407 réponses à ce sujet

[Obadiah]

I always thought it was good. The original ending was one of those the-story-never-ends type of finales which I understood.

Reaper War ended, Shep died, done.

@Barquiel Hell, I liked the ending of NWN2 as well. That's when the delicate sad intro tune for the game suddenly made sense.

Modifié par Obadiah, 25 novembre 2013 - 01:55 .

[Daemul]

Barquiel wrote...

Daemul wrote...

Never, the ending never bothered me, so I really don't care. Besides, when you've played as many video games as I have and have seen many horrid video game endings along the way, newer games need to have really outrageously bad endings to register on my radar. ME3's ending wasn't even a blip, it was just an average video game ending.

Seriously, people should be thanking their lucky stars that ME3 has an average ending, because believe you me it could have been far worse, faaarrrrrr worse.

I never hated the endings as much as some others do, but I can't think of many video game endings that were more controversial than Mass Effect 3's. The NWN2 (oc) ending was worse, I guess. Rocks fall, everyone dies...there was a lot of frustration and anger. The BG2:TOB ending also left me depressed because they killed my favorite character in the epilogue

Star Ocean 3 has one of the worst video game ending I have ever seen, I had explained why in my post which I lost and I can't be bothered typing it all up again, but look it up, you'll understand.

Rage's ending literally made me Rage, the credits came from nowhere, the devs didn;t even try with that one. 

Ghostbusters on the NES is my worst though, not just because of the ending, but mainly because it was a terrible game which was overhyped as something awesome but wasn't at all, the ending was just an insult and showed the devs delusion. Check it out here

[Wayning_Star]

Changes to YouTube comments


Smarter sorting
See more from people you know.
Meaningful conversations
New threaded format and +mentions encourage discussion.
In more places
Comments appear from both YouTube and Google+.

Learn more about our new comments.

[Clayless]

dreamgazer wrote...

Also, people just like to talk about things, David.  They enjoy debating. Pure. Simple.

That's not true.

I remember this one thread, a few months back, it asked people who liked the ending to explain how synthesis "wasn't evil". I was optimistic. Despite the clear bias in the title it looked like people who hated the ending were ready to debate, to talk about it without screeching that they hated it and refusing any debate that went further than "Destroy is da best just cause" or "I chose MEHEM".

Boy how wrong was I. There was so much denial that other endings were equally as, if not more, good than destroy that at least 2 or 3 people point blank denied things that happened in Synthesis, if it made it look remotely good. Despite having a thread designed for debate people would go to the extent of refusig to acknowledge elements of Synthesis, just to give them an excuse not to debate.

What would happen today if I made a thread like that? Inviting people to discuss the repercussions of each endings, the positives and the negatives? How long before people just refuse to take part and derail it with hatred because they don't like the endings?

I live in hope that those people leave. Move on. Do something more productive. Because there are those of us that would actually like to talk about the endings, or the series, without the same people screeching day in, day out.

Modifié par Robosexual, 25 novembre 2013 - 12:10 .

[ShadowLordXII]

The Ending officially sucked for me as soon as the StarChild showed up and caused the plot to collapse in on itself.
But before then, the last mission had warning signs at certain points.
1) Reapers capturing the Citadel off-screen and moving it to Earth. So Shepard gets the whole fleet to attack the reapers head on instead of using the Conduit on Illos.
2) Priority: Earth was more of an endurance mission with Shepard shouldering all of the work despite having an army of krogan, geth, rachni, elcor and the might of the galaxy "behind" him.
3) Harbinger sitting there and letting Shepard say good-bye to his squad instead of blasting the Normandy to kingdom come.
4) How did Shepard survive a reaper blast? How did Anderson get to the Control Panel and where did the IM come from?

Then Shepard wakes up in a new room and I had single thought running through my mind when I heard the StarChild speak these lines:

"The Citadel, it is my home...I am the Catalyst...The Citadel is part of me...I control the reapers, they are my solution...The Created will always seek to destroy their creators..."

My internal thought? "This is gonna suck."

[dreamgazer]

Robosexual wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Also, people just like to talk about things, David.  They enjoy debating. Pure. Simple.

That's not true.

I remember this one thread, a few months back, it asked people who liked the ending to explain how synthesis "wasn't evil". I was optimistic. Despite the clear bias in the title it looked like people who hated the ending were ready to debate, to talk about it without screeching that they hated it and refusing any debate that went further than "Destroy is da best just cause" or "I chose MEHEM".

Boy how wrong was I. There was so much denial that other endings were equally as, if not more, good than destroy that at least 2 or 3 people point blank denied things that happened in Synthesis, if it made it look remotely good. Despite having a thread designed for debate people would go to the extent of refusig to acknowledge elements of Synthesis, just to give them an excuse not to debate.

What would happen today if I made a thread like that? Inviting people to discuss the repercussions of each endings, the positives and the negatives? How long before people just refuse to take part and derail it with hatred because they don't like the endings?

I live in hope that those people leave. Move on. Do something more productive. Because there are those of us that would actually like to talk about the endings, or the series, without the same people screeching day in, day out.

Not likely to happen, but that doesn't mean everybody feels this way.   People do, indeed, just like to talk. 

There are certain topics that never really survive wrath on the subject's core dicussion boards, though, even if the fanbase is wildly overreacting to them. 

[Wayning_Star]

ShadowLordXII wrote...

The Ending officially sucked for me as soon as the StarChild showed up and caused the plot to collapse in on itself.
But before then, the last mission had warning signs at certain points.
1) Reapers capturing the Citadel off-screen and moving it to Earth. So Shepard gets the whole fleet to attack the reapers head on instead of using the Conduit on Illos.
2) Priority: Earth was more of an endurance mission with Shepard shouldering all of the work despite having an army of krogan, geth, rachni, elcor and the might of the galaxy "behind" him.
3) Harbinger sitting there and letting Shepard say good-bye to his squad instead of blasting the Normandy to kingdom come.
4) How did Shepard survive a reaper blast? How did Anderson get to the Control Panel and where did the IM come from?

Then Shepard wakes up in a new room and I had single thought running through my mind when I heard the StarChild speak these lines:

"The Citadel, it is my home...I am the Catalyst...The Citadel is part of me...I control the reapers, they are my solution...The Created will always seek to destroy their creators..."

My internal thought? "This is gonna suck."

I always kind of liked the kid, kind of expected some sort of inexplicable character to evolve from the underlying mystification of the reaperships and their side kick collectors and other races, such as keepers. I do wish that the writers would've extrapolated on them tho. Leviathan just plain wasn't enough to explain the crucible virtuosity..

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Robosexual wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Also, people just like to talk about things, David.  They enjoy debating. Pure. Simple.

That's not true.

I remember this one thread, a few months back, it asked people who liked the ending to explain how synthesis "wasn't evil". I was optimistic. Despite the clear bias in the title it looked like people who hated the ending were ready to debate, to talk about it without screeching that they hated it and refusing any debate that went further than "Destroy is da best just cause" or "I chose MEHEM".

Boy how wrong was I. There was so much denial that other endings were equally as, if not more, good than destroy that at least 2 or 3 people point blank denied things that happened in Synthesis, if it made it look remotely good. Despite having a thread designed for debate people would go to the extent of refusig to acknowledge elements of Synthesis, just to give them an excuse not to debate.

What would happen today if I made a thread like that? Inviting people to discuss the repercussions of each endings, the positives and the negatives? How long before people just refuse to take part and derail it with hatred because they don't like the endings?

I live in hope that those people leave. Move on. Do something more productive. Because there are those of us that would actually like to talk about the endings, or the series, without the same people screeching day in, day out.

To me, it just sounds like you want everyone who doesn't agree with you to leave. 

[Mr.House]

Robosexual wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Also, people just like to talk about things, David.  They enjoy debating. Pure. Simple.

That's not true.

I remember this one thread, a few months back, it asked people who liked the ending to explain how synthesis "wasn't evil". I was optimistic. Despite the clear bias in the title it looked like people who hated the ending were ready to debate, to talk about it without screeching that they hated it and refusing any debate that went further than "Destroy is da best just cause" or "I chose MEHEM".

Boy how wrong was I. There was so much denial that other endings were equally as, if not more, good than destroy that at least 2 or 3 people point blank denied things that happened in Synthesis, if it made it look remotely good. Despite having a thread designed for debate people would go to the extent of refusig to acknowledge elements of Synthesis, just to give them an excuse not to debate.

What would happen today if I made a thread like that? Inviting people to discuss the repercussions of each endings, the positives and the negatives? How long before people just refuse to take part and derail it with hatred because they don't like the endings?

I live in hope that those people leave. Move on. Do something more productive. Because there are those of us that would actually like to talk about the endings, or the series, without the same people screeching day in, day out.

Translation: If people don't agree with me, they should leave.

[NeonFlux117]

I thought the entire London segment was a bit weak. Cronos was pretty decent, but London felt.... Off. Very off and anti climatic. Then it completely went of the rails after Harby nuked Shepard.

But my interpretation explains these things.

But still...... It ain't my story, it's bioware's. And if they intend to never expand on the "Shepard incident"-(Walters words not mine), then I guess like.

Cool story bro. I'll pass on everything Mass Effect/BioWare for the foreseeable future. Maybe the MP for the next game will be sick, I mean it is Frostbite 3, so the MP should be good and look good.

Maybe I'll get it for that.

[Clayless]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

To me, it just sounds like you want everyone who doesn't agree with you to leave. 

To me, it just sounds like you can't read.

Modifié par Robosexual, 25 novembre 2013 - 01:40 .

[ShadowLordXII]

Wayning_Star wrote...

I always kind of liked the kid, kind of expected some sort of inexplicable character to evolve from the underlying mystification of the reaperships and their side kick collectors and other races, such as keepers. I do wish that the writers would've extrapolated on them tho. Leviathan just plain wasn't enough to explain the crucible virtuosity..

If the Starbrat was implemented in a way that didn't invalidate the plot to ME1 in regards to Sovereign and the Citadel Dark Relay, then it could've worked.

With the way that they did though...you have to ask why the Starbrat didn't open the Dark Relay itself instead of relying on Sovereign or the keepers? The only two possible answers can be summarized as either he couldn't or he wouldn't and neither of them make sense based on the game's narrative or the info that we know about the Starbrat:
He designed the Citadel, built it and the mass relays, lives in the citadel and he's part of the citadel;
He also controls the reapers and acts as their collective consciousness;
The reapers are his "essential" solution to the percieved inevitable and destructive conflict between organic and synthetic life.

Which also destroys the already fragile narrative grounding that the Crucible had to begin with because whoever first designed it also had to have been aware of the Starbrat. But Shepard is reportedly the first organic to reach him since the cycles began. Which means that it had to have been the Leviathans or the keepers who designed the Crucible, but the EC (Made for the purpose of clarity and closure) handwaves the topic instead of giving a simple answer like:

Shepard: Who designed it?
Starbrat: The Keepers, before they were repurposed.

How hard would that have been?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Robosexual wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

To me, it just sounds like you want everyone who doesn't agree with you to leave. 

To me, it just sounds like you can't read.

To me, this sounds like a personal attack. 

Reported.

[Mcfly616]

It depends.

Original endings: the endings were never good to me. Too many gaps in consciousness. When did it start being weird/bad? During the beam run when I looked behind me and my LI and best bud were just chillin at the top of the hill as I charged to my imminent death. Then it just got even more weird from there


I love the Extended Cut, though. In truth, I hated it two weeks before it came out. Because that's when we all figured out that it was just going to be an extension of the original endings (literally). So I wrote it off immediately. I didn't allow myself to get hopeful until I saw the dialogue wheel pop up when I reached the Catalyst. But, I wasn't completely sold until the credits rolled on the 4th time through....that's when I noticed that I liked each and every ending, as opposed to hating each and every one.


I like the beam run. I like the Catalyst convo. I like the extended version of "An End Once and For All". I like the slides that show me all the different ways my Shepard had an effect on the galaxy. Most importantly, it made sense (imo).


I also think of Cronos Station and Priority Earth to be the "Final Mission", much like how the Suicide Mission is the final mission of ME2. Many people tend to see the two as separate missions. But in reality the point of no return is Cronos Station. So, I see it as one big mission. After all, I don't look at the arrival through the Omega 4 relay and the Collector Base as two separate missions.

Modifié par Mcfly616, 25 novembre 2013 - 02:49 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

I thought the ending failed starting with Hackett's speech prior to landing on Earth. Really, all of priority Earth was terrible, barring the companion conversations which were quite good.

[AlanC9]

ShadowLordXII wrote...
With the way that they did though...you have to ask why the Starbrat didn't open the Dark Relay itself instead of relying on Sovereign or the keepers? The only two possible answers can be summarized as either he couldn't or he wouldn't and neither of them make sense based on the game's narrative or the info that we know about the Starbrat:
He designed the Citadel, built it and the mass relays, lives in the citadel and he's part of the citadel;
He also controls the reapers and acts as their collective consciousness;
The reapers are his "essential" solution to the percieved inevitable and destructive conflict between organic and synthetic life.

What's wrong with "he couldn't"? The whole premise of ME has always been that the prothean scientists broke stuff and the cycle didn't happen. Putting the Catalyst on the Citadel doesn't change anything except what they broke, and we never knew what they broke.

[Clayless]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

To me, it just sounds like you want everyone who doesn't agree with you to leave. 

To me, it just sounds like you can't read.

To me, this sounds like a personal attack. 

Reported.

You're looking for attacks where there are none, you're baiting for attacks and receiving none. If you try to twist words in something you most likely don't believe, and comment on something without a question and no relevance, don't be surprised when you get responses you don't like.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

AlanC9 wrote...

ShadowLordXII wrote...
With the way that they did though...you have to ask why the Starbrat didn't open the Dark Relay itself instead of relying on Sovereign or the keepers? The only two possible answers can be summarized as either he couldn't or he wouldn't and neither of them make sense based on the game's narrative or the info that we know about the Starbrat:
He designed the Citadel, built it and the mass relays, lives in the citadel and he's part of the citadel;
He also controls the reapers and acts as their collective consciousness;
The reapers are his "essential" solution to the percieved inevitable and destructive conflict between organic and synthetic life.

What's wrong with "he couldn't"? The whole premise of ME has always been that the prothean scientists broke stuff and the cycle didn't happen. Putting the Catalyst on the Citadel doesn't change anything except what they broke, and we never knew what they broke.

Because it's idiotic, in its conception. Given the Reapers' apparent level of technological advancement, what's the ultimate difference between having the Keepers activate some set of functions to turn on the relay vs. programming the Catalyst? This is something the narrative does not address.

Previous Bioware efforts would drown the player in extra exposition which, while not always 100% sensible, gave the impression that the writers were at least trying to make what the characters were doing seem plausible. ME3 omits this, making Shepard half-conscious, and leaving any useful exposition as to the nature of the Catalyst out. Really, this was the point to lay all their cards out on the table.

Edit: Just to add, it's the same basic problem with the Reapers magically being able to move the Citadel wherever they want, as the narrative demands it. Sure, as players we can invent explanations for all these things. But from a writing standpoint, I'm doing the author's job. The inclusion of the Catalyst in the Citadel feels much like the Reapers' sudden ability to push the Citadel anywhere they want.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 25 novembre 2013 - 03:04 .

[Mcfly616]

AlanC9 wrote...

ShadowLordXII wrote...
With the way that they did though...you have to ask why the Starbrat didn't open the Dark Relay itself instead of relying on Sovereign or the keepers? The only two possible answers can be summarized as either he couldn't or he wouldn't and neither of them make sense based on the game's narrative or the info that we know about the Starbrat:
He designed the Citadel, built it and the mass relays, lives in the citadel and he's part of the citadel;
He also controls the reapers and acts as their collective consciousness;
The reapers are his "essential" solution to the percieved inevitable and destructive conflict between organic and synthetic life.

What's wrong with "he couldn't"? The whole premise of ME has always been that the prothean scientists broke stuff and the cycle didn't happen. Putting the Catalyst on the Citadel doesn't change anything except what they broke, and we never knew what they broke.

what AlanC said. Plus, "it couldn't" is a totally logical answer. The Reapers, Keepers, Collectors, Indoctrinated agents are nothing but an extension of the Catalyst. It's completely possible it can't operate without its thralls.

[AlanC9]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
Because it's idiotic, in its conception. Given the Reapers' apparent level of technological advancement, what's the ultimate difference between having the Keepers activate some set of functions to turn on the relay vs. programming the Catalyst? This is something the narrative does not address.

Wait..... that was my point. It doesn't matter what activated the Citadel Relay and let the Reapers return. All Shepard knows is that it didn't happen.

Modifié par AlanC9, 25 novembre 2013 - 03:13 .

[SiniisteR]

I finished ME3 for the first time with the EC, so there wasn't really anything there to make the ending bad for me. While I could sort of tell during Priority Earth that it had been rushed, mostly due to how the dialogue through it had much less space between lines than it normally would, the rest of the ending was fine.

The catalyst's logic of "Synthetics vs Organics" made sense to me, mostly due to not being able to achieve peace on Rannoch, as well as Javiks mentioning of the Protheans synthetics revolting.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

AlanC9 wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
Because it's idiotic, in its conception. Given the Reapers' apparent level of technological advancement, what's the ultimate difference between having the Keepers activate some set of functions to turn on the relay vs. programming the Catalyst? This is something the narrative does not address.

Wait..... that was my point. It doesn't matter what activated the Citadel Relay and let the Reapers return. All Shepard knows is that it didn't happen.

Which is fine, from an in character standpoint, but does nothing to save the story on a narrative level. We are experiencing the story as players, not simply as Shepard.

But my point is that, on a narrative level, since the writers chose to go the Catalyst lives in the Citadel route, it does not come off as believable that he/it would not have the capability to fully turn on/off this relay, given that he has control of the Reapers. I'm suggesting that we can't simply handwave this as "maybe the Catalyst couldn't activate the Citadel". The writing needs to give us more to go on. Bioware games are somewhat notorious for excessive exposition, but here I think it was pretty necessary, given that it throws out questions about ME1's entire premise.

[rapscallioness]

dreamgazer wrote...

I definitely wish they would have visualized/utilized war assets better.

yeah. this. just this, for me. everything else I could deal with. you know, okay. sure. sure. but this is the part i was actually disappointed about.  i would have loved to have seen it.

[Slayer299]

It was when Priority Earth very started, from there on it seemed to go straight down hill to a generic cookie-cutter shooter. I kept waiting for the SM epicness to hit and it was nowhere to be seen...and well, the glow-kid, that was final nail in the coffin...

Modifié par Slayer299, 25 novembre 2013 - 04:44 .