135 réponses à ce sujet

[ImaginaryMatter]

StreetMagic wrote...

I like the original ending more. The EC one just raises more questions.

That reminds me of one of my more favorite quotes from reviews about the ending and the Extended Cut:

"The state of the ending has officially been upgraded from incoherent nonsense to coherent nonsense."

Which could be considered better or worse. I actually play the game with the EC installed on a seperate flash drive, so I can easily play through the ending with or without the EC; although my main reason for doing so is because I absolutely loathe the Normandy pickup scene, maybe more so than the ending or Kai Leng. Well, maybe just Kai Leng, I think my attitude on the ending lies closer to disappoinment than hatred.

Modifié par ImaginaryMatter, 30 janvier 2014 - 01:56 .

[dreamgazer]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

The ending was simply put, complete crap.

The one thing the past two years have shown, however, after seeing/reading fan alternatives and learning a bit more about Drew K.'s ideas for sacrificing humanity and making the Reapers actual good guys with the dark energy concept, is that it could have been much worse.

I'll be honest.

Not, really, no. I don't really feel that it could have been.

I seriously believe that the ME3 ending, as taken conceptually and presented narratively and thematically, was something of Ed Wood levels of ineptitude. Minus the charm.

If it's on the level of Ed Wood, then the above alternatives I posted would be things Ed Wood would probably reject. 

How would you feel about getting locked out of destroying the Reapers for not having above 85% Paragon morality?  

Dark energy speaks for itself, really. 

Modifié par dreamgazer, 30 janvier 2014 - 04:02 .

[KevShep]

Mcfly616 wrote...

KevShep wrote...

The Leviathan DLC makes the endings more of a mess then before because they make Synthesis the right ending 

No, it doesn't. It doesn't push the agenda of any specific ending.

I never got the Leviathan 

That explains a lot. 

the Leviathans say that they want to inslave the organics and that means that the only way to stop them is to pick synthesis.

I never got leviathan but i did see it on youtube so I know what it is about and what is said.

[KevShep]

AlanC9 wrote...

KevShep wrote...


I never got the Leviathan for many reasons but that is one of them. it also takes away any hope of head cannon and it takes all speculation out of it as there is only one chioce now with one hope for organics. This could be ok in having one right ending but the ending that they point to(synthesis) makes no sense what so ever in any way from any point of view period.

How can it be the right option and not make sense?

it does not make sense because the every idea of synthesis is stupid beyond words and therefor it makes no sense . Leviathan DLC suggests that the only way to stop the Leviathans from taking over the galaxy is to use synthesis...the right option makes no sense.

Modifié par KevShep, 30 janvier 2014 - 08:29 .

[KevShep]

removed

Modifié par KevShep, 30 janvier 2014 - 08:28 .

[AlexMBrennan]

Nope - the crucial issue is that Catalyst, who could have stopped the war at any point, arbitrarily let Shepard win in the end, killing any sense of achievement; e.g. Getting the quarians to make peace with the geth was neat but you needened have bothered since you still don't manage to figure out the crucible and catalyst lets you win anyway.

[AlanC9]

Fandango9641 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

The ending was simply put, complete crap.

The one thing the past two years have shown, however, after seeing/reading fan alternatives and learning a bit more about Drew K.'s ideas for sacrificing humanity and making the Reapers actual good guys with the dark energy concept, is that it could have been much worse.

I'll be honest.

Not, really, no. I don't really feel that it could have been.

I seriously believe that the ME3 ending, as taken conceptually and presented narratively and thematically, was something of Ed Wood levels of ineptitude. Minus the charm.

If it's on the level of Ed Wood, then the above alternatives I posted would be things Ed Wood would probably reject. 

How would you feel about getting locked out of destroying the Reapers for not having above 85% Paragon morality?  

Dark energy speaks for itself, really. 

And what do you think of our ending dreamgazer?

Presumably that it sucked less than the dark energy plot and that fan-made revision.

[AlanC9]

Hey, I was just trying to help you understand dreamgazer's post.

If you like, I could start making fun of you. But it's getting kind of late here. Can we take this up tomorrow?

Modifié par AlanC9, 30 janvier 2014 - 09:46 .

[AlanC9]

OK, but you should probably work up some better material. That "black leather jackets line" looks so whiny on its own that I can't do much to make it look silly. I mean, really... a personal attack out of the blue in response to a post that was answering your question? And what did dreamgazer have to do with it?

Modifié par AlanC9, 30 janvier 2014 - 09:55 .

[dreamgazer]

Fandango9641 wrote...

And what do you think of our ending dreamgazer?

I dislike more elements of its execution than I like, but I don't hate the concept and I feel the scorn from some is blown superiorly out of proportion.  And as I mentioned, it absolutely could have been worse.

Modifié par dreamgazer, 30 janvier 2014 - 02:12 .

[dreamgazer]

Fandango9641 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

And what do you think of our ending dreamgazer?

Presumably that it sucked less than the dark energy plot and that fan-made revision.

You and dreamgazer are so cool. Calling everybody out on their hate with your pithy one liners. Do you two have matching leather jackets?

My one-liners are far from pithy, and I don't look good in leather.

Trust me: having that opinion (Alan's description was accurate) doesn't make me "cool", here or anywhere, but I stand by it for the reasons previously listed and linked.

[dreamgazer]

Fandango9641 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

And what do you think of our ending dreamgazer?

I dislike more elements of its execution than I like, but I don't hate the concept and I feel the scorn from some is blown superiorly out of proportion.  And as I mentioned, it absolutely could have been worse.

And I think most of that scorn is entirely  justified. Indeed, to dismiss the reaction to the ending of ME3 so is to miss the point about the failures of the ending altogether. I didn't like it. Other people didn't like it. We have our reasons.

And I referenced justified reasons why it easily could have been worse. Your point? 

And please, don't play the "you don't understand" card. It's even more obnoxious from ending critics than ending supporters.

Why that's not good enough for the likes of you and Alan is a mystery to me and makes me wonder whether the casual indifference the pair of you continually project in attempting to put down those who disliked the conclusion to a 2 year old game isn’t entirely fake.

Fake? How so? I assure you that my position on the matter is entirely genuine.  Nice try, though.

Modifié par dreamgazer, 30 janvier 2014 - 02:59 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I honestly think the Dark Energy idea would have been better than the idea presented with the ending. Minus its supposed focus on morality (which would I'm fine with sacrificing most of humanity to the Reapers to overcome universal entropy or heat death), the concept fit much better than the singularity ending presented.

Also, Dream, worse is subjective. 

I don't personally think it could have gotten much worse than what we got. Conceptually and executionally, I'd have preferred Shepard choking on dirt after he tripped and fell out of the Normandy for the first time on Eden Prime to having such a disjoint in the series in the final minutes. Granted, more discord was always there, but it came to a head in ME3 imo.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 30 janvier 2014 - 03:02 .

[Br3admax]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I honestly think the Dark Energy idea would have been better than the idea presented with the ending.

Eh.

Minus its supposed focus on morality (which would I'm fine with sacrificing most of humanity to the Reapers to overcome universal entropy or heat death), the concept fit much better than the singularity ending presented.

It really doesn't. If the Reapers were so intent on trying to solve the "Dark Energy" problem, they probably shouldn't have left around the exact same technology that causes Dark Energy. They shouldn't be using an even larger source of this power just to land on planets. Or to move. The Reapers cause more Dark Energy than anyone, so the belief that they were attempting to stop it, and then stop the race they created to solve the problem for no reason just to start it over again makes no sense at all, especially considering the fact that they created all of the technology that causes Dark Energy. It makes even less sense than the reason given in ME3. 

Modifié par Br3ad, 30 janvier 2014 - 03:06 .

[dreamgazer]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Also, Dream, worse is subjective. 

Everything is subjective, of course, from taste in fiction and choice of romantic interest to morality. 

I subjectively think the garbage involving Commander "Villain" Shepard deciding whether to sacrifice humanity to the literal Reaper good guys because of techno-magic reasons is worse, as is an ending predetermined entirely on your alignment like the fan rewrite (seriously, everybody with a moral alignment of 84% paragon or lower get shafted). 

[Mathias]

If you have a good understanding of narrative structure, and not the type of person that just "accepts" whatever is told to you, then you'll very likely realize why the ending is awful on so many levels. I can respect the actual person who likes the ending, but I cannot respect their opinion on it, simply because it's not a respectable opinion. It's wrong. You can bring up subjectivity all you want, and from an artistic viewpoint it absolutely is subjective. But from an academic viewpoint, the ending is experimental and completely fails on that regard.

EDIT:

I mean seriously. In the Destroy ending Shepard is engulfed in an explosion, hit with a wave that shattered his implants, then is engulfed in an ever bigger explosion that occured in the entire presidium, and yet he somehow survives that?

How is that not bad writing to you?

Modifié par Mdoggy1214, 30 janvier 2014 - 03:26 .

[dreamgazer]

Fandango9641 wrote...


My point is that you continually refuse to acknowledge that the games conclusion was badly received by many, for many different reasons and for many good reasons. Follow?

I do?

I follow, and we've gone down the route of "reception" before.  I seem to remember you launching personal attacks at me then, too.  Are we going to repeat? Because, yeah I really don't have time for that.

As for the point about your fake indifference to the failures of ME3, I’ll leave it to the good people reading this thread to decide for themselves whether anyone as laid back and groovy as you should  (or indeed would)  spend quite so much time putting down those who continue to take issue with the game.

(laughs)

I honestly don't see where you're going with this, except to try and discredit my contradictory opinion (and the other things I do here).  I think it's sweet that you think I'm groovy, though. 

[Br3admax]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

If you have a good understanding of narrative structure, and not the type of person that just "accepts" whatever is told to you, then you'll very likely realize why the ending is awful on so many levels. I can respect the actual person who likes the ending, but I cannot respect their opinion on it, simply because it's not a respectable opinion. It's wrong. You can bring up subjectivity all you want, and from an artistic viewpoint it absolutely is subjective. But from an academic viewpoint, the ending is experimental and completely fails on that regard.

EDIT:

I mean seriously. In the Destroy ending Shepard is engulfed in an explosion, hit with a wave that shattered his implants, then is engulfed in an ever bigger explosion that occured in the entire presidium, and yet he somehow survives that?

How is that not bad writing to you?

Implying that we like the ending. What is with everyone assuming that if we don't want to raise holy hell, we like something. If we don't hate soemthing, we like it right? With us or against us? Am I getting you? 

[dreamgazer]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

I mean seriously. In the Destroy ending Shepard is engulfed in an explosion, hit with a wave that shattered his implants, then is engulfed in an ever bigger explosion that occured in the entire presidium, and yet he somehow survives that?

How is that not bad writing to you?

It's not great writing, that's for sure, but neither is OrganicShep surviving the direct hit from a huge piece of Sovereign's debris and smirking at it afterwards. Nor is Shepard's brain getting rebooted after death in Project Lazarus. 

Face it: the implausible happens in the Mass Effect universe, especially around CyborgShep and his survival.