1106 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

Was it even a major issue?  Or I guess I mean wouldn't almost as many people ****** if the ending was too happy, win the day style?

 

I really do think the core issue was the entire core concept of the super magic gun.  It basically made ME1 and 2 irrelevant to the core concept of defeating the reapers, even more than ME2 was unrelated to the reaper plot. It wouldn't matter what happened in any of those games outside the abstract you were buying time.  You could literally have the same story starting at ME3 with a brand new character as if ME1 and ME2 never happened, and the story is the same.  If the events of ME1 and ME2 had tangible effects on the Reapers so they were a force that could be defeated by conventional means and the whole gather a alliance thing would actually have meaning, then whether happy or sad I don't think people would have had too large of an issue with the endings. 

 

I mean why the eff does your EMS score have any effect on the outcome if its just a magic wave of pure love that solves everything.  Wouldn't the only thing that matter is getting a work force built and scientists together to build it faster?  Seriously who thought, having ME1 and Me2 be about delaying the reapers and then think oh well I guess we will just take the scenic route works as a intro into ME3 where all it did was slow them down by like 6 months. Have those delays have a tangible result on the war not some hey we got 6 more months to find Excalibur.  Have the reaper fleet show up vastly diminished as they solved the discharge problem by discharging into their smaller ships sacrificing a large chunk or their forces, have the discharge system be something where they are self cooking and show up totally jacked up, make it years and the story is about building the forces and stealing existing reaper tech before they show up so you have a fighting chance, have a final delay them one last time story where this time it stopped them permanently.

 

I think pretty much anything but hey here is a magic gun spin the revolver and decide which magic bullet you want to use to solve all your problems would have been greeted more positively whether it was a happy or sad ending.

And this is exactly why I say Shepard's survival is only part of the problem.  Because yes even if any/all of the ending outcomes had Shepard striding out of the Citadel like a bad@ss it still would have been terrible, for the very reasons you described.  And even other reasons you haven't mentioned.

 

But for all that, I am convinced the complaints would have been much less if Shepard got to walk away in at least some outcomes.

[Cheviot]

I didn't believe in reapers. We didn't win or defeated reapers. Reapers surrender the war they already won. This is biggest nonsense in ME3 ending. You blindly trust word of your enemy who can mind control.

Wow, what a nostalgia trip this thread is.  We've started with pointless discussion of the ending, and now we're moving on to Indoctrination theory blather!

[Eryri]

Was it even a major issue? Or I guess I mean wouldn't almost as many people ****** if the ending was too happy, win the day style?

I really do think the core issue was the entire core concept of the super magic gun. It basically made ME1 and 2 irrelevant to the core concept of defeating the reapers, even more than ME2 was unrelated to the reaper plot. It wouldn't matter what happened in any of those games outside the abstract you were buying time.

snip

Have those delays have a tangible result on the war not some hey we got 6 more months to find Excalibur. Have the reaper fleet show up vastly diminished as they solved the discharge problem by discharging into their smaller ships sacrificing a large chunk or their forces, have the discharge system be something where they are self cooking and show up totally jacked up, make it years and the story is about building the forces and stealing existing reaper tech before they show up so you have a fighting chance, have a final delay them one last time story where this time it stopped them permanently.

snip.

Couldn't agree more, and your idea of using the discharge problem as a reason for the Reapers being sufficiently weakened to defeat conventionally is brilliant.

[KaiserShep]

And this is exactly why I say Shepard's survival is only part of the problem. Because yes even if any/all of the ending outcomes had Shepard striding out of the Citadel like a bad@ss it still would have been terrible, for the very reasons you described. And even other reasons you haven't mentioned.

But for all that, I am convinced the complaints would have been much less if Shepard got to walk away in at least some outcomes.

I'm sure that even just a slight change to the breath scene would have made the difference, like when panning over the rubble, there's a searchlight that flashes over it with the familiar shuttle noise and maybe faint comm chatter in the background. There, Shepard found. The end.

[Panda]

I don't think the story for any playthrough is visible until after you've completed that playthrough.

What is ME3's story, do you think? The time I played it, it was about Shepard working within the Alliance to implement TIM's reaper control plan.

I never reached "the end" of DA2 while playing it, because I didn't have a character who could get that far. I tried three times, and I couldn't make it.

 

Destroying reapers, though ending gave two other options in the end.

 

Well to me that sounds like you haven't finished DA2 then, you have simply tried it and you didn't like it.

 

I don't really get your point since although you can control your character in the game and make some choices majority of games have linear story line, start and end. Only some sandbox games reach the state for me where ending is optional and that's mostly if main story is just one quest line among others and not something that brings game to end.

[Ahglock]

And this is exactly why I say Shepard's survival is only part of the problem.  Because yes even if any/all of the ending outcomes had Shepard striding out of the Citadel like a bad@ss it still would have been terrible, for the very reasons you described.  And even other reasons you haven't mentioned.

 

But for all that, I am convinced the complaints would have been much less if Shepard got to walk away in at least some outcomes.

 

My point of contention is the much part of much less.  I agree it would be less, but I think people have used much less and similar comments as a way to diminish the opinions of those who didn't like it.  Its similar to the you just didn't get it, what it is no one ever explained but apparently I didn't get the super deep story behind the ending and that is why I didn't appreciate its brilliance.  You didn't get, it they only wanted a happy ending are short hand for not smart enough, too immature etc.

 

I haven't noticed that kind of assault from you, but I think the term is used so often by people who do mean it as a way to attack the character of people who didn't like the ending as opposed to tackling their arguments that I like to argue the Much part of less when I see it.

[iM3GTR]

Mass Effect 6...right at the end some random thing happens.

Then the screen cuts to black, and Shepard wakes up aboard the Normandy to say:

"What a strange dream. It's was even more stupid and random than all those other unemotional dreams of the stupid kid." 

Then he attacks the Cerberus base, and you have to play through the mission, TIM shoots himself and then Shepard uses the Crucible to destroy just the Reapers, with Star-Child nowhere to be seen.

Then an apology message comes up from Mac Walters explaining how he is really sorry that he screwed up the original ending to Mass Effect 3 and the credits roll and everyone is happy (except everyone who wanted an actual ending to the Andromeda trilogy).

[Glockwheeler]

Personally, not knowing much about the next game(s), I'm not really sure what I want. At this point, I suppose I would like for Bioware to surprise me. I want them to tell a story in a manner that suits their vision of what Mass Effect is and let the story stand or fall on it's own merits. I don't want them to tell a story the way I want it to be told, as that would would be.........disappointing. Surprise me.

[Iakus]

My point of contention is the much part of much less.  I agree it would be less, but I think people have used much less and similar comments as a way to diminish the opinions of those who didn't like it.  Its similar to the you just didn't get it, what it is no one ever explained but apparently I didn't get the super deep story behind the ending and that is why I didn't appreciate its brilliance.  You didn't get, it they only wanted a happy ending are short hand for not smart enough, too immature etc.

 

I haven't noticed that kind of assault from you, but I think the term is used so often by people who do mean it as a way to attack the character of people who didn't like the ending as opposed to tackling their arguments that I like to argue the Much part of less when I see it.

Oh, believe me,  ME3 is a mediocre game with a pseudo-intellectual "message" and a terrible ending, don't get me wrong.   I've had "you just don't get it" aimed at me more times than I can count.

 

But I think if the game had at least an okay ending, people could have turned their brains off more easily and simply enjoy it as a scifi shooter.  And just ignore all the "Art"

[Vicurs]

I didn't completely hate the ME Trilogy ending, some of them sort of made sense in a way, and the DLC's definitely help resolve them(Hate the fact though). I completely agree with Rappeldrache. I like to look at witcher as an example, I got a rather depressing ending for my character when I was making certain decisions and had no idea I was screwing up. This made me WANT to go back and play again, so I could get the ending I wanted for MY character. I had the choice of sad, bitter-sweet, and happy. I think being able to decide how YOUR character turns out should be considered a huge portion of an RPG. They kind of set the ultimate fate for your character in ME3, stole choice from us in my eyes.

 

Hey don't hate you know TW3 is a good example

[dreamgazer]

Couldn't agree more, and your idea of using the discharge problem as a reason for the Reapers being sufficiently weakened to defeat conventionally is brilliant.

Sorry, but no, there isn't anything "brilliant" about giving the Reapers an inherent and crippling structural flaw that they had millions billions of years, the vast majority of which wasn't spent actually engaged in the cycles, to fix and no Plan B in place to avert it. The holes involved with the Reapers just showing up in a weakened state, ripe for defeat, reeks of propping up ME2's pathetic "Ah yes, Reapers" universe reboot and its devotion to being a Captain Space Therapist simulator. 

 

I'm glad ME3 perpetuated most of their prowess to the bittersweet end. 

[Iakus]

 

I'm glad ME3 perpetuated most of their prowess to the bittersweet end. 

Except if ME3 actually did that, Shepard never would have gotten to Mars, let alone out of the Sol system alive.  We would have gotten a "Critical Mission Failure" as soon as they hit Earth.

 

but then, we've been over all this before.

[dreamgazer]

Except if ME3 actually did that, Shepard never would have gotten to Mars, let alone out of the Sol system alive.  We would have gotten a "Critical Mission Failure" as soon as they hit Earth.

 
Right, just like we wouldn't have ME1 had Saren actually used his Spectre status properly, and we wouldn't have ME2 had TIM spent billions of dollars on something other than one person. The Reapers achieved successful results in ME3 with their attack pattern, after all, resulting in minimal irreparable damage and reactionary measures like blowing up relays (perhaps even the Citadel) and global suicides. There were benefits to the way they handled their assault, since there's no way of avoiding the galaxy knowing when the Reapers arrived.
 

but then, we've been over all this before.

Then the mods can shut down this thread, because it's nothing but seven pages of "all this before" and speculative musings on an ending to a plot nobody knows anything about yet.

[CuriousArtemis]

Well this whole thread is based on the "we all hated the ending, how can ME:A do better?" which is inherently flawed because, no, everyone did NOT hate the ending. A lot of people did, and it's fine to talk about how you'd want ME:A to be different, but so far this thread is generally just "We all agree ME3 ending sucked lol man it sucked, that is universally agreed upon, lets give examples of how it sucked 100% for everyone" which is not only erroneous but has nothing to do with the OP.

 

Then again the OP is kind of silly b/c it's asking how a game we know nothing about should end.

[Ahglock]

Sorry, but no, there isn't anything "brilliant" about giving the Reapers an inherent and crippling structural flaw that they had millions billions of years, the vast majority of which wasn't spent actually engaged in the cycles, to fix and no Plan B in place to avert it. The holes involved with the Reapers just showing up in a weakened state, ripe for defeat, reeks of propping up ME2's pathetic "Ah yes, Reapers" universe reboot and its devotion to being a Captain Space Therapist simulator. 
 
I'm glad ME3 perpetuated most of their prowess to the bittersweet end.

If something can't be solved, it can't be solved. Physics wont change just because the reapers bang their tentacles at it for a few billion years. As far as the lore was concerned, it was impossible to avoid discharging, They could have just stuck with that. As for a contingency plan they had one, it was called the collectors. It failed. Another contingency plan? Oh yeah warp into a outer relay in Batarian space.. That failed too. Yet another one? Maybe they had 100 but after 2 billion years of not needing the first one maybe they no longer work, bad maintenance. But honestly have they ever been portrayed in a way that they would prepare that much? They were basically a ball of arrogance with a core of pure stupid. I doubt they would foresee ever needing the first contingency plan.

And hey if that still isn't enough and people needed them to show up full power unstoppable. Then just make them unstoppable and they wipe everyone out and ME3 is just a story of you attempting to prepare so the next cycle might have a shot. Or heck have ME3 be about them building the Ark to escape.

[Eryri]

Sorry, but no, there isn't anything "brilliant" about giving the Reapers an inherent and crippling structural flaw that they had millions billions of years, the vast majority of which wasn't spent actually engaged in the cycles, to fix and no Plan B in place to avert it. The holes involved with the Reapers just showing up in a weakened state, ripe for defeat, reeks of propping up ME2's pathetic "Ah yes, Reapers" universe reboot and its devotion to being a Captain Space Therapist simulator.

I'm glad ME3 perpetuated most of their prowess to the bittersweet end.

Weakness is a relative attribute. The Reapers have always been portrayed as unimaginably powerful. Reducing that power by the means that Ahglock suggested need not have made them "ripe for defeat", but it would have been a lore friendly way to even the odds somewhat. Enough perhaps to make a "conventional" victory more realistic, albeit after a suitably long and bloody war. I would certainly have preferred that to the ludicrous magic bullet that was the Crucible.

[dreamgazer]

If something can't be solved, it can't be solved. Physics wont change just because the reapers bang their tentacles at it for a few billion years. As far as the lore was concerned, it was impossible to avoid discharging, They could have just stuck with that.

Eh, yeah, that's a pretty convenient way of avoiding billions of years of time spent not doing anything about an easily exploitable weakness, hinged on rudimentary technology that could be conquered because they're simply bored and really want to be the pinnacle of evolution.

As for a contingency plan they had one, it was called the collectors. It failed.

Assuming they didn't have versions of the Collectors simply conducting the same activity in previous cycles anyway.

How, precisely, was that a contingency plan?

Another contingency plan? Oh yeah warp into a outer relay in Batarian space. That failed too.

That's not a contingency plan. That's the first stop on the scenic route. This cycle merely bought time by making them take an even longer route.

Yet another one? Maybe they had 100 but after 2 billion years of not needing the first one maybe they no longer work, bad maintenance. But honestly have they ever been portrayed in a way that they would prepare that much? They were basically a ball of arrogance with a core of pure stupid. I doubt they would foresee ever needing the first contingency plan.

They're presented as being technologically advanced, to a point where they can repurpose organic sludge into new Reapers. Driving straight into a knowing galaxy in a weakened state where they can be defeated and end the all-important cycles? Because of discharge? Sorry, that's presenting them as far dumber and less aware than anything found in-game.

[dreamgazer]

Weakness is a relative attribute. The Reapers have always been portrayed as unimaginably powerful. Reducing that power by the means that Ahglock suggested need not have made them "ripe for defeat", but it would have been a lore friendly way to even the odds somewhat. Enough perhaps to make a "conventional" victory more realistic, albeit after a suitably long and bloody war. I would certainly have preferred that to the ludicrous magic bullet that was the Crucible.

The geth developed a self-repairing Colossus in a few hundred years. You'll have to excuse me from thinking of the idea of permanently weakened, billion-year-old Reapers rolling into the knowing galaxy and getting conventionally defeated as being less believable than a super-weapon.

[Mathias]

Mass Effect 1 already started to lay down the foundation towards defeating the Reapers conventionally. There was an implication that despite how powerful the Reapers are, and they are very powerful, their greatest advantage was crippling each cycle with an overwhelming surprise attack. That and in each cycle there is normally one dominant species that rules over the rest.

 

Our cycle is the first cycle to ever receive real warning about The Reapers, and we stood at the end of ME1 not only delaying the Reaper invasion by god knows how many years, but we stood united, and each race brought something unique to the table. That right golden opportunity right there should've been the jumping off point that led to our cycle developing a way to prepare and put up a real fight. But then Mass Effect 2 retconned that and so we got the infamous "Ah yes Reapers..." line, and we found out the galaxy had been doing nothing about the Reapers for two years. We didn't have the means to fight against the Reapers conventionally in Mass Effect 1, but that's where Mass Effect 2 should've come in.

 

Instead we got one of the worst and most literal examples of deus ex machina I've ever seen in ficition. 

[Il Divo]

My point of contention is the much part of much less.  I agree it would be less, but I think people have used much less and similar comments as a way to diminish the opinions of those who didn't like it.  Its similar to the you just didn't get it, what it is no one ever explained but apparently I didn't get the super deep story behind the ending and that is why I didn't appreciate its brilliance.  You didn't get, it they only wanted a happy ending are short hand for not smart enough, too immature etc.

 

I haven't noticed that kind of assault from you, but I think the term is used so often by people who do mean it as a way to attack the character of people who didn't like the ending as opposed to tackling their arguments that I like to argue the Much part of less when I see it.

 

If the ME3 Retake movement was primarily about happy endings, I can't say these forums were a great demonstration of that at the time of release. Sure, resurrecting Shepard was a big point. But I also recall just as many threads attempting to emphasize that, for them, this wasn't about bringing Shepard back, but more with the logic/premise of the Catalyst and Reapers in general. Or trying to figure out where the squad-mates went. Or how Synthesis was wacky, lack of reactivity, A/B/C endings, etc.
 

I'm feeling too lazy to go internet digging at the moment, but if I remember right, a few gaming journal articles were taking the same tone, at least after they were done with the artistic integrity arguments, which didn't really hold water.

[dreamgazer]

Mass Effect 1 already started to lay down the foundation towards defeating the Reapers conventionally. There was an implication that despite how powerful the Reapers are, and they are very powerful, their greatest advantage was crippling each cycle with an overwhelming surprise attack. That and in each cycle there is normally one dominant species that rules over the rest.

One. Reaper.
 

Instead we got one of the worst and most literal examples of deus ex machina I've ever seen in ficition.

It's not even the most literal example of a DEM in Mass Effect.

[AlanC9]

Mass Effect 1 already started to lay down the foundation towards defeating the Reapers conventionally. There was an implication that despite how powerful the Reapers are, and they are very powerful, their greatest advantage was crippling each cycle with an overwhelming surprise attack. That and in each cycle there is normally one dominant species that rules over the rest.

Well, except for the whole Reaper-shrugging-off-the-entire-fleet's-attack thing.

[Il Divo]

Alan, a while back, didn't you make a great comparison about how the cycles were basically the Reapers' way of herding livestock? I always thought that made more sense than the "they need to surprise us" approach, even back in ME1.

[Mathias]

Well, except for the whole Reaper-shrugging-off-the-entire-fleet's-attack thing.

 

One. Reaper.
 

 

So the races develop more advanced weaponry.

[Lyrandori]

I just don't want them to come up with a " Misunderstood Enemy " story.

 

Make sure that the antagonist(s)' plan(s) and/or goal(s) (or "cause") is crystal clear BEFORE the ending itself. Don't leave too much room for interpretations, like... TELL me a story. Seriously, writers need to stop relying on us to complete the story's conclusion on our own, screw interpretations. My job isn't to tell one on my own to satisfy my own imagination because the story's author(s) got lazy. You want to write a story? You want to tell a story? Then TELL IT dammit! (really, that one gets on my nerves as far as literature goes, I HATE having to fill up the gaps or the actual endings myself). And, perhaps more importantly above all else, give us CHOICES, options. Want to make my protagonist some sort of a sacrificial lamb or a martyr in the end? FINE fine... do it... BUT if I want to get out of the mess like a hero with a fanfare and a giant crowd applauding me Star Wars A New Hope-style then do THAT one as well. Want an ending that sees my hero winning but at a greast cost, losing teammates or heck losing a limb or two in the process? Then do THAT one too!

 

Not asking for a million choices. But I'm definitely asking NOT to be forced towards absolutely ridiculous paths without any forms of actual decision-making on my part that actually determines what kind of ending I'm going for. And give us a post-ending epilogue... no actual need for full rendered scenes or CGIs or anything that would cost too much to make or would take a decade to complete. Just text-based epilogue slides with some basic background art and music, and that's it.

 

Oh I almost forgot to say... please?