371 réponses à ce sujet

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Mcfly616 wrote...
I guess I'm a fan of the ending because its more of classic sci fi novel conclusion, rather than a summer popcorn flick

You sound very conceited. 

"'I' know 'real' and 'classic' sci-fi"

[Venom man4]

You don't have to be crazy about something in order to like it. With EC I am satisfied with the ending.

[dreamgazer]

Mcfly616 wrote...

I guess I'm a fan of the ending because its more of classic sci fi novel conclusion, rather than a summer popcorn flick

Proper execution is proper execution, whether it's a popcorn flick or an Asimov copycat.

Modifié par dreamgazer, 03 mai 2013 - 04:00 .

[Wolfva2]

OOO! I can answer this question!
<ahem>

Why did I like the ending?

Because I'm not YOU. D'uh. I know it may be an amazing concept, but people will like things that you don't like for no other reason then we are all INDIVIDUALS, with our own likes and dislikes. Heck, there are people out there that love headcheese. I don't understand why. To me, it's disgusting. I wouldn't feed it to my dog. Yet, I have no problem accepting the fact that other people like it. After all, THEIR liking of something *I* dislike has absolutely ZERO bearing on my opinion. It doesn't invalidate how I feel. It doesn't make me wrong. It just exemplifies that I'm an individual, just like he or she is, with our own likes and dislikes.

[Mcfly616]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...
I guess I'm a fan of the ending because its more of classic sci fi novel conclusion, rather than a summer popcorn flick

You sound very conceited. 

"'I' know 'real' and 'classic' sci-fi"

riiight. I "sound"?...take it and twist it however you like. You come off a bit sensitive.

[Mcfly616]

dreamgazer wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

I guess I'm a fan of the ending because its more of classic sci fi novel conclusion, rather than a summer popcorn flick

Proper execution is proper execution, whether it's a popcorn flick or an Asimov copycat.

and I thought it was proper enough. As I said, whether something, anything is good at all....is entirely subjective

Modifié par Mcfly616, 03 mai 2013 - 04:08 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Okay, we've got enough threads of us anti-enders bickering and presenting our points of view and arguing. I'm staying out of it. Let's all of us stay out of this, and let those who genuinely liked the ending tell why they liked they ending. What they liked about it. We've had threads start and they end up in "shouting matches."

[PsyrenY]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...


I utterly despise the ending, both pre-EC and post-EC. High EMS Destroy is the most tolerable among what we have. I dislike the entire concept. I plain don't like the ending options given and how Shepard is forced to die (it's really too much of a downer ending. Too much bitter, not enough sweet).

I just can't get on board with this utter lack of hope. Both Control and Synthesis unlock access to technology beyond our wildest dreams - what makes you so convinced Shepard is gone for good? Control preserves Shepard's memories, desires, even personality in AI form, while Synthesis is so advanced it might as well be magic. (Space magic ).  Hell, Shepard got brought back to life once before, and that was with the resources of one shadowy group 2 years ago, rather than those of an entire grateful galaxy.

I could easily envision Lazarus 2.0, under Miranda's leadership once more, only this time there's no Yahg or Collectors trying to sabotage your resurrection the whole time.


And even if Shepard is doomed to stay dead, Legion gave a similar sacrifice without a backward glance. And that was just for one race, rather than the entire galaxy. I'd like to think Shepard is at least as brave/heroic as Legion is.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Optimystic_X wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...


I utterly despise the ending, both pre-EC and post-EC. High EMS Destroy is the most tolerable among what we have. I dislike the entire concept. I plain don't like the ending options given and how Shepard is forced to die (it's really too much of a downer ending. Too much bitter, not enough sweet).

I just can't get on board with this utter lack of hope. Both Control and Synthesis unlock access to technology beyond our wildest dreams - what makes you so convinced Shepard is gone for good? Control preserves Shepard's memories, desires, even personality in AI form, while Synthesis is so advanced it might as well be magic. (Space magic ).  Hell, Shepard got brought back to life once before, and that was with the resources of one shadowy group 2 years ago, rather than those of an entire grateful galaxy.

I could easily envision Lazarus 2.0, under Miranda's leadership once more, only this time there's no Yahg or Collectors trying to sabotage your resurrection the whole time.


And even if Shepard is doomed to stay dead, Legion gave a similar sacrifice without a backward glance. And that was just for one race, rather than the entire galaxy. I'd like to think Shepard is at least as brave/heroic as Legion is.

From the ATWR 'This is not a Pipe' Argument.

I admit up-front this is a matter of personal taste, but it does not stem from a dislike of downer endings in general, but from how I see storytelling in the digital age and video games as an art-from.In the digital age, storytelling tools range from a blank word processing document where the user is the sole author, to an e-book reader, where the user’s active participation in the story is limited to reading the text and touching the screen to turn the page.Video games fall into the range in the middle. Some video games exist more towards the e-book reader, and some more towards the blank word processing document, but it does not occupy either of those two extremes. Playing a video game is not solely an act of creation, or of consumption, but a combination of both.A gamer is a participant in the creative process. A video game is more like a live stage-play, wherein the particulars of the production are different every night - just as the specific choices the gamer makes in subsequent play-throughs can be different – than it is like a book or movie. Two different gamers can play a video game and make drastically different choices, just as different actors cast in the same role of the same play can interpret the role differently: for instance, Derek Jacobi’s Hamlet in Hamlet is very different from Mel Gibson’s, most obviously in that Derek Jacobi’s lacks the disturbingly Oedipal overtones.The artistic breakdown of the creation of the story that exists in a single play-through of a video game, is that the video game developers are playwrights, and the gamers are actors – only they’re actors who frequently are given arange of lines they can deliver, rather than having a totally static script to follow.It would be ridiculous to claim that only written versions of Hamlet qualify as art, and that individual productions put on by people who fail to raise William Shakespeare from the dead to ask him if their interpretation is valid are not.It’s not that the ending of Mass Effect is a downer that bothers me, it’s that the ending of Mass Effect can’t be anything else, despite the copious amounts of conversation options given in-game that allow Commander Shepard to articulate a different goal. The idea that the players would want to defeat the Reapers, reunite with their love interest and live happily-ever-after was not foreign to the writers: Commander Shepard has several dialogue options where the player can say that they want to do just that.This isn’t like trying to change Romeo and Juliet to have a more upbeat ending: this is Shakespeare writing two different versions of Romeo and Juliet, one the tragedy we all know, and the other an uplifting heroic tale of the triumph of love and understanding over old hatreds and violence - and then shoe-horning in the tragic ending on the heroic version anyway.Romeo and Juliet has to end in tragedy, because everything leading up to the tragedy is driving in that direction. The possibilities given to the player in Mass Effect up until the ending had far too much emotional and thematic range to have “Shepard Dies” be a set unavoidable ending: it simply is not an appropriate ending for all of the various Commander Shepards that could have made it to that last confrontation.Because each individual play-through of a video game can be a different experience, there is no reason to have such a narrow range of end-game possibilities. A video game is not a movie or a book: it can have more than one ending, and when more than one ending can be foreshadowed based on player-chosen dialogue, it should have more than one ending.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 03 mai 2013 - 04:41 .

[Xilizhra]

This Is Not A Pipe without citation?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Xilizhra wrote...

This Is Not A Pipe without citation?

Actually it is cited. 

[Xilizhra]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

This Is Not A Pipe without citation?

Actually it is cited. 

Yes, in an edit a minute after I posted.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Xilizhra wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

This Is Not A Pipe without citation?

Actually it is cited. 

Yes, in an edit a minute after I posted.

Actually, since I couldn't re-edit my post without re-copying an entire word page, I was forced to submit it and then cite it.

[Ageless Face]

I liked the bittersweet concept;I liked the choices we were given; I liked that the ending didn't give us the option to finish it all on a happy note; I liked that we couldn't win against the Reapers conventionally; I liked that the Reapers were explained (the EC's explanation, of course), and I liked the soundtrack. That enough?

[PsyrenY]

.It’s not that the ending of Mass Effect is a downer that bothers me, it’s that the ending of Mass Effect can’t be anything else, despite the copious amounts of conversation options given in-game that allow Commander Shepard to articulate a different goal.

This is where I'll never agree with ATWR. It betrays a lack of imagination and a disregarding of tone to view the ME3 endings as "can't be anything else but a downer" that I'm just physically incapable of.

I don't need to see Shepard living happily ever after with anyone. I don't need to see the galaxy being rebuilt. (They were nice enough to show us just that in EC, but again, I simply didn't need it.) What I understand of the technology in the endings is more than enough for me to feel happy about the direction the galaxy is headed in, and what I understand about Shepard - my Shepard - is enough to know that he would be happy too.

So even if death is ultimately the answer, it can never be a "downer." And without accepting that, the entire remainder of that wall of text is just that to me - text.

I don't even know if you read my post before rushing off to the sadwiki to copy-paste their gloom and doom viewpoint. I ask you again - how do you know for sure Shepard is dead, forever? And even if s/he is, how do you know the galaxy is doomed?

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 03 mai 2013 - 04:54 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Then there's a fundamental difference right there between us.

My Shepard would never accept a solution that required his death, simply by his (and my nature). And I need to see him happy, I need to see the galaxy being rebuilt, and I need to see to see how things will pan out.

I don't personally see how what is caused by either ending of control or synthesis is good. I see control as a descent into fascism and eventual totalitarianism. True or not, that's what I see. Shepard will eventually lose his connection to his humanity. In fact he does. The Shepalyst may have the same memories and thoughts, but I don't see it as the same person. Through the loss of it's humanity, and it's adoption of a rigid and ordered nature, I think it will eventually restart the cycle or do something equally atrocious.

As for synthesis, beyond simply forcing eugenics on people, I also see it as forcing an opinion, forcing knowledge. I'm a big believer in people coming to a conclusion on their own, and gaining knowledge when they've achieved it themselves. I believe changing the way someone is, who someone is, is a far greater crime than killing them.

Mass Effect 3 is nothing but a downer for me.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 03 mai 2013 - 05:14 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Optimystic_X wrote...

.It’s not that the ending of Mass Effect is a downer that bothers me, it’s that the ending of Mass Effect can’t be anything else, despite the copious amounts of conversation options given in-game that allow Commander Shepard to articulate a different goal.

This is where I'll never agree with ATWR. It betrays a lack of imagination and a disregarding of tone to view the ME3 endings as "can't be anything else but a downer" that I'm just physically incapable of.

I don't need to see Shepard living happily ever after with anyone. I don't need to see the galaxy being rebuilt. (They were nice enough to show us just that in EC, but again, I simply didn't need it.) What I understand of the technology in the endings is more than enough for me to feel happy about the direction the galaxy is headed in, and what I understand about Shepard - my Shepard - is enough to know that he would be happy too.

So even if death is ultimately the answer, it can never be a "downer." And without accepting that, the entire remainder of that wall of text is just that to me - text.

I don't even know if you read my post before rushing off to the sadwiki to copy-paste their gloom and doom viewpoint. I ask you again - how do you know for sure Shepard is dead, forever? And even if s/he is, how do you know the galaxy is doomed?

Because Shepard has been disintegrated in both. The Shepalyst is not Shepard. It's something entirely different, something that may eventually plunge the galaxy into a totalitarian state or worse. And in Synthesis, he jumps into a beam. He gets vaporized and this somehow causes the energy beam to activate the Crucible.

And it's doomed because I don't know that it's not if I'm dead. I need to be there, to make sure that it is not doomed. I won't - can't - accept a solution where Shepard can not see and contribute to the future that he's built.

[PsyrenY]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Because Shepard has been disintegrated in both.

His body was disintegrated, but in both cases he left something behind - something that, combined with the greatly enhanced technology we have access to now, could make that not be the barrier you believe it to be.

Again, you spend too much time considering how something can't be possible, and not enough time considering how it can be. If it were left up to you or to this wiki, Shepard would never have come back in ME2.

Dare to dream a little.

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

The Shepalyst is not Shepard. It's something entirely different, something that may eventually plunge the galaxy into a totalitarian state or worse.

It might. Or it might not. Only time will tell.

What is important for this discussion is that the Shepalyst has all of Shepard's memories (and even his/her personality, since it can be paragon or renegade.) We could wrangle all night about what constitutes a soul, but at the very least there's hope.

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
And in Synthesis, he jumps into a beam. He gets vaporized and this somehow causes the energy beam to activate the Crucible.

Synthesis shows someone get resurrected from a brain implant. The regular rules simply don't apply.

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
And it's doomed because I don't know that it's not if I'm dead. I need to be there, to make sure that it is not doomed. I won't - can't - accept a solution where Shepard can not see and contribute to the future that he's built.

If Legion thought like you did the Geth would be dead right along with him.

But I'll play along. You need to be there. Why? Lazarus happened without you. The Crucible happened without you. Shepard doesn't need to physically be present for everything.

I see no harm in Shepard napping for awhile as Miranda and others figure things out. Or even permanently, if there's truly nothing left of him/her, knowing that the future was won however great the cost.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Optimystic_X wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Because Shepard has been disintegrated in both.

His body was disintegrated, but in both cases he left something behind - something that, combined with the greatly enhanced technology we have access to now, could make that not be the barrier you believe it to be.

Again, you spend too much time considering how something can't be possible, and not enough time considering how it can be. If it were left up to you or to this wiki, Shepard would never have come back in ME2.

Dare to dream a little.

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

The Shepalyst is not Shepard. It's something entirely different, something that may eventually plunge the galaxy into a totalitarian state or worse.

It might. Or it might not. Only time will tell.

What is important for this discussion is that the Shepalyst has all of Shepard's memories (and even his/her personality, since it can be paragon or renegade.) We could wrangle all night about what constitutes a soul, but at the very least there's hope.

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
And in Synthesis, he jumps into a beam. He gets vaporized and this somehow causes the energy beam to activate the Crucible.

Synthesis shows someone get resurrected from a brain implant. The regular rules simply don't apply.

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
And it's doomed because I don't know that it's not if I'm dead. I need to be there, to make sure that it is not doomed. I won't - can't - accept a solution where Shepard can not see and contribute to the future that he's built.

If Legion thought like you did the Geth would be dead right along with him.

But I'll play along. You need to be there. Why? Lazarus happened without you. The Crucible happened without you. Shepard doesn't need to physically be present for everything.

I see no harm in Shepard napping for awhile as Miranda and others figure things out. Or even permanently, if there's truly nothing left of him/her, knowing that the future was won however great the cost.

1) I think that's an asspull of writing. I'm perfectly fine with Lazarus. It was explained from a techy-science standpoint that uses enough science on a real body to resurrect Shepard. And they make it clear that it's a one time only thing.

As for the new tech, this is stuff that was never possible before. Now it's turning Mass Effect into Star Wars. I have a great imagination, I just prefer it when my narrative isn't chopped to pieces because tech (that is never explained) is used so that an "anything is possible" setting is achieved. It absolutely breaks my suspension of disbelief.

2) I have no hope for Control Shepalyst, whether paragon or renegade. Either way, it intends to guide the races. I don't believe in that at all. Civilization needs to make its own future, for better or worse.

3) And that is bad writing. That's terrible. The rules need to always apply. They were set up for a reason. To change them suddenly is to break the narrative. Once again, it breaks my suspension of disbelief.

4) Because I don't feel like accepting the Catalyst's parameters. I don't feel like taking his word. I don't feel that the future is truly won and ours and ours alone. I need to make sure the future is ours alone, by making sure the Reapers aren't there to interfere with that future. And Shepard's future is just as important as the Galaxy's to me. I will admit that. As it is, I don't feel like a hero in any of the endings. I feel like I'm being held back to let the Catalyst have his way, no matter what ending I'd choose.

And lastly, the option for a Shepard lives, Reapers die ending should have been more clear on the Shepard lives part. The breath scene should have been in a hospital, not some pile of rubble.

As I said, I can't see any hope beyond the destroy ending, and even then it feels forced considering everything else.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 03 mai 2013 - 05:37 .

[NeroonWilliams]

MassivelyEffective, can you please stop hijacking this thread? It is not about why you DON'T like the ending. It is not a hate thread. It is a place to articulate some sense of enjoyment.

We all get it; you hated the ending. That's fine, too, but not here. As has been stated, there are PLENTY of threads that are all about pooping on the ending.

And to those who are arguing with Massive: stop feeding the troll.

Modifié par NeroonWilliams, 03 mai 2013 - 06:30 .

[PsyrenY]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

1) I think that's an asspull of writing. I'm perfectly fine with Lazarus. It was explained from a techy-science standpoint that uses enough science on a real body to resurrect Shepard. And they make it clear that it's a one time only thing.

What if reconstructing you from Control or Synthesis was also a "one-time only thing?" Would you accept it then?

The techy-science part is easy. There's actually a clone of Shepard running around out there (or dead, but which would be much easier to revive than Shepard was with Lazarus), and technology already exists to download memories directly into someone's head (Prothean beacons, graybox etc.) Bam, new Shepard. And that's just the tech we already have, never mind the new stuff we could come up with under the blue or green endings.

I'm happy with Shepard's sacrifice. But if Miranda, or Kahlee Sanders, or some other scientist said "I think we can bring Shepard back one more time - we should at least try!" I'd be okay with that too.

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

As for the new tech, this is stuff that was never possible before. Now it's turning Mass Effect into Star Wars.
...
And that is bad writing. That's terrible. The rules need to always apply. They were set up for a reason. To change them suddenly is to break the narrative. Once again, it breaks my suspension of disbelief.

Who cares if it was "stuff that was never possible before?" What is this irrational fear/hatred for new things? Lazarus changed the rules of the setting. Leviathan changed the rules of the setting. Hell, thermal clips changed the rules of the setting. So what? Rules were made to be broken. I don't think any setting should adhere to "this is the way things are and they should always be this way forever, because." It's stagnant, it's boring. Bring on the change. Bring on the new. Let's turn over some rocks, see what lives underneath. It's a big galaxy out there.

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Because I don't feel like accepting the Catalyst's parameters.

They're the Crucible's parameters. The Catalyst is just the mouthpiece.

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...


2) I have no hope for Control Shepalyst, whether paragon or renegade. Either way, it intends to guide the races. I don't believe in that at all. Civilization needs to make its own future, for better or worse.

Sounds like you support Synthesis 

I actually agree with you on the dangers of the Shepalyst, but that's a separate issue. One that we at least have time (longer than 50k years at least) to solve.

My hope is that one day, the races (both organic and synthetic) can find it and peacefully relieve it of duty. But in any event, I chose Synthesis so it's not a problem for me.

[Wolfva2]

NeroonWilliams wrote...

MassivelyEffective, can you please stop hijacking this thread? It is not about why you DON'T like the ending. It is not a hate thread. It is a place to articulate some sense of enjoyment.

We all get it; you hated the ending. That's fine, too, but not here. As has been stated, there are PLENTY of threads that are all about pooping on the ending.

And to those who are arguing with Massive: stop feeding the troll.

This is such a massively awesome suggestion, I'm going to forget the snark of my last responce and actually answer the question.

I liked the endings because, in the narrative as presented, they made sense.  After all, what other possible endings could there be.  Either you destroy the reapers, join with them, or maintain the status quo.  What I was curious about was HOW this was to happen.  I felt the crucible was a deux ex machina, but for a story like this, involving enemies like the Reapers, that's to be expected.  I didn't concern myself with little inconsistencies, or logic problems because this isn't a history lesson about an actual event, but a game.  I mean, in real life in this situation I sure as Hades wouldn't be keeping my eyes open for a heater condenser just because some salarian was kvetching on his phone.  I'd have more important things to do.  Side quests?  Yeah, right.  No time now get outa my way or you go out an airlock buddy.  BUT, in the game?  Sure, I'll do em all.  Why?  Because..it's a GAME; I play it to be entertained.  I liked the game because it entertained me; which is why I bought it in the first place.

[Alien Number Six]

I have fought a war. In war none of your choices are black and white. As a NCO I made several decisions that cost the lives of several men I considered friends. I never ordered anyone into a situation knowing they would die. When people did die I felt terrible. But we never left a mission incomplete and never backed down no matter the cost. At the end of Mass Effect 3 you are given four choices. None of the choices are easy ones. The choice you make will change the milky way forever. You have to think about it. I put dowm my controller the first time I was given these choices and thought about it. From a military standpoint my mission was to destroy the Reapers. I chose Destroy. I felt bad for the Geth and EDI but they knew the risk when they signed on. I made the choice to complete my mission because in the military the mission always comes first. The end of Mass Effect's Reaper War is realistic. The war ends and those who make it out alive are left with the memories, scars and sorrow as they try to rebuild their lives. This is how war ends. Deal with it.

[KaiserShep]

And I'd like to think that the survivors won't forget the synthetics' contribution to the war. The only one who would really know the details is Shepard anyway.

[Yestare7]

NeroonWilliams wrote...

MassivelyEffective, can you please stop hijacking this thread? It is not about why you DON'T like the ending.

+1