Tirranek wrote...
Please don't misunderstand, I'm not against voicing objection towards the endings, and if content is released that provides a further epilogue ala DA: Awakening, I'm down with that. I also appreciate that some people are genuinely willing to be civil and discuss things, both with Bioware and the rest of the fan community.
Unfortunately the rhetoric behind so much of this is embarressing, at least to me. Terms like; The Movement, holding the line and posts that read like someone is trying to write Sun Tzu's: The Art of Sticking it to Bioware just kill any interest I have in supporting it.
I do have some individual questions, if you want to answer:
What did you specifically dislike about the ending? For me it was that the final moments were presented by a character's likeness I had no attachment to. The child was un-necessary appeal to emotion that ended up dictating your Shepard's perspective on things; very un-Mass Effect. For me, having dead characters appear in the deams, and your LI or other significant character be the avatar of this moment would have had a great deal more resonance, and it would be an experience that related to your character specifically. I also think there are just basic continuity problems with Joker on the Normandy.
Is it a remake, or an extension of the ending that is being requested by the majority fans? For me, an epilogue from Hackett, stories about the first steps in rebuilding, or insights into the squadmates would be enough for me.
How many of these highlighted plotholes are actually genuinely that, as opposed to questions that fans are simply disinclined to discuss? I see mention of exploding relays = Arrival explosion, mass starvation, isolation, no hope of rebuilding etc. These are used as weight behind the argument for change, but I personally think most of these examples don't hold up under scrutiny. There is very little discussion going on about them though, because those who want to express their dislike of the endings, seem invested in making the outcome of the game seem as grim as possible.
If this change were to be achieved, what do you expect the attitude of those involved to be? I'd like to think that if a positive change is affected, it will be seen as an example of fan/devloper collaboration. As it is, though, from what I've read I'm half-expecting banners to appear, saying: 'We fought the enemy. We Endured. We made a difference.' That kind of stuff is just 
to me.
Anyway, thanks for responding, Jamie9.
Ah, I did slightly misunderstand your point there, thank you for correcting me.
The 'rhetoric' as you term it of comparing this to a war effort is just passionate fans romanticising this. "Hold the line" is one of the most inspiring speeches from the first Mass Effect game, and many find this, combined with "Our choices should matter" sum up our feelings in a simple, easy slogan without having to explain anything in detail.
I don't believe anyone thinks we're actually warring against BioWare, in fact most of us want just want the best experience possible, in that our wants require us to work with BioWare.
To answer the questions: I personally had no problem with the child itself, as it was established very early on in ME3. Would it have worked better using your LI or Anderson or someone you felt close to over the 3 games? Yes. But they went with this child to represent all those you had lost, and I have no particular ire against this.
The "God-child" however, is another story. Personally, I believe showing that someone controls the Reapers, makes the Reapers' menace disappear in an instant. The fact that this character is introduced in the last 10 minutes, and that you can't argue with him at all just makes the situation even worse.
My biggest gripe is our lack of choice. I would have liked the 16 (or at least 4) widly different endings based on your choices throughout the 3 games. I didn't want to have to make the only choice at the end, and I also believed the war assets would appear and actually play a role, considering I had spent 40 hours collecting them.
I myself would prefer a remake right from the beginning of the final Earth sequence, and since I want that to a high quality, am perfectly happy to pay for it. Others seem to be content with an epilogue. Some want it free, some would pay. I think they could please most by just using both options, change some of the sequences, maybe not as far back as I want, but at least as far back as the Star-Child, and also have epilogues, whether they be text or cutscene.
I point to "Heavy Rain" as an example of my thoughts. It had 17 unique 1-3 minute epilogue cutscenes based on player choices.
The plot holes can easily be filled or opened up wide because nothing is explained properly. It's so open to interpretation that you can just about come away with it thinking anything you like and back it up. This is a weakness in my eyes since Mass Effect has always been about your descisions, but some like the "Dust struggling against cosmic winds" angle.
The response by the fans? As most are acting civil, I'd expect them to thank BioWare, ask they learn from this mistake, and continue buying BioWare products. Of course some will gloat over it, but for the most part I think it will be overshadowed by the co-operation of all involved, BioWare and its fans. At the moment, there is a negative aura around BioWare because of this fiasco, if they fix it I fully believe the overall consensus would be positive.
If you got to the end of this rather long post, I thank you for your time Tirranek.
I ask of you one question:
Does the end taint the moments that came before it? Do you see yourself replaying this game knowing your choices do not matter in the end? Is it the journey, the destination, or both that matter?
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
reassure us and some people think it was a genuine mistake.
