276 réponses à ce sujet

[Rusty0918]

Well, it IS clever if you take into the account the extremely compelling (and often dismissed unfortunately) Indoctrination Theory. Although it most certainly does not bring closure.

[streamlock]

See this is a real issue. There are (admittedly a minority) of people who really dug the non-ending. There are more that are just "meh" and a few that are the "it's just a game" crowed.

How does Bioware proceed in repairing the damage it has done with the current rushed/blatantly stolen/cliche'/non-sensible non-ending without pissing the minority of people off that actually thought it was great? Or the Liberal-Arts majors that would protest ANYBODY changing a published piece in any media due to some misplaced sense of creative integrity?

It will be really difficult. I say just do it the way they realease directors cuts on blue-ray. (Or in this case the majority will get the non-directors cut). You can give the players a choice (imagine that) at some point where they can go down a blue/green/red colored hallway that leads to the trendy cliche' RGB ending (for those who want to). And another path/choice that leads to the varied endings that Hudson et.al. promised, without the glaring plot holes etc.

As much as I hate the current mess in the last 10 minutes, I think it would be just as tragic to totally remove the option to experience them in a subsequent play-through for the few people who like them. Tyranny of the majority so to speak. I see no reason (assuming the Brass comes to their senses) that everyone can't have their cake and eat it to.

I really should make a unique thread pointing this out.

[sadako]

xiaoassassin wrote...

Anyone who thinks the ending was good is just stupid. My friend hated ME1, played through ME2 once, just finished ME3 and he still thought the ending was bollocks. He was a die-hard CoD player too. He skipped the majority of the convos whenever they seemed to drag on for too long. He sacrificed the Quarians but he laughed at Tali's suicide and was puzzled that the Geth VI had to die. He shot Mordin because I quote "dude was stopping me from getting salarians in my army." He has little to no connection to the characters!

Nonetheless, he still raged at the ending. He was still, at least, invested in his Shepard. His response at the ending was "What the **** just happened." He even asked me whether he missed something, or if he did something wrong.

If you like the endings, you're either an industry apologist (Bioware employees, some of the game reviewer press), a retard, or a person who's just so apathetic you can't even be bothered to express rage.

Yes I agree with you, I do think that some of the supporters are corporate sockpuppets, or teens who just played the game for the "pew pew pew" and "boom boom boom".

Modifié par sadako, 19 mars 2012 - 05:58 .

[Lugaidster]

xiaoassassin wrote...

Anyone who thinks the ending was good is just stupid. My friend hated ME1, played through ME2 once, just finished ME3 and he still thought the ending was bollocks. He was a die-hard CoD player too. He skipped the majority of the convos whenever they seemed to drag on for too long. He sacrificed the Quarians but he laughed at Tali's suicide and was puzzled that the Geth VI had to die. He shot Mordin because I quote "dude was stopping me from getting salarians in my army." He has little to no connection to the characters!

Nonetheless, he still raged at the ending. He was still, at least, invested in his Shepard. His response at the ending was "What the **** just happened." He even asked me whether he missed something, or if he did something wrong.

If you like the endings, you're either an industry apologist (Bioware employees, some of the game reviewer press), a retard, or a person who's just so apathetic you can't even be bothered to express rage.

*facepalm* I seriously hope this is astroturfing.

[sadako]

streamlock wrote...

See this is a real issue. There are (admittedly a minority) of people who really dug the non-ending. There are more that are just "meh" and a few that are the "it's just a game" crowed.

How does Bioware proceed in repairing the damage it has done with the current rushed/blatantly stolen/cliche'/non-sensible non-ending without pissing the minority of people off that actually thought it was great? Or the Liberal-Arts majors that would protest ANYBODY changing a published piece in any media due to some misplaced sense of creative integrity?

It will be really difficult. I say just do it the way they realease directors cuts on blue-ray. (Or in this case the majority will get the non-directors cut). You can give the players a choice (imagine that) at some point where they can go down a blue/green/red colored hallway that leads to the trendy cliche' RGB ending (for those who want to). And another path/choice that leads to the varied endings that Hudson et.al. promised, without the glaring plot holes etc.

As much as I hate the current mess in the last 10 minutes, I think it would be just as tragic to totally remove the option to experience them in a subsequent play-through for the few people who like them. Tyranny of the majority so to speak. I see no reason (assuming the Brass comes to their senses) that everyone can't have their cake and eat it to.

I really should make a unique thread pointing this out.

The thing with directors cut, is that the version with we got was the directors vision.

with ME3, we already got the directors cut. He caved in to pressure/deadline/whatever, and decided that he could release the product without considering the fanbase.

I'm really beyond the point of having them fix this, but I do hope they realise that they can't sell ****ty products.

Modifié par sadako, 19 mars 2012 - 06:01 .

[Lugaidster]

streamlock wrote...

See this is a real issue. There are (admittedly a minority) of people who really dug the non-ending. There are more that are just "meh" and a few that are the "it's just a game" crowed.

How does Bioware proceed in repairing the damage it has done with the current rushed/blatantly stolen/cliche'/non-sensible non-ending without pissing the minority of people off that actually thought it was great? Or the Liberal-Arts majors that would protest ANYBODY changing a published piece in any media due to some misplaced sense of creative integrity?

It will be really difficult. I say just do it the way they realease directors cuts on blue-ray. (Or in this case the majority will get the non-directors cut). You can give the players a choice (imagine that) at some point where they can go down a blue/green/red colored hallway that leads to the trendy cliche' RGB ending (for those who want to). And another path/choice that leads to the varied endings that Hudson et.al. promised, without the glaring plot holes etc.

As much as I hate the current mess in the last 10 minutes, I think it would be just as tragic to totally remove the option to experience them in a subsequent play-through for the few people who like them. Tyranny of the majority so to speak. I see no reason (assuming the Brass comes to their senses) that everyone can't have their cake and eat it to.

I really should make a unique thread pointing this out.

I agree. Maybe providing a few extra choices in the present context would go a long way (and also adding a real epilogue). That'd probably be a cool way to appease everyone, though I don't know. I'll leave that up to them.

[Lugaidster]

sadako wrote...

The thing with directors cut, is that the version with we got was the directors vision.

with ME3, we already got the directors cut. He caved in to pressure/deadline/whatever, and decided that he could release the product without considering the fanbase.

I'm really beyond the point of having them fix this, but I do hope they realise that they can't sell ****ty products.

I think the name was just an analogy. Maybe a "Fan's cut" would be a better way to put it. The point is that don't get fixated on the name, the rest of the post is interesting.

[ShawdowRaptor]

"The fact that you don't address the plot-holes in the end of the game and just blatantly say it's "clever", makes me wonder why you review games. Address these and I'll understand, but I doubt you'll debate them. More or less you'll most likely avoid my comment and move on hoping your review holds more water."


ShawdowRaptor 7 minutes ago
Reply ShareRemoveFlag for spamBlock UserUnblock User
@ShawdowRaptor You seem really angry.

ZeitgeistReview 4 minutes ago
Reply ShareRemoveFlag for spamBlock UserUnblock User
@ZeitgeistReview I'm not angry, rather a little dissapointed. Not only in the fact that you claim the ending is "clever" without mentioning the plot-holes, but the fact that you just responded to my comment like a 14 year old child on Call of Duty.

Also, the fact that you address the "spammer" (according to you) by blocking them instead of using the "report spam" tool Youtube grants you with brings to question if it was actually spam or you were tired of discussion with the individual.

ShawdowRaptor 1 second ago

[ShawdowRaptor]

He added the fact that he banned you for spamming. I addressed that in the same comment.

[Unit-Alpha]

Bioware comments on this defending the guy, but never speaks up elsewhere?

Can we seriously get a little less bias going on with your end?

Modifié par Unit-Alpha, 19 mars 2012 - 06:14 .

[ShawdowRaptor]

ShawdowRaptor 2 minutes ago
Reply
ShareRemoveFlag for spamBlock UserUnblock User @ShawdowRaptor I respond to comments in the manor that they were addressed to me.

ZeitgeistReview 37 seconds ago
Reply ShareRemoveFlag for spamBlock UserUnblock User
@ZeitgeistReview How were they addressed in that fashion? I questioned your integrity based on your actions. I asked you to debate them and I would understand. I was cordial about it and highly mannered. You on the other hand are trying to belittle me. I'm asking for you to explain why you feel it was clever. To which you respond, "You seem really angry." Sad day indeed. You seem angry by posting that response.

ShawdowRaptor 1 second ago

[Cadiwen]

Just have to say, if the guy thinks those of us who hated the ending are a "hive mind" that's fine, but I suspect this hive mind also has a large "hive wallet" that we'll be voting with from now on.

Releasing control. Oo_oO

[Sereaph502]

Except I don't agree with the reviewer at all. One person writing something on the internet doesn't mean I'm compelled to agree with them and suddenly change my mind on how I view the ending. A reviewer could personally attack me and call me an entitled jerk (oh wait, one reviewer has already done that to people) and that still wouldn't compel me to agree with their review or change my mind on how I view the ending.

If you hate bananas, and I tell you over the internet that bananas are great because they have potassium and you should eat bananas, will you suddenly change your mind about how you've hated bananas all your life just because I wrote something about it over the internet? Same thing here.

[Lightice_av]

Lugaidster wrote...

By fighting for each species to determine their future on their own, with synthesis you rob them of the choice of actually deciding that future. Instead, the decision is taken by a single human on the premise that it's going to solve a problem not proven to exist.

I state again, the Synthesis is only a beginning, something that forces everybody to recheck their perspective on the matter of organic-synthetic relations. It does not force anybody to do anything they don't want to. And the Catalyst has observed the problem emerge over and over again, and this has partially been confirmed by our Prothean visitor as well, so we can say with fair certainity that in Mass Effect universe the problem does indeed exist.

While that is true, that was his decision, and it should stay that way. By picking synthesis, Shepard is assuming every species on the galaxy, developed or not, involved in the conflict or not has to go that path. You didn't restore choice and you didn't break the status quo established by the reapers, they still got their way and you did nothing to prevent it.

Synthesis really changes nothing for species that aren't developed. It changes their molecular structure, and may influence on their evolution, but undeveloped civilizations are constantly subjected to changes out of their control anyway. From their perspective Synthesis is no different from a natural phenomenon. The status quo was that the Reapers come every 50,000 years to harvest advanced civilizations before they manage to create advanced artificial life. That has been broken. The new life can self-determinate and decide what to do with itself. Considering that the Reapers want to preserve every species in a static form to make way for the future, I really don't see how they got their way. They were shown that they were fallible, and that there may be a way for the future to coexist with advanced organic species. The galaxy got a probition, so to speak.

As I said, to be fully consequential on the story, if you really want to keep the current Deus Ex Machina, one last option of saying "screw you" should've been there. Whether that dooms the entire galaxy or not, it's about as fair as any other option, as all of them doom it; albeit in a less immediate way.

Maybe, but I don't see even Renegade Shepard dooming the civilization out of spite. S/he's been given a choice to save everybody at some cost, and is almost certain to pick one of the options. You can also choose to stand still and do nothing, in which case the Crucible will be destroyed and everything is lost. That too is your choice, if you think it's worth it.

Neither choice presented a real solution to the problem the reapers had and neither presented a real solution to what the species were fighting for (although I'll say that destroy is what made the most sense to me).

You were given an option to show the Catalyst that the Cycle can be broken, at the price of forcing all lifeforms to reconsider their priorities with the shift in their molecular structure. That's the best option you can get to a dilemma as complex as the one you've been offered.

And then's the fact that there's no resolution or closure. You made a really hard choice and didn't get to see the outcome (because as I stated, no option is really good). Why go through the effort of providing amazing detail describing the galaxy and everything surrounding it and then no effort in showing how it ended? 

My main problem with the ending was exactly that we did not get to see how everybody reacted to the choice that you made. That would have turned my opinion from "interesting, that was pretty good" to "near-perfect". I understand that Bioware wanted to leave a lot to imagination, but some flashes to the lives of your companions after the end would have been nice. If Bioware is seriously going to change the ending, I hope they take this path instead of trying to appease the lowest common denominator.

[StrawberryRainPop]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Bioware comments on this defending the guy, but never speaks up elsewhere?

Can we seriously get a little less bias going on with your end?

wait bioware commented on this?

[Sirartistic]

The whole organic vs synthetics does not work because the game was not based on that issue! Sure the Geth and Quarians hate...or in my play through once hated each other, it is not the PRIMARY THEME running through the game. How many times have you heard the Krogans, the Turians, or humans worry about synthetics??? Never! Their primary concern is with the Reapers, who threaten to end their exsistence for something that is of no concern to them! This is poor writing. So, you guys out there that think the ending is brilliant or clever, learn what makes good writing. Pick up H.G. Wells The Time Machine or Orson Scott Card's Enders Game. Those are skillfully plotted stories with solid endings. Please read more!!!!

Modifié par Sirartistic, 19 mars 2012 - 06:27 .

[Meruvian]

OP thanks for posting. Just replied the following to his vid:

"You are entitled to your opinion, but I respectfully disagree on the endings being clever. I will not spoil anyone by explaining why these endings are badly written, it has been very eloquently explained by Adam Robert Thomas in the Californian Literary Review (calitreview . com/24673). The often heard argument that ME3 is a work of art, to which we are not entitled, does not extend to our opinions, to which we are entitled, and only holds if the artists artistic integrity holds."

Please all try to remain civil on youtube as well, don't give people unnecessary fire for a witch-hunt.
Because that only ensures they will not listen to our arguments and will dismiss us en groupe

[Lightice_av]

The whole organic vs synthetics does not work because the game was not based on that issue! Sure the Geth and Quarians hate...or in my play through once hated each other, it is not the PRIMARY THEME running through the game. How many times have you heard the Krogans, the Turians, or humans worry about synthetics??? Never! Their primary concern is with the Reapers, who threaten to end their exsistence for something that is of no concern to them!

Unless you play the whole franchise, in which case you know that the asari, turians and salarians all blame geth for all the trouble, and close their eyes from all the other implications. The geth are the galactic scapegoats because of their synthetic origin, and it's made perfectly clear in the Mass Effect franchise.

[StrawberryRainPop]

Meruvian wrote...

OP thanks for posting. Just replied the following to his vid:

"You are entitled to your opinion, but I respectfully disagree on the endings being clever. I will not spoil anyone by explaining why these endings are badly written, it has been very eloquently explained by Adam Robert Thomas in the Californian Literary Review (calitreview . com/24673). The often heard argument that ME3 is a work of art, to which we are not entitled, does not extend to our opinions, to which we are entitled, and only holds if the artists artistic integrity holds."

Please all try to remain civil on youtube as well, don't give people unnecessary fire for a witch-hunt.
Because that only ensures they will not listen to our arguments and will dismiss us en groupe

agreed...its so easy to rage, even though you may be right, theres a proper way to do it.

[Sirartistic]

Lightice_av, yes I know the asari, turians and salarians all blame geth for all the trouble, but the Geth are not a serious threat to the galaxy. The Reapers are! That is what makes the story sort of silly. If in ME2, everyone was freaking out about the Geth then the synthetic problem would be clear, but as the story is currently written, the Geth appear to be a minor problem that can be taken care of without the need for Reapers. lol. Besides, the Geth have proven to be docile and reasonable in ME3.

Modifié par Sirartistic, 19 mars 2012 - 06:41 .

[Lugaidster]

Lightice_av wrote...

I state again, the Synthesis is only a beginning, something that forces everybody to recheck their perspective on the matter of organic-synthetic relations. It does not force anybody to do anything they don't want to. And the Catalyst has observed the problem emerge over and over again, and this has partially been confirmed by our Prothean visitor as well, so we can say with fair certainity that in Mass Effect universe the problem does indeed exist.

That's the thing, it makes a radical change in how sentient beings work without addressing the problem. It's not just a beginning. The worst part is that it's an inherently racist premise, why are the relations dependant on the constituents? If synthetics are people just as organics, then they'll fight between eachother just as organics fight organics.

One argument presented in the game was immortality, but that's just silly. The geth existed for more than 300 years behind the veil and yet did nothing offensive on their own iniciative. Besides, the same premise could be applied to species with wildly different timespans, ie vorcha (20 years) and asari or krogan (1000 years lifespan). For a vorcha or a salarian, Krogan and Asari are virtually immortal and yet, they don't fight because of that.

Synthesis might be interesting by itself, but in reality it doesn't address the real issue while drastically altering the way organic species evolve. What's worse is that organic life can still reapear out of chaos.

Lightice_av wrote... 

Synthesis really changes nothing for species that aren't developed. It changes their molecular structure, and may influence on their evolution, but undeveloped civilizations are constantly subjected to changes out of their control anyway. From their perspective Synthesis is no different from a natural phenomenon. The status quo was that the Reapers come every 50,000 years to harvest advanced civilizations before they manage to create advanced artificial life. That has been broken. The new life can self-determinate and decide what to do with itself. Considering that the Reapers want to preserve every species in a static form to make way for the future, I really don't see how they got their way. They were shown that they were fallible, and that there may be a way for the future to coexist with advanced organic species. The galaxy got a probition (prohibition?), so to speak.

Fair enough, but Shepard still caved to their solution while still not achieving what he set out to do. Give each specie a chance to evolve on it's own. He did break the cycle in synthesis, but the reapers are still there. Maybe the next cycle won't be in 50.000 years, but it may be in 5.000.000 (giving enough time for organic life to reapear).

Lightice_av wrote...  

Maybe, but I don't see even Renegade Shepard dooming the civilization out of spite. S/he's been given a choice to save everybody at some cost, and is almost certain to pick one of the options. You can also choose to stand still and do nothing, in which case the Crucible will be destroyed and everything is lost. That too is your choice, if you think it's worth it. 

 

Wasn't aware I'll check it out, but if it's just a regular "game over" then it's not really a choice.

Lightice_av wrote...   

You were given an option to show the Catalyst that the Cycle can be broken, at the price of forcing all lifeforms to reconsider their priorities with the shift in their molecular structure. That's the best option you can get to a dilemma as complex as the one you've been offered.

You were never there to reason with the reapers. You were fighting for a future on your (edit: sorry, sleep is affecting my word selection) grounds terms, that much was established...

Modifié par Lugaidster, 19 mars 2012 - 06:56 .

[Oryonn]

pistolols wrote...

The ending was clever to me because Shepard's final moments are a microcosm of the entire game. Three choices that all ultimately achieve the same thing, just slightly different. That is how the majority of the games is played out. Conversation choices that often achieve the same thing, but with a different attitude. So I absolutely loved it. To me it was brilliant.

Many people are criticizing the lack of difference in the cutscenes between the three choices. But that is actually what makes it so cool. Replaying the end and choosing something different, and you get to see the subtle differences based on your decision. For example if you chose destroy, you will note that EDI does not emerge from the Normandy at the end (because you killed her, you jerk). And with synthesis Joker emerges clearly sporting some new tech under his skin. That's all the final "jungle planet" scene was meant to achieve.. a simple way to show the outcome of your decision. Could it have been better and more thorough? Sure. But ultimately it's a video game and i feel people are nit picking the Joker escape way too much.

People want to talk about closure... for me, the last little moment between Anderson and Shepard was all the closure i needed.  They did an amazing job with that.  Very heartfelt and genuine.

Genuine? It's a game Gosh Darnit! I want my blue children. If I wanted genuine, I wouldn't be playing a game.

[Almostfaceman]

I'm not sure why you guys care about reviews. The only review that counts for you is - your honest feelings about the game. Nothing can change that. There is enough honest dislike for the endings out there, we don't need to worry about this guys opinion.

[StrawberryRainPop]

Oryonn wrote...

pistolols wrote...

The ending was clever to me because Shepard's final moments are a microcosm of the entire game. Three choices that all ultimately achieve the same thing, just slightly different. That is how the majority of the games is played out. Conversation choices that often achieve the same thing, but with a different attitude. So I absolutely loved it. To me it was brilliant.

Many people are criticizing the lack of difference in the cutscenes between the three choices. But that is actually what makes it so cool. Replaying the end and choosing something different, and you get to see the subtle differences based on your decision. For example if you chose destroy, you will note that EDI does not emerge from the Normandy at the end (because you killed her, you jerk). And with synthesis Joker emerges clearly sporting some new tech under his skin. That's all the final "jungle planet" scene was meant to achieve.. a simple way to show the outcome of your decision. Could it have been better and more thorough? Sure. But ultimately it's a video game and i feel people are nit picking the Joker escape way too much.

People want to talk about closure... for me, the last little moment between Anderson and Shepard was all the closure i needed.  They did an amazing job with that.  Very heartfelt and genuine.

Genuine? It's a game Gosh Darnit! I want my blue children. If I wanted genuine, I wouldn't be playing a game.

also that doesnt cover all the plot holes.....lol

[Lugaidster]

Lightice_av wrote...

Unless you play the whole franchise, in which case you know that the asari, turians and salarians all blame geth for all the trouble, and close their eyes from all the other implications. The geth are the galactic scapegoats because of their synthetic origin, and it's made perfectly clear in the Mass Effect franchise.

Yet you manage to bring them together. The whole krogan rebellion is another issue in that same way. Krogans shouldn't be allowed to develop freely, yet you give them a chance. Suddenly at the end, everyone who had a problem with someone else is united to fight against the reapers. Hell, even the rachnii (the whole reason the krogans were uplifted in the first place) are your allies. You establish that everyone can get along just as they are just to present a solution to the problem you just solved? Sure my solution may not be permanent, but neither are those offered by the catalyst, why are those inherently better?

Modifié par Lugaidster, 19 mars 2012 - 06:54 .