3560 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

 

-the memorial scene. It was nice. Wasn't nice for people that romanced Miranda or Jack since neither of them can be on the Normandy to hold Shepards nameplate. It also brings up some questions. Who was it that told them Anderson is dead? How do they know Shepard is dead in the blue and green ending? Its hard to say someone is dead without a body. If anything i would have it that Shepard is currently missing. If ems is below 3100 and destroy is chosen, Shepard is dead and the nameplate is put on the wall. I would guess someone discovered the body confirming he/she is dead. Its possible its the same person(s) that discovered Anderson's body. If ems is above 3100, the nameplate isn't put up. That would mean that same person discovered Shepard is alive and there would be no need to hesitate to not putting up the nameplate

 

The only possible explanation:

 

This all took place a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...

[angol fear]

Then why did you like the post below? Why didn't you make the same comment as above to the post below? It mentions the dlc was to clarify and explain things

I agreed with the sentences before and did see why I would developed that point. But here you developed that point.

[oddball_bg]

I think some of those people you were talking about weren't going to be happy unless a complete rewrite was considered. Which would end up upsetting a lot of those who liked the ending.

 

It's a no-win situation. At the end of the day, someone will be upset no matter what happens.

"At the end of the day, someone will be upset no matter what happens"

You are right.That's always the case.

[rossler]

I don't feel the original ending was underdeveloped, but that's just me.

There's enough information there, although most of it very subtle to make everything fit together.

Even the Extended Cut has a lot of subtle meanings that aren't directly spelled out for the player. Although some is directly stated, some isn't.

They do directly tell you there was a victory over the Reapers in destroy. However, listening to EDI in synthesis, she sounds quite different than when she was on the Normandy. They don't tell you why though.

Same for Shepard in control. It's not directly stated by I believe the Reapers have influenced both of them. Their words are very Reaper-like and not like the true Shepard or EDI that we know.

Hackett in destroy is not affected in any way.

[AlanC9]

The whole point of Synthesis is that EDI is different. She should sound different.

And the Sheplyst isn't supposed to be the same being as Shepard; it says so itself. Again, the difference doesn't mean what you're pretending it means.

[aoibhealfae]

EDI became humanized with Synthesis. Even her facial expression was human-like. (still very pale in comparison to Tricia Helfer as Number Six)

 

But merely making synthetics appearing human isn't enough. This is when the narrative doesn't make sense. It branch from accepting a version of alternate life into appropriating them in a single leap. Mass Effect doesn't provide you with enough material to work with the humanized-synthetics narrative and relationship (which is much better explored in Battlestar Galactica, Humans, Blade Runner, Real Humans and even Terminator). It depends on too much suspension of disbelief and being too much idealistic that a utopiac galaxy filled with conformed beings wouldn't all fall into chaos. Even in EDI's narrative, the existing choice isn't even enough, they're still seeking for the ultimate way for preservation of life... of being immortal. What was the point of giving the reapers this?

 

BSG marathon is still so much better than this.

[angol fear]

But merely making synthetics appearing human isn't enough. This is when the narrative doesn't make sense. It branch from accepting a version of alternate life into appropriating them in a single leap. Mass Effect doesn't provide you with enough material to work with the humanized-synthetics narrative and relationship (which is much better explored in Battlestar Galactica, Humans, Blade Runner, Real Humans and even Terminator).

 

"Humanized-synthetics"? that's totally anthropocentrist and that's not Mass Effect's ending! That's your first wrong step.

Then you are making comparison with other pieces. But here is your second wrong step : your comparison can be valid only if a comparison can be make (which means to see what is in common and the what are the differences to understand how they are different). So here your comparison is useless : saying that X is better than X whitout any explanation doesnt lead us anywhere.

So now let's see your comparison :

-Battlestar Galactica, Humans and real humans are TV series, so you want to say that TV series are much developed than Mass Effect on this point (organics/synthetics). Mass Effect was written like a trilogy of films, not like a TV serie.

-Blade Runner, yes that's easy, because it is a masterpiece and you think that nobody will say that Mass Effect is at the same level Blade Runner is. Actually you're wrong, the level of writing of Mass Effect is as high as Blade Runner is. Blade Runner focused on human and replicant being (identity, life etc...). The difference between organics and synthetics is part of what makes Mass Effect, it is developed but in a different way. If you don't go into details, you know that Blade Runner is a masterpiece because the critics said it (I don't think you know why it is a masterpiece because you wouldn't put Blade Runner close to Battlestar Galactica, Humans, real Humans), but you won't understand why Mass Effect isn't at a lower level. Both Blade Runner and Mass Effect used implicit (in a different way) while TV series work on explicit things because of the audience.

-Terminator, which one? there are films and TV series. There are two masterpieces (Terminator 1 and 2) and the others were made to make money.

 

So just like that guy who created a topic on synthesis and talked about Mass Effect and Deus Ex as if Mass Effect was supposed to be like Deus ex, you are wrong : Mass Effect is different, the writing is different, you have to understand it to make comparison, or you have to make comparison in order to understand how Mass Effect is different from BSG, etc...

That's the principle of the comparison. Imposing your vision of the writing is irrelevant because you are not talking about Mass Effect but what you think Mass Effect is or what you want it to be.

[aoibhealfae]

Normally when I refer to 'Blade Runner', I usually meant the original "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" which is a novel that sparks the earlier forms of discussions around artificial intelligence existentialism, expansions of humanity's moral and ethical constructs, technological apathy which is a lot more nuanced in literary form than the 'cult-classic' action movie. 

 

Mass Effect is still largely about the conflict between organics and synthetics but its more about being able to do something about it and react according to it. There's barely enough material in the game narrative that actualize the idea that an amalgam of perfection is desired. In fact, ME1 and ME2 is about you being in conflict against a race of organo-synthetic god creatures.... and suddenly the three of the final choices (Refusal, Control, Synthesis) in the ME3 was about you willingly accepting what you've already fighting against constantly. In synthesis, its like someone put a space magic blender into everything and regurgitate it out as the 'best' option without a clear narrative path that lead to it.

 

The game was already subtle to begin with. Saren's indoctrination. Shepard's reconstruction. The Collectors. EDI. The Quarian and Geth conflict. But it didn't do enough to explore the idea of the idea of an artificial intelligence having self-actualization. They rushed it with Legion and EDI's narrative had to accommodate with her relationship with Joker but it was her final conversation with Shepard allowed a glimpse into her developed psyche. However, talking to EDI a couple of time barely do her justice and she is still taking baby steps, Synthesis merely give her a shove into complete sentience and a fully-actualized woman. Then again, the final choice made it seems like its Virmire all over again again.

[voteDC]

I don't feel the original ending was underdeveloped, but that's just me.

See this is where I get to the "really?" point. I honestly don't see how people can see the shipped endings, and in this I include the cinematics (perhaps most important), and say the ending was fully developed.

I don't like how the Catalyst conversation came across, personal preference I admit, but the information it provided made me believe the choice I was about to make would have massive repercussions. I was then shown a selection of three sets of cinematics that were nearly identical in execution and then...nothing. You can't tell me things are going to be vastly different and then show me things that are nearly identical.

This is why I enjoy the Extended Cut so much. It took those ideas and made them truly unique and there was still enough "lots of speculation for everyone" for people to work with.

I have no problem in believing that people like the ideas behind the shipped endings, but I really do find it hard to believe that people can like the execution of them.

[rossler]

In synthesis, its like someone put a space magic blender into everything and regurgitate it out as the 'best' option without a clear narrative path that lead to it.

 

Saren explained how synthesis works quite well. A union of flesh and steel. The strength of both, the weakness of neither. I am a vision of the future Shepard, the evolution of all organic life. This is our destiny. Join Sovereign, and experience a true rebirth.

 

So yeah, this was explained in the first game very well.

 

People just seem to not like the idea where the Reapers stack the deck mostly in their favor, as opposed to all the choices favoring what Shepard wants. Which is kind of makes things a bit cheesy.

 

See this is where I get to the "really?" point. I honestly don't see how people can see the shipped endings, and in this I include the cinematics (perhaps most important), and say the ending was fully developed.

 

Well the definition of a fully developed ending is purely subjective. Some people even wanted a full Citadel DLC length pack just to satisfy their need for closure. Without that, the ending felt incomplete for them.

 

Other people liked that the ending was vague and didn't explain everything. Lots of mystery, and allowed people to fill in the blanks.

 

They did show cinematics of the Reapers being destroyed, etc, so if they left that out, yeah, I would agree the ending might have needed a bit more, but they put that in there.

 

I don't like how the Catalyst conversation came across, personal preference I admit, but the information it provided made me believe the choice I was about to make would have massive repercussions. I was then shown a selection of three sets of cinematics that were nearly identical in execution and then...nothing. You can't tell me things are going to be vastly different and then show me things that are nearly identical.

 

This guy counters this argument quite well

 

I mean if the final cutscene is supposed to be the culmination of all these choices across three games as people claim, what is the rest of the game supposed to show us?

[SofaJockey]

They wanted an ending that would be talked about.

Be careful what you wish for I don't think the franchise will survive another

 

I certainly wasn't wanting (or expecting) the ending that arrived.

Possibly because the trailers led me think it would a bad ass battle on Earth with fleets and armies.

 

Makes one wonder, why make trailers showcasing what was certainly not in the game...

 

They could have had a memorable ending to the recent Star Wars movie, perhaps?

No, let's not have any X-Wing battles, lets have Finn and Kylo Ren have a nice game of chess and the winner gets to recolour the stormtroopers...

 

( no )

 

But, I've made peace with the ME3 ending because it is what it is.

No BioWare, please don't feel the need to have another 'clever' ending in a hurry...

[rossler]

Game and other companies do this stuff all the time

[malace_ixo]

@Rossler - I was originally extremely nonplussed with the incoherent execution of several elements in the ME3 ending, and think I might have even only let myself give it a single run-through, post EC (minus dlc). Read some pretty out there supplementary writeups on IT and its valid criticisms so I've been largely separated from a view of the underlying themes I'd attempted to construct. What you expressed in this thread helped me revisit the impression I took away from everything after getting hit with the beam. Just wanted to sign in and thank you for helping me regain an appreciation for the aesthetic in what Bio may have aimed for and to eschew a greater part of the disgust I was running into.
- (Not a forum dweller so no reply necessary)

Edit: What I took away in case this read like a naive ****-post

[rossler]

I never was one to fully subscribe to the face value ending. I mean, I looked at it, but it just seemed so implausible that they could write something like that. So I kind of looked beyond that and found Bioware's indoctrination of the player to be a better explanation. As well as a satisfying conclusion. It just gave me this *wow* feeling when I first completed the game. Others looked at it from a different way than IT and found something enjoyable about it as well.

[aoibhealfae]

.... Indoctrination Theory is just someone's bad fanfiction that exist with the principle that help create Twilight, Fifty Shades of Grey and religion. No way I'm stepping into this muck again.

[ImaginaryMatter]

.... Indoctrination Theory is just someone's bad fanfiction that exist with the principle that help create Twilight, Fifty Shades of Grey and religion. No way I'm stepping into this muck again.

 

I don't think it was too bad at the onset of the ending. If you believed the writer's were going for something complex, the Catalyst's dialogue being vague and contradictory, the Catalyst's stated goals not aligning with it's actions, the lack of continuity, and the lack of agency for the player -- all that adds up nicely for IT. It doesn't hold up after the EC since the company made it's intention pretty clear, the added dialogue adds some agency and fixes some of the continuity errors -- but at that point it was pretty neat. I don't think the EC fixed the serious underlying flaws so I'm somewhat sympathetic with people who still choose to go with IT.

[rossler]

I think they went towards the literal ending, because that group was making the most noise, while ITers were quietly discussing things.

They did also say stuff like there is no canon, so if they release a DLC, it doesn't prove or disprove anything.

[angol fear]

Normally when I refer to 'Blade Runner', I usually meant the original "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" which is a novel that sparks the earlier forms of discussions around artificial intelligence existentialism, expansions of humanity's moral and ethical constructs, technological apathy which is a lot more nuanced in literary form than the 'cult-classic' action movie.

 

I know that novel and I know how different the adaptation is.

So you're talking about "Blade Runner" but you actually want to talk about "Do androids deam of electric sheep?" and you say that the book is "more nuanced" than the film which is for you an action movie (once again you are totally wrong). That's really awkward...

[Reorte]

I think they went towards the literal ending, because that group was making the most noise, while ITers were quietly discussing things.

Or more likely it was meant literally in the first place and really was that bad. Even if it wasn't meant literally in the first place not being literal is enough of a reason to pour scorn on it since it shoves it even further along the path of pseudointellectualism written by someone who thinks that they're being clever when they're anything but.

[Linkenski]

What exactly felt cheap and terrible?What did you expect and want from the ending?

You loved it, and ignorance is bliss then. If you actually start to really think about the ending in the grand scheme of things you'll realize it doesn't fit into the overarching narrative as it was told in Mass Effect 1, 2 and 3 in particular. If there is a truth to the "artistic statement" that all organics are destroyed by its own creations "always" and you had needed to make a choice that felt meaningful to that conflict, then I would've loved the ending but the fact is, it's a completely different story from how Mass Effect 3 was told all the way up to the final 10 minutes. The 3 choices are only hard to pick between because all 3 are undesirable and don't fit into anything Shepard had to concern himself with for the entire story. The player is confused because we didn't hear about this supposed conflict before the very end and don't know how to adjust to something that seems so distant and devoid of narrative context. It's simply not an idea that was conveyed clearly or early enough in the narrative to really feel substantial enough to become the CENTRAL CONFLICT OF THE ENTIRE TRILOGY in the finale.

 

It's like writing an assignment about poverty in south africa where your main points are about welfare and socio-economic subjects and then concluding that the climate of South Africa is the problem without having focused on it. Your teacher would tell you your text is incoherent, as any lector of drama or literature would tell Bioware if they read Mass Effect 3's script.

 

They could've told a much more impactful and fitting conclusion than they did. What we got was nonsense that seemed deep on the surface, and I've not even mentioned the retcons and retroactive ruination the final twist caused yet.

 

If you look elsewhere you're bound to see tons of logical fallacies or other scapegoats about why people hate the ending. Every gaming media/journalist outlet will support those ideas. The unfortunate truth is that the hate-train surrounding this ending was mostly about self-entitlement and people crying because it was too sad and not enough choice-consequence'd. The real beef for me and anyone who has something between their ears, however, will always be the complete destruction of coherence that occurs the second the Catalyst is introduced in the final 10 minutes. I like to think even the whiny people who just wanted Shepard to survive subconsciously noticed something was fundamentally wrong in the final 10 mintues other than that, but I can't speak on their behalf.

 

Side-notes:

 Leviathan DLC establishes the idea of synthetics vs organics being the central conflict earlier for you... but like I said. Making it the central conflict is still a huge stretch, even though it's the (retroactively made-up) reason behind the existence of the Reapers and the Mass Effect universe. It feels like it's only placed and put emphasis on in the ending and then completely hidden in the remainder aside from being heavily emphasised in a lot of side-content from Mass Effect 1. Every time I've played ME1 since ME3 I've noticed how it seemed like the metabolic conflict between organics and synthetics was a big idea for a central conflict from the beginning, but as the series went on it diverged and placed more emphasis on other ideas that became the central themes, like humanity vs aliens, heroism, implications and ramifications of war, transhumanism, transalienism, cthulhu-ism and ****. We just moved too far away from the big Synthetics vs Organics idea throughout ME2 and ME3 to arrive back at that conclusion, even though I would believe Casey Hudson if he told me it was the first idea of the Reapers they came up with and the idea he always wanted to be the theme for the trilogy's ending.

[rossler]

Just because someone writes a big long post about what is wrong with the ending, doesn't mean anything, because there's a bunch of other posts of why the ending made sense.

Which leads me to believe that the narrative of the game is fine.

The only ending that is terminally incoherent is the face value ending, which a lot of people seem to latch on to and make most of their arguments from.

[Dantriges]

The ending is coherent with ME 2 and 3 insofar, as the story starting at the beginning of ME 2 is a huge mess anyways.

[oddball_bg]

You loved it, and ignorance is bliss then. If you actually start to really think about the ending in the grand scheme of things you'll realize it doesn't fit into the overarching narrative as it was told in Mass Effect 1, 2 and 3 in particular. If there is a truth to the "artistic statement" that all organics are destroyed by its own creations "always" and you had needed to make a choice that felt meaningful to that conflict, then I would've loved the ending but the fact is, it's a completely different story from how Mass Effect 3 was told all the way up to the final 10 minutes. The 3 choices are only hard to pick between because all 3 are undesirable and don't fit into anything Shepard had to concern himself with for the entire story. The player is confused because we didn't hear about this supposed conflict before the very end and don't know how to adjust to something that seems so distant and devoid of narrative context. It's simply not an idea that was conveyed clearly or early enough in the narrative to really feel substantial enough to become the CENTRAL CONFLICT OF THE ENTIRE TRILOGY in the finale.

 

It's like writing an assignment about poverty in south africa where your main points are about welfare and socio-economic subjects and then concluding that the climate of South Africa is the problem without having focused on it. Your teacher would tell you your text is incoherent, as any lector of drama or literature would tell Bioware if they read Mass Effect 3's script.

 

They could've told a much more impactful and fitting conclusion than they did. What we got was nonsense that seemed deep on the surface, and I've not even mentioned the retcons and retroactive ruination the final twist caused yet.

 

If you look elsewhere you're bound to see tons of logical fallacies or other scapegoats about why people hate the ending. Every gaming media/journalist outlet will support those ideas. The unfortunate truth is that the hate-train surrounding this ending was mostly about self-entitlement and people crying because it was too sad and not enough choice-consequence'd. The real beef for me and anyone who has something between their ears, however, will always be the complete destruction of coherence that occurs the second the Catalyst is introduced in the final 10 minutes. I like to think even the whiny people who just wanted Shepard to survive subconsciously noticed something was fundamentally wrong in the final 10 mintues other than that, but I can't speak on their behalf.

 

Side-notes:

 Leviathan DLC establishes the idea of synthetics vs organics being the central conflict earlier for you... but like I said. Making it the central conflict is still a huge stretch, even though it's the (retroactively made-up) reason behind the existence of the Reapers and the Mass Effect universe. It feels like it's only placed and put emphasis on in the ending and then completely hidden in the remainder aside from being heavily emphasised in a lot of side-content from Mass Effect 1. Every time I've played ME1 since ME3 I've noticed how it seemed like the metabolic conflict between organics and synthetics was a big idea for a central conflict from the beginning, but as the series went on it diverged and placed more emphasis on other ideas that became the central themes, like humanity vs aliens, heroism, implications and ramifications of war, transhumanism, transalienism, cthulhu-ism and ****. We just moved too far away from the big Synthetics vs Organics idea throughout ME2 and ME3 to arrive back at that conclusion, even though I would believe Casey Hudson if he told me it was the first idea of the Reapers they came up with and the idea he always wanted to be the theme for the trilogy's ending.

Hm...thank you for your answer.However,"heroism, implications and ramifications of war, transhumanism, transalienism, cthulhu-ism"What,the hell,are you talking about?!We are not discussing a Dostoevsky novel here,so,really,what are you talking about?What are you pretending?How exactly do you study heroism,for example,in mass effect.And what exactly even means to study heroism through a character in a video game.This is not literature,you don't just throw some "ism"s pretending you talk deep or something.Or it's a joke?

 

The exact "sudden shift" at the end(throughout the whole ME3,I should say)you are talking about is the reason it elevates the series.The first two games had very rich,detailed and interestingly built lore.But that's it.They just tell stories for different characters and conflicts between them.The games don't STUDY anything.They were just games.However with the third one they changed that.They tried to go beyond the banal cliches and trends of the "domestic" endings we get with every AAA game.The moment I started playing ME3 i felt there was something very very different in this game.The tone of the suffering and desperation was much more grounded,much more mature,if you will,compared to the other two games.Shepard was also different.Much closer to a real human being than before.He/she was unsure,scared,sometimes not knowing what to say...I felt that the whole game somehow has "moved" into another league(hope it makes sense).It moved from a video game to...I don't know,something that can be discussed,something that can imply different ideas and toy with them,something that brakes your established video game comfort,especially with a AAA titles.And,honestly,I really don't care if it leaves many "domestic"questions unanswered,because the sudden change of scale it provided,along with not giving you straight answer to everything elevated it for me.

[rossler]

The 3 choices are only hard to pick between because all 3 are undesirable and don't fit into anything Shepard had to concern himself with for the entire story.

 

They don't fit Shepard, but they do fit with the Reapers. They must be the Reaper win endings Bioware talked about. The closest one which fits Shepard is the destroy ending

[ImaginaryMatter]

The ending is coherent with ME 2 and 3 insofar, as the story starting at the beginning of ME 2 is a huge mess anyways.

 

It's hard to argue with that. The difference here is that there were some good things after ME2's beginning. After the ME3 ending we were left with a buy moar DLC message.