The Ending we all wanted for the Mass Effect trilogy?
#76
Posté 13 mai 2014 - 06:21
- Iakus aime ceci
#77
Posté 13 mai 2014 - 06:24
Or, as someone who disagrees very strongly with Javik...
Virtue is cheap in ME. If you act heroically, you will never ever have to pay gor it in any significant way. Save the Council? There are fewer casualties and everyone loves you. And the pattern keeps repeating. If there are downsides, they are largely confined to throwaway news reports. You don't have to work any harder to be good or sacrifice anythinh that's important beyond three people willing to die. This is dishonest. Being good is hard. Sometimes you will lose or pay more for it. You want to keep your honor? Refuse. And yes, watch everything die. Or Destroy (which falls within just war theory).
I do a lot of 'good' because the game tells me it's more practical. I get the better result doing it. I'm not adverse to doing the bad things when they get me my result, but it's just not economical.
I think we'd disagree on what we value. I place value in the goal, the result. You place it in the virtue, the action of achieving the goal. Or, more precisely, we place our virtues in other things. If I have attained my goal, I have maintained my principle. If you have attained your goal but sacrificed your honor, then you haven't kept your principle.
#78
Posté 13 mai 2014 - 06:24
But the endings to ME3 take it beyond the pale. Screwing with the entire galaxy because no matter how much of a difference I made, it doesn't make any difference in the end?
Again, what did you expect?
Almost everything you do is acknowledged in the game one way or another, be it in the ending or during the game itself. You seem to expect an ending that was custom made for your Shepard.
- JamesFaith aime ceci
#79
Posté 13 mai 2014 - 06:29
Again, what did you expect?
Almost everything you do is acknowledged in the game one way or another, be it in the ending or during the game itself. You seem to expect an ending that was custom made for your Shepard.
I expect at least one ending I'd find acceptable.
- CrutchCricket et Ryriena aiment ceci
#80
Posté 13 mai 2014 - 06:36
Props to whoever made it, for taking the time and effort, but despite my problems with the ending, that doesn't solve them.
Also couldn't shake the constant feeling of watching ME: Robot Chicken-style.....
#81
Posté 13 mai 2014 - 06:38
I expect at least one ending I'd find acceptable.
Yup
#82
Posté 13 mai 2014 - 07:13
I expect at least one ending I'd find acceptable.
And you don't. Tough luck for you. Go play a different game, or go play outside.
You know this has nothing to do with 'your choices not mattering' (which is utter bs). Again, it all boils down to the fact you can't accept Shepard dies.
And somehow, you can't get over that, but you are perfectly fine with the Zombie Jesus ressurection nonsense that goes on between ME1 and ME2.
Of all the stuff I've seen discussed here as being 'impossible', from Synthesis to the Mako after the Conduit, everybody just happily steps over Jesus 2.0.
#83
Posté 13 mai 2014 - 07:32
And you don't. Tough luck for you. Go play a different game, or go play outside.
Sorry, it's raining out ![]()
You know this has nothing to do with 'your choices not mattering' (which is utter bs). Again, it all boils down to the fact you can't accept Shepard dies.
...no matter what choice I make
And somehow, you can't get over that, but you are perfectly fine with the Zombie Jesus ressurection nonsense that goes on between ME1 and ME2.
Of all the stuff I've seen discussed here as being 'impossible', from Synthesis to the Mako after the Conduit, everybody just happily steps over Jesus 2.0.
Oh dear.
Does anyone else who's been here for a while want to set him straight on my views concerning the Lazarus Project? Or should I?
- Ryriena aime ceci
#84
Posté 13 mai 2014 - 07:46
#85
Posté 13 mai 2014 - 07:49
Just because I'm not anti makes me pro. I expected better from someone who's defending Cerberus everywhere.
What's does me saying that you're a pro-ender (which is questionable) and irritating (not questionable) have anything to do with me or Cerberus? That's poisoning the well.
#86
Posté 13 mai 2014 - 07:50
And no matter how my Shepard feels about Cerberus, I'm still forced to work with them. It's part of the story, just like Shepard's death is. You don't like it, I get, we all get it, but that's the story.
Just like I am forced to allow Garrus into my party after I save Dr. Michel.
Just like I am forced to disagree with Wrex, no matter how much I might feel that a Genophage cure is a good thing.
And then a dozen more such examples.
YOu're acting like I disagree with all those examples.
But with the end choice, that's the final state of the galaxy. And Shepard. That gives it greater weight
You don't nearly talk about that as much as you end up whining about Shepard's death in just about every topic on here
Should have seen me on the ME2 boards back in the day. Heck disappointment in ME2 is what brought me to these boards.
#87
Posté 13 mai 2014 - 08:03
YOu're acting like I disagree with all those examples.
Wasn't my intention. My point was that you're railroaded and forced into things all the time because the story demands so. This story just happens to demand Shepard's death. Might be sad and unpleasant, but that's just how it is.
Should have seen me on the ME2 boards back in the day. Heck disappointment in ME2 is what brought me to these boards.
Wasn't here back then.
The bolded is where you and I differ as people. I came to these boards because I love the entire trilogy.
But with the end choice, that's the final state of the galaxy. And Shepard. That gives it greater weight
And that´s the reason BW thought he needed to die. Not saying I agree with that btw, but that´s just how it is.
very offtopic: is there something like a command (bb code, html) to make a quote? The way I make posts like these now is terribly work loaded ![]()
also.. some posts seem to have gotten lost o.O
#88
Posté 13 mai 2014 - 08:52
Claims to love the trilogy. Doesn't seem to be bothered the trilogy takes a dive in quality at the so called third installment and then completely falls apart at the end.(...)
Wasn't here back then.
The bolded is where you and I differ as people. I came to these boards because I love the entire trilogy.
I'm sorry, it may be rude and an oversimplification but I'm going to say it: anyone who is even remotely okay with these endings either doesn't care about Mass Effect, or plays it wrong. Maybe they just like shooting stuff.
Firstly, even BioWare admitted Shepard doesn't die in the destroy ending, but since the ending is just a collection of random loosely connected scenes, that doesn't carry much weight. Secondly, concluding that the protagonist's death somehow adds weight to anything is submitting to the fallacy which equals dark with profound. It doesn't. This is a brilliant example of adding unnecessary, uncalled for drama for the sake of drama. It's not profound, it's not symbolic, Mass Effect isn't a tragedy, and Shepard isn't a tragic figure.And that´s the reason BW thought he needed to die. Not saying I agree with that btw, but that´s just how it is.
- CrutchCricket et Ryriena aiment ceci
#89
Posté 13 mai 2014 - 09:10
Me: I died and got brought back yay and no this is going to be one of my character becoming space Jesus plot ugh.
#90
Posté 13 mai 2014 - 09:24
Should have seen me on the ME2 boards back in the day. Heck disappointment in ME2 is what brought me to these boards.
That makes me kinda curious why you even bought ME3.
Claims to love the trilogy. Doesn't seem to be bothered the trilogy takes a dive in quality at the so called third installment and then completely falls apart at the end.
I'm sorry, it may be rude and an oversimplification but I'm going to say it: anyone who is even remotely okay with these endings either doesn't care about Mass Effect, or plays it wrong. Maybe they just like shooting stuff.
Come on man, don't go around saying stuff like that. I'd rather this place not get back to its worst points.
#91
Posté 13 mai 2014 - 09:40
That makes me kinda curious why you even bought ME3.
Come on man, don't go around saying stuff like that. I'd rather this place not get back to its worst points.
For me, I wanted too see the end of Shepard's story thats all but I didn't think it would turn out that badly written.
#92
Posté 13 mai 2014 - 09:47
Claims to love the trilogy. Doesn't seem to be bothered the trilogy takes a dive in quality at the so called third installment and then completely falls apart at the end.
I'm sorry, it may be rude and an oversimplification but I'm going to say it: anyone who is even remotely okay with these endings either doesn't care about Mass Effect, or plays it wrong. Maybe they just like shooting stuff.
You're wrong. On everything. I love Mass Effect (why else would I even be here? to annoy you?), and I don't like shooting things. I haven't played a shooter in years.. except ME2. That game tricked me into thinking it was an RPG.
Firstly, even BioWare admitted Shepard doesn't die in the destroy ending, but since the ending is just a collection of random loosely connected scenes, that doesn't carry much weight. Secondly, concluding that the protagonist's death somehow adds weight to anything is submitting to the fallacy which equals dark with profound. It doesn't. This is a brilliant example of adding unnecessary, uncalled for drama for the sake of drama. It's not profound, it's not symbolic, Mass Effect isn't a tragedy, and Shepard isn't a tragic figure.
I'm not claiming anywhere that it add's weight, nor that it's profound or symbolic. Nowhere. You're assuming I put any kind of meaning to Shepard's death. I do not. It's just a part of the story I have been replaying for the last couple of years.
When you were a little kid, did you play board games? And was there this one guy that always came up with their own rules to 'make the game better'?
You're that guy.
#93
Posté 13 mai 2014 - 10:02
I'm sorry, it may be rude and an oversimplification but I'm going to say it: anyone who is even remotely okay with these endings either doesn't care about Mass Effect, or plays it wrong. Maybe they just like shooting stuff.
Wouldn't go that far. I'd simply say it appeals to a very narrow set of playstyles. If it does happen to appeal to someone, then that person simply got lucky. Everyone else was "doing it wrong" as far as Bioware was concerned.
- Ryriena aime ceci
#94
Posté 13 mai 2014 - 10:04
That makes me kinda curious why you even bought ME3.
Almost didn't actually. Waffled back and forth, especially when the MP component got leaked.
In the end 1) I wanted to see how things wrapped up and 2) I bought the hype about how everything would come together. Rachni, squadmates, romances, "No A, B, and C endings" etc. Bioware has made amazing games in the past, and hoped ME2 was an anomaly and they could still course-correct
BElieve me I feel very burned. If I knew back in 2007 how the trilogy would end, I never would have gotten invested to begin with
- Ryriena aime ceci
#95
Posté 13 mai 2014 - 10:09
Everyone else was "doing it wrong" as far as Bioware was concerned.
Clearly we are philistines who cannot fully appreciate the self-evident merits of their fine "art".
#96
Posté 13 mai 2014 - 10:10
Wouldn't go that far. I'd simply say it appeals to a very narrow set of playstyles. If it does happen to appeal to someone, then that person simply got lucky. Everyone else was "doing it wrong" as far as Bioware was concerned.
Am I really the only one here who just witnesses the endings?
I don't have any particular feelings about them, they're just part of the story, for me. If I had felt they were really, really bad though, I would never have replayed the trilogy. That doesn't mean I like them, or that they appeal to me in some way.
An honest question: when you play a game... do you constantly think: "oh I wish I could've done that... but I can't" all the time? Because that stuff only happens to me on the 2nd, 3rd or later playthroughs. But I get a feeling that a lot of people here seem to focus on what they can't do or what's not happening all the time.
#97
Guest_xray16_*
Posté 13 mai 2014 - 10:20
Guest_xray16_*
There's a number of Arthur C Carke's ideas buried in aspects of the ME trilogy (probably inadvertently - although it'd be nice if it were more deliberate.. the Geth clearly owe a lot to Asimov). With thoughts of the 2001 series specifically and the Control ending.
As a slight aside - the Lazarus project of ME2 is actually very similar to what happens to Frank Poole - the character "killed" by HAL in 2001 when his suit decompresses while outside the USS Discovery as it approaches Jupiter (an attack caused by the malfunctioning AI HAL due to the conflicting secret orders issued to him before launch by the ISA). in 3001 he is recovered and his freeze-dried-preserved body is re-animated by sufficiently advanced medical science and (doubtless) nanotech... (from a narrative standpoint an effective way to discuss how society and technology may have advanced in 1000 years from what we understand now).
Sound familiar?
Now, back on point - the "control" ending of ME3 (after the extended cut) echoes to 2010 Odyssey two - and then later both 2061 and 3001.
While what happens to Bowman at the end of 2001 is vague to say the least - in 2010 the apparition of David Bowman states: "I remember Dave Bowman, and everything about him".
In 2061 it is revealed that the monolith is/contains esentially a higher-order super-computer capable of copying and patterning the information contained within any system - even a human brain. The Bowman that appears on the Discovery to warn the Leonov away from Jupiter before it detonates to become "Lucifer" is effectively a software copy of the original Bowman. In 2061 it is revealed that HAL was also copied by the monolith. The real "HAL" was lost in 2010 when the Discovery was destroyed by the shockwave as Jupiter was detonated by the Monoliths to create a dwarf star (Lucifer) in order to "nurture" emerging life on Europa.
By the final installment of the series - 3001- the two software "imprints" of HAL and Bowman which resided within the monolith originally orbiting Jupiter/Lucifer have merged into a single construct within the Monolith - an entity refered to as "Halman" - the unanticipated fusion of them both.
Of course by then the actual creators of the Monoliths - a truly type III civilization - have had a chance to review the reports they've been receiving from their scouts ~450 light years away and don't like what they've heard (especially since 2061.... remember "all these worlds are yours except Europa... attempt no landing there - use them together - use them in peace"... whoops... ) - enough time having gone by for a response to reach the original Monoliths who start to take "corrective action" about the damage humanity has done to the solar system (to protect the other early-stage lifeforms independantly evolving elsewhere within it) - and erase the apparent "lost cause" of this branch of seeded sentient evolution.
As a literary aside -
There are several retcons within the 2001 series of stories - mostly to do with the timeline - at first glance embarassing for a body of work whose titles are expressed as dates! In large part this was needed due to differences in the rate at which technologies have advanced vs how Clarke predicted they would in an attempt to keep the series scientifically believeable. In 1968, given the rate of progress of space technology it was fairly natural to assume the trajectory of investment and innovation would continue, fuelled mainly by the cold war and superpower rivalry. Going from unmanned Sputnik in 1957 to Landing men on the moon in 1969... 12 years from ballistic missiles to manned interplanetary flight (a feat which remains unmatched half a century later).. it's easy to see how the authors and creatives of the time could project a future not too distant where space travel would be like air travel (in a way it's depressing thay everyone simply lost interest and gave up).
Clarke's probably not that far off with AI - HAL 9000 isn't quite there yet, but it likely wont be much more than a decade before that (publicly) happens. We're a much longer way off of the Lagrange stations and Clavius base, let alone any kind of NERVA-style nuclear thermal (or even DAEDELUS style fusion pulse detonation) engines for ships like the USS Discovery or the Alexei Leonov. Forget about ORION drives - it's do-able but the tech is so dangerous to develop that no sane government agency would allow it with all the crazies in the world right now. Hence most of Dyson's ORION work from the 60's remaining classified to this day. In a way the initial success of the Space Shuttle and the plans for the Strategic Defense Initiative (or SDI) killed the space race dead. Technology that the USSR (on top of everything else) basically couldn't afford, but without which would be left vulnerable. So for now humanity is stuck back within the first couple of hundered miles of the ground, with no funding or solid reason to go any further and find out whats really out there.
Apologies if this went too far off topic. I thought that the paralells to the literary series were relevant to eariler posts.
- AlanC9, Hadeedak et von uber aiment ceci
#98
Posté 13 mai 2014 - 11:56
Am I really the only one here who just witnesses the endings?
I don't have any particular feelings about them, they're just part of the story, for me. If I had felt they were really, really bad though, I would never have replayed the trilogy. That doesn't mean I like them, or that they appeal to me in some way.
Clearly I hold the story in higher importance than you.
An honest question: when you play a game... do you constantly think: "oh I wish I could've done that... but I can't" all the time? Because that stuff only happens to me on the 2nd, 3rd or later playthroughs. But I get a feeling that a lot of people here seem to focus on what they can't do or what's not happening all the time.
Sure. Sometimes. But ME3's ending was truly epic in its badness. This isn't "I wish I could have said that" This is "WTF am I forced to do to this galaxy?" In addition, it being at the end of the story means Shepard's fate and that of the galaxy as a whole are now frozen in that badness forever.
#99
Posté 14 mai 2014 - 12:04
I think that's part of the reason I was never too growly about the endings. I read a lot of older science fiction novels and short stories (ALL THE ASIMOV SHORT STORIES EVER, thank you) in high school, so I was primed for weird from the get-go.
Comparatively, it's pretty tame. And kind of interesting compared to the 'blow up the bad and party' of ME1 and ME2. Though the execution was lacking, especially in the vanilla version. As I've said time and time again, the one thing I absolutely love is that there's no real right or wrong option, and all of the four have strengths and weaknesses.
And let's be honest, it's hard for vidja games to convey the same things as books or movies. Every storytelling medium has strengths and weaknesses.
I also don't think I'm a bad fan or playing the game wrong. Shenkies, I'm still playing and enjoying the games all these years later, and I barely TOUCH vidja games. I'm a book human by habit, and when I video game outside of bioware games, it's usually limited to a certain monolithic MMO because PvP is fun. Or else watching my boytoy putz around with whatever's new and shiny this week.
- Obadiah aime ceci
#100
Posté 14 mai 2014 - 12:07
And let's be honest, it's hard for vidja games to convey the same things as books or movies. Every storytelling medium has strengths and weaknesses.
Then video games should stop trying to be books or movies.





Retour en haut







