831 Antworten in diesem Thema

[Linus108]

As a fellow screenwriter I just wanted to say that you nailed it. 

Bearbeitet von Linus108, 16 März 2012 - 12:53 .

[TheKillerAngel]

This is probably one of the best critiques of the ending's writing around.

[joshko]

Bravo!

[Nobrandminda]

Excellent post.

[Ares14916]

TitchIX wrote...

Need more posts like this actually explaining why the ending was bad and how it has nothing to do with people wanting a super happy/solve all problems ending.

What we really need is a well kept archive of ALL the different extended vivisections of the storytelling disaster that is the ME3 ending so that everyone can simply give a link and say "for all these dozens of detailed dissections it is safe to logically conclude the endings are horrific." 

Although good luck finding all those good ones in the mess that the bioware forums have become...even once extremely useful threads sink to the bottom in minutes never to be seen again. 

[Meltemph]

TheKillerAngel wrote...

This is probably one of the best critiques of the ending's writing around.

This is probably one of the best critiques about the ending of a game, period.  I wish we have game jorunalists with this sort of insight, TBQH.

[Linus108]

I think people are mixing up their Deus Ex. Because the Catalyst is a Deus Ex Machina, the Crucible is not. 

Bearbeitet von Linus108, 16 März 2012 - 12:55 .

[Gibb_Shepard]

Exactly. Mass Effect is a conventional story. Trying to turn it into Space Odyssey in the last 5 minutes, and utterly failing, was an enormous mistake.

[Eternalsteelfan]

Tovanus wrote...

I disagree with the point about the Crucible not being a McGuffin or Deus Ex Machina.

The Crucible is never explained. They throw it in our faces that "we have no idea what this thing will do." When it finally gets used, we still have no idea why it did what it did, or why we get to interact with the Catalyst. It's a very, very unexplained plot point.

The Crucible is a deus ex machina. IF this story were the only Mass Effect story, I could agree with the point made that it is not. But this is the third game in a trilogy. They built up a threat for untold hours (depending on how long your playthroughs were of Mass Effect 1 and 2). Mass Effect 3 begins by saying, "Hey, you know that race of invaders that seems impossibly strong? We've discovered at the start the plans for a device that will grant us total victory. We have no idea what it does."  As a trilogy, I think what they did with the Crucible qualifies as a Deus Ex Machina. Had Mass Effect not been a trilogy, and this was some random stand-alone title, I think you would be right.

There should have been a huge story to discovering the plans for a device that could stop the Reapers, and there should have been an explanation as to why the Protheans BELIEVED it could stop them, as you seek it. Instead, it was introduced with no foreshadowing (nothing in ME 1 or Me 2 indicated a single superweapon had been worked on by the Protheans that would win the war), then kicked to the side until the very end of the game (war assets assisting in its construction does not really develop it as a story), then you see it in the end where it still wasn't explained, but a literal "god from the machine" appeared because of it and ended the war.

True, I did not specify whether I meant the trilogy as a whole or just the third game in reference to the Crucible being deus ex machina. In the scope of the third game it definitely is not, but in the big picture of the trilogy the case could be made. I haven't formed an opinion yet, in that regard; the Reapers had just invaded when they introduced the Crucible so it was pretty late but I don't know if I'd say it's deus ex late. It's a toss up. Either way, I'd say it's obvious they created a new silver bullet post ME2 since, for whatever reason, the dark energy thing didn't pan out.

[BluKardinal]

For anyone that hasn't gone through this, it is very well worth the time to read in detail. The OP does a particularly good job of explaining why even had the ending been better executed it still would have been out of place. An unconventional ending that both creates new questions and leaves old issues unresolved can be fine under different circumstances. Here it is the classic pig in the parlor: the right thing in the wrong place.

[acidic-ph0]

Thank you for posting this, I really do hope that Bioware sees this and takes your points to heart. You've successfully articulated what we all feel right now, and it's posts like these that actually give us hope for future changes.

[dannati]

Cerberus' elevation from a minor terrorist threat in ME to major antagonist in ME3 has never really worked for me. Their capabilities in ME2 (leveraging all their resources to rebuild Shepard and the Normandy so as to save humanity) felt about right as the apex of their influence. TIM had a place in ME3, just not as a primary antagonist.

And Kai Leng... ugh. He only seemed to be included as a boss fight mechanic. All his plot purposes could have been handled with a simple "Cerberus got there first." Frankly, his role in the novels is identical. He's an almost totally undeveloped character, and it shows.

[Volion]

5 star post.

[CronoDragoon]

I'm interested in your point about showing and not telling. It would seem difficult to me in a game based around choice to avoid telling to some extent. Players want to know what they are choosing, and the Investigate and Dialogue Wheel are a good way to help them know.

I also want to point out that the devs throw "interpreting the endings" around a lot the past week, but really what they were talking about is shown in those notes: speculation. Interpretation is using evidence in the script to form a more general theory or viewpoint. The Indoctrination Theory is interpretation.

The no-ending given to us leaves absolutely no room for interpretation; we are told exactly what will happen on our choices and that is exactly what happens. Whether or not Tali and Garrus can survive on that random planet is speculation, not interpretation, and speculation is, in my opinion, far far more boring and short-lived.

[Spectre_Shepard]

very well put. i agree entirely. hope bioware sees this

[Qutayba]

Thank you. That was a very intelligent contribution, and I hope it's one of the ones that gets through to them!

I'm not sure I completely agree with you on the balance of Harbinger and TIM as antagonists. One of the things I like about the Reapers is that they were a Lovecraftian horror, something so vast and terrifying that calling them evil doesn't even do them justice. There are only a few times in the series where you interact with them directly, and any humanization of them is avoided (I actually felt a little ambivalent about the way Harbinger taunts you through his minions throughout ME2 - why does he need to bother?)

This is why the Illusive Man is important as an antagonist. He's the human face of the "evil" and the foil against which Shepard defines humanity. In some ways, I'd say he's actually the primary antagonist from a thematic perspective - the dark mirror. I liked the confrontation with him at the conclusion - it was there that the humanistic and ethical themes of the story were reiterated. Even though the primary conflict is between TIM and Shepard, Anderson's presence reminds Shepard through his friends that the struggle is about "humanity" as an ethical stance rather than Humanity as a species. It's not just about Life in the abstract, but about lives, in particular.

To me, the Reapers were merely the backdrop to this conflict, raising the stakes. I think there are many storytelling flaws in the Starchild scene, but what bothered me most was the thematic 180. You're now forced to make decisions about Life divorced from the impact on the lives of your friends. The Big Idea swallows the characters. So Shepard loses his humanity just after affirming it against the Illusive Man.

I think it's telling that one of the most popular "re-edits" of the ending on YouTube simply ends with Shepard and Anderson looking at Earth through the open arms of the Citadel. Not only does the Star Child not add value to the story, it also actively detracts from it.

EDIT
I see a few posts back something on showing and telling.  BioWare's writers did a great job of showing all through the series.  You get to know the characters in the midst of their struggles, not as the result of long monologues.  Yes, you get the "get to know you" dialogues on the ship, but that's not really where you get to know them.  Mordin's final sacrifice is an example.  He doesn't just say that he'd theoretically cure the genophage.  He does it with the last fiber of his being.  Without being shown the consequences of the final choices in any satisfying way makes those choices too abstract.

Bearbeitet von Qutayba, 16 März 2012 - 01:05 .

[CronoDragoon]

dannati wrote...

Cerberus' elevation from a minor terrorist threat in ME to major antagonist in ME3 has never really worked for me. Their capabilities in ME2 (leveraging all their resources to rebuild Shepard and the Normandy so as to save humanity) felt about right as the apex of their influence. TIM had a place in ME3, just not as a primary antagonist.

And Kai Leng... ugh. He only seemed to be included as a boss fight mechanic. All his plot purposes could have been handled with a simple "Cerberus got there first." Frankly, his role in the novels is identical. He's an almost totally undeveloped character, and it shows.

I do find one thing interesting about Kai Leng, in that he seems to feel Shepard is a rival and/or has an inferiority complex about him. I find it interesting how the Illusive Man taunts Kai Leng about his initial defeat, and Leng's e-mail to Shepard taunting him hints at some real resentment towards Shepard and a need to rub Thessia in his face.

[Genera1Nemesis]

Very good post and one I hope Bioware at least reads.

[Linus108]

CronoDragoon wrote...

I'm interested in your point about showing and not telling.

One of the biggest problems with TV shows/Movies & Games.

If you have to tell someone how to feel, you are doing it wrong. Breaking Bad (TV show) is a good example of how to do it right. 

[sndwurks]

Bumped and voted because this basically sums up all of my issues with the narrative of the ending as given.

That being said, if Bioware really did plan this all as an attempt to get players to feel like they were being indoctrinated? That's... just bad business. But the points the OP makes? Show that the ending we were given was bad writing, and poor narrative structure. Which is weird, because the rest of the game is so good.

[Eternalsteelfan]

CronoDragoon wrote...

I'm interested in your point about showing and not telling. It would seem difficult to me in a game based around choice to avoid telling to some extent. Players want to know what they are choosing, and the Investigate and Dialogue Wheel are a good way to help them know.

I also want to point out that the devs throw "interpreting the endings" around a lot the past week, but really what they were talking about is shown in those notes: speculation. Interpretation is using evidence in the script to form a more general theory or viewpoint. The Indoctrination Theory is interpretation.

The no-ending given to us leaves absolutely no room for interpretation; we are told exactly what will happen on our choices and that is exactly what happens. Whether or not Tali and Garrus can survive on that random planet is speculation, not interpretation, and speculation is, in my opinion, far far more boring and short-lived.

I would say it isn't the presence of the telling so much as it's the absence of the showing. The extremely similar ending cutscenes show too little and leave too much to be extrapolated from what the reaper-god-child told us.

What you have said about speculation vs. interpretation is spot on.

[Meltemph]

CronoDragoon wrote...

dannati wrote...

Cerberus' elevation from a minor terrorist threat in ME to major antagonist in ME3 has never really worked for me. Their capabilities in ME2 (leveraging all their resources to rebuild Shepard and the Normandy so as to save humanity) felt about right as the apex of their influence. TIM had a place in ME3, just not as a primary antagonist.

And Kai Leng... ugh. He only seemed to be included as a boss fight mechanic. All his plot purposes could have been handled with a simple "Cerberus got there first." Frankly, his role in the novels is identical. He's an almost totally undeveloped character, and it shows.

I do find one thing interesting about Kai Leng, in that he seems to feel Shepard is a rival and/or has an inferiority complex about him. I find it interesting how the Illusive Man taunts Kai Leng about his initial defeat, and Leng's e-mail to Shepard taunting him hints at some real resentment towards Shepard and a need to rub Thessia in his face.

Heh, it is apparent TIM is manipulating him.  He even compares him to Shep when you go to horizon and watch the one of the video's there.

[Lawliet89]

Nice way to put forward what we feel but cannot really articulate well.

[Lawliet89]

Eternalsteelfan wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

I'm interested in your point about showing and not telling. It would seem difficult to me in a game based around choice to avoid telling to some extent. Players want to know what they are choosing, and the Investigate and Dialogue Wheel are a good way to help them know.

I also want to point out that the devs throw "interpreting the endings" around a lot the past week, but really what they were talking about is shown in those notes: speculation. Interpretation is using evidence in the script to form a more general theory or viewpoint. The Indoctrination Theory is interpretation.

The no-ending given to us leaves absolutely no room for interpretation; we are told exactly what will happen on our choices and that is exactly what happens. Whether or not Tali and Garrus can survive on that random planet is speculation, not interpretation, and speculation is, in my opinion, far far more boring and short-lived.

I would say it isn't the presence of the telling so much as it's the absence of the showing. The extremely similar ending cutscenes show too little and leave too much to be extrapolated from what the reaper-god-child told us.

What you have said about speculation vs. interpretation is spot on.

Kai Leng has been a huge antagonist in the novels at least. I think Bioware felt that it was good to bring to "screen" a character previously from the books. 

[dannati]

Linus108 wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

I'm interested in your point about showing and not telling.

One of the biggest problems with TV shows/Movies & Games.

If you have to tell someone how to feel, you are doing it wrong. Breaking Bad (TV show) is a good example of how to do it right. 

It's a issue in purely textual mediums, too.  "X was angry at Y," is not near as dramatic and effective as describing actions which draw the reader to the same conclusion.