285 réponses à ce sujet

[Genera1Nemesis]

Spitfiremk87 wrote...

MrLee95 wrote...

Do you all notice that when saracen16 posts then Genera1Nemesis posts right after?
And they are pretty much the only 2 arguing against you all?

Either these are the same person or they are friends, and all they are trying to do is Troll you.

Stop talking to these "people" and stop giving them a rise. No matter what you say to people like this they will not listen.

Quit feeding the trolls. This person is right. They are the only two posting here. The sooner we stop posting, the sooner this will float to the bottom of the forum.

Yep, i'm a troll for having a counter-argument that you don't agree with. When did we become a fascist regime? Did I miss something?

[saracen16]

blah64 wrote...

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

The entire game was the end of the story, not just the last 5 minutes.

Not true. The game was the last act. The last 10 minutes were the ending. And it failed to deliver what was promised. As Forbes argued, we're not entitled gamers, were active consumers.

http://www.forbes.co...er-entitlement/ 

and

http://www.forbes.co...ible-consumers/ 

Both are very good articles. The first dispels the arguement for gamer "entitlement" and the latter describes how our actions are good business. I would give both a read before continuing to judge us.

What your Erik Kain did was argue against the label of "entitlement". Buying the game doesn't mean you become a shareholder of the Intellectual Property of the game and its writing, which is 100% BioWare property. They create a work of art and sell it to you, just like an author has 100% entitlement to his own work. As a consumer, you have the right to complain and critique, and the company has the freedom to listen to you or not and act accordingly.

Also, the article keeps confusing promises for marketing ploys DISGUISED as promises, which is CLEARLY what BioWare did. They have ever right to do so in this free market economy, and fulfilling consumer wishes defeats the purpose of artistic expression.

[Genera1Nemesis]

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

Spitfiremk87 wrote...

MrLee95 wrote...

Do you all notice that when saracen16 posts then Genera1Nemesis posts right after?
And they are pretty much the only 2 arguing against you all?

Either these are the same person or they are friends, and all they are trying to do is Troll you.

Stop talking to these "people" and stop giving them a rise. No matter what you say to people like this they will not listen.

Quit feeding the trolls. This person is right. They are the only two posting here. The sooner we stop posting, the sooner this will float to the bottom of the forum.

Yep, i'm a troll for having a counter-argument that you don't agree with. When did we become a fascist regime? Did I miss something?

And that person couldn't be more wrong. I don't know Saracen. Never saw him before I entered this thread that HE started. By definition that makes you the troll, doesn't it?

And that last statement spitfire made can also be applied to all those who can't see the logical side of the counter-argument either.

[shurryy]

saracen16 wrote...

iamthedave3 wrote...

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

Besides, the original argument was whether they should change the ending or not. I don't think changing it is a good thing; adding to it is completely different however....

In fairness, nobody has ever wanted these endings to be -gone- they just want more choices, and preferably ones that more closely reflect their choices made in the game.

Dave, Mass Effect was NEVER about easy choices. We only had a few in each scenario. Why can't Khalisah be my LI? Why can't Kasumi be my LI? Because the game writers didn't design it that way. Read the OP, dave. You'll find out that your choices have been reflected, and that the entire game IS the ending. BioWare can't humanly put every single sub-plot and plot in the last 15 minutes.

"Hey, Shepard, it's Conrad Verner! I married Jenna! Hey, Shepard, it's Barla Von! Here are your troops. Now go fight the Reapersss! Hey, Shepard, it's Kasumi. Thanks for the greybox! Here's a thermal clip to help you kill Starchild! Hey, Shepard, it's Wrex! Thanks for curing the genophage! I baked you a cake!" You realize that most of this happens throughout the game, right? Again, read the OP.

If you're followed the rage closely, you'll notice that the majority of the anger is not at shephard's death, though a lot do want to be reunited with their LI... the majority of the anger is centred on the treatment of the Normandy.

You're not god. You're Shepard. You don't know where any of the Normandy crewmembers are. You can make assumptions on what you see, but that doesn't make it true because you're seeing the game through Shepard's eyes, not anyone else's.

Yeah... Because on several instances we don't switch scenes from for instance: Ilos to Citadel during Sovereigns attack... Not to mention when Joker blew a hole in sovereign, the council seeking assistance, Shepard was on board all of those ships... Because we see through his eyes, right? 

You have failed.

[NPH11]

 

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

So you're saying that Bioware (the brand) is just a collective hive mind that doesn't consist of writers and programmers who DID have an artistic vision? Authors need publishing companies too; that doesn't demean their form of art. It just proves that in order to share your vision with a wide audience you have to either find someone who will financially support you (EA) or try to raise those funds youself. 

Sterphen King is published by Bantam; a major publishing giant corporation. So that means what he does isn't art?

 

Yeah, looping Bioware in there was something I regretted immediately, but my point is still there.

My money is going to EA. This isn't a simple author/publisher relationship, they own Bioware Corp. Bioware's sole purpose is to bring in profit for EA, that's the only reason EA keeps them around (Remember what happened to Westwood?). Bioware had an artistic vision? Great, but my money is going to EA one way or another. So if I'm "ruining art" by demanding a major corporation have their product meet consumer expectations, I will gladly do so. I'm not going to sit on my hands saying, "Well, my money was wasted, oh well."

Also, the Stephen King/Bantam situation is not an accurate comparison. Bantam is not a publicly traded corporation with, again, shareholders that they are expected to answer to. Bantam doesn't own Stephen King (Not sure on this, I don't know Stephen very well.)

Modifié par NPH11, 16 mars 2012 - 12:35 .

[EmGo]

Maybe we should stop posting in this thread to make him disappear

[Comsky159]

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

Yep, i'm a troll for having a counter-argument that you don't agree with. When did we become a fascist regime? Did I miss something?

And that person couldn't be more wrong. I don't know Saracen. Never saw him before I entered this thread that HE started. By definition that makes you the troll, doesn't it?

And that last statement spitfire made can also be applied to all those who can't see the logical side of the counter-argument either.

Look now he's in support of his own arguments

Who needs multiple accounts?

Modifié par Comsky159, 16 mars 2012 - 12:38 .

[Genera1Nemesis]

EmGo wrote...

Maybe we should stop posting in this thread to make him disappear

That's it, silence the opposing argument instead of addressing it with respect and dignity. I seem to recall a few instances in history when that was considered to be the 'wrong' way to go about doing things...

[saracen16]

MrLee95 wrote...
~snip~

I'm not going to dignify your post with a response, but I will dignify it with a report.

[Alamar2078]

@OP: Your post is reasonable with the one exception that it does not adequately [IMHO] actually address the core issue of why many people want a new ending.

The simple matter is Bioware set expectations / made promises about their ending that they did not deliver upon. There is basically three endings that reuse 90% of the assest of all of the endings. In none of these endings do your prior choices make a substantial difference in what plays out.

Bioware set expectations for lots of endings that could diverge radically based on your decisions. I don't see that at all. Bioware said they wouldn't do a "Lost" with their endings. That is exactly what they did.

While if they didn't set unmatched epectations [intentionally?] about their endings the endings themselves are still pretty bad as they involve elements not properly built-up or forshadowed in the prior 3 games of the series. When the logical ending based on the rules of the ME series to date is that the endings aren't endings but a "dream" you know you have a fairly bad set of endings assuming that those were even intended to be endings to start with.

[Genera1Nemesis]

Comsky159 wrote...

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

Yep, i'm a troll for having a counter-argument that you don't agree with. When did we become a fascist regime? Did I miss something?

And that person couldn't be more wrong. I don't know Saracen. Never saw him before I entered this thread that HE started. By definition that makes you the troll, doesn't it?

And that last statement spitfire made can also be applied to all those who can't see the logical side of the counter-argument either.

Look now he's in support of his own arguments

I just wanted to add to my argument; but how can one argue without supporting it? How is that laughable?

[saracen16]

shurryy wrote...

Yeah... Because on several instances we don't switch scenes from for instance: Ilos to Citadel during Sovereigns attack... Not to mention when Joker blew a hole in sovereign, the council seeking assistance, Shepard was on board all of those ships... Because we see through his eyes, right? 

You have failed.

Oh, damn those BioWare writers for being creative. Have you ever thought that it was their intention to give you those last minute experiences from your perspective and make it even more personal?

[Favourite store on the CitadeI]

saracen16 wrote...


What we do in life echoes in eternity.
- Gladiator

You will be who you will be. We are our choices.
- Helios, Deus Ex

Protecting Creative Risk And Integrity: Why Mass Effect 3′s Ending Should Never Be Changed

http://0.gravatar.co...523536?s=16&r=G Mark Serrels




Kotaku AU



March 13, 2012 1:00 PM

Yesterday folks got into a bit of a kerfuffle about Mass Effect 3‘s
ending. Some were happy with it, some were angry — but many have gone
as far to say it should actually be retrospectively changed. You can
agree or disagree — but that’s where I draw the line. This rant is
completely spoiler free!
In Tsugumi Ohba’s Bakuman, the talented Mashiro and Tagaki
write manga. It is their dream to create incredible stories together;
stories that will inspire and dazzle their audience. Their nemesis is
the scheming Nanamine, a writer who idolises the combined abilities of
Mashiro and Takagi, but secretly wishes to dethrone them.
He has no writing or drawing talent to speak of — he can’t create
Manga — so in order to compete he recruits hundreds of wanna-be writers
and artists from the internet. By manipulating this hive mind he
attempts to compete with Mashiro and Takagi.
Nanamine crowdsources everything — the writing, the art, the plot,
the structure — every aspect of his manga is fine tuned to the
expectations and demands of this massive group. His work is the end
result of hours of group testing, by hundreds of informed readers. The
end result is the perfect manga — finely tuned, slickly produced,
well-constructed.
And completely, utterly sterile.

I was reminded of Bakuman as the internet bile began to surface in response to Mass Effect 3’s ending. Considering the investment gamers had in the Mass Effect trilogy, and the personal investment
many had — in their own designed protagonist and choices — some sort of
negative response was always going to be expected.
I had no issue with the negativity, because I understand. On multiple
occasions I’ve been massively disappointed in fiction. I’ve been
frustrated. I’ve been downright furious with the way certain movies,
games or books have ended.
But not once have I ever, ever suggested that the author take their work back and completely transform and change something to my own personal specifications.
Because that would be complete lunacy.
Let me reiterate — if you hated the ending of Mass Effect 3,
please continue to whinge. Continue to be angry. Please continue to
**** about how it goes against everything the series stands for —
dramatically cast your hands to the sky like a collective Darth Vader,
and scream ‘NNOOOO’ in abject despair! Absolutely, that is your right.
But it is not your right to demand that the ending be changed. You have absolutely no say in that, and that is the way it should be.

There’s a tremendous difference between arguing and discussing how Bioware should have handled Mass Effect 3’s ending, and demanding they change it. Some are too entitled to tell the difference, but it’s paramount.
A game like Mass Effect, which is clearly designed and
carefully built — with every detail of the universe accounted for —
could not bear the damage a fan-demanded change to its fiction would
create. Its integrity would collapse. This is Bioware’s story — no
matter how personal your own existence within Mass Effect’s universe is,
that existence was made possible within the confines of Bioware’s
authorial intent. Full stop. You don’t get to change that. Once a word
is said, it cannot be unsaid.
Fiction should delight us, it should broaden our horizons. It should
challenge us, make us angry — often for the wrong reasons. Fiction
should also have the propensity to disappoint us. But it must never, never pander to us.
I don’t want to engage with fiction that simply regales the story I
want it to tell. Why would I? I want to be surprised by what I
read/play/watch. Compared to other media, video game fiction is easily
the least static, but that doesn’t mean that the creative act should be
democratic — there still has to be structure. You must still react to
what a creator has made for you, and you don’t get to change that —
imagine the precedent that would set.
Once a piece of fiction is placed is complete, and released into the
wild, it must remain that way or its integrity will be desecrated.

In Bakuman, Mashiro and Tagaki write a weekly manga. They
respond to their audience, because theirs is a commercial endeavour. If
certain characters aren’t liked, they may phase them out. If a certain
story arc isn’t gaining traction, they may cut it short. But nothing is
ever changed in retrospect. Once is story is told it cannot be untold.
Mashiro and Tagaki work in isolation, fuelled by their own creative
impulse, delivering content fans are inspired and energised by. The same
audience reacts to Nanamine’s output with a dull indifference. It’s
hard to become passionate about something that’s created by committee —
something that lacks the spark of an individual voice. It can never be
original, it can never dazzle.
And that’s what we risk when we demand retrospective change by
committee — we risk derailing creative risk, we risk subverting the act
of individual creativity.
I haven’t finished Mass Effect 3 yet, but I don’t care if
Bioware’s ending completely shatters everything I hold dear about the
series. I don’t care if my Shepard starts doing the moonwalk over Reaper
corpses before engaging in a dance fight to the death with the Illusive
Man. I don’t care how ludicrous or flat out wrong Bioware’s ending to Mass Effect
is, I will accept it as canon because I shouldn’t have any choice.
Sure, I will howl at the moon with a primordial rage, maybe even snap
both discs in two, but I will never question Bioware’s authorial
integrity, because Mass Effect is Bioware’s story to tell, and I’m just going to have to deal with it.

What Mass Effect is in reality is a story that BioWare has laid out, and you only chose which version of it you see, one that aligns with your personal choices. They've also given you a load of resources and backstory in the form of a Codex and a rich and branching universe. To completely condemn the ending and ignore everything that came before it is to devalue your own experience throughout the entire trilogy. BioWare said it will be the ending of Shepard's STORY. It didn't say that it would be a traditional game ending. And don't think for one second that your choices didn't matter: throughout the entirety of Mass Effect 3, you see the impact your choices had. Your choices do matter, and all plots and subplots get their own
endings. And each plot and subplot had its own closure in the context of
the story. Hudson did NOT promise a SINGULAR ending for every single
plot because that would be bad writing (ala. Fallout 3). For example, here's my ending:

-
I saved Wrex and Maelon's data and Mordin himself in the previous
games, and that ended up with Eve getting saved during the cure
extraction procedure and saved the Krogans from the genophage. With Wrex
in charge, he wants to expand krogan territory. With Eve still alive
thanks to Maelon's data, she will act as a balancing influence.

-
I gave Tali the geth data, and I absolved her in her trial. I rescued
Legion instead of selling him to Cerberus, and I rewrote the heretics,
who became even stronger afterwards (clearly a mistake?). I saved both
the Geth and the Quarians, and Legion sacrificed himself. That left me
with both cooperating for a better future on Rannoch and ultimately geth
uploading into Quarian hardsuits so the Quarians can better adapt to
Rannoch's atmosphere.

- I saved the council. I saved Thane. And
I saved Kolyat from what he was about to do. The Salarian councillor
offered his help in the end to the war effort. The Destiny Ascension
also joined the ranks of the war assets. Thane saved the councillor from
Kai Leng and ended up dying. Both Kolyat and I were on the deathbed of
Thane. Thane dies. Beautiful ending.

- I didn't alienate Conrad
Verner. I saved Gavin Hossle's data. I helped Jenna in Chora's Den.
I retrieved the writings of Matriarch Dilinaga. I helped him on Ilium. I
see him again on the Citadel, and persuade him to join our side. He has
a thesis on dark energy with information that needs to be translated.
He calls in a favor - GAVIN HOSSLE - to help him out. Shepard gives him
ancient Asari texts to help him complete his work. He jumps in front of
Shepard and saves him from the Cerberus agent. Turns out the agent's gun
was sabotaged by Jenna, and he was left alive in the end. They both
walk into the sunset to help with the Crucible.

- I paragoned Khalisah from the beginning, up to the end. She became a war asset.

- I saved the Rachni on Noveria. I killed the Rachni on Utukku. Problem solved.

-
I destroyed the Reapers at the end. What will the Quarians do without
the Geth? What if I synthesized organics and synthetics? How will the
relationship between Quarians and Geth change?

I could go on, really, but BioWare didn't create an ending. They created a story. And that's unforgettable, unlike an ending.

Alot of people disagree

[Comsky159]

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

I just wanted to add to my argument; but how can one argue without supporting it? How is that laughable?

Cos' that's what the edit button is for good sir.

Anyway I was just teasing.

Modifié par Comsky159, 16 mars 2012 - 12:44 .

[saracen16]

RLesueur wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

You're not god. You're Shepard. You don't know where any of the Normandy crewmembers are. You can make assumptions on what you see, but that doesn't make it true because you're seeing the game through Shepard's eyes, not anyone else's.

Well that doesn't make any sense, Shepard is dead at that point. You're not seeing anything through his/her eyes then.

Besides, having to make assumptions on what the hell happened is exactly what makes this a bad ending that needs changing.

Again, writer's intention. Don't take everything at face value.

[MizzNaaa]

See, my problem with ALL those articles that are against the ME3-retake thing is this:

They all keep saying something that is completely untrue, they all keep saying that we WANT to change the WHOLE ending.

We don't want to change anything. We want more.

There's a difference. I'm not asking BioWare to take back their game, remove the ending, rebuild the whole level and patch it in. I'm asking them to make a DLC that will ADD to what we got.

It's like asking an author to make another book in a series, there's nothing wrong with that.

But then again, this is Kotaku, what do you expect?

To be fair though, that seems to be the general argument for people against our retakeME3 thing, and what I find weird is that no one ever called them out on it.

[saracen16]

Favourite store on the CitadeI wrote...

Alot of people disagree

Your point?

[Genera1Nemesis]

Comsky159 wrote...

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

I just wanted to add to my argument; but how can one argue without supporting it? How is that laughable?

Cos' that's what the edit button is for good sir.

Anyway I was just messing with you.

Yeah, I know. Didn't get a whole lot of sleep and barely drank any coffee yet, so I did it the lazy way, lol. Sorry bout that.

[saracen16]

MizzNaaa wrote...

See, my problem with ALL those articles that are against the ME3-retake thing is this:

They all keep saying something that is completely untrue, they all keep saying that we WANT to change the WHOLE ending.

We don't want to change anything. We want more.

Barring your generalizations, THAT's the problem: adding or subtracting to something IS changing it. You are forcing BioWare to abandon their independence and cease to be artists, instead become nothing but shills for a community that wants their own fan-fiction IMPOSED on the game.

[Alamar2078]

saracen16 wrote...

Also, the article keeps confusing promises for marketing ploys DISGUISED as promises, which is CLEARLY what BioWare did. They have ever right to do so in this free market economy, and fulfilling consumer wishes defeats the purpose of artistic expression.

Here is the crux of the problem that you have laid out.  If a company engages in false advertising then that is actually a CRIMINAL offense.  I do not necessarily claim that BW did this with malice in their hearts but they set an unreasonable set of expectationts that they had no intention of matching.

As a company that produces a product they have a moral obligation to live up to their promises and/or the expectationts they deliberately set.   "Artisitc vision" will not excuse unethical behavior.

Note:  I am willing to assume that BW did not do any of this with malice.  I do believe they did set unmatched expectations / promises therefore [given that consumers are not generally allowed to return games] I believe they have a moral responsibility to meet the expectations they have laid out for their product.

[Swisspease]

Doesn't matter. Any of it. The ending is all in Shepard's head and he's dreaming it all up in his last moments of life. Not unlike the movie "Jacob's Ladder". The plot holes support this.

[Genera1Nemesis]

Alamar2078 wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

Also, the article keeps confusing promises for marketing ploys DISGUISED as promises, which is CLEARLY what BioWare did. They have ever right to do so in this free market economy, and fulfilling consumer wishes defeats the purpose of artistic expression.

Here is the crux of the problem that you have laid out.  If a company engages in false advertising then that is actually a CRIMINAL offense.  I do not necessarily claim that BW did this with malice in their hearts but they set an unreasonable set of expectationts that they had no intention of matching.

As a company that produces a product they have a moral obligation to live up to their promises and/or the expectationts they deliberately set.   "Artisitc vision" will not excuse unethical behavior.

Note:  I am willing to assume that BW did not do any of this with malice.  I do believe they did set unmatched expectations / promises therefore [given that consumers are not generally allowed to return games] I believe they have a moral responsibility to meet the expectations they have laid out for their product.

But Bioware would win this legally if that's the basis of the argument. The can go through every momnet in the game and show how your choices were reflected throughout; so in general the game was not falsely advertised. It did what they said it would do; they just didn't do it all in one fell swoop at the end of the game itself.

[iamthedave3]

saracen16 wrote...


You're not god. You're Shepard. You don't know where any of the Normandy crewmembers are. You can make assumptions on what you see, but that doesn't make it true because you're seeing the game through Shepard's eyes, not anyone else's.

And Shephard is space jesus, meaning Shephard is also God.

I mean, that last name was chosen FOR A REASON.

[Norrax]

every one can argue till they are blue in the face, but it comes down to this, the majority of people (including myself) hated last 5-10 mins, when magic and plot holes suddenly got thrown in to the mix and every choice we made in the last 2 games got thrown out the window. every one who's in favor of the endings OK you like them, just stop posting threads just to be controversial like all hipster douches, and stop citing artist creativity as a reason it just winds true fans up! were all recovering from the ending induced post traumatic stress. so just don't add insult to injury!

[iamthedave3]

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

Alamar2078 wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

Also, the article keeps confusing promises for marketing ploys DISGUISED as promises, which is CLEARLY what BioWare did. They have ever right to do so in this free market economy, and fulfilling consumer wishes defeats the purpose of artistic expression.

Here is the crux of the problem that you have laid out.  If a company engages in false advertising then that is actually a CRIMINAL offense.  I do not necessarily claim that BW did this with malice in their hearts but they set an unreasonable set of expectationts that they had no intention of matching.

As a company that produces a product they have a moral obligation to live up to their promises and/or the expectationts they deliberately set.   "Artisitc vision" will not excuse unethical behavior.

Note:  I am willing to assume that BW did not do any of this with malice.  I do believe they did set unmatched expectations / promises therefore [given that consumers are not generally allowed to return games] I believe they have a moral responsibility to meet the expectations they have laid out for their product.

But Bioware would win this legally if that's the basis of the argument. The can go through every momnet in the game and show how your choices were reflected throughout; so in general the game was not falsely advertised. It did what they said it would do; they just didn't do it all in one fell swoop at the end of the game itself.

Let's see them win the '16 different endings' debate...