@OP:
The original endings were horrible because they were basically "Destroy the universe in RGB" (no, I don't mean destroy as in everything goes supernova, but destroy the ME universe as a cohesive fictional setting). The implication of that crash on an uninhabited garden world as all civilization around was fragmented was depressing. and all three options felt basically the same.
The EC repaired a lot of the damage but couldn't repair the glaring narrative inconsistencies and didn't repair some of the nonsensical elements like Shepard's sacrifice in Synthesis. I like the outcome and that's why I'm ok with things as they are now, but parts of the Catalyst dialogue still insult my intelligence, and I won't forget that any time soon.
Can someone please explain to me what was so horrible about the ME3 ending?
Débuté par
aM1ty
, janv. 03 2013 08:36
Retour en haut
#77
Posté 03 janvier 2013 - 11:49
BleedingUranium
-
- Members
- 6 118 messages
It's odd that with IT there are no narrative inconsistencies, no bad writing, (in fact, quite the opposite) and no anything that people love to hate about the "ending", and yet, people dismiss it anyway.
#79
Posté 03 janvier 2013 - 12:04
wright1978
-
- Members
- 8 116 messages
With the EC the ending is still a piece of horrendous drivel in story terms but has slightly less of an utterly railroaded feeling, which makes it slightly more bearable.
#80
Posté 03 janvier 2013 - 12:11
IMNOTCRAZYiminsane
-
- Members
- 450 messages
It was so horrible because the fans knew more about the game than the writers
the plotholes
the fixing the plotholes with plotholes
The "hey im going to kill you because he's going to kill you so im saving you from him killing you by killing you" logic (read that over and tell me if you like that)
The ABC endings before (its ABCD now such a BIG change)
The reapers didn't need a reason they could have been something we couldn't comprehend they were "beyond our comprehension" (mm!)
I wanted 16 different endings they said we was going to get not 3 endings with slight difference and 1 that makes me the bad guy (wth!)
the plotholes
the fixing the plotholes with plotholes
The "hey im going to kill you because he's going to kill you so im saving you from him killing you by killing you" logic (read that over and tell me if you like that)
The ABC endings before (its ABCD now such a BIG change)
The reapers didn't need a reason they could have been something we couldn't comprehend they were "beyond our comprehension" (mm!)
I wanted 16 different endings they said we was going to get not 3 endings with slight difference and 1 that makes me the bad guy (wth!)
#81
Posté 03 janvier 2013 - 12:28
ShaggyWolf
-
- Members
- 829 messages
To me, it's not even the ending that is the problem. The ending is just the tip of the iceberg really. I dislike the entire catalyst+crucible story arc that the ending is built upon. Simply put, I feel like everything could've been better. The reapers could've been much more sinister, instead of basically being tools being used by a machine. The crucible could've been a weapon with a predictable purpose, built using data from the collector base in ME2, instead of being made from prothean data which had been stupidly collecting dust for years. The Illusive man and Admiral Hackett could've been much more complicated characters, providing Shepard a choice as to who's goals he or she wants to further. Shepard's controversial past could've been a much more prevalent theme, creating further complication in the main story arc: uniting the galaxy. Batarians could've been present to hound Shepard along the way, instead of being immediately wiped out in the story. ME2 squadmates could've played much more important roles, instead of being sidelined.
Basically, I feel like many aspects of ME3's story weren't as good as they could be. After the first 2 Mass Effect games, I expected something much more impressive to conclude the story. Don't get me wrong, there were parts of the game, like the Tuchanka+Genophage story, which surpassed my expectations, but for the most part, I felt ME3 was substandard, and as a result, the ending suffered for it, imo.
Basically, I feel like many aspects of ME3's story weren't as good as they could be. After the first 2 Mass Effect games, I expected something much more impressive to conclude the story. Don't get me wrong, there were parts of the game, like the Tuchanka+Genophage story, which surpassed my expectations, but for the most part, I felt ME3 was substandard, and as a result, the ending suffered for it, imo.
#82
Posté 03 janvier 2013 - 12:47
Evo_9
-
- Members
- 1 233 messages
IMNOTCRAZYiminsane wrote...
The "hey im going to kill you because he's going to kill you so im saving you from him killing you by killing you" logic (read that over and tell me if you like that)
It sounds stupid when its summarised in a manner that is completely different to what happened in the actual game.
FWIW the catalyst never mentioned anything about saving "you" or anyone specific which is how you are making it sound.
The catalyst intends to preserve organic life from being completely destroyed, by killing off a advanced civilisations. that is all.
#83
Posté 03 janvier 2013 - 12:49
crimzontearz
-
- Members
- 16 789 messages
because I am flat out told that in the one ending in which my Shepard is supposed to live I have to "imgine it"
fine BiowEAre...you can imagine my 60$ for your next game and also speculate as per why I am getting it used
fine BiowEAre...you can imagine my 60$ for your next game and also speculate as per why I am getting it used
#84
Posté 03 janvier 2013 - 12:56
moater boat
-
- Members
- 1 213 messages
I will try to make this brief
The crucible is just plain dumb and contrived, a fact Bioware is trying to retcon using new Leviathan lore.
The strategy employed in the final battle is, well, not even a strategy.
Every decision you agonized over up to that point turns out to be practically worthless.
The ground assault is boring combat-wise, but even more importantly it features absolutely no tough decisions. Remember how cool it was in ME2 to assign roles to your team members? Or in ME1 where you had to decide how long you could risk talking to vigil or whether or not to save the Destiny Ascension? That's how a roll playing game works. ME3 abandoned roll playing completely by the end. It was just another boring shooter.
The priority earth mission didn't feel like Shepard leading a multi-species army numbering in the hundreds of thousands in a last ditch effort to save the galaxy. It felt like Shepard shooting his way through another baddie infested level.
The entire attempt to take down the destroyer was just dumb. "Oh noes! another miss, more hacking EDI!"
Joker didn't get his shining moment of awesomeness. I don't know how you can have the biggest space battle in galactic history, where one of the best pilots in human history is flying the most advanced ship in the alliance arsenal and the does NOTHING COOL! Unless you consider him breaking off space combat, entering earths atmosphere and touching down a few hundred yards from a reaper in the span of less than 5 seconds cool, but I would consider that INCREDIBLY STUPID!!!!!
The beam run sequence is another example of horrible strategy. I mean, it was like pickets charge if the union army had been armed with lasers. Didn't Anderson study the civil war?
Shepard shouldn't have survived an attack like that
The inside of the citadel was just bad level design and annoying
The conversation with TIM is the most overrated piece of dialogue in the series. The only reason it even seems good is because at that point most people were dying to play something that seemed like role playing.
I'm just going to stop here. I don't want to think about it anymore. I may add more later, but for now I am just too frustrated with the horrible writing.
The crucible is just plain dumb and contrived, a fact Bioware is trying to retcon using new Leviathan lore.
The strategy employed in the final battle is, well, not even a strategy.
Every decision you agonized over up to that point turns out to be practically worthless.
The ground assault is boring combat-wise, but even more importantly it features absolutely no tough decisions. Remember how cool it was in ME2 to assign roles to your team members? Or in ME1 where you had to decide how long you could risk talking to vigil or whether or not to save the Destiny Ascension? That's how a roll playing game works. ME3 abandoned roll playing completely by the end. It was just another boring shooter.
The priority earth mission didn't feel like Shepard leading a multi-species army numbering in the hundreds of thousands in a last ditch effort to save the galaxy. It felt like Shepard shooting his way through another baddie infested level.
The entire attempt to take down the destroyer was just dumb. "Oh noes! another miss, more hacking EDI!"
Joker didn't get his shining moment of awesomeness. I don't know how you can have the biggest space battle in galactic history, where one of the best pilots in human history is flying the most advanced ship in the alliance arsenal and the does NOTHING COOL! Unless you consider him breaking off space combat, entering earths atmosphere and touching down a few hundred yards from a reaper in the span of less than 5 seconds cool, but I would consider that INCREDIBLY STUPID!!!!!
The beam run sequence is another example of horrible strategy. I mean, it was like pickets charge if the union army had been armed with lasers. Didn't Anderson study the civil war?
Shepard shouldn't have survived an attack like that
The inside of the citadel was just bad level design and annoying
The conversation with TIM is the most overrated piece of dialogue in the series. The only reason it even seems good is because at that point most people were dying to play something that seemed like role playing.
I'm just going to stop here. I don't want to think about it anymore. I may add more later, but for now I am just too frustrated with the horrible writing.
#85
Posté 03 janvier 2013 - 01:13
Ithurael
-
- Members
- 3 196 messages
BleedingUranium wrote...
It's odd that with IT there are no narrative inconsistencies, no bad writing, (in fact, quite the opposite) and no anything that people love to hate about the "ending", and yet, people dismiss it anyway.
With IT there is no closure - and no reason to expect any, ever. Shep beats indoc, and the trilogy and story end. Why would bioware continue the story when the literal interpretation has it ending?
With literal endings we get some closure but the finale is left in utter nonsense, contrivances, and retcons.
Bioware left us to choose which poison we would like.
#86
Posté 03 janvier 2013 - 01:18
Dr_Extrem
-
- Members
- 4 092 messages
Ithurael wrote...
BleedingUranium wrote...
It's odd that with IT there are no narrative inconsistencies, no bad writing, (in fact, quite the opposite) and no anything that people love to hate about the "ending", and yet, people dismiss it anyway.
With IT there is no closure - and no reason to expect any, ever. Shep beats indoc, and the trilogy and story end. Why would bioware continue the story when the literal interpretation has it ending?
With literal endings we get some closure but the finale is left in utter nonsense, contrivances, and retcons.
Bioware left us to choose which poison we would like.
IT reminds me of the great pink floyd song "comfortably numb".
sometimes it is better to seek comfort in a theory - sadly, i cant do that.
Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 03 janvier 2013 - 01:19 .
#87
Posté 03 janvier 2013 - 01:20
Kulbelbolka
-
- Members
- 238 messages
Even after Extended Cut I still don't see any reason why we should sacrifice Shepard. I would understand if Shepard would be almost dead or have some illness that can't be treated. It's called «nothing to lose». Or just some situation where you should really decide: Shepard's life or maximum damage. But I can see at the end that he suddenly accept arguements of his main enemy and agrees to play by his rules. It was kind of treason for me.
But we sacrifice him just to quench bloodthirst of Old Machine and to satisfy that strange kind of players that really think that Shepard should die at the end, like classic hero from ancient myths.
In my opinion Bioware should provide us with one true, but unobvious option and many false paths (Catalyst suggestions). I think that destruction of Citadel would be great way to end this trilogy, because it fits situation on two levels:
- Story: as we know from ME1, Citadel is large booby trap for thousands of generations. And as we know from ME3 ending: it's more, than that, it's the Center of Evil, home for Mastermind behind all of this. Destuction of the Citadel would delete main link from the chain and also set Reapers free from Catalyst's tyranny, which matches with one of the main themes of ME: free will. Or just turn them off if they can't exist without him.
- Cymbolic: Citadel is one of the most recognizable ME symbols, like N7 logo, Shepard's armor and main musical theme. It's a representation of social inequality in galactic society, blindness of it's
authorities and complete unavailability to be responsible for many sins. ME3 destructs all of that to say us that first trilogy had come to an end.
But instead of this we see something unusual to ME Universe and Shepard's character. It's the biggest problem of ending: unauthenticity. Previous two games provide you with two options:
- Choose the same thing that you would choose by yourself in real life.
- Make choice on the assumption of your Shepard's character (roleplay).
So I would never agree with bad copy of HAL 9000 and all of my roleplayed Shepards too. Most likely we would try to find some way to destroy only him and let other synthetics be.
But we sacrifice him just to quench bloodthirst of Old Machine and to satisfy that strange kind of players that really think that Shepard should die at the end, like classic hero from ancient myths.
In my opinion Bioware should provide us with one true, but unobvious option and many false paths (Catalyst suggestions). I think that destruction of Citadel would be great way to end this trilogy, because it fits situation on two levels:
- Story: as we know from ME1, Citadel is large booby trap for thousands of generations. And as we know from ME3 ending: it's more, than that, it's the Center of Evil, home for Mastermind behind all of this. Destuction of the Citadel would delete main link from the chain and also set Reapers free from Catalyst's tyranny, which matches with one of the main themes of ME: free will. Or just turn them off if they can't exist without him.
- Cymbolic: Citadel is one of the most recognizable ME symbols, like N7 logo, Shepard's armor and main musical theme. It's a representation of social inequality in galactic society, blindness of it's
authorities and complete unavailability to be responsible for many sins. ME3 destructs all of that to say us that first trilogy had come to an end.
But instead of this we see something unusual to ME Universe and Shepard's character. It's the biggest problem of ending: unauthenticity. Previous two games provide you with two options:
- Choose the same thing that you would choose by yourself in real life.
- Make choice on the assumption of your Shepard's character (roleplay).
So I would never agree with bad copy of HAL 9000 and all of my roleplayed Shepards too. Most likely we would try to find some way to destroy only him and let other synthetics be.
#88
Posté 03 janvier 2013 - 01:21
Outsider edge
-
- Members
- 308 messages
Dr_Extrem wrote...
Ithurael wrote...
BleedingUranium wrote...
It's odd that with IT there are no narrative inconsistencies, no bad writing, (in fact, quite the opposite) and no anything that people love to hate about the "ending", and yet, people dismiss it anyway.
With IT there is no closure - and no reason to expect any, ever. Shep beats indoc, and the trilogy and story end. Why would bioware continue the story when the literal interpretation has it ending?
With literal endings we get some closure but the finale is left in utter nonsense, contrivances, and retcons.
Bioware left us to choose which poison we would like.
IT reminds me of the great pink floyd song "comfortably numb".
sometimes it is better to seek comfort in a theory - sadly, i cant do that.
That's a great song though!
#89
Posté 03 janvier 2013 - 01:26
EnvyTB075
-
- Members
- 3 108 messages
This is what BioWare would have you believe as "The Best Ending".
#90
Posté 03 janvier 2013 - 01:28
Dr_Extrem
-
- Members
- 4 092 messages
Outsider edge wrote...
Dr_Extrem wrote...
Ithurael wrote...
BleedingUranium wrote...
It's odd that with IT there are no narrative inconsistencies, no bad writing, (in fact, quite the opposite) and no anything that people love to hate about the "ending", and yet, people dismiss it anyway.
With IT there is no closure - and no reason to expect any, ever. Shep beats indoc, and the trilogy and story end. Why would bioware continue the story when the literal interpretation has it ending?
With literal endings we get some closure but the finale is left in utter nonsense, contrivances, and retcons.
Bioware left us to choose which poison we would like.
IT reminds me of the great pink floyd song "comfortably numb".
sometimes it is better to seek comfort in a theory - sadly, i cant do that.
That's a great song though!
without a doubt.
#91
Posté 03 janvier 2013 - 01:33
IMNOTCRAZYiminsane
-
- Members
- 450 messages
Evo_9 wrote...
IMNOTCRAZYiminsane wrote...
The "hey im going to kill you because he's going to kill you so im saving you from him killing you by killing you" logic (read that over and tell me if you like that)
It sounds stupid when its summarised in a manner that is completely different to what happened in the actual game.
FWIW the catalyst never mentioned anything about saving "you" or anyone specific which is how you are making it sound.
The catalyst intends to preserve organic life from being completely destroyed, by killing off a advanced civilisations. that is all.
im giving an example to show how stupid it is maybe i worded it too stupid but thats what i was going for
The catalyst intends to preserve advance organic life from being destroyed by synthetics, this is by killing off advanced organics who created the synthetics to save them from synthetics
Created will always rebel against their creators
The reapers are created to save organics from synthetics by preserving (killing) organics so they won't make new synthetics to kill organics
ugh i feel like im going in circle Im going to kill you (im perserving *killing* advance organics) because he will kill you (because synthetics will kill organics)so to save you (so to save advance organics) from him killing you (from synthetics killing advance organics) im going to kill you (im going to preseve advance organics)
Its fine if you don't get it I'm not here to make you or anyone look at the ending the way i did I'm here to express why i thought it was horrible
Modifié par IMNOTCRAZYiminsane, 03 janvier 2013 - 01:34 .
#92
Posté 03 janvier 2013 - 01:34
RocketManSR2
-
- Members
- 2 974 messages
EnvyTB075 wrote...
This is what BioWare would have you believe as "The Best Ending".
*Hideous pic edited out*
Thanks, now I'll have nighmares for a week.
#93
Posté 03 janvier 2013 - 01:34
IMNOTCRAZYiminsane
-
- Members
- 450 messages
EnvyTB075 wrote...
This is what BioWare would have you believe as "The Best Ending".
omfg! guess am not going for synthesis
#96
Posté 03 janvier 2013 - 01:49
Ironhandjustice
-
- Members
- 1 093 messages
Copied from asimov and deus ex.
Next
Next
#97
Posté 03 janvier 2013 - 01:50
DirtyBird627
-
- Members
- 150 messages
Just my opinion obviously, but when I played, what made the endings so bad is that they were terribly confusing, and offered no real explanation of what was to become of the galaxy or my fictional friends. I finished the game after about a week, and I've never felt so straight up confused by a game in my life. It was almost like a state of shock, and it took me a while to realize that yes these are indeed the endings, and yes they are indeed this bad. The EC additions alleviated the problem, at least giving me some information and a reasonable amount of closure. In my opinion, had the EC been the release endings, I would have been disappointed, but I could have lived with it. I really don't mind Shep dying, his/her task was done and it was time for him/her to move on, just like to know that my Shep died for something worth while, and originally I didn't feel like Shep died for anything, the original endings seemed to leave the galaxy in ruins, with billions destined to die of starvation and other issues born of being disconnected from the rest of the civilized galaxy. I still think the logic of the Catalyst is pretty spotty, to be kind about it, but at least the ending isn't a total loss anymore.
#98
Posté 03 janvier 2013 - 01:51
Clayless
-
- Members
- 7 051 messages
You may have noticed that no one in the thread has a clear, coherent reason OP. Especially for the post-EC ending, it's all opinions on what they think should've happened, but no clear but reason as to what's wrong about it.
#99
Posté 03 janvier 2013 - 01:58
Evo_9
-
- Members
- 1 233 messages
IMNOTCRAZYiminsane wrote...
Evo_9 wrote...
IMNOTCRAZYiminsane wrote...
The "hey im going to kill you because he's going to kill you so im saving you from him killing you by killing you" logic (read that over and tell me if you like that)
It sounds stupid when its summarised in a manner that is completely different to what happened in the actual game.
FWIW the catalyst never mentioned anything about saving "you" or anyone specific which is how you are making it sound.
The catalyst intends to preserve organic life from being completely destroyed, by killing off a advanced civilisations. that is all.
im giving an example to show how stupid it is maybe i worded it too stupid but thats what i was going for
The catalyst intends to preserve advance organic life from being destroyed by synthetics, this is by killing off advanced organics who created the synthetics to save them from synthetics
Created will always rebel against their creators
The reapers are created to save organics from synthetics by preserving (killing) organics so they won't make new synthetics to kill organics
Im going to kill you (im perserving *killing* advance organics) because he will kill you (because synthetics will kill organics)so to save you (so to save advance organics) from him killing you (from synthetics killing advance organics) im going to kill you (im going to preseve advance organics)
Its fine if you don't get it I'm not here to make you or anyone look at the ending the way i did I'm here to express why i thought it was horrible
I get you but youre complicating something that doesnt need to be complicated.
The reapers were created to harvest advanced civilisations in order to preserve organic life forms. They do this to prevent these advanced civilisations from creating a synthetic race that will ultimately destroy all life.
Not that complicated.
Anyone can complicate the simplest things, for example:
"Im going to take my car to the mechanic for a service, so i will have to use another car to get to work"
How to complicate it
"Im going to take my car to the mechanic so i can keep driving my car but i will have to use another car in order to keep using my car so i can get my car fixed in order to go to work and not have to use my car, but i can use another car so i dont have to worry about using my car, so im going to the mechanic to use this car."
Modifié par Evo_9, 03 janvier 2013 - 02:00 .
#100
Posté 03 janvier 2013 - 02:30
GreyLycanTrope
-
- Members
- 12 711 messages
The short list: For me it's the Nihilism above anything else, add to that my Shepards in game narritive being derailed in the final 10 minutes, the 11th hour swapping of the central conflict from fighting a very specific group of synthetics to suddenly trying to find a solution to for all synthetics and organics who have a presented conflict I'm not conviced even exists, oh and make the solutions contradictory and universe breaking and you've got yourself the ME3 ending.
It feels out of place and seems to copy to concept of Deus Ex almost word for word.
It feels out of place and seems to copy to concept of Deus Ex almost word for word.
Modifié par Greylycantrope, 03 janvier 2013 - 02:32 .
