865 réponses à ce sujet

[ruggly]

StreetMagic wrote...

ruggly wrote...

I can agree with this.  Some people like
the religious forced-death of Shepard.  I don't.  I don't think Shepard
has to die in every ending, not that it shouldn't be possible.  But
whatever.

I prefer death if this was, in fact, the last game for Shepard. Not for "religious" reasons. Just simple narrative tidiness. What's the point of showing the last gasping breath if you're not going to continue the story?

It could be that Bioware is pulling people's chains and doesn't want to show all it's cards yet. That's fair too.

I don't think that's the case.  But I also don't think you have to end a character's story by killing them off.  Just say that it's the end of their story, that's good enough for me.  If people think that's not true, and it turns out to be true and they get angry over it, well...that's their own damn fault.

[ShadowLordXII]

WittingEight65 wrote...

 You should have lost hope once you saw the ending. Seriously, Bioware doesn't have to change it just because you didn't like it. And, honestly, I'm sick of people claiming that the game and the ending have to be changed, fixed, like they were broken, disfunctional, like when you go to see a movie and the screen goes black 10 minutes before the ending, because, you know what? they haven't. Okey, maybe the game is overall a bad game, maybe the ending is the worst piece of **** in the entire history of the videogames, maybe 9 of 10 people hated the game and the ending. But the game is not broken, it doesn't need to be repaired, as if it were a bad product, a dysfunctional product. Because, if there is one person of ten that liked the ending, then it's not broken, and it doesn't need to be "fixed".

And, seriously, if you hate the game that much, just don't buy more games from Bioware, and enjoy watching them die slowly and painfully because bad sales (?).

No, we didn't want the ending changed exclusively because we didn't like it.  It had and still has numerous problems that ruin the story and setting of the entire trilogy.  The most obvious being the existence of the Star-Child which blatantly contradicts the entire main plot of ME1 and in conjuction, derails the trilogy.

Why is there a contradiction? Because there is no reason for Sovereign to had done anything that he did in the first game if the central consciousness of the Reapers lived in the Citadel.  There's no point to having Sovereign signal the keepers or having the keepers activate the link to dark space since the Star-Child could easily do it by itself. 

Therefore, there's no reason why the cycle schedule should have been messed up by the Illos scientists because the Catalyst could easily correct the signal by itself.

The Rachni Wars never should have happened and therefore anything related to the krogan is no null and void because Sovereign shouldn't have any reason to indoctrinate the rachni or have any reason to be there at all.

There's no reason for Saren to be indoctrinated to find the Conduit.

Hell, Shepard's story should never become a spectre or start his journey since the reapers would have already wiped out the current cycle and humans will be starting the next one.  

Everything that happened on Virmire? Noveria? Illos? It's all invalidated by this gaping plothole which exists in the form of the Star-Child.

As smart as that brat supposedly is, there is no reason to have the keepers as the primary key to activating the link to dark space for the rest of the reapers.  There is no reason why it would stand by and do nothing while the prothean survivors stumble around the citadel studying the keepers and disrupting the signal.  There's no reason why it would miss the mass relay statue in the middle of the presidium.

And that's just one reason why the Star-Child had to go.  But did he go? No...which means that the gaping plothole remains and there is no rational reason why BW didn't take the simple path and get rid of him.

Maybe Ending-haters are beating a dead horse, but BW's the one who shot the horse in the first place.  They had a chance to save the horse with a simple procedure...but they only patched up the external wounds.  The horse still died from internal bleeding because BW didn't want to compromise their "artistic integrity" and they expect us to be completely okay with that.

Except that the horse was a five year champion in the VG race tournaments and the death of the horse will remain on the minds of a lot of it's fans for some time.  The ME3 ending fiasco is now Video Game history rather you liked it, hated it or want everyone to shut up about it.  

If you're one of the latter, too bad.  The whining is just a symptom of BW's inability to apply a simple logic and fix the ending rather than hiding behind "artistic integrity".

[AlanC9]

ShadowLordXII wrote...

Why is there a contradiction? Because there is no reason for Sovereign to had done anything that he did in the first game if the central consciousness of the Reapers lived in the Citadel.  There's no point to having Sovereign signal the keepers or having the keepers activate the link to dark space since the Star-Child could easily do it by itself. 

Why could it easily do it by itself? Last time I checked the Catalyst didn't have hands -- if it wanted something done on the Citadel it would need to use the keepers, wouldn't it?

I don't see how having an intelligent Reaper computer on the Citadel changes the difficulty of the problem that the prothean scientists solved. And Vigil didn't know jack about what happened when the scientists got to the Citadel, so there's nothing to retcon.

Modifié par AlanC9, 25 juin 2013 - 12:22 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

PMC65 wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Everyone in the first months of the controvery should feel damn well ashamed at how they acted, and I feel nothing for you but pity if you don't see fault in how the fans handled their dissapointment on here.

I am going to respectfully disagree with this statement. Not everyone should feel ashamed as not all ME players were disrespectful or out of line. Not everyone was calling for people to be fired or demanding that the ending be changed.

Let me stop you there for a moment, since I don't disagree fully with the rest of what you wrote. But just because not everyone was acting like total jackoffs, doesn't mean a good majority of them weren't.

It works like that in almost everything, all it takes is a good number of people doing something in order for people to decide it's bad, not everyone has to do it.

Not everyone dies from lung cancer from smoking, therefore you can't talk about smoking cuasing lung cancer? Not everyone commits crime, therefore you shouldn't be allowed to tell people they should feel bad for commiting crime? Not every person who eats fast food all the time is fat, guess we can't tell anyone who eats fast food about how unhealthy for you that stuff is.

It doesn't really work, as far as I can see, in dismissing a criticism against people. Though I get what you mean in that those who didn't get out of control shouldn't feel bad. Well than, if you are that person, than don't feel bad, but know that there were people who did, and that I hope they feel bad for how they acted.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 25 juin 2013 - 12:23 .

[ShadowLordXII]

AlanC9 wrote...

Why could it easily do it by itself? Last time I checked the Catalyst didn't have hands -- if it wanted something done on the Citadel it would need to use the keepers, wouldn't it?

I don't see how having an intelligent Reaper computer on the Citadel changes the difficulty of the problem that the prothean scientists solved. And Vigil didn't know jack about what happened when the scientists got to the Citadel, so there's nothing to retcon.

Shepard: Who are you?

Catalyst: I am the Catalyst.

Shepard: I thought the Citadel was the Catalyst.

Catalyst: No. The Citadel is part of me.

Dialogue straight from the ending...I'm going to let this speak for itself.

Modifié par ShadowLordXII, 25 juin 2013 - 12:30 .

[Armass81]

yawn....

Modifié par Armass81, 25 juin 2013 - 12:31 .

[o Ventus]

ShadowLordXII wrote...

Shepard: Who are you?

Catalyst: I am the Catalyst.

Shepard: I thought the Citadel was the Catalyst.

Catalyst: No. The Citadel is part of me.

Dialogue straight from the ending...I'm going to let this speak for itself.

Nevermind that if the Catalyst can control the Reapers, having Sovereign ring in every 50,000 years is incredibly pointless. Just wake the Reapers up and have them come in.

Modifié par o Ventus, 25 juin 2013 - 12:36 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

ShadowLordXII wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Why could it easily do it by itself? Last time I checked the Catalyst didn't have hands -- if it wanted something done on the Citadel it would need to use the keepers, wouldn't it?

I don't see how having an intelligent Reaper computer on the Citadel changes the difficulty of the problem that the prothean scientists solved. And Vigil didn't know jack about what happened when the scientists got to the Citadel, so there's nothing to retcon.

Shepard: Who are you?

Catalyst: I am the Catalyst.

Shepard: I thought the Citadel was the Catalyst.

Catalyst: No. The Citadel is part of me.

Dialogue straight from the ending...I'm going to let this speak for itself.

My spleen is part of me. Does that mean I can make it do backflips and handstands on a whime?

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 25 juin 2013 - 12:37 .

[o Ventus]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

My spleen is part of me. Does that mean I can make it do backflips and handstands on a whime?

I don't know about you, but my spleen isn't capable of independent thought. The Catalyst is.

Nevermind that, like I said, the Catalyst straight-up tells you that it controls the Reapers. Like, verbatim.

If you're going to make a sh**ty comparison, at least make are the subject of said comparison shows traits similar to that of what it's being compared to.

Modifié par o Ventus, 25 juin 2013 - 12:41 .

[dreamgazer]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

ShadowLordXII wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Why could it easily do it by itself? Last time I checked the Catalyst didn't have hands -- if it wanted something done on the Citadel it would need to use the keepers, wouldn't it?

I don't see how having an intelligent Reaper computer on the Citadel changes the difficulty of the problem that the prothean scientists solved. And Vigil didn't know jack about what happened when the scientists got to the Citadel, so there's nothing to retcon.

Shepard: Who are you?

Catalyst: I am the Catalyst.

Shepard: I thought the Citadel was the Catalyst.

Catalyst: No. The Citadel is part of me.

Dialogue straight from the ending...I'm going to let this speak for itself.

My spleen is part of me. Does that mean I can make it do backflips and handstands on a whime?

Your spleen? No.

Your eyes, toes, nostrils, muscle tissue, and ... erm, other things? Yes. 

[AlanC9]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

My spleen is part of me. Does that mean I can make it do backflips and handstands on a whime?

I ordered my cancer to get lost. Didn't work; I needed a surgeon.

[AlanC9]

o Ventus wrote...

I don't know about you, but my spleen isn't capable of independent thought. The Catalyst is.

Nevermind that, like I said, the Catalyst straight-up tells you that it controls the Reapers. Like, verbatim.

I thought we were talking about controlling the Citadel Relay, not the Reapers.

[dreamgazer]

Anyway, the Citadel isn't an organic lifeform.

[MrFob]

ShadowLordXII wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Why could it easily do it by itself? Last time I checked the Catalyst didn't have hands -- if it wanted something done on the Citadel it would need to use the keepers, wouldn't it?

I don't see how having an intelligent Reaper computer on the Citadel changes the difficulty of the problem that the prothean scientists solved. And Vigil didn't know jack about what happened when the scientists got to the Citadel, so there's nothing to retcon.

Shepard: Who are you?

Catalyst: I am the Catalyst.

Shepard: I thought the Citadel was the Catalyst.

Catalyst: No. The Citadel is part of me.

Dialogue straight from the ending...I'm going to let this speak for itself.

It's still a matter of what exactly that means though. E.g. your Thymus gland is part of you and you have no control over it whatsoever (EDIT: Oh dang, ).

o Ventus wrote...
I don't know about you, but my spleen isn't capable of independent thought. The Catalyst is.

Nah, it's not Catalyst=spleen. Catalyst = person (independent thought), Citadel = spleen/thymus gland (no independent thought).

On the other hand, the catalyst can apparently shut down the crucible choices at will (refuse ending) and apparently can also operate that elevator that brings Shepard up to its chamber (at least that was my initial interpretation).
I think in the end, you can sort of mind bend the ending to kind of work if you really want but there are many implications in those scenes which make the job very hard (a sign of bad writing if you ask me).

As for the topic: For me the defining point was when I first saw the EC endings. Before that, I had some hope left that BW would pull a miracle after all(despite all the indications to the contrary). After the EC, it was clear that this was the end of it from BW and that was when I thought I'd try to take create my own ending to ME3.

Modifié par MrFob, 25 juin 2013 - 12:49 .

[o Ventus]

AlanC9 wrote...

I thought we were talking about controlling the Citadel Relay, not the Reapers.

Does it make a difference?

Consideri that the Citadel is the hub of the relay network, why would it NOT be able to? That's like a watch that can do everything besides tell time.

[AlanC9]

Like I said a few posts ago, the prothean scientists are known to have performed unspecified acts of sabotage on the Citadel. Turns out that what they needed to do, and succeeded in doing, was a little different than what Vigil conjectured they did.

If an invading microscopic army cuts my spinal cord I'm not going to be able to walk even though I can now.

Modifié par AlanC9, 25 juin 2013 - 12:54 .

[PMC65]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

PMC65 wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Everyone in the first months of the controvery should feel damn well ashamed at how they acted, and I feel nothing for you but pity if you don't see fault in how the fans handled their dissapointment on here.

I am going to respectfully disagree with this statement. Not everyone should feel ashamed as not all ME players were disrespectful or out of line. Not everyone was calling for people to be fired or demanding that the ending be changed.

Let me stop you there for a moment, since I don't disagree fully with the rest of what you wrote. But just because not everyone was acting like total jackoffs, doesn't mean a good majority of them weren't.

*snip*

It doesn't really work, as far as I can see, in dismissing a criticism against people. Though I get what you mean in that those who didn't get out of control shouldn't feel bad. Well than, if you are that person, than don't feel bad, but know that there were people who did, and that I hope they feel bad for how they acted.

I am not dismissing that there were people frothing at the keyboards as noted in my statement.

I just disagreed with the word "everyone". Not everyone was being toxic or unreasonable ... therefore, not everyone should feel ashamed. I wouldn't even say that the majority were ... but there were individuals who were and still are more toxic over the subject matter. I just tend to avoid reading their posts now ... life being too short and all.

As to your post, are there people that I feel should feel embarrassed to a degree at what they posted? Absolutely. But not everyone.

[Armass81]

I still feel the starchild was an unneccesary add we could have done without.

If they wish to keep the starchild so adamantly, they should at least explain how he controls the reapers and what is his extent of control over citadel. Has anyone asked about the catalyst and its functions in any bioware meetings, or do they keep screening these questions out?

Too hard for BW to answer? We just want some clarifications on how he functions.

Modifié par Armass81, 25 juin 2013 - 01:04 .

[JPN17]

After the EC was released and it didn't fix any issues caused by the original ending.

[o Ventus]

AlanC9 wrote...

Like I said a few posts ago, the prothean scientists are known to have performed unspecified acts of sabotage on the Citadel. Turns out that what they needed to do, and succeeded in doing, was a little different than what Vigil conjectured they did.

If an invading microscopic army cuts my spinal cord I'm not going to be able to walk even though I can now.

Vigil tells us exactly what they did. The protheans scientists severed the connection between the Keepers and the Citadel, thus necessitating Sovereign using Saren to access the controls manually.

Thy didn't cut off the Catalyst from the Citadel.

Modifié par o Ventus, 25 juin 2013 - 01:15 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

ruggly wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

ruggly wrote...

I can agree with this.  Some people like
the religious forced-death of Shepard.  I don't.  I don't think Shepard
has to die in every ending, not that it shouldn't be possible.  But
whatever.

I prefer death if this was, in fact, the last game for Shepard. Not for "religious" reasons. Just simple narrative tidiness. What's the point of showing the last gasping breath if you're not going to continue the story?

It could be that Bioware is pulling people's chains and doesn't want to show all it's cards yet. That's fair too.

I don't think that's the case.  But I also don't think you have to end a character's story by killing them off.  Just say that it's the end of their story, that's good enough for me.  If people think that's not true, and it turns out to be true and they get angry over it, well...that's their own damn fault.

Exactly. Not every story needs to end in death.

Hell, depending on how you play your Shepard, you know that he could be doomed from the start, or you know he's going to make it at the end.  That's how my story is. My Shepard is a survivor who always overcomes. He's a fighter who will always fight to the bitter end. And my story is the uplifting tale of bringing a galaxy together and uniting it as one. He was always going to live.

In general, I prefer happy endings, but I also prefer sensible and logical endings that fit the tone and narrative of the story. In ME3, that seems to be the general tone of the story.

And then of course, BW had to shoehorn in the tragedy and the 'organic vs. synthetic' theme without actually looking for a theme that would fit the story better or taking into account the big idea of uniting a galaxy as one (an idea they advertised btw). 

Instead we got the pseudo-intellectual ending that wants to be 2001.

By the point we got to the end of ME3, the series was more akin to Independence Day than 2001. While I'm not going to argue the finer points or comparisons to both movies, I would have liked to have seen an ending that was thematically similar to ID. Because really, that's what we had been playing up to to that point (I'm of course using ID as a generalization term, so please don't take it out of context.)

[Nole]

ShadowLordXII wrote...

WittingEight65 wrote...

 You should have lost hope once you saw the ending. Seriously, Bioware doesn't have to change it just because you didn't like it. And, honestly, I'm sick of people claiming that the game and the ending have to be changed, fixed, like they were broken, disfunctional, like when you go to see a movie and the screen goes black 10 minutes before the ending, because, you know what? they haven't. Okey, maybe the game is overall a bad game, maybe the ending is the worst piece of **** in the entire history of the videogames, maybe 9 of 10 people hated the game and the ending. But the game is not broken, it doesn't need to be repaired, as if it were a bad product, a dysfunctional product. Because, if there is one person of ten that liked the ending, then it's not broken, and it doesn't need to be "fixed".

And, seriously, if you hate the game that much, just don't buy more games from Bioware, and enjoy watching them die slowly and painfully because bad sales (?).

If you're one of the latter, too bad.  The whining is just a symptom of BW's inability to apply a simple logic and fix the ending rather than hiding behind "artistic integrity".

Or maybe is just the fact that some people can't already move on.
I just find it, uh, amusing?, that there's still people (And the same people) crying about the game after more than a year ago. I mean, you know what I do when I buy a game and at the end I don't like it? I sell it and move on, I don't go to the forums to cry about it. I have better things to do.
And actually, I didn't like the original ending, I felt the same that a lot of people. Empty, maybe a bit angry, and stuff like that. But I didn't go to the forums to cry about it like a little boy. Seriously, the "retake" movement was pathetic and people should feel ashamed for how they acted.
And, yes, I actually like the ending now with the EC.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

WittingEight65 wrote...

ShadowLordXII wrote...

WittingEight65 wrote...

 You should have lost hope once you saw the ending. Seriously, Bioware doesn't have to change it just because you didn't like it. And, honestly, I'm sick of people claiming that the game and the ending have to be changed, fixed, like they were broken, disfunctional, like when you go to see a movie and the screen goes black 10 minutes before the ending, because, you know what? they haven't. Okey, maybe the game is overall a bad game, maybe the ending is the worst piece of **** in the entire history of the videogames, maybe 9 of 10 people hated the game and the ending. But the game is not broken, it doesn't need to be repaired, as if it were a bad product, a dysfunctional product. Because, if there is one person of ten that liked the ending, then it's not broken, and it doesn't need to be "fixed".

And, seriously, if you hate the game that much, just don't buy more games from Bioware, and enjoy watching them die slowly and painfully because bad sales (?).

If you're one of the latter, too bad.  The whining is just a symptom of BW's inability to apply a simple logic and fix the ending rather than hiding behind "artistic integrity".

Or maybe is just the fact that some people can't already move on.
I just find it, uh, amusing?, that there's still people (And the same people) crying about the game after more than a year ago. I mean, you know what I do when I buy a game and at the end I don't like it? I sell it and move on, I don't go to the forums to cry about it. I have better things to do.
And actually, I didn't like the original ending, I felt the same that a lot of people. Empty, maybe a bit angry, and stuff like that. But I didn't go to the forums to cry about it like a little boy. Seriously, the "retake" movement was pathetic and people should feel ashamed for how they acted.
And, yes, I actually like the ending now with the EC.

Then why are you here?

Complaining about complaining is unproductive.

[Nole]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

WittingEight65 wrote...

ShadowLordXII wrote...

WittingEight65 wrote...

 You should have lost hope once you saw the ending. Seriously, Bioware doesn't have to change it just because you didn't like it. And, honestly, I'm sick of people claiming that the game and the ending have to be changed, fixed, like they were broken, disfunctional, like when you go to see a movie and the screen goes black 10 minutes before the ending, because, you know what? they haven't. Okey, maybe the game is overall a bad game, maybe the ending is the worst piece of **** in the entire history of the videogames, maybe 9 of 10 people hated the game and the ending. But the game is not broken, it doesn't need to be repaired, as if it were a bad product, a dysfunctional product. Because, if there is one person of ten that liked the ending, then it's not broken, and it doesn't need to be "fixed".

And, seriously, if you hate the game that much, just don't buy more games from Bioware, and enjoy watching them die slowly and painfully because bad sales (?).

If you're one of the latter, too bad.  The whining is just a symptom of BW's inability to apply a simple logic and fix the ending rather than hiding behind "artistic integrity".

Or maybe is just the fact that some people can't already move on.
I just find it, uh, amusing?, that there's still people (And the same people) crying about the game after more than a year ago. I mean, you know what I do when I buy a game and at the end I don't like it? I sell it and move on, I don't go to the forums to cry about it. I have better things to do.
And actually, I didn't like the original ending, I felt the same that a lot of people. Empty, maybe a bit angry, and stuff like that. But I didn't go to the forums to cry about it like a little boy. Seriously, the "retake" movement was pathetic and people should feel ashamed for how they acted.
And, yes, I actually like the ending now with the EC.

Then why are you here?

Complaining about complaining is unproductive.

I actually like to see how people fight with the trinity.

Specially you, my friend. You seem to have something against them.

Modifié par WittingEight65, 25 juin 2013 - 02:02 .

[WhiteKnyght]

There was no failing for the endings in my opinion. Everything turned out a lot better than I was expecting, in fact. An enemy as vast and powerful as the Reapers were obviously going to do a lot of damage and require an extreme solution. Anybody who didn't think so was foolish and delusional. And if Mass Effect were real, there'd be no beating the Reapers at all, plain and simple. It's like fighting a tank with a flower. The only failing of Mass Effect is that it generated a fanbase of whiners who put the Trekkies to shame.

And the half-success of Mass Effect 3: Citadel highlights the true problem people have with the ME3 ending. The story half of Citadel - the clone/etc - was pretty much panned despite being interesting, funny, and having pretty good missions. The fanservice half was lauded for being just that, fanservice.

It proves that the majority of the players(at least on this board) wanted a game full of Shepard bonding with his crew -- watching sports TV, going out to bars/arcades/etc, partying, and having sex. They wanted Mass Effect 3: Jersey Shore, a sci-fi version of a crappy reality show starring Shepard, and forget about the reapers and the threat that's been looming for two whole games.

Even the other DLCs were rejected for lacking that. Leviathan was hated on for not adding any new squadmates or moments with crew, despite having a decent story. Omega was rejected because the new squadmate chose to sacrifice herself(in a very heroic and meaningful way), and the (unrealistically)demanded Aria romance never actually happened beyond a kiss of gratitude, and Shepard didn't get to slum around on Omega afterward, never mind the fact that it was a good story with challenging gameplay that implemented new aspects to the gameplay.

And sure, plenty of people nitpick at ME3's supposed plotholes, but a matter of fact is that plot holes and science fiction go hand in hand. The greatest and most acclaimed sci-fi franchises in history have had gaping holes. Even Mass Effect 1's entire plot relied on the Conduit, a device that the villain didn't even need for his plan to succeed and what ultimately caused him to fail.