378 réponses à ce sujet

[Spectre_Shepard]

the ending is a lie, not art

[Valah79]

Magic nonsensical Space Magic melding synthetics and organics, which somehow, brings peace and joy and happiness to the universe isn't art. Just like changing color schemes, isn't art. Discussing the pro's and cons of the Genophage with Mordin in ME 2, that was deep, that was enlightening, that was art.

This was deadlines, and budget cuts, there's nothing philosophic or intelligent about the ending.

[xxZealouSocitYxx]

Jackal7713 wrote...

xxZealouSocitYxx wrote...

Come on guys. Be more mature and just accept his opinion even if he disagrees with us. Different strokes for different folks. There's no point in hating on him for liking the game ending.

I'm sorry bud, but I'm sick of people calling me entitled becuase I'm a paying customer that is unhappy with a finished product and that I have no right to voice a complaint. Or when I voice my complaint I'm acting "entitled" and that I'm encroaching on Biowares artistic rights. Its a total BS argument.

As paying customers we are entitled to voicing complaints, of course. But, the people who actually enjoy the game/ending are entitled to that same priviledge. Voice your flaws in his argument all you want as it's honest critisism. But people going, "LOLNOPE. Ending waz bad, You're an idiot for liking it," aren't really being mature.

I, for one, hate the ending and would be happy to voice my thoughts on it. But I also respect those who enjoy it.  

[Sarevok Synder]

saracen16 wrote...



They're not flaws. They're not plot holes. Who the **** are you to say that it is "obvious"? Why don't you tell us what these flaws are instead of acting so high and mighty?

So you're happy with a three "choice" ending, the choice consisting of which colour to watch the ending in? Can't you read, since I said it above?

How about since star child controlled everything anyway, why was Sovereign required to activate the relay, why couldn't star child do it, considering it was the citadel.

[PeterG1]

These are great discussions, I've been enjoying all your thoughts. A lot of these discussions has opened my eyes to different possibilities and the like.

It's tough. I hope we hear something from the BW guys at some point soon. My guess is they're doing conference calls with EA LA all week (and month for that matter) trying to come up with something. My "longing" for a comment to all this backlash--not even an answer or explanation, just a comment--is the same sort of longing I get when I'm presented with an ambiguous and difficult-to-swallow ending. In any medium.

Yea it can definitely be frustrating. I'm still skeptical that giving us the "ending we want" is the way to go. It might be bad for business, if nothing else. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

[saracen16]

Sarevok Synder wrote...

saracen16 wrote...



They're not flaws. They're not plot holes. Who the **** are you to say that it is "obvious"? Why don't you tell us what these flaws are instead of acting so high and mighty?

So you're happy with a three "choice" ending, the choice consisting of which colour to watch the ending in? Can't you read, since I said it above?

It's not three choices. Your thinking is too linear. It's a branched ending. Did you save the krogan or you didn't? Did you save the Quarians or the Geth, or both? This was said before the release of the game by Casey Hudson:

"This story arc is coming to an end with this game. That means the
endings can be a lot more different. At this point we're taking into
account so many decisions that you've made as a player and reflecting a
lot of that stuff. It's not even in any way like the traditional game
endings, where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got
ending A, B, or C."It's more like there are some really obvious things that are
different and then lots and lots of smaller things, lots of things about
who lives and who dies, civilizations that rose and fell, all the way
down to individual characters. That becomes the state of where you left
your galaxy. The endings have a lot more sophistication and variety in
them."

How about since star child controlled everything anyway, why was Sovereign required to activate the relay, why couldn't star child do it, considering it was the citadel.

Starchild couldn't do it because it created and controlled the Reapers. Yes, it was part of the Citadel, but the Reapers were created to send the signal to the keepers to open it. The Protheans, however, tinkered with that signal before the cycle was released... IN THE KEEPERS. The Catalyst controls the Citadel and the Reapers, but NOT the keepers.

[BurtieBee]

saracen16 wrote...

Sarevok Synder wrote...

saracen16 wrote...



They're not flaws. They're not plot holes. Who the **** are you to say that it is "obvious"? Why don't you tell us what these flaws are instead of acting so high and mighty?

So you're happy with a three "choice" ending, the choice consisting of which colour to watch the ending in? Can't you read, since I said it above?

It's not three choices. Your thinking is too linear. It's a branched ending. Did you save the krogan or you didn't? Did you save the Quarians or the Geth, or both? This was said before the release of the game by Casey Hudson:

"This story arc is coming to an end with this game. That means the
endings can be a lot more different. At this point we're taking into
account so many decisions that you've made as a player and reflecting a
lot of that stuff. It's not even in any way like the traditional game
endings, where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got
ending A, B, or C."It's more like there are some really obvious things that are
different and then lots and lots of smaller things, lots of things about
who lives and who dies, civilizations that rose and fell, all the way
down to individual characters. That becomes the state of where you left
your galaxy. The endings have a lot more sophistication and variety in
them."

How about since star child controlled everything anyway, why was Sovereign required to activate the relay, why couldn't star child do it, considering it was the citadel.

Starchild couldn't do it because it created and controlled the Reapers. Yes, it was part of the Citadel, but the Reapers were created to send the signal to the keepers to open it. The Protheans, however, tinkered with that signal before the cycle was released... IN THE KEEPERS. The Catalyst controls the Citadel and the Reapers, but NOT the keepers.

Did you... did you just use that quote without a TRACE of irony?

[saracen16]

PeterG1 wrote...

These are great discussions, I've been enjoying all your thoughts. A lot of these discussions has opened my eyes to different possibilities and the like.

It's tough. I hope we hear something from the BW guys at some point soon. My guess is they're doing conference calls with EA LA all week (and month for that matter) trying to come up with something. My "longing" for a comment to all this backlash--not even an answer or explanation, just a comment--is the same sort of longing I get when I'm presented with an ambiguous and difficult-to-swallow ending. In any medium.

Yea it can definitely be frustrating. I'm still skeptical that giving us the "ending we want" is the way to go. It might be bad for business, if nothing else. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

It's not just bad for business. It's bad for artistic expression and free speech.

[Jackal7713]

xxZealouSocitYxx wrote...

Jackal7713 wrote...

xxZealouSocitYxx wrote...

Come on guys. Be more mature and just accept his opinion even if he disagrees with us. Different strokes for different folks. There's no point in hating on him for liking the game ending.

I'm sorry bud, but I'm sick of people calling me entitled becuase I'm a paying customer that is unhappy with a finished product and that I have no right to voice a complaint. Or when I voice my complaint I'm acting "entitled" and that I'm encroaching on Biowares artistic rights. Its a total BS argument.

As paying customers we are entitled to voicing complaints, of course. But, the people who actually enjoy the game/ending are entitled to that same priviledge. Voice your flaws in his argument all you want as it's honest critisism. But people going, "LOLNOPE. Ending waz bad, You're an idiot for liking it," aren't really being mature.

I, for one, hate the ending and would be happy to voice my thoughts on it. But I also respect those who enjoy it.  

I agree buddy. I've just reached my boiling point due to the game reviewers saying we should just shut up and give Bioware our money after being lied to.
 And if I hear one more IGN editor say I'm acting entitled, I'm going to entitle myself to kicking him in the quad. j/k
/end rage

Modifié par Jackal7713, 15 mars 2012 - 01:40 .

[saracen16]

BurtieBee wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

Sarevok Synder wrote...

saracen16 wrote...



They're not flaws. They're not plot holes. Who the **** are you to say that it is "obvious"? Why don't you tell us what these flaws are instead of acting so high and mighty?

So you're happy with a three "choice" ending, the choice consisting of which colour to watch the ending in? Can't you read, since I said it above?

It's not three choices. Your thinking is too linear. It's a branched ending. Did you save the krogan or you didn't? Did you save the Quarians or the Geth, or both? This was said before the release of the game by Casey Hudson:

"This story arc is coming to an end with this game. That means the
endings can be a lot more different. At this point we're taking into
account so many decisions that you've made as a player and reflecting a
lot of that stuff. It's not even in any way like the traditional game
endings, where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got
ending A, B, or C."It's more like there are some really obvious things that are
different and then lots and lots of smaller things, lots of things about
who lives and who dies, civilizations that rose and fell, all the way
down to individual characters. That becomes the state of where you left
your galaxy. The endings have a lot more sophistication and variety in
them."

How about since star child controlled everything anyway, why was Sovereign required to activate the relay, why couldn't star child do it, considering it was the citadel.

Starchild couldn't do it because it created and controlled the Reapers. Yes, it was part of the Citadel, but the Reapers were created to send the signal to the keepers to open it. The Protheans, however, tinkered with that signal before the cycle was released... IN THE KEEPERS. The Catalyst controls the Citadel and the Reapers, but NOT the keepers.

Did you... did you just use that quote without a TRACE of irony?

Yeah, and I'll use it again:

"This story arc is coming to an end with this game. That means the
endings can be a lot more different. At this point we're taking into
account so many decisions that you've made as a player and reflecting a
lot of that stuff. It's not even in any way like the traditional game
endings, where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got
ending A, B, or C."It's more like there are some really obvious things that are
different and then lots and lots of smaller things, lots of things about
who lives and who dies, civilizations that rose and fell, all the way
down to individual characters. That becomes the state of where you left
your galaxy. The endings have a lot more sophistication and variety in
them."

Notice the second-last statement.

So much for irony.

[Sarevok Synder]

saracen16 wrote...

It's not three choices. Your thinking is too linear. It's a branched ending. Did you save the krogan or you didn't? Did you save the Quarians or the Geth, or both? This was said before the release of the game by Casey Hudson:

"This story arc is coming to an end with this game. That means the
endings can be a lot more different. At this point we're taking into
account so many decisions that you've made as a player and reflecting a
lot of that stuff. It's not even in any way like the traditional game
endings, where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got
ending A, B, or C."It's more like there are some really obvious things that are
different and then lots and lots of smaller things, lots of things about
who lives and who dies, civilizations that rose and fell, all the way
down to individual characters. That becomes the state of where you left
your galaxy. The endings have a lot more sophistication and variety in
them."


Starchild couldn't do it because it created and controlled the Reapers. Yes, it was part of the Citadel, but the Reapers were created to send the signal to the keepers to open it. The Protheans, however, tinkered with that signal before the cycle was released... IN THE KEEPERS. The Catalyst controls the Citadel and the Reapers, but NOT the keepers.

A, B and C is exactly what we got.

Star child requiring anybody else to active the relay is a cop out, to cover for the fact nothing that happened in ME1 mattered. If star child couldn't do that simple task then it's an idiot, incapable of controlling the reapers.

Modifié par Sarevok Synder, 15 mars 2012 - 01:37 .

[FoxShadowblade]

While I appreciate your opinion and how well you state it, I disagree.

But nice to see someone who is willing to defend their stance with more than ten words.

[loungeshep]

saracen16 wrote...

PeterG1 wrote...

These are great discussions, I've been enjoying all your thoughts. A lot of these discussions has opened my eyes to different possibilities and the like.

It's tough. I hope we hear something from the BW guys at some point soon. My guess is they're doing conference calls with EA LA all week (and month for that matter) trying to come up with something. My "longing" for a comment to all this backlash--not even an answer or explanation, just a comment--is the same sort of longing I get when I'm presented with an ambiguous and difficult-to-swallow ending. In any medium.

Yea it can definitely be frustrating. I'm still skeptical that giving us the "ending we want" is the way to go. It might be bad for business, if nothing else. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

It's not just bad for business. It's bad for artistic expression and free speech.

Yes. Mass Effect 3 is essentially causing dictatorships and slavery....

I agree with the OP about the game, I also agree that the ending needs more.  ANd I hope we do get an ending DLC.

[Drake_1000]

Seriously why e.v.e.r.y people who dont hate the endings have to start a thread about that ? And why so many people reply ? They are a minority, dont see the point to try to convince them when all they want is show how smart they are to see what you cant.

[saracen16]

Sarevok Synder wrote...

A, B and C is exactly what we got.

No, A, B, or C plus or minus saving/killing the geth plus or minus saving/killing the quarians plus or minus saving/killing the krogan plus or minus comforting/punching Khalisah the reporter plus or minus helping/shoving off Conrad Verner plus or minus... is the ending I got... and the list goes on, really, because all those sub-plots had their endings completed prior to the game's ending... which by the way is more like a series than a movie.

Star child requiring anybody else to active the relay is a cop out, to cover for the fact nothing that happened in ME1 mattered. If star child couldn't do that simple task then it's an idiot, incapable of controlling the reapers.

No, it is not a cop-out. Starchild ushered the Reapers to come to the galaxy, but it could not activate the mass relays because the Reapers had to send that signal. In the end, you realize that starchild's motives are questionable, because it even rationalizes that it believes that it's doing the best for organic life. The mechanisms of the Citadel is such that the Keepers receive a signal from a vanguard controlled by starchild, and the Keepers activate it. Starchild then sent Sovereign to investigate, and hence we have ME1.

See? We're debating that now because we already know what the established universe has given us.

[Vaktathi]

PeterG1 wrote...

 I just finished the game. Oh man, there's so much to say. I'm so torn over everything even now I'm starting to doubt what I've written below. Haha...

This game is Art. And it's a blockbuster.

I know everyone is posting their thoughts and this thread will probably quickly get swept under the pages. I'll try to keep this brief and if any of the bioware guys happen to see, well, like the millions of us out there commenting, I would love of course to hear your honest thoughts. I know I won't (I shouldn't) hear any explanations and literary analyses, not from the BW developers, anyway, I doubt we'll hear much from them on that regardless. But on the concept of gaming as art and, what I have to say below, man, I'd love to hear thoughts:

The ending was poetic. It was beautiful. I sat and watched the ending with a feeling of satisfaction and, in a weird way, sadness. These feelings didn't come from the game alone; if I remove myself from the game a little, I realize that this “feeling” that I got from the game is the same sort of feeling I get when I finish a really great novel, or a poem, a great film, or amazing music. It's sort of an enlightened feeling. I've never had that happen before in a video game. Certainly not with a space opera, anyway.

There's a lot of arguments running the forums right now and both BW and EA are absolutely listening. I used to work at a big media company (in Chicago) and our VP knew a number of guys who worked at EA LA. The type of feedback, ehh maybe not from us here in the forums, but from the press and from things like the Child's Play drive, are definitely getting their attention. But regardless of whether or not this attention is going to convince BW
to create a new ending or some type of “happily ever after” comic remains to be seen.

But I can with confidence say that the endings we are presented with were crafted from the hearts of those crazies up in Edmonton, and they mean the best with what they made. These endings were important to them and they were made artistically, not a PR stunt, not a way to sell more DLC or anything along those lines.

The meat of what I want to get it with this: This is a blockbuster game, this is a huge franchise, and because of that, there's a very large number of players who fork over very large sums of cash to be entertained. Enlightenment is awesome, but to most of us, we really just want to be entertained. As do most anyone who loves to read or watch a movie or listen to great music.

So it's a tough call for the BW guys. Make an ending that's enlightening, or make one that's, err, entertaining! If we were playing Dear Esther (a little indie game from Scotland) we'd expect a beautiful, enlightening ending. But many of us don't want or expect such an ending for ME3. Because, to many of us (not all of us, I'm still torn myself) we just want something fun. I won't lie, I'm sad I never got to have that second bottle of Brandy with Chakwas. I never got my Shep to see Miranda again. Ah! It aches right now just to think about it. Wow, a video game has never
had that kind of profound effect on me as a player. And from the sounds of it, many of you too, fellow gamers!

Let's look at a movie as a metaphor: there's a little Austrian film called The White Ribbon, which has an ambiguous, difficult, and yes, enlightening ending that leaves the viewer exhausted. What would happen if Michael Bay's Transformer's franchise ended in a way like the White Ribbon ended (this is just an example, ANY movie that has an ambiguous and poetic ending could count)? It'd be catastrophic! Us viewers would hate it! We'd be profoundly upset! I doubt Paramount would change the ending, though. For one thing, history has shown thatin movies anyway, the press isn't kind to that (like Heaven's Gate in 1979—they changed the movie to catastrophic results). It could show the artist as being either weak or not having a full vision of his/her work.

BW probably knows that their franchise is much more akin to Transformers than to the White Ribbon. Again, ME is huge around the world. So, yes, the easy and perhaps even preferred way would be to give us the ending we want. We want to be entertained here as we do with Transformers. They know who their target audience is and they probably knew the ending we would have liked to have seen.

But we didn't get that, we got something...memorable. As Hudson said in that interview, it is memorable. But something else is happening too. A video game did what a movie can't do. Not now anyway. It's insane! Think about it, a video game blockbuster franchise stepped deeply into the arena of “poetic art.” What types of endings we'd only see in a game like Dear Esther is now, here, at Transformers level. That's a big thing. It's not a game about beating the reapers anymore. It's about life and philosophy and love and fear I mean the abstractions go on. Other games have tried this (I think Deus Ex HR tried it. Not well, it was dramatically and plot-wise weak) and failed. BW didn't fail at all; our anger and sadness is all a part of what happened in-game. I think
that's why so much passion is behind it, at least partially.

I don't think changing the ending would be for the best, but it could happen (like I said, I still want that brandy with Chakwas). I also think that we so badly WANT the ending we imagined we'd choose in our 30+ hours of playing the game, we're forming fabricated fantasies of what happens at the end. That's fine by BW, we can debate it forever; again, I imagine Hudson and the gang probably get a smile from that (as would any artist). But as we argue all this, think about it a little more outside the game, look at the industry and video games and look at what BW did here.

Again, this thread will probably quickly get swept over, but if you read it this far, thanks very much, I'd love to hear anyone's thoughts. In a weird way, and again it might be the profound effect of the game on me, I feel oddly at peace now with my own internal struggle over that dang ending after having written this. So, yea: thanks BW, regardless how I feel about it, it most certainly is memorable (in more ways than one).

Edit: Sorry weird formatting issues had to fix.

It was "art" when Deus Ex did it 12 years ago, same exact control/destroy/merge options and same red/blue/green color-codings, when the entire game was fairly clearly building up to it.

It's not "art" 12 years later and hamfisted in at the last minute. It feels out of place and forced.

[saracen16]

Drake_1000 wrote...

Seriously why e.v.e.r.y people who dont hate the endings have to start a thread about that ? And why so many people reply ? They are a minority, dont see the point to try to convince them when all they want is show how smart they are to see what you cant.

Generalizations like yours don't deserve to be dignified with a response. You argue that we want to show you how "smart" we are, and here you are belittling us by calling us a minority.

Fascists.

[saracen16]

Vaktathi wrote...


It was "art" when Deus Ex did it 12 years ago, same exact control/destroy/merge options and same red/blue/green color-codings, when the entire game was fairly clearly building up to it.

It's not "art" 12 years later and hamfisted in at the last minute. It feels out of place and forced.

You and your lot are not interested in debating, are you? You just keep repeating and repeating the same asinine points over and over again.

[zarnk567]

BurtieBee wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

Sarevok Synder wrote...

saracen16 wrote...



They're not flaws. They're not plot holes. Who the **** are you to say that it is "obvious"? Why don't you tell us what these flaws are instead of acting so high and mighty?

So you're happy with a three "choice" ending, the choice consisting of which colour to watch the ending in? Can't you read, since I said it above?

It's not three choices. Your thinking is too linear. It's a branched ending. Did you save the krogan or you didn't? Did you save the Quarians or the Geth, or both? This was said before the release of the game by Casey Hudson:

"This story arc is coming to an end with this game. That means the
endings can be a lot more different. At this point we're taking into
account so many decisions that you've made as a player and reflecting a
lot of that stuff. It's not even in any way like the traditional game
endings, where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got
ending A, B, or C."It's more like there are some really obvious things that are
different and then lots and lots of smaller things, lots of things about
who lives and who dies, civilizations that rose and fell, all the way
down to individual characters. That becomes the state of where you left
your galaxy. The endings have a lot more sophistication and variety in
them."

How about since star child controlled everything anyway, why was Sovereign required to activate the relay, why couldn't star child do it, considering it was the citadel.

Starchild couldn't do it because it created and controlled the Reapers. Yes, it was part of the Citadel, but the Reapers were created to send the signal to the keepers to open it. The Protheans, however, tinkered with that signal before the cycle was released... IN THE KEEPERS. The Catalyst controls the Citadel and the Reapers, but NOT the keepers.

Did you... did you just use that quote without a TRACE of irony?

IRONY IN YOUR QUOTE

[saracen16]

FoxShadowblade wrote...

While I appreciate your opinion and how well you state it, I disagree.

But nice to see someone who is willing to defend their stance with more than ten words.

Funny, because most of the crowd on your side is defending it with less than that.

[Sarevok Synder]

saracen16 wrote...

No, A, B, or C plus or minus saving/killing the geth plus or minus saving/killing the quarians plus or minus saving/killing the krogan plus or minus comforting/punching Khalisah the reporter plus or minus helping/shoving off Conrad Verner plus or minus... is the ending I got... and the list goes on, really, because all those sub-plots had their endings completed prior to the game's ending... which by the way is more like a series than a movie.

No, it is not a cop-out. Starchild ushered the Reapers to come to the galaxy, but it could not activate the mass relays because the Reapers had to send that signal. In the end, you realize that starchild's motives are questionable, because it even rationalizes that it believes that it's doing the best for organic life. The mechanisms of the Citadel is such that the Keepers receive a signal from a vanguard controlled by starchild, and the Keepers activate it. Starchild then sent Sovereign to investigate, and hence we have ME1.

See? We're debating that now because we already know what the established universe has given us.

Where were our decisions shown? We were shown nothing. The choice was A, B and C. I don't care how your try to spin it. That was the choice, a different colour to watch the same video.

So, yes, star child was an idiot. It couldn't open the relay it was a part of.

Modifié par Sarevok Synder, 15 mars 2012 - 01:48 .

[Pairikas]

Well, you can Paint the End in Blue, Red or green, guess thats somithing like Art. Very Bad Art.

But I want to Paint it Black!

[Myrmedus]

Valah79 wrote...

Magic nonsensical Space Magic melding synthetics and organics, which somehow, brings peace and joy and happiness to the universe isn't art. Just like changing color schemes, isn't art. Discussing the pro's and cons of the Genophage with Mordin in ME 2, that was deep, that was enlightening, that was art.

This was deadlines, and budget cuts, there's nothing philosophic or intelligent about the ending.

Another plothole: Why couldn't the Reapers have done the Synthesis themselves?

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?

Stupid.

Modifié par Myrmedus, 15 mars 2012 - 01:51 .

[saracen16]

Sarevok Synder wrote...

Where were our decisions shown? We were shown nothing. The choice was A, B and C. I don't care how your try to spin it. That was the choice, a different colour to watch the same video.

So, long story short, you think that my argument is garbage but you don't have anything substantial to back up yours with.

Fine.

So, yes, star child was an idiot. It couldn't open the relay it was a part of.

Not everything is black and white. You take the game too literally. The grand ending of the game was intentional, and I hope to God that BioWare doesn't change one bit of it for self-entitled fans.

[Riddic]

OP doesn't get why people are irate. They were promised unique and different endings based off the way they played the game and made their Shepard. All of the 38 hours I put in to get the best possible outcome (or worst depending on choices) meant absolutely nothing.