279 réponses à ce sujet

[KaiserShep]

It's really just that beam run and holographic dance with the devil that I take issue with.

[Mathias]

StreetMagic wrote...

I'm fine with Destroy as well.

Mostly I just think Priority Earth sucks. If that's still an ending complaint, so be it. Destroy might be a "happy" enough ending, but not enough to offset the crappy level that preceded it.

Yeah the final mission was balls.

[sveners]

I'll just say that I agree with Melinda Snodgrass.

Though, I would be fine if any of the endings had a decent memorial. Maybe even a mention of Shepard. Probably.

Either way they did not, and my hero walked suicidally into an exploding tube, dying alone on the Citadel. Great way to end Shepards trilogy.

[KaiserShep]

And that's really it. The distinct feeling of anticlimactic.

[CronoDragoon]

AndyAK79 wrote...

It's an interesting point, but there is room for different nuances within a series' tone. Consider the darker tone of The Empire Strikes Back in the Star Wars trilogy (it is a trilogy. I'm still convinced I imagined the prequels). Another example is The Lord of the Rings; Whilst The Fellowship of the Ring is largely a cheerful heroic adventure, The Return of the King is a far bleaker read (or watch, if you are not a bibliophile). Whilst Mass Effect 1 & 2 are far 'lighter' they do hint at the darkness to come (The growing knowledge of the cycle, the death of Kaidan/Ash, the true identity of the Collectors). As such they still fall within the tone of the trilogy as a whole. I am happy to admit that the EC greatly improves the ending. Whilst I was satisfied with the OE when I express genuine love for the endings it's really the EC I refer to.

The Empire Strikes Back is actually what brought about my question of whether or not this was dark just to build tension for the ending to be bright or not. It's common for the middle of the trilogy to be the darkest chapter since it is traditionally when the writer has the most freedom to make their characters suffer. LotR is an interesting example, but I hesitate to say that Fellowship is a cheerful heroic adventure. Remember that as of the end, Gandalf is presumed dead, Boromir has succumbed to the Ring and died, the Fellowship is broken, and Frodo and Sam are alone. The goal of the good guys has largely failed, which was to utilize the Fellowship to escort the Ring to Mordor.

In any case, I think you'll agree that if ME3's ending tone was what they intended from the start, they would have been much better served reworking ME2's ending to include more Virmire-type sacrifice. Because as it stands, Virmire is the exception that proves the rule regarding the tone of the first two games. (edit: I'll also acknowledge your later point about the Horizon colonists)

To do so would be a repeat of the ending of ME1. I strongly feel that the final tease which shows Shepard breath is one of the series' perfect moments: It gives the dedicated player a last moment of hope, without explaining everything. I don't need everything explained tn o me; I'm happy for Shepard to live on in my imagination without having everything that happened afterwards (or indeed how Shepard escaped) shown on screen. I'm glad that the last moment of the game instilled in me the idea that somewhere, somehow, my Shepard might be alive.

It doesn't have to be a repeat of ME1. For the record I think ME1's ending is super cheesy with Shepard running on top of some rubble. Instead, have his squadmates pull him out of the rubble/find him at the end of ME3. This serves several purposes, including 1) Bookending the importance of your squad, which for many fans was the most important part of the story, and 2) bookending the theme of strength through unity that was abandoned once the Crucible docked.

A 'total victory' was never possible in Mass Effect, from the very first game. The Reapers had been built up as such a staggering threat that their arrival had to be truly davastating to be dramatically credible. It had to end with a broken and devastated universe.

Sure, but that isn't what I meant by total victory. As I said a flawless victory would have been stupid. The game can still end with a devastated universe, but so long as both the hero (or allies) and the hero's beliefs triumph, I consider that a total victory. In other words, Destroy without sacrificing synthetic allies.

As for choosing how the character spends the rest of his life, I refer you to the explanation above. There's nothing wrong with wondering what happens to Shepard, but if it was on screen it was dissapoint a lot of people, because it would't be what they wanted. You can choose what happens to Shepard afterwards (mine retired to a cottage on Eden Prime - don't even start, it's my fantasy), it just isn't shown on screen.

As for what to show, I don't "need" the game to show me anything. I am okay with the breath scene even though I would have preferred something more. There's also a significant difference between outlining the rest of Shepard's life and simply showing him found in terms of closure.

Again, whilst ME3 is harsher than the other games, it still fits with the general tone. Consider the moment you have to decide between Ash and Kaidan in ME1; it's a hopeless choice, but one that has to be made. In ME2 either the Horizon colonists or your crew face a horrible death; you can't save them all.

Both those choices do not close the game. It really does make a difference when a story is depressing. If it's depressing in the middle and more hopeful at the end, it sends a strikingly difference message than the other way around.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 27 septembre 2013 - 04:52 .

[Reorte]

KaiserShep wrote...

Yeah, honestly, I would consider destroy as it's depicted in high EMS destroy to be a fairly happy ending compared to the wankfest that was the original ending.

Depends what level you look at it from. From a galactic level about as happy as it could reasonably be, and indeed it's presented too much like that in the EC (which rather glosses over the destruction). From the characters we've come to know and love then no, it isn't, even though there are a couple of badly done scenes to imply that that will chnage. Be that as it may we leave them upset.

[RatThing]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

RatThing wrote...

I think the synthesis ending was designed to be the super happy ending, thus only available with with high EMS. Peace forever with Synthetics, people reach the pinnacle of their evolution and even the Reaper are now buddies who share the knowledge of former cycles. For me it felt like the fairy tale ending with rainbows and butterflies, and yes I hated it.
I'm with the op here. Thousands of cycles lost the fight against the reapers. Making this cycle different without paying a price for it wouldn't feel right IMO. It's probably personal taste, but remember that you had to pay a price to stop Sovereign in ME1 too. I do give Kudos to the creators of MEHEM though, for creating sth. like this in their free time.

Synthesis isn't a good example of a Super Happy Ending though because of how incredibly stupid it was. The problem I see with people saying that sacrifice is a requirement for an ending to Mass Effect is that the trilogy, not just the one game, already had a boat load of sacrifice.

Virmire
End choice in ME1
Shepard (when he saved Joker in ME2)
Mordin
Legion
Victus
The Second Alliant Fleet

These are just some right off the top of my head that gave their lives for the cause. I don't see how the death of one more character, in this case the protagonist, should be a requirement towards the end.

Secondly as for the Reapers being stopped this cycle as oppose to the previous ones, the story gave a strong impression that the reason why the current cycle succeeded was because they were warned in time, and because they fought as a united galaxy. Shepard dying in all three endings didn't feel natural, in fact it felt very contrived. It was as if the writers thought that this is a deep dark story, so the Hero has to die, because that too is also deep. 

I call Synthesis a super happy ending because it leaves you with this "happily ever after" message, peace and harmony for ever and ever (not for Shepard of course but for everyone else). I think that was the intention here. As for the explanation for this ... yeah well, that's a whole different story.
But we got "happy endings" for the Geth-Quarian conflict (Peace Option) and the Genophage story (cured with Wrex and Eve alive) as well. People liked those and I didn't tbh. No offense, but for me it felt like a story for children, a fairy tale here. "Everything will work out fine for everyone involved because prince Charming came along" just doesn't work for me.
I also don't consider it essential that the protagonist must die in all outcomes. In fact if the hero dies for an utopia like synthesis, I consider this to be a fairy tale super happy ending as well.  It just feels a lot more intensive and interesting for me if  the ending provides you with a message that the victory came with costs and that the future is uncertain. 

Modifié par RatThing, 27 septembre 2013 - 05:03 .

[AndyAK79]

CronoDragoon wrote...


LotR is an interesting example, but I hesitate to say that Fellowship is a cheerful heroic adventure. Remember that as of the end, Gandalf is presumed dead, Boromir has succumbed to the Ring and died, the Fellowship is broken, and Frodo and Sam are alone. The goal of the good guys has largely failed, which was to utilize the Fellowship to escort the Ring to Mordor.

I was refering primarily to the books, in which the death of Boromir doesn't occur during The Fellowship of the Ring.

Sure, but that isn't what I meant by total victory. As I said a flawless victory would have been stupid. The game can still end with a devastated universe, but so long as both the hero (or allies) and the hero's beliefs triumph, I consider that a total victory. In other words, Destroy without sacrificing synthetic allies.

Yes, but as I explained during the opening post to this thread, it wouldn't be much of a choice. Destroying the Reapers seems to be the ideal choice. It is the destruction of the Geth that makes it unsavoury. If it wasn't difficult choice you wouldn't have any reluctance to choose it, and it therefore wouldn't really be a choice at all.

Sorry for not addressing your other points. They are well argued, and I respect your opinions, but I don't agree with them, and I can't really add much that wasn't in my original post.

[TheProtheans]

It turns out so does a bad ending like the one we got.

[AndyAK79]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Secondly as for the Reapers being stopped this cycle as oppose to the previous ones, the story gave a strong impression that the reason why the current cycle succeeded was because they were warned in time, and because they fought as a united galaxy. Shepard dying in all three endings didn't feel natural, in fact it felt very contrived. It was as if the writers thought that this is a deep dark story, so the Hero has to die, because that too is also deep. 

The big problem with this argument is that Shepard doesn't die in all three endings. With a high enough EMS he survives destroy, and it can be argued that he always survives control (albeit in a different form).

Also a lot of your argument seems to revolve around the fact that they did't need to kill Shepard off. This is undoubtedly true, but that doesn't mean it isn't a valid dramatic choice. The hero giving his life to defeat his mortal enemy is a dramatic end to Shepards story arc.

[CronoDragoon]

AndyAK79 wrote...

Yes, but as I explained during the opening post to this thread, it wouldn't be much of a choice. Destroying the Reapers seems to be the ideal choice. It is the destruction of the Geth that makes it unsavoury. If it wasn't difficult choice you wouldn't have any reluctance to choose it, and it therefore wouldn't really be a choice at all.

We have different priorities here. A choice was unnecessary to my enjoyment of the game at this point in the series. I felt that I had already made all relevant choices, and was ready for the climax and conclusion. I think that BioWare thought more along your lines, where a choice had to be made no matter how much sense the circumstances made. Consequently I think the structure of the choice we are given, and the consequences of Destroy in particular, are arbitrary, contrived, and poorly explained.

Additionally, you don't need the geth and EDI being sacrificed to make the final choice difficult once you decide a final choice is needed. Do players feel their morality has been sacrificed when they decide between Ash and Kaidan on Virmire? I doubt it.

I would also get rid of Synthesis if it were up to me, since I feel that Control and Destroy are the only two choices that had enough foreshadowing and support. It helps that I consider TIM vs. Shepard to be the real moral conflict of the series, for which the Reaper war is merely the impetus and backdrop.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 27 septembre 2013 - 05:44 .

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Additionally, you don't need the geth and EDI being sacrificed to make the final choice difficult once you decide a final choice is needed. Do players feel their morality has been sacrificed when they decide between Ash and Kaidan on Virmire? I doubt it.

When it comes to th eVirmire chocie, I choose the middle dialogue option, where you tell the person being left behind you'll be back for them.  Even though it doesn't work out that way (and the non-survivor expresses doubt about that) , I can at least pretend that Shepard tried to save them both, even if only one gets saved.

[SiniisteR]

I don't see as a necessity for all the endings to have to be on level with each other for it still to be a choice. Using GTA Vs endings as an example, its a mutli-choice, but has one choice that the majority would pick, the others there for if some people actually like that choice or are just curious. I think destroy should have been designed as the obvious choice, even if it was unknown to be before you decided.

[Mathias]

AndyAK79 wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Secondly as for the Reapers being stopped this cycle as oppose to the previous ones, the story gave a strong impression that the reason why the current cycle succeeded was because they were warned in time, and because they fought as a united galaxy. Shepard dying in all three endings didn't feel natural, in fact it felt very contrived. It was as if the writers thought that this is a deep dark story, so the Hero has to die, because that too is also deep. 

The big problem with this argument is that Shepard doesn't die in all three endings. With a high enough EMS he survives destroy, and it can be argued that he always survives control (albeit in a different form).

Shepard walked into an explosion which engulfed his entire body, this alone should've killed him. If that wasn't enough, a second and much more powerful explosion ignited after the Crucible fired which further incinerated his already charred and torn body.

He's dead. There's zero logical explanation as to how he would be able to survive something like that, and even if he did he wouldn't live a normal life after. Imagine Freddy Kreuger if he was total paralyzed and strolled around in that weird wheelchair the Christopher Pike rode in Star Trek.


EDIT:

I forgot to mention that all of this happens sometime after Shepard is severly wounded by Harbinger and is bleeding out.

Modifié par Mdoggy1214, 27 septembre 2013 - 06:14 .

[Pressedcat]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

AndyAK79 wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Secondly as for the Reapers being stopped this cycle as oppose to the previous ones, the story gave a strong impression that the reason why the current cycle succeeded was because they were warned in time, and because they fought as a united galaxy. Shepard dying in all three endings didn't feel natural, in fact it felt very contrived. It was as if the writers thought that this is a deep dark story, so the Hero has to die, because that too is also deep. 

The big problem with this argument is that Shepard doesn't die in all three endings. With a high enough EMS he survives destroy, and it can be argued that he always survives control (albeit in a different form).

Shepard walked into an explosion which engulfed his entire body, this alone should've killed him. If that wasn't enough, a second and much more powerful explosion ignited after the Crucible fired which further incinerated his already charred and torn body.

He's dead. There's zero logical explanation as to how he would be able to survive something like that, and even if he did he wouldn't live a normal life after. Imagine Freddy Kreuger if he was total paralyzed and strolled around in that weird wheelchair the Christopher Pike rode in Star Trek.


EDIT:

I forgot to mention that all of this happens sometime after Shepard is severly wounded by Harbinger and is bleeding out.

So we are to take your word over what we are shown in-game?

The breath scene is ambiguous for a reason; you can decide there is no chance that Shepard could survive all you talk about and the breath you see is Shepard's last; or you could instead decide that Shepard ends up back on Earth severely wounded but still saveable.

That's one of the few benefits of the breath scene's abiguity: no on gets to say "my interpretation is the definitive one and everyone else is wrong".

[Mathias]

Pressedcat wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

AndyAK79 wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Secondly as for the Reapers being stopped this cycle as oppose to the previous ones, the story gave a strong impression that the reason why the current cycle succeeded was because they were warned in time, and because they fought as a united galaxy. Shepard dying in all three endings didn't feel natural, in fact it felt very contrived. It was as if the writers thought that this is a deep dark story, so the Hero has to die, because that too is also deep. 

The big problem with this argument is that Shepard doesn't die in all three endings. With a high enough EMS he survives destroy, and it can be argued that he always survives control (albeit in a different form).

Shepard walked into an explosion which engulfed his entire body, this alone should've killed him. If that wasn't enough, a second and much more powerful explosion ignited after the Crucible fired which further incinerated his already charred and torn body.

He's dead. There's zero logical explanation as to how he would be able to survive something like that, and even if he did he wouldn't live a normal life after. Imagine Freddy Kreuger if he was total paralyzed and strolled around in that weird wheelchair the Christopher Pike rode in Star Trek.


EDIT:

I forgot to mention that all of this happens sometime after Shepard is severly wounded by Harbinger and is bleeding out.

So we are to take your word over what we are shown in-game?

The breath scene is ambiguous for a reason; you can decide there is no chance that Shepard could survive all you talk about and the breath you see is Shepard's last; or you could instead decide that Shepard ends up back on Earth severely wounded but still saveable.

That's one of the few benefits of the breath scene's abiguity: no on gets to say "my interpretation is the definitive one and everyone else is wrong".

Unless Shepard has the durability of Wile E Coyote, there's no logical reason to think Shepard survived. He was already wounded to the point where he was passing out from blood loss, but then somehow mustered enough strength to talk to the Catalyst and make the choice. And then he was subjected to two big explosions afterward. It's almost comical to believe he'd be able to survive something like that.

My point is that you can't headcanon that Shepard survived without doing some serious handwaving on your part.

[CronoDragoon]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

My point is that you can't headcanon that Shepard survived without doing some serious handwaving on your part.

How did you make it past ME2's intro? Being brought back to life requires even more handwaving than "he survived." You'd be amazed what people can survive.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 27 septembre 2013 - 07:12 .

[AndyAK79]

The explosions as shown on screen aren't massive. I don't see anything in the destroy ending that doesn't provide for a chance, no matter how slim, that Shepard might be - just barely - alive.

Plus there's always the game-logic supported magic fairy dust solution to horrific injury - Shepard used medigel!

[wright1978]

Maybe Cerberus murdered superman(damn alien) & used his tissue to rebuild Shep.

Or maybe just maybe the entire ending is an utter trainwreck & trying to rationalise it is a ,lost cause.

[Mathias]

CronoDragoon wrote...


How did you make it past ME2's intro? Being brought back to life requires even more handwaving than "he survived."

In ME2's intro Shepard didn't survive, he died. He was brought back to life afterwards and in the context of the Mass Effect universe it was justified. It was explained in detail how and why Shepard was brought back to life. So it's not a good comparison.

[Mathias]

AndyAK79 wrote...

The explosions as shown on screen aren't massive. I don't see anything in the destroy ending that doesn't provide for a chance, no matter how slim, that Shepard might be - just barely - alive.

Plus there's always the game-logic supported magic fairy dust solution to horrific injury - Shepard used medigel!

You gotta be joking. Does your memory really need to be jogged?


Explosion #1
0:24


Explosion #2 
2:56

This is the "massive" explosion that I'm referring to which is large enough to engulf the entire presidium and citadel tower. 

[AndyAK79]

Medigel. All fixed with medigel.

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

My point is that you can't headcanon that Shepard survived without doing some serious handwaving on your part.

How did you make it past ME2's intro? Being brought back to life requires even more handwaving than "he survived." You'd be amazed what people can survive.

For myself, I didn't

That silliness should have been an early warning sign of the absolute distilled handwavium that ME3 brings about.

[AndyAK79]

Also Medigel.