276 réponses à ce sujet

[Vox Draco]

Clever? Not the word I would use to describe the end...Not as long as the Indy-Theory is true...

But looking upon the end on its own...it may WANT to be clever...but as a finish for this epic trilogy it fails so miserably.

Just imagine Star Wars: After three movies you are watching the end and...instead of a big showdown on and around the second death star ... there is suddenly a ray of light, Luke is transported into the sky for no reason, looks upon himself as an old man and George Lucas says from the off " It's full of stars!" Credits!

This ain't clever, this is storytelling-suicide! 

There is no way anyone will ever convince me that this is clever or, even better, that this may be called art. I call it failure...

And by the way: It is a common mistake always to assume that something is clever just because so few people seem to understand it. Sometimes, and sometimes more, it is simply bullshiat and needs to be called that...

[Kyrick]

Skeejee wrote...

I'm sorry, but Woo IS right. Just because I personally feel there's more to the ending that we've seen and will be pretty disappointed if that's it, doesn't give me a right to shout down and decry anyone who *did* enjoy the ending.

Some people will find it's a satisfying ending. Let them

There are numerous elements here to consider. 

One:  If a person finds the endings satisfying emotionally, there is nothing anybody can say to invalidate their emotions.  Oh, you can bring up all the mechanical errors and literary issues it has, but if somebody is 'happy' with their ending then they are.  That's the way emotions work.  They aren't always based on logic or sense or evidence.  You should not be insulting to a person who finds the endings emotionally satisfying.  You can try and ask them what they base their emotions on though, and if you find that those reasons are flawed in their reasoning or logic, you have every right in the world to point those inconsistencies out.

Two:  If a person finds the ending satisfying on a mechanical or literary level, then there is EVERY reason to argue the point.  Claiming that the ending is 'satisfying' on the level of story-telling mechanics is not an 'opinion' based on emotion.  It is an 'opinion' based on evidence, literary theory, and actual fact of storytelling knowledge.  A person has every right to deride somebody as ignorant if they insist on holding onto an opinion that is flawed in its reasoning.  Calling somebody 'ignorant' of something when they clearly are is not 'mean', it's simple truth.  It may be tactless, but again, it is not mean.  Furthermore, I (or anybody) has every right in the world to decry such nonsensical reasoning.  Errors in reasoning or ignorance of a subject is not the right of an individual if they continue to hold it despite being shown the facts that invalidate that stated position.

Part of the reason that society is so buggered is because people give weight to clearly nonsensical opinions that are based on rubbish reasoning and ignorance.  This is what is happening when somebody claims that the endings are somehow 'well written' or 'good'.  It is absolute rubbish reasoning.  There are numerous threads detailing why, and countless classes and books and sites that explain literary theory and storytelling mechanics, as well as innumerable examples of proper storytelling in humanity's collective pool.  To claim that these endings are somehow worthy of praise beyond ANY level other than emotional is a fact-based statement that can and should be debated.  If one continues to hold on to the opinion that the endings are worthy entries despite it being conclusively demonstrated over the span of time since the game has been released that they are not, then that opinion is, quite simply, an error based on ignorance.

[daisekihan]

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.

I agree this isn't right. Incivility just makes us look like an injured, vengeful animal lashing out blindly at shapes and colors, which is the exact thing that people will dismess.

[Kloborgg711]

DemGeth wrote...

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.

Uh, how do you see that playing out? Mass Effect isn't exactly modder's paradise, and even if, by some miracle, people found a way, how would you go about getting Meer and Hale and Davids in to record new dialogue? Sorry, but that idea is virtually impossible.

[Lugaidster]

DemGeth wrote...

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.

There's no way to actually make a mod without mod tools. It's not something the community can come up with from thin air. That's why neither of the previous Mass Effects had any real mod aside from texture packs and the likes. What's more, that doesn't help the people playing on consoles.

[sadako]

I think the endings are clever and agree with the reviewer

Why?

A) They reused many of the FMVs and slightly changed the hue. The savings from such a cheap ass lazy trick to provide a semblance of multiple endings are clever from a financial standpoint. And apparently, some people still think it's CLEVER! Human intelligence just became an oxymoron.

They managed to put in a nonsensical ending and still garner support from the minority of their pre-adolescent fanbase who would accept any crap shoved at them, because they didn't buy their own games, unlike the older ME fanbase. A clever ending indeed.

C) They managed to draw attention to the ending so much, their other weaknesses such as the poor journal system (even worse than ME1 and ME2) went unnoticed.

Yep, they were clever really... to appeal to the opposite end of the intelligence spectrum.

I am disappointed in you, bioware that you even thought the ending you chose was remotely satisfactory.

Modifié par sadako, 19 mars 2012 - 05:22 .

[Demon Velsper]

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.

No more than telling people that "Hold the line" is not sufficient material for a post and then make multiple posts containing only "End of line" I should think.

[DemGeth]

SCJ90 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.

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

mmmm how to explain

Well, a fair amount of people on this site at least would say they're emotianally wounded by the game.  To like the gen pop. that makes you a sub-culture they don't understand.  

Sub-cultures that aren't understood are made fun off.

Now I'm not saying THAT'S RIGHT.  Just how society is.   

[jkflipflopDAO]

Lugaidster wrote...

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.

Orly? Read this.
Now tell me you don't see a teensy-weensy discrepancy.

Modifié par jkflipflopDAO, 19 mars 2012 - 05:22 .

[Turtlicious]

He made a second video, don't attack him, he is having honest conversation with the people in the comment section.

[Tyrf]

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.

I have a feel you may have just inadvertantly caused a chain of events that might get this guy's ME3 videos dislike bombed...

[NekOoNinja]

StrawberryRainPop wrote...

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

Judging from some comments here, I would do the same. You hold to your opinion religiously, that is fine, but it is not okay to mock him for his views. Stay open minded, take the input, compare it with your beliefs, and salvage what's left. But don't mock people who disagree with you.

[Troubleshooter11]

forgottenlord wrote...

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.

It would have been great if it was 1 of the few options you have at the end of the game, as long as it doesnt become the only possible solution, and THAT i think is the entire lynchpinch for many of those that dislike the ending. 

[Lugaidster]

sadako wrote...

Yep, they were clever really... to appeal to the opposite end of the intelligence spectrum.

C'mon man, there's no need to belittle those that liked it. That doesn't distance us from the "entitled brats" claims.

[saeval912]

pistolols wrote...
 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.

i destroyed all synthetics and EDI still came out of the normandy, so did my dead love interest. Also, you give joker a synthetic body and he still limps. also, the ship is past pluto using a mass relay when you hit the "boom" button, why? its the most advanced ship in the way, being used to spearhead the assualt. words ripped right out of the game.

[Lugaidster]

jkflipflopDAO wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

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.

Orly? Read this.
Now tell me you don't see a teensy-weensy discrepancy.

I "don't see a teensy-weensy discrepancy." Is there anything else? 

[StrawberryRainPop]

Turtlicious wrote...

He made a second video, don't attack him, he is having honest conversation with the people in the comment section.

after blocking nearly everyone who disagrees with him. Whats left is his fans who find his review bad too. But whatever, at least hes slowly owning up, hes like a mini Bioware.

[sveners]

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.

On some level I agree with you. Not about fans "demands", but more that this was what BioWare wanted. They felt it was good, and thus released it. If we do get DLC content that adds to the ending, but was not planned beforehand, then it will feel wrong. A "pity" DLC. With the always nagging feeling that BioWare never intended to make it.

I truly envy the people who enjoyed the endings. I so dearly wish I did myself. Then I wouldn't be here writing, but actually playing the game.

Played BioWare games since Baldurs Gate, and not once posted on forums... until last week. Not played any games since then. It seems insane, and shouldn't be possible!


But it is 

Modifié par sveners, 19 mars 2012 - 05:33 .

[StrawberryRainPop]

Lugaidster wrote...

sadako wrote...

Yep, they were clever really... to appeal to the opposite end of the intelligence spectrum.

C'mon man, there's no need to belittle those that liked it. That doesn't distance us from the "entitled brats" claims.

people arent happy becaues he openly insulted everyone who is complaining about the ending and calls us whiny.

Without any reasons i might add.

[Tonymac]

I agree with Stan.

We had expectations, and they were not met for some - yet they were met for others.

This becomes a matter of academics then. How many like vs. dislike? Are there enough dislikes, given to cost to make it right (or agreeable for all), to make it right and not impact profit margins? if necessary, would there have to be an offest to cover these incurred expenses (DLC)? Would people buy it?

If it is left alone, will fanbase be lost - directly or through negative feedback? How much? How much will future sales be impacted if the ME3 ending is left as is?

I'm not sure if gamers have sufficient long term memories to recall this supposed 'deal breaker' come DLC or whatever game is next. I might be wrong. Ending a Trilogy on a sour note for what appears to be a statistically significant portion of the customer base could have repercussions. We will have to see.

In any event, we won't get there by being rude to eachother.

[Lugaidster]

Lugaidster wrote...

Lightice_av wrote...

I don't see how you have to "betray your principles". There's plenty of principles to choose from in the three endings. Shepard has always been out to save lives in the large scale above everythng else. That's his/her dominant principle. And that's what you get to fulfill.

Let's see:

Destroy: Genocide of synthetics.
Control: Removal of freedom to synthetics.
Synthesis: Removal of freedom to organics and synthetics. 

You came here to ensure that every species would get the chance to shape their future as they saw fit. None of those options permit that. Furthermore, none of those options solve the problem of "creators vs created" in a permanent way which would mean that an alternative where the reapers (and only the reapers) simply don't exist is equally favorable given the conditions.

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.

Bump  (I genuinely want to persue this conversation)

[Lugaidster]

StrawberryRainPop wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

sadako wrote...

Yep, they were clever really... to appeal to the opposite end of the intelligence spectrum.

C'mon man, there's no need to belittle those that liked it. That doesn't distance us from the "entitled brats" claims.

people arent happy becaues he openly insulted everyone who is complaining about the ending and calls us whiny.

Without any reasons i might add.

That's just another way to say "he started it". You see where I'm getting?

[slimshedim]

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.

The "clever"-guy was insulting from the beginning, so don't point the finger at us. We don't call him troll because he likes the ending, we do so because he does neither bring arguments nor does he accept, tolerate or discuss things with people who disagree with him. I certainly would not defend such a pathetic person, even when he serves my companys' purpose.

[sadako]

Lugaidster wrote...

sadako wrote...

Yep, they were clever really... to appeal to the opposite end of the intelligence spectrum.

C'mon man, there's no need to belittle those that liked it. That doesn't distance us from the "entitled brats" claims.

Entitled brats? 

The fact that that term came out is mind-boggling. Heck, the more I consider it, the more strongly I feel that we should attack the fact that term was used to describe gamers. No matter what the reviewers may say,

Bioware/EA sells PRODUCTS, and when PRODUCTS do not MEET DEMANDS, people WILL COMPLAIN.
It's up to the company to ignore their customer complaints at their own peril. We are complaining, the PR machine is in full swing. Regardless of the outcome, I want the company to KNOW that we will not be ****ED OVER for a sh*tty product and do it lying down.

It's like saying we should never complain to our state reps/govt when they screw us over, because we're just being "entitled".

The more I stay in the forums, the more I feel that these companies are beginning to target the younger audiences, because they aren't clear on their rights.

Heck, I think the fact that most of the ME3 enthusiast not taking extreme measures just show that we still want to give ME a chance, and the more I think that their PR machine is pushing these types of review out, the more angry I get.

[Turtlicious]

but he JUST did, he responded to MY comment with an open conversation.

WE'RE TALKING RIGHT NOW, please stop arguing with each other, you guys are going to tear this movement apart if you continue. Please, just... Don't do it. You both think the other is wrong and unreasonable right? So don't try.