Ce sujet est ferméIt should be done again because the artistic integrity of the ME franchise warrants - nay, demands it.
Modifié par -Spartan, 21 avril 2012 - 11:41 .
On the Mass Effect 3 endings. Yes, we are listening.
Débuté par
Chris Priestly
, mars 15 2012 02:55
#18026
Posté 21 avril 2012 - 11:38
-Spartan
-
- Members
- 190 messages
Simply put the ending we got does not keep the faith the BW experience I've come to love over the years. It needs to be redone - properly. I can give many reasons why but I'll just state the following:
It should be done again because the artistic integrity of the ME franchise warrants - nay, demands it.
It should be done again because the artistic integrity of the ME franchise warrants - nay, demands it.
Retour en haut
#18027
Posté 21 avril 2012 - 01:26
SurfyBridge
-
- Members
- 3 messages
Read these excerpts in one of the comments following the Cal Lit Review - says it all really.
birthofthecool Says:
March 24th, 2012 at 8:14 pm
"Then came the ending and destroyed not only the 30+ hours of fun I had with ME3, but also seriusly tainted the first 2 games for me.
Why should I ever play them again, if it all comes out to star child and three different colours?
And ME1+2 along with DAO were the only three games were the first thing I did after I was finished, was starting a second playthrough.
Bioware has to ask itself, is defending our badly written, shoddy ending as a piece of art, really more important than destroying the experience of the whole franchise and offending the majority of it’s loyal fanbase, the people who support every game you’ve done until now?"
birthofthecool Says:
March 24th, 2012 at 8:14 pm
"Then came the ending and destroyed not only the 30+ hours of fun I had with ME3, but also seriusly tainted the first 2 games for me.
Why should I ever play them again, if it all comes out to star child and three different colours?
And ME1+2 along with DAO were the only three games were the first thing I did after I was finished, was starting a second playthrough.
Bioware has to ask itself, is defending our badly written, shoddy ending as a piece of art, really more important than destroying the experience of the whole franchise and offending the majority of it’s loyal fanbase, the people who support every game you’ve done until now?"
#18028
Posté 21 avril 2012 - 01:42
Archonsg
-
- Members
- 3 560 messages
stellap20 wrote...
Tyramius Zhan wrote...
I know this will come across as "hopelessly" optimistic, but after culling through various posts and watching the many fantastic youtube documentaries, my mind is convinced this is some form of marketing stunt. I think that intoctrination video is damn close. It is just way too damn illogical that the Bioware team could have hit right on so many minor details of minutae during ME3 that left me in awe how well they tied in things from previous games and decisions, to then just get up - walk away - and let a bunch of 10-year olds finish the story having no background on what previously occurred in ME universe.
I think they wanted to set a new standard in gameplay and consumer interaction. Throw out a conclusion they KNOW will upoar over 90% of their fanbase, get all the social media in overdive, maybe even get some government and legal attention (BBB for example), then when it hits a climax (or gets too near E3 and they want their rep back), they fire out the free DLC that completes the game with the ACTUAL ending they always intended (thus no "changing of the ending" they have chimed on) and sit back a reap all the mea culpas from the fanbase and slaps on the back for being bold enough to break the mold or whatever for company/consumer interaction and satisfaction.
I think the guys over at Bioware are having a chuckle in that this is going exactly the way they wanted.
God please let this be true....
that does sound great. It will be like waking up from this nightmare and everything is ok. But as u said hopefully optimistic:crying:
To the OP, Nope. Won't fly with me. Why? Because it meant that I paid $80.00 to be pranked on? SERIOUSLY?! You would applaud someone whom you paid for a product just to be punked, leaving you in an emotional state of depression?
If people really like that idea, how about paying me, $40.00, I'll punch you in the eye, then give you a slab of meat that you can put over said eye and to top it off, it'll be prime beef, so you got a free dinner on me too!
Sounds good?
Come on people, I keep reading about people wishing it was IT all along, that the "artistic vision" was to mind f4ck us, that it would be so cool, and all I perceive is how desperate people want to believe that the ending, THIS ending, isn't so.
I don't condone bad businesses practices and last I checked, false advertising, selling incomplete or even selling a product with the intention to play a prank on your customers IS BAD BUSINESSES PRACTICE.
Bioware, screwed up. If you really sit down and think about it it is not just one game, not just about ME3. We were led to believe that the series is about the combined choices consisting of ME1, 2 and 3 cumulating in an ending that takes all three games and your choices in those games into consideration to give every player an ending specific to those choices. Meaning, someone who went out of his or her way to "screw the galaxy" should not have the same ending as someone who went out of their way to unite the galaxy. That someone could save and see Shepard live to retire with love interest as much as see Shepard die alone and unmourned.
How much is 5 years, your emotional investment, and sense of joy worth to you? That was our investment. That was *my* investment that in 10 short minutes, in no uncertain terms told worth the crap its tossed in with.
Modifié par Archonsg, 21 avril 2012 - 01:45 .
#18029
Posté 21 avril 2012 - 01:44
megabug7
-
- Members
- 498 messages
I think you are wasting your breath - they aren't listening and won't listen.
They've already said they wouldn't change the ending.
Mass Effect 3 - wasted opportunity.
They've already said they wouldn't change the ending.
Mass Effect 3 - wasted opportunity.
#18030
Posté 21 avril 2012 - 01:59
Graius
-
- Members
- 32 messages
I bought ME1 PC Edition, ME2 PC Collectors Edition and All DLC.
When I realised my computer wasn't going to be up to spec for ME3, I bought an Xbox, and repurchased both ME1 and ME2 with all DLC. So it's fair to say I sunk a large amount of money into the series. I pre-ordered ME3 and would have got the collector's edition if I'd got my act together in time. This was the first, and after this business the last, time that I have ever pre-ordered a game. I played a completionist run trying to do everything prior to the end. I downloaded Infiltrator and Datapad. I knew there was some controversy over the ending, but pushed it out of my mind and tried to ignore it. I tried desperately hard to appreciate the ending, but I couldn't.
1. It's cheap
A deus ex machina that introduces a new character in the last ten minutes of a 100-hour trilogy and completely recasts the Reapers and their motivations in a few lines of expository dialogue is dreadful. It's a cheap narrative ploy. There wasn't even any meaningful foreshadowing of such a twist. It did such violence to the otherwise-polished feel of the series that my disbelief stopped being suspended, and proceeded to enter freefall.
At the very least it could have been Harbinger.
2. It's incoherent
The Catalyst's motives are entirely logically unsound. If synthetics are bound to eradicate organics, then creating the synthetic reapers (which he categorically says they are) is no solution. Alternatively, if it is a solution, then it's to a non-existent problem as there's no sense in which reapers are bound to eradicate organics. And if the Reapers aren't synthetic, blowing up the Magic Tube won't destroy them, or if it does, there's no reason why it should harm the Geth or EDI. There is simply no way that the Catalyst's rationale, taken on its own terms, can be said to make any sense. It breaks the ending by presenting you with an explanation that simply does not stack up.
Not only that, but it contradicts everything that went before in the series. Right from ME1 it's hinted that the Geth may not be responsible for the Morning War, and this is made explicit on Rannoch. At the end of that mission, you can end up with them co-operating with the Quarians symbiotically, or expressing regret at their destruction. The Geth even describe certain human traits as "admirable"! EDI is loyal towards the members of the Normandy, wants to experience organic life and ends up falling in love with Joker (if you let her). Even the Rogue VI plot is addressed in an AI-sympathetic way. The whole theme is that organic-synthetic conflict is in no way inevitable.
So you have an ending that makes no sense either internally, or set against the background of the entire game. It's no surprise that people prefer Indoctrination Theory.
3. The mystery of the Reapers is destroyed
The Catalyst turns the Reapers from the mysterium tremendum et fascinans of ME1 into blunt tools to serve a flat purpose. The beautifully-written dialogue with Sovereign in ME1 on Virmire is thrown out the window and has to be understood as either irrelevant or wrong. The idea that the Reapers were fearful superintelligences beyond our comprehension is completely abandoned in favour of an explanation that could be written on a napkin in lipstick. They are completely demystified and go from terrible, truly alien and implacable enemies, to jumped-up predator drones in the space of ten minutes.
4. The choices are poorly set up
Until two minutes previously you spent a fair portion of the game opposing the Control ending. You just convinced TIM (potentially) that it was impossible. You spent ME1 opposing Saren proposing the Synthesis solution. You've seen enough indoctrination and harvesting to believe that Control would be illusory and Synthesis a Reaper victory. Yet the Catalyst tells you that all of a sudden these are viable options? Why? Well, we're not really told. Just like the "inevitability" of organic-synthetic conflict we are given a bare assertion without any scope for justification or exploration. There is no foreshadowing within the previous three games other than to suggest these two endings are Very Bad. They just come out of the blue (or red or green). And Shepard's reaction to all this? "So the Illusive Man was right after all"; a clichéd line and a complete reversal from what he said minutes ago. No resistance, just acceptance of this arbitrary statement from an arbitrary character.
Faced with that, Destroy becomes an obvious solution. But if that were the case then nobody would choose the other two endings and the illusion of choice would be exposed for what it is. So, to suddenly create a dilemma, a threat of genocide is thrown in. Why? Again, we're not told. There's just a bare assertion from the Sky Kid. It even raises more questions than it solves. Why does it destroy just synthetic life but not other forms of technology? What does it do to the heavily modified Quarians and Biotics? Why does it have to include the Geth and EDI? How does it include the Geth and EDI? Does it include EDI? None of these are explained or justified. It feels like it's been tacked-on to force the player into making a choice that would otherwise be obvious.
If you have to threaten genocide to make the player choose, it suggests you've got something wrong.
5. There's no real choice or ending
It's just a matter of Choose Your Own Explosion, with variations on a theme thereof. They are substantially the same. You don't even get to see what the consequences are. Certainly not in a way that provides any resolution. What happened to everyone on the Citadel? What does the destruction of the Mass Relays mean? Was it all for naught? Again, we're not told or even given so much as a hint. This is poor writing and worse, it runs counter to the core premise of the series: that your actions have consequences, which you get to see.
6. Artistic Integrity
The argument that this ending should stand as is with only cosmetic "explanation and clarification" doesn't work. That's because the criticism of the ending is on artistic grounds. It's sloppy, incoherent, self-contradictory and very visibly rushed. It is a fundamentally bad ending, and the reasons it's bad are artistic ones. It would be like finishing the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel with Adam having a smiley face drawn on. The problem isn't that we don't "get" the vision, it's that the ending fundamentally undermines the artistic vision of the series. It's sloppy, incoherent, and goes against everything you worked so hard to establish. It's like the most beautiful set-up to a clanger of a punchline. The threat to artistic integrity is not a change to the ending, but keeping the existing ones.
Claiming artistic integrity is also a way of sidestepping the arguments. Saying you have a right to artistic integrityis much like saying something objectionable then claiming the right to freedom of speech. The response is "yes, and?". Nobody disputes that Bioware have the right to make the ending whatever they want. But you can't then isolate yourself from criticism for it. If you want to stand by the artistic vision, you could at least respond to the criticisms. The most we've seen is "we wanted them to be ambiguous". They certainly are that, but only because they are so poorly executed. "Artistic integrity" is not a response to criticism, it's just invoking the right not to address it when you have the ability to do so.
It also rings hollow when you're a commercial enterprise that took fan input into account, changed the series accordingly in the past, and the ending is very obviously a rush job that bore no resemblance to what was originally planned.
If you're seriously saying that you want to defend an artistic vision that consists of Deus Ex Machina + Macguffin, that's up to you. Just don't expect anyone to respect it.
7. Conclusion
This whole business has soured my experience of the series tremendously. I'm seriously put off replaying any of the games in the series, and I am going to end any future playthroughs (which are unlikely) prior to meeting HoloBoy. I am severely disappointed that the final ten minutes, the denouement of the series, were fumbled so completely. It's telling that Indoctrination Theory is so popular - not only does it make more sense, but you have the sight of fans begging you to save yourselves with the worst cliché of them all - it was all a dream.
Expansion and clarification is extremely unlikely to work because the endings are, for all the reasons I've given, but especially those at 2, fundamentally flawed. I don't really care about whether I choose the ending, or whether it's happy or sad, or bittersweet or ambiguous; I can live with those, so long as it is coherent, compelling and well-executed. This ending is none of those. The only viable solution is to re-do them. I am pessimistic about the Extended Cut DLC, given that you appear to have dug in your heels on whether the ending itself, which is the fundamental flaw, will be changed. I don't want "more closure", I want some basic coherence.
If it doesn't fix things, don't expect me to buy DLC.
Even this is better.
When I realised my computer wasn't going to be up to spec for ME3, I bought an Xbox, and repurchased both ME1 and ME2 with all DLC. So it's fair to say I sunk a large amount of money into the series. I pre-ordered ME3 and would have got the collector's edition if I'd got my act together in time. This was the first, and after this business the last, time that I have ever pre-ordered a game. I played a completionist run trying to do everything prior to the end. I downloaded Infiltrator and Datapad. I knew there was some controversy over the ending, but pushed it out of my mind and tried to ignore it. I tried desperately hard to appreciate the ending, but I couldn't.
1. It's cheap
A deus ex machina that introduces a new character in the last ten minutes of a 100-hour trilogy and completely recasts the Reapers and their motivations in a few lines of expository dialogue is dreadful. It's a cheap narrative ploy. There wasn't even any meaningful foreshadowing of such a twist. It did such violence to the otherwise-polished feel of the series that my disbelief stopped being suspended, and proceeded to enter freefall.
At the very least it could have been Harbinger.
2. It's incoherent
The Catalyst's motives are entirely logically unsound. If synthetics are bound to eradicate organics, then creating the synthetic reapers (which he categorically says they are) is no solution. Alternatively, if it is a solution, then it's to a non-existent problem as there's no sense in which reapers are bound to eradicate organics. And if the Reapers aren't synthetic, blowing up the Magic Tube won't destroy them, or if it does, there's no reason why it should harm the Geth or EDI. There is simply no way that the Catalyst's rationale, taken on its own terms, can be said to make any sense. It breaks the ending by presenting you with an explanation that simply does not stack up.
Not only that, but it contradicts everything that went before in the series. Right from ME1 it's hinted that the Geth may not be responsible for the Morning War, and this is made explicit on Rannoch. At the end of that mission, you can end up with them co-operating with the Quarians symbiotically, or expressing regret at their destruction. The Geth even describe certain human traits as "admirable"! EDI is loyal towards the members of the Normandy, wants to experience organic life and ends up falling in love with Joker (if you let her). Even the Rogue VI plot is addressed in an AI-sympathetic way. The whole theme is that organic-synthetic conflict is in no way inevitable.
So you have an ending that makes no sense either internally, or set against the background of the entire game. It's no surprise that people prefer Indoctrination Theory.
3. The mystery of the Reapers is destroyed
The Catalyst turns the Reapers from the mysterium tremendum et fascinans of ME1 into blunt tools to serve a flat purpose. The beautifully-written dialogue with Sovereign in ME1 on Virmire is thrown out the window and has to be understood as either irrelevant or wrong. The idea that the Reapers were fearful superintelligences beyond our comprehension is completely abandoned in favour of an explanation that could be written on a napkin in lipstick. They are completely demystified and go from terrible, truly alien and implacable enemies, to jumped-up predator drones in the space of ten minutes.
4. The choices are poorly set up
Until two minutes previously you spent a fair portion of the game opposing the Control ending. You just convinced TIM (potentially) that it was impossible. You spent ME1 opposing Saren proposing the Synthesis solution. You've seen enough indoctrination and harvesting to believe that Control would be illusory and Synthesis a Reaper victory. Yet the Catalyst tells you that all of a sudden these are viable options? Why? Well, we're not really told. Just like the "inevitability" of organic-synthetic conflict we are given a bare assertion without any scope for justification or exploration. There is no foreshadowing within the previous three games other than to suggest these two endings are Very Bad. They just come out of the blue (or red or green). And Shepard's reaction to all this? "So the Illusive Man was right after all"; a clichéd line and a complete reversal from what he said minutes ago. No resistance, just acceptance of this arbitrary statement from an arbitrary character.
Faced with that, Destroy becomes an obvious solution. But if that were the case then nobody would choose the other two endings and the illusion of choice would be exposed for what it is. So, to suddenly create a dilemma, a threat of genocide is thrown in. Why? Again, we're not told. There's just a bare assertion from the Sky Kid. It even raises more questions than it solves. Why does it destroy just synthetic life but not other forms of technology? What does it do to the heavily modified Quarians and Biotics? Why does it have to include the Geth and EDI? How does it include the Geth and EDI? Does it include EDI? None of these are explained or justified. It feels like it's been tacked-on to force the player into making a choice that would otherwise be obvious.
If you have to threaten genocide to make the player choose, it suggests you've got something wrong.
5. There's no real choice or ending
It's just a matter of Choose Your Own Explosion, with variations on a theme thereof. They are substantially the same. You don't even get to see what the consequences are. Certainly not in a way that provides any resolution. What happened to everyone on the Citadel? What does the destruction of the Mass Relays mean? Was it all for naught? Again, we're not told or even given so much as a hint. This is poor writing and worse, it runs counter to the core premise of the series: that your actions have consequences, which you get to see.
6. Artistic Integrity
The argument that this ending should stand as is with only cosmetic "explanation and clarification" doesn't work. That's because the criticism of the ending is on artistic grounds. It's sloppy, incoherent, self-contradictory and very visibly rushed. It is a fundamentally bad ending, and the reasons it's bad are artistic ones. It would be like finishing the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel with Adam having a smiley face drawn on. The problem isn't that we don't "get" the vision, it's that the ending fundamentally undermines the artistic vision of the series. It's sloppy, incoherent, and goes against everything you worked so hard to establish. It's like the most beautiful set-up to a clanger of a punchline. The threat to artistic integrity is not a change to the ending, but keeping the existing ones.
Claiming artistic integrity is also a way of sidestepping the arguments. Saying you have a right to artistic integrityis much like saying something objectionable then claiming the right to freedom of speech. The response is "yes, and?". Nobody disputes that Bioware have the right to make the ending whatever they want. But you can't then isolate yourself from criticism for it. If you want to stand by the artistic vision, you could at least respond to the criticisms. The most we've seen is "we wanted them to be ambiguous". They certainly are that, but only because they are so poorly executed. "Artistic integrity" is not a response to criticism, it's just invoking the right not to address it when you have the ability to do so.
It also rings hollow when you're a commercial enterprise that took fan input into account, changed the series accordingly in the past, and the ending is very obviously a rush job that bore no resemblance to what was originally planned.
If you're seriously saying that you want to defend an artistic vision that consists of Deus Ex Machina + Macguffin, that's up to you. Just don't expect anyone to respect it.
7. Conclusion
This whole business has soured my experience of the series tremendously. I'm seriously put off replaying any of the games in the series, and I am going to end any future playthroughs (which are unlikely) prior to meeting HoloBoy. I am severely disappointed that the final ten minutes, the denouement of the series, were fumbled so completely. It's telling that Indoctrination Theory is so popular - not only does it make more sense, but you have the sight of fans begging you to save yourselves with the worst cliché of them all - it was all a dream.
Expansion and clarification is extremely unlikely to work because the endings are, for all the reasons I've given, but especially those at 2, fundamentally flawed. I don't really care about whether I choose the ending, or whether it's happy or sad, or bittersweet or ambiguous; I can live with those, so long as it is coherent, compelling and well-executed. This ending is none of those. The only viable solution is to re-do them. I am pessimistic about the Extended Cut DLC, given that you appear to have dug in your heels on whether the ending itself, which is the fundamental flaw, will be changed. I don't want "more closure", I want some basic coherence.
If it doesn't fix things, don't expect me to buy DLC.
Even this is better.
Modifié par Graius, 22 avril 2012 - 12:37 .
#18031
Posté 21 avril 2012 - 02:00
Archonsg
-
- Members
- 3 560 messages
megabug7 wrote...
I think you are wasting your breath - they aren't listening and won't listen.
They've already said they wouldn't change the ending.
Mass Effect 3 - wasted opportunity.
You are probably right, but I'll be damned if I just go quietly into the night and take this "artistic integrity" BS in the rear and not speak up.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good people do nothing. Your greatest weapon is your voice."
What Bioware did may or may not be considered evil, it is wrong none the less. So no, as long as I have a voice, I'll use it.
Modifié par Archonsg, 21 avril 2012 - 02:02 .
#18032
Posté 21 avril 2012 - 02:24
3DandBeyond
-
- Members
- 7 579 messages
Kelwing wrote...
3DandBeyond wrote...
I want to know what part of this trailer we actually got in the game, or more rightly near and at the end with the battle for Earth.
Shrug who knows, sure would be awesome to be part of that. Oh and did someone edit that video? Date at end said 9-3-12
I think it just pointed to the release date of March 9, 2012. Pegi.tv (European outlet, so EU date format) released it, but it was the official trailer.
#18033
Posté 21 avril 2012 - 02:29
3DandBeyond
-
- Members
- 7 579 messages
Archonsg wrote...
megabug7 wrote...
I think you are wasting your breath - they aren't listening and won't listen.
They've already said they wouldn't change the ending.
Mass Effect 3 - wasted opportunity.
You are probably right, but I'll be damned if I just go quietly into the night and take this "artistic integrity" BS in the rear and not speak up.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good people do nothing. Your greatest weapon is your voice."
What Bioware did may or may not be considered evil, it is wrong none the less. So no, as long as I have a voice, I'll use it.
I think that is the attitude of most of us. You just keep expressing the clusterf... that is the ending as it is and protest it, until you see what they have finally come up with. At that point, if it's unworthy or not satisfactory, I will walk away for good. It's kind of what I see my Shepard as doing when faced with 3 stupid non-choices. The starkid and EA/Bioware will be left standing there, saying, "wait, come back, it's not over, I need you".
#18034
Posté 21 avril 2012 - 02:49
carabaldo75
-
- Members
- 12 messages
It should be said that critics rate a game much before playing it to the end... ;-)
Besides...
If I understood correctly the reapers were just the tools of the starchild, aka the citadel.
the starchild watched over the evolution of the organic species
when it noticed the synthetics life forms started to gain existence. it unleashed the reapers
to kill almost all organics , collecting their dna, so that a new cicle of organic life could start from stoneage
this isn't what we would call a smart plan, but it makes sense if you are a rambling mad AI thet misunderstood dna with life.
the problem with the ending (one of the problems... I think the main one) is the lack of opportunity for shepard to say to the starchild "to hell with your folly". and "we aren't playing your game anymore! you aren't a paladin of life, you are a harbringer of death"
has anyone read the ending of Miyazaki's Nausicaa comic?
the destruction of citadel, reapers, mass relays is the only "good" option... but it is shown as something as bad as the other.
and...
... where was joker going anyway?
Besides...
If I understood correctly the reapers were just the tools of the starchild, aka the citadel.
the starchild watched over the evolution of the organic species
when it noticed the synthetics life forms started to gain existence. it unleashed the reapers
to kill almost all organics , collecting their dna, so that a new cicle of organic life could start from stoneage
this isn't what we would call a smart plan, but it makes sense if you are a rambling mad AI thet misunderstood dna with life.
the problem with the ending (one of the problems... I think the main one) is the lack of opportunity for shepard to say to the starchild "to hell with your folly". and "we aren't playing your game anymore! you aren't a paladin of life, you are a harbringer of death"
has anyone read the ending of Miyazaki's Nausicaa comic?
the destruction of citadel, reapers, mass relays is the only "good" option... but it is shown as something as bad as the other.
and...
... where was joker going anyway?
#18035
Posté 21 avril 2012 - 03:01
3DandBeyond
-
- Members
- 7 579 messages
@Graius,
Perfect explanation of what is wrong...my comments on your points follow.
1. The ending does indeed cause you to just be dropped off and out of the game.
2. The "logic" of the star kid's assertions have nothing to do with the rest of the games that I played. Not coherent, not cohesive.
3. The Reapers were bad ass, threatening, scary, made me want to hide under a table, kind of monsters. This puts them into R2D2/C3PO land with their restraining bolts intact. The "catalyst" has them on a leash.
4. The driving force behind Shepard all along has been the destruction of the Reapers. I can conceive of no other option that would be satisfactory to my Shepard. Shepard did so much to make synthetics more human, advocating individuality and choice/free will, that s/he would never choose synthesis. Shepard saw what TIM had morphed into, he was always an adversary so Shepard would not easily be convinced that this twisted guy was right all along. Control was always seen as a non-option. So, Destroy is what's left. Even though these should not and could not coherently be conceived of as the only choices, played out this way that make sense or are valid. In the scope of ME3 alone, these non-choices make no sense. And they are based upon a false premise.
5. The only true determinant in which explosion you get (or which decimate the galaxy as you know it ending you get) is your EMS and perhaps Paragon/Renegade choices that help form your EMS. Your hundreds of decisions come down to 3 choices, no matter what.
6. One of the biggest flaws in Bioware's logic is that their ending is artistic and they must hold to this artistic integrity. This is counter to what we all know. It is the rest of the story that is artistic and it is the ending that tries to force us to be pigeon-holed into some dystopic idea of what must be. We are removed from the emotional, creative, artistic ME world and thrust into some psycho-neurotic reality nightmare that pushes us out the door of a speeding car. We leave our truly creepy nightmarish reaper fear behind and run headlong into an amorphous starchild who tries to impose his brand of psychotic logic upon us. If that's art, it totally suspends any idea of what art attempts to do. The reapers themselves are more artistic expressions than this ending. The reapers evoke emotions that are sometimes more than surface deep. Everything about them gets to you and at a primitive level. The ending is not even remotedly related to anything artistic that came before.
I'll leave your conclusion as you wrote it, because it is perfect as is and totally expresses what many of us are feeling.
Stories are made up of protagonists (you, your team), antagonists (TIM, Cerberus, reapers, et al), plot lines (build up or prologue, conflict, climax, conflict resolution/denouement, epilogue). ME3 fails on the last 2. This is a tried and true formula that has worked forever, but is abandoned by this game. You don't add an antagonist at the very end because all stories also build an emotional connection between you and the actors within them. You form positive emotional bonds with protagonists and negative ones with antagonists and they build within the story. I feel nothing for the kid, let alone the star kid, so he is a non-entity for me. Unnecessary, unneeded, unwanted.
Perfect explanation of what is wrong...my comments on your points follow.
1. The ending does indeed cause you to just be dropped off and out of the game.
2. The "logic" of the star kid's assertions have nothing to do with the rest of the games that I played. Not coherent, not cohesive.
3. The Reapers were bad ass, threatening, scary, made me want to hide under a table, kind of monsters. This puts them into R2D2/C3PO land with their restraining bolts intact. The "catalyst" has them on a leash.
4. The driving force behind Shepard all along has been the destruction of the Reapers. I can conceive of no other option that would be satisfactory to my Shepard. Shepard did so much to make synthetics more human, advocating individuality and choice/free will, that s/he would never choose synthesis. Shepard saw what TIM had morphed into, he was always an adversary so Shepard would not easily be convinced that this twisted guy was right all along. Control was always seen as a non-option. So, Destroy is what's left. Even though these should not and could not coherently be conceived of as the only choices, played out this way that make sense or are valid. In the scope of ME3 alone, these non-choices make no sense. And they are based upon a false premise.
5. The only true determinant in which explosion you get (or which decimate the galaxy as you know it ending you get) is your EMS and perhaps Paragon/Renegade choices that help form your EMS. Your hundreds of decisions come down to 3 choices, no matter what.
6. One of the biggest flaws in Bioware's logic is that their ending is artistic and they must hold to this artistic integrity. This is counter to what we all know. It is the rest of the story that is artistic and it is the ending that tries to force us to be pigeon-holed into some dystopic idea of what must be. We are removed from the emotional, creative, artistic ME world and thrust into some psycho-neurotic reality nightmare that pushes us out the door of a speeding car. We leave our truly creepy nightmarish reaper fear behind and run headlong into an amorphous starchild who tries to impose his brand of psychotic logic upon us. If that's art, it totally suspends any idea of what art attempts to do. The reapers themselves are more artistic expressions than this ending. The reapers evoke emotions that are sometimes more than surface deep. Everything about them gets to you and at a primitive level. The ending is not even remotedly related to anything artistic that came before.
I'll leave your conclusion as you wrote it, because it is perfect as is and totally expresses what many of us are feeling.
Graius wrote...
7. Conclusion
This whole business has soured my experience of the series tremendously. I'm seriously put off replaying any
of the games in the series, and I am going to end any future playthroughs (which are unlikely) prior to meeting HoloBoy. I am severely disappointed that the final ten minutes, the denouement of the series, were fumbled so completely. It's telling that Indoctrination Theory is so popular - not only does it make more sense, but you have
the sight of fans begging you to save yourselves with the worst cliché of them all - it was all a dream.
Expansion and clarification is extremely unlikely to work because the endings are, for all the reasons I've given, but especially those at 2, fundamentally flawed. I don't really care about whether I choose the ending, or
whether it's happy or sad, or bittersweet or ambiguous; I can live with those, so long as it is coherent, compelling and well-executed. This ending is none of those. The only viable solution is to re-do them. I am pessimistic about the Extended Cut DLC, given that you appear to have dug in your heels on whether the ending itself, which is the
fundamental flaw, will be changed. I don't want "more closure", I want some basic coherence.
If it doesn't fix things, don't expect me to buy DLC.
Even this is better.
Stories are made up of protagonists (you, your team), antagonists (TIM, Cerberus, reapers, et al), plot lines (build up or prologue, conflict, climax, conflict resolution/denouement, epilogue). ME3 fails on the last 2. This is a tried and true formula that has worked forever, but is abandoned by this game. You don't add an antagonist at the very end because all stories also build an emotional connection between you and the actors within them. You form positive emotional bonds with protagonists and negative ones with antagonists and they build within the story. I feel nothing for the kid, let alone the star kid, so he is a non-entity for me. Unnecessary, unneeded, unwanted.
Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 21 avril 2012 - 03:08 .
#18036
Posté 21 avril 2012 - 03:18
Graius
-
- Members
- 32 messages
@3dandbeyond
Thank you. I'll return the compliment: I agree with everything you said.
Thank you. I'll return the compliment: I agree with everything you said.
#18037
Posté 21 avril 2012 - 03:29
Archonsg
-
- Members
- 3 560 messages
@carabaldo75
Except that in ME1, the Reaper Soverign led an attack against the Citadel, along with its proxy, Saren in order to take control of the Citadel.
It needed to do so because the agents used by the Reapers, those bug things labeled as "Keepers" were modified by the proteans, to give the "next cycle" a chance, to delay if not stop the reapers from using the Citadel to "Mass Relay" the main Reaper force in from Dark-Space.
Now, if the AI was there all this while why the need for all that?
Or, if it was aware, even in ME3, why not just just Mass Relay every Reaper into Citadel Space and cut off resistance from the get go?
Answer: AI strar-child never existed till those last 10 minutes.
The Citadel was a great plot tool. Should have just remained so and not turned into an entity.
Except that in ME1, the Reaper Soverign led an attack against the Citadel, along with its proxy, Saren in order to take control of the Citadel.
It needed to do so because the agents used by the Reapers, those bug things labeled as "Keepers" were modified by the proteans, to give the "next cycle" a chance, to delay if not stop the reapers from using the Citadel to "Mass Relay" the main Reaper force in from Dark-Space.
Now, if the AI was there all this while why the need for all that?
Or, if it was aware, even in ME3, why not just just Mass Relay every Reaper into Citadel Space and cut off resistance from the get go?
Answer: AI strar-child never existed till those last 10 minutes.
The Citadel was a great plot tool. Should have just remained so and not turned into an entity.
Modifié par Archonsg, 21 avril 2012 - 03:32 .
#18038
Posté 21 avril 2012 - 03:38
Graius
-
- Members
- 32 messages
@archonsg - very good point. Yet another plothole.
#18040
Posté 21 avril 2012 - 03:48
Graius
-
- Members
- 32 messages
We'll see. I don't hold out much hope but I'd rather have said something and not been listened to than kept silent when they were listening. In any event, it is at least cathartic.
#18041
Posté 21 avril 2012 - 03:55
3DandBeyond
-
- Members
- 7 579 messages
You never know what you can achieve unless and until you try.
A huge part of what the ending lacks is emotion.
To sum this up, I tried to boil it down to just one part in the game where emotion is expressed far better and there are a lot of examples.
One of the best is this one, it is very understated but says so much. Keep in mind it does not matter if Liara is your love interest or not (at least I don't think it matters), she is still a great and grateful friend.
In lair of the shadow broker there is a moment after he's been defeated and before Shepard heads back to the Normandy where Liara walks away to be the shadow broker. Shepard is behind her. Liara gives a look out the corner of her eye and then gives a little smile. This one expression says so much. Shepard was dead for 2 years and is alive again. Liara, in that one moment tells you how much that matters. It's one small moment that brings together the emotional impact of seeing Shepard's body floating lifeless in space and this reunion in a very poignant way. Just one small slight expression. This is intelligent and artistic.
There are many such moments in these games-where you could blink and miss something powerful. Such moments didn't hit you over the head with a sledgehammer, but they moved you with their nuance and subtlety. Expressions, body language, even side conversations where you are eavesdropping are way more artistic and powerful than the ending. I hate that they ruined this stuff for me.
A huge part of what the ending lacks is emotion.
To sum this up, I tried to boil it down to just one part in the game where emotion is expressed far better and there are a lot of examples.
One of the best is this one, it is very understated but says so much. Keep in mind it does not matter if Liara is your love interest or not (at least I don't think it matters), she is still a great and grateful friend.
In lair of the shadow broker there is a moment after he's been defeated and before Shepard heads back to the Normandy where Liara walks away to be the shadow broker. Shepard is behind her. Liara gives a look out the corner of her eye and then gives a little smile. This one expression says so much. Shepard was dead for 2 years and is alive again. Liara, in that one moment tells you how much that matters. It's one small moment that brings together the emotional impact of seeing Shepard's body floating lifeless in space and this reunion in a very poignant way. Just one small slight expression. This is intelligent and artistic.
There are many such moments in these games-where you could blink and miss something powerful. Such moments didn't hit you over the head with a sledgehammer, but they moved you with their nuance and subtlety. Expressions, body language, even side conversations where you are eavesdropping are way more artistic and powerful than the ending. I hate that they ruined this stuff for me.
Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 21 avril 2012 - 04:12 .
#18042
Posté 21 avril 2012 - 04:12
Saltank
-
- Members
- 22 messages
After almost 50 hours of raw emotional experiences and being very satisfied with pretty much every aspect of ME3, the "final push" felt like the mediocre ending from Halo 3 where Arbiter says "Were it so easy..." and that saying, doesn't mean anything because it's supposed to address the demise of Master Chief, but we know he'll be OK.
During these 50 hours I was (without reading any spoilers) prepping myself for the fact that these are Shepard's last moments, because, it would be too cliche and easy to end it on a very, very happy note. So, I had a lot of closure. But the last few moments, although with incredibly well designed atmosphere, felt like the designers thought "were it so easy" to make a proper ending, and spat on my screen because of lack of available time to come up with something more suitable for the end of this saga.
During these 50 hours I was (without reading any spoilers) prepping myself for the fact that these are Shepard's last moments, because, it would be too cliche and easy to end it on a very, very happy note. So, I had a lot of closure. But the last few moments, although with incredibly well designed atmosphere, felt like the designers thought "were it so easy" to make a proper ending, and spat on my screen because of lack of available time to come up with something more suitable for the end of this saga.
#18043
Posté 21 avril 2012 - 04:14
Benchpress610
-
- Members
- 823 messages
Absolutely agree. As I posted before:carabaldo75 wrote...
It should be said that critics rate a game much before playing it to the end... ;-)
Besides...
If I understood correctly the reapers were just the tools of the starchild, aka the citadel.
the starchild watched over the evolution of the organic species
when it noticed the synthetics life forms started to gain existence. it unleashed the reapers
to kill almost all organics , collecting their dna, so that a new cicle of organic life could start from stoneage
this isn't what we would call a smart plan, but it makes sense if you are a rambling mad AI thet misunderstood dna with life.
the problem with the ending (one of the problems... I think the main one) is the lack of opportunity for shepard to say to the starchild "to hell with your folly". and "we aren't playing your game anymore! you aren't a paladin of life, you are a harbringer of death"
has anyone read the ending of Miyazaki's Nausicaa comic?
the destruction of citadel, reapers, mass relays is the only "good" option... but it is shown as something as bad as the other.
and...
... where was joker going anyway?
"If we forget about all the well documented problems with the ending (plot holes, etc., etc….), the main reason most of us feel unsatisfied with the way the game ended is that all of the sudden the writers-developers took away from us that little device that makes a videogame a videogame: player control."
For the last ten minutes, Besides a few dialog options with TIM, we stopped playing and became spectators.
Modifié par Benchpress610, 21 avril 2012 - 04:20 .
#18044
Posté 21 avril 2012 - 04:32
khyvari
-
- Members
- 89 messages
BioWare I want you to know that I have uninstalled ME3 from my computer and have no intention of reinstalling it. I played the game through once, I played a second time up to Thessia but lost interest because, geez what is the point?! I honestly feel like the ending got chopped off or was left unfinished to accommodate the multiplayer component of the game. I am an RPG player, I DON'T play multiplayer and I resent the fact that only way to improve galactic readiness IS to play multiplayer. I have been buying BioWare games since Baldur's Gate and I can't believe that I am not playing one of your games over and over again but...there you have it. I haven't heard anything from your company that reassures me that this "extended cut" content will even be worth my time, and understand this BioWare, I have a demanding job and a family, I have to choose carefully how I spend my free time.
#18045
Posté 21 avril 2012 - 04:37
3DandBeyond
-
- Members
- 7 579 messages
I will say here that the ending is very much stolen from other sources. One big tell is in the Final Hours content. There's writing on I think the Head Writer's tablet about the ending. The Matrix is the one source you see written there.
I know many people liked the Matrix. Personally, I didn't. It was like an extended episode of the Twilight Zone or the Outer Limits and was very badly acted-wooden performances in my opinion. But, even if I liked it, I wouldn't want the ending of these games to be a carbon copy of the Matrix's ending.
I loved Star Wars (saw it a dozen times when it came out in the 70s), but I wouldn't want that ending either. Neither of these endings fit this story.
I know many people liked the Matrix. Personally, I didn't. It was like an extended episode of the Twilight Zone or the Outer Limits and was very badly acted-wooden performances in my opinion. But, even if I liked it, I wouldn't want the ending of these games to be a carbon copy of the Matrix's ending.
I loved Star Wars (saw it a dozen times when it came out in the 70s), but I wouldn't want that ending either. Neither of these endings fit this story.
#18046
Posté 21 avril 2012 - 06:00
Jonah Lee Walker
-
- Members
- 13 messages
Ha bringing up Star Wars make me think of this ending like the Phantom Menace coming after the original Star Wars trilogy. It has the trappings of the same universe, but just doesn't fit with the rest of the Story.
#18047
Posté 21 avril 2012 - 06:12
iDeevil
-
- Members
- 173 messages
The endings CAN be fixed. We need a few hints for his to be true though.
* Harbinger Fight!!!
* What happened to the crew?!?
* Emotional impact.
* A chance at victory.
* A true ending to Shepards story, not just something that 'looks' like she stays alive. Or assumed she is dead.
Now all this can easily and clearly happen WITHIN the framework of what we have... Things just need to be tweaked. Like starchild...
* Harbinger Fight!!!
* What happened to the crew?!?
* Emotional impact.
* A chance at victory.
* A true ending to Shepards story, not just something that 'looks' like she stays alive. Or assumed she is dead.
Now all this can easily and clearly happen WITHIN the framework of what we have... Things just need to be tweaked. Like starchild...
#18048
Posté 21 avril 2012 - 06:30
Jonah Lee Walker
-
- Members
- 13 messages
Of course it can be fixed, but BioWare's responses make it sound very unlikely. And I doubt EA will go for it unless they seem some sore of financial benefit coming from it. So the only way they will do it is if they actually see it affecting future game sales, or DLC content sales. And the problem is even people who don't like the ending will probably buy DLC (I know I won't, but many still will) and show the execs that they made the "right" decision.
#18049
Posté 21 avril 2012 - 06:33
iDeevil
-
- Members
- 173 messages
But the problem is we don't know wha the 'extended ending' they are releasing is. It may be the fix that (I've) been looking for.
Mind you, my point also is we don't need *new* endings, we just need to tweaked what we have. This also includes making choices count. In the end, the choices don't matter and THAT is an issue. Not to a great degree, because sometimes choices really are limited, but because it doesn't colour the outcome at all.
Mind you, my point also is we don't need *new* endings, we just need to tweaked what we have. This also includes making choices count. In the end, the choices don't matter and THAT is an issue. Not to a great degree, because sometimes choices really are limited, but because it doesn't colour the outcome at all.
Modifié par iDeevil, 21 avril 2012 - 06:38 .
#18050
Posté 21 avril 2012 - 06:37
Jonah Lee Walker
-
- Members
- 13 messages
It could be, but it worries me that they said these are just extended with clarifications of what happened, and not new endings. To fix the problems would require a new ending where you have real choice and your actions up to that point actually mattered and that can't happen if you are still left with these 3 arbitrary choices.
