514 réponses à ce sujet

[Billabong2011]

No, I judge ME3 by the quality of it as an entire product, and I thought, EVEN BARRING the endings, that it was pretty poorly executed. Sorry.

[2484Stryker]

Personally, ME3 had other less severe problems in addition to the ending that soured the experience for me. But I do not judge the entire series based on the ending of ME3. The ME trilogy still remains my favorite and best rated game series to date, and I think it won't ever be replaced.

As far as ME3 goes, it's still a good game in my books, but definitely disappointing considering the heights that ME1 and ME2 had achieved imho. It could have been so much more. Still, it doesn't deserve all the hate and review bombings that it's received.

[Kastrenzo]

I think some people, myself included are still soured by the shock and dissapointment, it was a year ago, but the unaltered, Stock ME3 Endings are not something that can be forgotten, and worse more, those who were expecting an ending similar to ME2 or ME1 *Basically the "happy endings", don't get it.

I'm not pissed at them or anything, I always go with destroy, geth die, things blow up, but it's the decision I beileve in, and Shepard lives in a cliffhanger,

In a lot of ways it's like Batman, I'm not a fanboy of that series, but in my eyes that's the closest that I'll get to a "Rainbows and butterflies" ending.

Mass Effect is dead to me though, not because I'm mad at the developers or anything, but because the original, Shepard arc is over, Citadel DLC gave me some serious laughs,

but even the ending of it was kind of bitter, because you know that even though the game isnt over at that point, you know the series is done, and this is the last time you as a player will see any of these people,

I think what i'm most butthurt about,  is exactly that, if Mass Effect does continue, it will be new Characters, and the original cast are irreplaceable to some,You can't just make a new squad with a Quarian and Krogan and Asari and expect them to replace Tali, Wrex, Liara, etc.  especially to people who developed attachments to characters.

anyway no more rant, moral of the story, wherever Mass Effect goes, it won't be the same, whether thats a good or bad thing, is for you to decide.

Modifié par Kastrenzo, 07 mars 2013 - 08:25 .

[argan1985]

No. The game in it's entirety was mediocre and bland.

Modifié par argan1985, 07 mars 2013 - 08:29 .

[silverexile17s]

KingZayd wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

2) Yes, he does break the lore. How were the Protheans able to sneak onto the Citadel, and hack into the Starchild and sabotage him
a) without him noticing?
and without having any foreknowledge of the Starchild.

3) I'm not smoking anything. I'm fully aware that a lot of people liked the EC.
a) it fixed the unexplained "teleporting squadmates" problem by adding nonsense. Not an improvement.
It made the Starchild make even less sense
c) Epilogues aren't important when the story remains in tatters
d) Saw the Normandy survive pre-EC. That said unimportant.
e) Fixed nothing important, while adding extra nonsense.

4) Only one of them looked seriously injured. And even then, there were others on the battlefield in worse condition who got no medevac. Secondly the priority should be getting to the Citadel. The lives of everyone in the galaxy depend on it. Those squadmates will die anyway if the Reapers aren't stopped.
As for your excuse for Harbinger: ridiculous. Blowing up the Normandy would not only destroy the ship but kill Shepard and anyone else too close to the explosion.

5) The husks themselves are not 50,000 years old. They are clones. They are not "growing" Reapers, but manufacturing them and storing the genetic matter within. It made sense within the context of the series, although not with real world science. I agree there were problems with the setting of ME2, but they still managed to make an excellent game from it without ruining the series.

As for those reviewers, they have their opinions, but they are their opinions and are in no way factual. They are not the opinion of "the average person" but of 2 average people.

6) The lore was broken by ME3, It's not at all headcanon. The Starchild destroys the lore. The Lazarus Project while being quite stupid, does not contradict the lore of the series, and also does not effect anything else significantly. All it does is have the galaxy waste 3 years without getting much more prepared against the Reapers, and have Shepad's crew spread across the galaxy again (due to his death). The Starchild on the other hand, ruins the Reapers and therefore due to their extensive history, basically the entire history of the Mass Effect Universe.

The outside signal does not trigger the Citadel Relay. It is sent to the Citadel, which then sends a signal to the Keepers (as they only respond to the Citadel) to then activate the Relay. If the Starchild was shackled, how did it create the Keepers and the Reapers in the first place? If it had the Keepers, why was it not able to unshackle itself? And I've covered the issues with the "Prothean sabotage" excuse already earlier in this post.

(2)...Did you NOT talk to Vigil? The protheans got onto the Citadel via the Conduit. He tells you this right up front.
And who says he didn't notice? You assume that he was unaware of it, when he may have simply been unable to stop it. And this all happened after the Reapers left for Dark Space again, so no back-up.
And they may have stumbled onto him. Or he was something discovered as they studied the signal over the decades of study they did on it after waking back up. We never DO learn what it was the protheans discovered that severed the Keepers from the signal.

(3) Not how you acted. And the Majority believed it was better then the original
(a) WHAT about the Normandy arriving is implausible? And is it any more so then hot-dropping the Mako into such a small area on Ilos? Or fighting the Human-Reaper on FOOT? It can be chalked up as a veriaty of things, from dumb luck to concidence to pilot skill. It's NOT implausible, so therefore, NOT GARBAGE OR NONSENSE. Not EVERYTHING has to be absolutly perfect in a game. Just LOOK at the Lazarus Project.
It least the Normandy's sudden arrival CAN be explained away, in many ways no less, compaired to the teleporting squadmates, which DOESN'T have a reasonable explination. A VAST improvement compaired to before, and ANYONE that examines it will tell you the same.
( The hell are you talking about? He had a reason now. Something that we could at least relate to. It's not that different then that V.I.K.I  computer in the "I,Robot" movie. Save life by taking over it's management. It's not original. It's not mindboggling. But it's something we've SEEN before, and makes more sense then BEFORE.
Nothing YOU'RE saying is making any sense. Everything your fussing about are things that EVERYONE consideres IMPROVED from the original. These are all things that are FIXED. And also, just saying "it's not good" then failing to point out spicific examples of it being not good, is just an asspull. Find a real point that supports your claim.
© The damn story ISN'T IN TATTERS till Priority: Earth. Even then, there isn't anything contridictory. Just a major lack of content. Lack of content doesn't equal broken lore. It's just an unanswered question. And the slides FIX most of the problems regarding the abrubt ending, by showing the fate of everyone else. It's not perfect, but I'd HARDLY call it "in tatters."
(d)Stranded and with no indication of whether or not they get off that world or not. Guess what happens to the crew doesn't matter to you, but the same can't be said for the rest of the BSN.
Now we can see their reactions to Shepard's death, and them actually leaving, with the Normandy surviving in working order if EMS is high. In the old one, the ship was fired to hell with little chance of it getting fixed.
(e) Teleporting squadmates: FIXED with plausible explination
No idea of what happens to the crew: FIXED with memorial scene and Normandy leaving
No idea of what happens to the races and galaxy: FIXED with slides showing them repairing
Catalyst haveing more believeable reasons: FIXED with a plot that while unoriginal, is still believable for a computer to think is right.
Endings have no variation: FIXED with slides that show the galaxy HAS changed based on the choice.

WHAT PART FAILED? You are the one that has failed to post anything that directly proves your point. You are just using asspulls, when any real fan of the game would tell you that the EC is a major improvement over what was there before.

(4)Don't you think Shepard would be tired of losing people. The Commander already has nightmares about everyone he failed to save: Mordin, Legion, Thane, the Virmire casualty. All these voices whisper in his/her dreams. It's human nature to not want to lose anyone else. Something the character template lacked before. These are Shepard's family, and no one would leave them behind if given the choice. If it was made a branch choice, I doubt ANYONE would elect to leave them.
Shepard's been in situations like that before. Look at all the people that died because you broke Jack out?
Look at Virmire. If what you said was true, Shepard wouldn't even bother trying to get to the AA tower to help the other squad-mate. They'd stay with bomb and that's that. Shepard has a bond with the Crew, and would naturally save them first over a faceless stranger. After all, if you had a choice between someone that close to you, and several namless strangers around you, who would you save?
And again, Harbinger is arrogant. It's a cliche'. You SEE this behaveior all the time: The villian considers himself as the winner prematurally, so he sees no need to dispose of the followers, since without their leader, it's just an amusing struggle. He probably  found it amusing that Shepard would save them when Harbinger thought that he'd already won. So he toys with them. He lets them go, thinking he'll have all the time in the universe to hunt them down at his convience.

(5) LOOK at the Human Reaper. It's made with injections of liquid DNA. They aren't BUILT. They're GROWN.
Prothean husks? Liquid DNA-grown Reapers? Shepard reveived from death? The main plot was a giant side-mission, and was completely detached from the main series.
And LOOK at how heavily the likes outweigh the dislikes on their respictive videos. I'd say that makes you dead wrong, AND in the minority.
And from the opinions on THIS PAGE ALONE, the EC is considered better then the original.

(6) Again, you are throwing out this and that with NO corroberating evidence. Just saying something without any proof doesn't make it true.
WHAT is your proof of the Crucible breaking the lore? Vigil? DOESN'T COUNT. He was programed AFTER Ilos went dark (he says he was spicifically programed to monitor the stasis pods), so NO INFORMAION ABOUT THE CRUCIBLE OR WAR. And any pre-programed information is long gone due to corruption in the memory banks.
WHAT is your proof of the Catalyst breaking the lore? ME1? DOESN'T DO SQUAT. The prothean sabotage could have rendered it inactive. Or, it's a shackled system that can't interact with any of the Citadel systems without outside interaction, explaining the signal sent out by the vanguards.
The Reapers are trying to preserve all life by a form of "transhuminasim": changing the physical body to the point that it no longer resembles the original orginisim from the exterior, and controled by the intelligence of a machine. It's harvest actually makes a grim sense. It didn't want the extinctions of the Leviathan Age's races repeating, so it harvests and preserves them before they can ever hit that point again. So NO, It DOESN'T kill the universe.

And how do you know that the Keepers weren't there from the beginning? Perhaps the signal goes through the Citadel to the Keepers directly, and therefore, the Catalyst is basically shackled and completely isolated after all. Unable to affect the Citadel systems. Perhaps the Keepers are automatic caretakers, like cells in a body, working autonomous.
And I countered your claims above in 3^

2) Yes, I did talk to Vigil. Vigil says nothing that excuses Starchild incompetence. Why should he be unable to do anything about it? The Citadel is his home. To not include any defences would be moronic.

3) Just means a lot of people are wrong, or don't care as much about the plotholes.
a)  the stuff  mentioned in 4, as well as the fact that if the Normandy is doing anything significant in that battle he should not be able to make it there so quickly without any trouble.  And yes, it's far worse.  The entire new scene is ridiculous. The Lazarus project wasn't intended to fix the game, and it doesn't break it (as stupid as it is)
He already had a reason. Just now he has stupid lines like  "When fire burns, is it at war?". VIKI made sense. Starchild was an "asspull". He wouldn't have been so bad if he wasn't located at the Citadel, yet had done NOTHING. Still would be pretty bad though.
c) It doesn't matter at what point the story is ruined. The story is still ruined. Abrupt isn't a problem.  It's just abrupt and terrible.
d) It wasn't massively important. The future of a broken universe is uninteresting for one thing. Secondly, that scene isn't "Fixed", it's rendered meaningless.  What purpose does that planet have now? All they did is change the story to appease people who were upset by the likelihood of characters dying if they weren't rescued (what happened to artistic integrity?)

e) Teleporting squadmates, was never a serious problem. It was already known that Coates had called a retreat. Just now instead of your friends abandoning the most important mission, perhaps due to orders from Coates, Shepard moronically orders them to desert. Not fixed at all. made worse.

No idea what happens to crew: What happens to Garrus then? or Tali? All I see is that they are alive. Not really a good fix.

Starchild is less believable due to poor quality of his new lines- not fixed, made worse.
The endings didn't show anything that wasn't already obvious for a literal interpretation,except for locking what Shepard would do if he chose to control the Reapers - Not fixed. And made worse for control playthroughs.

And you have shown your stupidity by playing the "true fan" card. If I wasn't a fan of the earlier games, I wouldn't be wasting my time on these boards posting these responses.

4) It's not several nameless strangers or a dear one in this case. It's all the nameless strangers + all the friends, vs 2 friends. The correct choice is obvious. Spacer Shepard is endangering his family (his mother), and everyone he cares about by making such a stupid decision. I would choose to leave them, because not doing so would be stupid.

As already stated, by taking out the ship, the "leader" would also have been killed. And if he really wanted to mess with them, blowing up the Normandy after it took off would hurt Shepard the most.  But that said, you can't use arrogance to defend every bit of stupidity that a character makes. If he's not firing on the ship that is potentially bringing more soldiers, there's not much point in firing at all those men.

5) I see a whole lot of metal, with organic material being put inside. It's still being constructed not grown. The main plot of ME2 was a side mission (and thanks to the character writing, and excellent one) but it didn't result in the ruining of the series. That was all ME3.

6)Why does the Starchild (of whom the Citadel is part of) need a reaper that it controls to stay behind and tell  it when the Harvest is ready [the organic races are on the Citadel (part of the Starchild)], so that it can send a signal to the Keepers so that they can open the Citadel relay (part of the Starchild)?

How do the Protheans sneak onto the Citadel (part of the Catalyst) and change it without alerting the Starchild?

When the Citadel receives Sovereign's signal, and the keepers aren't activated, why doesn't it let Sovereign know what's going on?
Why does Sovereign have to spend all that time figuring out by himself, and eventually using Saren to discover the truth?

Why does the Citadel (part of the catalyst) have a master control console that organics can use?

Why hasn't the Catalyst made the other reapers it controls who can enter the Milky Way using FTL drives, do so in all that time?

Why did the Starchild let us up in the first place? Shepard had failed. The Reapers had already won.

"Perhaps the signal goes through the Citadel to the Keepers directly"
Sounds like you're the one who hasn't talked to Vigil. Vigil tells us explicitly that the Keepers don't respond to the Reapers.

2). He likely never thought that anyone would ever reach him.
And what the HELL could Vigil ever know about the thing? He was isolated from the information network long before even being programed. He'd know nothing about even the Crucible, let alone an A.I. that no one ever found out about.
Are you SURE you talked to Vigil? Because NOTHING he says could be linked in any way to ANYTHING pertaining to the Catalyst. Your linking up two unrelated subjects.

3) No refute:wizard:
Seriously, you could at least try to make an arguement. Just saying "your wrong" but having no proof of it? That's sad. If that mentality was true, an EC would never have been made. BioWare would have just told us "deal with it" and ignored us.
(a) You really don't get that there are dozens of ways to rationalize/explain away the Normandy being there so fast?
Look around. Your in the minority, sir. NO ONE argees with you on the teleporting sceen being better.  A ship being conviently in range is much more believeable and plausible then teleporting squadmates. At least there are believable explinations for THAT.
( Your arguements are the asspull at this point. There is NO DIFFERENCE in their actual beliefs. The scale is larger, and they phrase it differently, but they are the SAME. They do things because they don't believe in lasting peace. The Catalyst isn't an asspull. His existance DOESN'T violate any lore.
©The entire story can't just be ignored because of a bad ending. That's just being butthurt.
(d)You are kidding right? HALF the COMPLAINTS were bcause the fate of the universe was left hanging like that. Start a poll if you want.
(e)You must have been smoking something. Teleporting squadmates was one of the top five compaints. That's WHY it was adressed in the EC. If it hadn't been fussed over by the majority of fans, they would have left it be.
Again, you are in the minority.
And you see that the Normandy isn't just stranded any longer, so you have more hope for them.
There is more exposition, and his lines DO make more sense, because he feels more like a computer that just doesn't get the ethics of this. Like the V.I.K.I. from "I, Robot." It's MUCH more understandible.

And you certinly don't ACT like one, as the wide majority of fans believe that the EC is a complete marked improvement over what was given. I doubt you were arguing AGAINST it when the prospect came out, so don't complain now. We got it. It's better then what we had. Not perfect, but certinly better.

4) Again, it's human nature. A reaction movment to save the people close to you. There isn't TIME to think about that "greater purpose" garbage. It's NEVER obvious when the person is dying right in front of you, and rescue for them is a button-press away.
Look at the Suicide Mission. Shepard has the choice of sending a teammate back with the Crew, weakening the nember of squadmants holding the line just for the sake of the ships crew. That right there means that personal friends are as much a priority as the greater purpose.
He can throw away hundreds of humans for three Council mambers.
He's been more then willing to make sacrifices for a few. And this even more so. The first reaction you have to seeing a close friend or lover get injured like that is to try and save them - hell with the mission. It's an instinctual, reflexive movement for anyone.
Leaving them is heartless. Obviosuly, you can't be human if you place that little value on comradery and human responces.

And as stated before, At this point Harbinger thinks he's already won, so there's no harm in toying with the humans. Why else do you think he just leasurlly exterminates the humans, instead of just glassing the entire surrounding area? He's toying with his prey - with Shepard, showing that no matter who he saves, he will lose.

5) EDI says that this is flat-out wrong. The mteal aloys are made from genetic material. That gray liquid (DNA) is solidified into the metal alloys of the Reaper body. They are GROWN.
ME2 was poorly handled as a middleman in the series. It spent too mcuh time being self contained. If anything, ME2 was the death blow. It was too centered on it's own plot, with little tieing it to the plot of either of the other games. In my opinion, the overly isolated story was the downfall of ME, as the Crucibel and other elements should have been in that, and NOT so focused on the Collectors alone.
ME3 was just a symptom of ME2's failure to be a bridge by being totally isolated from the story.

6) Why is the signal so manditory then? Why else must a signal be sent out every harvest?
It seems the Catalyst may be a totally ioslated system within the Citadel. Like EDI when shackled, it was it's home, but not it's domain. Possibly to decrease the risk of someone finding a system that could be traced back to it.

AGAIN, the Conduit. VIGIL told you this in ME1? Remember?

Again, perhaps it did, and we didn't know. Or perhaps the blocking of the Keeper signal rendered it severed from the others.

Even MORE credidance that the Catalyst is an isolated system in the Citadel.

Three years is a long time, and they lose the element of surprise this way, and lose the oppertunity to quickly take the Citadel and the relay network.

It was courious. Shepard broke it's predictions and altered the variables it always used. It had the chance to speak directly. So why not?

The Reapers transmitt to the Citadel which transmitts to the Keepers. Ergo, exactally what I said.
Again, YOU are the one likely not talking to Vigil.

2) I never even mentioned Vigil in that section. The Protheans had no foreknowledge of the Starchild's existence. How is the Starchild so incompetent that it failed to detect not only their entry, but their intrusion into Citadel systems (which are a part of him), and allow himself to be disabled by people who didn't even know he was there?

3) You never provided a logical argument. All you said was "a bunch of people agree with me. therefore i'm right". It was meaningless, so there was nothing to refute. Bioware changed it because it was unpopular. Not everything unpopular is wrong, and not everything that is changed is improved. Personally I wasn't keen on the idea of my squadmates running away either. I was less keen on Shepard ordering them to run away when a) the galaxy depends on this mission succeeding, and people who aren't lucky enough to be Shepard's friends are there getting killed right in front of them. No med -evac for those losers!
a) There was never a "teleporting  squadmate" scene. And the problem is not with the ship being in range.
My problem is not with their beliefs. So your arguments are still the asspull i'm afraid.  My main problem is with the combination of the Starchild's strategic location and his refusal to do anything throughout the timeline of the series until the crucible gets plugged in.
c) The ending is an important part of the story. The ending ruined  the Reapers, and since the Reapers are a pretty important part of the story, that ruins it too. Excrement probably ruins a cake, no matter what else was good before you got to that layer.
d) I'm aware that a lot of people didn't like not being told the consequences of their end decision? So what? For everyone that hated that, there were just as many that liked the ambiguity.
e) Show me the official statistics and then you can call me one of the minority (even then, that wouldn't mean I'm wrong). Most people who played the game didn't complain or defend the game. It was not fussed over by the majority of fans at all. It was certainly complained about, and Bioware did try to fix it, but they only ruined another good scene. Plenty of people complained about that bit of stupidity too. About as many, if not more than praised it on these forums anyway.


Well certainly it's going to be the vast majority if you don't count the people who hated the EC as fans. It looks like the word you should be using is "sheep", as constantly you seem to imply that if one does not agree with you or a bunch of other people, then they are automatically wrong.

I was also not complaining about the prospect of Mass Effect 3 coming out before it did. That means I can't complain about it if I don't like it? I didn't really have high hopes for the EC. I just figured it'd be nearly impossible to accidentally make the ending worse. Turns out Bioware managed to do it.  They made the ending more stupid.

4. I guess Shepard hasn't been human the rest of the series then. Throwing away a bunch of humans, is different to risking everyone in the galaxy. Well then Shepard is heartless as he leaves all the non-VIP ordinary soldiers to die.

If he was toying with Shepard, showing that he'd lose whoever he tried to save, the Normandy would have been blown up.

5. Can you give me an exact quote? Because I believe you're mistaken.
ME2 was really good. ME3 would have been great too if it didn't ruin the Reapers at the end of the game.

6. "The Citadel is a part of me". Not "I am part of the Citadel". Try again.

"And how do you know that the Keepers weren't there from the beginning? Perhaps the signal goes through the Citadel to the Keepers directly,"

Is exactly what you said. If the Reaper signal went directly to the Keepers, the Citadel woudn't have to send a signal to them, once it received one from the Reapers
.

The delay in response is because I had better things to do.

(2) AGAIN, proof that the Catalyst was isolated from the Ciatdel itself. Or, like the Reapers, went into stasis during the 50,000 period between harvests. Or possbily WAS fully aware of the prothean intrusion, but as I stated BEFORE, was unable to stop it as it's Reapers had already returned to Dark Space. We already know that only a Reaper could acess the signal to re-open the Citadel Relay.
This all is proof that the Catalyst is likely isolated from the majority of the Citadel, and thus unable to directly affect the station.

(3) Again, you ignored the fact that, like I said, alot of people support this. Never said it was diffinitively right. That;s you trying to put words in my mouth. What I said is that you cannot just brush off so many coraberating statements.
Besides, As I said before, the ending pre-EC was garbage. Plain and simple. You DON'T get such a massive negitive reaction to something for just "unpopularity." Just look at Aliens: Colonial Marines. Widely panned by all as disrespectful to the series. When general opinion reaches such a high consensis like that, it's typacally true.
(a)www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5U8MSchS-0
Play from 5:00 onward. Squadmates are nowhere in sight. At the Normandy crash, they are there with NO explination.
They basically teleported to the Normandy through the magic of plotholes. Which was fixed by the Normandy coming in to evac the squad. So YES, there was a teleporting squadmate problem, and the fact that you are trying to ignore it is indicative of why you are failing to wrap your head around this. You don't screw up an endgame like that by not giving diffinitive reasons why your squad is missing from the endgame.
(b)DEAD. WRONG. Look at the quarian/geth war. Look at the war with synthetics during the Leviathan Age, in which they openly admit that many races were obliterated by their creations, or the Zha'till in the Prothean age.
Example: If you put two groups together, and they consistantly kill each other every one of the twenty or so times they are together, do yoi REALLY think the result will be any different the next time, or the time after that? THINK.
It's not rocket science to assume that, if it happens that many times without fail,  it will certinly happen the next time. Therefore, the Catalyst steps in to preserve life before it is overrun by synthetics. Think Terminator future, ruled by synthetics. Or the Flood from Halo. THAT'S what the Reapers solution prevents. It's heartless, but still logical.
And you are basically running from the question now, as EVERY post prior was arguing the Catalyst's motivations. And you are STILL wrong on that new topic, because, AGAIN, it is likely not able to interface with the Citadel systems directly. Likely hardware blocks in it's own servers. The Reapers may be the workaround for that. The Citadel houses it, but it's basically like a shell. It can't interface with the subsystems, hense why outside interferance from the Reapers is needed.
© Yes, but it's only a PART of that. It sucked, true, but the rest of the game DIDN'T. You cannot hate an entire game for that. Again, that is being a butthurt troll.
The ending didn't ruin the Reapers with the EC in place, because now, there is a motivation that at least makes sense now.
And your cake metaphor has no place here, as the ending is the bottom layer that you can cut and avoid, remember? And it's not excretement anymore. It's bittersweet. Too bittersweet still, but NOT the garbage it was beforehand.
(d)No one that was a fan of the game. Sidestand critics, maybe, but NO one that truly enjoyed the game. Go back to square one, look at the protest lists. See for yourself that the majority - nay, near the entirety of the protests were for closure to the game. If you had been right, there would not have been such an overwhelming amount of dislike for how the Normandy Crew was left hanging. Crew interactions are half the story, NO fan of RPG's would abide by how they were left in the original ending. THAT'S what.
(e)www.geekosystem.com/mass-effect-3-ending-essay/
www.gamefront.com/mass-effect-3-ending-hatred-5-reasons-the-fans-are-right/2/
These two sites offer proof of how badly the ending was receved, and how the game is still a good game, respectively.
Finally, the poll by _Martyr_ in which 68,399 people (the core of the BSN) said the ending SUCKED. Just go to polls and select "most voted." It's the top result, with so many comments the server won't load it anymore for me. Another 4,457 say they just wanted the Normandy to have closure.
The least amount, 1,762, say the ending was good. So again, YES, the ending was WIDELY decryed for the very reasons you refuse to acknolodge, and there certinly is NOT an equal split between those that wanted ambiguity.
Admit it. The ending was crap as it was. They made it better.

As from the polls, the vast majority were the core fans. Just about all that frequented the BSN were on that poll by _Martyr_, and the majority points to the game's ending sucking. The "Sheep" here is YOU, as you are too blinded by the crap BioWare gave you to realize they screwed up. When you refuse to acknolodge something, even when the devs themselves admited they screwed up, it's pretty damn sad. You really think that uou can just deny everything that was wrong with the pre-EC ending like a sheep?
The fact that you are soo blinded that you cannot even admit to the ending's flaws. The EC was widely panned as being much better then the original.
www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/06/26/mass-effect-3-extended-cut-the-good-bad-and-ugly.aspx
Another article that proves that the EC was better receved then it's counterpart. It is MUCH better then the original.
Just admit it. You are wrong. Get over it.

4. I think that YOU aren't the human one. Those were circumstances that COULDN'T be avoided. Shepard would have saved those lives if given the chance, so don't try your petty BS excuses. In Arrival, Shepard says that if there had been any way to save the batarians, the Commander would have done so. And just look at Mordin. He reduced the genophage to arithmitic and numbers, but when he saw the effects on the personal level, it changed his opinions. You are MUCH more likely to save a fimilar face under duress and after spending long periods of time in strenuious situations. It's being an organic. Being alive.
And again, the Normandy is a gnat to Harbinger, and cannot shoot for fear of hitting Shepard.
Look at Star Trek's Borg. The Borg Queen in the Star Trek movie First Contact. She left Picard alive despite the risk. And in the episode "The Best of Both Worlds," they allowed the Enterprise to leave, without destroying it. They didn't attack unless it was a risk.
The Normandy was no threat to Harbinger. The ground forces scurring around it while Shepard was evacing the squadmates however is another story.

5. Raw genetic material pumped into the thing to create it? EDI spicifically calles it an "Embryo." Every depiction is of them being grown from DNA. Even Paragon Lost got that right. They are grown from liqued DNA. Melted-down genetic material. Hence, GROWN.
And ME2's GAMEPLAY was good, but the main story sucked and was completely detached from the main plot of fighting Reapers.
And AGAIN, the EC ending does NOT ruin the Reapers. Their motivations are now believeable.

6. Nothing in thats sentance says "I have control of the Citadel, which is why I didn't stop you from opening the station arms."
Try again, smartass:wizard:

Also, that how it ORIGINALLY WAS. According to Vigil, based on the information the scientists discovered in their research, the Keepers evolved to take signals from the Citadel INSTEAD of the Reapers. They USED to. However, the keepers evolved to only take commands from the Citadel instead, but in the past, they took orders from the Reapers too. When they evolved to take orders from the Citadel, the Reapers had to adapt in turn, so they opted to transmit the signal through the Citadel into them, as they no longer responded to the signal in raw form.

[McAllyster]

Auld Wulf wrote...

The ending of Mass Effect 3 proved it was an intelligent game, one written by a clever, progressive thinker, who clearly wanted the story to mean something. Not everyone's going to understand a story like that, but that says more about the reader than it does the story.

This ending is far from intelligent. It tries to be intelligent, tries soooo hard and the result is plain stupid.

I suppose the writers read some really interesting works before wrote the ending like Vernor Vinge's, Greg Egan's or Alastair Reynold's sci-fi novels and tried to copy their solutions. The writers took inspiration from tons of sci-fi stories (the most obvious is Battlestar Galactica in the quarian arc) which in the most cases were absolutely OK and splendid. Some references even hilarious.

Casey and Mac are actually good writers / thinkers and they created a really rich and unique experience. However they can't compete the best sci-fi authors in the world. They tried it when they wrote the ending - and they are failed.

Oh, and indirectly calling stupid the people who doesn't like the endings - that is not an elegant move. 

Modifié par McAllyster, 07 mars 2013 - 08:52 .

[Gweedotk]

Auld Wulf wrote...

The ending of Mass Effect 3 proved it was an intelligent game, one written by a clever, progressive thinker, who clearly wanted the story to mean something. Not everyone's going to understand a story like that, but that says more about the reader than it does the story.

I happen to agree with this. I question cutting content and cutscenes, I do not quite understand the purpose of that but sincerely hope it wasn't to "cut costs." But corporate greed and exploitation aside, the endings left an intense emotional feeling and it appears most were not prepared for something of that intensity. It is absolutely admirable for a video game to achieve the sort of emotional response in an ending usually reserved for cinema classics.

The synthesis ending has in particular accrued quite nasty reviews. It may very well be the most progressive bit of story-telling in any video game and as a result, one of the more controversial plot elements.

Modifié par Gweedotk, 07 mars 2013 - 09:11 .

[Merwanor]

The journey is maybe the most important part as it is the bulk of the game, but if you don't have at least a good or acceptable ending it will sour the journey. When I hear the name Mass Effect now, I just instantly remember... Crappy ending!... Instead of going right to the awesome parts of the game.

I really liked ME3 even with its shortcomings during my first play through, but the ending was so devastatingly bad I have lost all interest in the series.
I replayed ME1 and 2 at least 4 times each, with perfect saves where I had done everything.... ME3... I have only played it one time through to the finish. And the problem is still the ending... Because when I try to play it again I don't look forward to getting there, and I lose interest fast. As everything I do in the game feels shallow and pointless when I know that it wont matter in the end anyways.

ME was supposed to be the first game series where choice was key and I so expected an ending that would take account for all our choices during the trilogy, by being able to use all these war assets in interesting ways and truly see the consequences of our actions. In the end, ME has become a huge missed opportunity to create the best game trilogy ever made by doing shortcuts with the last game in a trilogy.

I am not talking about the depth or the story, even though the whole ending deus ex machina thing is pretty terrible, what bothers me the most is that you go through all these games, and make loads of choices, but in the end all these war assets just turn into numbers, I was expecting something along the line of the end for ME2, but instead of sending companions to do certain tasks, you chose war assets to counter events. It is just sad that it turned into such a generic ending.

Modifié par Merwanor, 07 mars 2013 - 09:52 .

[silverexile17s]

McAllyster wrote...

Auld Wulf wrote...

The ending of Mass Effect 3 proved it was an intelligent game, one written by a clever, progressive thinker, who clearly wanted the story to mean something. Not everyone's going to understand a story like that, but that says more about the reader than it does the story.

This ending is far from intelligent. It tries to be intelligent, tries soooo hard and the result is plain stupid.

I suppose the writers read some really interesting works before wrote the ending like Vernor Vinge's, Greg Egan's or Alastair Reynold's sci-fi novels and tried to copy their solutions. The writers took inspiration from tons of sci-fi stories (the most obvious is Battlestar Galactica in the quarian arc) which in the most cases were absolutely OK and splendid. Some references even hilarious.

Casey and Mac are actually good writers / thinkers and they created a really rich and unique experience. However they can't compete the best sci-fi authors in the world. They tried it when they wrote the ending - and they are failed.

Oh, and indirectly calling stupid the people who doesn't like the endings - that is not an elegant move. 

Yeah. I promise you that you will never find someone as deluded or snide as Auld Wulf, who basically trys to say your stupid and he's better for "just because."
I too admit the ending had good ideas and insperations, but the execution sucked, because there was no quality control.

[Kel Riever]

But I like laughing at Auld Wulf! The cultists wouldn't be the same without a hero like him!

[hiraeth]

"How things begin isn't nearly as important as how they end"- Aria.

[DarkestDeceit]

I think what is so sad is that ME3 had great potential, great storyline and great passion from all its fans and writers, Really Bioware knew that a large percentage of the fan base wanted a happy ending(and yes i know an equally large portion don't want this), from the forum here alone that was always obvious, really they could have created their artistic ending as they saw fit and also added in a couple of other endings and just made them bloody hard to get , it's sad really that so many of the fans seem to feel the need to attack each other over their views on how the game should have played out, it's also sad that Bioware seems to have just took the attitude sod it and tough if you don't like it. Mass Effect in all was a great series but sadly a lot of people remember the bad before the good.

Modifié par DarkDeceit, 07 mars 2013 - 07:49 .

[Reorte]

Merwanor wrote...

The journey is maybe the most important part as it is the bulk of the game, but if you don't have at least a good or acceptable ending it will sour the journey. When I hear the name Mass Effect now, I just instantly remember... Crappy ending!... Instead of going right to the awesome parts of the game.

That's a good summary. A mediocre, forgettable ending is just that - unimportant. Nice to have a great one but not necessary. A great ending can only raise the overall opinion a bit but a bad one can drag it right down into the mire.

[avatar0]

The first page of the thread was gold.
You can think fondly about all the sweet time you spend on the train, but a train wreck is still a train wreck.

Modifié par avatar0, 08 mars 2013 - 12:17 .