23455 réponses à ce sujet

[Orkney11]

what a lame format this forum has.

Modifié par Orkney11, 09 avril 2012 - 08:11 .

[Agduk]

 I was very said to see that Bioware is still using the argument that not changing the ending is a matter of "artistic integrity".

It seems like they keep using this word, but it's not clear they know what it means.

It's like this: Every successful work of art has a core to it; a theme, if you will. This manifests as an internal model that lets people appreciating that art look at it, and say, "Ah, it works!" This model is very close to the heart of what art is all about. When that model is true to itself, when you can look at a work of fiction and say, 'wow, I couldn't imagine it any other way', then you know it's working.

Here's an example: 

When I watched Mordin Solus go up that elevator -- knowing that he was going up there to die, and there would be no coming back from this, it felt right to me. It was the culmination of dozens of decisions, actions I'd taken in the game, and when Mordin said "It had to be me", I felt it, because it had that ring of internal truth. When you do this right, you move the audience of your art. It's why I actually shed tears watching Mordin sing his little Gilbert & Sullivan tune right as he marched to his grave.

It's also why the ending was so very, very wrong -- it just made no sense in light of every other scrap of artistic truth that the game had. I don't think I've met anybody who's told me, "Yeah, that ending really fit". People might have felt that resonance with parts of it (Shepard dying, Reapers blowing up), but as whole, it felt false.

*

There's a misconception in most people's head that 'artistic integrity' really means, 'what the artist says is the Way It Is'. It's a really tempting misconception, because historically, a lot of art is the result of a singular vision. We didn't have multiple people writing War and Peace; we didn't have multiple sculptors for Michelangelo's David; we certainly didn't have two different dudes painting the Mona Lisa. 

While it might be tempting to generalize from those examples, we would actually be wrong. It's a case of correlation, not causation. The simplicity and beauty of art from a single creator is one of constraints. It limits the arts that are within the reach of a single human -- both in terms of the physical accomplishments, but (more importantly) in terms of the conceptual complexity of the piece. 

If you can hold the entirety of your system in a single person's head, then it's easier to understand when it goes awry -- when the plot goes off the rails, your characters stop behaving the way they normally would, or when you try to change your theme midcourse. To borrow an example from programming: What's easier to debug: A system you built exclusively yourself, or one that was made by dozens of different people? Each piece you add is another link in the chain of complexity, which can terminate in a system when even simple changes can have vast an unexpected effects.

Unfortunately for us, we live in a vastly more complicated world -- and it's getting more complicated all the time. There are still videogames made by one person (just like there are still independent films more or less made by one person), but there is a limitation and scope which is of necessity. Making a game like Mass Effect is a work of collaborative art between dozens of people: More than one writer, producers, artists, computer graphics experts, programmers, QA testers, and of course players. This doesn't even get into the fact that none of these people are pure artists for art sake type people: They are in fact bound by constraints of time and money, dictated by a publisher, the marketplace, and the fickle moods of fans.

So, a game gets plenty of slack from me when I see minor blips here and there. How did the Reapers move the Citadel? How did the Illusive Man get on the Citadel? Why didn't the Reapers just attack the Citadel in Act I? These sorts of problems can make us suspend disbelief, or get a little frustrated, but they don't in a fundamental sense break what the game was about. Not the way the ending did -- which as far as I can tell is a betrayal of almost every form of internal consistency the game has.

Back to my point though: It'd be a hard sell to say that you shouldn't change ME3's ending just because of 'artistic integrity' just because it's What the Artist Said, because that's not really is going on at the heart of it. It's also hard to use this argument, since the history of human art actually begs to differ -- even for the simpler, single person form of art.

Charles Dickens rewrote _Great Expectations_, when a friend (who was a fan) told him the ending was too bleak, and the characters warranted some sort of redemption. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle brought Sherlock Holmes back from the dead "because the fans demand it", and wrote some of the series' best stories after that. Tennesse Williams rewrote the third act to "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" after he had the play performed, and audiences complained about inconsistencies and problems -- he later admitted "I was too close to it". Shakespeare had multiple versions of Hamlet -- some believe one version for literary consumption, and one, more tightly paced for dramatic performances. Modern art does this even more -- we see it constantly in movies (both before publication, with focus groups, and after, with director's cuts). Ansel Adams had a famous photograph called 'Moonrise over Hernandez' that he produced dozens of prints from over the course of 50 years. He kept tweaking the output, as his skill with the darkroom, with existing technology, and his own taste evolved -- and that only stop when he died!

Obviously, fans can be wrong in their criticism of art. You could insist that The Godfather should have a happy ending for Michael Corleone. You could yell that Frodo should stay in Middle Earth and live 'happily ever after'. Or you could insist that there's no room for a gay Shepard because it offends you. 

But the converse is also true: Fans can be right, too. And when that happens -- when fans spend thousands of hours (by my count) telling you exactly how an ending to a story effectively breaks the internal model of the piece, you should take a step back and ask yourself: Is not changing the ending really "artistic integrity"? Or is it just "not admitting we got it wrong?"

The way I see it, Bioware has two choices here.

One is that they can fix this. All it takes is admitting: You know, we blew this. We were too close to it. Maybe we mishandled the time we had. Or we let the wrong guy write the ending. The excuse doesn't really matter to fans: What does matter is owning up to a mistake -- an artistic mistake. Then Bioware could go back to the drawing board, and do a real revision -- not just more cutscenes. I know I would admire the heck out of this decision, and would be willing to pay $10 or even $20 to get it fixed. Don't believe me? Start the Kickstarter yourself, Bioware, and see how many of the people who want to love you will come out of the woodworks to support you.

Two is to just attempt to slop a coat of paint over the problem, or to basically try to talk your way out of the problems by saying, "Oh, we just didn't *clarify* things enough." You know that's not the problem, so why pretend? The end result of this pattern of thinking is this: One day, some number of years down the road, when the Mass Effect IP is mothballed, somebody is going to buy the rights on the cheap, and there's going to be some n-th fold generation of Kickstarter that says, "We just bought the license to Mass Effect, and now we're going to do it right -- who's in?"

I don't want to have to wait ten, twenty, thirty, or even fifty years for this to happen. I believe very passionately that the real written to Mass Effect 3 hasn't been written yet; and I even believe the Bioware that gave us Sovereign, that gave us the Shroud, that gave us Tali and Legion on that cliff -- you still have it in you to give the series the great ending it deserves. 







 

[Agduk]

Oh, and one more thing:

I just spent my last post bagging on artistic integrity. I could be wrong; all the fans could be wrong. If Bioware would like to defend the ending as it is, I'd love to understand what their thinking really was.

As someone who has consumed science fiction for his entire literary life, I just don't, fundamentally, get it. Maybe I am not clever enough, or maybe I haven't been exposed to the right tropes, but the ending just doesn't make any sense to me.

And it's true for all my friends too -- I had virtually the same conversation with another friend this weekend, where we were ruefully remarking that if "It was all a dream" is a better ending than one in the game, you know something is wrong.

So what gives?

[Changer the Elder]

StillOverrated wrote...

Fair enough, but it would still be their choice to be a jerk, and the jerk's people's choice to deal with it. I just don't think anyone should have the right to take someone else's freedom away from them. I guess I'm just stuck on this one. Be it because it fits the vibe I got from the ME series or because of my complete inability to see any issue in B&W, what with my 21st century perception and general lack of brainpower and all. Regardless of whether we see eye to eye on this or not, you made your point, and I still can see where you're shooting from.

I think that philosophically, you and I are on the same page. I believe that the fact that we are having this discussion proves it

But I'm trying to argument why Catalyst's point of view is different. When you have a world/galaxy/dimension, you can't help but being a bit machiavellian and dealing in absolutes. I know the concept of "greater good" is a bit DOA at the moment, since it's usually that very line most villains in videogame, literature and even real life are hiding behind trying to justify their means, but I think it's the imperative for the Reapers in the end.

The goal for the Reapers is simple - prevent one event from happening. It's a bit of a baby Hitler dilemma, except that they always wait till little Adolf is at least in his teens threatening people with a stick before deciding to step up and neutralize him. Of course there are the what-ifs and what-nots saying that he might necessarily grow up to be evil, but if you have choice A (let him live) and choice B (erradicate him), knowing that when A escalates so bad to prove B was a necessity it might already be ten minutes too late, and it's going to mean the end for everything with no one left to pick up the pieces, that very imperative dictates to play it safe and go for the kill.

The fact that the Reapers are more than the usual big bad who comes every 50k years to kill people just because they can made my day. As an occassional Exiles writer, what ties me to that series is the very same moral dilemma - that sometimes to save the world, you can't be a hero and you have to kill people. Sometimes even good people. If you don't, the world goes boom.

Well, let's get Liara on it, then. She can do more than deploy singularities and have unresolved sexual tension with Shepard.

Just don't bring salarians. We don't need another problem

Working off the premise that the Catalyst holokid reaper whatever is some sort of VI/AI rather than the remnants of whatever civilization made the Reapers, I'm thinking Shepard could use some sort of cyclic logic, like the one the Lone Wanderer from vault 101 used with President Eden to get him to self-destruct. Or just use his/her own cycle as a reference, stating how, in this case, the cycle has already been broken, how all these species who had been at war up until five minutes ago have set their differences aside and are working hard for their own future, or maybe how the Catalyst, or anyone, for that matter, has the right to take away anyone's liberty, regardless of whether they think it's the only solution or not. I think Shep tried that last one, but it was handled feebly in the game. Or (as you pointed out before, I think?) argue that the Reapers themselves are the ones maintaining the cycle they're working so desperately to avoid. That should fry some artificial brains.

Well, it's arguably fridge brilliance, but I think that the Catalyst was proven exactly that by Shepard's very presence in the heart of the Citadel and it accepted the fact. That's why it left the choice up to him/her, not because it couldn't control the Reapers anymore. But the organics proved him that the cycle, its solution, will not work anymore (it even says pretty much the exact words), since the organics have evolved in a way its main directive is useless for. Let it be completion of the Crucible, machines gaining actual organic-like sentience (even if you fried the geth, there's still EDI) or the fact that the races were able to put their differences aside and stand together.
And I think that Reapers/Catalyst are far more than AI/VI. They're part organic and even though it's tough to guess how exactly do they think ("We are each a nation", yet they seem to be one entity-per-Reaper at the same time), I doubt hitting them with a simple paradox to fry their brain would be enough. They seem to be fully cognitive and free from the usual boundaries of artificial intelligence. And, pardon the reference, due to their size and power, it's doubtful you could fire any question that could fry their potato.

Again, I pray to whatever god is in vogue to pray to right now that you're right.

Maybe I am, maybe I'm not. No one knows at this point. And maybe I'm a naive fool, but I still prefer to be optimistic. It's a long time away anyway, so why spend the time brooding about it

No paranoia. I know EA's reputation. I think everyone does. They're right up there with Capcom in ah, unsavory business practices.

Oh, so it wasn't just my impression. Well, too bad. I'm still glad EA took the franchise from Microsoft, I wouldn't have known about ME if I couldn't play it on my PS3. But yeah, some companies' business models are... plain stupid.

I think that could have easily been fixed if they'd just told people "look. The game's still missing a lot. Here, here and here's our evidence of that. You're gonna have to wait a bit more unless you want a crappy game experience. You don't want this to be another Dragon Age II, do you?" There are going to be conspiracy theorists saying that BW is just messing with them but there's people questioning things everywhere.

Unfortunately, that presumes all the fans are as reasonable as yourself. My experience proves they are not. Some would understand that, but some would be more than a bit annoyed and just as they do now, they would... demand stuff. That was no way a win-win scenario.

Alternatively, they could have focused primarily on the SP experience and maybe, later on, released a multiplayer patch/DLC/something. Mass Effect is primarily a single-player game, after all. In my opinion, adding the MP was kind of a mistake (even more considering their MP is essentially Gears of War's Horde mode), but that's a whole 'nother story. Also, just my opinion.

On that, I do agree. But the business doctrine ordered them to spend their time on multiplayer and kinect voice stuff (again, sensing BW being paid to do it, not actually agreeing to do it). The multiplayer's less at fault, since it was in the project from the start and it was probably very hard to guess how much time will they need, but yes, there indeed have been some things that clearly seemed as wasting time.

Prowling the forums, maybe? There's some pretty reasonable people around here. You, for instance, and dea_ex_machina. MrBTongue is pretty good at making his point, too, without retorting to petty name-calling. There's gotta be more. I'm aware that a high number of people would probably just turn the conference room into a war zone, so I was thinking, maybe somewhere between two and five people per side?

Well, I know I'm not a good choice, but I can still see something like it happening. But then again, you could count on the fact that as soon as general fan populace found out, there would be more than enough people throwing a tantrum about "why these people and why not them and how Bioware only picked those they thought they'll reach an agreement with as a public stunt to keep them from admitting they're stupid"...etc, etc...

My oh my, 2 AM. I should head to bed before faceplanting on the keyboard. Again.

Hahah, you won't read this until the next day, but good night!

And good morning, world, I'm back in strength to stalk the forums again
... okay, I presumably should do something more productive today, too... fanart... yes, doing fanart seems like a good option

[Changer the Elder]

GarrusVFan wrote...

True, we won't know what will be on the dlc, but we know what won't be on the dlc as Bioware has already released a statement regarding that.

It will not be new endings.  All they plan on doing is adding a few cut scenes, and dialogues and in an attempt to "clarify" their half-assed ending(s). 
It's not anything that's going to redeem bioware.  Since it is going to be a free dlc, they are going to put pretty much no work into it, and really the end result will be no different (if not worse) than the current situation and opinions regarding the ending(s).

But sometimes, extra footage is all it takes to make something great. Even three seconds can make a difference in some movies.

I mean, it's not like lot of videogames, ME included, are not telling the same most basic story - a hero saved the world. Mass Effect 1 is pretty much following that trope to the T - ancient prophecy, big bad villain you beat against all odds, everyone trying to derail you from your mission minus the one exeption in a league of obstructing bureaucrats (Anderson) helping you out, risking being a scapegoat in the process, playing big damn heroes with your only band of faithful brothers (okay, and sisters, to prevent Ashley, Liara and Chakwas from rebelling... man, if those three ganged up on me, they'd scare me worse than Sovereign ever could...), even pulling of something as cheesy as the main character's Disney death in the end without giving anyone a pause to think about it. There's been many movies telling that very same story. And then there's been Mass Effect. So extra footage can help. It makes and breaks things as easilly as the plot does.

As mentioned before, no one knows how it's going to end up, me included. For what I know, it might be a catastrophe. But I'm steadfast in my belief that Bioware doesn't deserve the backlash it's getting for simply announcing a free extra content.

P.S. Nice nick, I definitely approve.

Modifié par Changer the Elder, 09 avril 2012 - 08:44 .

[KazarianGarnet09]

If you truly are listening, then please watch these videos! Watch these videos and COMMENT on them here!

Modifié par KazarianGarnet09, 09 avril 2012 - 09:02 .

[Ksandor]

Artistic integrity is an excuse. Endings have no artistic value so ditching them is not important.

A new ending will cost money and time because of the new in-game variables to consider. People won't buy new endings and will protest. Extended cut allows a free DLC.

Besides if they listen fans to change the ending fans will always force Bioware and EA to do quality games. But because of the global economic crisis and dwindling console market they want to make cheap games, and cheap games are usually crappy games. They are scared of fans... If we start to dictate them.... Nightmare of any capitalist marketing simpleton...

Anyway I don't care what Bioware thinks. I am the customer, I got the power and I exercise it. I won't buy any Bioware games in future. The majority thinks like me. Not my problem... There is competition. If they can't develop quality games another company will... Bioware is listening... On c'mon! What is this, charity? We ask what we have paid for!

Modifié par Ksandor, 09 avril 2012 - 09:31 .

[sefudargo]

"artistic integurity" I don't think that means what they think it means.
all I know is that the ending turned the inside of my stomach into a quantam singularity and even when I went to to a party and got drunk right after I finish ME3 it was still in my mind slowly turning everything I love about Mass effect and crushing it. I still love Mass effect, and I want to start a new Character again but I'm finding it hard to acually care about everything again knowing that it all doesn't make a lick of sense in the end. my Sheperd Dies, billions of people are stranded in the sol system, and my crew is traped on an unknown planet in an unknown system and I don't know what happens to them.
and the Star Child is a pompus ******.
(╯°□°）╯ ┻━┻
Screw it I'm Writing My own Ending
where there is Beer, and Black Jack, And Hookers
In fact, forget the Black Jack

[LKx]

Fear not comunity, the indoctrination theory MUST be correct, otherwise Mass Effect would be the "Lost" of videogames, where in the end the watcher just feels cheated!

The "breath" scene at the end of one of the endings is a proof good enough for me.

I'm sure that they'll release a FREE dlc where we'll see the true consequences of our choise.

Otherwise...

[Ksandor]

Agduk wrote...

 I was very said to see that Bioware is still using the argument that not changing the ending is a matter of "artistic integrity".

It seems like they keep using this word, but it's not clear they know what it means.

It's like this: Every successful work of art has a core to it; a theme, if you will. This manifests as an internal model that lets people appreciating that art look at it, and say, "Ah, it works!" This model is very close to the heart of what art is all about. When that model is true to itself, when you can look at a work of fiction and say, 'wow, I couldn't imagine it any other way', then you know it's working.

Here's an example: 

When I watched Mordin Solus go up that elevator -- knowing that he was going up there to die, and there would be no coming back from this, it felt right to me. It was the culmination of dozens of decisions, actions I'd taken in the game, and when Mordin said "It had to be me", I felt it, because it had that ring of internal truth. When you do this right, you move the audience of your art. It's why I actually shed tears watching Mordin sing his little Gilbert & Sullivan tune right as he marched to his grave.

It's also why the ending was so very, very wrong -- it just made no sense in light of every other scrap of artistic truth that the game had. I don't think I've met anybody who's told me, "Yeah, that ending really fit". People might have felt that resonance with parts of it (Shepard dying, Reapers blowing up), but as whole, it felt false.

*

There's a misconception in most people's head that 'artistic integrity' really means, 'what the artist says is the Way It Is'. It's a really tempting misconception, because historically, a lot of art is the result of a singular vision. We didn't have multiple people writing War and Peace; we didn't have multiple sculptors for Michelangelo's David; we certainly didn't have two different dudes painting the Mona Lisa. 

While it might be tempting to generalize from those examples, we would actually be wrong. It's a case of correlation, not causation. The simplicity and beauty of art from a single creator is one of constraints. It limits the arts that are within the reach of a single human -- both in terms of the physical accomplishments, but (more importantly) in terms of the conceptual complexity of the piece. 

If you can hold the entirety of your system in a single person's head, then it's easier to understand when it goes awry -- when the plot goes off the rails, your characters stop behaving the way they normally would, or when you try to change your theme midcourse. To borrow an example from programming: What's easier to debug: A system you built exclusively yourself, or one that was made by dozens of different people? Each piece you add is another link in the chain of complexity, which can terminate in a system when even simple changes can have vast an unexpected effects.

Unfortunately for us, we live in a vastly more complicated world -- and it's getting more complicated all the time. There are still videogames made by one person (just like there are still independent films more or less made by one person), but there is a limitation and scope which is of necessity. Making a game like Mass Effect is a work of collaborative art between dozens of people: More than one writer, producers, artists, computer graphics experts, programmers, QA testers, and of course players. This doesn't even get into the fact that none of these people are pure artists for art sake type people: They are in fact bound by constraints of time and money, dictated by a publisher, the marketplace, and the fickle moods of fans.

So, a game gets plenty of slack from me when I see minor blips here and there. How did the Reapers move the Citadel? How did the Illusive Man get on the Citadel? Why didn't the Reapers just attack the Citadel in Act I? These sorts of problems can make us suspend disbelief, or get a little frustrated, but they don't in a fundamental sense break what the game was about. Not the way the ending did -- which as far as I can tell is a betrayal of almost every form of internal consistency the game has.

Back to my point though: It'd be a hard sell to say that you shouldn't change ME3's ending just because of 'artistic integrity' just because it's What the Artist Said, because that's not really is going on at the heart of it. It's also hard to use this argument, since the history of human art actually begs to differ -- even for the simpler, single person form of art.

Charles Dickens rewrote _Great Expectations_, when a friend (who was a fan) told him the ending was too bleak, and the characters warranted some sort of redemption. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle brought Sherlock Holmes back from the dead "because the fans demand it", and wrote some of the series' best stories after that. Tennesse Williams rewrote the third act to "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" after he had the play performed, and audiences complained about inconsistencies and problems -- he later admitted "I was too close to it". Shakespeare had multiple versions of Hamlet -- some believe one version for literary consumption, and one, more tightly paced for dramatic performances. Modern art does this even more -- we see it constantly in movies (both before publication, with focus groups, and after, with director's cuts). Ansel Adams had a famous photograph called 'Moonrise over Hernandez' that he produced dozens of prints from over the course of 50 years. He kept tweaking the output, as his skill with the darkroom, with existing technology, and his own taste evolved -- and that only stop when he died!

Obviously, fans can be wrong in their criticism of art. You could insist that The Godfather should have a happy ending for Michael Corleone. You could yell that Frodo should stay in Middle Earth and live 'happily ever after'. Or you could insist that there's no room for a gay Shepard because it offends you. 

But the converse is also true: Fans can be right, too. And when that happens -- when fans spend thousands of hours (by my count) telling you exactly how an ending to a story effectively breaks the internal model of the piece, you should take a step back and ask yourself: Is not changing the ending really "artistic integrity"? Or is it just "not admitting we got it wrong?"

The way I see it, Bioware has two choices here.

One is that they can fix this. All it takes is admitting: You know, we blew this. We were too close to it. Maybe we mishandled the time we had. Or we let the wrong guy write the ending. The excuse doesn't really matter to fans: What does matter is owning up to a mistake -- an artistic mistake. Then Bioware could go back to the drawing board, and do a real revision -- not just more cutscenes. I know I would admire the heck out of this decision, and would be willing to pay $10 or even $20 to get it fixed. Don't believe me? Start the Kickstarter yourself, Bioware, and see how many of the people who want to love you will come out of the woodworks to support you.

Two is to just attempt to slop a coat of paint over the problem, or to basically try to talk your way out of the problems by saying, "Oh, we just didn't *clarify* things enough." You know that's not the problem, so why pretend? The end result of this pattern of thinking is this: One day, some number of years down the road, when the Mass Effect IP is mothballed, somebody is going to buy the rights on the cheap, and there's going to be some n-th fold generation of Kickstarter that says, "We just bought the license to Mass Effect, and now we're going to do it right -- who's in?"

I don't want to have to wait ten, twenty, thirty, or even fifty years for this to happen. I believe very passionately that the real written to Mass Effect 3 hasn't been written yet; and I even believe the Bioware that gave us Sovereign, that gave us the Shroud, that gave us Tali and Legion on that cliff -- you still have it in you to give the series the great ending it deserves. 







 

This is very insightful. Thank you for sharing this. Bioware do you actually read these posts? Do you understand what's going on here?

Modifié par Ksandor, 09 avril 2012 - 10:59 .

[Caprea]

Changer the Elder wrote...
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.

Ah, so you're a paragon, too? I know they are supposed to be tolerant and compassionate and all, but thinking about how the ending turned out, I just wanted to throw the Catalyst out the next airlock, really. Which is not very paragon-ish, but in all honesty, I just can't wrap my head around his genocide logic and Shepard going along with that, despite the fact s/he has always been going against the odds. (That just had to be... someone had to get this back on-topic. )

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.

Well, I guess it's a matter of opinion here - what I didn't like about the ending in particular (plot holes and inconsistencies aside), was the fact that it all boiled down to three options that contradict all the values and morals ME has been trying to deliver: Free will, tolerance and cooperation, no matter which race you belong to or whether you're synthetic or organic.
Okay, the three options were already there, granted. But choosing from one of three paths/ platforms, really, was so poorly done in execution I just wanted throw something at my screen. So yeah, so long as the execution will be done better in the DLC and fills the massive plotholes and explains the contradictions and inconsistencies, I think I will be okay with that. I guess it won't change anything about my opinion on the basic concept of the ending, which I truly do not like, but that way, it will be more... bearable. I'll just wait and reserve judgement until summer, I guess. Spares me a lot of nerves.
But, I can understand both sides of the fence: Those fans who are being optimistic about getting the closure they deserve, as well as those who want the whole concept changed, for the current one wasn't what they were promised. The problem here is that there were a lot of fans who didn't only ask for better closure, but even presented very reasonable criticism as to why the whole concept of the ending should be fixed. Aside from people dismantling the ending, there were also a lot of fans who presented good ideas concerning a new ending with a whole new concept. Those and even more free riders who are just complaining instead of contributing something productive, feel overlooked now, for BioWare promised said they were listening, which also includes those who have problems with the ending's concept as a whole (or, well, it should include them). So how do you fix that? I truly do not know how I'd handle this delicate issue if I were in BioWare's shoes. Give the fans what they ask for or stand by an "artistic ideal", but explaining it even further, even though it doesn't make sense in the eyes of the majority, which demands a new ending?
At the end of the day, it just seems that way more fans ask for a complete new concept for the ending, rather than just more closure for the current one. This is what the trend in this thread seems to be, anyway. Maybe it has been like this all along; maybe it shifted toward the demand for a completely new ending the more fans voiced it, so more and more people jumped on the wagon. I haven't kept track of it, so I really cannot say.
So based on that, I can understand why most people are "ungrateful" and don't want to wait till summer and see how the new DLC turns out to be - it's because it wasn't what they asked for. Or so it seems.
Yes, the failure to comprehend, maybe, though I think it's also very easy to become just a part of an angry mob when the outrage is as bad as in this case. You just jump on the bandwagon and complain, often without reflecting what you actually think and say, and that's it.

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 =)

Haha, really? I was just listening to the soundtrack as well, probably because it's my favourite one of all three. The melodies are just amazing. Especially "Leaving earth", "I'm proud of you" and "An end, once and for all" just leave me wanting to cry whenever I listen to them, bringing back great, but also sad memories. The way the music was tied into this game was... wow. Just wow.
Hackett is great. In the first game, I didn't really care about him because you never saw him, The Arrival DLC made me see him as a stern, but kinda likeable guy, and the third, well yeah. No comment. The way he overlooked everything and kept everyone in line simply amazed me. Like Jacob said: "If you can make an old guy tougher than that, I'd like to see." But that's off-topic, now.

..."Hackett out."

[sefudargo]

wow I just powered out like the first part of maybe a 3 part ending I was going to write any one intested in looking

[Jassu1979]

LKx wrote...

Fear not comunity, the indoctrination theory MUST be correct, otherwise Mass Effect would be the "Lost" of videogames, where in the end the watcher just feels cheated!

The "breath" scene at the end of one of the endings is a proof good enough for me.

I'm sure that they'll release a FREE dlc where we'll see the true consequences of our choise.

Otherwise...

I hope that you are correct, although I cannot see them implementing the IT without adding further gameplay (which, according to Bioware's own blog, is not something they're aiming for). It is true that the ending will NEVER make sense if we are to take the final five minutes at face value, no matter how many "clarifying" cut scenes they add. But right now, I find it hard to believe that they're actually making the wise choice, and that the inconsistencies were intentional hints at a vaster truth.

[readysetpanic]

Curious what people make of this:

http://www.rockpaper...ct-1-after-all/

[IIsht.BoSa]

Hi everyone!

I've got so many things I'd like to share that I could write volumes of it, but here are more important things to do so here's the short version.

First of all I'd like to say that I love Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2 and I like Mass Effect 3.

What I don't understand is when you "reuse" several parts of ME1 in ME3 then why not go all the way?
Why would you stop at the end and give us 'godchild'? Please cut this part.
For example:  ( Both in ME1 and ME3 )
- Start with the reaper(s).
- Then the citadel ( Talk with the council and see that they don't care )
- Therum vs Mars ( Meet with Liara )
- Noveria vs Attican Traverse: The Rachni ( captive on both games, you save save or kill/let die )
- Feros vs Grissom academy ( Save civilians or let them die )
- Virmire vs. Priority: Citadel 2 ( Kill the one you saved or not? )
- Ilos vs. Priority: Earth ( Racing against time )

Now up to this point I don't mind the similarities since it's good... really good.
But whíy not go all the way. I mean even the on od the two missions ( Ilos vs Earth ) is almost identical.
The only difference is that in ME1 you are in the Mako not on foot, but the main idea is that you want to use the "backdoor" to the citadel.

When I was running down on the slope I was hoping for a similar cutscene and for some extra fight on the citadel.
Insted I get what?
- Survived the blast of a reaper.
- Have a gun that has unlimited ammo.
- Walk like a zombie but can kill the poor 'Marauder Shields'.
- Instant teleport to the control room. ( Not exactly but almost )

Then you decide to borrow from ME1: (one last time)
- IM vs Saren ( A similar dialog where you can persuade them to commit suicide )
- Epic battle going on outside the "window" so you don't have to use a cutscene to show us what's happaning outside.

Then you give us the "catalyst" and a reasoning that's similar to the explanation given in Scrapped Princess.
The difference if that in SP it made sense, was logical and fit perfectly the story up to the ending.

So here's a little something that'd make the endning much better.
- Cut out the part after the 'going into the light' thing.
- If your Effective Military Strength is really low the Shepard - and everyone else - dies while running towards the beam.
- If you have low EMS then everybody but shepard dies and Shepard is killed by the IM on the citadel.
- If you have mid EMS then you - and your party - make it to the 'party' with the IM.
  a) One of your party members sacrifices himself/herself to save you. ( Non-Loyal )
  One of your party members saves you from the IM ( Loyal )
- But even then if you don't have a really hight EMS then the reapers destroy the allied forces and the crucible
- And if you have a really high EMS then the allied forces can distract the reapers long enough for the crucible to activate.

So the ending would come down to this:
1) Reapers win, everybody dies.
2) Reapers lose, some die.

Personally I don't want different endnings depening on my chioces. Just the above mentioned two. Why? Simple. Because Shepard is just one man and no matter what he does all that matters is how much help he can get to delay the reapers.
It's really simple. Either we destroy them or they destroy us.

So all in all I really loved the game and even is the last few minutes made me wish to go back in time and let poor MS kill me, the other 95% of the game was awesome.
So I think my money was well spent.

Ps: I literally spent hundreds of hours plaing ME1. Several Dozens of hours playing ME2. But I'll probably play trough ME3 only 3-4 times. And I think that means something.

Sincerely,
A disappointed - but statisfied - player.

[Blazerer]

EugeneBi wrote...
I think the best course of actions - the
happy coexinsting between creators (BioWare) and created (the masses of
shepards on these boards) - can be achieved if they extend the meaning
of "clarify" to complete rewrite.

The next best course of actions
would be if EA and BioWare go bancrupt. This would send a very loud and
clear message to other game developers to keep their promises. I bet we
achieved outstanding results in this area already.

So, don't give up, keep pressure on - they are listening, after all!

exile1478 wrote...

Okay Im going to be banned from the
forums for this post. But after reading the announcement about he
extended cut i wont be buying anything from bioware any time soon and
dont care. Hope people get to see this post before its removed.
Extended cut is a cop out,
A. after 5 years of promising mass effect would not end with push button a,b or c that exactly what they deliver.

B.
Hack writers abandon existing plotlines and introduce a new character
that tries to expalin everything with false logic that you take at face
value? really so sheppard who defied the council regarding seren's
motives, defied the council about the existence of reapers, fought the
reapers defying their claims that resistance was pointless just goes ah
okay fraky godchild you're right and sacrifices himself.

This thread should have been titled ****** AND MOAN AS MUCH AS YOU LIKE, WE ALREADY HAVE YOUR MONEY SO **** YOU.

There just happens to be a movement for option 2, (with)hold the wallet. you might want to check it out, link in my signature ^^

The Morrigan wrote...
Props to you, Bioware, for listening to the very vocal fans. But more
props for sticking to your guns - whether I like the ending or not, I
have to respect artists for standing by their art. For better or worse,
it's a very artsy ending.

newsflash: they don't give a ****. They won't read this thread, it's simply here to give us the illusion they care. Time and time again they've proven they refuse to listen to the fans. (PAX is a great example here)

Secondly, it is NOT an artsy ending. Art is hard to define, what I do know this is not it. Art would have made sense, and not broken the rules of the entire universe that costs them years and years of work to build of from the ground.

also: http://www.gamesthir...e-stays-silent/ again:clearly not giving a ****

[Thanatos144]

Do any of you even play the game cause it seems you all just sit here and complain about not getting what you you think you are owed....?

[Changer the Elder]

dea_ex_machina wrote...
Ah, so you're a paragon, too? I know they are supposed to be tolerant and compassionate and all, but thinking about how the ending turned out, I just wanted to throw the Catalyst out the next airlock, really. Which is not very paragon-ish, but in all honesty, I just can't wrap my head around his genocide logic and Shepard going along with that, despite the fact s/he has always been going against the odds. (That just had to be... someone had to get this back on-topic. )

Well, yes, the Reapers' logic and motivation seems to be genocidal (and pretty much is, since it only contains the essence, erradicating the individuals. At least presumably, otherwise, it must be really crowded in each Reaper...), but in the general design, it makes sense from their standpoint. Their task is to archive old data which could possibly go awry and destroy evolution to make space for the new ones. From the cold, calculating logic standpoint, it makes perfect sense. From emotionally-driven human standpoint, it's cruel and makes little sense, since it discards the concepts of compassion, mercy and other variables math-based calculus doesn't know how to operate.

Okay, the three options were already there, granted. But choosing from one of three paths/ platforms, really, was so poorly done in execution I just wanted throw something at my screen. So yeah, so long as the execution will be done better in the DLC and fills the massive plotholes and explains the contradictions and inconsistencies, I think I will be okay with that. I guess it won't change anything about my opinion on the basic concept of the ending, which I truly do not like, but that way, it will be more... bearable. I'll just wait and reserve judgement until summer, I guess. Spares me a lot of nerves.

Yes, the execution of the concept could definitely use a bit more time and work, it felt a bit too straightforward and copyXpaste, which was made blatantly obvious by the game itself going out of its boundaries numerous times before to cover the fact that the path for the player is given in the grand scheme of things.

(...)
So how do you fix that? I truly do not know how I'd handle this delicate issue if I were in BioWare's shoes. Give the fans what they ask for or stand by an "artistic ideal", but explaining it even further, even though it doesn't make sense in the eyes of the majority, which demands a new ending?

And well, yes, there's that. No matter what they'd do, they'd always find a not exactly small group of people complaining along the lines of "But that's NOT how *I* wanted it!". I believe the very concept of ME is here to blame. The games were so good in selling the idea of individual player experience that the fact that the player is still following one fixed path, with solid start and ending got completely pushed into background by it. But in the end, it couldn't be avoided to come back to it. I got lucky, since it fortunately goes along an agreeable vibe for me. But I do understand how and why people can feel betrayed because they couldn't custom-tailor their own perfect ending. Still, it was inevitably coming from the start. Its execution, however, could've been way better, no argument about that.

Yes, the failure to comprehend, maybe, though I think it's also very easy to become just a part of an angry mob when the outrage is as bad as in this case. You just jump on the bandwagon and complain, often without reflecting what you actually think and say, and that's it.

The problem is, it's a downward spiral from there. People usually complain about Bioware being "stuck with their artistic integrity excuse", but it's not like most of those who complain get any better. Just more violent, due the effect of mass mentality taking place. True, the case might've been handled better if someone from BW stepped up and patiently tried to start a dialogue with those fans, something like Patrick Weekes is doing or even me, to some extent. But then again, quite a number of people out there don't want an alternate explanation, they want their one single truth and if you do anything else than nod to it, you get kicked in the shin quite bad.

I was just listening to the soundtrack as well, probably because it's my favourite one of all three. The melodies are just amazing. Especially "Leaving earth", "I'm proud of you" and "An end, once and for all" just leave me wanting to cry whenever I listen to them, bringing back great, but also sad memories. The way the music was tied into this game was... wow. Just wow.

Second that. The music was amazing and deserves all the praise it can get.

..."Hackett out."

You know you wanted to, anyway

[Changer the Elder]

Thanatos144 wrote...

Do any of you even play the game cause it seems you all just sit here and complain about not getting what you you think you are owed....?

Two times complete run through ME3, one more run through ME2 Suicide mission part and one main campaign of ME1 since March 6th. And I believe I'm somewhere around the bottom of the list. So I guess it's very much possible to spend time here and play the game. And even go to work, occassionally.

[Thanatos144]

Changer the Elder wrote...

Thanatos144 wrote...

Do any of you even play the game cause it seems you all just sit here and complain about not getting what you you think you are owed....?

Two times complete run through ME3, one more run through ME2 Suicide mission part and one main campaign of ME1 since March 6th. And I believe I'm somewhere around the bottom of the list. So I guess it's very much possible to spend time here and play the game. And even go to work, occassionally.

If you say so.

[Thanatos144]

Happy Easter all.....I am a day late I know but family time is more important than ME time.

[pipemaster9000]

Ksandor wrote...

Agduk wrote...

 I was very said to see that Bioware is still using the argument that not changing the ending is a matter of "artistic integrity".

It seems like they keep using this word, but it's not clear they know what it means.

It's like this: Every successful work of art has a core to it; a theme, if you will. This manifests as an internal model that lets people appreciating that art look at it, and say, "Ah, it works!" This model is very close to the heart of what art is all about. When that model is true to itself, when you can look at a work of fiction and say, 'wow, I couldn't imagine it any other way', then you know it's working.

Here's an example: 

When I watched Mordin Solus go up that elevator -- knowing that he was going up there to die, and there would be no coming back from this, it felt right to me. It was the culmination of dozens of decisions, actions I'd taken in the game, and when Mordin said "It had to be me", I felt it, because it had that ring of internal truth. When you do this right, you move the audience of your art. It's why I actually shed tears watching Mordin sing his little Gilbert & Sullivan tune right as he marched to his grave.

It's also why the ending was so very, very wrong -- it just made no sense in light of every other scrap of artistic truth that the game had. I don't think I've met anybody who's told me, "Yeah, that ending really fit". People might have felt that resonance with parts of it (Shepard dying, Reapers blowing up), but as whole, it felt false.

*

There's a misconception in most people's head that 'artistic integrity' really means, 'what the artist says is the Way It Is'. It's a really tempting misconception, because historically, a lot of art is the result of a singular vision. We didn't have multiple people writing War and Peace; we didn't have multiple sculptors for Michelangelo's David; we certainly didn't have two different dudes painting the Mona Lisa. 

While it might be tempting to generalize from those examples, we would actually be wrong. It's a case of correlation, not causation. The simplicity and beauty of art from a single creator is one of constraints. It limits the arts that are within the reach of a single human -- both in terms of the physical accomplishments, but (more importantly) in terms of the conceptual complexity of the piece. 

If you can hold the entirety of your system in a single person's head, then it's easier to understand when it goes awry -- when the plot goes off the rails, your characters stop behaving the way they normally would, or when you try to change your theme midcourse. To borrow an example from programming: What's easier to debug: A system you built exclusively yourself, or one that was made by dozens of different people? Each piece you add is another link in the chain of complexity, which can terminate in a system when even simple changes can have vast an unexpected effects.

Unfortunately for us, we live in a vastly more complicated world -- and it's getting more complicated all the time. There are still videogames made by one person (just like there are still independent films more or less made by one person), but there is a limitation and scope which is of necessity. Making a game like Mass Effect is a work of collaborative art between dozens of people: More than one writer, producers, artists, computer graphics experts, programmers, QA testers, and of course players. This doesn't even get into the fact that none of these people are pure artists for art sake type people: They are in fact bound by constraints of time and money, dictated by a publisher, the marketplace, and the fickle moods of fans.

So, a game gets plenty of slack from me when I see minor blips here and there. How did the Reapers move the Citadel? How did the Illusive Man get on the Citadel? Why didn't the Reapers just attack the Citadel in Act I? These sorts of problems can make us suspend disbelief, or get a little frustrated, but they don't in a fundamental sense break what the game was about. Not the way the ending did -- which as far as I can tell is a betrayal of almost every form of internal consistency the game has.

Back to my point though: It'd be a hard sell to say that you shouldn't change ME3's ending just because of 'artistic integrity' just because it's What the Artist Said, because that's not really is going on at the heart of it. It's also hard to use this argument, since the history of human art actually begs to differ -- even for the simpler, single person form of art.

Charles Dickens rewrote _Great Expectations_, when a friend (who was a fan) told him the ending was too bleak, and the characters warranted some sort of redemption. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle brought Sherlock Holmes back from the dead "because the fans demand it", and wrote some of the series' best stories after that. Tennesse Williams rewrote the third act to "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" after he had the play performed, and audiences complained about inconsistencies and problems -- he later admitted "I was too close to it". Shakespeare had multiple versions of Hamlet -- some believe one version for literary consumption, and one, more tightly paced for dramatic performances. Modern art does this even more -- we see it constantly in movies (both before publication, with focus groups, and after, with director's cuts). Ansel Adams had a famous photograph called 'Moonrise over Hernandez' that he produced dozens of prints from over the course of 50 years. He kept tweaking the output, as his skill with the darkroom, with existing technology, and his own taste evolved -- and that only stop when he died!

Obviously, fans can be wrong in their criticism of art. You could insist that The Godfather should have a happy ending for Michael Corleone. You could yell that Frodo should stay in Middle Earth and live 'happily ever after'. Or you could insist that there's no room for a gay Shepard because it offends you. 

But the converse is also true: Fans can be right, too. And when that happens -- when fans spend thousands of hours (by my count) telling you exactly how an ending to a story effectively breaks the internal model of the piece, you should take a step back and ask yourself: Is not changing the ending really "artistic integrity"? Or is it just "not admitting we got it wrong?"

The way I see it, Bioware has two choices here.

One is that they can fix this. All it takes is admitting: You know, we blew this. We were too close to it. Maybe we mishandled the time we had. Or we let the wrong guy write the ending. The excuse doesn't really matter to fans: What does matter is owning up to a mistake -- an artistic mistake. Then Bioware could go back to the drawing board, and do a real revision -- not just more cutscenes. I know I would admire the heck out of this decision, and would be willing to pay $10 or even $20 to get it fixed. Don't believe me? Start the Kickstarter yourself, Bioware, and see how many of the people who want to love you will come out of the woodworks to support you.

Two is to just attempt to slop a coat of paint over the problem, or to basically try to talk your way out of the problems by saying, "Oh, we just didn't *clarify* things enough." You know that's not the problem, so why pretend? The end result of this pattern of thinking is this: One day, some number of years down the road, when the Mass Effect IP is mothballed, somebody is going to buy the rights on the cheap, and there's going to be some n-th fold generation of Kickstarter that says, "We just bought the license to Mass Effect, and now we're going to do it right -- who's in?"

I don't want to have to wait ten, twenty, thirty, or even fifty years for this to happen. I believe very passionately that the real written to Mass Effect 3 hasn't been written yet; and I even believe the Bioware that gave us Sovereign, that gave us the Shroud, that gave us Tali and Legion on that cliff -- you still have it in you to give the series the great ending it deserves. 







 

This is very insightful. Thank you for sharing this. Bioware do you actually read these posts? Do you understand what's going on here?

I quoted this speciffically because BioWare needs to read this until they can recite it in their sleep. This is all the discontent and faith rolled into a respectful passage. Destructive criticism and Contructive alike want one thing, the real Bioware ending. You guys were shining throughout ME3... Why couldn't you, take a breath, then finish strong? We know you guys are more than capable.

[Thanatos144]

pipemaster9000 wrote...

Ksandor wrote...

Agduk wrote...

 I was very said to see that Bioware is still using the argument that not changing the ending is a matter of "artistic integrity".

It seems like they keep using this word, but it's not clear they know what it means.

It's like this: Every successful work of art has a core to it; a theme, if you will. This manifests as an internal model that lets people appreciating that art look at it, and say, "Ah, it works!" This model is very close to the heart of what art is all about. When that model is true to itself, when you can look at a work of fiction and say, 'wow, I couldn't imagine it any other way', then you know it's working.

Here's an example: 

When I watched Mordin Solus go up that elevator -- knowing that he was going up there to die, and there would be no coming back from this, it felt right to me. It was the culmination of dozens of decisions, actions I'd taken in the game, and when Mordin said "It had to be me", I felt it, because it had that ring of internal truth. When you do this right, you move the audience of your art. It's why I actually shed tears watching Mordin sing his little Gilbert & Sullivan tune right as he marched to his grave.

It's also why the ending was so very, very wrong -- it just made no sense in light of every other scrap of artistic truth that the game had. I don't think I've met anybody who's told me, "Yeah, that ending really fit". People might have felt that resonance with parts of it (Shepard dying, Reapers blowing up), but as whole, it felt false.

*

There's a misconception in most people's head that 'artistic integrity' really means, 'what the artist says is the Way It Is'. It's a really tempting misconception, because historically, a lot of art is the result of a singular vision. We didn't have multiple people writing War and Peace; we didn't have multiple sculptors for Michelangelo's David; we certainly didn't have two different dudes painting the Mona Lisa. 

While it might be tempting to generalize from those examples, we would actually be wrong. It's a case of correlation, not causation. The simplicity and beauty of art from a single creator is one of constraints. It limits the arts that are within the reach of a single human -- both in terms of the physical accomplishments, but (more importantly) in terms of the conceptual complexity of the piece. 

If you can hold the entirety of your system in a single person's head, then it's easier to understand when it goes awry -- when the plot goes off the rails, your characters stop behaving the way they normally would, or when you try to change your theme midcourse. To borrow an example from programming: What's easier to debug: A system you built exclusively yourself, or one that was made by dozens of different people? Each piece you add is another link in the chain of complexity, which can terminate in a system when even simple changes can have vast an unexpected effects.

Unfortunately for us, we live in a vastly more complicated world -- and it's getting more complicated all the time. There are still videogames made by one person (just like there are still independent films more or less made by one person), but there is a limitation and scope which is of necessity. Making a game like Mass Effect is a work of collaborative art between dozens of people: More than one writer, producers, artists, computer graphics experts, programmers, QA testers, and of course players. This doesn't even get into the fact that none of these people are pure artists for art sake type people: They are in fact bound by constraints of time and money, dictated by a publisher, the marketplace, and the fickle moods of fans.

So, a game gets plenty of slack from me when I see minor blips here and there. How did the Reapers move the Citadel? How did the Illusive Man get on the Citadel? Why didn't the Reapers just attack the Citadel in Act I? These sorts of problems can make us suspend disbelief, or get a little frustrated, but they don't in a fundamental sense break what the game was about. Not the way the ending did -- which as far as I can tell is a betrayal of almost every form of internal consistency the game has.

Back to my point though: It'd be a hard sell to say that you shouldn't change ME3's ending just because of 'artistic integrity' just because it's What the Artist Said, because that's not really is going on at the heart of it. It's also hard to use this argument, since the history of human art actually begs to differ -- even for the simpler, single person form of art.

Charles Dickens rewrote _Great Expectations_, when a friend (who was a fan) told him the ending was too bleak, and the characters warranted some sort of redemption. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle brought Sherlock Holmes back from the dead "because the fans demand it", and wrote some of the series' best stories after that. Tennesse Williams rewrote the third act to "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" after he had the play performed, and audiences complained about inconsistencies and problems -- he later admitted "I was too close to it". Shakespeare had multiple versions of Hamlet -- some believe one version for literary consumption, and one, more tightly paced for dramatic performances. Modern art does this even more -- we see it constantly in movies (both before publication, with focus groups, and after, with director's cuts). Ansel Adams had a famous photograph called 'Moonrise over Hernandez' that he produced dozens of prints from over the course of 50 years. He kept tweaking the output, as his skill with the darkroom, with existing technology, and his own taste evolved -- and that only stop when he died!

Obviously, fans can be wrong in their criticism of art. You could insist that The Godfather should have a happy ending for Michael Corleone. You could yell that Frodo should stay in Middle Earth and live 'happily ever after'. Or you could insist that there's no room for a gay Shepard because it offends you. 

But the converse is also true: Fans can be right, too. And when that happens -- when fans spend thousands of hours (by my count) telling you exactly how an ending to a story effectively breaks the internal model of the piece, you should take a step back and ask yourself: Is not changing the ending really "artistic integrity"? Or is it just "not admitting we got it wrong?"

The way I see it, Bioware has two choices here.

One is that they can fix this. All it takes is admitting: You know, we blew this. We were too close to it. Maybe we mishandled the time we had. Or we let the wrong guy write the ending. The excuse doesn't really matter to fans: What does matter is owning up to a mistake -- an artistic mistake. Then Bioware could go back to the drawing board, and do a real revision -- not just more cutscenes. I know I would admire the heck out of this decision, and would be willing to pay $10 or even $20 to get it fixed. Don't believe me? Start the Kickstarter yourself, Bioware, and see how many of the people who want to love you will come out of the woodworks to support you.

Two is to just attempt to slop a coat of paint over the problem, or to basically try to talk your way out of the problems by saying, "Oh, we just didn't *clarify* things enough." You know that's not the problem, so why pretend? The end result of this pattern of thinking is this: One day, some number of years down the road, when the Mass Effect IP is mothballed, somebody is going to buy the rights on the cheap, and there's going to be some n-th fold generation of Kickstarter that says, "We just bought the license to Mass Effect, and now we're going to do it right -- who's in?"

I don't want to have to wait ten, twenty, thirty, or even fifty years for this to happen. I believe very passionately that the real written to Mass Effect 3 hasn't been written yet; and I even believe the Bioware that gave us Sovereign, that gave us the Shroud, that gave us Tali and Legion on that cliff -- you still have it in you to give the series the great ending it deserves. 







 

This is very insightful. Thank you for sharing this. Bioware do you actually read these posts? Do you understand what's going on here?

I quoted this speciffically because BioWare needs to read this until they can recite it in their sleep. This is all the discontent and faith rolled into a respectful passage. Destructive criticism and Contructive alike want one thing, the real Bioware ending. You guys were shining throughout ME3... Why couldn't you, take a breath, then finish strong? We know you guys are more than capable.

I contend it is a real Bioware ending. You are given three choices just
like the last game and the end result were not that different from the
others just like the last game.

[pipemaster9000]

You contend against majority then. Please, explain the ending. I wish to be enlightened. 3 choices? Seriously? I distinctly remember being told it would not be an " A, B, or C ending." The end results were completely different.

[GarrusVFan]

Thanatos144 wrote...

Happy Easter all.....I am a day late I know but family time is more important than ME time.

Did you come on here just to imply that the people who spend time here debating and talking about what is important to them, is a waste of time and they have no life?

And concerning your post before that; you have obviously missed the entire reason this thread exists, and I'm not about to attempt to re-explain it to you.  If you're satisfied with the current endings as they are, g4u, but the rest of us are not.

Ane yes, we feel entitled to an ending without 30+ plotholes, amidst the mutiple other issues with the current endings.