329 réponses à ce sujet

[JamesFaith]

Necanor wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Troll thread. OP reported for spam.

Different (positive) opinion on ME3 = troll attempt and spam.

Typical.

"I didn't care for the Geth, Tali or the extermination of her species. I only cared for myself..."
"Best ending I've ever experienced in a vidoe game..."

Yeah, not a troll at all.

Personal opinions and different tastes?
 
Not everyone love quarians and geth. Some people here would let them died all for batarian squadmate or bigger role for Miranda.

And how is that part about personal experience in videogames less valid then everyday claims about worst ending experienced in videogames?

[shingara]

AlanC9 wrote...

shingara wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Huh? Shepard's statements are evidence? Of what? Shepard doesn't know jack about what the Crucible does. He says so himself.

 Have you even played mass effect, I am asking seriously if you are honestly saying shepard never says destroying the reapers is what they are going todo throughout the trilogy.  Shepards statements are the fact of what he is planning todo from the very start.

Oh, I get it. It sounded like you were saying Shepard shouldn't have thought Control would work, rather than that he just wouldn't have picked it.

I'm still not seeing your point. Shepard wanted to do something before so therefore he... shouldn't be permitted to do something different when he gets to the Crucible? I thought letting the player make decisions was a good thing. Am I wrong?

 Right lets run through the trilogy. Shepard understands indoctrination and has always oppressed anything todo with it, s/he has fought against TIM time and again even in a encouraging way to try and convince TIM it will never work yet all of a sudden a holographic kid is gonna change there mind after 5 mins of talking and puppy eyes, i think not.

 Then you have synthesis, shepard has learned i think it was in mass effect 1 that synthesis doesnt work and was proven through the Zha'til http://masseffect.wi...a'til#Zha.27til as the reapers ultimatly will overpower the races as the reapers are immune to it via there nanides. Shepard also states in the cutscene with catalyst the they will not enforce change upon others simply to sate the catalyst.

 Ever since the beacon and then the cipher shepard has known the only way to defeat the reapers is to destroy them, it has been stated multiple times by vigil, vengence and the leviathons that the only way to stop the cycle is to destroy the reapers.

 Its also stated throughout the game that the way the reapers have always won is by the reapers convincing people that control and symbiosis was the only option thus making the races they were enthralling fight each other as mush as they were fighting the reapers.

 Its a divide and conquer technique employed for millenia. And finally the whole of this information on how its best to not destroy the reapers is to become them and kill yourself is the what is now main protaganist within mass effect who has been trying to kill you for 3 games.

 In one through soverign, in 2 via the collectors and through 3 via harbinger and is now telling you that jumping into a laser are electricuting you on pylons is the perfect answer.

Modifié par shingara, 05 août 2013 - 04:44 .

[AlanC9]

shingara, is this an argument that Shepard shouldn't have believed in Control working?

How is the evidence for Destroy any better? Except that Shepard really, really wants Destroy to be true, they're about the same. You seem to be flip-flopping between unrelated ideas.

Modifié par AlanC9, 05 août 2013 - 04:47 .

[CptData]

@OP:

Throwing away all lore in the last five minutes of an epic trilogy can't be good. It doesn't really matter how the ending turns out, if you literally "kill" the entire universe you learned to know in a brief moment just for a major plot twist.

Know what I mean?

Let's use different words: the Matrix was good until the Architect.

[shingara]

AlanC9 wrote...

shingara, is this an argument that Shepard shouldn't have believed in Control working?

How is the evidence for Destroy any better? Except that Shepard really, really wants Destroy to be true, they're about the same. You seem to be flip-flopping between unrelated ideas.

 Its evidence for the fact that all the endings are hash. Ill thought through and illogical to the entire trilogy as they stand.  God knows what happened but someone at bioware lost the plot. The whole trilogy is shepard beating the reapers in one form or another to platform onto the next trilogy.

 Its simply, ME1 go through take choices kill the boss, make another choice the end. ME2 make choices kill the boss make some more choices, the end. ME3 makes some choices, none of them mean anything and commite suicide in one form or another because bioware dont want you to play shepard in another game.

[Iakus]

::Looks at title::

Nope, Dragon Age: Origins had an ending that made ME3's look infantile in comparison.

Heck, Dragon Age 2's ending was creative compared to ME3's

[3DandBeyond]

Jeremiah12LGeek wrote...



The developer quotes reveal the truth - the people's expectations were entirely justified, because the developers had the same expectations. It's hard to say that we expected too much when the developers felt the same way we did (at last at one point in time.)

As far as I can see, only a few people's belief systems are reinforced by the endings, and they seem to be the only ones who passionately defend them. Usually by arguing how everyone else's interpretation is wrong - but that's just my observation from the few times I've waded into the pool of S&C ending discussion.

Being one of those people makes you pretty lucky, OP. The rest of us had to suffer through one of the biggest let-down endings of all time.

Mass Effect is like the first Superman movie. It's an epic achievement, a beautifully-rendered story, an inspiring and ambitious project for its time, and it possesses an ending that undoes the bulk of the magic it created on the way there.

Yes pretty much sums it up.  It was always a hit or miss proposition once the devs diverged from their own expectations and those they set up for a large number of players.  Luck was with you if they hit upon something you liked, but precedence and story from 2 other games, developer interviews, plain old-fashioned story telling, or even formulaic game development said the endings in this game for 3 stories would be of necessity epic or at least would offer something for most everyone.  The fact that the original endings seemed to offer nothing for most everyone with a keyboard and the ability to communicate and the EC was created with little variance from the original endings (this was said by the devs themselves) indicates you had to win the lottery to be wholly satisfied. 

And that doesn't mean you had to love it-it means you were able to accept it.  Vast numbers of those that ultimately said the EC was enough didn't say it was good, great, or that it was what they'd hope for or wanted.  It was enough.  That means there was so much room to do more and so much more promise that the game had.  And they had many more chances to make others feel as lucky as you and simple ways to do it.  But they backed themselves into a corner and said, "this is what we meant to do".  By their own words it definitely was not.  They had said hundreds of times what they wanted and expected and what we got was not that.

[garrus and ashley squad]

To be honest the mass effect had a great series and a bad end imo. Not the worst but it was still bad, but if you don't play many video games like you have stated. I could see this being one of the best endings in your view.

[3DandBeyond]

shingara wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

shingara, is this an argument that Shepard shouldn't have believed in Control working?

How is the evidence for Destroy any better? Except that Shepard really, really wants Destroy to be true, they're about the same. You seem to be flip-flopping between unrelated ideas.

 Its evidence for the fact that all the endings are hash. Ill thought through and illogical to the entire trilogy as they stand.  God knows what happened but someone at bioware lost the plot. The whole trilogy is shepard beating the reapers in one form or another to platform onto the next trilogy.

 Its simply, ME1 go through take choices kill the boss, make another choice the end. ME2 make choices kill the boss make some more choices, the end. ME3 makes some choices, none of them mean anything and commite suicide in one form or another because bioware dont want you to play shepard in another game.

This is the case.  In essence all of the endings/choices are trash because two of them are reviled and thrown aside by everyone in the game that has a brain.  Destroy is tossed aside because it features the arbitrary and needless ambiguous destruction of whole races of people (that one could care about), the death of a friend (that one might have helped seek autonomy and life itself), the damage of all tech that means exactly what, as well as all the other statements as to what it will do, what we then see happen, and then incredulously what that means sort of to Shepard's fate. 

We're left with this notion that Destroy if our chosen option is sort of to sound bad (the description of it is rubbish), look bad (that blast had to hurt), but maybe feel ok (Shep's alive, yay) except it doesn't.  It sounds like it might accomplish some good (reapers dead) amidst the bad (hmm EDI and the geth and anyone with tech in them), looks bad (again that blast), attempts to look sort of good (Shep's alive, yay), but makes you feel kind of crappy (exactly where is that headless torso and will anyone get to it in time-what did all that damaged or destroyed tech do to the head and that does not look good).  But Shep's alive, yay!

And refuse, well you die moron game over.

But worse still is the idea of ignorant Shepard doing something based upon all this nauseating nonsense passed off as logic.  And without any form of sincere protest, even if that protest would not have changed a thing.  The questions Shepard asks the kid in the EC which is supposed to make it better, amount to "what's your favorite color?"  When Shepard asks "how" for Synthesis the game doesn't ask the "how" I wanted an answer to or that Shepard with a brain would want.  And it certainly doesn't explain the why of it all if the ability of diplomacy and dialogue could be discussed. 

Apparently at the time the kid was created synthetics were mindless killers that no one could talk to and reason with.  A lot has changed along the way but Shepard plays dumb.  And if they were mindless killers then nothing explains the kid himself.  How about those enthralled races that keep making mindless killers get the word from the Leviathans to stop making mindless killers and make some nicer robots?  But no, the Leviathans have to one up them and create the ultimate mindless killer, the kid, the catalyst, what a joke.  Catalyst is a force for change or something that begins a reaction, but the kid has stagnated for millions of years and stopped learning anything.  He has to be changed.

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...

Heck, Dragon Age 2's ending was creative compared to ME3's

Nah. I like Dragon Age II, but the ending was about as flat as you can get.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 05 août 2013 - 05:14 .

[Clayless]

Refara wrote...

Introducing a new, major character in the last 5 minutes of the story is not good writing.

He's only new if you didn't expect the Reapers to have a creator.

[3DandBeyond]

JamesFaith wrote...

Personal opinions and different tastes?
 
Not everyone love quarians and geth. Some people here would let them died all for batarian squadmate or bigger role for Miranda.

And how is that part about personal experience in videogames less valid then everyday claims about worst ending experienced in videogames?

The point here for me is that as an example, I could say I wanted Shepard to find a way to win this war without an AI god supplanted for monstrous reapers at the end.  I wanted a way for Shepard to eek out his/her own survival and things that could cause teammates to die, but a way to save them all.  Then you could say "but that's not what I wanted.  That's your view of things.  I wanted them all to die horribly."  However, my view is just as valid as yours.  And you could get that version that you wanted.  I could not get mine.  But in my game, Shepard didn't romance Miranda (my canon Shepard is female), Shepard did like the geth and helped EDI to autonomy and life.  In my game I am given dialogue to use that BW wrote that means my Shepard would not have chosen any of those 3 things.  And other characters along the way reinforced that.  The only option, but a non-option becomes refuse and BW didn't take that seriously.

So for me there is no ending that is appropriate.  If you didn't care about the geth or EDI you can perhaps find your ending.  But the Shepard I played did care about them, cared about Joker who cared about EDI, and realized the geth were an example of all that was wrong with the kid's primary mission.  There is no ending that respects the choices I made from what BW offered for me to use.  Had they written a more linear story where it was not possible to care about the geth or EDI or the quarians, then the choice might be easy enough (if believable).  But they wrote in dialogue for me to use the led to the opposite conclusions and then they told me to forget all that and make a stupid choice that my Shepard would never make.

[3DandBeyond]

Robosexual wrote...

Refara wrote...

Introducing a new, major character in the last 5 minutes of the story is not good writing.

He's only new if you didn't expect the Reapers to have a creator.

There is nothing in the games that has to lead everyone to that conclusion or even believe their creator is relevant to what they are today.  If I wrote a story about you must it always include your parents?  I don't read murder mysteries and always expect the author to bring in the killer's mom at the end to take responsibility for what he did.  And quite often motivations of killers in reality and in stories has very little to do with their creation at all.

This has been explored with serial killers that cannot tell why they do what they do.  Ultimately why they are what they are is too complex to pigeonhole them, so saying that upbringing or creation is the most relevant thing to a story of killers or monsters is narratively rather obtuse.  I prefer even the exaggerated killer monster that kills merely because he can to one that says it's his mom's fault.  Reality may be different but stories create exaggerated things for over the top emotional responses.

[JamesFaith]

@ 3DandBeyond

I spoke about OP being accused from trolling and spamming because of his different opinion, nothing more.

All points were just examples, not my opinions.

[ShepnTali]

Something with Harbinger was probably most expected.

[shingara]

3DandBeyond wrote...

shingara wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

shingara, is this an argument that Shepard shouldn't have believed in Control working?

How is the evidence for Destroy any better? Except that Shepard really, really wants Destroy to be true, they're about the same. You seem to be flip-flopping between unrelated ideas.

 Its evidence for the fact that all the endings are hash. Ill thought through and illogical to the entire trilogy as they stand.  God knows what happened but someone at bioware lost the plot. The whole trilogy is shepard beating the reapers in one form or another to platform onto the next trilogy.

 Its simply, ME1 go through take choices kill the boss, make another choice the end. ME2 make choices kill the boss make some more choices, the end. ME3 makes some choices, none of them mean anything and commite suicide in one form or another because bioware dont want you to play shepard in another game.

This is the case.  In essence all of the endings/choices are trash because two of them are reviled and thrown aside by everyone in the game that has a brain.  Destroy is tossed aside because it features the arbitrary and needless ambiguous destruction of whole races of people (that one could care about), the death of a friend (that one might have helped seek autonomy and life itself), the damage of all tech that means exactly what, as well as all the other statements as to what it will do, what we then see happen, and then incredulously what that means sort of to Shepard's fate. 

We're left with this notion that Destroy if our chosen option is sort of to sound bad (the description of it is rubbish), look bad (that blast had to hurt), but maybe feel ok (Shep's alive, yay) except it doesn't.  It sounds like it might accomplish some good (reapers dead) amidst the bad (hmm EDI and the geth and anyone with tech in them), looks bad (again that blast), attempts to look sort of good (Shep's alive, yay), but makes you feel kind of crappy (exactly where is that headless torso and will anyone get to it in time-what did all that damaged or destroyed tech do to the head and that does not look good).  But Shep's alive, yay!

And refuse, well you die moron game over.

But worse still is the idea of ignorant Shepard doing something based upon all this nauseating nonsense passed off as logic.  And without any form of sincere protest, even if that protest would not have changed a thing.  The questions Shepard asks the kid in the EC which is supposed to make it better, amount to "what's your favorite color?"  When Shepard asks "how" for Synthesis the game doesn't ask the "how" I wanted an answer to or that Shepard with a brain would want.  And it certainly doesn't explain the why of it all if the ability of diplomacy and dialogue could be discussed. 

Apparently at the time the kid was created synthetics were mindless killers that no one could talk to and reason with.  A lot has changed along the way but Shepard plays dumb.  And if they were mindless killers then nothing explains the kid himself.  How about those enthralled races that keep making mindless killers get the word from the Leviathans to stop making mindless killers and make some nicer robots?  But no, the Leviathans have to one up them and create the ultimate mindless killer, the kid, the catalyst, what a joke.  Catalyst is a force for change or something that begins a reaction, but the kid has stagnated for millions of years and stopped learning anything.  He has to be changed.

 Yup, any choices involving the geth quarian war should be ignored if your doing destroy simply cos your going to kill the geth no matter what, so ye you go shoot legion in the back of the head. one of the most loved crew members within the trilogy.


  There are only 3 things set in stone within mass effect 3, Dr Evas body has to die for EDI to survive. Liara will become your bondmate if you accept the gift before the final push. And that shepard has to have no way out of mass effect 3 but give the glimpse of hope they might survive if they complete there original missions of destroying the reapers.

 The rest of your choices do not mean a thing.

[3DandBeyond]

JamesFaith wrote...

@ 3DandBeyond

I spoke about OP being accused from trolling and spamming because of his different opinion, nothing more.

All points were just examples, not my opinions.

True and I'm sorry if I picked up on your response out of context.  It is wrong to say the OP is trolling.  From his perspective the game and endings worked.  That can happen and it's great if it does.  The OP has a right to his own opinions without being accused of anything.

Again, sorry James.

[3DandBeyond]

ShepnTali wrote...

Something with Harbinger was probably most expected.

Yeah and it need not have been some traditional boss fight either.  A truly intelligent way of doing it was suggested by others along the way with a real confrontation, sort of more like what they did in Babylon 5 (what some of this was ripped from and then changed so it makes no sense).

[JamesFaith]

3DandBeyond wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

@ 3DandBeyond

I spoke about OP being accused from trolling and spamming because of his different opinion, nothing more.

All points were just examples, not my opinions.

True and I'm sorry if I picked up on your response out of context.  It is wrong to say the OP is trolling.  From his perspective the game and endings worked.  That can happen and it's great if it does.  The OP has a right to his own opinions without being accused of anything.

Again, sorry James.

No problem then. 

[N7 Shadow 90]

FlamingBoy wrote...

Kataphrut94 wrote...

See, it's open to interpretation. That makes it a fine ending and ultimately harmless.

Its vague, not "open to interpretation". To be open to interpretation, means that you must find meaning (edit: intended by the writers) within the ending.

I.E the main theme.

Victory through sacrifice. It has been the main theme since the very beginning of ME1, IMO.
It is open to interpretation in several ways. Was Shepard's sacrifice enough to achieve peace? Was more sacrificed than what appears to be at face value? I.E. Shepard's control (IT).

On a separate note:
ME3's has the best ending that I've ever experienced, because:
- HUGE emotional pay-off
- Everything gets wrapped up well
- But leaves plenty of room for interpretation
- Very tough, morally challenging final decision
- Revelations that may alter the way certain things in the whole trilogy are perceived
- INCREDIBLE music
- Fantastic speeches (especially EDI's Synthesis)

[Son of Shepherd]

OnlyMrChill wrote...



They say it's because "not all my choices affected the ending". Well, what choices? How would punching or not punching the reporter have any affect in the ending of a war for all living species?

You must have heard these arguments and gone into ME3 with the knowledge that your choices meant nothing and the ending sucked, therefore had zero expectation? 

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...

iakus wrote...

Heck, Dragon Age 2's ending was creative compared to ME3's

Nah. I like Dragon Age II, but the ending was about as flat as you can get.

And still better than ME3's.  IMO at least.

[dorktainian]

iakus wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

iakus wrote...

Heck, Dragon Age 2's ending was creative compared to ME3's

Nah. I like Dragon Age II, but the ending was about as flat as you can get.

And still better than ME3's.  IMO at least.

if taken literally.....then yep.

[3DandBeyond]

Son of Shepherd wrote...

OnlyMrChill wrote...



They say it's because "not all my choices affected the ending". Well, what choices? How would punching or not punching the reporter have any affect in the ending of a war for all living species?

You must have heard these arguments and gone into ME3 with the knowledge that your choices meant nothing and the ending sucked, therefore had zero expectation? 

I believe some people would do well to read Ray Bradbury's "A Sound of Thunder" that shows even minutiae can lead to very big consequences.  Someone somewhere on Earth can interpret one word as an insult and start a world war.  The reality of life is that even our simplest smallest actions can lead to huge consequences.  I've known people that can suddenly decide they are your sworn enemy because you raised an eyebrow when they said something.

Contrary to one of the laws of physics not every action has an equal but opposite reaction.  Sometimes, the reaction is far greater.

And it does matter when the devs themselves said all your choices would have consequences.  And then they don't.  Even big huge things don't matter at all. I can play ME3 alone and right after Mars have enough assets to get all 3 choices.  I still have to play the story to progress it, but I can pretty much do random things throughout the whole game and none of it matters.

[Omega Torsk]

TheKingg wrote...

OnlyMrChill Imma let you finish, but The Last of Us had one of the best endings of all time!

Yo, TheKingg! I'm really happy for you and Imma let you finish, but Bioshock: Infinite had one of the best endings of all time!

...ONE OF THE BEST ENDINGS OF ALL TIME!!!


But in all seriousness, this is following the EC. The ending is at least palatable with the EC. Thanks Bioware, I can take it from here.

But the original ending was inexcusable.