329 réponses à ce sujet

[KaiserShep]

dorktainian wrote...

johnswritersblock.com/2012/03/22/all-that-matters-is-the-ending-part-2-mass-effect-3/ 

a critique on the ending by a writer.  Pretty damning.  

Also notice his love of The Indoctrination Theory.  And what it actually means. (if it were true)

This writer is spot on. I can accept the ending I got as is, but the amount of effort required to weigh the positives against its negatives is a fair indicator of its quality. 

[Son of Shepherd]

OnlyMrChill wrote...


Now, judging from your point of view I can see how it can be a little disapointing but in a choice-based game how else would things end? With one ending? No. There has to be multiple endings which is seen as A, B or C. Is it how they presented the choices to you that made you mad? Would have preferred something like ME2 where the choices aren't just flat out given to you and instead you have to go along the ride to see what happens? If that's what I think you wanted, then I can see your point and would have also loved it to be that way.

I certainly feel that way which is why I made the point about ME2 above. One point I feel is often missed about the ending is that it's a 'pick your ending'ending and I think that's what most fans have a problem with. It didn't have to be a boss fight as such but something requiring skill and a huge army would have been worth the wait.

I have a friend that was way behind on the trilogy compared me and he asked me if choices had big consequences. I told him no and I told him the ME3 story was poor, basically because I didn't want him to be as disappointed as I was. 

[AlanC9]

Do you mean actual skill, or just an illusion? All the choices before the DR in DA:O are cosmetic -- you get some kind of army piece whatever you do, and the battles are fought pretty much the same way whatever you've got. But that went over OK.

Modifié par AlanC9, 05 août 2013 - 09:07 .

[David7204]

Being an 'actual writer' doesn't mean your criticism is a shred more credible. The only credibility of a work is derived from the work itself.

[Reorte]

N7 Shadow 90 wrote...

Victory through sacrifice. It has been the main theme since the very beginning of ME1, IMO.

I 've never understood why some people keep saying this. Sure, you lose a few people (not really that many) but it's a war. That hardly makes "victory through sacrifice" a theme. "Let's all work together" is a much more pronounced one, but it's largely been good straightforward old-fashioned hero (or a bit anti-hero if you're strongly Renegade).

[Son of Shepherd]

AlanC9 wrote...


Do you mean actual skill, or just an illusion? All the choices before the DR in DA:O are cosmetic -- you get some kind of army piece whatever you do, and the battles are fought pretty much the same way whatever you've got. But that went over OK.

I suppose you could say an illusion, if you mean in the sense that combat gameplay gives you the illusion you have won a fight through skill?  Let's say the final battle you have learned that destroying Harbinger would deal a crippling blow to the reapers, and that to destroy them for good you have to board it and fight your way through before planting a bomb, a bit like the collector base. The bigger 'army 'you have would mean planting the bomb and having the time to get the hell out of there. A smaller army would maybe mean you could plant the bomb but you wouldn't have time to get out. I'd call that an ending based on your choices throughout and achieving it through gameplay. 

[Ownedbacon]

OnlyMrChill wrote...

Refara wrote...

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

He's not necessarily a new character. He's basically a god.

The reapers were created somehow, so why not show who created them? Besides, you only see about 5 minutes of the boy until you make your final choice.

The ending was going to revolve around what you believe in basically. Either you'r ethe type that wants peace across the galaxy, or the type that just wants to save your ass and your girlfriend's ass. That's what I love about this game. I never really understood why people hated the endings so much.

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?

The players weren't the only ones out to destroy the Reapers in ME3 the writers also did their part.The Reapers never needed a creator they were gods themselves, well in ME1 & 2 they were. They created their own as seen in ME2. There wasn't a need to show a creator, just explain their motivations a bit more. Instead we get this overly convoluted backstory that is laughable and diminishes any menace they had in the previous games. Their strategies explained in ME1 aren't even used in ME3. The vanguard (Sovereign) signalling the keepers opening the relay which was stopped. From here the Reapers would take the Citadel download census data and shut down the relays. The Reapers would then systematically harvest the races. After harvesting they would create a Reaper(s) from chosen worthy race(s) and repurpose/exterminate the rest.

In ME3 Reapers lose their godlike status and character and are replaced by mindless machines. The Reapers are complete opposites of what they were in ME 1&2. Harbinger was being setup to be voice and face of the Reapers, in ME3 Harbinger like the rest of the Reapers are faceless and silenced. In ME3 we also get no further exposition for Harbinger's actions in ME2 and the urgency of building the Human-Reaper.

In ME3 they are Reapers misunderstood "bad guys" who are really working for the good of the universe contrary to them using evil tactics to torture and break morale before ultimately killing their victims. Harbinger would even taunt and try to get in Shepard's head these tactics are much more sadistic than mindless puppets programmed and bound to a cycle.

As for choices affecting the ending, people wanted to see their war assets in action such as major choices like the Rachni Queen and her children fighting off hordes of Reaper troops. They wanted to see a real difference like in killing the queen there would be no ravagers since no Rachni exist not a copout synthetic clone. There was all this hype from developers regarding the Rachni and there contribution to the war, there ended up being absolutely no onscreen payoff in the resolution. I know I wanted to see some purpose to saving/destroying the Collector base. Squadmates working together races putting aside their differences to fight off enemy hordes. You don't even see many of your efforts from ME3 play out within the game itself. I would have loved seeing a brief cutscene of Jack and her students either having success or failure depending on your choice. There are so many instances of missed opportunities like this. Elcor tanks is one of my biggest peeves towards the lackluster sidequests we got. They have a brief conversation of an Elcor ambassador asking you to help Elcor soldiers stranded on a planet/moon (this is already more setup for a sidequest than the others in the game). This setup made me think that there would actually be a mission to rescue Elcor Tanks from Reaper forces. I flew to the system only to find a generic war asset acquired screen, just like every other eavesdropping quest. I thought surely I would see Elcor tanks in action in the finale but there was nothing.

[zed888]

Glad you enjoyed the game. So why the hate? I can only speak for myself, but the biggest things for me were..
-The big reveal of the Reapers' motive was dumb. Really dumb. And having the holo-kid represent the Reaper King was salt in the wound.
-Shepard became an idiot. I was fond of my Shepard, and seeing her turn into a submissive moron in the presence of the kid was awful. Then the Extended Cut made things worse by having her waste precious time in the race to the beam by calling down the Normandy under Harbinger's nose. Say what you will about the Reaper IFF, stealth drive, etc, that was still a really idiotic risk Shepard took there.
-Yup, war assets/choices/battle for Earth. Saving the Rachni was a big deal in ME1. My Shep saves them again in ME3 and the big result is we get a few workers to help out with the welding on the Crucible? Lame. My Shep also went way, way, way out of her way to help the Geth. I expected to see a bunch of Geth fighters above London, or at least a prime or two on the ground. Something more than Joker saying "Geth fleet reporting". Yuk.

Oh, and to the person a few pages back who said refuse was like sitting in the corner crying or words to that effect- nope, refuse is continuing the fight to the last person. My shepard didn't see the EC ending slides, didn't "decide to lose" and certainly didn't care about a "game completed" achievement. To me that option was the one true improvement in the EC. Instead of meekly picking a choice given her by the leader of the enemy, Shepard becomes herself again, gives her best speech and fights on. Not that refuse isn't a lousy ending as well, but to me having Shepard go down fighting was better than just exiting the game, which would have been option #2.

Modifié par zed888, 05 août 2013 - 11:48 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

OnlyMrChill wrote...
a good ending to one of the best trilogies of all time and soon to be one of the best franchises of all time as soon as the next Mass Effect games get released.

The insufficient exposition regarding the organic-synthetic conflict is a whole nother theme that could have been ignored. I have no idea why you guys paid so much attention to that. My mission in ME1, 2, & 3 was sto stop the reapers and save as many lives as I can and I did just that. I don't care who that little ghost boy was, I ignored that side of the story because it does lack all kinds of things and I never wanted to dwelve into another theme. I helped finish the crucible, ignored the kid, and destroyed the reapers as well as ensuring the survival of humanity, my crew, and myself and that's really all I can ask for.

You have no idea why we paid attention to the last fifteen minutes of the game, in which the prime villain explained his motive for all the major conflict we've been dealing with and in which the device we used to achieve victory is built on that explanation?

That's like saying it doesn't matter if the Emperor in Episode VI has some secret half-assed explanation, so long as Luke lives, the Empire dies, and everyone gets to celebrate with Ewoks.

If all your efforts lead to a half-assed conclusion, then (imo) the entire experience becomes pointless. I apologize that we can't all bury our heads in the sand.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

AlanC9 wrote...

Which belief systems are you referring to? I suppose I fit your hypothesis, since as far back as ME1 I figured that there was some really stupid AI programming at the bottom of everything.

I've seen you point this out several times, but I think you're still avoiding the crux of the issue.

The Reapers having some non-sensical explanation for their actions is fine, as directed by the Catalyst. But the ending is not presented in that context. It's not presented as a battle of wills between Shepard's belief in Organic-Synthetic cooperation vs. the Catalyst's pessimism. It's not about realizing that the Catalyst is a broken mess in the way that Mira is on Noveria's Peak 15 and we just need to shut it off.

The Catalyst instead is presented as an information source, similar to Vigil, educating Shepard as to this new ass-pulled conflict. The story (and Shepard) is forced to take him and his conflict seriously. Hell, this would have been a great time for that craptastic line: "You're just a machine. And machines can be broken".

The Catalyst basically raised a single subplot in the narrative (Organics vs. Synthetics) to the prime conflict, which is something that it never was indicated to be.

Edit: Hell, thinking about it, I think I'd prefer the Reapers to be right, if it at least made me feel comfortable with doing what they wanted. But being at the mercy of some terribad AI programming is just lame all around.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 06 août 2013 - 12:44 .

[Iakus]

OnlyMrChill wrote...

Okay, maybe the reason why it's hard for me to wrap my head around all this disappointment is because I went into ME3 without reading any of the pre-realse statements or any theories of how the game was going to end. I went into the game not knowing just what hell will happen and I think that is why I was able to feel not only satisfied, but grateful for the EC Destroy Ending. I felt like it was perfect.

Perhaps tht is the reason.  I and many others played teh trilogy for five years and expected SHepard taking a stand for freedom and individuality would amount to something besides a "Frak you" from the developers.

Now, judging from your point of view I can see how it can be a little disapointing but in a choice-based game how else would things end? With one ending? No. There has to be multiple endings which is seen as A, B or C. Is it how they presented the choices to you that made you mad? Would have preferred something like ME2 where the choices aren't just flat out given to you and instead you have to go along the ride to see what happens? If that's what I think you wanted, then I can see your point and would have also loved it to be that way.

But I'm happy with what I got. Spectacular franchise, can't wait for the next one.

And for me, I'm not so sure I waqnt to continue with this franchise at all.  If the develoeprs think space magic, negotiated surrender, or using the Reapers' own tactics are acceptable endings.

[voteDC]

The hologram kid was the very problem.

It was an AI and wasn't dedicated to wiping out all organic life. Yet its reason for the cycle of harvests was that synthetic creations would inevitably want to wipe out all organic life. If it didn't want to do that why would it assume every other AI would want to.

Also it changed the Reapers from this unknowable, unstoppable, force into simple pawns. There is a reason that the conversation with Sovereign in Mass Effect 1 is considered one of the best moments of the trilogy and the one with the hologram kid the worst.

[CronoDragoon]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

The Catalyst basically raised a single subplot in the narrative (Organics vs. Synthetics) to the prime conflict, which is something that it never was indicated to be.
 

I think a better way to say this is that the team didn't do a good job conveying what they thought the prime conflict was, since it is in the Mass Effect 1 artbook that the dev team says that as they developed the game they realized the central theme was organics vs. synthetics.

[Random Geth]

I can only imagine that the OP is either very young and hasn't played many video games if this is one of the best endings he's encountered.

That or this is just bait. I strongly hope it's the latter, but I've seen these forums for too long to be hopeful.

[AlanC9]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
I've seen you point this out several times, but I think you're still avoiding the crux of the issue.

Could we swap in "not perceiving" for "avoiding"?

I just don't see this:

The Catalyst instead is presented as an information source, similar to Vigil, educating Shepard as to this new ass-pulled conflict. The story (and Shepard) is forced to take him and his conflict seriously. Hell, this would have been a great time for that craptastic line: "You're just a machine. And machines can be broken".  

Is there any dislogue that indicates Shepard is interested in anything other than stopping the war?

[David7204]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

The Catalyst instead is presented as an information source, similar to Vigil, educating Shepard as to this new ass-pulled conflict. The story (and Shepard) is forced to take him and his conflict seriously. Hell, this would have been a great time for that craptastic line: "You're just a machine. And machines can be broken".

No we aren't. Picking Destroy goes against everything the Catalyst says. It's a complete rejection of the idea that organics and synthetics must be in conflict.

Modifié par David7204, 06 août 2013 - 04:19 .

[CronoDragoon]

AlanC9 wrote...

Is there any dislogue that indicates Shepard is interested in anything other than stopping the war?

Interesting question. I can't think of any lines offhand that would indicate - for example - that Shepard picks Synthesis for any reason except he thinks it's the best way to end the Reaper war. Explicitly, of course.

[3DandBeyond]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Which belief systems are you referring to? I suppose I fit your hypothesis, since as far back as ME1 I figured that there was some really stupid AI programming at the bottom of everything.

I've seen you point this out several times, but I think you're still avoiding the crux of the issue.

The Reapers having some non-sensical explanation for their actions is fine, as directed by the Catalyst. But the ending is not presented in that context. It's not presented as a battle of wills between Shepard's belief in Organic-Synthetic cooperation vs. the Catalyst's pessimism. It's not about realizing that the Catalyst is a broken mess in the way that Mira is on Noveria's Peak 15 and we just need to shut it off.

The Catalyst instead is presented as an information source, similar to Vigil, educating Shepard as to this new ass-pulled conflict. The story (and Shepard) is forced to take him and his conflict seriously. Hell, this would have been a great time for that craptastic line: "You're just a machine. And machines can be broken".

The Catalyst basically raised a single subplot in the narrative (Organics vs. Synthetics) to the prime conflict, which is something that it never was indicated to be.

Edit: Hell, thinking about it, I think I'd prefer the Reapers to be right, if it at least made me feel comfortable with doing what they wanted. But being at the mercy of some terribad AI programming is just lame all around.

Yes and to further realize that all of this ends up as some response to idiotic decisions made by the Leviathans makes it even worse.  Not only are the reapers now just big dumb drones under star brat's virtual thumb but he was created to solve a problem that he then goes and further foments.  The Leviathans, we are told are A) about Control-they enthrall races and afraid that synthetics will kill them and all organics. 

So they create an uncontrolled synthetic that kills them.  And this kid who says he's just ascending organics or "saving" them, says he had to destroy his creators.  Um ok so they were destroyed by becoming reapers but other organics that become reapers are not destroyed?

The story until the end was about gettng people to work together to fight the reapers-ME1 and 2 were about getting people or finding people to see the threat was coming, and about the vanguards being sent to await that threat.  ME3 was about fighting the reapers after finding a way to get those people together to do so.  But in the end it's changed to be about synthetics vs organics. 

Even thinking this is some microcosm of the fight with the reapers is wrong because they are not technically either synthetic or organic-they actually are a form of synthesis.  The kid's been after synthesis all along-the Collectors, the reapers themselves but he couldn't achieve it except he did.  The reapers aren't in the theme of synthetics vs organics because they are neither. 

[Iakus]

David7204 wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

The Catalyst instead is presented as an information source, similar to Vigil, educating Shepard as to this new ass-pulled conflict. The story (and Shepard) is forced to take him and his conflict seriously. Hell, this would have been a great time for that craptastic line: "You're just a machine. And machines can be broken".

No we aren't. Picking Destroy goes against everything the Catalyst says. It's a complete rejection of the idea that organics and synthetics must be in conflict.

Destroy does the exact same thing the Reapers do:  it eliminates one side of the "conflict" with the caveat that "the chaos will come back"  Destroy is Shepard using the Reapers' own methods.

[CronoDragoon]

3DandBeyond wrote...
  The reapers aren't in the theme of synthetics vs organics because they are neither. 

Given that attempts at Synthesis are a means to solve the organic vs. synthetic problem, this assertion doesn't make sense.

[3DandBeyond]

CronoDragoon wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Is there any dislogue that indicates Shepard is interested in anything other than stopping the war?

Interesting question. I can't think of any lines offhand that would indicate - for example - that Shepard picks Synthesis for any reason except he thinks it's the best way to end the Reaper war. Explicitly, of course.

If the question is about the whole story in 3 games, it was never about just stopping the reapers or the war-it was about destroying them.  It was made clear in discussions with Mordin and with Javik that synthesis was a non-starter.  Even in the fight with Saren.  Whether or not Shepard ever explicitly says "we must kill them" is moot.  The implication was always there even when the Crucible was found and thought to be a weapon-that's not used to poke fun at things but to kill them.

Stopping the war was never all it was about because Shepard's actions and words always reinforced the prevailing thoughts of others.  "They're abominations."  "The only solution is dead reapers"--paraphrasing.

[David7204]

Except that's not true.

It may have been clear the Reapers were monsters, but it was also made clear that they were purposeful. That they were doing what they did for some reason or another.

Surely a legitimate motivation would give a reasonable player pause?

Modifié par David7204, 06 août 2013 - 04:33 .

[CronoDragoon]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Stopping the war was never all it was about because Shepard's actions and words always reinforced the prevailing thoughts of others.  "They're abominations."  "The only solution is dead reapers"--paraphrasing.

I think you misinterpreted Alan's question. He's responding to B who originally said that you're forced to take the organic/synthetic conflict seriously in the ending choice. Alan asked if any dialogue with the Catalyst suggests Shepard ever takes it seriously, or whether it all strictly deals with the best way to stop the harvest.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 06 août 2013 - 04:33 .

[3DandBeyond]

CronoDragoon wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...
  The reapers aren't in the theme of synthetics vs organics because they are neither. 

Given that attempts at Synthesis are a means to solve the organic vs. synthetic problem, this assertion doesn't make sense.

It makes complete sense-if the solution is synthesis and he's achieved it then there is no such problem.  And it's the fact that the "problem" is never a major theme of the story.  It is part of minor stories within the larger story, but problems that are solved one way or another.

My real point though was that reapers were the foe, killing them the goal.  They aren't synthetics so it is not a fight of organics vs synthetics.  The ending is about organics vs synthetics but the story isn't.

[CronoDragoon]

3DandBeyond wrote...

It makes complete sense-if the solution is synthesis and he's achieved it then there is no such problem.

The pronouns are confusing me a bit so let me rephrase this to make sure I have it right:

It makes complete sense-if the solution is Synthesis and the Catalyst has already achieved it (with the Reapers) then there is no such problem.

If that's what you mean then the counter is that the Catalyst hasn't achieved it with the Reapers and tells you flat out that they are failed attempts at Synthesis. He's been looking for the "ideal solution" to the organic/synthetic conflict this entire time, but not until the Crucible docks can a better (subjectively) option be presented. 

And it's the fact that the "problem" is never a major theme of the story.  It is part of minor stories within the larger story, but problems that are solved one way or another.

My real point though was that reapers were the foe, killing them the goal.  They aren't synthetics so it is not a fight of organics vs synthetics.  The ending is about organics vs synthetics but the story isn't.

Well, Mass Effect 1 is probably the game that focuses the most on organic/synthetic conflict. But I agree that the goal has always been to destroy them, at least explicitly.