276 réponses à ce sujet

[Unender]

@StanlyWoo

True, however it's not about changing core of the ending, it's more so about fixing the huge amount of plot holes that riddle the ending and contradict the entire series. As well as invalidating the whole experience across the entire trilogy.

That being said, i do agree with you that no one should be belittled based on their opinions.

[forgottenlord]

forgottenlord wrote...

Clever?  Shoehorned into a weakly thought out variation of AI is a cr**shoot paradigm?  In a series where you're given plenty of opportunities to violate the idea that AI is necessarily chaotic evil?  An ending that makes a claim that is explicitly violated by a paragon Shepard's actions with no ability to push back?  An individual with no personality and is incredibly we're given absolutely no power to contradict, no ability to explore and analyze, and a guiding principle that comes out of no where and for a paragon Shepard stands near the exact polar opposite position?  This is clever?

The theoretical technological singularity is a very interesting concept to explore.  There are elements in the ME Universe that could tie in quite nicely tie in to the technological singularity that make it something that could be tied in.  But it wasn't explored.  People have their minds blown because they've never thought about the technological singularity and think it's clever because they've spent so little time studying it and were given an explicit position with which they should accept at face value.  But it is far more complex than that.  It's far more akin to how, in ME1, we were told why AI should never be studied because they were inherently incompatible with organics with their own aims and objectives and none of the needs that organic races have - they have no need to trade with us so they cannot be trusted.  Then we spend a good chunk of ME2 and ME3 exploring this further and discovering that, well, maybe this is more complex than that.

The ending wasn't clever, the idea was clever.  The ending was crap because the story telling was crap - they could've worked the concept in much earlier (even talking about it post-Rannoch after talking with the Reapers - playing Javik against a Geth Prime or Tali as you explore potential rammifications and possibilities.)  But no, it's just stated by the Starchild and people start thinking about it and finding it's a cool idea - but the very fact that a cool idea spent no time evolving is exactly why it's a bad ending.  And why we feel that it has nothing to do with the themes presented in Mass Effect.

Well, that and the fact that the ending seems to have shifted focus from Shepard to the Catalyst and it feels too much like it's the end of the Catalyst's story than Shepard's.  As someone noted - Shepard's determination gave out, and then s/he's give three choices to choose from and doesn't have to do anything to get them.  That's not the Climax of Shepard's struggle.  It's the climax of the Catalyst's struggle - the being that's spent millions of years trying to figure out how to prevent the singularity, who likely seeded the design of the Crucible to seek out a better solution but has no power to personally implement it, handing the power of deciding which of the three choices to fix the Universe to its greater adversary but ultimately achieving the answer it has spent its lifetime seeking out: what is the right solution to the Technological Singularity.  Oops - wrong protagonist.

Actually, I want to expand on this.

The way it was handled was incredibly shallow and limited.  This might've been OK 20 years ago when the idea of AI's and the philosophy was far less developed - despite the fact that people like Asimov had spent quite a bit of time talking about it.  Even in the era of Deus Ex and Marathon - both 90s era games that actually spent time *analyzing* these issues - studied this at a far more complex level and Marathon's Rampancy theories were advanced enough that they were present in the Halo Universe (both produced by Bungie) - and thematically showed up quite a few times in both the games and the books - but because they'd already been explored, little time was spent on studying these issues and left there for more astute players to discover and analyze (I saw an incredible article breaking down how 343 GS is clearly Rampant and how the pattern of Rampancy is applied to him).  Mass Effect also spent a lot of time analyzing philosophy about AI but it is the far more predominant and less certain philosophy of what measure is non-living - "does this unit have a soul".  It spent a lot of time analyzing it and ME3 really hammered that question to the ground - even the "Created will always turn against the creator" theme was studied extensively especially when one notices the parallels with the Krogan.  The amount of time fleshing out powerful areas of discussion about these things had been taken.  On this final point - the "clever" concept thrown in at the end - no time was spent to studying it and your answers to some of the previous issues clearly throw it into question.

[goose2989]

Well everyone can have an opinion. I happen to disagree with the video reviewer. So do many of the fans of Mass Effect (the ones who actually buy it)

[ZodiEmish]

mokponobi wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

But I'm selfish for liking the ending as is.

How do I defend against that.

You don't need to, you just need to play the game and enjoy the end.

This right here. What does it matter if we get a DLC ending to a product we thought was Sub Par quality on the ending.

If you liked the ending that is good. I am truly happy you enjoyed it. But it doesn't change the fact that the majority of BSN, and the majority in other polls don't like the ending.

Also this whole idea of it is fiction that we did not write does not work.

I am sorry but before Bioware is a business. Their first priorty is to their shareholders. They are out to make money, and when your consumers. the people who buy your product that makes your stocks go up, are not happy. Then you adapt your product to make them happy so you don't lose money. If this was a small group of people who didn't like the ending I can understand.

When polls across the internet from IGN, G4, BSN, and others are saying that 80 to 90% are not happy with the product. Then you have a problem. Then you adapt as a business.

It is how the market works. They keep us happy, if they are lucky we give them a chance to fix it, or we take our money some place else.

[Zokopops]

You do not think the ending is clever....you think the speculation is clever...its a difference.

[sargon1986]

Stanley Woo wrote...

It is a bit of a double standard, don't you think, to suggest, request, and demand change so the game fits what you want the game to be, and then turn around and make fun of or belittle those who disagree with you?

Play nice, please.

Without the fanbase your games would mean nothing therefore I believe that we should have a say in how the game should be shaped.

Another thing - you claim (always did) that you listen to your fans and always provide what they need/want (just look at all the SWTOR trailers) and now you 're angry at us because we have certain demands regarding the game? Make up your mind.

Play nice please? Did you play nice by photoshopping some random internet girl and presenting it to us as TALI? Did you play nice by promising us a satisfying, fulfilliing endings with tons of possibilities depending on our choices, and not delivering that? Did you play nice when you promised a complex ending without A/B/C choices?

[forgottenlord]

Zokopops wrote...

You do not think the ending is clever....you think the speculation is clever...its a difference.

Exactly

[sveners]

The Angry One wrote...

Let's be clear here, anger at liking the endings is directed mainly at:

- People who claim the endings are too clever for us regular people to understand.
- People who say they liked the endings, therefore no new endings must be added.

The first type are outright insulting, the second type strike me as incredibly selfish.

[Troubleshooter11]

Lugaidster wrote...

Troubleshooter11 wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...


I actually believe that destroying the relays was ok though. Why fight for the chance to shape your future if you're going to depend on other's (reaper) technology.

Depending on the technology of others is not a bad thing. You could say the Roman Empire was one of the biggest positive influences in our history when it comes to math, art, philosophy, law, order, science and technology.

And the Romans were brilliant 'scavengers' of good ideas and technology, hell even the famous iconic "roman sword", is called Gladius Hispania. A sword originally used by iberians in spain! The romans just took a good idea or existing technology and build it into their society.

You might think that disposing of the relays might 'free' people from the influence of the Reapers and develop along their own paths, but with mass effect technology already in existence and use, they would just have to 'reinvent the wheel' so to speak. Might aswell just keep using the relays and keep the galactic civilization that has been in place rather than throwing it all out the window and causing massive chaos, misery and strife.

Just my opinion of course, no need to go spreading it around as Joker would say.

I'm trying to follow the narrative of the story here. I you're going to destroy the reapers, I think it's not a bad narrative decision to destroy everything constructed by them, IE citadel and relays.

I think i understand what you mean, it gives a clear statement saying NO MORE REAPER STUFF! Our destiny now!

But practically, you're basically screwing over everyone stranded in the Sol system, billions will die from starvation, shortage of resources and resulting war and anarchy. Which gives ME the feeling: "Why the hell did i go through all that if things become miserable anyway?..."

For a 2-3 hour sci-fi flick i would have gladly accepted this kind of resolution and narrative, from an epic Bioware space opera that has huge potential for future trilogies or spinoffs, i found this very shortsighted of them.

[DemGeth]

sargon1986 wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

It is a bit of a double standard, don't you think, to suggest, request, and demand change so the game fits what you want the game to be, and then turn around and make fun of or belittle those who disagree with you?

Play nice, please.

Without the fanbase your games would mean nothing therefore I believe that we should have a say in how the game should be shaped.

Another thing - you claim (always did) that you listen to your fans and always provide what they need/want (just look at all the SWTOR trailers) and now you 're angry at us because we have certain demands regarding the game? Make up your mind.

Play nice please? Did you play nice by photoshopping some random internet girl and presenting it to us as TALI? Did you play nice by promising us a satisfying, fulfilliing endings with tons of possibilities depending on our choices, and not delivering that? Did you play nice when you promised a complex ending without A/B/C choices?

Stanley Woo made the game?

[Noatz]

leonia42 wrote...

But I'm selfish for liking the ending as is.

How do I defend against that.

Not even close to what people are saying.

If you like the ending thats fine, no one begrudges you that, in fact most of us wishes they could like the ending as you do.

You're only selfish if you go about saying "I like the endings therefore Bioware shouldn't provide an alternative/addition" as some do.

Either way you're better off. If no changes are made, you're still happy. If a change is put out there, no-one is forcing you do download it. And if its paid you save money.

[Lugaidster]

Kyrick wrote...

Not when the piece of fiction is directly stated to be a collaborative effort between the fans and developers.  They've stated countless times how the fans and players are in partnership with the developers as to how the story played out.

Furthermore, when you claim things as the developers have (like no 'a,b,c endings') and then renege on that, despite continuing to say it despite knowing while giving the interview that such is clearly not the case, then that is outright deception.

If Mass Effect 3 was a piece of written fiction that was simply put out for people to read, they could do what they want with it.  But it clearly isn't and has been admitted as such by the very developers we're demanding a new ending from.

If somebody turns in an incomplete product after claiming that the product is, in fact, complete, then consumers of that product have EVERY right, both morally and legally, to demand that they get their money's worth.

The claim that the ending satisfied the statements that they've made is so patently false that a five year old could see the disconnect, hence the massive and widespread outrage that people are voicing.  They are not being 'selfish', they are being simple consumers of a product; they were promised one thing and something different was delivered.  They wish to have what they were promised.

While nobody ever directly stated that the ending would be a work of classical relevance, people did come to expect an ending worthy of the name, not hastily thrown together rubbish as was given.  Especially jarring is the fact that, for the past two games (and much of the third), the story is well written.  It is emotionally satisfying, full of choices as they claimed, and morally relevant.  The game was, up until the end, a magnificent piece of gaming.  There are quibbles, but nothing game-breaking.  But the ending directly invalidates the stuff that came before it.

As much as I dislike the endings I'm gonna have to play devil's advocate here but to claim for a fact that the product is incomplete is inaccurate at best. There's no reliable piece of information in our hands to actually be able to make that claim and get away with it. 

Let's not get ahead of ourselves and make unjustified claims. Most of us here didn't like the endings, but claiming that kind of stuff for facts doesn't help the cause and belittles the position of those who actually liked the ending.

Modifié par Lugaidster, 19 mars 2012 - 05:13 .

[ZodiEmish]

sargon1986 wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

It is a bit of a double standard, don't you think, to suggest, request, and demand change so the game fits what you want the game to be, and then turn around and make fun of or belittle those who disagree with you?

Play nice, please.

Without the fanbase your games would mean nothing therefore I believe that we should have a say in how the game should be shaped.

Another thing - you claim (always did) that you listen to your fans and always provide what they need/want (just look at all the SWTOR trailers) and now you 're angry at us because we have certain demands regarding the game? Make up your mind.

Play nice please? Did you play nice by photoshopping some random internet girl and presenting it to us as TALI? Did you play nice by promising us a satisfying, fulfilliing endings with tons of possibilities depending on our choices, and not delivering that? Did you play nice when you promised a complex ending without A/B/C choices?

Hey now Stanley  had nothing to do with the Photoshopped pictures, or the promises that were made that turned out to be lies.

he is just a community mod. Don't take your anger out on him. He had nothing to do with the game, or the endings. He is just doing his job.

[DemGeth]

I don't get why you don't focus on some kind of mod that would let you shape your own ending. To me with all the fan/fic and such that'd be more fitting.

I get the canon argument against that though.

[forgottenlord]

Troubleshooter11 wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

Troubleshooter11 wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...


I actually believe that destroying the relays was ok though. Why fight for the chance to shape your future if you're going to depend on other's (reaper) technology.

Depending on the technology of others is not a bad thing. You could say the Roman Empire was one of the biggest positive influences in our history when it comes to math, art, philosophy, law, order, science and technology.

And the Romans were brilliant 'scavengers' of good ideas and technology, hell even the famous iconic "roman sword", is called Gladius Hispania. A sword originally used by iberians in spain! The romans just took a good idea or existing technology and build it into their society.

You might think that disposing of the relays might 'free' people from the influence of the Reapers and develop along their own paths, but with mass effect technology already in existence and use, they would just have to 'reinvent the wheel' so to speak. Might aswell just keep using the relays and keep the galactic civilization that has been in place rather than throwing it all out the window and causing massive chaos, misery and strife.

Just my opinion of course, no need to go spreading it around as Joker would say.

I'm trying to follow the narrative of the story here. I you're going to destroy the reapers, I think it's not a bad narrative decision to destroy everything constructed by them, IE citadel and relays.

I think i understand what you mean, it gives a clear statement saying NO MORE REAPER STUFF! Our destiny now!

But practically, you're basically screwing over everyone stranded in the Sol system, billions will die from starvation, shortage of resources and resulting war and anarchy. Which gives ME the feeling: "Why the hell did i go through all that if things become miserable anyway?..."

For a 2-3 hour sci-fi flick i would have gladly accepted this kind of resolution and narrative, from an epic Bioware space opera that has huge potential for future trilogies or spinoffs, i found this very shortsighted of them.

I think it should've been a clear choice as one of the options.  Blowing up the Mass Relays/all Reaper tech makes a lot of sense as one possible ending for the reasons given.  But with all the endings blowing up the Mass Relays, the choices went back to "Destroy, control, synthesize" while losing that feeling of "now we forge our own destiny"  If you'd had it as one of the options while the others let you do something significantly different, we could've had this "now we forge our own destiny - even though it sucks to be our allies right now."  That moment - lost.

[Lightice_av]

You're only selfish if you go about saying "I like the endings therefore Bioware shouldn't provide an alternative/addition" as some do.

I only hope that Bioware doesn't take the frankly idiotic Indoctrination cop-out route if they decide to add on the endings. I don't mind of the ending gets expanded upon, in fact I have some ideas concerning that. But I really don't like the idea that so many here support, that the whole core premise we were given should be taken away and replaced with something safer, and I deeply fear that Bioware will be a pushover like they have been all too often, and make an alternate ending that's made to appeal the lowest common denominator with the most generic happily ever after-plotline imaginable, just out of fear that any original ideas might upset the fans again.

[Leonia]

Well, I don't support additional content for the sake of appeasment unless it was already planned and I'm not opposed to getting "more" if it's already on the cards. I have trouble accepting the fans have a right to demand change on the level that they are, however. For what that's worth. Woo is correct on his assessment of the double-standard that exists here.

[StrawberryRainPop]

lol the reviewer is now blocking people who posted comments that disprove him... nice...i give up trying to explain to people like him.

[SuperTeal]

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.

I have to disagree with this paragraph.  There are many choices throughout the Mass Effect series that yield wildly different conclusions.  Who you choose to let die on Virmire, if you kill Wrex, who survives the suicide mission in ME2, who ends up dying in ME3 because of a lack of Loyalty from ME2.  There are MANY things that you have direct control over throughout the series that wield wildly different results.
 I didn't kill Wrex, but people who did had an entirely different experience than I did by having to deal with Wreav during ME3.  I let Kaiden die - people who let Ashley die had a completely different experience.  I had loyalty from Grunt in ME2 - so in ME3 I got to watch an epic conclusion to his fight with the Rachni.  These are all situations that went differently for different people.

I think what you're talking about is mostly the conversation mechanic.  You're right in this regard - most conversations throughout the series had similar conclusions regardless of your alignment.  But to have the ending based on this concept is foolish - because throughout the entire series there have been big choices that led to wildly different outcomes throughout the series.  The few I listed are only a small handful.   I want my choices throughout the series to be reflected in the ending - because that is what was promised, and that is how Mass Effect has been billed since day one: "Your choices matter."

[valex-jedi]

just trolling, I guess

[Lugaidster]

Troubleshooter11 wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

Troubleshooter11 wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...


I actually believe that destroying the relays was ok though. Why fight for the chance to shape your future if you're going to depend on other's (reaper) technology.

Depending on the technology of others is not a bad thing. You could say the Roman Empire was one of the biggest positive influences in our history when it comes to math, art, philosophy, law, order, science and technology.

And the Romans were brilliant 'scavengers' of good ideas and technology, hell even the famous iconic "roman sword", is called Gladius Hispania. A sword originally used by iberians in spain! The romans just took a good idea or existing technology and build it into their society.

You might think that disposing of the relays might 'free' people from the influence of the Reapers and develop along their own paths, but with mass effect technology already in existence and use, they would just have to 'reinvent the wheel' so to speak. Might aswell just keep using the relays and keep the galactic civilization that has been in place rather than throwing it all out the window and causing massive chaos, misery and strife.

Just my opinion of course, no need to go spreading it around as Joker would say.

I'm trying to follow the narrative of the story here. I you're going to destroy the reapers, I think it's not a bad narrative decision to destroy everything constructed by them, IE citadel and relays.

I think i understand what you mean, it gives a clear statement saying NO MORE REAPER STUFF! Our destiny now!

But practically, you're basically screwing over everyone stranded in the Sol system, billions will die from starvation, shortage of resources and resulting war and anarchy. Which gives ME the feeling: "Why the hell did i go through all that if things become miserable anyway?..."

For a 2-3 hour sci-fi flick i would have gladly accepted this kind of resolution and narrative, from an epic Bioware space opera that has huge potential for future trilogies or spinoffs, i found this very shortsighted of them.

I'm trying to argue for an ending that makes sense not one that is happy.  I never minded the bittersweet aspect of it, just the lack of resolution, diversity and sense. 

[The Angry One]

leonia42 wrote...

Well, I don't support additional content for the sake of appeasment unless it was already planned and I'm not opposed to getting "more" if it's already on the cards. I have trouble accepting the fans have a right to demand change on the level that they are, however. For what that's worth. Woo is correct on his assessment of the double-standard that exists here.

If you lack the empathy to understand how deeply this ending has wounded so many of us then there's little more I can add.
All I know is if I liked the endings and many didn't, I wouldn't begrudge them wanting a new one. Mass Effect 3 was supposed to give us many endings, that was the promise. Instead we got one in 3 slight variants.

Just imagine for a second how great it'd be if we all had endings closer to what we liked, debates would be "Well I chose the ending where Shepard died and destroyed the relays because" "I chose the ending where Shepard preserves the relays because.." and so on.

Modifié par The Angry One, 19 mars 2012 - 05:19 .

[Kloborgg711]

leonia42 wrote...

Well, I don't support additional content for the sake of appeasment unless it was already planned and I'm not opposed to getting "more" if it's already on the cards. I have trouble accepting the fans have a right to demand change on the level that they are, however. For what that's worth. Woo is correct on his assessment of the double-standard that exists here.

So the consumer has no right to request anything that the corporation hasn't decided is necessary, got it.

[ZodiEmish]

leonia42 wrote...

Well, I don't support additional content for the sake of appeasment unless it was already planned and I'm not opposed to getting "more" if it's already on the cards. I have trouble accepting the fans have a right to demand change on the level that they are, however. For what that's worth. Woo is correct on his assessment of the double-standard that exists here.

Once again on the topic of demanding change.

Were a consumer who buys their products. If we feel the product is not up to standard, and there is enough of us we can demand change, or we will end up taking our money some place else.

They as a business can adapt to what we want, or not change a thing. If they adapt then they will get more money, and good public relations. If they don't change then what can happen is bad PR, and less money.

That is the beauty of the free market. We as the consumer have freedom of choice, and business like bioware are lucky we care enough about the product to want them to change it. A lot of business when they mess up the people just end up move on and they lose money.

Modifié par ZodiEmish, 19 mars 2012 - 05:20 .

[SCJ90]

Stanley Woo wrote...

It is a bit of a double standard, don't you think, to suggest, request, and demand change so the game fits what you want the game to be, and then turn around and make fun of or belittle those who disagree with you?

Play nice, please.

Well to be honest some people (game journalists and so on) are making fun of us and calling us "stupid" immatrue" and so on. Just because we can se the "beuty" of the ending. What gives them the right? Just wondering. I can agree that some people at the forum are bashing others opinions sure but it is not just us