@nitefyre410
Yep that's about right, what I don't understand is Why Bioware thinks their endings are great.
If they are so great why not explain why that is to us instead of refusing to have anything to do with us.
On the betrayal of hope in Mass Effect 3's endings
Débuté par
Sainta117
, mars 20 2012 02:54
Retour en haut
#252
Posté 08 avril 2012 - 07:13
a.m.p
-
- Members
- 911 messages
OP, truly great read all the more relevant with the EC announcement. I had an idea that a compromise between fixing the endings and clarifying them could be achieved by adding a fourth option to reject starchild with all of the nonsense that comes with it, now gathering threads with the same genral idea. People referenced your post, so I linked it as a thorough analysis of the problem.
#253
Posté 08 avril 2012 - 07:18
SaladinDheonqar
-
- Members
- 336 messages
I fully agree with you, but according to Casey, Mac, Bioware, and EA, it's ART!!!!!!!!! Do not dare question it. Oh the integrity, the vision! TASTE THE RAINBOW!!!!!!
#255
Posté 09 avril 2012 - 09:01
Foxcat
-
- Members
- 107 messages
I agree with OP. I would just like to add the I was also instictively repulsed by the logical/graphical/narrative inconsitencies in the ending not just the tonal shift.
#256
Posté 09 avril 2012 - 12:08
DoctorCrowtgamer
-
- Members
- 1 875 messages
And this is why an extended cut can't fix anything and I will still hold the line.
#257
Posté 09 avril 2012 - 02:23
knightnblu
-
- Members
- 1 731 messages
I knew that the only chance of winning was to unify the galaxy. The first time that I played ME3 I was in awe of the counterattacks arrival in the Sol system. Seeing that and going to work on the ground gave me hope. That hope was dashed when I was forced to trust the mind behind my enemy. It may have looked like the kid I couldn't save, but it was the AI who dreamed up the cycles of destruction and ran roughshod over life for millions, and perhaps even billions, of years.
We were told by BioWare that there would be 16 wildly different endings to ME3. We received only A, B, or C, and even those were only slightly different in the details. Where was choice? What was the meaning of our struggle? Why did billions die in this cycle and unknown numbers in previous cycles, die for such a flawed and ridiculous premise? How did the AI who had dreamt up and implemented that ridiculous plan not see that his grand design was doomed to failure from the start? He sought to impose his will (order) upon the galaxy (chaos) in a manner that defied the natural order (entropy). There was no way in hell that it could last forever.
Each dominant species eventually recognized this and each species cached away the wisdom and plans of the Crucible in order to one day end the cycles of destruction so that the galaxy would return to its intended course. I realized long ago that there was something controlling the Reapers, why else would they collect the advanced species, harvest their technologies, and then scrub that these races had been destroyed? I just never saw the order/chaos thing coming because it was ridiculous.
Also, I never thought that Shepard would survive the final assault. There are only so many times that one can enter the lion's den and come out alive and Shepard has had more than his fair share. But I also thought that his death would have some meaning. But no, the monkey just flips the switch on the blue, green, or red ending and why? Because his enemy told him to do it.
This is the same Shepard that always says "There is always a better way." This is the same Shepard that has fought back and forth across the galaxy for three years, died once, stole and Alliance warship and took his crew rogue in order to save the galaxy, killed two Spectres and four Reapers, one of whom was a capital ship, and blew up a mass relay, but when he meets the Reaper King, he just goes, "uh...ok." Is this a joke?
What adds insult to injury is that BioWare looks like a deer caught in headlights because of the fan's negative reaction to the ending. How could they not see this coming? There had to be something else being cooked up that was abandoned and the script leaks tend to signal that. Why they settled on the options that we were presented with, I have no idea, but they certainly don't make any sense. Particularly with the control option. If the Catalyst can control the Reapers and doesn't need to destroy the mass relays, why do the mass relays blow when Shepard assumes control? It makes no sense.
Why are we told that we cannot win conventionally, when my game tells me that the odds of success are even? Did you see the fleet that just blew into the Sol system? I'll take my chances and see who wins. The game says that we are evenly matched and I bet you we are whole lot more flexible in our thinking than the Reapers are. But we are never presented with that option. Does evenly matched mean something different to BioWare? That signals 50/50 to me. I say, bring it.
Even if we lose, it will mean a Pyrrhic victory for the Reapers. The next cycle will be their last because we will have greatly weakened them and when you add in Liara's time capsules the next cycle is warned and they are done. The next time the Reapers show up, they will be met with a prepared force and in their weakened state, they won't survive it. That was the continuing legacy of the Protheans passed down to us and then passed down to the next cycle if need be. If we had won, then we retake our own destiny. But that choice wasn't given to us.
Shepard's tale is one of the will and its triumph over evil. People will snipe from the sidelines (Turian Councilor), try to pull you down when you achieve success (Donnel Udina), and even those who claim to be your friends/lovers will toss obstacles in your way and disbelieve you (VS), but in the end it is your will that defies them. It is the will that shapes your character and hardens your resolve. Well, unless you are playing Mass Effect 3 that is and happen to arrive at the very end where you are forced to submerge that indomitable will to the higher will of the AI master. You would think that the damned thing would have at least had the decency to sing "Daisy Bell" for you.
While BioWare was shooting for bitter sweet, they overreached and hit sour with many of the players and while we are on the topic, would a happy ending really have ruined the entire franchise? We lost many friends, we lost Anderson, and witnessed the deaths of billions taken long before their time. Would it really have been so terrible to survive our encounter with the Catalyst and then returned to those who know and understood us best? Would the elation that we felt on surviving the destruction of Sovereign really have been out of place in ME3? Would we not have shed tears of joy and sorrow at such an ending? Is that not bitter sweet?
But no, we are forced into a path whereby we slaughter pretty much the entire galaxy and strand the survivors in the distant reaches cutting them off for thousands of years, the united fleet is destroyed as is the Earth we tried to save, and we get the old man and child 10,000 years into the future talking about us as if we were King Arthur or something. That's just great.
And BioWare thinks that all we really want is closure? If 95% of the galaxy is dead, including you, how much more closure do you need? That seems pretty closed to me. It also is as dark as the Devil's ****. We don't need closure, we need an answer to WTF. Why did Shepard just blindly accept the AI's instructions? Wasn't this the same guy who has been trying to kill him for 3 years? Why couldn't we save the people of the galaxy? Weren't we fighting for that all along? We saved the future! Big whoop. What use is a future when there is nothing and nobody around to use it?
A lot of folks (BioWare included) have said that the mass effect explosions are not the same kind of explosion as occurred in Arrival. Ok, I will grant you that the synthesis choice may make that true because you would need an un-Godly amount of energy to re-write the flesh and genetic code of all organic life, but was the destruction explosion way different from that of Arrival? If that is true, then why do we see human soldiers being turned to ash if your EMS is too low? How is the control explosion different? Do you know something about physics that I don't? Because if you do, you are going to have to add some exposition to the "extended cut" ending so that everyone is on the same page.
I think that it would be better to can the current endings and re-write the entire thing in line with the choices made across the entire franchise. Then you can...oh, that's right, artistic integrity. Why is it that every time somebody fouls up they call "artistic integrity?" Is that like a get out of jail free card or something? How does that alleviate ones' responsibility for shoddy work exactly? Because I would really love to know.
That concept may work fine in the Ivory Tower in which you reside, but it means less than nothing in the real world where people earn a living with the sweat of their brow and then part with those earnings in order to purchase a game for entertainment purposes and are then presented with an ending like that of ME3 that caps hundreds of dollars spent on a franchise and hundreds of hours spent playing the game and selecting different choices in order to see the varying outcomes. As such, the ME3 ending was a cheat.
And that is the shame of the whole franchise because ME3 was awesome right up until the very end when it all fell apart. It is as if BioWare had no idea how to end it and time was running short so they cobbled something together and that's what we got. No wonder people went ballistic.
In DA:O we said our goodbyes, fought our way to the tower, and slew the Archdemon. If you slept with Morrigan (and who wouldn't want to do that?) you got to live and talk about it. If not, you died. Nobody complained that that ending was lame in the numbers that have complained about ME3's ending. That was a happy ending to a great game. Had you slain the ArchDemon who then exploded in a terrific fury of unbelievable energy taking 95% of Thedas with him and burying the Dwarves under tons of rubble and dirt, would it really have been an improvement? Would BioWare have thought that the fans would be ok with it if they gave a little closure to repair that ending? I don't think so.
ME3's ending was to a story that has never been told. We need to go back to what makes the Mass Effect universe special and that is the joy of triumph over impossible odds. We live in interesting times today, economies are tanking, unemployment is high, people have lost faith in traditional values, and there is great uncertainty about the future. That is exactly the atmosphere that the original Star Wars was released in and it achieved an unprecedented success because it offered hope and said that the good guys will always win no matter the odds. The last thing that people need, is to feel like crap after investing their hard earned money and years of their time in a game franchise that promised them that their choices would count for something, but failed to tell them that those choices would boil down to blue, green, or red.
Sorry for the overly long post, but those who know me know that I usually don't post unless I have something to say.
We were told by BioWare that there would be 16 wildly different endings to ME3. We received only A, B, or C, and even those were only slightly different in the details. Where was choice? What was the meaning of our struggle? Why did billions die in this cycle and unknown numbers in previous cycles, die for such a flawed and ridiculous premise? How did the AI who had dreamt up and implemented that ridiculous plan not see that his grand design was doomed to failure from the start? He sought to impose his will (order) upon the galaxy (chaos) in a manner that defied the natural order (entropy). There was no way in hell that it could last forever.
Each dominant species eventually recognized this and each species cached away the wisdom and plans of the Crucible in order to one day end the cycles of destruction so that the galaxy would return to its intended course. I realized long ago that there was something controlling the Reapers, why else would they collect the advanced species, harvest their technologies, and then scrub that these races had been destroyed? I just never saw the order/chaos thing coming because it was ridiculous.
Also, I never thought that Shepard would survive the final assault. There are only so many times that one can enter the lion's den and come out alive and Shepard has had more than his fair share. But I also thought that his death would have some meaning. But no, the monkey just flips the switch on the blue, green, or red ending and why? Because his enemy told him to do it.
This is the same Shepard that always says "There is always a better way." This is the same Shepard that has fought back and forth across the galaxy for three years, died once, stole and Alliance warship and took his crew rogue in order to save the galaxy, killed two Spectres and four Reapers, one of whom was a capital ship, and blew up a mass relay, but when he meets the Reaper King, he just goes, "uh...ok." Is this a joke?
What adds insult to injury is that BioWare looks like a deer caught in headlights because of the fan's negative reaction to the ending. How could they not see this coming? There had to be something else being cooked up that was abandoned and the script leaks tend to signal that. Why they settled on the options that we were presented with, I have no idea, but they certainly don't make any sense. Particularly with the control option. If the Catalyst can control the Reapers and doesn't need to destroy the mass relays, why do the mass relays blow when Shepard assumes control? It makes no sense.
Why are we told that we cannot win conventionally, when my game tells me that the odds of success are even? Did you see the fleet that just blew into the Sol system? I'll take my chances and see who wins. The game says that we are evenly matched and I bet you we are whole lot more flexible in our thinking than the Reapers are. But we are never presented with that option. Does evenly matched mean something different to BioWare? That signals 50/50 to me. I say, bring it.
Even if we lose, it will mean a Pyrrhic victory for the Reapers. The next cycle will be their last because we will have greatly weakened them and when you add in Liara's time capsules the next cycle is warned and they are done. The next time the Reapers show up, they will be met with a prepared force and in their weakened state, they won't survive it. That was the continuing legacy of the Protheans passed down to us and then passed down to the next cycle if need be. If we had won, then we retake our own destiny. But that choice wasn't given to us.
Shepard's tale is one of the will and its triumph over evil. People will snipe from the sidelines (Turian Councilor), try to pull you down when you achieve success (Donnel Udina), and even those who claim to be your friends/lovers will toss obstacles in your way and disbelieve you (VS), but in the end it is your will that defies them. It is the will that shapes your character and hardens your resolve. Well, unless you are playing Mass Effect 3 that is and happen to arrive at the very end where you are forced to submerge that indomitable will to the higher will of the AI master. You would think that the damned thing would have at least had the decency to sing "Daisy Bell" for you.
While BioWare was shooting for bitter sweet, they overreached and hit sour with many of the players and while we are on the topic, would a happy ending really have ruined the entire franchise? We lost many friends, we lost Anderson, and witnessed the deaths of billions taken long before their time. Would it really have been so terrible to survive our encounter with the Catalyst and then returned to those who know and understood us best? Would the elation that we felt on surviving the destruction of Sovereign really have been out of place in ME3? Would we not have shed tears of joy and sorrow at such an ending? Is that not bitter sweet?
But no, we are forced into a path whereby we slaughter pretty much the entire galaxy and strand the survivors in the distant reaches cutting them off for thousands of years, the united fleet is destroyed as is the Earth we tried to save, and we get the old man and child 10,000 years into the future talking about us as if we were King Arthur or something. That's just great.
And BioWare thinks that all we really want is closure? If 95% of the galaxy is dead, including you, how much more closure do you need? That seems pretty closed to me. It also is as dark as the Devil's ****. We don't need closure, we need an answer to WTF. Why did Shepard just blindly accept the AI's instructions? Wasn't this the same guy who has been trying to kill him for 3 years? Why couldn't we save the people of the galaxy? Weren't we fighting for that all along? We saved the future! Big whoop. What use is a future when there is nothing and nobody around to use it?
A lot of folks (BioWare included) have said that the mass effect explosions are not the same kind of explosion as occurred in Arrival. Ok, I will grant you that the synthesis choice may make that true because you would need an un-Godly amount of energy to re-write the flesh and genetic code of all organic life, but was the destruction explosion way different from that of Arrival? If that is true, then why do we see human soldiers being turned to ash if your EMS is too low? How is the control explosion different? Do you know something about physics that I don't? Because if you do, you are going to have to add some exposition to the "extended cut" ending so that everyone is on the same page.
I think that it would be better to can the current endings and re-write the entire thing in line with the choices made across the entire franchise. Then you can...oh, that's right, artistic integrity. Why is it that every time somebody fouls up they call "artistic integrity?" Is that like a get out of jail free card or something? How does that alleviate ones' responsibility for shoddy work exactly? Because I would really love to know.
That concept may work fine in the Ivory Tower in which you reside, but it means less than nothing in the real world where people earn a living with the sweat of their brow and then part with those earnings in order to purchase a game for entertainment purposes and are then presented with an ending like that of ME3 that caps hundreds of dollars spent on a franchise and hundreds of hours spent playing the game and selecting different choices in order to see the varying outcomes. As such, the ME3 ending was a cheat.
And that is the shame of the whole franchise because ME3 was awesome right up until the very end when it all fell apart. It is as if BioWare had no idea how to end it and time was running short so they cobbled something together and that's what we got. No wonder people went ballistic.
In DA:O we said our goodbyes, fought our way to the tower, and slew the Archdemon. If you slept with Morrigan (and who wouldn't want to do that?) you got to live and talk about it. If not, you died. Nobody complained that that ending was lame in the numbers that have complained about ME3's ending. That was a happy ending to a great game. Had you slain the ArchDemon who then exploded in a terrific fury of unbelievable energy taking 95% of Thedas with him and burying the Dwarves under tons of rubble and dirt, would it really have been an improvement? Would BioWare have thought that the fans would be ok with it if they gave a little closure to repair that ending? I don't think so.
ME3's ending was to a story that has never been told. We need to go back to what makes the Mass Effect universe special and that is the joy of triumph over impossible odds. We live in interesting times today, economies are tanking, unemployment is high, people have lost faith in traditional values, and there is great uncertainty about the future. That is exactly the atmosphere that the original Star Wars was released in and it achieved an unprecedented success because it offered hope and said that the good guys will always win no matter the odds. The last thing that people need, is to feel like crap after investing their hard earned money and years of their time in a game franchise that promised them that their choices would count for something, but failed to tell them that those choices would boil down to blue, green, or red.
Sorry for the overly long post, but those who know me know that I usually don't post unless I have something to say.
#259
Posté 09 avril 2012 - 03:16
DoctorCrowtgamer
-
- Members
- 1 875 messages
Yeah well said that and the Op show why the ending we have not only doesn't make dramatic sense but is also at least a little racist.
#260
Posté 09 avril 2012 - 03:29
marshkoala
-
- Members
- 281 messages
@knightnblu
WOW Way to go!!!
I completely agree with you, now if we could just get Mr. Hudson to read this and respond!!!!
WOW Way to go!!!
I completely agree with you, now if we could just get Mr. Hudson to read this and respond!!!!
#261
Posté 09 avril 2012 - 03:44
DoctorCrowtgamer
-
- Members
- 1 875 messages
Because he is an artist and the only reason we have a problem with his endings is because we are too stupid to understand his art. That is why he is releasing extended endings because he is such a nice guy and is going to explain everything on our idiot level.
#262
Posté 09 avril 2012 - 03:46
Archangel01
-
- Members
- 12 messages
I think the endings are congruent with the three episodes. I think the way they were explained is weak.
Given that the real enemy was the Citadel and the relays, two of the three choices favoured the enemy. Why not, the game was riggedby the Citadel. The Citadel controlled evolution in the Galaxy, actually It controlled the development of civilization in the Galaxy.
We don't know the Citadel is the enemy until the end. Shepherd has to make the choice in pretty stressful conditions. If Indoctrination is in effect, there are two choices, red isn't going to be an option. If Shepherd isn't indoctrinated, then there are two choices. Of course, Green is the Disney choice, the whole new world .
I think that the galaxy without the Citadel might be interesting. The choice didn't wipe out science, it didn't even wipe out Ai's. We don't know for sure what changed, expet the Citadel and the Relays blew up, which should have destroyed the systems they were in.
Since the story borrowed alot from Foundation , and the Fall of the roman Empire, we can assume that the destruction is not complete, that some hidden stores of information will become available, that some new method of transport that wasn't needed , will now be useful.
That leaves the Normandy as an anomally. Edi is a reaper based AI , controlling the Normandy. How did it survive? So did Edi survive? hmm
So, I like the endings and the choices. I think they were true to the choices you made in the game. I would have liked a less painful ending, but hey, everybody's talking about it.
Given that the real enemy was the Citadel and the relays, two of the three choices favoured the enemy. Why not, the game was riggedby the Citadel. The Citadel controlled evolution in the Galaxy, actually It controlled the development of civilization in the Galaxy.
We don't know the Citadel is the enemy until the end. Shepherd has to make the choice in pretty stressful conditions. If Indoctrination is in effect, there are two choices, red isn't going to be an option. If Shepherd isn't indoctrinated, then there are two choices. Of course, Green is the Disney choice, the whole new world .
I think that the galaxy without the Citadel might be interesting. The choice didn't wipe out science, it didn't even wipe out Ai's. We don't know for sure what changed, expet the Citadel and the Relays blew up, which should have destroyed the systems they were in.
Since the story borrowed alot from Foundation , and the Fall of the roman Empire, we can assume that the destruction is not complete, that some hidden stores of information will become available, that some new method of transport that wasn't needed , will now be useful.
That leaves the Normandy as an anomally. Edi is a reaper based AI , controlling the Normandy. How did it survive? So did Edi survive? hmm
So, I like the endings and the choices. I think they were true to the choices you made in the game. I would have liked a less painful ending, but hey, everybody's talking about it.
#263
Posté 09 avril 2012 - 03:57
Shin Yodama
-
- Members
- 191 messages
Excellent post OP, very well thought out and written. Bravo Sir!
#264
Posté 09 avril 2012 - 04:03
a.m.p
-
- Members
- 911 messages
knightnblu wrote...
Why are we told that we cannot win conventionally, when my game tells me that the odds of success are even? Did you see the fleet that just blew into the Sol system? I'll take my chances and see who wins. The game says that we are evenly matched and I bet you we are whole lot more flexible in our thinking than the Reapers are. But we are never presented with that option. Does evenly matched mean something different to BioWare? That signals 50/50 to me. I say, bring it.
This is a great post. May I have your permission, good sir, to add it separately to this list I'm making? (Actually already linked, because it's a great post).
Modifié par a.m.p, 09 avril 2012 - 04:06 .
#265
Posté 09 avril 2012 - 04:10
knightnblu
-
- Members
- 1 731 messages
Absolutely, feel free to use it as you pleasea.m.p wrote...
knightnblu wrote...
Why are we told that we cannot win conventionally, when my game tells me that the odds of success are even? Did you see the fleet that just blew into the Sol system? I'll take my chances and see who wins. The game says that we are evenly matched and I bet you we are whole lot more flexible in our thinking than the Reapers are. But we are never presented with that option. Does evenly matched mean something different to BioWare? That signals 50/50 to me. I say, bring it.
This is a great post. May I have your permission, good sir, to add it separately to this list I'm making? (Actually already linked, because it's a great post).
#267
Posté 09 avril 2012 - 04:21
DoctorCrowtgamer
-
- Members
- 1 875 messages
Yeah Bioware and every member of the gaming press needs to read this thread.
#268
Posté 09 avril 2012 - 04:25
soulprovider
-
- Members
- 511 messages
Dhraconus wrote...
I really don't have anything to add, but this needs to be bumped.
This is what has enraged me from the beginning and I've tried to articulate it but have come nowhere close to your articulation of these ideas here (closest I got was this thread). This is also incidentally why I can't fathom why those who like the ending actually like it, but different strokes I guess?
I really hope Bioware reads this and really thinks about it.
to answer why they like it, it seems that those who are unaware of the first two games don't find and issue with the ending because taken as a stand alone game they don't see the details that show ME3 to be rushed they don't know the overall story and play and the ambitions the first game set up they only know mass effect 3, as more people go back and watch the older videos and play the older games people begin to see why the ME series was truly great but by the same token most of them has started their series with a sour taste, they may not hate the ending but it won't stick out with them instead it will be a forgotten series and that is the true travesty. Truthfully Mass effect 1 was the best game and will be to date but that means that when bioware was bought by EA they died as the true storytelling developer they were and as such this should be a lesson to us all when a smaller developer is bought up by a large publisher its time to jump ship, so far the only exception to that rule is assasins creed series though I fully expect that to fall flat as well eventually.
#269
Posté 09 avril 2012 - 04:47
DoctorCrowtgamer
-
- Members
- 1 875 messages
Everyone needs to read this thread. I wish gaming mags didn't work for EA because then if we mailed this to them it may have gotten printed.
#270
Posté 09 avril 2012 - 05:19
nembool001
-
- Members
- 1 messages
Enjoyed the OP's post immensely.
It articulates the dramatic change in tone between ME1, 2 & 3 very well.
Just as an aside, does the slow, melancholic piano tune also contribute to this perceived change in tone, as opposed to the music at the end of ME1 & 2? Does anyone think that a change of music (along with a corresponding pacing change of the cinematics) that would alter the feeling and tone of ME3's ending?
It articulates the dramatic change in tone between ME1, 2 & 3 very well.
Just as an aside, does the slow, melancholic piano tune also contribute to this perceived change in tone, as opposed to the music at the end of ME1 & 2? Does anyone think that a change of music (along with a corresponding pacing change of the cinematics) that would alter the feeling and tone of ME3's ending?
#271
Posté 09 avril 2012 - 05:26
marshkoala
-
- Members
- 281 messages
@nembool001
I don't know if it would make a difference, the whole tone for my Paragon Shepard felt off at times when she would making really defeatist comments about the chances of sucess.
I don't know if it would make a difference, the whole tone for my Paragon Shepard felt off at times when she would making really defeatist comments about the chances of sucess.
#272
Posté 09 avril 2012 - 05:41
Riion
-
- Members
- 364 messages
Very nicely worded, I enjoyed reading that.
#273
Posté 09 avril 2012 - 09:09
Sainta117
-
- Members
- 352 messages
Archangel01 wrote...
I think the endings are congruent with the three episodes. I think the way they were explained is weak.
Given that the real enemy was the Citadel and the relays, two of the three choices favoured the enemy. Why not, the game was riggedby the Citadel. The Citadel controlled evolution in the Galaxy, actually It controlled the development of civilization in the Galaxy.
We don't know the Citadel is the enemy until the end. Shepherd has to make the choice in pretty stressful conditions. If Indoctrination is in effect, there are two choices, red isn't going to be an option. If Shepherd isn't indoctrinated, then there are two choices. Of course, Green is the Disney choice, the whole new world .
I think that the galaxy without the Citadel might be interesting. The choice didn't wipe out science, it didn't even wipe out Ai's. We don't know for sure what changed, expet the Citadel and the Relays blew up, which should have destroyed the systems they were in.
Since the story borrowed alot from Foundation , and the Fall of the roman Empire, we can assume that the destruction is not complete, that some hidden stores of information will become available, that some new method of transport that wasn't needed , will now be useful.
That leaves the Normandy as an anomally. Edi is a reaper based AI , controlling the Normandy. How did it survive? So did Edi survive? hmm
So, I like the endings and the choices. I think they were true to the choices you made in the game. I would have liked a less painful ending, but hey, everybody's talking about it.
I'm not sure you really addressed the points I made in the OP. To my mind, the problem wasn't just that they were incoherent (although they were), it was that the choices all involved different levels of reversal of the key theme of hope. Interestingly, I think a lot of the things you identify in the course of explaining the endings are themselves narratively broken. For instance, "we don't know the Citadel is the enemy until the end." Right. Because at the last moment without any foreshadowing whatsoever and in complete contraction to the entire story arc which focused on Harbinger and the Rreapers, the citadel (a symbol of diversity and hope right from the very start) is turned into a giant slaughterhouse presided over by an arbitrarily evil wunderkind of genocide.
I think it would have been entirely possible to have a "bittersweet" ending where all the relays blew up (in non-destructive ways, and you'd have to *show* that after the implications of "Arrival") but the races still had a chance. If, for instance, we knew the explosion was going to blow the relay, and everyone had to run with just the sketchiest of farewells or be stranded, possibly forever. There would be lots of opportunity for pathos among your allies, but also among your crew, as individuals suddenly have to decide whether to stay or go, leaving friends, lovers, and families divided. That's a bittersweet ending. What we got was just bitter.
And yes, everyone's talking about it. Talking about how *bad* it is. That's not a win for any writer.
#274
Posté 09 avril 2012 - 10:39
DoctorCrowtgamer
-
- Members
- 1 875 messages
Yeah your post is still right and I wish Bioware would read it.
#275
Posté 10 avril 2012 - 12:43
omphaloskepsis
-
- Members
- 133 messages
Ignored this thread earlier, but just read it following an offsite link, and I think it's well worth the time. Thanks OP!
