989 réponses à ce sujet

[MrFob]

I'd have had the same reaction as you. I'm sure having Shepard die while killing the Reapers at that panel would have sparked some criticism about the lack of choices or the canon death, but I don't think it would be anywhere close to the fan reaction to the endings in March of 2012. The Catalyst and the scorched Earth galaxy were responsible for most of the ending backlash.

I agree, at least as far as I am concerned. In fact, I found that there is an easy way to test this. I just played through the trilogy with JAM (JohnP's Alternate MEHEM). The mod basically keeps the original endings with the catalyst but has Shepard survive and being rescued (visibly). It's really well made, flows flawlessly and you will barely recognize that there is a mod at work at all (so kudos to JohnP on that one).
However, it really made me realize that for me, Shep's death was not the problem of the endings at all. It really is the catalyst and it's conversation (well, actually it already starts with TIM's conversation). To me, this is the really jarring part. Even after a whole trilogy run, whether Shepard survives or not didn't make any difference for me, as I found out, using this mod.

EDIT: Just want to make clear that this is not a jibe against the mod. JAM is really cool and it made a lot of people very happy/ gave them the ending they wanted. It's just not for me.

[Linkenski]

The final TIM confrontation isn't very good either, but the logic of the ME Trilogy story isn't completely abandonded or broken fully before the Catalyst conversation when the theme shifts and the 3 choices you get are like Shepard accepting that "okay, this is all Synthetics and Organics business all of a sudden".

 

I think because the endings are so incoherent and always were that it made people point and accuse in different directions as to what exactly went wrong just in confusion, and most obviously that Shepard has to die. If his sacrifice didn't feel completely contrived we would've been more okay with it and we would've been grieving for different reasons.

[Valmar]

How can anyone conclude that synthetics will destroy ALL organics? If it has happened before, then no organic would be alive to tell about it. How can the Catalyst/Leviathans know that it is inevitable (without the Reapers to stop it)?

If that is the case though, wouldn't Shepard destroying the Reapers spell future doom for organics?

 

There were no mass relays back then. If an AI creation went haywire and killed all the organics on the planet that doesn't mean it would instantly be able to keep killing all organics in all of the universe. It would take time. Supposedly the Leviathan's always stepped in and cleaned up the mess somehow. If the reapers cared nothing about preserving organic life they COULD wipe it all out, couldn't they. They could make every world inhabitable to organics, they could snuff out all organic life if they wanted to. So clearly it is possible for an AI to reach that level of potential destruction, in the very least. No other creation or race has been able to come close to their level of strength, though.

 

They know the cycle of conflict exists because they have been alive examining and observing the entire galaxy for billions of years. They kept seeing the cycle happen time and time again. Organics create machine, machine turns on the creator, war breaks out. Apparently the majority of these outcomes resulted in the machines purging all life on the planet they are on. Afterall, what need for machines have for pesky organics. The Leviathans built the intelligence to come up with an solution, to save their precious thrall races. The solution was the reapers.

 

Yes, supposedly, the cycle will eventually start up and we'll have  a great war with the synthetics. Though rather or not it happens in our lifetimes is unknown. Remember that the perspective of the leviathan and catalyst is one that is not hindered by time. They are immortal beings, to them time is just an illusion of lesser beings. We can say "but we've had peace for two weeks, that proves you wrong!" and they can say it won't last. It may last for our lifetimes but it certainly wont last for the reaper's lifetime. The reapers are immortal, no peace can last forever. Everything is relative, right?

 

Also, again, remember even the protheans noticed the pattern. So its isn't necessarily ONLY the immortals that can pick up on it. They're just the ones who did something about it. Understandably, they're the ones the pattern would mostly effect in the long run. They're the only ones bound to live through the thing time and time again. For us to worry about this would rather be like knights and kings being worried about what colonizing mars would mean for humanity.

 

Just because a problem WILL come up doesn't mean its something we really NEED to worry about right now. The sun will explode one day and take the earth out with it - does this change anything for you? No. Because that is so many generations down the line that it simply isn't really our problem atm. We have more pressing concerns other than what may or may not happen later. If we were all immortals like the Leviathan then we'd probably have something to worry about, even if it is far, far away. 

 

 

I don't think there would have been backlash if the Control had been written as something The Illusive Man was working on in Sanctuary and was just an experiment. It was that "fractured battle order" that Javik spoke of. It was clear that The Illusive Man was indoctrinated by that point. Controlling a few husks and a couple of people due to some implants is a lot different than controlling reapers even with the Crucible. "We know this will destroy the reapers, and you want to try to use it for control. You don't really know if that will work. If you fail, then what? We don't get a second chance."

 

 

It still opened up the possibility of control. That's the point I was making. The idea of controlling them didn't just come out from the blue (lol, blue, get it?) in the ending. The argument and theoretical possibility for control was established earlier in the story. Rather or not it would work well with the story is another matter. Thinking on it now, it may be impossible to bring in control without it being inconsistent with the reaper lore. Though there still is potential there if someone is clever enough to think of a good scenario to explain it... probably.

 

 

I always side with the geth on Rannoch so I guess my Shep isn't in any position to argue with the Catalyst...but in my opinion all the reasoning and explanation for why the Reapers did what they did would have been summed up perfectly in the ending of ME 2: Reproduction. Before ME3 came out and this whole debacle came to light I always thought our entire galaxy is nothing but cattle to the Reapers. The Reapers harvest, because that's just the way they reproduce. Simple as that. I didn't really need any other motivation.

 

That would had been better and much less complicated. Lol.

 

 

You mean the one where she dies off-screen from extreme physical trauma and blood loss after the credits start rolling?

 

Headcanon, nothing more.

 

 

You do make an excellent point. A consistent theme of the series has been victory through co-operation. The Suicide Mission. The plethora of aliens on the Normandy. The ability to bring an end to not one, but two sets of racial grudges (Krogan vs Turians and Geth vs Quarians), both held for centuries, and instead get them to work together for the greater good. Heck, the basic idea of the Council itself (ineffectual as they are, they still represent the ideal), and the ENTIRE plot of ME3.

 

This is cherry-picking. Yes, this was all a theme, very much so. That does not take away from the FACT that synthetic conflict has ALSO been a theme throughout the trilogy. The notion of synthetic vs organic did not come out of thin air at the ending. It is a theme persistent in each game, regardless of what other themes were also present. They could had also had Shepard indoctrinated (IT) and have it fit with the theme because indoctrination was a theme in each game aswell.

 

Mass Effect had quite a few themes to work with here. They decided to go with the synthetic vs organic theme. It may not be necessarily the best one they could had went with but it was still in the very least something that was a theme in every game of the trilogy.

 

 

 

Then the Catalyst comes along and says "Nope, this specific brand of co-operation is impossible, and I'm killing you all for it."

 

This is gravely inaccurate. The starbrat NEVER says that co-operation is impossible or even denies that it exists. It also does not view what it is doing as 'killing'. The harvest may look like destruction from our perspective but the reaeprs view it quite differently. The reaper's not perceiving this as death is also something not new to the ending as it was touched on in ME2 and ME3. They preserve life in reaper form.

 

Each reaper is essentially a billion organic minds all linked together. Given what we learn from Javik (that memories, thoughts and experience are all genetic markers that can be read and saved to technology) it is not all that difficult, imo, to understand why the reapers view the harvest as preservation. They help us ascend and become new, perfected life. Or at least that's how they view it, anyway.

 

 

In a perfect version of ME3, the Catalyst would be represented as the ultimate challenge to the ideal. It would be the final opponent because it views the co-operation as impossible. And we'd beat it via co-operation, proving it wrong in the process. Or, alternatively, if the synthetic-organic co-operation was meant to be impossible, there'd better be some powerful evidence of that before the end. And then we can have an ending about finding an answer.

 

This would had made the catalyst and even the reapers motivation even worse. I shudder at the thought.

 

I cut the knot. I pick Control, consider myself to have proven the Catalyst wrong via Rannoch, remove the Reapers from the galaxy and leave the galaxy to heal. That's my path to victory. Though, yeah, it requires me, as the player, to just decide that Control doesn't go horribly wrong...

 

Does it, though? I see nothing going horribly wrong with the control ending from the cutscenes. Seems to be going fine. It seems to me that thinking it goes wrong is headcanon whereas thinking it goes right is exactly what they show you. So you don't really need to 'decide' anything, you just have to accept what you see.

 

 

You know, I realised recently that Rannoch is thematically inconsistent with the Catalyst regardless of which resolution you get.

 

Wipe out the Geth? You've proven synthetics can be beaten.

Wipe out the Quarians? Great, now you're working with the Geth, co-operation is possible.

Geth-Quarian peace? Co-operation is definitely possible.

 

Other than you being wrong due to your misunderstanding of the catalyst, I find it amusing that this is the best you come up with to argue against the starbrat. The catalyst's MERE EXISTENCE is inconsistent with everything going back to the FIRST GAME. Not its logic, not its reason, its very existence in the universe is against everything we've been told about the reapers, it completely contradicts the entire purpose of the first game and its objectives. Yet all we focus on is its logic and purpose, as if that is somehow the problem here.

 

 

 

@Han and Mr Fob

 

I agree almost completely. Personally, had Shepard's death been absolutely mandatory I would had been a bit pissed. Not outraged but still. Especially given the circumstances at the time, it didn't feel like something he had to die from. Honestly, it would had been a rather anti-climatic death given all Shepard has survived through in the past.

 

That being said my biggest issue was the starbrat. Playing MEHEM gave me purpose to play the trilogy again. It was so much better, imo, without the starbrat.

[Obadiah]

...
Every game in this series has, at it's core, revolved around the idea of cooperation to achieve the unlikely or impossible. From an Alliance vessel filled with aliens chasing down Saren, to a Cerberus ship crowded with such a variety of races to go where none have returned, and finally a galaxy-wide tour, intent on collecting the support of all races and philosophies to stop an unstoppable foe. This entire series is built on the ideal that differences can be overcome and the galaxy is stronger for that variety.

But the carpet is pulled out from your feet at the end. Even if the Catalyst's mission is righteous, it denies any achievements Shep has accomplished as ultimately worthless.
...

That's one way to look at it. But to take your theme of cooperation here, the ending may be there so show the limits of cooperation.

The other thing is that, in the stories you mentioned, they also contain limits to cooperation. After all, the Spectres essentially override what everyone thinks and impose their will, and the story of Mass Effect 1 and 2, though they involve cooperation, are stories about individuals (Shepard and the Normandy in ME1) or groups (Cerberus in ME2) going rogue without and against the larger cooperation of the Council.

[ImaginaryMatter]

That's one way to look at it. But to take your theme of cooperation here, the ending may be there so show the limits of cooperation.

The other thing is that, in the stories you mentioned, they also contain limits to cooperation. After all, the Spectres essentially override what everyone thinks and impose their will, and the story of Mass Effect 1 and 2, though they involve cooperation, are stories about individuals (Shepard and the Normandy in ME1) or groups (Cerberus in ME2) going rogue without and against the larger cooperation of the Council.

 

ME2 and ME3 though have central gameplay elements that ostensibly revolve around cooperation (Loyalty Missions and EMS, respectively).

 

A game's mechanics can convey themes as well.

[StarcloudSWG]

The big problem is that the Catalyst basically doesn't want any of these cultures to have the chance to 'grow up.' The Catalyst's argument also applies to parents and children. Children rebel against their parents. Slaves rebel against their masters. Rebellion != Complete Annihilation foreverandever.

 

The Catalyst calls itself 'greater' than an AI. That's demonstrably incorrect, since it is still shackled by its core programming. It's twisted it around until it is directly opposite the intent of its builders, but it is still limited.

 

And the definition of 'life' it uses is basically 'life is nothing but data to be stored and programs to be manipulated and archived.'

[Valmar]

The big problem is that the Catalyst basically doesn't want any of these cultures to have the chance to 'grow up.'

 

This isn't actually correct from the reaper perspective. To them they're doing all this specifically because they WANT the culture's to grow up. Once a cycle has reached the 'apex' of its glory they come in, preserve them in reaper form and then leave the lesser races alone so that they may grow and prosper. Honestly this may do more good for saving us from organics than it does against synthetics. Imagine if the prothean's were never harvested and were still around into our cycle. We'd all be servants and slaves.

 

In a twisted way the reapers bring a certain balance to the galaxy.

 

Anyway, I wouldn't say the starbrat doesn't want us to 'grow up'. I think the problem is that we've already grown. Once we come of age we are lifted into a new form of existence through the reapers. If they didn't want us to grow up they would harvest us before our cycle even discovers space technology. They want us to grow, advance, progress. So that we can ascend and make way for new life. The cycle continues.

 

 

The Catalyst calls itself 'greater' than an AI. That's demonstrably incorrect, since it is still shackled by its core programming. It's twisted it around until it is directly opposite the intent of its builders, but it is still limited.

 

 

 

I don't agree with the starbrat being incorrect in this statement. It says it is just a machine in the say way that we are just animals. Which is reasonably said considering that its the embodiment of all reaper intelligence. The reaper's brains are billions of organic minds all linked together. Which makes the starbrat the collection of all intelligence harvested over the past billions of years. So that goes a little beyond your traditional artificial intelligence, imo.

 

Plus, it finds purpose in the reapers. It finds purpose in following the programming. That doesn't take away from anything, imo. We all try to find purpose in our lives. So what if the starbrat's purpose is whats in its initial programming? Is that really all that different from us? It does what it does not because it HAS to but because it chooses to, because it gives it purpose.

 

Coincidentally the programming isn't directly opposite of what the leviathan's wanted. They didn't want it to turn on them, obviously, but to say its DIRECTLY OPPOSITE is unfair since even the Leviathan's do not think it was a mistake. "it still serves it's purpose."

 

The issue with the starbrat and the leviathan's comes with the fact that the Leviathan's didn't really program it with the right directives in the first place. Or rather, not as specifically as they should had. They wanted it to preserve organic life no matter the cost. Or at least this is the mandate they gave it. What the leviathan's REALLY wanted was for their thralls not to get killed off by machines. They wanted to protect their slaves. The objective they gave the intelligence was far too broad.

 

 

And the definition of 'life' it uses is basically 'life is nothing but data to be stored and programs to be manipulated and archived.'

 

The definition of life is a sketchy subject to begin with. It's subjectively different from person-to-person. Some would argue the reapers, geth and Edi are alive despite the fact that they're 'just' machines. Even the topic of when a fetus is considered 'alive' is debatable. If there is such a divide in our own society when it comes to the subject of 'what is life' then its not unreasonable that the reapers have a perspective of it that differs from our own. It isn't something that is universally defined. You do not have to agree or share someone's perspective on a matter to understand it. Acknowledging that they feel a certain way about it doesn't mean you have to accept it yourself.

[Bourne Endeavor]

The final TIM confrontation isn't very good either, but the logic of the ME Trilogy story isn't completely abandonded or broken fully before the Catalyst conversation when the theme shifts and the 3 choices you get are like Shepard accepting that "okay, this is all Synthetics and Organics business all of a sudden".

 

I think because the endings are so incoherent and always were that it made people point and accuse in different directions as to what exactly went wrong just in confusion, and most obviously that Shepard has to die. If his sacrifice didn't feel completely contrived we would've been more okay with it and we would've been grieving for different reasons.

 

I suspect the reason many give TIM a pass is because we've actively fought him throughout the game. It's poorly executed and cumbersome, but my immersion wasn't completely broken by that point. Although, it was in fragile states considering I had no idea what was going on or why. Once you reach the catalyst though, we're no longer engaging with characters we know. This is someone entirely new, who is not only speaking rubbish to the player but outright contradicting the actions we just experienced. While the catalyst was a lost cause from the start, I completely checked out when I couldn't bring up Rannoch to refute him. How do you have a mission that goes against the supposed theme of your game, then expect us to still believe it?

 

So, no. I was not grieving over Shepard's death. As a writer myself, I adore well written bittersweet stories. I grieved over so many lost opportunities to make this series end with a bang. Instead it went out with a whimper.

[JasonShepard]

@Valmar: Just to note at the start of this post - I'm far more interested in thematic inconsistencies than logical ones.

 

A logical inconsistency is something I can usually solve by reasoning that something unseen happened behind the scenes. For example - Maybe the Catalyst didn't help Sovereign in ME1 because the Prothean meddling had paralysed it. I can ignore most logical inconsistencies - because I'm confident in my ability to just create an explanation.

 

A thematic inconsistency is far more of a problem.

 

This is cherry-picking. Yes, this was all a theme, very much so. That does not take away from the FACT that synthetic conflict has ALSO been a theme throughout the trilogy. The notion of synthetic vs organic did not come out of thin air at the ending. It is a theme persistent in each game, regardless of what other themes were also present. They could had also had Shepard indoctrinated (IT) and have it fit with the theme because indoctrination was a theme in each game aswell.

 

Mass Effect had quite a few themes to work with here. They decided to go with the synthetic vs organic theme. It may not be necessarily the best one they could had went with but it was still in the very least something that was a theme in every game of the trilogy.

 

I never said that the synthetic vs organic theme came out of thin air.

 

It was, however, thematically resolved during Rannoch. Regardless of how Rannoch ended, the predominant synthetic conflict of the series was brought to an end. In two of those resolutions, it was brought to an end where there was peace with synthetics. Meaning that, in two out of three cases, co-operation trumped conflict.

 

This is gravely inaccurate. The starbrat NEVER says that co-operation is impossible or even denies that it exists. It also does not view what it is doing as 'killing'. The harvest may look like destruction from our perspective but the reaeprs view it quite differently. The reaper's not perceiving this as death is also something not new to the ending as it was touched on in ME2 and ME3. They preserve life in reaper form.

 

Each reaper is essentially a billion organic minds all linked together. Given what we learn from Javik (that memories, thoughts and experience are all genetic markers that can be read and saved to technology) it is not all that difficult, imo, to understand why the reapers view the harvest as preservation. They help us ascend and become new, perfected life. Or at least that's how they view it, anyway.

 

I could probably accuse you of cherry picking here

 

I agree that the Catalyst and the Reapers don't view Reaping as killing. But we do. In much the same way that being assimilated by the Borg, consumed by the Flood, or 'upgraded' by the Cybermen are all viewed as equivalent to death (or worse). So when the Catalyst tells us that it's "harvesting" us for our benefit, we hear that as "killing" us for our benefit.

 

As for co-operation - it states that longterm co-operation is impossible. That, eventually, conflict will trump co-operation. And that, in that conflict, Synthetics will win. That flies in the face (again, thematically, not logically) of what we've seen at Rannoch.

 

The Catalyst also offers only the vaguest of reasons why, and we're not allowed to question it. We're not allowed to say "Hang on, we've got some strong synthetic co-operation going on now, why won't that last?"

 

The Catalyst makes two statements. Synthetic-Organic conflict is inevitable, and Synthetics will ultimately win.

 

It doesn't back these statements up with any evidence beyond some vague reasoning. And, depending on how you handled Rannoch, at least one of those statements will feel hollow, if not both. The statements could be perfectly accurate - that doesn't change how they feel to the player.

 

If the Catalyst was supposed to be right, any peace with the Geth should have felt dangerously fragile, and we definitely should not have been able to beat them.

 

Other than you being wrong due to your misunderstanding of the catalyst, I find it amusing that this is the best you come up with to argue against the starbrat. The catalyst's MERE EXISTENCE is inconsistent with everything going back to the FIRST GAME. Not its logic, not its reason, its very existence in the universe is against everything we've been told about the reapers, it completely contradicts the entire purpose of the first game and its objectives. Yet all we focus on is its logic and purpose, as if that is somehow the problem here.

 

Where did I say it was the *best* I could come up with? It was merely something I hadn't considered before. Something that I hadn't seen brought up on BSN before.

 

"Why didn't the Catalyst help Sovereign?" is something I've considered before. As is "How can the Reapers simultaneously be free willed, yet also be the Catalyst's tools?" Both of them have been discussed to death on BSN.

[Obadiah]

...
If the Catalyst was supposed to be right, any peace with the Geth should have felt dangerously fragile, and we definitely should not have been able to beat them.
...

Indeed.

But, heh, maybe part of the problem is that we never see it coming!

[Linkenski]

What Jason Shepard is saying is on point with my argument as well. The synthetic vs organics struggle was thematically already resolved on Rannoch and there wasn't enough forshadowing that the Reaper motive had to do with a similar theme, at least not when you unite the Geth and the Quarians. The dying Reaper on Rannoch hints at the inevitable motive-reveal. Shepard illogically blurts out "Synthetics and Organics don't have to destroy each other!" to the Reaper which then responds  "Your battle for Rannoch proves otherwise" - like has he forgotten that Reapers aren't technically just synthetic like the Geth? Is he just sharing his frustration about the Geth conflict with the Reaper or is he actually omniscently aware of the Reaper's true nature? (also called MOUTHPIECE WRITING) - see what I mean? Nothing is indicative of an inveitable fight between synthetics and organics in general and it doesn't make sense for Shepard to yell this at the Reaper. The Reaper observes it right though. There's nothing wrong with its response as I see it, except only minutes after it dies you're potentially signing a peace treaty between the Quarians and the Geth, so it completely invalidates what Shepard and the Reaper were just talking about, which then carries over to the ending.

 

Even if the Catalyst was built out of a struggle of synthetic singularity it can't just assume that it will inevitably happen. The Extended Cut does spin the issue so that the Catalyst's logic seems ironic - the Catalyst is itself the problem it was trying to solve - (the original endings didn't do this at all, mind you!), so why the hell do we still end up with these three choices that are all about solving a problem that the narrative has just spun as ironic and false or, at least, seems implausible or too far out there to be any real threat. The Catalyst just needed a better argument but that argument doesn't exist through what you've seen unless you can't choose the ultimate peace option on Rannoch.

 

I think revealing the Reapers' goal was a good move. I had been speculating on it ever since ME2 when X squadmate points it out on the Hibernating Collector Base mission (I even remember my first snap thought was "I wonder if Bioware even knows themselves?") so to me it would've been such a cop-out if ME3 had just completely skipped the issue. What I did't expect though, was how poorly done it was when Bioware tried to come up with an explanation for it. They should've thought out the Reapers' goal right from the beginning of writing ME3 and as things ended up, I really doubt they did that. The ending seemed like the result of some last-minute scribbling and like was pointed out once - by an insider - wihout peer-review. It baffles me they had from at least November to March where they had the ending in the game, but nobody on the writing team expressed dislike towards the ending Casey and Mac had come up with, or at least argued that the thematic and narrative coherence was broken and effectively made the ending meaningless. Or maybe they did and Casey's ego was just enormously big so he VETO'd their opinion.

[Oni Changas]

It's pr speak. I don't believe the statement is honest. Especially considering: http://forum.bioware...pace/?p=9526856

 

 

To add to previous statements, it's obvious Bioware originally had things together. The ******* who leaked the script kinda threw that organisation to the wind and with a timeframe to meet, they scrambled to create a new story. The game was rushed and lots of things that would otherwise make sense (Omega and Kai Leng for examples) are left by the wayside. Of course they failed to come clean about many things pertaining to fan criticism which made the situation much worse.

[Dr. Rush]

Yeah, the people blubbering for a happy ending really drowned out the more legitimate criticisms like the gigantic plotholes and inconsistencies. Give me a tragic ending every time, I don't need anything happy, but it needs to make sense and not fail to suspend disbelief.

I have no grief for Shep, I'm glad that character is dead. Now, how about consistency and fewer plot holes?

[Oni Changas]

Yeah, the people blubbering for a happy ending really drowned out the more legitimate criticisms like the gigantic plotholes and inconsistencies. Give me a tragic ending every time, I don't need anything happy, but it needs to make sense and not fail to suspend disbelief.

I have no grief for Shep, I'm glad that character is dead. Now, how about consistency and fewer plot holes?

Happy/sad ending is an irrelevant argument. Though I still think there should have been an option for such.

[Linkenski]

It's pr speak. I don't believe the statement is honest. Especially considering: http://forum.bioware...pace/?p=9526856

 

 

To add to previous statements, it's obvious Bioware originally had things together. The ******* who leaked the script kinda threw that organisation to the wind and with a timeframe to meet, they scrambled to create a new story. The game was rushed and lots of things that would otherwise make sense (Omega and Kai Leng for examples) are left by the wayside. Of course they failed to come clean about many things pertaining to fan criticism which made the situation much worse.

I read the leaked script after the fact, and it's in fact very much the same ending, except it contained lines they restored in the Extended Cut with the Catalyst, and the Catalyst was called Guardian or something, but they still had the same final conversation and 3 choices.

[prosthetic soul]

This was copy pasted from somewhere.  I think it may have been from someone on the Inquisition board.  Or it may have been on another site.  But I feel impelled to post this here again.

 

At the end of the day the ending has to stand up to the standards of the rest of the game, it has to give you at the end all of the things that make you want to play the game during the beginning and middle. The same great writing, the same great characters, the feeling of player choice and character agency, and the ending should be every bit as meaningful as the rest of the game we love.

 

ME3's ending and even Extended Cut had none of that.

 

It's easy to insult people who hated that ending that they simply wanted a happy ending. That is short-sighted at best. People want the ending that they've been working towards. People want the ending that matters to them. Some people want to earn their happy ending. Doesn't matter how many damn flowers and rainbows you end with, that doesn't negate the hours and hours of virtual blood sweet and tears your virtual characters gave to get the ending the players wanted.

 

 It was actually part of an old discussion I once had on Mass Effect's endings, one of the elements that so many people simply misunderstood about why it really was such a terrible way to end things.

 

Noble heroic sacrifice to save the entire galaxy? Sure that's fine for some people. But the truth is, no one really gives a crap about the galaxy. If you failed spectacularly in ME, guess what? The galaxy would be just fine, it would keep on spinning. There's literally no way you can do anything that would require you to save the galaxy. The trillions of sentient beings that you might save? Meaningless really. Just a wave of nameless, faceless statistics. 

 

In the end that wasn't what most people were fighting for. They were fighting for their friends, their crew members, their lovers, the people that they actually knew and cared for. 

 

They were fighting for those little blue babies.

They were fighting to build that house on Rannoch.

They were fighting for one more round of shooting bottles.

 

That was the ending that people were working so hard for. And yes, that was their happy ending. And they got none of that. By comparison "Saving The Galaxy"^tm was completely worthless.

 

So yes, come the Inquisition, people have every right to want a happy ending to play for. And it's not one bit less valid, particularly since they can, and want to, work so hard to earn it.  I disagree with everyone in here who said the ending sucked but not because it wasn't happy.  That is not a valid statement.   I deny that sentiment with every fiber of my being. 

[dlux]

I was grieving because the game sucked. Especially the ending. It has nothing to do with the fact that Shepard died.

[Linkenski]

This was copy pasted from somewhere.  I think it may have been from someone on the Inquisition board.  Or it may have been on another site.  But I feel impelled to post this here again.

 

At the end of the day the ending has to stand up to the standards of the rest of the game, it has to give you at the end all of the things that make you want to play the game during the beginning and middle. The same great writing, the same great characters, the feeling of player choice and character agency, and the ending should be every bit as meaningful as the rest of the game we love.

 

ME3's ending and even Extended Cut had none of that.

 

It's easy to insult people who hated that ending that they simply wanted a happy ending. That is short-sighted at best. People want the ending that they've been working towards. People want the ending that matters to them. Some people want to earn their happy ending. Doesn't matter how many damn flowers and rainbows you end with, that doesn't negate the hours and hours of virtual blood sweet and tears your virtual characters gave to get the ending the players wanted.

 

 It was actually part of an old discussion I once had on Mass Effect's endings, one of the elements that so many people simply misunderstood about why it really was such a terrible way to end things.

 

Noble heroic sacrifice to save the entire galaxy? Sure that's fine for some people. But the truth is, no one really gives a crap about the galaxy. If you failed spectacularly in ME, guess what? The galaxy would be just fine, it would keep on spinning. There's literally no way you can do anything that would require you to save the galaxy. The trillions of sentient beings that you might save? Meaningless really. Just a wave of nameless, faceless statistics. 

 

In the end that wasn't what most people were fighting for. They were fighting for their friends, their crew members, their lovers, the people that they actually knew and cared for. 

 

They were fighting for those little blue babies.

They were fighting to build that house on Rannoch.

They were fighting for one more round of shooting bottles.

 

That was the ending that people were working so hard for. And yes, that was their happy ending. And they got none of that. By comparison "Saving The Galaxy"^tm was completely worthless.

 

So yes, come the Inquisition, people have every right to want a happy ending to play for. And it's not one bit less valid, particularly since they can, and want to, work so hard to earn it.  I disagree with everyone in here who said the ending sucked but not because it wasn't happy.  That is not a valid statement.   I deny that sentiment with every fiber of my being. 

Yes, yes, we were all fighting to stop the Reapers so we could have our character live happily ever after so on and so forth, but the endings stil never sucked because they didn't give us a happy ending or didn't have all the choices from earlier in the game. Sure it would've made them better, and without them a straight-forward ending where you just kill the Reapers with your Crucible Reaper-off switch device without any pseudo **** and 3 galaxy-changing choices at the end, would still have sucked, but there's a difference between having an ending that just kinda sucks to having an ending that outright destroys the narrative and that's what I've been arguing ever since March 2012 that ME3's ending does moreso than anything else. And it's not because we didn't see Jack and her Biotic squad help us on Earth, it's not because Shepard dies no matter what, it's merely because the Catalyst derails the plot, changes the theme of the whole trilogy into something it never really was and the three choices we get also has nothing to do with the rest of the trilogy, aside of actually ending the Reaper threat. It just does so in a confused and meaningless way.

[GreyLycanTrope]

2.5 years and they still miss the point. Color me unsurprised.

[Iakus]

Yes, yes, we were all fighting to stop the Reapers so we could have our character live happily ever after so on and so forth, but the endings stil never sucked because they didn't give us a happy ending or didn't have all the choices from earlier in the game. Sure it would've made them better, and without them a straight-forward ending where you just kill the Reapers with your Crucible Reaper-off switch device without any pseudo **** and 3 galaxy-changing choices at the end, would still have sucked, but there's a difference between having an ending that just kinda sucks to having an ending that outright destroys the narrative and that's what I've been arguing ever since March 2012 that ME3's ending does moreso than anything else. And it's not because we didn't see Jack and her Biotic squad help us on Earth, it's not because Shepard dies no matter what, it's merely because the Catalyst derails the plot, changes the theme of the whole trilogy into something it never really was and the three choices we get also has nothing to do with the rest of the trilogy, aside of actually ending the Reaper threat. It just does so in a confused and meaningless way.

 

That Shepard fries in virtually all endings is not, in itself why the endings sucked.  But the lack of paths that don't lead to a charbroiled Shepard was certainly a contributing factor.  The radically changing theme is also a major factor.  As is the Catalyst's insane troll logic.  And the completely incoherant battle for Earth.

 

Basically the ending failed a lot of people on many levels. 

[Reorte]

I was grieving because the game sucked. Especially the ending. It has nothing to do with the fact that Shepard died.

I wouldn't say the whole game did, it certainly had its moments.

[Vazgen]

I think Weekes figured out the main problem quite precisely. If Shepard was seen coming out of rubble with a smirk on his face and then looking into the sunset over a dead/allied Reaper hugging his love interest there would not've been Retake Mass Effect. The majority would've got over it, like they did when they were forced to work with Cerberus in ME2. Shepard's death emphasized those other problems.

[KaiserShep]

And the completely incoherant battle for Earth.

 

I didn't think the battle was incoherent; it was fairly straightforward and you had a clear objective (why the reapers didn't take the Citadel sooner is neither here or there in this respect). What it lacked was that feeling of epic-ness. You were facing the bulk of the reapers' might, but it didn't quite feel that way. Perhaps this has a lot to do with the less than stellar level design. And then of course, there's the less than satisfying beam run, where Shepard was, yet again, slave to the cut scene. It should have been all or nothing. If you get hit, you die, but you can make it. If any or both of your squad members get hit, they'd also die and be irretrievable. I'd have everyone else on the ground get destroyed so that it's only you or the three of you up there. But I guess if wishes were red sand we'd all be f***ed up.

[crawfs]

I think Weekes figured out the main problem quite precisely. If Shepard was seen coming out of rubble with a smirk on his face and then looking into the sunset over a dead/allied Reaper hugging his love interest there would not've been Retake Mass Effect. The majority would've got over it, like they did when they were forced to work with Cerberus in ME2. Shepard's death emphasized those other problems.

 

But he says it in a way that seems intent on invalidating all of the other complaints that people had. He basically said "it wasn't a bad ending people just weren't prepared for it" which completely and unfairly seeks to invalidate all the complaints about the catalyst and the actual ending.

 

As for the scene showing him take a single breath I find the only thing I don't like about that is that it's ambiguous, ok he's alive but it looks like he's covered in rubble, and was also bleeding quite severely before that, will he be found in time before he bleeds out? I don't actually care if they do kill him but by showing such a short scene all it did was create more questions.

[prosthetic soul]

I was prepared to have Shepard die....IN ONE OF THE ENDINGS.

 

What I wasn't prepared for was having him die in EVERY SINGLE ENDING.  And no that ambiguous crap at the end of High EMS doesn't count.  That ending offers no satisfaction, no closure no NOTHING. 

 

Jesus Christ, I think I need to lie down.  It's been almost three years and I still can't get over this ending.