|
Nope. According to the update done to that description in mass effect 3 The machine devils are in fact the reapers. The catalyst is immortal, beings like him dont need crypts. And he actually states at the ending that he is a reaper by refering to them as "us".
|
If that's true, then the VI wouldn't be part of a reaper indoctrination attempt. Which puts us ALLLLLLLLLLLLL the way back to square one, where everyone just stand around and scratching our heads because nothing makes sense. Not that the indoctrination theory made any sense anyway since it's pretty stupid to try and indoctrinate someone that was half dead in the bottom of a rubble pile. Could even have just landed on him and *squish* instead of bothering to mind control.
|
lol we already know this whole indoctrination thing is just something some fans made up and has no relevance. Why do people keep bringing it up? It isn't part of the game and Bioware has already denied it several times. The game is exactly as it appears to be. No conspiracy theories that can only be defended by ignoring half of the facts please.
|
United States7483 Posts
On March 30 2012 02:18 Miyoshino wrote:
lol we already know this whole indoctrination thing is just something some fans made up and has no relevance. Why do people keep bringing it up? It isn't part of the game and Bioware has already denied it several times. The game is exactly as it appears to be. No conspiracy theories that can only be defended by ignoring half of the facts please.
It's not so much a conspiracy theory that we actually think is true as it is a fervent hope and wish that it actually is true: it's more like we're begging.
|
On March 30 2012 02:22 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2012 02:18 Miyoshino wrote:
lol we already know this whole indoctrination thing is just something some fans made up and has no relevance. Why do people keep bringing it up? It isn't part of the game and Bioware has already denied it several times. The game is exactly as it appears to be. No conspiracy theories that can only be defended by ignoring half of the facts please. It's not so much a conspiracy theory that we actually think is true as it is a fervent hope and wish that it actually is true: it's more like we're begging.
Not to mention that since Bioware are gonna add more content for the end, we still want to press them hard to even give as a glimmer of hope for them doing whatever can be done to salvage the disaster that is the final 10 minutes, this includes constantly pressuring them about the indoctrination theory in the hope that it might work. Of course the odds of that happening are awful, but why the hell not? We've got nothing to lose.
|
On March 29 2012 22:22 revel8 wrote:
Bioware really missed a trick with the ending. They could have had an ending where some small amount of soldiers beam up into the Citadel and have to fight their way against lots of occupying Reaper forces, up to a certain location, where Shepherd can finally activate the Crucible after a Boss battle with the Indoctrinated Illusive Man and a Harbinger Avatar. This deactivates/kills the Reapers and the Mass Relays survive. The races survive, Earth, Palaven, Thessia etc are shown being rebuilt. Humans, Quorians, Geth and Krogan are shown being given a lot more respect. All the companions are shown enjoying rewards for all their efforts during the War. Shepherd survives and there is some closure to the entire series as well as a sense of accomplishment.
I think everyone really wanted the Reapers to get their asses kicked at the end, but that did not really happen, unless you choose to kill all synthetics, which means killing EDI as well as giving a giant f@ck you to Legion by killing all the Geth! EDI tells Shepherd he makes her feel alive and she is instrumental in killing that Reaper guarding the beam, and then ten minutes later Shepherd kills her! Well done, Bioware!
I hope they change the ending. It could have been epic. But was simply stupid.
Meh. That ending sounds so stereotypical. I would have been satisfied with it, but I wouldn't have thought it would be a good ending. Mainly because that is the type of ending you expect since the beginning.
I personally don't mind a sad ending at all, or a bittersweet one at that. But when it comes to ''open endings'' like they tried with ME3, there has to be very little plotholes, and enough information for people to make their own conclusions. This ending had neither.
|
On March 30 2012 02:38 NonFactor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 22:22 revel8 wrote:
Bioware really missed a trick with the ending. They could have had an ending where some small amount of soldiers beam up into the Citadel and have to fight their way against lots of occupying Reaper forces, up to a certain location, where Shepherd can finally activate the Crucible after a Boss battle with the Indoctrinated Illusive Man and a Harbinger Avatar. This deactivates/kills the Reapers and the Mass Relays survive. The races survive, Earth, Palaven, Thessia etc are shown being rebuilt. Humans, Quorians, Geth and Krogan are shown being given a lot more respect. All the companions are shown enjoying rewards for all their efforts during the War. Shepherd survives and there is some closure to the entire series as well as a sense of accomplishment.
I think everyone really wanted the Reapers to get their asses kicked at the end, but that did not really happen, unless you choose to kill all synthetics, which means killing EDI as well as giving a giant f@ck you to Legion by killing all the Geth! EDI tells Shepherd he makes her feel alive and she is instrumental in killing that Reaper guarding the beam, and then ten minutes later Shepherd kills her! Well done, Bioware!
I hope they change the ending. It could have been epic. But was simply stupid. Meh. That ending sounds so stereotypical. I would have been satisfied with it, but I wouldn't have thought it would be a good ending. Mainly because that is the type of ending you expect since the beginning. I personally don't mind a sad ending at all, or a bittersweet one at that. But when it comes to ''open endings'' like they tried with ME3, there has to be very little plotholes, and enough information for people to make their own conclusions. This ending had neither.
Getting the ending you expect isn't a bad thing. Not everything needs to have a twist.
|
United States7483 Posts
On March 30 2012 03:26 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2012 02:38 NonFactor wrote:On March 29 2012 22:22 revel8 wrote:
Bioware really missed a trick with the ending. They could have had an ending where some small amount of soldiers beam up into the Citadel and have to fight their way against lots of occupying Reaper forces, up to a certain location, where Shepherd can finally activate the Crucible after a Boss battle with the Indoctrinated Illusive Man and a Harbinger Avatar. This deactivates/kills the Reapers and the Mass Relays survive. The races survive, Earth, Palaven, Thessia etc are shown being rebuilt. Humans, Quorians, Geth and Krogan are shown being given a lot more respect. All the companions are shown enjoying rewards for all their efforts during the War. Shepherd survives and there is some closure to the entire series as well as a sense of accomplishment.
I think everyone really wanted the Reapers to get their asses kicked at the end, but that did not really happen, unless you choose to kill all synthetics, which means killing EDI as well as giving a giant f@ck you to Legion by killing all the Geth! EDI tells Shepherd he makes her feel alive and she is instrumental in killing that Reaper guarding the beam, and then ten minutes later Shepherd kills her! Well done, Bioware!
I hope they change the ending. It could have been epic. But was simply stupid. Meh. That ending sounds so stereotypical. I would have been satisfied with it, but I wouldn't have thought it would be a good ending. Mainly because that is the type of ending you expect since the beginning. I personally don't mind a sad ending at all, or a bittersweet one at that. But when it comes to ''open endings'' like they tried with ME3, there has to be very little plotholes, and enough information for people to make their own conclusions. This ending had neither. Getting the ending you expect isn't a bad thing. Not everything needs to have a twist.
I think, if we're talking about the story of ME3, we should compare it to the story of ME1, which is probably the best storytelling Bioware has ever done. ME1 had an ending that worked exactly how you expected it to, the entire last mission was awesome, culminating in precisely the ending you expected to occur, but it worked PERFECTLY. All of the plot twists occured earlier (on Virmire and Ilos primarily). A good ending is one that provides closure and wraps up the plot. But considering how much we built up to the ending in ME3, they really let us down with a short, inconsistent piece of bullshit that makes no sense at all, doesn't wrap anything up, and destroys many of the relationships we had with the characters that were built up over 3 games by screwing those characters over.
They spent so much time getting us invested into these stories, into these characters. I genuinely cared what happened to Tali Zorah, for example, I wanted her to get a happy ending. I cared about Garrus, I cared about almost all of the characters, but then in a matter of minutes the entire galaxy goes to shit because your options are: annihilation by reapers (to prevent your annihilation? lol?) or destruction of all mass relays.
If so many choices were supposed to matter as we were promised, there should have been multiple endings (as promised) that were actually different. There should have been an ending where the Reapers win. There should have been an ending where the galaxy wins, everyone is happy, we rebuild and fix everything, and we move on. There should have been endings somewhere in between. Instead we got this piece of shit letdown of an ending where everything goes to hell in a handbasket and nobody wins.
|
On March 30 2012 02:38 NonFactor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 22:22 revel8 wrote:
Bioware really missed a trick with the ending. They could have had an ending where some small amount of soldiers beam up into the Citadel and have to fight their way against lots of occupying Reaper forces, up to a certain location, where Shepherd can finally activate the Crucible after a Boss battle with the Indoctrinated Illusive Man and a Harbinger Avatar. This deactivates/kills the Reapers and the Mass Relays survive. The races survive, Earth, Palaven, Thessia etc are shown being rebuilt. Humans, Quorians, Geth and Krogan are shown being given a lot more respect. All the companions are shown enjoying rewards for all their efforts during the War. Shepherd survives and there is some closure to the entire series as well as a sense of accomplishment.
I think everyone really wanted the Reapers to get their asses kicked at the end, but that did not really happen, unless you choose to kill all synthetics, which means killing EDI as well as giving a giant f@ck you to Legion by killing all the Geth! EDI tells Shepherd he makes her feel alive and she is instrumental in killing that Reaper guarding the beam, and then ten minutes later Shepherd kills her! Well done, Bioware!
I hope they change the ending. It could have been epic. But was simply stupid. Meh. That ending sounds so stereotypical. I would have been satisfied with it, but I wouldn't have thought it would be a good ending. Mainly because that is the type of ending you expect since the beginning. I personally don't mind a sad ending at all, or a bittersweet one at that. But when it comes to ''open endings'' like they tried with ME3, there has to be very little plotholes, and enough information for people to make their own conclusions. This ending had neither.
They could have had different endings - as in outcomes to the battle depending on War Asset Strength. In one ending the Reapers are defeated, in others they are defeated in a pyrhic victory, in another ending Shepard fails and the Reapers win. Maybe some of the Companions could have died depending on choices made in the Final mission, or due to earlier decisions. People didn't complain when Shepard was victorious and successful in ME1 and ME2. Just because something is not unexpected does not mean it needs to be jettisoned in favour of an unexpected ending.
For example, it would be unexpected if Shepard was about to enter the beam of light but stepped on a land-mine = game over! People would be pissed off about that too! Twist endings only work if they are foreshadowed subtly and make sense. We didnt require a reason given for the Reaper's actions. The explanation we did get does not even make any sense at all!
I am just disappointed in how it finished. 100 hours or so of exquisite gameplay and then final ten minutes of WTF?!
Bioware snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Their reputation has taken a battering over this. Who knows how much money this could cost them in further purchases of this game or future purchases of other games.
|
On March 30 2012 03:35 Whitewing wrote:
Instead we got this piece of shit letdown of an ending where everything goes to hell in a handbasket and nobody wins.
I agree. No-one complained when Luke blew up the Death Star and then we had the medal ceremony. In SC2 I hope Raynor does not end up dying in some stupid way that solves nothing.
Most computer games have the player actively striving in order to reach a goal, overcome obstacles and then actually achieving the goal and finishing the game. Actually achieving the final goal in a computer game is not a cop-out but the entire purpose of playing the game. Having the player's character actually win at the end is pretty much the entire reason why computer games are so popular.
|
On March 30 2012 03:49 revel8 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2012 03:35 Whitewing wrote:
Instead we got this piece of shit letdown of an ending where everything goes to hell in a handbasket and nobody wins. I agree. No-one complained when Luke blew up the Death Star and then we had the medal ceremony. In SC2 I hope Raynor does not end up dying in some stupid way that solves nothing. Most computer games have the player actively striving in order to reach a goal, overcome obstacles and then actually achieving the goal and finishing the game. Actually achieving the final goal in a computer game is not a cop-out but the entire purpose of playing the game. Having the player's character actually win at the end is pretty much the entire reason why computer games are so popular.
some people don't like unconventional story telling; you sound like one of them.'
i guess gamers aren't good story critics
|
United States7483 Posts
On March 30 2012 04:01 ohmkerg wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2012 03:49 revel8 wrote:On March 30 2012 03:35 Whitewing wrote:
Instead we got this piece of shit letdown of an ending where everything goes to hell in a handbasket and nobody wins. I agree. No-one complained when Luke blew up the Death Star and then we had the medal ceremony. In SC2 I hope Raynor does not end up dying in some stupid way that solves nothing. Most computer games have the player actively striving in order to reach a goal, overcome obstacles and then actually achieving the goal and finishing the game. Actually achieving the final goal in a computer game is not a cop-out but the entire purpose of playing the game. Having the player's character actually win at the end is pretty much the entire reason why computer games are so popular. some people don't like unconventional story telling; you sound like one of them.' i guess gamers aren't good story critics
It's not a question of unconventional or conventional story telling, this ending is just fucking terrible, and completely invalidates all of the efforts you've put in to the game up to that point.
Mass Effect has a very unconventional way of telling the story: you make decisions that change the story in multiple ways. Having the Quarians and the Geth make peace, for example, is a really cool part of the story, if you make the proper decisions to have that occur. The problem is, it doesn't fucking matter what you've done up to the ending, because it's pretty much the same no matter what.
You know what? I'm not even gonna keep talking about it, it's been talked to death in this thread. All the arguments have been made.
|
On March 30 2012 04:01 ohmkerg wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2012 03:49 revel8 wrote:On March 30 2012 03:35 Whitewing wrote:
Instead we got this piece of shit letdown of an ending where everything goes to hell in a handbasket and nobody wins. I agree. No-one complained when Luke blew up the Death Star and then we had the medal ceremony. In SC2 I hope Raynor does not end up dying in some stupid way that solves nothing. Most computer games have the player actively striving in order to reach a goal, overcome obstacles and then actually achieving the goal and finishing the game. Actually achieving the final goal in a computer game is not a cop-out but the entire purpose of playing the game. Having the player's character actually win at the end is pretty much the entire reason why computer games are so popular. some people don't like unconventional story telling; you sound like one of them.' i guess gamers aren't good story critics
No. I just think that an ending that is unexpected is not necessarily a good ending. Dismissing a 'happy ending' because it is 'stereotypical' is the sort of thinking that has left us with this current furore.
I am not sure what that last line is about. It seems a bit of a generalisation.
A good story has some sort of payoff at the end. Mass Effect 3 did not really achieve that for a lot of people. Lost had the same problem.
|
I personally think ME3 is a masterpiece of storytelling, I'm content with the ending, and the mere fact that anyone can criticize it shows how far RPG video games have come in the last 30 years.
Once upon a time there was Wizardry/Bard's Tale/Ultima/Space Quest etc. You meandered around a dungeon, town, world or even a galaxy, and then worked your way up to killing the ultimate baddie in order to save the world (so to speak). Games improved but the concept from a storytelling standpoint more or less remained the same until Baldur's Gate 2 Shadows of Amn (BioWare), which revolutionized the the whole concept of a video RPG by introducing relationships with NPCs as a major factor in the game. This new concept allowed game developers to engage players more deeply in games and also to tell stories that at least began to look like what you would expect from a good novel or movie. (Think about it--would you want to see the movie/read the novel of Wizardry or Rogue?)
I would say Knights of the Old Republic marked a major high point in this new trend--until ME3 I would have said this was hands down the best story ever told in a video game.
However, ME2 and ME3 have taken the concept to a new level. I could write on about the myriad of aspects in which these stories shine but suffice to say that the two of them stand up on their own terms as a fairly credible, in fact excellent, epic sci-fi movie or novel, something that I don't think can be said about anything that has come before.
Which brings me to the ending. It had to be epic and not just "blow up the big spaceship/robot and collect a medal." Believe me, that ending would have felt cheap. For those who invoked the explosion of the Death Star in A New Hope, remember that the emotional heart of those films is in the closing moments of Return, when Anakin finally reemerges and sacrifices himself to save his son. In ME3 BioWare is trying evoke the same powerful tropes of sacrifice and transformation. The cut scenes after don't matter much to me; much like I never cared a whole lot about the ewoks dancing for joy or fireworks going off on Coruscant--although you do need those moments to bring the story to a close.
In short, I wouldn't change a thing, and I hope they don't.
|
On March 30 2012 05:41 sick_transit wrote:
I personally think ME3 is a masterpiece of storytelling, I'm content with the ending, and the mere fact that anyone can criticize it shows how far RPG video games have come in the last 30 years.
...
Which brings me to the ending. It had to be epic and not just "blow up the big spaceship/robot and collect a medal." Believe me, that ending would have felt cheap. For those who invoked the explosion of the Death Star in A New Hope, remember that the emotional heart of those films is in the closing moments of Return, when Anakin finally reemerges and sacrifices himself to save his son. In ME3 BioWare is trying evoke the same powerful tropes of sacrifice and transformation. The cut scenes after don't matter much to me; much like I never cared a whole lot about the ewoks dancing for joy or fireworks going off on Coruscant--although you do need those moments to bring the story to a close.
In short, I wouldn't change a thing, and I hope they don't.
But the ending doesn't have to be a happy ending in order for it to be a good change or for it to even be appropriate to Mass Effect series, nor is the issue purely story based.
In the Mass Effect 2 ending my decisions literally changed who lived and who died in my team based on decisions I had made in the games. The space combat scenes changed based on upgrades I had and crew members I had picked up.
In ME3 though...
+ Show Spoiler +
We spend the whole game gathering war assets which make no difference to the player experience. They don't show up anywhere. The decisions we have made through the previous 100 hours of gameplay are basically void by the time we get to the laser beam, and entirely unimportant after the elevator.
A series based on your decisions have consequences, which promised something sophisticated at the ending (to quote them) which wasn't just an A, B or C linear choice with your decisions having meant nothing (to quote them again) ended up being more linear and unimportant than any piece of story telling than even the most casual RPG experience today offers, providing exactly an A, B or C ending.
Additionally a terrible character introduction in the last 5 minutes basically dictates how the game ends regardless, they assert things which the decisions of the player can have actively disproved and yet our decisions once again are irrelevant and we are provded with no interaction and are robbed of everything that had built to that moment. The core mechanics the developers had engaged fans with and was the basis of the series is brutally ripped from beneath us. Additionally, in terms of a strong ending to the series free of terrible constructions that are actively in opposition to the lore of the series (and at times don't actually make sense) it fails equally as badly suddenly changing the themes of the story in ways that don't are contrary to the observable reality of the game, as well as providing only 1 ending to the story no matter what.
It needs changing.
|
beyond the fact that the ending of ME3 is just bad from a structural point of view, I think the biggest problem with it is + Show Spoiler + that it basically negates any post-Shepherd story to be told in the ME universe where you could travel across the entire universe. The end of ME3 basically set the entire universe back into the stone age as far as interstellar travel goes. So I guess that means that any new ME game has to be a prequel or concurrent with the events of the Shepherd trilogy. ..which I think sucks.
|
I posted there a possible version that runs with indoc theory. My TL:DR from the thread I made on BSN:
***TL:DR: Shepard fights off indoctrination long enough for Anderson to set off the real Catalyst, which is still the Citadel. Anderson may live long enough to save Shepard if you saved Anderson from TIM, or scratch that entirely and Cerberus saves them by TIM's final request. Shepard is stranded for a while before a belated Normandy reunion.
***TL:DR cont'd: There is hope to rebuild or reactivate the relays before everyone starves or goes crazy in the solar system. Shepard has a lingering Reaper problem, causing Shepard's presence to exacerbate lingering indoctrination suffered by others, and being a potential threat of the Reapers' return. Choices of life, exile, or death the final Shepard choice given to the player. LI's and the rest of the crew react differently but most of them accept any choice. It is left up to the players' imagination and interpretation what the best choice is.
It's far from perfect but works better for me at least.
|
United States7483 Posts
On March 30 2012 06:55 Quotidian wrote:beyond the fact that the ending of ME3 is just bad from a structural point of view, I think the biggest problem with it is + Show Spoiler + that it basically negates any post-Shepherd story to be told in the ME universe where you could travel across the entire universe. The end of ME3 basically set the entire universe back into the stone age as far as interstellar travel goes. So I guess that means that any new ME game has to be a prequel or concurrent with the events of the Shepherd trilogy. ..which I think sucks.
Not necessarily:
+ Show Spoiler + They already have FTL drives that don't require the mass relays to use, they just can't travel from star cluster to star cluster with them because of fuel inefficiencies. However, they've also never had incentive or motivation to develop better systems, because they had the mass relays. It's not difficult to conceive that they decide to improve upon the tech they already have to be able to have intragalactic travel without the relays.
|
I just farted and it sounded like a Reaper.
|
Okay, I just want to say that the soundtrack for this game is amazing.
No matter its flaws, Sam Hulick really delivered in lieu of Clint Mansell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
