873 réponses à ce sujet

[panamakira]

I'm all for for people loving the endings and I wish I could join that party. 

However, every time I read an article or sometimes a post from a pro-ending player it tends to lean towards the same idea of "Those that don't like the ending, don't appreciate Art or Artistic Integrity and Creative Freedom".
Like seriously, no hate or anything in here but I would like to say that I am a Graphic Designer/Artist myself. Believe me than more than anyone I appreciate and respect an Artist's creative freedom because I'm one too. 

The problem is Art can be viewed as many things. Depending on people's perspective and point of view it can change and/or evolve into anything once it has been let out into the public. You, as an artist have no control of how the audience will perceive your work and sometimes they get something completely different from what you intended. Some will "get it", some won't and some will hate it. I do believe there is a difference when its artistic integrity is being scaled against its commercial one.

Now my main issue with this whole ordeal is not so much that I don't respect Bioware Artistic decisions when it came to the game endings but the careless execution of it. Yes I consider it Art, but there's also the consideration of whether I think it's a good piece of work or not and whether I will feel inclined to buy their artwork again seeing how I wasn't really satisfied.

You don't go to a Gallery and look at someone's painting and buy it even though you don't like it because you respect that Artist's creative freedom/integrity. If you don't like their artwork you are not going to buy that painting.

Sadly with us we got another deal. We thought we knew what we were getting because we always assumed we knew the quality of the series and we assumed that quality would extend to its anticipated conclusion. However after giving the player so much control throughout the game, the creators take it away and come up with a disorganized and unsatisfying ending. At least many of the answers we wanted to see were never answered, even though we were promised so.

I personally always thought BioWare's greatest strength and Art came in the form of creating an interactive environment with incredible characters and engaging story that provided the players with CHOICES as to how they could end their journey. That aspect in itself is what I consider it to be their Art.

This seems to be the biggest issue. Not that I don't consider it Art or that I don't respect their decision but after promising us a choice in the matter with endings that would answer all our questions they simply failed to deliver in the key aspects of it that make it into a complete and satisfying artwork.


P.S. "Criticism" are a HUGE part of making artwork and expecting to like or read only those that are satisfying to hear will not improve the piece in question in any way shape or form. Like the Forbes article brilliantly expresses:

If games are truly art, and the teams who develop them truly artists, why should they be treated with kid’s gloves?..............
Imagine, for a moment, if the only criticism BioWare had received was of the constructive variety. Imagine it was all polite platitudes, condescending clutter, and helpful suggestions about how to improve the game. Do you think for a moment that we’d be reading a blog post like the one Muzyka just penned?

 Excuse the typos!

[StartOrange]

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.

Best post in the entire thread... or probably the entire forum. You should post this in the fan feedback and Biowares ending thread.

[Tom Jolly]

I support this.  I welcome additional ending content to clarify BW's orginal intent ... but stay true to your vision guys!   You really reached for the stars on this one!  ME3 is full of amazing accomplishments.  Mordin Solus' ending scenes stand out in particular.   These are some of the best scenes I have ever seen in gaming.  

Modifié par Tom Jolly, 22 mars 2012 - 02:04 .

[Skirlasvoud]

ashdrake1 wrote...

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.

What billions? Those vaporized in the Mass relays blowing up? The fleet above earth about to starve to death? The life you snuffed out?

[DonJuan2000]

Banelash wrote...

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.

weel said, got the point,

Anyway Leonardo da Vinci too had to change some paints for his customers....

[ashdrake1]

[quote]Skirlasvoud wrote...

[quote]ashdrake1 wrote...

[quote]KTheAlchemist wrote...

[quote]ashdrake1 wrote...

[quote]pomrink wrote...

[quote]ashdrake1 wrote...

[quote]Machazareel wrote...

[quote]ashdrake1 wrote...

[quote]pomrink wrote...

[quote]ashdrake1 wrote...

[quote]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".[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

It's not deep though.

[/quote]

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. 

[/quote]

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

[/quote]

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.

[/quote]


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

[/quote]

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.

[/quote]

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.

[/quote]

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?  

[/quote]


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 lifes.

[/quote]

Sorry but I don't think the lord of the rings had a "happy ending"  Frodo was pretty much destroyed by being the ring bearer.  So much that he could not live in our world anymore. It at best was a bitter sweet ending.  

Second bit is a simple diffrence of opinion I do not find final fantasy 7 that deep.  Six did a better job, and in that the word was pretty much destroyed.

[Shallyah]

To be totally honest, I dislike the extremely hipstery tone of this whole thread.

It starts by insulting most of us as if we are incapable of appreciating art, and fails to notice that the point is that they are incapable of allowing others to enjoy the game the same way that, lucky them, they did.

It is overwhelmingly ilogical and selfish.

Modifié par Shallyah, 22 mars 2012 - 02:04 .

[mcsupersport]

I am sorry, but anyone who can take a look at the Synthesis ending and call it good in the context of a Sci-Fi game and semi-hard science based game is just ....ugh. Sorry, you can't make me take that ending seriously and any writer of Sci-Fi that wants to feed me such drivel doesn't deserve my respect for their "Art". Now if this was Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter, yeah, but just whipping out massive bs "Space Magic" to create your ending that flies in the face of all science or even potential science is NOT good writing.

Glad the OP enjoyed the game and ending, but there is NO way I could take their choice as my own or enjoy it. I destroyed all AI and can't figure out how the magic wave of power manages to wipe the Geth Software out without destroying everything above a calculator in the ME universe.

[SimKoning]

So let me ask the OP, is it still art when a corporation forces changes on a film in the name of profit? Because that's exactly what happened with Alien 3, the Abyss, Aliens, The Matrix etc.. etc. Yet I'm sure you still consider those films art. Why it is ok for a suit to FORCE an artist to change something to make $$$$. What about all the special editions of movies with alternate endings? Does the alternate ending of Blade Runner render it non art? Despite this, when fans *ask* that massive plotholes be mended and the ending be expanded upon, so it at least stays within the realm of science fiction, rather than going into the realm of high fantasy, we are straw manned as being spoiled overgrown children that just don't get "art".

[CavScout]

Bathaius wrote...

The circular logic of the starchild:

We created synthetics to kill you every 50,000 years so you wouldn't create synthetics that kill you.

That's not circular logic, for starters. They send the Reapers to cull advanced civilization to prevent a rise of synthetics that would kill off all organic life.

Second, the Reapers aren't synthetic...

[Tovanus]

MintyCool wrote...

Pro-Ender News:

Pro-Enders claim a major victory today after Bioware Co-founder, Dr. Ray Muzyka confirms the Crucible/Cultural Synthesis narrative will be forever ingrained into the Mass Effect lore.

Okay, Baghdad Bob.

[Cloaking_Thane]

ashdrake1 wrote...

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

Tongue in cheek to be sure, but you're right, without the mass relays and as you put it billions with no where to go, they are dying.

Not to mention wherever the 8? crew are

[durasteel]

RiouHotaru wrote...

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.

I invite you to propose even one reasonably possible alternative. The technology of the Mass Effect universe is well described, and conventional FTL drives would cook a ship's crew with static on a trip between clusters, even if they didn't run out of fuel first. There is specific reference to how badly Earth has been trashed in the game. Turians and Quarians can't even eat Earth's protein. In Red or Green, the Citadel is demolished.

I may not have "proof," but you lack even possibility.

[RiouHotaru]

All Dead wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

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.

Occam's razor. It's the only reasonable assumption backed up by indirect evidence (ie., we understand enough of how ME's tech, galactic geography, economy and interspecies relationships etc. work to reasonably predict what would happen here). It requires much more speculation to posit otherwise without more information (one of the endings' problems).

Uhhh...it doesn't require any MORE speculation to say that things will work out.  In fact, there's information in-game that subtly supports the idea that the Galactic community could keep it togther.  It's true in that it takes more WORK to find that information.

It's much easier to just say "People starve, community falls apart."

[CamlTowPetttingZoo]

Is it just me, or did this "pro-ender" thread turn into a "retake" thread?

[CavScout]

Mahrac wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Mahrac wrote...

"Don't buy it if you don't like it", your words. Good ones to live by. You shouldn't have bought ME3.

So I shouldn't have bought something that was promsed to have '16 distinct endings' because I should have known that there were three to six, depending on deffinition, and that they were all similar-to-identical? what?

If you subscribe to her premise, then yes. I think her premise is junk and this exercise is to make that point.

so i'm supposed to have psychic powers, or I can't contest something that contradicts it's advertisement. my mind is blown

If you subscribe to her premise, then yes.

[Emberwake]

 This is pathetic. You've declared check mate while cherry picking arguments, knocking over straw men, and ignoring anything that doesnt suit your desperate need to have any story you are invested in to be validated.

Ripples through the industry? Yeah, that totally happened... when Fallout 3 changed their ending. Or when Sherlock Holmes returned from the dead. Or when Deckard realized he may have been a synthetic all along in the Director's Cut of Blade Runner.

The truth is, the ending defenders have a ton of great ideas about how the plot holes might be explained away. But they are as much speculation as the Indoctrination Theory is. What we are given doesn't just defy continuity and assume massive logical jumps, it has no connection, mechanically and thematically to the rest of the franchise. It employs a deus ex machina, the most banal of all plot devices.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but that does not make all opinions equally valid. If, for example, two people step out into the pouring rain and one declares, "It's raining!" and the other says, "No it isn't," you'd be wrong to chalk that up to a difference of opinion. 

Its not the I deserve better, or that any fan is entitled to anything more than they got in the box. Mass Effect deserves better. We're fighting to ensure that one of our favorite game franchises doesn't go down in history as that amazing game with a ridiculous ending.

Hold the line.

[Mahrac]

CamlTowPetttingZoo wrote...

Is it just me, or did this "pro-ender" thread turn into a "retake" thread?

it turned into a quasi-civil brawl

[DonJuan2000]

Anyway too much phylosophy risk to annoy peoples. VG are mainly to ENTERTAIN. VG are based upon INTERACTION, so player is the main character. VG are not passive receving of what developer wanna do..... even movie industry today made director's cut an alternate ending edityions, you can imagine VG......

RPG are much more about player decisions in making story. No way.

ME3 ending is just nosense except maybe the indoctrination theory. Is not about "art", but maybe to Let EA pay well and better their writers....................................................

Modifié par DonJuan2000, 22 mars 2012 - 02:09 .

[KTheAlchemist]

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?  

The way that you do this is by handling the philosophical topics with more finesse.

Now, I'm going to exaggerate GROSSLY for a moment so please keep that in mind. I'm trying to illustrate a point and I am admitting that this is exaggeration.

Let's say that in the last 10 minutes, the game were to go even further...let's say it took control away entirely, and let you respond to no questions at all. Let's say it didn't let you make even little decisions about what Shepard said in response to the SpaceGodChildThing rather than what many of us felt were limited choices. And at the end of all this, Casey Hudson's face came on the screen and said "BECAUSE THE UNIVERSE IS COLD AND UNCARING AND YOUR CHOICES DON'T MATTER. GET IT?!?!"

That isn't what happened, but what did happen sort of falls along similar lines for many of us. This is what tvtropes refers to as "anvilicious". A message that is blunt, unsophisticated, and may as well have been printed on an anvil and dropped on the audience's head. Now...I don't think that the end is ENTIRELY that...but I do think that many of the ways in which it handles the themes are very ham-fisted.

If you want to have a point in a story and have it be a well-written story, you have to write the story in such a way that it naturally creates this conclusion in the mind of the audience. This is a reason why Deus Ex Machina (or, in this case, Diablous Ex Machina) is very very bad if you want to have a thought-provoking "point" to your ending, and have the audience absorb and think about and internalize that point. (If you don't want that, one could question why you wanted to raise the point in the first place.)

When you have that sort of forced, "ex machina" sort of ending, it actually strips away the thought. If so many of us are going "but the kid was wrong, and Shepard didn't question the kid at all even though he always questions authority...why?" It's especially bad due to the nature of interactive media, because Shepard is US, something reinforced by the customized character, the notions of choice being so CENTRAL to the game.

Games all over constantly force a single arbitrary ending on is..this is actually the standard rather than the norm. But for a game that revolves around bucking that trend to re-assume that trend right at the end, and wrap it up in a very arguable philosophical argument? It's something I'd think would be obvious is doomed to meet with ill will.

Most people, arent' really mulling over any "point" because it got shoved down their throats rather than simply presenting a story that naturally made them think about it.

[Mahrac]

CavScout wrote...

Mahrac wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Mahrac wrote...

"Don't buy it if you don't like it", your words. Good ones to live by. You shouldn't have bought ME3.

So I shouldn't have bought something that was promsed to have '16 distinct endings' because I should have known that there were three to six, depending on deffinition, and that they were all similar-to-identical? what?

If you subscribe to her premise, then yes. I think her premise is junk and this exercise is to make that point.

so i'm supposed to have psychic powers, or I can't contest something that contradicts it's advertisement. my mind is blown

If you subscribe to her premise, then yes.

i know it's hers, just wanted to make sure we were reading it the same way

[NReed106]

RiouHotaru wrote...

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.

Actually you have no evidence it WON'T. 
Evidence of relays going supernova:
Arrival DLC
Evidence the ships are screwed:
Normandy is hit by the energy wave in EACH ENDING, and EACH TIME is stranded on the planet (how can an undestructive force damage the normandy so thoroughly? ) Common sense means that the same happens to ships orbiting earth
Evidence Earth doesnt have the capacity to sustain population
-Quarians and Turians eat different food (codex)
-Destruction of Reapers (what is seen, talked about, and common sense)

Where is your evidence everything is sunshine and roses?

[durasteel]

CavScout wrote...

...

Second, the Reapers aren't synthetic...

Of course they are. Just because they're made out of biomass doens't make them any less synthetic.  They are created beings, controled by AI. They're synthetic.

[RiouHotaru]

durasteel wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

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.

I invite you to propose even one reasonably possible alternative. The technology of the Mass Effect universe is well described, and conventional FTL drives would cook a ship's crew with static on a trip between clusters, even if they didn't run out of fuel first. There is specific reference to how badly Earth has been trashed in the game. Turians and Quarians can't even eat Earth's protein. In Red or Green, the Citadel is demolished.

I may not have "proof," but you lack even possibility.

I lack possiblity?  Conventional FTL is a possibility.  The math's been done, and it's not nearly as far-fetched.  Sure, there is the refueling issue, but overall, conventional FTL is very much an alternative.  Also, as for the Turians and Quarians, the Quarians brought their liveships, which were normally designed to feed MILLIONS of Quarians.  I'm sure they could accomodate the turians.