extermination, and the imposition of uniformity – indeed, Shepard has spent over a hundred hours of narrative fighting against precisely these three themes. And if one of these three (and only these three) options must be selected in order to sustain life in the universe, then that life has been so devalued by that act as to make the sacrifice meaningless.

And that is why I shall continue to go on shooting Haley-Joel-Osment-ghost in the face.

...Sorry again for the length of this post.

This right here BioWare, this ^

I ratify, agree, endorse, commend and approve this message.

As much as I want to move on with my life... I have to agree with the sentiment

[Kudas]

Dear Bioware,
I understand that the EC has been created to address the concerns by fans worldwide, but there are some really prominent parts addressed by many fans on the forum. We are truly hoping that the WAR ASSETS will finally play their part in Priority Earth as well as all our squad mates from ME2. But there are only dialogue changes and a very brief slideshow that hardly do all the ciivlizations, characters and events justice that only full cutscenes can do. Furthermore, we are also not shown further than in the original cut of the destroy ending if sherpard survives. From the team that brought us ME2, the truly greatest game of its generation, Priority Earth, which should have followed its predecessors in scope and gameplay, is truly a terrible letdown. And as the story has shown, Shepard is an idea, an idea that peace is possible within all civilizations and he made it happen, which is the antithesis to the Reapers' mentality, hence if so the Refusal ending should be given more weight, if the reapers can still destroy the combined might of the galaxy so easily then what is the point of the game in the first place? I know it is hard to ask for but can the team at Bioware extend the gameplay of Priority Earth by inputting war assets deployment, choosing which area around the beam to attack by judging what enemies are there and at the same time coordinating the sword and shield fleet with cutscenes showing their consequences and the anticipation of war assets as I have suggested in my previous posts. But again the EC truly does not pay homage to the characters ALL of us have come to love. Should more single-player DLC comes along (which I sincerely hope it will), can it build on Priority Earth and may I also suggest that perhaps the fetch missions can instead be extended into full gameplay mission, such that Shepard and his squad will actually have to land on the planets and retrieve the artifacts or war assets and at the same time meet characters from previous games?

Pls Mr Hudson and Bioware Team, pls (with ALL OF OUR SUPPORT) push Mass Effect 3 to its rightful place: the greatest of all times.

[Herthan]

If this had been the ending that came out at launch, I think I might have actually liked it. But since it didn't, and I already had to experience the ending as it was, I simply consider this a band aid put over the still bleeding wound of my hopes and dreams for what the ending of Mass Effect 3 could and should have been. It might be a colorful Spongebob band aid, but it isn't stitches. Still disappointed with Bioware, but at least they tried to give us something and I can respect that.

Modifié par Herthan, 28 juin 2012 - 08:41 .

[Kudas]

And pls dont discount the Indoctrination theory Bioware, it truly stands with your vision and what the massive amount of lore and information you have created for mass effect. I believe I say this for all fans that it should be dismissed in the face of EC

[Kudas]

And from your interview, "more than just a few cutscenes"? But thats exactly what EC is. Rlly sorry to say that.

[J_Ryman]

The "Indoctrination Theory" **** is for people who still can't accept that Shepard is dead for the good of the galaxy, period.

I have to say: BioWare I am one of those who did not cuss you out or curse you to hell because of the final hour of the game. I was never satisfied with the 3 minute cliffhanger you did for the series finale, but I have to say that the EC is exactly what I needed to see. Thanks for bringing it out...and as for the Dragon Age team...you guys need to step up, DA2 left a bad taste in my mouth.

[Kudas]

Also Bioware if Leviathan is going to be a war asset, pls dont just write it off as a number but instead include it in cutscene for the sword fleet battle and perhaps...advising Sherpard in the Starchild ending, since it will understand what the Starchild is playing at as it is a reaper???

[IxSITHxI]

Kudas wrote...

Dear Bioware,
I understand that the EC has been created to address the concerns by fans worldwide, but there are some really prominent parts addressed by many fans on the forum. We are truly hoping that the WAR ASSETS will finally play their part in Priority Earth as well as all our squad mates from ME2. But there are only dialogue changes and a very brief slideshow that hardly do all the ciivlizations, characters and events justice that only full cutscenes can do. Furthermore, we are also not shown further than in the original cut of the destroy ending if sherpard survives. From the team that brought us ME2, the truly greatest game of its generation, Priority Earth, which should have followed its predecessors in scope and gameplay, is truly a terrible letdown. And as the story has shown, Shepard is an idea, an idea that peace is possible within all civilizations and he made it happen, which is the antithesis to the Reapers' mentality, hence if so the Refusal ending should be given more weight, if the reapers can still destroy the combined might of the galaxy so easily then what is the point of the game in the first place? I know it is hard to ask for but can the team at Bioware extend the gameplay of Priority Earth by inputting war assets deployment, choosing which area around the beam to attack by judging what enemies are there and at the same time coordinating the sword and shield fleet with cutscenes showing their consequences and the anticipation of war assets as I have suggested in my previous posts. But again the EC truly does not pay homage to the characters ALL of us have come to love. Should more single-player DLC comes along (which I sincerely hope it will), can it build on Priority Earth and may I also suggest that perhaps the fetch missions can instead be extended into full gameplay mission, such that Shepard and his squad will actually have to land on the planets and retrieve the artifacts or war assets and at the same time meet characters from previous games?

Pls Mr Hudson and Bioware Team, pls (with ALL OF OUR SUPPORT) push Mass Effect 3 to its rightful place: the greatest of all times.

This^  The EC was such a letdown and it wasnt even the full thing. That wasnt 2 GB of content. The FU ending ends sooo abruptly, basically telling us everyone died. No epic battle scenes with races going down with glory. Nope just cuts to a bunker. The Earth mission is essentially single player horde mode. Why was it not like the suicide mission where you made big choices?

All in all the EC turns the ending from a F-- to a D at best.

[IxSITHxI]

Kudas wrote...

Also Bioware if Leviathan is going to be a war asset, pls dont just write it off as a number but instead include it in cutscene for the sword fleet battle and perhaps...advising Sherpard in the Starchild ending, since it will understand what the Starchild is playing at as it is a reaper???

If Leviathan is just a war assest, and its not in the final battle, whats the point of even having it in the first place? the war assests were the worst thing they added to the game. Also if we do see it in the battle, the FU 4th option should become a viable option to win the game. With all of the right choices, it should be possible to beat the Reapers without the theme breaking R G B endings. It should also be a happy ending showing Shep with the LI and friends. (no one can complain about a happy ending because of the stupid ass Disney ending Kasumi gets. I like Kasumi but synthesis actually brings Keiji back to life. what kind of BS is that? it was confirmed by mike gamble on twitter)

[Bergy_si]

Still no cut-scene with Normandy firing its main gun...
And the pickup, why not pick a few people and drop them by the beam...

Still, THX for the EC Bioware, we had to see what happens next!

If there is no DLC that would change the ending, then I'm done playing ME3 (I don't like games where you "continue" before the end mission...)

[Zoonz]

The EC helped a lot, but then I felt let down very much!

Biggest gripe by far by even players who say they liked the end!
is the StarChild,
this could have easily been addressed by having the option to ask him to reveal himself as he truly is,
(he did speak in a Harby voice when rejected)
Also the breathe scene could have been followed through, to meet with LI not just left unfinished
and Synthesis is fairy tale kids cartoon tripe, but easy to avoid.

But thanks to all at Bioware you have given the Mass Effect series more re-playability with this EC and thank you for removing the tie - in with multiplayer!all in all ME3 has moved from a 3/10 to a 7/10 for me,

It would have been 8 - 9 but the dream sequences, Rachni issue, lack of trial at start, and journal lost it points, plot holes I can cope with.