253 réponses à ce sujet

[KingZayd]

Yate wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

Yate wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

Yate wrote...

IT'S OK TO NOT LIKE ME3'S ENDING

IT'S NOT OK TO PRETEND THAT ME3'S ENDING WAS UNIVERSALLY OBJECTIVELY BAD

Synthesis is objectively bad. I had never thought you could have so much nonsense in so little time.

do you really want to go there?

do you really want to turn this into a moral/philosophical debate?

No need. Just basic science and thinking of all the changes synthesis must do to every single living (organic and freaking machines) to work. Space magic falls very short of it.

any sufficently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic

after all you've seen in the games, everything Reaper tech is capable of, you're going to draw your suspension of disbelief at synthesis?

ok...

And this was something that neither the Reapers, nor their creators nor their controller could do. But a bunch of relatively primitive species who were easily wiped out were able to surpass them. And what was this stroke of genius? Adding a giant battery apparently.

Also, the synthesis function is so amazingly precise, but the destroy function on the same miraculous device is incapable of distinguishing between Geth and the Reapers.

Modifié par KingZayd, 05 novembre 2012 - 11:37 .

[Yate]

but you accept humans turning into husks in a matter of minutes

ok

[The Night Mammoth]

Yate wrote...
any sufficently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic

Why do people always take this quote and use it like it's some immutable and universal fact of fiction?

Clarke did not write Mass Effect. His rules matter not.  

after all you've seen in the games, everything Reaper tech is capable of, you're going to draw your suspension of disbelief at synthesis?

ok...

What, somehow altering the base DNA of every living thing in the galaxy so they all have some magic understanding of each other? Making everyone immortal? All possible because some human jumps into a beam of light without being told to?

[xAmilli0n]

The ending of ME2 was fun. Did the system for who lived and died make sense, for the most part no. Did the plot of ME2 as a whole make sense. Nope. But the ending was epic, and fun, and I doubt many players will forget it.

[Yate]

they COULD do it

they didn't WANT to do it

[Kabooooom]

troll another thread

Why are you getting so worked up over this? And calling him a dumb**** was a bit unnecessary, don't you think?

[The Night Mammoth]

Yate wrote...


actually they were

sure he was indoctrinated

but he pretty much just told you everything about synthesis

Not from what I heard. He talks about the combining organic and synthetic, purely physically, as opposed to what Synthesis does, which is the granting of a unique understanding of the other form of life, without changing either.

[KingZayd]

Yate wrote...

they COULD do it

they didn't WANT to do it

they couldn't, according to the Starchild. They tried and failed.

[Argolas]

ME2's ending was not brilliant, but it is definatly better than ME3 ending. I could make quite a long list of reasons why, but I don't feel like it right now, so here's a brief list:

-decisions that matter: Timing in quests (is the crew alive?), Normandy upgrades (ME3: EMS and that's it. Decisions can be replaced by multiplayer)
-character-focused: Loyalty missions pay off, whoever is loyal is more likely to live. Then you have to give your team tasks, and in the final decision, everyone has something to say about it (ME3 the characters are not even in the ending).You basically decide who lives or dies.
-main antagonist: Harbinger is present. I loved when Shepard ran at the end and Harbinger keeps talking in his/her head. I have been waiting for a final showdown with Harby ever since.

Modifié par Argolas, 05 novembre 2012 - 11:41 .

[Nerevar-as]

Yate wrote...

but you accept humans turning into husks in a matter of minutes

ok

Hours.

Still quite different from changing your metabolism and all that comes with it in an instant.

And sufficiently advanced technology my ***. (Harry Dresden)

At least I´m understanding why some people defend Prometheus.

[Davik Kang]

The Night Mammoth wrote...
No seriously, I'm interested in who this David Kang is. 

Dammit.  That's not hate.  Tastes... watered down... grey...

A simple Google search will reveal the true identity of Mr. Kang...

He comes from a parallel universe constructed by many of the same guys who made ME...

It was due to that spectacular triumph that I played the ME games... and was blown away to discover that the ME3 ending made me look back on the ME trilogy with as much love as I had for that awesome game of 2003...

Sadly the result was quite different for most gamers on this forum, hence why I try (in vain) to be the voice of support for this much-maligned ending...

[Aaleel]

Both endings paled in comparison to ME1 IMHO.

ME2 - the whole baby human reaper thing left a bad taste in my mouth, and if you made the right choices in the ending it really wasn't any different from any other mission. I didn't even know people could die until someone told me they had a death of a squadmate. I still didn't consider it a bad ending until ME3 came out and I was wondering what was the point of it in the grand scheme of things.

ME3- Well lol. Thought Priority Earth was terrible for it to be the last mission you'd ever take part in for the series, and it went to total crap after I got onto the Citadel and totally off the tracks when the Catalyst appeared.

But the main difference between the two endings. I started up another game of ME2, and didn't feel the ending was pointless until I played ME3. ME3 it took me a LONG time to motivate myself to play through the game again.

[TNT1991]

I disagree with OP's opinion.  

So, I'll substitute it with my own...*ahem*

ME1's ending is better than ME2's ending...but, both of their endings are way better than ME3's ending. ME3's ending is just "meh" compared to the first two endings. 

[spirosz]

Have fun getting torn apart, rofl.

[jstme]

Mcfly616 wrote...

jstme wrote...

Yate wrote...

IT'S OK TO NOT LIKE ME3'S ENDING

IT'S NOT OK TO PRETEND THAT ME3'S ENDING WAS UNIVERSALLY OBJECTIVELY BAD

Well, it was bad.
Universally and objectively.
The proof is that they had to make an extended cut.

Agreed on the Original Endings. They were atrocious.

But the Extended Cut does not apply to your statement

Extended cut was better then the original. Bitter parts were covered with industrial amounts of syrup ,effort was made to stitch the numerous plot holes , wtf moments were (sort of) explained and there was that cool memorial scene and those ok-ish slides. Even new easter egg ending was added.
But the main theme remained. Syrup with bitter stuff still tastes bad. Shepard is still out of character. Catalyst still runs the show. New ending serves to show that it is Bioware story,nothing more.All choices have horrible consequences. Playing past Anderson scene is something that needs to be forced  instead of looking forward to it.
So to me it is still bad. Not as bad as original - well it is not that hard,frankly.  

[KingZayd]

jstme wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

jstme wrote...

Yate wrote...

IT'S OK TO NOT LIKE ME3'S ENDING

IT'S NOT OK TO PRETEND THAT ME3'S ENDING WAS UNIVERSALLY OBJECTIVELY BAD

Well, it was bad.
Universally and objectively.
The proof is that they had to make an extended cut.

Agreed on the Original Endings. They were atrocious.

But the Extended Cut does not apply to your statement

Extended cut was better then the original. Bitter parts were covered with industrial amounts of syrup ,effort was made to stitch the numerous plot holes , wtf moments were (sort of) explained and there was that cool memorial scene and those ok-ish slides. Even new easter egg ending was added.
But the main theme remained. Syrup with bitter stuff still tastes bad. Shepard is still out of character. Catalyst still runs the show. New ending serves to show that it is Bioware story,nothing more.All choices have horrible consequences. Playing past Anderson scene is something that needs to be forced  instead of looking forward to it.
So to me it is still bad. Not as bad as original - well it is not that hard,frankly.  

Agreed on the original endings. They WERE atrocious. But the Extended cut actually made things worse: While attempting to explain some of the nonsense, they added more contradictions

[The Night Mammoth]

"When fire burns, is it at war?"

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

That line never fails to get me going. ME3's ending is worse by this alone. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 05 novembre 2012 - 11:51 .

[KingZayd]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

"When fire burns, is it at war?"

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

That line never fails to get me going. ME3's ending is worse by this alone. 

one of far too many examples :/

[OdanUrr]

Yate wrote...

ME2:

- unexpected twist ending that shatters our concept of the plot
- final decision has few consequences
- two possible endings, one of which is actually a game over
- ends with a blatant sequel hook
- contains a boring boss fight
- no implications of the ending are explained or shown
- no memorable dialogue
- a lot of fans didn't like it

1) What exactly are you referring to?
2) You only know that in light of ME3.
3) Yes, that was rather pointless, wasn't it?
4) Well, it is the second part of the trilogy.
5) I wouldn't call it boring, but I'm not entirely sure if it was necessary.
6) What implications exactly?
7) Depends, where does the ending begin?
8) So?

Yate wrote...

ME3:

- unexpected twist ending that shatters our concept of the plot
- final decision has major consequences
- four possible endings, one of which is actually a game over
- gives a sense of closure
- no boss fight
- various implications of the ending are shown
- some of the best dialogue and voice acting in the game
- a lot of fans don't like it

1) You got that right.
2) By your own logic, that would depend on whether ME4 is a sequel and whether that sequel chooses one ending as canon. In that case, the ending has no meaning.
3) To me, it's not the number that's important but the quality of the endings.
4) More or less.
5) Okay, meaning?
6) With the EC, yes. In so doing, it kinda ruined the Control ending I had in mind for my Shepard.
7) Entirely subjective but I did love that final conversation between Anderson and Shepard... the uncut version.
8) Again, so?

How does any of this make one ending better than the other? In what sense?

[Dr_Extrem]

Mcfly616 wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

Grubas wrote...

ME2 Coherent story, best endgame ever, perfectly reflects on yuor qualities as squadleader
ME3 nonsense plotwist, generic endgame minus bossfight, your squadmates desert you no matter what.

Its all a matter of context.

ME2 a coherent story? Sure....maybe. Best Endgame ever???! Baaaaahahahahaha. Don't get me wrong, I like assigning my squad to complete certain tasks throughout the Suicide Mission, but if anything its endgame was corny and generic as hell.

Actually ME3's plotwist makes sense. And the way it ends, is anything but generic.


You're right about one thing though: It's all a matter of context.

Maybe I´m too cynic, but screwing up a story with a shocking swerve in the last moment  trying to make it memorable (and succeeding in the bad way) it´s actually quite generic.

Generic: general - common - universal.

Hmm I'd say endings like ME2's are a lot more "common". And "generally" used in nearly every action game. Compared to ME3's ending, which is rather different than your everyday videogame ending. i.e. its not generic

you are right - the me3 endings are more "hardcore scifi"

but .. mass effect is not hard core sci fi .. it is a space opera ... as a metter of fact .. a high fantasy story in space.

all games had generic mainplots:

me1 - "rise of a hero" (classic greek dope)
me2 - "dirty dozen" (redone a thousand times during the 50s, 60s and 70s)
me3 - "superweapon" (ok .. normally, we have to destroy them)

some missions were pretty generic as well.


presenting an ending, that is different from most of the game, it was very confusing. a generic ending would might not have been the most creative idea, but i am certain, that it would not have caused the s**tstorm the current endings provoked.


the ending of mass effect 2 was satisfiing and ralativly hard - compared to priority earth, you really had to work to win and the fights were more challenging (i played the whole series on hardcore). timed events gave the mission an edge.

priority earth was not challenging - it was boring. no boss fight, no special events, no timed plot - just a dull build up of emotions, to cover up the bad level design. not to mention the endings we get after the autodialogue from shepard who lost his/her quad after the laser beam.


the mass effect 2 ending wins any day of the over the week excuse the me3 ending is.

[M Hedonist]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

"When fire burns, is it at war?"

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

That line never fails to get me going. ME3's ending is worse by this alone.

Now imagine Nicholas Cage speaking that line.
Watch this for reference.

[Jvolikas]

ME2 ending left me feeling epic about the series and already excited for 3.

ME3 ending left me feeling like I got punched in the stomach 100 times as I watched my choices turn into nothing from a StarBrat.

[The Night Mammoth]

Sauruz wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

"When fire burns, is it at war?"

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

That line never fails to get me going. ME3's ending is worse by this alone.

Now imagine Nicholas Cage speaking that line.
Watch this for reference.

Meh... meh brayne. 

Why it on floor? 

[jstme]

KingZayd wrote...

jstme wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

jstme wrote...

Yate wrote...

IT'S OK TO NOT LIKE ME3'S ENDING

IT'S NOT OK TO PRETEND THAT ME3'S ENDING WAS UNIVERSALLY OBJECTIVELY BAD

Well, it was bad.
Universally and objectively.
The proof is that they had to make an extended cut.

Agreed on the Original Endings. They were atrocious.

But the Extended Cut does not apply to your statement

Extended cut was better then the original. Bitter parts were covered with industrial amounts of syrup ,effort was made to stitch the numerous plot holes , wtf moments were (sort of) explained and there was that cool memorial scene and those ok-ish slides. Even new easter egg ending was added.
But the main theme remained. Syrup with bitter stuff still tastes bad. Shepard is still out of character. Catalyst still runs the show. New ending serves to show that it is Bioware story,nothing more.All choices have horrible consequences. Playing past Anderson scene is something that needs to be forced  instead of looking forward to it.
So to me it is still bad. Not as bad as original - well it is not that hard,frankly.  

Agreed on the original endings. They WERE atrocious. But the Extended cut actually made things worse: While attempting to explain some of the nonsense, they added more contradictions

Well ,EC did not made things worse for me. See, i understood that all those red blips in destroy end are relays blowing like in arrival. I actually though that i just blew all galactical centers with that choice. Whether it was what grimdark writer intended or not, it was changed in EC and for this i am really thankfull.
In comparison EC Normandy thing (only contradiction it added i am aware of) just made me laugh. I imagined  poor EC writers trying to find excuse for original enidng teleporting squad for hours without any success and in the end simply giving up.

Modifié par jstme, 06 novembre 2012 - 12:12 .