199 réponses à ce sujet

[Endurium]

I feel disappointment over ME3's ending (and beginning) rather than anger. Poor writing takes a heavy toll. I've only been able to play ME3 once, now it sits next to DA2 as a game I'll have to force myself to play again.

Modifié par Endurium, 18 juillet 2013 - 08:12 .

[.50CalBrainSurgeon]

cyrslash1974 wrote...

dorktainian wrote...

nah the mass effect 3 ending is the worst ending in video game history. no excuses.

Agree, in particular if you consider the trilogy. Great saga ruined by a stupid ending. Shame.

I concur. I don't mind my primary protagonist dying at all. As long as there is solid closure and an ending that makes sense (within the logic/ and "science" of the ME universe). The reason why so many players are angry with the ending is because it uses a Deus Ex Machina to introduce an illogical premise that opens up three colored cutscenes that really do not take into account previous decisions and believable context. I enjoyed 95% of ME3 to the point that I could look past some of the smaller narrative holes, but the ending pretty much tarnished what was otherwise else a pretty solid game/series.  

[AresKeith]

dreamgazer wrote...

erezike wrote...

A request- please no trolling

What do you call starting a thread with an intentionally misleading and inflammatory title that has nothing to do with the content within?

A troll thread 

[Ecrulis]

.50CalBrainSurgeon wrote...

cyrslash1974 wrote...

dorktainian wrote...

nah the mass effect 3 ending is the worst ending in video game history. no excuses.

Agree, in particular if you consider the trilogy. Great saga ruined by a stupid ending. Shame.

I concur. I don't mind my primary protagonist dying at all. As long as there is solid closure and an ending that makes sense (within the logic/ and "science" of the ME universe). The reason why so many players are angry with the ending is because it uses a Deus Ex Machina to introduce an illogical premise that opens up three colored cutscenes that really do not take into account previous decisions and believable context. I enjoyed 95% of ME3 to the point that I could look past some of the smaller narrative holes, but the ending pretty much tarnished what was otherwise else a pretty solid game/series.  

It not only uses a Deus Ex Machina, but the endings are a blatent rip off of Deus Ex. Suddenly with 10 minutes left in the game many long time players no longer felt they were playing ME or in the ME Universe.

Personally I think the problem started with ME2, which I do love a s a stand alone game so save your flames, but that's a different conversation. Other problems were the 11th hour plot change and attempting to write the conclusion to a trilogy so that people can start there and have everything suddenly make sense which I said back then and I still believe is one of the most idiotic things you can do in a trilogy ever.

[Guy On The Moon]

In the beginning it was people upset for all the hours they put in. Now it's just people stuck on stupid.

Honestly, it's more complicated than that. It has to do with hours + personal involvement + money + Bioware's downfall + EA + a plethora of other crap

[Erez Kristal]

Guy On The Moon wrote...

In the beginning it was people upset for all the hours they put in. Now it's just people stuck on stupid.

Honestly, it's more complicated than that. It has to do with hours + personal involvement + money + Bioware's downfall + EA + a plethora of other crap

Personal involvement is the key, which is a lot of time due to money and hours,
But thats not what i meant when i said the begining was the worse.

[wright1978]

Beginning of the game is terrible but while a bad intro is a black mark it isn't in the same ballpark as a trainwreck of an ending.

[KaiserShep]

The more I think about it, the more I think that Mass Effect 2's intro was worse, despite the cornball filler in part 3.

[Erez Kristal]

KaiserShep wrote...

The more I think about it, the more I think that Mass Effect 2's intro was worse, despite the cornball filler in part 3.

the difference between mass effect 2 intro and mass effect 3
Is this.
Mass effect 2 didnt retcon your character into making stupid decisions.
You were on a normal patrol or planet scanning missions like you did many times before during mass effect 1
You are ambushed by a better ship, under the rush of battle, getting inside the pod with joker seems like the right thing to do. too bad that collector ship was really powerful.
In the bottom line, shepard acted in character. recieved a better ship and improved cyborg abilities.
The world stayed the same.


On mass effect 3 you find that your established character decides to be stupid and get captured or get stupid and turn himself in.
During your captivity the reapers attacked the colonies, the world didnt stay the same.
Not only shepard didnt make reasonable choices in your absence you were also penalized for it during the rest of the game. Which is what makes the begining of mass effect 3 so terribile, storywise.

[AlexMBrennan]

To bad there will be no dream wedding for OP since we killed Bin Laden.

[KaiserShep]

You do realize that Mass Effect 3's intro is merely a follow-up of Mass Effect 2's retcon, yes? The ending, plus the Arrival DLC basically beat it into us that no matter what we do, the reapers are coming. There's no retcon in Mass Effect 3's intro, just one glaring hole in Anderson suddenly being Admiral over the course of 6 months, because the retcon was already done long before that. Shepard makes no decisions at that point, except which brand of corny lines to give to the Defense Council. Mass Effect 2's intro basically introduces miracle medical tech that gets swept aside just as quickly, rendering it utterly pointless.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 18 juillet 2013 - 08:57 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

KaiserShep wrote...

The more I think about it, the more I think that Mass Effect 2's intro was worse, despite the cornball filler in part 3.

Depends on how you look at it.

Visually-speaking, the opening with Shepard's death was extremely powerful (imo). It just didn't lead to anything useful from a narrative perspective.

ME3's intro hits me a bit harder because

1) that's when the autodialogue fest began.

2) That entire discussion with the Council felt very off, with Shepard spouting some very bad one liners.

[Ecrulis]

KaiserShep wrote...

The more I think about it, the more I think that Mass Effect 2's intro was worse, despite the cornball filler in part 3.

My problem with ME2 is that it did next to nothing to advance the over arcing plot (the reaper problem) At the end of ME2 we are more or less in the same position as at the end of ME1, an incoming reaper invasion with no way of stoping them. This created the need to introduce the collosal DEM that is the crucible in the first hour of ME3 while also finding a way to impliment it in the same game. I feel that if the existance of the Crucible had been hinted at throughout ME2 with it's discovery during or close to the end of ME2 it would not have felt so ham fisted into the beginning of ME3.

[KaiserShep]

It was powerful in places, but the more I think about parts of the intro, the more it kind of bugs me. Mass Effect 2 is full of narrative issues that are largely forgiven because of the fun the game is chock full of, but if I were to actually pick at its more problematic points, I could probably find just as many issues with it as I can with Mass Effect 3.

Ecrulis wrote...

My problem with ME2 is that it did next to nothing to advance the over arcing plot (the reaper problem) At the end of ME2 we are more or less in the same position as at the end of ME1, an incoming reaper invasion with no way of stoping them. This created the need to introduce the collosal DEM that is the crucible in the first hour of ME3 while also finding a way to impliment it in the same game. I feel that if the existance of the Crucible had been hinted at throughout ME2 with it's discovery during or close to the end of ME2 it would not have felt so ham fisted into the beginning of ME3.

LotSB would've been a good place to start giving better hints at the Crucible plans. We get a LITTLE something, but not much.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 18 juillet 2013 - 09:00 .

[Ecrulis]

KaiserShep wrote...

It was powerful in places, but the more I think about parts of the intro, the more it kind of bugs me. Mass Effect 2 is full of narrative issues that are largely forgiven because of the fun the game is chock full of, but if I were to actually pick at its more problematic points, I could probably find just as many issues with it as I can with Mass Effect 3.

Ecrulis wrote...

My problem with ME2 is that it did next to nothing to advance the over arcing plot (the reaper problem) At the end of ME2 we are more or less in the same position as at the end of ME1, an incoming reaper invasion with no way of stoping them. This created the need to introduce the collosal DEM that is the crucible in the first hour of ME3 while also finding a way to impliment it in the same game. I feel that if the existance of the Crucible had been hinted at throughout ME2 with it's discovery during or close to the end of ME2 it would not have felt so ham fisted into the beginning of ME3.

LotSB would've been a good place to start giving better hints at the Crucible plans. We get a LITTLE something, but not much.

Either that or the first collector base mission being the first real important glimpse of something, either way the crucible should have been intorduced in 2.

[HellbirdIV]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

2) That entire discussion with the Council felt very off, with Shepard spouting some very bad one liners.

"We fight or we die!"

Truly a master tactician drawing upon years of experience fighting the Reapers.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

erezike wrote...

The beginning is clearly the most terrible part of the game.
....snip....

Because we waited five years....

Yes the intro to the game was bad. Shepard was thrown into lock up for doing a job that clearly Hackett wanted him/her to do. Come on, it was a full facility on an asteroid in Batarian space. An Alliance facility, FFS. Kenson? Right.

Then you play through this story that builds and leads you to this final battle where you've finally got the entire galaxy united. You've done everything, and milked every single war asset out of the galaxy to get the very best possible result. You've defeated Cerberus at Cronos. Your fleet is massed. Hackett boards YOUR ship to give his final address to the entire fleet. Now it's on. You make it to London for the ground assault to get to the conduit. You fire the Cain for the first time in the game. You say your goodbyes to your team. (It's like the writing team is beating it over your head -- you gonna die sucka) But they've done this before in every game. You've gone against the odds and come out on top. We can do this. You give your final address to your troops and make your final push to the Conduit.

You're dodging Harbinger's beams right, then left, then suddenly you get hit and it goes ..... "there's no one left" and you struggle to your feet... your armor has been burned off.... but you make it... and three husks appear... you shoot them and you move to your right.... then you round a barricade and you see Marauder Shields and you plug him twice in the head. Then into the beam.

You confront The Illusive Man and defeat him. And we get to decide whether to destroy or control the reapers. And now it's time for the EPIC ending.

"Mein Fueher! ... We regret to inform you that all of the endings are the same except for the color of the explosions on your screen: You die; the relays explode; and the Normandy crashes."



You never understood why players were so angry about the endings? Who the **** thought this was a good idea?

Five years! Five years we waited for this? To have our entire experience of this universe completely ruined in the last 10 minutes?

What was seen cannot be unseen.

[KaiserShep]

That and suddenly start singing a different tune about our chances against the reapers. When Shep says "Stop them?", the first thing that came to mind was how many times Shepard insisted that the galaxy was going to stop them in the past.

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Yes the intro to the game was bad. Shepard was thrown into lock up for doing a job that clearly Hackett wanted him/her to do. Come on, it was a full facility on an asteroid in Batarian space. An Alliance facility, FFS. Kenson? Right. 

Ah, bureaucracy. Can't live with em, can't throw em all out the airlock, though I wish I could.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 18 juillet 2013 - 09:19 .

[Erez Kristal]

KaiserShep wrote...

You do realize that Mass Effect 3's intro is merely a follow-up of Mass Effect 2's retcon, yes? The ending, plus the Arrival DLC basically beat it into us that no matter what we do, the reapers are coming. There's no retcon in Mass Effect 3's intro, just one glaring hole in Anderson suddenly being Admiral over the course of 6 months, because the retcon was already done long before that. Shepard makes no decisions at that point, except which brand of corny lines to give to the Defense Council. Mass Effect 2's intro basically introduces miracle medical tech that gets swept aside just as quickly, rendering it utterly pointless.

im not even talking about the reapers flew in casualy into the galaxy, im talking about shepard being forced into making a decision into turning himself in or being careless and getting captured. eithe way it betrays our character in the worst way possibile and punish us severly for it.

And while arrival did create a mess, about the speculation of the reapers arrival. they could have still follow that one with the reapers being stuck in space and the project rho artifact a mere indoctrination device and a catalyst for a war between batarians and humans for a larger purpose.

Its time for me3 plot to grow up and stop blaming me2 for bad story. 
It is also important to mention that arrival was created after mass effect 2 ended by walters in order for him to have easier time railroading us into me3 plot. it was more part of me3 story than it was of me2

[KaiserShep]

It's not a matter of blaming Mass Effect 2. I'm telling you that all of these things, and even the decision for Shepard to turn him/herself into the Alliance, happens before Mass Effect 3. Say what you want, but the retcon occurred before ME3 starts, and the decision Shepard makes was a done deal. Going back on that decision in 3 would be more of a retcon in itself, unless something occurred that changed it reasonably.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 18 juillet 2013 - 09:23 .

[Erez Kristal]

Ecrulis wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

The more I think about it, the more I think that Mass Effect 2's intro was worse, despite the cornball filler in part 3.

My problem with ME2 is that it did next to nothing to advance the over arcing plot (the reaper problem) At the end of ME2 we are more or less in the same position as at the end of ME1, an incoming reaper invasion with no way of stoping them. This created the need to introduce the collosal DEM that is the crucible in the first hour of ME3 while also finding a way to impliment it in the same game. I feel that if the existance of the Crucible had been hinted at throughout ME2 with it's discovery during or close to the end of ME2 it would not have felt so ham fisted into the beginning of ME3.

mass effect 2 developed and expaned world, you started establishing allies relations in me2 we knew the reapers were looking for alternate ways to enter the galaxy. one was by building the baby reaper who was intended to replace soveriegn. 

This plot thread was thrown aside in some measure at arrival and completely at me3.
me3 had plenty of threads to follow, but it chose to follow none.

Modifié par erezike, 18 juillet 2013 - 09:21 .

[Erez Kristal]

KaiserShep wrote...

It was powerful in places, but the more I think about parts of the intro, the more it kind of bugs me. Mass Effect 2 is full of narrative issues that are largely forgiven because of the fun the game is chock full of, but if I were to actually pick at its more problematic points, I could probably find just as many issues with it as I can with Mass Effect 3.

Ecrulis wrote...

My problem with ME2 is that it did next to nothing to advance the over arcing plot (the reaper problem) At the end of ME2 we are more or less in the same position as at the end of ME1, an incoming reaper invasion with no way of stoping them. This created the need to introduce the collosal DEM that is the crucible in the first hour of ME3 while also finding a way to impliment it in the same game. I feel that if the existance of the Crucible had been hinted at throughout ME2 with it's discovery during or close to the end of ME2 it would not have felt so ham fisted into the beginning of ME3.

LotSB would've been a good place to start giving better hints at the Crucible plans. We get a LITTLE something, but not much.

The narrative issues are forgiven not only because its a very fun game, but because the game doesnt punish the player for the writer hjacking of the charcater as it tend to happen all to often in mass effect 3.
This is a major issue that seem to be ignored by the players who did not like me2.
A major issue.

[Erez Kristal]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

erezike wrote...

The beginning is clearly the most terrible part of the game.
....snip....

Because we waited five years....

Yes the intro to the game was bad. Shepard was thrown into lock up for doing a job that clearly Hackett wanted him/her to do. Come on, it was a full facility on an asteroid in Batarian space. An Alliance facility, FFS. Kenson? Right.

Then you play through this story that builds and leads you to this final battle where you've finally got the entire galaxy united. You've done everything, and milked every single war asset out of the galaxy to get the very best possible result. You've defeated Cerberus at Cronos. Your fleet is massed. Hackett boards YOUR ship to give his final address to the entire fleet. Now it's on. You make it to London for the ground assault to get to the conduit. You fire the Cain for the first time in the game. You say your goodbyes to your team. (It's like the writing team is beating it over your head -- you gonna die sucka) But they've done this before in every game. You've gone against the odds and come out on top. We can do this. You give your final address to your troops and make your final push to the Conduit.

You're dodging Harbinger's beams right, then left, then suddenly you get hit and it goes ..... "there's no one left" and you struggle to your feet... your armor has been burned off.... but you make it... and three husks appear... you shoot them and you move to your right.... then you round a barricade and you see Marauder Shields and you plug him twice in the head. Then into the beam.

You confront The Illusive Man and defeat him. And we get to decide whether to destroy or control the reapers. And now it's time for the EPIC ending.

"Mein Fueher! ... We regret to inform you that all of the endings are the same except for the color of the explosions on your screen: You die; the relays explode; and the Normandy crashes."



You never understood why players were so angry about the endings? Who the **** thought this was a good idea?

Five years! Five years we waited for this? To have our entire experience of this universe completely ruined in the last 10 minutes?

What was seen cannot be unseen.

If you know that you and your character did anything possibile, against a foe so terrefying, so horribile and still died. that i can live with, thats part of war.

But when the game forces your character and the world around  into stupidity and earth is burning because of it.
Thats something i cant accept. its a game breaker. I expect the enemy to be horribile due to the enemy capabilities. not due to the writers nerfing my character.

[Malanek]

I always thought a public trial would be a good way for Shepard to get the threat of the reapers out into the public domain, but it wasn't portrayed this way. It was all behind closed doors.

[Erez Kristal]

KaiserShep wrote...

It's not a matter of blaming Mass Effect 2. I'm telling you that all of these things, and even the decision for Shepard to turn him/herself into the Alliance, happens before Mass Effect 3. Say what you want, but the retcon occurred before ME3 starts, and the decision Shepard makes was a done deal. Going back on that decision in 3 would be more of a retcon in itself, unless something occurred that changed it reasonably.

I remember telling hackett to stuff it that they shouuld be thanking me. soon after he left and i ended the recording and stuffed it with the rest of the discrimanting alliance information i had.


And bigger problem here was that shepard was the alliance control, he could just as easy kept on working undercover while waiting for trial.
The crew of the normandy could have also kept working without shepard.

This Giant mess is to big to clean with a mop.
There is no way around it to make it look smart.

Modifié par erezike, 18 juillet 2013 - 09:38 .