211 réponses à ce sujet

[Olympiclash]

I'm tired and feel like I'm just going in circles. I tap. White flag. Take it however you want but this isn't worth another panic attack. It's my opinion. I just wanted to voice my support. I respect yours, please respect mine. Too much negativity for me.

[Iakus]

Olympiclash wrote...

I'm tired and feel like I'm just going in circles. I tap. White flag. Take it however you want but this isn't worth another panic attack. It's my opinion. I just wanted to voice my support. I respect yours, please respect mine. Too much negativity for me.

Sorry you feel that way.  But please try to understand, there's so much negativity here because the endings are so negative for us.  

[thefallen2far]

AlanC9 wrote...

So "pleasing everyone" is just a euphemism that actually means "pleasing the majority"? OK.

Pleasing everyone is a generalization of concept.  Otherwise, you could never use the word with 7 billion people on the planet.  So, you use comparative ratios.

In this context, it's like saying "he's got a great personality" fooling yourself excuse.

[Maniccc]

Olympiclash wrote...

You don't need to explain anything.

I asked a question and then answered it with my opinion. You are stating it as if it being "bad" is fact.

It's not. It's subjective.

Actually, you are wrong.  The ending is objectively bad.  It is a fact.  There are many explanations of this all over the internet.  The ME trilogy, taken as a whole, would get an "F" in every Creative Writing class offered in any college, anywhere.  The endings are atrocious.  That is fact.  Just because you do not understand writing, does not mean these are not facts.  There are objective reasons why they are bad.  Your choice to ignore them, or to not understand them, does not make them dissappear.

This does not mean you can't like it (emotional response).  But your emotional response of "like" does not change the fact that the story has objective problems; that it is, in fact, bad.

I'm not trying to be negative or mean, but you are confusing your emotional and subjective reaction of "like" with a critical, objective analysis of the story.  Subjecting the trilogy as a whole, or just the endings in particular, to such a rigorous analysis clearly indicates the factually poor quality of the story.  If you want to understand why this is, then go learn how to write books.  Pretty much every error that can be made in writing a story is made in this trilogy.

OP is not a "defense" but merely a declaration of "I like" the endings.  That's fine, but don't confuse it for a defense.  I can appreciate your desire to inject a more positive note in the forums by expressing your enjoyment and liking of the endings and the rest of BW's work on ME, but there's nothing you can accomplish beyond making your post.  It's impossible to argue with "I like" (which is an emotional reaction), so beyond your OP, there's really nothing for you to say.

[AlanC9]

thefallen2far wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

So "pleasing everyone" is just a euphemism that actually means "pleasing the majority"? OK.

Pleasing everyone is a generalization of concept.  Otherwise, you could never use the word with 7 billion people on the planet.  So, you use comparative ratios.

In this context, it's like saying "he's got a great personality" fooling yourself excuse.

Heh. OK, but note that a goal of pleasing everyone isn't incoherent unless the universe of players has irreconcilable differences. But that's probably how our tastes stack up anyway.

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...
Bioware could have made the Crucible do anything.  I mean literally anything.  It'a s ginormous chunk of space magic.  Drop the Reapers' shields. Screw up their IFFs  . Reformat their hard drives.  Turn them into pinatas full of candy.  Anything.

So what do they do?  Three things that back up the Catalyst'sd statements:

The created always turn against the creators.  So kill them first.

Conflict is inevitable.  So you need godlike Space-cthulhus to make sure everyone plays nice.

Organics and synthetics can never coexist because they are too different.  So we need to forcibly alter every living think in the galaxy against their will so they'll all get along.

Not one option actually says "Let the galaxy build their own future"

Hmm. I still don't see how that works. One doesn't have to pick Control because "conflict is inevitable;" it's much more common to pick it because it's the least destructive option. People don't pick Destroy because of any nonsense about the created always rebelling, either, and the fact that someone picks Destroy doesn't have any effect of the truth of that proposition. 

I'm not even certain what it would mean for an option to " say" something. I wonder if there's a basic epistemological (?) difference here.

Modifié par AlanC9, 29 décembre 2012 - 06:27 .

[Jeffonl1]

But the problem remains: the Catalyst to restore 'order' always embarks on genocide - committing genocide to prevent genocide. Its this part that I cannot get past. And you can only pick one of the endings the Catalyst provides: I would have hoped Shepard would not have been so passive in the finale.
But was it an ending? Yes. Not one that pleases very many I know. Do I hate it? No. Would I like to see something more coherent? Yes.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...
Bioware could have made the Crucible do anything.  I mean literally anything.  It'a s ginormous chunk of space magic.  Drop the Reapers' shields. Screw up their IFFs  . Reformat their hard drives.  Turn them into pinatas full of candy.  Anything.

So what do they do?  Three things that back up the Catalyst'sd statements:

The created always turn against the creators.  So kill them first.

Conflict is inevitable.  So you need godlike Space-cthulhus to make sure everyone plays nice.

Organics and synthetics can never coexist because they are too different.  So we need to forcibly alter every living think in the galaxy against their will so they'll all get along.

Not one option actually says "Let the galaxy build their own future"

Hmm. I still don't see how that works. One doesn't have to pick Control because "conflict is inevitable;" it's much more common to pick it because it's the least destructive option. People don't pick Destroy because of any nonsense about the created always rebelling, either, and the fact that someone picks Destroy doesn't have any effect of the truth of that proposition. 

I'm not even certain what it would mean for an option to " say" something. I wonder if there's a basic epistemological (?) difference here.

Whatever the reasons individuals choose for their color ending,  the outcomes all reflect the Catalyst's "problem":

Player X might choose Control because it's the 'least destructive" but it's placed in teh game because "conflict is inevitable"  

Player Y may choose destroy because "Shepard is Indoctrinated and Destroy is the only way to resist" but Bioware chose to kill all synthetics with that choice, because organics and synthetics can't coexist. 

As for a choice "saying" something: I'm looking for an an option that would allow the galaxy as a whole to stand or fall based on their own strength and ability.  To live or die as they are rather than as the Crucible would make them.  Granted the Crucible in itself would diminish any such victory.  But  There should have been an ending that lets the galaxy find its own path, with no technological shortcuts.

I mean, over and over Mass Effect told us "shortcuts bad"  remember what Sovereign said :" Your civilization is based on the technology of the mass relays. Our technology. By using it, your civilization develops along the paths we desire." Yet here we are again using ancient technology dropped into our laps by persons unknown.  We don't understand it.  We don't even know how to use it.  But apparantly "we can't win conventionally" so shortcut it is.  

And we can't even use it to restore the status quo,  No, we're simply trading one impossed destiny for another.

[Massa FX]

If you are happy you should be able to say so without being attacked or trolled. I love ME as a whole. I don't like the ending of the third game. Actually... I loathe the ending of the third game. Everything else gives me pure joy.

[Jeffonl1]

Massa FX wrote...

If you are happy you should be able to say so without being attacked or trolled. I love ME as a whole. I don't like the ending of the third game. Actually... I loathe the ending of the third game. Everything else gives me pure joy.

This.

[drayfish]

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...
Bioware could have made the Crucible do anything.  I mean literally anything.  It'a s ginormous chunk of space magic.  Drop the Reapers' shields. Screw up their IFFs  . Reformat their hard drives.  Turn them into pinatas full of candy.  Anything.

So what do they do?  Three things that back up the Catalyst'sd statements:

The created always turn against the creators.  So kill them first.

Conflict is inevitable.  So you need godlike Space-cthulhus to make sure everyone plays nice.

Organics and synthetics can never coexist because they are too different.  So we need to forcibly alter every living think in the galaxy against their will so they'll all get along.

Not one option actually says "Let the galaxy build their own future"

Hmm. I still don't see how that works. One doesn't have to pick Control because "conflict is inevitable;" it's much more common to pick it because it's the least destructive option. People don't pick Destroy because of any nonsense about the created always rebelling, either, and the fact that someone picks Destroy doesn't have any effect of the truth of that proposition. 

I'm not even certain what it would mean for an option to " say" something. I wonder if there's a basic epistemological (?) difference here.

'People will never stop fighting one another unless they are all genetically the same...'

Shepard agrees to mutate everyone to be genetically the same, thus ending war.


'The only way to stop conflict is for someone (like us Reapers) to impose order on the galaxy...'

Shepard decides to ascend to the status of a god and impose order upon the galaxy.


'We must stop all of thie horrible genocide by being the ones to inflict appropriate genocides.'

Shepard agrees to inflict an appropriate genocide in order to bring about peace.


Yep.  Shep sure showed them intollerant space bugs a thing or two.  Why bother having ideals when you can just do what your enemy thinks is cool and call it winning?

Modifié par drayfish, 29 décembre 2012 - 07:34 .

[chasemme]

Memmahkth wrote...

The only thing I dislike about the endings, is the trade off for them. I like destroy, I think it's the best, but I dislike having to wipe out the geth, and edi. I think the endings do a good job in making you weigh your decision. So what's my gripe then? Where else in this game does that occur?

In every other situation, from ME1 and 2, you are presented with a decision, and there is paragon, or renegade. Now, in the final decision you can't get everything you want. It's.. inconsistent in that respect (with respect to every other choice in the game, there not being some big trade off) and others will argue it's not consistent at all in terms of lore and plausibility, etc.

The reaction has been ridiculous. When I first beat the game, I was upset and mad. Then I just played more ME3 and talked about it with my friends and.. through discussing and talking about it, I've come to terms with it. The ending does not ruin the whole game, or the whole series. It's still fantastic and I still really love the game. But I dislike the ending. C'est la vie.

More people have to understand that it's just a game, and it's art. If you do not care for the vision of the creators, that's your problem and you can choose to not engage. That's your only recourse, as far as I'm concerned.

Most of this I agree with. This mirrors my own outlook on it in a lot of ways (we differ on why we didn't love the endings, but the specifics are less important.)

OP, I wouldn't get too invested in defending the endings. A lot of people here have a real problem with others being happy with the game. I always just assumed it has to do with needing the hate to make Bioware either see the light or go out of business. Satisfied customers hurt that goal. Though that's all just my perspective on it.

Personally, I'll buy whatever DLC Bioware puts out for this game. I'm cautious of future games from them, sure, but they've done too much good for me to go crazy over a couple mistakes.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Lots of people (myself included) have tried to rationalize the endings over the course of months (even invited Bioware themselves to clarify things)...

It cannot be done. The endings simply don't make sense and there is no defense for them... at all.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 29 décembre 2012 - 10:40 .

[TheProtheans]

Jonata wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

mass effect is a simple story of survival against all odds

I hate to sound like an elitist fo some sort, but considering the Mass Effect trilogy a "simple story of survival" is probably one of the main problem we got here and probably one of the main problems with gamers these days: they simply "did not get it" and started to rage against something they were not understanding.

It's like poeple complaining about torture in the recent Zero Dark Thirty without grasping the fact that the movie was not about torture at all and was telling a different story. We're talking a bout a Sci-Fi franchise who tried to tell dozens of different, very deep messages during Shepard's journey, from the need to overcome racial differencies to the classical questions about synthetics beings that are part of the main staples of Science Fiction.

Saying that, instead, the game is a basic videogamey "The hero fight against thousands of enemies and wins because he VERY MUCH CARE" device shows that some people are still very shortsighted when it comes to plot and story in videogames. I don't blame you nor other gamers, since 90% of the game industry is actually capable of doing that and only that (with few exceptions, like David Cage), but I simply think that all this whining becomes futile and it actively damages the name of a company who did the impossible and managed to create a succesfull, "blockbuster" franchise with a deep and compelling story inside it. 

I won't explain the Mass Effect endings so that people will start bashing my take on them, since this would be pointless and almost previdible, but I can assure to everyone that judging The Catalyst as a Deus Ex Machina is like considering a statue a piece of stone. Sure, The Catalyst has the basic characteristic of a narrative DEM, but through this all-solving entity a much greater point is stated, and bashing the feet of a statue because you are unable to see its beaufiully-crafted face is not something that should be so common as it is now amongst "gamers". 

^Ignores 100's of plot holes while making that post.
I like my stories being coherent and sticking to the the narrative.

[MacroSpamMK]

They could never please everyone.
Hell, to please even 50% of the fanbase/players would've been an achievement.

I've always noticed fans who have followed the whole journey are always the most difficult ones to please and some of them are completely unreasonable. I have plenty of mates who picked up ME3 in the stores having not played ME1 or 2 and enjoyed it, and didn't massively criticise the ending.

As someone who started the ME trilogy after ME3's release, I can say I played through the entirety of ME3 not thinking negatively about the ending despite the fact I'd heard it was terrible. I played after the EC so I can't speak for players who got it on release, but I honestly didn't mind the ending. It could've been better, but what you have done short of scrapping the entire ME3 plot?

[Nicodemus]

MacroSpamMK wrote...

They could never please everyone.
Hell, to please even 50% of the fanbase/players would've been an achievement.

I've always noticed fans who have followed the whole journey are always the most difficult ones to please and some of them are completely unreasonable. I have plenty of mates who picked up ME3 in the stores having not played ME1 or 2 and enjoyed it, and didn't massively criticise the ending.

As someone who started the ME trilogy after ME3's release, I can say I played through the entirety of ME3 not thinking negatively about the ending despite the fact I'd heard it was terrible. I played after the EC so I can't speak for players who got it on release, but I honestly didn't mind the ending. It could've been better, but what you have done short of scrapping the entire ME3 plot?

And that is the exact reason why a lot of invested fans feel so badly let down by the endings. Deus Ex endings were perfect for Deus Ex as it was a stand alone game. If all you have done is play ME3 then you'll have no real investment into the the background of the story and thus won't really care about the ending as it is a stand alone game for you. 

For a lot of fans they have been waiting patiently for the culmination of the story started back in 2007, so when it came to the endings they found it confusing and lackluster, and questioned why they have spent so long investing in an IP that gave them no pay off. The endings do not work for the body of work they cover, all 3 games, unless the only game you have played is the last one and then it does semi work from a stand alone game view point a la Deus Ex.

[SpamBot2000]

Jonata wrote...

It's like poeple complaining about torture in the recent Zero Dark Thirty without grasping the fact that the movie was not about torture at all and was telling a different story. 

It looks like you're the one with a difficulty of grasping the argument. The argument against Zero Dark Thirty is not that it is 'about torture'. It is that the movie portrays torture as simply the necessary first step to locating the target, when in fact several sources with access to classified information dispute this argument for the efficacy of torture as an interrogation method, claiming instead that not only did torture fail to provide 'actionable intelligence', but also in fact provided false leads that wasted resources. The fact that this is not the main focus of the movie only serves to make the premise unexamined and the argument insidious. And certainly whether a society should employ torture or not is a far more crucial question than the merits of a single motion picture.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 29 décembre 2012 - 12:51 .

[chasemme]

Fandango9641 wrote...

That’s what you take out of this thread? So the OP gets called out, fails to answer the most basic of questions before dipping out of his own thread with a whimper and that’s your contribution?

EDIT:

Exactly where does one go for a coherent defence of our endings?

I didn't defend anything. I don't HATE the endings. OP Seems to think similarly. What I've taken out of this thread is that no one is entitled to their opinion unless it's well-documented and approved by a committee of BSN judges. Either that or they just accept the same depressing stance you guys have been bickering about for the better part of a year. Pretty sure that's why OP dipped.

So yeah, keep bein' angry about it, and make sure everyone else is too. Sounds like a blast.

[drayfish]

chasemme wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

That’s what you take out of this thread? So the OP gets called out, fails to answer the most basic of questions before dipping out of his own thread with a whimper and that’s your contribution?

EDIT:

Exactly where does one go for a coherent defence of our endings?

I didn't defend anything. I don't HATE the endings. OP Seems to think similarly. What I've taken out of this thread is that no one is entitled to their opinion unless it's well-documented and approved by a committee of BSN judges. Either that or they just accept the same depressing stance you guys have been bickering about for the better part of a year. Pretty sure that's why OP dipped.

So yeah, keep bein' angry about it, and make sure everyone else is too. Sounds like a blast.

Actually, it would be nice if people could just respect that others have opinions - both negative and positive - about a piece of entertainment that they engaged with personally, without being belittled or dismissed by others for not sharing that view.

As I said in my first post on this thread: people have every right to enjoy the game (I envy them); people have every right to hate it; no one has the right to belittle others or contemptuously deride another's perspective because it is 'entitled complaining', or 'ignorant', or 'blind Bioware fandom'.  And if they arrogantly dismiss others for not seeing the beauty/horror that they saw, it is on them to explain (respectfully) why everyone else has 'failed' to observe what they have.

But sure, we could all just keep firing self-satisfied condescension into the forums, and make sure everyone else does too.  Sounds productive.

[FreshRevenge]

In my honest opinion, I don't think there is any defense for the endings. BioWare took a epic game and smashed it to peices the last 10 minutes. Bioware did a horrible thing. Fans know it and they know it. Do you know how many times I tried to reconcile the ending and knew that my Shepard would of have found some other way to defeat the reapers than just to listen to some starbrat's logic. Yet Bioware did not give me that option. No instead they throw some extra scenes and a picture montage and thinks that should be it?

I know I cannot agree with either of the endings. They are a slap to the franchise and big F You to us. How could 95% of the game be awesome and 5% be utterly dissappointing. This is not how I wanted to remember the Mass Effect franchise.

All those choices we made and for what? It doesn't seem like any of the choices were right. That I had to listen to some StarBrat logic and just accept it?

Before Bioware starts working on Mass Effect 4 they need to fix and make the ending of ME3. Most of the reactions from the ending of ME3 has been nothing more than negative reaction. Is this what Bioware wanted?

When a gamer thinks themselves do I really want to do another playthrough of Mass Effect, when they know how the whole trilogy ends

I feel if the ending wasn't the three choices that we initially got from Bioware, they would of had more gaming awards during VGA this year.

The ending of Mass Effect 3 is horrible and will remain horrible until Bioware fixes it!

[Bercon]

The ending turned ME3 into the worst game for me I've ever played in my life. I don't think there is any defense to that. Mass Effect series is dead to me.

[Zekka]

How could Bioware actually change the ending without rewriting mass effect 3. The other part of mass effect 3 wasn't perfect like some try to call it and it still has problems even after the extended cut. For them to rewrite the ending they probably have to change the crucible because it was something introduced to mass effect 3 that no one knew of in the other two games. They would also have to make the final choice in mass effect 2 have some meaning. They would have to tone down Cerberus and have the reapers as the main antagonist and REMOVE THE CATALYST.

[FreshRevenge]

Okay this is how they could of change the ending. Just like the IFF in Mass Effect 2. They could of figure out that the crucible would be used to target Reapers only. So when Shepard got to Citadel or on when Shepard starts talking to the Starbrat, Shepard could use the crucible to only target Reapers when Shepard decides to choose destroy. Also after studying a dead reaper that Shepard destroy they realize that they have this code among all of them and we can use that to destroy the reapers only! So they installed this IFF into the Catalyst and then when Shepard chose destroy it is activated and sends the signal to all remaining reapers and then they die!