58 réponses à ce sujet

[RoboticWater]

Heres the problem Ritt, people are saying the mass effect ending sucked. They're not actually letting us all know why it sucked or what was wrong with it. Kind of like going to a mechanic and when he asks you whats wrong you reply "well, its broken isnt it".

 

He gets the idea its broken but if nobody tells him how its broken nothing can be fixed. Of course someone not liking something doesnt actually mean it sucks it just means its sucks FOR YOU.

 

Good writing takes many forms. Writers like Terry Prattchett and Ian M banks are favourites of mine because they keep me engaged in story telling. Ian M banks doesnt always write happy endings. Sometimes the main character dies at the end. Thats good writing. It means you are not afraid to upset/shock your audience. Just because the ending wasnt everyone holding hands and singing kumbaya, it doesnt equate to a bad ending. Nor does it equate to fanboyism. Just because you didnt understand the ending the same applies.

 

Sometimes the ending is never explained and the viewer/reader is left to make their own mind up about what happened. Again not bad writing. Just different. To use the world logic in a video game that does nothing but flout the laws of science is a bit silly. Good story telling is subjective.

For me, the ending debate was never about happiness, it was about sense. To me, it just didn't make any.

 

While storytelling, like any art form is ultimately subjective, it can be objectively analyzed to a certain extent. ME3's ending would be objectively bad if everyone turned into unicorns and flew off into sun for no apparent reason. Why? Because that would be a gross thematic departure, and generally illogical within the confines of the Mass Effect universe. The same can be said (to a lesser degree obviously) about what actually happened. If you have 40 minutes TUN actually describes this quite well.

 

I'll agree that if a few people don't understand the ending, it's probably fine, but if many people have a problem, then there must be a problem. My point is, even if ME3's ending does make sense logically and thematically (and I don't believe it does), there must still be a problem with the writing if a large part of the fanbase doesn't seem to get it, many of whom I consider intelligent. Somewhere along the line, ME3's writers asked too much from their audience, and a lot of people got confused.

 

If it is the writer's job to logically and thematically progress a story, then a "thinker" ending in ME3 doesn't make much sense. If we look at Inception, of course an open ending is justified; the whole movie was based around the concept of perception, and the ending makes the viewer begin to question their own. ME3, however, did nothing of the sort. The entire plot was quite straight forward and not once foreshadowed the kind of thematic leap the ending decided to take. Mass Effect has always been without exception, straight forward. While it contained mystery and posed moral questions, it never obfuscated necessary plot details behind confusing dialog and extended analysis. A good writer must know the trajectory of their narrative, and make sure their audience can stay with them.

 

It's fine if a writer wants to pose the audience a question, or even take the narrative into a more abstract area, but only if it makes sense within the canon. IMO, Mass Effect should have ended like Star Wars, simply and effectively. I may not be able to prove to any of you that ME3's ending doesn't make sense, but I can say that the direction it took was certainly counter-intuitive. 

[Lee T]

My first problem is the story shift. I fully expected Shepard to die, but I expected a meaningfull death. instead I got what I felt was the end to anoter story tacked on to the game.

The second problem is consequences. The whole base of the game, a trilogy carriying your decisions is about consequences. However none of our previous choices weigh in any way on the ending. Act III barely changes whatever you didi and almost nullify the biggest choice in ME2. The best they could have done would have been to present us with three endings woven in our choices, the least they could have done would have been to provide the illusion of the same. But the thematic shift prevented them to do both.

The way it was done created in me a complete disconnection with the narrative and the impression of a complete waste of time as my multiple playthroughs of the previous games would all lead to the same crossroad.

[Jimbo_Gee79]

For me, the ending debate was never about happiness, it was about sense. To me, it just didn't make any.

 

While storytelling, like any art form is ultimately subjective, it can be objectively analyzed to a certain extent. ME3's ending would be objectively bad if everyone turned into unicorns and flew off into sun for no apparent reason. Why? Because that would be a gross thematic departure, and generally illogical within the confines of the Mass Effect universe. The same can be said (to a lesser degree obviously) about what actually happened. If you have 40 minutes TUN actually describes this quite well.

 

I'll agree that if a few people don't understand the ending, it's probably fine, but if many people have a problem, then there must be a problem. My point is, even if ME3's ending does make sense logically and thematically (and I don't believe it does), there must still be a problem with the writing if a large part of the fanbase doesn't seem to get it, many of whom I consider intelligent. Somewhere along the line, ME3's writers asked too much from their audience, and a lot of people got confused.

 

If it is the writer's job to logically and thematically progress a story, then a "thinker" ending in ME3 doesn't make much sense. If we look at Inception, of course an open ending is justified; the whole movie was based around the concept of perception, and the ending makes the viewer begin to question their own. ME3, however, did nothing of the sort. The entire plot was quite straight forward and not once foreshadowed the kind of thematic leap the ending decided to take. Mass Effect has always been without exception, straight forward. While it contained mystery and posed moral questions, it never obfuscated necessary plot details behind confusing dialog and extended analysis. A good writer must know the trajectory of their narrative, and make sure their audience can stay with them.

 

It's fine if a writer wants to pose the audience a question, or even take the narrative into a more abstract area, but only if it makes sense within the canon. IMO, Mass Effect should have ended like Star Wars, simply and effectively. I may not be able to prove to any of you that ME3's ending doesn't make sense, but I can say that the direction it took was certainly counter-intuitive. 

It made perfect sense to me... Shepard dies at the end. Whats so hard about that to understand? Best way to stop people asking for a comeback? Kill of the main character.  People tried to complicate the issue by bringing out videos that Shepard had been indoctrinated. Maybe the writers dont tell you that for a reason. Maybe your left to make up your own mind about the whole thing. Look at the end of Lost as a great example of writing. not everything was explained sometimes you can leave the viewer/player to make up their own minds about what happened at the end. In my version he dies.

 

People are angry about not getting the happy ending. Tough crap. Thats how writing goes sometimes. To those of us who read things that dont contain pictures , sometimes the hero dies at the end. Now maybe if you want to find fault with biowares writing skill for repeatedly killing off likeable characters then thats another matter entirely. But its a way of envoking a response. Any response. I literally sat there with tears rolling down my cheeks at the end of 3 and I have NEVER creid over a video game. I was crying because it was the end of an adventure. No more Shepard. No more Garrus. No more of any of the characters I have come to love and know. Thats how you write a video game story.

 

I vowed never to pick up the game series again after that yet what did I do the other day? Bought the trilogy. I know whats going to happen and the end wont be a shock but I believe in Biowares writing skills.  The fact is we dont always get the ending we want in a book or a game or even a film, but if the writer can evoke anger, tears or laughter at the end of it then he has done his job properly.

 

The fact that there was such outlash because the writers didnt point everything out and tie up every loose end makes me even sadder. People have lost their imagination these days and that is the real crime.

[Mcfly616]

To not like how it was written and implemented or presented and concluded is one thing. One thing that anyone is absolutely entitled to feel.

 

 

But to say it's illogical and doesn't fit the lore of the MEU, is another thing entirely. And is simply false.

[Jimbo_Gee79]

My first problem is the story shift. I fully expected Shepard to die, but I expected a meaningfull death. instead I got what I felt was the end to anoter story tacked on to the game.

The second problem is consequences. The whole base of the game, a trilogy carriying your decisions is about consequences. However none of our previous choices weigh in any way on the ending. Act III barely changes whatever you didi and almost nullify the biggest choice in ME2. The best they could have done would have been to present us with three endings woven in our choices, the least they could have done would have been to provide the illusion of the same. But the thematic shift prevented them to do both.

The way it was done created in me a complete disconnection with the narrative and the impression of a complete waste of time as my multiple playthroughs of the previous games would all lead to the same crossroad.

I feel like you are missing the entire point. Why does every action have to have far reaching consequences? Why cant it just be a choice? I'm currently playing through Mass Effect 2 right now and I have just rescued Garrus from the mercs. Remember that kid that goes to sign up and you have a choice to save him or not? Thats what that is just a choice. I'm not expecting him to turn up at the end of 3 with a minigun and a cheesy line. Some actions like saving or letting the council die do have far reaching results which lasted the entire three games.

 

The whole point of good writing is that you can have lots of threads leadng off but they all return to the same end. Otherwise youd be writing 50 different endings to accomodate all the choices we had made. Not really any point if the main character isnt going to survive the main battle.

 

Explain what a meaningful death means?

[Calders]

But to say it's illogical and doesn't fit the lore of the MEU, is another thing entirely. And is simply false.

 

I think its logic is debatable... after all how does the crucible change the Star child so that it abandons its previous view that the harvest is the only solution to conflict between organics and synthetics (and destroy doesn't even change anything).  Having said this a lot of endings don't have flawless logic and that doesn't make them bad.  I agree there is no major problem with ME lore.  The bigger problem is perhaps the thematic issues, depending upon how you play you could have just spent most of the game proving the Reaper harvest is simply wrong, that synthetics and organics are not doomed to conflict, but you have no real way of choosing this at the end.

[Mcfly616]

I think its logic is debatable... after all how does the crucible change the Star child so that it abandons its previous view that the harvest is the only solution to conflict between organics and synthetics (and destroy doesn't even change anything).  Having said this a lot of endings don't have flawless logic and that doesn't make them bad.  I agree there is no major problem with ME lore.  The bigger problem is perhaps the thematic issues, depending upon how you play you could have just spent most of the game proving the Reaper harvest is simply wrong, that synthetics and organics are not doomed to conflict, but you have no real way of choosing this at the end.

 Shepard changes the Catalysts perspective because he makes the solution to the eternal organic/synthetic conflict a possibility. He achieves what the Catalyst hasn't. For him to even reach that point he has proven that we don't need the cycles. We can find our own way.

 

 

 

Now, there's some widely varying theories based on these broad terms. But that's what Bioware wanted. Speculation. They wanted to leave certain things up to our own imagination. And imo they left the right things up to it.

[Calders]

Now, there's some widely varying theories based on these broad terms. But that's what Bioware wanted. Speculation. They wanted to leave certain things up to our own imagination. And imo they left the right things up to it.

 

I think that probably encapsulates the difference of opinion about the ending perfectly.  I think to work it needed to explain itself much more, others like the fact that it was so open to interpretation.  I am, however, very far from convinced that this was a deliberate design choice but maybe I don't give the writer enough credit.  I certainly hope I don't give him enough credit because he's in charge of the story for the next ME.

[Lee T]

I feel like you are missing the entire point. Why does every action have to have far reaching consequences? Why cant it just be a choice? I'm currently playing through Mass Effect 2 right now and I have just rescued Garrus from the mercs. Remember that kid that goes to sign up and you have a choice to save him or not? Thats what that is just a choice. I'm not expecting him to turn up at the end of 3 with a minigun and a cheesy line. Some actions like saving or letting the council die do have far reaching results which lasted the entire three games.

You kinda pushed it to the asurd here. If you push the absurd to the other side of the axis you can say the fastest way to play Mass Effect is to start with Marauder Shields, the rest is prologue.

They should have built half a dozen possible endings and have the game propose us a selection based on Big decisions like the Geth/Quarian conflict, or the Genophage, or your general attitude towards synthetic. The Caralyst consider all Shepards to be the same person, that's a waste.

The whole point of good writing is that you can have lots of threads leadng off but they all return to the same end. Otherwise youd be writing 50 different endings to accomodate all the choices we had made. Not really any point if the main character isnt going to survive the main battle.

Then it wasn't good writing, since I felt like reading the end of another book. The whole of act III is connected to the rest of the game with so few threads...

Explain what a meaningful death means?

The games simply lack any element making me feel the end had a purpose, hence a meaningless end, a meaningless death. A good writing would have make it so that we as Shepard embraced this sacrifice, that it was our decision to accept death and continue on. Considering the number of people asking for more closure or a happy ending, they failed. I thought there was enough closure and the gritty ending didn't bother me, I just wanted it to make sense and the discussion with Andrson and the Illusive man wasn't the debate ti could have been and the Ghost speach simply doesnt resonate with me and my experience of the previous games.

I wish they had had another year to build up ME2 main quest and a year more to polish ME3´s ending and make it as good and as deep as the rest of the game is instead of a basic deus ex machina. Unfortunately both those games were published in the era of "let's try to have one Bioware game a year like we do with CoD and Madden". I hope DAI will meet commercial success if only to prove to the executibots that the kind of products Bioware crafts need more than 18 months.

[Iakus]

Because Drew moved on. Other than that, who knows...

Well, he did get off the train before it derailed and exploded....

[Iakus]

Again, whether it's 'happy' is completely subjective. Which is funny you posted the video that you did because he starts it out by taking a big dump all over anybody who simply wanted their happy ending.

 

 

And the Geth were collateral in the Destroy ending. It wasn't like it was malicious intent (especially if you had already saved them earlier in the game). It was a consequence of that particular choice. No way anybody could've seen it coming. It's called sacrifice. 

I'd call it malicious on the part of the writers

[Iakus]

 You started with the condescension. But I don't care. It's whatever.

 

It's not an assumption. It's an established fact of the MEU. Before the Catalyst was created, time and time again, Leviathan observed that civilizations would fall to their creations one after the other like clockwork. Until finally the Leviathan created the Catalyst to find a solution to the problem. Because if nobody did, then everything would be destroyed. How many dominos need to fall before you accept that they're all going to? 

.

Hearsay.  And worse hearsay from a piece of paid DLC

 

 

 

No, the Geth didn't choose to wipe out all organic life, but the conflict would have. They did just as all the other synthetics of previous cycles had. They defended themselves against their creators. In turn a war ensued. When that war gets out of hand, the two sides destroy each other while using any means to survive.

 

So the fact that the geth didn't follow the "pattern" is evidence that there is a pattern? 

 

Bah, the krogan are a better example of a conflict that threatens all life.  To bad it was organic-on-organic conflict.

 

 

 

 

Ever seen War Games? Think of it as thermonuclear war. We launch a nuke, they launch a nuke, we launch a bunch more, they launch a bunch more, until none of our nukes and none of their nukes are left, resulting in nothing being left. We all die. The world ends.

Except that has never happened in all of recorded galactic history, save from the Reaper's own flawed plot to keep that exact thing from happening.  There is no evidence whatsoever to back up such a claim.  None!  To the contrary, evidence is plentiful that organics can keep their synthetics in check.

 

 

 

The Catalyst didn't give you the choices. The Crucible (which was designed by organic civilizations over the course of numerous cycles) provided them for you. The Catalyst simply acknowledges that by docking the Crucible with the Citadel, and by Shepard reaching that point he has created new possibilities and rendered the Catalyst obsolete.

You have no idea how "most players" felt. So don't pretend to.

 

If you want to be pedantic about it, the writers "gave" us the choices.

 

And Shepard didn't reach that point.  He/she was brought there.  Again, proving nothing.  The Catalyst could just as easily have let Shep bleed out and let the harvest continue.  

 

In addition, the Crucible, at least in this cycle was "designed" by a bunch of chimps blindly following a blueprint they found lying around.  Hooray!  They can follow directions written by someone else!  That's the can-do spirit needed to prove to the Catalyst it's insane plans are obsolete!
 

[Mcfly616]

Hearsay.  And worse hearsay from a piece of paid DLC

 

So the fact that the geth didn't follow the "pattern" is evidence that there is a pattern? 

 

Bah, the krogan are a better example of a conflict that threatens all life.  To bad it was organic-on-organic conflict.

 

Except that has never happened in all of recorded galactic history, save from the Reaper's own flawed plot to keep that exact thing from happening.  There is no evidence whatsoever to back up such a claim.  None!  To the contrary, evidence is plentiful that organics can keep their synthetics in check.

 

 

If you want to be pedantic about it, the writers "gave" us the choices.

 

And Shepard didn't reach that point.  He/she was brought there.  Again, proving nothing.  The Catalyst could just as easily have let Shep bleed out and let the harvest continue.  

 

In addition, the Crucible, at least in this cycle was "designed" by a bunch of chimps blindly following a blueprint they found lying around.  Hooray!  They can follow directions written by someone else!  That's the can-do spirit needed to prove to the Catalyst it's insane plans are obsolete!
 

Iakus, if you still want to stick your fingers in your ears and believe everybody is lying to you (those which have no reason to lie), then that's still your prerogative. And it has happened. And there is proof. As was stated. Every civilization which had created AI's previous to the cycles had eventually fallen as a result. The extrapolation is clear from that point.

 

You've always clearly been  of the mind that they should've just allowed it to happen. Which is ridiculous logic. Hmmm "if we don't allow all life to go extinct, then theres no way to prove that it will." Your lack of desire/interest in being proactive does not disprove the eventuality of the situation.

 

 

The Geth don't disprove the absolute of the conflict in any way. Their fragile peace on Rannoch is a minor footnote, as they don't want to be destroyed either. As the Catalyst says, the peace won't last. And there's nothing to suggest it would. There is however countless times it has been proven that it wouldn't, prior to the Reaper cycles.

[GalacticWolf5]

 

 

Jesus Christ... the guy who made these videos is a blatant moron.

Everyone who takes this guy seriously is just as idiotic as him.

There's only one thing he says that's true: Why doesn't the Crucible energy pulse start from the Sol System when we see the galaxy map?

Every single other thing he says are just stupid statements from a crybaby unable to understand a very simple ending.

 

I stopped watching his other videos after he ''explained'' the Control ending. Guess what. He didn't understand a single thing of this ending, nor the other endings.

[Iakus]

Iakus, if you still want to stick your fingers in your ears and believe everybody is lying to you (those which have no reason to lie), then that's still your prerogative. And it has happened. And there is proof. As was stated. Every civilization which had created AI's previous to the cycles had eventually fallen as a result. The extrapolation is clear from that point.

 

You've always clearly been  of the mind that they should've just allowed it to happen. Which is ridiculous logic. Hmmm "if we don't allow all life to go extinct, then theres no way to prove that it will." Your lack of desire/interest in being proactive does not disprove the eventuality of the situation.

 

 

The Geth don't disprove the absolute of the conflict in any way. Their fragile peace on Rannoch is a minor footnote, as they don't want to be destroyed either. As the Catalyst says, the peace won't last. And there's nothing to suggest it would. There is however countless times it has been proven that it won't, prior to the Reaper cycles.

Show me the proof.  Every civilization which created AIs?  Name me a few.  No Aruments from Authority please.

 

When you make a ridiculous claim that "*blank* is inevitable" you better be ready to back it up with hard evidence.  Especially when your "solutions" start at turning the organics of the galaxy into smoothies and get wierder from there.

 

As for the geth, there's nothing to suggest that the peace will or will not last.  Just as there's no evidence that peace with the krogan will.  But there is also no evidence that war with the geth will destroy all life in the galaxy either.  HEck, the quarians were on the verge of wiping them out before the Reapers interfered

[Iakus]

Jesus Christ... the guy who made these videos is a blatant moron.

Everyone who takes this guy seriously is just as idiotic as him.

There's only one thing he says that's true: Why doesn't the Crucible energy pulse start from the Sol System when we see the galaxy map?

Every single other thing he says are just stupid statements from a crybaby unable to understand a very simple ending.

 

I stopped watching his other videos after he ''explained'' the Control ending. Guess what. He didn't understand a single thing of this ending, nor other endings.

 

Well, there's certainly no arguing with such a logical, well-phrased counterargument than that

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

OP, I'm not sure you know what the word "sincere" means.

[Calders]

Jesus Christ... the guy who made these videos is a blatant moron.

Everyone who takes this guy seriously is just as idiotic as him.

There's only one thing he says that's true: Why doesn't the Crucible energy pulse start from the Sol System when we see the galaxy map?

Every single other thing he says are just stupid statements from a crybaby unable to understand a very simple ending.

 

I stopped watching his other videos after he ''explained'' the Control ending. Guess what. He didn't understand a single thing of this ending, nor other endings.

 

That's a bit harsh... although its not really the logic of the ending that 's the problem.  This only gets micro analysed because of the main problem with the ending, which is that the central purpose of the trilogy is suddenly changed (and its a huge anti-climax).  

 

For 99% of 3 games the underlying mission was to stop the Reapers.  Then suddenly at the end I am not stopping the Reapers, instead I have to solve the Reapers problem for them (the 'inevitable' organic / synthetic conflict).  The response to the Reapers should have been "you're wrong and I proved it with the Geth... now you are going to die"  (and that should have been said to Harbinger not some new character)

[Mcfly616]

Well, there's certainly no arguing with such a logical, well-phrased counterargument than that

If you watched the video, your response to it would most likely be quite similar. The guy just continuously babbles about his own personal feelings and rules of storytelling. Even though you don't like the ending, atleast 'sometimes' you actually make points based on your pov, rather than just saying "uhh it's stupid!" 

 

 

It's really hard to take seriously. He doesn't make a single point of how it doesn't fit the lore or is illogical. Can't really say the same for you. Atleast you make an attempt at counter-arguing. The moron in the video does no such thing.

[Iakus]

If you watched the video, your response to it would most likely be quite similar. The guy just continuously babbles about his own personal feelings and rules of storytelling. Even though you don't like the ending, atleast 'sometimes' you actually make points based on your pov, rather than just saying "uhh it's stupid!" 

 

 

It's really hard to take seriously. He doesn't make a single point of how it doesn't fit the lore or is illogical. Can't really say the same for you.

Thanks...I think...

[themikefest]

I agree with this poster about the ending

http://forum.bioware...-you-are-going/

[Calders]

I agree with this poster about the ending

http://forum.bioware...-you-are-going/

 

Yeah Drew Karpyshyn effectively admitted they didn't even know what the ending was going to be when they wrote ME2 let alone ME1

[GalacticWolf5]

For 99% of 3 games the underlying mission was to stop the Reapers.  Then suddenly at the end I am not stopping the Reapers, instead I have to solve the Reapers problem for them (the 'inevitable' organic / synthetic conflict).  The response to the Reapers should have been "you're wrong and I proved it with the Geth... now you are going to die"  (and that should have been said to Harbinger not some new character)

 

Isn't stopping the Reapers and solving the Reaper problem the same thing? Yes, your goal is the same throughout the whole Trilogy.

[Vazgen]

Geth fit the pattern just fine. The pattern is about organic/synthetic conflict, not about wiping out organic life. Wiping out is the end result, the one that the Reapers try to prevent from happening. It's their programming, they can't just give up on that and say that "look, organics can handle their own, let's not harvest them this time"