23455 réponses à ce sujet

[Blachier]

Acknowledge Me!

[RiGoRmOrTiS_UK]

its nice to know we havn't been listened too. Casey's repsonse ignored everything we asked for answers to. Absolutly and totally pathetic!

[ArkenRennatta]

You cut content from the game, either because you were trying to be "high concept" or because of pure laziness. Either way? Sorry, not going to cut it. Shepherd would ask questions, Shepherd would get all the information before making his choice. No, not -my- Shepherd, every Shepherd. There are some characteristics to the character that are universal, Paragon or Renegade. Shepherd has lived, breathed, and ate nothing but Reapers for years of his life (and un-life). He would ask questions, he would learn everything he could. You turned off the characters brain and removed his ability to make a choice, to learn what it ALL meant, because..? I dunno, only you people can answer that question, though I suspect the answer won't be a very compelling one.

And that's just one aspect of the ending that was handled poorly. We've also got teleporting squad members, a cowardly Joker who tried to run from the battle, a Shepherd coming back to life (maybe) on a destroyed space station, a fleet of thousands of aliens trapped on a destroyed Earth with no chance for escape, and friends whose fate is left uncertain. You dropped the ball, Bioware, time to pick it up and play nice with your fans. If you don't? Things are going to go very, very badly for you.

Modifié par ArkenRennatta, 17 mars 2012 - 12:56 .

[Karait]

One change I really liked about Mass Effect 3 which probably hasn't been recycled to death in all posts is how we now had 3 missions on Tuchanka and Rannoch as a part of a "campaign". It brought back my memories of games like Strike Commander where you'd move to a war theater and get breaks between missions to get a look at how things are. Just sayin

[Fred_MacManus]

 For perspective:

Spent $80 (plus a couple hundred more after including first two games and DLC) expecting to get video game equivalent of Iliad.

First 3 chapters, got what I paid for.

Last ten minutes, got video game equivalent of dirty limericks on bathroom walls.

Not impressed. Like buying leather-bound edition of Homer and finding last ten pages had been torn out and replaced by childish scribblings.

Modifié par Fred_MacManus, 17 mars 2012 - 12:59 .

[Blachier]

Concern 1: Mass Effect was scientific and realistic, NOT fantasy. The ending of Mass Effect 3 was abruptly unrealistic, illogical, and confusing in every way imaginable.

How does one "rewrite" synthetic DNA? Why was my team on earth one second, and flooring it with Joker in the Normany the next? Why was Joker flooring it when all three possible explosions didn't harm organics or ships in the area? How do I see Shepard living/breating despite the citadel exploding in the vacuum of space if I chose red (destroy).

Concern 2: Bioware has been consistently above the crop in game designers, they along with Blizzard Entertainment chose effort over time for profit.

Why is Mass Effect 3's ending earily similar to the play called the Crucible, in which the underlying theme is "conflict is inevitable", and ME3's is "synthetic conflict is inevitable"?

Why was Tali's picture a stock photo of a Middle Eastern model from Google Images?

Concern 3: Why did I find the day one DLC "From Ashes" files on my disc? Between the ending, Tali, and this, I feel like ME3 is Bioware flipping off it's fans. (At least have us download the thing so we don't feel like we paid for it twice?)

Come on Bioware, why?

[Quickdraw]

Blachier constantly spamming the same thing over and over really is not the best way of getting your point across it won't speed them up replying. Say your bit and leave it as that there's corporate loopholes and so forth they can't just whip up a reply.

At some point they will reply, if its based on the fact they still want people to complete it i am fine with that, worst thing ever for someone is reading story spoiler before finishing it. Yes the ending has caused bad pr i heard the ending before i even got the copy in the uk, until i got there loved everything.

The ashes thing i thought was partly mentioned a lot of the textures are from the game normally so wouldn't be in the dlc download, also the squad select is something hard to rewrite after release and has to be pre planned im sure. i did see videos of the squad mate being enabled without the dlc installed but is that all you get what about the story aspects of it?.

[Flyers215]

Fred_MacManus wrote...

ReapersSniper wrote...

My favorite moment is when I took the game back to gamestop and used to it to pre order Resident Evil Op Raccoon City with it, since you guys ruined the whole series.

Wow. Around here, so many people have returned it that Gamestop isn't taking it any more.

I call bull**** on that one.  I work for GameStop and we can't just turn games away.  I remember when a store I worked at had over 140 copies of GTA IV just lying around.  A GameStop would welcome a copy of this game, especially since no store in my area has a used one yet.

[Blachier]

Spam or not, we deserve answers. I'm done being internet civil with EA affiliates.

[ReapersSniper]

Fred_MacManus wrote...

ReapersSniper wrote...

My favorite moment is when I took the game back to gamestop and used to it to pre order Resident Evil Op Raccoon City with it, since you guys ruined the whole series.

Wow. Around here, so many people have returned it that Gamestop isn't taking it any more.

Lol I'm not suprised.

[Tenshi]

though im not much into these kind of games, for example i like visual novels :-p saying this so you can imagine how exelent work you did, really loved mass effect though shooters are not really my thing.
my favorite moment? probably bottle shooting with garrus.
and ending..... well. it was average. yes whole game was exelent and ending was average, not bad. not good :-)

[Sgt.Kimble]

I played out each ending and all it is was the same thing with a differnt colour and a slight change. Who ever came up with the ending starting with the little boy being in it and just being lazy instead of putting real effort into what happens. Oh yes it was sad the child died, oh i know the game needed to end but that just killed the entire series for me in one shot.

[Fynny]

so uhm... given the ending and that little statement released by Casey Hudson... single player campaign DLCs featuring Shepard... how?

Dont get me wrong, I'd dig a few more chances to play Shepard and all, but that's not going to change the endings. Even IF you got the 'he survived' ending (which I didnt because there was no way I was going to destroy the geth after having brokered a peace and all that! and edi too) the mass relays are busted, the normandy is god knows where and your LI probably with it.

if you make DLCs before the actual ending to the game... well that's nice and all but wont really change the frustration factor most people feel I think. Plus it'd be a bit weak. And the only way I can actually see the ending changes is one of those 'it was all a dream!' or 'whoops guess what we found a new super powerful hidden resource on planet xyz that can destroy the reapers without taking down the relays!'.

I am interested to see how this works out but part of me (the one bitter about the ending when I think about it more than I should) thinks the DLC will focus on MP content. Because changing the end (and a lot of us sappy people did want at least an option for a happy end) seems kinda hard at this point.

I dont mind Shepard dying. in fact I was expecting it. but I woulda loved to have an option to have him survive (without going totally against his character and frying edi and the geth!)... at least long enough to say farewell or something.

oh yeah... favorite moment... emergency induction tube! That almost won the game for me. that conversation is epic. And that is why Tali deserves more than just a photo... but that's a whole different thread.

Modifié par Fynny, 17 mars 2012 - 01:09 .

[Rafa Medina]

I loved the game and had fun all through out. Unfortunately, the ending for me was disappointing. It felt out of place and i don't know why there wasn't any closure regarding the characters and races that we met and were affected by our actions. With a game like mass effect where player choice is key, its kind of a given that the game would have that. I was expecting some epic ending like mass effect 1 and 2 where you got goosebumps but that's just me. The ending just doesn't feel right. I also agree with other people saying that their choices didn't seem to matter at the end and some major choices like saving the rachni queen just ended up as a number in the war assets. I would have loved to see the rachni fleet side by side with the other races in the galactic alliance. That would be pretty cool. All in all game is awesome though i do hope ending is fixed or continued.

[_Cmdr Shepard N-7]

You want some feedback, well I found this to be very good...

From Eternalsteelfan:


A. First, a few pet peeves. Tropes are very popular for making generalizations about parts of stories we dislike, but they have a tendency to be overused and misused.

The Crucible isn't a MacGuffin. The best and most common example of an actual MacGuffin is the briefcase in Pulp Fiction; we don't know what is in the briefcase and we don't know how or why it functions, but it's important because it motivates the characters and drives the plot. Basically, a MacGuffin is important only because it's important. The Crucible in Mass Effect 3 is an actual plot device (a MacGuffin is a very specific subset of this); we are told what it is and what it's function is right from the beginning and it's use in the climax is in line with this.

The Crucible isn't an example of deus ex machina. Again, we know all along that the Crucible's function is to stop the Reapers, it's introduced at the beginning of the story, it's importance is reinforced throughout, and it's function during the climax is in line with what is expected. An example of Mass Effect ending with deus ex machina would be: the Reapers win the battle of Earth and are seemingly unstoppable, suddenly, and with no previous justification, an even more advanced race emerges from deep space and destroys the Reapers, saving Earth. The difference is obvious; one is a clearly defined plot device, the other is a magical fix with no precedent in the story.

Being the only time I'm going to talk about tropes, and for humorous purposes only, here are some I find more accurate for the ending: the lack of resolution after all the setting-shifting events, especially the lack of clarity in regards to the future of the setting and it's characters (including the protagonist and in some cases the antagonist force) may be considered no ending, the Reaper-God-Child and unexpected side effects of the Crucible may be considered diabolus ex machina, and the sudden shift of themes from hope and fighting the impossible fight to that of true art is angsty can be seen as an example of a sudden downer ending. I'm certain there are more we can shoehorn as applicable, but this is as far as I'm willing to go into tropes.

I want to iterate that I dislike how much we over analyze tropes and assign them as labels to similar and overgeneralized devices and themes. Stories are usually divergent enough from other stories that generalizing aspects of them with tropes rarely do them justice and are ambigous enough that what tropes a story actually uses are debatable. I only addressed the aforementioned devices of deus ex machina and MacGuffin because they are venerable and distinct enough that their usage in reference to Mass Effect 3 is clearly wrong. TL;DR: tropes are convenient but our time is better spent looking at the specifics of a given story.


B. The resolution of Mass Effect 3 falls short for many reasons. More than I'd care to get into, truth be told,  so I'll try to punch on at least some of the major failings through the eyes of a screenwriter.


1. The ending feels jarring and out of place and there is little closure, this is a sympton of the ending failing to live up to what we come expect from the story. As I've previously said, "Mass Effect is a conventional story with conventional expectations". A conventional story, almost all stories, follow a pretty standard plotline: Introduction - Ascending Action - Climax - Descending Action - Resolution. In film we break it up into 3 acts, roughly: the first act is the introduction, the second act is the rising action and longest act of the story, and the third act is the climax and resolution.

Mass Effect 3 and the previous games follow this plotline both as individual stories and in the grand scheme of things as a trilogy (a trilogy is basically the three act structure writ large), that is until the final moments of 3. For reference, The battle for Earth is the climax of the series and the run across no man's land to the Citadel beam is the climax of the specific game; with this in mind, the Citadel sequence is the final part of the descending action and the resolution for both the game and series, the part where the antagonist is finally defeated, the themes and dramatic questions are answered, and the loose ends are tied. Or rather, it should be. After the defeat of the Illusive Man (the antagonist role is somewhat muddled and blurry towards the end of the story, more on that briefly), the protagonist has reached his goal, the defeat of the Reapers is at hand; conventionally, this is where the protagonist would succeed, the Crucible fire, and the Reapers destroyed. Instead, the story grows convoluted (once again, this is supposed to be the resolution) at the height of the scene by jarring us out of it with the bizarre, dreamlike sequence of Sheperd's ascent on the magic platform and the introduction of an ancient and seemingly god-like form who expounds the final choice between three options, all presented symbolically in appearance and action: one which mirrors a co-antagonist's desire which has been reinforced throughout as wrong and contradictory of the protagonist's; one which is downright bizarre and is almost completely outside the scope of the game's main themes save for being somewhat in line with the primary antagonistic forces' goal; and one which accurately mirrors the protagonist's goal from since the beginning. The results of these choices vary and are wide-reaching, creating a massive upheaval of the story world, while being unclear.  All of the characters and the entire setting are left to an uncertain and sometimes confusing fate.

Just looking at what I've typed, it's apparent this is not a resolution. New information is introduced throughout the entire sequence rather than tying loose ends. New information shouldn't be introduced in a resolution unless it directly resolves something or is quickly resolved itself; definitively, it's the opposite of what a resolution is. In layman's terms, this is what makes us feel like there are more questions than answers.

The fate of the characters and the final destination they reach in the story are crucial to the resolution, especially on the scale of a trilogy. During the ascending action, right before the climax of the no man's land run, we are given a send off from all of the characters; this is both out of order for a conventional plotline (more fitting the descending action rather than ascending) and dimished by the implications of the ending. Ultimately, it is through the characters that we most directly identify with the story and find the meaning, the lack of resolution in this regard is especially unsatisfying.

The resolution is where the audience is supposed to find the tale's "ever after", be it happy or sad. Mass Effect 3 completely lacks any sense of "ever after".


2. Video games, like film, are a visual medium; the ending tells us what happens rather than shows us what happens. This is easy to overlook but very important. Visual mediums for story are all about what we see. Another cardinal sin of storytelling commited during the ending is the description of, and differences between, the options in the final choice are almost all conveyed through exposition. The cinematics themselves, what we actually see, are extremely similar and all the implications of the choice we make are conveyed through what the exposition had told us. This is very poor storytelling and worse still to be considered the resolution.


3. Ambiguity, lack of clarity, plot holes. Relating to the previous points, the ending is excessively ambiguous and unclear. With only unclear exposition before the choice and without sufficient data presented afterwards, many situations are unaccounted for and either lack clarity at best or appear as plot holes at worst. The crash landing of the Normandy is a clear example of this ambiguity, both in it's plausibility and implications for the fate of the crew.


4. Nothing is gained by breaking convention and attempting to make the ending enigmatic or profound. Assuming this was the writers' goal, this is another failing. Some believe, myself included, that the writers' tried to use the jarring impact of an unconventional, imperfect ending to hammer home a message or theme (presumably: pre-destination, the uncontrollable nature of fate, and the individual's limited ability to impact the world). This, however, comes at the cost of the story and the audience's pleasure, a cost that is far too high for the nature of storytelling.


5. The resurgence and emphasis on The Illusive Man during the resolution as well as the lack of interaction with the Reapers and, more specifically, Harbinger,  detracts from the Reapers as the antagonist. A lot of people expected a "boss fight" of sorts or a closing discussion with Harbinger at the end. This is a perfectly understandable and legitimate expectation. During the climax, we are almost defeated by Harbinger, the avatar for the Reapers as antagonist, however, during the resolution, it is the indoctrinated Illusive Man that takes takes center stage. Though he unwittingly is an assisting force for the Reapers, he is not directly representative of them, merely their influence. TIM's role is more fitting that of an obstacle to be overcome during the rising action.

The prominance of The Illusive Man as the final foe to be overcome detracts from the overall threat and importance of the true antagonist, the Reapers.




6. Shepherd is not a tragic hero. A common debate I see is between people who think there should be a happy ending and people who think such an ending would be out of place or impossible, sometimes refering to Shepherd as "tragic". The simple fact is, Shepherd has no tragic flaw nor does he make a tragic mistake; had such a tragic characteristic existed, it could be a foregone conclusion he would die. Overcoming the Reapers may be an impossible task, but the impossible is
routinely overcome in the Mass Effect trilogy and other epics. As is, there is nothing in the story that would railroad Shepherd towards an inevitable demise, the difficulty of his task makes his death likely, but there's nothing that should remove the possibility of a happy ending. This may be why many people want a "happy" or "brighter" ending, there's no setup nor payoff to Shepherd's death and without those it may feel cheap; storytelling is all about setup and payoff.

For an example of a good tragic hero, look no farther than Mordin Solus. His tragic mistake was the creation of the genophage. When a desperate need for krogan intervention arose and the genophage was the reason they refused, Mordin fulfilled his tragic role by sacrificing and redeeming himself. There's a big setup for the genophage throughout the series and Mordin's involvement is setup in the second game as a huge internal conflict for him. In three, this all pays off beautifully with either his redemption or brutal murder at Shepherd's hands before he can succeed. This is proper execution for a tragic character. From what I've seen, this is one of the most beloved and well-received storylines in the game; compare that to the ending's reception.


These points were written as a stream of conscious, I'm sure there are plenty of things I've missed or didn't feel like going in depth about, but I think those are some of the most important ones.


C. As I was writing this I read the Final Hours thread containing comments from Mac Walters and Casey Hudson as well as Walters' scribbled notes for the ending. Honestly I was taken aback.

Judging the content Hudson cut based on his feel for "the moment", I'd say his feel for emotional beats and his judgement of what was expendable for story economy was atrocious. The first Mass Effect was inundated at times with exposition and had very poor economy, this ending, on the other hand, is something of an opposite with not nearly enough information.

Walters' notes scrawled across loose leaf disappointed me. The ideas are clearly not fleshed out at all, strictly drawing board material, the execution we see in game is indicative of that. " Lots of speculation from everyone" is somewhat repulsive, as if providing an unclear, poorly planned ending that leaves your audience unsatisfied and grasping at straws for answers is somehow good storytelling. It gives me the inclination that the ending really was just for publicity.

I hope it continues to backfire.

Anyway, I'm off. Any interest or questions or if you want to pick my brain about storytelling, we'll call this a work in progress.


Updated: point 6

[Lupus Canivus]

Cmdr Shepard N-7 wrote...

You want some feedback, well I found this to be very good...

From Eternalsteelfan:


A. First, a few pet peeves. Tropes are very popular for making generalizations about parts of stories we dislike, but they have a tendency to be overused and misused.

The Crucible isn't a MacGuffin. The best and most common example of an actual MacGuffin is the briefcase in Pulp Fiction; we don't know what is in the briefcase and we don't know how or why it functions, but it's important because it motivates the characters and drives the plot. Basically, a MacGuffin is important only because it's important. The Crucible in Mass Effect 3 is an actual plot device (a MacGuffin is a very specific subset of this); we are told what it is and what it's function is right from the beginning and it's use in the climax is in line with this.

The Crucible isn't an example of deus ex machina. Again, we know all along that the Crucible's function is to stop the Reapers, it's introduced at the beginning of the story, it's importance is reinforced throughout, and it's function during the climax is in line with what is expected. An example of Mass Effect ending with deus ex machina would be: the Reapers win the battle of Earth and are seemingly unstoppable, suddenly, and with no previous justification, an even more advanced race emerges from deep space and destroys the Reapers, saving Earth. The difference is obvious; one is a clearly defined plot device, the other is a magical fix with no precedent in the story.

Being the only time I'm going to talk about tropes, and for humorous purposes only, here are some I find more accurate for the ending: the lack of resolution after all the setting-shifting events, especially the lack of clarity in regards to the future of the setting and it's characters (including the protagonist and in some cases the antagonist force) may be considered no ending, the Reaper-God-Child and unexpected side effects of the Crucible may be considered diabolus ex machina, and the sudden shift of themes from hope and fighting the impossible fight to that of true art is angsty can be seen as an example of a sudden downer ending. I'm certain there are more we can shoehorn as applicable, but this is as far as I'm willing to go into tropes.

I want to iterate that I dislike how much we over analyze tropes and assign them as labels to similar and overgeneralized devices and themes. Stories are usually divergent enough from other stories that generalizing aspects of them with tropes rarely do them justice and are ambigous enough that what tropes a story actually uses are debatable. I only addressed the aforementioned devices of deus ex machina and MacGuffin because they are venerable and distinct enough that their usage in reference to Mass Effect 3 is clearly wrong. TL;DR: tropes are convenient but our time is better spent looking at the specifics of a given story.


B. The resolution of Mass Effect 3 falls short for many reasons. More than I'd care to get into, truth be told,  so I'll try to punch on at least some of the major failings through the eyes of a screenwriter.


1. The ending feels jarring and out of place and there is little closure, this is a sympton of the ending failing to live up to what we come expect from the story. As I've previously said, "Mass Effect is a conventional story with conventional expectations". A conventional story, almost all stories, follow a pretty standard plotline: Introduction - Ascending Action - Climax - Descending Action - Resolution. In film we break it up into 3 acts, roughly: the first act is the introduction, the second act is the rising action and longest act of the story, and the third act is the climax and resolution.

Mass Effect 3 and the previous games follow this plotline both as individual stories and in the grand scheme of things as a trilogy (a trilogy is basically the three act structure writ large), that is until the final moments of 3. For reference, The battle for Earth is the climax of the series and the run across no man's land to the Citadel beam is the climax of the specific game; with this in mind, the Citadel sequence is the final part of the descending action and the resolution for both the game and series, the part where the antagonist is finally defeated, the themes and dramatic questions are answered, and the loose ends are tied. Or rather, it should be. After the defeat of the Illusive Man (the antagonist role is somewhat muddled and blurry towards the end of the story, more on that briefly), the protagonist has reached his goal, the defeat of the Reapers is at hand; conventionally, this is where the protagonist would succeed, the Crucible fire, and the Reapers destroyed. Instead, the story grows convoluted (once again, this is supposed to be the resolution) at the height of the scene by jarring us out of it with the bizarre, dreamlike sequence of Sheperd's ascent on the magic platform and the introduction of an ancient and seemingly god-like form who expounds the final choice between three options, all presented symbolically in appearance and action: one which mirrors a co-antagonist's desire which has been reinforced throughout as wrong and contradictory of the protagonist's; one which is downright bizarre and is almost completely outside the scope of the game's main themes save for being somewhat in line with the primary antagonistic forces' goal; and one which accurately mirrors the protagonist's goal from since the beginning. The results of these choices vary and are wide-reaching, creating a massive upheaval of the story world, while being unclear.  All of the characters and the entire setting are left to an uncertain and sometimes confusing fate.

Just looking at what I've typed, it's apparent this is not a resolution. New information is introduced throughout the entire sequence rather than tying loose ends. New information shouldn't be introduced in a resolution unless it directly resolves something or is quickly resolved itself; definitively, it's the opposite of what a resolution is. In layman's terms, this is what makes us feel like there are more questions than answers.

The fate of the characters and the final destination they reach in the story are crucial to the resolution, especially on the scale of a trilogy. During the ascending action, right before the climax of the no man's land run, we are given a send off from all of the characters; this is both out of order for a conventional plotline (more fitting the descending action rather than ascending) and dimished by the implications of the ending. Ultimately, it is through the characters that we most directly identify with the story and find the meaning, the lack of resolution in this regard is especially unsatisfying.

The resolution is where the audience is supposed to find the tale's "ever after", be it happy or sad. Mass Effect 3 completely lacks any sense of "ever after".


2. Video games, like film, are a visual medium; the ending tells us what happens rather than shows us what happens. This is easy to overlook but very important. Visual mediums for story are all about what we see. Another cardinal sin of storytelling commited during the ending is the description of, and differences between, the options in the final choice are almost all conveyed through exposition. The cinematics themselves, what we actually see, are extremely similar and all the implications of the choice we make are conveyed through what the exposition had told us. This is very poor storytelling and worse still to be considered the resolution.


3. Ambiguity, lack of clarity, plot holes. Relating to the previous points, the ending is excessively ambiguous and unclear. With only unclear exposition before the choice and without sufficient data presented afterwards, many situations are unaccounted for and either lack clarity at best or appear as plot holes at worst. The crash landing of the Normandy is a clear example of this ambiguity, both in it's plausibility and implications for the fate of the crew.


4. Nothing is gained by breaking convention and attempting to make the ending enigmatic or profound. Assuming this was the writers' goal, this is another failing. Some believe, myself included, that the writers' tried to use the jarring impact of an unconventional, imperfect ending to hammer home a message or theme (presumably: pre-destination, the uncontrollable nature of fate, and the individual's limited ability to impact the world). This, however, comes at the cost of the story and the audience's pleasure, a cost that is far too high for the nature of storytelling.


5. The resurgence and emphasis on The Illusive Man during the resolution as well as the lack of interaction with the Reapers and, more specifically, Harbinger,  detracts from the Reapers as the antagonist. A lot of people expected a "boss fight" of sorts or a closing discussion with Harbinger at the end. This is a perfectly understandable and legitimate expectation. During the climax, we are almost defeated by Harbinger, the avatar for the Reapers as antagonist, however, during the resolution, it is the indoctrinated Illusive Man that takes takes center stage. Though he unwittingly is an assisting force for the Reapers, he is not directly representative of them, merely their influence. TIM's role is more fitting that of an obstacle to be overcome during the rising action.

The prominance of The Illusive Man as the final foe to be overcome detracts from the overall threat and importance of the true antagonist, the Reapers.




6. Shepherd is not a tragic hero. A common debate I see is between people who think there should be a happy ending and people who think such an ending would be out of place or impossible, sometimes refering to Shepherd as "tragic". The simple fact is, Shepherd has no tragic flaw nor does he make a tragic mistake; had such a tragic characteristic existed, it could be a foregone conclusion he would die. Overcoming the Reapers may be an impossible task, but the impossible is
routinely overcome in the Mass Effect trilogy and other epics. As is, there is nothing in the story that would railroad Shepherd towards an inevitable demise, the difficulty of his task makes his death likely, but there's nothing that should remove the possibility of a happy ending. This may be why many people want a "happy" or "brighter" ending, there's no setup nor payoff to Shepherd's death and without those it may feel cheap; storytelling is all about setup and payoff.

For an example of a good tragic hero, look no farther than Mordin Solus. His tragic mistake was the creation of the genophage. When a desperate need for krogan intervention arose and the genophage was the reason they refused, Mordin fulfilled his tragic role by sacrificing and redeeming himself. There's a big setup for the genophage throughout the series and Mordin's involvement is setup in the second game as a huge internal conflict for him. In three, this all pays off beautifully with either his redemption or brutal murder at Shepherd's hands before he can succeed. This is proper execution for a tragic character. From what I've seen, this is one of the most beloved and well-received storylines in the game; compare that to the ending's reception.


These points were written as a stream of conscious, I'm sure there are plenty of things I've missed or didn't feel like going in depth about, but I think those are some of the most important ones.


C. As I was writing this I read the Final Hours thread containing comments from Mac Walters and Casey Hudson as well as Walters' scribbled notes for the ending. Honestly I was taken aback.

Judging the content Hudson cut based on his feel for "the moment", I'd say his feel for emotional beats and his judgement of what was expendable for story economy was atrocious. The first Mass Effect was inundated at times with exposition and had very poor economy, this ending, on the other hand, is something of an opposite with not nearly enough information.

Walters' notes scrawled across loose leaf disappointed me. The ideas are clearly not fleshed out at all, strictly drawing board material, the execution we see in game is indicative of that. " Lots of speculation from everyone" is somewhat repulsive, as if providing an unclear, poorly planned ending that leaves your audience unsatisfied and grasping at straws for answers is somehow good storytelling. It gives me the inclination that the ending really was just for publicity.

I hope it continues to backfire.

Anyway, I'm off. Any interest or questions or if you want to pick my brain about storytelling, we'll call this a work in progress.


Updated: point 6

 Excellent articule - they are still not "talking" to us. They are just trying to keep the lid on and sell, sell, sell.

[Sonicsnak3]

We aren't going Anywhere until we get a direct response to our questions Casey + BioWare, we love the series you guys created too much for that. C'mon guys we know your better than this if you have a plan now's the time to quell your communities frustration and disappointment!

[joiner87]

Sonicsnak3 wrote...

We aren't going Anywhere until we get a direct response to our questions Casey + BioWare, we love the series you guys created too much for that. C'mon guys we know your better than this if you have a plan now's the time to quell your communities frustration and disappointment!

Do it, you know you want to tell us, dont you already have enough money

[inblack]

Mass effect 1, 2 and 3 are the best RPG games ever made. even if you didnt wana do something about the endings id still buy merchandise and play

[wilji1090]

I think overall my favorite part about Mass Effect 3 was the attack on the Cerberus Base, taking on the Illusive Man's attack dog was probably the best thing ever, plus I just loved his whole "Shepard... you're in my chair." line.

[GizmoKodiak]

Hmm good article. But I think the analysis actually strengthens the fact that the writers of ME3 knew what they were doing... Now bear with me... I am sure, as professionals, they TOO know story structure and more importantly the Hero's Journey paradigm. They would be very aware of the problems such an ending would have. Yet as the analyser has pointed out, the writers had written wonderful endings to story arcs in earlier parts of the game.

It almost seems... Intentional that they made it convoluted, odd, bizarre. It does not fit the "Le Art" ending, or even a downer ending. Its bizarre for the sake of it.

There's more in store... We just have to... hope.

[Ham Solo]

Cheap deus ex machina, horrible endings, 4 functions on one button, which becomes especially terrible in frantic multiplayer sessions. Prothean looking nothing like the statues in ME1. DLC, DLC everywhere.

Other than that, I enjoyed the game.

[Fynny]

Cmdr Shepard N-7 wrote...

You want some feedback, well I found this to be very good...

From Eternalsteelfan:


A. First, a few pet peeves. Tropes are very popular for making generalizations about parts of stories we dislike, but they have a tendency to be overused and misused.

The Crucible isn't a MacGuffin. The best and most common example of an actual MacGuffin is the briefcase in Pulp Fiction; we don't know what is in the briefcase and we don't know how or why it functions, but it's important because it motivates the characters and drives the plot. Basically, a MacGuffin is important only because it's important. The Crucible in Mass Effect 3 is an actual plot device (a MacGuffin is a very specific subset of this); we are told what it is and what it's function is right from the beginning and it's use in the climax is in line with this.

The Crucible isn't an example of deus ex machina. Again, we know all along that the Crucible's function is to stop the Reapers, it's introduced at the beginning of the story, it's importance is reinforced throughout, and it's function during the climax is in line with what is expected. An example of Mass Effect ending with deus ex machina would be: the Reapers win the battle of Earth and are seemingly unstoppable, suddenly, and with no previous justification, an even more advanced race emerges from deep space and destroys the Reapers, saving Earth. The difference is obvious; one is a clearly defined plot device, the other is a magical fix with no precedent in the story.

Being the only time I'm going to talk about tropes, and for humorous purposes only, here are some I find more accurate for the ending: the lack of resolution after all the setting-shifting events, especially the lack of clarity in regards to the future of the setting and it's characters (including the protagonist and in some cases the antagonist force) may be considered no ending, the Reaper-God-Child and unexpected side effects of the Crucible may be considered diabolus ex machina, and the sudden shift of themes from hope and fighting the impossible fight to that of true art is angsty can be seen as an example of a sudden downer ending. I'm certain there are more we can shoehorn as applicable, but this is as far as I'm willing to go into tropes.

I want to iterate that I dislike how much we over analyze tropes and assign them as labels to similar and overgeneralized devices and themes. Stories are usually divergent enough from other stories that generalizing aspects of them with tropes rarely do them justice and are ambigous enough that what tropes a story actually uses are debatable. I only addressed the aforementioned devices of deus ex machina and MacGuffin because they are venerable and distinct enough that their usage in reference to Mass Effect 3 is clearly wrong. TL;DR: tropes are convenient but our time is better spent looking at the specifics of a given story.


B. The resolution of Mass Effect 3 falls short for many reasons. More than I'd care to get into, truth be told,  so I'll try to punch on at least some of the major failings through the eyes of a screenwriter.


1. The ending feels jarring and out of place and there is little closure, this is a sympton of the ending failing to live up to what we come expect from the story. As I've previously said, "Mass Effect is a conventional story with conventional expectations". A conventional story, almost all stories, follow a pretty standard plotline: Introduction - Ascending Action - Climax - Descending Action - Resolution. In film we break it up into 3 acts, roughly: the first act is the introduction, the second act is the rising action and longest act of the story, and the third act is the climax and resolution.

Mass Effect 3 and the previous games follow this plotline both as individual stories and in the grand scheme of things as a trilogy (a trilogy is basically the three act structure writ large), that is until the final moments of 3. For reference, The battle for Earth is the climax of the series and the run across no man's land to the Citadel beam is the climax of the specific game; with this in mind, the Citadel sequence is the final part of the descending action and the resolution for both the game and series, the part where the antagonist is finally defeated, the themes and dramatic questions are answered, and the loose ends are tied. Or rather, it should be. After the defeat of the Illusive Man (the antagonist role is somewhat muddled and blurry towards the end of the story, more on that briefly), the protagonist has reached his goal, the defeat of the Reapers is at hand; conventionally, this is where the protagonist would succeed, the Crucible fire, and the Reapers destroyed. Instead, the story grows convoluted (once again, this is supposed to be the resolution) at the height of the scene by jarring us out of it with the bizarre, dreamlike sequence of Sheperd's ascent on the magic platform and the introduction of an ancient and seemingly god-like form who expounds the final choice between three options, all presented symbolically in appearance and action: one which mirrors a co-antagonist's desire which has been reinforced throughout as wrong and contradictory of the protagonist's; one which is downright bizarre and is almost completely outside the scope of the game's main themes save for being somewhat in line with the primary antagonistic forces' goal; and one which accurately mirrors the protagonist's goal from since the beginning. The results of these choices vary and are wide-reaching, creating a massive upheaval of the story world, while being unclear.  All of the characters and the entire setting are left to an uncertain and sometimes confusing fate.

Just looking at what I've typed, it's apparent this is not a resolution. New information is introduced throughout the entire sequence rather than tying loose ends. New information shouldn't be introduced in a resolution unless it directly resolves something or is quickly resolved itself; definitively, it's the opposite of what a resolution is. In layman's terms, this is what makes us feel like there are more questions than answers.

The fate of the characters and the final destination they reach in the story are crucial to the resolution, especially on the scale of a trilogy. During the ascending action, right before the climax of the no man's land run, we are given a send off from all of the characters; this is both out of order for a conventional plotline (more fitting the descending action rather than ascending) and dimished by the implications of the ending. Ultimately, it is through the characters that we most directly identify with the story and find the meaning, the lack of resolution in this regard is especially unsatisfying.

The resolution is where the audience is supposed to find the tale's "ever after", be it happy or sad. Mass Effect 3 completely lacks any sense of "ever after".


2. Video games, like film, are a visual medium; the ending tells us what happens rather than shows us what happens. This is easy to overlook but very important. Visual mediums for story are all about what we see. Another cardinal sin of storytelling commited during the ending is the description of, and differences between, the options in the final choice are almost all conveyed through exposition. The cinematics themselves, what we actually see, are extremely similar and all the implications of the choice we make are conveyed through what the exposition had told us. This is very poor storytelling and worse still to be considered the resolution.


3. Ambiguity, lack of clarity, plot holes. Relating to the previous points, the ending is excessively ambiguous and unclear. With only unclear exposition before the choice and without sufficient data presented afterwards, many situations are unaccounted for and either lack clarity at best or appear as plot holes at worst. The crash landing of the Normandy is a clear example of this ambiguity, both in it's plausibility and implications for the fate of the crew.


4. Nothing is gained by breaking convention and attempting to make the ending enigmatic or profound. Assuming this was the writers' goal, this is another failing. Some believe, myself included, that the writers' tried to use the jarring impact of an unconventional, imperfect ending to hammer home a message or theme (presumably: pre-destination, the uncontrollable nature of fate, and the individual's limited ability to impact the world). This, however, comes at the cost of the story and the audience's pleasure, a cost that is far too high for the nature of storytelling.


5. The resurgence and emphasis on The Illusive Man during the resolution as well as the lack of interaction with the Reapers and, more specifically, Harbinger,  detracts from the Reapers as the antagonist. A lot of people expected a "boss fight" of sorts or a closing discussion with Harbinger at the end. This is a perfectly understandable and legitimate expectation. During the climax, we are almost defeated by Harbinger, the avatar for the Reapers as antagonist, however, during the resolution, it is the indoctrinated Illusive Man that takes takes center stage. Though he unwittingly is an assisting force for the Reapers, he is not directly representative of them, merely their influence. TIM's role is more fitting that of an obstacle to be overcome during the rising action.

The prominance of The Illusive Man as the final foe to be overcome detracts from the overall threat and importance of the true antagonist, the Reapers.




6. Shepherd is not a tragic hero. A common debate I see is between people who think there should be a happy ending and people who think such an ending would be out of place or impossible, sometimes refering to Shepherd as "tragic". The simple fact is, Shepherd has no tragic flaw nor does he make a tragic mistake; had such a tragic characteristic existed, it could be a foregone conclusion he would die. Overcoming the Reapers may be an impossible task, but the impossible is
routinely overcome in the Mass Effect trilogy and other epics. As is, there is nothing in the story that would railroad Shepherd towards an inevitable demise, the difficulty of his task makes his death likely, but there's nothing that should remove the possibility of a happy ending. This may be why many people want a "happy" or "brighter" ending, there's no setup nor payoff to Shepherd's death and without those it may feel cheap; storytelling is all about setup and payoff.

For an example of a good tragic hero, look no farther than Mordin Solus. His tragic mistake was the creation of the genophage. When a desperate need for krogan intervention arose and the genophage was the reason they refused, Mordin fulfilled his tragic role by sacrificing and redeeming himself. There's a big setup for the genophage throughout the series and Mordin's involvement is setup in the second game as a huge internal conflict for him. In three, this all pays off beautifully with either his redemption or brutal murder at Shepherd's hands before he can succeed. This is proper execution for a tragic character. From what I've seen, this is one of the most beloved and well-received storylines in the game; compare that to the ending's reception.


These points were written as a stream of conscious, I'm sure there are plenty of things I've missed or didn't feel like going in depth about, but I think those are some of the most important ones.


C. As I was writing this I read the Final Hours thread containing comments from Mac Walters and Casey Hudson as well as Walters' scribbled notes for the ending. Honestly I was taken aback.

Judging the content Hudson cut based on his feel for "the moment", I'd say his feel for emotional beats and his judgement of what was expendable for story economy was atrocious. The first Mass Effect was inundated at times with exposition and had very poor economy, this ending, on the other hand, is something of an opposite with not nearly enough information.

Walters' notes scrawled across loose leaf disappointed me. The ideas are clearly not fleshed out at all, strictly drawing board material, the execution we see in game is indicative of that. " Lots of speculation from everyone" is somewhat repulsive, as if providing an unclear, poorly planned ending that leaves your audience unsatisfied and grasping at straws for answers is somehow good storytelling. It gives me the inclination that the ending really was just for publicity.

I hope it continues to backfire.

Anyway, I'm off. Any interest or questions or if you want to pick my brain about storytelling, we'll call this a work in progress.


Updated: point 6

Thanks for reposting. excellent read

[David Falkayn]

First, I want to thank all you developers and writers at Bioware for all your hard work. sweat, and creativity in developing the entire Mass Effect franchise--including ME3.  Please forgive the long post, but after playing the game, I do have some thoughts on this issue I'd like to share, if I may.  I think where the problem lies is that the
developers and writers towards the end of the game got so wrapped up in creating ART (In which you succeeded developers, make no mistake about that) that they forgot they were also developing a Game.   I get the
impression ya'll at Bioware were so intent on creating a tragedy that you forgot that one of the goals of a game is basically, to win it.  It's the difference between interactive and passive entertainment.  This is where things can get detailed and confusing, so please bear withme as I try to explain:

I know that when I see Romeo and Juliet or Antigone on stage or on screen or when I see a TV series like
"Buffy" or "Angel", bad things are going to happen to characters I've come to care about--yeah, you don't like it when it happens, but you have that "fourth wall" of separation between you and the show.  Yes, Laurence Olivier as Caesar, Meryl Streep in Sophie's Choice, Vanessa Redgrave as Lady MacBeth move me, but there's still that slight disconnect because I'm not in the play, I'm a passive observer.  Therefore, I can enjoy the tragedy for what it is and yes, I feel for Antigone's plight in having to choose between her duty to her dead brothers and her uncle's commands or Buffy in having to confront and kill Angel in Season 2, but at the end, I know that I'm merely the observer--there's no way I can make Antigone--or Buffy or Angel--change his/her mind.  ME3's different--in a game, because the format is interactive, the player feels that he/she is Shepard (or the Warden/Hawke/CharName).  Because of that, the legendary fourth wall breaks down just a little bit (or a whole lot, depending), and the audience (us) becomes much more engaged in the story because we are now active participants rather than merely passive observers. We expect ourchoices as Shepard/the Warden/Hawke/CharName to make a difference and for 99% of the game, they do just that.  It's that 1% or so at the end of ME3--and it's a
crucial 1% that has people upset and I can see why.  To create ART, some plot elements were forced on players rather than the players being able to choose otherwise--in other words, our Shepards were forced to act like your Shepard.  Now, if you're writing a screenplay or theater play, that's great--because your audience are passive observers.  But in an RPG, that can be the kiss of death.  While players will accept some "railroading" for purposes of plot, they expect to have at least some input into crucial actions or decisions--and we didn't necessarily get that in the endings. 

Turning to the endings, the simple truth is that some gamers do want the cottage in the country with a rose garden and white picket fence where they can live with their LI and raise blue babies/human
babies/adopt Krogans or whatever--however trite and conventional that might sound to some.  Others want a more epic send off, going out in a blaze of glory, while still others are content with the endings given, and other players have other ideas as far as endings go.  Now, there's no way Bioware is going to be
able to please everyone, but I think that there must be a way of providing a means where the people who want the "cottage with white picket fence" ending, the "go out in a blaze of glory" ending, and the "heroic triumph over the odds" endings get what they want  while at the same time keeping the bittersweet endings, thus allowing the developers and writers to feel that they've still produced ART.  I hope at least that ya'll at Bioware would give that some thought at least

Again, thank you Bioware for all your hard work--you guys did good.

Modifié par David Falkayn, 17 mars 2012 - 01:44 .

[Dogmatix314]

I got to say I wasn't disappointed in the game at all. I pretty much liked everything. In my mind the best part of the game was Geth/Quarian conflict (but I liked several other plot twists nearly as much).

However I would have liked the game even more if there was a decent epilogue which would tell what my Shepard actually accomplished. I can guess myself what the ending meant, but it's not the same as seeing it explained on my screen. That's why I feel those over 100 hours of playing the trilogy just ended so abruptly and left me empty (even if I liked everything).

The epilogue I mentioned might have included Shepard's love interest commenting the final outcome and how everything is now better for example. Actually that idea is slightly comparable to the ending of Code Geass: Lelouch of the Rebellion -anime (which has gathered a lot of positive feedback on it's ending.. and this didn't leave me feel empty afterwards). And a warning to anyone who might have became interested in that anime: Watch the whole thing, don't spoil the ending for yourself!