140 réponses à ce sujet

[Mavaras]

Apathy1989 wrote...

+5 stars.

msitton wrote...

Well written. I think many of us feel the same you do.

I do feel that the "art can't be change" argument doesn't work in this setting. Mass Effect is a serious that prides it self on player involvement; that is what propelled the series to greatness in the first place. That very thing was stripped from the player at the very end of the game, and left the players with something that felt disconnected. The player's involvement in the outcome of the game was diminished in the moment where it mattered most, when you needed(yes, needed) to the culmination of your decisions play out.

This. Art for arts sake would be making Mass Effect and only playing it within studio. In reality, Art is a mutual craft between consumers and the artist. If the mona lisa came back with a **** and balls on her forhead, the patron would return it and demand a refund.

I found myself emotionally drained, confused and depressed after playing ME3. Its ending must be redone for their sakes as much as ours.

Yep.

Mass Effect was made as a product for consumption. The moment money entered the equation, the consumer had a right to open a dialogue to change the content. If they don't like it, their products can fail. I'm pretty sure their shareholders aren't in it for artistic integrity. Of course, I like Bioware, and would like to see them use customer feedback and improve their product; because that's what it is, a product. If they feel their "art" is above reproach, they can live like a hungry artist; depressed and alone.

I'll state it clearly. If I pay for something, I'm damn well gonna state what I think of it and how it could be improved. My relationship is as a consumer. Period.

[CraniumBeavers]

I totally agree that they should make some sort of statement.

The f'd up endings are nowhere near as big a mistake as remaining silent in a ****storm situation like this. They're being incredibly confident and/or stupid.

[antiquechrono]

I solidly fall into camp 3 and this is my first post since I began processing the ending.

I honestly wish people would stop trying to let BioWare hide behind the "art defence" as I'm going to call it. Parallels with other mediums can be observed but making direct comparisons is out of the question as we are dealing with something wholly unique.

In pretty much all forms of art/media we are passive observers. We do not interact with the media directly. Instead we process it during "viewing" as well as after we have experienced it. When you read a book the author tells you his tale and that is the end of it it's mostly a one way interaction of author to reader. When we view art/media we are not welcome to tamper with what is presented because either the author has no desire for us to do so or it is a limitation of the medium in which it is presented.

An interactive video game on the other hand can break down that barrier if the author chooses. BioWare invited all of us into their creation to meddle with the characters and the story. As such we basically became a storyteller alongside BioWare in a limited capacity. This small difference causes me to believe that it is just as much our story as it is BioWare's. They have continually said there is no cannon. I would argue that Shepard isn't even a character in the normal sense, but more of a primitive avatar which imposes a few character traits on the player.

I honestly believe the reason so many of us are having such strong emotional reactions revolves around the fact that we were getting to play a very unique role of co-storyteller which caused many of us to become incredibly connected to the characters and the universe on a level really never seen before. We didn't just hear about characters interacting with eachother, we conducted the interactions, our choices got people killed and brought others together.

Essentially the norm for most story driven games is that the story drives what the player is supposed to do. Instead this gets turned on it's head and the player becomes the driving force behind how the story unfolds. I think all that combines very powerfully on a psychological level even though you don't have full control. BioWare then comes along and revokes your license to participate in the authorship of your tale by writing an impersonal ending. Adding insult to injury comes along when you find out it's a badly written ending.

(You could argue other games in the past have done this before, but I don't think any game has ever done it to the same level that Mass Effect has achived. I bet psychologists would have a field day studying our reactions heh.)

Just my two cents.

[Taboo]

Perhaps their silence is because they are truly baffled by the reaction? I'm not convinced.

[vigna]

I am also greatly amused by anyone from varying camps of love, hate, angry, confused, etc trying to convince the other they are "wrong'.

I find it hilarious that anyone would try to explain to someone else why their enjoyment or lack of enjoyment is wrong. Personal tastes are personal tastes...and they always will be. Those type of feelings don't even need to be explained--they just are.

Those discussions are pointless. The only debatable questions are in ideological areas... This ending didn't work for me because I see it this way....or it did work for me because I saw it that way.

Liking or not liking something is not an opinion really--it is a feeling. When you start discussing the merits or detracting aspects of something then there can be debate about it. Story structure, combat mechanics, graphic resolution, gameplay, character dialogue choices, etc....these are debatable topics.

I wish people would stop agreeing with or bashing others that state they like it or hate it without telling us why.

Modifié par vigna, 14 mars 2012 - 04:10 .

[saracen16]

AMEN!

I LOVED the endings. I thought they were amazing. Why is that? Because they raise many questions. All the races got enough closure: the Krogans were cured of the genophage, and the Quarians and the Geth made peace, etc. I'll use some examples...

- Is Shepard indoctrinated near the end? The dream sequence and the all-too-familiar appearance of the Catalyst leads me to think that is a great possibility. It makes me think that the Reapers are really and truly godly-unstoppable, and can therefore not be destroyed, and all what we've seen afterwards... was an illusion. But maybe only the Catalyst appearing as a boy was an illusion, and everything else was real.

- The Reapers were the good guys? See, that's what scares me: the Catalyst and the Reapers believe that they are doing the best for organic species by preserving them and preventing them from being annihilated by the synthetics they create, in the process most likely destroying the synthetics as well as their masters. Suddenly, Saren doesn't sound like a raving, deluded fanatic, but a savior of organic species... albeit not in the way that most organics want. This pattern is something the Catalyst created, through the construction of the mass relays. Remember what Vendetta said: the universe has seen this cycle repeat itself in the same patterns of evolution and the same valleys of dissolution (something that isn't merely by chance). What if the Reapers and the Catalyst were gods who repeated these things? What if there are larger forces at play that are manipulating how people believe in religion and the like? Notice the similarities between the Asari-Prothean and Salarian-Krogan relationships? Notice anything between the Prothean AI's who rebelled and the Quarian-Geth conflict?

- Was the galaxy saved or destroyed? I thought at once that because the mass relays were destroyed, that meant all solar systems were, too. But they weren't rammed by asteroids. They got destroyed AFTER they POWERED UP and PROPELLED the Crucible transmission to another solar system, a self-propagating chain that was broken as you went along it. The energy stored in the mass relay was used to propel the dissipated Crucible signals arriving at the next solar systems, and after propelling this UNQUANTIFIABLE energy, it shatters in the process, most likely sparing the solar systems as a result. Even scarier is what happens afterwards. Will the Krogans go to war against the Salarians if you cured the genophage? What will Quarian life be like without the Geth and vice-versa? Better yet, what will Quarian life be like when all synthetics are DESTROYED? What will Quarians do without the geth ON RANNOCH? With the Citadel council no more, and space travel a myth, how will my Shepard be remembered by the races of the galaxy?

BioWare hasn't broken any promises: they've given us closure on most if not all of the issues during the game. Mass Effect 3 in its entirety was THE END. We saw what happened to the Krogans after we cured the genophage: Eve got pregnant. We saw what happened to the Quarians after they embraced the Geth: some geth uploaded themselves into Quarian hardsuits to allow the Quarians to better adjust to Rannoch. That's the best closure I can get from MY perspective as Shepard. I didn't expect that I would make it out of this fight alive.

This experience has been one of the most personal, and the trilogy left me with a lot of questions. As such, it means that I will never forget it because these are things that stick to my mind. If I knew what happened to the krogans afterwards, I'd just nod then forget about it. I've got the closure I wanted, and was left with even more questions. I wasn't aggravated by the game. I was aggravated IN it: the world gave me the same reaction as Deus Ex did with its cast of characters. Why should BioWare give us a run-of-the-mill PowerPoint presentation? I don't want to be able to wrap my head around something that is galactic in its scope. I'm only human, and my story is done. What happens to the rest of the galaxy is up to the rest of the species, and only my imagination limits the possibilities.

The game is BEAUTIFUL. All the themes are addressed nicely: hope in light of despair (Reaper on Thessia and few rays of sunlight peering through its legs), evolutionary arms race of synthetics vs organics (Quarians and Geth), religion (Temple of Athame), backroom politics (Salarians and Krogan on Sur'Kesh), etc. Mass Effect 3 is a MASTERPIECE!

[Mavaras]

antiquechrono wrote...
In pretty much all forms of art/media we are passive observers. We do not interact with the media directly. Instead we process it during "viewing" as well as after we have experienced it. When you read a book the author tells you his tale and that is the end of it it's mostly a one way interaction of author to reader. When we view art/media we are not welcome to tamper with what is presented because either the author has no desire for us to do so or it is a limitation of the medium in which it is presented.

An interactive video game on the other hand can break down that barrier if the author chooses. BioWare invited all of us into their creation to meddle with the characters and the story. As such we basically became a storyteller alongside BioWare in a limited capacity. This small difference causes me to believe that it is just as much our story as it is BioWare's. They have continually said there is no cannon. I would argue that Shepard isn't even a character in the normal sense, but more of a primitive avatar which imposes a few character traits on the player.

Yes! Technology has evolved towards end-user interactive democracy. Bioware made us part of Mass Effect. They should treat the end-user as consumers capable of co-creation and decision making. This is where all business is heading btw. I don't know why in an era of increasing open source that companies can't understand this. Let us decide what we need.

Modifié par Mavaras, 14 mars 2012 - 04:06 .

[Taboo]

We don't even have all the facts yet..........

[blah64]

The only thing I would like to add to an otherwise superb post, was that I did not get the sense of film from Mass Effect. Gaming as a medium is to interactive for me, Mass Effect even more so.

[saracen16]

If shareholders and fans have their way of changing the ending to something other than it is, then art and freedom of speech have failed.

[Taboo]

The game shares direct links to the film world. The way the cut-scenes are framed reflect that.

[Taboo]

saracen16 wrote...

If shareholders and fans have their way of changing the ending to something other than it is, then art and freedom of speech have failed.

Freedom of Speech has absolutly nothing to do with this. Freedom of Speech does not protect art per se as much as it protects you from the government, unless of course you are using art as a form of political protest, Bioware is not doing that here.

Art is protected by law, as is pornography and if deemed inappropriate can be legally labeled obscene.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 14 mars 2012 - 04:13 .

[Mavaras]

saracen16 wrote...

If shareholders and fans have their way of changing the ending to something other than it is, then art and freedom of speech have failed.

Not really though... right? Nobody is silencing an idea. Their idea arose, was wieghed and measured, and pushed to the back for a new idea. It still exists. Nothing about freedom of speech says we have to respect, pay for, or like every idea that gets churned out. Were they aloud to express it? Yep. And it sucked. Even if the ending changes, this blemish will exist forever.

Allowing them to change the ending is a mercy. If we treated this like real art, Bioware would be done; an empty trashed studio where the has been made his final stand. Bioware is a company. To that end, we can allow them chances to improve their product, instead of dismissing their ability as perpetual trash and ugliness. This is good. I don't want Bioware to fail. This is a back and forth relationship.

[JasonTan87]

Taboo-XX wrote...

The game shares direct links to the film world. The way the cut-scenes are framed reflect that.

I'm not sure how you feel, but I find that bioware's filmographic technique and shot placement has improved dramatically across the three games of the trilogy.   It is still uneven, but there are moments of brillance. 

I quite liked the way they did Liara's time capsule cut-scene. 

 

A little to much cutting for my liking, but the shot angles do show a considerable amount of thought being put into the effective presentation and communication of certain visual connotations.

[wright1978]

Mass Effect 3 aint an artistic enterprise. It's a consumer product with the aim of making money.
As a consumer i'm entitled to say i find the ending to their product utterly shoddy and tell them that my loyalty to their brand is highly in peril.

[DarkKnightCuron]

Very good read, OP. Bump for great justice.

[pseudonymic]

the argument that bioware owe it to consumers an explanation contradicts the notion of artistic license. they don't have to communicate with the public; doing so, from an objective standpoint, would be an ethical act on their part to honor the end-user that paid for their content and is dissatisfied. yet, no one had to buy their product. choice for choice, it becomes a "like it or not, this is what it is" situation. you don't tell a painter to redo a piece because you didn't like the colors used in it. you either take it for what it is or you don't. personally, i think the only measure that would cause a dramatic impact - or enough to serve as incentive for communication to begin - is if all those who disliked the game returned it, and not another copy saw to leave a retail or online store. money is what makes any market move, and that's the language that any corporation will speak in the end of the day.

that is not to say that i agree with the endings. like most of all who have been actively posting about it, i'm very disappointed and feel that this "closing" was somewhat of an insult to anyone who spent over 100 hours with mass effect 1, 2 and 3 - especially since the franchise has only been able to make it past the first installment due to the responsiveness of gamers who endorsed their product. had it not been for us, who cares whatever might have been of shepard. while there are two sides to this and out of respect for everyone who is displeased some sort of statement would be "nice", it boils down to the simple "how can more money be made out of this item". and successfully, despite speculation, they've had the best of success in that department: while we're out here pulling hair for what we may deem appropriate, they have the upper hand on deciding whether we get it or not. oh, and how much we pay for it.

[Taboo]

What I want is an reasoning behind the endings. I'm an artsy kind of guy and don't mind things being contemplative but I can't be sure if they intended it to be read as such. What if they really intended the endings to be interpreted literally?

[Rulycar]

Uh, we've been defrauded ...
... Shouldn't the FBI storm someone's mansion and arrest them for racketeering???

[Zofiya]

Great post: eloquent, erudite, and thought-provoking.

[Taboo]

No. Just because Kim Kardashian said she lost weight using a product doesn't make it true. That's why they have notices at the bottom.

*Results are not typical.

[legion999]

After reading your post it seems Bioware fans are like Rachni. If the messages (songs) they send are sour or not even there the fans go crazy. Juat a random observation.

Anyway great post OP.

[Mavaras]

pseudonymic wrote...

the argument that bioware owe it to consumers an explanation contradicts the notion of artistic license. they don't have to communicate with the public; doing so, from an objective standpoint, would be an ethical act on their part to honor the end-user that paid for their content and is dissatisfied. yet, no one had to buy their product. choice for choice, it becomes a "like it or not, this is what it is" situation. you don't tell a painter to redo a piece because you didn't like the colors used in it. you either take it for what it is or you don't. personally, i think the only measure that would cause a dramatic impact - or enough to serve as incentive for communication to begin - is if all those who disliked the game returned it, and not another copy saw to leave a retail or online store. money is what makes any market move, and that's the language that any corporation will speak in the end of the day.

that is not to say that i agree with the endings. like most of all who have been actively posting about it, i'm very disappointed and feel that this "closing" was somewhat of an insult to anyone who spent over 100 hours with mass effect 1, 2 and 3 - especially since the franchise has only been able to make it past the first installment due to the responsiveness of gamers who endorsed their product. had it not been for us, who cares whatever might have been of shepard. while there are two sides to this and out of respect for everyone who is displeased some sort of statement would be "nice", it boils down to the simple "how can more money be made out of this item". and successfully, despite speculation, they've had the best of success in that department: while we're out here pulling hair for what we may deem appropriate, they have the upper hand on deciding whether we get it or not. oh, and how much we pay for it.

I don't believe they owe an explanation. I believe they will choose to be a consumer over an artist voluntarily because of the profit motive. Furthermore, anybody who paid money has a right to bide for influence in their decision. The choice is Bioware's, and they will respond showing their motive, which is profit, not art. The community doesn't decide these things, Bioware does. All we can do is act like what we are, CONSUMERS. They will show their colors, and no Virginia, it isn't as artists.

Modifié par Mavaras, 14 mars 2012 - 04:51 .

[Flamewielder]

Personally, I have nothing against the chosen endings per se; all three are interesting ends to a series of sci-fi novels or even movies. I just don't feel they "fit" with the Mass Effect series of games.

1) After using Paragon/Renegade moral choices for the whole series, using a Law/Chaos/Outside the Box choice in the conclusion felt jarring. It's completely out of the continuity players have come to expect. Not that I am against Law/Order concepts: I play/read Warhammer 40,000 games/novels and relish that universe. I love the Babylon 5 series and totally get the Vorlon/Shadows view of the universe. I just feel that's not where the ME series was taking us.

2) The Mass Effect series is a grand heroic space opera, yet the endings choices are film noir/cyberpunk/dystopian. Again. the last second change of tone is jarring and I found that disturbing to the point I felt I'd screwed up somewhere before. I absolutely LOVED the original Deus Ex. That's not what attracted me to Mass Effect.

3) The whole series was built around choice; so the endings should have included renegade/paragon options that allowed Shep to survive. Yes, the hardcore elitists among us will rant about "Michael Bay'ish" endings and pandering to the mainstream crowds, etc... But the bottom line is that blockbuster happy endings are more lucrative franchises than independent, original but less accessible movies.
 
Unless Bioware is planning to pull the plug on the ME franchise (I'm REALLY NOT interested in any "prequel" game, knowing how it will all end; I've seen Star Wars episodes IV, V & VI several times in theaters at full admission price but only went once to see episodes I, II and III), they're gonna have to think of a sweet incentive for me to buy back into this IP.

If you want future DLC to sell, you gotta offer an incentive for the players to buy it and I believe Lair of the Shadowbroker proved it. I'm 47 years old and have a fair bit of discretional money to throw at EA/Bioware to scoop up ME3 DLC, but as things stand, they won't be getting a dime from me until they offer a chance for my Shep to ride off in the sunset with his/her LI. Keep the three current endings; they're OK, but not for me. Offer me more choices and I'll come back to the ME I loved.

[Aigik]

Cliffnotes?