234 réponses à ce sujet

[jamesthessj4]

So the Leviathans created the Star Child in the first place and programed it to try and keep their thrall races from creating synthetics that will turn against them and kill them. In turn this star child creates a race of synthetics that harvest the Leviathans and then they go on to harvest and kill or as they call it saving organics from their synthetic creations. So they are saving them by killing them. So since it was going as fast as the star child wants it to, it creates the mass relay network and the Citadel. So it controls how species evolve and develop once they reach space travel and discover it. So because it has never been defeated before it thinks itself above organics and can not be defeated. So the reapers continue their slaughter of the organics because they are saving them but most of the reapers you see or talk too talk about how they are going to crush you and destroy you. They go on and say that humanity is basicly nothing compared to the reapers who have lived for so long and they are going to harvest and kill them. So from the reapers themselves they do not say they are doing it for their own good or that they are doing it to save them from their synthetic creations. It is only that they are going to kill and wipe them out of existence. Then comes along the star child who says it is doing it to save organics from being killed by their synthetic creations and yet its synthetic creations are doing just that....can some one try to explain the star child's logic to me because it makes no sense to me. Why are those the only 3 choices in the end of the game. Destroy all synthetic life, control and synthesis. I don't count the fourth new ending because to me its an insult to the fact that i hate their three choices.

[frostajulie]

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 was not happy with the ending after the EC a 5 year investment into a character and cast of characters that I adored and the payoff was such a let down such a shock to the system such an inconsistent piece of crap that I never saw it coming.  Dying is fine bitter sweet is fine but what they did was not fine.  Every version of the ending feels like at the end of 5 years I lost it all.  A completely downer. After the end of ME1 and ME2 I never expected such a ****ty conclusion. Lesson learned. I play video games to escape  the reality of sacrifice and loss and losing.  when I play a video game it has always been a given that when you get to the end somehow the good guys win.

ME3 changed that and not for the better.  Im not saying not to have a dark depressing ending at all but make it my choice.  While I did not want unicorns and rainbows I did want the epic badassery of the precedent set in the prior 2 installments of the series.

[Aremce]

Well, after the Extended Cut and the explanation of what this Starchild is ... I think the endings are okay. Sure they're not perfect and sure I would have liked more closure to all the storylines and characters - but honestly, it was totally impossible to make everyone happy.

[dsl08002]

it was rubbish Before EC and its rubbish now with EC in my opinion.

[jamesthessj4]

reh123 wrote...

Well, after the Extended Cut and the explanation of what this Starchild is ... I think the endings are okay. Sure they're not perfect and sure I would have liked more closure to all the storylines and characters - but honestly, it was totally impossible to make everyone happy.

When you ****** off a large majority of the fans of the series then i think that the statement that its impossible to make every one happy makes no sense to me. If it was simply a minority then they would of never of had to come out with the EC in the first place and for free as well. It was never about closure. In my opinion the endings where horrible and made no sense. I wanted to have an ending that was a reflection of my choices through out all three games not just here are three options that every one gets to choose from. So no matter how you played the game from full paragon to full renagade to any thing in between you always came to the same three choices no matter what. So it boils down to having Ending A, B, C and now D. Expanding on those original three ending was not what i wanted. I wanted brand new endings that better reflected the choices that I made through three games.

As for the star child. Even with their explantion of what he is does not excuse the fact that its logic is fautly and some parts make no sense. Some how with some space magic, you use the commanders essence to some how make every being in the galaxy part synthetic. Makes no sense to me how this kind of space magic works. I guess I am selfish in that I dont wany my shepard to die there but to die of old age with his or her love interest.

[Mathias]

Original Ending: Terrible Concept, Terrible Execution.

Extended Ending: Terrible Concept, Decent Execution.

Any questions?

[Aremce]

jamesthessj4 wrote...

reh123 wrote...

Well,
after the Extended Cut and the explanation of what this Starchild is ... I think the endings are okay. Sure they're not perfect and sure I would have liked more closure to all the storylines and characters - but honestly, it was totally impossible to make everyone happy.

When you ****** off a large majority of the fans of the series then i think that the statement that its impossible to make every one happy makes no sense to me. If it was simply a minority then they would of never of had to come out with the EC in the first place and for free as well. It was never about closure. In my opinion the endings where horrible and made no sense. I wanted to have an ending that was a reflection of my choices through out all three games not just here are three options that every one gets to choose from. So no matter how you played the game from full paragon to full renagade to any thing in between you always came to the same three choices no matter what. So it boils down to having Ending A, B, C and now D. Expanding on those original three ending was not what i wanted. I wanted brand new endings that better reflected the choices that I made through three games.

As for the star child. Even with their explantion of what he is does not excuse the fact that its logic is fautly and some parts make no sense. Some how with some space magic, you use the commanders essence to some how make every being in the galaxy part synthetic. Makes no sense to me how this kind of space magic works. I guess I am selfish in that I dont wany my shepard to die there but to die of old age with his or her love interest.

Hm, alright, since I have no statistics I can't argue about majorities. I'll admit that perhaps most of the fans still hate the endings. I also agree to the points about lacking reaction to ones choices. It's still bad that only the biggest choices (e.g. fate of the Quarians / Geth) matter.

But without EC no choices mattered at all. With the EC (and the Leviathan DLC) the endings do have some kind of logic. It's not space magic, rather very high evolved technology. No need for humans to understand that - like humans thousand years ago wouldn't have understood our technology now. And regarding Shepard ... well. There is an option for him/her to survive. It's not a pretty option, and I won't argue about whether or not it's right to force us into this decision, but it's there.

And last but not least: I actually WANT to have my peace with the ME3 endings. The Mass Effect series were great. I loved them. I won't have them ruined for me just because I can't accept an ending which is in fact not that bad.

Modifié par reh123, 05 octobre 2013 - 09:32 .

[Big I]

The ME3 endings are the worst part of the whole trilogy. At least the EC made them suck less, but I still would have preferred that Shepard lives be an option in Synthesis and Control.

[Iakus]

Sucking less still means they suck

[AshenShug4r]

The endings sucked, period. Objectively, they were terrible.

What is there to discuss?

[MegaSovereign]

AshenShug4r wrote...

The endings sucked, period. Objectively, they were terrible.

What is there to discuss?

Apparently a lot considering the topic still dominates the story subforum more than 1.5 years later.

[wright1978]

Ending is a trainwreck, EC ending is still a trainwreck but with a fancy red bow tied round it.

[tanisha__unknown]

I did not like the original ending at all and I could relate to people who claimed the ending was kind of a dealbreaker for the entire trilogy. It was depressing, made no sense and was crammed with plotholes, furthermore, it didn't even provide decent closure.

Some if these issues were fixed with EC. In my opinion we got closure and a little more elaboration. With Leviathan I can somehow accept what they were going for, still the execution ....

OP, I would have preferred your classical ending to what we got. Plus, the stargazer scene could have been left out entirely.
I think I would most like some altered version of what they did. Admittedly, they screwed up with the conclusion, but I can see at least some potential in it. The visuals of the scenery with the catalyst are pretty impressive and the soundtrack actually creates an atmosphere that fits this part extremely well. If you leave out the fact that all the original endings are pretty much the same, again, the visuals are great.

In my opinion, that stupid kid should have been replaced with something more credible, something I can take serious. There is no reason for the catalyst to look like this kid. Some manifestation would have been great, but give it at least a Reapers voice.

The reasoning of this intelligence could be twisted and evil, but then it should not have argued like an idiot, who could be proven wrong by an elementary school level child.

And finally, the crucible integration - I think, achieving destroy with the crucible is quite plausible, since it is basically something to release massive amounts of energy, but how the hell does this thing help you control stuff? And how does it achieve synthesis?

My ideal ending the crucible would rather be some kind of advanced computer/overwrite device, which would allow manipulating the program of the catalyst intelligence. I cannot imagine that the Leviathans have not included some kind of offswitch. Depending on your efforts throughout the game you could still have different options. Lowest EMS will only give you the option to activate some self destruct switch, kind of an emergency button. The Reapers will be destroyed, the intelligence will remain and the species will decide what to do with it. If you spent enough effort, the crucible will be understood well enough to have some shutdown command, pretty much like on your PC. You can harvest the tech and in the future you might reprogram the Reapers, however if this fails then, the Reapers will continue their old task. The synthesis option could still be included in a way. It would rewrite the central intelligence such that it impoves the lifes of organics rather than reaperify them. It could help rebuilding, expand the mass relay network, allow for stuff we haven't dreamed off like, I don't know, directly use the suns energy or something like that.

[Mangalores]

RustyLH wrote...
...
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,

Don't want to start the usual ending discussion. It's just that this is not what evolution is so proposes a solution that essentially violates the Reaper's own conclusion (that it's not possible, hence they do what they do) and comes even worse out of nowhere than Control.

However the main bad thing imo is the Messiah complex applied to Shepard out of nowhere starting with the ME2 resurrection. Why? Wasn't he badass enough in ME1 essentially killing a million year old badass and stopping an invasion from hell? Why would anyone think that we need Space Jesus to tell the story from thereon out?  It completely subverts the setting where you have tons of cool people and Shepard was special due to ability instead of destiny.

You know, the entire difference between a meritocracy we in the western world value as the only just and equal way for people to advance and the kleptocracies of old.

--- rant over ---


Back to topic:

IMHO far more choices should have impacted your comrades aka situations where you have to choose between your NPC comrades and "winning" the game. That would actually create a quite nice dynamic since you might want to save Liara/Garrus/Mordin/etc. but the best "game score" result would ask of you to "use" them.

Ideally you add the flavours of them dieing in vain because you backstab them for the greater good, they die heroically because they know why you do it and why they need to bring their ultimate sacrifice or you rather save them and throw away war assets/ stuff you need for the endings.

Some of the problems is in the structure of BW games of creating too clear paths of optimum play which kind of wastes the potential of a character driven story.

The same can be said about ME2 with its suicide mission where none dies. Yes, you should be able to work on how who dies how and ideally the guys you least want to sacrifice would give you the best payoff but why options where none dies without any repercussions? The problem is it again subverts the main plot: Why is it called a suicide mission when everyone survives because I want to see all the story (aka play all  missions before the finale as one would expect)?

There should be choices that matter whether all my NPC comrades are loyal or not. Ideally disloyal comrades should actually screw you over when you try to get them killed and possibly make matters worse (aka bugging out before you can get them killed as one would expect of disloyal people instead of catching a bullet for being disloyal which is kind of what you wanted to do to them anyway).

Modifié par Mangalores, 06 octobre 2013 - 02:32 .

[Mathias]

AlanC9 wrote...

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?

I've said this before but Mass Effect 3 should've had 2 endings. Spend the game uniting the galaxy and collecting War Asstes. Depending on how much you have, either you successful manage to punch a hole through the Reaper defenses, load up the Crucible and destroy them all, or you fail and the Reapers wipe you all out. What follows after is a lengthy epilogue that greatly varies based on your choices. It's not just cutscenes and slides either. There's gameplay sections as well, similiar to the end of Dragon Age Origins where you can talk to party members and NPCs.

[Kel Riever]

This again? Well, I am not surprised it keeps coming up.

The ending is atrocious, because it was of atrocious quality, and not because it was a 'non-happy' ending. It offers nothing of merit and is an abomination of any intellect or logic, displayed not only through the series, but within the game itself.

~fin~

[Redbelle]

Mass Effect 3 was about unifying the galaxy against the Reapers. You had choices about who you wanted to help more that had ramification's we never got to see...... But throughout the whole game, you are collecting species in the same way ME2 colelcted crewmen.

And then we never got to play with them. They became a non interactable number or statistic.

ME is also about interacting with what you acquire. Crewmen.... weapons.... Stuff in general..... Again. No such luck with any meaningful interactions when you pull a fleet together.

They don't even let you give the order for the fleet to attack in dialogue mode...... A detail? Yes! But a detail that makes the game...... That was our fleet after all and the order to attack is less a movie moment as it is a moment whereby the player is forced to commit. And is the person who does commit. Not Shepard in Autodialgue mode. We are supposed to be Shepard. We ought to have say in these moment's.

The game was not about meeting the hub of all that has gone wrong over cycles and then being forced to agree with one of his choices. We get so hung up on the three to four choices, that we forget that Shepard's, mandate is that he is a soldier who is supported by his squad.

Normandy has shown the abililty to be able to fly anywhere and drop anyone off where ever. Shepard could have had a choice to deny the Cat and bring in his own people to come up with their own solution.

That is what I wanted when people asked for a refuse ending. An edning where the player agency is restored and normal game play is resumed through to the conclusion.

Citadel DLC demonstrated the way to end a game. The core content of ME3 did not. An ending where dogged persererance gives the the ability to gain the outcome you desire. Which in my case would have been destroy ending, without killing EDI and the Geth. Because no matter what anyone says or has argued, the game says they are destroyed. Not that they can be rebuilt later. Edi and the Geth had found something that made them unique and individual. Rebuilding from scratch on top of the slagged remains is more like cloning in my eyes. They may look the same, but individual is completely seperate to the original

Modifié par Redbelle, 06 octobre 2013 - 04:03 .

[Trav-O]

Hated before, Hated a little less after EC... but thats a drop in the bucket. Still 95% loathe.

[AlanC9]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
I've heard this a lot. Why are fewer choices good?

I've said this before but Mass Effect 3 should've had 2 endings. Spend the game uniting the galaxy and collecting War Asstes. Depending on how much you have, either you successful manage to punch a hole through the Reaper defenses, load up the Crucible and destroy them all, or you fail and the Reapers wipe you all out. What follows after is a lengthy epilogue that greatly varies based on your choices. It's not just cutscenes and slides either. There's gameplay sections as well, similiar to the end of Dragon Age Origins where you can talk to party members and NPCs.

Um.... that doesn't actually answer my question. Not that you need to have an answer for it - it can be just a taste thing -  but it's generally considered good form to answer a question if you reply to that question.

Modifié par AlanC9, 06 octobre 2013 - 06:03 .

[Mathias]

AlanC9 wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
I've heard this a lot. Why are fewer choices good?

I've said this before but Mass Effect 3 should've had 2 endings. Spend the game uniting the galaxy and collecting War Asstes. Depending on how much you have, either you successful manage to punch a hole through the Reaper defenses, load up the Crucible and destroy them all, or you fail and the Reapers wipe you all out. What follows after is a lengthy epilogue that greatly varies based on your choices. It's not just cutscenes and slides either. There's gameplay sections as well, similiar to the end of Dragon Age Origins where you can talk to party members and NPCs.

Um.... that doesn't actually answer my question. Not that you need to answer it - it can be just a taste thing -  but it's generally considered good form to answer a question if you reply to that question.

You asked why fewer choices are good in the ending to the game, and I gave you my two cents on how I thought the ending would've been better in a scenario where you don't have multiple endings. So it was related to your question. I was just trying to have a friendly conversation, but if you're gonna be a snooty little c, then forget it and I'll make a mental note not to bother in the future.

[AlanC9]

Redbelle wrote...
Citadel DLC demonstrated the way to end a game. The core content of ME3 did not. An ending where dogged persererance gives the the ability to gain the outcome you desire. Which in my case would have been destroy ending, without killing EDI and the Geth. Because no matter what anyone says or has argued, the game says they are destroyed. Not that they can be rebuilt later. Edi and the Geth had found something that made them unique and individual. Rebuilding from scratch on top of the slagged remains is more like cloning in my eyes. They may look the same, but individual is completely seperate to the original

Are oeople still arguing that nonsense?

[KaiserShep]

Whether or not those who dislike the ending will buy or avoid the game can depend on whether or not it's a sequel, prequel or side-story. I have no interest in the last two, so even as one who accepts the ending, if it turns out to be either of those, I can't be bothered to spend money on it. Of course, curiosity always gets at least a few people, even the very unhappy ones, and no doubt at least a handful will see the next game as the digital equivalent of an overflowing septic system somehow.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 07 octobre 2013 - 07:13 .

[Reth Shepherd]

csm4267 wrote...

So just out of curiosity, those who still don't like the ending or are upset, are you still going to buy the next game?

I've been boycotting (and encouraging others to do the same) EA since the EC. Since Bioware is under the EA umbrella, that means that I'm boycotting them as well. So no, I will not be buying the next game. Not unless there is a major change in management, and even then I'll be sitting back and waiting to see the player reviews.

By the way, have you ever read EA_Spouse's blog? It's several years old now, but it details EA's idea of how to treat an employee. Such things as 85-hour workweeks for which they received NO overtime/comp pay, and attitudes of "If they don't like it, they can work someplace else". The blog lead to lawsuits and changes in labor laws, and yet Ms. Hoffman has stated more recently that EA is sliding right back into their old ways. Makes you wonder what exactly was going on at Bioware when they were making that rushed mess of a game.