381 réponses à ce sujet

[NCommand]

TheProtheans wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...

TheProtheans wrote...

GiarcYekrub wrote...


2.Headcanon:The catalyst was present,aware and capable on the citadel in ME1
3.Reason to get angry:Makes ME1/Sovereign/Saren/Keepers irrelevent



Personally I don't see how any of that is Bioware fault.

The idea of the Catalyst alway been present on the Citadel and aware is illogical? it is a VI.
There is nothing to explain why it would not be.

It is Bioware's fault because they wanted lots of speculation.
I'm not even sure how you made it on the internet.

Correction: it's an AI.

I'm not sure, is there anything to prove it has done something out of it's original program?
The Reaper Cycle is technically within it's parameters.

The catalyst was adaptable, which makes it an AI

[AdmiralCheez]

Sad? My favorite part in ME3 was when Mordin died!

No, OP: A lot of people dislike the endings for a lot of different reasons. Me? I hated it for the utterly contrived BS that was the Catalyst's ultimatum and Shepard's pathetic passivity in accepting it. I hated how a story about working together, celebrating our differences, and always keeping hope in the face of impossible odds effectively spat on those themes in the last five minutes. I hate how it was half-assed and unoriginal (Deus Ex, seriously). I hate how the cliche-but-awesome Bioware standard was sacrificed in favor of "controversy." I hate how the only way to win--after all that time, money, and hard work--is to commit the war crime of your choice (pick a color).

I hate how it made everything that came before it seem so.... pointless.

PS: You don't get points for referencing classic literature. Something isn't automatically deep or intellectual just because the ending is sad, and the tragedy is only one kind of story we can tell.

PPS: Read Great Gatsby. It sucked, mostly because all the characters were jerks. I didn't care when each took their fall in turn. Also, I was never one to fall for heavy-handed symbolism.

[wright1978]

zaalbar76 wrote...

I think your getting the wrong impression OP.

People were mostly upset because the ending did not make much sense especially before the EC dlc was released.
Mass Effect 3 ending made the mistake of introducing a new character within the final 10 min that completely invalidates the plot of previous games in the series. in short... Its contrived.

If ME3 simply had a sad ending then I don`t believe the game would have received the backlash that it did. Sad endings can work rather well just take Red Dead Redemption for example, one of my favorite games with what I believe is a statisfying conclusion.

ME3 ending is not satisfying in the slightest, I can not even say it`s sad really, it just comes off as a confusing mess. Shepard jumps into a beam or grabs power cable both of which lead to his death unless you shoot the glass tube while walking TOWARDS the explosion that apparently leads to him living... somehow?

People are only feeling sad because after the ending we all screamed WTF was that followed by a 10min head scratching session followed by the realisation that 5 years and over 100 hours of game time has just flushed down the crapper.

EC improved some of the propblems but most people would see it as a polished turd.

Yep you can tie a shiny red bow round a trainwreck but that doesn't mean it isn't a trainwreck.

[OdanUrr]

TheProtheans wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...

TheProtheans wrote...

GiarcYekrub wrote...


2.Headcanon:The catalyst was present,aware and capable on the citadel in ME1
3.Reason to get angry:Makes ME1/Sovereign/Saren/Keepers irrelevent



Personally I don't see how any of that is Bioware fault.

The idea of the Catalyst alway been present on the Citadel and aware is illogical? it is a VI.
There is nothing to explain why it would not be.

It is Bioware's fault because they wanted lots of speculation.
I'm not even sure how you made it on the internet.

Correction: it's an AI.

I'm not sure, is there anything to prove it has done something out of it's original program?
The Reaper Cycle is technically within it's parameters.

http://masseffect.wi...al_intelligence

http://masseffect.wi...al_Intelligence

[Gerudan]

Maverick827 wrote...

That's what everyone was so upset over?  Because it was "sad"?  Really?

No, not because of that, not at all. 

[Ieldra]

GiarcYekrub wrote...
I don't get the ending backlash, every criticism I've seen of it was because their own headcanon offended them, I find this confusing-

1.Watch ending
2.Create illogical headcanon
3.Get angry their headcanon is illogical
4.Blame the ending

Heres a classic examples of 2 and 3's
2.Headcanon:The catalyst is a God
3.Reason to get angry:There are no Gods in Mass Effect

Nobody's said that. I have said that the presentation surrounds it with the trappings of divinity, in order to make people subconsciously react to that.....and trust it. In other words, it's another case of "feel, don't think." The Catalyst as an entity is ok with me, the way it is presented by the story is not.

2.Headcanon:The catalyst can directly control the Reapers without Shepard
3.Reason to get angry:Surely the catalyst can stop the Harvest on its own

Er....is there anything incomprehensible about the line "I control the Reapers"? The EC even adds "I embody the collective intelligence of all Reapers". It appears rather implausible to assume that the Catalyst can NOT control the Reapers.

If you want "illogical headcanon", there are much better examples. "Control!Shepard will create an oppressive regime lasting forever" or "Synthesis brainwashes people", for instance.

I do not "blame the ending" for anything. Not after the EC. I like the outcomes, even if not the way they're brought about. But the ending does have flaws, and they should be mentioned.

Here's what I hate about the whole debate: It seems most people either uncritically accept them or hate the whole thing. There appears to be little middle ground.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 12 mars 2013 - 11:54 .

[CrazyRah]

Gerudan wrote...

Maverick827 wrote...

That's what everyone was so upset over?  Because it was "sad"?  Really?

No, not because of that, not at all. 

[Astartes Marine]

Would I have liked a happy ending? Sure, if it was the hardest one to get. Requiring every war asset, the highest readiness, etc etc. Similar to the requirements for everyone to survive the Suicide Mission in ME2.

AS for the original endings? Them being "sad" was not a problem to me, it's a galactic conflict, I expected sadness. What I didn't expect was groan-worthy bad writing and last minute plot macguffins and a concept that basically the writers (or if rumors are to be believed, writer) wanted to ram down our collective throats.

Compared to the rest of the game the ending including Priority Earth felt rushed, contrived, and overall did not live up to the quality of the rest of the game and in my opinion was the weakest ending section of the entire series.

[GiarcYekrub]

OdanUrr wrote...

TheProtheans wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...

TheProtheans wrote...

GiarcYekrub wrote...


2.Headcanon:The catalyst was present,aware and capable on the citadel in ME1
3.Reason to get angry:Makes ME1/Sovereign/Saren/Keepers irrelevent



Personally I don't see how any of that is Bioware fault.

The idea of the Catalyst alway been present on the Citadel and aware is illogical? it is a VI.
There is nothing to explain why it would not be.

It is Bioware's fault because they wanted lots of speculation.
I'm not even sure how you made it on the internet.

Correction: it's an AI.

I'm not sure, is there anything to prove it has done something out of it's original program?
The Reaper Cycle is technically within it's parameters.

http://masseffect.wi...al_intelligence

http://masseffect.wi...al_Intelligence

It can be both or neither there isn't enough evidence either way, personally I think its a VI echo of the original intelligence that created the reapers just like Vigil was a VI echo of the Protheans that created the Conduit with no abiltity what so ever until the Crucible was attached. I have no proof for this but equally it doesn't offend me.

[CaptainZaysh]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

I hated how a story about working together, celebrating our differences, and always keeping hope in the face of impossible odds effectively spat on those themes in the last five minutes.

I think this is a valid criticism.  For me the ending fit perfectly because I'd made different choices (apparently at every point along the way ) from Cheez's, so my Mass Effect was a story about sacrifice, implacable differences and imperfect outcomes.  I can see how, for a Shepard who'd managed to bring everybody along together and overcome impossible odds again and again, having a final scene where Shepard can't do those things would have been jarring.

[drayfish]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Personally I think that a large part of the backlash was a deeply emotional protest against BioWare's message to players that the world will turn without them after they die.

Sure it will.  And it will be irreparably marked by the atrocity that you, it's 'hero', inflicted upon it.

I could care less if the ending was sad.  Some of the most profoundly moving and inspiring works of fiction are sad, soulful texts that invite their audience to ponder deeper themes of life and loss and belief.  I would have gladly welcomed a sad, coherent ending that respected the themes that had preceded it.

In contrast, Mass Effect 3, in my opinion, communicated none of those things.  By turning the player into an advocate for a hate crime upon his/her own allies, embracing the enemy's racist, hopeless belief that different races really can't get along unless you impose your arrogant will upon them, and that the only way to end war is by being willing to inflict an act of involuntary social engineering upon innocents in order to remake the universe as you design, the game stepped over any line of narrative 'melancholy', and straight into the most lazy, narcissistic, irresponsible nonsense it could possibly espouse.

No other text carrying such an atrocious message would be so flippantly dismissed as 'bittersweet', and it is farcical to see comments such as yours and the OP's, that blame the players for being so arrogant as to think they are the centre of the world, when the ending you are praising so gleefully panders to the most gratuitous, messianic self-indulgence conceivable for an interactive medium.

Modifié par drayfish, 12 mars 2013 - 12:23 .

[TomY90]

Astartes Marine wrote...

Would I have liked a happy ending? Sure, if it was the hardest one to get. Requiring every war asset, the highest readiness, etc etc. Similar to the requirements for everyone to survive the Suicide Mission in ME2.

AS for the original endings? Them being "sad" was not a problem to me, it's a galactic conflict, I expected sadness. What I didn't expect was groan-worthy bad writing and last minute plot macguffins and a concept that basically the writers (or if rumors are to be believed, writer) wanted to ram down our collective throats.

Compared to the rest of the game the ending including Priority Earth felt rushed, contrived, and overall did not live up to the quality of the rest of the game and in my opinion was the weakest ending section of the entire series.

totally agree ME3 was really good (I think it was set to beat ME2 as my favourite) but when Priority Earth happened it just did not feel right, because we did not see our war assets actually having an affect on the battle for instance we never saw the Krogan charging, the asari providing biotic support, turians giving fire support, no Geth on earth assisting (you get the picture) then the citadel scenes happen which I have no real issue with TIM being there except for how in the world did he get there (thats saying its not possible for him to explain whilst he is so heavily indoctrinated). The star child I still have issues with granted he now explains more but still destroys the entire lure of the reapers and synthesis is a ridicious ending that makes no sense.

[OdanUrr]

GiarcYekrub wrote...

It can be both or neither there isn't enough evidence either way, personally I think its a VI echo of the original intelligence that created the reapers just like Vigil was a VI echo of the Protheans that created the Conduit with no abiltity what so ever until the Crucible was attached. I have no proof for this but equally it doesn't offend me.

Doesn't this bit of dialogue suggest the Catalyst could even be beyond AI:

Shepard: "So you're an AI?"
Catalyst: "In so much as you're just an animal."

[CaptainZaysh]

Ieldra2 wrote...

GiarcYekrub wrote...
Heres a classic examples of 2 and 3's
2.Headcanon:The catalyst is a God
3.Reason to get angry:There are no Gods in Mass Effect

Nobody's said that. I have said that the presentation surrounds it with the trappings of divinity, in order to make people subconsciously react to that.....and trust it. In other words, it's another case of "feel, don't think."

Ieldra, in the past lots of other people on the forums have said they think the Catalyst literally is a god.  (I think they themselves got confused by the trappings.)  

My main criticism of the ending is that BioWare expected too much of the audience, who in many cases are young people or actual children and therefore shouldn't be expected to have accumulated as much knowledge as adults.  They should have been more explicit about what was going on.  I understood the ending because I'd read separately about the singularity, not because anything in the Mass Effect story prepared me for it.

[GiarcYekrub]

Ieldra2 wrote...

2.Headcanon:The catalyst can directly control the Reapers without Shepard
3.Reason to get angry:Surely the catalyst can stop the Harvest on its own

Er....is there anything incomprehensible about the line "I control the Reapers"? The EC even adds "I embody the collective intelligence of all Reapers". It appears rather implausible to assume that the Catalyst can NOT control the Reapers.

VI's use the first person
It also says the Citadel is a part of him, the Citadel can control the Reapers with Shepards assistance, no direct evidence of independant control.
Vigil embodied the intelligence of an old Prothean Conduit Engineer, was still a VI
Obviously the catalyst could be lying and nothing it says could be taken as 100% true.

[CaptainZaysh]

drayfish wrote...

No other text carrying such an atrocious message would be so flippantly dismissed as 'bittersweet', and it is farcical to see comments such as yours, that blame the players for being so arrogant as to think they are the centre of the world, when the ending you are praising so gleefully panders to the most gratuitous, messianic self-indulgence conceivable for an interactive medium.

Don't hold back, Dray.  Tell us what you really think.

[drayfish]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

drayfish wrote...

No other text carrying such an atrocious message would be so flippantly dismissed as 'bittersweet', and it is farcical to see comments such as yours, that blame the players for being so arrogant as to think they are the centre of the world, when the ending you are praising so gleefully panders to the most gratuitous, messianic self-indulgence conceivable for an interactive medium.

Don't hold back, Dray.  Tell us what you really think.

...It's also smelly.

[NCommand]

OdanUrr wrote...

GiarcYekrub wrote...

It can be both or neither there isn't enough evidence either way, personally I think its a VI echo of the original intelligence that created the reapers just like Vigil was a VI echo of the Protheans that created the Conduit with no abiltity what so ever until the Crucible was attached. I have no proof for this but equally it doesn't offend me.

Doesn't this bit of dialogue suggest the Catalyst could even be beyond AI:

Shepard: "So you're an AI?"
Catalyst: "In so much as you're just an animal."

Well, we are technically animals, the catalyst just thinks describing him as an AI is crude, just as a human would find it insulting to be called a animal by an AI

Modifié par NCommand, 12 mars 2013 - 12:09 .

[AdmiralCheez]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

I think this is a valid criticism.  For me the ending fit perfectly because I'd made different choices (apparently at every point along the way ) from Cheez's, so my Mass Effect was a story about sacrifice, implacable differences and imperfect outcomes.  I can see how, for a Shepard who'd managed to bring everybody along together and overcome impossible odds again and again, having a final scene where Shepard can't do those things would have been jarring.

Not only that, but Shepard does it alone.  The squad winds up isolated on Planet WTF.  Each of the three (four) choices causes changes that are unfair to the people Shepard leaves behind.

I was ready to let go of Shepard, my LI, or even Earth.  I was ready to put it all on the line for the people and the galaxy I fell in love with.  That same galaxy doesn't exist post-ending anymore (and that cute little slideshow they threw in post-release doesn't do enough to change that).  I have no guarantee that I did the people I left behind a favor.  It was a pointless sacrifice, and a nonsensical, contrived one at that.

You don't include a difficult decision with far-reaching consequences just for the sake of having one.  Among other things, ME3's ending was too divorced from the main plot.  It really felt shoehorned in, like I was suddenly playing a different game (and a half-finished one at that).

Anyway, CZ, I'm glad the ending worked for you.  Seriously, a year later and I'm still mad about it!  The less people that are as worked up about a video game as I am, the better.

Modifié par AdmiralCheez, 12 mars 2013 - 12:11 .

[wright1978]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Ieldra, in the past lots of other people on the forums have said they think the Catalyst literally is a god.  (I think they themselves got confused by the trappings.)  

My main criticism of the ending is that BioWare expected too much of the audience, who in many cases are young people or actual children and therefore shouldn't be expected to have accumulated as much knowledge as adults.  They should have been more explicit about what was going on.  I understood the ending because I'd read separately about the singularity, not because anything in the Mass Effect story prepared me for it.

Ahh the condescending this art is too refined for the player's primitive intelligence to process. As someone who is an adult and read widely i find that argument as nonsense as i can understand the ending fully and that doesn't stop it being a trainwreck of epicly bad proportions.

[Hexley UK]

drayfish wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Personally I think that a large part of the backlash was a deeply emotional protest against BioWare's message to players that the world will turn without them after they die.

Sure it will.  And it will be irreparably marked by the atrocity that you, it's 'hero', inflicted upon it.

I could care less if the ending was sad.  Some of the most profoundly moving and inspiring works of fiction are sad, soulful texts that invite their audience to ponder deeper themes of life and loss and belief.  I would have gladly welcomed a sad, coherent ending that respected the themes that had preceded it.

In contrast, Mass Effect 3, in my opinion, communicated none of those things.  By turning the player into an advocate for a hate crime upon his/her own allies, embracing the enemy's racist, hopeless belief that different races really can't get along unless you impose your arrogant will upon them, and that the only way to end war is by being willing to inflict a hate crime upon innocents in order to remake the universe as you design, the game stepped over any line of narrative 'melancholy', and straight into the most lazy, narcissistic, irresponsible nonsense it could possibly espouse.

No other text carrying such an atrocious message would be so flippantly dismissed as 'bittersweet', and it is farcical to see comments such as yours and the OP's, that blame the players for being so arrogant as to think they are the centre of the world, when the ending you are praising so gleefully panders to the most gratuitous, messianic self-indulgence conceivable for an interactive medium.

THIS....Pure....Ownage.

[CaptainZaysh]

drayfish wrote...

In contrast, Mass Effect 3, in my opinion, communicated none of those things.  By turning the player into an advocate for a hate crime upon his/her own allies, embracing the enemy's racist, hopeless belief that different (groups) really can't get along unless you impose your arrogant will upon them, and that the only way to end war is by being willing to inflict a hate crime upon innocents in order to remake the universe as you design, the game stepped over any line of narrative 'melancholy', and straight into the most lazy, narcissistic, irresponsible nonsense it could possibly espouse.

Some people really do believe that, though, and honestly – looking at the history of Earth – can you truly be certain that they're wrong?

Have you ever read von Clausewitz?  He calls war "an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfil our will".  I believe that even here on Earth some group's wills really are implacably opposed to our own (to achieve life, freedom and prosperity) and that such wills need to be broken, by violence and war when necessary.

The synthetic/organic conflict is truly interesting to me because it does speak of implacably opposed wills – the synthetic will to improve itself versus the organic will to remain in control of its own future.  To me that suggests that war is in fact inevitable.  That's why I enjoyed the ending and thought it was thought-provoking.

[AdmiralCheez]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

My main criticism of the ending is that BioWare expected too much of the audience, who in many cases are young people or actual children and therefore shouldn't be expected to have accumulated as much knowledge as adults.  They should have been more explicit about what was going on.  I understood the ending because I'd read separately about the singularity, not because anything in the Mass Effect story prepared me for it.

Really?  Because if you ask me, they expected too little.  It seems like they wanted players to get lost in the drama of the decisions themselves instead of examining the circumstances under which they were presented.  They wanted them to be blown away by how deep and non-traditional it was instead of wondering what the hell it was even doing there.  They were hoping we'd just fill in the gaps and ignore the color swaps.  They were hoping we wouldn't notice it was a rush job.

I knew about the technological singularity pre-ME3.  I expected the Reapers were the result of such an event, and that their hyper-advanced level of perception prevented them from understanding or empathizing with "unascended" life forms.  What we got, though?  Total BS.

[CaptainZaysh]

wright1978 wrote...

Ahh the condescending this art is too refined for the player's primitive intelligence to process. As someone who is an adult and read widely i find that argument as nonsense as i can understand the ending fully and that doesn't stop it being a trainwreck of epicly bad proportions.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that everybody who hates the ending is a child.  I just meant that lots of people who play video games are young (and therefore less likely to be widely read), so understanding a video game enemy's motivations shouldn't require education outside of the game itself.

[CaptainZaysh]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

I knew about the technological singularity pre-ME3.  I expected the Reapers were the result of such an event, and that their hyper-advanced level of perception prevented them from understanding or empathizing with "unascended" life forms.  

Me too.  I thought it was clever that the Reapers proved in fact to be frozen at a pre-singularity stage, and that their inability to understand or empathise with us was due to the fact they themselves were indoctrinated.  I really didn't see that coming, and for me the reveal made a lot of things click into place.