205 réponses à ce sujet

[Oransel]

GiarcYekrub wrote...

1.What proof do you have that he's the big bad King of the Reapers? He could be just a recording, a VI imprint, an echo of the Reaper originating inteligence, seriously it does absolutely nothing but offer Shepard the choice. What he is isn't really important. What is important is Shepards achievement to get to that moment and the implications of that accomplishment.

2.I never saw the crucible in ME1 can you point it out for me, and as I said there is no proof of this "King of the Reapers" you seem to be going on about as it has never interfered in the past as far as I'm aware

3.Did you not see the dream sequences, the moment he dies on Earth scars Shepard and represents every life Shep couldn't save, something on the forefront of Sheps subconcious so when picking a form it seems a sensible option. Personally I'd of rather the LI be used or maybe Avina but I'm not angry about it as it represents a large part of Sheps character development in the 3rd game

1. Wow, you really are arguing for the sake of arguing even if you know that I am right. Play the game and you will see it is AI. He says he is AI, he acts as AI, he was intended as AI. More importantly he is the leader of the Reapers as he says, acts and was intended to be. Glad you agreed on other points.

2. Crucible does not bring him to existence. He predates it and is stored in Citadel control panel. 

3. Dream sequences are garbage, just as Catalyst and most of ME3 is.

[GiarcYekrub]

Oransel wrote...

GiarcYekrub wrote...

1.What proof do you have that he's the big bad King of the Reapers? He could be just a recording, a VI imprint, an echo of the Reaper originating inteligence, seriously it does absolutely nothing but offer Shepard the choice. What he is isn't really important. What is important is Shepards achievement to get to that moment and the implications of that accomplishment.

2.I never saw the crucible in ME1 can you point it out for me, and as I said there is no proof of this "King of the Reapers" you seem to be going on about as it has never interfered in the past as far as I'm aware

3.Did you not see the dream sequences, the moment he dies on Earth scars Shepard and represents every life Shep couldn't save, something on the forefront of Sheps subconcious so when picking a form it seems a sensible option. Personally I'd of rather the LI be used or maybe Avina but I'm not angry about it as it represents a large part of Sheps character development in the 3rd game

1. Wow, you really are arguing for the sake of arguing even if you know that I am right. Play the game and you will see it is AI. He says he is AI, he acts as AI, he was intended as AI. More importantly he is the leader of the Reapers as he says, acts and was intended to be. Glad you agreed on other points.

2. Crucible does not bring him to existence. He predates it and is stored in Citadel control panel. 

3. Dream sequences are garbage, just as Catalyst and most of ME3 is.

So the only proof you have is it said it is, thats not proof thats heresay. I could say I'm God does that make it true?

[The Night Mammoth]

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

Epic777 wrote...

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

After the EC, there's not a whole lot to complain about.

^^ Really? The execution is still very bad. "I guess the Illusive man was right". A few minutes before the player had gone through a lengthy discussion stating the Reapers could not be controlled. 

That is one thing that grinds my gears about the ending. The ending pushes aside general conventions for something that was doomed to not work. The classic writing convention is the ending must wrap up the loose ends and be conclusive. There is no lead up to synthesis or control, those endings just appear from no where

Yes there are. 
Saren stood for synthesis. TIM for control. 

This is so confusing. It's like you've forgotten everything about Saren and the Illusive Man, completely ignored the things they said, their situation, and fates. 

No, Saren did not stand for Synthesis. Saren's Synthesis is not Crucible Synthesis. On top of that, Saren was insane, idoctrinated, and died two whole games ago, and his basic existence is very rarely referred to, let alone the false ideology he represented.

Yes, the Illusive Man stood for Control, but the Illusive Man's idea of Control is not the Crucible's form of Control. Like Saren, he was also insane, indoctrinated, and died after recognizing his mistakes five minutes before talking to the Catalyst. Not only that, but you spend the whole game fighting against his goals, and telling him he's wrong. 

So you could maybe say there's a lead-up to Control, but it doesn't make sense and it's not consistent with the outcome. Pick whatever you want, for whatever reason you want, but saying these aspects of the finale fit what comes before is just, well, wrong. 

[wright1978]

Astralify wrote...

Mr Massakka wrote...

Yes, it still affects me that the last title of my favorite series turned out to be meh. Not only the ending, but the whole game.

This. ^

And yes, I am still upset.

Yep this.

[SiriusXI]

Ninja Stan wrote...

I disagree with SiriusXI about games and other media being part of our identity, though. Very few people would be described as "the guy who liked the Mass Effect franchise" or "the girl who hated the ME3 ending." The media you consume does not define you as a person, any more than the brand of food you eat does or how many pens you own. Of course, exceptions can be made for "the guy who liked the ME franchise so much he wore Shepard armour to school" or "the girl who wrote that song about hating the ME3 ending," but that's more about what you do than what you do or do not like.

Sure, you might feel like you've been physically hurt by a game you don't like, and yes, it's cool to be able to feel so strongly about a world, setting, franchise, story, whatever, but ultimately, it's fiction and it's a product that you have complete control over consuming. Love it, hate it, like only parts of it, play 1 and 3, play all the way up to the ending, skip all dialogue, speak along to all the dialogue, it doesn't matter how you choose to like (or not like) the product. You have complete control over how you use it, and you have complete control over whether you buy the next one. It doesn't (shouldn't) be the thing that defines you.

Well this is just not true.

Of course pieces of media we consume, as well as brands of clothing and shoes we wear or the food we eat are vital parts of our identity in the world we live in. It is of course not the only, let alone defining part of our identity. Obviously you cannot say it is "that guy who liked Mass Effect", trying to identify any one particular person. But your example is totally irrelevant, because this does almost never work. Maybe with "it is the guy who is president of the USA". But otherwise nationality, job, ethnicity, name and language are no more important to your identity than the pieces of media you enjoy if you enjoy media at all. We choose to construct our identity through alll these things. So you can say: "do you know Jon? The guitar Player who likes Metal? Great fan of System of a Down, has brown eyes, hates Hip Hop, plays a lot of video games, especially RPGs like Mass Effect?

And if something is part of your identity and this thing gets hurt or attacked, you feel hurt or attacked. "System of a Down sucks" somebody cries. "YOU SUCK!" Jon cries back. "America sucks" says the European. "YOU SUCK!" says the American patriot. System of a down break up --> Jon is pissed and maybe cries, because this band is so important to him. They reunite and make a comeback tour --> Jon is sooo happy about it. But if they should release a new album and it sucks, Jon will be very pissed about it and probably says: "they should just have stopped making music" --> but it is too late. This album can never be undone.

Bioware produces Mass Effect. You play it, you love it. You play it again and again and again and it becomes your favorite video game. You start to write in forums about it, start modding, make your friends play it, watch your friends play it. You make your girlfriend play it, watch ypour girlfriend play it. You read books about it, your read fan fiction. Then you play ME2 and love it even more ........................

My point is: ME3's ending (and some aspects of the game also) sucks! ME therfore gets hurt and I feel hurt, too. Mass Effect was THE game for me. I used to say "I love Mass Effect". Now I have to say: "I loved Mass Effect, well I still love the first two, but the last one was mediocre and the ending sucked so hard it destroyed the series".


And I also do not feel physically hurt by that game, don't be silly. I feel that something that was dear to me, something that (partly) defined who I am, is now ruined. And do we really have control over what we like and not like? You have control over what you consume, but once you consumed it, you canot rationally decide whether you love or hate it. You FEEL these things. If you hate it from the start you just move on. But if you love so much it becomes your favorite game e.g., this cannot be changed anymore. Then if later installments that are connected to the first one storywise suck, that's where the problem arises. Especially when the story of later installments hurt the story of the first (e.g. reapers!!!)

[Ajensis]

GiarcYekrub wrote...
So the only proof you have is it said it is, thats not proof thats heresay.

I'm pretty sure it's generally accepted as truth when the Catalyst presents itself as the one who controls the Reapers. There's nothing in the story to suggest that it's false. Besides, a professional writer never feeds the reader misinformation unless it serves a goal (and in the vast majority of these rare cases, it'll be revealed (or at the very least hinted at) later).

I could say I'm God does that make it true?

Sorry to be blunt, but that's not even close to being a valid counter-argument.

[GiarcYekrub]

Ajensis wrote...

GiarcYekrub wrote...
So the only proof you have is it said it is, thats not proof thats heresay.

I'm pretty sure it's generally accepted as truth when the Catalyst presents itself as the one who controls the Reapers. There's nothing in the story to suggest that it's false. Besides, a professional writer never feeds the reader misinformation unless it serves a goal (and in the vast majority of these rare cases, it'll be revealed (or at the very least hinted at) later).

I could say I'm God does that make it true?

Sorry to be blunt, but that's not even close to being a valid counter-argument.

Yes it is though. There is no evidence in the story to support your claim. You whole argument is your claim is absurd yet feel the need to believe something that isn't proven in game and base your entire critique of the game upon it.

It was the same with the relays, did they say expoded like the alpha relay? Why do people make such wild assumptions that they dislike just to hate.

It makes me sad that people are actually begging to be handheld through the story, yet at the same time cry foul if the story does something they aren't keen on.

[SiriusXI]

@GiarcYekrub your signature makes no sense. Han shot second was a change for the worse. Changing the endings to mass effect 3 would be a change for the better. Change can happen in both ways.

[Benchpress610]

GiarcYekrub wrote...

Ajensis wrote...

GiarcYekrub wrote...
So the only proof you have is it said it is, thats not proof thats heresay.

I'm pretty sure it's generally accepted as truth when the Catalyst presents itself as the one who controls the Reapers. There's nothing in the story to suggest that it's false. Besides, a professional writer never feeds the reader misinformation unless it serves a goal (and in the vast majority of these rare cases, it'll be revealed (or at the very least hinted at) later).

I could say I'm God does that make it true?

Sorry to be blunt, but that's not even close to being a valid counter-argument.

Yes it is though. There is no evidence in the story to support your claim. You whole argument is your claim is absurd yet feel the need to believe something that isn't proven in game and base your entire critique of the game upon it.

It was the same with the relays, did they say expoded like the alpha relay? Why do people make such wild assumptions that they dislike just to hate.

It makes me sad that people are actually begging to be handheld through the story, yet at the same time cry foul if the story does something they aren't keen on.

Sorry to interject in this discussion; you keep asking for proof, but can you provide solid proof of the contrary yourself? The only thing you have provided so far is pure conjecture. There is no reason (other than head-cannon) no to take the start-brat assertions as fact.

[Reth Shepherd]

GiarcYekrub wrote...

It was the same with the relays, did they say expoded like the alpha relay? Why do people make such wild assumptions that they dislike just to hate.

It makes me sad that people are actually begging to be handheld through the story, yet at the same time cry foul if the story does something they aren't keen on.

Funny thing about those relays; post-explosion you never actually see a planet confirmed to be in a system with a relay. In the original ending, we see Earth once the CITADEL color blows over it, then the Charon relay exploding, and we don't see Earth again. We see the Normandy on a jungle planet, but we have no way of knowing for sure what planet that is, which system, and whether said system has a Mass Relay. We don't even know for sure if the Normandy was in a relay tunnel or in FTL. If Normandy was in FTL, than she could be anywhere. (Also, everyone on the ship is dead because of Cherenkov radiation. I'm fairly sure the EC didn't fix that little plot hole.) And finally, load up the EC cinematic alongside the Arrival one. Set the two videos so that you can see the relays' destruction happening simultaneously. You'll see the two have a (relatively) minor explosion, and then the EC cuts away a split second before Arrival shows the huge, system-destroying boom.

Given the lack of evidence, and that Arrival, at least one codex entry, and at least two conversations reinforce the concept that relay destruction = oh cr*p, are you really surprised that people aren't jumping to the conclusion that the relay destruction magically happened differently this time around? The 'it wouldn't be much fun, playing in a wasteland', and "galactic dark age" comments by the writers about the post ME3 don't exactly help the case. Funny thing. Had Arrival never happened, than no one would have believed the galaxy destroyed because the concept would never have been introduced. And Arrival was written WHILE ME3 was being made. (Granted, maybe that's the problem. We know now that the ME3 ending was written well after the rest of the story, so perhaps the writers really did forget about that minor issue.) But either way, a good writer doesn't introduce and reinforce the idea of a piece of technology working one way, and then expect the audience to suddenly expect it to work completely differently without laying at least some groundwork first.


Edit: about your sig. Han shot. Period. Greedo didn't even get a shot off, much less first or second. At least get your sig right, please.

Modifié par Reth Shepherd, 20 février 2013 - 04:46 .

[AlanC9]

Reth Shepherd wrote...
Funny thing about those relays; post-explosion you never actually see a planet confirmed to be in a system with a relay. In the original ending, we see Earth once the CITADEL color blows over it,

The Citadel is a relay. Remember?

 If Normandy was in FTL, than she could be anywhere. (Also, everyone on the ship is dead because of Cherenkov radiation. I'm fairly sure the EC didn't fix that little plot hole.)

It's not a plot hole if they were in a relay transit and emerged exactly where they were always going to emerge, only a bit damaged. It's your unwarranted speculation that's adding the plot hole.

Also, where are the slides supposed to be happening? We see London, the Citadel, and ME2 squadmates on Earth. Also Rannoch, Thessia, and Tuchanka, though I suppose a creative enough player could convince himself that those were actually colony worlds.

The relays exploding was a silly theory pre-EC, but now it's not even a theory. Just a desperate attempt to prop up a mistaken impression.

Modifié par AlanC9, 20 février 2013 - 04:56 .

[Commander Wookie]

To OP
I only just finished my first complete play through recently and I am disappointed at what I thought was a weak and rushed ending (on an otherwise good game overall). It has affected me that I haven’t had the desire to do another play through yet, unlike the first the two games, I quickly replayed through using different styles.

I still look forward to what is in store for the Mass Effect Universe and hope the right things can be absorbed from all the discussions on the forums, for good use in making other great compelling stories & action RPGs set in the Mass Effect Universe.

In sum I’m sourly optimistic.

[Romaka]

In regards to the opening question:  On some level yes I was hurt by the ending.  After I played it the first time all the way through I was confused, then angry, then sad and then disappointed.  I waited for EC and after playing through it again did not give me a feeling that much of anything changed at all.  Have tried playing since but get apathetic and stop usually always at Mars.

It has at the very least made me extremely cautious about getting attached to any type of story and given me pause before pre-ordering or purchasing outright unless on sale.  I also have not purchased any of the DLC's for ME3 yet and not sure if I will.

Ever since the ending I was always confused as to why it was decided to make it into a choice.  Why did the Crucible need to be Destroy, Control or Synthesis(Don't count Refuse)?  Why couldn't it simply be a device that weakened the Reapers to a certain point to enable a way to fight them effectively?  Why couldn't it have simply been determined by war asset score?

The ending then could have been simply determined by war asset score.  Have too low a score then you lose.  Have enough you win barely.  Have a lot more than enough then you win.  At that point the theme of Take Back Earth could have been resolved and be a lead in for a Mass Effect 4 if they wanted except the next game would be Take Back the Galaxy.  IMO this would not have diminished the threat of the Reapers because they still would have been huge threats.

Anyways that was simply my thought process as to how Mass Effect 3 would have ended to me.  It didn't and I accept it but I still do not like bordering on hate how they actually did end it.  I just am not as concerned about it that much anymore since I have not allowed it to fester in my mind as much as I did in the beginning.

[X in 415]

to answer the original question: Still hurt? Not really. I think Im more bummed out than anything. I used to get chills every time I fired up ME1, the opening music (Vigils Theme) was like a narcotic. The way the series took a nose dive in to the toilet is just a huge disappointment and let down.

[DirtyPhoenix]

I can only speak for myself and no I'm not upset anymore. Bring on ME4 ! (or whatever it is called!)

[eddieoctane]

It's hard to let go of a slight. BioWare's actions post fan outcry took a flop ending and elevated it to direct insult to the fans ("artistic integrity", how to initiate refuse ending, EC watering down all the implications of the existing choices to making them little more than a method to kill off Shepard). When you attack your player base directly, it will always bite you in the ass.

Ninja Theory did this with the new DMC reboot. Not only did they change Dante's trademark look, they actually dropped a wig on his head at one point, have him look in a mirror to see the Dante everyone wanted, and have him sputter "not in a million years" before tossing the wig to the side. Spitting on the fans isn't how to make a profit. But maybe that's what art is all about these day; making your ardent supporters now hate you.

[AdmiralCheez]

Yep, still butthurt. Probably won't get over it until I find a fandom as appealing to me as Mass Effect was.

[Renmiri1]

wright1978 wrote...

Astralify wrote...

Mr Massakka wrote...

Yes, it still affects me that the last title of my favorite series turned out to be meh. Not only the ending, but the whole game.

This. ^

And yes, I am still upset.

Yep this.

Yup this. Haven't finished ME3 couldn't get myself to bother, after seeing the EC movies. Never bought any DLC. Can't even replay 1 and 2 

Why am I still here ?

Modifié par Renmiri1, 20 février 2013 - 05:47 .

[CroGamer002]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Yep, still butthurt. Probably won't get over it until I find a fandom as appealing to me as Mass Effect was.

Same story here.

[humes spork]

Reth Shepherd wrote...

 (Also, everyone on the ship is dead because of Cherenkov radiation. I'm fairly sure the EC didn't fix that little plot hole.)

"What the hell was that?"
"The Normandy...they've gone to blue!"

(It really helps your credibility to know what Cherenkov radiation is in the first place. Or at least know enough to mock the goofballs who wrote the ME1 codex. Seriously, saying this is somewhat akin to saying jet pilots go deaf from the sonic boom when they break the sound barrier.)

Modifié par humes spork, 20 février 2013 - 06:20 .

[DaBigDragon]

GimmeDaGun wrote...

Yeah, me too, I like ME3 and I also like how it ends. And frankly, I don't really care about the debacle or how others feel about it.

This.

[GiarcYekrub]

Benchpress610 wrote...

GiarcYekrub wrote...

Ajensis wrote...

GiarcYekrub wrote...
So the only proof you have is it said it is, thats not proof thats heresay.

I'm pretty sure it's generally accepted as truth when the Catalyst presents itself as the one who controls the Reapers. There's nothing in the story to suggest that it's false. Besides, a professional writer never feeds the reader misinformation unless it serves a goal (and in the vast majority of these rare cases, it'll be revealed (or at the very least hinted at) later).

I could say I'm God does that make it true?

Sorry to be blunt, but that's not even close to being a valid counter-argument.

Yes it is though. There is no evidence in the story to support your claim. You whole argument is your claim is absurd yet feel the need to believe something that isn't proven in game and base your entire critique of the game upon it.

It was the same with the relays, did they say expoded like the alpha relay? Why do people make such wild assumptions that they dislike just to hate.

It makes me sad that people are actually begging to be handheld through the story, yet at the same time cry foul if the story does something they aren't keen on.

Sorry to interject in this discussion; you keep asking for proof, but can you provide solid proof of the contrary yourself? The only thing you have provided so far is pure conjecture. There is no reason (other than head-cannon) no to take the start-brat assertions as fact.

Why do I need proof? I'm not the one getting angry about hypothetical head canon, mine scenario is also hypothetical but I'm happy that it isn't inconsistent with the fact, my argument is that so is the "Reaper King" head canon is being taken as fact and people are getting worked up about it, to me thats not the fault of Bioware. The Catalyst never does anything, its abilities are unknown, until Bioware write them, to infer that it breaks ME1 is absurd

[AngryFrozenWater]

Yate wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

"Still hurt" sounds like a poor attempt to connect emotion to the rational arguments of those who criticize ME3.

except that it's pretty much all emotion now

you'll get the occasional nutcase whining about plotholes, but I've debated with several, and so far there's nothing that doesn't make sense after around 3 minutes of logical thinking.

So, now it is not only emotion that comes into play, you add poor argumentation to the mix. Remember that you did not go into detail. It is just your statement that merely supports the OP's poor attempt in much the same way.

[Ryoten]

It made me not trust Bioware/EA, and actually slightly loath the companies because of the way they treated their customers by passive aggresively attacking them.

The whole thing has made me a more conscious consumer.