355 réponses à ce sujet

[Bluefuse]

LeTtotheC wrote...

bleetman wrote...

The Razman wrote...
I don't see much legitimate confusion regarding the ending (only over the Normandy issue, which I agree is a plothole depending on which ending you've got).

I'd consider the stated reason for the existence of the Reapers and their culling of all advanced organic life to be a little... strange, for starters. In a "did anyone devote more than ten seconds of thought time to this" kind of way.

A lot of the issues in the game are down to that old nemesis - the deadline.  The story suffered badly because no one had planned it out, and thus they suffered from make-it-up-as-you-go-along syndrome.  Which means when a fresh team of writers came on board, they had to try and deal with a creation not of their own making, putting in their own ideas and trying to meld it all together in one tangled mess of story telling and lore. 

Like I said before, for sequels you need to keep at all costs the lead VISIONARY writer of the tale. Every time it has changed, I have seen at least something take a turn for the worst instead of improve on the initial direction of the story.

I honestly thought that the story took a very bad turn in ME2, but ME3's story redeemed and fixed it, but the ending made everything seem pointless and was basically the same scene that was completely stolen at the end of Planet of the Apes...

Modifié par Bluefuse, 13 mars 2012 - 03:22 .

[Mx_CN3]

Fawx9 wrote...

The things that are killing you were created in order to stop you from creating things that will kill you.

To be completely fair, there is the part of "allowing each race it's time in the sun."  There is some logic in that, especially after seeing what happened with the Turians and Salarians vs the Krogan.

[LeTtotheC]

The Razman wrote...

Fawx9 wrote...

The Razman wrote...

bleetman wrote...

The Razman wrote...
I don't see much legitimate confusion regarding the ending (only over the Normandy issue, which I agree is a plothole depending on which ending you've got).

I'd consider the stated reason for the existence of the Reapers and their culling of all advanced organic life to be a little... strange, for starters. In a "did anyone devote more than ten seconds of thought time to this" kind of way.

How so? I can't go into it on a spoiler-free forum, of course ... but what doesn't make sense about the reason?

The things that are killing you were created in order to stop you from creating things that will kill you.

Indeed. It's ironic. But what doesn't make sense about it?

Because it assumes the mistake will always be made.  It assumes that there's never going to be a chance that things may turn out differently.  - EDI and geth say otherwise. 

[The Razman]

Darkeus wrote...
Again, I think we should just leave it be.  You have your opinion and I have mine.  It is obvious we are going to feel differently about this subject.  That is fine.  I can only hope Bioware does something better than what is there.

This is not my original quote but it comes from a professional writer (I am a writer too, but I only have my name in one Table-top RPG.)  It sums up how I feel about the situation quite clearly.

"This is a lesson I think all game developers need to learn. It's the golden rule of writing.



You can write the most amazing and emotive, brilliant story - but your
ending is where your story lives or dies. Screw up the ending and you
might as well bin the whole story. The ending is what sticks in the
audience's mind most and it is the pay off for the journey. If people
don't get the payoff, they feel that their time was wasted.



Too many game writers and developers have the mistaken impression that
the body of the game is all they need to worry about. But if they are
going narrative - they have to get the ending right."

That quote signifies everything that's wrong with how we view video-games. Why should video-game narratives be treated in a different way to traditional narrative forms? Mass Effect is a cinematic experience ... it should take advantage of that to the artistic max.

That's what they did here. It was controversial. And I loved it.

[Jaysh]

When you get close to the ending pause the game and imagine how YOU think it will end and then unpause it. You will quickly realize that its not going to end the way you wanted it to. My advice is to just not play the ending because you will be left with the feeling of disbelief, depression will take you over, and you will never be able to play the Mass Effect series ever again.

[The Razman]

LeTtotheC wrote...

Because it assumes the mistake will always be made.  It assumes that there's never going to be a chance that things may turn out differently.  - EDI and geth say otherwise. 

You haven't pointed out how the original argument doesn't make sense, you've just offered a logical rebuttal to it. Which Sheperd did in the game, too (in a rather melodramatic fashion).

It sounds like your real issue is "I disagreed with it" rather than "it didn't make sense". Good. You're [i]meant[i] to disagree with it. But that's the course of action it took, whether you agree with it or not. What doesn't make sense there?

[billybobjones]

Oh please, come on people. The endings are weak, but not " OMG BIOWARE IS TEH SUXORZ RUINED FOREVER!!", and if you are the kind of person who says "the whole of the game was amazing until the last 5 minutes, when the game personally came to my house and took a dump on my face. GAME COMPETE FAILURE" then there is no point arguing with yeh.

I mean, come on guys. At the least the good part about the endings being so vague is that it is very, very easy to headcannon. For instance, FTL travel still works, so I just assume that the Normandy crash landed on a world within FTL distance. and just like that, most people should be happy.

Do I wish there was a DAO style wall of text detailing outcomes for the various races and characters? yup. is this lazy on biowares part? yup. But lets not pretend that the series is RUINED FOREVER because of this.

[Darkeus]

The Razman wrote...

Darkeus wrote...
Again, I think we should just leave it be.  You have your opinion and I have mine.  It is obvious we are going to feel differently about this subject.  That is fine.  I can only hope Bioware does something better than what is there.

This is not my original quote but it comes from a professional writer (I am a writer too, but I only have my name in one Table-top RPG.)  It sums up how I feel about the situation quite clearly.

"This is a lesson I think all game developers need to learn. It's the golden rule of writing.



You can write the most amazing and emotive, brilliant story - but your
ending is where your story lives or dies. Screw up the ending and you
might as well bin the whole story. The ending is what sticks in the
audience's mind most and it is the pay off for the journey. If people
don't get the payoff, they feel that their time was wasted.



Too many game writers and developers have the mistaken impression that
the body of the game is all they need to worry about. But if they are
going narrative - they have to get the ending right."

That quote signifies everything that's wrong with how we view video-games. Why should video-game narratives be treated in a different way to traditional narrative forms? Mass Effect is a cinematic experience ... it should take advantage of that to the artistic max.

That's what they did here. It was controversial. And I loved it.

Dude, that quote signfies how we hold up ANY story!  All stories must apply this.  It applies just as much in movies and literature than it does for video games.  You couldn't have missed that point!  Did failed at this completely.  They didn't create controversy, they created a bad ending that invalidated the rest of the story....

You are missing some context here.  Just because something is a cinematic experience does not mean you create a discordant ending.  And just because something is art does not make for a bad ending.  A STORY needs to come with some sort of resolution.  ME3's ending is lacking that, among other things.

Any story needs a satisfying ending.  Even endings that are mysterious and vague tend to be satisfying sometimes.

But hey, whatever man.  It has been a good debate no matter what with you, but I am done with the discussion.  

Modifié par Darkeus, 13 mars 2012 - 03:28 .

[bleetman]

The Razman wrote...

Indeed. It's ironic. But what doesn't make sense about it?

...Artificial intelligence systematically wiping out all advanced organic life to prevent them from developing - and in turn being wiped out by - artificial intelligence makes sense to you?

Modifié par bleetman, 13 mars 2012 - 03:26 .

[Mx_CN3]

The Razman wrote...

Indeed. It's ironic. But what doesn't make sense about it?

"I should kill my sister so that she doesn't kill herself out of grief later."  Yeah, it does absoltely logically follow that a dead person cannot commit suicide.  But consider: people go through grief all the time, but only rarely will they commit suicide over it.  What does make sense is to call in the authorities upon seeing the warning signs, and getting her to stop, or at least control herself.  (I'm trying to avoid morality here, as that wouldn't make sense in the context, and I'm trying to keep this vague, because I don't want to get this thread locked; there's actually good, differeing dicussion going on in here!)

[LeTtotheC]

Mx_CN3 wrote...

Fawx9 wrote...

The things that are killing you were created in order to stop you from creating things that will kill you.

To be completely fair, there is the part of "allowing each race it's time in the sun."  There is some logic in that, especially after seeing what happened with the Turians and Salarians vs the Krogan.

Not really - it serves no purpose other than to bring evolution to a screaming halt.  

[Jaysh]

Metroidbum wrote...

Oh please, come on people. The endings are weak, but not " OMG BIOWARE IS TEH SUXORZ RUINED FOREVER!!", and if you are the kind of person who says "the whole of the game was amazing until the last 5 minutes, when the game personally came to my house and took a dump on my face. GAME COMPETE FAILURE" then there is no point arguing with yeh.

I mean, come on guys. At the least the good part about the endings being so vague is that it is very, very easy to headcannon. For instance, FTL travel still works, so I just assume that the Normandy crash landed on a world within FTL distance. and just like that, most people should be happy.

Do I wish there was a DAO style wall of text detailing outcomes for the various races and characters? yup. is this lazy on biowares part? yup. But lets not pretend that the series is RUINED FOREVER because of this.

People at Bioware have spat on the name of Commander Shepard and the Normandy crew. They deserved better. We as fans deserved better. 

Modifié par Jaysh, 13 mars 2012 - 03:29 .

[The Razman]

Darkeus wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Darkeus wrote...
Again, I think we should just leave it be.  You have your opinion and I have mine.  It is obvious we are going to feel differently about this subject.  That is fine.  I can only hope Bioware does something better than what is there.

This is not my original quote but it comes from a professional writer (I am a writer too, but I only have my name in one Table-top RPG.)  It sums up how I feel about the situation quite clearly.

"This is a lesson I think all game developers need to learn. It's the golden rule of writing.



You can write the most amazing and emotive, brilliant story - but your
ending is where your story lives or dies. Screw up the ending and you
might as well bin the whole story. The ending is what sticks in the
audience's mind most and it is the pay off for the journey. If people
don't get the payoff, they feel that their time was wasted.



Too many game writers and developers have the mistaken impression that
the body of the game is all they need to worry about. But if they are
going narrative - they have to get the ending right."

That quote signifies everything that's wrong with how we view video-games. Why should video-game narratives be treated in a different way to traditional narrative forms? Mass Effect is a cinematic experience ... it should take advantage of that to the artistic max.

That's what they did here. It was controversial. And I loved it.

Dude, that quote signfies how we hold up ANY story!  All stories must apply this.  It applies just as much in movies and literature than it does for video games.  You couldn't have missed that point!  Did failed at this completely.  They didn't create controversy, they created a bad ending that invalidated the rest of the story....

Then sorry, but you've missed the point. You can't quote some kind of narrative rulebook for designating what's a good story and a bad one ... narrative rules are there to be broken. Just because they've done something different doesn't make it bad.

Some people found it unsatisfying. Some other people found it quite satisfying. And there's oh-so many movies, books, and other stories which have "unsatisfying" endings which in your rulebook would "invalidate the rest of the story" ... and you know what, they're actually considered masterpieces because of their difference.

[The Razman]

Mx_CN3 wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Indeed. It's ironic. But what doesn't make sense about it?

"I should kill my sister so that she doesn't kill herself out of grief later."  Yeah, it does absoltely logically follow that a dead person cannot commit suicide.  But consider: people go through grief all the time, but only rarely will they commit suicide over it.  What does make sense is to call in the authorities upon seeing the warning signs, and getting her to stop, or at least control herself.  (I'm trying to avoid morality here, as that wouldn't make sense in the context, and I'm trying to keep this vague, because I don't want to get this thread locked; there's actually good, differeing dicussion going on in here!)

That's not an accurate analogy ... in fact, I'm not even sure where that analogy was going, with the whole "calling the authorities" thing?

Say you've got a forest population. You don't consider each species individual, it's just the general forest population. And you have to cull the population every so often to stop them getting to the point where they exterminate themselves. In the long run, your cull prevents the entire forest population going extinct. It's a logic we find repulsive ... but you can't deny that it's logical.

Modifié par The Razman, 13 mars 2012 - 03:34 .

[Darkeus]

The Razman wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Darkeus wrote...
Again, I think we should just leave it be.  You have your opinion and I have mine.  It is obvious we are going to feel differently about this subject.  That is fine.  I can only hope Bioware does something better than what is there.

This is not my original quote but it comes from a professional writer (I am a writer too, but I only have my name in one Table-top RPG.)  It sums up how I feel about the situation quite clearly.

"This is a lesson I think all game developers need to learn. It's the golden rule of writing.



You can write the most amazing and emotive, brilliant story - but your
ending is where your story lives or dies. Screw up the ending and you
might as well bin the whole story. The ending is what sticks in the
audience's mind most and it is the pay off for the journey. If people
don't get the payoff, they feel that their time was wasted.



Too many game writers and developers have the mistaken impression that
the body of the game is all they need to worry about. But if they are
going narrative - they have to get the ending right."

That quote signifies everything that's wrong with how we view video-games. Why should video-game narratives be treated in a different way to traditional narrative forms? Mass Effect is a cinematic experience ... it should take advantage of that to the artistic max.

That's what they did here. It was controversial. And I loved it.

Dude, that quote signfies how we hold up ANY story!  All stories must apply this.  It applies just as much in movies and literature than it does for video games.  You couldn't have missed that point!  Did failed at this completely.  They didn't create controversy, they created a bad ending that invalidated the rest of the story....

Then sorry, but you've missed the point. You can't quote some kind of narrative rulebook for designating what's a good story and a bad one ... narrative rules are there to be broken. Just because they've done something different doesn't make it bad.

Some people found it unsatisfying. Some other people found it quite satisfying. And there's oh-so many movies, books, and other stories which have "unsatisfying" endings which in your rulebook would "invalidate the rest of the story" ... and you know what, they're actually considered masterpieces because of their difference.

Not all of them my friend.  A lot of those stories are considered exactly what they are, stories with bad endings.  You can't just make up the rules of good storytelling out of the blue.  It does not work that way.  Many stories fall on their face for being anti-climatic.  Mass Effect 3 seems to be falling into that pit.

Narrative that breaks rules (Not my rules, the rules of writing period) usually fails.  Sometimes it succeeds.  Mass Effect 3 is not one of those stories..  Sorry, as much as you may like it, it seems many, many more do not.

But like I said in the part of the quote you did not see because I was editing, it has been a good discussion.  However, we are not getting anywhere.  So good debate and later on....

BTW, this is the part you missed from my edit.

"You are missing some context here.  Just because something is a
cinematic experience does not mean you create a discordant ending.  And
just because something is art does not make for a bad ending.  A STORY
needs to come with some sort of resolution.  ME3's ending is lacking
that, among other things.

Any story needs a satisfying ending.  Even endings that are mysterious and vague tend to be satisfying sometimes.

But hey, whatever man.  It has been a good debate no matter what with you, but I am done with the discussion."

Modifié par Darkeus, 13 mars 2012 - 03:34 .

[Stantrol]

I played all Bioware games since Kotor. like many, I though people was trolling about the end at first. When I finished it today, it didn't break my heart and I will probablly try the next Bioware game, the fact is It is not that bad. I think we are angry because it should have been much much more. More refined. I can't believe that they made this awesome story to end it this way, did the main writers quit along the way?

[The Razman]

Darkeus wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Darkeus wrote...
Again, I think we should just leave it be.  You have your opinion and I have mine.  It is obvious we are going to feel differently about this subject.  That is fine.  I can only hope Bioware does something better than what is there.

This is not my original quote but it comes from a professional writer (I am a writer too, but I only have my name in one Table-top RPG.)  It sums up how I feel about the situation quite clearly.

"This is a lesson I think all game developers need to learn. It's the golden rule of writing.



You can write the most amazing and emotive, brilliant story - but your
ending is where your story lives or dies. Screw up the ending and you
might as well bin the whole story. The ending is what sticks in the
audience's mind most and it is the pay off for the journey. If people
don't get the payoff, they feel that their time was wasted.



Too many game writers and developers have the mistaken impression that
the body of the game is all they need to worry about. But if they are
going narrative - they have to get the ending right."

That quote signifies everything that's wrong with how we view video-games. Why should video-game narratives be treated in a different way to traditional narrative forms? Mass Effect is a cinematic experience ... it should take advantage of that to the artistic max.

That's what they did here. It was controversial. And I loved it.

Dude, that quote signfies how we hold up ANY story!  All stories must apply this.  It applies just as much in movies and literature than it does for video games.  You couldn't have missed that point!  Did failed at this completely.  They didn't create controversy, they created a bad ending that invalidated the rest of the story....

Then sorry, but you've missed the point. You can't quote some kind of narrative rulebook for designating what's a good story and a bad one ... narrative rules are there to be broken. Just because they've done something different doesn't make it bad.

Some people found it unsatisfying. Some other people found it quite satisfying. And there's oh-so many movies, books, and other stories which have "unsatisfying" endings which in your rulebook would "invalidate the rest of the story" ... and you know what, they're actually considered masterpieces because of their difference.

Not all of them my friend.  A lot of those stories are considered exactly what they are, stories with bad endings.  You can't just make up the rules of good storytelling out of the blue.  It does not work that way.  Many stories fall on their face for being anti-climatic.  Mass Effect 3 seems to be falling into that pit.

Narrative that breaks rules (Not my rules, the rules of writing period) usually fails.  Sometimes it succeeds.  Mass Effect 3 is not one of those stories..  Sorry, as much as you may like it, it seems many, many more do not.

But like I said in the part of the quote you did not see because I was editing, it has been a good discussion.  However, we are not getting anywhere.  So good debate and later on....

BTW, this is the part you missed from my edit.

"You are missing some context here.  Just because something is a
cinematic experience does not mean you create a discordant ending.  And
just because something is art does not make for a bad ending.  A STORY
needs to come with some sort of resolution.  ME3's ending is lacking
that, among other things.

Any story needs a satisfying ending.  Even endings that are mysterious and vague tend to be satisfying sometimes.

But hey, whatever man.  It has been a good debate no matter what with you, but I am done with the discussion."

I'm absolutely not attempting to make up any rules ... that's what it seemed you were attempting to do by quoting what you did. I've done a fair bit of writing too ... and the first rule of learning the rules is that you learn to break them. They're not a set of rules you have to follow ... they're what's the accepted norm.

But again, we're just going to have to disagree ... because ME3 did end the story. It brought everything within this story arc to a conclusion. Some people simply don't like the conclusion. I say ... fair play to you for having your opinion, but trying to claim objectiveness in your belief that it's "bad" is just silly when it's always coming back to a case of subjective interpretation.

[bleetman]

The Razman wrote...

Say you've got a forest population. You don't consider each species individual, it's just the general forest population. And you have to cull the population every so often to stop them getting to the point where they exterminate themselves. In the long run, your cull prevents the entire forest population going extinct. It's a logic we find repulsive ... but you can't deny that it's logical.

Extinction as a means of preventing extinction. With the cause of both being the same, in the case of the Reapers.

Maybe my brain just isn't wired to understand this kind of logic.

[bleachorange]

The Razman wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Darkeus wrote...
Again, I think we should just leave it be.  You have your opinion and I have mine.  It is obvious we are going to feel differently about this subject.  That is fine.  I can only hope Bioware does something better than what is there.

This is not my original quote but it comes from a professional writer (I am a writer too, but I only have my name in one Table-top RPG.)  It sums up how I feel about the situation quite clearly.

"This is a lesson I think all game developers need to learn. It's the golden rule of writing.



You can write the most amazing and emotive, brilliant story - but your
ending is where your story lives or dies. Screw up the ending and you
might as well bin the whole story. The ending is what sticks in the
audience's mind most and it is the pay off for the journey. If people
don't get the payoff, they feel that their time was wasted.



Too many game writers and developers have the mistaken impression that
the body of the game is all they need to worry about. But if they are
going narrative - they have to get the ending right."

That quote signifies everything that's wrong with how we view video-games. Why should video-game narratives be treated in a different way to traditional narrative forms? Mass Effect is a cinematic experience ... it should take advantage of that to the artistic max.

That's what they did here. It was controversial. And I loved it.

Dude, that quote signfies how we hold up ANY story!  All stories must apply this.  It applies just as much in movies and literature than it does for video games.  You couldn't have missed that point!  Did failed at this completely.  They didn't create controversy, they created a bad ending that invalidated the rest of the story....

Then sorry, but you've missed the point. You can't quote some kind of narrative rulebook for designating what's a good story and a bad one ... narrative rules are there to be broken. Just because they've done something different doesn't make it bad.

Some people found it unsatisfying. Some other people found it quite satisfying. And there's oh-so many movies, books, and other stories which have "unsatisfying" endings which in your rulebook would "invalidate the rest of the story" ... and you know what, they're actually considered masterpieces because of their difference.

A LOT of people find it unsatisfying. Not withstanding that I now view the ending in a different light doesn't mean I'm not dissatisfied with it. I'm upset for an entirely different reason if my line of thinking is true, brilliant plot not withstanding. If I'm wrong, then, yes, the finale is a crappy end to a glorious universe.

Modifié par bleachorange, 13 mars 2012 - 03:44 .

[Mx_CN3]

The Razman wrote...

That's not an accurate analogy ... in fact, I'm not even sure where that analogy was going, with the whole "calling the authorities" thing?

Say you've got a forest population. You don't consider each species individual, it's just the general forest population. And you have to cull the population every so often to stop them getting to the point where they exterminate themselves. In the long run, your cull prevents the entire forest population going extinct. It's a logic we find repulsive ... but you can't deny that it's logical.

My point was "intervene, don't destroy."  There are plenty of ways to prevent a singularity without wiping out every living thing.  And now I just thought of the question "why did they help us achieve the singularity?"

And as I said earlier, I do agree that there was some amount of logic in it.  But, in the forest example, you'd destroy entire species in the forest, rather than just part of it.  And to that, I go to good ol' Mr. Spock : "To hunt a species to extinction is illogical."  (Yeah yeah, I know, the writers of that line were human and had morals, but as the guy above me said, you're essentially handicapping evolution.  Which is, I suppose, the entire purpose.)

[The Razman]

bleachorange wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Darkeus wrote...
Again, I think we should just leave it be.  You have your opinion and I have mine.  It is obvious we are going to feel differently about this subject.  That is fine.  I can only hope Bioware does something better than what is there.

This is not my original quote but it comes from a professional writer (I am a writer too, but I only have my name in one Table-top RPG.)  It sums up how I feel about the situation quite clearly.

"This is a lesson I think all game developers need to learn. It's the golden rule of writing.



You can write the most amazing and emotive, brilliant story - but your
ending is where your story lives or dies. Screw up the ending and you
might as well bin the whole story. The ending is what sticks in the
audience's mind most and it is the pay off for the journey. If people
don't get the payoff, they feel that their time was wasted.



Too many game writers and developers have the mistaken impression that
the body of the game is all they need to worry about. But if they are
going narrative - they have to get the ending right."

That quote signifies everything that's wrong with how we view video-games. Why should video-game narratives be treated in a different way to traditional narrative forms? Mass Effect is a cinematic experience ... it should take advantage of that to the artistic max.

That's what they did here. It was controversial. And I loved it.

Dude, that quote signfies how we hold up ANY story!  All stories must apply this.  It applies just as much in movies and literature than it does for video games.  You couldn't have missed that point!  Did failed at this completely.  They didn't create controversy, they created a bad ending that invalidated the rest of the story....

Then sorry, but you've missed the point. You can't quote some kind of narrative rulebook for designating what's a good story and a bad one ... narrative rules are there to be broken. Just because they've done something different doesn't make it bad.

Some people found it unsatisfying. Some other people found it quite satisfying. And there's oh-so many movies, books, and other stories which have "unsatisfying" endings which in your rulebook would "invalidate the rest of the story" ... and you know what, they're actually considered masterpieces because of their difference.

A LOT of people find it unsatisfying. Not withstanding that I now view the ending in a different light doesn't mean I'm not dissatidfied with it. I'm upset for an entirely different reason if my line of thinking is true, brilliant plot not withstanding. If, I'm wtrong, then, yes, the finale is a crappy end to a glorious universe.

Then a LOT of people have an opinion?

A lot of people didn't like the way Star Wars ended too.

[bleachorange]

Stantrol wrote...

I played all Bioware games since Kotor. like many, I though people was trolling about the end at first. When I finished it today, it didn't break my heart and I will probablly try the next Bioware game, the fact is It is not that bad. I think we are angry because it should have been much much more. More refined. I can't believe that they made this awesome story to end it this way, did the main writers quit along the way?

Yes, the lead Drew Karpyshyn left, and only 2 writers from the original team (minor plot dev. writers from my understanding) were present through the whole trilogy.

[Darkeus]

The Razman wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Darkeus wrote...
Again, I think we should just leave it be.  You have your opinion and I have mine.  It is obvious we are going to feel differently about this subject.  That is fine.  I can only hope Bioware does something better than what is there.

This is not my original quote but it comes from a professional writer (I am a writer too, but I only have my name in one Table-top RPG.)  It sums up how I feel about the situation quite clearly.

"This is a lesson I think all game developers need to learn. It's the golden rule of writing.



You can write the most amazing and emotive, brilliant story - but your
ending is where your story lives or dies. Screw up the ending and you
might as well bin the whole story. The ending is what sticks in the
audience's mind most and it is the pay off for the journey. If people
don't get the payoff, they feel that their time was wasted.



Too many game writers and developers have the mistaken impression that
the body of the game is all they need to worry about. But if they are
going narrative - they have to get the ending right."

That quote signifies everything that's wrong with how we view video-games. Why should video-game narratives be treated in a different way to traditional narrative forms? Mass Effect is a cinematic experience ... it should take advantage of that to the artistic max.

That's what they did here. It was controversial. And I loved it.

Dude, that quote signfies how we hold up ANY story!  All stories must apply this.  It applies just as much in movies and literature than it does for video games.  You couldn't have missed that point!  Did failed at this completely.  They didn't create controversy, they created a bad ending that invalidated the rest of the story....

Then sorry, but you've missed the point. You can't quote some kind of narrative rulebook for designating what's a good story and a bad one ... narrative rules are there to be broken. Just because they've done something different doesn't make it bad.

Some people found it unsatisfying. Some other people found it quite satisfying. And there's oh-so many movies, books, and other stories which have "unsatisfying" endings which in your rulebook would "invalidate the rest of the story" ... and you know what, they're actually considered masterpieces because of their difference.

Not all of them my friend.  A lot of those stories are considered exactly what they are, stories with bad endings.  You can't just make up the rules of good storytelling out of the blue.  It does not work that way.  Many stories fall on their face for being anti-climatic.  Mass Effect 3 seems to be falling into that pit.

Narrative that breaks rules (Not my rules, the rules of writing period) usually fails.  Sometimes it succeeds.  Mass Effect 3 is not one of those stories..  Sorry, as much as you may like it, it seems many, many more do not.

But like I said in the part of the quote you did not see because I was editing, it has been a good discussion.  However, we are not getting anywhere.  So good debate and later on....

BTW, this is the part you missed from my edit.

"You are missing some context here.  Just because something is a
cinematic experience does not mean you create a discordant ending.  And
just because something is art does not make for a bad ending.  A STORY
needs to come with some sort of resolution.  ME3's ending is lacking
that, among other things.

Any story needs a satisfying ending.  Even endings that are mysterious and vague tend to be satisfying sometimes.

But hey, whatever man.  It has been a good debate no matter what with you, but I am done with the discussion."

I'm absolutely not attempting to make up any rules ... that's what it seemed you were attempting to do by quoting what you did. I've done a fair bit of writing too ... and the first rule of learning the rules is that you learn to break them. They're not a set of rules you have to follow ... they're what's the accepted norm.

But again, we're just going to have to disagree ... because ME3 did end the story. It brought everything within this story arc to a conclusion. Some people simply don't like the conclusion. I say ... fair play to you for having your opinion, but trying to claim objectiveness in your belief that it's "bad" is just silly when it's always coming back to a case of subjective interpretation.

Again, a point becomes universal if enough people believe it.  Leave this site and see what is being said around the net.

I would say that it may not be so subjective.  You believe one thing and some agree with you.  I believe on thing and quite a few agree with that.

Some others are in the middle somewhere. 

In short, people don't like the conculsion because it is a BAD conclusion.  Not because it invoked a sad emotional response.  This is not the emotional response of a good ending, quite the opposite as a matter of fact.

But hey, to each their own....

[The Razman]

Mx_CN3 wrote...

The Razman wrote...

That's not an accurate analogy ... in fact, I'm not even sure where that analogy was going, with the whole "calling the authorities" thing?

Say you've got a forest population. You don't consider each species individual, it's just the general forest population. And you have to cull the population every so often to stop them getting to the point where they exterminate themselves. In the long run, your cull prevents the entire forest population going extinct. It's a logic we find repulsive ... but you can't deny that it's logical.

My point was "intervene, don't destroy."  There are plenty of ways to prevent a singularity without wiping out every living thing.  And now I just thought of the question "why did they help us achieve the singularity?"

And as I said earlier, I do agree that there was some amount of logic in it.  But, in the forest example, you'd destroy entire species in the forest, rather than just part of it.  And to that, I go to good ol' Mr. Spock : "To hunt a species to extinction is illogical."  (Yeah yeah, I know, the writers of that line were human and had morals, but as the guy above me said, you're essentially handicapping evolution.  Which is, I suppose, the entire purpose.)

That's a good logical rebuttal. It's a little bit long to put in the game ... it was better being said the way Sheperd did ... subtextually.

The point is that while you're arguing against it, you plainly see the logic which the Starchild was working on. I don't see how you disagreeing with that logic makes the whole situation not make sense?

[bleachorange]

bleetman wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Say you've got a forest population. You don't consider each species individual, it's just the general forest population. And you have to cull the population every so often to stop them getting to the point where they exterminate themselves. In the long run, your cull prevents the entire forest population going extinct. It's a logic we find repulsive ... but you can't deny that it's logical.

Extinction as a means of preventing extinction. With the cause of both being the same, in the case of the Reapers.

Maybe my brain just isn't wired to understand this kind of logic.

The whole idea assumes some altruistic purpose for the reapers, that assumes they somehow benefit from these actions or take pleasure in 'ensuring each race has it's time in the sun'. I don't buy it, it completely clashes with established reaper personality and goals. This is what you call a 'red flag'.