23455 réponses à ce sujet

[AkaXan]

Changer the Elder wrote...

AkaXan wrote...

(...)
The end looks like it was writen outwidth the peer aproval procedure and it shows. The proof being the steller writing through the games up until the reaper beam.

BTW I paid for the game, I listend to Casy Hudson promice that player choices mattered and that to give ME3 an A, B or C ending that dosent reflect the players input would be completly wrong. So I have every right to point out how awful the endings are and to call Bioware out on thier lies.

Sometimes, you have to make a stand as the creator and draw the line between what's OK as a peer review and what do you keep despite it, because you believe in it. No one is an all-knowing genius, sometimes it works, sometimes it backfires. But considering how some fanfictions look like, some peer reviews and ideas are something what I wouldn't want in my story. And it being my story, I can actually decide whether to put it in or no. That's the right of any writer and artist out there. I'm not saying it would be in this case a bad or good idea to listen to alternative views and follow them, but I have to give credit to the people and say they had the right to take that stand. And seeing the critical approval of the game, it's not like it was a bad call for everyone.

And by any means, I'm not saying you don't have the right to point out how awful the endings are. I just say you don't have the right to demand Bioware as a company or the people behind it to immediately quit their business.

Critical approval seems to be the only vidication Bioware have at this point and it means very little.
Not one review said anything about the endings that dont fit with ME own lore and logic, nor did the reviewers bring up the fact that user choices are rendered useless by those awful enings, which leads me to beleive many reviewers either did not finish the game, gave Bioware a free pass or more sinisterly the review was bought.

Critical approval is all fine and well but it wont pay the bills. Using Artistic Integrity as a sheild dosent work when you have cut characters out of your game to sell back as DLC (Javik). EA/Bioware can hold up critical approval all they want, but when your fans/paying customers are pointing out how badly wrong things have went, its better to listen to them as they are the ones that will buy your future games and DLC.

And may I point out that I have never said Bioware or EA should immediatly leave the games business, once again you seem to have seen what you want. Just to be clear I said that anyone who cant understand basic writing techniques in the field of story telling/writing should either be let go or removed from having any power over final say. Not once did I say EA or Bioware need to go.

If you want I can reup my reasoning why the endings dont work.

Modifié par AkaXan, 08 avril 2012 - 07:58 .

[jeweledleah]

http://penny-arcade....to-ea-marketing

old video. can't believe I forgot about it. thought that explains Evil Chris thinking his comments are ok. you know with EA's history of mocking, well everyone, including their very own potential or current customers..

[Changer the Elder]

AkaXan wrote...

Critical approval seems to be the only vidication Bioware have at this point and it means very little.
Not one review said anything about the endings that dont fit with ME own lore and logic, nor did the reviewers bring up the fact that user choices are rendered useless by those awful enings, which leads me to beleive many reviewers either did not finish the game, gave Bioware a free pass or more sinisterly the review was bought.

(...)

And may I point out that I have never said Bioware or EA should immediatly leave the games business, once again you seem to have seen what you want. Just to be clear I said that anyone who cant understand basic writing techniques in the field of story telling/writing should either be let go or removed from having any power over final say. Not once did I say EA or Bioware need to go.

Sadly, I cannot directly contradict the theory that some of the reviewers didn't finish the game. I've seen it many times (with games and comic books) to know it's unfortunately a disturbingly common bad habit. But there are reviewers who didn't mention the ending breaking the lore or the lack of choice because they genuinely don't think the endings did anything like it. I cannot say how many, but they are out there (as a journalist, I'm in contact with the field, as a mass effect fan, I've brought that issue up multiple times with my colleagues). All's a matter of perspective.

And I'm sorry for the latter part, that one's obviously my fault. I used your line about removing writers and used it as a sort of spring-board to adress generally to local populace. I suppose I've been seeing way too many comments on that matter to keep clear head about it. My apologies for the misconception.

[Ghostsaxon]

It is so sad. You can Hear the Death Gurgle of the Role Playing Game. Where your given a Character a plot a then begin creating your story. Bioware you were one of the first with Baldurs Gate, i was there enjoying it and you caught my eye. Please dont let it die like this! You sold out kotor as an mmo please dont kill off the rpg like this!

[Sydeno]

I will risk to say that I actually want a good ending, but it's not the biggest thing I want...

I want to get rid of those A, B, C ending that somebody (I won't say who) told us we wouldn't have...
I want to have endings bound to my choices along the 3 games...
I want descriptions about what happens AFTER the victory or the defeat...
Etc.

I certainly don't want further explaination about those endings...
I certainly don't want to see this dream boy ordering me to do what HE wants me to do...
I certainly don't want Bioware to fool us with anything obviously out of nowhere...

I want endings... Real endings...

And chocolate cake...

[StillOverrated]

Changer the Elder wrote...

Ah, yes, people like that unfortunately exist. On both sides, I've met more than a few. Both equally annoying. Some of them will grow out of it. I hope.
I'll try to answer that question, even though I find it a bit hard to phrase it correctly. It's sometimes hard to tell why something works when you fail to see why shouldn't it work (I imagine it's the same vice versa). From what I've read, the most complaints are about the Catalyst being deus ex machina thrown in last minute, higher power thingy... etc. But if I remember correctly, Reapers not being the top dog of the show was hinted several times during the series, the first mention I think going even way back to ME1. Of course, it was usually scientific speculation presented in-universe, one the creators could or couldn't follow, but following it doesn't break any known rules. I don't think the Catalyst was any kind of higher power, even though I believe the writers did leave that unspecified for any fan to think of a theory (something like The Strange Man in Red Dead Redemption, even though that one's a bit extreme case.). To me, he might've been a creation made to keep history from repeating itself, made by the first (or even second or third) civilizations to prevent synthetics taking over the galaxy and therefore basically exterminating evolution cycle. Or he migh've been a remnant of that civilization rather than its creation, something like how every culture harvested by the Reapers becomes a Reaper on its own.
The fact that it was shown as the child from Earth is a bit unfortunate and for those who already were WTF at the end added insult to injury, obviously (I can't think of anyone who wouldn't be annoyed by him by that point in the game, forest runs were haunting in story with the fallen comrades' voices, but gameplaywise quite frustrating). But then again, it needed some form and face. I can't say I have a better idea for its casting.

As for the Normandy part, that's the most disputable for me. I thought one major plothole was why would it be jumping through a mass relay, but then I found out it didn't have to be. It's animation is pretty much the same when it travels FTL only. Of course, it still doesn't explain how did the two of your squadmates you've taken on Earth survive to show up on board. That one, I don't know and am confused about.

Now I have to ask you, how don't they work? I'd like to get into that perspective, too.

Fair enough, and I can see where you're shooting from. Also, my English teacher has always told us it was much easier to pinpoint exactly where people went wrong than it is where people went right.

That said, here goes my side. Warning: WALL OF TEXT.
The way I see it, the first reason it doesn't work because it's essentially based on the premise that life is predictable. The Catalyst/Reaperkid/whatever you might want to call it and whoever programmed it is acting on the premise that life sticks to one pattern; but that's just the thing: It doesn't. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Shepard failed to stop the Reapers and the cycle continues: What if the next dominant race never developes artificial intelligence? Why 50, 000 years? What if the next cycle does build AIs but they do it in 85, 000 years instead? Will they just send a Reaper every 50, 000 years to take a look and if nothing's going on it'll just return to where they came from? Or will they just harvest the most advanced civilizations at that point to uphold the cycle, or because they may eventually build synthetics? What if the next cycle DOES build synthetics and, after a brief civil war, they decide to grant synths the same rights as organics because they've achieved sentience and should be treated like sentient beings and, subsequently (I'm basing my logic here on the fact that this is pretty much all the Geth wanted), there is no war? Should these people be punished for trying to make their lives easier? Inversely, what if the rebellion occured much earlier? They were already 300 years late this cycle. If the Citadel has a synthetics-off button, why not just leave it there in case there IS a synth rebellion? Or better yet, why not leave a message saying "Synths will wipe us all out! Plz to not be building them!"? Why not kill the synthetics in order to stop the rebellions rather than killing organics? If it's war they want to avoid, why not just wipe out anyone who goes into war? Organics do a pretty good job of killing themselves. How do they know synthetics will win? Javik tells you that the protheans had almost won their rebellion war, but the Reaper attack threw them off-track.
I know that, from our perspective and based on the experience we have with technology, it's impossible to program software to account for a lot of these variables, but one'd think that people who had mastered the technology of turning organic milkshake into sentient ships would have figured something out. Then, again, that may be too much for me to ask.

And then we have the cyclic logic you can't argue against. The holokid tells you that the created will always rebel against the creators, but, all evidence Shepard has points to the contrary. Maybe the geth would have eventually rebelled, maybe they wouldn't, but Shepard doesn't know that. As far as he/she knows, the Quarians were essentially to blame for the Morning war and the fact that the Geth didn't follow and kill the Quarians after they left the Homeworld just tips the scale in their favor. Legion tells you that Geth don't want war with organics. They just wanna hub somewhere and be happy or something. Maybe they'll come back and kill everyone, maybe they won't. Again, Shep doesn't know that. Then, we have EDI, who, whether you play Paragon or Renegade, makes a monumental effort of understanding people and, if you encourage her, she even alters her programming to risk dying before letting anything happen to Joker and the crew just because she doesn't want to function like the Reapers. Maybe Joker will die and EDI will go bat**** crazy and kill everyone but Shep has no evidence that this would happen. It makes no sense that he/she would just accept the Holokid's logic at face value, and yet you can't argue with it. It's complete chracater derailment for Shepard who's been questioning everything and everyone and generally going against the odds.

Then there's the fact that they never explain just how any of Shepard's options work. They explain to you every other thing in the universe, even going as far as explaining how biotic implants in Adepts give them the ability to create mini-black holes but they don't even touch this? This is the most important decision you have to make in the game, and they refuse to tell you just how it will work.
Take Synthesis, for example. [copy+paste from another one of my posts] How does that
thing completely rewrite every single being in the galaxy's DNA? Even
more so considering there is no such thing as synthetic DNA. How does
everyone somehow survive having their DNA forcibly rewritten? How did
the Reaperkid know this would work if he had never tried it before? For
all it and Shepard knew, every being in the galaxy could have just been
horribly mutated or died a moderately quick but extremely agonizing
death. Why would Shepard agree to this? Would this work on the Geth and
EDI considering there IS no such thing as synthetic DNA? Why would
Shepard force something this big onto the entire Galaxy without their
consent, especially when he/she, paragon or renegade, was completely
horrified at what Dr. Archer did to his brother in Project
Overlord; which is essentially the exact same thing on a more primitive
scale? How does this guarantee peace? What makes the Catalyst think
these people won't just build more synthetics that will decide they
don't need the hybrid abominations and kill them all?[/copy+paste from another one of my posts]. Not to mention this option goes against one of the underlying themes of the series: diversity = good; homogeny = bad. Javik even outright tells you that the reason they lost to the Reapers was because the Prothean Empire was too homogenized and the Reapers quickly got used to their fighting tactics. On the other hand, Shepard has been fighting to unite the galaxy against the Reapers, having long talks with Mordin about how diversity matters, brokering peace between different warring species and generally being against everyone being the same, even if for the sake of continuing to be an ass to other species (lol renegade) only for the Reaperkid to tell him/her that the only way to achieve peace is to make everyone the same.

Then there's the whole "Mass Effect has always been about self-sacrifice" argument I've been hearing around. Keep in mind I might be very wrong here: from what I gathered from my 15+ playthroughs, the underlying themes, intentional or not, are free will, freedom of choice and individuality. From the player being able to chart the course of their own adventure to the Geth and EDI essentially wanting this. Free will and the freedom to choose their own destiny. I could possibly fit the galaxy fighting so hard to keep their individuality as an example of the third. Again, I might be wrong.

Then there's the fact that some of the things they advertised the game with, namely our assets being important, were lies. Your war assets and your effective military strength are just numbers. Part of what made the Suicide Mission great is that you saw your companions generally being awesome. You saw the people you worked hard to keep alive kicking ass and taking names, but there was also the lingering risk of them dying. And your decisions mattered through it: if you send Garrus into the vent, for instance, rather than Tali, Kasumi or Legion, he'd die. And it was great! It was tense, it was gripping and if something went wrong, it was your own fault. And, if you worked for it, you could pull everyone out alive. Another thing you have to take into account is that Mass Effect is character-driven as well as story-driven, and the former just gets thrown out a window in the third act. The fact remains: Dragon Age: Origins spoiled us. They took every single small thing you did (such as giving the tavern wench some money or buying that girl's sword in the chantry back in Redcliffe) and told you exactly what happened to them because of you, even if with only text. I was expecting something like that from Shepard's last chapter. I wanted to know what happened to the people they made me care about; and the threw that out the window too

I get what they were trying to do with destroying the Mass Relays, though. We have to get rid of Reaper tech. But that worked when the Reapers were the antagonists. The second the Catalyst became the antaogonist, getting rid of the Mass Relays and other Reaper tech is pointless. They could have just made the Mass Relays distribute the energy but not be destroyed and it would have had the same effect.
I think that, all in all, the ending leaves too many questions out there, and that's not good for what is supposed to be a last chapter. [/wall of text]

And then there's the bit where they just got lazy. Or ran out of time. The exact same cutscene with some tweaks? Come on! BioWare is much better than this!

Changer the Elder wrote...
I never said you all do, I never said I mean you in particular. I'm sorry if I made it sound like it, I'm not very proficient in handling the subtleties and hidden tones of English language. But I've seen many claiming that and even though I couldn't be further from calling anyone stupid just because they like/dislike something, in this case, I'm making an exception. Anyone willing to claim for thirty hours that this is the best game they've played in their life only to do a six-a-clock turn because of the ending will hear it from me. But I'm glad you're not in that cathegory.

I agree completely. There's no reason five minutes of copy+paste cutscenes should ruin an entire gaming experience. That said, there IS still the fact that those five minutes essentially negate everything you've done over the course of three games and some people really don't like that. Hell, I don't like that. But I still don't agree that you should stop playing a game you enjoy because the last mission is crap. I usually stop right after saying my goodbyes and start over.

Changer the Elder wrote...
I understand how that is frustrating. I've been through something similar with different stories and different worlds. But yes, it's always hitting a nerve when something you care about goes through any kind of quality drop. And I do agree with the ending being subpar to the rest of the game. Even though I do like the idea with the Catalyst and do not disapprove of the purposeful ambiguity for everyone to make up their own story, it was quite obvious to me that the devs ran out of time in the end. Just the tiny detail that the memories got stuck on three default love interests from the first game or the hints from numerous devteam members about how they had to sacrifice bits and pieces of content to make the deadline support that. I'm curious about the Extended cut, for it might show us, besides removing a bit from that "ambiguity" part, how things were originally intended to end.

I'm curious as well, but I'm not holding my breath. I'm just hoping they'll use the entire writing staff this time. I think that what hurt the endings the most is the fact that you don't get to know what happened to the people you'd grown to care about. This is still a story/character-driven game, after all, and the character derailment and lack of closure is enough to get a lot of people's panties in a bunch, mine included.

Changer the Elder wrote...
It's true that Bioware is using "artistic integrity" as a bit of a doubt-proof shielding, maybe too much for even my taste, but seeing how some fans react here on the forums and imagining how some of the hate-mail they've got must've looked like, it's not like I can blame them for turtling in on a defensive scenario.

Way I see it, there's gonna be people threatening to kill you for something you did everywhere; but they brought some of it on themselves. I don't agree with people who think they should kill or fire everyone at BioWare (I've made a few jokes with my friends about bombing their HQ but that's all they were. Jokes) but I think BW shouldn't treat us all as whining little morons because we think they dropped the ball. Way I see it, all sides, pro-enders, retakers and some of the ME people should sit down and have a good long talk and maybe reach an agreement, like Bethesda's Broken Steel DLC or something. I don't see how it could happen, but it should.

Changer the Elder wrote...
Yikes, I'm sorry. As mentioned before, I'm not really that good with written text subleties, especially with foreign language. (Even though, I have to admit that some people, I really do want to punch, but that's another point entirely). I'll keep trying. Maybe I should try something like the elcor do, that might help...

Kinda makes two of us, really.

Edited for spelling and Lothering =/= Redcliffe.

Modifié par StillOverrated, 08 avril 2012 - 08:37 .

[Eryri]

I think the most depressing thing is that this "extension and clarification" DLC really seems to put the nail in the coffin of the indoctrination theory. I guess that will teach me to believe in something just because I really, really want it to be true.

[FairfaxLessee]

OK Godchild-riddle me this: if the created always rebel against their creators, why the holy **** haven't the Reapers rebelled against you? It's NOT like they haven't had plenty of time. Maybe that's why Sovereign didn't just call him to open the Citadel-they were on a break.

"Expanding" this ending is like trying to dig faster as a plan to get out of a hole before it rains.

I'm going to keep coming back to this, but what was wrong with the dark energy ending? Whoever scraped that for what they did is likely to go down on the same illustrious list as whoever made the decision that the Titanic didn't need lifeboats!

[Dunga780]

improperdancing wrote...

Dunga780 wrote...

Everyone keeps calling this art. It's not. It's a game. It was created for others to enjoy. Obviously, Bioware failed. What's astonishing is that they failed in such an odd way. They had everything right. It was a perfect game, until the end. And the ending was so bad, it invalidated all the previous enjoyment we got. I read an article that said some stores are actually giving full cash refunds, even for used copies, in order to satisfy customers. Forbes is covering this. This is a huge debacle, and Bioware is standing by it's "artistic integrity"? WTF! I think I'd respect them more if they said, "Yeah, we messed up. Sorry. We'll fix it." If a bridge design is faulty an engineer doesn't get to stand by his artistic integrity, He's told to fix it or else. This is a mess. Bioware, I love you. Fix it.

I disagree with you that Mass Effect 3 wasn't art, but I agree with your greater point.

The problem I have is with the idea that art can't be changed.  There is a reason, after all, that books have editors, or that movies have focus groups.  Almost every bit of "art" we consume has been changed numerous times to better cater to the consumer.  Editors exist to call out writers when they make bad decisions.

Ironically, issues typically arise when artists aren't at the mercy of editors.  It's how guys like George Lucas go from making amazing films to making utter garbage.  No one is around to tell him which ideas are good and which are stupid. 

I admit, 99% of the story is Art. No doubt. What I mean is that this isn't like a movie or a book. You cannot compare the two because they are different mediums. It seems like everyone is comparing it to Paintings or books or movies, but you can't do it. The whole point of Mass Effect was that the player helped create the end. So, let us compare the ending to other suitable examples of Art. Final Fantasy VII. Epic. Whole thing. No need to change. Ending is true to the game. Uncharted. Also awesome. Ending is true to the game. Compare games to games. They are a different kind of Art, requiring different standards and responses.

[Nerdy Elephant]

Yeah i agree, the Rannoch part was the best in the entire franchise, specially with Tali romanced, deeply touching...
Other great moments? The moment when you ''press the button'', brining the might of the galaxy on the reapers, after 50+ hours of gameplay, the pulse of the adrenaline knowing the fight is here (then the mediocre ending wrecked it a bit).

[No_MSG]

Here is my problem with the three endings:
Destroy: Unless it's Space Magic, Destroy will destroy all synthetics. This means: medicines, electronics, etc. Basically, every advanced race dies anyway. Hooray.
Synthesis: In addition to Space Magic DNA-rape, that's not how evolution works. Homogenization of DNA actually works against evolution. Hooray.
Control: I've just given my mind to a race of brainwashing sentient spaceships? That's going to work out as well as the sex demon who said I could survive her deadly sex braining.

Really, there needed to be a "No" option. No, I will not help you, you genocidal Deus Ex Machina.

[AkaXan]

Changer the Elder wrote...
Sadly, I cannot directly contradict the theory that some of the reviewers didn't finish the game. I've seen it many times (with games and comic books) to know it's unfortunately a disturbingly common bad habit. But there are reviewers who didn't mention the ending breaking the lore or the lack of choice because they genuinely don't think the endings did anything like it. I cannot say how many, but they are out there (as a journalist, I'm in contact with the field, as a mass effect fan, I've brought that issue up multiple times with my colleagues). All's a matter of perspective.

And I'm sorry for the latter part, that one's obviously my fault. I used your line about removing writers and used it as a sort of spring-board to adress generally to local populace. I suppose I've been seeing way too many comments on that matter to keep clear head about it. My apologies for the misconception.

I dont know if your interested or not but hers my reasoning as to why the endings dont work and what I think could improve both the end and regain fan trust.
First up some background.

I did everything in the Mass Effect games.
Full Paragon.
Saved the Rachni Queen.
All my squad lived in ME2.
I Cured the Genophage.
Save the Rachni Queen again. (Grunt Lived, After kicking ass)
Got the Krogan and the Turians onside.
United the Geth and the Qurains.
Got 7000 worth of war assets and 100% readieness.

And for what, did all my work lead to an outcome where it counted, where I could save everyone, even if it ment the end for my character. No not even close.
3 reasons why the endings are so badly broken..

1) Well rounded Characters and their storys are what make Mass Effect great. Good characters that we feel for is why we care about saving the Mass Effect universe. With little or no sign at the end, that any of the great characters, love interests or team mates are genuinly safe, after getting to know them and sort out their issues, its no wonder players feel hard done by as it all seems a bit pointless when all 3 endings seem to embarce all life dying in some fashion.
Great characters also extends to the villians. The Reapers work best as an unknowable force, it made things more intense knowing that, something so bad was coming to destroy everything and there would be no reasoning with it. Then the God/Reaper child showed up with his stupid, I invented sythetics to kill all organic life, to prevent organics inventing synthetic life, which in turn will kill them. The god child killed the Reapers as villians and killed player interest.

2) Lore and logic, dont spend 3 games building up story and backgrond, with a solid logic that works within the series, only to break lore, logic and story when it suits. Its cheap, insulting to players who have taken the time to invest in this world and most importantly never works. The high standard of writing throughout the games with the Genophage cure mission being a true highlight only serves to further expose how badly lore, logic and story are treated at the end.

3) Player interaction/choise. When the god child/reaper leader is introduced it signals the death of player choice and interaction within the Mass Effect world. The player no longer has control over how things play out, regardless of the work the player put in. Whats worse is that it kills Shepard as a leading force for the Mass Effect series. Shepard is no longer the games guiding focus.
Instead Shepard (much like the player) is told by the god child that he will be allowed to chose one of 3 outcomes the god child sees fit to grant. The second this happens Shepard no longer holds any narrative importance, its not Sheps story anymore its the stupid Reaper/God child story as they are the only one with any control over what happens.

Resolution and conclusion:
No one is saying that Bioware shouldnt guide the over arching story what they are asking for is that they hard work be reflected in the endings. let them have their passion for the characters and the ME world be reward if they put the work in, let them get their happy ending or let them have their shep spend their lats momenets with the love interest, let the player see that characters the love get some kind of closure.  It wouldnt even have effected Biowares plans for a restart of the ME universe as all they had to do was set the new games well after Shepard and co are dead. Nobody would have been upset by this approch as the Original ME game would have had a solid end

[FairfaxLessee]

No_MSG wrote...

Here is my problem with the three endings:
Destroy: Unless it's Space Magic, Destroy will destroy all synthetics. This means: medicines, electronics, etc. Basically, every advanced race dies anyway. Hooray.
Synthesis: In addition to Space Magic DNA-rape, that's not how evolution works. Homogenization of DNA actually works against evolution. Hooray.
Control: I've just given my mind to a race of brainwashing sentient spaceships? That's going to work out as well as the sex demon who said I could survive her deadly sex braining.

Really, there needed to be a "No" option. No, I will not help you, you genocidal Deus Ex Machina.

I think the addition of a "No" option is about the only way to salvage the current ending....

[FairfaxLessee]

No_MSG wrote...

Here is my problem with the three endings:
Destroy: Unless it's Space Magic, Destroy will destroy all synthetics. This means: medicines, electronics, etc. Basically, every advanced race dies anyway. Hooray.
Synthesis: In addition to Space Magic DNA-rape, that's not how evolution works. Homogenization of DNA actually works against evolution. Hooray.
Control: I've just given my mind to a race of brainwashing sentient spaceships? That's going to work out as well as the sex demon who said I could survive her deadly sex braining.

Really, there needed to be a "No" option. No, I will not help you, you genocidal Deus Ex Machina.

I think the addition of a "No" option is about the only way to salvage the current ending...

[Eryri]

People have talked about this already I know, but I really can't accept the contradictions in making the star kid's whole motivation the "preservation" of organic life. In what sense is a species preserved by breaking it down into grey goo and pumping it into a reaper? What about a species' culture?

Moreover, the neat thing about DNA is that it's self replicating. They wouldn't have to kill a species to sample its DNA. They could just use those robo-bug things the collectors had to extract a thimble full of blood from everyone on a planet, then copy it over and over again with the DNA polymerase reaction that every undergraduate biologist learns, until they had enough to make a reaper.

The reapers wouldn't even have to wait until a species became technologically advanced, they could do it during that planet's equivalent of the stone age when there would have no weapons to stop them. That way they wouldn't have to risk the previous generation of reapers getting destroyed.

Urgh - I'm getting way too obsessed by all these plot holes.

Modifié par Eryri, 08 avril 2012 - 08:43 .

[kylejhendrickson]

 I'm not sure I can say anything profound or revolutionary that hasn't been touched on before. 

However I find it frustrating that they (whoever is in control of this mess) aren't really committed to solving anything from their given statements so far. I won't pretend to understand the complexities of the game development business, and how much of an internal fight must be going on between those at the company that honestly care more about making a coherently good game and those whose jobs depend on turning out product on time for profit.

We said we didn't want clarity or closure on the bad ending, Yet that's what the route the say they are going to take. Great. Give us more of what we didn't like, that will make things better. ...

A metaphor I can think of would go something like this. Let's say you sit down at a restaurant and the waiter takes your order, later brining your food out, however it is spoiled or wrong. You are obviously dissatisfied and ask for it to be fixed. The waiter says "the cooks will make it however they want, it's part of their culinary vision" after much dissent and bickering the staff finally agrees to do something about it. However when they get back they bring an even larger amount of the same spoiled food back to you arranged in a different matter. When you try to retort by saying "this STILL isn't what I ordered, there is just MORE of it", they scoff at you and say you are a whiny customer with a sense of entitlement.

Not a perfect example, but I think it captures the point.

Modifié par kylejhendrickson, 08 avril 2012 - 08:48 .

[Caprea]

Changer the Elder wrote...

dea_ex_machina wrote...

(...)
Number one is is that BioWare purposefully advertised an ending with up to 16 (I think) different outcomes and fans took it for granted - they were promised an ending that would take your previous choices in all three games into account, an ending that would tie up all lose ends and answer all the questions.

(...)
If BioWare was only a bunch of artists that didn't have any obligations toward their fanbase, I'd accept the argument that the ending is theirs and it's up to them what they do with it. But first and foremost, they are a business company which purpose is to make money.

First of all, thank you for taking your time with my POV (and for not calling me an idiot just because we disagree - I really appreciate that). I tried my best to return the favor. So please, consider this a debate, not an argument

I understand the "failed promises" concept, but there is quite a number of endings. But most of them, just like killing Shepard in ME2 are hard to achieve because you'd have to suck terribly at playing the game. Besides the three paths, you can make the relay explode and kill everything with it or it may even backfire with doing nothing to the reapers at all. There is sixteen different outcomes for the game, but

Also, the whole ME3 is technically the ending. The player decides the whole closure as it unravels and ties the loose ends to the stories they've followed since ME1. You can resolve the quarian/geth conflict, Genophage, uplift the krogan... et cetera. In the end, you just get rid off the Reapers. There's not much choice with that.

The other point is philosophical. Yes, I agree that Bioware/EA/any other company. But I disagree that that ties them into any kind of obligation. They are not obliged to do anything. They should if they want to raise money, but that doesn't mean they "have to". They do have their rights to express themselves, artistically and otherwise. Of course, given the nature of their business, they should try to appeal as many people as possible, but still, it doesn't take their right to do with their own story as they decide. I don't believe fans have any right to "demand" anything. They can of course complain and/or voice their opinion, but turning agressive because the company doesn't bend to their will and whim is uncalled for.

No problem. Thanks to you as well, for not yelling at me because I challengend your points. Others would have "refuted" my arguments by just calling them BS. So yeah.


While I do agree that there are different outcomes, depending on which path you choose (controlling the reapers, destroying them or merging synthetic with organic life), I think the actual problems are that first of all, no matter which path you choose, it still comes down to the same: Relays are destroyed, Shepard dies, Normandy crashes on a very convenient jungle-like planet and the whole crew survives. Mind you, this is just a rough sketch.
But apart from a few details, the whole cutscene and outcome stay the same. You don't see the difference that should have been depicted there. At all. So yeah, what now is the difference between, say, controlling the reapers and destroying them? While you can imagine the difference, you cannot actually see it in the cutscene for it always is nearly the same, no matter which path you choose. This means that the player is forced to fill in blanks. It is up to their interpretation what the actual differences between the paths are.
So it all boils down to this: If the differences between the paths are not shown, they are not there.
And to be frank, I think this kind of thinking is legitimate. Why? Because so far, you have always seen the repercussions of your actions in Mass Effect. If they aren't shown in such a crucial point of the game, you can as well assume they aren't there. Being forced to fill in blanks as a player is not the way it should be. And this is why fans are so upset.
As for what you said about the game actually being the "ending", Changer: I agree! I found it amazing to see how all my previous choices (in both ME1 and 2) were taken into account, how well they were woven into the entire plot and even the sub-plots. I loved that and I'm sure everyone else did, too. But the point is not that the fans are upset because their choices didn't matter throughout the campaign, they are upset because their previous choices and efforts were rendered meaningless in the ending due to the very problem I told you about. They didn't see the fate of the fleets they gathered, the peoples they united, the races they saved or condemned to extinction, the people they came to care about. It all didn't matter in the end because it was not shown what exactly became of them. Even your EMS score (which was basically a result of all the choices you made throughout the trilogy) wasn't taken into account because the options that the Catalyst gave you were set. Reapers would be destroyed/ controlled/ merged/ whatever, regardless of your army's strength and thus, regardless of your previous choices and efforts to do everything right. And that's what made people angry. Despite the Crucible being the ultimate weapon against the reapers, there could have been at least some sort of gamble whether it was enough to defeat the them, based on your EMS/ your previous choices. And starting from that, there could have been different ending sequences and epilogues, for instance. Like, what if your EMS wasn't high enough? Maybe the reapers wouldn't have been defeated completely, maybe therefore more troops would have died in the process than necessary and maybe one of your squadmates or LI would have been among those. (This is just a possible scenario I made up, but I'm certain you get my point.)
So yeah, that would have been quite a chance to make the player's choices and their efforts count. It wasn't taken. All their efforts were rendered pointless because they weren't taken into consideration. Instead, fans got a fix ending.

Yep. At the end of the day, I don't think our standpoints differ from each other all that much. Just because keeping their fans and customers satisfied is a smart move as a business comapny, doesn't make them obliged to do what the fans want them to do. On the other hand, not caring about what your customers want is equal to shooting yourself in the head - so listening to your customers and satisfying them does make sense if you want to keep your business running. Of course, every company kind of does things that do no please each and every customer alike and in most cases, they get over it and continue purchasing their products - but in BioWare's current (and very critical) case, I think they should very carefully consider what they deem more worthy: The approval of their fans whose obvious majority thinks the ending is unfitting and doesn't do the franchise justice (me being one of them) or their "artistic vision", which I think is rather an excuse to keep their faces than anything else. But as I cannot look into their heads, I might as well be wrong. It's just the feeling I have. I do admit that this is a delicate issue that's very hard to handle, for keeping the balance between doing what you think is best and keeping your customers satisfied can be veeery hard, especially when the discrepancy between both is as huge as in this case.
So based on business logic, no, I don't think BioWare "owns" the fans anything for it's their company and if they're going to ruin it by alienating their fanbase more and more, it's their call and ultimately, their responsibility.
Based on moral standards, though... yes, I do think Bioware "owns" the fans the ending the promised (rather than the ending the fans want) or at least some sort of explanation as to why it didn't turn out as the ending they promised. Imho, that's the least they can do: Making up for their failure to deliver what they promised in the first place. Damage containment. An apology and/ or explanation as to why they screwed up.

I agree that going rabid and cursing the company will get no one anywhere, but to be honest, I can't blame the fans doing that. After what BioWare pulled, I actually think have every right to be upset. Hey, I am, too. I think it's less about being angry because BioWare doesn't do what they want them to do but rather because they are too busy trying to save their faces rather than admitting that they disappointed their fans and acting accordingly. That's what upsets me, anyway. Though I think you have to differentiate between butthurt fanboys and -girls who apparently don't get the ending they want and those who just think that BioWare's current line of dealing with their fans' complaints and the whole issue itself sucks. 


What the... oh. This turned out to be a lot longer than initially planned. Please, Changer. Forgive me the rant. 


PS. Aaah, I just love how this thread kinda turned into a decent discussion with a good debating atmosphere. Please keep it up, people.

Modifié par dea_ex_machina, 08 avril 2012 - 09:05 .

[Eralrik]

It all boils down to Bioware doesn't care they probably skim through our posts and laugh at us!
Their no longer the company we all grew up with the ones who played games and enjoyed making them for us to play also, their to arrogant and enjoying the cool rides and their diamond studded watches.
Money has corrupted them as it does with everyone and they have lost perspective and I seriously doubt that every person on the Mass Effect 3 team liked the ending and would like to see it changed, but they might loose their jobs if they speak up or get slapped down to the mail room.

We want the ending changed, what makes sense to me is crucible and catalyst be a defense and weapon buffer to bring all ships in the fleets up to par with the reapers rewritting and improving the galactic fleet.
Magic belongs in Dragon Age and keep it out of Mass Effect. If I see Star Child in the end of Dragon Age 3 giving me the 3 choices I'll be hopping on a plane and flying to whichever Bioware is closest and throwing my copy of the game back at them an demanding my money back.

[xaurabh123]

FairfaxLessee wrote...

No_MSG wrote...

Here is my problem with the three endings:
Destroy: Unless it's Space Magic, Destroy will destroy all synthetics. This means: medicines, electronics, etc. Basically, every advanced race dies anyway. Hooray.
Synthesis: In addition to Space Magic DNA-rape, that's not how evolution works. Homogenization of DNA actually works against evolution. Hooray.
Control: I've just given my mind to a race of brainwashing sentient spaceships? That's going to work out as well as the sex demon who said I could survive her deadly sex braining.

Really, there needed to be a "No" option. No, I will not help you, you genocidal Deus Ex Machina.

I think the addition of a "No" option is about the only way to salvage the current ending...

I LIKE IT

[Changer the Elder]

StillOverrated: Thank you for your wall of text. This is proving to be an... englightening experience indeed! As it happens, I again forgot half my points while forging the answer, so feel free to poke and prod on everything you feel like it deserves it.

[quote]StillOverrated wrote...
The way I see it, it doesn't work because it's essentially based on the premise that life is predictable. The Catalyst/Reaperkid/whatever you might want to call it and whoever programmed it is acting on the premise that life sticks to one pattern; but that's just the thing: It doesn't. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Shepard failed to stop the Reapers and the cycle continues: What if the next dominant race never developes artificial intelligence? Why 50, 000 years? What if the next cycle does build AIs but they do it in 85, 000 years instead? Will they just send a Reaper every 50, 000 years to take a look and if nothing's going on it'll just return to where they came from? Or will they just harvest the most advanced civilizations at that point to uphold the cycle, or because they may eventually build synthetics?[/quote]
The pattern was "roughly" 50 000 years, designed by evolution. But it wasn't exactly the same. And it was always prompted by some event - that's why one Reaper (Sovereign/Nazara in this cycle) was left behind; not only to open the backdoor to the dark space, but to observe. The final straw for this cycle is said to have been the original geth/quarian war from 300 years ago. Considering it usually takes more than a century to harvest all the space-faring races and that the Reaper invasions seem to be thoroughly planned to count in every possible failure they can (except Shepard, of course), it makes sense it didn't come suddenly overnight, but rather is a result of slow, step-by-step preparations.

[quote]What if the next cycle DOES build synthetics and, after a brief civil war, they decide to grant synths the same rights as organics because they've achieved sentience and should be treated like sentient beings and, subsequently (I'm basing my logic here on the fact that this is pretty much all the Geth wanted), there is no war? (...)
Or better yet, why not leave a message saying "Synths will wipe us all out! Plz to not be building them!"? Why not kill the synthetics in order to stop the rebellions rather than killing organics? If it's war they want to avoid, why not just wipe out anyone who goes into war? [/quote]
Well, we know very little of the Reapers' and Catalyst's origin, but his... programming? seems to be taken from bitter experience. We don't exactly know how many cycles came before and what options (if any) have they tried prior to resolving to harvesting. Maybe they tried killing just synthetics only to find out people just build more. And nature's... ahem... nature has pretty much always been about resolving things with violence. Of course there are those who could have peace. Under Shepard's leadership/influence, it's likely that this cycle's generation (and a few of those to follow) would keep the peace between organics and synthetics. But what of those who'd come next, when Shepard descends into memory and becomes just a part of the lore? Would they remember? The "don't build synthetics" message is the same case, pretty much. For the coming generations, it would've been a myth. Myth many would follow, but someone would eventually try and break. I don't even have to go that far for an example, humanity's own current history is filled with things being presented as "no-nos" and "don't-dos" so long that people forgot why it's been like it. In the name of progress, the paradigm was forcefully shifted. And they either gained progress or got burned.

But here, getting burned would mean the end of evolution as we know it. Which has to be prevented at all costs, therefore the lack of argument or "what-if" scenarios on the Catalysts part.  Also, it's a bit of an enforced way of clear-cutting the universe. Get rid off the old branches to give a chance to the younger sprouts (and before the old branches have a clever idea like nuking the place).

[quote]Organics do a pretty good job of killing themselves. How do they know synthetics will win? Javik tells you that the protheans had almost won their rebellion war, but the Reaper attack threw them off-track.[/quote]
Here, I'm willing to say that history is written by victors and depends on the point of view. We don't have anything but Javik's word as a proof that "they would've won". Considering it comes from a member of a race who doesn't consider loosing an option and considering their final plan was wait in the stasis for the Reapers to go away again, I don't think they were that close to victory. I mean, judging from the epilogue of ME2, there were literally hundreds of Reapers. That's nowhere near even getting a stalemate, let alone winning.
Javik seems to be genuinely believing it, but I don't. Even though it seems like they would've indeed won, if they found the Catalyst, but that would be the same situation, only 50 000 years sooner.

[quote]I know that, from our perspective and based on the experience we have with technology, it's impossible to program software to account for a lot of these variables, but one'd think that people who had mastered the technology of turning organic milkshake into sentient ships would have figured something out. Then, again, that may be too much for me to ask.[/quote]
Well, nobody says that one of the civilizations came up with it. The Catalyst might've been their solution and the Reapers, in turn, the solution of the Catalyst (and nobody says his... or its creators agreed with it. Maybe they even tried to shut it down and ended up being the first Reapers?)

[quote]And then we have the cyclic logic you can't argue against. The holokid tells you that the created will always rebel against the creators, but, all evidence Shepard has points to the contrary. (...)[/quote]
I think I covered that in the paragraphs above. Shepard might be an exception, but he's hardly everlasting or omnipresent. And being said that he's pretty much an exception going against the main stream...
I also wish there was more time to talk to the Catalyst, but then again, sitting down and having an hour-long philosophical discussion with an AI-ish thing when there is your fleet getting massacred right outside the Citadel would be... weird. Both story-wise and gameplay-wise. But truth is, additional sentence or two of Shepard at least trying would've been nice.
It's actually invoked in-universe that the Reapers are so deep in it that they're inadvertedly causing the cycle to repeat. They let the civilizations evolve along the paths they desire to have an easy harvest, yet they probably fail to realize they're pretty much dooming them at the same time. That's why they have such a hard time with the geth (who despite being machines remain independent in 95% of their... computing capacity? and therefore defy the Reaper doctrine by their very existence) who want to forge their path.
Yet again, even if you could sit down with the all million-years-old machines for an hour or two to make them see that, there would still be solid chance that it will fail and the Catalyst's worst case scenario comes to happen. And the imperative printed in on the Catalysts mind seems to be preventing it at all costs.

[quote]Then there's the fact that they never explain just how any of Shepard's options work. They explain to you every other thing in the universe, even going as far as explaining how biotic implants in Adepts give them the ability to create mini-black holes but they don't even touch this? This is the most important decision you have to make in the game, and they refuse to tell you just how it will work. (...)[/quote]
I think it's still within the fine mantinel of science fiction. It's not like we were ever explained how turning people into creeper juice can fuse together a synthetic starship, metal plating included. Who knows what science the Reapers have.
Maybe synthesis is something like husk-ification. Nanites. Or maybe it's a completely different branch of science beyond human comprehension. It's what Harbinger said, after all

[quote]Not to mention this option goes against one of the underlying themes of the series: diversity = good; homogeny = bad. (...) ...only for the Reaperkid to tell him/her that the only way to achieve peace is to make everyone the same.[/quote]
Probably a matter of a POV, but I doubt having partially synthetic DNA would change the species in general. Krogan would still be krogan, humans would still be humans and plants would still be plants. Just with some extra stuff available. It's not the ending I chose, however, so I haven't given it too much thought.

[quote]Then there's the fact that some of the things they advertised the game with, namely our assets being important, were lies. Your war assets and your effective military strength are just numbers.[/quote]
Actually, the assets are important, but the numbering's set in a way that it's very hard to fail with them, especially with importing a save. There is an ending where the Crucible backfires and takes everything in its vicinity down with the Reapers and even an ending where it just explodes and doesn't do a thing (if you have too small war asset count, it's going to get damaged on its way to the Citadel, because a puny fleet is not able to protect it). True, the war asset system could've been used much better and seems like a largely missed chance on behalf of the devs.

[quote]The fact remains: Dragon Age: Origins spoiled us. They took every single small thing you did (such as giving the tavern wench some money or buying that girl's sword in the chantry back in Lothering) and told you exactly what happened to them because of you, even if with only text. I was expecting something like that from Shepard's last chapter. I wanted to know what happened to the people they made me care about; and the threw that out the window too[/quote]
That's what we'll presumably be getting from the Extended cut. Of course, I'm not arguing on the fact that it should've been in the basic game. But the schedule didn't permit it.

[quote]And then there's the bit where they just got lazy. Or ran out of time. The exact same cutscene with some tweaks? Come on! BioWare is much better than this![/quote]
And of course, there's that. It's been fairly obvious the devs ran out of time and that one is a pity (hence why I consider the endings subpar in execution).

[quote]I'm curious as well, but I'm not holding my breath. I'm just hoping they'll use the entire writing staff this time. I think that what hurt the endings the most is the fact that you don't get to know what happened to the people you'd grown to care about. This is still a story/character-driven game, after all, and the character derailment and lack of closure is enough to get a lot of people's panties in a bunch, mine included.[/quote]
True, the lack of closure at the final part was a bit... strange and did leave a hole, especially since the whole game went out of its mind just to BE a closure in and of itself. But then again, it left space for imagination to kick in. I'm not saying it was the best decision EA could make, pressing the deadline the way they did and cutting the content as a result, but it could've been a great deal worse.

[quote]Way I see it, there's gonna be people threatening to kill you for something you did everywhere; but they brought some of it on themselves. (...) but I think BW shouldn't treat us all as whining little morons because we think they dropped the ball. [/quote]
That is true, they shouldn't. But considering most fan reactions, where there are a couple of strong reasonable voices able to discuss something with an open mind (like yourself) surrounded by a howling cacophony of people either just jumping the hate-wagon because they can or not being able to give any better answer than "u suck because I say so!" (and who are, sadly, a large portion, if not a majority), I imagine it's hard to try and sort things out in this turmoil. But considering the reactions to their goodwill gesture (which the Extended cut is, they really didn't have to do anything, like so many people before them) were usually just more shouting and insults, we fans managed to drop the ball ourselves, too.

[Rasofe]

AkaXan wrote...

Rasofe wrote...

There's rumour it was Casey Hudson and the lead writer that developed the ending.

Then they should be fired as they clearly have no talent, their writing not only ignores Mass Effects own internal  lore and logic, it also brakes some very basic story writing/telling rules, which Bioware should really know.

Can I also point out that if Casey Hudson really did write the endings, then the hate is even more deserved. The promises he made in numerous interviews, that player choices matter and that to give Mass Effect an A' B or C type of ending would be doing wrong by the fans, was all lies, as he knew what he did to the ending and still told fans complete bs.

Indeed.
Which is why I said that the setup concept should be implemented. Your in-game choices create setup X (or Y, or Z, or H, or K, or J.... many possibilities) and then the ABC choice is just the tip of the iceberg, which way you throw that setup. Your resulting ending AX or BY or ZC or whatever combination should be distinct and different.
The fact is, THEY CAN DO THIS within the confines of what they've said they'll do. Will they do this? Maybe.

Modifié par Rasofe, 08 avril 2012 - 09:24 .

[katamuro]

this thread is still alive? people still believe that bioware listens? even after all this time?

[firesprite1123]

there were way too many awesome moments for me, but i have to say one of the best moments was legion sacrificing himself to save his people, the time capsule, mordin's death, the prayer over thane....so much...so so much....best game of the series for me even with the ending

[Changer the Elder]

dea_ex_machina wrote...

No problem. Thanks to you as well, for not yelling at me because I challengend your points. Others would have "refuted" my arguments by just calling them BS. So yeah.

You are more than welcome. I'm glad to find a good discussion partner. Besides, I find it unnecessarily difficult to yell via my keyboard, so I prefer to refrain from that, anyway
And I'm a paragon, anyway, we're known to be meek and tame and listen to others. Unless we're pistol-whipping Gavin Archer. Or punching admiral Gerrel in the gut... okay, so that wasn't that much of a paragon act, but other than that, I'm a king of the boy scouts. Most of the time.

(...)
But apart from a few details, the whole cutscene and outcome stay the same. You don't see the difference that should have been depicted there. At all. So yeah, what now is the difference between, say, controlling the reapers and destroying them? While you can imagine the difference, you cannot actually see it in the cutscene for it always is nearly the same, no matter which path you choose. This means that the player is forced to fill in blanks. It is up to their interpretation what the actual differences between the paths are.
So it all boils down to this: If the differences between the paths are not shown, they are not there.
(...)

Yes, I can definitely agree with that. That's why at the start of this whole uproar a month ago (whoa, already? Time flies...), I used to say I understand why people are upset. The story definitely did deserve more of a closure. And despite me being fairly content with what I've got, I could see why people want more of it. I liked the plot part of the end, the execution could definitely use a better treatment.

Which is what I thought everyone was calling for. But then Bioware announced to make the Extended cut to do exactly what you mention should be done in your writing... and instead of being grateful, the fans turned psychotic so bad that even Jack seemed to be a perfectly sane, calm person in comparison. I can't wrap my head around why not only the uproar remained, but even doubled as some of the fans kept trumphing themselves over who can think of a better death threat for which Bioware employee over content that is far from being released and little is known about it. From what I understand, failure to comprehend that is the reason why most people turned so defensive and passive aggressive towards the other fans.

Yep. At the end of the day, I don't think our standpoints differ from each other all that much. Just because keeping their fans and customers satisfied is a smart move as a business comapny, doesn't make them obliged to do what the fans want them to do.

Yes, I assume we pretty much agree. I just got a bit jumpy on people here behaving like they own the place, I guess. I firmly believe that everyone has the right to say they don't like something, but they should keep in mind their liberties end exactly where the rights of others begin.

What the... oh. This turned out to be a lot longer than initially planned. Please, Changer. Forgive me the rant. 

PS. Aaah, I just love how this thread kinda turned into a decent discussion with a good debating atmosphere. Please keep it up, people.

Do not apologize, this is a very pleasant rant indeed! Even though I blame my Winamp for having an EDI-ish sense of humor to play "Stand strong, stand together" while I was reading it. That and your icon made my brain expect a "Hackett out" at the end =)

And I do agree that this discussion's proving to be a very pleasant one. I wish it were contagious, but I at least hope we'll be able to keep it up

[McMaximilian]

 I cannot wait to see this thread after the dlc comes out, and most probably fails...