151 réponses à ce sujet

[Valmar]

I'm not sure the best question is "has it been explained" but rather "do you like the explanation". A lot of the ending is explained in the story if you read all the codexs and keep everything in mind. Rather than departmentalizing the ending view it with the context of everything else. It pieces together. An explanation is there. Rather or not you'll be satisfied by it is a completely other matter.

 

A question in return to you would be "what specifically about the ending didn't you understand?" This can be a difficult thing to answer for some people because of how emotionally invested they are. Their "I don't understand" usually translates to "I'm not happy with this!" Two completely different issues. These are likely the same people who view the reapers are machines that want to kill us to save us from being killed machines. A wholly misleading meme if there ever was one.

[Iakus]

I'm not sure the best question is "has it been explained" but rather "do you like the explanation". A lot of the ending is explained in the story if you read all the codexs and keep everything in mind. Rather than departmentalizing the ending view it with the context of everything else. It pieces together. An explanation is there. Rather or not you'll be satisfied by it is a completely other matter.

 

A question in return to you would be "what specifically about the ending didn't you understand?" This can be a difficult thing to answer for some people because of how emotionally invested they are. Their "I don't understand" usually translates to "I'm not happy with this!" Two completely different issues. These are likely the same people who view the reapers are machines that want to kill us to save us from being killed machines. A wholly misleading meme if there ever was one.

Is a bad explaination any better than no explanation, though?

 

Me I find it worse, as with no explanation I at least have room to headcanon.

 

Heck plenty of people think the game is better off ending with the "best seats in the house" scene with Anderson.

[SilJeff]

How in the world did you come to that conclusion? Destroy is about freedom and the ability to decide a future for the galaxy outside the grasp of the Reapers. It has nothing to do with "rejecting AI altogether." Paragon Shepard had no problem with AI. On the contrary, he supported synthetic independence and being treated as equals amongst organics. What he could not allow was a galaxy in constant fear of annihilation by an advanced species of organic-machine hybrids dictating who is allowed to live and who must die.

Control is nothing more than a power fantasy that "Shepard knows best" and has the capacity and will to not abuse his power over controlling the reapers. Synthesis is nothing more than a hopelessly idealistic and naive approach that peace can come through forced evolution and "understanding" between organics and synthetics. I'd hardly call those choices viable if one actually considers the potential negative ramifications for failing to destroy the reapers, of which are the threat all along.

Destroy is a selfish act of Shepard sacrificing millions to save himself.

The extended Cut outright shows us that control's outcome isn't bad like you make it out to be. There is still freedom in it, but you don't kill off millions and you get the benefit of a faster galaxy rebuild and a protection force. What they leave up for interpretation is how the reapers do it. My paragon shepards will never use the reapers as a dictator's secret police, renegades maybe, but I always have my renegades choose destroy since he'd more likely kill millions to save himself than any of my paragons

[Linkenski]

Destroy is a selfish act of Shepard sacrificing millions to save himself.

The extended Cut outright shows us that control's outcome isn't bad like you make it out to be. There is still freedom in it, but you don't kill off millions and you get the benefit of a faster galaxy rebuild and a protection force. What they leave up for interpretation is how the reapers do it. My paragon shepards will never use the reapers as a dictator's secret police, renegades maybe, but I always have my renegades choose destroy since he'd more likely kill millions to save himself than any of my paragons

So is Synthesis [an act of sacrifice without permission. In a sense, selfish] depending on your POV. But that said I always shake my head whenever people keep saying "Destroy and Control were color-swapped to confuse the player about what is good or bad". No, ppl. It's the way it should be but the creator intent clashes with some unintended implications in all three choices.

 

Also most problems in all three endings arise because the theme and central conflict is derailed which makes things confusing and odd. The endings have long been explained, probably ever since Extended Cut but they still confuse because... well, because they suck and make you go "CLEARLY this couldn't be what they were thinking, could it? REALLY!?!?"

[GalacticWolf5]

Destroy is a selfish act of Shepard sacrificing millions to save himself.

 

What do you mean? When Shepard choses Destoy he thinks he's gonna die too because the Catalyst told him that it would also kill him. It's you, the player, who knows he's gonna live with High EMS.

[ImaginaryMatter]

What do you mean? When Shepard choses Destoy he thinks he's gonna die too because the Catalyst told him that it would also kill him. It's you, the player, who knows he's gonna live with High EMS.

 

Agreed. Shepard seems pretty content with dying as he walks towards the volatile fuel line he's shooting at with a determined look on his face. If he was trying to survive you think he would stand a few feet back.

[Valmar]

Is a bad explaination any better than no explanation, though?

 

Me I find it worse, as with no explanation I at least have room to headcanon.

 

Heck plenty of people think the game is better off ending with the "best seats in the house" scene with Anderson.

 

Don't you ever get tired of this Iakus? It seems the only posts you ever make on this forum have to do with you voicing your displeasure with the ending. Everything I see from you is always negative talking about the ending. I admire your dedication and am sorry its effected so deeply.

 

At any rate the topic was "has it been explained" and I pointed out that it is explained, mostly, and the real question should be "are you satisfied with the explanation". Just because we do not like the explanation given to us does not mean we should pretend it doesn't exist. It's there. As for how bad it is, well, that's pretty subjective on some parts. IMO one of the worse bits of the ending DOESN'T have an explanation is left to headcanon. Personally I would had preferred they tried to address why the star brat is the kid from Shepard's dream even if it was something stupid like "I took a form that you could comprehend" or something along those lines. Not having something explained or addressed can be just as bad as a poor explanation.

 

I don't want to get into a "Mass Effect 3's ending sucks for these reasons" discussion though. I'm a bit burned out over this same discussion for the past, what, two and a half years? I get it, you don't like the ending. A lot of people don't. This partly relates to the second part of my original post here:

A question in return to you would be "what specifically about the ending didn't you understand?" This can be a difficult thing to answer for some people because of how emotionally invested they are. Their "I don't understand" usually translates to "I'm not happy with this!"

 

If there were things you actually didn't understand and not just things you're unhappy with then I invite the topic creator to mention them. Clearly he's still confused since he's asking. If he tells us specifically what he felt wasn't explained we might be able to help him understand it. That doesn't mean he'll like the explanation nor am I saying he should like it. I'm only saying that more of the ending is explained then some people realize. Or they do realize it and feel too unsatisfied to acknowledge it. I'm not saying they're right or wrong one way or another.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I don't think that is the case. Other posters have given plenty of other reasons why they choose the other endings, such as controlling the Reapers to maintain peace and rebuild or tap into whatever benefits Synthesis holds. I'm certain it has had an effect but I'm sure the other options would have still been chosen if the Crucible only specifically targeted the Reapers.

 

In a way I think the other synthetics being included was necessary for thematic reasons. If the ending is a question on how we deal with AI technology, Destroy is more than just blowing up the Reapers but rejecting AI altogether.

 

No. Because "soon your children will build synthetics and the chaos will begin again." It wasn't rejecting synthetics, because Shepard rejecting them was futile. It was about destroying the reapers. The purpose was to poison the choice so that you might choose Control or Synthesis. It didn't matter about the mass relays because they were destroyed in all three endings originally. Why destroy all synthetics if you know we're only going to rebuild them?

 

It was a lame attempt to justify write in the synthetics vs. organics theme as the main theme at the last minute. You thought you were fighting one thing, the reapers, only to find you were really fighting against something entirely different. And that what you were fighting against was trying to save the galaxy from its doom. Shepard was the villain.

 

And on this note, time to play another villain, my Inquisitor.

[ZipZap2000]

Is a bad explaination any better than no explanation, though?

 

Yes. 

[ZipZap2000]

Stephen Hawking said some really weird sh*t about AI today btw. The reapers were right. 

[Iakus]

Don't you ever get tired of this Iakus? It seems the only posts you ever make on this forum have to do with you voicing your displeasure with the ending. Everything I see from you is always negative talking about the ending. I admire your dedication and am sorry its effected so deeply.

 

At any rate the topic was "has it been explained" and I pointed out that it is explained, mostly, and the real question should be "are you satisfied with the explanation". Just because we do not like the explanation given to us does not mean we should pretend it doesn't exist. It's there. As for how bad it is, well, that's pretty subjective on some parts. IMO one of the worse bits of the ending DOESN'T have an explanation is left to headcanon. Personally I would had preferred they tried to address why the star brat is the kid from Shepard's dream even if it was something stupid like "I took a form that you could comprehend" or something along those lines. Not having something explained or addressed can be just as bad as a poor explanation.

 

I don't want to get into a "Mass Effect 3's ending sucks for these reasons" discussion though. I'm a bit burned out over this same discussion for the past, what, two and a half years? I get it, you don't like the ending. A lot of people don't. This partly relates to the second part of my original post here:

A question in return to you would be "what specifically about the ending didn't you understand?" This can be a difficult thing to answer for some people because of how emotionally invested they are. Their "I don't understand" usually translates to "I'm not happy with this!"

 

If there were things you actually didn't understand and not just things you're unhappy with then I invite the topic creator to mention them. Clearly he's still confused since he's asking. If he tells us specifically what he felt wasn't explained we might be able to help him understand it. That doesn't mean he'll like the explanation nor am I saying he should like it. I'm only saying that more of the ending is explained then some people realize. Or they do realize it and feel too unsatisfied to acknowledge it. I'm not saying they're right or wrong one way or another.

If you don't like my posts, feel free to put me on ignore.

 

But my question was a serious one:  Is a bad explanation any better than no explanation?  For example, just because "organics vs synthetics!" gets shoehorned in at the last moment to "explain" the Catalyst's motivations, does that make it better than the Catalyst's motives going totally unexplained?

[Valmar]

If you don't like my posts, feel free to put me on ignore.

 

But my question was a serious one:  Is a bad explanation any better than no explanation?  For example, just because "organics vs synthetics!" gets shoehorned in at the last moment to "explain" the Catalyst's motivations, does that make it better than the Catalyst's motives going totally unexplained?

 

I didn't say I didn't like your posts. I was merely commenting how that all your posts, from my experience, are the same thing in that they're always spent talking about how much you hated the ending. I also mentioned that I admire your dedication to it. I'm an enormous ME fanboy yet I even I couldn't continue on about the ending for this long. I got tired of it. Its impressive that after all this time you still feel the same level of passion about it to the point that its still the main foundation for which all your posts are derived.

 

I already shared my opinion on your question. I also pointed out that there isn't really an absolute answer to it - sometimes no explanation is worse having a bad one. ESPECIALLY when the explanation being "bad" is heavily subjective. I had no problem with the reaper's motivations, for example. So to me it wasn't a bad explanation.

 

Coincidentally the organic vs synthetics twist was not introduced at the last moment. It is one of many themes that have been persistent throughout the trilogy. ME3 in general had more organic vs synthetic issues brought up than any other. It was there from the start, people just weren't satisfied with THAT being the motivation of the starbrat. Again, I'm not saying they're right or wrong on the issue. I'm just trying to stay objective here.

 

Personally I would had preferred it if the reapers were never really explained and they remained this mysterious enigma and the crucible just destroyed them like was planned all along. Though at the same time I can see how this could take away choice for options. Having the reapers turned into what they are at the ending is what enables us to have multiple endings. Having the crucible just activate after "you did good son", for example, would be more satisfying for ME but thats because I choose destroy anyway. Anyone who actually likes control or synthesis (hell, even refusal!) gets shafted by this scenario because they'd all be forced to get the same exact ending.

 

I'm very much pro-choice when it comes to these things, I really think we should have MORE endings and choices than what we have. A happier one would be nice, for example. We probably would both appreciate that, lol.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Well, you could have someone who likes control side with TIM and let him kill Anderson - of course you're not blown to hell, though. Then TIM tells Shepard, I've got this. He opens the arms, and the Crucible docks. Then he tries to use the console to Control the reapers. It backfires on him, and his last words are "Oh, sh*t! Run, Shepard!" Then he turns into that thing that was in the art book due to the nano-implants, and your squad makes it up the beam. You fight what the reapers turned him into. Then you activate the panel for destroy, and it's over.

 

If you killed him, and saved Anderson, the nanides still convert his body and you have the boss fight just to be fair. I think this is what was planned originally anyway.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Well, you could have someone who likes control side with TIM and let him kill Anderson - of course you're not blown to hell, though. Then TIM tells Shepard, I've got this. He opens the arms, and the Crucible docks. Then he tries to use the console to Control the reapers. It backfires on him, and his last words are "Oh, sh*t! Run, Shepard!" Then he turns into that thing that was in the art book due to the nano-implants, and your squad makes it up the beam. You fight what the reapers turned him into. Then you activate the panel for destroy, and it's over.

 

If you killed him, and saved Anderson, the nanides still convert his body and you have the boss fight just to be fair. I think this is what was planned originally anyway.

 

But that would be too  video gamey.

[Valmar]

Well, you could have someone who likes control side with TIM and let him kill Anderson - of course you're not blown to hell, though. Then TIM tells Shepard, I've got this. He opens the arms, and the Crucible docks. Then he tries to use the console to Control the reapers. It backfires on him, and his last words are "Oh, sh*t! Run, Shepard!" Then he turns into that thing that was in the art book due to the nano-implants, and your squad makes it up the beam. You fight what the reapers turned him into. Then you activate the panel for destroy, and it's over.

 

If you killed him, and saved Anderson, the nanides still convert his body and you have the boss fight just to be fair. I think this is what was planned originally anyway.

 

In this scenerio control isn't really an option, either, though. Since no matter what you end up having to use destroy because control didn't work. I don't think people who prefer the control ending would be satisfied with that. Lol.

[Khemikael]

If you don't like my posts, feel free to put me on ignore.

 

But my question was a serious one:  Is a bad explanation any better than no explanation?  For example, just because "organics vs synthetics!" gets shoehorned in at the last moment to "explain" the Catalyst's motivations, does that make it better than the Catalyst's motives going totally unexplained?

First of all "bad explanation" is somewhat a relative point of view.
Secondly: Yes absolutely. The reapers had a purpose, you may not agree with their misssion and means but at least they differ from what we always fight in video games: A bad guy who is either pure gratuitous evil and/or having a selfish lust for power. (ie: DA:O; BG I & II; NWN; Fallout 3; TES 1, 3 & 4)

 

About EDI's fate (and the Geths) in the destroy ending: You think it's a betrayal, a backstab and you're right but you forget the context: the harvest. Don't shoot EDI and she'll die (with many others) anyway. In "Of mice and men" Georges killed Lenni because he loved him and because it was the best or less worse outcome. Is that a bad ending?

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

In this scenerio control isn't really an option, either, though. Since no matter what you end up having to use destroy because control didn't work. I don't think people who prefer the control ending would be satisfied with that. Lol.

 

It wouldn't have mattered since that would have shown "you can't control the reapers." DA2 DLC Spoiler:

Spoiler

It would have been similar to what was done in DA2 Hawke Legacy when Janeka tried to control Corypheus to end the blights. "I know that if I can control Corypheus we can end the blights forever. I have a spell that can bind Corypheus."

Likewise The Illusive Man had been studying how to control reaper troops and had figured out the reaper control signal. Shepard said, "controlling us is different than controlling a reaper." Have that be right. It was that simple.

 

I think people would have said, "Oh well, I guess you can't control the reapers." They wouldn't have raged like they did.

[Iakus]

First of all "bad explanation" is somewhat a relative point of view.
Secondly: Yes absolutely. The reapers had a purpose, you may not agree with their misssion and means but at least they differ from what we always fight in video games: A bad guy who is either pure gratuitous evil and/or having a selfish lust for power. (ie: DA:O; BG I & II; NWN; Fallout 3; TES 1, 3 & 4)

 

About EDI's fate (and the Geths) in the destroy ending: You think it's a betrayal, a backstab and you're right but you forget the context: the harvest. Don't shoot EDI and she'll die (with many others) anyway. In "Of mice and men" Georges killed Lenni because he loved him and because it was the best or less worse outcome. Is that a bad ending?

For anyone who wanted Lenny and George to actually find peace and happiness, yeah, it's a bad ending.  But one doesn't read Steinbeck for "good endings"

 

And it would be even worse if "Of Mice and Men" was an interactive narrative that claimed that your choices affected the outcome.  

 

Which is why I say Destroy's killing of all synthetics everywhere is both inexplicable and arbitrary:  a punishment directed at the player for daring to not pick Synthesis, or at least Control (you notice Destroy is also the only ending with a Low-EMS, "Earth is a cinder" outcome as well).  

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

First of all "bad explanation" is somewhat a relative point of view.
Secondly: Yes absolutely. The reapers had a purpose, you may not agree with their misssion and means but at least they differ from what we always fight in video games: A bad guy who is either pure gratuitous evil and/or having a selfish lust for power. (ie: DA:O; BG I & II; NWN; Fallout 3; TES 1, 3 & 4)

 

About EDI's fate (and the Geths) in the destroy ending: You think it's a betrayal, a backstab and you're right but you forget the context: the harvest. Don't shoot EDI and she'll die (with many others) anyway. In "Of mice and men" Georges killed Lenni because he loved him and because it was the best or less worse outcome. Is that a bad ending?

 

While I don't disagree here, the difference is that Georges was a character defined by the writer. Shepard was supposed to be a character designed by the player - don't make me go to Youtube and find the videos. "You are Commander Shepard." - Casey Hudson.

 

We didn't find out about the purpose of the reapers until the last five minutes of the story. There was no foreshadowing. It was totally arbitrary. Yeah, that Rannoch reaper talked, but I mean who really cared about what it said. We were at war for our survival. Who cares about order and chaos? The last five minutes. That is not the time. Forget Leviathan because 90% of the people who played the game didn't play Leviathan. I haven't played it yet, and I have the DLC.

 

The ending is controversial, and will remain so. I hope Bioware never does an ending like it again.

[Iakus]

I didn't say I didn't like your posts. I was merely commenting how that all your posts, from my experience, are the same thing in that they're always spent talking about how much you hated the ending. I also mentioned that I admire your dedication to it. I'm an enormous ME fanboy yet I even I couldn't continue on about the ending for this long. I got tired of it. Its impressive that after all this time you still feel the same level of passion about it to the point that its still the main foundation for which all your posts are derived.

 

I already shared my opinion on your question. I also pointed out that there isn't really an absolute answer to it - sometimes no explanation is worse having a bad one. ESPECIALLY when the explanation being "bad" is heavily subjective. I had no problem with the reaper's motivations, for example. So to me it wasn't a bad explanation.

 

Coincidentally the organic vs synthetics twist was not introduced at the last moment. It is one of many themes that have been persistent throughout the trilogy. ME3 in general had more organic vs synthetic issues brought up than any other. It was there from the start, people just weren't satisfied with THAT being the motivation of the starbrat. Again, I'm not saying they're right or wrong on the issue. I'm just trying to stay objective here.

 

Personally I would had preferred it if the reapers were never really explained and they remained this mysterious enigma and the crucible just destroyed them like was planned all along. Though at the same time I can see how this could take away choice for options. Having the reapers turned into what they are at the ending is what enables us to have multiple endings. Having the crucible just activate after "you did good son", for example, would be more satisfying for ME but thats because I choose destroy anyway. Anyone who actually likes control or synthesis (hell, even refusal!) gets shafted by this scenario because they'd all be forced to get the same exact ending.

 

I'm very much pro-choice when it comes to these things, I really think we should have MORE endings and choices than what we have. A happier one would be nice, for example. We probably would both appreciate that, lol.

Sorry for flying off the handle.  But yes, these endings had a very powerful, very negative effect on me.  I was a fan not just of Mass Effect, but Bioware in general, all the way back to their Baldur's Gate days.  To see them screw so many of their fans like they did after a five year journey, and have such a dismissive attitude about it afterwards, has really soured me on this franchise.

 

As to the motivations, if they had remained inscrutable antagonists, then the ending could have been based not on what to do with the Crucible, but how one goes about deploying it. Like the Suicide Mission of ME2.  The goal is always to destroy the Reapers, but how one goes about it, what losses you suffer, even what missions you complete, would be the basis of your ending.  

[ImaginaryMatter]

Secondly: Yes absolutely. The reapers had a purpose, you may not agree with their misssion and means but at least they differ from what we always fight in video games: A bad guy who is either pure gratuitous evil and/or having a selfish lust for power. (ie: DA:O; BG I & II; NWN; Fallout 3; TES 1, 3 & 4)

 

There's plenty of other games that don't have that kind of antagonist. Half Life 2, Spec Ops: The Line, DA:O's Loghain, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, half the freakin' Final Fantasy and Call of Duty games, etc. It's far from unique, even from among the most soul less of AAA titles. These aren't even games that necessarily have good stories.

[ImaginaryMatter]

We didn't find out about the purpose of the reapers until the last five minutes of the story. There was no foreshadowing. It was totally arbitrary. Yeah, that Rannoch reaper talked, but I mean who really cared about what it said. We were at war for our survival. Who cares about order and chaos? The last five minutes. That is not the time. Forget Leviathan because 90% of the people who played the game didn't play Leviathan. I haven't played it yet, and I have the DLC.

 

Plus, 'order' and 'chaos' are vague enough concepts that they can describe any conflict you want.

[Ashevajak]

What needs explaining?

It makes perfect sense.  It's just not very good.

[Reorte]

Yes.

I was going to argue this but I think you're probably right, or at least are usually right. It's easy to say "no" when we've got a really badly thought through explanation but that's only because we do have one. Almost everyone complaining about the explanation would've been complaining if there hadn't been one. Usually what you expect from a bad explanation is "That was stupid, oh well, let's have another playthrough" (got that in ME2), which whilst hardly great isn't a total disaster.

[Revan Reborn]

Destroy is a selfish act of Shepard sacrificing millions to save himself.

The extended Cut outright shows us that control's outcome isn't bad like you make it out to be. There is still freedom in it, but you don't kill off millions and you get the benefit of a faster galaxy rebuild and a protection force. What they leave up for interpretation is how the reapers do it. My paragon shepards will never use the reapers as a dictator's secret police, renegades maybe, but I always have my renegades choose destroy since he'd more likely kill millions to save himself than any of my paragons

Destroy is selfish? He sacrificed millions to save trillions. This had absolutely nothing to do with saving himself, as the Catalyst indicated it was likely he would die. Shepard does, in fact, die unless you had High EMS for the ending. On the contrary, Synthesis is selfish because you are forcing evolution and peace on synthetics and organics without their consent. If you know anything about history, forced peace never works long-term. With Control, you are making yourself God and determining what is best for the galaxy. Refuse is selfish because you won't even give the current cycle a chance of living. Destroy is the only option that isn't selfish.

 

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely." There are very few great leaders in history because many find themselves corrupted by the power they wield inevitably. Regardless of how "good" your Paragon Shepard was, he is dictating the fate of the galaxy by wielding the power of the Reapers. Who's to say that your perception of the galaxy wouldn't change overtime as you become less human overtime and the galaxy evolves in a way you do not approve of. Will you use the Reapers to correct this misstep?

 

Control is really the closest closest choice to a "Renegade" based on the potential ramifications of such an act. Synthesis is just being naive, gullible, and honestly stupid playing Russian Roulette with the entire galaxy hoping for a "happy ending."