194 réponses à ce sujet

[ShadowLordXII]

I'm not defending the endings before anyone starts there.  Even with the EC, I still observe numerous flaws with the ending that go down to the fundamentals with which they were made.  So as far as I'm concerned, the entirety of the Final Mission in ME3 occurred in an entirely different fashion than it did in the game.

On one hand, many like myself argue that the ending is riddled with glaring major plotholes, inconsistencies and outright fallacies that ruin an otherwise great game.

A) The Catalyst's existence as the creator of the Reapers and it's connection to Citadel negates the necessity of the keepers and Sovereign, two key moving forces for the story and plot of the first Mass Effect game.

Harbinger standing there and letting Shepard say goodbye to his squad without firing a single shot at anyone and letting the Normandy escape without a fight all make no sense.  Especially in light of the effort that Harbinger made to kill Shepard in ME2.

C) Anderson getting to the control console before Shepard still doesn't make sense.

D) Each ending to Mass Effect 3 correlates to a galactic crime against life:
Refuse- Mass Suicide
Destroy- Mass Genocide
Synthesis- Mass Molestation
Control- Mass Subjugation

E) Two of the Endings (Control and Synthesis) are so heavily similar to methods and tactics that the Reapers use themselves that they pretty much ecquate to agreeing with the reapers.

F) The reasons for EDI and the Geth dying in Destroy are made under unclear or outright inconsistant factors.

G) The Catalyst's logic is heavily flawed and makes so little sense that they had to ruin the Leviathan DLC in order to give it context and that still doesn't fix the situation.

H) After the entire main conflict and dramatic build-up of the series has been focused on fighting the Reapers, changing it to solving organics vs synthetics at the last 10 minutes without any meaningful foreshadowing shatters suspension of disbelief.

I) The War Asset Count doesn't meaningfully contribute to the endings in a manner similar to ME2's Suicide Mission, it's just a number for you raise or decrease.

And since BW decided not to respect their own lore and remain consistent with their own story and themes then why should we acknowledge it?  After all, the EC was their golden opportunity to change the ending and everyone would love them for it.  But instead, they choose the "Clarity and Closure" route in order to respect the Artistic Integrity of their team.

Well, since they believe that the piece of %$#@ that they call an ending is art, then we can make up our own ending through writting, modding or outright headcannon and no matter how stupid that the ending actually is...it'll be just as valid as the ending that BW is sticking behind.

But on the other hand...

Should we?

Because no matter how much more sense that a fan-made dark energy ending is compared to BW's ending or how much greater people seem to recieve the MEHEM mod more than the Star-Child...it doesn't change how the Star-Child stays and BW wants to keep it that way.

For a grand reason significant enough to ****** off much of their fans/customer base when there were easier and frankly better ways of handling the Ending Fiasco.

So to be blunt, the fan-made ending won't actually change the ending.  The ME3 Ending is just like the Phantom Menace...it could have been so much better but it isn't and it will never go away...it cannot be undone...without modding then that same ending sequence is still going to play out when you hit Cronos Station.

So what's the best option?

A) Still use all mental effort to ignore the canon ending and make up your own.

Accept that this is BW's ending and learn to love it.

C) Don't buy any future ME game since it will branch from this ending.

D) Other.

Personally, I'm still going with A because it's a fun exercise in writing and plot structure.  Plus, I'm just to stubborn to concede to BW's Artistic Integrity. But that's just me.

What about you?

[chemiclord]

Well... you should acknowledge it because... like it or not... it IS their story. It is THEIR world. Not yours. It's a bit of undue arrogance whenever a fan actually thinks they can say to a creator, "I know your world better than you", even IF you think it's true... hell even if it IS true.

You are under no obligation to like what you are given. But you should at least be willing to respect the person who gave it to you. Your own personal ending wouldn't exist without them.

[JonathonPR]

D
One thing I would like to see explored in more games is a sort of retroactive story interaction. I forgot what it is called but some parts of the history and previous unobserved (by the player) events are determined by choices the player makes in the present and allow different options in the future. A, B, and C are possible events that could have happened but until a certain point it is ambiguous which one happened. This could have been done in ME3. Instead of the crucible, Shepard would be following different leads on Reaper weaknesses and origins. Are the Reapers from a different universe and interacting through the ships? Maybe. Are they trying to prevent the cycles from gaining the attention from a greater threat that would wipe out all higher life forms and the Reapers permanently? An actual post singularity entity that stops rivals from developing? Add that in too. Manipulation of lower species to develop into Reaper level beings? And so on and so forth.

This technique could also be used to link future Mass Effect games. The players choice could retcon the Crucible story, determine which ending was chosen, or ..... no just retcon the Crucible and come up with other what ifs as options. The Reapers should not be the central antagonist for the next game so it should not create too many variables for the writers.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Well I'm taking a different approach to it. I'm looking at it as a cadenza in a piano concerto. Now throughout mostly the Romantic Period it was quite common for people to take Classical period piano concertos and write their own cadenzas. There are some very famous ones, too. Some Mozart Piano Concertos had their cadenzas rewritten by other composers who themselves were accomplished pianists such as Brahms, Busoni, Lizst and others. The same with Beethoven. Today typically only the Mozart cadenzas are performed although on occasion an artist will perform one of the others and it will be noted in the program, or sometimes they will even write their own. I've seen this as well.

Such as it is with the Mass Effect 3 ending and me. While I acknowledge the existence of the Red, Green and Blue: You die, the relays blow up, and the Normandy crashes, with the only real difference being the color of the explosions on your television/monitor screen, I choose to take that as a base from which to work. I acknowledge the story as well.

The so-called "happy ending mod" is essentially an improvisation on the main ending in that it removes the forced deaths of the Geth and EDI, and leaves a definite Shepard survives at the end. However, the galaxy is still in shambles. Needless to say you can still blow up the Geth on Rannoch if you so choose, in which case the only differences are that EDI's name doesn't appear and Shepard gets a definite survival instead of the 1/4 second gasp. IMO EDI's name appearing doesn't even bother me. It is that 1/4 second gasp vs. the definite survival.

So still we have to acknowledge the original work, but we can improvise on it. We can rewrite it, but it cannot be simply ignored.

[Steelcan]

When what BioWare intended is this bad..... Yes

[hiraeth]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Well I'm taking a different approach to it. I'm looking at it as a cadenza in a piano concerto. Now throughout mostly the Romantic Period it was quite common for people to take Classical period piano concertos and write their own cadenzas. There are some very famous ones, too. Some Mozart Piano Concertos had their cadenzas rewritten by other composers who themselves were accomplished pianists such as Brahms, Busoni, Lizst and others. The same with Beethoven. Today typically only the Mozart cadenzas are performed although on occasion an artist will perform one of the others and it will be noted in the program, or sometimes they will even write their own. I've seen this as well.

Such as it is with the Mass Effect 3 ending and me. While I acknowledge the existence of the Red, Green and Blue: You die, the relays blow up, and the Normandy crashes, with the only real difference being the color of the explosions on your television/monitor screen, I choose to take that as a base from which to work. I acknowledge the story as well.

The so-called "happy ending mod" is essentially an improvisation on the main ending in that it removes the forced deaths of the Geth and EDI, and leaves a definite Shepard survives at the end. However, the galaxy is still in shambles. Needless to say you can still blow up the Geth on Rannoch if you so choose, in which case the only differences are that EDI's name doesn't appear and Shepard gets a definite survival instead of the 1/4 second gasp. IMO EDI's name appearing doesn't even bother me. It is that 1/4 second gasp vs. the definite survival.

So still we have to acknowledge the original work, but we can improvise on it. We can rewrite it, but it cannot be simply ignored.

+1

[dreamgazer]

chemiclord wrote...

Well... you should acknowledge it because... like it or not... it IS their story. It is THEIR world. Not yours. It's a bit of undue arrogance whenever a fan actually thinks they can say to a creator, "I know your world better than you", even IF you think it's true... hell even if it IS true.

You are under no obligation to like what you are given. But you should at least be willing to respect the person who gave it to you. Your own personal ending wouldn't exist without them.

Indeed.

[IntelligentME3Fanboy]

NOPE

[KaiserShep]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

With blackjack and hookers?

Is there really any other way to do it? 

[ObserverStatus]

Um, I guess that players should only make their own endings if they feel like it? It won't change the canon, but if you enjoy modding, why not?

[PsyrenY]

Of course they should! In fact, there's a whole forum for them to do just that, and all kinds of other alterations/modifications - Fan Creations.

[Ravensword]

bobobo878 wrote...

Um, I guess that players should only make their own endings if they feel like it? It won't change the canon, but if you enjoy modding, why not?

There is no canon after the trilogy. They're gonna reboot the entire IP w/ the next game.

[Cainhurst Crow]

B, but with an added clause to it that states if you don't like it, move on and find something else you like, there will be other sci fi series out there after mass effect, and no one is stopping you from finding a new interest, now that you have lost interest in your old hobby.

The other options all sound like your dedicating your life to allowing mass effect to control your existence. Your entire behavior from those are all defined by mass effect and it's ending, even if in opposition to it. You need to acknowledge what you are opposing in order to dedicate yourself to opposing it, that means spending time, energy, and your health on something you don't like but can't let go of, and letting it define who you are now as a person, allowing it to become an actual aspect of your person. And that's not healthy to do, with anything in life, let alone to a game series few people will probably care about in 25 to 50 years.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 11 juillet 2013 - 12:54 .

[Iakus]

 For five years they told us these were our Shepards, that our descisions shaped the story, that there was no canon but what me made for yourselves.

So yes.  It's either that or let Bioware railroad us to their own grim vision of how Shepard's story should end.  If others want to take what they were given, fine.  But my Shepards deserved better.

Modifié par iakus, 11 juillet 2013 - 01:09 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

When did they say you could alter the choices they put in the game for you to pick?

[Coyotebay]

I like the Happy Ending mod.  It basically gives you the destroy ending while sparing the lives of EDI and the Geth, and sparing you from listening to Starbrat's inane expositions.  It doesn't break the original story that was being told.  You still build the crucible and it still wrecks the mass relays to put an end to the Reapers.  You still get to learn why the Reapers did what they did from Leviathan.  You don't have to commit suicide to save the galaxy, and don't have to consider the assorted Frankenstein options for ending the story when all you want to do is curb-stomp the Reapers and go home to Shepard's LI.

Modifié par Coyotebay, 11 juillet 2013 - 01:47 .

[Nole]

Now everytime I don't like an ending, I'm going to make a mod to finish it the way I want.

[FlamingBoy]

Bioware was expected to make an ending, but in relation to the choices the players made up to that point. Not an unrelated 3 prong fork in the road using the most contrived method I have ever experienced.

The endings as they are do not fulfill the marketing promise of "choices mattering" to enough of an extend to be considered acceptable, as a result this being "biowares story" argument does not fly because they sold the game under a false pretense.

So yeah if a company blatantly avoids the most basic principles of the game and marketing and creates an ending with a bare-bones concept.... then any ending made by the fans is equally valid.

[Nightwriter]

A) is the denial route. I don't like the denial route. It happened, it was bad, let's learn from it.

sounds like making yourself accept something you had good reasons not to want to accept.

C) seems like it's slamming the door on future writers who might take up the Mass Effect reins, and they could be worth your time.

So I pick D) cautiously monitor the Mass Effect scene from a detached perspective and see what the future holds.

chemiclord wrote...

like it or not... it IS their story. It is THEIR world. Not yours.

This has just become that thing that people like what's-his-face say whenever someone makes a criticism.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 11 juillet 2013 - 01:47 .

[favoritehookeronthecitadel]

Nightwriter wrote...

chemiclord wrote...

like it or not... it IS their story. It is THEIR world. Not yours.

This has just become that thing that people like what's-his-face say whenever someone makes a criticism.

I know, right? If people want to tell BW they ****ed up their story and the fans would do a better job, they have every right to. 

[Nightwriter]

Yeah, pretty much. While I know fans can be arrogant dicks I feel that that particular token phrase has just been misused to the point of meaninglessness. And anyway I have never regarded the authorial source as inherently holy or sacrosanct the way some other fiction consumers do. I have a healthy respect for the effort and bravery it takes to put a creative work before the critical public, but to truly revere an author I must first revere their work.

[chemiclord]

Nightwriter wrote...

This has just become that thing that people like what's-his-face say whenever someone makes a criticism.

Is it not true?  

You don't like something?  That's perfectly fine.  You want to say it sucks?  Be my guest.   But at the end of the day, what the creator wants to do is what happens, whether you like it or not.

Bioware wants to torch their franchise and run?  That's their call.  Not yours.   They want to stand by that drek of an ending?  Again, so be it.  Their story, their rules.  Fans have the right to walk away and not support them.

Modifié par chemiclord, 11 juillet 2013 - 02:05 .

[ShepnTali]

As long as it's legal, yes OP. Of course.