831 réponses à ce sujet

[WeAreLegionWTF]

A very intelligent and organized way to say, "they ran out of time and half assed it.".

[Lendorien]

One can only hope that the chief writer and producer of ME3 see this thread. They could learn from what you've written. I certainly have!

[Ghost Rider LSOV]

A very nice and informative post.

Thank you OP!

Modifié par Ghost Rider LSOV, 16 mars 2012 - 08:41 .

[soundhole]

Good gawd dayem. You're like some magical, forum posting angel for writing that, Eternalsteelfan. That so clearly sums up the reasons the ending sucks so hard. So far, all I've managed to accomplish to that same end is grunt loudly and throw my bowl of Spaghetti-O's. Evernoted, for future relishing.

[tenojitsu]

Great post OP! I do not consider myself an expert writer by any stretch, but even I know that you don't introduce new characters without explaining them at all right at the end. I can't believe the writers at bioware would do this. Makes me think more is coming, because anyone who know about good writing and storytelling (such as the OP) can see how flawed this ending is. I sincerely believe bioware people are great writers, and this isn't really the end, and they have more in store for us

[Mandemon]

Great post OP. However, I would argue that the Crucible is a MacGuffin. Here is the reason:

We are never told exactly what it does. Hackett says that hey do not know what it will do, it might as well as backfire and wipe out everything. All we know it is a weapon designed against the Reapers. Liara says she needs to study the blueprints, that they don't want to use it before we actually know it does.

So basically, we do not know what the Crucible is or what it does. I tough it could become plot point, use slightly more time to learn about the Crucible and sacrifice millions or use untested, unknown weapon you only build on incomplete blueprints.

[wright1978]

WeAreLegionWTF wrote...

A very intelligent and organized way to say, "they ran out of time and half assed it.".

Indeed

[Eternalsteelfan]

thegooseking wrote...

Well, the musings of an Interactive Narrative PhD student disagree. I'll address section B of the OP.

1 - The Catalyst scene isn't a resolution. No, it's not; it's an epilogue. It's not there to resolve things in a narrative sense. It's there to put the things that have already been resolved (which is to say, Shepard's personal journey, which is what the story was about, and not the war) into perspective.

2 - The ending tells us what happens, not shows us what happens. Well, it did, but I disagree that that's a bad thing. The climax and resolution show us what happens, and then the epilogue tells us where what has happened fits in the context of the war. It's very common for epilogues to have this declarative, oratory tone. The reason we have "show, don't tell" is because telling as opposed to showing creates distance from the emotional impact of the action. But it shouldn't be slavishly obeyed: If you want to create perspective, that distance is exactly what you want! This is a pretty common technique: it's why the epilogues of documentaries and biopics (not to mention Dragon Age: Origins) are often text-only, because they are there to create perspective, as a counterpoint to the visceral emotions evoked by the preceding visuals. This is also why the Catalyst appeared so impassive: If the Catalyst had been emotionally invested, the perspective would have been lost.

3 - The ending was ambiguous/unclear. There are some ambiguities in the ending, but crucially these are things that are not material to Shepard's personal journey, which had already been resolved. While the point of the epilogue was to give context and perspective to the story, there is room for interpretation as to what that context is. That's nothing new, but it's especially important in an interactive medium because of the next point.

4 - There was nothing to gain by this ending. The three ending choices were, literally, thesis, antithesis and synthesis: the three components of dialectic. On one level, the Catalyst scene served to underscore the dialectical nature of the trilogy as a whole, a symbolic punctuation mark on the dialogue between game and player. On a more practical level, given that, as I've established, the choice occurred in the epilogue, the point of the scene wasn't to give the player a choice on how to resolve the story (which had already been resolved), but to give the player a choice on how to contextualise it. That's why it was important that it be ambiguous, because, in this trilogy-spanning dialogue, it ultimately empowered the player to have the final say as to what that context was.

5 - The antagonist was The Illusive Man and not the Reapers. This is because the Reapers are a big impersonal threat. Having them be the major antagonist would be emotionally flat due to their "impersonality". The reason the Illusive Man was so important was because he was human, and someone we could relate to, making him a good vehicle for the emotional payload in a way the inscrutible Reapers just wouldn't be. The Reapers weren't the 'true' antagonists, which is why their motivations (such as they are) aren't revealed until the epilogue (though admittedly gamers are used to antagonists with no motivations beyond wanting to kill you). Making the Reapers the antagonists rather than The Illusive Man would have emphasised the setting of the game and diminished the focus on Shepard's personal journey within it.

The most important point here is that the story was about Shepard's personal journey, which ended immediately before the Catalyst scene, which in turn served as an epilogue. It's also worth noting that Shepard's personal journey wasn't about fighting the Reapers directly; it was always, right from the start, about uniting people against the Reapers. The name Shepard and the title Mass Effect are pretty big clues to that, but it was the point of trying to persuade the Council in 1, the loyalty missions in 2, and pretty much all of 3.

The failure of the ending is that people didn't get it. And don't get me wrong, that is a failure with the story, and not with the people who are "understanding it wrong". Storytelling is, of course, about communicating a story, and if one or two people didn't get it, it would be a different matter, but if so many people don't get it, you might not be communicating it adequately.

But I have to say I found the ending perfectly satisfactory, and an important part of a sea change, beginning with Bioshock (well, really beginning with Deus Ex, but that was too far ahead of the curve to be part of the curve), of games finally growing up.

If the Catalyst isn't the resolution, what is? The Catalyst precedes the ending scene and expounds on it with what the implications of the different choices are as well as providing a history and purpose for itself, the Crucible, and the Reapers; very literally, it's function is resolutory. A clear epilogue is the so called stargazer scene, which follows the ending scene and provides context for Shepherd's story through a kind of meta-story.

The rest of your argument, save the antagonist point, is kind of hinged on this Catalyst as epilogue idea and is fundamentally flawed, so it's kind of hard to debate given I completely disagree. As for the antagonist:

The Reapers aren't merely a "big impersonal" threat, the protagonist directly interacts with them and their agents throughout the entire series.

• They are introduced at the beginning of the series and are at the crux of story's conflict throughout
• They are present in all three climaxes and the series' climax
• The protagonist is in conflict with them in each of these climaxes
• The protagonist directly interacts with them on numerous occasions starting with Virmire
• Saren and the Illusive Man are merely agents of this antagonistic force, they are the Saruman to the Reapers' Sauron

I can see that if you believe TIM is the main antagonist, the  Catalyst would be an epilogue for you and the resolution would be in the death of TIM. This doesn't really fit with the overall story arc at all, TIM's death doesn't resolve the Reapers/Shepherd conflict of the series and can't really constitute something that would be called an ending. For the reasons above why the Reapers are the main antagonist and  for reasons I haven't gone in depth on as to why TIM is incongruous with the role of main antagonist (they are fairly obvious but I can detail them if you wish), the Reapers are clearly the main antagonist.

As a side note, the developers have consistently called the Catalyst and firing of the Crucible the ending. This information kind of kills your argument for TIM as antagonist and Catalyst/Crucible as epilogue.

Modifié par Eternalsteelfan, 16 mars 2012 - 09:27 .

[tanuki]

SmokePants wrote...

Again, if that "godchild" -- loaded term; he was merely perceived by Sheperd to be in the form of the child that was haunting him -- if that being had allowed Sheperd to beat the reapers, keep the relays, and go hug all his friends, very few would be complaining right now. It's not the "godchild".

Because it still would give more closure than the current endings provide, no?

Alternatively, there would be much less complain if it would be clearly stated that Shepard and his comrades died in the last battle, but defeated the Reapers and that Normandy went down in the blaze of glory fighting and (sic!) give some insight into results of your choices.

Godchild aside, endings as they are just look disjointed and unfinished.

[Dreogan]

JulyAyon wrote...

One can only hope they are so busy doing ME4 that there was no time to finish ME3 properly.......?

Oh hell no. Hell no.

Modifié par Dreogan, 16 mars 2012 - 09:45 .

[Exeider]

great post OP.

Kei lang represented the Soldier Villian, once who is defeated with physical force. TIM represented the Intellectual Villian, one who is defeated with the mind, IE conversation, but TIM did NOT represent the Arch-Enemy, that would be the reapers, namely Harbinger.

I think and was expecting that Harbinger would show up in some sort of Reaper equivalent of EDI. The fact that EDI having an avatar, a la "Andromeda" style, I felt that it was introducing the concept of a big cybernetic Intelligence of some "large" size, fitting itself with a body to give it physicality. EDI using that body of Eva to give herself an avatar. I was expecting the final battle (if there was one) to include fighting Harbinger in one of both of the following ways (maybe even at the same time.) A) "fighting" him with the target painter, using the fleets firepower to shoot, his Larger body (his reaper self) and fighting his Avatar self, using your standard weapons.
*Extra points to harby, if the Avatar looks like your Shephard. Cliche I know, but it would be cool.*
It would making a statement that the Reapers while they hate you for what they have done, admire the raw ability for which you have done it. (this would lead credence to the indoctrination theory)
Only to have you defeat it, so harby does the next best thing and create a duplicate for himself to occupy instead of "assuming control" of your ACTUAL Shephard.

So, regardless of the nature of the endings that have been proposed, If there was a final battle, I would of thought they would of used the "NEW" things they established in the game earlier.

The idea of an intelligence taking control of an Avatar (established this in ME 2)
The use of the "Target Painter" to call upon "Fleet Firepower."

I dont' know what do you think?

-Æ

[BigBossBoo]

I would say the RGC fits the Deus Ex Machina well.  A random super god child from the stars appears in the last 10 minutes and gives Shepard the ability to end the reaper threat... the crucible having rather minimal purpose at that point.

Also you're wrong.. movies AND games don't tell, they SHOW.  That's the advantage of audio-visual entertainment.  They can actually SHOW us what's happening.  There is never an excuse to tell something, even in books.  The point of a story-teller is to show the person what's going on so that they are immersed in the story.  To tell is to break that immersion and make it more like.. data than a story.

Case and point.. in the ending of ME2 we aren't told "everyone survived, they are working together to rebuild the Normandy and are satisfied with their work but are preparing for the inevitable final battle with the reapers."  We are SHOWN Shepard walking through the Normandy as he nods at every character.  No coffin is shown.  Everyone is working on something.  THAT is an immensely well created ending.  And it doesn't tell us ****, it SHOWS us.. we are apart of the ending, we get that good satisfactory resolution.

I also disagree that ambuguity is never a good ending.  There are plenty of stories that leave on an ambiguous note, it allows the reader/watcher to think of something more grand than the story itself.  The only problem is that it's hard to pull off successfully because it requires certain stories and methods to where no plot holes are made and resolution is adequately acquired to where a ME3 isn't pulled.  Example is Men in Black 2.  At the very end of the movie, we are told of this "greater world than we can comprehend."  Then we are shown this massive other universe full of other people.  THAT is a fairly ambiguous ending.  We know what was meant but we can only think about what it actually means.  It's not the best example but it works.

Otherwise I agree with you.. the "resolution" of the game in a script-term is not really a resolution and really destroys the trilogy as nothing is truly resolved, only new problems and plotholes are formed.

Modifié par BigBossBoo, 16 mars 2012 - 10:01 .

[Kevin Lozandier]

I'm more disappointed of the lack of seeing the LONG-TERM effects of any decision you made.

Would the cycle really continue or the unification of Geth/ Quarian, Turian/Krogan, and Rachni? Heck Shepard, said it may not be as clear cut as the Crucible made it out to be.


Where the heck is the Rachni in the final battle anyway? Reading about their involvement in the galactic readiness system is not enough I thought; especially regarding the queen.

What's the full effect of the genophage solved?


Compared to previous Mass Effects, the decisions you make you don't really see the effects.

For the final, In my opinion, there should be special bosses and areas you have to face because of decisions that just doesn't  happen which should have happen given the mass amount of decisions made in the series.

Modifié par Kevin Lozandier, 16 mars 2012 - 10:18 .

[Eternalsteelfan]

BigBossBoo wrote...

I would say the RGC fits the Deus Ex Machina well.  A random super god child from the stars appears in the last 10 minutes and gives Shepard the ability to end the reaper threat... the crucible having rather minimal purpose at that point.

Also you're wrong.. movies AND games don't tell, they SHOW.  That's the advantage of audio-visual entertainment.  They can actually SHOW us what's happening.  There is never an excuse to tell something, even in books.  The point of a story-teller is to show the person what's going on so that they are immersed in the story.  To tell is to break that immersion and make it more like.. data than a story.

Case and point.. in the ending of ME2 we aren't told "everyone survived, they are working together to rebuild the Normandy and are satisfied with their work but are preparing for the inevitable final battle with the reapers."  We are SHOWN Shepard walking through the Normandy as he nods at every character.  No coffin is shown.  Everyone is working on something.  THAT is an immensely well created ending.  And it doesn't tell us ****, it SHOWS us.. we are apart of the ending, we get that good satisfactory resolution.

I also disagree that ambuguity is never a good ending.  There are plenty of stories that leave on an ambiguous note, it allows the reader/watcher to think of something more grand than the story itself.  The only problem is that it's hard to pull off successfully because it requires certain stories and methods to where no plot holes are made and resolution is adequately acquired to where a ME3 isn't pulled.  Example is Men in Black 2.  At the very end of the movie, we are told of this "greater world than we can comprehend."  Then we are shown this massive other universe full of other people.  THAT is a fairly ambiguous ending.  We know what was meant but we can only think about what it actually means.  It's not the best example but it works.

Otherwise I agree with you.. the "resolution" of the game in a script-term is not really a resolution and really destroys the trilogy as nothing is truly resolved, only new problems and plotholes are formed.

Just curious, are you responding to the OP or another post?

[Petrikles]

Just to clarify, not the crucible is the deus ex machina, the child is the deus ex machina.

[Eternalsteelfan]

Kailord wrote...

Just to clarify, not the crucible is the deus ex machina, the child is the deus ex machina.

Again, Catalyst takes no direct action in the story, he only serves as a means for exposition. Like I've said before, an example of deus ex machina would be: the Reapers are suddenly defeated by a new alien force or the Reapers run out of fuel and crash into the ocean.

Think War of the Worlds.

[Laughing.Man.d8D]

Excellent post.

The ending of ME3 definitely fails in the resolution department.

[djspectre]

in response to the OP on page 1.....


The ending felt jarring only because you are looking at it in a limited context as well as not truly considering the medium. The entire trilogy was based on the fact that it was one giant story, not 3 segments chained together independently.

When it comes to make a choice as to how to end the story, it's easy to say "why do we have to have the choices explained to us?" but in a video game where (I played insanity on my first play through) where you can easily get bogged down in the details of combat and mission objectives sometimes you need a reminder.

Further, the idea of injecting new information at the end of a story may sound like a poor idea, but here is why it's often a good one.

Protagonists must change throughout the course of the story for it to have any meaning to the audience. Often times this change culminates with their final acts, sometimes surprising us with their resolution.

The fact that movies and novels often leave out these creative thought processes that the characters go through so that it's more stunning when we witness it doesn't work in video games because the player is in control of the story. In movies and novels we are being told, in games we are doing the telling.

The only way to convey this sense of spontaneity is through introducing new information.

Up till the end of ME3, we were presented with the obvious choice of destroying the Reapers or agreeing with the Illusive man to control them. Sure destroying them would be the logical choice.....if this were a novel or movie. But this isn't. It's a game that based it's entire plot around the choices you make as a player. I'm immersed in this universe, I WANT more choices. And until now, I only had two and this interesting 3rd one that popped up makes it more MY story and less like a movie or novel.

I've heard people say the ending was vague or unclear, that simply isn't true. The Catalyst explains the general outcome of each choice Shepard can make at the end. It never goes into details about every single affect of all your previous choices that might feed into it, but then again it doesn't and shouldn't have to. We make all kinds of choices everyday based on partial information. Why would Shepard be faced with anything less?

Further, the fact that we don't get an epilogue for every character might be disappointing, but in the context of storytelling, it's no necessary. Sure, as a fan, I'd like to see how it all panned out for all my favorite turians, humans, asari and salarians, but that would make the ending longer than Return of the King and my ass already hurts sitting in this chair for 40 hours mashing keys to keep husks from eating me.

The fact that people can't appreciate an ending that doesn't literally spell it out for them in graphic detail (which is actually hypocritical of the earlier sentiment made about how the exposition with the Illusive man was 'jarring' and unnecessary), is a symptom of individuals accustomed to being spoon fed their ideas instead of enjoying their own imagination is not a fault of the writers or the execution of that writing within the game.

The one point I will concede is that the entire thrust of this game was the fight against the Reapers, not Cerberus and not the illusive man. I found the interaction, even if it was only once, with Sovereign to be delightful and entertaining. It proved that it was in fact Sovereign pulling the strings in ME1 and not Saren.

The same could be said with Harbinger in ME2 and definitely had continuity potential in ME3, yet it was wasted and instead the villainy was muddled by the Cerberus plotline.

The switcheroo in ME1 where you find out who the real bad guy is was fantastic. An already difficult threat is suddenly replaced by an infinity more difficult one. But in ME3, the massive Reaper fleet was one-upped by a chain smoker.

While I feel that the ending of the game was perfect for the series, there will always be detractors and critics. Some say the ending didn't reflect or even care about their choices along the way, need to realize something: the game was always about choice, the ending reflected that motif.

All the other individual choices you made throughout the 2 previous games were simply to emotionally invest the person in the characters...to make you want to save the galaxy for their sake, for their friendship with you, for their love for you. When they died during your journey, it was supposed to be a reminder of how fragile life is and how important it is to succeed.

Whether you left ashley to die, got half your squad killed in the Omega-4, allowed Tali and Legion to have a love child, or let Garrus finally finish his calibrations wasn't supposed to have a direct impact on the final choice. The final choice always rested on Shepards shoulders squarely. And that is exactly how the game went out.

[Sentr0]

well said

[Lurchibald]

djspectre wrote...

in response to the OP on page 1.....

---SNIP---

None of that fills the plot hole of why Shepard is meant to believe that anything the Catalyst says is true. Why (after so long of fighting the Reapers) would Shepard suddenly believe what the king of the Reapers says? 

Personally, My Shepard would have said, "Screw your options, we'll try to beat you the conventional way!"

Modifié par Lurchibald, 16 mars 2012 - 11:16 .

[djspectre]

Eternalsteelfan wrote...



If the Catalyst isn't the resolution, what is? The Catalyst precedes the ending scene and expounds on it with what the implications of the different choices are as well as providing a history and purpose for itself, the Crucible, and the Reapers; very literally, it's function is resolutory. A clear epilogue is the so called stargazer scene, which follows the ending scene and provides context for Shepherd's story through a kind of meta-story.

The rest of your argument, save the antagonist point, is kind of hinged on this Catalyst as epilogue idea and is fundamentally flawed, so it's kind of hard to debate given I completely disagree. As for the antagonist:

The Reapers aren't merely a "big impersonal" threat, the protagonist directly interacts with them and their agents throughout the entire series.

• They are introduced at the beginning of the series and are at the crux of story's conflict throughout
• They are present in all three climaxes and the series' climax
• The protagonist is in conflict with them in each of these climaxes
• The protagonist directly interacts with them on numerous occasions starting with Virmire
• Saren and the Illusive Man are merely agents of this antagonistic force, they are the Saruman to the Reapers' Sauron

I can see that if you believe TIM is the main antagonist, the  Catalyst would be an epilogue for you and the resolution would be in the death of TIM. This doesn't really fit with the overall story arc at all, TIM's death doesn't resolve the Reapers/Shepherd conflict of the series and can't really constitute something that would be called an ending. For the reasons above why the Reapers are the main antagonist and  for reasons I haven't gone in depth on as to why TIM is incongruous with the role of main antagonist (they are fairly obvious but I can detail them if you wish), the Reapers are clearly the main antagonist.

As a side note, the developers have consistently called the Catalyst and firing of the Crucible the ending. This information kind of kills your argument for TIM as antagonist and Catalyst/Crucible as epilogue.

I agree with a lot of what you said here, but I do feel that there was insufficient explanation as to how the Illusive man became indoctrinated (if he ever truly was), which made him feel weak as an antagonist. Not to mention the constant cerberus mission interuptions really broke the flow of the game a lot. I seriously loved constantly running to new races homeworlds and having to defend against the reapers and their minions. Though it is sad that they only had like a half dozen reaper enemy types :-( 

Modifié par djspectre, 16 mars 2012 - 11:18 .