718 réponses à ce sujet

[N7ClassSoldier]

Okay, personally I liked the ending of Mass Effect 3, though I can understand why many people had a problem with it. No real boss fight, similar endings, choices seem more negative than positive. But there is one thing I noticed in a lot of fan-fiction and a mod that create a "better" ending, which is that Shepard is alive and well. You mean, people actually had a problem with Shepard dying?

So let me get this straight: the Walking Dead, Lee dies, best ending ever. Terminator 2, T-800 dies, best ending ever. Mass Effect 3, Shepard dies, worst ending ever?

I mean, come on! One of the largest themes of the game was sacrifice and honoring the people who gave their life for the greater good. So why couldn't Shepard do it? He's the main hero of the game and is written as the savior of the Galaxy, so it's obvious that he would die for the Galaxy. Besides, if other movies or video games can get away with main characters dying, why not Mass Effect 3?

I don't know, maybe I'm missing something. Why don't you guys provide some opinions below.

[Vazgen]

People don't complain about the fact of death itself. They complain about the way it was presented. In two of three endings Shepard sacrifices himself completely trusting an intelligence responsible for creating the Reapers. In the remaining ending, people are forced to kill a squadmate and, possibly, a synthetic race (who are only there if player gave them a chance to live in the end of quarian arc). That's what people have problem with. Especially after defying every hard decision in the game with "I win" Paragon/Renegade dialogue options and interrupts. 

It's like if in Matrix 2 ending Neo were forced to do what the Architect intended, with only option to save Trinity requiring destruction of Nebuchadnezzar.

[Akrabra]

Also it was the worst kind of railroading, it took away our choices and personality in one fell swoop, and swooping is bad. Even the added ending in the EC where we could deny the Catalyst felt like a middlefinger to the fans, because it completely obliterated everyone and everything. Which means Bioware never intended for us to beat the reapers without us beeing railroaded. The death of Shepard does not bother me, because i always thought she would die at the end of the trilogy. 

[Vazgen]

For the record, I like the Destroy ending, but then again, I don't consider synthetics as "alive" and I have no problem killing both them and EDI (though usually it's only EDI that gets to that point). Especially since both the geth and EDI use Reaper technology.

[Felps Cross]

They complain about the way it was presented. In two of three endings Shepard sacrifices himself completely trusting an intelligence responsible for creating the Reapers. In the remaining ending, people are forced to kill a squadmate and, possibly, a synthetic race (who are only there if player gave them a chance to live in the end of quarian arc).

 

This. You got the idea. Even though the blue and green endings have a nice concept, its just this. Its like after 3 games, at the brink of galactic anihilation, they try to "indoctrinate" you by making you believe that the reapers are good in some way, and that destroy may not be the best choice for the galaxy. Looking through this way, we can even consider the endings to be really well though out, but I hardly believe it to be true. 

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

So let me get this straight: the Walking Dead, Lee dies, best ending ever. Terminator 2, T-800 dies, best ending ever. Mass Effect 3, Shepard dies, worst ending ever?

 

I can help: You don't have it straight. Whether a character lives or dies has no inherent impact on the quality of an ending.

 

I don't know, maybe I'm missing something. Why don't you guys provide some opinions below.

 

What you're missing is that Shephard dying had nothing to do with the quality of the ending.

[Dantriges]

I have no problem with Shepard dying but if we look more closely it is rather unnecessary.

 

Destroy: You are at the docking station of the Crucible which is the top of the Council tower. That area is open to space, there are probably forcefields only. Call in a shuttle, shoot that cable with a rifle from the shuttle if the Kodiaks cannons would do too much damage.

 

Synthesis: Just needs Shepard´s DNA. Throw in a blood sample, a finger or if that´s not enough, an arm. Slap on some medigelIt´s possible you bleed to death, but still better chances than the alternative. And they can regrow your appendages.

 

Control: Sucks to choose that. You could make a case that uploading your mind isn´t necessary for control. Catalyst guy is standing right beside you, how about:

Shep: I assume control of this AI

Cat: Ok, the current to kill your...

Shep: Wait a moment, didn´t say anything about uploading. I tell you what to do.

 

But for me it more or less boils down to that I am not really fond of following instructions from the galaxy´s biggest mass murderer. I don´t even know if he´s lying or thinks he´s telling the truth but a bunch of runtime errors result in faulty reasoning. I mean he doesn´t make much sense.

[themikefest]

Destroy: You are at the docking station of the Crucible which is the top of the Council tower. That area is open to space, there are probably forcefields only. Call in a shuttle, shoot that cable with a rifle from the shuttle if the Kodiaks cannons would do too much damage.

That's one idea I had however long ago. It bothered me that Shepard made no attempt to get a hold of Hackett after confronting the catalyst.
 

Synthesis: Just needs Shepard´s DNA. Throw in a blood sample, a finger or if that´s not enough, an arm. Slap on some medigelIt´s possible you bleed to death, but still better chances than the alternative. And they can regrow your appendages.

Or go back down the elevator and grab Anderson's or TIM's body and throw it in the beam
 

Control: Sucks to choose that. You could make a case that uploading your mind isn´t necessary for control.

What would happen if Shepard was to have edibot  pick control?

 

[Dantriges]

My idea when I played it the first time was:

Pick control

Activate headcanon

Tell the Reapers to repair severything

Fly them into the nearest stars

Download in a MEC body or research all this knowledge in the Reaper archives (before destruction) of how to download your mind back.

Done.

 

Seems that the Shepalyst disagreed with me. He sounded too much like he had his own ideas about that.

 

Throwing in a dead body? Sounds like it should work. Not TIM´s, too many implants and I don´t want anything from TIM in my improved body.  

 

Uploading EDI, hm... we probably have to laugh every time our new overlady makes a joke or else.

[AlanC9]

Or go back down the elevator and grab Anderson's or TIM's body and throw it in the beam

Hey, we all know that the space magic would have required a living, conscious being

[Dantriges]

Ah yes, the "essence of Shepard." Sounds like a perfume.   Seems the writers took a wrong turn and accidentally landed in the Bab 5 universe with its soulhunters. 

[AlanC9]

I think we were always there.

Concerning your earlier post.. if you can make the Reapers fly into a sun, what's the point of actually doing that?

[themikefest]

Hey, we all know that the space magic would have required a living, conscious being

We? 

[IMNOTCRAZYiminsane]

The endings will be the endings no matter what. What i hated was that you have been fighting to destory the reapers for all three games. You had to deal with two main bad guys that wanted synthesis ( Saren) and Control (Tim) clearly stating how BAD those two choices were Yet we are presented those choices Not even by our selves but by the biggest bad. The Reaper Boss himself.

We are to take what the Reaper BOSS himself says as fact (of course it becomes fact after we see the ending, but lets look at it as new players) we have dealt with Tim who wanted to control and Saren who wanted synthesis they were a pain in our asses! why the HELL would I choose those choices when I can just pick destory!? the choice ive been wanting to have for the longest of time! To me it didn't feel like a hard choice I mean its the end game this should be hard and exciting like choosing to Sacrifice yourself or Alistair. Im about to choose something that the Galaxy is going to deal with. What im trying to get at is that they should have presented those choices in a good light and not from the damn Reaper boss. I wanted to be conflicted on which choice to choose instead walking to the right (destroy) with my eyes closed. 

[Dantriges]

I think we were always there.

Concerning your earlier post.. if you can make the Reapers fly into a sun, what's the point of actually doing that?

 

Oh the idea was a complete transfer into a body, an organic one if possible. Afterwards there would be no Shepalyst left, yo you have to get rid of the Reapers just in case they get funny ideas like "destroy al organic life" or so. And well they deserved it anyways.   

 

Yeah this whole word of the Reaperboss annoyed me, too. Uh I just came from a London in ruins, walked over piles of his victims in a literal sense and now I take his words as gospel truth.

[ImaginaryMatter]

 

Synthesis: Just needs Shepard´s DNA. Throw in a blood sample, a finger or if that´s not enough, an arm. Slap on some medigelIt´s possible you bleed to death, but still better chances than the alternative. And they can regrow your appendages.

 

When the Catalyst says 'organic energy' I always figured it could be any organic that has energy in it and there are 2 bodies down stairs that have plenty of organic tissue made up of molecules with bound atoms and stuff.

 

So go down stairs, drag Anderson's body across the floor, and throw him in!

[prosthetic soul]

Hey OP.  I completely beg to differ.  Read the link in my sig. 

 

The ending sucked for a lot of reasons.  INCLUDING the fact that Shepard gets railroaded into dying (mostly) in all four endings. 

[txgoldrush]

People still do not get why Shepard, as Paragon, would pick Control or Synthesis.

 

The Extended Cut really did a good job covering this.

 

A Paragon Shepard would choose control to save his synthetic allies and perhaps much more from the effects of destroy, sacrificing him or herself for the many. Here is the deal. Control was never bad. TIM just went about it the wrong way.

 

THE DIFFERENCE between Shepard controlling the Reapers and TIM attempting to is that Shepard has to sacrifice himself or herself for that power, with the Paragon focusing his or her monologue on sacrifice to save others, while TIM would sacrifice everything and everyone to do so, so he can have power. The difference here is the PERSON, the power does not make it the same.

 

Shepard is required for Synthesis because the Lazarus Project made him both organic and synthetic. Anderson does not fit this. 

 

Bioware made an ending far too thematically complex for this audience.....ugh

[fraggle]

When the Catalyst says 'organic energy' I always figured it could be any organic that has energy in it and there are 2 bodies down stairs that have plenty of organic tissue made up of molecules with bound atoms and stuff.

 

So go down stairs, drag Anderson's body across the floor, and throw him in!

 

Both of them were not in favor to go down the Synthesis road. TIM represented Control, Anderson Destroy. According to the Catalyst you need someone who is ready for Synthesis, so these two wouldn't have been choices.

[Rhaenyss]

People still do not get why Shepard, as Paragon, would pick Control or Synthesis.

 

The Extended Cut really did a good job covering this.

 

A Paragon Shepard would choose control to save his synthetic allies and perhaps much more from the effects of destroy, sacrificing him or herself for the many. Here is the deal. Control was never bad. TIM just went about it the wrong way.

 

THE DIFFERENCE between Shepard controlling the Reapers and TIM attempting to is that Shepard has to sacrifice himself or herself for that power, with the Paragon focusing his or her monologue on sacrifice to save others, while TIM would sacrifice everything and everyone to do so, so he can have power. The difference here is the PERSON, the power does not make it the same.

 

Shepard is required for Synthesis because the Lazarus Project made him both organic and synthetic. Anderson does not fit this. 

 

Bioware made an ending far too thematically complex for this audience.....ugh

That was my reasoning as well for the 'Control' ending & I don't regret my choice. It's practically the ultimate martyr ending that I expected. It's not an accident that it's represented with the blue color. And 'Destroy' goes well with the renegade reasoning, imho. 'Synthesis' is a odd man out, and it's probably too advanced for this cycle, the people were not ready. The 'Refusal' is a bit dickish, even though the people in the next cycle were saved by our "sacrifice" (read: Shepard being a dick for not doing anything). Though I loved how the Harbinger stopped playing nice and reverted to his old voice in the end

[Dantriges]

They left the area of soft sci-fi and space magic and took a jump into the territory of faith. Sacrifice yourself at the altar of Huitzilopochtli to make the sun rise up again , eh I meant kill yourself with the crucible.

 

It was never mentioned that only Shep can do synthesis because of his implants. The catalyst mentions them as a reason that being partly synthetic isn´t so bad but the only requirement is willingness.

[dorktainian]

it's bad because.... it's not an ending at all. Absolutely nothing is decided at all.  (thanks breath scene) You have 4 choices with cutscenes but they are not a singular ending.  Where there are multiple possibilities there cannot be a singular ending.  That is bad storytelling.

[angol fear]

Mass effect is not a fairy tale. If you need an ending where everything is decided then grow up ! Read real literature, watch real film, stop stories for kids and teenagers. You'll see that endings are not like you got used to.

[prosthetic soul]

Mass effect is not a fairy tale. If you need an ending where everything is decided then grow up ! Read real literature, watch real film, stop stories for kids and teenagers. You'll see that endings are not like you got used to.

This is quite possibly the dumbest, most fallacious logic I have ever seen.  Ever.  Real films and real literature can ALL have actual endings that provide closure.  Some can be happy, some can be saccharine, some can be downright dark and depressing.  If you honestly think for one second that a fairy tale somehow makes it immature or "unreal" (whatever the frip that means) then you are objectively WRONG.  Here, I did some research for you regarding fairy tales.  And it appears fairy tales have just as much literary meaning as "real literature" you so love to praise. 

 

In less technical contexts, the term is also used to describe something blessed with unusual happiness, as in "fairy tale ending" (a happy ending)^[2] or "fairy tale romance" (though not all fairy tales end happily). Colloquially, a "fairy tale" or "fairy story" can also mean any farfetched story or tall tale; it is used especially of any story that not only is not true, but could not possibly be true. Legends are perceived as real; fairy tales may merge into legends, where the narrative is perceived both by teller and hearers as being grounded in historical truth. However, unlike legends and epics, they usually do not contain more than superficial references to religion and actual places, people, and events; they take place once upon a time rather than in actual times.^[3]  Fairy tales are found in oral and in literary form.

 

The above is the textbook definition of a fairy tale.  Please note the bolded parts, which directly contradict your insipid accusation that just because an ending or story has fairy tale elements makes it have less narrative impact or is somehow not a a "real story."

[Monica21]

This is quite possibly the dumbest, most fallacious logic I have ever seen.  Ever.  Real films and real literature can ALL have actual endings that provide closure.  Some can be happy, some can be saccharine, some can be downright dark and depressing.  If you honestly think for one second that a fairy tale somehow makes it immature or "unreal" (whatever the frip that means) then you are objectively WRONG.  Here, I did some research for you regarding fairy tales.  And it appears fairy tales have just as much literary meaning as "real literature" you so love to praise.

 

No. Just no. You're missing the point entirely. You're fundamentally misunderstanding (maybe purposefully) what an ambiguous ending is. Gone Girl is ambiguous. So is The Shining, 2001: A Space Odyssey, No Country For Old Men, and Blade Runner. There are some great pieces of literature and film that have ambiguous endings. Your problem is that you continue to insist on an ending that makes you happy. Guess what? You can't have it. The ending is Bioware's. You're free not to like it. No one cares if you don't like it. But saying that it's bad because you personally didn't get what you wanted is a poor justification for not liking the ending.