407 réponses à ce sujet

[angol fear]

There are piles of dead  humans where you arrive but you don't see anybody and you don't see any processing equipment. Well that's weird. 

 

 

You're talking about the dead humans in the citadel?

[elrofrost]

Back to the OP -

 

I'd rank them as ME2>ME3>ME1.

 

ME2 was a great game. One of the best (still) made. Yes, it has a few issues but all in all, a great game. Add in LotSB and it's even better. ME3 alone, without the DLC's is "okay". But add in the DLCs (even Omega - I like Omega - good fights and I like Aria) and it's a great game. Despite the ending.

ME3's ending didn't bother me as much as some. But that's because I didn't expect much. What bothers me most is that  chararters from ME2 are sidelined. Jack, even is she is your LI gets, what- 4 seconds? A pat on the butt and that's it? While Liara get tons of facetime. Issues like that bother me.

But all of this is delt with, with the Cidatel DLC. In fact, I loved all the ME3 DLC's. But Cidatel saved the game (and maybe the series) for me.

ME2 and 3 are still on my drive. That's says something. I never start a ME3 run without ME2. I'll download a ME1 save I like, maybe edit it a bit, and start ME2,  Then right into ME3. Usually takes a couple of weeks.

These game are almost like friends. I go back now-and-then, play them, remember them. And get caught up in the drama. With Cidatel as an epilog -  the last part I play in ME3. It's saying goodbye - When everyone was alive and happy.

Damn, now I wanna run it again.

[Abelas Forever!]

But Earth isn't the "middle of the war," any more than France was the middle of the war in 1943. Earth is a backwater where the Reapers are methodically harvesting while the Resistance, at best, slightly inconveniences them. The real war only comes there when the fleets arrive.

I had forgotten that Earth wasn't in the middle of the war at that time. But anyway I still think it isn't wise to move CItadel there. The better tactic would have been to move Citadel to dark space where it would have been safer than at Earth. Unless Catalyst wants Shepard to go after it and I think that would explain why reapers move Citadel to Earth.

 

 

Well, that's an issue with epilogues. Either Bio fills in the blanks for you or they don't. We got the EC because too many people didn't actually like open-ended when they got it.

 

 

 

As for the other things, I agree with AlanC9.

Of course the epilogue suggests some things, but there's still enough to make up your own ending and what happened in-between

 

 

I wasn't complaining that the ending wasn't open enough. I was just pointing out that it isn't that open. It could have been more open if ME3 would have ended when you choose one of the choices or that you could only see what happens right after you had used Crucible such as you see that Normandy crashed that planet and reapers stop their attack but nothing more. Now you see what happens in the future such as Mass Relays are repaire etc. I like the ending. But I wouldn't say that it's open because you see what happens to everyone or you can easily conclude that.

 

 

Maybe it's the Keepers doing it? They do stroll around there. And I think it was themikefest who once pointed out in another thread that in the chasm area, you can see there's a reddish waterfall, suggesting it's blood. But who knows

It's possible that Keepers could do it but they seem to be quite slow so if they want to speed things up then they would more likely choose some others to do that job.

[Abelas Forever!]

You're talking about the dead humans in the citadel?

Yes.

[angol fear]

I wasn't complaining that the ending wasn't open enough. I was just pointing out that it isn't that open. It could have been more open if ME3 would have ended when you choose one of the choices or that you could only see what happens right after you had used Crucible such as you see that Normandy crashed that planet and reapers stop their attack but nothing more. Now you see what happens in the future such as Mass Relays are repaire etc. I like the ending. But I wouldn't say that it's open because you see what happens to everyone or you can easily conclude that.

 

 

Just like it's been said, the original ending is an open ending. Personnally, I do prefer the original ending for many reasons and I've deleted the extended cut. I agree with you on the fact that the extended cut isn't an open ending, or not that open. The extended cut was done because of the complaint, so they changed many things.

[Abelas Forever!]

Just like it's been said, the original ending is an open ending. Personnally, I do prefer the original ending for many reasons and I've deleted the extended cut. I agree with you on the fact that the extended cut isn't an open ending, or not that open. The extended cut was done because of the complaint, so they changed many things.

I was talking about the EC ending and I know that EC was made because a lot of people complained about the original ending. I haven't played the game with original ending so I don't know how open it is. All I know that EC didn't change the ending that much. The EC added cut scenes and the EMS levels were lowered so that it was easier to achieve different ending options. Anyway I don't have strong feelings about the ending because if I want then it's possible to play the game in way that Shepard will survive and I can imagine that she/he will meet her/his LI in the future and that is all that matters to me.

[themikefest]

Just like it's been said, the original ending is an open ending. Personnally, I do prefer the original ending for many reasons and I've deleted the extended cut. I agree with you on the fact that the extended cut isn't an open ending, or not that open. The extended cut was done because of the complaint, so they changed many things.

I will say the one thing the extended cut fixed was the flashbacks when Shepard is picking whatever ending

[themikefest]

I had forgotten that Earth wasn't in the middle of the war at that time. But anyway I still think it isn't wise to move CItadel there. The better tactic would have been to move Citadel to dark space where it would have been safer than at Earth. Unless Catalyst wants Shepard to go after it and I think that would explain why reapers move Citadel to Earth.

Had the asari revealed that artifact earlier, its possible that the crucible may of been docked with the Citadel in the Serpent Nebula. Its also possible the reapers would never of known.

 

Even if they do move the Citadel to dark space, they couldn't since the signal is meesed up on the Citadel to use to get it to dark space and it would take them time to get it to dark space. 

[elrofrost]

Frankly, the reapers didn't need to move the Citadel at all. All they had to do was station a few of their capital ships around it, and nothing would've been able to get through.

 

But that means we wouldn't been on it either. It's called dramatic license. Which they took a lot of in ME3. I mean, London? Nothing against London, or the UK.. but looking from Space the UK is nothing compared to the US or China. Why would the Reapers choose London to put their "beam" in? Why not go where the people are.. China or India? And aren't the Reapers suppose to record ALL life in the galaxy? Not just humanity? So no "beam" on say, Dekunna, for example? Why focus on Earth? Ok Shepard. But if Shepard is a spacer,why would he give a crap about Earth? Sure, he may care for humanity, but not Earth. It's not his home.

 

Also at the start of the game.. I mean, who puts a command in Vancouver?

 

There comes a point where you just go with the flow. Forget about what makes sense and enjoy the game.

[angol fear]

I was talking about the EC ending and I know that EC was made because a lot of people complained about the original ending. I haven't played the game with original ending so I don't know how open it is. All I know that EC didn't change the ending that much. The EC added cut scenes and the EMS levels were lowered so that it was easier to achieve different ending options. Anyway I don't have strong feelings about the ending because if I want then it's possible to play the game in way that Shepard will survive and I can imagine that she/he will meet her/his LI in the future and that is all that matters to me.

 

Well, I have to disagree. When you create a brighter and explicit ending, you change a lot the ending. The "story" itself may have not changed a lot, but the narration, the idea, the concept of the ending is totally different. Only on a superficial level the EC didn't change the ending that much.

 

The EC changes :

-now there's a rescue scene. In the original game you suppose that your companions died during the run to the beam. (tone changed here)

-now you see the Normandy leaving while in the original game you understood that they leave because you hear hackett's order. (explicit event here)

-the conversation with the A.I. is longer and the A.I. tells you that he is an A.I. (explicit revelations here)

-during the cinematic just after the choice, you can see some people showing their feeling of joy and the music gives a victory feeling, it didn't exist in the original ending (tone changed here)

-in the original ending the Normandy crashes and then you have the ending credits and the stargazer scene, that's all. In the EC you have a bright closure. In the original ending, you have a feeling of a very new beginning, a dark age because the mass relay are destroyed. In the extended cut, the mass relay are not destroyed, they will be repaired. In the original ending you have to sacrifice the technology, the base of the advanced civilisation, in the EC you don't have such a thing, it seems that life goes on without the reapers, that's all. (explicit and tone changed here)

 

And EC creates a narrative problem (the concept of the ending can't accept closure. Closure is opposed to the idea Bioware had of their ending).

 

So, just like Blade Runner first ending and the director's cut ending are totally different, or Abyss cinema version and director's cut, the original ending and the extended cut are very different. When you turn something implicit to explicit and you change the tone, it's very different.

[fraggle]

Frankly, the reapers didn't need to move the Citadel at all. All they had to do was station a few of their capital ships around it, and nothing would've been able to get through.

 

And aren't the Reapers suppose to record ALL life in the galaxy? Not just humanity? So no "beam" on say, Dekunna, for example? Why focus on Earth? Ok Shepard. But if Shepard is a spacer,why would he give a crap about Earth? Sure, he may care for humanity, but not Earth. It's not his home.

 

The Reapers were cocky in their attitude I think. Maybe they didn't feel the need to protect it at all costs because they didn't think of humanity as that dangerous/efficient.

 

I might be wrong, but the beam only exists due to the Citadel, isn't it? Since there's only one Citadel, they can only focus on one planet. Earth being their primary target makes sense it's only there.

And Shep would maybe care more about humanity than Earth, but the results are the same in the end. He wants to protect humanity, no matter what his background. My first Shep was a colonist and I also found it strange at first that he cares so much for Earth, but if taken from the humanity angle, I'm completely fine with it.

 

Yeah, I prefer it too. I started ME3 a bit late, and with the EC... but ended up resorting back.

 

It's good knowing some of the slides in the EC though.

 

I first played without EC then downloaded it to see the differences. I liked the original ending a lot, but I also like EC, despite some of it being a bit... eh. Like the Normandy evac scene. Ok, I did love that I could have a dramatic goodbye with my LI, but it was just stupid to call in the Normandy.

The slides were quite a nice touch and actually everything else played out well for my Shepard (always pick Destroy), so I have no complaints about that

[Abelas Forever!]

Had the asari revealed that artifact earlier, its possible that the crucible may of been docked with the Citadel in the Serpent Nebula. Its also possible the reapers would never of known.

 

Even if they do move the Citadel to dark space, they couldn't since the signal is meesed up on the Citadel to use to get it to dark space and it would take them time to get it to dark space. 

It's true that if they had found the artifact earlier or if Shepard hadn't failed in Thessia then they could have attached Crucible to Citadel when it wasn't at earth. But that didn't happen and it's very hard to predict what would have happened if organics could have attached Crucible to Citadel much earlier. I believe that the story would have been quite different. I also believe that Catalyst knows that the organics are building Crucible because Udina was indoctrinated and Catalyst most likely knows that it's the missing part of the Crucible because it knows about the plans.

Citadel is a mass relay so even if the reapers could  activate it I don't believe that it's possible to move the Citadel to dark space using it because it's the mechanism which enables the transition because what it is but I don't believe that it could move itself using that technology. It's true that it would take a long time for reapers to move Citadel to dark space but I don't believe that they are in a hurry.

[themikefest]

It's true that if they had found the artifact earlier or if Shepard hadn't failed in Thessia

The only reason why Shepard failed is because of the asari and their obsession of being number 1. They never cared
 

But that didn't happen and it's very hard to predict what would have happened if organics could have attached Crucible to Citadel much earlier.

Its not hard to predict. The moment the asari decided not to reveal that artifact, was the moment they took away any opportunity to know if the crucible would've been attached to the Citadel earlier
 

I believe that the story would have been quite different.

Maybe. It still could play out the same way even if the asari revealed the artifact earlier
 

I also believe that Catalyst knows that the organics are building Crucible because Udina was indoctrinated

Is there any proof that Udina was indoctrinated?
 

and Catalyst most likely knows that it's the missing part of the Crucible because it knows about the plans.

The catalyst most likely knew that the first time a civilization tried to build the crucible however long ago

 

Citadel is a mass relay so even if the reapers could  activate it I don't believe that it's possible to move the Citadel to dark space

You're the one who said that you would've taken it to dark space instead of Earth. I was just commenting about why that might be hard to do
 

[Abelas Forever!]

Well, I have to disagree. When you create a brighter and explicit ending, you change a lot the ending. The "story" itself may have not changed a lot, but the narration, the idea, the concept of the ending is totally different. Only on a superficial level the EC didn't change the ending that much.

 

The EC changes :

-now there's a rescue scene. In the original game you suppose that your companions died during the run to the beam. (tone changed here)

-now you see the Normandy leaving while in the original game you understood that they leave because you hear hackett's order. (explicit event here)

-the conversation with the A.I. is longer and the A.I. tells you that he is an A.I. (explicit revelations here)

-during the cinematic just after the choice, you can see some people showing their feeling of joy and the music gives a victory feeling, it didn't exist in the original ending (tone changed here)

-in the original ending the Normandy crashes and then you have the ending credits and the stargazer scene, that's all. In the EC you have a bright closure. In the original ending, you have a feeling of a very new beginning, a dark age because the mass relay are destroyed. In the extended cut, the mass relay are not destroyed, they will be repaired. In the original ending you have to sacrifice the technology, the base of the advanced civilisation, in the EC you don't have such a thing, it seems that life goes on without the reapers, that's all. (explicit and tone changed here)

 

And EC creates a narrative problem (the concept of the ending can't accept closure. Closure is opposed to the idea Bioware had of their ending).

 

So, just like Blade Runner first ending and the director's cut ending are totally different, or Abyss cinema version and director's cut, the original ending and the extended cut are very different. When you turn something implicit to explicit and you change the tone, it's very different.

I watched a video comparing the two endings and in it one of the squad members who was in earth stepped out of Normandy in that planet and the scene was very hopeful. I didn't get the feeling that the new dark age was coming. So to me the original ending didn't look so dark comparing to EC ending. The original ending leaves many things untold and the mood in EC is brighter like you said. But I still don't think that EC changed that much. EC fills the gaps and explains things more and it also shows you what will happen in the future. Normandy also looks quite damaged in original ending comparing to EC but I could still imagine that they can repair it or that somebody will find them there and they can leave that planet.

[Gago]

ME3>ME2>ME1

[Abelas Forever!]

The only reason why Shepard failed is because of the asari and their obsession of being number 1. They never cared
 

Its not hard to predict. The moment the asari decided not to reveal that artifact, was the moment they took away any opportunity to know if the crucible would've been attached to the Citadel earlier
 

Maybe. It still could play out the same way even if the asari revealed the artifact earlier
 

It's true that asari hold information and that might have led to the situation where people didn't get the change to dock Crucible to Citadel when it wasn't at earth. Anyway I meant that it's hard to predict what would have happen if people would have managed to dock Crucible to Citadel when it wasn't at earth. I believe that the story could have been quite different if that would have happened.

 

 

 

Is there any proof that Udina was indoctrinated?
 

 

 

There isn't explicit evidence. Only suspicions. According to wiki (http://masseffect.wi...ki/Donnel_Udina):

"Later when Shepard and Anderson are pondering Udina's reasons for the coup, they suspect that he may have been indoctrinated."

 

 

 

The catalyst most likely knew that the first time a civilization tried to build the crucible however long ago

 

You're the one who said that you would've taken it to dark space instead of Earth. I was just commenting about why that might be hard to do
 

 

According to wiki (http://masseffect.wi...m/wiki/Crucible):

"The latest species to try, the Protheans, were able to construct the Crucible, but before they could deploy it, infighting broke out between those who wanted to use it to destroy the Reapers and a faction that believed they could use it to control the Reapers; these separatists were later discovered to be indoctrinated."

 

I suspect that reapers and that AI must know about the Crucible and Catalyst because  some of  those protheans were indoctrinated.

 

Yes. I said that it would have made much more sense to move Citadel to dark space and I was thinking that it could happen so that the reapers would escort Citadel there without using mass relays but I never wrote that

[angol fear]

I watched a video comparing the two endings and in it one of the squad members who was in earth stepped out of Normandy in that planet and the scene was very hopeful.

 

Yes if your squad member stepped out of the Normandy, you wondered why. But when you didn't have that, there was no Normandy evacuation scene to make you think that they were rescued so you thought that they died. For the planet scene in the end, yes the scene is very hopeful ("you have hope, more than you think" is an important line), but the ending isn't supposed to be totally dark or totally happy. There is a difference between (seriously) damaged and destroyed (but it depends on your choice/ending). And the original ending is supposed to end with a devasted galaxy that have a new start. The EC doesn't create that.

From the final hours of Mass Effect 3 app

it was Casey Hudson that said "“whatever we do would likely happen before or during the events of Mass Effect 3, not after”" There's another part that says using the crucible will cause a "galactic dark age"

http://www.gamefaqs....64007510?page=1

 

You actually look at the original ending with your vision of the ending coming from the EC, that's why you see all of this like details. You can see/interpret the ending the way it has been shaped by the EC but it wasn't the direction taken by Bioware.

 

Edit 1 : There were complaints about the mass relays being destroyed. It shows that people felt that "galatic dark age" and the end of the Mass Effect universe they know. I'm not saying that there is no possibility to create again the reaper technology, if you want to imagine that you can but the original ending makes you feel that it will take time, the EC doesn't. And the EC impose a vision that isn't what Bioware wanted.

 

And again, the narration coudln't accept the closure. But If people prefer the EC I'm glad they found a way to like the ending. I'm not complaining about the fact that people prefer the EC, I'm just saying that these two endings are totally different and it's obvious that the ending Bioware wanted is the original ending, that fits totally with the ideas in the end, with their purpose/intention.

 

Edit 2 : Sorry to insist, but in writing we can almost say that there is no detail. I took Blade runner example :

-first american version = we don't know if Deckard is a replicant or a human. In the end he will live happily with Rachel.

-first european version : we don't know if Deckard is a replicant or a human. In the end they will die. (no happy end)

-then Ridley Scott have made two other version with only very few scene which seems to be details : we understand that Deckard is a replicant.

Some "details" change everything in the story, actually. Everything is meaningful in the narration. Saying something explicitly or implicitly makes something different. When you start to analyze what is told and how it is told, there no more details.

[Abelas Forever!]

Yes if your squad member stepped out of the Normandy, you wondered why. But when you didn't have that, there was no Normandy evacuation scene to make you think that they were rescued so you thought that they died. For the planet scene in the end, yes the scene is very hopeful ("you have hope, more than you think" is an important line), but the ending isn't supposed to be totally dark or totally happy. There is a difference between (seriously) damaged and destroyed (but it depends on your choice/ending). And the original ending is supposed to end with a devasted galaxy that have a new start. The EC doesn't create that.

From the final hours of Mass Effect 3 app

it was Casey Hudson that said "“whatever we do would likely happen before or during the events of Mass Effect 3, not after”" There's another part that says using the crucible will cause a "galactic dark age"

http://www.gamefaqs....64007510?page=1

 

You actually look at the original ending with your vision of the ending coming from the EC, that's why you see all of this like details. You can see/interpret the ending the way it has been shaped by the EC but it wasn't the direction taken by Bioware.

 

Edit 1 : There were complaints about the mass relays being destroyed. It shows that people felt that "galatic dark age" and the end of the Mass Effect universe they know. I'm not saying that there is no possibility to create again the reaper technology, if you want to imagine that you can but the original ending makes you feel that it will take time, the EC doesn't. And the EC impose a vision that isn't what Bioware wanted.

 

And again, the narration coudln't accept the closure. But If people prefer the EC I'm glad they found a way to like the ending. I'm not complaining about the fact that people prefer the EC, I'm just saying that these two endings are totally different and it's obvious that the ending Bioware wanted is the original ending, that fits totally with the ideas in the end, with their purpose/intention.

 

Edit 2 : Sorry to insist, but in writing we can almost say that there is no detail. I took Blade runner example :

-first american version = we don't know if Deckard is a replicant or a human. In the end he will live happily with Rachel.

-first european version : we don't know if Deckard is a replicant or a human. In the end they will die. (no happy end)

-then Ridley Scott have made two other version with only very few scene which seems to be details : we understand that Deckard is a replicant.

Some "details" change everything in the story, actually. Everything is meaningful in the narration. Saying something explicitly or implicitly makes something different. When you start to analyze what is told and how it is told, there no more details.

I'm aware that my interpretation of the original endings are affected by the EC but I think that also applies to you. Your interpretation of the EC is affected by your interpretation of the original ending. I think the reason why I see that the endings don't differ that much is that EC is so explicit while the original ending is not. I'm assuming that your interpretation of the original ending was quite dark. Am I right?

It's true that if you don't see your squad members stepping out of the Normady in that unknow planet you probably assume that they are dead or you don't. I guess that depends on the person. I think it's possible to believe that the crew members are alive because you don't see them dying. You get clues that everybody who were participating in that  beam run died. But you and Anderson didn't die. So I think a valid interpretion of the beam run could also be that your squad members are wounded somewhere in earth unless you get that scene where they step out of Normandy and you start wondering what just happened and then you probably make conclusion that they managed to get back to Normandy somehow and it can happen also in those playthroughs where you don't see them stepping out of Normandy.

After watching the original ending again I agree that EC has changed the state of the mass relays in destroy ending. I didn't noticed that before. Anyway because the original ending was so open it's possible to imagine that the mass relays are repaired after all. There is no evidence that the people couldn't do that. Besides the mood in that unknow planet is so hopeful that you would think that everything will be ok even if the whole world is in ruins and I would imagine that the people in that planet will repair Normandy and are able to leave even in destroy ending.

I didn't think that dark age was coming because in EC you don't see that but I think that the dark age will come in EC as well because of the war. It takes a lot of time to repair all the damage and EC shows the situation when that has done. It skips the whole dark age thing but it doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

It's been quite  a while since I saw Blade Runner and I don't remember much about it. Anyway according to your examples the differences between those versions of Blade Runner is that Deckard is either dead or alive and that is pretty clear difference but in endings of ME3 there isn't  that clear difference. The only difference what comes to my mind is that mass relays are destroyed in original destroy ending but in EC destroy ending they are damaged. But nothing is preventing people from repairing them.

When something is told explicitly you can't interpret the story in any other way than it is presented to you. So when we see that Normandy comes to pick up those that were injured in beam run it doesn't change the ending. It just tell how they ended up to the Normandy because we know that they have ended up in Normandy in original ending as well. When it's clear that Deckard is replicant then people can't interpet him any other way but it still doesn't change the story. To realize that Deckard is actually replicant is very important detail in interpreting the story but still doesn't change the story.

 

I have no idea what vision BioWare had for the ending. Have they said anything about it? How the ending should be interpreted? Could it be that the original ending was so vague so that people could imagine the ending they wanted? I mean this is a game after all.

Anyway I still think that EC didn't change that much of  the original enging because there is still the beam run, Anderson and TIM, the AI and the choices. It's true that the original ending was darker but I wouldn't say that it's so much darker that it could be said the EC changed a lot of the original ending. But that's just my opinion.

[angol fear]

It's true that if you don't see your squad members stepping out of the Normady in that unknow planet you probably assume that they are dead or you don't. I guess that depends on the person. I think it's possible to believe that the crew members are alive because you don't see them dying. You get clues that everybody who were participating in that  beam run died. But you and Anderson didn't die. So I think a valid interpretion of the beam run could also be that your squad members are wounded somewhere in earth unless you get that scene where they step out of Normandy and you start wondering what just happened and then you probably make conclusion that they managed to get back to Normandy somehow and it can happen also in those playthroughs where you don't see them stepping out of Normandy.

After watching the original ending again I agree that EC has changed the state of the mass relays in destroy ending. I didn't noticed that before. Anyway because the original ending was so open it's possible to imagine that the mass relays are repaired after all. There is no evidence that the people couldn't do that. Besides the mood in that unknow planet is so hopeful that you would think that everything will be ok even if the whole world is in ruins and I would imagine that the people in that planet will repair Normandy and are able to leave even in destroy ending.

I didn't think that dark age was coming because in EC you don't see that but I think that the dark age will come in EC as well because of the war. It takes a lot of time to repair all the damage and EC shows the situation when that has done. It skips the whole dark age thing but it doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

 

It seems that we agree on the fact that the original ending have more possibilites of interpretation of the event after the choice.

 

 

I'm aware that my interpretation of the original endings are affected by the EC but I think that also applies to you. Your interpretation of the EC is affected by your interpretation of the original ending. I think the reason why I see that the endings don't differ that much is that EC is so explicit while the original ending is not. I'm assuming that your interpretation of the original ending was quite dark. Am I right?

 

Well, my vision of the ending is affected by the whole writing of the game. I don't have problem with the EC and I actually love the refusal ending, but the other choices I prefer the original ending, that's why I deleted the EC. My interpretation of the original ending wasn't that dark, I think. It ended happily with hope, a new civilisation, I don't see anything dark in that. But with the original ending Bioware went further in their idea than in the EC. You seem to forget that the EC was made for people, Bioware listened the "fans" and made the EC. With the original ending you could think that the events (after the choice) would be like in EC but in the EC you can't think that the events are like in the original ending.

So you may ask why in the original ending I think that Bioware went further than in the EC? From Thessia to the end, it's clearly a non-glorious vision of the war, Shepard is tired of the war against the reapers but still fight. Priority Earth isn't liked by many people because they were expecting a fight with victories, a fight based on spectacle. Bioware clearly didn't make that, it has never been their intention, and Shepard said in a Mass Effect 2 DLC that he is tired. The closer we get to the ending the more desperate it seems. That's why the possibility of your squad mate dying fits with the game (there were sacrifices during the whole game!), if your squad mate survived, great, but why there's no longer that possibility of them dying during the rush to the beam? I'm not saying that I want my squad mate to die, I'm saying that it's a possibility that should have been accepted in the original game and that interpretation fits with the narration. But the details of the original ending lead to a very different interpretation of the ending.

 

 

It's been quite  a while since I saw Blade Runner and I don't remember much about it. Anyway according to your examples the differences between those versions of Blade Runner is that Deckard is either dead or alive and that is pretty clear difference but in endings of ME3 there isn't  that clear difference. The only difference what comes to my mind is that mass relays are destroyed in original destroy ending but in EC destroy ending they are damaged. But nothing is preventing people from repairing them.

When something is told explicitly you can't interpret the story in any other way than it is presented to you. So when we see that Normandy comes to pick up those that were injured in beam run it doesn't change the ending. It just tell how they ended up to the Normandy because we know that they have ended up in Normandy in original ending as well. When it's clear that Deckard is replicant then people can't interpet him any other way but it still doesn't change the story. To realize that Deckard is actually replicant is very important detail in interpreting the story but still doesn't change the story.

No the ending of Blade runner isn't about Deckard being dea or alive, it's about his romance with Rachel. That example is clearly just like Mass Effect 3's ending. In the first american version, you hear Deckard saying that Rachel lives longer than what she's supposed to live. (the producers used some shot from Kubrick's Shining). Ridley Scott removed that part. Now the last words are "too bad she won't live, but then again who does?". Do you think that when you watch these two endings, you feel the same. Sure you can think that Rachel will live longer and they will live happily, but that's not what Blade runner was about. If Ridley Scott has removed it, it's because it doesn't fit. Blade runner is about life and death.

Sorry I've got to go, I'll develop later!

 

quick PS :

I have no idea what vision BioWare had for the ending. Have they said anything about it? How the ending should be interpreted? Could it be that the original ending was so vague so that people could imagine the ending they wanted? I mean this is a game after all.

 

Intention and interpretation are different things. They said very few things about the interpretation that's because their intention was to make the player think at the end. The player has to think and Bioware wanted him to make the story his story. As long as Bioware shows, it's Bioware the narrator and the story is Bioware's. The part after the choice is Shepard's (the players') decision, it's not Bioware's. And at the same time, Bioware wanted to end on a higher level of perspective. The problem of the closure is that it's strangely go from higher level (catalyst scene) to lower level ("human" scale of what happens after the choice) to meta level of perspective (stargazer scene). That's the problem that shows that the ending isn't supposed to be like EC : the ending is supposed to start at Shepard's scale to the catalyst's scale (higher level) to the storyteller scalewith the stargazer scene (meta level).

 

And actually, the story on a superficial level is not interesting. Advanced reader don't care about that level. Let's take Romeo and Juliet as an example. The story is very basic. Do you think that it's the story that makes it a masterpiece? It's the narration and the writing actually. And if we take Blade Runner again, Deckard being or not a replicant doesn't change the events. But it change everything : a human who has to stop some replicants and a replicant who doesn't know he's a replicant and who has to stop some replicants. Do you think that it's the same story?

[hemorrhoid]

3 was not as good:

 

1. The graphics in 3 in my opinion look plastic. The area was well designed but looked plastic. Funny thing is 2 graphic we good except some character designs were really bad especially their clothing. 

 

2. Citidel really changed, they were like screw it we are not going to redesign it again. You actually got sort of a station in Mass effect 2 now in 3 you get an outlet store. It does not feel like a large station in space.

 

3. You run out of ammo and it's harder to find. If you are bionic long wait times to use power if you go bio class. Most of the time i was standing their while the npc goes at it.

 

4. The Normandy interior looked worse. 2 the ship looked nice but 3 the floor being tore up and the security screening thing on the ship....I mean its kind of late to have that their because whatever is already on board. After about 10 times through that screening you become annoyed with it.

 

5. The only real improvement i liked was the point me in the right direction indicators. That is out of the entire game.

 

 

I did not like getting blind sided either by storyline. My mission was to get everyone on board to the war effort. An ambassadors son was leading a mission to stop a bomb from blowing up on a planet. If you choose to help him it spins into a storyline but at the same time you get a surprised mission to save the kids at the academy. Who knew that was a time sensitive mission. I put it off thinking it was in my to do list and finished all the mission on the same planet and storyline when i looked for the mission it was gone. Now the kids are dead and so is one of my old crew and i was like wow when did they start with type of mission and I got no hint that it was time sensitive. No real since of urgency around the importace I was on the ship 6 or 7 times and my aide only told me about the mission once. I got a mission to evacuate the planet (Dekuunna) from one of the minor races but his planet is not on the mission map.  Anyway 3 was not a good buy as a matter of fact they need to stop the series with this one, If this is what is to come. I have not finished I'm at the part where I have to target  a ship with targeting laser and no cover ... I think my character has PTSD.

 

Finally finished the game I did ME1, ME2,and 3 with the same imported character. Choose to destroy the base and got 0 pts to my war effort I think its suppose to be out of 6000 pts. The person at the bottom had a very nice score from ME2. for some reason when i look at achievements for ME3 i do not see and achievement for choosing to destroy the collector base....

 

{Note: You can achieve the perfect ending whether or not you destroyed the Collector's base. Main difference is that you get some additional war assets if you chose to save the collectors base.

 

Effective Military Strength (EMS): This is the War Assets, times the Readiness Rating.
On your War Assets screen you can see something like:
Total Military Strength: 6000
Readiness Rating: 80%
Effective Military Strength: 4800}

 

I ended up becoming a reaper and controlling them saving everyone. I do not like the idea of being immortal, especailly if your going to alone for all that time, I'm sure that gets old fast.

You do know that the power cooldown is greatly affected depending on how many and how heavy the weapons you carry are, right?

[hemorrhoid]

3 was not as good:

 

1. The graphics in 3 in my opinion look plastic. The area was well designed but looked plastic. Funny thing is 2 graphic we good except some character designs were really bad especially their clothing. 

 

2. Citidel really changed, they were like screw it we are not going to redesign it again. You actually got sort of a station in Mass effect 2 now in 3 you get an outlet store. It does not feel like a large station in space.

 

3. You run out of ammo and it's harder to find. If you are bionic long wait times to use power if you go bio class. Most of the time i was standing their while the npc goes at it.

 

4. The Normandy interior looked worse. 2 the ship looked nice but 3 the floor being tore up and the security screening thing on the ship....I mean its kind of late to have that their because whatever is already on board. After about 10 times through that screening you become annoyed with it.

 

5. The only real improvement i liked was the point me in the right direction indicators. That is out of the entire game.

 

 

I did not like getting blind sided either by storyline. My mission was to get everyone on board to the war effort. An ambassadors son was leading a mission to stop a bomb from blowing up on a planet. If you choose to help him it spins into a storyline but at the same time you get a surprised mission to save the kids at the academy. Who knew that was a time sensitive mission. I put it off thinking it was in my to do list and finished all the mission on the same planet and storyline when i looked for the mission it was gone. Now the kids are dead and so is one of my old crew and i was like wow when did they start with type of mission and I got no hint that it was time sensitive. No real since of urgency around the importace I was on the ship 6 or 7 times and my aide only told me about the mission once. I got a mission to evacuate the planet (Dekuunna) from one of the minor races but his planet is not on the mission map.  Anyway 3 was not a good buy as a matter of fact they need to stop the series with this one, If this is what is to come. I have not finished I'm at the part where I have to target  a ship with targeting laser and no cover ... I think my character has PTSD.

 

Finally finished the game I did ME1, ME2,and 3 with the same imported character. Choose to destroy the base and got 0 pts to my war effort I think its suppose to be out of 6000 pts. The person at the bottom had a very nice score from ME2. for some reason when i look at achievements for ME3 i do not see and achievement for choosing to destroy the collector base....

 

{Note: You can achieve the perfect ending whether or not you destroyed the Collector's base. Main difference is that you get some additional war assets if you chose to save the collectors base.

 

Effective Military Strength (EMS): This is the War Assets, times the Readiness Rating.
On your War Assets screen you can see something like:
Total Military Strength: 6000
Readiness Rating: 80%
Effective Military Strength: 4800}

 

I ended up becoming a reaper and controlling them saving everyone. I do not like the idea of being immortal, especailly if your going to alone for all that time, I'm sure that gets old fast.

And yes, also to my experience, saving the Collector base or destroying it has absolutely no effect on the third game whatsoever. Again - to my experience. But there is a reason that Biotics use their powers more than soldiers do, typically. I'm always the soldier because I don't really do powers other than Carnage, Concussive Shot and Incendiary ammo because those all come with the class. But Biotics tend to have a more aggressive and wider arsenal of powers that are possible also more effective that the soldiers' because they don't tend to rely on conventional weapons.

 

Usually the Yeoman tends to inform you of a mission when it appears, but doesn't really remind you of it, at least not more than once. And you'd have to walk down from the pedestal and away from area for her to pay attention to you most of the time at that. I recommend exiting the room entirely.

 

I do however agree with your view on the Control ending. ure it seemed like an interesting undertaking when the Illusive tried to do it, since that was a background element from the game's get-go, but I never chose the option myself, nor the Synthesis for that matter. I figure that even though it's the last game in the trilogy (and supposedly the next game and trilogy might have an atmosphere adapted to whichever ending you chose - if the games are even connected like that at all) I'd want as many as possible to be alive now that I know the series continues.

 

But of course that's just me. To each his own.

[DSiKn355]

Well, my vision of the ending is affected by the whole writing of the game. I don't have problem with the EC and I actually love the refusal ending, but the other choices I prefer the original ending, that's why I deleted the EC. My interpretation of the original ending wasn't that dark, I think. It ended happily with hope, a new civilisation, I don't see anything dark in that. But with the original ending Bioware went further in their idea than in the EC. You seem to forget that the EC was made for people, Bioware listened the "fans" and made the EC. With the original ending you could think that the events (after the choice) would be like in EC but in the EC you can't think that the events are like in the original ending.

So you may ask why in the original ending I think that Bioware went further than in the EC? From Thessia to the end, it's clearly a non-glorious vision of the war, Shepard is tired of the war against the reapers but still fight. Priority Earth isn't liked by many people because they were expecting a fight with victories, a fight based on spectacle. Bioware clearly didn't make that, it has never been their intention, and Shepard said in a Mass Effect 2 DLC that he is tired. The closer we get to the ending the more desperate it seems. That's why the possibility of your squad mate dying fits with the game (there were sacrifices during the whole game!), if your squad mate survived, great, but why there's no longer that possibility of them dying during the rush to the beam? I'm not saying that I want my squad mate to die, I'm saying that it's a possibility that should have been accepted in the original game and that interpretation fits with the narration. But the details of the original ending lead to a very different interpretation of the ending.

 

So you like the morbid ending I see.

 

Everything you know dying off for the sake of "new life" which we have not been introduced to so don't really care about as we have not invested any time or emotions into them.

 

Even in Pyrrhic victories there are hard fought battles which would have been nice to have in ME3 or even a last boss fight would of been ok as a game should have a last boss fight regardless. (Don't forget it is a game lol)

 

And God know's where you imagine there is "hope" for your crew in the original ending as let me remind you...

 

1. Normandy stranded on a foreign planet which require FTL Mass Relay jump to get there.

2. Mass relays destroyed.

 

How people will survive or reunite is beyond me.

 

Quarians and Turians require special foods but are stranded now on earth = death via starvation.

 

And as for "dark age" I would say that is only really gonna happen if you choose destroy as it destroys all advanced Tech thus reverting technology backwards giving the feeling of a "dark age" but if you choose control or synthesis the tech stays present so it's not really a "dark age" as such.

 

I guess there is hope for those outside of your crew but its your crew which effects the player and the apparent death of them is a downer for the player.

 

There was no reward for the struggle.

 

Yes the mission was achieved but we gained nothing from it.

 

It's all good leaving the ending empty and open to interpretation but we can only follow from the events shown which are.

 

Crew on foreign planet stranded with a busted ship (where the heel will they find parts for repairs!?!?)

Mass Relays destroyed (no one can use them to get back and again... Parts for repairs on tech more advanced than their own!?!?)

IF Shep survives he/she has no way to reunite with the Normandy.

 

This is the original Ending.

 

This is the "Hope" for the crew of the Normandy lol.

 

The Ending is just stupid and is incoherent to the lore already established.

 

Soveriegn: "we are beyond your understanding"

 

 

The AI did multiple scenarios over millions of years even attempted a form of Synthesis yet all fail and suddenly now it will work (synthesis) and other options have become available.

 

Infact offering the "destroy" option would go against the AI's original programming as it is programmed to monitor the relationship between Synthetics and Organics. So to wipe out one would not be monitoring a relationship.

 

And if Destroy was an answer why in millions of years has the Reapers/AI never attempted this?

 

"Because the Crucible presented new information ..... blah blah blah" bollocks! lol.

 

Still saying a lower intellect presented info a higher intellect tasked with finding the answer missed for millions/billions of years after running multiple kinds of scenarios trying to find an answer!?

 

Plothole and stupid story telling lol.

[Torgette]

Well the galaxy already survived the Rachni Wars, Tuchanka was already a wasteland, the Quarians were already taking risks leaving the Flotilla, etc. I think given the circumstances of all the major worlds being reaped by the time you activate the Crucible that no matter what it's going to be tough to rebuild. Even weirder is the idea of all these synthesized races sweeping trillions of dead likely into reaper processing for disposal so they can go on to have a happy utopian lifestyle or whatever it is they do.

[themikefest]

And yes, also to my experience, saving the Collector base or destroying it has absolutely no effect on the third game whatsoever. Again - to my experience.

It does if your ems is below 1750

 

If the collector base is saved, control will be the only ending available

 

If the collector base is destroyed, destroy is the only ending available