95 réponses à ce sujet

[Ice Cold J]

thearbiter1337 wrote...

I would have probably refused not knowing that i would loose


Then be like "Aw"

This.

EC cushioned the blow, but it still blew.

And Levi had NO impact on the ending for me... yet.

[Red Dust]

Even with all they added ( a lot of great stuff), it still lacks without closure to Harbinger ( he has to be destroyed, or at least confronted. He's the Darth Vader of the series).

Most of all, it needed a final boss fight. A boss fight is.. It's hard to describe. It's the hollow feeling in the pit of your gut. You'll know, when you've played enough games; you'll have a sense when you've stepped into a boss arena. You can feel when the story calls for an epic confrontation, and when that doesn't materialize I know I am left disappointed.

It's the fusion between story and game-play; everything you've done, every choice you've made comes to this one ultimate and unique battle. It's the classic presentation of a climax in this narritive format, as well as the ultimate test of your skills in the game. If video game makers ever want to be accepted as "artists", they need to first embrace their medium. Truly embrace it. This is not film, or theater. This is a video-game, with customs formats and traditions all its own.

Saying something is "too video-gamey" is the same as saying they're embarassed of their medium. Not very artistic.

Modifié par Red Dust, 15 septembre 2012 - 03:00 .

[WhiteKnyght]

N7 Lisbeth wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

Suppose that  the Extended Cut and Leviathan were a part of Mass Effect 3 at release. How would you have reacted to the ending under such circumstances? 

Actually, I didn't play Mass Effect 3 until just a month ago. So, yeah, I never played the vanilla version of ME3, I've only played the Extended Cut. I'll be honest with you, I'm just as angry and depressed and heartbroken as anyone that played the vanilla game.

"Hi, I'm the Catalyst. Which colour would you like to kill all of your friends and loved ones with today?" 

I purchased Leviathan. I still haven't played most of it. Every time I boot up ME3, I end up feeling depressed about how it won't matter and quit out without having accomplished anything in the Leviathan missions.

I won't purchase any other DLCs until the endings changed. Which means no more ME3 for me. :-/

If you paid any attention, you'd know that the only person who dies with Control or Synthesis is you.(Control actually immortalizes you in a way)

Destroy only kills synthetics, unless you have an unjustifiably low EMS, in which case it causes catastrophic damage.

Believing every option kills everyone is a joke given the epilogue, which was meant to show what happens to the galaxy AFTER you use the Crucible.

Your sig says "victory, at any cost," but apparently that's just Tarquin talking. because the Crucible is a cost too high to some for completely ridiculous and deluded reasons.

Modifié par The Grey Nayr, 15 septembre 2012 - 03:01 .

[felipejiraya]

Adokat wrote...

Regarding AC3-I'd think it's extremely wishful thinking that they'll wrap up Desmond's story, given how slowly it's crept along till now and Ubisoft's habit of offering yearly games.

They have to end Desmond's story on AC3. 

The whole thing revolves on the 2012 doomsday and it would be extremely dumb to continue this storyline in 2013. 

Regarding the question of the thread: I still would be disappointed with the endings.

[sharkboy421]

I would still feel pretty much the same.  The EC and Leviathan, while good, do not address what I feel is the main problem with the endings: they do not fit Mass Effect.  The catalyst and his solutions come out of no where while ignoring what were the major themes of game until that point.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I would have loved it even more than I did without.

[ShepnTali]

I'd probably want to know more about the characters dealing with everything after the matter. Their thoughts, etc.

[Legion of 1337]

I guarantee you there would be little hate. The only reason everything they add to explain the ending is now scrutinized is because they rush-jobbed it in the first place and it made no sense, so everyone got pissed off. If everything had been explained to us, we would be EXPECTING to meet the Catalyst at the end, and while I'm sure Synthesis would still be ridiculed as a Deus Ex rip-off, no one would have complained to the extent they have. And IT would never have been thought of, because there would be no need for it (there no longer is anyway but people are devoted to it like a religion now).

Modifié par Legion of 1337, 15 septembre 2012 - 03:22 .

[WhiteKnyght]

sharkboy421 wrote...

I would still feel pretty much the same.  The EC and Leviathan, while good, do not address what I feel is the main problem with the endings: they do not fit Mass Effect.  The catalyst and his solutions come out of no where while ignoring what were the major themes of game until that point.

Common sense should have told us about the Catalyst's existence from the very beginning. Simply put, there is no believable way that the Reapers would even exist and work together with such unision if they were free willed and free thinking. There would be conflict among their own ranks, different opinions, different options, just like everyone else. The fact that they are such a united front with a very specific and singular function is a blatant sign that something was pulling their strings behind the scenes.

The Reapers given purpose may have changed from stopping dark energy(the original ending plan that apparently left with Drew Karpyshyn) to stopping wars between organics and synthetics(Casey and Mac's new idea,) but the Catalyst has to exist in both to explain to Shepard and give him the choice. Whether you Destroy or Sacrifice, or whether you Destroy, Control, or Merge.

Also they aren't the "Catalyst's solutions" either. He's simply explaining what the Crucible's addition to his being enables. Aside from being a fan of synthesis, he doesn't push you one way or the other and all are possible even if he wasn't around and just stayed silent.

[Xerxes52]

I would have thought, "meh" instead of, "WTF!?"

[The Night Mammoth]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

sharkboy421 wrote...

I would still feel pretty much the same.  The EC and Leviathan, while good, do not address what I feel is the main problem with the endings: they do not fit Mass Effect.  The catalyst and his solutions come out of no where while ignoring what were the major themes of game until that point.

Common sense should have told us about the Catalyst's existence from the very beginning. Simply put, there is no believable way that the Reapers would even exist and work together with such unision if they were free willed and free thinking. There would be conflict among their own ranks, different opinions, different options, just like everyone else. The fact that they are such a united front with a very specific and singular function is a blatant sign that something was pulling their strings behind the scenes.

I would bet every penny I will ever earn that the group of people who seriously thought this was small enough to be almost negligible against the greater player base of Mass Effect. No one I have ever spoken to about this game had even the slightest suspicion that there was a controller. Two reasons.

One, Sovereign throws that out the window by suggesting that each Reaper is an individual.

Two, we have another machine race in Mass Effect that acts with a singular purpose and isn't guided by a controller.

[Reofeir]

I would of loved it day one like I love the extended cut ending.

[WhiteKnyght]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

The Grey Nayr wrote...

sharkboy421 wrote...

I would still feel pretty much the same.  The EC and Leviathan, while good, do not address what I feel is the main problem with the endings: they do not fit Mass Effect.  The catalyst and his solutions come out of no where while ignoring what were the major themes of game until that point.

Common sense should have told us about the Catalyst's existence from the very beginning. Simply put, there is no believable way that the Reapers would even exist and work together with such unision if they were free willed and free thinking. There would be conflict among their own ranks, different opinions, different options, just like everyone else. The fact that they are such a united front with a very specific and singular function is a blatant sign that something was pulling their strings behind the scenes.

I would bet every penny I will ever earn that the group of people who seriously thought this was small enough to be almost negligible against the greater player base of Mass Effect. No one I have ever spoken to about this game had even the slightest suspicion that there was a controller. Two reasons.

One, Sovereign throws that out the window by suggesting that each Reaper is an individual.

Two, we have another machine race in Mass Effect that acts with a singular purpose and isn't guided by a controller.

One, Sovereign spoke in metaphor and hyperbole. "We are each a nation" meant that they are each made of a nation of people. Even then, the very concept of the Reaper cycle is too elaborate and thorough. He also said that they "have no beginning or end" which, given the fact that he a machine, is feasably impossible.

Two, the Geth Heretics were being guided by Sovereign because they worshipped him. And to be fair, there was nothing confirming to the player that there weren't separate factions. Believing that all Geth worshipped the Reapers was subjective assumption.

Modifié par The Grey Nayr, 15 septembre 2012 - 03:42 .

[sharkboy421]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

sharkboy421 wrote...

I would still feel pretty much the same.  The EC and Leviathan, while good, do not address what I feel is the main problem with the endings: they do not fit Mass Effect.  The catalyst and his solutions come out of no where while ignoring what were the major themes of game until that point.

Common sense should have told us about the Catalyst's existence from the very beginning. Simply put, there is no believable way that the Reapers would even exist and work together with such unision if they were free willed and free thinking. There would be conflict among their own ranks, different opinions, different options, just like everyone else. The fact that they are such a united front with a very specific and singular function is a blatant sign that something was pulling their strings behind the scenes.

The Reapers given purpose may have changed from stopping dark energy(the original ending plan that apparently left with Drew Karpyshyn) to stopping wars between organics and synthetics(Casey and Mac's new idea,) but the Catalyst has to exist in both to explain to Shepard and give him the choice. Whether you Destroy or Sacrifice, or whether you Destroy, Control, or Merge.

Also they aren't the "Catalyst's solutions" either. He's simply explaining what the Crucible's addition to his being enables. Aside from being a fan of synthesis, he doesn't push you one way or the other and all are possible even if he wasn't around and just stayed silent.

Wall of Text:

I disagree about the catalyst's existence.  I see no reason why they couldn't be individuals who came together and decided that harvesting the galaxy was the thing to do.  They were these very powerful beings that operated on a different level than us and for whatever reason felt they knew best for the galaxy. 

The catalyst's reasons for the reapers' existence feel very flimsy to me.  While he makes the claim that organics vs synthetics will always be in conflict, the past 2 games spent a lot of time and effort to paint the geth in a very sympathetic light.  ME3 especially goes to great lengths to show how tragic the Morning War was and gives very little reason as to why the quarians attacked.  And while yes Javik does mention the Metacon War, we know nothing about it other than it happened so it doesn't give evidence to one side or the other.

The questions and ideas the catalyst brings up are interesting most definitely, but even after having done several play throughs of 3 and 2 full trilogy runs since 3 came out, I still don't understand his logic.  Mass Effect did ask some very big questions about the nature of life with its synthetic vs organic elements, but I thought those were wrapped up really nicely by the time Priority: Earth starts.  So I still do not understand why the catalyst suddenly brings that back into question.

[KENNY4753]

The Grey Nayr wrote...
Common sense should have told us about the Catalyst's existence from the very beginning. Simply put, there is no believable way that the Reapers would even exist and work together with such unision if they were free willed and free thinking. There would be conflict among their own ranks, different opinions, different options, just like everyone else. The fact that they are such a united front with a very specific and singular function is a blatant sign that something was pulling their strings behind the scenes.

The Reapers given purpose may have changed from stopping dark energy(the original ending plan that apparently left with Drew Karpyshyn) to stopping wars between organics and synthetics(Casey and Mac's new idea,) but the Catalyst has to exist in both to explain to Shepard and give him the choice. Whether you Destroy or Sacrifice, or whether you Destroy, Control, or Merge.

Also they aren't the "Catalyst's solutions" either. He's simply explaining what the Crucible's addition to his being enables. Aside from being a fan of synthesis, he doesn't push you one way or the other and all are possible even if he wasn't around and just stayed silent.

1) How the hell did you come up with that.

1a)  Just becasue they are independent and free willing doesn't mean they wouldn't be unified. Look at the Geth after the events on Rannoch. The became independent and their own "soul" but the geth were still united.

1b) Just because they are united toward a single goal doesn't mean that an AI is telling them what to do. There did not have to be a man behind the curtain.

1c) The Starbrat made the Reapers seem like a joke

2) both endings would have been terrible

3) I don't care if they were the Starbrat's solutions or not...

Control and Synthesis shouldn't have even been there. You spend all 3 games trying to destroy the reapers and fighting against TIM for wanting to control them. Synthesis was just a bullsh*t way for EAware to give us the A, B, C ending they didn't promise us. At no point in the Mass Effect trilogy did Shepard even consider that. Hell, you fought against Saren in ME1 and that's what he was after. So why is doing what Saren and TIM wanted a good thing to have in the ending when it completely goes against what Mass Effect stood for.

Modifié par KENNY4753, 15 septembre 2012 - 03:44 .

[sammysoso]

I think I would have been a little disappointed.

But there wouldn't have been the giant sh!tstorm that there was.

[The Night Mammoth]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

One, Sovereign spoke in metaphor and hyperbole. "We are each a nation" meant that they are each made of a nation of people. Even then, the very concept of the Reaper cycle is too elaborate and thorough. He also said that they "have no beginning or end" which, given the fact that he a machine, is feasably impossible.

I'm not saying we should take everything he says as wrote, but the intention is quite clear as I see it. Each Reaper is an individual. Sovereign tells you this, and refers to itself using singular pronouns. I'm positive that this isn't an issue of commone sense, as clearly a lot of people didn't come to the same conclusion, though I apologize if that post was rude and snappy. 

Two, the Geth Heretics were being guided by Sovereign because they worshipped him. And to be fair, there was nothing confirming to the player that there weren't separate factions. Believing that all Geth worshipped the Reapers was subjective assumption.

I wasn't really talking about the Heretic Geth specifically and more that species in general. 

[N7 Lisbeth]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

If you paid any attention, you'd know that the only person who dies with Control or Synthesis is you.(Control actually immortalizes you in a way)

Just as you would know, if you had paid any attention, that Synthesis is another form of indoctrination, that the Catalytst is a trap, and that Control you're no better than TIM -- you know, that person you've been fighting against for three games now? Yeah, him.

Destroy only kills synthetics, unless you have an unjustifiably low EMS, in which case it causes catastrophic damage.

Some of my friends are synthetic, thank you very much.

Believing every option kills everyone is a joke given the epilogue, which was meant to show what happens to the galaxy AFTER you use the Crucible.

Not believing the facts, when they're plainly presented to you, baffles me. But you're welcome to your beliefs. I hate the endings. Nothing you like about it will sway me on the matter. Have a nice day.

Your sig says "victory, at any cost," but apparently that's just Tarquin talking. because the Crucible is a cost too high to some for completely ridiculous and deluded reasons.

I never saw victory out of ANY choice presented in ME3. I don't define that by Shepard living, I define it by their actions. Synthesis is not a victory, it's indoctrination. Control isn't a victory, it's indoctrination. Destroy isn't a victory, it causes the cycle to repeat by committing mass genocide - destroying all synthetic life causing the next evolution of synthetic life to strike first. (Catalyst even tells you that.) Refusal is a glorified game over.

So no. I never saw victory. And yes, I liked the scene in which Tarquin gives his life to succeed. His was a clear choice, one free of doubts or tricks. We were not *half* as lucky as him. I'd give anything for an easy decision like he had.

After all, what's not to like about space magic in science fiction? Woo!

Modifié par N7 Lisbeth, 15 septembre 2012 - 04:04 .

[liaramylove]

I am not quite as upset however I did do destroy the first time and synthesis the second time mainly because I loved Legion and the Geth had my back and finally established a peaceful existence between them and the Quarians. I felt better about it after that. The extended cut did at least attempt to give closure on what was in store for the galaxy and the memorial to Sheppard was fitting and sad (my poor Liara). However seeing Shep take a breath does make me want to buy DLC that shows what happens to close this triliogy down completly so maybe the ending will seem better when more DLC allows for it to shape up. It was Priestly who said this is not the last of Shep in an interview so Im a little less mad but still would like to see what the hell that breath was all about and is he or is he not dead? I highly doubt he is for several reasons (one being killing a popular hero and looseing money is not what the gaming industry strives for lol) so I would like clairity on that, otherwise it just seems like the first ending a cruel joke. Oh well will shall see what the future holds and hopfully BW anounces something soon, until then I will continue to hold the line.

[sharkboy421]

N7 Lisbeth wrote...

So no. I never saw victory. And yes, I liked the scene in which Tarquin gives his life to succeed. His was a clear choice, one free of doubts or tricks. We were not *half* as lucky as him. I'd give anything for an easy decision like he had.

As much as I'd prefer Shep riding off into the sunset with Liara, Garrus, Tali, Wrex and the gang I do agree with you.  If the final choice had been something like Tarquin's choice none of us would be here.  THAT was a heroic sacrifice worth of respect.  I actually choked up when I realized what he was going to do.  Here was a character I barely knew but I could already see how driven he was and how devoted he was.  Tarquin and Mordin are two perfect examples of a heroic sacrifice and a bitter sweet ending. 

[o Ventus]

Still garbage. That isn't me just being bitter, either.

[Jadebaby]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

still bad, it's not just the Catalyst, it's the choices. The whole she-bang.

To be fair, the game's final choice would have to be the hardest of all to make.

Every choice has its ups and downs and keeps the resolution bittersweet.

For even one choice to be easy and be perfect would do a disservice to the series and to the player. Yet people believe they are entitled to an ethically correct easy choice with a perfect ending.

To be fair, when did I ever say I want a perfect ending?

And that's bullcrap. Destroy in the vanilla game was the only ending as far as I'm concerned. It's not a hard decision to make when the other two are answers to a problem that doesn't and more importantly, shouldn't exist in the ME universe.

They would be good concepts in another game or film. But not for ME.

On whose authority? Yours? I think the people who made the game, who have a bit more insight and context into their creation than you or any one of the haters, would be more fit to say what is or isn't a good concept.

You do realise that half the staff that worked on the first game no longer work on Mass Effect or for BioWare in general. It wasn't just one person or one team's vision. And they didn't even have the overarching plot set in stone from the start. I think there a MORE than enough videos, blogs, posts and critiques analyzing exactly why it doesn't work. And all that combined trumps everything else.

The concept for the ending didn't derive from the things that came before it in the story. It derived straight from a "what if?" idea from one of their writers. That's why it is completely contrived and doesn't make any sense.

Destroy means forsaking Legion's sacrifice and/or screwing over EDI because you either want to live for your LI or just don't trust the Catalyst.

And both those things I am not happy with either.

Control means turning the Reapers into a force for good at the cost of carrying the burden for all eternity.

You mean enslaving them? A force you've been told countless times before that you cannot control.

Synthesis means equality and freedom for everyone at the cost of your own life.(It is actually the easiest choice to make)

No, Synthesis means mutating everyone into something new as a solution to a problem that never existed in the first place.

Each has a different moral aspect attached to it.

This is true, but they are all bad.

And I was saying exactly what the Extended Cut showed about Control and Synthesis before it even came out. Because I studied the facts, studied the lore, and kept an open mind. But I got mocked for it, and the EC was sweet vindication.

Well good for you, but in all honesty, you should get over your butt-hurt about being mocked for your interpretation, open your eyes and realise that most people don't even know who you are. So stop generalizing all anti-enders because a few of them may have pissed you off.

Modifié par Jade8aby88, 15 septembre 2012 - 04:14 .

[JPR1964]

IMO, craphorse is craphorse... No matters the wrapping...

JPR out!

[AlanC9]

Red Dust wrote...
Most of all, it needed a final boss fight. A boss fight is.. It's hard to describe. It's the hollow feeling in the pit of your gut. You'll know, when you've played enough games; you'll have a sense when you've stepped into a boss arena. You can feel when the story calls for an epic confrontation, and when that doesn't materialize I know I am left disappointed.

Hmmm.... I'd describe the feeling as being something more like "Oh, god....... this again?"

As for boss fights being necessary for the medium.... eww. No actual argument. Just..... eww.

[Greed1914]

I still would have been pretty mad about it. Perhaps less so since it wouldn't have been so obviously rushed and actually shown something resembling consequences, but overall I still would have been displeased. The absurdity of our "choice," the space magic that is the Catalyst, and the flawed reasoning behind it all would all still be there because Leviathan and the EC did nothing to correct those.