431 réponses à ce sujet

[Eterna]

The ending is about sacrifice. People just wanted Shepard to to kick the Reapers ass in a more triumphant way.

[kyban]

MACharlie1 wrote...

Unfortunately, this sort of symbolic ending doesn't translate well with this kind of game where we've made a hundred choices that we would be told that would matter in the end. Ultimately, the ending (and I'm talking EC here) boiled down to Krogan Genophage (which was two choices) and the Quarians/Geth. Thats it. Don't tell us - show us. Show us that our choices did something for the ending.

And in the end, it's still a game played by people who like guns and shooting crap. We love the story but we still like blowing things up. You can't switch from one mode to the rest. It cheapens it. Make up your mind and stick with a single emotion. 

Agree.

[Ratimir]

No

dreman9999 wrote...

Yes...That is exactly the point. Any one that says no just wants a rainbows happy ending.

No

[jakal66]

I am,without a doubt,100 % sure  that if the high ems destroy ending would have included Sheppard living and reuniting with his crew or some ending where he lived,  a lot of these so called "fans" who seem to know everything theres it to know about lore, space travel, FTL, theories and conspiracies about Bioware and BLA BLA BLA.

Would not be here today talking ironically about how this is "art" and space magic this and space magic that and how they don't want or need a happy ending...they would have eaten the plot holes one by one without giving a crap.
No matter how much they deny it...i bet you my house this would've happened.

Of course there would have been many complaints...but not as many.

I for one think bioware should have put a shep lives(more clear than the breath scene) and would have saved themselves from whole lotta trouble...

I'll be honest I was happy with the EC but sad they didn't have the balls to expand that blessed sequence

Modifié par jakal66, 12 octobre 2012 - 02:05 .

[dreman9999]

Ratimir wrote...

No

dreman9999 wrote...

Yes...That is exactly the point. Any one that says no just wants a rainbows happy ending.

No

So Shepard did not sacrific his/her life or the geth in the ending?

[RebelTitan428]

winning the super bowl in madden 2010 is more enjoyable than the ending of mass effect 3.

and all that happens in madden 2010 is a zoom out of the field and a block of text that reads
CONGRADULATIONS! YOU'VE JUST WON THE SUPERBOWL!

and then its done.

[daecath]

Yeah, heaven forbid you should feel like you won a game. That would be awful! Who wants to win when they're playing a game. Not me, that's for sure, I want to wallow in a depressing ending that has no meaning and no purpose other than to be bleak, because I'm a major emo. Oh, and if you could make it not make any sense, that would be great too.

Uh, no.

[Lionfranky]

No. Sacrifice is pointless as in the end, solution is given by the enemy. It keep making us question. What was point of of whole game? Why didn't Catalyst just stop Reaper and let solution commence? How come Protheans didn't know about Starbrat? Still so many holes rather than healthy speculation.

[jakal66]

RebelTitan428 wrote...

winning the super bowl in madden 2010 is more enjoyable than the ending of mass effect 3.

and all that happens in madden 2010 is a zoom out of the field and a block of text that reads
CONGRADULATIONS! YOU'VE JUST WON THE SUPERBOWL!

and then its done.

OH the sarcasm of this...it hurts...

May be it's time to go Borderlands 2 and stay there...I hear it has a wicked coop....dunno about the endings though...you should research that.

deacath... gimmie a break will ya...when it comes to whining you guys take the prize...first it's just a game, then it's all about story writing, then it's about lies...come one you guys change your speech like politicians

Modifié par jakal66, 12 octobre 2012 - 02:10 .

[dreman9999]

jakal66 wrote...

I am,without a doubt,100 % sure  that if the high ems destroy ending would have included Sheppard living and reuniting with his crew or some ending where he lived,  a lot of these so called "fans" who seem to know everything theres it to know about lore, space travel, FTL, theories and conspiracies about Bioware and BLA BLA BLA.

Would not be here today talking ironically about how this is "art" and space magic this and space magic that and how they don't want or need a happy ending...they would have eaten the plot holes one by one without giving a crap.
No matter how much they deny it...i bet you my house this would've happened.

Of course there would have been many complaints...but not as many.

I for one think bioware should have put a shep lives(more clear than the breath scene) and would have saved themselves from whole lotta trouble...

I'll be honest I was happy with the EC but sad they didn't have the balls to expand that blessed sequence

Your missing the fact here it's up to them how the story ends.  I'm not say having an easy way out is not possible to the plot. I'm saying not having it was bw point and putting in now destroyes that point.

[Davik Kang]

Mike1220 wrote...

A man on Youtube posted this to counter what someone said about the ending being bad.
"Then you completely missed the ending. The point of the
ending is not to make you feel like you won everything, but to make you
understand the meaning of sacrifice. Yeah, decisions in ME1 or ME2 may
not seem like a huge impact in the end, but ME3 makes you remember
everything that you did, your experience, your struggles, your
victories. In the end, you save the galaxy and let all beings be as they
have always been.
You pick how you want to live and be remembered by."

I 100% agree with him. What do you guys think?

Yep agree.

[jakal66]

dreman9999 wrote...

jakal66 wrote...

I am,without a doubt,100 % sure  that if the high ems destroy ending would have included Sheppard living and reuniting with his crew or some ending where he lived,  a lot of these so called "fans" who seem to know everything theres it to know about lore, space travel, FTL, theories and conspiracies about Bioware and BLA BLA BLA.

Would not be here today talking ironically about how this is "art" and space magic this and space magic that and how they don't want or need a happy ending...they would have eaten the plot holes one by one without giving a crap.
No matter how much they deny it...i bet you my house this would've happened.

Of course there would have been many complaints...but not as many.

I for one think bioware should have put a shep lives(more clear than the breath scene) and would have saved themselves from whole lotta trouble...

I'll be honest I was happy with the EC but sad they didn't have the balls to expand that blessed sequence

Your missing the fact here it's up to them how the story ends.  I'm not say having an easy way out is not possible to the plot. I'm saying not having it was bw point and putting in now destroyes that point.

Dude, I 100% agree and have come to accept what they have given us(the EC of course)...it's their story and they should tell it how they want it.

In fact they did...but that doesn't mean that what I say may not be true...that given a shep survives (clear one) ending would have calmed the waters a bit

[Reth Shepherd]

Koobismo of the Marauder Shields comic put it far better than I ever can, so I'll let him speak for me.

When I started penning down the rough scenario for "Marauder Shields", I took the analytical approach, disseminating the story, themes and the bouquet of emotions seen in the first 2.9 games of the Mass Effect trilogy... And I believe I identified the word defining its guiding emotion. Hope. Hope for rescuing the galaxy, hope for stopping Saren, hope for humanity to show their true worth and join the other Council species... Hope that the desperate search for the Conduit will produce a miracleous way of stopping the Reapers... Hope that Shepard will friggin' come back from the rubble, with epic fanfares going on in the background.

The second game opens with Shepard declared as a "bloody icon", a symbol giving hope for humanity, its unity, its future... If we lose Shepard, humanity might well follow. Why do you think the narrative makes such a big deal out of this? Because Shepard is such a good shot, or such a powerful biotic? No. Because it implies that what the Normandy did in the first Mass Effect had consequences - and placed it in a unique position of being the nexus of galactic unity. One needed so badly in such desperate times. The Illusive Man clearly understands this, whatever we think about his shady plans or dangerous philosophy. He rebuilds the Normandy, investing significant resources, but he makes sure that the ship looks similar, he makes sure that the name stays the same. Because he understands he isn't just rebuilding a ship. Whatever his ulterior motives are... at that time he is reigniting the Beacon of Hope.

End of Mass Effect 2. Commander Shepard strouts through the Normandy. The ship is heavily damaged after the assault on the Collector Base... but she'll live. She'll fight. She died once before, as did Shepard, but the music announces that this is far from over. The crew members check their weapons, manly looks are exchanged (with Jack delivering the manliest, which I absolutely loved) and... Shepard stops at the viewport, starring down the stars, mirroring the ending scene from "Empire Strikes Back"... The narrative tells you, with the use of this simple, yet awesome scene, that with the help of your loyal crew, you can overcome any obstacles. You can fight and win. Because no matter the odds, there is always hope.

Mass Effect 3. Despite some logical and narrative flaws present in the story from the very beginning (the Crucible plot appearing from nowhere, Cerberus suddenly becoming a Bond-like villain organization), the game follows the emotional guidance of its predecessors to the letter (allow me to emphasize the fact that the "governing emotion" is *not* the same as a "theme"). The situation may be dire, the death of millions may haunt you 'til the day you die... But there *is* hope. *You* are the hope. And you achieve miracles. Turians and krogan working together. The geth and quarian fleets united. The galaxy gathering under a single banner... You see in their eyes the same fear that would take the heart of you. And you know a day may come when the courage of men fails, when we all forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship... But it was not that day! An hour of wolves and shattered shields, when the age of freedom comes crashing down... But it was not that day! That day... You fought. And the Free People of the Galaxy stood there with you... Holding the line.

The ending of Mass Effect 3. Everything changes. The narrative drops its core for no significant storytelling reason other than "we wanted to write it this way". Shepard's fight-until-the-end attitude, the only element of his (or hers) character identical for all players, gets brokenoff-screen. Nearly all major themes of the series are suddenly dropped and replaced by a twisted version of ME1's "organics vs. synthetics", no longer valid in this universe due to the events and ideas shared with the players in ME2 and ME3 - the concept evolved during the series, changed, progressed and, at the crucial moment, was slammed back to its original, embryo state. The game unexpectedly shifts from space opera science-fiction to space fantasy. And finally... The emotional guidance of the series suddenly vaporates and is surplanted with a substitute, a piece that doesn't fit the puzzle. Hope dies.

One could argue that the solutions presented by the StarChild grant you some kind of hope... And one would be wrong. The very philosophical themes of the ending indicate that nothing matters, neither in the past (all choices become invalidated), nor the future (everything can be invalidated once again, by another godlike creature with an even stupider plan - these are the new rules of the narrative). Your hopes, presented to you over the course of the narrative, were false - this is why it stings so much to return to the previous games, this is why replayability gets murdered by this finale. Let me emphasize this... The crucial emotion of Mass Effect was HOPE. Believing in a positive outcome fueled by your efforts and sacrifices, which is invalidated retroactively. You can hide away the "it's about the journey" asspull - how can you take the same journey again, how can you hope again, if you know that it's just a lie?

Instead, you are left with a scene of a godlike creature shifting the universe and life to its bidding... And you are assisting with it. You are not choosing, not really (unless you accept the Refusal ending, which is yet another emotional play to make you think of Synthesis as the right choice, no matter how wrong it really is) - you are selecting one of the options the StarChild is okay with. And each of the endings, from the mildly horrible Destroy, through pretty horrible Control, to the absolutely horrible Synthesis means one and the same thing... Your world ends, the current rules of reality governing Mass Effect are killed off and you are the executioner holding the bloody axe. Some may consider that a shyamalanalanyan tweeeaast. I consider it a false narrative. A bad one.

Modifié par Reth Shepherd, 12 octobre 2012 - 02:15 .

[frostajulie]

**** no
hell no
**** no
**** no

[MB957]

I wasnt aware that giving in to the enemy was considered sacrifice these days.

maybe I am just an old fart, but I most certainly dont see how helping the reapers accomplish their goals is a sacrifice.

at that point...the only thing sacrificed is shepards common sense.

but..I could understand if some people wanted that kind of sacrifice...cool..give it to them...

and...make an option for us old timers to win with honor and dignity, and smash the enemy proper!

win win!!

[dreman9999]

ld1449 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

ld1449 wrote...

Shepard Cmdr wrote...

no, oh and I have one friend who liked the ending, he didn't love it but he didn't hate it either. Everyone else I know didn't like the ending.

That should tell you something.

The ending is not deep, its not meaningful. Its not even poignant. Its pointless and is merely the most incompetent and moronically elaborate way I've ever seen to simply kill off a character. Because that's really ALL they did. They killed Shepard off. Sacrifice requires the choice to make the sacrifice, the ability to say no and the availability of survivability. Shepard does not have that. Which is why it will always be an authors will enforced on the plot, rather than the plot evolving and shaping on its own.

"Sacrifice requires the choice to make the sacrifice,"

Complete bs.

Sacrific requires something to sacrific for not a choice.

If your is an situation that everyone will die if you don't die and you let yourself die...That is a sacrific.


Hell, I 'll give you an example....Startrek 2. In the  end of the movie the ship about to blow up and the only way to stop it was to go into the highly radiated engine room and the two people there, Spock and Kirt, had no lead ed suit to use...Spock went in, turn off the engine of the ship and died...

That is not a sacrific....His choice were to let every one die, have him self die or let his friend die.. 
Shepard's choice in ME3 were to let every one die(refuse), have him/herself die(control, synthesis.) or let his friend and allies die(EDI and the geth.)
How is that less of a sacrific then Spock's?

Saying you don't have a choice not  sacrific makes it not a sacrific is bs. If there is an easy way out of those hard choice, you would take it...There would be no need to sacrific if it can be done in a way to not sacrific.

Spock could have tried to run, give into fear, made Kirk go in there, try to reach an escape pod. It was an option unlikely to succeed but it was an option.

Shepard doesn't even have the vague option of running away. Spock chose to walk into that room. Shepard does not have a choice. He knows that with the way things are set up sword can't beat the reapers, he knows that not using the crucible means the death of everyone. Given the fact that all options presented to him imply death on each description, he had no choice but to die. He just had to choose how to die. There's a difference.

If I told you. You have a deadly disease. You're going to die from it. There's no cure and nothing that can save you. Your wife has contracted the disease. You're both going to die. You in five minutes, her in five hours.

If you kill yourself though, your wife will be magically cured.

Is this a sacrifice? Not really. This is you dying since you're going to Die ANYWAY to avoid one other person's death. Death is coming for you you just expedited the procedure so someone else wouldn't have to die.

If however I say you have a disease that's contagious. You and your wife have it. If one of you dies, the other party is cured and you yourself take that one bullet and put it in your head rather than hers that's a sacrifice.

Shepards choices all equate to his death, he knows that even refusing will lead to death. Which is why his sacrifice is less than spocks. Because spock, at the end of the movie, hell, throughout the entire movie had the option of saying "****it" at the very least. Shepard doesn't even have that open to him.

This is throwing a tied up Shepard into a volcano to keep the plannet from exploding, rather than Shepard willingly jumping in there to keep the volcano magically stable for another 1000 years

1."Spock could have tried to run, give into fear, made Kirk go in there, try to reach an escape pod. It was an option unlikely to succeed but it was an option."

What do you think the destory choice is? Added, Spock doing that would mean he would sacrific everyone else for him to live...That means sacrific any way...Add, Shepard can't run anyway any way.

2. "Shepard doesn't even have the vague option of running away. Spock chose to walk into that room. Shepard does not have a choice. He knows that with the way things are set up sword can't beat the reapers, he knows that not using the crucible means the death of everyone. Given the fact that all options presented to him imply death on each description, he had no choice but to die. He just had to choose how to die. There's a difference"

Run to where?Not being able to run does not mean you have no choice.  Shepard has no where to run.  And being able to run still means something is sacrific.

3."Shepards choices all equate to his death, he knows that even refusing will lead to death. Which is why his sacrifice is less than spocks. Because spock, at the end of the movie, hell, throughout the entire movie had the option of saying "****it" at the very least. Shepard doesn't even have that open to him."

Bs, he had no where to run to. It not less because he did not have the choice to run.

4,"This is throwing a tied up Shepard into a volcano to keep the plannet from exploding, rather than Shepard willingly jumping in there to keep the volcano magically stable for another 1000 years"

No it not.. It 's not like Shepard  being tied to a stick and being thrown in a valcano. It ether he does or every one dies. That does not mean he has no choice.


You need to look up the meaning of sacrifice.

http://www.thefreedi...y.com/sacrifice

1.a. The act of offering something to a deity in propitiation or homage, especially the ritual slaughter of an animal or a person.
b. A victim offered in this way.

2.a. Forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of one considered to have a greater value or claim.b. Something so forfeited.
3.a. Relinquishment of something at less than its presumed value.
b. Something so relinquished.c. A loss so sustained.


Nothing said it has to be a choice.

Modifié par dreman9999, 12 octobre 2012 - 02:23 .

[Zooter]

No

[crimzontearz]

MB957 wrote...

I wasnt aware that giving in to the enemy was considered sacrifice these days.

maybe I am just an old fart, but I most certainly dont see how helping the reapers accomplish their goals is a sacrifice.

at that point...the only thing sacrificed is shepards common sense.

but..I could understand if some people wanted that kind of sacrifice...cool..give it to them...

and...make an option for us old timers to win with honor and dignity, and smash the enemy proper!

win win!!

oh but don't you know? the presence of an alrwrnative utterly invalidates the grimdark ending...utterly. It soils it as it is not forced upon you anymore

[dreman9999]

Reth Shepherd wrote...

Koobismo of the Marauder Shields comic put it far better than I ever can, so I'll let him speak for me.

When I started penning down the rough scenario for "Marauder Shields", I took the analytical approach, disseminating the story, themes and the bouquet of emotions seen in the first 2.9 games of the Mass Effect trilogy... And I believe I identified the word defining its guiding emotion. Hope. Hope for rescuing the galaxy, hope for stopping Saren, hope for humanity to show their true worth and join the other Council species... Hope that the desperate search for the Conduit will produce a miracleous way of stopping the Reapers... Hope that Shepard will friggin' come back from the rubble, with epic fanfares going on in the background.

The second game opens with Shepard declared as a "bloody icon", a symbol giving hope for humanity, its unity, its future... If we lose Shepard, humanity might well follow. Why do you think the narrative makes such a big deal out of this? Because Shepard is such a good shot, or such a powerful biotic? No. Because it implies that what the Normandy did in the first Mass Effect had consequences - and placed it in a unique position of being the nexus of galactic unity. One needed so badly in such desperate times. The Illusive Man clearly understands this, whatever we think about his shady plans or dangerous philosophy. He rebuilds the Normandy, investing significant resources, but he makes sure that the ship looks similar, he makes sure that the name stays the same. Because he understands he isn't just rebuilding a ship. Whatever his ulterior motives are... at that time he is reigniting the Beacon of Hope.

End of Mass Effect 2. Commander Shepard strouts through the Normandy. The ship is heavily damaged after the assault on the Collector Base... but she'll live. She'll fight. She died once before, as did Shepard, but the music announces that this is far from over. The crew members check their weapons, manly looks are exchanged (with Jack delivering the manliest, which I absolutely loved) and... Shepard stops at the viewport, starring down the stars, mirroring the ending scene from "Empire Strikes Back"... The narrative tells you, with the use of this simple, yet awesome scene, that with the help of your loyal crew, you can overcome any obstacles. You can fight and win. Because no matter the odds, there is always hope.

Mass Effect 3. Despite some logical and narrative flaws present in the story from the very beginning (the Crucible plot appearing from nowhere, Cerberus suddenly becoming a Bond-like villain organization), the game follows the emotional guidance of its predecessors to the letter (allow me to emphasize the fact that the "governing emotion" is *not* the same as a "theme"). The situation may be dire, the death of millions may haunt you 'til the day you die... But there *is* hope. *You* are the hope. And you achieve miracles. Turians and krogan working together. The geth and quarian fleets united. The galaxy gathering under a single banner... You see in their eyes the same fear that would take the heart of you. And you know a day may come when the courage of men fails, when we all forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship... But it was not that day! An hour of wolves and shattered shields, when the age of freedom comes crashing down... But it was not that day! That day... You fought. And the Free People of the Galaxy stood there with you... Holding the line.

The ending of Mass Effect 3. Everything changes. The narrative drops its core for no significant storytelling reason other than "we wanted to write it this way". Shepard's fight-until-the-end attitude, the only element of his (or hers) character identical for all players, gets brokenoff-screen. Nearly all major themes of the series are suddenly dropped and replaced by a twisted version of ME1's "organics vs. synthetics", no longer valid in this universe due to the events and ideas shared with the players in ME2 and ME3 - the concept evolved during the series, changed, progressed and, at the crucial moment, was slammed back to its original, embryo state. The game unexpectedly shifts from space opera science-fiction to space fantasy. And finally... The emotional guidance of the series suddenly vaporates and is surplanted with a substitute, a piece that doesn't fit the puzzle. Hope dies.

One could argue that the solutions presented by the StarChild grant you some kind of hope... And one would be wrong. The very philosophical themes of the ending indicate that nothing matters, neither in the past (all choices become invalidated), nor the future (everything can be invalidated once again, by another godlike creature with an even stupider plan - these are the new rules of the narrative). Your hopes, presented to you over the course of the narrative, were false - this is why it stings so much to return to the previous games, this is why replayability gets murdered by this finale. Let me emphasize this... The crucial emotion of Mass Effect was HOPE. Believing in a positive outcome fueled by your efforts and sacrifices, which is invalidated retroactively. You can hide away the "it's about the journey" asspull - how can you take the same journey again, how can you hope again, if you know that it's just a lie?

Instead, you are left with a scene of a godlike creature shifting the universe and life to its bidding... And you are assisting with it. You are not choosing, not really (unless you accept the Refusal ending, which is yet another emotional play to make you think of Synthesis as the right choice, no matter how wrong it really is) - you are selecting one of the options the StarChild is okay with. And each of the endings, from the mildly horrible Destroy, through pretty horrible Control, to the absolutely horrible Synthesis means one and the same thing... Your world ends, the current rules of reality governing Mass Effect are killed off and you are the executioner holding the bloody axe. Some may consider that a shyamalanalanyan tweeeaast. I consider it a false narrative. A bad one.

The catalyst dose not choose what happen in control or destroy...He is just telling you what it does. Only synthesis is doing what catalyst wants.

[dreman9999]

MB957 wrote...

I wasnt aware that giving in to the enemy was considered sacrifice these days.

maybe I am just an old fart, but I most certainly dont see how helping the reapers accomplish their goals is a sacrifice.

at that point...the only thing sacrificed is shepards common sense.

but..I could understand if some people wanted that kind of sacrifice...cool..give it to them...

and...make an option for us old timers to win with honor and dignity, and smash the enemy proper!

win win!!

The only time you gave into the catalyst is synthesis... Destory and Control is just waht the crucible does.

[Mcfly616]

MB957 wrote...

I wasnt aware that giving in to the enemy was considered sacrifice these days.

maybe I am just an old fart, but I most certainly dont see how helping the reapers accomplish their goals is a sacrifice.

at that point...the only thing sacrificed is shepards common sense.

but..I could understand if some people wanted that kind of sacrifice...cool..give it to them...

and...make an option for us old timers to win with honor and dignity, and smash the enemy proper!

win win!!

what game were you playing, exactly? Because in ME3 your enemy gives into you at the end. Your enemy admits that it is wrong and that you can do better.

[Reth Shepherd]

dreman9999 wrote...

MB957 wrote...

I wasnt aware that giving in to the enemy was considered sacrifice these days.

maybe I am just an old fart, but I most certainly dont see how helping the reapers accomplish their goals is a sacrifice.

at that point...the only thing sacrificed is shepards common sense.

but..I could understand if some people wanted that kind of sacrifice...cool..give it to them...

and...make an option for us old timers to win with honor and dignity, and smash the enemy proper!

win win!!

The only time you gave into the catalyst is synthesis... Destory and Control is just waht the crucible does.

Please explain how green is any less built into the Crucible than red or blue? I don't remember seeing anything that said that Glowboy managed to corrupt/infiltrate the Crucible at the last moment.

[drayfish]

dreman9999 wrote...

drayfish wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Yes...That is exactly the point. Any one that says no just wants a rainbows happy ending.

This is a ludicrously unhelpful and unjustified oversimplification.  If you have to proffer such a cartoonish vision of opinions contrary to your own it does not suggest much for your own analysis.

Personally, I was revolted by the ending on an emotional, intellectual and ideological basis, but I am genuinely glad to hear that you enjoyed it OP.

But that's basilcy it. Most people just want Shepard to live and kill the reapers with no comprimises. You can't denie that people who hate the ending just want this.

Again, this is insultingly reductive and reveals how little attention you clearly pay to much of the criticism leveled at the ending by those who dislike it.  I'm sure there are people who just want a happy-happy joy-joy ending; just as I am sure that there are people who embrace the current ending because in their eyes it is a nihilistic, racist hate screed - but neither reading is fair to the broad range of interpretations that are out there.  To pretend that they are is childish.

To use only myself as an example, I don't want a magical, happy 'everybody lives' ending.  I'm fully aware that this is a tale of war and I was absolutely expecting that Shepard at the very least would not be getting out alive.  So that was never my problem with the ending; your (frankly, petty) categorisation of a rainbows and unicorns epilogue in no way applies to my reading.  My issue is with the far more horrifying statement the game makes in advocating the use of war crimes, and celebrating racial and intellectual intollerance. 

But again, I don't make the intentionally misleading mistake of declaring that anyone who doesn't share my opinion must therefore only like hatred and evil and ignorance.  That would make me a fool with nothing helpful to add to a discussion.

Modifié par drayfish, 12 octobre 2012 - 02:34 .

[sharkboy421]

Reth Shepherd wrote...

Koobismo of the Marauder Shields comic put it far better than I ever can, so I'll let him speak for me.

When I started penning down the rough scenario for "Marauder Shields", I took the analytical approach, disseminating the story, themes and the bouquet of emotions seen in the first 2.9 games of the Mass Effect trilogy... And I believe I identified the word defining its guiding emotion. Hope. Hope for rescuing the galaxy, hope for stopping Saren, hope for humanity to show their true worth and join the other Council species... Hope that the desperate search for the Conduit will produce a miracleous way of stopping the Reapers... Hope that Shepard will friggin' come back from the rubble, with epic fanfares going on in the background.

The second game opens with Shepard declared as a "bloody icon", a symbol giving hope for humanity, its unity, its future... If we lose Shepard, humanity might well follow. Why do you think the narrative makes such a big deal out of this? Because Shepard is such a good shot, or such a powerful biotic? No. Because it implies that what the Normandy did in the first Mass Effect had consequences - and placed it in a unique position of being the nexus of galactic unity. One needed so badly in such desperate times. The Illusive Man clearly understands this, whatever we think about his shady plans or dangerous philosophy. He rebuilds the Normandy, investing significant resources, but he makes sure that the ship looks similar, he makes sure that the name stays the same. Because he understands he isn't just rebuilding a ship. Whatever his ulterior motives are... at that time he is reigniting the Beacon of Hope.

End of Mass Effect 2. Commander Shepard strouts through the Normandy. The ship is heavily damaged after the assault on the Collector Base... but she'll live. She'll fight. She died once before, as did Shepard, but the music announces that this is far from over. The crew members check their weapons, manly looks are exchanged (with Jack delivering the manliest, which I absolutely loved) and... Shepard stops at the viewport, starring down the stars, mirroring the ending scene from "Empire Strikes Back"... The narrative tells you, with the use of this simple, yet awesome scene, that with the help of your loyal crew, you can overcome any obstacles. You can fight and win. Because no matter the odds, there is always hope.

Mass Effect 3. Despite some logical and narrative flaws present in the story from the very beginning (the Crucible plot appearing from nowhere, Cerberus suddenly becoming a Bond-like villain organization), the game follows the emotional guidance of its predecessors to the letter (allow me to emphasize the fact that the "governing emotion" is *not* the same as a "theme"). The situation may be dire, the death of millions may haunt you 'til the day you die... But there *is* hope. *You* are the hope. And you achieve miracles. Turians and krogan working together. The geth and quarian fleets united. The galaxy gathering under a single banner... You see in their eyes the same fear that would take the heart of you. And you know a day may come when the courage of men fails, when we all forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship... But it was not that day! An hour of wolves and shattered shields, when the age of freedom comes crashing down... But it was not that day! That day... You fought. And the Free People of the Galaxy stood there with you... Holding the line.

The ending of Mass Effect 3. Everything changes. The narrative drops its core for no significant storytelling reason other than "we wanted to write it this way". Shepard's fight-until-the-end attitude, the only element of his (or hers) character identical for all players, gets brokenoff-screen. Nearly all major themes of the series are suddenly dropped and replaced by a twisted version of ME1's "organics vs. synthetics", no longer valid in this universe due to the events and ideas shared with the players in ME2 and ME3 - the concept evolved during the series, changed, progressed and, at the crucial moment, was slammed back to its original, embryo state. The game unexpectedly shifts from space opera science-fiction to space fantasy. And finally... The emotional guidance of the series suddenly vaporates and is surplanted with a substitute, a piece that doesn't fit the puzzle. Hope dies.

One could argue that the solutions presented by the StarChild grant you some kind of hope... And one would be wrong. The very philosophical themes of the ending indicate that nothing matters, neither in the past (all choices become invalidated), nor the future (everything can be invalidated once again, by another godlike creature with an even stupider plan - these are the new rules of the narrative). Your hopes, presented to you over the course of the narrative, were false - this is why it stings so much to return to the previous games, this is why replayability gets murdered by this finale. Let me emphasize this... The crucial emotion of Mass Effect was HOPE. Believing in a positive outcome fueled by your efforts and sacrifices, which is invalidated retroactively. You can hide away the "it's about the journey" asspull - how can you take the same journey again, how can you hope again, if you know that it's just a lie?

Instead, you are left with a scene of a godlike creature shifting the universe and life to its bidding... And you are assisting with it. You are not choosing, not really (unless you accept the Refusal ending, which is yet another emotional play to make you think of Synthesis as the right choice, no matter how wrong it really is) - you are selecting one of the options the StarChild is okay with. And each of the endings, from the mildly horrible Destroy, through pretty horrible Control, to the absolutely horrible Synthesis means one and the same thing... Your world ends, the current rules of reality governing Mass Effect are killed off and you are the executioner holding the bloody axe. Some may consider that a shyamalanalanyan tweeeaast. I consider it a false narrative. A bad one.

Yeah this sums up my feelings perfectly about what I feel is wrong with the ending.  So to the OP, I'm sorry but no.  Just No.

[Reth Shepherd]

Mcfly616 wrote...

MB957 wrote...

I wasnt aware that giving in to the enemy was considered sacrifice these days.

maybe I am just an old fart, but I most certainly dont see how helping the reapers accomplish their goals is a sacrifice.

at that point...the only thing sacrificed is shepards common sense.

but..I could understand if some people wanted that kind of sacrifice...cool..give it to them...

and...make an option for us old timers to win with honor and dignity, and smash the enemy proper!

win win!!

what game were you playing, exactly? Because in ME3 your enemy gives into you at the end. Your enemy admits that it is wrong and that you can do better.

Do you remember the end of Mass Effect 1? Where Saren really and truly believes that he is saving the lives of the entire collective galaxy by going along with something he describes pretty much exactly the way Synthesis is described? And Shepard calls him out for being indoctrinated and following Sovereign's will? And you don't find it odd and Shepard meekly goes along with Glowboy and picks one of the three options offered? ALL of which Shepard has at one time or another decried?