|
On March 21 2012 03:36 SKC wrote:
Why would you still be dreaming even after you choose to destroy the reapers? Or why would they make you believe your actions destroyed the relays, caused massive explosions that should basically destroy de galaxy as we know it and that Normandy survives with your party? What would they gain by doing it even after you are 100% dead (if you chose the control or synthesis option)? Even if it turned out to be a dream, I can't say it was good storytelling or "genius" on part of BioWare.
The reapers are not yet destroyed if the theory is correct.
If the theory is correct, then what Shepard acomplished by (if he) chose to destroy the reapers in his dream -
is denying/stopping his indoctrination. Winning the battle to preserve his own humanity.
Controling the reapers could not happen, as the Child tells us, that those already under Reaper influence,
which the Commander is supposed to be
can't do that. (as The illusive man)
Him seeing the Normandy with his crew trying to escape and crashing on a planet
represents his HOPE..
That's what gives him the strengh to wake up under the ruins of London. (That's my adding to the theory.)
|
There is one fairly egregious problem that the halluc+dream+indoctrination idea runs into that I don't think I've seen answered yet (other than lots of inconsistencies execution-wise). If you assume everything is all in your head, then why does your EMS affect whether you wake up or not? If your EMS is too low and you choose the destroy ending (which is the only correct choice according to this theory) you still "die" and there's no cutscene of you "waking" up...
I can see what people would spin on this idea, in that because your morale is too low you succumb to indoctrination anyway and therefore never "wake up", but it still presents a really large discrepancy in that making all the right choices, you still succumb to indoctrination because you didn't have enough stuff to fight the reapers? More than a little stretched imo. I could see this if your EMS was utter shit (see minimum) with regards to morale health, but I worked enough to get everything but the secret ending, so dramatically speaking I can't agree with that directed narrative choice. It simply is incongruous with my personal decisions throughout the game/series.
|
Brazil18828 Posts
On March 21 2012 06:49 nShade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2012 03:36 SKC wrote:
Why would you still be dreaming even after you choose to destroy the reapers? Or why would they make you believe your actions destroyed the relays, caused massive explosions that should basically destroy de galaxy as we know it and that Normandy survives with your party? What would they gain by doing it even after you are 100% dead (if you chose the control or synthesis option)? Even if it turned out to be a dream, I can't say it was good storytelling or "genius" on part of BioWare.
The reapers are not yet destroyed if the theory is correct. If the theory is correct, then what Shepard acomplished by (if he) chose to destroy the reapers in his dream - is denying/stopping his indoctrination. Winning the battle to preserve his own humanity. Controling the reapers could not happen, as the Child tells us, that those already under Reaper influence, which the Commander is supposed to be can't do that. (as The illusive man) Him seeing the Normandy with his crew trying to escape and crashing on a planet represents his HOPE.. That's what gives him the strengh to wake up under the ruins of London. (That's my adding to the theory.)
So basically it's nothing even close to an ending? Nothing happens in the battle, nothing happens to the Reapers, noone knows what happens to Shepard/his friends/his enemies. Every single minute of the ending describes Shepard winning the fight against Reaper control, something we never even knew existed, while everything else is neglected and we have no clue what he did after he lived. The only thing we know is that Shepard does turn out to be the hero, because of the post credits scene and that little text. How the hell is that an acceptable ending? I think that's much worse than even the standart endings. Sure, it could be fine if there were suposed to be a ME4, if this wasn't the end, but this is suposed to be the end, even the little post credits scene has a huge "this is the end" feeling.
This theory needs a DLC to be released, because the ending simply got cut off, and that's even worse than a new ending to better explain what happened or to provide an alternative ending. I'm fine with the "standard" indocrination theory, it's not what they promised but you can believe they tried to put a hidden meaning behind the ending an be happy, but I can't see them not including an ending at all in the game, that's just too much.
On March 21 2012 07:04 wo1fwood wrote:
There is one fairly egregious problem that the halluc+dream+indoctrination idea runs into that I don't think I've seen answered yet (other than lots of inconsistencies execution-wise). If you assume everything is all in your head, then why does your EMS affect whether you wake up or not? If your EMS is too low and you choose the destroy ending (which is the only correct choice according to this theory) you still "die" and there's no cutscene of you "waking" up...
I can see what people would spin on this idea, in that because your morale is too low you succumb to indoctrination anyway and therefore never "wake up", but it still presents a really large discrepancy in that making all the right choices, you still succumb to indoctrination because you didn't have enough stuff to fight the reapers? More than a little stretched imo. I could see this if your EMS was utter shit (see minimum) with regards to morale health, but I worked enough to get everything but the secret ending, so dramatically speaking I can't agree with that directed narrative choice. It simply is incongruous with my personal decisions throughout the game/series.
I though about that and could only come up with gameplay related answers. You could say they simply chose to give diferent endings to people that did the side quests, like a game that gives you an alternate ending if you 100% it, but purely a gameplay mechanic. It has nothing to do with Mass Effect, but several things about the ending clearly don't, specially with what they talked about it before release. Why would the reapers make it easier for you to "destroy" them and free yourself by denying the oportunity of syntheis when they have the biggest advantage against your forces?
|
On March 21 2012 06:34 Miyoshino wrote:
Still even with the ending ME3 storytelling is leagues ahead of SC2 in lack of plotholes. SC2 story is one big plot hole with cheesy dialog and bad voice acting.
Don't even compare a game that it's main attraction is the characters and the story line to a game that it's main attraction is competitive multiplayer.
|
By the way, if anyone has given up on a new ending and is dissapointed in the current one, it seems Origin, Amazon and some other sites are offering full refunds. Personally I'm hanging on to mine in the hope based delusion that Bioware can't leave it like this, but wanted to make sure everyone knows the option is there.
|
On March 21 2012 07:07 SKC wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 21 2012 06:49 nShade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2012 03:36 SKC wrote:
Why would you still be dreaming even after you choose to destroy the reapers? Or why would they make you believe your actions destroyed the relays, caused massive explosions that should basically destroy de galaxy as we know it and that Normandy survives with your party? What would they gain by doing it even after you are 100% dead (if you chose the control or synthesis option)? Even if it turned out to be a dream, I can't say it was good storytelling or "genius" on part of BioWare.
The reapers are not yet destroyed if the theory is correct. If the theory is correct, then what Shepard acomplished by (if he) chose to destroy the reapers in his dream - is denying/stopping his indoctrination. Winning the battle to preserve his own humanity. Controling the reapers could not happen, as the Child tells us, that those already under Reaper influence, which the Commander is supposed to be can't do that. (as The illusive man) Him seeing the Normandy with his crew trying to escape and crashing on a planet represents his HOPE.. That's what gives him the strengh to wake up under the ruins of London. (That's my adding to the theory.) So basically it's nothing even close to an ending? Nothing happens in the battle, nothing happens to the Reapers, noone knows what happens to Shepard/his friends/his enemies. Every single minute of the ending describes Shepard winning the fight against Reaper control, something we never even knew existed, while everything else is neglected and we have no clue what he did after he lived. The only thing we know is that Shepard does turn out to be the hero, because of the post credits scene and that little text. How the hell is that an acceptable ending? I think that's much worse than even the standart endings. Sure, it could be fine if there were suposed to be a ME4, if this wasn't the end, but this is suposed to be the end, even the little post credits scene has a huge "this is the end" feeling. This theory needs a DLC to be released, because the ending simply got cut off, and that's even worse than a new ending to better explain what happened or to provide an alternative ending. I'm fine with the "standard" indocrination theory, it's not what they promised but you can believe they tried to put a hidden meaning behind the ending an be happy, but I can't see them not including an ending at all in the game, that's just too much. On March 21 2012 07:04 wo1fwood wrote:
There is one fairly egregious problem that the halluc+dream+indoctrination idea runs into that I don't think I've seen answered yet (other than lots of inconsistencies execution-wise). If you assume everything is all in your head, then why does your EMS affect whether you wake up or not? If your EMS is too low and you choose the destroy ending (which is the only correct choice according to this theory) you still "die" and there's no cutscene of you "waking" up...
I can see what people would spin on this idea, in that because your morale is too low you succumb to indoctrination anyway and therefore never "wake up", but it still presents a really large discrepancy in that making all the right choices, you still succumb to indoctrination because you didn't have enough stuff to fight the reapers? More than a little stretched imo. I could see this if your EMS was utter shit (see minimum) with regards to morale health, but I worked enough to get everything but the secret ending, so dramatically speaking I can't agree with that directed narrative choice. It simply is incongruous with my personal decisions throughout the game/series. I though about that and could only come up with gameplay related answers. You could say they simply chose to give diferent endings to people that did the side quests, like a game that gives you an alternate ending if you 100% it, but purely a gameplay mechanic. It has nothing to do with Mass Effect, but several things about the ending clearly don't, specially with what they talked about it before release. Why would the reapers make it easier for you to "destroy" them and free yourself by denying the oportunity of syntheis when they have the biggest advantage against your forces?
Yeah, like I said, inconsistencies. 
|
On March 21 2012 07:13 Iyerbeth wrote:
By the way, if anyone has given up on a new ending and is dissapointed in the current one, it seems Origin, Amazon and some other sites are offering full refunds. Personally I'm hanging on to mine in the hope based delusion that Bioware can't leave it like this, but wanted to make sure everyone knows the option is there.
Woah, has this happened before? Full refund for a AAA title just after its release?
Must have hit pretty hard at their pr department.
|
On March 21 2012 07:32 Steveling wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2012 07:13 Iyerbeth wrote:
By the way, if anyone has given up on a new ending and is dissapointed in the current one, it seems Origin, Amazon and some other sites are offering full refunds. Personally I'm hanging on to mine in the hope based delusion that Bioware can't leave it like this, but wanted to make sure everyone knows the option is there. Woah, has this happened before? Full refund for a AAA title just after its release? Must have hit pretty hard at their pr department.
-edit- Bleh prices are going all crazy on amazon, up and down.
|
Its happened before.
Rage by id was a game where steam allowed no questions asked refunds for that game. Although that wasn't because of a bad ending, which it had, but because the game just simply did not work.
|
On March 21 2012 07:13 Iyerbeth wrote:
By the way, if anyone has given up on a new ending and is dissapointed in the current one, it seems Origin, Amazon and some other sites are offering full refunds. Personally I'm hanging on to mine in the hope based delusion that Bioware can't leave it like this, but wanted to make sure everyone knows the option is there.
Anyone knows how to get your refund of origin? I sure dont mind returning mine if they are willing to let me do so since the ending basicly made me never want to play this game again
|
ok... well I don't think its so bad that i would demand a refund -_- i mean almost everyone agreed it was mostly good... just want some of that dlc for just maybe 15-20 more minutes of either exploring indoctrination or not being a bullshit asshatted rushed job of an ending
|
On March 21 2012 07:43 ragnorr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2012 07:13 Iyerbeth wrote:
By the way, if anyone has given up on a new ending and is dissapointed in the current one, it seems Origin, Amazon and some other sites are offering full refunds. Personally I'm hanging on to mine in the hope based delusion that Bioware can't leave it like this, but wanted to make sure everyone knows the option is there. Anyone knows how to get your refund of origin? I sure dont mind returning mine if they are willing to let me do so since the ending basicly made me never want to play this game again
The "official" guide being quoted by gaming sites and being used on BSN is by a user named t_i_e:
http://social.bioware.com/forums/forum/1/topic/355/index/10302791
How to:
1) Open Orgin, not Mass Effect 3.
2) Login
3) Click the white question mark near the top right.
4) Window will open. Near the top edge of the window named 'Orgin Help' click 'Live Chat'
5) Window will open saying please wait while we connect you to an agent in India.
6) Greet your agent kindly and ask them how their day is. Tell them you want to return a product that a company made that did not have what was advertised in it.
-At this point I got disconnect by an agent (read more strangeness below.) but the next agent helped and refunded me without a word more
-If you get denied at this point I suggest you persist with reasons why and kindness towards your agent
7) They might ask for order# and the last four digits of your credit card (I work in retail and this is a common way to attach a customer to a receit / account.)
8) Receive refund in 5-7 days (in my case by credit card)
|
On March 21 2012 07:56 CeriseCherries wrote:
ok... well I don't think its so bad that i would demand a refund -_- i mean almost everyone agreed it was mostly good... just want some of that dlc for just maybe 15-20 more minutes of either exploring indoctrination or not being a bullshit asshatted rushed job of an ending
The more people that get a refund the stronger the message sent to Bioware and EA that this shit isn't acceptable.
|
I don't like the thought of encouraging cookie cutter writing though.
|
Would a refund mean you can't play the game anymore? Cause that would suck, I'm loving the multiplayer and apart from the ending the game is awesome.
|
On March 21 2012 08:22 Mastermyth wrote:
Would a refund mean you can't play the game anymore? Cause that would suck, I'm loving the multiplayer and apart from the ending the game is awesome.
Ofcause it would, you are basicly returning the product. Its really wierd that they are allowing refunds tho(Since the game was not terrible by all means) But i guess the tweets which was nothing but lies forced their hands
|
I really liked this explanation of why the ending is bad for you. Not that the ending is bad, but why the techniques employed during the ending is wrong. It's a rather long read.
http://www.themetagames.com/2012/03/why-you-enjoy-art-and-one-problem-with.html
Small snippet : + Show Spoiler +"Many people have said that after the game ended, they felt physically ill. For good reason. Have you ever had to bottle an emotion? Felt angry at someone, like a parent or teacher, but you said nothing because they had absolute authority? Or how about feeling sad about something that others thought was worthless, so you hid it as to not appear weak or defective?"
"We do not do acts and expect no consequences. Even when we do an act at some goal, and fail, we still get a consequence. Frustration is the absence of EVEN FAILURE. The sick feeling people got was utter frustration at there not being more gameplay, more narrative, to either explain what they just saw, or to fulfill those original motivations. People are upset, not because there was no 'happy ending' as Bioware seems to think, but because there was no ending for most of the story. If we can enjoy sadness on a meta-level, this is because there is something above emotions we feel as pleasure. In this same way, there is something above emotions that we feel as pain. This is frustration."
It's been argued that because Deus ex did it then Mass effect 3 can sort of "get away" with this, but in Deus ex the story was revolving around Jensen and you kind of get a resolution in therms of his character.
The story of mass effect was similarly never about Shepard. Shepard is not the chosen one, or Revan 2.0. He's just a human alliance soldier that touched a prothean beacon and he is the window that players use to insert their own choices.
The story was always about Liara, Garrus, Wrex, Mordin, and all the other creatures that roam the mass effect galaxy. I am sad to see them go so soon and I hope a dlc comes that provides closure, but it's fine now. I learned my lesson. Videogames are still in their infancy and the writers were playing with things they didn't understand, using tools they haven't fully learned how to use.
|
To be fair, the Reapers are millions of years old. They've probably run into previous cycles that had situations just like EDI and the Quarian/Geth peace, but as Ron Perlman once said "war... war never changes". So I suppose that they've had millions of years to consider all of the possibilities regarding AI and have determined that destruction in the only way, and to be honest I can kind of see why they'd think that. If AI can go peaceful or hostile with the flick of a switch then that makes future conflicts very likely. If the Geth have free will and are sentient like EDI, then does that not mean that they could eventually find themselves tempted to wage war just like all the other sentients in the galaxy?
Or consider this... now that the Geth have minds of their own, what would they do after they help the galaxy rebuild? What if the geth send scouts outside of their galaxy into darkspace and end up finding resource rich galaxies that the Geth could migrate to, free of Reapers, and free of the relay network? What happens when they move to the new galaxy use all of it's resources to build up thousands of Geth dreadnoughts? They'd be unstoppable at that point. I imagine that the Reapers may be converned about the Geth spreading, branching out to new galaxies and all that.
|
On March 21 2012 00:30 paralleluniverse wrote:
I haven't played this game, but I've been hearing a lot of QQ about the ending. Can someone explain this ending to me and why it's so sad?
The general vibe seems to be it's not happy enough.
Too bad.
You don't deserve a happy ending. The writers of the story have the right to end their story the way they want to.
And not every story is meant conclude with a Disney ending.
Translation:
I haven't played the game, so I don't know what I'm talking about.
I'm going to incorrectly convey the viewpoint of those criticizing the ending, proving furthermore that I don't know what I'm talking about.
Then I'm going to talk a bunch of bullshit in case you didn't realize I really really have no idea what the fuck I'm blabbering about.
|
On March 21 2012 10:52 Billy_ wrote:
To be fair, the Reapers are millions of years old. They've probably run into previous cycles that had situations just like EDI and the Quarian/Geth peace, but as Ron Perlman once said "war... war never changes". So I suppose that they've had millions of years to consider all of the possibilities regarding AI and have determined that destruction in the only way, and to be honest I can kind of see why they'd think that. If AI can go peaceful or hostile with the flick of a switch then that makes future conflicts very likely. If the Geth have free will and are sentient like EDI, then does that not mean that they could eventually find themselves tempted to wage war just like all the other sentients in the galaxy?
Or consider this... now that the Geth have minds of their own, what would they do after they help the galaxy rebuild? What if the geth send scouts outside of their galaxy into darkspace and end up finding resource rich galaxies that the Geth could migrate to, free of Reapers, and free of the relay network? What happens when they move to the new galaxy use all of it's resources to build up thousands of Geth dreadnoughts? They'd be unstoppable at that point. I imagine that the Reapers may be converned about the Geth spreading, branching out to new galaxies and all that.
I like how Javik explains this to Shepard. Makes sense in my eyes.
+ Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey1cCgdgOEw
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
