314 réponses à ce sujet

[Garrus is my Shepard]

I've been thinking that the destroy ending should cut out the scene of the soldiers fighting off husks and replace it with a scene of the geth fighting husks and being deactivated when the wave hits them.

[DeadpoolBub]

It shows that we don't want the villains of the whole series around anymore.

Destroy is the only ending where a true happy ending takes place. The proof can be found in the scores for the endings.

Control is very ominous & sounds like something that's play, for example, if the Empire won at the end of 'Return of the Jedi' & we got several shots of their rule over the galaxy. Hell, Shepard's speeches are even ominous. & if you're cynical, like me, you will think that Shepard will eventually be corrupted & the cycle shall begin once more.

The score for Synthesis sounds mysterious & a bit ominous (not as much as Control's though). On the outside, the ending is all rainbows & butterflies. But if you think about it, the ending can have some dark implications. I can see the galaxy becoming a "One of Us" scenario if it ever came in contact with beings who weren't synthesized. Plus, changing everyone's DNA & the way they live just sounds plain wrong.

The score for Destroy is the most heroic. It sounds pieces heard throughout the series & even like the ending score to Halo 3. It sounds victorious. & it's the only ending that doesn't leave me being cynical. The Reapers aren't around & life hasn't been permanently changed. Sure the Geth & EDI may have been lost, but I have faith that they could be rebuilt.

& hey, since (for now) Bioware says there is no canon ending, I'm just going to believe that the Geth & EDI weren't affected by the Destroy ending.

[ticklefist]

It says what Herm Edwards says. You play the game to win.

[AlanC9]

DeadpoolBub wrote...
Control is very ominous & sounds like something that's play, for example, if the Empire won at the end of 'Return of the Jedi' & we got several shots of their rule over the galaxy. Hell, Shepard's speeches are even ominous. & if you're cynical, like me, you will think that Shepard will eventually be corrupted & the cycle shall begin once more.

I don't think a Paragon Shep sounds very ominous. Anyway, if the Sheplyst does go bad in a century or two, the galaxy should be able to handle it. They weren't that far from being able to handle the Reapers as it was.

Modifié par AlanC9, 14 août 2012 - 07:35 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

No, Jonata. It is gamers like you who stir up things. They need to attach emotion like hate and whine to opinions that they cannot counter with reason.

[Jassu1979]

The overwhelming amount of destroyers tells us that a vast majority of gamers understands the concept of internal consistency in a story, and tries to achieve what comes closest to that with the faulty material they are given.

Introducing a new character in the final scene?
Turning the Reapers into some sort of misunderstood (anti-)heroes?
Blabbing on about a threat that has NEVER manifested in the series? (There are no post-singularity AIs around, and the pre-singularity AIs we've encountered have become our friends and allies, and were for the most part only a threat when the Reapers tampered with them).
Expecting us to embrace unrepentant genocidal monsters as allies?

Nope, sorry, that's not going to happen.

Modifié par Jassu1979, 14 août 2012 - 10:19 .

[Baronesa]

All options suck

The whys and what not have been explained countless of times, sorry if you missed it or simply dismissed it because those reasons didn't ring a bell to YOUR own perspective.

Of the 3 color coded choices, Destroy, despite being genocide, is the best, with synthesis being the absolute worse.

From the 4 options presented, refuse is the most satisfying for my canon Shepard. To some of us not caving in and compromise our morals (like we were able on the previous game) was important.

[Jonata]

Jassu1979 wrote...

The overwhelming amount of destroyers tells us that a vast majority of gamers understands the concept of internal consistency in a story, and tries to achieve what comes closest to that with the faulty material they are given.

Chosing Destroy or any other endings have nothing to do with the internal consistency of the story, which is there no matter how many Gamers pretend to be storytelling experts. 

It is about morality and point of views about the founding themes behind Mass Effect as a story, not about how angry you are that the developers did not insert a scene with you banging your LI on the beach while Garrus goes fishing... it may seem the game of your dreams to you, but I'm sorry, that is not called internal consistency, that's just shameless fanservice. 

Fanservice can do good to a product... some japanese games/anime practically exist only to do fanservice and fans love them, but that's not how art and storytelling works. When you want to send a message you can't say what the public want to hear, you have to say what you want to say. 

Modifié par Jonata, 14 août 2012 - 01:45 .

[Jassu1979]

Jonata wrote...

Chosing Destroy or any other endings have nothing to do with the internal consistency of the story, which is there no matter how many Gamers pretend to be storytelling experts. 

It is about morality and point of views about the founding themes behind Mass Effect as a story, not about how angry you are that the developers did not insert a scene with you banging your LI on the beach while Garrus goes fishing... it may seem the game of your dreams to you, but I'm sorry, that is not called internal consistency, that's just shameless fanservice. 

Fanservice can do good to a product... some japanese games/anime practically exist only to do fanservice and fans love them, but that's not how art and storytelling works. When you want to send a message you can't say what the public want to hear, you have to say what you want to say. 

LOLWUT?

Dude, did somebody infect you with the RAGE-rabies from 28 Days Later or something? What are you even rambling about?

What made ALL of the existing ending option unpalatable to me was their clash with the "morality and [...] the founding themes behind Mass Effect as a story", NOT "banging [my] LI on the beach while Garrus goes fishing".

Geez, get a grip, man! You're practically foaming at the mouth!

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

Jassu1979 wrote...


LOLWUT?

Dude, did somebody infect you with the RAGE-rabies from 28 Days Later or something? What are you even rambling about?

lol

[MartinPenwald]

Personally, I chose Destroy because it made the most sense to me.

Control is just out of the question; you spend the entire third game opposing Cerberus who want to do just that, so I really don't see why my Shepard should choose that (depending on your choices in ME2, you might have opposed the idea of Control even back then).

Synthesis does not work for me because it goes against everything Mordin and Legion talk to you about in ME2. Forcing evolution onto someone instead of letting them overcome shortcoming to evolve? Forcing a future onto everyone instead of letting them build their own future? If your Shep agreed with Mordin and Legion in ME2, choosing Synthesis does not really work IMO.

That leaves Destroy, which happens to be exactly what you set out to do: destroy the reapers and save the galaxy. You spend two games looking for ways to battle the reapers, and this is it, at least for me.

[Zan51]

Jonata wrote...

Jassu1979 wrote...

The overwhelming amount of destroyers tells us that a vast majority of gamers understands the concept of internal consistency in a story, and tries to achieve what comes closest to that with the faulty material they are given.

Chosing Destroy or any other endings have nothing to do with the internal consistency of the story, which is there no matter how many Gamers pretend to be storytelling experts. 

SNIP

I don't PRETEND to be a storytelling expert, I AM. I am a pro SF commercially published writer with 8 novels and 11 or so short stories out there. The ending breaks all the rules of good storytelling. Period.

[Essalor]

Zan51 wrote...

Jonata wrote...

Jassu1979 wrote...

The overwhelming amount of destroyers tells us that a vast majority of gamers understands the concept of internal consistency in a story, and tries to achieve what comes closest to that with the faulty material they are given.

Chosing Destroy or any other endings have nothing to do with the internal consistency of the story, which is there no matter how many Gamers pretend to be storytelling experts. 

SNIP

I don't PRETEND to be a storytelling expert, I AM. I am a pro SF commercially published writer with 8 novels and 11 or so short stories out there. The ending breaks all the rules of good storytelling. Period.

Amen, I agree.

The ending ruins the storyline pretty badly, you don't even need to be writing expert to see that (no offence).

[k-mysta]

Sure Gamers are filled with hate. Why do you think Journey was one of the most successful psn downloads of all time? Gamers hate sand. Destroyers don't exist because the choice they chose was what matched the theme of the previous games and was the basic driving force of the plot. They exist because they are just hateful people

Modifié par k-mysta, 14 août 2012 - 07:13 .

[Jonata]

Zan51 wrote...


I don't PRETEND to be a storytelling expert, I AM. I am a pro SF commercially published writer with 8 novels and 11 or so short stories out there. The ending breaks all the rules of good storytelling. Period.

Good for you, I'm still trying to understand how to bring some money home. But being a professional writer does not make one a "storytelling expert". 

Modifié par Jonata, 15 août 2012 - 12:58 .

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

Zan51 wrote...


I don't PRETEND to be a storytelling expert, I AM. I am a pro SF commercially published writer with 8 novels and 11 or so short stories out there. The ending breaks all the rules of good storytelling. Period.

I being srs now, I'm not taking the ****** but what have you wriiten, maybe I read your work.

If you don't want us to you know who you are, thats cool too.

[hoodaticus]

It says we like to blow up stuff. Which, apparently, is some sort of revelation.

[hoodaticus]

Jonata wrote...

Good for you, I'm still trying to understand how to bring some money home. But being a professional writer does not make one a "storytelling expert". 

No, you need a law degree for that.

[Sajuro]

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

Jumping to conclusions, you're doing it right.

+5 boots of conclusion jumping.

amount of destroyers meant that people remembered the goal was to kill the Reapers dead.

[PrimeOfValor]

MartinPenwald wrote...

Personally, I chose Destroy because it made the most sense to me.

Control is just out of the question; you spend the entire third game opposing Cerberus who want to do just that, so I really don't see why my Shepard should choose that (depending on your choices in ME2, you might have opposed the idea of Control even back then).

Synthesis does not work for me because it goes against everything Mordin and Legion talk to you about in ME2. Forcing evolution onto someone instead of letting them overcome shortcoming to evolve? Forcing a future onto everyone instead of letting them build their own future? If your Shep agreed with Mordin and Legion in ME2, choosing Synthesis does not really work IMO.

That leaves Destroy, which happens to be exactly what you set out to do: destroy the reapers and save the galaxy. You spend two games looking for ways to battle the reapers, and this is it, at least for me.

I'm agree, but

I'm okay with control becuase I let TIM keep the collector base to see what happens (not much difference really other than war assets and dialog) was not bad in my opionion.

Synthesis is alittle.....unnerving with glowing skin and eyes, but happy with EDI narrating. I'm up with unlimited knowledge, peace, and love, but I'm pretty sure that we can achieve this without synthesis.

Destory obiviously, I have been hearing thoughtout the trilogy that "We must find a way to stop the reapers", nothing about controlling them or synthesiszing with them especially when the reapers was planning to kill everyone a few moments ago. Watching the reapers and star kid disappear, Shepard fulfilled his mission. Shame about EDI and the Geth, though.

Again, this is just my opionion.

Modifié par bigmass41, 15 août 2012 - 01:54 .

[ld1449]

Its amazing how one person's stupidity mannaged to get both Pro enders and Anti enders to agree.

...

Does this prove IT???

[ld1449]

hoodaticus wrote...

Jonata wrote...

Good for you, I'm still trying to understand how to bring some money home. But being a professional writer does not make one a "storytelling expert". 

No, you need a law degree for that.

I'm getting one:)

[Sajuro]

ld1449 wrote...

Its amazing how one person's stupidity mannaged to get both Pro enders and Anti enders to agree.

...

Does this prove IT???

No, but it does start the process of getting the level of butthurt on BSN back down to pre ME3 days.

[Meltemph]

Every ending outside of destroy is a play at rainbows and lolipops to me and comes across as a silyl way to end it, personally. Another thing is, before you jump to a choice, outside of destroy(if you trake the kids word for everything) is the only one where you fully uderstand what is going to happen. With cotnrol and snythesis you are willing to take a risk on the entire galaxy on a hope and prayer that control works out or that snythesis isnt something bad and not just some experiment to hope the problem fixes itself.

To me, destroy is the closest choice to reality I could get added to the fact that with the EC, tghe brat says if your EMS is high enough, that everything lsot can be repaired, then there is near 0 reason to not choose it.