324 réponses à ce sujet

[CronoDragoon]

Bathaius wrote...

I am curious though, what made it so good?

I'll give you a snippet of a specific part of the endings I liked: The Illusive Man.

I liked the dichotomy of choice presented to you in TIM's final confrontation, for it allows you to interpet his and Shepard's relationship in different ways.

The first time through I chose the Paragon options and got him to shoot himself. I was a bit disappointed in how that played out, because it seemed to reduce the conflict between Shepard and TIM to a matter of the latter's indoctrination. My second time through I shot him, and when he looks at the Earth and says, "I wish you could see it like I do Shepard. It's perfect," the message seems to be that here you have two leaders who respect the hell out of each other, gave everything in service to their beliefs in stopping the Reapers, but simply could never see eye to eye on the means to that victory. It felt like TIM at that last moment truly wanted Shepard to understand him, but knew that it would never have been possible to agree on the procedure.

[Obadiah]

Ever since I saw that TIM ending, no matter what type of character I am playing, I shoot him for that final dialog.

[Xilizhra]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Bathaius wrote...

I am curious though, what made it so good?

I'll give you a snippet of a specific part of the endings I liked: The Illusive Man.

I liked the dichotomy of choice presented to you in TIM's final confrontation, for it allows you to interpet his and Shepard's relationship in different ways.

The first time through I chose the Paragon options and got him to shoot himself. I was a bit disappointed in how that played out, because it seemed to reduce the conflict between Shepard and TIM to a matter of the latter's indoctrination. My second time through I shot him, and when he looks at the Earth and says, "I wish you could see it like I do Shepard. It's perfect," the message seems to be that here you have two leaders who respect the hell out of each other, gave everything in service to their beliefs in stopping the Reapers, but simply could never see eye to eye on the means to that victory. It felt like TIM at that last moment truly wanted Shepard to understand him, but knew that it would never have been possible to agree on the procedure.

I prefer him shooting himself, for two reasons: One, I don't respect TIM's philosophy and consider it a load of crap. Two, TIM would never have been stupid enough to actively attack Shepard had he not been indoctrinated; they may have fought about procedure, but Cerberus wouldn't have turned on the entire galaxy without that impetus.

Note that I can understand his desire to control the Reapers, but would greatly oppose the ends to which he'd put them.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 01 octobre 2012 - 09:10 .

[GimmeDaGun]

Yep, I enjoy the ending of the trilogy with the EC. PreEC it was a complete mess. So I agree.

[jakal66]

Count me in, happy with the ec...my only biggest gripe is the fact the they didn't have the balls to show sheppard's fate after the extra breath scene.They dropped the ball on that one.It's the only ending where sheppard gets no real closure...one word L A M E.


Survived or not Bioware should've owned their decision and shown his true fate in destroy no matter the outcome, Priestly said it was up to the player what to believe.....again no BALLS.

Modifié par jakal66, 01 octobre 2012 - 09:39 .

[CronoDragoon]

Sion1138 wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Bathaius wrote...

I am curious though, what made it so good?

I'll give you a snippet of a specific part of the endings I liked: The Illusive Man.

I liked the dichotomy of choice presented to you in TIM's final confrontation, for it allows you to interpet his and Shepard's relationship in different ways.

That part was not bad, I think everyone agrees with that. There are problems even here, like for example where the hell he came from and the fact that what he says doesn't make much sense. I guess you could blame that on indoctrination. But anyway, it's decent enough.

Even though I wish they hadn't turned him from an eccentric mastermind who's primary interest was to defend the interests of humanity into an incoherent nutjob and Cerberus from a pro-human splinter group into the Mass Effect equivalent of the Galactic Empire. God damn it they killed more humans than the Reapers... 

Still, I can forget all of that and say that his very last outing was a decent one. But that is just one scene. There's a lot of nonsense before and especially after it.

He was always on the Citadel, since before the Reapers moved it to Earth. Vendetta tells you this.

As for the nutjob he became, I think he became desparate when the Reapers hit and the Reapers used this to their advantage. While I don't believe he would have gone as far as he did on his own, I don't ever believe he and Shepard would have seen eye to eye despite their mutual interests, and this is preserved in the final confrontation.

I also believe his dialogue with Shepard is very well-written. In that conversation, you can tell he is actually hearing Shepard and trying to counterpoint him, as opposed to most villains who just laugh evilly or something.

[Luigitornado]

I liked the ending.

This place is just...well this place.

I started posting on BSN after I finished ME2. I thought the game was amazing, and loved every bit of it. When I came here to share my thoughts...well I was surprised to find a lot of users who disliked it, and weren't too polite about disliking it.

[MerchantGOL]

Luigitornado wrote...

I liked the ending.

This place is just...well this place.

I started posting on BSN after I finished ME2. I thought the game was amazing, and loved every bit of it. When I came here to share my thoughts...well I was surprised to find a lot of users who disliked it, and weren't too polite about disliking it.

Same here, they did this with ME1 as well, The planets sucked, mako sucked, you should get to use a sword, ect.

[davepissedatending]

I was disappointed :/ the ec made it better but still no closure for my Shepard tut tut to end the trilogy with that breath scene was A insult in mp op. No funeral scene? No li last scene? And that slide show with the ec ??? Cheapens the hole game in my op p.s still loved the trilogy though just not the ending :/

[inko1nsiderate]

I'm only on the BSN because I liked the endings. I have spent many hours thinking about, talking about, and arguing online about why this is. I just don't have the energy to keep it up anymore. All I can manage is a few arguments with very limited scope that are often overly pedantic or rely on correcting people's misunderstandings about physics. The last time I sat down and wrote anything seriously defending the ending it was 6 months ago and it was ~10 pages long. I have even more to say now, but it just doesn't seem like it will be worth my time to go through that effort and write my current thoughts.

Modifié par inko1nsiderate, 02 octobre 2012 - 12:02 .

[Siirlock]

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."

I agree that the Catalyst, itself, did not explain the mechanics of  the Destroy option very well at all. Personally, I think the fact that both EDI and (by that point) the geth heavily incorporated Reaper tech in their fundamental design was the reason the Crucible would also affect them.

After many, many playthroughs of all three games, I've concluded that the overall theme of ME3 is sacrifice. This is reflected in all of the endings, and this idea, to me, is what redeems the Crucible in a literary sense and makes it much more than simply a "magic win button". Each of its three functions requires Shepard to make an ultimate sacrifice -- either his/her own life, or the lives of EDI and the geth.

[Netsfn1427]

Siirlock 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."

I agree that the Catalyst, itself, did not explain the mechanics of  the Destroy option very well at all. Personally, I think the fact that both EDI and (by that point) the geth heavily incorporated Reaper tech in their fundamental design was the reason the Crucible would also affect them.

After many, many playthroughs of all three games, I've concluded that the overall theme of ME3 is sacrifice. This is reflected in all of the endings, and this idea, to me, is what redeems the Crucible in a literary sense and makes it much more than simply a "magic win button". Each of its three functions requires Shepard to make an ultimate sacrifice -- either his/her own life, or the lives of EDI and the geth.

Agreed most of this. The Geth/EDI sacrifice makes sense to me because they were heavily Reaperized. I mean EDI was Reaper tech combined with the VI and the Geth were upgraded, though their status as software admittedly made it a bit more complex.

That said, I almost prefer one part of the Destroy ending from the original; the total destruction of the relays. One of the things that was present from the first game one was that the space faring races all developed along the same lines because of the reliance on the relays. Not going back to the relays would have meant breaking free of that. It would have made the Geth/EDI sacrifice mean a touch more since that would have resulted in true self-determination, a total rejection of the Reaper technology.

 It also would have been sort of ironic, since Legion commends Shepard for doing that with the Collector Base. Wonder what it would have said if Shepard made the same decision on a larger scale, but it resulted in the death of the Geth.

[Lunch Box1912]

I don’t understand how one could say they loved that ending… Whatever floats you boat I guess. I just can’t get passed the plot holes and what could have been.

[MerchantGOL]

Lunch Box1912 wrote...

I don’t understand how one could say they loved that ending… Whatever floats you boat I guess. I just can’t get passed the plot holes and what could have been.

Yess  how i wish we could of had that lovley nonesensical Dark energy ending.

[CronoDragoon]

Siirlock 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."

I agree that the Catalyst, itself, did not explain the mechanics of  the Destroy option very well at all. Personally, I think the fact that both EDI and (by that point) the geth heavily incorporated Reaper tech in their fundamental design was the reason the Crucible would also affect them.

The Reaper tech thing would make sense if we discount in-game dialogue. Besides the idea that had the explanation been so simple, BW could simply have included that one line of dialogue, the wording that "it won't discriminate between synthetics" makes me think Reaper tech is beside the point. It makes me think the Crucible's destroy function was specifically built to destroy all synthetics....which is why I want DLC that explores the civilization that build the Crucible. 

[Davik Kang]

Galvatron the Madman wrote...

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.

Good stuff, awesome username too

iTallaNT wrote...
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. 

Yeah I do see the Crucible device as basically a massive EMP-style device.  It's why the Normandy has to escape and why synthetics are indiscriminately targeted.  All the electronic stuff can be repaired, but the point of the EDI and Geth stories was that they had developed personalities and can't just be rebuilt.  So unfortunately Destroy does end tragically with their deaths.

Sion1138 wrote...
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.

You're probably right, but still I think it's worth exploring the reasons for all the love/hate, even if I do end up hating it.  It is possible that I'll be convinced that I was duped and the endings were actually bad.  It's just not what I think at the moment, I think they were an incredible moment in video gaming.

I'll check out those videos like you suggested.

CronoDragoon wrote...

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.

...

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?

Thanks for your closing comments and your points as a whole.

I think the Crucible still has a lot to do with the narrative.  It's basically a giant space gun that kills the Reapers.  It wasn't introduced at the last minute.  The consequences were, but that was always a danger when preparing to use a superweapon when no-one knows what it actually does.  But I don't agree that it was just there to balance the choices.

About your morality of Con/Syn options, all I'll say is that there is conflict in every choice, and contradiction, and that's why the choice is hard.  There is no clearly right answer imo: if there was, it wouldn't be an interesting decision.  Committing genocide is something that everyone will be disgusted by, and so the choice remains: what are you prepared to do?  For me Con / Syn / Ref are worse, but many will disagree.

As for your last question, I don't think the meaning comes from a fable.  It's not a message Bioware is giving us about love or friendship - maybe one about hope, or survival - but I think it's more a test of character, convictions and beliefs, in the face of war, death and extinction.In other words, I don't think they're trying to preach to us, they're just asking us to choose.  Which I think works in an interactive videogame, where in a film or whatever it wouldn't really work.

Modifié par Davik Kang, 02 octobre 2012 - 02:04 .

[Obadiah]

Siirlock wrote...
...
I agree that the Catalyst, itself, did not explain the mechanics of  the Destroy option very well at all. Personally, I think the fact that both EDI and (by that point) the geth heavily incorporated Reaper tech in their fundamental design was the reason the Crucible would also affect them.

I always thought the Crucible unleased some kind of energy disruption or overload to electronics and micro-electronics similar to an EM pulse. I figured the intact Crucible is to calibrated to the Reaper electronics, which unfortunately is all ME modern electronics. Thus the ships, infrastructure, and AI are all damaged or destroyed.

In lower EMS, the Crucible is damaged so the energy pulse is more erratic, thus much more collateral damage to everything, and the Earth's surface gets vaporized.

Hmm... I bet the Catalyst saw this as a possible weakness in the Reapers early on, and that is part of why it guide's each civilization's technology advancement - so each civilization would not use that one possible solution because it would damage itself.

Siirlock wrote...
After many, many playthroughs of all three games, I've concluded that the overall theme of ME3 is sacrifice. This is reflected in all of the endings, and this idea, to me, is what redeems the Crucible in a literary sense and makes it much more than simply a "magic win button". Each of its three functions requires Shepard to make an ultimate sacrifice -- either his/her own life, or the lives of EDI and the geth.

Huh, well slap me on the head with a 2x4. I had not thought of sacrifice as the running theme, but now that you bring it up: Virmire, Suicide Mission, Legion at Rannoch, Mordin on Tuchanka, Shepard, and of course the Refuse or Destroy ending - it all fits.

Modifié par Obadiah, 02 octobre 2012 - 02:08 .

[Oni Changas]

*pats op on the back*

There, I did it for you so you don't have to do it so hard anymore. Done now?

[daaaav]

Interesting.

Regardless of your opinions of the endings, perhaps you can enlighten me as to why we should not argue with those opinions and why we can't inform Bioware that we believe that they should have taken them in a different direction?

If all you want is a thread where people who like the endings slap each other and Bioware on the back then your welcome to it i guess. Not very stimulating however...

[Cobalt2113]

daaaav wrote...

Interesting.

Regardless of your opinions of the endings, perhaps you can enlighten me as to why we should not argue with those opinions and why we can't inform Bioware that we believe that they should have taken them in a different direction?

If all you want is a thread where people who like the endings slap each other and Bioware on the back then your welcome to it i guess. Not very stimulating however...

And the threads where you endlessly rehash the same complaints over and over again for six months are stimulating?

No one's stopped people from making complaint threads, there's like a thousand of them. God forbid there might be one thread where people can actually discuss positive things about the ending without being flamed by the haters who can't seem to handle anyone having a different opinion from them.

[Davik Kang]

inko1nsiderate wrote...
I'm only on the BSN because I liked the endings. I have spent many hours thinking about, talking about, and arguing online about why this is. I just don't have the energy to keep it up anymore. All I can manage is a few arguments with very limited scope that are often overly pedantic or rely on correcting people's misunderstandings about physics. The last time I sat down and wrote anything seriously defending the ending it was 6 months ago and it was ~10 pages long. I have even more to say now, but it just doesn't seem like it will be worth my time to go through that effort and write my current thoughts.

Hmm yeah I'll keep trying for now. But you might be a premonition of my future self... hope not!

Still if you do decide to have another go, I'm pretty sure people will listen. Unfortunately it is easier to troll than be constructive, so you might find youself back in the same position... hope you'll try though.

Netsfn1427 wrote...
That said, I almost prefer one part of the Destroy ending from the original; the total destruction of the relays. One of the things that was present from the first game one was that the space faring races all developed along the same lines because of the reliance on the relays. Not going back to the relays would have meant breaking free of that. It would have made the Geth/EDI sacrifice mean a touch more since that would have resulted in true self-determination, a total rejection of the Reaper technology.

Really good point. Maybe they caused a problem for themselves by previously explaining that full destruction of mass relays would destroy star systems too. However, completely destroying mass relays would leave numerous people around the galaxy forever stranded.

In theory the collected races could determine to sabotage the relays themselves, rejecting Reaper tech by choice rather than because they had to.

[Oni Changas]

Cobalt2113 wrote...

daaaav wrote...

Interesting.

Regardless of your opinions of the endings, perhaps you can enlighten me as to why we should not argue with those opinions and why we can't inform Bioware that we believe that they should have taken them in a different direction?

If all you want is a thread where people who like the endings slap each other and Bioware on the back then your welcome to it i guess. Not very stimulating however...

And the threads where you endlessly rehash the same complaints over and over again for six months are stimulating?

No one's stopped people from making complaint threads, there's like a thousand of them. God forbid there might be one thread where people can actually discuss positive things about the ending without being flamed by the haters who can't seem to handle anyone having a different opinion from them.

There are already many threads discussing the ending in this forum. Please join one of them.

End of line.

*yawn* =]yyyyyup.

[Netsfn1427]

Davik Kang wrote...

Netsfn1427 wrote...
That said, I almost prefer one part of the Destroy ending from the original; the total destruction of the relays. One of the things that was present from the first game one was that the space faring races all developed along the same lines because of the reliance on the relays. Not going back to the relays would have meant breaking free of that. It would have made the Geth/EDI sacrifice mean a touch more since that would have resulted in true self-determination, a total rejection of the Reaper technology.

Really good point. Maybe they caused a problem for themselves by previously explaining that full destruction of mass relays would destroy star systems too. However, completely destroying mass relays would leave numerous people around the galaxy forever stranded.

In theory the collected races could determine to sabotage the relays themselves, rejecting Reaper tech by choice rather than because they had to.

They left themselves an out in the original endings; the Arrival scenario did not need to apply because the energy was released in a far different way than an asteroid collision. Plus the energy was used to spread the effects of destroy, so it was converted, in a sense. Though some thought that was a retcon, I never got that sense. The energy is dispersed differently, so it had different results.

The bigger issue is different races being stranded in the different systems. But that could have been an interesting post ME3 galaxy. Most of the issues with the dextros could have been solved with the handwave of turians having their own supplies or getting some from the quarians. The only group that really gets hosed are the Krogan, who get the genophage cured and end up with many of their males stuck on Earth. 

I don't think they'd sabatoge the relays now. While interesting from a storyline and theme perspective, society is normally practical. And practicality dictates that if you have an efficient means to do something with no viable alternative and no serious drawbacks, do it. With the destruction of the Reapers in destroy, the only reasons not to use the relays are thematic, rather than practical.

[Davik Kang]

Netsfn1427 wrote...
They left themselves an out in the original endings; the Arrival scenario did not need to apply because the energy was released in a far different way than an asteroid collision. Plus the energy was used to spread the effects of destroy, so it was converted, in a sense. Though some thought that was a retcon, I never got that sense. The energy is dispersed differently, so it had different results. 

The bigger issue is different races being stranded in the different systems. But that could have been an interesting post ME3 galaxy. Most of the issues with the dextros could have been solved with the handwave of turians having their own supplies or getting some from the quarians. The only group that really gets hosed are the Krogan, who get the genophage cured and end up with many of their males stuck on Earth. 

It would be interesting indeed.  It's still a possibility for future content, as this will actually be the scenario til they can repair the relays.  Though for some reason, I doubt they'll make content set so close to the end.

Netsfn1427 wrote...
I don't think they'd sabatoge the relays now. While interesting from a storyline and theme perspective, society is normally practical. And practicality dictates that if you have an efficient means to do something with no viable alternative and no serious drawbacks, do it. With the destruction of the Reapers in destroy, the only reasons not to use the relays are thematic, rather than practical.

Yep totally, I was actually gonna say this but I forgot whoops.  It's cynical, but no way would they give up that tech.  But they could, so self-determination: check