I seriously have to question people of the OP's opinion and whether they know the first thing about art or storytelling. Ever read "Story" by Bob Mckee (or seen the movie Adaptation where its both a running joke and taken seriously as the movie's salvation)? Anyone who has (like me) or understands the art of storytelling, could point out numerous MAJOR offenses ME3's ending pulls and how it DOES KILL the entire trilogy.
The Ending is Poetic. Beautiful. It's Art.
Débuté par
PeterG1
, mars 15 2012 06:05
Retour en haut
#302
Posté 15 mars 2012 - 03:45
saracen16
-
- Members
- 2 283 messages
[quote]Mymedus wrote...
Dude, are you serious? This is your response? How vague and arbitrary, you didn't even quote what I said to backup your statement. Let me quote what I said:
The Crucible was developed over millions of years by organics. The Reapers have existed for millions of years and shown superior intellect to every organic species of each cycle. Why couldn't the Reapers have produced the tech for the Synthesis themselves and just synthesized all life in the galaxy in the exact same way?[/quote]
Maybe because that was not their intention at the time? Those are not plotholes. The Catalyst itself said that these possibilities (destroy, control, synthesize) are NEW possibilities that the Crucible opened it up to MILLIONS OF YEARS after the Catalyst made the decision to create the Reapers. It didn't think about them BEFORE the Crucible. Hence, no plothole.
[quote]Except the Catalyst is sentient and in control of the Reapers, therefore the Catalyst could've had the tech built itself if it was a superior solution to the cycle. The main reason for this not happening before is supposed to be the existence of the Crucible, as the Catalyst says it gave him "additional options", however this still doesn't explain away the fact the Catalyst could've had such a device built itself.[/quote]
That goes exactly with what I said. The existence of the Catalyst was inferred to be the Citadel, and the races built the Crucible to adjust accordingly. They didn't know that the Catalyst existed as a god or a fallible AI.
Hence, not a plothole.
[quote]I don't need to include the rest of the quote because this bit is enough. Could have, but it didn't - that's exactly why the twist is stupid. If it didn't make the decision earlier I fail to understand why it would think to make it now since it was always an obviously better solution than killing trillions. The story is meant to argue that the reason it didn't do it earlier was because the power wasn't available to it: this is why it says it has new options available.[/quote]
In your opinion, it is stupid, but it isn't. Read above.
[quote]But the power was always available. Always. It built itself and the Reapers to be so powerful, why did it stop there? Arbitrary. TOO arbitrary.[/quote]
No, it isn't arbitary. You yourself suggested that the Catalyst is fallible, and your argument would work only if it was infallible. Therefore, it did not consider the possibility of this synthesis tech as a solution for a post-Reaper galaxy because it was an AI that made a mistake. However, because of the way the Crucible was built, and the technology behind it, the possibilities were laid before us.
[quote][quote]What's really stupid is that you didn't even consider the rest of the game. The writers masterfully wove the main plot throughout the length of the entire game, and it led up to this moment[/quote]
The emboldened text would suggest a theme. If that not what you meant then I'd love you to define what you meant with this statement.[/quote]
No, it doesn't suggest a theme. It represents the conclusion of a plot, which is not necessarily a concrete theme.
[quote]Then I would've expected my Shepard to have the option to argue with the Catalyst's assertion rather than simply agree unwittingly. He argued with the Rannoch Reaper with far less evidence.[/quote]
Only that Shepard didn't know what the Catalyst WAS at the time... and something else was happenning to Shepard. You can sense his despair... the fight has been kicked out of him. He's being indoctrinated, and he's resisting. If you paid attention, he did argue against the Catalyst, telling him that organics need hope or have choices. The Catalyst then replies that there are solutions given to what the Crucible opened him up to. The Crucible was stated in the beginning of the game to be the ONLY way to stop the Reapers. There was no other alternative. Work in the context of this.
[quote]But that challenge is meaningless because it's doused completely by the ending like water to a flame. It became a completely meaningless, pointless plot development by end-game because it doesn't factor in to it at all.[/quote]
That's your opinion. You seem to see that the ending was just colors. I saw more than that because I cared about the characters and races enough to wonder what will happen to them after the Reapers are gone.If you thought that the ending of the game was in the last 5 minutes, then you're missing the whole picture.
[quote]Again, why couldn't I use this evidence to dispute the Catalyst's claim? Bad writing...and that's not something I have ever accused BW of before, I'm serious.[/quote]
Read below.
[quote]And is there any such thing as "ANY other synthetic race"?[/quote]
Yes, there is: Vendetta states that history is repeating itself through these cycles and it's not by chance.
[quote]Each AI we've seen has been unique in its own way, one more piece of evidence to dispute the Catalyst's one-size-fits-all logic.[/quote]
Not all of them, especially not the hundreds of geth blood spilled to get to the ending. Those exceptions are meant to challenge you.
[quote]You don't get my point: my point was that clearly the Catalyst's assertion was bull****. In addition, you could also argue the heretic geth is an ironic piece of evidence since their hostilies were incited BY the Reapers.[/quote]
No. The heretic geth worshipped the Reapers because of an error in their programming: Legion argued that. The Reapers did not introduce this error. Saren even said that the geth were the ones who worshipped Sovereign first, and Sovereign merely used them as tools for his end.
I agree that the Catalyst is fallible. That was clearly BioWare's intention with the whole point of the Catalyst's development as a character: to show you that the Catalyst's assumption is fallible and wrong, and has been running unchecked for 37+ million years... until now. That in itself... is frightening.
[quote]There was no theme! It wasn't just that there wasn't one theme...there was NO theme leading up to the Catalyst's assertion, at least in my playthrough, because the one previous theme strand that would've coalesced to the Catalyst's statements had been ditched as early as first speaking to Legion.[/quote]
No, they haven't been "ditched". Read above as to the Catalyst.
[quote]In my game, there were no most hostilities between organics and synthetics, so why is necessary for me to conform to the notion that they oppose one another?[/quote]
Because the Catalyst's program made that assumption and was not open to it until the Crucible docked with the Citadel and reprogrammed it.
[quote]I would have no qualms if someone who had the Geth and Quarians war be limited in their choices, be unable to argue with the Catalyst (since Shepard tries to argue with the Reaper on Rannoch and he disproves it with the battle) but why should -I- be pigeon-holed?[/quote]
You weren't pigeon-holed. It's a technique of writing: if you put in too much dialogue, it's like over-shampooing a car till the seats become un-sittable. Too much dialogue is bad. Too little dialogue is bad. BioWare struck a balance and it worked. You didn't have to like it, but that doesn't make it a story breaker.
There are themes in the game but they were handled more subtly than previous games: religion on Thessia (Athame and the Asari), politics and interfering with evolution (Krogans and Salarians), the relationship between synthetics and organics as well as the evolutionary arms race between them (geth and quarian). The funny thing is, those themes were not explicitly stated by the company when they made the game. Not all of them, at least. YOU decide what the game means to you. That, in itself, is art. And it's good.
[quote]YES, EXACTLY! You hit the NAIL ON THE HEAD. It depends on MY choices with the Geth-Quarian conflict, something the series is all about, yet it played absolutely NO part in the ending or the exchange with the Catalyst. THAT is the presiding issue that the fans take issue with: that a game series so based upon choice fails so grandly when it matters most![/quote]
It doesn't fail at choice. Does it matter that there is a part in the ending with the Catalyst in which they talk about the geth? Shepard has no time to argue on end when he wants to stop the unstoppable, if you think about it: he wants it done. That shows how desperate he is, or she. I agree that BioWare may have nothing to lose if it adds it, but it doesn't have anything to lose by keeping that out, either. I don't find the fact that he mentioned it a story-breaker, because it addressed the Reaper plot in its own way and allowed you to make your own reflections on the choices you made in the context of that discussion WITHOUT having it being told to you.
[quote]it's imperfect. I agree. So why could I not argue with it and disagree? Shepard argued with the Reaper on Rannoch: he said organics and synthetics didn't need to war, and he didn't even have such staple evidence such as the peace between Geth and Quarians at that point. So why - why did he not argue with the Catalyst at a time when he had such compelling evidence to back up his argument?[/quote]
You could argue with it, just don't go on and force the artists to change their work. The fact is, the Catalyst already seemed convinced of the organic's point of view when the Crucible docked.
[quote]Even if it had been in vain, even if it had not taken any of my arguments at face value, I would've expected my Shepard to at least TRY. But I was given no opportunity. Not even a dead-end conversation fork was offered.[/quote]
Did your Shepard have an opportunity to talk about the geth to Harbinger at the end of Arrival? Did he have the chance to talk to the Shadow Broker about Tali in ME1?
[quote]I will have to end it here because I need to go to work, but I will end it by saying it's fine if you're happy. Maybe it feels like the end fit with what happened throughout your story, but there are millions of people here who each have a slightly different story, whose choices were slightly different and whose ending didn't fit with their story because of the abhorrent lack of choice involved in it. Because the ending didn't accomadate or shift for big decisions in the plot.[/quote]
Myrmedus, you have to admit: we weren't given the choice to do everything since the beginning. We weren't given the chance to throw Legion out of the airlock when we first got him. We weren't given the choice to save both Ashley and Kaidan. There's a REASON BioWare did this. We as gamers were free within the confines that BioWare made for us in the game, and that's as much as any developer could do.
[quote]It's a one-size fits all ending to a game whose story is anything but - I'm sure you can see the issue with that.[/quote]
No, I don't. The ending doesn't summarize everything. It's just a cliffhanger event that leads us to think about the future of the galaxy WE shaped... and how a post-Reaper galaxy of races and characters that WE helped save or destroy will fare without the mass relays. It's not one-size-fits-all. It's something new and phenomenal. Even you, as an artist, can appreciate that.
Dude, are you serious? This is your response? How vague and arbitrary, you didn't even quote what I said to backup your statement. Let me quote what I said:
The Crucible was developed over millions of years by organics. The Reapers have existed for millions of years and shown superior intellect to every organic species of each cycle. Why couldn't the Reapers have produced the tech for the Synthesis themselves and just synthesized all life in the galaxy in the exact same way?[/quote]
Maybe because that was not their intention at the time? Those are not plotholes. The Catalyst itself said that these possibilities (destroy, control, synthesize) are NEW possibilities that the Crucible opened it up to MILLIONS OF YEARS after the Catalyst made the decision to create the Reapers. It didn't think about them BEFORE the Crucible. Hence, no plothole.
[quote]Except the Catalyst is sentient and in control of the Reapers, therefore the Catalyst could've had the tech built itself if it was a superior solution to the cycle. The main reason for this not happening before is supposed to be the existence of the Crucible, as the Catalyst says it gave him "additional options", however this still doesn't explain away the fact the Catalyst could've had such a device built itself.[/quote]
That goes exactly with what I said. The existence of the Catalyst was inferred to be the Citadel, and the races built the Crucible to adjust accordingly. They didn't know that the Catalyst existed as a god or a fallible AI.
Hence, not a plothole.
[quote]I don't need to include the rest of the quote because this bit is enough. Could have, but it didn't - that's exactly why the twist is stupid. If it didn't make the decision earlier I fail to understand why it would think to make it now since it was always an obviously better solution than killing trillions. The story is meant to argue that the reason it didn't do it earlier was because the power wasn't available to it: this is why it says it has new options available.[/quote]
In your opinion, it is stupid, but it isn't. Read above.
[quote]But the power was always available. Always. It built itself and the Reapers to be so powerful, why did it stop there? Arbitrary. TOO arbitrary.[/quote]
No, it isn't arbitary. You yourself suggested that the Catalyst is fallible, and your argument would work only if it was infallible. Therefore, it did not consider the possibility of this synthesis tech as a solution for a post-Reaper galaxy because it was an AI that made a mistake. However, because of the way the Crucible was built, and the technology behind it, the possibilities were laid before us.
[quote][quote]What's really stupid is that you didn't even consider the rest of the game. The writers masterfully wove the main plot throughout the length of the entire game, and it led up to this moment[/quote]
The emboldened text would suggest a theme. If that not what you meant then I'd love you to define what you meant with this statement.[/quote]
No, it doesn't suggest a theme. It represents the conclusion of a plot, which is not necessarily a concrete theme.
[quote]Then I would've expected my Shepard to have the option to argue with the Catalyst's assertion rather than simply agree unwittingly. He argued with the Rannoch Reaper with far less evidence.[/quote]
Only that Shepard didn't know what the Catalyst WAS at the time... and something else was happenning to Shepard. You can sense his despair... the fight has been kicked out of him. He's being indoctrinated, and he's resisting. If you paid attention, he did argue against the Catalyst, telling him that organics need hope or have choices. The Catalyst then replies that there are solutions given to what the Crucible opened him up to. The Crucible was stated in the beginning of the game to be the ONLY way to stop the Reapers. There was no other alternative. Work in the context of this.
[quote]But that challenge is meaningless because it's doused completely by the ending like water to a flame. It became a completely meaningless, pointless plot development by end-game because it doesn't factor in to it at all.[/quote]
That's your opinion. You seem to see that the ending was just colors. I saw more than that because I cared about the characters and races enough to wonder what will happen to them after the Reapers are gone.If you thought that the ending of the game was in the last 5 minutes, then you're missing the whole picture.
[quote]Again, why couldn't I use this evidence to dispute the Catalyst's claim? Bad writing...and that's not something I have ever accused BW of before, I'm serious.[/quote]
Read below.
[quote]And is there any such thing as "ANY other synthetic race"?[/quote]
Yes, there is: Vendetta states that history is repeating itself through these cycles and it's not by chance.
[quote]Each AI we've seen has been unique in its own way, one more piece of evidence to dispute the Catalyst's one-size-fits-all logic.[/quote]
Not all of them, especially not the hundreds of geth blood spilled to get to the ending. Those exceptions are meant to challenge you.
[quote]You don't get my point: my point was that clearly the Catalyst's assertion was bull****. In addition, you could also argue the heretic geth is an ironic piece of evidence since their hostilies were incited BY the Reapers.[/quote]
No. The heretic geth worshipped the Reapers because of an error in their programming: Legion argued that. The Reapers did not introduce this error. Saren even said that the geth were the ones who worshipped Sovereign first, and Sovereign merely used them as tools for his end.
I agree that the Catalyst is fallible. That was clearly BioWare's intention with the whole point of the Catalyst's development as a character: to show you that the Catalyst's assumption is fallible and wrong, and has been running unchecked for 37+ million years... until now. That in itself... is frightening.
[quote]There was no theme! It wasn't just that there wasn't one theme...there was NO theme leading up to the Catalyst's assertion, at least in my playthrough, because the one previous theme strand that would've coalesced to the Catalyst's statements had been ditched as early as first speaking to Legion.[/quote]
No, they haven't been "ditched". Read above as to the Catalyst.
[quote]In my game, there were no most hostilities between organics and synthetics, so why is necessary for me to conform to the notion that they oppose one another?[/quote]
Because the Catalyst's program made that assumption and was not open to it until the Crucible docked with the Citadel and reprogrammed it.
[quote]I would have no qualms if someone who had the Geth and Quarians war be limited in their choices, be unable to argue with the Catalyst (since Shepard tries to argue with the Reaper on Rannoch and he disproves it with the battle) but why should -I- be pigeon-holed?[/quote]
You weren't pigeon-holed. It's a technique of writing: if you put in too much dialogue, it's like over-shampooing a car till the seats become un-sittable. Too much dialogue is bad. Too little dialogue is bad. BioWare struck a balance and it worked. You didn't have to like it, but that doesn't make it a story breaker.
There are themes in the game but they were handled more subtly than previous games: religion on Thessia (Athame and the Asari), politics and interfering with evolution (Krogans and Salarians), the relationship between synthetics and organics as well as the evolutionary arms race between them (geth and quarian). The funny thing is, those themes were not explicitly stated by the company when they made the game. Not all of them, at least. YOU decide what the game means to you. That, in itself, is art. And it's good.
[quote]YES, EXACTLY! You hit the NAIL ON THE HEAD. It depends on MY choices with the Geth-Quarian conflict, something the series is all about, yet it played absolutely NO part in the ending or the exchange with the Catalyst. THAT is the presiding issue that the fans take issue with: that a game series so based upon choice fails so grandly when it matters most![/quote]
It doesn't fail at choice. Does it matter that there is a part in the ending with the Catalyst in which they talk about the geth? Shepard has no time to argue on end when he wants to stop the unstoppable, if you think about it: he wants it done. That shows how desperate he is, or she. I agree that BioWare may have nothing to lose if it adds it, but it doesn't have anything to lose by keeping that out, either. I don't find the fact that he mentioned it a story-breaker, because it addressed the Reaper plot in its own way and allowed you to make your own reflections on the choices you made in the context of that discussion WITHOUT having it being told to you.
[quote]it's imperfect. I agree. So why could I not argue with it and disagree? Shepard argued with the Reaper on Rannoch: he said organics and synthetics didn't need to war, and he didn't even have such staple evidence such as the peace between Geth and Quarians at that point. So why - why did he not argue with the Catalyst at a time when he had such compelling evidence to back up his argument?[/quote]
You could argue with it, just don't go on and force the artists to change their work. The fact is, the Catalyst already seemed convinced of the organic's point of view when the Crucible docked.
[quote]Even if it had been in vain, even if it had not taken any of my arguments at face value, I would've expected my Shepard to at least TRY. But I was given no opportunity. Not even a dead-end conversation fork was offered.[/quote]
Did your Shepard have an opportunity to talk about the geth to Harbinger at the end of Arrival? Did he have the chance to talk to the Shadow Broker about Tali in ME1?
[quote]I will have to end it here because I need to go to work, but I will end it by saying it's fine if you're happy. Maybe it feels like the end fit with what happened throughout your story, but there are millions of people here who each have a slightly different story, whose choices were slightly different and whose ending didn't fit with their story because of the abhorrent lack of choice involved in it. Because the ending didn't accomadate or shift for big decisions in the plot.[/quote]
Myrmedus, you have to admit: we weren't given the choice to do everything since the beginning. We weren't given the chance to throw Legion out of the airlock when we first got him. We weren't given the choice to save both Ashley and Kaidan. There's a REASON BioWare did this. We as gamers were free within the confines that BioWare made for us in the game, and that's as much as any developer could do.
[quote]It's a one-size fits all ending to a game whose story is anything but - I'm sure you can see the issue with that.[/quote]
No, I don't. The ending doesn't summarize everything. It's just a cliffhanger event that leads us to think about the future of the galaxy WE shaped... and how a post-Reaper galaxy of races and characters that WE helped save or destroy will fare without the mass relays. It's not one-size-fits-all. It's something new and phenomenal. Even you, as an artist, can appreciate that.
Modifié par saracen16, 15 mars 2012 - 03:47 .
#303
Posté 15 mars 2012 - 03:49
MacNille
-
- Members
- 160 messages
If the ending was art, then Last Action Hero was the damn Mona Lisa (i liked that movie, but it was dumb fun)
#304
Posté 15 mars 2012 - 03:50
GreyhameBioware
-
- Members
- 309 messages
saracen16 wrote...
No, I don't. The ending doesn't summarize everything. It's just a cliffhanger event that leads us to think about the future of the galaxy WE shaped... and how a post-Reaper galaxy of races and characters that WE helped save or destroy will fare without the mass relays. It's not one-size-fits-all. It's something new and phenomenal. Even you, as an artist, can appreciate that.
You know, they can still give that kind of wondering abotu the future of the galaxy and all while giving us a much better ending that provides closure to the story you have been involved in.
Modifié par GreyhameBioware, 15 mars 2012 - 03:51 .
#305
Posté 15 mars 2012 - 03:51
Joel_O
-
- Members
- 11 messages
leianajade wrote...
I think you miss my point. I do believe it's art, but it's not art that only one person has their hand in. I think it's meant to be more of a community art, not museum art.
And Mass Effect *IS* labeled as an RPG, there's no arguing about that. So I think, rather than trying to compare it to a movie or a book or a painting - something it clearly isn't - look to what it's actually labeled as.
Ok, missed your point about it being art then. Thanks for that clarification.
However, either you don't agree or you missed my point about allowing different people to define ME3 differently. Just because something has a label doesn't make it so for everyone. I've found a lot of movies in the "thriller" cathegory that I would have put in the "drama" cathegory, etc. ME3 is clearly a very different product/experience/piece of art to different people and trying to define its "true" character or nature is somewhat imposing on others who don't agree.
But interesting perspective, the pen & paper RPG comparison.
#306
Posté 15 mars 2012 - 03:51
saracen16
-
- Members
- 2 283 messages
Epique Phael767 wrote...
Capitalism = consumer > producersaracen16 wrote...
Let me tell you something: who are you to think that YOU are superior to BioWare and demand an ending change?
/thread
Canada is not a Capitalist country.
#307
Posté 15 mars 2012 - 03:51
GreyhameBioware
-
- Members
- 309 messages
saracen16 wrote...
Epique Phael767 wrote...
Capitalism = consumer > producersaracen16 wrote...
Let me tell you something: who are you to think that YOU are superior to BioWare and demand an ending change?
/thread
Canada is not a Capitalist country.
Um.....not sure if your serious.
#308
Posté 15 mars 2012 - 03:53
Joel_O
-
- Members
- 11 messages
saracen16 wrote...
Epique Phael767 wrote...
Capitalism = consumer > producersaracen16 wrote...
Let me tell you something: who are you to think that YOU are superior to BioWare and demand an ending change?
/thread
Canada is not a Capitalist country.
#309
Posté 15 mars 2012 - 03:58
gamer_girl
-
- Members
- 2 523 messages
saracen16 wrote...
Epique Phael767 wrote...
Capitalism = consumer > producersaracen16 wrote...
Let me tell you something: who are you to think that YOU are superior to BioWare and demand an ending change?
/thread
Canada is not a Capitalist country.
If you're serious you're kind of wrong. While we aren't capitalist, profit is still a major motive for people here. We just think healthcare is a good idea too. END just had to get that straight. Not trying to bring up politics, moderators.
#310
Posté 15 mars 2012 - 03:59
Magocract
-
- Members
- 3 messages
I think the OP is confusing incoherent and incomprehensible with deep and profound.
The ending might be "Art" (in a post-modernist, 'nonsense is cool' sense) but it's still not a good ending to the game.
The ending might be "Art" (in a post-modernist, 'nonsense is cool' sense) but it's still not a good ending to the game.
#311
Posté 15 mars 2012 - 04:02
Ieldra
-
- Members
- 25 188 messages
I think the OP is correct. The ending, taken for itself, is poetic and beautiful and emotionally engaging. It is, as he said, art.
The problem is that is seems like it's the ending of another game. It feels disconnected from what has come before and it destroys the world we've come to love. As beautiful as the Citadel sequence is, it cannot make up for the fact that it feels like a downer ending.
The problem is that is seems like it's the ending of another game. It feels disconnected from what has come before and it destroys the world we've come to love. As beautiful as the Citadel sequence is, it cannot make up for the fact that it feels like a downer ending.
Modifié par Ieldra2, 15 mars 2012 - 04:04 .
#312
Posté 15 mars 2012 - 04:02
Croakamancer
-
- Members
- 82 messages
Let me tell you something: who are you to think that YOU are superior to BioWare and demand an ending change?
A viewer with an opinion.
The thing about art is that, when done well, it's universal. People can look at it, and take away the value, the emotion, the meaning. That's what makes something artistic to me, and that's why I give ME2's ending a pass despite a major problem I had with it (which I won't get into here) It really captures the feel it was going for, the mission against the odds with everyone's lives at risk. Even if they're loyal, people can still die depending on what call you make...
That's art to me. Not pretty colours and failing to define what we're seeing.
'It's art' doesn't give you a get out of plot-holes free card. It doesn't excuse poor storytelling techniques, such as large exposition dumping at the final portion of the game. And it does not remove the requirement for closure.
If so many people are opposed to it so vocally, then it has failed as art, and has failed to be profound. This is a valid reason to like the endings on a personal level. But it's not good enough for critical justification
Modifié par Croakamancer, 15 mars 2012 - 04:03 .
#313
Posté 15 mars 2012 - 04:05
MassFrank
-
- Members
- 90 messages
So are we all free to declare art now? Has anyone told the art world of this? They would probably like to know that they no longer need to hire curators and the like.
#314
Posté 15 mars 2012 - 04:06
Cobberwebb
-
- Members
- 10 messages
Bioware, thank you for a beautiful ending to a wonderful series of games. ME1 is still my favourite and I hope you will produce another stunning sci-fi adventure. Can't believe all the stick this game is getting, please don't change it. As art, it has definitely produced an emotional response from me, as with film, TV, music, paintings you wouldn't expected those artists to change their work because some people disagree with your vision. Again, thank you.
#315
Posté 15 mars 2012 - 04:08
Grand Wazoo
-
- Members
- 467 messages
Poetic? That's what they call it these days? Bioware can defend their artistic vision as much as they like, but people who feel their product is lacking can say how much their artistic vision sucks.
#316
Posté 15 mars 2012 - 04:08
PeterG1
-
- Members
- 241 messages
I'm sure the Penny Arcade article has been passed around the forums, maybe even this thread (my apologies if I missed it) but Ben puts it quite right, or at least in line with what I was thinking here:
http://penny-arcade....the-series-mass
Doesn't mean that I'm still not saddened, drained, emotionally spent, at a loss for words now even at this point haha. But I have absolute respect for the argument Ben makes, and it's in line, mostly, with my own thoughts on the game.
http://penny-arcade....the-series-mass
Doesn't mean that I'm still not saddened, drained, emotionally spent, at a loss for words now even at this point haha. But I have absolute respect for the argument Ben makes, and it's in line, mostly, with my own thoughts on the game.
Modifié par PeterG1, 15 mars 2012 - 04:08 .
#317
Posté 15 mars 2012 - 04:08
Rawgrim
-
- Members
- 11 531 messages
I agree with the OP here. However, I can understand why alot of people would have wanted more "meat" in the ending.
#318
Posté 15 mars 2012 - 04:09
SandTrout
-
- Members
- 4 171 messages
Not sure what kind of point you're trying to make here, but a lot of us don't give a **** how 'artful' the ending was, one way or another. It failed to do what we paid it to do, and broke promises and expectations that we had, both implied and explicit.MassFrank wrote...
So are we all free to declare art now? Has anyone told the art world of this? They would probably like to know that they no longer need to hire curators and the like.
You can do whatever you want and call it art, but when you start selling it, you still have an obligation to fulfill the trade as it was agreed to.
#319
Posté 15 mars 2012 - 04:10
darkshadow136
-
- Members
- 1 796 messages
KiroKatashi wrote...
Artful and poetic does not mean good.
Agreed. For me the end was like a 5 year old doing abstract art. Wait I think I see something that looks like part of the whole saga, oh wait my fault, that was just a red spot of paint mixed with a little blue.
if you want your voice heard louder got to my blog which I have a link too in my Sig , click on my ME3 review and click on the links to my polls.
1. would you Boycott Bioware if they don't fix the endings
2. do you believe Multiplayer should have no impact on the single player campaign
3. Facebook Campaign demand better endings for ME3
#320
Posté 15 mars 2012 - 04:13
suusuuu
-
- Members
- 937 messages
the ending of this game is not supposed to be art. it's supposed to be an integral part of the interactive storytelling that was the basis of the entire trilogy. comparing this to art is as if the last 10 minutes of a goddamn awesome movie was filled with still pictures from an art gallery instead of the actual ending. would you be disappointed? I know I would.
Sorry for this, but this argument is downright stupid. Bioware relies on US. We are the ONLY reason they can exist and earn money. We are their customers. We way are more important to them than they are to us. Earning money is a necessity, entertainment is not.Let me tell you something: who are you to think that YOU are superior to BioWare and demand an ending change?
Modifié par suusuuu, 15 mars 2012 - 04:14 .
#321
Posté 15 mars 2012 - 04:15
Pelle6666
-
- Members
- 1 198 messages
Yes, it might be both poetic and artful; but its not a fitting end to the saga. We wouldn't want Pablo Picasso directing the final scene in the original star wars trilogy so why would we want this mind **** to conclude the adventures of commander Shepard?
It's not supposed to be a poetic ending, it's supposed to be an exiting and epic. This does not rule out the art in any way, I just think that the story and the characters should take priority over it.
It's not supposed to be a poetic ending, it's supposed to be an exiting and epic. This does not rule out the art in any way, I just think that the story and the characters should take priority over it.
#322
Posté 15 mars 2012 - 04:16
Croakamancer
-
- Members
- 82 messages
PeterG1 wrote...
I'm sure the Penny Arcade article has been passed around the forums, maybe even this thread (my apologies if I missed it) but Ben puts it quite right, or at least in line with what I was thinking here:
http://penny-arcade....the-series-mass
Doesn't mean that I'm still not saddened, drained, emotionally spent, at a loss for words now even at this point haha. But I have absolute respect for the argument Ben makes, and it's in line, mostly, with my own thoughts on the game.
Erm... I've not got any issues with PA, but to me, that article comes across as... a little defensive? It's not arguing why the ending's good, it's arguing against some of the arguments that don't like it.
That has little to do with most of people's complaints (lack of closure, the Catalyst, ect.) and doesn't really fit with trying to justify this as 'art'
#323
Posté 15 mars 2012 - 04:17
evisneffo
-
- Members
- 753 messages
The ideas and the cutscenes, they're pretty. They're art. But the execution of this as explanation for the series and a choice of ending barely gels with the rest of the story. For another game, with more polishing and a more appropriate lead-in, it could go places. It's just not an appropriate end for the Mass Effect trilogy.
#324
Posté 15 mars 2012 - 04:17
Plasma Prestige
-
- Members
- 295 messages
The insinuation you're making is that those who don't like the ending don't appreciate or don't want art, they want entertainment.
No, we want entertainment, but it does not have to be at the stake of art. Calling something artistic does not excuse it from logical analysis such as the presence of plot holes and a complete lack of closure for the end of a trilogy. Mass Effect 2 had more closure, yet it should have had an ending more akin to ME3's since we would know that we still have ME3 left to finish the story. It seems Bioware switched it.
No, we want entertainment, but it does not have to be at the stake of art. Calling something artistic does not excuse it from logical analysis such as the presence of plot holes and a complete lack of closure for the end of a trilogy. Mass Effect 2 had more closure, yet it should have had an ending more akin to ME3's since we would know that we still have ME3 left to finish the story. It seems Bioware switched it.
#325
Posté 15 mars 2012 - 04:20
Dreogan
-
- Members
- 1 415 messages
Croakamancer wrote...
Let me tell you something: who are you to think that YOU are superior to BioWare and demand an ending change?
A viewer with an opinion.
The thing about art is that, when done well, it's universal. People can look at it, and take away the value, the emotion, the meaning. That's what makes something artistic to me, and that's why I give ME2's ending a pass despite a major problem I had with it (which I won't get into here) It really captures the feel it was going for, the mission against the odds with everyone's lives at risk. Even if they're loyal, people can still die depending on what call you make...
That's art to me. Not pretty colours and failing to define what we're seeing.
'It's art' doesn't give you a get out of plot-holes free card. It doesn't excuse poor storytelling techniques, such as large exposition dumping at the final portion of the game. And it does not remove the requirement for closure.
If so many people are opposed to it so vocally, then it has failed as art, and has failed to be profound. This is a valid reason to like the endings on a personal level. But it's not good enough for critical justification
Important part is bolded. I'd also add the breach of the writer-reader contract at the end; that is the freaking holiest of holies and Bioware took a dump on it after the space jesus ascension.
This isn't simply about us "not liking" it. "Liking" it has nothing to do with it. A tragic ending would work, even if we didn't "like" it. A happy ending could work if written the right way. The whole damn thing is simply bad storytelling and not an ending that can fit the narrative without simply being rejected by the narrative itself. A little side-mission in the game might succeed with this many breaches of the reader-writer contract, with such a blatant disregard for catharsis, with such a complete disregard of the game's fiction. But this is not a side-story, this is the raison d'etre for the mother****ing trilogy. This does not fly.
Bioware did indeed make a statement with what they released, but it was far more profound than the people claiming "it's art" are claiming it made: this entire trilogy is bull****.
Modifié par Dreogan, 15 mars 2012 - 04:24 .
