1214 réponses à ce sujet

[DirtyPhoenix]

No I didn't support the original endings. :/ I was left dumb-folded by the original endings, and a little ragey, but even then I maintained the rest of ME3, with all its flaws was pretty solid. My major gripe with ME3 pre-EC was the endings, which was mostly removed by the EC. I figured my choices won't matter too much, since they never have mattered in ME games. Look how much your ME1 choices matter in ME2 for an idea.

Modifié par pirate1802, 12 août 2012 - 08:33 .

[Seival]

LiarasShield wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

having to headcanon the ending is a sad cop-out to a rushed game

Yup I definitly agree

ME3 endings force us to think and discuss (even after EC). Only well-written and truely instructive stories can provoke so many discussions based on different ways of thinking and moralities.

Modifié par Seival, 10 août 2012 - 06:22 .

[Applepie_Svk]

Seival wrote...

ME3 endings force us to think and discuss (even after EC). Only well-written and truely instructive stories can provoke so many discussions based on different ways of thinking and moralities.

As much as bad writing can provoke such a discusion.

[Mazebook]

Pitznik wrote...

maaaze wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

We don't know much about Catalyst. We don't know, if he is even there, able to manifest, without the Crucible. The fact "space magic interface" seems to be part of the Citadel, and not of the Crucible, suggests that Crucible was originally part of the Citadel.

Yes we know very little about the origins of the Crucible. We know that the designs have changed many times...and that each cycle added their knowlege into the design.
So I can´t see how the crucible could be a original part of the citadel if it has changed so many times and it in its early stages it was not even designed with the citadel in mind. 

We know that it is adaptive and design with a purpose in mind.
The Crucible is one piece ...the citadel another. Combined they are something new, that can change the Universe.

But the whole Catalyst scene seems to happen on the Citadel. I think either countless cycles recreated the missing part (with some modifications), thinking they build something new - propably original blueprints were damaged or partial. In fact to build it, the original designer should know about the Catalyst or at least deduct his existence.

Yes...i guess this would be possible that the original plans had the Citadel in mind but were damaged.

But I think it would also be possible to build the Crucible without knowlege what the Catalyst is exactly. We built devices  that used Magnatism before we knew what exactly Magnatism was.

As I see it, the Crucible is a giant experiment...based on known things like the Citadel, Observations of the Reapers and some guesswork.

Modifié par maaaze, 10 août 2012 - 07:08 .

[Seival]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

Seival wrote...

ME3 endings force us to think and discuss (even after EC). Only well-written and truely instructive stories can provoke so many discussions based on different ways of thinking and moralities.

As much as bad writing can provoke such a discusion.

Bad writing can only provoke discussions about bad writing. But it can't provoke any discussions about different moral choices and their possible consequences...

...Besides, gaming public just got used to very simple and similar stories with only primitive happy endings. When they were given a really strong story and tough decision in the end, they just panic. And the apotheosis of that panic were some accusations in bad writing, and "IT".

[Essalor]

Seival wrote...

Applepie_Svk wrote...

Seival wrote...

ME3 endings force us to think and discuss (even after EC). Only well-written and truely instructive stories can provoke so many discussions based on different ways of thinking and moralities.

As much as bad writing can provoke such a discusion.

Bad writing can only provoke discussions about bad writing. But it can't provoke any discussions about different moral choices and their possible consequences...

...Besides, gaming public just got used to very simple and similar stories with only primitive happy endings. When they were given a really strong story and tough decision in the end, they just panic. And the apotheosis of that panic were some accusations in bad writing, and "IT".

And most of the discussions are about bad writing. The fact that we have them is not representative of the quality of the endings, it's a testament to the quality of the other 100 hours before. Just look at "Saddest phrases" thread. It's moment like those that make this game unforgettable, and we discuss the ending because it devalues them.

[Seival]

Essalor wrote...

Seival wrote...

Applepie_Svk wrote...

Seival wrote...

ME3 endings force us to think and discuss (even after EC). Only well-written and truely instructive stories can provoke so many discussions based on different ways of thinking and moralities.

As much as bad writing can provoke such a discusion.

Bad writing can only provoke discussions about bad writing. But it can't provoke any discussions about different moral choices and their possible consequences...

...Besides, gaming public just got used to very simple and similar stories with only primitive happy endings. When they were given a really strong story and tough decision in the end, they just panic. And the apotheosis of that panic were some accusations in bad writing, and "IT".

And most of the discussions are about bad writing. The fact that we have them is not representative of the quality of the endings, it's a testament to the quality of the other 100 hours before. Just look at "Saddest phrases" thread. It's moment like those that make this game unforgettable, and we discuss the ending because it devalues them.

Most =/= All.

Most players choose Destroy, but that doesn't mean Destroy is the only ending in game. I think this is appropriate analogy is this case.

There are still many confused players remain. They just need more time to accept the endings as they are. And first step to accepting should be understanding that not all games must have similar simple holywoodish happy-endings. A strong sci-fi story should have deep, phylosophical, instructive, and interesting ending concept... This is how I see it.

[Essalor]

Seival wrote...

Essalor wrote...

Seival wrote...

Applepie_Svk wrote...

Seival wrote...

ME3 endings force us to think and discuss (even after EC). Only well-written and truely instructive stories can provoke so many discussions based on different ways of thinking and moralities.

As much as bad writing can provoke such a discusion.

Bad writing can only provoke discussions about bad writing. But it can't provoke any discussions about different moral choices and their possible consequences...

...Besides, gaming public just got used to very simple and similar stories with only primitive happy endings. When they were given a really strong story and tough decision in the end, they just panic. And the apotheosis of that panic were some accusations in bad writing, and "IT".

And most of the discussions are about bad writing. The fact that we have them is not representative of the quality of the endings, it's a testament to the quality of the other 100 hours before. Just look at "Saddest phrases" thread. It's moment like those that make this game unforgettable, and we discuss the ending because it devalues them.

Most =/= All.

Most players choose Destroy, but that doesn't mean Destroy is the only ending in game. I think this is appropriate analogy is this case.

There are still many confused players remain. They just need more time to accept the endings as they are. And first step to accepting should be understanding that not all games must have similar simple holywoodish happy-endings. A strong sci-fi story should have deep, phylosophical, instructive, and interesting ending concept... This is how I see it.

Actually, it's a pretty terrible analogy. Most people choose Destroy because the main plot game was about defeating the Reapers and that's the only way to do so according to everything before the Star Child appears in the last second. Of course other endings exist, nobody questions that (although once again many would like Synthesis excised like a polluting tumor it is on the lore of the franchize).

If the majority of people is dissatisfied with the endings, it is probably because they were bad in the first place. There's a lot of ways to make the ending deep and interesting with a drastic reveal in the end, but while it makes sense in cases like The Sixth Sense or Planetscape:Torment, here it's contrived, doesn't have any morale and flips the genre of the series on its head to add insult to injury. Totally different from doubting empirical evidence. 

[christrek1982]

if you give a damm about Shepard in what way are the ending good? IE what any hope of survival or an ending where Shepard dose not commit suicide..... I mean his "heroic sacrifice"

[Seival]

Essalor wrote...

Seival wrote...

Essalor wrote...

Seival wrote...

Applepie_Svk wrote...

Seival wrote...

ME3 endings force us to think and discuss (even after EC). Only well-written and truely instructive stories can provoke so many discussions based on different ways of thinking and moralities.

As much as bad writing can provoke such a discusion.

Bad writing can only provoke discussions about bad writing. But it can't provoke any discussions about different moral choices and their possible consequences...

...Besides, gaming public just got used to very simple and similar stories with only primitive happy endings. When they were given a really strong story and tough decision in the end, they just panic. And the apotheosis of that panic were some accusations in bad writing, and "IT".

And most of the discussions are about bad writing. The fact that we have them is not representative of the quality of the endings, it's a testament to the quality of the other 100 hours before. Just look at "Saddest phrases" thread. It's moment like those that make this game unforgettable, and we discuss the ending because it devalues them.

Most =/= All.

Most players choose Destroy, but that doesn't mean Destroy is the only ending in game. I think this is appropriate analogy is this case.

There are still many confused players remain. They just need more time to accept the endings as they are. And first step to accepting should be understanding that not all games must have similar simple holywoodish happy-endings. A strong sci-fi story should have deep, phylosophical, instructive, and interesting ending concept... This is how I see it.

Actually, it's a pretty terrible analogy. Most people choose Destroy because the main plot game was about defeating the Reapers and that's the only way to do so according to everything before the Star Child appears in the last second. Of course other endings exist, nobody questions that (although once again many would like Synthesis excised like a polluting tumor it is on the lore of the franchize).

If the majority of people is dissatisfied with the endings, it is probably because they were bad in the first place. There's a lot of ways to make the ending deep and interesting with a drastic reveal in the end, but while it makes sense in cases like The Sixth Sense or Planetscape:Torment, here it's contrived, doesn't have any morale and flips the genre of the series on its head to add insult to injury. Totally different from doubting empirical evidence. 

I think you just demonstrated the typical attitude of a player, who got used to simple and typical standard endings: "They tell me the Destroy is the only option through the entire game, but then they tell me that the TIM was right about control possibility, and gave me one more option which noone even told about before! WTF? I came here to kill da Reapers, embrace LI and watch da beautiful sunset with titles! Why should I choose anything?! Just give me da imba-anti-reapers-thanix-rocket-launcher!"...

...That's silly. Personally, I'm completely tired of the type of endings most whiners want for ME Trilogy. You can find such thing in any standard game out there. If you don't want phylosophical and instructive story, then maybe sci-fi genre is just not for you? Try some action or comedy.

...No offence.

Modifié par Seival, 11 août 2012 - 02:12 .

[SeptimusMagistos]

christrek1982 wrote...

if you give a damm about Shepard in what way are the ending good? IE what any hope of survival or an ending where Shepard dose not commit suicide..... I mean his "heroic sacrifice"

Hey, I agree that it's sad Shepard has to die.

I also think it's sad Thane, Mordin, and all the people from Hammer had to die. Doesn't mean I can't enjoy the ending.

[WhereEternityEnds]

Yeah, you couldn't pay me money to sign this. Not even if I was the last person on earth and Bioware was the last developer on earth. I notice you keep using that word...."constructive" cricism. Why does Bioware only get CONSTRUCTIVE criticism? Are you under the misconception that this ending is in any way able to be improved upon through "CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM?" No. I think not.

There is a time and a place to use constructive criticism but if I go to a comedy club and one of the comedians tells a joke that basically demands the DEATH TO ALL WHITE PEOPLE, do I politely raise a hand and tell him "I'm sorry but here's some ways you could improve that joke"? HELL ****ING NO. Sometimes constructive criticism doesn't cut it. You heckle him, maybe you throw tomatoes at him and you shout "BOOOO GET OFF THE STAGE YOU RACIST HACK." That is what you do.

I don't know where you got the idea that Bioware deserves my or anyone else's support. Especially when they haven't supported any of us thus far. Personally, I don't support developers who condone on disc DLC but lie about it anyway and I certainly don't support developers who can't finish their own game trilogy with a coherent ending. Please explain to me why you think they truly deserve our support? Because all I've seen so far is you telling everyone they did a good job, HUGS AND KISSES, etc without actually backing it up with a substantive argument.

If I go to a Colt's game and they are in the lead for the first 98% of the match but then drop the football at the 1 yard line and end up losing the entire game, do I go home saying to myself "GOOD JOB COLTS?" I can't trust Bioware anymore to finish a game. And I certainly can't trust them to be honest because they've been caught with their pants down time and time again with their lies. And good lord do you honestly think the only genres which deserve good endings are action or comedy? Do you have any clue what you're talking about?

[WhereEternityEnds]

Seival wrote...


There are still many confused players remain. They just need more time to accept the endings as they are. And first step to accepting should be understanding that not all games must have similar simple holywoodish happy-endings. A strong sci-fi story should have deep, phylosophical, instructive, and interesting ending concept... This is how I see it.

Typical proponent of the endings.  Exclaiming we "don't get it" and need to "Accept it."  You know what people also need to accept?  Death.  Does that make death a good thing?  Does that make me want to rush to meet death?  Also, you seem to be the most confused of all of us.  There is no such thing as a typical ending.  Every ending that has probably been though up has been thought up before A MILLION TIMES OVER IN THE HISTORY OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION.  A SAD, MAKE YOU THINK ending doesn't equate to good.  Or Interesting.  Not necessarily.  Neither does a happy, sunshine and rainbows ending equate to "DISNEY-IFICATION" of a genre.  Please stop dictating to ME what a TYPICAL ending is.  Thank you.  

Modifié par WhereEternityEnds, 11 août 2012 - 02:37 .

[DirtyPhoenix]

Mass Effect 3 has many flaws, especially the endings. Many of my friends who like the game and its EC endings also agree that the endings are poorly executed/written and I agree with them. However I've seen people rant how this is the worst game ever, the worst game they have played and so on. That's a bit too much. Also, I've seen posts of how ME3's endings made people go into depression.. I mean if a videogame ending can depress you so much..

[Essalor]

I think you just demonstrated the typical attitude of a player, who got used to simple and typical standard endings: "They tell me the Destroy is the only option through the entire game, but then they tell me that the TIM was right about control possibility, and gave me one more option which noone even told about before! WTF? I came here to kill da Reapers, embrace LI and watch the beautiful sunset with titles! Why should I choose anything?! Just give me da imba-anti-reapers-thanix-rocket-launcher!"...

...That's silly. Personally, I'm completely tired of the type of endings most whiners want for ME Trilogy. You can find such thing in any standard game out there. If you don't want phylosophical and instructive story, then maybe sci-fi genre is just not for you? Try some action or comedy.

...No offence.

Well first of all, the Control and Destroy endings are both fine thematically as they were developed and have proponents through the game. However, in the way they are presented they don't make sense and feel detached, mainly because of the new character. I'd rather he presented completely different options not related to any previous character rather than repeating them + one extra. That's the whole point of shoving him into the game?

If we were to follow the narrative then, yes, Destroy is the ending we were most promised and in the eyes of the Alliance, all races and Anderson this is the victory. Control is something TIM said we could do, only we can never agree with him and have to kill him in the last scene before the Star Child appears and tells me it's an option now... The sad part is when we see our options we see the faces of TIM and Anderson supporting their own endings, but we just had a scene with them 5 minutes ago(!)

In any case, the endings don't suck because they are bleak. they suck because they don't fit the narrative, don't represent our choices within the game. All other conflicts were resolved through numerous hours of fight, choices and solutions/results which reflect those choices.

P.S. Synthesis is BS. No offense, this ending sucks, it sucks whether you choose it or not, just its presence in game is revolting. It ruins the narrative, introduces magic into science fiction and therefore ignores Writing 101. The guy who came up with it have not played or understood the core tenets and foundations of ME series. So yeah, I will complain all I want about that one.

[WhereEternityEnds]

pirate1802 wrote...

Mass Effect 3 has many flaws, especially the endings. Many of my friends who like the game and its EC endings also agree that the endings are poorly executed/written and I agree with them. However I've seen people rant how this is the worst game ever, the worst game they have played and so on. That's a bit too much. Also, I've seen posts of how ME3's endings made people go into depression.. I mean if a videogame ending can depress you so much..

I remember people getting depressed after Avatar ended.   The universe they created was so inspiring and immersive, people actually BECAME depressed that it ended and they had to go back to miserable reality.  It does seem rather sad doesn't it?  But I like to think that that was the true genius of James Cameron's Avatar.  However, if I'm upset after playing a video game and the reason isn't merely because it "ended" then someone SOMEWHERE done messed up.  

[DirtyPhoenix]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

christrek1982 wrote...

if you give a damm about Shepard in what way are the ending good? IE what any hope of survival or an ending where Shepard dose not commit suicide..... I mean his "heroic sacrifice"

Hey, I agree that it's sad Shepard has to die.

I also think it's sad Thane, Mordin, and all the people from Hammer had to die. Doesn't mean I can't enjoy the ending.

Heh, funnily enough, I never cared too much Shepard dying or surviving. I mean it's sad that she has to die, but if she dies to fulfil her objectives, SO BE IT!

[Essalor]

pirate1802 wrote...

Mass Effect 3 has many flaws, especially the endings. Many of my friends who like the game and its EC endings also agree that the endings are poorly executed/written and I agree with them. However I've seen people rant how this is the worst game ever, the worst game they have played and so on. That's a bit too much. Also, I've seen posts of how ME3's endings made people go into depression.. I mean if a videogame ending can depress you so much..

It speaks to the quality of the rest of the game and the bond it managed to form between us and animated avatars. ME is a great series and people are more upset because it was brilliant and imaginative and could've remained in collective memory as the best thing ever since Star Wars for sci-fi. 

Only most people can get Star Wars and get its themes (there's also redemption, sacrifice, victory against impossible odds themes going on there) while only privileged get and accept ME3 endings like if it's somehow a hipster deep artsy game.

It's not. It's popcorn sci-fi, brilliantely executed and emotional. All of it's themes are on the outside and spoon-fed, and in the last 5 minutes we're led to believe that there's a non-existent deeper level of creators vs created (me vs toaster/book/pollution?) to which we can't relate. 

I consider the time I spent playing in ME the best time I ever spent on a videogame entertainment. Up until the end. Is the game objectively good? Yes. It's not the worst thing EVER. It's just a great game I can't honestly recommend anyone to complete. And this is sadder than it just being a bad game.

[SeptimusMagistos]

I just don't get what was so thematically wrong with the endings. Destroy and Control were set up since the moment you were told victory by conventional means was utterly impossible (itself a fact set up as far back as the first Sovereign battle) and in fact go back to the Collector Base. The synthesis ending does come out of nowhere but that kind of makes sense given the circumstances. In order to achieve the EMS necessary to hear about it you have to have done many things that strain the bounds of what's possible. Thus you effectively overturn the Catalyst's preconceptions and give it the audacity to try a new solution.

...not a solution I personally chose, but I don't mind the option being there.

Likewise, I don't get the problem people have with the Catalyst. Yes, it got introduced at the last moment. But I was throwing around a galaxy-affecting Deus Ex Machina. I expected something weird to happen. Yes it's motivations make no real sense. That's why I'm supposed to be stopping it. If they made me agree with it, I'd be angry. But they don't, so I'm fine.

The one thing I do mind about the ending is the part where they make me shuffle and all the unskippable cutscenes. I can read faster than any of these guys can wheeze. Just let me fast forward through the dialogue at my own pace.

[I SOLD MY SOUL TO BIOWARE]

What I really dug about the (EC) endings was the cinematography of it. The Normandy flying into the distance with one final run of the Mass Effect theme was a gorgeous closing shot for the series.

Gave me epic goosebumps. :3

[Essalor]

@septimus

You don't look at the solutions from the same angle as I do. Most players with enough dedication and who read the codex can clearly see that all the lore, all the universe of Mass Effect is based on eezo and the mass effect itself since it was established in the title of game one. I have read the codex, spend hours in game and the laws of science derived from this were never thrown in a dust bin for an obscure DEM reason.

Now if I look at the extra solution aka Synthesis, I have a big problem since it's the first time in a 100 hours that I get an ending which is a) unexplicably influenced by my military score(?) incosistent with any prior science or modern science c) touted as perfect and sacrificial for the absolute good by the DIA in question. To be clear: a new effect introduced into the universe which is akin to magic as it can't be understood with prior knowledge. This is what causes a flip from science fiction to fantasy in the last seconds of the game.

What is disheartening is that apart from Synthesis, Destroy and Control do not need the elaborate faulty AI to justify or create them. It could just be a switch on a Crucible itself to activate them for all that matters. The point is that those are the two solutions set up in advance and proposed by Anderson and TIM, the two characters with whom we converse right before the end and we have to support Anderson.

[JeffZero]

SergeantSnookie wrote...

What I really dug about the (EC) endings was the cinematography of it. The Normandy flying into the distance with one final run of the Mass Effect theme was a gorgeous closing shot for the series.

Gave me epic goosebumps. :3

That is an absolutely breathtaking version of the theme too. That closing shot is easily in my faves list.

[DirtyPhoenix]

Essalor wrote...

@septimus
unexplicably influenced by my military score(?)

If your military score is low, the reapers attack the crucible and damage it, causing some of the options to be turned off. In the high-EMS cutscene the crucible waltz in and smoothly docks. In the low EMS scene the crucible is getting attacked, destroyers are making passes over it, and Hackett's bridge is on fire.

JeffZero wrote...

SergeantSnookie wrote...

What
I really dug about the (EC) endings was the cinematography of it. The
Normandy flying into the distance with one final run of the Mass Effect
theme was a gorgeous closing shot for the series.

Gave me epic goosebumps. :3

That is an absolutely breathtaking version of the theme too. That closing shot is easily in my faves list.

Same here. That last shot is my favourite one in the EC.

[Essalor]

pirate1802 wrote...

Essalor wrote...

@septimus
unexplicably influenced by my military score(?)

If your military score is low, the reapers attack the crucible and damage it, causing some of the options to be turned off. In the high-EMS cutscene the crucible waltz in and smoothly docks. In the low EMS scene the crucible is getting attacked, destroyers are making passes over it, and Hackett's bridge is on fire.

JeffZero wrote...

SergeantSnookie wrote...

What
I really dug about the (EC) endings was the cinematography of it. The
Normandy flying into the distance with one final run of the Mass Effect
theme was a gorgeous closing shot for the series.

Gave me epic goosebumps. :3

That is an absolutely breathtaking version of the theme too. That closing shot is easily in my faves list.

Same here. That last shot is my favourite one in the EC.

Agreed. It's explained. I guess what irks me is that not only Synthesis is bollocs, it's also considered the best ending because it requires most EMS to even be accessible and doesn't have negative consequences. Just adds insult to injury. 

[SeptimusMagistos]

Essalor wrote...

@septimus

You don't look at the solutions from the same angle as I do.

True. The distinction between hard and soft science fiction just doesn't bother me. I can see why you'd find that annoying, though.

But you have to admit that in terms of pure theme having a sudden and unforeseen third option that can be regarded as better than any of the others is pretty much what Mass Effect is all about.