I think you misread that ending I posted. It would only be possible with enough war assets, with being able to prove your idea that organics and synthetics can live together by having united the Geth and Quarians, and I'm sure other variables could be tied in as well. It would be a very hard ending to accomplish.Joccaren said:
Mass Effect 3 ending SPOILERS!
- Thread starter Erttheking
- Start date
Recommended Videos
A: They did not explode. As you said, they shoot the energy to another relay, which then caused them to collapse. They have no energy for an explosion; it was all shot to the next relay and used to perform whatever action Shepard chose.jason27131 said:
B: Replay ME2. They want a planet to leave their civilians on for when the fight with the Reapers comes up. Against the Geth, every Quarian has a personal reason to fight them. Against the Reapers, they would rather only risk their military as they now have their homeworld back and a fair bit to lose, and they have the survival of their species to think about, but they have an obligation to fight the Reapers still.
C: Not entirely sure, but I'm pretty sure somewhere on the BSN it is confirmed that the Stargazer is from a colony that your crew founded. Haven't seen the OP, but I have seen it referenced numerous times.
Yeah, read the edit I posted afterElitefusion said:
Sorry about that.
A. Magical space McGuffin again, why do they dismantle?SajuukKhar said:
B. How many do you need to re-establish a race?
C. Because a small crew of no more than about 30 people with an uneven M:F Ratio is capable of starting up a non-incest colony.
A. I suggest you replay the ending again, they specifically say that it requires all of the energy of the Mass Relays to enact whatever choice you pick, the beam that shoots out of the Mass relay, and the wave that enacts your choice in that system, is ALL of its energy, there would be no energy left to create a supernova.jason27131 said:
B. Just because YOU wouldn't doesn't mean the Quarrians, who specifically mention in Mass Effect 2 that they need a place to leave their civilians during the war, wouldn't also.
Again Turians and Krogans have civilians, just because they are both warrior/military cultures does not mean that they don't have many noncombatants on their homeworlds.
There are TONS of people needed to support the military that wouldn't be on the front lines, or even off their homeworlds.
C. DAO really didn't have that great of an ending. Secondly if you NEED someone to tell you every little thing your characters do afterward, which DAO didn't, then ou lack imagination and I question why you would play a RPG series.
Finally leaving the Mass Relays in check defeats the whole purpose of the game because you are continuing technological enslavement by The Reapers, which is worse now because that means you are continuing enslavement to a slave master who is dead.
Again, think, before, you, post.
Everyone seems to be complaining about the system ending on a massive downer, but tbh I'm far more satisfied with it ending this way. I'd be lying if I said I was ever a huge fan of the series, but in general I'm sick of the whole "hero does the impossible and everything works out swell" theme to vidja games.
Some of my favorite movies end up with the protagonists getting fucked over (requiem for a dream springs to mind). Sometimes the aim of art isn't to make you feel uniformly good, sometimes there are other emotions that can be tapped into (and by experencing crushing defeat or depressing "realities" the highs can stand out all the more).
So yeah, I think the ending was fitting and actually did the series far more justice than shephard managing to band everything together and absolutely defeat the reapers.
Some of my favorite movies end up with the protagonists getting fucked over (requiem for a dream springs to mind). Sometimes the aim of art isn't to make you feel uniformly good, sometimes there are other emotions that can be tapped into (and by experencing crushing defeat or depressing "realities" the highs can stand out all the more).
So yeah, I think the ending was fitting and actually did the series far more justice than shephard managing to band everything together and absolutely defeat the reapers.
A. Rewatched the video. Kinda shows that the mass relay blew up. A build up of energy doesn't normally collapse stuff. It blows them up.Joccaren said:
B. Wait, I just want to clear up one thing. Reapers wiped out the protheans. You're telling me quarians have a bit to lose if they commit everything to the fight against the reapers? What? The reapers WIPED OUT CIVILIZATION 50,000 years ago for god sakes! They have more to lose IF the quarians leave people at home and then proceed to lose the war against the reapers!
The point with the DA:O ending is that it explained stuff to you, and gave you a fitting conclusion to your story. A fair amount is still left to your imagination, but you know have some idea about how the people and places you grew to care about were affected by your choices. ME3 gives absolutely 0 detail about what happens, and that is not satisfying as an end to a series. It is meant to conclude plot lines, not start up new ones and leave them as a cliff hanger. Even explaining why the Normandy is in Mass Relay transit would be a good start. A lot of it seems like a big Deus Ex Machina for a really bad bittersweet ending, and some exposition would likely help with that.SajuukKhar said:
A: I rewatched the video, they collapsed. If they exploded, you would have seen a massive white explosion rather than a beam of energy being shot to the next relay. The energy is sent to all the relays to enact your choice, not used in a solar system destroying explosion. I think you are comparing the explosion of a car hitting the ground after falling 1Km and a Nuclear Bomb going off.jason27131 said:
B: The Quarians aren't planning on losing. They have all their ships manned by military personnel. Tali states many times that the Flotilla is crowded - the ships are full of people. Nowhere near all of those people are needed to man the ship. By leaving non-combatants behind, the Quarians can send their whole fleet in, manned by military personnel, with the guarantee that if they actually win the fight, but the fleet is destroyed, their race is not doomed. If they lose the fight their race is doomed either way, but as I said - they're not planning on losing.
Wait, you mean the second link I posted? The one I said was playing devil's advocate? Because even with that interpretation, I still don't agree with the original endings, although it makes me dislike them less. I just posted it to contribute to the discussion. The idea I really like is the option to tell the "god-kid" that you reject his options.Joccaren said:Yeah, read the edit I posted after
Sorry about that.
DAO's ending was a hand-holding parade of "here is things for people who cant think for themselves and NEED other to tell them what happens when the outcome is obvious anyways".Joccaren said:
To be honest, I'm conflicted on how I feel about the ending. In one sense, it gave me absolute control instead of assuming that this was the way it should end based on my previous choices. On the other hand, it didn't feel as though it was conclusive, nor did it seem to have a option that I would think my Shepard would actually choose.
I sat in between those three choices so long, that I'm sure Shepard would have bled out by the time I actually picked an option...
But what we can say is that it was left open enough to bring in DLC, as well as sequels, which is what EA wants to have. In the end though, I thought ME3 was an amazing game, and enjoyed the 27 hours I put into it. Saying that, I think it is time for the game to be retired and put onto the shelf of gaming history.
I can't even express how worked up the game got me throughout those missions. But that ending, there was just something about it, that I can't express in words, or thoughts for that matter.
As for the mass relays, I would assume the power of the Crucible+Citadel would have altered the energy of the mass effect generator to be less explosive and more of an (insert energy here) kind of power, making it less of a destructive force.
I sat in between those three choices so long, that I'm sure Shepard would have bled out by the time I actually picked an option...
But what we can say is that it was left open enough to bring in DLC, as well as sequels, which is what EA wants to have. In the end though, I thought ME3 was an amazing game, and enjoyed the 27 hours I put into it. Saying that, I think it is time for the game to be retired and put onto the shelf of gaming history.
I can't even express how worked up the game got me throughout those missions. But that ending, there was just something about it, that I can't express in words, or thoughts for that matter.
As for the mass relays, I would assume the power of the Crucible+Citadel would have altered the energy of the mass effect generator to be less explosive and more of an (insert energy here) kind of power, making it less of a destructive force.
This is going nowhere. I'm ending with this.SajuukKhar said:
A. In a war against the enemy that can and will destroy all advanced life in the galaxy, I wouldn't risk putting civilians at home just in case. I would concentrate all possible manpower to the war, as would most generals and tacticians. Take Russian in WW2 for example.
B. Mass Effect is NOT a RPG series. It's an action shooter series with some RPG elements. If you call this game a RPG, you really need to re-evaluate your gaming life.
And I'm still wondering why you ignored this. Why did EDI show up in normandy AFTER she died by the reaper laser.
1. I can only thank god you aren't a military tactision, you would be terrible for the job, and most people wouldn't do that. It is crazy and exceedingly suicidal.jason27131 said:
2. "A role-playing game (RPG and sometimes roleplaying game) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting, or through a process of structured decision-making or character development. Actions taken within many games succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines."
Mass effect fits those criteria.
Is mass effect a traditional RPG series like NWN or BG? No, but there are MORE RPG styles then just the classic method.
If you think ME3 doesn't fit the definitions of a RPG I would suggest you stop being so close-minded and traditionalist about the definition and realize that the term "RPG" is so broad is covers many types of games.
I suggest everyone should make peace with the endings. Ignore the problems and focus on the story it's telling: Sajuuk IS right, keeping the relays in-tact would have been counter productive. Sure, it's extremely destructive and it will probably take thousands of years to remedy, but that's just it: in those thousands of years, the galaxy no longer has to worry about the Reapers making the galaxy's decisions for them. The galaxy has the actual POSSIBILITY of destroying itself, or thriving.
It truly is bittersweet to the letter, but it's right.
Plus, if we're lucky, there will be some epilogues for all the characters.
It truly is bittersweet to the letter, but it's right.
Plus, if we're lucky, there will be some epilogues for all the characters.
1. In a normal war, no one would do that. But this isn't a normal war. This is either you win, or you die. In those cases, no tactician who's remotely sane would try to save civilians instead of committing all manpower. Please, go read history. This has shown up again and again. It's called militia, a last defence in case the main army was not enough. It's called conscription. L2history.
2. In that case, every single game out there is a RPG. COD is a rpg. So is BF3.
P.S. Still ignoring this. Why did EDI show up in normandy AFTER she died by the reaper laser.
2. In that case, every single game out there is a RPG. COD is a rpg. So is BF3.
P.S. Still ignoring this. Why did EDI show up in normandy AFTER she died by the reaper laser.
That is what I was referring to. Telling the Guardian to stuff it and watching the fleets kill the Reapers, or die trying. I don't know what anyone's problem with that ending would be, but the endings we have now are definitely crap (I agree with you). And yeah, I also pointed out my dislike of all the endings due to the Deus Ex Machina that is pulled.Elitefusion said:Wait, you mean the second link I posted? The one I said was playing devil's advocate? Because even with that interpretation, I still don't agree with the original endings, although it makes me dislike them less. I just posted it to contribute to the discussion. The idea I really like is the option to tell the "god-kid" that you reject his options.Joccaren said:Yeah, read the edit I posted after
Sorry about that.
Yet it made a satisfying end to the game. In ME3, you have no idea what happened, and that is a problem for many people.SajuukKhar said:
People want a satisfying ending, not one that leaves them asking 'WTF actually happened?'. Its why its an ending. Give details on what happened to the squadmates and the imagination side is still there, but you at least have some closure on what actually happened, rather than this whole 'The universe is F*****' stuff. It would be nice to know if all your fighting actually paid off, or if it was all for nought. The series has told you everything so far, why not let you know how it ended - a pretty important thing IMO.
And still, we have to remember that this is an amazing game. The ending actually didn't destroy all of your decisions: those decisions still happened, and they're still largely in flux. It's just the fact that Shepard almost always dies and we don't see epilogues for that characters that bothers all of us.
EDIT: It takes a lot of deep thought, but if you REALLY look at it, you can realize that even though Shepard is gone, even though we haven't seen what happened to the characters, the Galaxy really is better off without the relays. This effectively ends the wars and conflicts that the races are having with everyone else up in their business, and allows them to rebuild, evolve, and eventually all find their way back to making their own forms of Mass Relays. This would eventually lead to some more conflict, of course, but at least it's conflict they can handle themselves without worrying about Reapers breathing down their necks.
But still, like everyone else, I would love some closure for the characters.
EDIT: It takes a lot of deep thought, but if you REALLY look at it, you can realize that even though Shepard is gone, even though we haven't seen what happened to the characters, the Galaxy really is better off without the relays. This effectively ends the wars and conflicts that the races are having with everyone else up in their business, and allows them to rebuild, evolve, and eventually all find their way back to making their own forms of Mass Relays. This would eventually lead to some more conflict, of course, but at least it's conflict they can handle themselves without worrying about Reapers breathing down their necks.
But still, like everyone else, I would love some closure for the characters.
Not argument there. Amazing game, just ended quite badly. As someone said before, a 5 course meal, then shit for desert.Deremix said:
Of course. The people saying that the ending ruined the series or even the game are raging for raging's sake. I have problems with the concept, execution, and implications of the endings, but at worst this takes the game from greatest game I've ever played to just above Mass Effect 2. How AMAZING were the Geth-Quarian missions?Deremix said:
The only thing I like about the endings (and also the epilogue) is that it is basically a chance for the galaxy to start over. At the very end you correct the Reaper mistake. Not without cost, but now the galaxy can evolve naturally. Eventually the Mass Relays can be understood and built again. Perhaps the events of ME3 are part of a cycle as well? Imagine that there's the 50,000 year cycle with the Reapers, but every X million years there's a Commander Shepard to break the cycle. Of course, there's no background to support this in the game, it's just an idea.
1. Normal war or not most people wouldn't be so shortsighted as to risk sending ALL of their people to fight.jason27131 said:
Secondly even in this war THERE ARE STILL PEOPLE NEEDED FOR NON-COMBAT PURPOSES. YOU CAN'T run a military by putting everyone on ships and sending them off to fight. There NEEDS to be MANY people back on the homeworlds/colonies to make things for the military.
2. Most games are technically RPGs.
3. EDI doesn't show up if you pick the destroy ending, she only appears in the merge endings, and if i recall she was in the control ending.
Merge ending and control ending don't involve killing all the Reapers. Beyond that she could easily have had more then one body, and/or they fixed her body.