324 réponses à ce sujet

[Harbinger1985HU]

I'm not read through the entire flame war, only the OP and a few posts. I said I wanted to open that kinda thread, but I was... fear from the fans.

Anyway, I don't hated the ending of ME3. I played first time wihtout EC back in May. Through midnight from the Cerberus base to Earth, I just can't stop playing. My problem was I knew or at least has a theory about the ending. So I can't attach to the big speaks, farewells, etc. I mean I just had an idea about the ending: the Reapers must let to do their job, beacuse that represents the order. Shepard fighting for a lost cause. The Catalyst talk was interesting and confirmed my theory. I choosed Synthesis for the first time, because that felt... the lesser evil? At least no one died, and that music then the ending with the Faunts track... I will never forget that and in the good way. No sarcasm, really! Oh, and the epilogue with Stargazer. The was nice too. What I don't like still, if you finish the game it will take you back in the game to LegendSave and not the main menu.

With the EC we got some confirmation about we don't destroy the Galaxy, like may fans telled us destroying the relays will explode the Galaxy, yadda-yadda. Also we got some closure about the Reapers-Catalyst-Cycles thing. I think it was needed, the game is better with EC. Maybe they rushed about the ending, but EC make point almost everything.

[Reorte]

Obadiah wrote...

I've posted elsewhere about my issues with the ME3, but as a binary like/dislike opinion I liked the ending.

It was a civilization defining gut-wrenching choice forced on us by an emotionless uncaring AI god, and an appropriate solution to a seemingly unbeatable foe. The ramifications were suitably extensive and far reaching, but the Reaper cycle was ended... at least for 10000 years.

Plus, I like the idea that Shepard, who has been walking around for 3 games passing judgement on every other race's solution, is now suddenly faced with his own morally dubious action to win against an impossibly powerful enemy - how badly does Shepard (or the galaxy) want to Destroy the reapers?

As a concept that's fine, I just feel that it was all implemented absolutely terribly.

As for the antagonism unfortunately it's inevitable when you get polarized views. When you feel you've got very good reasons for something being foolish it's surprisingly hard to keep up a discussion without calling anyone supporting it fools. This applies to both sides and I'm not saying that I'm not guilty of it myself.

[Dr_Extrem]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

The endings of the game promote debate and speculation, and I like that.

sure ... but the speculations have to end at some point.

[ElSuperGecko]

Dr_Extrem wrote...
sure ... but the speculations have to end at some point.

Once we've had the final piece of ME3 DLC?  The next ME game, maybe?  That could be anywhere between 6-18 months from now.  Until then, let's enjoy the ride!

[iTallaNT]

Siirlock wrote...

And I mean if you think about it logically, Shepard has been placed against impossible odds time and time again. The fact that he/she even made it this far is a miracle on it's own, there was no way for this to have a true disney ending. It's that realistic touch, that heart wrenching sacrifice, that truly made the ending worthy of the series.

I strongly agree with this sentiment.

Thanks, I'm glad I hit home with somebody lol

[Davik Kang]

Obadiah wrote...
Plus, I like the idea that Shepard, who has been walking around for 3 games passing judgement on every other race's solution, is now suddenly faced with his own morally dubious action to win against an impossibly powerful enemy - how badly does Shepard (or the galaxy) want to Destroy the reapers?

Indeed.  What are we willing to sacrifice?  Or like in The Untouchables... "What are you prepared to do?"  Good old Sean Connery.

Reorte wrote...
As for the antagonism unfortunately it's inevitable when you get polarized views. When you feel you've got very good reasons for something being foolish it's surprisingly hard to keep up a discussion without calling anyone supporting it fools. This applies to both sides and I'm not saying that I'm not guilty of it myself.

Very true.  I'll keep trying though.  Hopefully my OP isn't calling anyone foolish.

[Maxster_]

The endings are disgusting nonsensical mess, but I think they are compatible with retarded clowns show that was standalone non-rpg shooter "ME3".

[Changonauta]

iTallaNT wrote...

Siirlock wrote...

And I mean if you think about it logically, Shepard has been placed against impossible odds time and time again. The fact that he/she even made it this far is a miracle on it's own, there was no way for this to have a true disney ending. It's that realistic touch, that heart wrenching sacrifice, that truly made the ending worthy of the series.

I strongly agree with this sentiment.

Thanks, I'm glad I hit home with somebody lol

i agree with that quote 

[iTallaNT]

Davik Kang wrote...

iTallaNT wrote...

Well to be honest the original endings weren't all that bad in my opinion. However there were incredibly choppy and confusing, and at multiple points left me saying "wtf". Like during the mission to get to the beam and everyone was wiped out but you and Anderson, because of this I was certain my two teammates were dead. Yet loa and behold they magically ended up walking off the crashed Normandy, unscathed with no explanation as to how they even got there. '9~9

Needless to say the EC managed to fix quite a few of these issues and made the game a lot more complete as a whole by providing closure. And I mean if you think about it logically, Shepard has been placed against impossible odds time and time again. The fact that he/she even made it this far is a miracle on it's own, there was no way for this to have a true disney ending. It's that realistic touch, that heart wrenching sacrifice, that truly made the ending worthy of the series.

But don't get me wrong, even with the extended cut there were still quite a few things that were not really addressed-- such as the (overly pointed out) war assets. The thing I found the most frustrating was the fact that you couldn't destroy the reapers and save EDI/the geth. Because I don't know about you, but I busted my ass to help legion and end the war between the geth/quarians in the 2nd and 3rd game. Not to mention I love EDI and would not have even been able to get as far as I did without her. She's my friend, I don't want to kill her. But at the same time I mother F'n hate the reapers, After all the terrible **** they put the my shepard, her companions, and galaxy through, how on Earth could I justify letting them live? Yet the only way to ensure all of my friends lived... was to do just that, which felt like a total slap to the face.

Yeah I agree with all of this.  It's also a relief to see that you did think about and care about the actions you took and their consequences.  For me this was one of the reasons why I enjoyed the ending, because it didn't just give us an easy answer, and made us reflect on many of the choices we made so far.  So it's sad to see that this actually made you dislike the endings.  You're definitely not alone on that either.

Well I always played that way, figured if the galaxy was going to keep throughing my shep and her team from one **** hole to the next that I would at least do everything in my power to keep my friends alive and leave a better situation for all. If there were going to be sacrifices, then they better have been worth while.It took a lot of work andf my shepard was more or less the one taking all the abuse, but seeing all the amazing changes that took place afterwords made it bearable. (I think thats also in part why I leftr her with her scars, they were markers of what shes been through and I'm very much attached to those moments.)

And its not a question of disliking the endings, I loved them. It's just that they left me with a few arrows through my heart. The destroy ending gave me the vengence I had been fighting for, but it also destroyed something I had worked so hard to achieve.(The only other plus to this is that maybe she will get to raise that krogan baby with Garrus after all)

The controle ending, while it allowed my friends to live, didn't satisfy my desire for reaper demise. On top of this it alienated shep and placed the heaviest burden on her of all- she is unable to rest in peace (I'm sorry Thane, looks like I won't be meeting you across the sea T^T) and now she is stuck for an eternity protecting all organic life (as if she hasn't given up enough of her life to this cause already). But it's the ultimate sacrifice in the name of saving what she holds dear, and that makes it a good ending.

The synthesis ending was... interesting to say the least, but deffinitly the most flawed. It sounds like the perfect utopia but it involves destroying everyones right to choose whether or not they want synthetics in there lives, it just forces it on them. Also the little god-child (who I hate... with a passion) says that this solution is the only way to end conflict between sythetics and organics. Which is clearly NOT true because of the fact that shep was able to acheive peace and understanding with the geth. Peace is possible, so long as relationships with synthetics are not based around slavery and fear. Also I'm pretty sure the reapers have a perfect understanding of organics, giving them a little more insight will not really change anything at all, and unlike the controle ending there is no failsafe to keep that from happening. (on the plus side at least EDI and Joker can nowbang boots , negative side is if an EMP goes off everyone will probably die '6_6)

As for the hidden fourth ending, a part of me loves the giant "F U!" fight to the death approach because I didn't want to give in to the god-child's demands (in part for the reasons listed above). The part where this goes wrong however, is the fact that you don't get to see everyone actually fight.There is no epic last battle where all those war assets could truly make a difference in who lives or dies, if the battle is won or lost, if everyone is anihilated or small pockets of resistance are left behind to continue fighting. All you get is a giant "DEFEATED" sticker slapped on your forhead as everyone is anihilated because shepard FAILED, the fall of the galaxy is on your bloodstained hands and yours alone. But at least your sacrifice allows the next cycle to prevail (how? we have no clue), and at least you don't have to hear that creepy old man call thatchild "my sweet" like pedobear at the end. xD So it's a good ending in that regard, but it could have used some extra scenes/details for certain. (but of corse staying true to my shepards desire to protect her friends, this ending is out of the question for me)

Modifié par iTallaNT, 01 octobre 2012 - 05:05 .

[Maxster_]

Skullheart wrote...

ME endings before EC: 2/10
ME endings after EC: 2.1/10

Is the same sh¡t, just that it takes longer.

It should be the other way then :

ME endings before EC: 2/10
ME endings after EC: 1.9/10

[CronoDragoon]

Davik Kang wrote...
Yeah I agree with all of this.  It's also a relief to see that you did think about and care about the actions you took and their consequences.  For me this was one of the reasons why I enjoyed the ending, because it didn't just give us an easy answer, and made us reflect on many of the choices we made so far.  So it's sad to see that this actually made you dislike the endings.  You're definitely not alone on that either.

I can understand what you're saying, but I can't feel as morally conflicted about Destroy as I want because of how obviously - and insultingly - the geth/EDI destruction was shoe-horned in to make Destroy a tougher choice. BioWare did not even deign to present a rational explanation for why Destroy does this - if you question the Catalyst about it he provides a non-answer. "Why does it target all synthetics?" "Because the Crucible will not discriminate between synthetics."

For me, the geth/EDI destruction is the only remaining flaw in the ending that sill bugs me, for the above reason, and also because I can't derive a very meaningful theme from the current Destroy setup. Destroy philosophically rejects the Catalyst's argument, and so I believe BW picked precisely the wrong counterweight in the geth/EDI. They should be preserved to maintain the message of Destroy, while something else should be sacrificed instead. (of course, if you played Destroy as an AI-hater, the message isn't obscured. But in this case, it isn't a problem anyway since you would have killed the geth on Rannoch)

However, I would settle for some type of Crucible DLC that explains why it was built this way and why it functions as it does. Then at least I could try and patch together some thematic consistency in geth/quarian peace and Destroy playthroughs. As it stands the only real message is that "war sucks you have to make tough choices" which is a pretty basic, boring truism that pales in comparison to other possibilities.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 01 octobre 2012 - 05:35 .

[Xilizhra]

Personally, I refuse to accept Destroy as anything legitimate so long as the synthetic genocide clause remains. I'll stay with one of the other two and imagine a scenario in which Shepard is resurrected, or I'll just not end the game.

[Davik Kang]

CronoDragoon wrote...
I can understand what you're saying, but I can't feel as morally conflicted about Destroy as I want because of how obviously - and insultingly - the geth/EDI destruction was shoe-horned in to make Destroy a tougher choice. BioWare did not even deign to present a rational explanation for why Destroy does this - if you question the Catalyst about it he provides a non-answer. "Why does it target all synthetics?" "Because the Crucible will not discriminate between synthetics."

For me, the geth/EDI destruction is the only remaining flaw in the ending that sill bugs me, for the above reason, and also because I can't derive a very meaningful theme from the current Destroy setup. Destroy philosophically rejects the Catalyst's argument, and so I believe BW picked precisely the wrong counterweight in the geth/EDI. They should be preserved to maintain the message of Destroy, while something else should be sacrificed instead. (of course, if you played Destroy as an AI-hater, the message isn't obscured. But in this case, it isn't a problem anyway since you would have killed the geth on Rannoch)

However, I would settle for some type of Crucible DLC that explains why it was built this way and why it functions as it does. Then at least I could try and patch together some thematic consistency in geth/quarian peace and Destroy playthroughs. As it stands the only real message is that "war sucks you have to make tough choices" which is a pretty basic, boring truism that pales in comparison to other possibilities.

Well I do have suggestions as to what the Crucible is and why it does what it does (not amazing answers, just ones that I think make sense without having to make too much of a leap of faith) but here's not really the place for them.

But your main point is about the ethics of it.  I do kind of agree that the synthetic genocide could be construed as a copout.  But consider a basic alternative - that you had to kill an organic race, even the human race.  Aside from the fact this requires even more space magic to explain (especially if non-human), the ethical point would have been more devastating, but can you imagine the reaction?  This would have been a different choice altogether, to actually go opposite to TIM and actually kill all humans to save the others.

We could go over the morality of such a choice, but I think this option would have been so controversial that I'm not surprised Bioware didn't include it.  Instead, the Destroy option brings up the moral question of whether synthetic life has the same rights as organic life, which is a big theme in the series, including when Chakwas and Adams discuss it on the Normandy.  Choosing Destroy doesn't necessarily mean that you think synthetics have less rights, but your opinion comes to the forefront here.

Lastly, I don't think the end is a "War is Bad" message; instead, we accept war is bad, and they use that as a trope to tell a more meaningful story.

Modifié par Davik Kang, 01 octobre 2012 - 05:50 .

[Samtheman63]

Xilizhra wrote...

Personally, I refuse to accept Destroy as anything legitimate so long as the synthetic genocide clause remains. I'll stay with one of the other two and imagine a scenario in which Shepard is resurrected, or I'll just not end the game.

you aren't prepared to destroy technology but you are prepared to violate all life as we know it and force every man, woman and child to turn into organic/synthetics hybrids?

wat

Modifié par Samtheman63, 01 octobre 2012 - 05:56 .

[Xilizhra]

Samtheman63 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Personally, I refuse to accept Destroy as anything legitimate so long as the synthetic genocide clause remains. I'll stay with one of the other two and imagine a scenario in which Shepard is resurrected, or I'll just not end the game.

you aren't prepared to destroy technology but you are prepared to violate all life as we know it and force every man, woman and child to turn into organic/synthetics hybrids?

wat

I'm not prepared to destroy one entire race and destroy the future of another, no.

But your main point is about the ethics of it.  I do kind of agree that
the synthetic genocide could be construed as a copout.  But consider a
basic alternative - that you had to kill an organic race, even the human
race.  Aside from the fact this requires even more space magic to
explain (especially if non-human), the ethical point would have been
more devastating, but can you imagine the reaction?  This would have
been a different choice altogether, to actually go opposite to TIM and
actually kill all humans to save the others.

While I wouldn't like this still, I admit it would have been a far more interesting plot point. Perhaps controversial, but hell, how is that a loss at this point?

Modifié par Xilizhra, 01 octobre 2012 - 06:06 .

[iTallaNT]

Davik Kang wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...
I can understand what you're saying, but I can't feel as morally conflicted about Destroy as I want because of how obviously - and insultingly - the geth/EDI destruction was shoe-horned in to make Destroy a tougher choice. BioWare did not even deign to present a rational explanation for why Destroy does this - if you question the Catalyst about it he provides a non-answer. "Why does it target all synthetics?" "Because the Crucible will not discriminate between synthetics."

For me, the geth/EDI destruction is the only remaining flaw in the ending that sill bugs me, for the above reason, and also because I can't derive a very meaningful theme from the current Destroy setup. Destroy philosophically rejects the Catalyst's argument, and so I believe BW picked precisely the wrong counterweight in the geth/EDI. They should be preserved to maintain the message of Destroy, while something else should be sacrificed instead. (of course, if you played Destroy as an AI-hater, the message isn't obscured. But in this case, it isn't a problem anyway since you would have killed the geth on Rannoch)

However, I would settle for some type of Crucible DLC that explains why it was built this way and why it functions as it does. Then at least I could try and patch together some thematic consistency in geth/quarian peace and Destroy playthroughs. As it stands the only real message is that "war sucks you have to make tough choices" which is a pretty basic, boring truism that pales in comparison to other possibilities.

Well I do have suggestions as to what the Crucible is and why it does what it does (not amazing answers, just ones that I think make sense without having to make too much of a leap of faith) but here's not really the place for them.

But your main point is about the ethics of it.  I do kind of agree that the synthetic genocide could be construed as a copout.  But consider a basic alternative - that you had to kill an organic race, even the human race.  Aside from the fact this requires even more space magic to explain (especially if non-human), the ethical point would have been more devastating, but can you imagine the reaction?  This would have been a different choice altogether, to actually go opposite to TIM and actually kill all humans to save the others.

We could go over the morality of such a choice, but I think this option would have been so controversial that I'm not surprised Bioware didn't include it.  Instead, the Destroy option brings up the moral question of whether synthetic life has the same rights as organic life, which is a big theme in the series, including when Chakwas and Adams discuss it on the Normandy.  Choosing Destroy doesn't necessarily mean that you think synthetics have less rights, but your opinion comes to the forefront here.

Lastly, I don't think the end is a "War is Bad" message; instead, we accept war is bad, and they use that as a trope to tell a more meaningful story.

There is another flaw to this ending as well, the clause that all synthetics will be targeted. Shepard is partially synthetic, therefore shouldn't shepard also be targetted by the blast? And yet this is the only ending that allows shepard to live... it's pretty contradictory.

And the only thing I can think of that can justify the destroy option is that by destroying the catalyst, and therefor the reapers collective controle system, they litteraly crash in a way similar to the geth shutting down when you take out their mainframe system that they are all connected too. This also justifies the control ending because instead of destroying that mainframe you instead alter its programming and send new commands to the reapers. The blast from the catalyst could also be seen as a sort of shockwave as the stored energy is suddenly released along with either the new code or the self destruction code. However this theory still doesn't justify the genocide of ALL sythetic life because not all sythetic life is tailored to reaper code. :/

At most the shockwave could do damage to nearby ships (like the Normandy), but it by no means would wipe out all synthetic life. It would have to be one hell of an EMP to do something like that, but it's clearly not considering all the electronics work just fine after the blast.

After taking all this into account it still doesn't justify the synthesis option, because what kind of blast can literly alter the genetic makeup of every organic being in the galaxy as well as send out new programming codes contaning a human's spiritual essence? This ending is as close to the disney ending you can get, but it makes no sence.

Modifié par iTallaNT, 01 octobre 2012 - 06:29 .

[Davik Kang]

iTallaNT wrote...
snip

Gotta go...will reply properly later

[Verit]

CronoDragoon wrote...
For me, the geth/EDI destruction is the only remaining flaw in the ending that sill bugs me, for the above reason, and also because I can't derive a very meaningful theme from the current Destroy setup. Destroy philosophically rejects the Catalyst's argument, and so I believe BW picked precisely the wrong counterweight in the geth/EDI.

It's good to see others see Destroy exactly like I did. Destroy as it is just doesn't make sense to me. Personally, I found the Catalyst to be totally nuts. And I was definitely not interested in solving its problem, since to me that problem didn't even exist in the first place. If I believed it, the geth wouldn't have been fighting together with everyone else against the Reapers. Seeing how Synthesis means going along with the Catalyst's racist ideology, and Control means doing exactly what I was trying stopped Tim from doing, Destroy seemed like the only logical remaining option for me (other than refuse, but Bioware removed all meaning from that one). But the fact that it kills the geth and EDI ruins that ending entirely. If EDI and the Geth convinced me that the Catalyst's reasoning was wrong, how can I justify killing them to prove that point? "I don't believe organics can't co-exist with synthetics, so let me prove it... by killing all synthetics!". That's just messed up.

Worst of all: while the Catalyst was fine with killing itself and the Reapers if it meant killing all synthetic life, it's suddenly not fine with dying if I reject it. While that event only shows how insane the thing actually is, it makes it all the more frustrating to see how refuse actually plays out. That's when I concluded there's simply no meaning to be found behind any of this, and all the time I invested in the storyline had in fact been a waste of time. I could look past a lot of things if the story had a good conclusion, but this is simply not something I can accept.

[CDR David Shepard]

Sion1138 wrote...

Here's this:

All our ending discussions ultimately boil down to personal preference. I was hugely disappointed by it, you weren't. I found them to be depressing, incoherent, full of contrivance and just plain badly written. You'll say the opposite. 

I'll go into details of why I think so, you will offer your own arguments but ultimately we'll both still retain the same convictions as our initial experiences and impressions cannot be changed. It is what it is.

But here, why don't you, while you're doing whatever you are doing, put on smudboy's videos on Youtube? The guy did a detailed analysis of the whole thing and it would take me far too long to replicate it here. 

So, watch the videos by either him or MrBtongue and see if you agree with their arguments as they reflect almost exactly what most of us who do not appreciate the ending also think.

Perhaps MrBtongue is a better choice since he is not as merciless as smudboy in his expose.

It's just a suggestion though, if you care for it...

Who are you replying to?

[CronoDragoon]

Davik Kang wrote...
Well I do have suggestions as to what the Crucible is and why it does what it does (not amazing answers, just ones that I think make sense without having to make too much of a leap of faith) but here's not really the place for them.

I have my theories as well, but it will remain that since BW did not see fit to explain why the Crucible works as it does, that the main "reason" it is included has nothing to do with the narrative and everything to do with balancing the choices, which is meta and therefore unsatisfactory for me.

But your main point is about the ethics of it.  I do kind of agree that the synthetic genocide could be construed as a copout.  But consider a basic alternative - that you had to kill an organic race, even the human race.  Aside from the fact this requires even more space magic to explain (especially if non-human), the ethical point would have been more devastating, but can you imagine the reaction?  This would have been a different choice altogether, to actually go opposite to TIM and actually kill all humans to save the others.

We could go over the morality of such a choice, but I think this option would have been so controversial that I'm not surprised Bioware didn't include it.  Instead, the Destroy option brings up the moral question of whether synthetic life has the same rights as organic life, which is a big theme in the series, including when Chakwas and Adams discuss it on the Normandy.  Choosing Destroy doesn't necessarily mean that you think synthetics have less rights, but your opinion comes to the forefront here.

But this is the problem: choosing Destroy contradicts its own morality. Let's say you believe that synthetics and organics should both be autonomous, equal races with the freedom to choose their own future. Then you should choose Destroy in principle, since that is the ending that most directly conflicts with the Catalyst's motivation and methods. Control suggests that the universe cannot look after itself without an overlord, and Synthesis solves the problem for them instead of giving them the freedom to solve it themselves. But because of the geth/EDI destruction, it is also the ending that, as you put it, seems to weigh synthetic life against organic life and choose organics. This is why for some people Destroy feels like it's punishing you for your moral stance, whereas Control and Synthesis are pretty consistent.

You say that Destroy brings up the question of synthetic life being weighed against organic life, but I believe that question to ultimately be beside the point in the endings. If the only moral choice at the end were between synthetic life and organic life, that may be true. In that case, such a moral stance can be isolated and examined. But the weight of synthetic life is lost amidst the chaos of everything else going on in these endings. For example, you can't simply say to someone, "If you don't want the geth and EDI to die, then just choose Control or Synthesis." You are asking them not just to weigh synthetics against organics, but also to accept larger, unrelated philosophical positions in order to escape the geth/EDI destruction that they may find repulsive or uninteresting.

Destroy people therefore are trapped, since the larger theme of Destroy coincides with their moral beliefs, but they are punished for it in ways that Control or Synthesis people are not.

For example, in Control, the "consequence" is Shepard taking the Catalyst's place, but this makes sense in the context of the ending's philosophy. Similarly, in Synthesis Shepard becomes the bridge between synthetics and organics by turning himself into the blueprint for peace. But Destroy's own consequences undermine its own morality.

Lastly, I don't think the end is a "War is Bad" message; instead, we accept war is bad, and they use that as a trope to tell a more meaningful story.

Where is that meaning in Destroy? Once you eliminate the "war is hell" message, what is left to reconcile the philosophy behind Destroy and its consequences?

Side note, this is the best discussion I've seen about looking at the ending choices critically in awhile, so thank you. It can be difficult in other threads because of the interspersed posts full of hyperbole and grandstanding.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 01 octobre 2012 - 08:23 .

[Maxster_]

Sion1138 wrote...

Here's this:

All our ending discussions ultimately boil down to personal preference. I was hugely disappointed by it, you weren't. I found them to be depressing, incoherent, full of contrivance and just plain badly written. You'll say the opposite. 

I'll go into details of why I think so, you will offer your own arguments but ultimately we'll both still retain the same convictions as our initial experiences and impressions cannot be changed. It is what it is.

But here, why don't you, while you're doing whatever you are doing, put on smudboy's videos on Youtube? The guy did a detailed analysis of the whole thing and it would take me far too long to replicate it here. 

So, watch the videos by either him or MrBtongue and see if you agree with their arguments as they reflect almost exactly what most of us who do not appreciate the ending also think.

Perhaps MrBtongue is a better choice since he is not as merciless as smudboy in his expose.

It's just a suggestion though, if you care for it...

Yeah, I like those videos. Smudboy are really ruthless, although.

[Necrotron]

What did you like about the ending?

I've seen countless write-ups on all of the reasons people felt the ending did not fit the series, it's lore, it's themes or tone, or provide any sort of satisfying resolution to the plot threads created throughout the series.  I've seen how the choices being forced upon the player by the main villain make the players feel their character is helpless, pitiful, and forced to bow down in a no-win scenario to pick a fate forced upon them by the main villain.  I've seen how the ending resolutions generally nullify previous accomplishments of the players and make them pointless (e.g. the Geth/Quarian conflict) and how the origin of the Reapers stated by the catalyst make some of the most beloved speeches by the Reapers (Soverign in ME1) look like incoherent babble and nonsense.

Generally from those who liked the ending, they seem to be reacting from the way they experienced it emotionally, how they liked the bittersweet choices (regardless of how forced), and how they liked the symbolism put in.

I am curious though, what made it so good?

Modifié par Bathaius, 01 octobre 2012 - 08:33 .

[The Night Mammoth]

It has problems, anyone trying to deny that is insane.

Doesn't mean you can't enjoy it, obviously. Some people just... have more of a problem with problems.