Ce sujet est fermé
--- I would have been happier with walking into the Conduit in London and then being given a .gif image of an index card with a note on it, handwritten, saying "And then Shepard and his crew all gave their lives killing the reapers. Everyone who survived really appreciated it, and they even got their own memorial on the citadel. The end."
On the Mass Effect 3 endings. Yes, we are listening.
Débuté par
Chris Priestly
, mars 15 2012 02:55
Retour en haut
#20877
Posté 20 mai 2012 - 02:14
3DandBeyond
-
- Members
- 7 579 messages
Noelemahc wrote...
ME2 explicitly states there were NO new Reapers made during the Prothean cycle. NO. ZERO.
Their subservient races were either annihilated, repurposed (like the Rachni) or enslaved (like the Protheans themselves).
The Reaper models existing in the game come only in four flavours: Destroyer (which is what you fight on Tuchanka, Rannoch and in London), Big Giant McAwesome (aka Sovereign-class), Destroyer With Cannon Tacked On (which is what you kill in London with the Cain) and Harbinger because if you pause to notice, he's fatter than all the other Sovereign-classes despite being generally the same shape.
I'll one-up you.
This is a line from the game, copy-pasted verbatim from the game files.
"But moral decisions should not be made in a vacuum. If I do not ask the crew for their opinion, I could miss crucial context."
You know whose line it is? This is what EDI says in her very first dialogue with Shepard after getting her new body. That's right, the beginning of the game outlines what's so bad about the ending of the game. WAAAAYYY MEEEEETAAAAA. WAAAAYYY.
You're not up to speed. Confirmed 100% via interviews or official twitters so far are Hackett, EDI, Kaidan, Ashley and Garrus. There's a thread in the Story forums listing them with sources.
Thank you for the info. I had forgotten both of those first 2 points. Well, actually recently came across the EDI quote and that was telling-but Bioware seemed to forget that, since Shepard is basically alone for the first freaking time in the game. And at a time when context is needed most.
Also, as for voice acting, I do remember Kaidan and there were others earlier on that said they were going back. I want to say Jennifer Hale, but I'm getting old and my memory is hazy on that.
#20878
Posté 20 mai 2012 - 02:52
3DandBeyond
-
- Members
- 7 579 messages
Redbelle wrote...
On the matter of voice recording, here's a snippet from
http://www.ibtimes.c...lc-spoilers.htm
"I'm voicing some more Mass Effect on Monday," Helfer told G4. Henriksen, however, was a little more specific.
"I just did another session with them...They were saying there's a little bit of a problem with the abruptness of the ending," Henriksen said, "So we did a whole series of things to add to the end of the game, to live up to the quality they've been doing."
"Usually, when a guy loses the game, the game shuts down; it's over. It's done. The players don't like that," Henriksen adds.
I think Henriksen has touched on something. Losing a game is abrupt and quick. Successfully completing a game gives validation and closrue to the time invested in it. Yet the ending of ME3 does not reward players by answering questions based to the screenplay. Instead its an arty light show with little explanation as to what, how or why events occured.
Interestingly the link has the video of Henriksen's interview in which he terms the abruptness of the ending 'an oversight'. High five Mr Henriksen. That's what alot of players have been thinking.
Basically though this underscores something another Bioware dev said that they knew players would be unhappy that this is the end of Shepard's story. And I say emphatically, NO! We had mostly accepted that. Sure, we'd like it to go on, but if it had to end it should have ended on the best most amazing note ever. Since they knew people were set up to be emotional and sad, they should have given us something to be in awe of, in a good way. Not some pile of incomprehensible boot scrapings.
People weren't so much left sad (though intense sadness set in) by these so-called endings. People were left dumbfounded, speechless. People shook their games to see if another ending would fall out. They played the ending again, to see if they'd made a mistake. Then, they hit the internet for hints as to what they did wrong. Then, they started laughing-was this a joke? They looked for DLC to explain it, but there was none.
People then wondered if there were hints in all the pre-release statements made by Bioware and remembered or found those that said the game wouldn't end any where near the way it actually ended. And they started to get mad.
Then, Bioware came out and said that it was artistic vision (and of course fans that didn't like the ending just lacked the mental capacity to understand such an intellectual concept is implied) and fans, FANS, got really mad.
And all along people asked Bioware to explain it since fans couldn't comprehend it-they understood what the kid said, what the endings were, but couldn't comprehend why it was THE ending for ME, let alone ME3. And Bioware said they'd talk about it after more people have had the chance to "experience" it-as if it was soooo beyond some subtle nuanced intellectual sphere, that it needed to be experienced. And then silence. And fans stewed and started heaping hyperbolic hateful messages. And Bioware got mad because fans didn't just love the ending even they refused to explain.
Then the EC was announced. It would offer clarity and pretty cutscenes to give closure. And fans again were told that Bioware would not shift from their artsy fartsy highbrow ending that they were proud of. And fans thought Bioware's caboose had fallen off the tracks. And fans started wondering why they were still fans-a love/hate relationship was formed.
Fans have been mistreated-make no mistake about it. Fans were lied to and misled and then ignored and then called names, often by other fans. All of this is not good in gamedom. No gaming company wants hate piled upon hate and in this EA/Bioware has totally failed. You can't have a dialogue when one party just puts up a hand and says, "talk to the hand." What's happened is that through press releases, paid for review sites, stacked deck symposiums, and intermediaries, Bioware has shut their fans out. The customer/company relationship has to exist for sales and goodwill to happen. There is no relationship here. I know someone could say the EC shows they were listening, but their words about it say otherwise. They talk to other people, but have never talked to the people that raised the objections. They've talked AT them. And so fans got and stayed mad, and others think that valid, loud complaining is showing entitlement feelings or demanding behavior and they are 100% wrong.
What Henrikson said is true. Game endings are abrupt-some game endings are. But that's for most games, not RPGs per se. Not in games where there are actual stories attached. But even where the ending is abrupt there's context within the end battle or end goal that allows for that. Even if an ending is a nuke destroys everything, the "camera" hovers over scenes of death and destruction and people crying and evil guy laughing. And the guy that sent the nuke is generally the guy you've been chasing after in the game-you know the one with the big "happy to see you" nuke in his pocket.
But I'd take even his tidbit of an explanation over anything the "company" has said so far. At least he admitted something was amiss in no uncertain terms. No one else ever has-it's all been about fans having problems, not the game.
#20879
Posté 20 mai 2012 - 04:31
Benchpress610
-
- Members
- 823 messages
Nordland SE wrote...
I have played all three games for the first time and I have just finished ME3.
The best games I have played! Just wonderful with a lot of great moments. As I was near the end of ME3 I was thinking of replaying the trilogy I liked the games that much...
I have carefully avoided all the spoilers about the ending, all I did know was that a lot of people hated the ending. And I was thinking that I can't be that bad....
And I was proven wrong, it was worse than bad! It was really bad. It left me depressed and this ****ty ending robbed me from all the joy I felt when playing the games. Now I don't want to replay the games because of the ending.
I was looking forward to more DLC's but now I can't see myself buying and playing these.
Yeah…must of us had a similar experience. I finished the game a week after it was released. I tried to avoid spoilers, but still I heard some rumblings about the ending and I thought, as you did, “it can’t be that bad”, “it must be that probably some people got the worst outcome”, “I’ve played 1 and 2 as paragon and I got the best results on them, so if I’m careful, I will get the better ending” Boy, was I mistaken. When I finished, the first thing I did was coming to the forums to find out what had I done wrong to soooo royally screw up the finale.
#20880
Posté 20 mai 2012 - 04:35
SP2219
-
- Members
- 159 messages
Casey Hudson kept referring to the theme of sacrifice in his statement two months ago regarding the conclusion to Mass Effect 3:
"We always intended that the scale of the conflict and the underlying theme of sacrifice would lead to a bittersweet ending—to do otherwise would betray the agonizing decisions Shepard had to make along the way. Still, we wanted to give players the chance to experience an inspiring and uplifting ending; in a story where you face a hopeless struggle for basic survival, we see the final moments and imagery as offering victory and hope in the context of sacrifice and reflection."
Mr Hudson, Shepard's death was NOT a noble sacrifice. Shepard's death was an act of weakness and stupidity. He lay down his life not to satisfy his own goals, but to satisfy the goals of the Catalyst. As such the death of Shepard was not a symbol of victory; it was a symbol of defeat.
I'll say it again. You made Shepard GIVE IN TO THE ANTAGONIST! Why did you do this? The whole point of an uplifting sacrifice is that the character in question lays down their life to preserve their ideals, as a sign of defiance to the story's villain. Shepard did not show any sign of defiance. Shepard gave in to the Catalyst. He sacrificed himself for the villain. Shepard is supposed to try and stop the Reapers; not help them! This is not inspiring or uplifting, it is depressing, stupid, and an insult to Shepard's character.
If you think this is an inspiring ending, you are either in complete denial and unwilling to admit your mistake, or you are really stupid, and you do not understand what the words sacrifice and victory mean. I am unwilling to believe the former, as you and your team have proven time and again you are capable of conveying these themes. In much of Mass Effect 3 and your previous games the theme of victory through sacrifice is conveyed extremely well - but in the final twenty minutes of Mass Effect 3 you convey the opposite theme - the theme of defeat through weakness, stupidity and betrayal. I'm not sure that this is the theme you wanted to convey.
To be clear, from the ending you gave us, Shepard is either:
Too stupid to comprehend the situation and his own motives
Manipulative, power hungry, devoid of empathy, like the Catalyst and the Reapers. Hence he is not worthy of our respect or support - we were fools to trust him from the very beginning
Too weak to stand and fight for what he believes in - the preservation of free will. He doesn't have the courage or the capacity to fight when it matters most, at the tipping point of the final battle. At the most important part of the entire trilogy, he just gives up. It was all for nothing.
In any of these three situations, the audience comes away feeling stupid, guilty, or weak as a result. Is this what you want us to feel? Is this what you call inspiring and uplifting? I cannot believe that you would actually say this and mean it. Not to sound cliched Casey, but you really have got to be joking.
You do not necessarily need to get rid of this ending. You seem to think it's good. I guess the theme of defeat through weakness, stupidity and betrayal really works for you? Well, be that as it may, it doesn't work for everyone else. Give your players, the people who bought your game, the option of fighting back. Let us try and achieve what Shepard was working towards through the entire trilogy. Shepard might die, he might utterly fail, we don't care - but you need to let us try. Whether for good or for bad, you need to make it an option. You advertised your game with the slogan "Take Earth Back" not "Accept Defeat and Join the Enemy." You owe your customers what you advertised to them. They didn't pay you to mislead them.
I am angry because you are trying to defend your ending as if it is actually good. You cannot defend this. I would be perfectly fine if you just owned up to the fact that you made a mistake, and promised to correct it. No doubt your entire fanbase would support you. Instead, you rub it in our faces and insult our intelligence, as if we were too stupid to comprehend the crap you served us. This is extremely poor, lazy writing, and it is completely unworthy of you. If you truly think otherwise, then I am sorry to have trusted you to actually care about this franchise and your fans.
And no, you have not promised to correct your mistake with the Extended Cut DLC. You have promised to extend your mistake and make it worse. The problem is not clarity of exposition. The problem is that you gave the player no other option than to give in to the villain, and you should have given them the option to fight, however abrupt and poorly produced that might have been. That is why people are so angry, and that is why the ending, as it exists in its current form, is a failure.
"We always intended that the scale of the conflict and the underlying theme of sacrifice would lead to a bittersweet ending—to do otherwise would betray the agonizing decisions Shepard had to make along the way. Still, we wanted to give players the chance to experience an inspiring and uplifting ending; in a story where you face a hopeless struggle for basic survival, we see the final moments and imagery as offering victory and hope in the context of sacrifice and reflection."
Mr Hudson, Shepard's death was NOT a noble sacrifice. Shepard's death was an act of weakness and stupidity. He lay down his life not to satisfy his own goals, but to satisfy the goals of the Catalyst. As such the death of Shepard was not a symbol of victory; it was a symbol of defeat.
I'll say it again. You made Shepard GIVE IN TO THE ANTAGONIST! Why did you do this? The whole point of an uplifting sacrifice is that the character in question lays down their life to preserve their ideals, as a sign of defiance to the story's villain. Shepard did not show any sign of defiance. Shepard gave in to the Catalyst. He sacrificed himself for the villain. Shepard is supposed to try and stop the Reapers; not help them! This is not inspiring or uplifting, it is depressing, stupid, and an insult to Shepard's character.
If you think this is an inspiring ending, you are either in complete denial and unwilling to admit your mistake, or you are really stupid, and you do not understand what the words sacrifice and victory mean. I am unwilling to believe the former, as you and your team have proven time and again you are capable of conveying these themes. In much of Mass Effect 3 and your previous games the theme of victory through sacrifice is conveyed extremely well - but in the final twenty minutes of Mass Effect 3 you convey the opposite theme - the theme of defeat through weakness, stupidity and betrayal. I'm not sure that this is the theme you wanted to convey.
To be clear, from the ending you gave us, Shepard is either:
Too stupid to comprehend the situation and his own motives
Manipulative, power hungry, devoid of empathy, like the Catalyst and the Reapers. Hence he is not worthy of our respect or support - we were fools to trust him from the very beginning
Too weak to stand and fight for what he believes in - the preservation of free will. He doesn't have the courage or the capacity to fight when it matters most, at the tipping point of the final battle. At the most important part of the entire trilogy, he just gives up. It was all for nothing.
In any of these three situations, the audience comes away feeling stupid, guilty, or weak as a result. Is this what you want us to feel? Is this what you call inspiring and uplifting? I cannot believe that you would actually say this and mean it. Not to sound cliched Casey, but you really have got to be joking.
You do not necessarily need to get rid of this ending. You seem to think it's good. I guess the theme of defeat through weakness, stupidity and betrayal really works for you? Well, be that as it may, it doesn't work for everyone else. Give your players, the people who bought your game, the option of fighting back. Let us try and achieve what Shepard was working towards through the entire trilogy. Shepard might die, he might utterly fail, we don't care - but you need to let us try. Whether for good or for bad, you need to make it an option. You advertised your game with the slogan "Take Earth Back" not "Accept Defeat and Join the Enemy." You owe your customers what you advertised to them. They didn't pay you to mislead them.
I am angry because you are trying to defend your ending as if it is actually good. You cannot defend this. I would be perfectly fine if you just owned up to the fact that you made a mistake, and promised to correct it. No doubt your entire fanbase would support you. Instead, you rub it in our faces and insult our intelligence, as if we were too stupid to comprehend the crap you served us. This is extremely poor, lazy writing, and it is completely unworthy of you. If you truly think otherwise, then I am sorry to have trusted you to actually care about this franchise and your fans.
And no, you have not promised to correct your mistake with the Extended Cut DLC. You have promised to extend your mistake and make it worse. The problem is not clarity of exposition. The problem is that you gave the player no other option than to give in to the villain, and you should have given them the option to fight, however abrupt and poorly produced that might have been. That is why people are so angry, and that is why the ending, as it exists in its current form, is a failure.
#20881
Posté 20 mai 2012 - 05:14
3DandBeyond
-
- Members
- 7 579 messages
@SP2219,
You are 100% correct, and here's from another thread with my reply. To me it indicates that Bioware has stopped thinking or caring. Either that or they have just never understood that they actually want people to be fans.
Here's the thread:
http://social.biowar...0571/1#12153618
You are 100% correct, and here's from another thread with my reply. To me it indicates that Bioware has stopped thinking or caring. Either that or they have just never understood that they actually want people to be fans.
Here's the thread:
http://social.biowar...0571/1#12153618
3DandBeyond wrote...
Dont Kaidan Me wrote...
"What we're trying to do with Mass Effect 3 is that it's a new beginning for the series. It's probably a natural entry point. Given the fact this is the beginning of an all-out war with this ancient alien race. We've been foreshadowing this war with this race that's been dormant for 50,000 years. Well now they've finally woken up, launching their full scale invasion and trying to wipe out all life as we know it. It's a natural point for people to jump in."
"We don't want to totally dumb it down for the people who have played through the first two games three, four, five times."
"And even if you've played the games multiple times before - Mass Effect came out almost eight years ago - you're not going to remember all the details from when you played that game, right? Even I can't recall everything that happened to me when that came out in 2007. It's human nature. We're not Rain Man." --Director of Marketing, Bioware
more...
...This is why.
Wow, just wow. On the one hand they underestimate or just don't understand fans-people live by the minutiae and read codexes and refer to wikis and the previous games. They notice retconning. Beyond that it's tantamount to insulting of autistic persons.
However, they don't believe people should remember the major plotlines in the games (games people played and were almost instructed to play repeatedly as different Shepards or paragon/renegade and for repeat play bonuses), but they then base the ending of the series on one rather obscure codex entry as to "beings of light"? What?????
People do remember details, especially the more major ones and not always the codex entries, but they don't have to remember-they kept the other games, they played the other games in preparation for ME3. In fact, people bought consoles (some PS3 owners bought 360s) or PCs or just went and bought ME1 and 2 in preparation for ME3.
If this is what they think at Bioware then they should stop making games right now.
I am a Star Wars fan. I saw it multiple times when it first came out-over 6 times in 2 weeks. I got a rare program due to my first day viewing. I know a lot of minutiae to this day about it, even though it's been a few years since I sat and really watched it. I bought or got gifts of everything Star Wars and literally thousands of dollars were spent on my collection, not to just collect, but because I loved the movie. This is the type of fan Bioware wants.
Hell, they don't understand fandom at all. Baseball fans can recite RBIs from games of years ago. Football fans-yards rushing. Movie fans can spot flubs in the movie-bandages on the wrong side of someone's face. Mass Effect fans remember or can find what Vigil said or what Sovereign planned or what the atmosphere of a planet was composed of, or they can find an obscure reference to "beings of light" that may well have been turned into a major plot point at the end of 100 plus hours of play and uh, 5 years of waiting.
Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 20 mai 2012 - 05:15 .
#20882
Posté 20 mai 2012 - 05:26
daveyeisley
-
- Members
- 204 messages
@SP
Yeah, basically. The final choice, from a game mechanics perspective, is very much like the rest of the choices in the series.
Where it differs significantly, is that, by comparison to all those other choices, it fails to deliver at least one option that would be at least minimally acceptable to any version of Shepard.
The writers have done this sort of 'tough choice' thing before, but handled it with expert precision and provided an 'out' based on variables from our previous choices, so we were able to accept it.
This time, the choice makes it feel like the game is railroading us in a direction we don't want to go. The game doesn't give us an 'out'. No matter what our rep is, no matter our previous actions, no matter how much time/thought/effort we put in, those are the options. Period.
We know they could have done this thing WAY better, but we can't seem to get an explanation of why they didn't. At least not beyond the paraphrased, "We had no way of knowing it wasn't enough until people told us."
I have a hard time looking at the ending as merely an 'oversight'.
The handling of the final choice is ham-fisted, inelegant, lacking nuance, contrived, artificially imbued with agony, poorly introduced, insufficiently explained, and disappointing all around.
I know that comes off as extemely harsh, and I honestly don't mean it to be (harsh, yes, but not overly so). I do think each one of those terms applies, however, I don't mean to imbue them with emotional emphasis beyond the sentence structure itself.
Of course the choice is only part of the problem... we still have the antagonist who becomes our "buddy", and the insufficient and confusing epilogue cinematics.
The EC can fix a lot of the confusion (not all, methinks), but it doesn't seem like it will help with the choice beyond maybe better explaining it (which really isn't the main issue with it at all).
Yeah, basically. The final choice, from a game mechanics perspective, is very much like the rest of the choices in the series.
Where it differs significantly, is that, by comparison to all those other choices, it fails to deliver at least one option that would be at least minimally acceptable to any version of Shepard.
The writers have done this sort of 'tough choice' thing before, but handled it with expert precision and provided an 'out' based on variables from our previous choices, so we were able to accept it.
This time, the choice makes it feel like the game is railroading us in a direction we don't want to go. The game doesn't give us an 'out'. No matter what our rep is, no matter our previous actions, no matter how much time/thought/effort we put in, those are the options. Period.
We know they could have done this thing WAY better, but we can't seem to get an explanation of why they didn't. At least not beyond the paraphrased, "We had no way of knowing it wasn't enough until people told us."
I have a hard time looking at the ending as merely an 'oversight'.
The handling of the final choice is ham-fisted, inelegant, lacking nuance, contrived, artificially imbued with agony, poorly introduced, insufficiently explained, and disappointing all around.
I know that comes off as extemely harsh, and I honestly don't mean it to be (harsh, yes, but not overly so). I do think each one of those terms applies, however, I don't mean to imbue them with emotional emphasis beyond the sentence structure itself.
Of course the choice is only part of the problem... we still have the antagonist who becomes our "buddy", and the insufficient and confusing epilogue cinematics.
The EC can fix a lot of the confusion (not all, methinks), but it doesn't seem like it will help with the choice beyond maybe better explaining it (which really isn't the main issue with it at all).
#20883
Posté 20 mai 2012 - 05:43
Redbelle
-
- Members
- 5 399 messages
speaking of in game mechanics. When Shep got frazzled by the Harby beam and everything just got weird with the screen, Shepards movements etc. I thought BW were taking a step beyond the standard game play experience and were going to do something clever with the game play mechanics. Hideo Kojima has done so alot in the MGS series and it usually winds up being a fun experence.
#20884
Posté 20 mai 2012 - 05:47
Ardacer
-
- Members
- 3 messages
I just finished the game few moments ago, and thought to share my view on the controversy.
Endings make some sense. It's not all just plain rubbish. There are many aspects there that are logical. In my opinion endings do make sense. They are simply bad. Crucible makes sense. The fact that plans were on mars the whole time and first few hours of gameplay are really bad. Bad voice acting, bad atmosphere, coming straight from me2 into me3 feels like ****, me2 being great, me3 being ****. On the course of the game me3 does become exciting and a good game, on the level of other 2 games, a job well done.
But then as i said, crucible, citadel movement, yea a bit stretchy but makes sense. Endrun, citadel scenes, make sense. Reapers being the solution, makes sense. All's well up until the point in which the catalyst says his solution no longer works. That's ****. Crucible is not working. Catalyst doesn't have to do ****, and it won't work. Reapers would annihilate the fleets, earth, and they'd know what to watch for in the next cycle. Even if they feared the next cycle being even closer with the crucible, there's no point in him killing himself and ending reapers by telling shepard how to do it. Indoctrination theory seemed great until bioware disproved it, so no go there.
My main problem with it is the lack of options, and how you always seem to die. Destroy without killing geth and edi should be possible, and that'd be ideal.
The thing that's COMPLETELY out of sense is the normandy. It's ok for squadmates to be picked up by it. It's ok that normandy had to make a run for it or be destroyed. The destruction of engines is fine because the relays are collapsing and so are those low mass space corridors, so that space mass shift could destroy the engins. BUT WHY put it on a desolate planet somewhere?
So punchline. Get a little effort and you can explain almost any bull****.
So yes endings could make sense. It's just that they are SO bad that makes no sense to me. So little choice. So much left in the dark. If the extended cut explains everything... yep. The scenario i put up there. Explained, makes sense. Still bad. And stinks. And I agree with the post above. I felt bad after playing the ending. I felt helpless, like ****. Like it was a choice between killing my father or my mother, or we all die, so chose now. Screw that ****
Endings make some sense. It's not all just plain rubbish. There are many aspects there that are logical. In my opinion endings do make sense. They are simply bad. Crucible makes sense. The fact that plans were on mars the whole time and first few hours of gameplay are really bad. Bad voice acting, bad atmosphere, coming straight from me2 into me3 feels like ****, me2 being great, me3 being ****. On the course of the game me3 does become exciting and a good game, on the level of other 2 games, a job well done.
But then as i said, crucible, citadel movement, yea a bit stretchy but makes sense. Endrun, citadel scenes, make sense. Reapers being the solution, makes sense. All's well up until the point in which the catalyst says his solution no longer works. That's ****. Crucible is not working. Catalyst doesn't have to do ****, and it won't work. Reapers would annihilate the fleets, earth, and they'd know what to watch for in the next cycle. Even if they feared the next cycle being even closer with the crucible, there's no point in him killing himself and ending reapers by telling shepard how to do it. Indoctrination theory seemed great until bioware disproved it, so no go there.
My main problem with it is the lack of options, and how you always seem to die. Destroy without killing geth and edi should be possible, and that'd be ideal.
The thing that's COMPLETELY out of sense is the normandy. It's ok for squadmates to be picked up by it. It's ok that normandy had to make a run for it or be destroyed. The destruction of engines is fine because the relays are collapsing and so are those low mass space corridors, so that space mass shift could destroy the engins. BUT WHY put it on a desolate planet somewhere?
So punchline. Get a little effort and you can explain almost any bull****.
So yes endings could make sense. It's just that they are SO bad that makes no sense to me. So little choice. So much left in the dark. If the extended cut explains everything... yep. The scenario i put up there. Explained, makes sense. Still bad. And stinks. And I agree with the post above. I felt bad after playing the ending. I felt helpless, like ****. Like it was a choice between killing my father or my mother, or we all die, so chose now. Screw that ****
#20885
Posté 20 mai 2012 - 05:49
Redbelle
-
- Members
- 5 399 messages
TheKillerAngel wrote...
Redbelle wrote...
On the matter of voice recording, here's a snippet from
http://www.ibtimes.c...lc-spoilers.htm
"I'm voicing some more Mass Effect on Monday," Helfer told G4. Henriksen, however, was a little more specific.
"I just did another session with them...They were saying there's a little bit of a problem with the abruptness of the ending," Henriksen said, "So we did a whole series of things to add to the end of the game, to live up to the quality they've been doing."
"Usually, when a guy loses the game, the game shuts down; it's over. It's done. The players don't like that," Henriksen adds.
I think Henriksen has touched on something. Losing a game is abrupt and quick. Successfully completing a game gives validation and closrue to the time invested in it. Yet the ending of ME3 does not reward players by answering questions based to the screenplay. Instead its an arty light show with little explanation as to what, how or why events occured.
Interestingly the link has the video of Henriksen's interview in which he terms the abruptness of the ending 'an oversight'. High five Mr Henriksen. That's what alot of players have been thinking.
I imagine that being read in Hackett's voice.
The Hackett. A voice that feels like your sliding over a gravel road on your face while blasting bad guys.
I like it better than Jonny Cash's, smooth like oil, but throaty like a freight train.
#20886
Posté 20 mai 2012 - 05:52
Redbelle
-
- Members
- 5 399 messages
Ardacer wrote...
I just finished the game few moments ago, and thought to share my view on the controversy.
Endings make some sense. It's not all just plain rubbish. There are many aspects there that are logical. In my opinion endings do make sense. They are simply bad. Crucible makes sense. The fact that plans were on mars the whole time and first few hours of gameplay are really bad. Bad voice acting, bad atmosphere, coming straight from me2 into me3 feels like ****, me2 being great, me3 being ****. On the course of the game me3 does become exciting and a good game, on the level of other 2 games, a job well done.
But then as i said, crucible, citadel movement, yea a bit stretchy but makes sense. Endrun, citadel scenes, make sense. Reapers being the solution, makes sense. All's well up until the point in which the catalyst says his solution no longer works. That's ****. Crucible is not working. Catalyst doesn't have to do ****, and it won't work. Reapers would annihilate the fleets, earth, and they'd know what to watch for in the next cycle. Even if they feared the next cycle being even closer with the crucible, there's no point in him killing himself and ending reapers by telling shepard how to do it. Indoctrination theory seemed great until bioware disproved it, so no go there.
My main problem with it is the lack of options, and how you always seem to die. Destroy without killing geth and edi should be possible, and that'd be ideal.
The thing that's COMPLETELY out of sense is the normandy. It's ok for squadmates to be picked up by it. It's ok that normandy had to make a run for it or be destroyed. The destruction of engines is fine because the relays are collapsing and so are those low mass space corridors, so that space mass shift could destroy the engins. BUT WHY put it on a desolate planet somewhere?
So punchline. Get a little effort and you can explain almost any bull****.
So yes endings could make sense. It's just that they are SO bad that makes no sense to me. So little choice. So much left in the dark. If the extended cut explains everything... yep. The scenario i put up there. Explained, makes sense. Still bad. And stinks. And I agree with the post above. I felt bad after playing the ending. I felt helpless, like ****. Like it was a choice between killing my father or my mother, or we all die, so chose now. Screw that ****
That empty helpless feeling at the end of ME3........ Felt by alot of other players out there and not how I'd want to remember one of the greatest games that shaped other games to follow. (Final Fantasy XIII-2, I'm looking at you).
#20887
Posté 20 mai 2012 - 05:55
Benchpress610
-
- Members
- 823 messages
@SP2219,
Wow...nothing else to say...
Wow...nothing else to say...
#20888
Posté 20 mai 2012 - 06:04
Ardacer
-
- Members
- 3 messages
Redbelle wrote...
That empty helpless feeling at the end of ME3........ Felt by alot of other players out there and not how I'd want to remember one of the greatest games that shaped other games to follow. (Final Fantasy XIII-2, I'm looking at you).
Yes. The game is memorable alright. Not sure I'd like another mass effect experience after this. And i'm not sure how it's possible. At least after me3. So if they make new games it's likely going to be some mmo / online action type of crap, or somewhere in the past. That's bad as well, when you know how it all "ends"
#20889
Posté 20 mai 2012 - 06:06
AM94
-
- Members
- 36 messages
Did anyone else find Cortez's death to be amongst the least memorable in existence and the least heart felt? I didnt care for him much nor was he a love interest to me but they could've made his death much more emotional as they did with the others. I mean cmon he gets blown up randomly, Shepard's like "no," and thats that. On another note id like to know whether Bioware is going to do anything if the extended cut ends up being the same or worse than the current ending.
#20891
Posté 20 mai 2012 - 06:18
daveyeisley
-
- Members
- 204 messages
Here's one for ya-
Cortez gets shot down and Shepard goes "Steeeeeeveee!!!"
Illusive Man makes Shepard shoot Anderson and Shepard just shakes his head silently.
lolwut?
Not even an, "Anderson, nooooo!" or flinging some invective at the Illusive Man, "You son of a ****, I will kill you for that!"
Extended cut can help us understand some of the questions we have, but I don't think all.. Still I am very confident it will be an improvement in some ways.
The final choice, and the fact that the Catalyst has turned the boogeymen into little more than amoral 'protectors' of organic life probably will not be addressed.
They may be generous enough to explain why organic life matters at all to the Catalyst and the Reapers, but it will do nothing to help us accept that the premise of the whole series was a misguided effort to protect the existence of organic life without even a single concern for the unique traits of each speciate expression thereof.
I mean, if the diversity and unique characteristics of organic species don't matter.... then why does organic life matter?
Cortez gets shot down and Shepard goes "Steeeeeeveee!!!"
Illusive Man makes Shepard shoot Anderson and Shepard just shakes his head silently.
lolwut?
Not even an, "Anderson, nooooo!" or flinging some invective at the Illusive Man, "You son of a ****, I will kill you for that!"
Extended cut can help us understand some of the questions we have, but I don't think all.. Still I am very confident it will be an improvement in some ways.
The final choice, and the fact that the Catalyst has turned the boogeymen into little more than amoral 'protectors' of organic life probably will not be addressed.
They may be generous enough to explain why organic life matters at all to the Catalyst and the Reapers, but it will do nothing to help us accept that the premise of the whole series was a misguided effort to protect the existence of organic life without even a single concern for the unique traits of each speciate expression thereof.
I mean, if the diversity and unique characteristics of organic species don't matter.... then why does organic life matter?
#20892
Posté 20 mai 2012 - 06:18
Redbelle
-
- Members
- 5 399 messages
AM94 wrote...
Did anyone else find Cortez's death to be amongst the least memorable in existence and the least heart felt? I didnt care for him much nor was he a love interest to me but they could've made his death much more emotional as they did with the others. I mean cmon he gets blown up randomly, Shepard's like "no," and thats that. On another note id like to know whether Bioware is going to do anything if the extended cut ends up being the same or worse than the current ending.
Managed to keep Cortez alive in my playthrough
#20893
Posté 20 mai 2012 - 06:38
achron
-
- Members
- 11 messages
The Conduit, The destruction of the Mass Relays, Mass Effect 4
http://social.biowar.../index/12154757
Hi everyone, perhaps someone knows the answer to the question that follows or will correct any of my misapprehensions.
I finished the trilogy and am perplexed by the plot twists and the endings. However, what particularly concerns me is the destruction of the mass relays. It appears that at the end of the game all the “active” mass relays get destroyed leaving all galaxy races and reapers on Earth and around Earth’s vicinity. Worse, this leads us to presume that space travel is out of the question because the distances cannot be negotiated with the relays.
However, what about all the information left by the Protheans, the Mars Archives and the mini relay on Illos? The mini relay is not “active” because it is a one way relay: the relay being the source and citadel being the target. The relay can only be activated from Illos, I believe. Thus, the eding relay explosions would not reach it because it is not registered so to speak.
The implementation of the mini relay by the Protheans indicates that Protheans eventually understood and were able to reproduce Reaper tech. This leads me to believe that Mass Relays can be reproduced if getting to Illos is a possibility. This also leads me to think that there may be other Prothean shards and beacons holding relevant information. This also leads me to think that there will be a Mass Effect 4 and that it will be much darker than the trilogy.
So, what happened to the relay on Illos? Any thoughts?
http://social.biowar.../index/12154757
Hi everyone, perhaps someone knows the answer to the question that follows or will correct any of my misapprehensions.
I finished the trilogy and am perplexed by the plot twists and the endings. However, what particularly concerns me is the destruction of the mass relays. It appears that at the end of the game all the “active” mass relays get destroyed leaving all galaxy races and reapers on Earth and around Earth’s vicinity. Worse, this leads us to presume that space travel is out of the question because the distances cannot be negotiated with the relays.
However, what about all the information left by the Protheans, the Mars Archives and the mini relay on Illos? The mini relay is not “active” because it is a one way relay: the relay being the source and citadel being the target. The relay can only be activated from Illos, I believe. Thus, the eding relay explosions would not reach it because it is not registered so to speak.
The implementation of the mini relay by the Protheans indicates that Protheans eventually understood and were able to reproduce Reaper tech. This leads me to believe that Mass Relays can be reproduced if getting to Illos is a possibility. This also leads me to think that there may be other Prothean shards and beacons holding relevant information. This also leads me to think that there will be a Mass Effect 4 and that it will be much darker than the trilogy.
So, what happened to the relay on Illos? Any thoughts?
Modifié par achron, 20 mai 2012 - 06:38 .
#20894
Posté 20 mai 2012 - 07:58
LiarasShield
-
- Members
- 6 924 messages
SP2219 wrote...
Casey Hudson kept referring to the theme of sacrifice in his statement two months ago regarding the conclusion to Mass Effect 3:
"We always intended that the scale of the conflict and the underlying theme of sacrifice would lead to a bittersweet ending—to do otherwise would betray the agonizing decisions Shepard had to make along the way. Still, we wanted to give players the chance to experience an inspiring and uplifting ending; in a story where you face a hopeless struggle for basic survival, we see the final moments and imagery as offering victory and hope in the context of sacrifice and reflection."
Mr Hudson, Shepard's death was NOT a noble sacrifice. Shepard's death was an act of weakness and stupidity. He lay down his life not to satisfy his own goals, but to satisfy the goals of the Catalyst. As such the death of Shepard was not a symbol of victory; it was a symbol of defeat.
I'll say it again. You made Shepard GIVE IN TO THE ANTAGONIST! Why did you do this? The whole point of an uplifting sacrifice is that the character in question lays down their life to preserve their ideals, as a sign of defiance to the story's villain. Shepard did not show any sign of defiance. Shepard gave in to the Catalyst. He sacrificed himself for the villain. Shepard is supposed to try and stop the Reapers; not help them! This is not inspiring or uplifting, it is depressing, stupid, and an insult to Shepard's character.
If you think this is an inspiring ending, you are either in complete denial and unwilling to admit your mistake, or you are really stupid, and you do not understand what the words sacrifice and victory mean. I am unwilling to believe the former, as you and your team have proven time and again you are capable of conveying these themes. In much of Mass Effect 3 and your previous games the theme of victory through sacrifice is conveyed extremely well - but in the final twenty minutes of Mass Effect 3 you convey the opposite theme - the theme of defeat through weakness, stupidity and betrayal. I'm not sure that this is the theme you wanted to convey.
To be clear, from the ending you gave us, Shepard is either:
Too stupid to comprehend the situation and his own motives
Manipulative, power hungry, devoid of empathy, like the Catalyst and the Reapers. Hence he is not worthy of our respect or support - we were fools to trust him from the very beginning
Too weak to stand and fight for what he believes in - the preservation of free will. He doesn't have the courage or the capacity to fight when it matters most, at the tipping point of the final battle. At the most important part of the entire trilogy, he just gives up. It was all for nothing.
In any of these three situations, the audience comes away feeling stupid, guilty, or weak as a result. Is this what you want us to feel? Is this what you call inspiring and uplifting? I cannot believe that you would actually say this and mean it. Not to sound cliched Casey, but you really have got to be joking.
You do not necessarily need to get rid of this ending. You seem to think it's good. I guess the theme of defeat through weakness, stupidity and betrayal really works for you? Well, be that as it may, it doesn't work for everyone else. Give your players, the people who bought your game, the option of fighting back. Let us try and achieve what Shepard was working towards through the entire trilogy. Shepard might die, he might utterly fail, we don't care - but you need to let us try. Whether for good or for bad, you need to make it an option. You advertised your game with the slogan "Take Earth Back" not "Accept Defeat and Join the Enemy." You owe your customers what you advertised to them. They didn't pay you to mislead them.
I am angry because you are trying to defend your ending as if it is actually good. You cannot defend this. I would be perfectly fine if you just owned up to the fact that you made a mistake, and promised to correct it. No doubt your entire fanbase would support you. Instead, you rub it in our faces and insult our intelligence, as if we were too stupid to comprehend the crap you served us. This is extremely poor, lazy writing, and it is completely unworthy of you. If you truly think otherwise, then I am sorry to have trusted you to actually care about this franchise and your fans.
And no, you have not promised to correct your mistake with the Extended Cut DLC. You have promised to extend your mistake and make it worse. The problem is not clarity of exposition. The problem is that you gave the player no other option than to give in to the villain, and you should have given them the option to fight, however abrupt and poorly produced that might have been. That is why people are so angry, and that is why the ending, as it exists in its current form, is a failure.
Explains how I feel to a T alot of other fans see the catalyst as the hero but he created the reapers to destroy organic advanced life for generations and is using his reapers to pretty much destroy life across the galaxy as we speak he is not a hero he is a monster using other monsters to destroy us and all of our friends why would he give shepard any options other then the ones that help the reapers or let them win
Shepard didn't make a heroic sacrfice he or she submitted and gave into the creator of the reapers into Illogical suicides that ultimately only help the reapers in either they're goal of cleansing advanced organic life or preserving the reaper collective
#20895
Posté 20 mai 2012 - 08:04
LiarasShield
-
- Members
- 6 924 messages
Just like how you thought you'd beat Final Fantasy XIII-2 but then because caius is part of the goddess etro the moment you kill cais it ends up destroying the goddess and unleashing the chaos of valhalla upon the new world which you tried desperately to save so all that time going to different times to restore the future in and the past in the end ultimately don't do anything since Serah dies the future and the past are pretty much destroyed by the chaos
And If you played The Requiem Of The Goddesss Dlc and got the secret fragment Lightning ends being alone in a dying world all by herself when she awakens from her crystal imprisonment or slumber so ultimately everything you did during the course of the game does not matter because it ends up being all meaningless just like how we all gathered all the races together only for them all to be trapt around our damaged solar system with most of our earth destroyed
Just wonderful if anything I'd almost say that the person from Bioware that though this was ok is either friends with the guy from square enix that did the same thing or is the same person working for both gaming companies
And If you played The Requiem Of The Goddesss Dlc and got the secret fragment Lightning ends being alone in a dying world all by herself when she awakens from her crystal imprisonment or slumber so ultimately everything you did during the course of the game does not matter because it ends up being all meaningless just like how we all gathered all the races together only for them all to be trapt around our damaged solar system with most of our earth destroyed
Just wonderful if anything I'd almost say that the person from Bioware that though this was ok is either friends with the guy from square enix that did the same thing or is the same person working for both gaming companies
#20896
Posté 20 mai 2012 - 08:06
LiarasShield
-
- Members
- 6 924 messages
The Ironic punch to the face though is at the begining of FF 13-2 ending it plays happy music at first and then you see everything go to hell how funny is that lol
#20897
Posté 20 mai 2012 - 08:37
BlueStorm83
-
- Members
- 499 messages
--- From what I understood, the mini-relay on Ilos wasn't really a complete mass relay, just an approximation of one. It was a very simple one way device, and was the very first time that I thought that BioWare whipped out the Space Magic. The rotation of the planet, the orbit around the sun, and, most importantly, the way that the citadel presidium has a ROOF, I don't see how that would have worked. I assumed that the mini relay was just that: a relay, that had some smaller satelite units to re-route whatever was sent by it. And also that the relays lower the mass of whatever's using them to near 0 levels. Otherwise there would be some REALLY bad colissions, yeah?
--- The Normandy's crash landing from the collapsed low-mass corridor makes no sense. Not because I content that the engines would survive intact... but rather because the gradual, rear to front, reintroduction of mass would create drag on the backward portions first (Velocity is conserved, be it on X,Y,Z coordinates or also in time. Relativity would demand this.) What I'm saying is that as the atoms in the rear of the normandy re-entered space that uses our actual laws of physics, without the game world's Element Zero and Mass Effect Field physics to save it, the normandy would have been pulled apart, atom by atom, maybe even sub-atomic particle by sub-atomic particle. All that would be left of the ship and crew would be the finest dust ever created. And yes, I DID consider that as I saw the corridor collapsing. I assumed that the final kick in the gut would be that, after being unsure about earth, palaven, tuchanka, the victory fleet, Hackett, etc. now all my friends would die senselessly as they ran away like punks. The only (and this wasn't really enough) happy accident was that BioWare didn't make me watch everyone die that way. They just left me to realize that starvation would do it later.
--- While Moral Choices in games open up the way for some great writing, Moral Choice Systems suck, in general, and frankly, I'd like to win, lose, or experience degrees inbetween not necessarily by what door I think the new car is behind, but mostly by my performance. Convince the Quarrians and Geth to not shoot at each other? Sure, conversation is how I'd do that, and the conversation's choices are based on the things I've done in the past, fine. That's kinda why the ending bothered me so much. Three morally ambiguous moral choices set in a system, and it all rides on picking Door 1, Door 2, or Door 3. Sure, the EMS score allows me to see some of those doors, and SLIGHTLY alters what's behind them, but as people have pointed out, we're at WAR. WARS aren't settled by one guy making one choice. They're decided by speed, strength, and smarts. Also, how the hell does the strength of my fleet determine whether or not the Red Magic melts earth or not? I don't believe that physics works that way, with an energy bust that can vaporize a planet getting weaker if I told a bunch of military students that they shouldn't fight on the front lines. Cough, bull****, cough.
--- GOOD SHOW, bringing up that EDI quote! Moral Choices SHOULDN'T be made in a Vaccuum, but that's exactly what we got. "Here's 3 choices. I'm not available for any further questioning." WHAT?! Why couldn't I at least ask Starboy more about them?! Nope.
--- And I'd like to again remind BioWare that they said that Mass Effect was as much the player's story and vision as it was theirs. And my Shepard would never ever ever have done anything that Starboy suggested. Not even Destroy: I'd assumed it was a trap.
--- The Normandy's crash landing from the collapsed low-mass corridor makes no sense. Not because I content that the engines would survive intact... but rather because the gradual, rear to front, reintroduction of mass would create drag on the backward portions first (Velocity is conserved, be it on X,Y,Z coordinates or also in time. Relativity would demand this.) What I'm saying is that as the atoms in the rear of the normandy re-entered space that uses our actual laws of physics, without the game world's Element Zero and Mass Effect Field physics to save it, the normandy would have been pulled apart, atom by atom, maybe even sub-atomic particle by sub-atomic particle. All that would be left of the ship and crew would be the finest dust ever created. And yes, I DID consider that as I saw the corridor collapsing. I assumed that the final kick in the gut would be that, after being unsure about earth, palaven, tuchanka, the victory fleet, Hackett, etc. now all my friends would die senselessly as they ran away like punks. The only (and this wasn't really enough) happy accident was that BioWare didn't make me watch everyone die that way. They just left me to realize that starvation would do it later.
--- While Moral Choices in games open up the way for some great writing, Moral Choice Systems suck, in general, and frankly, I'd like to win, lose, or experience degrees inbetween not necessarily by what door I think the new car is behind, but mostly by my performance. Convince the Quarrians and Geth to not shoot at each other? Sure, conversation is how I'd do that, and the conversation's choices are based on the things I've done in the past, fine. That's kinda why the ending bothered me so much. Three morally ambiguous moral choices set in a system, and it all rides on picking Door 1, Door 2, or Door 3. Sure, the EMS score allows me to see some of those doors, and SLIGHTLY alters what's behind them, but as people have pointed out, we're at WAR. WARS aren't settled by one guy making one choice. They're decided by speed, strength, and smarts. Also, how the hell does the strength of my fleet determine whether or not the Red Magic melts earth or not? I don't believe that physics works that way, with an energy bust that can vaporize a planet getting weaker if I told a bunch of military students that they shouldn't fight on the front lines. Cough, bull****, cough.
--- GOOD SHOW, bringing up that EDI quote! Moral Choices SHOULDN'T be made in a Vaccuum, but that's exactly what we got. "Here's 3 choices. I'm not available for any further questioning." WHAT?! Why couldn't I at least ask Starboy more about them?! Nope.
--- And I'd like to again remind BioWare that they said that Mass Effect was as much the player's story and vision as it was theirs. And my Shepard would never ever ever have done anything that Starboy suggested. Not even Destroy: I'd assumed it was a trap.
#20898
Posté 20 mai 2012 - 08:38
Redbelle
-
- Members
- 5 399 messages
LiarasShield wrote...
The Ironic punch to the face though is at the begining of FF 13-2 ending it plays happy music at first and then you see everything go to hell how funny is that lol
Reminds me of the end of NG Evangelion. The music lyrics are kinda sad, everyone in the world is turning to primordial goo, but the music tune is as uplifting as it gets.
#20899
Posté 20 mai 2012 - 08:40
BlueStorm83
-
- Members
- 499 messages
Redbelle wrote...
LiarasShield wrote...
The Ironic punch to the face though is at the begining of FF 13-2 ending it plays happy music at first and then you see everything go to hell how funny is that lol
Reminds me of the end of NG Evangelion. The music lyrics are kinda sad, everyone in the world is turning to primordial goo, but the music tune is as uplifting as it gets.
But that's a HAPPY goo. Because, like, without all the AT fields, everyone can be one being again.
Oh, WAIT, that's exactly the kind of BS that happens with the "Best" ending in Mass Effect 3, that we all seem to find so abhorrent.
#20900
Posté 20 mai 2012 - 08:41
Landon7001
-
- Members
- 768 messages
any ending thats this easy to pick apart by this many ppl in a series based on meticulous detail, w extreme thought and care behind it, up until that point.....somethings wrong
those endings just are not right in any way...i never would have foreseen this **** from from these gifted ppl.....didnt they start working on me 3 before me 2 was even released according to them? didnt they go on about how, due to no further sequels, me 3 would be more branching and diverse in its story than any previous game....wow
those endings just are not right in any way...i never would have foreseen this **** from from these gifted ppl.....didnt they start working on me 3 before me 2 was even released according to them? didnt they go on about how, due to no further sequels, me 3 would be more branching and diverse in its story than any previous game....wow
