514 réponses à ce sujet

[mauro2222]

I get your point, I see this as something very important and not as details, but is my impression though.

[Indy_S]

Something important would also be separating Saren and Sovereign which I should have done in the first place. You're right that some things shouldn't be covered by 'details'.

[Atekimagus]

mauro2222 wrote...

Indy_S wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

Wrong... play the game again.

Come now, it's not that hard to see where he's coming from. (Very reduced) The bad guy wants to get to the throne room when he's already a palace guard. The details change it, sure, but that's still present.

I'm going to revive this thread because it really irks me that people couldn't understand the plot of ME1. Saren and Shepard were searching for the Conduit, not to use it as a backdoor, they needed to know what it does. Shepard because it may save the galaxy and Saren because Sovereign said so, the Reaper is pacient and will not act in a rush when something as crucial as the Citadel is not working. Sovereign had other paws at his service, way before Saren, so this means that its investigation has been going on for a while, and it lead to the Protheans and from the Protheans to the Conduit, what's this Conduit? is it a weapon? is it a hacking device? Sovereign needs to know, and when Saren found it, and discovered what it was, then you see Sovereign rushing like a mad machine to the Citadel, its confident and Saren simply used the Conduit to get back to the Citadel. Nobody knew what it was, that's the point of the race between Shep and Saren.

That is essentially correct. Anderson even states that it could be anything and in truly patriotic fashion makes the assumption that it is probably a weapon of mass destruction, hence the scramble for it.

So baring some minor problems the story of ME1 flows very well and makes at least a minimum of sense, enough for most that suspension of disbelief still works. They are on the same level as why everyone speaks english on the citadel. If you buy that for story reasons, you can also buy why sovereign has to dock with the citadel to open the relay. etc. etc. Minor problems.

It's just that with ME3 suddendly nothing makes sense anymore. Why cultivate agents for years when they take a grand total of 3 years to arrive with ftl? Ah yes, because the citadel is so all important. Why then leave it completely alone once the invasion started. Ah yes, because it is impenetrable when closed. Why then had they no problem capturing and moving it when it suited their need? Why the need for sovereign to interact with the citadel, when there already is a cataclyst on the station who could act on his behalf? Why the need for the collectors? Why build a human reaper in the meantime? Just for fun? I always assumed that is their plan B in case sovereign fails. Build a replacement and try it again, but why bother? Nothing makes sense anymore and every attempt trying to explain it leads to even more questions and contradictions.

In the space of 2 minutes you are bombarded with a plot twist that pretty much invalidates the previous two games and even if you don't recognize it, instinctivly your suspension of disbelief (if it wasn't shattered on rannoch already) doesn't work anymore, you feel fooled and angry and that is imho where the rage with the ending comes from.

Not because that there is no happy ending. Not because that there only 3 ending optinos. Not because you are confronted with 3 almost impossible choices. But because your subconsciousness finally calls bull**** on it.

[Indy_S]

It was a very conscious decision when I called bull**** on the Catalyst. But you're right, it's not the negative emotions we were experiencing that caused revulsion, it was the narrative integrity finally snapping with no possible fix.

[Atekimagus]

LineHolder wrote...

Atekimagus wrote...

...

They are on the same level as why everyone speaks english on the citadel. 

...

I think the omni-tool is supposed to act like a translator.

Why you see signs in English, however ... Doesn't matter much to me though.

Exactly, those are minor problems which we are used to ignore when a story is set in a fantasy or sci fi universe, simply because those minor inconsistencies enabling  the story to flow better and more natural. We are used to this kind of thing.

ME3 produced enough inconsistencies and logical faults that you cannot simply ignore it anymore. Parts of the story are suddenly in direct contradition to each or so over the top, that suspension of disbelief just doesn't work anymore, and it got worse each installment. (For example, driving the MAKO into the conduit, ending up on the citadel....that was cool. Absolute nonsense of course but still cool. Next we have the ressurrection of shepard......yeah right......ok, let's see were they are going with that. And next we have him surviving orbital bombardment and a dreadnaught obliberating reaper-beam.........well......)

ME3 ending tells us 2 + 2 =5. We call BS on that. Then folks start trying to explain it. "You guys are unbelievable, isn't it obvious? Space Jesus appeared in the middle of the equation and added an +1. Also, it never really was about the equation in the first place. God, why is everyone so mainstream but me?" - That's how the ME3 ending feels to me.

[The Interloper]

 [quote]Maxster_wrote...
Of course, you will just ignoreanything i wrote, but i'm writing that for my own amusement. [/quote]Funny,
that’s what I was thinking. Which is why I’m ignoring the arguments I already dealt with too many times.

[quote]Maxster_wrote...You missed the point deliberately. [/quote]
I was thinking that, too. If Saren’s still a trusted spectre, he wouldn’t need to lead his men. That’s the point. All he’d need to do is bring in enough men—only a few hundred (maybe less) be they geth, mercs, or both—and set them loose in the city to keep C-Sec distracted for a few minutes. If three hundred geth start blasting people in the wards, C-Sec, and the SR squad you keep bringing up, will very likely be devoting most of its attention to that. Saren could also use more conventional attacks, like bombs in C-sec HG. Then in the chaos he could
march right into the council chambers and citadel Control, maybe with mercs wearing C-Sec uniforms, and say he’s “securing” them. If C-sec is busy, they’re not going to turn around and attack the trusted spectre just because he’s standing on the Council platform, certainly not right way. And if Sovy upgrades Saren like he ultimately ended up doing, then he’s not going to go down easy even if C-sec does get wise.

As for port Hanshan, the scans were intended to find weapons and power sources, both of which the Geth have in abundance. What’s more, it’s hardly implausible that Saren’s access to Geth, spectre and reaper gear would give him access to tech that can fool advanced scanners. But that’s all beside the point, because we know that lots of people, drugs, and weapons are smuggled onto the Citadel all the time, without being searched. So it’s pretty plausible that Saren could sneak a fair number of geth into the wards at least, sealed up in storage crates or something, without being caught.

 [quote]Maxster_ wrote... Therefore, ME3 ending does not changes "story's core meaning and point" [/quote] Huge misapprehension. The ending changes the conflict from “defeating the reapers” to “defeating theoretical homicidal synthetics who are not the reapers and who don’t even exist and whom we have never even heard of before.” Under that, defeating the reapers just becomes a side effect; according to the ending, they were never the true problem. It’s this core conflict change that put a bullet through the head of ME’s story. Lazarus didn’t change the core conflict, the human reaper didn’t do that, the Cerberus empire didn’t do that. The ending did.

[quote]Maxster_ wrote...
No amount of retcons and clarification would change reapers arrival, Cerberus Empire, or Crucible to a something sensical, [/quote] Hardly. For example; introduce the crucible earlier in the series. Have vigil mention it when you meet him in ME1, find traces of the plans during ME2. Clarify that it’s some sort of device that can harness the power of the mass relays into a massive EMP burst that can destroy the reapers, or something; the protheans either developed it or almost developed it during the reaper invasion using their understanding of the relays (just like the conduit). A few added bits of dialogue and maybe an added mission and suddenly we aren’t just building a superweapon when we have no idea what it does.

[quote]Maxster_wrote...
Or like curing the genophage will instantly change social behavior of entire race[/quote]  It’s made pretty clear that it’s not that Krogan can’t be scientists and industrial engineers, it’s that they don’t want to be. The genophage made the Krogan species fatalistic and disinterested in the future; as far as they were concerned, they didn’t have one. Change that, and you change the entire face of Krogan culture. Especially if Wrex is in charge. What’s more, if they join the coalition and help defeat the reapers the Krogan race is going to get a decent amount of goodwill…just like they did after the Rachni wars.

And I never said “instantly.” That’s you putting words in my mouth. Give the Krogans a few centuries as part of
mainstream civilization and they’ll inevitably not only get a massive population boost but much better infrastructure. They could also buy ships. Even if they play nice for the first few centuries, that doesn’t mean they’ll remain that way. That's how the salarians think of it, anyway.

At any rate, the series lore is pretty clear that the Krogans were quite outmatched during the rebellions in the spaceship department, and were still winning. It doesn’t go into detail, it just says that that was the way it was. If you think that’s stupid, then take it up with ME1.

 [quote]Maxster_ wrote... There is much more alternatives than you presented, reapers have full understanding of relay technology, so they could possibly do something with their end of relay. [/quote] We have no reason to believe that that’s possible, aside from headcannon. And if that were true, that just creates more holes. If it was possible to activate the Citadel relay on the other end, then what’s the need for the Keepers (barring hiding the citadel’s nature) or Sovereign?.

[quote]Maxster_ wrote...
otherwise they'd just took Citadel right after they arrived to a relay network, and not spreading to attack everyone at once, like they did in ME3. [/quote]Now that part was actually stupid. They should have had it so the council or something sabotages the relays to the Reapers can’t use them, or can’t access the relays near the citadel and thus have to fly part of the way slowly. But that’s a separate issue from them being able to fly in from
darkspace.

[quote]Maxster_ wrote... Citadel Fleet, was very large and capable for a long time, [/quote] Joker:The council is massing a joint-species fleet to deal with Saren and his Geth.

Which heavily implies that the fleet did not exist before, at least not the same numbers and positioning as usual. Also, much of the citadel fleet was off on patrols normally, so I fail to see how the citadel putting patrols out to watch for Sovereign lowers Citadel defenses to any big degree. It certainly isn’t discussed in the game.

[quote]Maxster_ wrote... krogans will be very grateful for that[/quote] Yeah, cause we all know how the Krogan have historically repaid those that helped them.

[quote]Maxster_ wrote... big 3 will not allow anyone to threat their everlasting dominance. Thus, Systems Alliance will always be a minor council race thus (krogan) making are good potential allies, although weak. Also, that would make a great leverage for Council, when petitioning for human interests.[/quote] You do realize that humans are rapidly becoming just as powerful as any individual member of the big three, right? It’s the big four, now, and there’s no real sign that the other councilors are trying to gang up on humanity, except where the reapers are concerned.

And make up your mind. Are the krogans an insignificant “weak” species that “barely survive… have no fleets,” or “leverage?” It can’t be both ways.

[quote]Maxster_ wrote... you do realise, that salarians have no problem to fight krogans at all? [/quote] Uh…yeah, yeah they do. The salarians have neither the manpower nor the desire to fight the Krogan and the Reapers all at once. They want the Krogans on their side. This much is clear. They just don’t want to cure the genophage in order for that to happen. So they go to shepard to try and wriggle out of their promise while still getting the Krogans on the battlefield.

[quote]mauro2222_wrote...  not to use it as a backdoor, they needed to know what it does. [/quote] So he was looking for something, he knows it’s important somehow but he has no idea what it does, and it just so happens to help him with his mission? Sounds like the Crucible to me. Which is kind of my point. Besides, I got the impression that Sovy already knew what the conduit did before the game. And if he just had to find it, did he really need Saren to do work the beacons? Couldn’t Saren just stick around on the citadel and wait for the chance to strike?

Modifié par The Interloper, 10 février 2013 - 02:10 .

[Silvair]

Abraham_uk wrote...

Brhino wrote...

Apart from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

It was an excellent piece of theatre.
I was upset that I didn't get to see the whole thing.



Joking aside. I don't think the Lincoln assassination, Titantic disaster and Hindenberg disasters are good analogies.


A video game doesn't need to have a good ending to be worth while. Though it helps.

When its a pick your own adventure story driven series that completely collapses upon itself at the finale, that pretty much kills the ENTIRE experience.

The actual GAMEPLAY was okay.  I mean, it's just standard shooter fare.  not great, not bad.  It's just there to pass the time between story segments, like a final fantasy game.

But I dislike ME3 because

a)  All the decisions you made before, which was the biggest selling point of the series, wound up not having any effect whatsoever on the final game.
 The ending means that the entire trilogy is dead.  There's no reason to replay because there's on way to WIN.  There's nothing to work towards, there's no satisfaction, no "happy ending", no...nothing.

And lemme tell ya.  Trying to go with the artsy-fartsy bittersweet endings are all fine and good for indie philosophy major movies, but are a TERRIBLE thing to do on the grand finale of a 180 dollar space opera trilogy, expecially when its a videogame renouned for player involvement.

I never got into STar Wars or Star Trek.  Mass Effect WAS the Sci-Fi for me.  To see it all mothballed at the very end was depressing, then infuriating.

[mvaning]

Interesting how I enjoy playing Mass Effect more than Skyrim but Skyrim still holds that 60$ price tag while ME3 is at 20$. This, to me, speaks volumes over how poorly the ending has effected the franchise.

[Priss Blackburne]

^^
Out of curiosity looked up the pricing for the bigger spike award winners of 2012( Canadian future-shop)

Assassin's Creed III --- 59.99
Halo 4 --- 59.99
Borderlands 2 --- 59.99
Dishonored --- 59.99
Diablo III --- 59.99
Guild wars --- 59.99
Black Ops II --- 59.99
X-Com Enemy Unknown --- 59.99

Darksiders 2 --- 49.99
Sleeping Dogs --- 49.99

Max Payne 3 --- 39.99

Mass Effect 3 --- 29.99
Walking Dead --- 29.99 ( note this is original pricing )

edit :The pricing could be in part from the Trilogy release that is 59.99 however.

Modifié par Priss Blackburne, 10 février 2013 - 03:57 .

[mvaning]

Hm, thats interesting. On the Origin website, you can get the original for 19.99 and then upgrade to the digital delux for an extra 10$
http://store.origin....html/pbPage.me3

At best-buy its 19.99.
http://www.bestbuy.c...ories&gf=y&cp=1

These prices have only been available for about a week though.

Modifié par mvaning, 10 février 2013 - 04:33 .

[humes spork]

 I have a love-hate relationship for the (original) endings. I love them for being so awash in metaphor and symbolism, and giving a glimpse into an unknowable (but hopeful) future free from the Reaper threat, yet not a future for Shepard even as Shepard made that unknowable future possible. I hate them because the transition to direct, unambiguous, and action-oriented military sci-fi, to cerebral and philosophical occurs instantaneously and wholly without warning, and that genre shock throws the player out of the moment and leaves them scrambling for answers.

In retrospect, after a year I think the ending is fan-****ing-tastic. It hits the notes it needs to, concisely and with ample room for interpretation and speculation. I honestly think it was the ending the Mass Effect trilogy deserved, and needed. And yes, I think there is an iota of truth to the assertion that if you have a closed mind about the ending, the problem lies with yourself and not the game.

I'm happy to discuss the allegorical and philosophical meanings, theme, metaphor and symbolism, with people who are interested in actually discussing it. If you're just out to wax polemic about preconceived notions and qualitative judgments of the ending, or lack an open mind to have a productive conversation, I have no interest in engagement. Been there, done that, eleven months ago and I'm tired of it.

Modifié par humes spork, 10 février 2013 - 05:19 .

[mvaning]

humes spork wrote...

 I have a love-hate relationship for the (original) endings. I love them for being so awash in metaphor and symbolism, and giving a glimpse into an unknowable (but hopeful) future free from the Reaper threat, yet not a future for Shepard even as Shepard made that unknowable future possible. I hate them because the transition to direct, unambiguous, and action-oriented military sci-fi, to cerebral and philosophical occurs instantaneously and wholly without warning, and that genre shock throws the player out of the moment and leaves them scrambling for answers.

In retrospect, after a year I think the ending is fan-****ing-tastic. It hits the notes it needs to, concisely and with ample room for interpretation and speculation. I honestly think it was the ending the Mass Effect trilogy deserved, and needed. And yes, I think there is an iota of truth to the assertion that if you have a closed mind about the ending, the problem lies with yourself and not the game.

I'm happy to discuss the allegorical and philosophical meanings, theme, metaphor and symbolism, with people who are interested in actually discussing it. If you're just out to wax polemic about preconceived notions and qualitative judgments of the ending, or lack an open mind to have a productive conversation, I have no interest in engagement. Been there, done that, eleven months ago and I'm tired of it.

Goodluck finding that.  Most people hate the ending (myself included) and engaging in that sort of topic with someone who dislikes the ending is probably not going to happen.  

It is also not the gamers fault for hating the ending.   Its biowares job to make an appealing product.    If it is not appealing, then they ruin their reputation and start losing money in the long run.    Their goal as a company (ESPECIALLY WITH EA) is to create a product that turns a profit.   I highly doubt that those goals include stimulating philisophical discussions.

The customer is (most of the time) right.   You have to appeal to them to make money.   Bioware did not appeal to the majority of their customers with this ending.   That is a failure.   No, it is not the consumers fault for disliking their product.    Having preferences does not equal being closed minded.  Furthermore, yes it is a problem with the game that it is mostly disliked.   You can't blame that on the player because it is not the players job to convince himself to like or dislike something.  It is a company's job to appeal to what they like in order to make money.    Otherwise, the company will just go under.  

You like the ending and I respect that.   I, however, don't like the ending and a lot of people share my opinion about this.

[Rex Fallout]

Mr.Antihero wrote...

 "People forget it's not the ending that matters, it's the journey that brought you to the end that counts. The Mass Effect trilogy is one of the best sagas of all time."

"The reason why Mass Effect was the best trilogy was because after playing Mass Effect 1 and 2 your heart was so attached to the game, but to have such an emotional ending with the best soundtracks every made the ending very dramatic. The series felt like it was ripped from your heart, to have nothing left to continue."

This annoyed me so freaking much.  Yes the journey was nice, but when it comes ot game of the YEAR, I don't care about the full journey.  Why?  Because Mass Effect 1 and 2 did not come out this year.  So yeah, maybe it was a good saga, but just because of that doesn't mean you ignore the glaring flaws and give it game of the year.  Look at it for itself and nothing more.

Anyways, now that I'm off of my soapbox about that little annoyance.

Yeah the journey was enjoyable.  Too bad I can't enjoy it again because the ending made me sick of the entire trilogy.  

I'd make a Titanic or Hindenburg reference, but I see someone already has.  

[humes spork]

mvaning wrote...

Goodluck finding that.  Most people hate the ending (myself included) and engaging in that sort of topic with someone who dislikes the ending is probably not going to happen.

Yes, which is why I said I have no interest in discussing a polarized topic, which discussions over the quality of ME3's ending are. It's clear I'm not going to convince people who hate the ending that, in certain regards, the ending is quite good, and people who hate the ending are not going to convince me the ending is bad. Or, it might be more appropriate to say I'm not going to convince people who hate the ending that the ending does in fact have redeeming qualities, and people who hate the ending aren't going to convince me the ending lacks redeeming quality.

I've listened to the arguments and points of both sides, went through my own phase of hating the ending, cooled off and reconsidered it, made my own arguments throughout, and came to a singular conclusion of my own based upon my own beliefs and the information put before me. What I have elucidated is my final opinion on the topic, a year after the fact.

It is also not the gamers fault for hating the ending...

You'll note I did not say it is the fault of each gamer for disliking the ending. I said it was the fault of each gamer for having a closed mind about the ending. And, since I'm sure it will be questioned, yes it is possible to have both an open mind about the endings and dislike them anyway. This is not, nor is it intended to be, a blanket statement about anyone who has made any particular qualitative judgment about the endings.

A part of that is rejecting out of hand opinions that differ from one's own, which an astute observer will note is key to why debate about the endings is so polarized in the first place. Absolutely, there are closed-minded individuals on both sides of the equation, and for details and nuance associated with the topic. That does not absolve the individual from closed-mindedness and abrasiveness in discussion.

What I will say is it's my personal experience that many, if not most, people who dislike the ending have a closed mind about it. They expected a straightforward, linear, unambiguous conclusion consistent with the thematic and narrative style of what preceded it; which, I will state just for the record, is what I also expected initially. That expectation was not met, and when that expectation was not met, rather than consider carefully what they were given in its intended context, rejected the entire thing out of hand. That, I think is not a fair shake for the game nor its writers, producers, and developers. Because a thing defies expectation, does not mean what you are given is automatically "bad".

Is it too much to ask to at least make an effort to understand, and consider carefully, the statement the ending makes and the context of that statement? Believe it or not, there are definitive statements being made, clear intent behind those statements, and a clear context for those statements; those statements may not be readily apparent, but they exist. If one has taken the time and consideration and concluded they dislike the endings anyway, it's certainly their prerogative, but unless they've done that one can hardly be considered charitable or fair.

Modifié par humes spork, 10 février 2013 - 08:39 .

[Indy_S]

I found the themes and symbolism around the ending to come from nowhere, like as if the true villain was hiding within his own thugs and suddenly stepped up to center stage. The synthetic and organic conflict was already thematically resolved, bringing it up again was the wrong decision. Solving that conflict (again) became a higher issue than resolving the Reaper conflict. Yes, the one solution solved both but it seemed like that was just an accident. Frodo threw the Ring into Mt Doom to ease Sauron's obsession with it rather than to kill him. It just so happens to kill him too.

Space Jesus. That's what Shepard is. He has to sacrifice for our sins. And yet, one of the options allows him to live. That rather undercuts the allegory because he pays next to no personal price.

I dislike the ending for the reasons you want to discuss in addition to the narrative inconsistencies and some of the other issues raised by the people on this forum. Not all, just some.

[Atekimagus]

humes spork wrote...

I hate them because the transition to direct, unambiguous, and action-oriented military sci-fi, to cerebral and philosophical occurs instantaneously and wholly without warning, and that genre shock throws the player out of the moment and leaves them scrambling for answers.

No I don't think that is a problem at all. You have to give people more credit than that, since especially ME isn't played by unwashed, triggerhappy masses but by people who largely play it because they enjoy a good story.

In ME1 you are also confronted with an impossible choice with an obvious catch and while sad noone had a problem with that. Now stakes are a bit higher but still you are confronted with impossible choices and people are used to that the BIG decisions in ME are NOT made at the end of a barrel but with the dialogue wheel and even if you accept the weird kid (and all the inconsistencies it creates) what frustrates players is that this ending dialogue is poorly done. (Aehm, excuse me weird starchild, I just made peace between geth and quarians, my ship is in love with it's pilot and is willing to sacrifice herself for him.........well on second thought better NOT mention that in the all important discussion about synthetics vs. organics.)

If I had the choice to talk the reaper-kid into self-destruct because of all my achievements in Captain Kirkesque vs. Computers fashing, this would have been tons better, but no...everything the weird kid tells you is accepted at face value.

humes spork wrote...
In retrospect, after a year I think the ending is fan-****ing-tastic. It hits the notes it needs to, concisely and with ample room for interpretation and speculation. I honestly think it was the ending the Mass Effect trilogy deserved, and needed. And yes, I think there is an iota of truth to the assertion that if you have a closed mind about the ending, the problem lies with yourself and not the game.

The opposite is true. If you are close minded and only go for the emotional impact of the ending, it is brilliant. The images, the cinematography, especially the brilliant music. All that is top notch and...well, just brilliant, you are right, it hit all the right notes for a maximum of emotional impact.

However, after that and being open minded, you suddenly realize that all that happened just doesn't make any sense, and that is were people got angry. Being angry at the ending isn't something which happens instantaniously, because first comes the brilliant emotional impact. It happens when you apply an open mind to it.

humes spork wrote...
I'm happy to discuss the allegorical and philosophical meanings, theme, metaphor and symbolism, with people who are interested in actually discussing it. If you're just out to wax polemic about preconceived notions and qualitative judgments of the ending, or lack an open mind to have a productive conversation, I have no interest in engagement. Been there, done that, eleven months ago and I'm tired of it.

The problem with that is that most people probably refuse to discuss philosophical points and metaphor for a story which doesn't make sense in the first place.

For example, asking "Who is more deserving of live, Ashley or Kaidain?" isn't a question many would refuse to discuss, simply because in the way the narrative is structured people accept that this choice which cannot be avoided. It makes sense , so let's talk about it.

Discussing the philosophical implication of the three endings, when many people call BS on the cataclyst is much much harder. Nothing in the narrative structure points at the weird kid with it's three choices in the end. Now this could have been a twist, but it is only a twist, when in hindsight it still makes sense and fits the rest of the narrative. Here, it just doesn't. So many see probably not the need to discuss something which should not be in the first place, no matter how interesting such a discussion would be.

[Ieldra]

@humes spork:
I am interested in hearing your take on themes, symbolism etc.. I am preparing a thread on that myself.

As for the original endings: I am aware of most themes and allegories. I read the message and hated it. It's not so much that it was open. I can live with open. It's the parts that were not open - the implied fragmentation of civilization (=dark age), the symbolism of the Normandy crash (that was the last straw), as well as the fact that much of the symbolism wasn't grounded in in-world logic - that made the original ending into exactly the kind of ending I dislike. The writers would have been hard-pressed to create an ending I dislike more had they tried. It's almost as if they read my mind, took notes about what I wouldn't like and built it into the ending.

The EC retconned that. Hard. There remain a few narrative inconsistences and some outright stupid writing, and the thematic integrity of Destroy has been compromised to appease the fans, but I can live with that. One specific thematic direction of the original endings has been reversed by the EC, and it was the one that made ME "not my story" after the original ending. Thus, the EC came as a huge relief. 

Having said that, given the story that came before, I suspected that those elements I hated would be in the endings. What I didn't expect was that I couldn't avoid them by making a different choice. After all, not everyone is a Romantic, especially not in the science fiction fandom.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 10 février 2013 - 09:45 .

[78stonewobble]

I tend to judge me3 as a whole and the ending is part of that.

Regarding eg. length the ending obviously disproportionately judged compaired to the rest of the game.

However for other reasons, than length of time, the ending IS important.

As the climax to me3 and the trilogy it dramatically impacts the tone for your memories of mass effect.

Ie. it can be the most beautifully crafted joke, but if you forget the punchline or the punchline is lame it kinda falls to the floor.

EDIT: No it doesn't make sense and no it isn't complex.

If something "seems" complex it's probably a matter of the individual in question being unable to fully comprehend.

PS: And there is a LOT I don't comprehend but in comparison me3's ending is painfully simplistic.

PPS: I actually liked 2001's ending because it was open to a wide range of interpretation depending on your philosphical/religious point of view. However me3's ending was full of arbitrary and forced connections and consequences and, not least, a poor attempt at explaining something which should have been left unexplained as in 2001.

Modifié par 78stonewobble, 10 février 2013 - 10:18 .

[humes spork]

Atekimagus wrote...

The opposite is true. If you are close minded and only go for the emotional impact of the ending, it is brilliant. The images, the cinematography, especially the brilliant music. All that is top notch and...well, just brilliant, you are right, it hit all the right notes for a maximum of emotional impact...The problem with that is that most people probably refuse to discuss philosophical points and metaphor for a story which doesn't make sense in the first place.

No, it's there intellectually, too. Allow me the conceit of an example. Has it occurred to you that everything after Shepard is shot by Harbinger is the Divine Comedy in a nutshell? I am as serious as a ****ing heart attack when I say that.

The trees that for some reason Shepard sees after being shot, that call back to the dream sequences and play a pretty important role in IT? The Divine Comedy starts in a dark forest, with Dante in the pit of despair, assailed by beasts and unable to find his way to salvation which is symbolized by the sun behind mountains. The Conduit area is dark, Shepard has just been shot by Harby and shell shocked and hallucinating, attacked by husks and Marauder Shields, and trying to make his/her way to a beam of light framed behind giant pillars.

Dante then falls into the Inferno and is rescued by Virgil, who provides exposition as to where Dante is, and why, and guides Dante through the Inferno. Throughout the Inferno, Dante sees the sinful and unrepentant paying the wages for their sin. At the end, Dante and Virgil confront Satan symbolized as a great beast whose fanged maws perpetually chew the great betrayers of humankind (Brutus, Cassius, and Judas Iscariot). In ME3, Shepard is teleported into the Citadel and falls into a hallway full of the dead and vivisected (who are almost assuredly people who lived in denial of Shepard's Cassandra truth and the realities of the Reaper war), communicates with Anderson, and climbs their way to the Citadel control room -- which looks like the inside of a fanged maw -- to confront TIM.

Dante and Virgil overcome Satan, and climb into Purgatory. Not much happens there, but at the end Dante must leave Virgil behind to continue, and is then met by Beatrice who guides him to Paradise. in case we haven't figured this out yet, Shepard is Dante, Anderson is Virgil, TIM is Judas Iscariot, and Starjar is Beatrice.

Beatrice exposits to Dante and guides him through Paradise, eventually bringing him before the holy trinity (there's that number three) to find his salvation in God's love...and with that, Dante finds his belief in God and his faith in humanity restored, and awakens (it was all a dream, by the way) to confront a new, unknown and unknowable future.

The entire thing is an extremely cunning metaphor. It parallels Shepard's dying moments as the occur, by symbolizing the afterlife, It foreshadows that to finally use the Crucible and defeat the Reapers, Shepard will die. It recalls that Shepard has in a very real way been through hell and back to get to that point, going through great tribulation and personal loss many times over.

Moreover, it instills (or rather, attempts to instill) in the audience the fact not only Shepard is dying, but the cycle of extinction is coming to an end, that it will only occur through sacrifice (yeah, Shepard is Space Jesus, get over it), and that it simultaneously a rebirth. A new, unknown and unknowable cycle is beginning, that despite coming at great cost carries hope that requires faith to fully realize.

Don't like it, fine. Don't claim it "doesn't make sense", because it does. You just need to take your "action/adventure sci-fi" hat off and put on your "deep, cerebral and philosophical sci-fi" hat. Yeah, it's an unexpected twist and quite the shock. Doesn't mean it isn't what it is.

I had the same thoughts and reactions initially, too. Then I cooled off and started thinking on an intellectual level about the endings, what they represent, and the statement that was trying to be made. Then it clicked. It wasn't even until my third playthrough the Divine Comedy thing hit me.

When you look exclusively at minutiae and details, you stop seeing the forest for the trees. You miss the greater thematic and narrative context. You're asking "how did Anderson get there?" when you should be asking "why is Anderson there?". Yeah, it's a pisser you have to 180 your entire mental process in the game's last five minutes...but get over it, this is sci-fi. This is what sci-fi is, and what sci-fi does. I'll leave this already entirely too long post with a quote by Stanley Kubrick, in regards to the ending of 2001:

"Since an encounter with an advanced interstellar intelligence would be incomprehensible within our present earthbound frames of reference, reactions to it will have elements of philosophy and metaphysics that have nothing to do with the bare plot outline itself...They are the areas I prefer not to discuss because they are highly subjective and will differ from viewer to viewer. In this sense, the film becomes anything the viewer sees in it. If the film stirs the emotions and penetrates the subconscious of the viewer, if it stimulates, however inchoately, his mythological and religious yearnings and impulses, then it has succeeded."

Modifié par humes spork, 10 février 2013 - 10:13 .

[Slashice]

I judge ME3 for the vast amount of lore-breakings, plot holes, story incoherents with the previous 2 games, the fact that it almost ignores everything from ME1 and ME2. I judge it from the vast amount of auto-dialogue the removal of the netural option from the conversation wheel, from the fact that Mass Effect 3 has been "callofdutyed". The ending is just the cherry on top of this all.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Beatrice? Vigil? Judas Iscariot? It's called taking a 1980s style action-adventure sci-fi RPG and tacking a 2010 pseudo-philosophical BS ending onto it. It's a crap ending. It doesn't belong in the story. That's my opinion. Get off my lawn.

[Reorte]

humes spork wrote...

 I have a love-hate relationship for the (original) endings. I love them for being so awash in metaphor and symbolism,

I despise them partially for trying to be full of metaphor and symbolism (I've plenty of other reasons too). Both of those things seem simply like trying to sound clever when a story should just come straight out and say what it means. They are particularly bad  when put in a setting that has manage to be largely free of such stuff too.

It's perfectly possible to be clever without descending to simply saying things by indirect means (which is all allegory is). The whole point about the nature of the geth for example when making the decision about what to do with the heretics was the supreme example. That necessitated trying to get inside the head of a a species that thinks in an entirely different way in order to decide what was the ethical choice (and then you have to consider the practicalities too), and quite honestly I found it beyond me. But that worked because the way the geth worked, erm, worked (can't think of a way to avoid over-using the word "worked" there). It wasn't being different and random for the sake of it. That was the moment that I found Mass Effect brilliant.

Any time you go for emotional and "clever" and abandon logic you've simply turned your story stupid (abandon emotional and you've turned it boring, you need both in order to produce something of quality).

Modifié par Reorte, 10 février 2013 - 11:23 .