873 réponses à ce sujet

[Liber320]

S1at3 wrote...

This is my interpretation of the indoctrination theory, or at least what it sounded like to me:

http://tinyurl.com/8xl7vtz

Ok, despite being pro-Indoc theory, that made me laugh

[SimKoning]

I'm amazed that there are science fiction fans that actually like the magically transmutate every single organism into cyborgs via a wave of green energy ending. It's hands down the most ridiculous scenario I have seen in a science fiction story in years. They might as well have had God show up so he can turn all of the Reapers into space bunnies. It really is that absurd, and if you don't think so, please explain to me how my analogy is flawed, because I would really like to know.

I had high hopes that this game would help get young people interested in real science thanks to its higher than usual level of scientific rigor compared to other space opera IPs. I'm deeply depressed that there are people that find space miracles more interesting than real science fiction. Why even bother explaining that EDI is a quantum computer, or including speculative biochemistry and xenobiology if you are going to throw it all out the window during that last 5 minutes.

Bioware set out to create their own "Star Wars" with the selling point that it would have a higher degree of plausibility. After seeing these endings, I can honestly say that this series is now on par with the silliest Star Trek episode. Hell, Mitichlorians make more sense at this point. The only way out of this for me is if they make this all a dream, if not, then this will be the last time I ever buy a Mass Effect game. Mass Effect was, until now, a huge step in the right direction, but then it took a hundred steps back. I can only hope this indoctrination thing will be what they run with, otherwise they have lost a fan... permanently.

Modifié par SimKoning, 22 mars 2012 - 01:55 .

[RiouHotaru]

durasteel wrote...

No matter which color you choose for the explosions, galactic civilization is plunged into a dark age--it says so in Mac Walter's notes. Without the relays, whole systems will be unsustainable, whole races will perish, and galactic culture and civilization as we know it has come to an end. Earth, in particular, will need a lot of help to rebuild just to a point of survival, and that help will not be coming. What few resources remain in the Sol system will be fought over as the various races of the "Victory Fleet" begin to starve and die, and it is anyone's guess whether there will be a human race left on Earth after a few generations. In his efforts to prevent the decimation of Earth and galactic civilization, Shepard has failed, regardless of whether he lives or dies or the Reapers live or die.

But this is just speculation.  There's absolutely NO evidence that proves this is what will take place.

[The Night Mammoth]

HenchxNarf wrote...

Let me spell this out for you, sweetie. Just because you paid for a game, it does not give you the right to demand it be changed just because you didn't like it. Return the game, sell it, whatever if you don't like it. But you have NO RIGHT to demand a company change something. And yes, adding DLC would ruin the game. Because it would change the vision they had for the way they wanted the story to end.

Why the hell do you think Bioware and EA even exist? It's called capitalism, the free market, supply and demand on its most basic terms. We demand, Bioware provides. We called for a sci-fi RPG, Bioware provided Mass Effect. We demand a satisfying conlusion to the story, Bioware have failed to meet that. I demand a better ending because I like Bioware and Mass Effect, what we have is a stupendously odd contrast with the previous one hundred hours of gameplay. I want them to succeed, but it means Bioware have to provide that to keep my buisness. I'll vote with my wallet, this isn't a hollow threat. I'll take Mass Effect to GAME for christs sake and get tuppence for it, and never buy a Bioware product again. It's that simple. We demand, Bioware provides, everyone reaps the benefits. 

Whether Bioware is obligated to meet these demands is entirely differentt. Unlike above, where you either have the right or not, there are far more factors to consider. What is the major one though? Revenue. Whether that's from DLC or far flung future sales, Bioware, and more importantly, EA, are set to lose a mint thanks to this debacle. Simple then, the fans demand it, Bioware has every reason to give in. 

Oh, and thier vision is may be (although I doubt many people truly thought this was a good idea), but it's a terrible vision, objectively flawed, by any literary standards it's an insult. 

You obviously glossed over the smaller minority point I made there. 

[Shallyah]

More on poll sizes...

If these 85-98% people that believe Mass Effect deserved a better ending (better in quality and depth, not necessarily in happiness factor) are a vocal minority, they represent the 85-98% silent majority, while people that are not disgusted or just fine with the ending as it is, are the 2-15% vocal minority that represents a 2-15% silent minority. Note that some of these polls were conducted in sites that were pro-ending, such as IGN. Sites which actively attempted to bias their audience and ridiculize those that did not agree with their views by namecalling and plain insulting them (I remember something like basement dwellers mentioned, along with a video of a fat guy ranting about day one DLC). And the results were still overwhelming.

Do not think that all people who are against the ending chose to speak, and those who are in favor chose to keep quiet, because judging the passionate defenses of the endings that certain individuals and based media are delivering, saying "those who are happy aren't vocal" doesn't hold any water.

Modifié par Shallyah, 22 mars 2012 - 01:57 .

[ashdrake1]

KTheAlchemist wrote...

ashdrake1 wrote...

pomrink wrote...

ashdrake1 wrote...

Machazareel wrote...

ashdrake1 wrote...

pomrink wrote...

ashdrake1 wrote...

KTheAlchemist wrote...

I'm sorry, but this entire thing simply feels like arguing for the sake of arguing. If there is DLC which adds to or creates the possibility of new endings, and you don't care for it...

Don't. Install. The DLC.

It's really just that easy. The rest your post is just a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between player and developer on games...they are art, yes, but a fundamentally different sort of art.

And the real bottom line here is that Bioware lied to us. They sold us an ending experience that they apparently had no intention to provide. You can't hide that behind "artistic integrity".

Don't install the DLC has nothing to do with artistic integrity.  This whole movement is a giant leap forward in mediocrity.  Why try something deep, when shallow sells.

It's not deep though.

Bull.  I have never seen the speculation for what occurs after the end, or outright conspiracy theory's that this game has generated.  It's awesome that you did not think about what path to take for the future of a civilization, but I had really had to contemplate what path I chose. 

The depth is not the cause of the speculation, though.

Not true.  There are a good number of people that discuss plot holes and dues ex devices.  That's nice and all, but look at the poll for people that want a good old fashioned happy ending.  Look at the we can't get the ending we want thread.  The largest user created thread on the forums.  It is primarly dedicated to a happy ending.

An honest question, can't something be happy and "deep" at the same time?

Why when it's already deep?  I am left contemplating the future of the galaxy and my friends.  A happy ending would just be cotton candy.  Satisfying at first, but leaving no lasting sensation.  Knowing what happens next cheapens the whole ending.

You're really holding to a false dilemma here. Possibly you haven't seen enough stories that had not-depressing but still deep and through provoking endings. I don't know. At any rate, it's still a false dilemma. Knowing "what happens next" doesn't create a cheap ending, any more than not knowing automatically means it's a deep ending.

So give me a example.  Not knowing what happens next and is well told enough for you to contemplate it weeks after next to a happy I know how it all turned out ending?  

[MakeMineMako]

durasteel wrote...

There are some fundamental disagreements I have with the OP's analysis.

First, I believe that the residual issue of conflict between synthetic and organic intelligence had already been addressed before the end of Mass Effect 3, specifically by the very well told stories of EDI and the Geth. Certainly by the time I had completed the second act of the game, any notion that the created could not live in peace with their creators was demonstrably false.

Second, Shepard is not the champion of meatbags in the struggle against toasters. Shepard's motivation is to save the galaxy, and its space-faring races. He stands for order against the chaos of destructive change. He begins the game fighting for Earth and the human race, but as he adds allies and unifies the diverse peoples of the galaxy (including synthetic peoples) he begins to stand for something more, for peaceful coexistence among different people, and standing together against common threats.

Third, the Reapers are not a menace because they are robots; they are a menace because they are extremely powerful and hell-bent on the destruction of all "advanced" races in the galaxy. If they were a race of giant, immortal, psychic, hive-minded space cockroaches that came every 50,000 years to eat all the advanced races and add their knowledge to the space-roach collective hive mind, do you think that Shepard would embrace them as fellow organics? No.

Shepard is not fighting the Reapers because they're synthetic, he is fighting them because they threaten everything he values. Not just humanity, but all the races of the galaxy, their cultures, and galactic civilization. That's what he's fighting for.

Shepard loses that fight.

No matter which color you choose for the explosions, galactic civilization is plunged into a dark age--it says so in Mac Walter's notes. Without the relays, whole systems will be unsustainable, whole races will perish, and galactic culture and civilization as we know it has come to an end. Earth, in particular, will need a lot of help to rebuild just to a point of survival, and that help will not be coming. What few resources remain in the Sol system will be fought over as the various races of the "Victory Fleet" begin to starve and die, and it is anyone's guess whether there will be a human race left on Earth after a few generations. In his efforts to prevent the decimation of Earth and galactic civilization, Shepard has failed, regardless of whether he lives or dies or the Reapers live or die.

So what does the ending really offer us? It produces a Deus Ex Machina in the form of the star baby who instantly and immediately strips away Shepard's ability to continue his fight. At that moment, Shepard has lost that war. Instead, we are thrust into another conflict, between created and creator, which (see above) Shepard has already proven to be needless. Unable to point that out, or to argue in any way against the Reaper God, Shepard must choose from among three bad outcomes: destroy the galactic civilization and become an AI; destroy the galactic civilization along with all AI, including friends and allies who have a right to exist (does this unit have a soul?); or destroy galactic civilization and strip all diversity from the galaxy by homogenizing all life with Shepard/Reaper code.

Shepard and the player have been anticipating a showdown with the Reaper Harbinger since the end of Mass Effect 2. The Cerberus research into indoctrination could have provided a counter-agent or device, which could have permitted Shepard to get into Harbinger and fight to the central core, and spike it to send a corruptive signal throughout the Reaper fleet and give his allies an opening for attack, much the way the feedback from Saren stripped Sovereign's kinetic barriers for just long enough at the battle of the Citadel. That's just one example of how the central conflict of Shepard's story could have been resolved. Instead, when that central conflict was stripped away and discarded our nemesis Harbinger was also dismissed and replaced by the star baby Reaper god.

Did you care about beating "the Catalyst?" I didn't. I wasn't even the least bit invested in conflict with it. Compare that with my feelings about Harbinger--before the release of the game I told a friend of mine that I was looking forward to kicking him is his big metal daddy bag, and I was serious.

The ending that shipped with this game isn't bad because Shepard died. It isn't bad because it wasn't happy. It's bad because it centered on things we don't care about, and discarded everything we did care about. Organic/synthetic... we've done that, it's over. Star child... who cares, it's just kind of annoying. Control the Reapers, well... we've just had a conversation where we argues what a stupid idea that was. Destroy all AI, sure... let's make any and all effort we put into the Geth and EDI a complete waste of time, and violate Shepard's principals of tolerance and respect for a being's right to exist. Or, we can re-write all genetics and AI code in the galaxy against its will.

And any way you "choose," Shepard loses his fight to save the galaxy.

Now, please... explain to me how this is "bittersweet." Tell me how it's cool to see Shepard fail in the end, no matter what choices you've made along the way. This isn't simply bleak... this is bad. The conflict we care about is handwaved away, while the choice we're presented with is meaningless.

This can't be resolved by making up an explanation of how your crew teleported or re-spawned on the Normandy, or why Joker broke for the relay at the last minute. This can only be resolved by a fundamental change to the end of the game.

It is becoming pretty clear that time constraints forced Mac Walters to just throw something together at the last minute in November of 2011. As good as the rest of Mass Effect 3 is, don't you think that the respectful thing to do, the course of action that will best honor the artistic integrity of the game and the series, is to let Mac, Casey, and the rest of their talented team have this as a do-over? Give them a chance to do this right, not throw together a last minute phone-in. The game is worth it, and they deserve the chance to erase this blot from their otherwise solid-gold track record. Let them take a Mulligan.

Anyway, that's how I feel about it.

Very good post. And one that gets to the heart of the matter.

And points that Bioware seems to be missing.

[Fail_Inc]

Noatz wrote...

Artistic integrity argument falls flat on its arse.

I would like to call to the stand Arthur Conan Doyle, Charles Dickens and JK Rowling.

Ms Rowling, is it true that you altered your original plans for the ending to "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" out of respect for fan requests that Harry Potter not die?

"Yes it is"

Thankyou. Mr Conan Doyle, did you bring your hero "Sherlock Holmes" back to life following a long and drawn out campaign by readers of your literature?

"Yes I did."

And lastly Mr Dickens, widely considered among the greatest novelists of all time, did you alter the ending to your masterpiece, "Great Expectations" at the behest of your readers?

"I did."

Well your honour, unless anyone here cares to question the "artistic integrity" of my witnesses, I rest my case.

Checkmate. For real this time. Thread over, go home everyone.

Well they avoid posts like these usually (just like the others who avoids certain topics)

And I still have no idea why it's such a big deal to get more endings... Get more endings, play more shepards, have fun...

[jonal11]

Power of the Purse, Congress holds in the US NOT the President.

The player Community holds the power of the purse NOT Bioware.

Hold The Line!

[NReed106]

-Plot holes are bad writing plain and simple and there are a ton of them.
-The synthesis option goes against everything ME has stood for (diversity) and says the only way to have peace is uniformity (despite evidence to the contrary)
-Games are not art, I can see a painting before buying it, gaming all we have are promises, and reviews which are usually spoiler free for the intended impact of the story.
-Many of your reasons ME3 should not change are ad hominem attacks against the movement, your reasons for supporting it are hollow.
"It's philosophical and has large themes"-It has a logical fallacy to excuse the actions of the antagonists.
"Artistic integrity dictates the endings can't be changed"-This is not a support for the ending, this is saying you can't change it because that would be wrong. So what? The endings were ****** art, it was ridden with plot holes, deus ex machinas, villain decay, and space magic, all of which are indicative of lazy writing.

Changes have been made in the past: Sherlock holmes, Broken Steel FO3. Guess what, the world won't change because this won't be the "first" people call it

Modifié par NReed106, 22 mars 2012 - 01:57 .

[Zulufoxtrot]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

HenchxNarf wrote...

Let me spell this out for you, sweetie. Just because you paid for a game, it does not give you the right to demand it be changed just because you didn't like it. Return the game, sell it, whatever if you don't like it. But you have NO RIGHT to demand a company change something. And yes, adding DLC would ruin the game. Because it would change the vision they had for the way they wanted the story to end.

Why the hell do you think Bioware and EA even exist? It's called capitalism, the free market, supply and demand on its most basic terms. We demand, Bioware provides. We called for a sci-fi RPG, Bioware provided Mass Effect. We demand a satisfying conlusion to the story, Bioware have failed to meet that. I demand a better ending because I like Bioware and Mass Effect, what we have is a stupendously odd contrast with the previous one hundred hours of gameplay. I want them to succeed, but it means Bioware have to provide that to keep my buisness. I'll vote with my wallet, this isn't a hollow threat. I'll take Mass Effect to GAME for christs sake and get tuppence for it, and never buy a Bioware product again. It's that simple. We demand, Bioware provides, everyone reaps the benefits. 

Whether Bioware is obligated to meet these demands is entirely differentt. Unlike above, where you either have the right or not, there are far more factors to consider. What is the major one though? Revenue. Whether that's from DLC or far flung future sales, Bioware, and more importantly, EA, are set to lose a mint thanks to this debacle. Simple then, the fans demand it, Bioware has every reason to give in. 

Oh, and thier vision is may be (although I doubt many people truly thought this was a good idea), but it's a terrible vision, objectively flawed, by any literary standards it's an insult. 

You obviously glossed over the smaller minority point I made there. 

Quoted for truthiness and logic! 

[gmboy902]

The statement was incredibly vague. All it said was that Hudson was doing something to clarify and/or fix the ending, and that the Doctor there thought that artistic integrity had to be balanced with our input.

He never really confirmed what parts would be kept or scrapped.

Artistic integrity is just fine until I end up paying under the impression that I would be given something, but am instead given something else.

Bethesda was willing to admit their mistake flat out and fix it.

Sherlock Holmes died. Did you know that? Then he came back, because the author realized he had made a mistake.

I'm all for creative risk. Take a risk, take a chance, see what happens. But I'm not for creative foolishness, which is what I think Mass Effect 3's ending was, and I'm most certainly not for creative stubborness, especially as a business practice. We are their fans. Whether they like it or not, unless they fix the ending they will lose a large sum of potential profits.

It's all about the money. I hope BioWare sees that.

[KTheAlchemist]

CavScout wrote...

KTheAlchemist wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Bourne Endeavor wrote...
Does it not bother you the Godchild uses circular logic, contradicts himself and in one instance, blatantly lies to you?

You willing to lay these out?

Again, do you want to be taken seriously or not? The information and arguments regarding this circular logic everywhere. If you don't want to be seen just as a troll, don't do the "ask people to spoonfeed me the conterargument". It's a move definitely from Trolling 102, possibly 101.

Arguments that are so easy and so obvious are shockingly always in short supply. I would suggest one who has attacked the poster and not the arguments being made (that would be you attacking me) is the real troll.

Well, I'd address the argument being made if you made one...but you didn't. You implied that the person had to spoonfeed you information that is readily available. I pointed out that doing so wasn't helping your argument and was making you look troll-like.

I wasn't actually calling you a troll.

"Are you suggest the son of a duke is an animal?"
"Let us say I suggest you may be human."

[ashdrake1]

Mahrac wrote...

ashdrake1 wrote...

Mahrac wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Cloaking_Thane wrote...
Pessimistic at best. You missed a key point about Legions conclusions and the realizations that they are self aware beings, EDI was for all intents and purposes human. Legion would have shot shepard as much as he would shoot himself. Indeed the paralells between Legion and Shepard are eerie,

Hell, Legion tries to kill Shepard if he doesn't support Legion.

Legion has the right to defend his life

True, but why not have the Geth fleets flee instead of commiting genocide if you side with him?

the quarians have the advantage until the upload is complete, and they believe that the geth are unwilling to accept peace. if the geth fled, the quarians would pursue. if the quarians stop fireing, the geth consensus is that the quarians are open to a lasting peace.

We already know the quarians are horrible people.  However combat is not possible in FTL.  If the geth could wipe them out, what is the harm of trying to get away.  What was the point of them keeping the planet in the first place.  They are robots that can live anywhere.  Geth are not nice.

[Versus Omnibus]

It's nice to see the "pro-side" finally organising themselves and not just blindly attacking us. But I have to say that anybody saying the endings shouldn't be changed because of artistic reasons are muted to my ears since I don't consider video games to be art.

Also, I'm glad you enjoyed the ending but I simply can't see how any of them reflect anything but the doom of Galactic society within the universe. This to me makes the endings seem forced on me instead of giving me a choice like the rest of the trilogy has done. So until Bioware gives me other options in the endings besides "red, blue, or green endings" I will continue to hold the line.

[lanep25]

TheOptimist wrote...

http://social.biowar...06/polls/28989/

Welcome to the 2%. Good luck with your topic.

If you're 2% of 50,000+ people maybe it's time to stop and look to see what you might be missing. There are very valid reasons going about for why this protest is going on. Maybe it's time to check them out, no?

[Cloaking_Thane]

MakeMineMako wrote...

durasteel wrote...

There are some fundamental disagreements I have with the OP's analysis.

First, I believe that the residual issue of conflict between synthetic and organic intelligence had already been addressed before the end of Mass Effect 3, specifically by the very well told stories of EDI and the Geth. Certainly by the time I had completed the second act of the game, any notion that the created could not live in peace with their creators was demonstrably false.

Second, Shepard is not the champion of meatbags in the struggle against toasters. Shepard's motivation is to save the galaxy, and its space-faring races. He stands for order against the chaos of destructive change. He begins the game fighting for Earth and the human race, but as he adds allies and unifies the diverse peoples of the galaxy (including synthetic peoples) he begins to stand for something more, for peaceful coexistence among different people, and standing together against common threats.

Third, the Reapers are not a menace because they are robots; they are a menace because they are extremely powerful and hell-bent on the destruction of all "advanced" races in the galaxy. If they were a race of giant, immortal, psychic, hive-minded space cockroaches that came every 50,000 years to eat all the advanced races and add their knowledge to the space-roach collective hive mind, do you think that Shepard would embrace them as fellow organics? No.

Shepard is not fighting the Reapers because they're synthetic, he is fighting them because they threaten everything he values. Not just humanity, but all the races of the galaxy, their cultures, and galactic civilization. That's what he's fighting for.

Shepard loses that fight.

No matter which color you choose for the explosions, galactic civilization is plunged into a dark age--it says so in Mac Walter's notes. Without the relays, whole systems will be unsustainable, whole races will perish, and galactic culture and civilization as we know it has come to an end. Earth, in particular, will need a lot of help to rebuild just to a point of survival, and that help will not be coming. What few resources remain in the Sol system will be fought over as the various races of the "Victory Fleet" begin to starve and die, and it is anyone's guess whether there will be a human race left on Earth after a few generations. In his efforts to prevent the decimation of Earth and galactic civilization, Shepard has failed, regardless of whether he lives or dies or the Reapers live or die.

So what does the ending really offer us? It produces a Deus Ex Machina in the form of the star baby who instantly and immediately strips away Shepard's ability to continue his fight. At that moment, Shepard has lost that war. Instead, we are thrust into another conflict, between created and creator, which (see above) Shepard has already proven to be needless. Unable to point that out, or to argue in any way against the Reaper God, Shepard must choose from among three bad outcomes: destroy the galactic civilization and become an AI; destroy the galactic civilization along with all AI, including friends and allies who have a right to exist (does this unit have a soul?); or destroy galactic civilization and strip all diversity from the galaxy by homogenizing all life with Shepard/Reaper code.

Shepard and the player have been anticipating a showdown with the Reaper Harbinger since the end of Mass Effect 2. The Cerberus research into indoctrination could have provided a counter-agent or device, which could have permitted Shepard to get into Harbinger and fight to the central core, and spike it to send a corruptive signal throughout the Reaper fleet and give his allies an opening for attack, much the way the feedback from Saren stripped Sovereign's kinetic barriers for just long enough at the battle of the Citadel. That's just one example of how the central conflict of Shepard's story could have been resolved. Instead, when that central conflict was stripped away and discarded our nemesis Harbinger was also dismissed and replaced by the star baby Reaper god.

Did you care about beating "the Catalyst?" I didn't. I wasn't even the least bit invested in conflict with it. Compare that with my feelings about Harbinger--before the release of the game I told a friend of mine that I was looking forward to kicking him is his big metal daddy bag, and I was serious.

The ending that shipped with this game isn't bad because Shepard died. It isn't bad because it wasn't happy. It's bad because it centered on things we don't care about, and discarded everything we did care about. Organic/synthetic... we've done that, it's over. Star child... who cares, it's just kind of annoying. Control the Reapers, well... we've just had a conversation where we argues what a stupid idea that was. Destroy all AI, sure... let's make any and all effort we put into the Geth and EDI a complete waste of time, and violate Shepard's principals of tolerance and respect for a being's right to exist. Or, we can re-write all genetics and AI code in the galaxy against its will.

And any way you "choose," Shepard loses his fight to save the galaxy.

Now, please... explain to me how this is "bittersweet." Tell me how it's cool to see Shepard fail in the end, no matter what choices you've made along the way. This isn't simply bleak... this is bad. The conflict we care about is handwaved away, while the choice we're presented with is meaningless.

This can't be resolved by making up an explanation of how your crew teleported or re-spawned on the Normandy, or why Joker broke for the relay at the last minute. This can only be resolved by a fundamental change to the end of the game.

It is becoming pretty clear that time constraints forced Mac Walters to just throw something together at the last minute in November of 2011. As good as the rest of Mass Effect 3 is, don't you think that the respectful thing to do, the course of action that will best honor the artistic integrity of the game and the series, is to let Mac, Casey, and the rest of their talented team have this as a do-over? Give them a chance to do this right, not throw together a last minute phone-in. The game is worth it, and they deserve the chance to erase this blot from their otherwise solid-gold track record. Let them take a Mulligan.

Anyway, that's how I feel about it.

Very good post. And one that gets to the heart of the matter.

And points that Bioware seems to be missing.

Agree, almost verbatim my thoughts, appreciate the post sir or mam

Modifié par Cloaking_Thane, 22 mars 2012 - 01:58 .

[AimForTheTaint]

How about this for a compromise? In the event that Bioware releases additional ending DLC, why don't the people that like the current ending not download it and treat it as non-canon? Sort of like the Darkspawn Chronicles in Dragon Age, you can just interpret it as some sort of "what if?" story. Meanwhile the people that dislike the ending can assume it to be canon, and the two sides agree to disagree on the subject. If necessary, we could even turn THAT into a subject of speculation, like the writers originally wanted.

As for the subject of artistic integrity, I agree that Bioware clearly takes more pride in their work than the average game company. But the key thing to remember is that they are a COMPANY nonetheless. And while pride in their work is fine, when a noticeable group of its customers take serious issue with a company's product, to the point that it's picked up by news outlets, the original vision must be compromised so as to continue moving forward. There's nothing shameful about that. Bioware could choose to completely ignore the anti-ending fans if they wanted, and thus uphold their artistic vision, but in doing so it would mean that they would be alienating a significant portion of their fanbase, losing potential sales in the future. They don't want that, not only for business reasons, but also because I believe Bioware genuinely cares about its consumers. Moreover, who knows? Maybe, from compromise, Bioware can create an additional ending that'll surprise all of us.

I think that's enough disjointed ramblings from me. I'm off to go do whatever it is that I do when I'm not lurking here.

Modifié par AimForTheTaint, 22 mars 2012 - 01:59 .

[Shallyah]

lanep25 wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...

http://social.biowar...06/polls/28989/

Welcome to the 2%. Good luck with your topic.

If you're 2% of 50,000+ people maybe it's time to stop and look to see what you might be missing. There are very valid reasons going about for why this protest is going on. Maybe it's time to check them out, no?

---

More on poll sizes...

If these 85-98% people that believe Mass Effect deserved a better ending (better in quality and depth, not necessarily in happiness factor) are a vocal minority, they represent the 85-98% silent majority, while people that are not disgusted or just fine with the ending as it is, are the 2-15% vocal minority that represents a 2-15% silent minority. Note that some of these polls were conducted in sites that were pro-ending, such as IGN. Sites which actively attempted to bias their audience and ridiculize those that did not agree with their views by namecalling and plain insulting them (I remember something like basement dwellers mentioned, along with a video of a fat guy ranting about day one DLC). And the results were still overwhelming.

Do not think that all people who are against the ending chose to speak, and those who are in favor chose to keep quiet, because judging the passionate defenses of the endings that certain individuals and based media are delivering, saying "those who are happy aren't vocal" doesn't hold any water.

Modifié par Shallyah, 22 mars 2012 - 02:00 .

[Mahrac]

ashdrake1 wrote...

Mahrac wrote...

ashdrake1 wrote...

Mahrac wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Cloaking_Thane wrote...
Pessimistic at best. You missed a key point about Legions conclusions and the realizations that they are self aware beings, EDI was for all intents and purposes human. Legion would have shot shepard as much as he would shoot himself. Indeed the paralells between Legion and Shepard are eerie,

Hell, Legion tries to kill Shepard if he doesn't support Legion.

Legion has the right to defend his life

True, but why not have the Geth fleets flee instead of commiting genocide if you side with him?

the quarians have the advantage until the upload is complete, and they believe that the geth are unwilling to accept peace. if the geth fled, the quarians would pursue. if the quarians stop fireing, the geth consensus is that the quarians are open to a lasting peace.

We already know the quarians are horrible people.  However combat is not possible in FTL.  If the geth could wipe them out, what is the harm of trying to get away.  What was the point of them keeping the planet in the first place.  They are robots that can live anywhere.  Geth are not nice.

the point of keeping the planet was to rebuild it. later it was because it offered a better base of operations for self-defense. They CAN live anywhere, but they won't be able to stay anywhere unless the quarians are willing to try for peace

[WarBaby2]

Oh snap out of it... you will not loose your prescious endings... as misplaced and horrible they may be. BW will merely extent them, and we don't even know by what extend.... or when.

[DonJuan2000]

Sashimi_taco wrote...

Some people are like this, and some people are like that. That created racism, sexism, homophobia, and pretty much hatred of the other.

If only everyone was the same, then there would be no fighting. Hey everyone, lets all be exactly the same, surely this will result in never having wars or hate again.

Great message, bioware.

Stupid message if true, richness came from diversity. Thats teach biology and organic life. I guess this will be the main confrontation with Reapers, they see in diversity just chaos, while is instead a richness.

Modifié par DonJuan2000, 22 mars 2012 - 02:00 .

[Banelash]

I m a graphic designer. I make art too in my job, I will always defend my decisions in artistic direction and convince my customer to see it, but ultimately, if my customer totally disagree with it, I will have to change the art to his liking. Why? Because he is the customer that is why. I am not banksy or Dali, those artist make works of art and sell them to people who love it. I am a corporate designer. Same for bioware, they aren't making art, they are a corporation and they are making games to earn our money. If the customer don't like what they bought, they can demand change. Every artist will always defend their work, but if you are a corporation to the mass market, you have to abide to the customer.

[Skirlasvoud]

ashdrake1 wrote...

KTheAlchemist wrote...

ashdrake1 wrote...

pomrink wrote...

ashdrake1 wrote...

Machazareel wrote...

ashdrake1 wrote...

pomrink wrote...

ashdrake1 wrote...

KTheAlchemist wrote...

I'm sorry, but this entire thing simply feels like arguing for the sake of arguing. If there is DLC which adds to or creates the possibility of new endings, and you don't care for it...

Don't. Install. The DLC.

It's really just that easy. The rest your post is just a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between player and developer on games...they are art, yes, but a fundamentally different sort of art.

And the real bottom line here is that Bioware lied to us. They sold us an ending experience that they apparently had no intention to provide. You can't hide that behind "artistic integrity".

Don't install the DLC has nothing to do with artistic integrity.  This whole movement is a giant leap forward in mediocrity.  Why try something deep, when shallow sells.

It's not deep though.

Bull.  I have never seen the speculation for what occurs after the end, or outright conspiracy theory's that this game has generated.  It's awesome that you did not think about what path to take for the future of a civilization, but I had really had to contemplate what path I chose. 

The depth is not the cause of the speculation, though.

Not true.  There are a good number of people that discuss plot holes and dues ex devices.  That's nice and all, but look at the poll for people that want a good old fashioned happy ending.  Look at the we can't get the ending we want thread.  The largest user created thread on the forums.  It is primarly dedicated to a happy ending.

An honest question, can't something be happy and "deep" at the same time?

Why when it's already deep?  I am left contemplating the future of the galaxy and my friends.  A happy ending would just be cotton candy.  Satisfying at first, but leaving no lasting sensation.  Knowing what happens next cheapens the whole ending.

You're really holding to a false dilemma here. Possibly you haven't seen enough stories that had not-depressing but still deep and through provoking endings. I don't know. At any rate, it's still a false dilemma. Knowing "what happens next" doesn't create a cheap ending, any more than not knowing automatically means it's a deep ending.

So give me a example.  Not knowing what happens next and is well told enough for you to contemplate it weeks after next to a happy I know how it all turned out ending?  

I like Final Fantasy 7. You don't know what Cloud means when he crawls back out of the crater.

However, at least the dilemma leading the story is solved at that moment. The world is shown to be safe. I still think about wether or not he'll hook up with Tifa or not, what power vacuum is left by Shinra or how Red XIII raises his young and where Midgar went, but at least Final Fantasy's proper itself is resolved. 

What once threatened the world is gone and the heroes can go home. We can assume that.



Hell, even Tolkien didn't touch how his Middle Earth ended up, or what adventures Frodo embarks on next.

However, at least evil is defeated and the army can go home. Middle Earth enters into a stable new state with fewer problems. We can assume that.



In ME3, we don't know what happens next and for as far as we know, the fleets starve to death and the Mass Relays take out countless more lives as they blow. We're in serious trouble, even more than we started with. Nothing is resolved and we can assume nothing because it's so vague.

Modifié par Skirlasvoud, 22 mars 2012 - 02:01 .

[ashdrake1]

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

MakeMineMako wrote...

durasteel wrote...

There are some fundamental disagreements I have with the OP's analysis.

First, I believe that the residual issue of conflict between synthetic and organic intelligence had already been addressed before the end of Mass Effect 3, specifically by the very well told stories of EDI and the Geth. Certainly by the time I had completed the second act of the game, any notion that the created could not live in peace with their creators was demonstrably false.

Second, Shepard is not the champion of meatbags in the struggle against toasters. Shepard's motivation is to save the galaxy, and its space-faring races. He stands for order against the chaos of destructive change. He begins the game fighting for Earth and the human race, but as he adds allies and unifies the diverse peoples of the galaxy (including synthetic peoples) he begins to stand for something more, for peaceful coexistence among different people, and standing together against common threats.

Third, the Reapers are not a menace because they are robots; they are a menace because they are extremely powerful and hell-bent on the destruction of all "advanced" races in the galaxy. If they were a race of giant, immortal, psychic, hive-minded space cockroaches that came every 50,000 years to eat all the advanced races and add their knowledge to the space-roach collective hive mind, do you think that Shepard would embrace them as fellow organics? No.

Shepard is not fighting the Reapers because they're synthetic, he is fighting them because they threaten everything he values. Not just humanity, but all the races of the galaxy, their cultures, and galactic civilization. That's what he's fighting for.

Shepard loses that fight.

No matter which color you choose for the explosions, galactic civilization is plunged into a dark age--it says so in Mac Walter's notes. Without the relays, whole systems will be unsustainable, whole races will perish, and galactic culture and civilization as we know it has come to an end. Earth, in particular, will need a lot of help to rebuild just to a point of survival, and that help will not be coming. What few resources remain in the Sol system will be fought over as the various races of the "Victory Fleet" begin to starve and die, and it is anyone's guess whether there will be a human race left on Earth after a few generations. In his efforts to prevent the decimation of Earth and galactic civilization, Shepard has failed, regardless of whether he lives or dies or the Reapers live or die.

So what does the ending really offer us? It produces a Deus Ex Machina in the form of the star baby who instantly and immediately strips away Shepard's ability to continue his fight. At that moment, Shepard has lost that war. Instead, we are thrust into another conflict, between created and creator, which (see above) Shepard has already proven to be needless. Unable to point that out, or to argue in any way against the Reaper God, Shepard must choose from among three bad outcomes: destroy the galactic civilization and become an AI; destroy the galactic civilization along with all AI, including friends and allies who have a right to exist (does this unit have a soul?); or destroy galactic civilization and strip all diversity from the galaxy by homogenizing all life with Shepard/Reaper code.

Shepard and the player have been anticipating a showdown with the Reaper Harbinger since the end of Mass Effect 2. The Cerberus research into indoctrination could have provided a counter-agent or device, which could have permitted Shepard to get into Harbinger and fight to the central core, and spike it to send a corruptive signal throughout the Reaper fleet and give his allies an opening for attack, much the way the feedback from Saren stripped Sovereign's kinetic barriers for just long enough at the battle of the Citadel. That's just one example of how the central conflict of Shepard's story could have been resolved. Instead, when that central conflict was stripped away and discarded our nemesis Harbinger was also dismissed and replaced by the star baby Reaper god.

Did you care about beating "the Catalyst?" I didn't. I wasn't even the least bit invested in conflict with it. Compare that with my feelings about Harbinger--before the release of the game I told a friend of mine that I was looking forward to kicking him is his big metal daddy bag, and I was serious.

The ending that shipped with this game isn't bad because Shepard died. It isn't bad because it wasn't happy. It's bad because it centered on things we don't care about, and discarded everything we did care about. Organic/synthetic... we've done that, it's over. Star child... who cares, it's just kind of annoying. Control the Reapers, well... we've just had a conversation where we argues what a stupid idea that was. Destroy all AI, sure... let's make any and all effort we put into the Geth and EDI a complete waste of time, and violate Shepard's principals of tolerance and respect for a being's right to exist. Or, we can re-write all genetics and AI code in the galaxy against its will.

And any way you "choose," Shepard loses his fight to save the galaxy.

Now, please... explain to me how this is "bittersweet." Tell me how it's cool to see Shepard fail in the end, no matter what choices you've made along the way. This isn't simply bleak... this is bad. The conflict we care about is handwaved away, while the choice we're presented with is meaningless.

This can't be resolved by making up an explanation of how your crew teleported or re-spawned on the Normandy, or why Joker broke for the relay at the last minute. This can only be resolved by a fundamental change to the end of the game.

It is becoming pretty clear that time constraints forced Mac Walters to just throw something together at the last minute in November of 2011. As good as the rest of Mass Effect 3 is, don't you think that the respectful thing to do, the course of action that will best honor the artistic integrity of the game and the series, is to let Mac, Casey, and the rest of their talented team have this as a do-over? Give them a chance to do this right, not throw together a last minute phone-in. The game is worth it, and they deserve the chance to erase this blot from their otherwise solid-gold track record. Let them take a Mulligan.

Anyway, that's how I feel about it.

Very good post. And one that gets to the heart of the matter.

And points that Bioware seems to be missing.

Agree, almost verbatim my thoughts, appreciate the post sir or mam

Yes shepard loses the fight.  I am sure the billions of people dying each day to the reapers that he stopped would agree.