7 réponses à ce sujet

[ThePasserby]

I think we'd all be discussing other things here if the endings weren't what they are.

I'd like to talk about this on two levels: artistic merit, and commercial viability.

Artistic merit:

I can understand the writers wanting a bitter-sweet ending, but it is much harder to pull off and Bioware stumbled. What we're left with instead, is a deux ex machina; a poorly thought out plot device. Personally, I don't mind sad endings. They're not as satisfying as happy ones, but if the piece of literature is well-written, I can appreciate the poignancy on its merits.

But can we say that the resolution of Shepard's mission is good writing? Hardly, and I don't think I'm alone on this. The sudden inexplicable appearance of that "thing". The illogical choices that introduced plotholes instead of resolution. They have been brought up too many times for me to repeat here.

So, if Bioware isn't striving for artistic integrity, then perhaps they had some commercial strategy in mind?

Commercial viability:

How does Bioware/EA figure that making players upset about the endings would entice them to replay? And if people don't replay, how could DLC sales do well? It is expensive to make a new game, but cheaper to make DLCs that are tagged to a successful game that has replay value.

So ... why, Bioware? Why cut off your own revenue-stream? Why make an ending that engenders this much derison; that so strongly discourages replay, and most of all, makes buying DLC pointless? Personally, why would I want to pay for a DLC for a game that I have no wish to replay?

Did the Bioware writers over-stretch themselves trying to write an ending that they hoped players would feel is epic and unforgettable?

[MadMatt910]

Ending was changed from the original dark energy idea, could be because the script was leaked or it could just be due to change of personel. Truth of the matter is the new ending didn't fit.

Hopefully we may get a dlc that allows us the option of going back to the original ending.

[Adamantium93]

It feels like someone wanted to make an artistic statement

But as I said in another thread, you can sacrifice story cohesion and series fun for art if you want. But people are gonna be angry, because in the end you gave them something non-cohesive and unfun. And if you're that desperate to make an artsy statement that you ruin the best sci-fi series of this generation, then I'm sorry, that's kind of pretentious.

[ThePasserby]

MadMatt910 wrote...

Ending was changed from the original dark energy idea, could be because the script was leaked or it could just be due to change of personel. Truth of the matter is the new ending didn't fit.

Hopefully we may get a dlc that allows us the option of going back to the original ending.

i had no idea about the dark energy one. I'm not sure I'd want to reward them for bungling this by buying such a DLC though.

[ThePasserby]

Adamantium93 wrote...

It feels like someone wanted to make an artistic statement

But as I said in another thread, you can sacrifice story cohesion and series fun for art if you want. But people are gonna be angry, because in the end you gave them something non-cohesive and unfun. And if you're that desperate to make an artsy statement that you ruin the best sci-fi series of this generation, then I'm sorry, that's kind of pretentious.

It feels like someone biting off more than he could chew, and lacking the writing chops, fell flat with the ending.

[vigna]

Plus the introduction of multi-player robbed us of resources that could have been put to use making epilogues, more day one DLC, and potentially more editing that "fixed" the end run before release.

[killnoob]

ThePasserby wrote...

I think we'd all be discussing other things here if the endings weren't what they are.

I'd like to talk about this on two levels: artistic merit, and commercial viability.

Artistic merit:

I can understand the writers wanting a bitter-sweet ending, but it is much harder to pull off and Bioware stumbled. What we're left with instead, is a deux ex machina; a poorly thought out plot device. Personally, I don't mind sad endings. They're not as satisfying as happy ones, but if the piece of literature is well-written, I can appreciate the poignancy on its merits.

But can we say that the resolution of Shepard's mission is good writing? Hardly, and I don't think I'm alone on this. The sudden inexplicable appearance of that "thing". The illogical choices that introduced plotholes instead of resolution. They have been brought up too many times for me to repeat here.

So, if Bioware isn't striving for artistic integrity, then perhaps they had some commercial strategy in mind?

Commercial viability:

How does Bioware/EA figure that making players upset about the endings would entice them to replay? And if people don't replay, how could DLC sales do well? It is expensive to make a new game, but cheaper to make DLCs that are tagged to a successful game that has replay value.

So ... why, Bioware? Why cut off your own revenue-stream? Why make an ending that engenders this much derison; that so strongly discourages replay, and most of all, makes buying DLC pointless? Personally, why would I want to pay for a DLC for a game that I have no wish to replay?

Did the Bioware writers over-stretch themselves trying to write an ending that they hoped players would feel is epic and unforgettable?

lol no matter what happens, people will continue to buy EA products.

And that's all EA cares about.

I know this is sad, but it is also the truth.

Modifié par killnoob, 11 mars 2012 - 04:02 .

[HKR148]

killnoob wrote...

ThePasserby wrote...

I think we'd all be discussing other things here if the endings weren't what they are.

I'd like to talk about this on two levels: artistic merit, and commercial viability.

Artistic merit:

I can understand the writers wanting a bitter-sweet ending, but it is much harder to pull off and Bioware stumbled. What we're left with instead, is a deux ex machina; a poorly thought out plot device. Personally, I don't mind sad endings. They're not as satisfying as happy ones, but if the piece of literature is well-written, I can appreciate the poignancy on its merits.

But can we say that the resolution of Shepard's mission is good writing? Hardly, and I don't think I'm alone on this. The sudden inexplicable appearance of that "thing". The illogical choices that introduced plotholes instead of resolution. They have been brought up too many times for me to repeat here.

So, if Bioware isn't striving for artistic integrity, then perhaps they had some commercial strategy in mind?

Commercial viability:

How does Bioware/EA figure that making players upset about the endings would entice them to replay? And if people don't replay, how could DLC sales do well? It is expensive to make a new game, but cheaper to make DLCs that are tagged to a successful game that has replay value.

So ... why, Bioware? Why cut off your own revenue-stream? Why make an ending that engenders this much derison; that so strongly discourages replay, and most of all, makes buying DLC pointless? Personally, why would I want to pay for a DLC for a game that I have no wish to replay?

Did the Bioware writers over-stretch themselves trying to write an ending that they hoped players would feel is epic and unforgettable?

lol no matter what happens, people will continue to buy EA products.

And that's all EA cares about.

I know this is sad, but it is also the truth.

One thing that is certain is that DLC is going to take some hit, especially if it's something that you only do in the middle of the game. I cannot imagine those psychologically traumatized by the ending would force themselves to go through the same thing while knowing that all they will get is the flashback of what traumatized them.

Modifié par HKR148, 11 mars 2012 - 04:05 .