234 réponses à ce sujet

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I'm seeing the problem beginning in ME1, escalating in ME2, then well, ME3 was the real mess. I'm thinking they should have quit the reaper plot line in ME2 and made the Collector Base destruction the end of it -- yes, no choice. You had to destroy it, and the reapers were locked out forever. No more of them. End of the line. NO Arrival DLC. It could have been done. New story in the MEU.

[RustyLH]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Tali: as a former member of Shepard's team

Why? She had a recording of Saren and is an expert on geth but neither is even remotely relevant to fighting Collectors.

Think man...think!  She is needed for her ability as a tech.  When they encounter the Collectors, they will likely encounter some tech that she has the ability to decipher.  I look at it in the same was as Stargate.  The language expert has to go through with them to help decipher unkown languages, and he already proved his worth by getting the gate working.

Tali has spent her life studying tech.  She is a tech expert.  Not just good, she's one of the best.  You don't see that as worth being part of the team?  Seariously, in this kind of scenario, you need more than a few soldiers and adepts.  Yes, she had the recording, but that simply got her noticed.  Once aboard the Normandy, the Chief Engineer let Shepard know that she was something special and he wished he had many more like her.

I think I like ME2 more than you did. I personally see no problem with the recruitment. They are up against an unknown to an extent except that they do know they need more of an elite team to deal with it

If you know nothing, then you do not know that you need an elite commando team to beat them - remember that Shepard did not bring anything other than a dozen soldiers: No explosives, or heavy mechs, or an escort fleet, etc.

I think the fact that it is an unknown mission is not a deal breaker. I mean seriously, they are trying to solve the mystery of the Collectors but to an extent, in the beginning they are on the Collector's clock. They ahve to wait for the Collector's to make a move. After all, who comes in contact with them and survives

No one said it was easy, but blindly charging an unknown enemy is stupid.

In any case, what kind of argument is that? Bioware screwed up by creating an enemy that Shepard could not reasonably be expected to defeat (relying on coincides such as the squad Shepard assembled being exactly what's needed despite no one knowing anything about the Collectors' defences), therefore relying on coincidence to defeat the Collectors is not bad writing?

Who blindly charged?  They worked their way up to fighting the Collectors.  And it's not like they really had a choice.  They have everything they need to go after them.  The only stealth ship, a cast of elite warriors, and the IFF to get there.  And now they also have the incentive that the entire crew save the main characters have all been taken through the relay.

This was a game, so some allowances had to be amde to gie us something to fight.  For instance, in the movie, I might not allow those little fighter drones to spot them...though they did pass close.  Anyway, this gives them a chance to give you a fight against one.

And they also had to rely on the I Man for info on the collectors

No, Shepard could just have called the Alliance or one of his old crew at any point rather than just taking space!Bin-Laden's word for them being unavailable. Seriously, they should have gone for the mind-control chip.

Uhm...OKaaaaayyyy.  Anyway, he has agreed to work with, not for the IL Man, and the IL Man is the one that gave them info on the collectors, the Alliance had squat for info on them.

This seems to me to be where people simply look for any and every reason to poke holes in a story.  Some are legit, but others are not...most are not.  Overall, th story of ME2 was fine.  I personally loved it, with minor exceptions.

Also, they could have jsut give you the team, but I for one enoyed the diversity of the missions to recruit and gain loyalty.  I really am not sure why some people have a problem with that. 


Also, the point about Ocean's Eleven was wrong.  In the first one, all the kne was that the had to do something, but it was the experts in the team that decided what needed to be done.  But he knew, OK, we will need computer hackers/tech guys (Tali and Legion), I will need this skill, that skill....not becaue he knew specifically what he needed to do, but that these skills would come to bear on the problem and help solve it.

I don't see that as any different than ME2.  You have an unknown enemy with unkown abilities.  So you go out and build an elite team with diverse skills.  That's pretty much business as usual even in this day and age.  Bring in the best talent you can find and throw them at the problem.  The diersity allows you to navigate the unkonw much better.  Corporations use this as a team building model for just this reason.

Modifié par RustyLH, 05 octobre 2013 - 04:58 .

[The Night Mammoth]

csm4267 wrote...

I personally think anyone still mad over this ending thing should just move on. If you're mad about it after 18 months, you're probably still going to be mad when the new game comes out. Not just the ending, but seems a lot of people didn't like the third game as a whole.

I personally thought the original ending was fine, but I'm just one of those people who can think for themselves and didn't need Bioware to spoon feed me everything or explain every single detail. Put the information in the game and I can figure it out from there. That's my style. I'm very analytical that way. Only took me a couple days to figure it all out.

Information in the game? Don't you mean information you had to make up to fill in the gaps the writers weren't willing to fill themselves?

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 05 octobre 2013 - 05:00 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

RustyLH wrote...

After they did the extended cut, were you happy with the ending?  Or would you have preferred more of a traditional ending to the story?  One where Shepard and the Allied fleets destroy Harbinger and the Reapers surrounding Earth using the "Super Weapon" Crucible, and then the fleet would move from there to the next worlds to destory them, and Shepard would live to settle down with the romance option of your choice?  The ending where the old man is telling the story to the child could have been Shepard telling his grandchild about the whole thing?  Do you think that would make a better ending for a movie series?

I think I would have preferred that for the destruction ending option.  The crucibel fires off, kills only the reapers, and does not destroy the relays.  It's fiction so nothing would stop that from being an option.  I do wonder if it would be a better received ending in a movie series.  Grandpa Shepard talking to a grandchild at the end would be a good ending. IMHO

No I'm not, honestly I would have settle for the relays exploding if even a few Geth survived the me blowing up the Reapers. Shepard surviving would have been nice but that aspect wasn't as important to me. I would have dropped the whole star gazer scene all together.

[Dubozz]

How to make a good ending for ME3:
1. Suicide Mission with war assets and ALL ME1 - ME3 squadmates available.
2. Harbinger - if you have enough ships, they will delay harbinger from landing. If not - your squadmates is dead.
3. Beam - Citadel - Cerberus, squadmates and Shepard separated.
4. Best seats in the house.

quote reddit
"This plays
The citadel is falling towards earth, the reapers are destroyed, Shepherd is mortally wounded and stranded, everyone has long since left.

Except for liara/love interest, she stayed behind because she couldn't bear losing Shepherd, in the final decent of the citadel she finds him..."

Epilogue.
In the end Shep survives if you upgraded the citadel: Aria saves you squadmate ("Wrex?"), Bailey disconnects the wards. If you played good enough. If not - you have your bittersweet ending,

instead we got
I AM THE CATALYST, "yo dawg", synthesis bs, random jungle planet, BUY DLC, tell me another story about the shepard..

[jamesthessj4]

There is a huge difference between a movie/show and a video game with the appearance that your choices will matter. When you watch a show or movie you are watching and not helping to guide the narative by picking choices that direct the flow of the plot. So when you get to the end of the game where your choices matter and you find out that your choices do not matter well I just dont get how you can find that acceptable. Though if you have only played the third game and thats it then you wont have as much invested in the game as a person who has been playing it since the first one just came out and thus you would be okay with the ending because you only made choices in the first one so you are not thinking bout the game from that perspective and only from your own. What do you mean by gather clues to solve a puzzle? They promised varied endings based on your choices and you only get 4 endings total no matter what you did to get there.So unless you can come up with a quote from Bioware where they say that you have to collect clues to solve a puzzle since this is not a puzzle game then your argument is moot.I expected more than 3 different endings with different colored explosions based on the choices I made during the course of the game.Mass Effect 1 and 2 had better endings than 3.

[bleetman]

csm4267 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...
Information in the game? Don't you mean information you had to make up to fill in the gaps the writers weren't willing to fill themselves? Good for you, maybe BioWare should offer you a job. 

So I take it you're one of those people who expects Bioware to explain every little detail for them? People said the same thing about a certain TV show or movie, because it was the final episode and it didn't wrap everything up in a nice little bow.. This is sci-fi, not fantasy. If you want everything explained for you, then this game isn't for you. It's not Bioware's job to make sure everyone can understand the ending. They just put the information in the game. The rest you have to do. Every story requires you to play a part on some level. It doesn't do everything for you.

There are holes in Mass Effect's plot big enough to sail ocean liners down. Playing the "every little detail" card feels somewhat trite.

I wouldn't expect them to explain "every little thing". I might expect them to explain big wacking great things like, say, the basic fundamentals of the entire plot that is awkwardly shoved in at the last second without sufficient discourse to have it make any sense. Failing that, I'd expect them to pay attention to their own fiction, and not have their final sequence briefly spout motive and plot resolution that doesn't even fit things from the same game that it's in, throwing around "inevitable" like confetti when nothing we're previously shown fits into the narrative we're now being told was the case all along.

I understand the ending just fine, thanks.

[jamesthessj4]

Cthulhu42 wrote...
I barely got over that much pre-Leviathan; killing both the geth and rachni took a lot away from my score.

I always get both the geth and the quarians and i always save the rachni queen. Then again in every play through i always spare the real rachni queen because i just cant kill off a race for past crimes that sounded like it was out of its control. Just like I only cure the genophage if Wrex is in charge because I trust Wrex to keep the Krogan from starting a war with the galaxy once the reapers are destroyed and once more I never kill Wrex or betray him. I will always want the 5 option that involves hacking the starchild into destroying only the reapers so I can go home with who ever the love interest is in the game and walk off into that sunset like every American movie where the American saves the day ^_-. even though this game is not an american movie with just notable action stars like Chuck Norris who could defeat reapers with a round house kick and send them back into dark space in pieces lol. Any ways i never noticed any plot holes in the series at least till the star child popped up at the end and every thing he said I had an example or argument to prove him wrong. Shepard just stupidly goes along for the sake of the forced plot of Organics Vs Machines when i proved that one person can over come that and accept AI as a form of life. AKA i forced the Quarians and Geth to stop fighting and get along. Saying something is inevitable just pisses me off and makes me want to prove that person wrong and makes the star child sound stuck up and like he knows every thing when he or it clearly doesn't. Its use of circular logic is insulting to me. The fact that Shepard just goes along with it makes no sense at all. Though i guess its because I believe that one person can make a difference which has been proven in real life all the time by real people.

[AlanC9]

bleetman wrote...
I wouldn't expect them to explain "every little thing". I might expect them to explain big wacking great things like, say, the basic fundamentals of the entire plot that is awkwardly shoved in at the last second without sufficient discourse to have it make any sense. Failing that, I'd expect them to pay attention to their own fiction, and not have their final sequence briefly spout motive and plot resolution that doesn't even fit things from the same game that it's in, throwing around "inevitable" like confetti when nothing we're previously shown fits into the narrative we're now being told was the case all along.

I understand the ending just fine, thanks.

I'm not sure you do. You seem to be assuming the the Catalyst is supposed to be right about everything; the things you say are problems wouldn't be problems if he's just wrong.

[AlanC9]

jamesthessj4 wrote...
Saying something is inevitable just pisses me off and makes me want to prove that person wrong and makes the star child sound stuck up and like he knows every thing when he or it clearly doesn't. Its use of circular logic is insulting to me. The fact that Shepard just goes along with it makes no sense at all. Though i guess its because I believe that one person can make a difference which has been proven in real life all the time by real people.

I don't remember my Shepard going along with its circular logic, or even being all that much interested in why the Catalyst did what it did.

[Baihu1983]

iakus wrote...

I hated the endings before EC. And I hated them after.

ME3 needed more and more varied endings. From the traditional "happy ending" to utter defeat despite your best efforts. And everything in between. Forcing everyone to experience "you win, but..." was exactly the wrong thing to do in a trilogy that supposedly celebrated choices mattering. It gave everything ending the same vague grayness that makes every experience the same, no matter what colorr you pick

This.

[RustyLH]

jamesthessj4 wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...
I barely got over that much pre-Leviathan; killing both the geth and rachni took a lot away from my score.

I always get both the geth and the quarians and i always save the rachni queen.

eep in mind he is talkig about the desruction ending.  In that ending, the Geth WILL die.  Need proof?  Where is EDI?  She does not exit the Normandy.  She's not there when they gather to place Shepard's name on the memorial.  She's dead.  The catalyst tells him this will happen.  All syntheitc life forms will be killed.  All of them.  But he tries to warn him away from this choice, and tells him that he (Shepard) is part synthetic.

[RustyLH]

OK, I think the issue here is not as much with what actually happened in the endings, it is that no matter what you did, these 4 are all that you get, and you get a choice of each of the four no matter what you have done. In short, what needed to happen was to have a bit more variety with Shepard living through some, and dieing in others, but not having a choice at the end. The end should have depended on your choices to that point.

[Mangalores]

RustyLH wrote...

iakus wrote...

I hated the endings before EC. And I hated them after.

ME3 needed more and more varied endings. From the traditional "happy ending" to utter defeat despite your best efforts. And everything in between. Forcing everyone to experience "you win, but..." was exactly the wrong thing to do in a trilogy that supposedly celebrated choices mattering. It gave everything ending the same vague grayness that makes every experience the same, no matter what colorr you pick

That's kind of how I felt.  I don't mind the synthesis ending, or the control ending.  but those should have just been options that had certain benefits.  And those benefits should have been present in Shepard's mind.  With the control option, he becomes a God, and knows he can use the reapers to benefit the civilized Galaxy.  With the Synthesis ening, he would know that he could end this kind of thing forever.  All beings would evolve into something better.  he sees this as a way to make the galaxy a better place for his child...which by the way should have been a part of the story.  His love interest should have told him she was pregnant and that he was going to be a father, and this should ahve happened near the end when he is talking to everybody.

But I wanted the option to earn a totally happy ending, as well as complete failure.  As I said in another thread, with complete failure, we should have seen the Reapers head back into dark space with new Human, Asari, Salarian, Turian, etc.. Reapers among them.

The Synthesis ending is absolute bollocks though. In contrast to even Control or Destroy I see literally no way to explain this complete break in storytelling since there is absolutely no basis hinting at this as intent or practical solution. It's basically what the Reapers think they are doing. How can that become a "good" ending ever if you turned your antagonist into a bunch of squid like monstrosities high on genocide?


I could have lived with only a variation of bitter sweet endings if they had been involving, e.g. built it up and involve the characters. Heck, being a sadist I'd have made it so you have to decide between making your side characters make a heroic sacrifice which brings victory closer or rescueing them and screwing others over / risking victory.

[RustyLH]

Mangalores wrote...

RustyLH wrote...

iakus wrote...

I hated the endings before EC. And I hated them after.

ME3 needed more and more varied endings. From the traditional "happy ending" to utter defeat despite your best efforts. And everything in between. Forcing everyone to experience "you win, but..." was exactly the wrong thing to do in a trilogy that supposedly celebrated choices mattering. It gave everything ending the same vague grayness that makes every experience the same, no matter what colorr you pick

That's kind of how I felt.  I don't mind the synthesis ending, or the control ending.  but those should have just been options that had certain benefits.  And those benefits should have been present in Shepard's mind.  With the control option, he becomes a God, and knows he can use the reapers to benefit the civilized Galaxy.  With the Synthesis ening, he would know that he could end this kind of thing forever.  All beings would evolve into something better.  he sees this as a way to make the galaxy a better place for his child...which by the way should have been a part of the story.  His love interest should have told him she was pregnant and that he was going to be a father, and this should ahve happened near the end when he is talking to everybody.

But I wanted the option to earn a totally happy ending, as well as complete failure.  As I said in another thread, with complete failure, we should have seen the Reapers head back into dark space with new Human, Asari, Salarian, Turian, etc.. Reapers among them.

The Synthesis ending is absolute bollocks though. In contrast to even Control or Destroy I see literally no way to explain this complete break in storytelling since there is absolutely no basis hinting at this as intent or practical solution. It's basically what the Reapers think they are doing. How can that become a "good" ending ever if you turned your antagonist into a bunch of squid like monstrosities high on genocide?


I could have lived with only a variation of bitter sweet endings if they had been involving, e.g. built it up and involve the characters. Heck, being a sadist I'd have made it so you have to decide between making your side characters make a heroic sacrifice which brings victory closer or rescueing them and screwing others over / risking victory.

What made it palatable for me is that EDI and Joker now match togerther, and the Geth are at home in this universe.  And, it appears that the main thing abot this ending is that it is a huge evolutionary jump and all organic beings take a huge leap forward in their knowledge.  Computers are no longer faster thinkers than we are,

[Reorte]

csm4267 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...
Information in the game? Don't you mean information you had to make up to fill in the gaps the writers weren't willing to fill themselves? Good for you, maybe BioWare should offer you a job. 

So I take it you're one of those people who expects Bioware to explain every little detail for them? People said the same thing about a certain TV show or movie, because it was the final episode and it didn't wrap everything up in a nice little bow.. This is sci-fi, not fantasy. If you want everything explained for you, then this game isn't for you. It's not Bioware's job to make sure everyone can understand the ending. They just put the information in the game. The rest you have to do. Every story requires you to play a part on some level. It doesn't do everything for you.

Look, they told you before the game launched that you would be required to gather clues in order to solve a puzzle. If you just expect Bioware to sit and explain the ending to you, then that would be like them solving the puzzle. They weren't going to do that.


I guess I'm just like this guy

Ah, another person who happily hammers square headcanon into round plot holes and thinks he's being clever. Being able to invent some very contrived, very far-fetched explanation for something that doesn't make sense, and the writers didn't care that it doesn't make sense, is not being clever. Anyway in any case it's not "lack of explanation" that's the issue for most people.

[Tron Mega]

i dont think people want explanations because they lack an imaginative and creative mind.

its not hard to fart your way through theories about why this or that happened. its just the fact that the game lets me unite the geth and quarisn, hten later i wippe out the galaxy because the geth and quarians cant be united.

......you know, unreasonable things like that, happeneing throughout the series, with no more of an explanation then a simple handwave.

Modifié par Tron Mega, 05 octobre 2013 - 12:54 .

[No_MSG]

My favorite part was where I ran into Space Hitler and he was all "Yo, we gotta solve this Space Jew problem, bro," and I was all "Damn right we do!"

And then I committed suicide.

[KaiserShep]

Tron Mega wrote...

its not hard to fart your way through theories about why this or that happened. its just the fact that the game lets me unite the geth and quarisn, hten later i wippe out the galaxy because the geth and quarians cant be united.

The frustrating part is that despite being able to bring those two together, you can't even see them coexisting in Control. Basically, this "problem" still exists, even when it kind of doesn't at that point anymore.

[AlanC9]

RustyLH wrote...


eep in mind he is talkig about the desruction ending.  In that ending, the Geth WILL die.  Need proof?  Where is EDI?  She does not exit the Normandy.  She's not there when they gather to place Shepard's name on the memorial.  

Hell, her name is ON the memorial in Destroy.

[AlanC9]

RustyLH wrote...

OK, I think the issue here is not as much with what actually happened in the endings, it is that no matter what you did, these 4 are all that you get, and you get a choice of each of the four no matter what you have done. In short, what needed to happen was to have a bit more variety with Shepard living through some, and dieing in others, but not having a choice at the end. The end should have depended on your choices to that point.

I've heard this a lot. Why are fewer choices good?