394 réponses à ce sujet

[justafan]

I will forever hate the endings, but I have come to accept that they are the only endings we're going to get, and I have to make peace with that. I tend to avoid thinking about them, and though I haven't done a play through since immediately after the EC, if I ever do get around to a trilogy run, I will treat everything after the beam before the destroy ending slideshow as non-existent.

Now, I've put the ending behind, and am more focused on thinking about the future of the series. At first I thought ME was dead, but now I'm hoping they find a way to revive the series and rekindle the love I had for ME1 and 2.

[Obadiah]

My reaction to the end of the game was: man I hope I did the right thing.

And I came to the forum hoping to talk about it and ran into the whole, "THIS SUCKS. THIS ENDING IS TERRIBLE. GOD HOW COULD THEY WRITE THIS???"

I have since found a few spots where I can actually talk about the endings. I guess I more got over BSN's reaction than the actual game ending.

[NinjaTurtle12]

Ending is good,what make me angry is cooming to him,lazy-writen last mission with lot plot holes, Catalyst with strange motives and wired things that are going on

[Benchpress610]

Is the ending still a deranged nightmare that seems to have come out of The Wizard of Oz?...yes. Does it still looks like it was written by a completely different team with no knowledge whatsoever of previous game lore?... yes. Does it still look like a rush job slapped there to just end the dammed thing off?...yes.

Then I still don’t like it. It doesn’t mean I’m angry, that subsided a long time ago. I’m just indifferent at this point.

[wright1978]

justafan wrote...

I will forever hate the endings, but I have come to accept that they are the only endings we're going to get, and I have to make peace with that. I tend to avoid thinking about them, and though I haven't done a play through since immediately after the EC, if I ever do get around to a trilogy run, I will treat everything after the beam before the destroy ending slideshow as non-existent.

Now, I've put the ending behind, and am more focused on thinking about the future of the series. At first I thought ME was dead, but now I'm hoping they find a way to revive the series and rekindle the love I had for ME1 and 2.
 

This is sort of where i want to get to. Not there yet though.

Modifié par wright1978, 11 février 2013 - 06:57 .

[Linkforlife]

I have pretty much moved on from hating the ending. I figure what is done is done and there is no point on dwelling on it. I have moved on to other games.

[Mole267]

What I really hated about ME3's ending at the end of the day... Look back at ME2's ending. There is actually reason for going back and playing again, just to see how you could change things for better or worse, and bring different people with you. It was a BIG ending.

I was honestly expecting ME3's ending to be like that, except bigger (with stuff like the Rachni factored in too). Instead, it is was a one-track final mission, where Shepard forced to walk VERY slowly for 15 minutes straight, all alone. Not even a boss fight, just "choose A, B, or C to end the game". It's just sad, hopeless, and depressing. Even ME2's worst ending wasn't as depressing. ME1's ending was very much one-track as well (with two choices), but at least it still gave you an actual boss fight.

I started another playthrough on ME3 nearly a year after I bought it (CE too), and with FRAPS running, I have noticed that most of the game is pre-rendered and non-interactive (can tell by the way the game constantly switches between 30 and 60 FPS). It already turned me off from the game, and I ceased playing it right after the part where the Normandy leaves Earth. It was a good game for one playthrough, basically.

BioWare, you wonder why your forums are "toxic"? It's probably because you PROMISED that you weren't gonna do certain cheap-out things with ME3, namely an ending where you "choose A, B, or C". Yet in the final game, it's a "choose A, B, or C" type of ending. Get back to making good games like you used to! Very rich games, with great stories and characters like KOTOR, Dragon Age and ME1/2. God knows there's a shortage of good games out there lately. Also, no one is interested in a WoW-style MMO dressed up as Star Wars.

Modifié par Mole267, 11 février 2013 - 07:14 .

[humes spork]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Are you talking about the relays here? If so, then I suppose it depends what you see as freedom for the galaxy. If you define autonomy for the galaxy as "developing along any path except the relay path" then fine, so long as we realize that this is not really autonomy after all.

Alternatively, if you think the EC undermined the statement because it precludes the ability for the player to decide for himself whether or not the galaxy uses the relays, then I think that is a very good point.

Do you refer to my post about the relays on the other thread? If so, then yes the relays are a part of it.

A narrative undercurrent that exists throughout the trilogy is that the organic species, particularly the Council races as of ME1, are complacent, bureaucratized hulks intent on above all else maintaing the status quo, technologically and culturally. Organic races existed not only within the grasp of the Reapers' technological and evolutionary "trap", but in the shadow of it as well. This is not only true in the context of the trilogy itself, but the universe's backstory and expanded universe as well -- the cycle of surmounting a major event then stubbornly returning to status quo, and then being reliant upon outside sources to be their saviors repeats itself continually.

The asari and salarians couldn't defeat the rachni, it required outsiders (the krogan) to do it. The asari and salarians couldn't defeat the krogan, and required outsiders (the turians) to do it. The asari, salarians, and turians couldn't defeat the geth, and required outsiders (humans) to do it. Those four races, despite advance warning and unprecedented ability to unify and prepare which could have turned the tide of the Reaper war, required the Crucible. And, each time prior to the Reaper war, was a stubborn denial that circumstances have fundamentally changed and insistence on returning to the status quo.

The trilogy had glimmers of hope: IES, QEC's, to name two. Organic races were stepping outside the shadow of the Reapers, by developing independent technologies. One can even wonder if the geth, for being VI runtimes that use swarm computing to achieve sentience, constitutes such. So, what does it mean if the relays are simply mindlessly rebuilt? Do organic species continue to develop independently, or do they stay in the Reapers' shadow, dependent upon tech that predates those species by eons constructed for the singular purpose of keeping them from developing freely and independently, even as the threat itself is gone?

Yes, a choice to attempt to return to some status quo, and return to complacency is a choice. But, is it a true exercise of freedom and independence? Consider that by juxtaposing the control ending, the primary feature of which is not only the organic species continue to exist wholly in the shadow of the Reapers, but it is implied that dependence will only grow. And, yes, that loss of player agency to interpret the endings for themselves strikes to the heart of the matter.

[ChurchOfZod]

I think the EC made the ending more palatable but it still stinks. The missed potential of ME3 is enormous. That being said, I made peace with the huge issues of the game, although the arrogance and high handedness of a few mods here have made me realize just how much or little I want to support Bioware/EA. So instead of buying Dead Space 3 which I hear ME3'ed up the ending, I will wait a year until it's 15 bucks. I also stopped buying and ME DLC after Leviathan until there's a BIG drop in price if at all.

So I guess that even though I don't completely hate the ending now it and BSN staff's behavior have soured me on EA/Bioware to the point where I'm not a day 1 DLC/Collector's edition preorder customer anymore.

Modifié par ChurchOfZod, 11 février 2013 - 07:46 .

[CronoDragoon]

humes spork wrote...
Do you refer to my post about the relays on the other thread? If so, then yes the relays are a part of it.

A narrative undercurrent that exists throughout the trilogy is that the organic species, particularly the Council races as of ME1, are complacent, bureaucratized hulks intent on above all else maintaing the status quo, technologically and culturally. Organic races existed not only within the grasp of the Reapers' technological and evolutionary "trap", but in the shadow of it as well. This is not only true in the context of the trilogy itself, but the universe's backstory and expanded universe as well -- the cycle of surmounting a major event then stubbornly returning to status quo, and then being reliant upon outside sources to be their saviors repeats itself continually.

It is not obvious to me that the hierarchy of the galaxy is comparable to the relay situation. I find it equally plausible that different races will do everything you said regardless of whether the relays exist or not -regardless of whether or not they discriminate and hoard power using technology from the Reapers or technology they developed themselves.

As for the Crucible, I could interpret its use - considering its origin in the failure of past cycles - to be a statement about the importance of building on the legacy of both past mistakes and past triumphs. A technological reset gives me no more reason to believe in freedom from hierarchical society then it does the newfound capability, given the dissolution of the Council, to exploit lesser local races in horrific ways that cannot be regulated.

So, what does it mean if the relays are simply mindlessly rebuilt? Do organic species continue to develop independently, or do they stay in the Reapers' shadow, dependent upon tech that predates those species by eons constructed for the singular purpose of keeping them from developing freely and independently, even as the threat itself is gone?

The assumption I'd like to challenge here is that the relays are "mindlessly" rebuilt. If the galaxy succeeds in rebuilding the relays whereas previously they were disabled/borderline destroyed, then in what sense have they remained in the Reapers shadow? Haven't they earned the right to use those relays, having used their own technological research/knowledge to make new breakthroughs, allowing them to rebuild the relays? The past purpose of the relays is irrelevant once "developing along the Reapers' lines" ceases to be a threat to their existence, and as I said above it's no longer a case of complacency born from an inability to understand the relays. Said complacency was due to a combination of two factors: Just how damn good the relays were and their impenetrable internal logic. If we assume the galaxy has solved the latter in the EC, then what's stopping new technological progress such as the eventual miniaturization of relays that once again stimulate space exploration, similar to how Leto creating worms that can live off Arrakis leads to a new age of space exploration?

Yes, a choice to attempt to return to some status quo, and return to complacency is a choice. But, is it a true exercise of freedom and independence? Consider that by juxtaposing the control ending, the primary feature of which is not only the organic species continue to exist wholly in the shadow of the Reapers, but it is implied that dependence will only grow. And, yes, that loss of player agency to interpret the endings for themselves strikes to the heart of the matter.

I see the destruction of the relays as nothing more than returning to a previous status quo. How free was the galaxy under the Leviathans pre-relays? Does the development of new space-faring technology somehow make us "more free"? Compared to what? A society in which an international infrastructure precludes the worst possible abuses of freedom? In which the trend as early as ME1 is the expansion of Council races rather than the further consolidation of power by the few?

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 11 février 2013 - 07:49 .

[robarcool]

chidingewe8036 wrote...

Xellith wrote...

Dont think Ill ever play it again.

Same here, Bioware F ed up. Aint no goin back.

[SwordofMercy1]

At first as was confused, then I was angry, but now I come to the acceptance that it is something that will probably never change and I should just move on. ME was great in the first and second game, then it went all down the drain in ME3. I think I'll just pretend the third game NEVER happened, and make up my own version.My ending is way better anyway lol.

[Slashice]

I just want an ending that doesn't ignore the lore of ME1 and ME2, it isn't full of lorebreaker stuff and plot holes. Other than that (Shepard lives or dies, crew survives or not, Earth survives or not, etc) I don't care. Period.

And yeah, I'm still pissed about the endings.

PS: This applys to the whole storyline of ME3 aswell (just a quick thing: why didn't the Reapers hit the Citadel and tried to turn off the relay network, or at least turn them into "omega mode", making only ships to travel through relays that have Reaper IFF).

Modifié par Slashice, 11 février 2013 - 08:17 .

[humes spork]

CronoDragoon wrote...

It is not obvious to me that the hierarchy of the galaxy is comparable to the relay situation.

The relays are merely symbolic of this greater problem. And, whether or not relays are rebuilt by organic species' own hands is somewhat irrelevant -- they're still existing in the shadow of the Reapers, recovering "lost" tech, when other potential paths have been made apparent to be available.

Take synthesis, for example -- despite the Reapers' continued existence, rehabilitation and integration into galactic society, not mention or implication one is made of the relays. Perhaps synthesis heralds a future in which relays are not even necessary?

And again, to simply rebuild the relays is symbolic of a return to the status quo. The status quo, which the universe's backstory indicates, doesn't lead to a sustainable peace. And, in light of the Catalyst's warning about the potential rise of synthetic life without the Reapers to keep in check, is quite foreboding indeed. That's not a guarantee, mind you -- merely a lingering question that things may not turn out so idyllic as one is led to believe by Hackett's epilogue monologue.

Of course the other questions can be levied, all the same. It just happens to be the case the relays, as a symbol of the underlying issues that raise these questions, being rebuilt makes the need to ask them all the more important since it opens the door as to what lessons were learned in the long run.

[Obadiah]

Don't think the Reapers could control the Citadel to a great extent. Even after they moved the Citadel, the Relay network was still up.

[Volc19]

The EC has placated me as far as content goes, but there is still a bitter taste in my mouth when I think of Bioware shipping the original ending, expecting us to be okay with it, and never actually owning up to their mistake.

[Rhayak]

It's weird, but the more time goes, the more i grow mad at the endings.

I mean yes, i originally came to terms with them, i forced myself into overlooking the VAST gaps in the writing, and i always supported the idea of Synthesis (although i WOULD have reconsidered, had they changed Destroy to a non-geth-exterminating version)

..... but, for example: the other day i saw Mass Effect Trilogy on a shelf and my first thought was.... "Wow.... how could they make something that amazing, then eff it up so bad with that whole crucible mess?"

Seriously, it's like taking years to make the best woman painting ever, then smudging mustaches over her one hour before the exhibit.

I still play multi and enjoy it. I have another single player walkthrough on hold to wait for the (last?) SP DLC.... but the whole plot aspect is just spoiled beyond remedy.

[BD Manchild]

I still hate the endings with an intense passion, but I've had to resign myself to the fact that they're all we're going to get. Once all the DLC is out and this "phase" of the ME story is complete, I'll be able to move on and put the series behind me. If ME3 and the recent tie-in material is anything to go by, I don't hold out much hope for the franchise's future. It's officially broken beyond repair, as far as I'm concerned. Like I say I've not completely reached the point where I can get it out of my system, but I'm working on it.

[Renmiri1]

BD Manchild wrote...

I still hate the endings with an intense passion, but I've had to resign myself to the fact that they're all we're going to get.

I basically moved on. Haven't bought a single ME3 DLC, don't play multiplayer and doubt I will be buying the "Not called Mass Effect 4" game

[JMJ_91]

I still like the ME-universe a great deal and I'll likely buy any SP-DLC or ME 4, but the endings, as they stand, annoy the hell out of me. I'm interessted in how they'll incorporate the triology in the upcoming game

[Malanek]

I don't think the ending, or for that matter the greater plot, was very well written. Before the extended cut the ending was also very emotionally flat which was very odd given the high emotion content in the rest of the game. The extended cut at least put a bit more feeling into the ending but it does lose impact for not being there first of all. Overall I still think it was an excellent game but the ending was a disappointing end to a very enjoyable trilogy.

[ZombieJohn84]

Renmiri1 wrote...

BD Manchild wrote...

I still hate the endings with an intense passion, but I've had to resign myself to the fact that they're all we're going to get.

I basically moved on. Haven't bought a single ME3 DLC, don't play multiplayer and doubt I will be buying the "Not called Mass Effect 4" game

Same here.  The ending was bad.  Bioware was worse.

C'est la vie.

[CronoDragoon]

humes spork wrote...

Of course the other questions can be levied, all the same. It just happens to be the case the relays, as a symbol of the underlying issues that raise these questions, being rebuilt makes the need to ask them all the more important since it opens the door as to what lessons were learned in the long run.

But in order for me to accept that the relays represent more than just the Reaper cycle which controlled galactic evolution, I have to be shown ways in which an alternate path such as a technological reset can free us from the larger sociopolitical issues present in the galaxy during the trilogy. I have no reason to believe that a technological reset and the development of different technology presents a better chance to deal with the problems you have mentioned, such as 1. synthetics or 2. inter-species wars or 3. the rule over the many by the few that the Council might represent.

In such a case, I can't assign the relays symbolic status in relation to the galaxy's internal issues (identified as issues besides the Reapers) because I don't find any meaningful way that the absence of the relays or the subsitution of alternate technology besides the relays would solve any of it. In other words, the relays might happen to represent the conflict and hierarchies of an age, but only because they were the dominant technology during the series, and not because something inherent in the history of the relays themselves represent a specific problem that could be solved with their removal. If you substituted the relays with enhanced FTL, we might be talking about how FTL restrictions/taxations/fees were symbolic of galactic issues.

It therefore seems to me that the core of the argument against relays in particular stems from the relay technology not being truly our own, and this is where it is relevant that post-ending the galaxy rebuilds the relays itself with its own knowledge and insight. To argue that the relays are still "an outside source" post-ending is to argue that the mastery of any technology not invented in a specific area will nevertheless be considered "external technology" or relying on an "outside source." And because the Reapers are dead, that is all the relays now are: technology. That is speaking practically of course; my arguments against the nature of the relays thematically are above.

[AlanC9]

humes spork wrote...

The relays are merely symbolic of this greater problem. And, whether or not relays are rebuilt by organic species' own hands is somewhat irrelevant -- they're still existing in the shadow of the Reapers, recovering "lost" tech, when other potential paths have been made apparent to be available.

Hmm.... the problem with loading this much symbolism on the relays is that whatever they symbolize, they're also a very useful technology which has no known substitute. The only in-universe reason to not rebuild them would be not knowing how.

Modifié par AlanC9, 11 février 2013 - 09:44 .

[Auld Wulf]

JMJ_91 wrote...

Right, I see your point, that's why Snythesis is supposed to be the "Good"-ending. I've just got trouble seeing how it would work inside the Mass Effect universe (kinda weird arguing about what's unrealtistic in a sci-fi game )

Well, you seem nice enough, so I'll continue this...

I guess I don't understand what the problem is from the perspective of the Mass Effect Universe. It's all about tools (your technology), resources, and organisation. If your tools are flexible and advanced enough, then eventually you'll be able to do damn near anything. I've heard the term "digital reality" come up a lot lately in regards to physics research, and what we're finding is that everything is actually much more simple than we originally bleieved it to be. Every bit as messy, certainly, but still not at all a grand, incomprehensible thing.

The reapers were built by a race that was far, far ahead of us in regards to their understanding of the Universe. The resrouces were provided by the catalyst, the tool was the Citadel, the Catalyst had clearly been planning this for quite some time, and the tools are hugely flexible and greatly advanced (millennia beyond our own). I've often theorised that the Catalyst leaked the Crucible simply because it wanted to be in a situation where it could provide other solutions, where it could prove to the reaper consensus that the original solution could no longer work. It tried to create that situation, much to the chagrin of the reaper consensus.

Many times the Alliance pointed out that they had no clue what they were building, but the instructions for building it were so surprisingly simple and elegant, so much so that they could build this thing without even knowing what it was. This is what leads me to believe that the Crucible itself was a Catalyst plan, leaked to every cycle in the hopes that one of them would be able to build it, so that the Catalyst could initiate a new solution.

Look at the technology we've witnessed already. The quarians and the geth are incredibly advanced, anyway. EDI was a marvellous piece of engineering, essentially a man-made sapient life form... now just up the ante and realise what the reapers could do with their technology. The relays could be used as a transmission medium for whatever they want. Couple the relays as a transmission medium with self-replicating nanotechnology and things begin to make more sense. This is how it 'spreads' everywhere.

And really, the relays are reaper tech, so they're likely easily programmed to perform any number of tasks. When you look at how we already have hardware that we can program to reshape itself, even circuitboards which we can tell to take a certain shape and be a certain thing, on a grander scale, a reaper relay is likely capable of so, so much more.

Where would this nanotech come from? Manufactured by the Citadel thanks to the resources provided by the Crucible. Again: Tools, organisation, and resources.

You just have to think bigger. It's Sci-Fi, after all. At some point in the future we're going to look back at us, today, and realise how incredibly primitive we are. This will be seen as the middle ages, a dark time where we lacked in so much; where there was so much poverty in the world; and so much sickness and suffering. The whole point of being alive is to strive to overcome those limitations and become something better. Synthesis is just that on a grander scale. We already overcome so many things today with tools, resources, and organisation. But it's not enough.

If we had enough organisation, today, we'd already be building superstructures in space. But sadly there are things getting in the way of that. A lot of it is due to failings in our own nature (largely greed). Still, we have overcome much with our tools, what resources we have available to us, and our organisation. Synthesis is just that on a much, much grander scale.