23455 réponses à ce sujet

[Paladin1337]

I posted this elsewhere, thinking that someone from Bioware might actually see it, then realized it only had 71 views and no replies.  So here goes on this 701 page discussion

This article that discusses Metal Gear Solid 2 and Hideo Kojima is lengthy but very worthwhile to read. www.metagearsolid.org/reports_fromnothing4.html
I post at page 4 because the last paragraph sums it up.  Read all the
rest though for it all to make sense.  Hideo had formerly acknowledged
that video games were not art, unless "you made a boss that couldn't be
defeated" (see page 3).  He then went against his own logic in parts of MGS2--ending specifically, it failed, made players mad, caused all kinds of questions, and he had to
make MGS 4 as a result.  Bioware did the exact....same....thing. 
Videogames are not defined as art by the company.  Anytime you try to make them art, players get
mad.  (Unless you are Bethesda/Fallout: New Vegas, which actually
suceeded in the player telling their own story by having 29 different
slides with it seems over 200 possiblilities (I stopped counting after
100.).  fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout:_New_Vegas_endings  How did Bethesda succeed where others failed?  Player choices, multiple meme lines concluded, multiple experiences and themes carried to full conclusions, LOGICAL conclusions and believable, within the suspension of disbelief, at that. 

Look at this quote from the man, the FREAKING MAN of video games.

"I don't know the official English translation of
it, but one of his pieces is called The Refusing Chair. It's something
that sort of looks like a chair, but it's got bumps on it, so you can't
sit on it, but if you do, it's going to hurt your butt. With
videogames you have to make sure you can sit on the chair. That's why
you want to think about art and videogames. I think the lousiest
videogames can be considered art. Because bad games with no fun aren't
really games, by definition." --Hideo Kojima

Bottom line is that it is okay to try to incorporate memes into a game.  It is okay to make the game beautiful, with artistic parts and qualities.  But in the end, a video game, or even a video game ending, that sets out to be art, is not, and never will be, art--it will be a lousy video game or a lousy video game ending.  The irony is, that when you make a game that is "great" that everyone loves to play and replay and get new experiences, THAT is when the consumer DEFINES it as art!  The consumer/player defines art, not the production company!  Learn that or go bankrupt!   

[macarius5]

on the endings, how come the shockwave (due to the relay explosion) that the Normandy was attempting to escape from have no impact on the planet that the normandy crash landed to. Given it significant impact it has caused on the normandy, any objects, that includes planets, should be affected. given that scale, it could have devastating consequences on any planet who happens to be in the shockwave's path. And what about the fate of the Allied ships (humans & aliens) on the SOL system, surely its on the same situation the Normandy was in.

Do the extended cut explains this? that the explosion was pre-selecting which things caught it its path get destroyed/damaged? And by divine intervention, some areas are unaffected?

[chemiclord]

Ralph The Wonder Llama wrote...

chemiclord wrote...

Ralph The Wonder Llama wrote...

Unfortunaly something great was taken away from us, the fans. 

See, this is what I inherently disagree with.

EA can't take what isn't yours to begin with.  The fans owned absoutely jack s*** of this IP, narrative, characters, etc.  EA screwed themselves over, but ya know what... it was entirely their right to do so.  You have every right to not like it, make your displeasure clear, and eventually walk away if you don't feel your concerns were addressed, and you should.

But you have absolutely no right to claim ownership of anything.  Because it's not yours, and it never was.

Then please refund my money.

It ain't mine either.  Otherwise I'd be glad to give you your money back just to get you to shut up about how YOU own the story.  Because you don't.  Never did.  And never will.

[Omnike]

chemiclord wrote...

Ralph The Wonder Llama wrote...

chemiclord wrote...

Ralph The Wonder Llama wrote...

Unfortunaly something great was taken away from us, the fans. 

See, this is what I inherently disagree with.

EA can't take what isn't yours to begin with.  The fans owned absoutely jack s*** of this IP, narrative, characters, etc.  EA screwed themselves over, but ya know what... it was entirely their right to do so.  You have every right to not like it, make your displeasure clear, and eventually walk away if you don't feel your concerns were addressed, and you should.

But you have absolutely no right to claim ownership of anything.  Because it's not yours, and it never was.

Then please refund my money.

It ain't mine either.  Otherwise I'd be glad to give you your money back just to get you to shut up about how YOU own the story.  Because you don't.  Never did.  And never will.

Except when they break their promises. That's called false advertisement.

[Fihtengolz]

hey, it would be nice if Shepard will say smth to the united fleet before the battle for the Earth. He is the hero of the galaxy, the power of his words is very strong. I thought that he will do that, but... I hope for that in extended cut.

[AkaXan]

I've pretty much given up on Bioware and thier games as I cant help, but expect that the DLC extended cut wont change the awful lore, logic, choices and replayability destroying endings. At best the extended cut DLC will be Bioware attempt to make the god awful writing of those ABC endings less craptastic. The player will still get shafted with no real options or character forfillmemt.

What I do look forward to is the day when Bioware/EA roll out plot based/side story Paid DLC and then try to explain why buying the DLC would be worth it, when the fans/customers knows that come the end of ME3 any choice or plot that takes place during that DLC will be renderd pointless.

For example Say a shiney new paid DLC called taking back Omaga gets put out and involves Shep/the player helping Aria take back Omega in an affort to aid the war. Why would buying and playing this matter when at the end of ME3 everything gets screwed by the ABC endings, no matter how much time and affort the player put into getting the best outcomes for quests and making choices they felt would have a positive effect on the outcome, the player will still be railroaded into the same 3 crap ABC endings. So what the point of investing more time and money.

I have to say I dont think I've ever seen a Dev, not only kill thier games main reasons to play (Characters, Choices, Replayability) But then with the same blow kill any reason to buy paid DLC for said game in the future.

Modifié par AkaXan, 18 avril 2012 - 09:46 .

[vixvicco]

I think I agree.I think the extended cut will not change "the damage" that has already been done (I was not sure if that's the right way to put it). I just think that even when they release it, we won't forget what they expected us to accept as the ending, if we had not complained.

I can't say I am done with Bioware, because many people will hate me for saying this, but I still want to stick with Dragon Age, and possibly Mass Effect if there is more to come (but this time I will wait longer to read reviews and people's reactions). I am just going to be more cautious is all.

I am not pleased with the endings at all, but I am not livid.

[PadawanMage71]

No matter what, (DLC notwithstanding), this sorry episode will haunt BW for a long time. People are going to look at all future contact and ask, 'Will THIS also have a Crayola ending?'

[helloween7]

PadawanMage71 wrote...

No matter what, (DLC notwithstanding), this sorry episode will haunt BW for a long time. People are going to look at all future contact and ask, 'Will THIS also have a Crayola ending?'

And let's not forget "Are they lying to me again about what I can expect from this game?"

[Chrislo1990]

The endings as they are not salvageable. It's as simple as that. No amount of clarification will take away the fact that the players past decisions had very little impact in the game's ending. Was your Shepard paragon or renegade? Did he choose to cure the krogan or betray them? How about the Rachni Queen? Did you save her a second time? Well in the end your decisions are irrelevant. You are forced to pick from three choices that take none of your past decisions into account. To add insult to injury all three choices result in outcomes that are virtually identical save for the mere color of the mass relay explosions.

In my opinion Bioware's only chance to save the franchise was to implement the indoctrination theory. It would have given them the chance to retcon the current endings without the need to do away with them. An overwhelming majority of us are insisting that the endings be changed but does Bioware listen? No, not at all. They stick to their artistic integrity card so as to avoid admitting their mistake. Bioware this is not humility. This is just a display of ego. As such why lie to us and say that you're listening to fan feedback? Why waste both your time and ours with this sherade?

Now my fellow ME3 forumites I have a question for you. Bioware plans to release this so called clarification dlc free of charge. We all know that resources will be required to develop this piece of content. As such, wouldn't it be very likely that it won't be as content rich? EA is all about profit. Would it be wise for them to spend so much money developing dlc that will yield no profit whatsoever?

[Blazerer]

The problem is that Bioware KNOWS the ending is not salvageable, they simply don't care enough to change it. The extended cut is nothing more than a carrot dangling in front of us to keep us in suspense as long as possible, hoping the anger will flow away.

[cApAc aMaRu]

 social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/11503667/1#11503764

 I just beat the game FINALLY (thanks to not having a face for a month).

I chose synthesis... I wanted to choose control to preserve the relays... but the Geth deserve free will. The people of the galaxy will find a way to re-connect without relays. BUT SYNTHESIS IS ING STUPID. RADIATION made LEAVES AND PEOPLE grow CIRCUITRY. 

The deus ex machina macguffin used wizard magic to combine 2 completely different forms of life.

So now when life evolves will it magically be partially synthetic?

Do computers and spaceships bleed now?


God powers aside, the REASONING doesn't make any sense:

There was a problem with synthetic life turning on its creators.

So someone made synthetic life that would destroy ALL organic life once it reached the capability of producing more synthetic life (to protect them from having their creations turning on them by OBLITERATING THEIR CIVILISATIONS FIRST).

Presumably this synthetic life (the reapers) DESTROYED ITS CREATORS.

Then the destroyed civilisations are 'preserved' in WAR MACHINES.

So whole 'preserved' civilisations are wiped out whenever a civilisation takes down a reaper.


Here's an idea. I'm going to exterminate endangered species, collect their genetic material, and keep the material in the equipment I use to hunt and kill endangered species. I sure hope I don't lose any of my gear out on the hunt.


WHAT'S THE POINT? Life is an on going process. 'Preserving' civilisations has no use or purpose. If Mass Effect 3 showed ANYTHING its that the Protheans failed, Cerberus failed, the Council failed, because they tried to control everything. Mass Effect 3 showed that COOPERATION is the key to success, not CONTROL. 

AND THEN THE ENDING = DO YOU WANT TO CONTROL? OR DO YOU WANT TO CONTROL (destroy)? OR DO YOU WANT TO CONTROL (synthesis)?

Its clear to me that the catalyst, the citadel, the reapers, were put together by a control obsessed madman like TIM, because its the only explanation that makes sense.

Mass Effect ending number 4 (or yellow if you want a color):

Shepard joins with the catalyst, becoming a new 'AI' for the citadel. With access to the collected memories of all the races 'preserved' by the reapers, Shepard-Citadel guides the council (now composed of Asari, Turian, Salarian, Human, Quarian, Geth, Elcor, Hanar, Volus, Rachni, Prothean, Reapers, Shepard, and whoever else) in AVOIDING the mistakes of the past through cooperation. The Reapers retreat outside the galaxy again except for Harbinger, the Prothean reaper, who stays as a member of the council, and along with Shepard maintains a careful vigil over any excesses in either organic or synthetic life. If the 'experiment' fails the Reapers can always go back to doing what they always do. The mass relays are NOT destroyed. 


[omg just got through the credits to the 'its just a story it may not be 100% accurate' handwave scene, and the helpful YOU CAN BUY DLC message]

Whatever. Thats my 2 cents. 

[3DandBeyond]

Rex Fallout wrote...

missfemshep wrote...
 No 2 peoples experiences are the same. 
[/list]

... What game did you play?  There are only three endings with the only difference being the colored explosion at the end.  Everyone got the exact same ending.  

To be fair, there are variations on the 3 endings:
Destroy Good, Destroy Bad, Destroy Very Bad
Control Good, Control Bad
Synthesis Good

Good being kind of a misnomer for control and synthesis since I don't see them as ever being totally good.  The difference is based on EMS.  It's just other than the gasp Shepard takes and the stargazer secret endings, the impact on everyone is terrible.  If your EMS isn't high enough (and that is partly due to how you used your renegade/paragon options), Earth may get vaporized. 

So, your choices boil down to mass relays destroyed, large portion of life in galaxy destroyed, large portion of fleets stranded at Earth, Joker and friends stranded on Jungle planet. The main variations are that all synthetic life may be destroyed with one choice, all life left would be vastly changed in another, and in one choice you die but somehow play God to mindless killing machines.  Yes, lots of variation and choice there.

[TsubakiYayoi]

3DandBeyond wrote...

The last real reaper boss fight is Marauder Shields. Pretty much sums things up. Even the TIM fight isn't such a fight. You'd think with what they did to all those Turians and Batarians and stuff that TIM would have really been some kind of truly warped thing that you have to fight before once again finding some bit of humanity.

In the end, the upgrades to the Normandy meant nothing-never got to use them. All the stuff you obtain is for war assets.

The last actual boss is the ending itself. Its a battle of determination. It demands that you not to shut off the console/pc for 25 minutes of unskipable scenes.

[3DandBeyond]

Paladin1337 wrote...

I posted this elsewhere, thinking that someone from Bioware might actually see it, then realized it only had 71 views and no replies.  So here goes on this 701 page discussion

This article that discusses Metal Gear Solid 2 and Hideo Kojima is lengthy but very worthwhile to read. www.metagearsolid.org/reports_fromnothing4.html
I post at page 4 because the last paragraph sums it up.  Read all the
rest though for it all to make sense.  Hideo had formerly acknowledged
that video games were not art, unless "you made a boss that couldn't be
defeated" (see page 3).  He then went against his own logic in parts of MGS2--ending specifically, it failed, made players mad, caused all kinds of questions, and he had to
make MGS 4 as a result.  Bioware did the exact....same....thing. 
Videogames are not defined as art by the company.  Anytime you try to make them art, players get
mad.  (Unless you are Bethesda/Fallout: New Vegas, which actually
suceeded in the player telling their own story by having 29 different
slides with it seems over 200 possiblilities (I stopped counting after
100.).  fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout:_New_Vegas_endings  How did Bethesda succeed where others failed?  Player choices, multiple meme lines concluded, multiple experiences and themes carried to full conclusions, LOGICAL conclusions and believable, within the suspension of disbelief, at that. 

Look at this quote from the man, the FREAKING MAN of video games.

"I don't know the official English translation of
it, but one of his pieces is called The Refusing Chair. It's something
that sort of looks like a chair, but it's got bumps on it, so you can't
sit on it, but if you do, it's going to hurt your butt. With
videogames you have to make sure you can sit on the chair. That's why
you want to think about art and videogames. I think the lousiest
videogames can be considered art. Because bad games with no fun aren't
really games, by definition." --Hideo Kojima

Bottom line is that it is okay to try to incorporate memes into a game.  It is okay to make the game beautiful, with artistic parts and qualities.  But in the end, a video game, or even a video game ending, that sets out to be art, is not, and never will be, art--it will be a lousy video game or a lousy video game ending.  The irony is, that when you make a game that is "great" that everyone loves to play and replay and get new experiences, THAT is when the consumer DEFINES it as art!  The consumer/player defines art, not the production company!  Learn that or go bankrupt!   

It is just like the old statement that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  Most real artists are never satisfied with the work they have created and are hesistant to call it art.  Their only guide to whether it is or isn't is whether viewers see it as art.  Even then they have their doubts.

As far as videogames as art, the ME series does come close to being art in the sense of a space opera and a good story.  But, it just drops off at the end of game 3.  A writer does not determine that his book is a success and bestseller, readers do.  And while movies, paintings, books can be interactive in that they immerse your senses, videogames are interactive in that you determine actions and generally expect to determine outcome, success or failure.  The most basic videogame incorporates this philosophy.  I'm all for artistic along the way.  I'm not looking for a David Lynch ending, though.  If the game had been Twin Peaks meets Star Wars, I'd expect to be confused, but it isn't.


And some people erroneously think that some sort of cooperation choice must mean cooperation with the reapers.  My choice of cooperation would be organics and synths getting along, reapers programming skips a step and they self-destruct.  Just the reapers, not the relays thank you.  Organics and synthetics live up to the final evolution of geth and quarian, not some idiotic idea of final evolution where all must be combined in order to coexist.  The true nature of sentience is that advanced brains/processes see things differently, allowing for great variation and individuality.  It's not the weakening or dilution of individuality.  Ask the Cheetah how good that is for any species when variation and individuality disappear.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 18 avril 2012 - 12:23 .

[Thanatos144]

Omnike wrote...

chemiclord wrote...

Ralph The Wonder Llama wrote...

chemiclord wrote...

Ralph The Wonder Llama wrote...

Unfortunaly something great was taken away from us, the fans. 

See, this is what I inherently disagree with.

EA can't take what isn't yours to begin with.  The fans owned absoutely jack s*** of this IP, narrative, characters, etc.  EA screwed themselves over, but ya know what... it was entirely their right to do so.  You have every right to not like it, make your displeasure clear, and eventually walk away if you don't feel your concerns were addressed, and you should.

But you have absolutely no right to claim ownership of anything.  Because it's not yours, and it never was.

Then please refund my money.

It ain't mine either.  Otherwise I'd be glad to give you your money back just to get you to shut up about how YOU own the story.  Because you don't.  Never did.  And never will.

Except when they break their promises. That's called false advertisement.

Or it could just be a interview....

[Netherspin]

Following this topic for a few days has brought me to a realization.
While there are indeed a few whose main problem with the ending are the logic iregularities such as character placement (Crew being in London when Normandy returns to Sword, then suddently on Normandy when it abandons Sword - Anderson somehow getting ahead of Shepard even thou he says he enters the beam after Shepard) - and some are upset that their choices didn't matter at all in regards to the ending, even thou that would be an asbolute first for a Mass Effect or even Bioware game.
What the vast majority of the players here want is a neat glittering silk bow of an ending where the reapers suddently die and everybody else lives happily ever after. While this is as valid a complaint for Mass Effect as it is for 2012 (movie) or Harry Potter and the Halfblood Prince (book) the answer to the complaint - that they stand by the artistic vision - is as valid an answer.

Now Bioware has shown you that they are listening - they've extended an olivebranch in the form of this extended cut DLC they're no doubt working on this very minute.
Think of what your christian buddy down the street would say - "God answers every prayer, but sometimes the answer is "No"". This holds true for Bioware as well. Fans says "Give us a less confusing ending" - Bioware says "Give us a few weeks, well make free DLC to explain it better". Fans says "Change the very premise of the ending and make it rainbows and flowers"... Bioware has quite clearly said "No" to that one. These games are art, there's no way around that - not art in the traditional sense, but art nontheless, and Bioware stands by the artistic vision presented by their writers (as they should - or the best writing team in the buisness will be forced to quit to retain their professional integrety).

[Thanatos144]

Netherspin wrote...

Following this topic for a few days has brought me to a realization.
While there are indeed a few whose main problem with the ending are the logic iregularities such as character placement (Crew being in London when Normandy returns to Sword, then suddently on Normandy when it abandons Sword - Anderson somehow getting ahead of Shepard even thou he says he enters the beam after Shepard) - and some are upset that their choices didn't matter at all in regards to the ending, even thou that would be an asbolute first for a Mass Effect or even Bioware game.
What the vast majority of the players here want is a neat glittering silk bow of an ending where the reapers suddently die and everybody else lives happily ever after. While this is as valid a complaint for Mass Effect as it is for 2012 (movie) or Harry Potter and the Halfblood Prince (book) the answer to the complaint - that they stand by the artistic vision - is as valid an answer.

Now Bioware has shown you that they are listening - they've extended an olivebranch in the form of this extended cut DLC they're no doubt working on this very minute.
Think of what your christian buddy down the street would say - "God answers every prayer, but sometimes the answer is "No"". This holds true for Bioware as well. Fans says "Give us a less confusing ending" - Bioware says "Give us a few weeks, well make free DLC to explain it better". Fans says "Change the very premise of the ending and make it rainbows and flowers"... Bioware has quite clearly said "No" to that one. These games are art, there's no way around that - not art in the traditional sense, but art nontheless, and Bioware stands by the artistic vision presented by their writers (as they should - or the best writing team in the buisness will be forced to quit to retain their professional integrety).

Very good sumation.

[AmstradHero]

Captain Scruff N7 wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...

Captain Scruff N7 wrote...

http://alexjuice.com...nding-explained   
If you're open to artistic interpretation, give this theory a chance. It certainly helped me find closure for my ending... Or at least until the new DLC arrives.

Awful, filled with logical holes, misses the entire point of many arguments, and is predicated entirely on the (false) belief that Indoctrination Theory is true.

There is no closure or even rational thought to be found from that link.

While you are entitled to your opinion, i'll have to respectfully disagree with you. The link shows that there is convincing evidence that the Indoctrination Theory is true; or do you simply believe that Bioware just left a bunch of plot holes (such as Shepards squadmates exiting the Normandy in the ending cinematic when they were supposed to be on Earth) in a story that they've been working on for nearly a decade? 



There is evidence, however, you seem to be too angry at Bioware to see it.  ^

Nope. I've seen many things about the ending and explanations for Indoctrination Theory. I wanted to believe it, as I deemed it to be the only plausible way to explain the holes in the ending. But my doubts were confirmed by the announcement of the Extended Cut DLC...

BioWare wrote...
Are there going to be more/different endings or ending DLCs in the future?
No.
BioWare strongly believes in the team's artistic vision for the end of this arc of the Mass Effect franchise. The extended cut DLC will expand on the existing endings, but no further ending DLC is planned.

What is BioWare adding to the ending with the Extended Cut DLC?
BioWare will expanding on the ending to Mass Effect 3 by creating additional cinematics and epilogue scenes to the existing ending sequences. The goal of these new scenes is to provide additional clarity and closure to
Mass Effect 3.

Let me point out the important parts here: "Extended cut DLC will expand on the existing endings ... additional cinematics and epilogue scenes. "

That is BioWare explicitly stating Indoctrination Theory is not true. Additional cinematics and epilogue scenes. I didn't want to believe that Casey Hudson and Mac Walters had tried to pull a philosophical ending with religious overtones to try and put people in a headspin, but that is what they did. The ending we got is the real ending. That is what they actually wrote, complete with all the utter gaping holes in plot, fact and logic.

This is what happens when writing doesn't go through peer review, and when the planned ending is ditched a few months away from the release date.

People can continue to wish that Indoctrination Theory is true, but for the time being, it appears that BioWare are set on their so called "artistic" ending, and that it will never be anything more than a false fan theory and hope.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 18 avril 2012 - 12:40 .

[AmstradHero]

Netherspin wrote...

Following this topic for a few days has brought me to a realization.
While there are indeed a few whose main problem with the ending are the logic iregularities such as character placement (Crew being in London when Normandy returns to Sword, then suddently on Normandy when it abandons Sword - Anderson somehow getting ahead of Shepard even thou he says he enters the beam after Shepard) - and some are upset that their choices didn't matter at all in regards to the ending, even thou that would be an asbolute first for a Mass Effect or even Bioware game.
What the vast majority of the players here want is a neat glittering silk bow of an ending where the reapers suddently die and everybody else lives happily ever after.

Stop right there. This is where you are categorically and unequivocally wrong.

That you're stating this as though it is fact is disrespectful to all the people raising problems with the ending. Not everyone wants a happy ending. Many people expected Shepard to die. They just expected that death to happen in a meaningful fashion that was logical and thematically consistent with the rest of the game, and not through an arbitrary deus ex machina space child using space magic. I will accept that some people would like a happy ending, but the core problem isn't that the ending isn't "happy" (though if you actually believe the "logic" of the space child, synthesis is actually a fairly happy ending, but I digress), it's that it doesn't fit with the rest of the series.

The ending is derivative of science fiction filled with philosophical questions about the "unimportance of the individual" and "the effect of technology on the self". It's ripping themes and a philosophical mindset from things like Deus Ex, Battlestar Galatica, Inception, Stargate SG-1, 2001: A Space Odyssey (among others) and attaching them with duct tape to an epic war story. A war story that doesn't cover these themes or have this kind of approach whatsoever. Themes in Mass Effect are the power of the individual, the power of unified diversity, the potential for redemption, and how dire circumstances can affect or test the morality of an individual. The game never tells the player "you are an insignificant bug and your actions ultimately will have no effect on the universe". Yet the ending largely undermines by presenting you with exactly the same options and posing the philosophical question of "Do you believe in the peaceful co-existence of synthetic and organic life?" What. The. $&^%.

Simply put, Mass Effect 3's doesn't fit with the rest of the series. It doesn't belong. It's not thematically consistent with the rest of the game and has no place at the end of the trilogy except as some awful attempt to make the game "artistic".

It's not just that the ending can't be explained without copious amounts of handwaving to solve the enormous amount of logic and plot holes that are present in what the player is shown, it's that it is completely at odds with the delivery of the rest of the series and relies entirely on tropes of other science fiction entertainment for relevancy.

Furthermore, if the team truly believed in the artistic integrity of the product as it was, they wouldn't issue an extended cut. They'd just go "it's up to the player to decide". That's the kind of ending it is. It's an ending that is supposed to make the player come up with their own conclusion. To go back on that is in itself undermining the artistic integrity of the ending as provided. If BioWare are going to do that, they may as well remove the whole damn thing altogether and make an ending that matches the tone and theme of the rest of the series. To do otherwise both undermines their beloved "artistic integrity" and fails to provide the fans with what they are actually asking to be given.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 18 avril 2012 - 01:01 .

[Dratkin]

I have been thinking about the future of the Mass Effect franchise and where it could go.
Earth has this huge armada.  After all this time of using the relays surely they have reverse engineered the things.
Maybe in the next ME game they are building new relays for the galaxy.  Maybe even a new Citidel.
Thoughts?

[Thanatos144]

AmstradHero wrote...

Netherspin wrote...

Following this topic for a few days has brought me to a realization.
While there are indeed a few whose main problem with the ending are the logic iregularities such as character placement (Crew being in London when Normandy returns to Sword, then suddently on Normandy when it abandons Sword - Anderson somehow getting ahead of Shepard even thou he says he enters the beam after Shepard) - and some are upset that their choices didn't matter at all in regards to the ending, even thou that would be an asbolute first for a Mass Effect or even Bioware game.
What the vast majority of the players here want is a neat glittering silk bow of an ending where the reapers suddently die and everybody else lives happily ever after.

Stop right there. This is where you are categorically and unequivocally wrong.

That you're stating this as though it is fact is disrespectful to all the people raising problems with the ending. Not everyone wants a happy ending. Many people expected Shepard to die. They just expected that death to happen in a meaningful fashion that was logical and thematically consistent with the rest of the game, and not through an arbitrary deus ex machina space child using space magic. I will accept that some people would like a happy ending, but the fact that the ending isn't "happy" (though if you actually believe the logic of the space child, synthesis is actually a fairly happy ending, but I digress), it's that it doesn't fit with the rest of the series.

The ending is preposterous. It's derivative of science fiction filled with philosophical questions about the "unimportant of the individual" and "the effect of technology on the self". It's ripping themes and a philosophical mindset from things like Deus Ex, Battlestar Galatica, Inception, Stargate SG-1, 2001: A Space Odyssey (among others) and attaching them with duct tape to an epic war story.

Simply put, Mass Effect 3's doesn't fit with the rest of the series. It doesn't belong. It's not thematically consistent with the rest of the game and has no place at the end of the trilogy except as some awful attempt to make the game "artistic".

It's not just that the ending can't be explained without copious amounts of handwaving to solve the enormous amount of logic and plot holes that are present in what the player is shown, it's that it is completely at odds with the delivery of the rest of the series and relies entirely on tropes of other science fiction entertainment for relevancy.

If the team truly believed in the artistic integrity of the product as it was, they wouldn't issue an extended cut. They'd just go "it's up to the player to decide". That's the kind of ending it is. It's an ending that is supposed to make the player come up with their own conclusion. To go back on that is in itself undermining the artistic integrity of the ending as provided. If BioWare are going to do that, they may as well remove the whole damn thing altogether and make an ending that matches the tone and theme of the rest of the series. To do otherwise both undermines their beloved "artistic integrity" and fails to provide the fans with what they are actually asking to be given.

You know for weeks I have been reading this.....And yet everyone can see
that it is bogus. The ending does fit the series you just don't like it.
How do I know this? Cause I have been playing the series.  Now not
liking the ending is just fine ..Don't like it. unlike some here I am not
trying to dictate your taste. Yet I cannot keep hearing the same bull
and  stay quiet. I have in many posts shown why this ending is not out of
the story. I have also admitted to it being badly edited and parts just
not well written. But it does fit. Your actions did matter through out
the WHOLE game and not just the last choices where you have never had
much choice in any of the games.

  I do believe that Shepard
meeting her fate is the main reason many dislike the ending. I also
think only a few are honest enough to admit it.  I also think the only
reason the relays shake people up is cause they cant seem to understand
the next games does not have to happen directly after ME3...Heck it
could happy a thousand years later.

The AI irks people cause they didn't see  it coming and never realized how one dimensional the
reapers were. I expected this or more aptly a Video recording
explaining the reason for the reapers. Any one who played the first game
and heard Sovereign talk should have known that the reapers were mere
tools....Like Hitlers use of the SS. Kill first never question why.

The
actual cut scenes after you make the choice having very little difference is something they should fix cause it apparently confused
many and left to many to use their own mind to figure it out. Yes the
Joker part was not well thought out or more aptly fleshed out.

The
relay shock wave.....Okay people get freaking real huh? If they blow up
relays and not everything dies then that's what happened.  You all seem
to ignore the fact that they were destroyed differently then the one in
Arrival and dang it they shouldn't have to explain this to you.  You
should know the difference between a controlled explosion and a catastrophic explosion.

Blue babies......How the heck do you know there isn't any??????????????? It isn't like they didn't do the deed before the last chapter.

The whole how did the crew get on and why would Joker take off....One we don't know how long Shepard was out and two BIG DANG LIGHTS DESTROYING CRAP!  Joker smartly took the heck off. This is commonsense and not hard to understand.

Everyone
wants Shepard to tell the AI to pee up a rope ....... Is Shepard so
stupid to destroy it all just so she can get her fight on????? No

The
Synthetic will always destroy their creator....You all seem to miss the
fact that this is the FIRST time that this didn't happen. How is a
program to foresee something that has never happened ever before? The
fact that it did happen opened up new avenues for it to take.

The destroy option....Yes it does suck that all AI has to die to kill the reapers but like a EMP how would the beam  differentiate between friend and foe.

Just
a short synopsis and logic as to how it fits. You don't like the
ending? Fine hate it. Stop telling us it doesn't make sense or fit cause
it does.


End rant.

Modifié par Thanatos144, 18 avril 2012 - 01:36 .

[3DandBeyond]

Netherspin wrote...

Following this topic for a few days has brought me to a realization.
While there are indeed a few whose main problem with the ending are the logic iregularities such as character placement (Crew being in London when Normandy returns to Sword, then suddently on Normandy when it abandons Sword - Anderson somehow getting ahead of Shepard even thou he says he enters the beam after Shepard) - and some are upset that their choices didn't matter at all in regards to the ending, even thou that would be an asbolute first for a Mass Effect or even Bioware game.
What the vast majority of the players here want is a neat glittering silk bow of an ending where the reapers suddently die and everybody else lives happily ever after. While this is as valid a complaint for Mass Effect as it is for 2012 (movie) or Harry Potter and the Halfblood Prince (book) the answer to the complaint - that they stand by the artistic vision - is as valid an answer.

Now Bioware has shown you that they are listening - they've extended an olivebranch in the form of this extended cut DLC they're no doubt working on this very minute.
Think of what your christian buddy down the street would say - "God answers every prayer, but sometimes the answer is "No"". This holds true for Bioware as well. Fans says "Give us a less confusing ending" - Bioware says "Give us a few weeks, well make free DLC to explain it better". Fans says "Change the very premise of the ending and make it rainbows and flowers"... Bioware has quite clearly said "No" to that one. These games are art, there's no way around that - not art in the traditional sense, but art nontheless, and Bioware stands by the artistic vision presented by their writers (as they should - or the best writing team in the buisness will be forced to quit to retain their professional integrety).

The problem with your explanation here is that the majority don't want just a bow tied on the whole package, they want to understand how this all can make sense of all they did in 3 games.  If they only wanted things tied up neatly, they'd be satisfied with the extended cut announcement, but they aren't. The majority does want the understanding of what came after, of course.  There's nothing to hang your emotions on afterward unless you point to some Marines waving their guns in the air.  As for my teammates, I, the player (and the player is Shepard) have no idea what happened to those other than the ones getting off the Normandy with Joker.  Even that is no explanation of their fate since they can't all eat the same food.

We want both.  We want an ending that makes sense and isn't cookie cutter.  No matter how you played the games, you get the same endings.  And none of the endings make sense for the variety of reasons listed here and elsewhere.  Please review the numerous complaints over the circular logic of the supremely logical starkid hologram.  There's no way to reconcile these endings with what Shepard would know to be true and/or possible.  The best choice is not presented, but is completely viable.  Variations on these choices don't exist and yet players were told their decisions would matter and there would not be A, B, or C endings.  If I as a painter promise those attending my gallery that my works of art will utterly and completely satisfy them and then the art doesn't, it's my fault.  I may not be able to change that, but I can't just point at the viewer and say, "it's because it's art and you don't understand it."

Along with the inconsistencies, lack of logic, cookie cutter ABC choices, lack of real authenticity about your character's last actions or inactions (doesn't ever question the choices), lack of real choice, lack of cohesiveness to an awesome story line, and attempt to define this incoherent glob as art, people are never given the option to decompress.

We through Shepard lived, loved, laughed, played, fought, died, lived again, hated, killed, and made Solomon-like gut-wrenching decisions.  We cried at the loss of friends who became like a family.  It was all treated with the most mature understanding of a master story teller-sure, there were bugs and hiccups, but we overlooked those things and bought into the dish we were served.  Along the way, our choices mattered and formed our relationships.  We risked those in order to make wise choices or to make expedient decisions that might ruthlessly advance our cause.  We formed Shepard's personality and we formed the feelings of our teammates as well.

In the end, whether Shepard lies in a heap and gasps or whether s/he dies making that ABC choice, we never know the impact, we never get to feel the impact.  We are left hanging.  For many this means we have no emotional comedown-no chance to say goodbye to Shepard and friends.  So, our emotions are still back where Shepard stands up and approaches the beam.  Whether or not we want a good sad sendoff or we want the possibility of Shepard walking away one last time and landing in the arms of the LI, is almost beside the point.  We get neither.  We don't see anyone's appreciation and sadness at Shepard's final sacrifice or even the beginnings of anyone wondering how to pick up the pieces.  Actually, there's a real absence of emotion from your LI that gets off the Normandy at the end.  For instance, since both my male and female Shepard choose Liara, you see Liara look complacently at Joker with no emotion whatsoever.  Now, that's love.

As for me personally, I want it all.  I want the ending to make sense, to incorporate my character's character, to allow for another solution, to allow me to fight against an ABC choice.  I want the epilog as well, but not just one possible epilog.  I want you to be able to experience the worst, the saddest, and the rising up.  I also want another possibility based partly upon that last gasp by my Shepard.  I want that reunion with whoever is left and an appreciation given for those who are not.  I want this to be part of the possibilities.  My Shepard earned it, not by always being a Paragon, but by thinking through choices all along the way and by sacrificing continually.  Your Shepard may have done things differently and I want the game to appreciate that as well.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 18 avril 2012 - 01:29 .

[Caprea]

Very nicely said, 3DandBeyond.

Dratkin wrote...

I have been thinking about the future of the Mass Effect franchise and where it could go.
Earth has this huge armada.  After all this time of using the relays surely they have reverse engineered the things.
Maybe in the next ME game they are building new relays for the galaxy.  Maybe even a new Citidel.
Thoughts?

Maybe - I highly doubt BioWare's going to give up on their flagship just because Shepard's story is over. But questions like "What happens to the Mass Relays?" and "What of the huge armada?" need to be answered in this game - not in another.

Modifié par dea_ex_machina, 18 avril 2012 - 01:42 .

[darkway1]

Thanatos144 wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...

Netherspin wrote...

Following this topic for a few days has brought me to a realization.
While there are indeed a few whose main problem with the ending are the logic iregularities such as character placement (Crew being in London when Normandy returns to Sword, then suddently on Normandy when it abandons Sword - Anderson somehow getting ahead of Shepard even thou he says he enters the beam after Shepard) - and some are upset that their choices didn't matter at all in regards to the ending, even thou that would be an asbolute first for a Mass Effect or even Bioware game.
What the vast majority of the players here want is a neat glittering silk bow of an ending where the reapers suddently die and everybody else lives happily ever after.

Stop right there. This is where you are categorically and unequivocally wrong.

That you're stating this as though it is fact is disrespectful to all the people raising problems with the ending. Not everyone wants a happy ending. Many people expected Shepard to die. They just expected that death to happen in a meaningful fashion that was logical and thematically consistent with the rest of the game, and not through an arbitrary deus ex machina space child using space magic. I will accept that some people would like a happy ending, but the fact that the ending isn't "happy" (though if you actually believe the logic of the space child, synthesis is actually a fairly happy ending, but I digress), it's that it doesn't fit with the rest of the series.

The ending is preposterous. It's derivative of science fiction filled with philosophical questions about the "unimportant of the individual" and "the effect of technology on the self". It's ripping themes and a philosophical mindset from things like Deus Ex, Battlestar Galatica, Inception, Stargate SG-1, 2001: A Space Odyssey (among others) and attaching them with duct tape to an epic war story.

Simply put, Mass Effect 3's doesn't fit with the rest of the series. It doesn't belong. It's not thematically consistent with the rest of the game and has no place at the end of the trilogy except as some awful attempt to make the game "artistic".

It's not just that the ending can't be explained without copious amounts of handwaving to solve the enormous amount of logic and plot holes that are present in what the player is shown, it's that it is completely at odds with the delivery of the rest of the series and relies entirely on tropes of other science fiction entertainment for relevancy.

If the team truly believed in the artistic integrity of the product as it was, they wouldn't issue an extended cut. They'd just go "it's up to the player to decide". That's the kind of ending it is. It's an ending that is supposed to make the player come up with their own conclusion. To go back on that is in itself undermining the artistic integrity of the ending as provided. If BioWare are going to do that, they may as well remove the whole damn thing altogether and make an ending that matches the tone and theme of the rest of the series. To do otherwise both undermines their beloved "artistic integrity" and fails to provide the fans with what they are actually asking to be given.

You know for weeks I have been reading this.....And yet everyone can see
that it is bogus. The ending does fit the series you just don't like it.
How do I know this? Cause I have been playing the series.  Now not
liking the ending is just fine ..Don't like it. unlike some here I am not
trying to dictate your taste. Yet I cannot keep hearing the same bull
and  stay quiet. I have in many posts shown why this ending is not out of
the story. I have also admitted to it being badly edited and parts just
not well written. But it does fit. Your actions did matter through out
the WHOLE game and not just the last choices where you have never had
much choice in any of the games.

  I do believe that Shepard
meeting her fate is the main reason many dislike the ending. I also
think only a few are honest enough to admit it.  I also think the only
reason the relays shake people up is cause they cant seem to understand
the next games does not have to happen directly after ME3...Heck it
could happy a thousand years later.

The AI irks people cause they didn't see  it coming and never realized how one dimensional the
reapers were. I expected this or more aptly a Video recording
explaining the reason for the reapers. Any one who played the first game
and heard Sovereign talk should have known that the reapers were mere
tools....Like Hitlers use of the SS. Kill first never question why.

The
actual cut scenes after you make the choice having very little difference is something they should fix cause it apparently confused
many and left to many to use their own mind to figure it out. Yes the
Joker part was not well thought out or more aptly fleshed out.

The
relay shock wave.....Okay people get freaking real huh? If they blow up
relays and not everything dies then that's what happened.  You all seem
to ignore the fact that they were destroyed differently then the one in
Arrival and dang it they shouldn't have to explain this to you.  You
should know the difference between a controlled explosion and a catastrophic explosion.

Blue babies......How the heck do you know there isn't any??????????????? It isn't like they didn't do the deed before the last chapter.

The whole how did the crew get on and why would Joker take off....One we don't know how long Shepard was out and two BIG DANG LIGHTS DESTROYING CRAP!  Joker smartly took the heck off. This is commonsense and not hard to understand.

Everyone
wants Shepard to tell the AI to pee up a rope ....... Is Shepard so
stupid to destroy it all just so she can get her fight on????? No

The
Synthetic will always destroy their creator....You all seem to miss the
fact that this is the FIRST time that this didn't happen. How is a
program to foresee something that has never happened ever before? The
fact that it did happen opened up new avenues for it to take.

The destroy option....Yes it does suck that all AI has to die to kill the reapers but like a EMP how would the beam  differentiate between friend and foe.

Just
a short synopsis and logic as to how it fits. You don't like the
ending? Fine hate it. Stop telling us it doesn't make sense or fit cause
it does.


End rant.

I like your way of thinking.......if the ending DOES NOT WORK......I'LL MAKE IT WORK......LOL.