132 réponses à ce sujet

[Vicious]

I was fine with everything up until they caved and made the extended cut insead of keeping the ambiguity. At least, initially, the ending could be interpreted many different ways. But afterwards, picking destroy made abolutely no sense, Control was a pretty darn happy ending, and Synthesis is hands down the best choice.

Yeah, people make up reasons why they aren't, (shepard will turn evil over time/you took away choice and made everyone the same!) there is zero evidence of negative consequences because the endings spell everything out for you now. (happily ever after) and thus those made up consequences become fanfics. I really feel worst for those indoctrination theory guys, as Bioware made a whole new refusal ending to apparently just take a big steaming dump on their face.

Modifié par Vicious, 13 novembre 2013 - 07:39 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

The ending was a break in the literary narrative. In the last 5 minutes you were transported in a white light to a place where you were told by some higher power (The Catalyst aka Starbrat) about a problem you didn't know existed until then. It presents you with three ways of solving the problem and ending the current conflict. You get to pick one of them and choose the future of the galaxy from outside the world.

Up until that point, one's head canon of the plot is far better than the plot itself. We filled in the blanks and loved the potential of the story and the potential the universe held. Then suddenly it was gone

You died, The relays exploded, and The Normandy Crashed in different colors. Blue = Dystopia; Green = Change the Galaxy; Red = Destroy technology == oversimplified but those are the themes. ... and now Refuse = take 1000 mg fukitol, light a cigarette, drink a bottle of bourbon and watch the galaxy burn, then die.

[Reorte]

Han Shot First wrote...

Mass Effect 1 I thought had the biggest plot hole of the series, yet I still enjoyed it. And both ME1 and ME2 were full of space magic.

There's degrees to that though, not only in how ridiculous a given idea is but on how much of an impact it has on the plot - hence finalising the story with it is far, far more serious than something stupid in the middle.

[AlanC9]

Vicious wrote...

I was fine with everything up until they caved and made the extended cut insead of keeping the ambiguity. At least, initially, the ending could be interpreted many different ways. But afterwards, picking destroy made abolutely no sense, Control was a pretty darn happy ending, and Synthesis is hands down the best choice.

Yeah, people make up reasons why they aren't, (shepard will turn evil over time/you took away choice and made everyone the same!) there is zero evidence of negative consequences because the endings spell everything out for you now. (happily ever after) and thus those made up consequences become fanfics. I really feel worst for those indoctrination theory guys, as Bioware made a whole new refusal ending to apparently just take a big steaming dump on their face.

This is a bit confused. While Control turns out OK, Shepard doesn't know that in advance. It makes sense for a Shepard who doesn't trust himself with such power to pick Destroy, even if he's wrong sbout that. And if we're talking about the player's perspective, there's the whole thing about Shepard not dying.

There's also the thing about Reapers not dying, if you figure they deserve to die.

[Jorji Costava]

As far as dividing people into "camps" regarding their view on the ending, I'd say this piece does it as well as any (I suppose I'd fall into the 3rd and 4th camps on it's classification scheme), but truth be told, I haven't seriously thought about the ending in months, so I'll just leave it there.

[Linkenski]

Reorte wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Mass Effect 1 I thought had the biggest plot hole of the series, yet I still enjoyed it. And both ME1 and ME2 were full of space magic.

There's degrees to that though, not only in how ridiculous a given idea is but on how much of an impact it has on the plot - hence finalising the story with it is far, far more serious than something stupid in the middle.

That's true, but you do have to admit that it's unlikely that people would've been dissecting so many forgivable inconsistencies in ME3's story if only the ending had been good. It's like because the ending ruined so much, people just started picking on ever possible thing they could with ME3 and saying "that's why it sucks". Granted, much of that is true in my opinion. The stuff they did to TIM and Cerberus made me go "naah...!" throughout the game, but if they'd given TIM a more justified sendoff or something, as well as having an ending that played more into a more central theme to the trilogy, or at least that the execution of the current ending was better then I think most would've been content enough to let the rest go.

Modifié par Linkenski, 13 novembre 2013 - 10:05 .

[dreamgazer]

They all have noticeable flaws, ladies and gents, especially their endings.

[Linkenski]

I guess you're refering to saren becoming a deus-ex device to kill Sovereign in ME1 and the Human Reaper in ME2 :-P

They didn't fundamentally break the literary narrative though as I see it. Sure they contained literary flaws but they didn't outright do as many things wrong in one place as the ME3 ending did.

[TheMyron]

The ending alone wasn't the most painful thing of ME3, it was simply viewed by many to be the "final straw" on a large list of painful bits of ME3.

[Jayce]

The problem, the biggest one, to my mind was that the ending is a thematic non-sequitur. Having spent three entire games battling to prevent Saren committing Synthesis or stopping the Illusive Man committing Control, Shepard cannot stop the Reapers and is denied this purely by developer fiat. The player is left with a choice between in-acting the very things they have fought to prevent or achieving their goal, but at a terrible price....

In essence, as shipped, the game gave Renegade players three unpalatable options but Paragon players, players who had time and again proven the Catalyst's own logic flawed, were given none, not even the ability to 'rage against the darkness', to call the Catalyst out on it's stupid circular logic. Shepard meekly accepts the Catalyst's statements despite having first hand experience of situations that show the fallacy of what the Catalyst is proclaiming to be irrefutable.  This completely strips the Paragon player of agency. You either picked a renegade option or simply stood there furious, unable to finish the game.

To many Paragon players, that felt a lot like Bioware giving them the finger. Clearly that was in no way the dev's intent but unfortunately, that was the emotional impact the original ending had on many players. Hence a lot of very unhappy with Bioware gamers.

Modifié par Jayce F, 14 novembre 2013 - 01:09 .

[FREEGUNNER]

On paper its not THAT bad of an ending...the execution and pacing is atrocious though.

[SwobyJ]

I honestly wanted both.

I mean, I'm heavily of the left side, sure. I wanted at least the choice for a clearly HAPPY HAPPY ending I could go with if I wished. Sure. If you wanna make that more Paragon, then I'll admit I was mostly Paragon in ME1-3 the first time, and picked Synthesis in my first time through ME3.

And on the right side, the 'choices that matter' one, I'm even MORE of that mind in particular. London, the first time through, felt like a DISGRACE to the series, and everything after that was just BS. I felt LESS effect than the Suicide Mission? How the hell could that be? How is that POSSIBLE? Even now, CITADEL DLC has more *concrete* (not talking thematic.. that's a whole other deal hehe) effect than the ending!!


~~~~
But it wasn't nearly as important, after even the start of my post-trilogy reflection, than having things make sense, reach ...resolution. I guess you could call that the Synthesis in this scenario. WTF was the point of all this? What was this weird bit, or this scene for, or this line for? Why did this happen and that occur? WTF was the point? I'm so confused! Even more than having a happy ending or choices matter, I just wanted to know WTF the designers intended.


If it turns out that there's the whole mind twist that I've speculated on in other posts, I'll probably be very Destroy and Synthesis, over Control. I'd be fascinated with Synthesis for alts, but aim for Breath Destroy for my MainShep. Control would probably happen 2 times total (one Paragon, one Renegade).. maybe more for Low EMS but probably not.

Modifié par SwobyJ, 14 novembre 2013 - 02:52 .

[SwobyJ]

TheMyron wrote...

The ending alone wasn't the most painful thing of ME3, it was simply viewed by many to be the "final straw" on a large list of painful bits of ME3.

Not that many saw ME3 as that painful. Sure, painful, yes, but not enough to quit the series over. It wasn't a DAII, I'm absolutely sure.

If it wasn't for the ending situation, I think people would be largely singing the ME2 praises, at least among casual (oh THAT word) players of the trilogy.

And I fully admit that the game took several steps back in respects before the ending. I'm just saying it was only the 'final straw' for a small, small minority of players. The ending was a whole other matter.

[SwobyJ]

Vicious wrote...

I was fine with everything up until they caved and made the extended cut insead of keeping the ambiguity. At least, initially, the ending could be interpreted many different ways. But afterwards, picking destroy made abolutely no sense, Control was a pretty darn happy ending, and Synthesis is hands down the best choice.

Yeah, people make up reasons why they aren't, (shepard will turn evil over time/you took away choice and made everyone the same!) there is zero evidence of negative consequences because the endings spell everything out for you now. (happily ever after) and thus those made up consequences become fanfics. I really feel worst for those indoctrination theory guys, as Bioware made a whole new refusal ending to apparently just take a big steaming dump on their face.

I'm called an ITer by BSN perspective and even crazy by IT perspective!

But I kinda like Refuse. It's pretty neat. Thanks, Bioware.

Modifié par SwobyJ, 14 novembre 2013 - 02:57 .

[TheMyron]

@SwobyJ: It wasn't the last ten minutes that hurt me the most, but the first ten. Within the first ten minutes of playing ME3, I knew there was something wrong; In ME1 and ME2 for example, Shepard's first spoken words are produced by the dialogue wheel, but in ME3 he started talking and talking and talking, and I, the player, the one who is supposed to be in charge of the character here, haven't made a single decision yet.

Hence, what I call a "character hijacking" was pulled off.

[Slashice]

I don't really care about the lack of happy ending (I was expecting that my Shepard will die), nor about my previous choices doesn't really matter at the end. Though I'm really pissed that the 3rd game of the Mass Effect series, especially it's ending is goes against everything that has been told and hinted in the previous games.

Let's see it:

- We knew that the Reapers are a fully evolved AI synthetic-organic beings. Yet they're just puppets of an AI kid. That just makes Sovereign's epic speech pretty much dumb.

- When Sovereign signaled the Keepers to open the Citadel relay, they didn't respond. Yet there were Prothean scientists who created a small mass relay on the Citadel,travelled back and sabotaged the Keepers. Let me put it this way: The Protheans created and placed a mass relay on the Catalyst. They traveled back to the Catalyst. They sabotaged the Catalyst's direct servants, yet it didn't notice anything but can control an armada of Reapers. It was Sovereign who figured out that something went wrong, not the allmighty Catalyst. Becaus it DIDN'T exist back then, they just pulled this stupid thing out of the hat and not thought this through.

- Sovereign needed Saren to get the Conduit to get into the Citadel and close the arms, so it can activate the relay. Yup, right, you do remember that this AI kid can control the Citadel arms, and could lift Shepard up and determine how to focus the Cruicible's energy, yet cannot open the relay itself. Makes sense...

- Human's genetic diversity and dark energy: it was all hinted in ME2, that Humans are important because of their genetic diversity (they didn't get infected back on Omega by a virus that has been created by the Collectors, thus by the Reapers), and probably that's why Reapers started harvesting humans. No words at all from dark energy in ME3.

- Harbinger: ultra badass Reaper leader, who has no single line in ME3, yet even in Arrival DLC he was threating us and hinting in ME2 that Humans are important. Now he even lost his unique model ingame (his model is the same as the other Sovereign class Reapers, but lacks the middle leg. In ME2 it had an extra plating on his back and had different textures - yes, I like small details). And if you didn't import your previous games, but start a new game in ME3, they don't even mention Harbinger at all. Which is just dumb.

- Reapers with different models: remember the end scene from ME2? We saw at least 5 Reapers of unique model, but in ME3 we only have 2: the destroyer and the Sovereign class (and at the ending none of the Repaers looked as Sovereign btw...)

Well, actually my problem is not just with the ending as you see. I could mention the fact that why didn't the Reapers attacked straight the Citadel, cease control of it and shut down the entire relay network as they did in the previous cycles (it could be an awesome mission to rush to the Citadel, and close it before the Reapers arrive. Or they could cease control regardless, but since they running out of time, instead of shutting down the network, they just turn all relays into "omega mod" allowing only Reapers travel through the relays - and those who have the Reaper IFF ,) ).

But all in all, it's the last 15 minutes of the game, that makes the first 2 games lore pretty much pointless, you could even throw them into the trash bin and start playing only ME3. Or throw ME3 into the bin, or stop playing before the last 15 minutes... it's up to you. Next time maybe their lead writer should play through the previous games, or read the novels, or just consult with the other writers...

[Slashice]

TheMyron wrote...

@SwobyJ: It wasn't the last ten minutes that hurt me the most, but the first ten. Within the first ten minutes of playing ME3, I knew there was something wrong; In ME1 and ME2 for example, Shepard's first spoken words are produced by the dialogue wheel, but in ME3 he started talking and talking and talking, and I, the player, the one who is supposed to be in charge of the character here, haven't made a single decision yet.

Hence, what I call a "character hijacking" was pulled off.

Agree. THat ****load amount of auto dialogues really bugged me and the abscence of the neutral option from the dialogue wheel. In ME3 I lost "my" Shepard, I lost "myself" if you like and instead I started watching someone else's Shepard.... not the best way for an RPG...

Modifié par Slashice, 14 novembre 2013 - 09:54 .

[dorktainian]

Vicious wrote...

I was fine with everything up until they caved and made the extended cut insead of keeping the ambiguity. At least, initially, the ending could be interpreted many different ways. But afterwards, picking destroy made abolutely no sense, Control was a pretty darn happy ending, and Synthesis is hands down the best choice.

Yeah, people make up reasons why they aren't, (shepard will turn evil over time/you took away choice and made everyone the same!) there is zero evidence of negative consequences because the endings spell everything out for you now. (happily ever after) and thus those made up consequences become fanfics. I really feel worst for those indoctrination theory guys, as Bioware made a whole new refusal ending to apparently just take a big steaming dump on their face.

    

Yeah.  I can Sympathise.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but imo the original ending is far superior to that cooked up mess that is the EC.  Thing about the EC is it raises even more questions than it answers.

I hated the original ending at the time......but now I hate the extended cut with a passion.......

Modifié par dorktainian, 14 novembre 2013 - 10:04 .

[KaiserShep]

Anyone who was expecting something like refuse to turn out well kind of deserved what they got.

[Deathsaurer]

Slashice wrote...

- Reapers with different models: remember the end scene from ME2? We saw at least 5 Reapers of unique model, but in ME3 we only have 2: the destroyer and the Sovereign class

One of the other models does show up in a hologram during the Cerberus Labs side mission. I'm guessing they got converted into troop transports or processing ships.

[AlanC9]

I didn't see 5 models in the first place. Looking at a vid just now, I still didn't see different models. Anyone have a link to some sort of analysis of the different models?

[Linkenski]

Just wanted to stress that I decided to replay ME3 on PS3 starting with the Genesis comic thingy. (--because now my PC version, which I beat 5 times last year, says "The Mass Effect 3 server is not available at this time. Please try again later" basically making it unplayable--)
So because it's on PS3 the game crashed in the middle of the cutscene on Mars where you shoot Eva Core, and because I felt like taking a break after that I figured I'd just stress something here.

The introduction and at least a bunk of the Mars mission are both AWFUL writing-wise. People have kept stating that the execution of the ME3 endings were purely bad because of the lack of peer-reviewing and editing, but I fail to see why that's the case when the introduction is probably just as terribly written.

That whole scene where Shepard and Anderson walk on their way to the defence comittee is just obnoxious. Shepard is a jerk and Anderson is a jerk. They're both incredibly ignorant and it feels like the dialogue is just as much about making Shepard seem like this "cool and edgy" protagonist as it is about setting up the story. Then there's the scene with the defence committee. I thought it was terrible the first time I played the demo in feburary last year, but it just gets worse every time I see it. That defence comittee is awfully underdeveloped and place-holder-ish because they just seem like they're three idiots who just sit on their chair doing nothing all day. Everything in the writing in the scene with the defence committee is just so superficial.

Comittee chairman: "The reports coming in are unlike anything we've ever seen before . . . Then... how do we stop them?"
Shepard: "Stop them...? This isn't about strategy or tactics, this is about survival! ...The Reapers don't fear us, and they'll never take pity on us." ...and yada yada. I just keep thinking, why is shepard saying all this? Is he just trying to scare them?

Then you meet the child, and his dialogue is completely omniscent. I could swear he was written by David Cage for a while.

Child: *omniscient and solemn* "You can't help me"
Mac: "So emotional!"

And then minutes later you're on your way to Mars, you get the call from hackett.
"Before you go to the citadel I want you to go to the Prothean Archives on Mars, where Dr. Liara T'Soni has been researching. They believe they've found a way to...*interference* the Reapers... ONLY way to stop them"

James: "This is Loco! What do you think we're gonna find in there?"
Shepard. "I don't know... but if it helps us win this war..."

Again... this is literally minutes after you left earth. You still have only a faint idea of what the scope of the Reaper attacks have been. How fast are they making their assaults, are they attacking beyond the Sol system? etc.

WHY do all the characters insist on using the term "war" so early on in the game? I would've used "struggle" or "invasion", but "war"? I don't disagree that there's a war brewing, but so far the Reapers are just obliterating everything and it's more like a terror attack at this point. The war needed more development before everyone started talking about it as if it's been raging on for years.

The writing is just so... "in your face" and there's almost no sense of Show-don't-tell, and it just kills me!

/rant.

Just wanted to add in this perspective and I believe it goes hand in hand with someone's statement in here that the ending was not THE thing that just made people hate the game, but rather it was the final nail in the coffin.

We'd have forgiven the other flaws if the ending had been a better conclusion or had made more sense to justify various flaws, but because the ending fell so flat, we're left with all the other crap in the game that is also bad, and it just doesn't add up to be a particularly likable experience... at least not for me (only talking about ME3 here though)

[AlanC9]

Linkenski wrote...

Just wanted to stress that I decided to replay ME3 on PS3 starting with the Genesis comic thingy. (--because now my PC version, which I beat 5 times last year, says "The Mass Effect 3 server is not available at this time. Please try again later" basically making it unplayable--)

Yeah, Origin should akways be left offline.Sort of the opposite of the design intent.

[AlanC9]

Linkenski wrote...
Again... this is literally minutes after you left earth. You still have only a faint idea of what the scope of the Reaper attacks have been. How fast are they making their assaults, are they attacking beyond the Sol system? etc.

WHY do all the characters insist on using the term "war" so early on in the game? I would've used "struggle" or "invasion", but "war"? I don't disagree that there's a war brewing, but so far the Reapers are just obliterating everything and it's more like a terror attack at this point. The war needed more development before everyone started talking about it as if it's been raging on for years.

I don't follow this. It isn't a war yet?

[Linkenski]

I know it sounds silly, but I think the characters are too quick on being all dramatic about it being a War.

I know Shepard and those who believed him were ready for the fact that the Reapers would not stop as soon as they'd launched their first major strike, but somehow I always feel like there's a kind of disconnect in the game when Shepard says that aboard the shuttle on the way to Mars. I remember shuddering everytime I heard them call it "war" in the first couple of hours.

I guess I think the game should've had more buildup before the war broke out.

And btw. ME3 is now unplayable in offline mode at least for me. I disabled my network card, but now it says "origin is no longer running, closing the game now." when I'm offline so there's absolutely no way to play the game with any of my DLC now.