354 réponses à ce sujet

[Grand Wazoo]

Agreed. The ending is weakly written but the idea could've worked, only not in this game.

[devSin]

nstar wrote...

So there is no nobility in Shepard's sacrifice. Furthermore, it seems that nothing I have done during the series has ultimately mattered all because some AI brat has appointed itself as god of the galaxy. I've already experienced the sense of loss and the difficult decisions - when I chose who to leave on Virmire, when Mordin died, when Thane died etc. and now I'm being asked to sacrifice who I made my character into - her very sense of right and wrong is being sacrificed and in essence her very self and there is nothing that I can do because of an enemy which I cannot fight or even attempt to reason with. As he stands there, spouting his nonsense which I have started to prove a fallacy by not only ending the Quarian/Geth war but helping to get them working together again, I am left with no comeback, no retort, no way of even making him see how ridiculous he is. Perhaps there would be no reasoning with him which given his exceptional arrogance is entirely plausible, but the fact is there was no way for me to even try and this is majorly lacking and a serious departure from the Shepard character I knew.

And because of this there is no "ending" for me. There is nothing leaving me fulfilled by the outcomes of ME3. I just feel empty and after the experiences I had with the ME series that ran the gamut of emotions, to end this way feels hollow and a betrayal of the investment in Shepard.

After feeling like I was progressing throughout the series, for the final ten minutes to tell me there was nothing I could do but bow down to Starkid and make a barbaric decision, I could never be happy.

How did I miss this?

Masterfully put. This seems to mirror my own reaction (unlike you, though, I had to suffer the horror of the original ending as well), and I think expresses at least part of the reason while I will never be able to except this supposed conclusion.

[silverexile17s]

devSin wrote...

nstar wrote...

So there is no nobility in Shepard's sacrifice. Furthermore, it seems that nothing I have done during the series has ultimately mattered all because some AI brat has appointed itself as god of the galaxy. I've already experienced the sense of loss and the difficult decisions - when I chose who to leave on Virmire, when Mordin died, when Thane died etc. and now I'm being asked to sacrifice who I made my character into - her very sense of right and wrong is being sacrificed and in essence her very self and there is nothing that I can do because of an enemy which I cannot fight or even attempt to reason with. As he stands there, spouting his nonsense which I have started to prove a fallacy by not only ending the Quarian/Geth war but helping to get them working together again, I am left with no comeback, no retort, no way of even making him see how ridiculous he is. Perhaps there would be no reasoning with him which given his exceptional arrogance is entirely plausible, but the fact is there was no way for me to even try and this is majorly lacking and a serious departure from the Shepard character I knew.

And because of this there is no "ending" for me. There is nothing leaving me fulfilled by the outcomes of ME3. I just feel empty and after the experiences I had with the ME series that ran the gamut of emotions, to end this way feels hollow and a betrayal of the investment in Shepard.

After feeling like I was progressing throughout the series, for the final ten minutes to tell me there was nothing I could do but bow down to Starkid and make a barbaric decision, I could never be happy.

How did I miss this?

Masterfully put. This seems to mirror my own reaction (unlike you, though, I had to suffer the horror of the original ending as well), and I think expresses at least part of the reason while I will never be able to except this supposed conclusion.

Agreed. Bravo.

[Iakus]

devSin wrote...

nstar wrote...

So there is no nobility in Shepard's sacrifice. Furthermore, it seems that nothing I have done during the series has ultimately mattered all because some AI brat has appointed itself as god of the galaxy. I've already experienced the sense of loss and the difficult decisions - when I chose who to leave on Virmire, when Mordin died, when Thane died etc. and now I'm being asked to sacrifice who I made my character into - her very sense of right and wrong is being sacrificed and in essence her very self and there is nothing that I can do because of an enemy which I cannot fight or even attempt to reason with. As he stands there, spouting his nonsense which I have started to prove a fallacy by not only ending the Quarian/Geth war but helping to get them working together again, I am left with no comeback, no retort, no way of even making him see how ridiculous he is. Perhaps there would be no reasoning with him which given his exceptional arrogance is entirely plausible, but the fact is there was no way for me to even try and this is majorly lacking and a serious departure from the Shepard character I knew.

And because of this there is no "ending" for me. There is nothing leaving me fulfilled by the outcomes of ME3. I just feel empty and after the experiences I had with the ME series that ran the gamut of emotions, to end this way feels hollow and a betrayal of the investment in Shepard.

After feeling like I was progressing throughout the series, for the final ten minutes to tell me there was nothing I could do but bow down to Starkid and make a barbaric decision, I could never be happy.

How did I miss this?

Masterfully put. This seems to mirror my own reaction (unlike you, though, I had to suffer the horror of the original ending as well), and I think expresses at least part of the reason while I will never be able to except this supposed conclusion.

Absolutely agreed.  Especially the bolded part

[The Spamming Troll]

this topic should be biowares mission statement.

their bible.

look here, bioware.

this is why your game is bad.

Modifié par The Spamming Troll, 03 novembre 2012 - 02:39 .

[DarthSleepy]

nstar wrote...

...there is no nobility in Shepard's sacrifice. Furthermore, it seems that nothing I have done during the series has ultimately mattered all because some AI brat has appointed itself as god of the galaxy. I've already experienced the sense of loss and the difficult decisions - when I chose who to leave on Virmire, when Mordin died, when Thane died etc. and now I'm being asked to sacrifice who I made my character into - her very sense of right and wrong is being sacrificed and in essence her very self and there is nothing that I can do because of an enemy which I cannot fight or even attempt to reason with. As he stands there, spouting his nonsense which I have started to prove a fallacy by not only ending the Quarian/Geth war but helping to get them working together again, I am left with no comeback, no retort, no way of even making him see how ridiculous he is. Perhaps there would be no reasoning with him which given his exceptional arrogance is entirely plausible, but the fact is there was no way for me to even try and this is majorly lacking and a serious departure from the Shepard character I knew.

And because of this there is no "ending" for me. There is nothing leaving me fulfilled by the outcomes of ME3. I just feel empty and after the experiences I had with the ME series that ran the gamut of emotions, to end this way feels hollow and a betrayal of the investment in Shepard.

After feeling like I was progressing throughout the series, for the final ten minutes to tell me there was nothing I could do but bow down to Starkid and make a barbaric decision, I could never be happy.

And yes, I will admit that I wish there was a way to save Shepard, properly, without barbaric choices, and for her to live happily ever after with Liara and their little blue children but it was never a possibility; I just wasn't told this until the very end.

Wow. Beautifully stated nstar.

[Andres Hendrix]

devSin wrote...

nstar wrote...

So there is no nobility in Shepard's sacrifice. Furthermore, it seems that nothing I have done during the series has ultimately mattered all because some AI brat has appointed itself as god of the galaxy. I've already experienced the sense of loss and the difficult decisions - when I chose who to leave on Virmire, when Mordin died, when Thane died etc. and now I'm being asked to sacrifice who I made my character into - her very sense of right and wrong is being sacrificed and in essence her very self and there is nothing that I can do because of an enemy which I cannot fight or even attempt to reason with. As he stands there, spouting his nonsense which I have started to prove a fallacy by not only ending the Quarian/Geth war but helping to get them working together again, I am left with no comeback, no retort, no way of even making him see how ridiculous he is. Perhaps there would be no reasoning with him which given his exceptional arrogance is entirely plausible, but the fact is there was no way for me to even try and this is majorly lacking and a serious departure from the Shepard character I knew.

And because of this there is no "ending" for me. There is nothing leaving me fulfilled by the outcomes of ME3. I just feel empty and after the experiences I had with the ME series that ran the gamut of emotions, to end this way feels hollow and a betrayal of the investment in Shepard.

After feeling like I was progressing throughout the series, for the final ten minutes to tell me there was nothing I could do but bow down to Starkid and make a barbaric decision, I could never be happy.

How did I miss this?

Masterfully put. This seems to mirror my own reaction (unlike you, though, I had to suffer the horror of the original ending as well), and I think expresses at least part of the reason while I will never be able to except this supposed conclusion.

Agreed, very well put.

[AlanC9]

 Well, I won't bother to quote that nstar post again, since it's been repeated enough. But it does bring to mind why I
didn't have a big problem with the ending.

I've always seen Shep as someone who would face the unpleasant truths and do the things that others can't or won't do. So, the galaxy is trapped in a cycle brought on by an AI following bad premises to an idiotic conclusion? Yep, that sucks.... so, what can be done about it? While arguing with the Catalyst might have been entertaining, there's no reason to think it would be any more persuadable than Sovereign was. ( Would ten minutes of circular dialogue with he Catalyst have made the ending better, or worse?)

Which leaves using the Crucible. Using that is hardly "bowing down" to that broken, worthless AI. What he thinks and wants aren't of any concern.

Which raises the question.... why did I feel this way about the ending, rather than nstar's way. Any guesses?

Modifié par AlanC9, 03 novembre 2012 - 05:49 .

[TK EL_]

For someone who played all three games, it is easy to tell that they went off on a ridiculous tangent in the hopes of having an 'edgy' finale. Take the Quarian-Geth situation. It's been a consistent part of the narrative and the lore since the first game.

From the way it concluded, you can tell that they had the framework of what they were trying to covey all thought out from the beginning, fleshing out the details as each installment came. It's why there was even a peaceful resolution for it at all; because it had been long planned. If you notice, that is one part of the game that flows organically from ME1 to ME3. Each bit of new information either from legion or anyone else makes sense within context and moves that plot line along. How the Quarians were much more the aggressors, why it was strange that the geth were outside the Persius Veil in ME1, how the Geth were actually split into two factions. It all came together well over the course of the trilogy.

Now compare the delivery of that to the end sequence. I'm certain they saw how the Quarian-Geth resolution contradicted the premise they put across at the end but they wanted to eat their cake and have it too; finish off a well thought out, planned plot line but have their 'deep, thought provoking ending' . They are/were very naive to think fans wouldn't have a problem with it.

[silverexile17s]

AlanC9 wrote...

 Well, I won't bother to quote that nstar post again, since it's been repeated enough. But it does bring to mind why I
didn't have a big problem with the ending.

I've always seen Shep as someone who would face the unpleasant truths and do the things that others can't or won't do. So, the galaxy is trapped in a cycle brought on by an AI following bad premises to an idiotic conclusion? Yep, that sucks.... so, what can be done about it? While arguing with the Catalyst might have been entertaining, there's no reason to think it would be any more persuadable than Sovereign was. ( Would ten minutes of circular dialogue with he Catalyst have made the ending better, or worse?)

Which leaves using the Crucible. Using that is hardly "bowing down" to that broken, worthless AI. What he thinks and wants aren't of any concern.

Which raises the question.... why did I feel this way about the ending, rather than nstar's way. Any guesses?

Yet he has full control over it, as demstraited in the Refuse option, when, after Shepard denies the arbatrary choices, it shuts down the power conduit linking the Crucible to the Citadel. He appearently is hoping to convince Shepard to choose Synthesis, or at the very least Control, and doesn't expect Shepard to consider Destroy when "So much more is possible."

[silverexile17s]

TK EL wrote...

For someone who played all three games, it is easy to tell that they went off on a ridiculous tangent in the hopes of having an 'edgy' finale. Take the Quarian-Geth situation. It's been a consistent part of the narrative and the lore since the first game.

From the way it concluded, you can tell that they had the framework of what they were trying to covey all thought out from the beginning, fleshing out the details as each installment came. It's why there was even a peaceful resolution for it at all; because it had been long planned. If you notice, that is one part of the game that flows organically from ME1 to ME3. Each bit of new information either from legion or anyone else makes sense within context and moves that plot line along. How the Quarians were much more the aggressors, why it was strange that the geth were outside the Persius Veil in ME1, how the Geth were actually split into two factions. It all came together well over the course of the trilogy.

Now compare the delivery of that to the end sequence. I'm certain they saw how the Quarian-Geth resolution contradicted the premise they put across at the end but they wanted to eat their cake and have it too; finish off a well thought out, planned plot line but have their 'deep, thought provoking ending' . They are/were very naive to think fans wouldn't have a problem with it.

That's not a bad take on it. I agree that the quarian/geth conflict flowed better from game to game. And that compaired to it, the ending dilivery was clumsy. The plot for the endings feels half-baked, to me at least.

[SpamBot2000]

AlanC9 wrote...

 Well, I won't bother to quote that nstar post again, since it's been repeated enough. But it does bring to mind why I
didn't have a big problem with the ending.

I've always seen Shep as someone who would face the unpleasant truths and do the things that others can't or won't do. So, the galaxy is trapped in a cycle brought on by an AI following bad premises to an idiotic conclusion? Yep, that sucks.... so, what can be done about it? While arguing with the Catalyst might have been entertaining, there's no reason to think it would be any more persuadable than Sovereign was. ( Would ten minutes of circular dialogue with he Catalyst have made the ending better, or worse?)

Which leaves using the Crucible. Using that is hardly "bowing down" to that broken, worthless AI. What he thinks and wants aren't of any concern.

Which raises the question.... why did I feel this way about the ending, rather than nstar's way. Any guesses?

Denial? That "broken, worthless AI" orders you to die by A, B or C or Game Over. And you do. It's broken and worthless, and it's still the boss of you. You don't seem all that stoopid, so why don't you see it? It's a powerful psychic mechanism.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 03 novembre 2012 - 10:52 .

[Bigdoser]

*pats nstar*

I feel the same way bioware advertised me3 with the slogan TAKE THE EARTH BACK what happened in game was the reapers simply gave earth back to us and the fact that the premise of the ending is stupid and came out of left field.

As nstar said the ending made me feel empty heck our choices did not even matter only the genophage and the war between the quarians and the geth arcs is the only instance where are choices matter between all 3 games.

Funny thing is that the the person who shall not be named who was lead had no control over the arcs no wonder they turned out great. Shame that the ending invalidated everything that happened in those arcs.

Don't get me started on the rachni queen and the collector base.

[nstar]

AlanC9 wrote...

 Well, I won't bother to quote that nstar post again, since it's been repeated enough. But it does bring to mind why I
didn't have a big problem with the ending.

I've always seen Shep as someone who would face the unpleasant truths and do the things that others can't or won't do. So, the galaxy is trapped in a cycle brought on by an AI following bad premises to an idiotic conclusion? Yep, that sucks.... so, what can be done about it? While arguing with the Catalyst might have been entertaining, there's no reason to think it would be any more persuadable than Sovereign was. ( Would ten minutes of circular dialogue with he Catalyst have made the ending better, or worse?)

Which leaves using the Crucible. Using that is hardly "bowing down" to that broken, worthless AI. What he thinks and wants aren't of any concern.

Which raises the question.... why did I feel this way about the ending, rather than nstar's way. Any guesses?

I agree that further dialogue with Starkid would not necessarily make for a better ending but this in itself is a problem with the ending for me. Shepard's sudden acceptance of her "choices" is a departure from the Shepard character, for me at least. I concede that Starkid may well have been no more open to discussion than Sovereign due to the overwhelming level of arrogance displayed by Starkid but Sovereign was still just a tool of the Starkid so why would Shepard not try?

But overall, my strongest issue is that I've played through ME1 & 2 completing missions which many, including my foes, deemed impossible. I defeated Sovereign, I and my entire crew survived the suicide mission - I had been led to believe that my choices mattered, that no matter what there was something I could do.

And then, in the final ten minutes, I've been told that I cannot beat the game. After all this investment in the game, in the characters, everything is suddenly turned on its head due to the introduction of a psychotic, unreasonable, unfeeling character who effectively presents a no-victory scenario. Even destroying the Reapers and Starkid is not a victory because of the massive collateral damage that undoes much of what I had worked to accomplish and because the Starkid really doesn't actually care. 

As I said previously, there are other games that have uncomfortable aspects to their endings but which also provide an opportunity to beat the game, even though those outcomes may not be wholly, only partly, desirable.

One major title, which I won't name (but those who have played it will know which I mean) has a similar setup to my Shepard character and choices made throughout the game affect various aspects of the game world. There is, however, no getting over the fact that your character dies at the end - there is no way to bypass it and nothing you have done can change this outcome but the notable difference is that your character's sacrifice is a noble one. You go down firing, you don't ever give up, you don't ever lie down and take what is given to you and even when the realisation hits that there is no changing your fate, you sacrifice your life to save your loved ones, successfully, and still firing off those last few bullets to take as many of your attackers out with you. When the dust settles, you assume control of one of these loved ones and you can exact your vengeance and the story ends - it isn't ideal, it isn't uplifting, but within the parameters set by the game and the overall theme of the game, it feels right and just.

Another popular game has several endings based on your actions. If you commit sinister acts, you get a downbeat ending, if you commit a mixture of sinister and benevolent acts you still get a downbeat ending but a lesser one and if you have only ever been benevolent then you get the "happy" ending. Your actions matter and I was lead to believe they mattered in ME3 but in reality, they don't.

I'm quite happy to accept that there are some games that no matter what I do the outcome is not going to be wholly to my liking but the opportunity still exists to defeat the game but in ME3 that opportunity does not exist but is only revealed as not existing at the very end. Given the setup and premise of the previous ME titles, it is a complete and awkward swerve for me. I've done the supposed-impossible so many times but at the very end, when it really counts I'm laughed at by some AI brat and told that there's nothing I can do except make a choice, or doom the galaxy. Well, huh...

And perhaps this is also why it leaves a sour note; in the game I mentioned a few paragraphs up, you go out fighting. In ME1 you end the game after a fierce battle with Sovereign, in ME2 you end the game after what I genuinely feel was one of the most epic, most entertaining, most involving sets of missions in any game I have ever played but in ME3 you end it being condescended to by an AI with a god complex. The last "action" sequence was nothing but a renegade interrupt to put down the Illusive Man, the last moment of real control came several minutes earlier. The adrenaline has faded and the excitement has declined and your final act - Shepard's final act - is to listen to the psychotic babblings of a jumped up little squirt and decide which barbaric choice is most suitable. No fighting, no argument... nothing. Your path was decided from the moment you clicked "New Game" and everything else was just a journey (and an exciting journey, I'll give it that) to a moment that might as well have been an encounter with an insane Jar Jar Binks upset that no one bought his merchandise.

Now I have to say that I think that what Starkid wants is very much your concern. Starkid has full control of the situation and doesn't really care about where he factors into it providing he gets one of the outcomes of his various calculations. Although destroy seems to be the option that "defeats" Starkid, the option is presented by Starkid as a form of mutually assured destruction and in a way he's right; my Shepard wouldn't wipe out an entire sentient race if another option were available especially not after the hell she had been through to get that sentient race on side, at peace with it's oldest enemy and working towards the goal of others. To proceed with that would not only be destroying Starkid, Reapers, Geth, EDI and any other synthetics, but even if my Shepard survives, she destroys her self in the process; her sense of worth, her beliefs, and her commitment to go down fighting.

And to highlight this control, if you try and refuse his supposedly fantastic options, he throws his toys out of the pram and continues the cycle. That is the ultimate form of control - either you make an awful, abhorrent decision, or everything you've worked for is gone. Starkid wins, either way.

For me, and I fully appreciate that others disagree and loved the ending (hence so much discussion), the fact that I cannot win and that nothing I can do or have done makes the ending a bitter disappointment and not even a real ending. An ending should evoke some emotion and sense of accomplishment - this did not. I can't even say I'm angry about it. I'm confused more than anything.

I suppose I could say that the ending has left me feeling a little sorrow, but in the wrong way. It is very rare that I will sit down and complete a game in a short space of time. I have games bought a year or more ago that I still haven't quite finished. The ME series was just such a level of awesome that I moved from one game to the next over a space of several weeks because I was hooked. I even thought about how I would go back and play things a little different to get a different outcome - but I can't do that now because no matter what, the outcome will always be the same.

Modifié par nstar, 03 novembre 2012 - 12:55 .

[Bigdoser]

I agree nstar, here is the thing I think it was the lead DAO writer (he has left bioware) he said no matter what when it comes to the ending the players must feel like they actually won the game with mass effect 3 I did not get that.

[LiarasShield]

I sure as hell didn't feel like I won pre extended and still feel like I didn't I had to give up the very things that made shepard heroic by making a decision on what the reapers offered

Modifié par LiarasShield, 03 novembre 2012 - 01:04 .

[nstar]

Bigdoser wrote...

I agree nstar, here is the thing I think it was the lead DAO writer (he has left bioware) he said no matter what when it comes to the ending the players must feel like they actually won the game with mass effect 3 I did not get that.

Thanks. As I mentioned a couple of posts ago, I'm a newcomer to the Mass Effect series so I wasn't aware of much of the development side issues. I had ME1&2 sitting in my Steam library for quite some time before I loaded it up and gave it a go and I got hooked. Through ME1&2 I felt like I was winning more than Charlie Sheen... but there was no win with ME3, just a "huh". 

EDIT: Just a quick thank you to those who have responded. I didn't wish to clog the thread by responding to you all individually, but thank you for your comments and support

Modifié par nstar, 03 novembre 2012 - 01:20 .

[AlanC9]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Denial? That "broken, worthless AI" orders you to die by A, B or C or Game Over. And you do. It's broken and worthless, and it's still the boss of you. You don't seem all that stoopid, so why don't you see it? It's a powerful psychic mechanism.

Orders? He doesn't order anything. Just tells you what the options are. It doesn't have the capability to choose for itself.

If snything's the boss, it's the situation itself.

[nstar]

AlanC9 wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Denial? That "broken, worthless AI" orders you to die by A, B or C or Game Over. And you do. It's broken and worthless, and it's still the boss of you. You don't seem all that stoopid, so why don't you see it? It's a powerful psychic mechanism.

Orders? He doesn't order anything. Just tells you what the options are. It doesn't have the capability to choose for itself.

If snything's the boss, it's the situation itself.

But they are his options based on his calculations that adhere to his primary purpose and the perverted methodology he uses to achieve his primary function. We have no idea what he has factored into his calculations, we have no idea what other "options" he has considered and dismissed and we are not given a single opportunity to have somebody else to look into his claims. We have to make our decision there and then based on extremely biased information given to us by this individual.

These may well not be the only options but they are the only ones he is giving to us. We have no proof that this piece of computer programming is infallible but depending on how we've played to that point we do have evidence that he is not - thus the outcome of his calculations and the options that he has chosen as acceptable could well be a fallacy too. 

He has got the capability to choose for himself to some extent and he has done so by choosing to present these options. Reject his options for whatever reason and he makes the decision to continue the cycle. 

[AlanC9]

nstar wrote...

But overall, my strongest issue is that I've played through ME1 & 2 completing missions which many, including my foes, deemed impossible. I defeated Sovereign, I and my entire crew survived the suicide mission - I had been led to believe that my choices mattered, that no matter what there was something I could do.

Hmm...... for me having everyone survive was a defect in ME2's design. I think it's a much better game if you treat the Reaper IFF mission as forced the moment it comes up, like Horizon. Then you can't do all the LMs without getting the crew juiced.

Even destroying the Reapers and Starkid is not a victory because of the massive collateral damage that undoes much of what I had worked to accomplish and because the Starkid really doesn't actually care.

I get the collateral damage argument. That's why more of my Sheps pick Control. But why should I care that the Starkid doesn't care? For some sort of feeling of rubbing it in an enemy's face? That's..... kind of petty.

I'll have to drop this until I get this gadget recharged. My power's still out.

[Velocithon]

devSin wrote...

nstar wrote...

So there is no nobility in Shepard's sacrifice. Furthermore, it seems that nothing I have done during the series has ultimately mattered all because some AI brat has appointed itself as god of the galaxy. I've already experienced the sense of loss and the difficult decisions - when I chose who to leave on Virmire, when Mordin died, when Thane died etc. and now I'm being asked to sacrifice who I made my character into - her very sense of right and wrong is being sacrificed and in essence her very self and there is nothing that I can do because of an enemy which I cannot fight or even attempt to reason with. As he stands there, spouting his nonsense which I have started to prove a fallacy by not only ending the Quarian/Geth war but helping to get them working together again, I am left with no comeback, no retort, no way of even making him see how ridiculous he is. Perhaps there would be no reasoning with him which given his exceptional arrogance is entirely plausible, but the fact is there was no way for me to even try and this is majorly lacking and a serious departure from the Shepard character I knew.

And because of this there is no "ending" for me. There is nothing leaving me fulfilled by the outcomes of ME3. I just feel empty and after the experiences I had with the ME series that ran the gamut of emotions, to end this way feels hollow and a betrayal of the investment in Shepard.

After feeling like I was progressing throughout the series, for the final ten minutes to tell me there was nothing I could do but bow down to Starkid and make a barbaric decision, I could never be happy.

How did I miss this?

Masterfully put. This seems to mirror my own reaction (unlike you, though, I had to suffer the horror of the original ending as well), and I think expresses at least part of the reason while I will never be able to except this supposed conclusion.

[nstar]

AlanC9 wrote...

Hmm...... for me having everyone survive was a defect in ME2's design. I think it's a much better game if you treat the Reaper IFF mission as forced the moment it comes up, like Horizon. Then you can't do all the LMs without getting the crew juiced.

I don't see it as a defect as it is the result of the choices you make. You make the choices whether to upgrade the ship or not, and by extension, you make the choices on whether to farm the resources you need for those upgrades. There is nothing forcing you to do that and if you're playing through the game without any form of outside assistance such as a guide or a friend then you may not understand the reason for these upgrades as they are not obviously apparent until the suicide mission.

Your choices during the suicide mission require common sense to ensure survival. You can send all sorts of unsuitable characters on their assignments and they'll end up dead. 

And yes, you can choose whether to do the Loyalty Missions or not. At the end of the day, they will only all survive if you put the effort into it. If you don't, they won't. It makes sense to me to reward the effort that you put into the game with a positive outcome - and therein lies part of my problem with the ending. Effort or no effort, you're screwed.

I get the collateral damage argument. That's why more of my Sheps pick Control. But why should I care that the Starkid doesn't care? For some sort of feeling of rubbing it in an enemy's face? That's..... kind of petty.

Actually it's nothing to do with wanting to rub his face in it (you can't rub anything in the face of something that is dead, after all) and everything to do with the fact he's even there. He, as a character, ruins the ending for me because his reasons for doing what he does are ridiculous, arrogant and completely beyond reproach by anything you do in gameplay, thus betraying any notion that I ever stood a chance of beating the game. He beats me because for whatever reason Shepard gives up and accepts their fate without question and then either makes a choice, or Starkid kills everything. The fact that he doesn't care speaks more to me about the nonchalant attitude of those who created him, namely Bioware.

If you're going to change the enemy of 60+ hours worth of gameplay for the final ten minutes of the game, at least have the new enemy making some sort of sense and have some sort of investment in what they're doing. From a narrative perspective, to me it was preposterous. 

I'll have to drop this until I get this gadget recharged. My power's still out.

Here's hoping that your power is restored soon. I'll assume you're in the area affected by the Superstorm, so all the best with getting everything back to normal as soon as possible as well.

Modifié par nstar, 03 novembre 2012 - 03:40 .

[Memnon]

When you think about it, what isn't cliche? Having the protagonist die in a heroic sacrifice to save the city/world/galaxy/family/whatever is as cliche as anything else. When you avoid one cliche, only to fall back on another you've gained nothing. For me personally, there were a lot of reasons the ending failed horribly - first and foremost is the Catalyst. I hated him - despised him, and the way he was introduced and basically shifted the entire focus of the game. On top of that, though, I was insulted at the symbolism - I mean, we're being hit in the face with a lead mallet with the symbolism - grabbing the controls for "Control." Shooting and destroying the tube for "Destroy." Taking a leap of faith for "Synthesis." Symbolism works when it is subtle and you don't notice it - calling it heavy handed would be a severe understatement. The ending was just one huge crockpot of fail ingredients cooked to a hot, steamy mess of fail

[3DandBeyond]

Killer3000ad wrote...

With all the gloominess in the lead up to the Battle for London a "F*CK YEAH!" ending was definitely needed. I still can't fanthom how no one in Bioware looked at the ending they had and said,"This is really bad, if we put this out the fans will be pissed." It was plain as day too so many how bad the ending was and we've made it loud and clear how much we hated it and still hate it post-EC, yet Bioware seems bound and determined to burn their franchise to the ground and bury it under a tonne of 'artistic integrity'.

Very well said.  The fact is it's inconceivable that BW thought the original endings were good enough to be released and that they said so (by actually releasing it) with straight faces and no dissent is really demented.  The EC's most common comments were either about how it was just icing on poop or that people still didn't think ME got the ending it deserved, but it was better and now they're done with it.  This persistence in trying to insist it's somehow decent shows they are either deluded, deficient, or not being honest about how they feel about it.  Lance Henrikson even commented obliquely on the original endings as being precipitous.  You can read between the lines there that if an actor on the project can see part of the problem, the devs clearly should have.

They consistently do the opposite of what a lot of people think would be good or what logically they should know makes more sense and people would like to see.