225 réponses à ce sujet

[Madrict]

The endings were fine, and Shep can live if you want......

[prosthetic soul]

The endings were fine, and Shep can live if you want......

Considering the endings consisted of a gargantuan contrivance, I would argue that no, the endings were not fine.  It's all good though.  I reject them outright.  Because an ending that is based on contrivances isn't valid.  Therefore, I can replace the endings with any fanfiction in the world and it can be canon. 

 

My Shepard shot TIM then activated the Crucible by hitting the control panel really hard with a wrench (THIS IS HOW WE FIX THINGS IN RUSSIAN SPACE STATION).  Afterwards, he rode off the Crucible on a magical space tiger, went back to Earth, got Jack laid, retired from the military, and started his own alternative rock band called The N7s. One day, I'm going to commission someone to paint a mural that showcases exactly this.  I'm going to have a copy framed in my living room.  And then I'm going to send a copy to Bioware headquarters.  It'll simply be titled.....

 

Spoiler

Integrity

 

Hopefully they won't donate it this time.

[ImaginaryMatter]

I dunno if that would've been better. Sounds like it would have been annoying, like a farce within a farce. If the Crucible had turned out to be a dud on Cronos station, then there basically is no resolution, and the game might as well just end there. The only plus I can really think of out of that is that the Catalyst basically has no reason to exist if that was true.

 

Well... I actually thought the game would be some sort of CV scenario or some other kind of twist (*grown* I know), but given how much more prominence the EMS/Galaxy at War system got it seemed like the conclusion at the time, despite the overwhelming Reaper military jazz. As is my new shtick, the game mechanics really only lends itself to that kind of ending.

[prosthetic soul]

Wasn't so much artistic integrity. They did listen to what people had to say. That's what the Extended Cut was for. It just wasn't for those who completely rejected the idea of the Catalyst and the endings altogether and wanted them to scrap it and replace it with something else entirely. That was an unreasonable request.

[Iakus]

Did you consider the feelings of people who liked the ending when you asked them to redo it?

Well they already had their endings...

[KaiserShep]

Did you consider the feelings of people who liked the ending when you asked them to redo it?

 

Unless the game automatically gets patched to alter the ending, it wouldn't really be a big deal for those people, since they can simply opt out of the DLC and leave the game as is.

[KaiserShep]

They were not going to create a special alternate ending DLC just for those still mad to this day over the ending. While leaving the original one intact. They were pretty clear on that after the Extended Cut came out.
 
Most people took their money elsewhere.

I don't follow. As far as I can tell, the game never auto-updated to add the new ending. I had to go get it myself, which I installed the moment I purchased ME3. As for money, it's free, so they could take it elsewhere anyway.

[Linkenski]

Why do you hate Shepard? 

 

That's like hating kittens. 

I don't hate Shepard, but I'm sick of hearing people miscontrue the ending as if the whole controversy was riding on whether Shepard lived or died. Bioware's official response towards the backlash also had to do with the death of Shepard and it feels incredibly patronizing when you know that it's just as much the actual plot and narrative in general that fell apart.

 

Had the death of Shepard been mandatory but with meaning, I'm sure a lot of people would still be up in arms about it, but generally I think there would've been enough who accepted it because it was well done, but in its current state, the death of shepard in all 3 endings is probably just a third of why I think the ending has so much hate surrounding it and not the main reason.

[Get Magna Carter]

The endings were fine, and Shep can live if you want......

I'm a console player with no home internet connection so no access to Multiplayer or Extended ending  So no way to get the Shep lives ending

[Get Magna Carter]

Shepard hadn't died at the end?

 

Lets face it, we can all go on about how the ending didn't make sense and was a lazy rip off of Deus Ex and yadda yadda yadda, but in the end the real problem with the ending was that Shepard died and you did not get the happy ending you wanted.

 

Of course I am not saying the ending wasn't **** for legitimate reasons (though I really don't think it deserved quite the backlash it got) but if you look at the ending to Inquisition you will notice that despite being far shittier than the ending to Mass Effect 3 there are nowhere near as many people complaining about it, in fact you even got more than a few people willing to praise it despite not delivering on the whole "40 endings" thing that was claimed before release, and it is all because the fans got their happy ending.

 

 

 

So I guess the moral of the story is give the fans a happy ending or they will burn down your house.

Firstly, I've no idea why you are mentioning Dragon Age Inquisition.  the ending of that doesn't have anything resembling the problems of Mass Effect 3, isn't as bad as the ending of Dragon Age II, and it is the third game in an ongoing sequence of games each with it's own protagonist whereas Mass Effect 3 was the conclusion of a trilogy of games starring Shepard and as such had a lot more depending on it.

 

TellTale's first Walking Game season 1 didn't exactly have a happy ending but it didn't have the same problem.  There are many differences which could explain this.

1) the darker tone of the setting making death more expected  2) the events at the end of the penultimate chapter mean the protagonist's unavoidable doom is seen well in advance  3) the following desperate heroism he displays with obvious seen consequences 

[Queen Skadi]

Firstly, I've no idea why you are mentioning Dragon Age Inquisition.  the ending of that doesn't have anything resembling the problems of Mass Effect 3.

 

Uh yeah I know, the protagonist did not die and got their happy ending, isn't that the point I was making?

[Get Magna Carter]

Uh yeah I know, the protagonist did not die and got their happy ending, isn't that the point I was making?

If you think that's the only difference between them then your experiences are very different to mine....

How did you feel the final boss battles were in comparison to each other?

[Get Magna Carter]

In my opinion the biggest problem is not the fate of Shepard but rather the fate of everyone else.

 

In the original endings on release the player had a big choice between 3 options, in addition to the undesirability of these options and the dubious justification for having such options forced on the player, the consequences of these decisions were not shown leading to the suggestion that the only difference between the 3 endings was the colour of the explosions.

Bioware left the details to the players' imaginations.

and the players used their imaginations.

They imagined the horrible deaths of people on the Citadel

They imagined the difficulties faced rebuilding following the destructions of the Mass Relays ...especially given the amount of destruction that occurred the previous time a Mass Relay went boom.  And even if the Earth and Solar system were not destroyed by the Mass Relay's explosion then what would happen to the aliens in the system ...would they be able to get home?  would they starve?

And also imagined the hardships by the Normandy's crew stranded on an unknown planet following the Normandy's crash landing.  Would their be suitable food for Turians and Quarrians or would Garrus and Tali die of starvation?

 

These possibilities had not been considered or intended by Bioware causing a lot of amendments in the extended ending

 

Maybe, the lesson should be if the hero must die it needs to be clearly displayed as resulting in a significant achievement and not just a hollow victory 

[Draining Dragon]

Shepard surviving doesn't make up for all the plotholes and deus ex machina.

[jstme]

Speaking only for myself,of course, death of protagonist is not the main reason why ending was poor. Of course i would prefer Shepard surviving,but if it was not the case,oh well,so be it.

ME3 ending is horrible because it does not fit rest of the story,it forces submission to your antagonist,it relies on symbolism instead of reason,it ruins role-playing thus creating bewilderment disappointment and anger. Shepard surviving shooting the tube (lol) ,being electrocuted (lol) or jumping into the green (lol) would not change how out of place,pretentious and silly it all ended.  

And while all that i wrote is extremely subjective and is my opinion only, Shepard being alive in same ME3 ending would still result in need to emigrate to another galaxy altogether to allow for another game in Mass Effect universe which tells all you need to know about qualities of ME3 ending.   

[AlanC9]

Bioware left the details to the players' imaginations.
and the players used their imaginations.
They imagined the horrible deaths of people on the Citadel
They imagined the difficulties faced rebuilding following the destructions of the Mass Relays ...especially given the amount of destruction that occurred the previous time a Mass Relay went boom.  And even if the Earth and Solar system were not destroyed by the Mass Relay's explosion then what would happen to the aliens in the system ...would they be able to get home?  would they starve?
And also imagined the hardships by the Normandy's crew stranded on an unknown planet following the Normandy's crash landing.  Would their be suitable food for Turians and Quarrians or would Garrus and Tali die of starvation?

There's a good deal of truth in this. The EC seems to have been mostly about killing off bad interpretations -- a lot of playets used their imaginations but not the rest of their brains.

[AlanC9]

ME3 ending is horrible because it does not fit rest of the story,it forces submission to your antagonist

I've been hearing this sort of thing for years, and it never makes much sense. What definition of "submission" includes killing the person you're submitting to and destroying everything he's worked for, or taking his place outright?

Though I agree that as a matter of RP Shepard should have been able to get into a stupid and pointless argument at the end.

[prosthetic soul]

I've been hearing this sort of thing for years, and it never makes much sense. What definition of "submission" includes killing the person you're submitting to and destroying everything he's worked for, or taking his place outright?

Though I agree that as a matter of RP Shepard should have been able to get into a stupid and pointless argument at the end.

You're not thinking hard enough. 

 

Shepard doesn't destroy the Reapers.  The Starbrat only ALLOWS Shepard to destroy the Reapers and/or take its place.  That's the inherent problem with the endings.  Starbrat basically replaces both the antagonists and the protagonist of the game in the last 10 minutes of the entire trilogy. 

[MrFob]

I can only speak for myself but I did play through the trilogy with JAM once, to keep Shepard alive. For me, it didn't make much difference. My main problem with the endings is not so much connected with Shepard's death as it is with the conversation with the star kid. There is just so much wrong with this conversation that I can't take anything seriously afterwards, no matter what Shep's fate is.
 
But that's just me. I have seen a lot of people for whom it does make a difference so I guess it depends on the person you are talking to.

Also:
 

The EC seems to have been mostly about killing off bad interpretations -- a lot of playets used their imaginations but not the rest of their brains.

What do you mean by that? Are you saying that these problems that people imagined were somehow illogical? That people should have come to the conclusion that the original endings would have inevitably culminated in what the EC epilogues show if they just thought about them hard enough? If so, I beg to differ. It was the EC that was a slapped on reworking of the ending into a happy outcome (artistic integrity be damned).

[jstme]

I've been hearing this sort of thing for years, and it never makes much sense. What definition of "submission" includes killing the person you're submitting to and destroying everything he's worked for, or taking his place outright?

Though I agree that as a matter of RP Shepard should have been able to get into a stupid and pointless argument at the end.

The most accurate answer will be - that's how it feels ,to me.

We can endlessly dance around details (you only know that you "kill" Catalyst because,well,thats what Catalyst tells you ,you can claim that it is just exposition device and it does not have any need to lie,i can point how broken and stupid Catalyst solutions are so why trust new ones,you can say its Crucibalist and not Catalyst now) and all is fine and well, but all the times i had to accept the glowing crap, all i really wanted to do is to kick it where it hurts the most.

 

So subjective was in my post for a reason.    

[rapscallioness]

I think it would have been better received if after the Catalyst bit, they had shown your war assets in action. Working together. Everything you built up. The Rachni swooping in with their toxic goobers. Maybe saving some Krogan butt in the process. The quarians and geth--if you saved them both.

 

Heck, even the Elcor stomping through with canons on their backs. Asari. Volus bombarding from space. The whole gang.

 

Yes, Shep had to deal with the Reapers themselves, but there were still alot of ground troops/husks that could have been shown being obliterated by your forces.

 

I think showing that would have made it feel more like it was not all for nothing.

 

edit: and not showing the relays blowing up. the art dept may have thought it looked cool, but as soon as i saw that, I immediately thought of Arrival.