279 réponses à ce sujet

[Pressedcat]

Also 2.5 min between the initial explosion and the Citadel explosions. This leaves time enough for Shepard to make it to an escape pod/take the beam down/however you choose to imagine Shepard ends up back on Earth. Between this and the application of medi-gel (which we have seen time and again reviving people seconds away from death), the possibility exists that Shepard could have made it off the Citadel before it was wracked with explosions (but not to the state of absolute destruction).

[Iakus]

I'm also pretty sure no one's gonna be strolling to an escape pod after walking into a freaking fireball

Medigel also apparently brings geth back from the dead.

So sorry, I need more than silly gameplay mechanics to go on.
.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

AndyAK79 wrote...

 I loved the ending to Mass Effect 3, but it's clear that a lot of people didn't. In spite of my own feelings  I have to admit that some of their issues hold some weight (some of the arguments about believability are reasonably strong).

Many of the arguments, however, are entirely ridiculous (The word 'invalid' has been horribly misused many, many times), and no argument is quite as ridiculous as claims that players were somehow entitled to a happy ending. In fact, a happy ending would have completely ruined the game. Here are the four main reasons:

1. It wouldn't fit with the tone of the game


2. It would not properly end Shepard's story.


3. It would eliminate the element of choice.


4. The ending would lack drama.

(cue inspiring music...) I say let's come to terms with our grief, delete MEHEM (please, please erase this travesty from history) and celebrate the way our Shepards lived, not mourn the way they died.

Entitled whiner.

Cry on a nun's shoulder.

The ending sucked. I didn't like the idea of being about to end the story and being swept up to talk to god about a problem I didn't know existed.

Shepard: "I need to stop the reapers, can you tell me how I can do that?"
god: "Perhaps. I control the reapers. They are my solution."
Shepard: "Solution? Solution to what?"
god: "Chaos. The created will always rebel against their creators." ....... WTF?????? 

Didn't that bother you in the least? You needed a higher power to figure out what was going on and to stop all of this nonsense? The ending was all tied up in mysticism and mumbo jumbo and pseudophilosophical bull****.

I hated the theme of technology is evil. I wanted the reapers dead or at least their operators dead. I wanted to be able to study the technology. The idea of synthesis is fine since I am a transhumanist -- the way synthesis was written out in this game was simply horrid. The destroy ending was written out simply horrid. The control ending was written out simply horrid. It was all space magic mumbo jumbo and stupid. 

The reason the ending existed in the first place was because of the theme of Advanced Technology is Evil. The Reapers were Advanced Technology and thus Evil and couldn't be destroyed or stopped except by magic of a higher power. This is fine for a high fantasy game like Skyrim (yeah, there was that Elder Scroll thing) just not for a sci-fi game like Mass Effect.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 27 septembre 2013 - 08:46 .

[wright1978]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Didn't that bother you in the least? You needed a higher power to figure out what was going on and to stop all of this nonsense? The ending was all tied up in mysticism and mumbo jumbo and pseudophilosophical bull****.

I hated the theme of technology is evil. I wanted the reapers dead or at least their operators dead. I wanted to be able to study the technology. The idea of synthesis is fine since I am a transhumanist -- the way synthesis was written out in this game was simply horrid. The destroy ending was written out simply horrid. The control ending was written out simply horrid. It was all space magic mumbo jumbo and stupid. 

The reason the ending existed in the first place was because of the theme of Advanced Technology is Evil. The Reapers were Advanced Technology and thus Evil and couldn't be destroyed or stopped except by magic of a higher power.

QFT, trying & failing to deliver such drivel by such a atrocious means 5 minutes before the end was unforgivable in my book.

[sveners]

wright1978 wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Didn't that bother you in the least? You needed a higher power to figure out what was going on and to stop all of this nonsense? The ending was all tied up in mysticism and mumbo jumbo and pseudophilosophical bull****.

I hated the theme of technology is evil. I wanted the reapers dead or at least their operators dead. I wanted to be able to study the technology. The idea of synthesis is fine since I am a transhumanist -- the way synthesis was written out in this game was simply horrid. The destroy ending was written out simply horrid. The control ending was written out simply horrid. It was all space magic mumbo jumbo and stupid. 

The reason the ending existed in the first place was because of the theme of Advanced Technology is Evil. The Reapers were Advanced Technology and thus Evil and couldn't be destroyed or stopped except by magic of a higher power.

QFT, trying & failing to deliver such drivel by such a atrocious means 5 minutes before the end was unforgivable in my book.

But hey, like he said, medigel

[Pressedcat]

Well if you are going to dismiss medi-gel (whose efficacy was shown not only in gameplay but also in cutscenes, eg. Mordin & Thane's recruitment missions) and the possibility of Shep's armour protecting from some of the first blast (armour has never been too successful at stopping bullets, but helped Garrus survive a rocket hit) then you are entirely free to decide that in your game Shepard was dead in that final cutscene. That's an entirely reasonable interpretation, but that's all it is: an interpretation.

If you so choose, there are so many things throughout the trilogy that can be interpreted as implausible that you may as well decide Shepard never made it out of ME1.

[CronoDragoon]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

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.

In detail? Enough that it's believable? I didn't hear this explanation. It sounded like nonsense to me. But I didn't care because I don't care about those things, just like I didn't care about Shepard surviving an explosion. You will not be able to convince me that the manner in which Shepard was brought back is more believable than the manner in which he survived the end explosion.

[wright1978]

sveners wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Didn't that bother you in the least? You needed a higher power to figure out what was going on and to stop all of this nonsense? The ending was all tied up in mysticism and mumbo jumbo and pseudophilosophical bull****.

I hated the theme of technology is evil. I wanted the reapers dead or at least their operators dead. I wanted to be able to study the technology. The idea of synthesis is fine since I am a transhumanist -- the way synthesis was written out in this game was simply horrid. The destroy ending was written out simply horrid. The control ending was written out simply horrid. It was all space magic mumbo jumbo and stupid. 

The reason the ending existed in the first place was because of the theme of Advanced Technology is Evil. The Reapers were Advanced Technology and thus Evil and couldn't be destroyed or stopped except by magic of a higher power.

QFT, trying & failing to deliver such drivel by such a atrocious means 5 minutes before the end was unforgivable in my book.

But hey, like he said, medigel

Silly boy Shep, Biotic God wouldn't have even needed medigel.

[Redbelle]

Aye. Embracing tech is evil...... waaaaitamiiiinuuuute!!!

EDI was not. Legion was not. The Normandy was not..... and so on and so forth. This idea that all AI's will inevitably go bad and destroy us.

It's all born out of fear. That's what the ending's of ME3 cater towards. Technology and the human condition cannot exist as one. Despite the fact that the Geth Quarian conflict can either prove or disporve this notion depending on the player. And then that resolution is whitewashed in favour of this on the rails travesty of choice that not only offends moral and principle. But also manages to screw up the end of a game, by not playing out as an game in the hands of the gamer.

Recently found a clip of the Brother's who made the Matrix, in the path of Neo, talk about this very thing where martydom works in film, but doesn't in games. This careful distinction between what works in different media seems like a good rule of game making. Don't martyr the hero. At least, not unless the hero really has done everything there is to do and has made every contribution that can be made.

In many ways I  feel those who rate the Tchunka mission as better than Rannoch get off easy. I find the Quarian's are more of a draw. And the conflict with the Geth, something I'd have rather get stuck into fro the word go. So when I united them on the first try it was grand...... Then the ending came along and said.... Nope. Geth are evil. So says...... someone who's not you.

Fer crying out loud

Modifié par Redbelle, 27 septembre 2013 - 09:01 .

[sveners]

Pressedcat wrote...

Well if you are going to dismiss medi-gel (whose efficacy was shown not only in gameplay but also in cutscenes, eg. Mordin & Thane's recruitment missions) and the possibility of Shep's armour protecting from some of the first blast (armour has never been too successful at stopping bullets, but helped Garrus survive a rocket hit) then you are entirely free to decide that in your game Shepard was dead in that final cutscene. That's an entirely reasonable interpretation, but that's all it is: an interpretation.

If you so choose, there are so many things throughout the trilogy that can be interpreted as implausible that you may as well decide Shepard never made it out of ME1.

A lot comes down to suspension of disbelief.

In the final sequences Shepard is blasted by Harbinger, shot by Marauder Shields, passes out from blood loss and walks straight into an exploding tube., which when it finally cracks takes down the whole Citadel.

All accompanied by a sad piano overture.

I have seen the breath scene many times, but I cannot for the life of me figure out any way Shep would live long enough to escape. Except for divine intervention.

Or handwaving. "He/She lives because we saw a breath!"

[wright1978]

sveners wrote...

A lot comes down to suspension of disbelief.

In the final sequences Shepard is blasted by Harbinger, shot by Marauder Shields, passes out from blood loss and walks straight into an exploding tube., which when it finally cracks takes down the whole Citadel.

All accompanied by a sad piano overture.

I have seen the breath scene many times, but I cannot for the life of me figure out any way Shep would live long enough to escape. Except for divine intervention.

Or handwaving. "He/She lives because we saw a breath!"

I've played ME3 and Shep's health always refills the bottom bar even if it gets to almost zero. Gameplay mechanics to the rescue of **** narrative.

[eyezonlyii]

I will admit, part of me wanted the rainbows and ponies ending.

However, that part of me was eclipsed by the more rational part of me, that really just wanted the Reapers gone. I've only completed one playthrough (working on a trilogy run now), and i did choose synthesis, but that was before EC and I felt that if my Shepard HAD to die, there was no point in taking out the Geth and EDI as well. But now that some time has passed, and I thought about it a little bit more, I realize I made the wrong decision. Right for MY SHEP, but wrong for me. I would destroy the them all in a heartbeat, simply because they could be rebuilt. At least the Geth can be. EDI could too, she just wouldn't be the EDI that we know.

Either way, I do feel that Destroy seems more out of place with it's consequences. Like more intelligent and eloquent people have said before me, a few lines explaining why the Geth and EDi would be destroyed would go a long way.

[Azaron Nightblade]

Pressedcat wrote...

Also 2.5 min between the initial explosion and the Citadel explosions. This leaves time enough for Shepard to make it to an escape pod/take the beam down/however you choose to imagine Shepard ends up back on Earth. Between this and the application of medi-gel (which we have seen time and again reviving people seconds away from death), the possibility exists that Shepard could have made it off the Citadel before it was wracked with explosions (but not to the state of absolute destruction).

Weren't the Citadel (and Mass Relays) explosions downtuned in the EC?
Or was that just got the other endings?

Modifié par Azaron Nightblade, 27 septembre 2013 - 09:24 .

[Azaron Nightblade]

eyezonlyii wrote...

Right for MY SHEP, but wrong for me. I would destroy the them all in a heartbeat, simply because they could be rebuilt. At least the Geth can be. EDI could too, she just wouldn't be the EDI that we know.

I almost started a thread about that the other day, but then I figured "It's some kind of EMP on a massive scale... even if they can restore the hardware, all the software that made EDI EDI is permanently wiped out... her conversations with Shepard, all the ways in which she evolved, her bond with Joker..."

[Iakus]

Azaron Nightblade wrote...

Pressedcat wrote...

Also 2.5 min between the initial explosion and the Citadel explosions. This leaves time enough for Shepard to make it to an escape pod/take the beam down/however you choose to imagine Shepard ends up back on Earth. Between this and the application of medi-gel (which we have seen time and again reviving people seconds away from death), the possibility exists that Shepard could have made it off the Citadel before it was wracked with explosions (but not to the state of absolute destruction).

Weren't the Citadel (and Mass Relays) explosions downtuned in the EC?
Or was that just got the other endings?

They were shown to be not outright destroyd, but they are heavilly damaged.

in Control and Synthesis, the Reapers repair the relay network.  In Destroy, the races have to figure it out on their own

That should have been teh price paid for destroying the Reapers.  The training wheels are now off.  You gotta fix what's broken on your own or learn to do without.

[eyezonlyii]

But is the software all gone? Remember EDI is the product of the Hannibal VI that Shepard took out on Luna in ME1. Maybe there's a backup EDI somewhere. And I'm shure Joker wouldn't mind getting to know her all over again.

[Pressedcat]

eyezonlyii wrote...
Either way, I do feel that Destroy seems more out of place with it's consequences. Like more intelligent and eloquent people have said before me, a few lines explaining why the Geth and EDi would be destroyed would go a long way.

Totally agree. If the Intelligence had explicitly stated why Destroy also kills EDI and the Geth, some might have been more willing to accept their loss as rational.

There are of course reasons why EDI and the Geth might have been caught in the blast effects:

• The blast was designed to target/alter a specific fragment of the Reapers' programming code, a fragment both EDI and the Geth possess
• Whatever race originally designed the crucible were waging war against their own cycle's AI threat and so saw the destruction of all AI, not just the Reapers, as entirely beneficial
• It sucks to be an AI when a giant anti-AI weapon is deployed...

Had BioWare supplied any such reasoning, it might have offered clarity to some. Of course, to others, no explanation would prove satisfactory, even if such an explanation was made 'canon' by BioWare.

[JonathonPR]

http://youtu.be/zbYFEKoxJqE?t=11m

Arguing about whether or not a happy ending would be detrimental to ME3 is the same as arguing if adding another genre to the Rifts tabletop rpg would be detrimental. What an audience experiences is not up to the designer of the game and attempts to predict how emotions or enjoyment can be triggered is a lack of understanding how that occurs at all.

[eyezonlyii]

I think what would have been an even better choice than sacrifice the AI for the lolz, would have been if EDI and/or Legion were necessary to change/destroy the reaper code. Simply because they are the two AI of this cycle that represent the flaw in the starchild's logic. You would still get a hard choice, but I think there would be a better rationale behind it.

[Pressedcat]

I personally am of the opinion that the Crucible's designed purpose should have been an anti-AI weapon, and as such Shepard should have been able to press a big red button to activate the wave of energy that we have in the Destroy cutscene already. Shooting at some of the machinery, although perhaps more dramatic, makes little sense to me. I don't turn on my TV by kicking the screen, why would I activate a complicated weapons system with bullets. Synthesis and Control should have required intervention by the Intelligence/Keepers. Still plenty of space magic, but this is supposed to be technology equivalent to that of a level 2/3 civilisation, so I'm ok hand-waving it.

As regards to Destroy, I've got absolutely no problems with it killing all AI. For me it stands to reason that if past cycles often had their own conflicts with created AI's, they might well deliberately target all AI's, or else not bother to refine the weapon to only target Reapers. That's not to say that I don't see the loss of the Geth and EDI as a massive negative; I do; It's just I don't see it as totally illogical.

[AlexMBrennan]

But is the software all gone?

Yes. If you know anything about how software works, bash your head against a wall until you can accept that all AIs are gone.

[Mathias]

AndyAK79 wrote...

Medigel. All fixed with medigel.

Didn't help Aerith- I mean Thane.

[Mathias]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

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.

In detail? Enough that it's believable? I didn't hear this explanation. It sounded like nonsense to me. But I didn't care because I don't care about those things, just like I didn't care about Shepard surviving an explosion. You will not be able to convince me that the manner in which Shepard was brought back is more believable than the manner in which he survived the end explosion.

We didn't get an in detail explanation to the degree where they explained the actual science of the whole project, and given how this is a Sci Fi story, that wouldn't be necessary. The explanation we got though was leagues better than what we got with the breath scene, which essentially had no explanation at all. Again it's not a good comparison but if you're gonna be stubborn about it then there's no point in continuing. 

[Reorte]

Pressedcat wrote...

As regards to Destroy, I've got absolutely no problems with it killing all AI. For me it stands to reason that if past cycles often had their own conflicts with created AI's, they might well deliberately target all AI's, or else not bother to refine the weapon to only target Reapers. That's not to say that I don't see the loss of the Geth and EDI as a massive negative; I do; It's just I don't see it as totally illogical.

How do you deliberately target AIs when they're defined by what software happens to be running on specific hardware? If something I don't like happens there has to be a damned good reason for it to avoid simply annoying me. Ideally the same should be true for things I like happening too but it's easier to overlook those, up to a point.

[Pressedcat]

The same way we allow for ships in the mass effect games to travel faster than light and humans to use biotics to hurl objects around using the power of their minds; because we willingly suspend our disbelief in order to allow BioWare to tell a story set in a future where technologies that do not currently exist are everyday. Mass Effect is not hard science fiction; a lot of the explanations they give for how things work do not stand up to scientific scrutiny, and yet we willingly overlook this all the time.

Sure that's a cop-out, but as you yourself said; you overlook certain other aspects of the game because you like them. I could say that I don't like biotics, and to me the explanation for how it works is severely lacking: "sure, so human foetuses were exposed to this 'element zero' in the womb and now they have super-powers... kinda like Radioactive man then?" [Rolls eyes].

If BioWare says that in their fictional world it is possible to build a super-weapon that can target and destroy all AI in the galaxy, you just have to take their world for it. It's not like you haven't done it before.

Not to mention the fact that the Crucible represents the combined efforts of scores of cycles' technological developments and innovations, the absolute pinnacle of engineered creation. It is way beyond anything seen in Shepard or anyone else's lifetime. It is not something Macgyver jimmied together in a couple of minutes. If anything deserves a little suspension of disbelief, it is the Crucible.

You can dismiss it if you want, but you're doing so because you don't like the ending and have decided you are no longer going to collude with the BioWare writers, not because this one thing amongst all others stands out as uniquely unbelievable.

Modifié par Pressedcat, 28 septembre 2013 - 12:43 .