151 réponses à ce sujet

[Raice]

Ok so I just replayed ME3 today for the first time since the Citadel DLC came out and I have the extended cut installed, all the other DLC etc etc and I'm still left wondering what the hell happened at the end.

I am familiar with the Indoctrination Theory and I do believe it makes a lot of sense but if Shepard was indoctrinated and picking the destroy option is him 'destroying' the Reapers hold over him, and with the required EMS you get the breathing scene and Shepard wakes up in the wreckage in London. That's all well and good but has it ever been clarified if he then went on to actually defeat the Reapers or what?

I haven't been on the forums in over a year and I haven't been keeping up with news of Mass Effect so I'm just wondering if any of this has been clarified,  is it still being debated, or have people just moved on?

 

I'm not in the business of trying to explain things in any kind of way about this game anymore - at least not on these forums.  Be careful what you say on here about this topic.  Some people on these forums seem to take it as a personal offense that you might venture some contention that breaks the boundaries of their own personal interpretation of the ending.

 

Having said that, I would say that whatever you want to believe about it is as good as anybody else's explanation... no matter how much they assert that you're stupid for not accepting things their way.

[dreamgazer]

I'm still waiting for nonsensical things from ME1 and ME2 to be "explained".

[von uber]

A sentient plant that vomits asari clones is probably a good place to start.

[dreamgazer]

A sentient plant that vomits asari clones is probably a good place to start.

How sure are you that that was its mouth?

EXPLAIN, BIOWARE.

[themikefest]

A sentient plant that vomits asari clones is probably a good place to start.

That's how asari reproduce. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a bunch of Thorian plants on Thessia. When an asari wants a child, she climbs in a pod or something like Shiala was kept in, the Thorian plant reads the asari's dna and other stuff and out comes the ready made asari.

[Kantr]

I like to forget about the ending and just remember how I enjoyed (mostly) the rest of the game.

[Khemikael]

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).  

Achievement unlocked: failing to answer a rhetorical question.
You said it, one does not read Steinbeck for a happy ending and it’s the same with ME3, if you think this can end well, you didn’t pay attention through the game. Or you only saw what you wanted to see. ME3 is one giant farewell drink and I’m not even talking about London.

I understand your point when you use the word punishment, though I don’t agree at all. The destruction of all synthetics makes perfect sense to me. This ending needed a downside, that’s how dilemmas work (escape hatch, blah blah blah). The threat of AI rising again is not important enough and barely works as a sword of Damocles. Besides this threat is also present in the control ending since Shepard’s AI might blow a fuse and start a new harvest. Lore-wise, I consider the red beam as a sophisticated EMP that targets and fries the most advanced electronic and computer hardware. The more complex the circuit, the more fragile it is, especially regarding electromagnetic fields. Or it can be something so complex we don’t actually understand, call it space magic if you want but remember Clarke’s law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

 

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.

 

I won’t talk about choices, rails and freedom in video games, this is way off topic; but you should play The Stanley Parable (It’s a bit expensive but you can easily find it for 5 bucks during Steam Sales. You might learn something about how choices work and why freedom doesn’t exist in video games).
Mass Effect is a RPG. It doesn’t mean the player can do whatever he wants, it means the player can do whatever the character can do. You may think BioWare force us to choose their own endings but (in my opinion) it works because the catalyst forces Shepard to choose too. So yes I can’t create my own ending but neither does Shepard. We are Shepard doesn’t mean Shepard is an omniscient-omnipotent human. I don’t mind if I can’t change the outcomes as long as the character is in the same situation (Catalyst, Virmire) On the other hand, some choices are poorly handled and it happens when Shepard takes the initiative. In those situations, Shepard can choose freely but in the meantime, the game forces a choice with limited outcomes to the player (ie : Racnhi Queen and Shiala, I wanted to keep her in custody and let the council decide ; Legion I wanted to destroy/dismantle it ; Collector Base : I wanted to give it to the alliance) You are Shepard =/= you can shape every detail of the world.

 

And we didn’t find out the purpose of the collectors until the last five minutes. And we didn’t find out the purpose of Sovereign at all. AI has always been a part the story, much more than the dark energy thingy. The problem with the plot-twist is that Ranoch thematically resolved the confilct between organics and synthetics (I don’t remember who wrote that but I like the idea) so it’s kind of weird to hear about that again at the end.

 

Of course the ending is controversial, I don’t deny it, tough I think it didn’t deserve a 5h1tstorm like that because it could have been way way worse. I played Call of Chtulhu RPG long enough to know that messing with god-like creatures (and Reapers are very Lovecraft-esque) usually lead to painful death or insanity if not both. I also was a fan of Fallout and then I played Fallout 3 so, frankly, we should be grateful.

[Valmar]

You said it, one does not read Steinbeck for a happy ending and it’s the same with ME3, if you think this can end well, you didn’t pay attention through the game. Or you only saw what you wanted to see.

 

As a single game perhaps not. However Mass Effect 3 isn't just a single game its part of a trilogy. A trilogy that up until now was more than willing to give us happy endings. You want to talk about bleak endings being foreshadowed look at ME2. They spent the majority of the game hammering it home to us about how dangerous the mission was, how it was a suicide mission, how chances are high people are going to die. Yet you can beat the game without ANYONE dying - you can even save the Normandy crew that were abducted!

 

The trilogy has been no stranger to happy endings or letting the player overcome impossible odds. It is only with ME3 does things suddenly change. To borrow a phrase, I find ME3's lack of a happier ending to be thematically inconsistent with the rest of the trilogy. I expected a happier outcome for my Shepard, something better than a gasping chest plate under a pile of rubble. Frankly I expected the ending to be at least partially what they promised it would be back when they were hyping it up to bolster preorders. We all saw how that turned out. 

[themikefest]

The ME2 suicide mission should've had deaths no matter how prepared Shepard and squad are. When I play the mission I usually have at least 2 deaths unless I'm doing a specific playthrough

 

I have no problem with having happy endings, but I also like the very worst ending as well and everything in between.

[Iakus]

Achievement unlocked: failing to answer a rhetorical question.
You said it, one does not read Steinbeck for a happy ending and it’s the same with ME3, if you think this can end well, you didn’t pay attention through the game. Or you only saw what you wanted to see. ME3 is one giant farewell drink and I’m not even talking about London.

I understand your point when you use the word punishment, though I don’t agree at all. The destruction of all synthetics makes perfect sense to me. This ending needed a downside, that’s how dilemmas work (escape hatch, blah blah blah). The threat of AI rising again is not important enough and barely works as a sword of Damocles. Besides this threat is also present in the control ending since Shepard’s AI might blow a fuse and start a new harvest. Lore-wise, I consider the red beam as a sophisticated EMP that targets and fries the most advanced electronic and computer hardware. The more complex the circuit, the more fragile it is, especially regarding electromagnetic fields. Or it can be something so complex we don’t actually understand, call it space magic if you want but remember Clarke’s law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

 

Paid attention to ME1:  Got a happy ending.  And a, dare I say it, a fist-pumping "FRAK YEAH!!!" ending.

Paid attention to ME2:  Made good choices, got my whole drew out alive, and finally got to tell of the Illusive Man.

Paid attention to ME3:  Got told "You exist because we allow it, and will end because we demand it" despite all my efforts through the trilogy and expressions of hope and optimism. With an additional "Frak you" to anyone who, you know, believed in freedom to find your own path.

[dreamgazer]

Paid attention to ME1:  Got a happy ending.  And a, dare I say it, a fist-pumping "FRAK YEAH!!!" ending.

Didn't defeat the Reapers, but one Reaper and stalled their progression. Have to surrender thousands upon thousands of lives no matter what.
 

Paid attention to ME2:  Made good choices, got my whole drew out alive, and finally got to tell of the Illusive Man.

Except for the lack of freedom to do what you want with the base, and the inability to salvage whatever life was left there.
 

Paid attention to ME3:  Got told "You exist because we allow it, and will end because we demand it" despite all my efforts through the trilogy and expressions of hope and optimism. With an additional "Frak you" to anyone who, you know, believed in freedom to find your own path.

You can find your own path, but you can't do it without sacrifice and recalibrated expectations, just like the previous two endings.

[angol fear]

Mass Effect 1 and 2 : endings : you failed in stopping the reapers. None of them can be seen as real happy endings. Ignoring that is ignoring the games.

Mass Effect 1 and 2 : freedom : you can't change anything that will happen, no matter hard you try and whatever you've choosen. Ignoring that is ignoring the games.

[Iakus]

Didn't defeat the Reapers, but one Reaper and stalled their progression. Have to surrender thousands upon thousands of lives no matter what.
 

Except for the lack of freedom to do what you want with the base, and the inability to salvage whatever life was left there.
 

You can find your own path, but you can't do it without sacrifice and recalibrated expectations, just like the previous two endings.

1) Reapers still stuck in dark space, not harvesting the galaxy=win.

 

There was death, but it was at least death at the hands of the enemy, rather than at the hands of your ally.

 

2) Not saying lack of freedom with the base itself wasn't a problem.  But it was still a "good" ending. I kept my people alive.

 

3) Does "recalibrated expectations" mean "Writers shoved you out of the way because you weren't doing the story right"?

[SilJeff]

they've been shoving you out of the way since they forced you to touch the beacon on Eden Prime

[Iakus]

they've been shoving you out of the way since they forced you to touch the beacon on Eden Prime

I never touched the beacon on Eden PRime

[Reorte]

The ME2 suicide mission should've had deaths no matter how prepared Shepard and squad are. When I play the mission I usually have at least 2 deaths unless I'm doing a specific playthrough

If that was the case it becomes arbitrary. Got to be very careful with arbitrary outcomes, no matter how plausible, even in a pretty linear game if they're likely to involve anything the player might care about. If people die then I want it to be because I screwed up, or wasn't good enough (even if I'd have had to be almost impossibly good for them not to be), not because the Script Says So. When and how to railroad or not is vitally important for keeping willing suspension of disbelief of freedom going.

[ImaginaryMatter]

The ME2 suicide mission should've had deaths no matter how prepared Shepard and squad are. When I play the mission I usually have at least 2 deaths unless I'm doing a specific playthrough

 

I have no problem with having happy endings, but I also like the very worst ending as well and everything in between.

 

That probably would have been a bad decision from a thematic and gameplay stance. The entire game is about how Shepard is a hero who can accomplish anything, his cast of sidekicks, and about preparing for this suicide mission. A perfect win state is a needed outcome after so much build up or else squadmate deaths would feel cheap and arbitrary.

 

I think there is a discussion about whether or not the requirements should be stricter, but I think ME2 would need to look a lot more like ME3 to justify mandatory deaths.

[themikefest]

If that was the case it becomes arbitrary. Got to be very careful with arbitrary outcomes, no matter how plausible, even in a pretty linear game if they're likely to involve anything the player might care about. If people die then I want it to be because I screwed up, or wasn't good enough (even if I'd have had to be almost impossibly good for them not to be), not because the Script Says So. When and how to railroad or not is vitally important for keeping willing suspension of disbelief of freedom going.

 

 

That probably would have been a bad decision from a thematic and gameplay stance. The entire game is about how Shepard is a hero who can accomplish anything, his cast of sidekicks, and about preparing for this suicide mission. A perfect win state is a needed outcome after so much build up or else squadmate deaths would feel cheap and arbitrary.

 

I think there is a discussion about whether or not the requirements should be stricter, but I think ME2 would need to look a lot more like ME3 to justify mandatory deaths.

 

Then don't call it a suicide mission. 

[ImaginaryMatter]

Then don't call it a suicide mission. 

 

It's the same reason why they visually made the Reapers with the C'thulu motif. It looks all the more heroic when you subvert it.

[themikefest]

It's the same reason why they visually made the Reapers with the C'thulu motif. It looks all the more heroic when you subvert it.

Don't know anything about the C'thulu motif thing is.

 

Doesn't matter. My playthroughs will have deaths during that mission making it feel like a suicide mission.

[Herethos]

Imo If one goes with the indoctrination theory then the "destroy ending" is the only correct choice, the other choices are all Shepard submitting to the reapers will. Imo the crucible wasn't finished yet and Shep gets hit on the planet and knocked out then fights an unconcious battle in his mind to resist the indoctrination. And as per the ending if you have enough military power you get the ending with shep taking a breath waking up was due to the allies able to hold out long enough for the thing they were building to finish and neutralise the reapers. Shep was never on the citadel speaking with the crucible ai or whatever but still on the planet when he was hit with the beam.

[Valmar]

You know, while I appreciate IT for its clever twists and connections I never did quite understand why people felt satisfied with it I mean, assuming IT is true... the game never ended. The reaper's were not defeated and you still have yet to actually finish the game or win the war. There is no conclusion or closure to be found with IT. It's effectively the same as just putting down the game and saying "the end!" the moment you get to the beam rush, since NOTHING after that point was real.

[Autoola]

I guess that this

 

...the moment you get to the beam rush, since NOTHING after that point was real.

 

is the main reason why many people like the IT.

Imo it´s not the worst decision to accept "the game never ended" (maybe with some headcanon) instead of accepting the real end.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I won’t talk about choices, rails and freedom in video games, this is way off topic; but you should play The Stanley Parable (It’s a bit expensive but you can easily find it for 5 bucks during Steam Sales. You might learn something about how choices work and why freedom doesn’t exist in video games).

Mass Effect is a RPG. It doesn’t mean the player can do whatever he wants, it means the player can do whatever the character can do. You may think BioWare force us to choose their own endings but (in my opinion) it works because the catalyst forces Shepard to choose too. So yes I can’t create my own ending but neither does Shepard. We are Shepard doesn’t mean Shepard is an omniscient-omnipotent human. I don’t mind if I can’t change the outcomes as long as the character is in the same situation (Catalyst, Virmire) On the other hand, some choices are poorly handled and it happens when Shepard takes the initiative. In those situations, Shepard can choose freely but in the meantime, the game forces a choice with limited outcomes to the player (ie : Racnhi Queen and Shiala, I wanted to keep her in custody and let the council decide ; Legion I wanted to destroy/dismantle it ; Collector Base : I wanted to give it to the alliance) You are Shepard =/= you can shape every detail of the world.

 

And we didn’t find out the purpose of the collectors until the last five minutes. And we didn’t find out the purpose of Sovereign at all. AI has always been a part the story, much more than the dark energy thingy. The problem with the plot-twist is that Ranoch thematically resolved the confilct between organics and synthetics (I don’t remember who wrote that but I like the idea) so it’s kind of weird to hear about that again at the end.

 

Of course the ending is controversial, I don’t deny it, tough I think it didn’t deserve a 5h1tstorm like that because it could have been way way worse. I played Call of Chtulhu RPG long enough to know that messing with god-like creatures (and Reapers are very Lovecraft-esque) usually lead to painful death or insanity if not both. I also was a fan of Fallout and then I played Fallout 3 so, frankly, we should be grateful.

 

I think I will nominate you for the condescending response of the day.

[KingTony]

I think I will nominate you for the condescending response of the day.

Seconded