|
Your donations keep RPGWatch running!
Mass Effect 3 ending, my take
July 14th, 2012, 23:08
I just (finally) finished. Great ending! I went with the "green" option, extended version.
Spoiler –
I smell a… wumpus!?
July 20th, 2012, 08:05
One lit professor's take on the issue:
http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/to…86/13#11470730
The argument makes a lot of sense. In summary, the three endings go against Shepard's character and the theme of the story spread throughout the three games. Thus, we have a broken story.
But there's a refusal ending, and it doesn't follow from EMS as it ends in defeat. This very much goes against RPGs and video games in general, where the player's achievements are supposed to affect the outcome. Thus, we have not just a broken story but a broken game.
Only minor problems were repaired. The major ones (these two points) were not solved because that would have involved rewriting the end.
http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/to…86/13#11470730
The argument makes a lot of sense. In summary, the three endings go against Shepard's character and the theme of the story spread throughout the three games. Thus, we have a broken story.
But there's a refusal ending, and it doesn't follow from EMS as it ends in defeat. This very much goes against RPGs and video games in general, where the player's achievements are supposed to affect the outcome. Thus, we have not just a broken story but a broken game.
Only minor problems were repaired. The major ones (these two points) were not solved because that would have involved rewriting the end.
Watcher
July 25th, 2012, 17:26
Funny thing, the "bad" ending internet talked about was one reason to finish the game, and i really liked it. It wasnt bad, i thought it was good. I played the enhanced ending.
One thing i do feel was most wrong with the game was the melodromatic movie sequences evrywhere where you just looked at a bad bad movie.
In the earlier games you almost always could influence things with a right or a left mouse click. Now you had to stick with what the director thought would be cool to happen. I don't know if it was many, but the first sequene on mars made my mind up that i thought it was rubbish evrytime it happened!
One thing i do feel was most wrong with the game was the melodromatic movie sequences evrywhere where you just looked at a bad bad movie.
In the earlier games you almost always could influence things with a right or a left mouse click. Now you had to stick with what the director thought would be cool to happen. I don't know if it was many, but the first sequene on mars made my mind up that i thought it was rubbish evrytime it happened!
Sentinel
I smell a… wumpus!?
July 31st, 2012, 15:51
You did not read the professor's argument correctly. The point isn't whether or not the choices were made by Shepard (obviously, they're not), it's whether or not he will accept them. Based on his character, he will refuse to accept all of them because that's what he had been doing throughout the game. The only logical choice is refusal.
The point that "losers do not dictate terms" is completely illogical because we are dealing with a video game where the player can win. If it turns out that he will lose whatever he does, then what is the point of making this game, with its choices and consequences throughout?
The point that "losers do not dictate terms" is completely illogical because we are dealing with a video game where the player can win. If it turns out that he will lose whatever he does, then what is the point of making this game, with its choices and consequences throughout?
Watcher
August 1st, 2012, 03:17
OK, I'm not bothering with spoiler tags. The topic title is enough, methinks.
And where did this idea that video games can always be won come from? You can't win at Pac Man, Donkey Kong, Asteroids, Nethack… Or are you saying that this specific game is one you can win? Assuming that you can win the game, proving that you can't win, and then concluding that the game is broken isn't logical at all!
Originally Posted by MonkHuh? This is a role playing game. My first Shepard didn't like the choices but refusal would have resulted in FAR more pain and suffering (in her opinion) than any of the other choices so there's no way she could have picked it. My second Shepard is going to be elated when he hears of the 'control' option. He'll have the whole galaxy outfitted for war and ready to make its move on the Andromeda galaxy in no time, with humanity ruling it all. An extreme idealist might pick the refusal option and a Shepard that loves life but not machines (perhaps because of what happend in Mass Effect 1) might go for the 'destroy' option.
You did not read the professor's argument correctly. The point isn't whether or not the choices were made by Shepard (obviously, they're not), it's whether or not he will accept them. Based on his character, he will refuse to accept all of them because that's what he had been doing throughout the game. The only logical choice is refusal.
The point that "losers do not dictate terms" is completely illogical because we are dealing with a video game where the player can win. If it turns out that he will lose whatever he does, then what is the point of making this game, with its choices and consequences throughout?My second Shepard will definitely win if he can get to the 'control' option. My first Shepard did win. She didn't win by as much as she wanted but she did put a stop to the Reaper attacks and saved billions of lives. You can't call that a defeat or even a tie. I think "marginal victory" would be the term I would use.
And where did this idea that video games can always be won come from? You can't win at Pac Man, Donkey Kong, Asteroids, Nethack… Or are you saying that this specific game is one you can win? Assuming that you can win the game, proving that you can't win, and then concluding that the game is broken isn't logical at all!
I smell a… wumpus!?
August 2nd, 2012, 02:51
Isn't it based on point of view? Yes, it may be victory in terms of you've stopped reapers, good for Shepard *clap clap*
As a player, I would have left feeling like absolute crap because I had to use "Reapers' option" to put an end to it, rather than my/Shepard's own method. It feels like there's something fishy about it. True enough, I hated all the endings except for maybe destroy ending. Shepard becoming "Reapers" sounds really fishy imo. Or even creating new race by mixing organics and synthetics. Who said they wanted to be reborn as a new race?? Did Organics wanted it? Or even Reapers? I certainly wouldn't like it if it was forced on me.
Yes, that's exactly it. The whole options were forced on us. Almost like Bioware telling me, "suck it up princess".
As a player, I would have left feeling like absolute crap because I had to use "Reapers' option" to put an end to it, rather than my/Shepard's own method. It feels like there's something fishy about it. True enough, I hated all the endings except for maybe destroy ending. Shepard becoming "Reapers" sounds really fishy imo. Or even creating new race by mixing organics and synthetics. Who said they wanted to be reborn as a new race?? Did Organics wanted it? Or even Reapers? I certainly wouldn't like it if it was forced on me.
Yes, that's exactly it. The whole options were forced on us. Almost like Bioware telling me, "suck it up princess".
Guest
August 2nd, 2012, 06:08
Yes, you have to make a tough call at the end, but personally I think the best games force you to make those types of tough calls.
Keeper of the Watch
Original Sin Donor
August 2nd, 2012, 10:24
I like a tough call to get the result I think is best and most satisfying for me. ME offers you 3 unpalatable, unsatisfying and incomprehensible choices. I don't think the best games tend to do that…
Sentinel
August 3rd, 2012, 02:41
Originally Posted by purpleblobOr almost like a galactic empire, billions of years older than your own, was forcing it on you. We got our fairy tale ending in the first ME - time for something a bit more interesting.
Yes, that's exactly it. The whole options were forced on us. Almost like Bioware telling me, "suck it up princess".
Gaxkang - no, the game offers your CHARACTER three (actually 4) possible endings. They all seem pretty easy to comprehend. Whether or not your character will like them depends on what kind of character you are playing.
I certainly like this ending a lot more than Deus Ex: Human Revolution. The choices were fine but the results the choices led to seemed odd to me.
P.S. Now I've got a hankering to watch Brazil again. And I do NOT mean the Americanized ending!
I smell a… wumpus!?
August 3rd, 2012, 03:33
You are certainly entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. I still don't think the ending makes sense. Especially if you pick the refusal ending, the star child's voice turns into Reaper's angry voice and says "so be it" before they proceed to continue the cycle. So basically, Reapers can still continue the cycle and yet the star child told Shepard that the method is now flawed and it won't work. So wtf? He says it won't work so he give Shepard 3 choices (which to me seems utterly stupid) and yet he decides to go with *flawed* old method of harvesting. Where is the logic?
Also, the 3 choices given to Shepard doesn't make sense either.
1. Synthesis option - Star child thinks ultimate method is to form a new race by combining Organics and Machines. Ok, so he knew the "best" method already. Why the fuck didn't he do this earlier rather than harvesting all the Organics once couple billion years?
2. Destroy ending - Star child worked so hard to oversee cycle continue however fucking long it was going on for and yet he simply gives Shepard a choice to destroy that cycle which will eventually lead to cycle of Organics being destroyed by Machines (if we follow Star Child's logic of what will happen). Good work there!
3. Control ending - What is this? Shepard become some kind of Master Flood mind? This sounds absolutely absurd. I thought each Reapers have minds of their own. And all of sudden, they share the thoughts/opinion of Shepard? What is this shit?
Also, the 3 choices given to Shepard doesn't make sense either.
1. Synthesis option - Star child thinks ultimate method is to form a new race by combining Organics and Machines. Ok, so he knew the "best" method already. Why the fuck didn't he do this earlier rather than harvesting all the Organics once couple billion years?
2. Destroy ending - Star child worked so hard to oversee cycle continue however fucking long it was going on for and yet he simply gives Shepard a choice to destroy that cycle which will eventually lead to cycle of Organics being destroyed by Machines (if we follow Star Child's logic of what will happen). Good work there!
3. Control ending - What is this? Shepard become some kind of Master Flood mind? This sounds absolutely absurd. I thought each Reapers have minds of their own. And all of sudden, they share the thoughts/opinion of Shepard? What is this shit?
Last edited by purpleblob; August 4th, 2012 at 02:53.
Guest
August 3rd, 2012, 10:55
Originally Posted by ZlothIt's only an RPG based on classes, etc. Shepard's character is relatively the same whether in paladin or renegade mode, as explained clearly by the lit professor. He would not be "elated" at all, especially given the content of much of the three games. Again, the prof explains why in the link given earlier. The same problem takes place with the two other endings, which is why the story of this game is broken.
Huh? This is a role playing game. My first Shepard didn't like the choices but refusal would have resulted in FAR more pain and suffering (in her opinion) than any of the other choices so there's no way she could have picked it. My second Shepard is going to be elated when he hears of the 'control' option. He'll have the whole galaxy outfitted for war and ready to make its move on the Andromeda galaxy in no time, with humanity ruling it all. An extreme idealist might pick the refusal option and a Shepard that loves life but not machines (perhaps because of what happend in Mass Effect 1) might go for the 'destroy' option.
As for the fourth ending, the EMS, etc., does not affect the outcome, which makes it a broken game.
No, that's not a victory, as the lit professor explains clearly. And since EMS, etc., barely affects it, it doesn't even matter.
My second Shepard will definitely win if he can get to the 'control' option. My first Shepard did win. She didn't win by as much as she wanted but she did put a stop to the Reaper attacks and saved billions of lives. You can't call that a defeat or even a ie. I think "marginal victory" would be the term I would use.
Where did you get this idea that a space opera adventure with RPG elements, plus EMS, which essentially allows you to develop your military forces to ensure victory, should logically end in defeat?
And where did this idea that video games can always be won come from? You can't win at Pac Man, Donkey Kong, Asteroids, Nethack… Or are you saying that this specific game is one you can win? Assuming that you can win the game, proving that you can't win, and then concluding that the game is broken isn't logical at all!
Your last sentence makes no sense. The fact that you can't win no matter how many resources you acquire to ensure that makes this a broken game!
It's like developing an RPG where you get to strengthen your character and team mates, only to meet a final boss that you cannot defeat! In this case, it's not even a final battle, just cut scenes leading to three endings that go against Shepard's character and a fourth that doesn't follow whatever actions he took throughout the game to ensure victory.
Watcher
August 3rd, 2012, 11:00
Purplebob gets it right. The only way to have ended this game correctly would have been the same as the content of the rest of the game, if not all three games: a final battle where Shepard employs whatever military resources he was able to obtain. This could have been the outcome of refusal: victory or destruction. Those not interested in this could choose the other three endings.
Watcher
August 4th, 2012, 10:56
Originally Posted by purpleblobBingo!
Also, the 3 choices given to Shepard doesn't make sense either.
1. Synthesis option - Star child thinks ultimate method is to form a new race by combining Organics and Machines. Ok, so he knew the "best" method already. Why the fuck didn't he do this earlier rather than harvesting all the Organics once couple billion years?
2. Destroy ending - Star child worked so hard to oversee cycle continue however fucking long it was going on for and yet he simply gives Shepard a choice to destroy that cycle which will eventually lead to cycle of Organics being destroyed by Machines (if we follow Star Child's logic of what will happen). Good work there!
3. Control ending - What is this? Shepard become some kind of Master Flood mind? This sounds absolutely absurd. I thought each Reapers have minds of their own. And all of sudden, they share the thoughts/opinion of Shepard? What is this shit?
This is exactly the way I feel as well.
The only ending that makes some kind of sense to my Shepard is the destroy ending but the "execution" of it reminds me of the ending of "Independence Day" where Jeff Goldblum uploads a virus to the alien mothership's computers causing it to explode … wft?!? You can't even execute a Windows virus on a Mac or a Linux box let alone a completely alien computer system. How/Why did the red pulse only target AI's and not all electronics? We know that the Reapers are "individuals" (they have their own names) whereas the Geth are a hive conscience, so why were both targeted by the same red pulse?
As many others have said: The problem is not that the endings are all "bad" (as in not happy endings) but simply because none of them make any sense in the context of the games.
Originally Posted by MonkThis is exactly what happened in Divinity 2 (simply denied the final battle altogether) and Mask of the Betrayer (with 1 line of dialogue at the end the entire reason for my quest was denied). That is also why Divinity 2, Mask of the Betrayer and Mass Effect 3 are in my top 3 of worst game endings EVAR!
It's like developing an RPG where you get to strengthen your character and team mates, only to meet a final boss that you cannot defeat! In this case, it's not even a final battle, just cut scenes leading to three endings that go against Shepard's character and a fourth that doesn't follow whatever actions he took throughout the game to ensure victory.
--
"Chess in particular had always annoyed him. It was the dumb way the pawns went off and slaughtered their fellow pawns while the kings lounged about doing nothing that always got to him; if only the pawns united, maybe talked the rooks around, the whole board could've been a republic in a dozen moves." - Commander Vimes in Thud! by Terry Pratchett
"Chess in particular had always annoyed him. It was the dumb way the pawns went off and slaughtered their fellow pawns while the kings lounged about doing nothing that always got to him; if only the pawns united, maybe talked the rooks around, the whole board could've been a republic in a dozen moves." - Commander Vimes in Thud! by Terry Pratchett
Hello, I'm a Zombaholic
August 4th, 2012, 23:16
Originally Posted by purpleblobThe Reapers were built by a race (I'm calling them pre-Reapers) that wants to END the bio/synth wars. The pre-Reapers do NOT like this method one bit, but quick genocides every few thousand years beats endless wars for millions of years. The methods is the lesser of two evils and was always flawed. They thought they could get rid of it via Shepard but, if Shepard is going to refuse to do anything, they are stuck with their old method.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. I still don't think the ending makes sense. Especially if you pick the refusal ending, the star child's voice turns into Reaper's angry voice and says "so be it" before they proceed to continue the cycle. So basically, Reapers can still continue the cycle and yet the star child told Shepard that the method is now flawed and it won't work. So wtf? He says it won't work so he give Shepard 3 choices (which to me seems utterly stupid) and yet he decides to go with *flawed* old method of harvesting. Where is the logic?
Also, the 3 choices given to Shepard doesn't make sense either.They didn't say. I would guess it's because the bios and synths hated each other too much - or at least the Reapers thought they did. They weren't exactly taking opinion polls. Also, they didn't just harvest the organics, they wiped out ALL the advanced civilizations.
1. Synthesis option - Star child thinks ultimate method is to form a new race by combining Organics and Machines. Ok, so he knew the "best" method already. Why the fuck didn't he do this earlier rather than harvesting all the Organics once couple billion years?
2. Destroy ending - Star child worked so hard to oversee cycle continue however fucking long it was going on for and yet he simply gives Shepard a choice to destroy that cycle which will eventually lead to cycle of Organics being destroyed by Machines (if we follow Star Child's logic of what will happen). Good work there!As I said earlier, this would give the organics a BIG head start over the synths. Given this cycle's ability to work with organics and the knowledge of just how horrible the bio/synth wars were before, there's a good chance they could build all their synths in such a way that there would be no wars in the future. Not a GREAT chance - it's still a big risk for the Reapers to take - but a good enough chance to take a shot at it if Shepard thinks it could work.
3. Control ending - What is this? Shepard become some kind of Master Flood mind? This sounds absolutely absurd. I thought each Reapers have minds of their own. And all of sudden, they share the thoughts/opinion of Shepard? What is this shit?No, the Reapers are some sort of pre-programmed nanites or something. It was mentioned in the story earier. Their governed by some sort of AI - one that probably isn't very advanced at all. The Reapers have no self will like a human, geck, or even EDI. They are just programmed to blow away all advanced life every few thousand years and watch to see if any of the pre-Reapers assumptions are proving to be false.
And that will be enough of that. Star Child? Flood mind? You talk about logic but you try to prove your arguments via cussing and insults. If I want that sort of argument, I'll just go to the local playground.
I smell a… wumpus!?
August 5th, 2012, 06:33
Originally Posted by ZlothWho's trying to win with insults now?
And that will be enough of that. Star Child? Flood mind? You talk about logic but you try to prove your arguments via cussing and insults. If I want that sort of argument, I'll just go to the local playground.
Like I said, you are certainly entitled to your opinion as I am to mine.
Yes, do me a favour and go back to local playground. I'm not going to bother anymore since these type of craps been said already millions of times.
Guest
|
|
All times are GMT +2. The time now is 10:32.