I respect that opinion, I really do, but is it really such a terrible thing that we had to make our own connections and conclusions based on the materials given?
I do to, when I expect so. The ending of LOST is a good example, it offered a lot to speculate about. But they did something good, they made an absolute beautiful closure of the characters we grew to love throughout the series. In this one, we aren't just not offered a good closure, something that is implied in their advertisement, but we are given more questions than answers. And even if they did that, it would still be good, what makes it all so bad, is the logic set by the ending, the abundant number of plotholes just demonstrate how poorly written it is.
Every game Bioware has made has had plot holes, all have required imagination to fill in blanks and half the content ever created on these forums is about the use of imagination for what something means, how something is done and what it could lead too. Yes there were plot holes and yes there was unexplained elements which leads to use of imagination (as has always been the case) the only difference is scale of use. The DLC based on feedback which always would of been created after retail release even if the retake group had not resorted to so many gimmicks and threats (though the charity one did some good) would of always been created and tried to provide expostion and clarity which leads to closure. Such DLC was always going to be coming and the sheer hissy fit and rage was taken too far by many here even though was also many who were respectable and more reasonable.
Edit: The ones who shout troll and attack anyone who uses that imagination clearly does not understand Bioware, their games or the majority of how this forum works over the years.
Imagination? Wow then you must have a really really ignorant imagination.
Imagination in this case is pretty much impossible. Don't come with "imagination", USE the god damn knowledge of the game to make up for what happened in the ending. THAT'S WHAT EVERYONE DOES. And guess what? Things do not look very good, in fact they suck. I can use my imagination and say that when I chose destruction, the Reapers died, the geth and EDI survived and the Relays blew up only a little, enabling everyone to survive. The ones stranded on Sol System survive eating rainbows and sunshines, as well as those stranded in their own systems that required the aid of trade from other planets, they survive with the tears of innocent children, and the Normandy crew becomes Robinson Crusoe's family and all live happily ever after.
Oh imagination is not the problem. The problem is that it does not make any sense within the bounds of the Mass Effect Universe, and not even trying thousand of people can make any sense of it. If you can explain all the abundant plotholes with your imagination, then by all means. Go ahead and explain them. But something tells me that you will only be deluding yourself.
EDIT: The ones who... You know what I'm just going to shut up, you are clearly in a minority within the bounds of this forum, so that pretty much nullifies your stupid edit.
I loved the endings too. I was genuinely surprised by the amount of hatred I saw on the Internet after I finished the game and thought it was the best game of all time. Obviously I thought that it was going to be polarizing, but not almost universally despised by fans. Personally I think the spark of a vocal few at the very beginning spread like wildfire and infected people/colored their views before they could form their own. This whole phenomenon is extremely interesting to me, but it became scary when I realized that Bioware actually was considering retconning something I consider to be near perfect.
I'm pretty sure it's just the fact that the endings are bad. There are plenty of well written, satisfying stories where the protagonist sacrifices himself. Mass Effect 3 is not one of them.. for reasons that have been discussed ad nauseam.
I'm pretty sure that many people had not even gotten to the endings yet, and a vocal minority of hardcore fans that finished the game almost right after it came out took to the internet and yelled REALLY loudly, coloring the opinion of everyone going into the ending before they could actually form their own views.
And I have responded to these criticisms ad nauseam as well, but to be honest all of my responses have been largely ignored on this forum because people have already worked themselves into a Krogan bloodrage and it's far easier to stay entrenched and keep raging than to actually re-evaluate a perspective.
Yup just keep believing that everyone are sheep unable to form their own opinions. It's not true, but keep believing it. We wouldn't want you to lose faith in your opinion now would we.
I loved the endings too. I was genuinely surprised by the amount of hatred I saw on the Internet after I finished the game and thought it was the best game of all time. Obviously I thought that it was going to be polarizing, but not almost universally despised by fans. Personally I think the spark of a vocal few at the very beginning spread like wildfire and infected people/colored their views before they could form their own. This whole phenomenon is extremely interesting to me, but it became scary when I realized that Bioware actually was considering retconning something I consider to be near perfect.
I'm pretty sure it's just the fact that the endings are bad. There are plenty of well written, satisfying stories where the protagonist sacrifices himself. Mass Effect 3 is not one of them.. for reasons that have been discussed ad nauseam.
I'm pretty sure that many people had not even gotten to the endings yet, and a vocal minority of hardcore fans that finished the game almost right after it came out took to the internet and yelled REALLY loudly, coloring the opinion of everyone going into the ending before they could actually form their own views.
And I have responded to these criticisms ad nauseam as well, but to be honest all of my responses have been largely ignored on this forum because people have already worked themselves into a Krogan bloodrage and it's far easier to stay entrenched and keep raging than to actually re-evaluate a perspective.
Yup just keep believing that everyone are sheep unable to form their own opinions. It's not true, but keep believing it. We wouldn't want you to lose faith in your opinion now would we.
People absolutely can form their own opinions. Though it doesn't help when they are looking for something wrong with the ending. A lot of people who I've talked to in person hadn't even started the game yet and were like, "man, so I hear that Mass Effect ending was bs. I'm playing through it next week." Then sure enough they played through it and looked for things that validated the criticisms, instead of thinking about how maybe some of those criticisms are questionable or subjective.
read your blog, and was disturbed that you feel we want to save everyone. You're obviously not paying attention to what most of us are saying.
Given the preponderance of thread explaining why we feel the way we do, and the serious questions that lack any sort of logical answer I'll direct you to this thread http://social.biowar.../index/10487821
please read carefully, and take the time to think about what we're asking for.
I always love when they say "Happy" ending, or in biowares words "bitter sweet". At the point of the end of mass effect 3 many of races homeworlds along with their largest settlements on other worlds have been hit by the reapers. Billions are already dead.................so even if you defeated the reapers and survived at that point you would consider that a happy ending....................thats insane. Its already a very bleak outcome before the retake earth.
So to make it a bitter sweet ending the "hero" has to die, because billions dieing countless horrors inflicted on the surviors is still too happy a ending they have to twist the knife in to really make it bleak. I have no problem with shepard dying but in a game of choice much like DA:O you had that choice. Morrigan gives you an option.
The final scene with Joker and your team from Earth final charge into the beam on a planet (including your LI) they are happy............your dead and they are happy. I had Liara as my LI and she says in ME2 that you dying nearly destroyed her yet she seems fine with it in the end of ME3 please. Not too mention how the hell did they get to the normandy when its fighting, that and harbinger and other reapers are in the area of the beam, think they would have tried to shoot joker down.
My views were not colored by people saying the ending was bad, I ignored them (I liked the DA2 ending from the context of the game it made sense to me). But that ME3 ending holy cow it was nonsense. I'm a big Sci-Fi fan, read a ton, watched a ton, played games a ton, even have a background in science and been in the science field for the last 12 years or so including research. That ending makes no sense, it defies logic, it defies lore established the first 2 games.
It has been the only game I have felt annoyed enough by poor writing (everyone who hasn't played the game I know have said in regards to seeing the ending it was rubbish and thats more than 20 people who don't game - note those who i have talked too about it i do know more than 20 people ) that I have particapted in the forums.
I loved the endings too. I was genuinely surprised by the amount of hatred I saw on the Internet after I finished the game and thought it was the best game of all time. Obviously I thought that it was going to be polarizing, but not almost universally despised by fans. Personally I think the spark of a vocal few at the very beginning spread like wildfire and infected people/colored their views before they could form their own. This whole phenomenon is extremely interesting to me, but it became scary when I realized that Bioware actually was considering retconning something I consider to be near perfect.
I'm pretty sure it's just the fact that the endings are bad. There are plenty of well written, satisfying stories where the protagonist sacrifices himself. Mass Effect 3 is not one of them.. for reasons that have been discussed ad nauseam.
I'm pretty sure that many people had not even gotten to the endings yet, and a vocal minority of hardcore fans that finished the game almost right after it came out took to the internet and yelled REALLY loudly, coloring the opinion of everyone going into the ending before they could actually form their own views.
And I have responded to these criticisms ad nauseam as well, but to be honest all of my responses have been largely ignored on this forum because people have already worked themselves into a Krogan bloodrage and it's far easier to stay entrenched and keep raging than to actually re-evaluate a perspective.
Yup just keep believing that everyone are sheep unable to form their own opinions. It's not true, but keep believing it. We wouldn't want you to lose faith in your opinion now would we.
People absolutely can form their own opinions. Though it doesn't help when they are looking for something wrong with the ending. A lot of people who I've talked to in person hadn't even started the game yet and were like, "man, so I hear that Mass Effect ending was bs. I'm playing through it next week." Then sure enough they played through it and looked for things that validated the criticisms, instead of thinking about how maybe some of those criticisms are questionable or subjective.
Exactly how are some of the criticisms questionable? Are you saying that there are actually 16 endings? That our choices actualy matter? That the Normandy fleeing via FTL makes sense? That there shouldn't have been options from the very bleakest to the very best?
It;s cool that your happy with having a grand total of 3 different color explosions, it's great that your happy with 6 total endings, with 0 endings that could be called positive. It's cool that your ok with not knowing what happened to your friends, the Fleets, the Galaxy that you worked so hard to save. It's cool that your ok with the end of galactic civilization as known in the ME Universe. I really really wish I was in the same boat, However.
There are many of us that are not happy with these things.
Exactly how are some of the criticisms questionable? Are you saying that there are actually 16 endings? That our choices actualy matter? That the Normandy fleeing via FTL makes sense? That there shouldn't have been options from the very bleakest to the very best?
It;s cool that your happy with having a grand total of 3 different color explosions, it's great that your happy with 6 total endings, with 0 endings that could be called positive. It's cool that your ok with not knowing what happened to your friends, the Fleets, the Galaxy that you worked so hard to save. It's cool that your ok with the end of galactic civilization as known in the ME Universe. I really really wish I was in the same boat, However.
Choices mattering - Saw that throughout the entire game. Whole races lived or dies based on my past decisions and ME3 choices.
Normandy Fleeing via FTL - I agree, that was jarring and did not make sense with the context we were given. Better editing/context could have easily solved this small issue.
The end decision - First, I think it's genius that real decision you have to make is what your stance is on what the Catalyst is saying: that synthetics will eventually destroy all organics. After you take your stance, then you decide on which of the three endings is the best. Those are secondary to the main choice, and the main choice is informed by your Shepard's experiences with the Quarians/Geth, EDI, and other AI experiences throughout the trilogy. I like the heroic sacrifice; it was necessary for ME3 to complete Shepard's story arc. He always sacrificed everything, his own happiness included for the good of the galaxy, it was inevitable that he would eventually lay down his life as well. Anything other than the heroic sacrifice would have been a disservice to Shepard and to his trilogy. Also, you say all the endings are bleak. I disagree. Whereas you saw "bleak" endings and the "end" of the entire ME universe, I saw hope. I saw hope because we broke free from the Reapers' system of control, represented by the relays and the Reapers themselves. We are no free to forge our own destiny. Yes we are starting again at square one, no it won't be easy, but freedom is worth the price. And frankly any less of a cost would have been insulting to the weightiness of the entire premise of "giant godlike machines that have been harvesting all intelligent life in the galaxy for millions of years."
Not knowing what happens next- Shepard's story is over. The whole point of making the final decision is that we don't know which one is the "best." It's supposed to challenge you intellectually and generate discussion. Having everything tied up in a nice neat little bow without any subtlety or open-endedness does not make good literature and no one here will convince me that it does. In DA:O it was great because that wasn't a cinematic narrative; it was a traditional RPG centered around player empowerment.
I don't see how Shepard's death was inevitable. Actually, he seemed to have quite the knack for surviving the impossible.
-getting "crushed" under debris from Sovereign in the citadel council control room, only to come out unscathed
-Literally dying, only to be brought back to life
-Surviving a suicide mission, "against all odds"
Kind of speaks for itself.
Anyways, Anderson sacrificed himself as well. That should be more than enough to appease those who demand a "bittersweet" ending.
I guess that's one way to look at it. But like I said, I would have felt like the Reapers were all smoke and no substance if there weren't some actual sacrifice, including Shepard's own life, required to stop them. I mean they talk the entire game about the inevitability of casualties and how they probably won't be coming out of this alive, all of that talk would seem pretty overdramatic if nothing came of it.
It's one thing to survive the Collectors, but the Reapers are the big bad of the entire universe. That's different to me.
[quote]Biotic Sage wrote... Anyways, Anderson sacrificed himself as well. That should be more than enough to appease those who demand a "bittersweet" ending. [/quote]
I guess that's one way to look at it. But like I said, I would have felt like the Reapers were all smoke and no substance if there weren't some actual sacrifice, including Shepard's own life, required to stop them. I mean they talk the entire game about the inevitability of casualties and how they probably won't be coming out of this alive, all of that talk would seem pretty overdramatic if nothing came of it.
It's one thing to survive the Collectors, but the Reapers are the big bad of the entire universe. That's different to me.[/quote]
I'm the opposite. I hate being railroaded into my characther dying. At least not without a little bit more prep to it and explanation of why it's necessary. Even in DA:O you had an out, and the sacrafice made much more sense there.
Most of the charachter deaths end of feeling a bit forced. With Mordin, you sort of have to wonder why they couldn't just fly the normandy around sprinkling the cure or something. Serously, if that was the hangup, I'm sure the Turians could spring for some cropdusters or something. Same with Legion...can't we just walk up to one of those big server things after the shooting stops and use the USB port? Virmire felt really, really forced.
I can see doing it for supporting charchters both for tension and cool scene factor, but for the protagonis you really need to build an actual reason(and not just: they really mean, no-one could survive....um, surviving that sort of thing is what Shepard does). A tragic ending where Shepard has to die is possible, but would have to put way more effort into support why it was necessary(and tell me more than 5 minutes ahead of time).
I thought ME2 handled this really well. People would usualy die on the suicie mission, but if you did really well and prepped really well, they didn't have to. Surviving shouldn't be easy...but I don't think it should be impossible either.
The end decision - First, I think it's genius that real decision you have to make is what your stance is on what the Catalyst is saying: that synthetics will eventually destroy all organics. After you take your stance, then you decide on which of the three endings is the best. Those are secondary to the main choice, and the main choice is informed by your Shepard's experiences with the Quarians/Geth, EDI, and other AI experiences throughout the trilogy. I like the heroic sacrifice; it was necessary for ME3 to complete Shepard's story arc. He always sacrificed everything, his own happiness included for the good of the galaxy, it was inevitable that he would eventually lay down his life as well. Anything other than the heroic sacrifice would have been a disservice to Shepard and to his trilogy. Also, you say all the endings are bleak. I disagree. Whereas you saw "bleak" endings and the "end" of the entire ME universe, I saw hope. I saw hope because we broke free from the Reapers' system of control, represented by the relays and the Reapers themselves. We are no free to forge our own destiny. Yes we are starting again at square one, no it won't be easy, but freedom is worth the price. And frankly any less of a cost would have been insulting to the weightiness of the entire premise of "giant godlike machines that have been harvesting all intelligent life in the galaxy for millions of years."
Your first choice isn't really a choice. You have to accept that the Catalyst is right and take one of his three solutions. The solutions he gives you are to destroy the Reapers along with all other synthetics, control the Reapers, with zero context on what this means or what the implications for the future are, or combine organics with synthetics with zero context on what this means or what the implications for the future are. All three cause a galactic dark age. The lack of information on how they will play out or what the future looks like after renders them meaningless. I really hope no one agonized over this descison because the only differences we know of are the color of the explosion, Joker's glowing eyes and EDI getting out of the wrecked Normandy.
And before you try to tell me I'm wrong, answer one quesion. If you pick control, what does Shepard do with the Reapers? Not commiting genocide isn't an acceptable answer.
Choices mattering - Saw that throughout the entire game. Whole races lived or dies based on my past decisions and ME3 choices.
Argh, I can't read this argument anymore. Yes you can view the whole game as the ending, yes we see many consequences of our actions over the course of the game. But the problem is that they don't matter in the end! Why is that so hard to understand? The Pro-Enders and critics are always looking down on us saying "maybe it goes over their head", but they can't even understand this very simple point of criticism.
Exactly how are some of the criticisms questionable? Are you saying that there are actually 16 endings? That our choices actualy matter? That the Normandy fleeing via FTL makes sense? That there shouldn't have been options from the very bleakest to the very best?
It;s cool that your happy with having a grand total of 3 different color explosions, it's great that your happy with 6 total endings, with 0 endings that could be called positive. It's cool that your ok with not knowing what happened to your friends, the Fleets, the Galaxy that you worked so hard to save. It's cool that your ok with the end of galactic civilization as known in the ME Universe. I really really wish I was in the same boat, However.
Choices mattering - Saw that throughout the entire game. Whole races lived or dies based on my past decisions and ME3 choices.
Normandy Fleeing via FTL - I agree, that was jarring and did not make sense with the context we were given. Better editing/context could have easily solved this small issue.
The end decision - First, I think it's genius that real decision you have to make is what your stance is on what the Catalyst is saying: that synthetics will eventually destroy all organics. After you take your stance, then you decide on which of the three endings is the best. Those are secondary to the main choice, and the main choice is informed by your Shepard's experiences with the Quarians/Geth, EDI, and other AI experiences throughout the trilogy. I like the heroic sacrifice; it was necessary for ME3 to complete Shepard's story arc. He always sacrificed everything, his own happiness included for the good of the galaxy, it was inevitable that he would eventually lay down his life as well. Anything other than the heroic sacrifice would have been a disservice to Shepard and to his trilogy. Also, you say all the endings are bleak. I disagree. Whereas you saw "bleak" endings and the "end" of the entire ME universe, I saw hope. I saw hope because we broke free from the Reapers' system of control, represented by the relays and the Reapers themselves. We are no free to forge our own destiny. Yes we are starting again at square one, no it won't be easy, but freedom is worth the price. And frankly any less of a cost would have been insulting to the weightiness of the entire premise of "giant godlike machines that have been harvesting all intelligent life in the galaxy for millions of years."
Not knowing what happens next- Shepard's story is over. The whole point of making the final decision is that we don't know which one is the "best." It's supposed to challenge you intellectually and generate discussion. Having everything tied up in a nice neat little bow without any subtlety or open-endedness does not make good literature and no one here will convince me that it does. In DA:O it was great because that wasn't a cinematic narrative; it was a traditional RPG centered around player empowerment.
OK so I save the Geth and the quarrians (who really may not have deserved to be saved), but in the end I have to betray the entire goal of the series (defeat the reapers) in order to save them again?
Reapers are the only synthetic life forms (look up the definitions of artificial, and synthetic and you'll see what I mean). Geth and EDI art artificial, so by choosing synthesis, I'm effectively making everyone like the reapers - a rather repugnat thought, or I have to control the reapers with out assurances that the reapers won't come back.(and the starchild say it have to continue the cycle anyway, eventually). So my best option is to make a bunch of mini reapers?
My other option is to destroy the reapers (Again the only synthetics are the reapers) but by doing this I have to betray EDI, the memory of lergions sacrifice, and all of the geth that I just worked so hard to preserve.
Tell me again how my choices from ME2 matter? I mean is it all that important that I get a few extra EMS?
The other point is where are the other 10-13 endings? Where is the uplifting and inspiration possiblity? From where I stand regardless of which color I choose, the Galxay and it's people are in pretty freaking dire straights. In fact due to the lack of information provided, I can't even say that the Relays didn't just wipe out all the systems they are located in. For all the logical sence that it may make (and thats debatable) for the relays to have only a mild explosion, there is no evidence to support this. There is canonial evidence for them going super nova though. So did I just wipe out everyone my choices were to protect?
This story may have started out as Shepards but it didn't finish that way. It finishes as a story about the group of people that shepard includes on the normady, it finishes as a story about the Citadel and it's people, and it's certainly a story about the various species. How can I feel good about a story that leave everyones fate just hanging out there.
I just want to go on record as saying that I, too, really loved the ending (I went Green by the way)...actually as did another buddy of mine who isn't an online forum type of person. We both found it beautiful and moving--and quite fitting for who our Shepards were.
I loved how our choices mattered to how the game turned out--we both see the ending starting much, much, earlier than the last 10 minutes. We loved the thematic symmetry of Mordin, Legion, and Shepard sacrificing themselves to make a new form of life.
It was a great ending! I'm not defending it by saying, "The makers can do whatever they want"--I'm saying I really enjoyed the ending. I thought that it was a beautiful happy ending, and I'm glad I did all that work to collect war assets to have the green option. The major tonality at the end of the crash land was a sonic indication that the choice I made is going to work out.
I know that people are all up in arms. I've read the google doc and disagree with most of it. But people have the right to rage all they want. However, I just want to put it out there that not everyone hates the ending. We may not speak up all that much...because well, when we do, we get shouted down, insulted, and called a troll. It seems on a lot of fora, it is only okay to speak up if you hated the ending. But there are lots of us out there.
Also, I feel like the ending really matches not only the game that I played from Mass Effect 1 through to Mass Effect 3, but it also really matches the inspirational materials--the 1970s sci-fi a la 2001, Star Trek: The Motion Picture, etc that gave the series its look. The sort of mysical/philosophical grand epic endings...I loved to ponder the ending and the journey. I'm sad that the universe is basically over...one that I have invested so much time in, but all good things must come to an end, and I think it is ultimately good that you really ended it (for me in such a hopeful way)--rather than milk or drag it out forever.
I saw all the work and care the team put into the game--from little asides that people made, to calling back inside jokes, to tracking what choices I made all along. The relationships formed with the people of the universe--Dr. Chakwas, Tali, Liara, Anderson, Mordin. I loved that everybody had a chance to shine in this game...that there were many heroes, not just Shepard. I love how much they were shaped by me and I was shaped by them. I loved the voice acting, the gameplay, the art design, the writing. All the little details that showed how much you cared about the universe.
This was a great trilogy...one of the best sci-fi experiences in any medium. Great art that I put up there with the works of Ursula K. LeGuin, with the new Battlestar, with all the greats!
Thanks Bioware (from me and my buddy) for such greatness.
I just want to go on record as saying that I, too, really loved the ending (I went Green by the way)...actually as did another buddy of mine who isn't an online forum type of person. We both found it beautiful and moving--and quite fitting for who our Shepards were.
I loved how our choices mattered to how the game turned out--we both see the ending starting much, much, earlier than the last 10 minutes. We loved the thematic symmetry of Mordin, Legion, and Shepard sacrificing themselves to make a new form of life.
It was a great ending! I'm not defending it by saying, "The makers can do whatever they want"--I'm saying I really enjoyed the ending. I thought that it was a beautiful happy ending, and I'm glad I did all that work to collect war assets to have the green option. The major tonality at the end of the crash land was a sonic indication that the choice I made is going to work out.
I know that people are all up in arms. I've read the google doc and disagree with most of it. But people have the right to rage all they want. However, I just want to put it out there that not everyone hates the ending. We may not speak up all that much...because well, when we do, we get shouted down, insulted, and called a troll. It seems on a lot of fora, it is only okay to speak up if you hated the ending. But there are lots of us out there.
Also, I feel like the ending really matches not only the game that I played from Mass Effect 1 through to Mass Effect 3, but it also really matches the inspirational materials--the 1970s sci-fi a la 2001, Star Trek: The Motion Picture, etc that gave the series its look. The sort of mysical/philosophical grand epic endings...I loved to ponder the ending and the journey. I'm sad that the universe is basically over...one that I have invested so much time in, but all good things must come to an end, and I think it is ultimately good that you really ended it (for me in such a hopeful way)--rather than milk or drag it out forever.
I saw all the work and care the team put into the game--from little asides that people made, to calling back inside jokes, to tracking what choices I made all along. The relationships formed with the people of the universe--Dr. Chakwas, Tali, Liara, Anderson, Mordin. I loved that everybody had a chance to shine in this game...that there were many heroes, not just Shepard. I love how much they were shaped by me and I was shaped by them. I loved the voice acting, the gameplay, the art design, the writing. All the little details that showed how much you cared about the universe.
This was a great trilogy...one of the best sci-fi experiences in any medium. Great art that I put up there with the works of Ursula K. LeGuin, with the new Battlestar, with all the greats!
Thanks Bioware (from me and my buddy) for such greatness.
I personally do not think the ending is a bad one. There's a wonderful forum post that actually explains my stance here: http://social.biowar...6155/6#10525524
The issue at hand is not that the ending is bad, it's that this ending actually does not fit properly with the story given. I have had 7 years, so far, and will have many many more years of critically dissecting story lines, plots, and finding inconsistencies. When this ending is applied to the story we've been given, then all of those things are apparent--and to a startling degree. When you jump out of the role as the casual gamer, or audience member, and into the role of the critical thinker, you'll start to understand what these inconsistencies are.
There is the argument that this third installment is an ending, in and of itself. I'll believe that. Except it's bad form as a writer to introduce new characters at the end of the end with little more than 30 seconds of hasty exposition, and no Mass Effect dialogue circle to ask it questions. The logic of this being (the Star Child) is horrendously circular:
Synthetics were created to destroy organics before they could create synthetics who would destroy organics.
That is not professional writing. In speech writing that's called circular logic, or reasoning--and it's one of the many logical fallacies. In other words, on the surface it sounds as if there may be something to it, but if someone really digs deep down, there isn't.
Anyway, that's just one of the many holes found in the ending--again, when applied to the story line we've already been given. If you want to actually see a more in-depth analysis of the ending, click a page or two back and you'll find a very meaty post I've done.
Feel free to go there, or not it's completely your choice.
There is nothing wrong with actually liking the ending. I personally thought it was beautiful and intense--but as someone who understands critical thinking and analysis, I cannot accept it when placed up against the story at hand, because it does not make sense.
That is the heart of the issue with the people here. As a side note, there are the "ragers" yes, but the majority of people I've seen post, and I've read through a lot of threads, are people being very civil, and incredibly thoughtful about what they are saying. We are people who are dedicated to BioWare and to the great work that company has done--which is why we are speaking up now.
I loved the endings too. I was genuinely surprised by the amount of hatred I saw on the Internet after I finished the game and thought it was the best game of all time. Obviously I thought that it was going to be polarizing, but not almost universally despised by fans. Personally I think the spark of a vocal few at the very beginning spread like wildfire and infected people/colored their views before they could form their own. This whole phenomenon is extremely interesting to me, but it became scary when I realized that Bioware actually was considering retconning something I consider to be near perfect.
What you're referring to is called 'mass hysteria' which has been scientifically proven to be false. Whether or not someone truly played through to the ending remains to be seen, but there is actually nothing wrong with people taking the word of their fellow gamers, and skipping ahead to see the endings. It's fine that you like them, but as I've already said, until you step out of the role of the casual audience member/gamer, and into the role of a critical thinker, you won't fully comprehend what is going on.
From the outside it looks like a bunch of ragers. It's truly not. When you actually sit down and carefully scrutinize the ending, comparing it to the story line we've been given, you'll realize that it's not something that belongs, and it was poorly executed.
The issue at hand is not that the ending is bad, it's that this ending actually does not fit properly with the story given. I have had 7 years, so far, and will have many many more years of critically dissecting story lines, plots, and finding inconsistencies. When this ending is applied to the story we've been given, then all of those things are apparent--and to a startling degree. When you jump out of the role as the casual gamer, or audience member, and into the role of the critical thinker, you'll start to understand what these inconsistencies are.
*snip*
There is nothing wrong with actually liking the ending. I personally thought it was beautiful and intense--but as someone who understands critical thinking and analysis, I cannot accept it when placed up against the story at hand, because it does not make sense.
Greetings EmEr77.
Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't understand critical thinking and analysis or that I'm just a casual gamer or audience member. I am a university professor (PhD in Musicology of the New Musicology variety) and I teach critical thinking and analysis. I've been doing critical thinking and analysis for ages...and before doing that I was a Military Intelligence analyst. So I have a lot of experience with critical thinking and analysis and I still value the ending. I don't like the ending because I'm not thinking, I like the ending because I am thinking.
EmEr77 wrote... There is the argument that this third installment is an ending, in and of itself. I'll believe that. Except it's bad form as a writer to introduce new characters at the end of the end with little more than 30 seconds of hasty exposition, and no Mass Effect dialogue circle to ask it questions. The logic of this being (the Star Child) is horrendously circular:
Synthetics were created to destroy organics before they could create synthetics who would destroy organics.
That is not professional writing. In speech writing that's called circular logic, or reasoning--and it's one of the many logical fallacies. In other words, on the surface it sounds as if there may be something to it, but if someone really digs deep down, there isn't.
Anyway, that's just one of the many holes found in the ending--again, when applied to the story line we've already been given. If you want to actually see a more in-depth analysis of the ending, click a page or two back and you'll find a very meaty post I've done.
Star Child is introduced near the final end. There is a long tradition of this sort of thing in Sci-Fi (and other genres)...see for example V'Ger in Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Or really any sort of text with a mystery at its heart. Endings involving meeting the mysterious figure and then having some sort of metaphysical experience is a longstanding trope in various forms of sci-fi. The introduction of the Star Child is not all that problematic for me not only because of tradition but also because the concept of the catalyst is far enough telegraphed in advance.
The Star Child's logic is circular. Okay. Why is that a problem with the game? Considering you have lots of experience with critical analysis of texts, you of all people should know that not everyone in a text is going to be right, or have all the information, or have perfect logic. The Star Child is a character in the game and characters in the game can be fallible, much like V'ger. This machine has circular logic that has resulted in it perpetuating a 50,000 year cycle of destruction/renewal. No one had ever made it to the catalyst before Shepard. Shepard's success causes the Starchild to accept there is a change in circumstances, that Shepard is worthy to make a choice to change the situation. Then Shepard makes a choice to end the cycle (and had three different ways to do so, with three really different implications).
One of the problems of the detractors I've seen is a lack of good critical thinking skills rather than an excess of them. They accept everything said by characters in the game as true and also jump to wild unsupported conclusions...which good analyzers of text would not do. The Google Doc is full of poor analysis. But, look, if someone wants to rage against the ending bolstered with poor analysis, I can't stop them. The detractors clearly don't want to hear other analyses. And they certainly don't have to.
I just want the Bioware team to know that there are also fans who appreciate what they've done.
Hey look a troll. We are sorry mister troll that we do not want out shepard's stories to end the same way yours did. There is not even a save some. Because the mass relays being destroyed nobody can travel the galaxy anymore.
Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't understand critical thinking and analysis or that I'm just a casual gamer or audience member. I am a university professor (PhD in Musicology of the New Musicology variety) and I teach critical thinking and analysis. I've been doing critical thinking and analysis for ages...and before doing that I was a Military Intelligence analyst. So I have a lot of experience with critical thinking and analysis and I still value the ending. I don't like the ending because I'm not thinking, I like the ending because I am thinking.
Star Child is introduced near the final end. There is a long tradition of this sort of thing in Sci-Fi (and other genres)...see for example V'Ger in Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Or really any sort of text with a mystery at its heart. Endings involving meeting the mysterious figure and then having some sort of metaphysical experience is a longstanding trope in various forms of sci-fi. The introduction of the Star Child is not all that problematic for me not only because of tradition but also because the concept of the catalyst is far enough telegraphed in advance.
The Star Child's logic is circular. Okay. Why is that a problem with the game? Considering you have lots of experience with critical analysis of texts, you of all people should know that not everyone in a text is going to be right, or have all the information, or have perfect logic. The Star Child is a character in the game and characters in the game can be fallible, much like V'ger. This machine has circular logic that has resulted in it perpetuating a 50,000 year cycle of destruction/renewal. No one had ever made it to the catalyst before Shepard. Shepard's success causes the Starchild to accept there is a change in circumstances, that Shepard is worthy to make a choice to change the situation. Then Shepard makes a choice to end the cycle (and had three different ways to do so, with three really different implications).
One of the problems of the detractors I've seen is a lack of good critical thinking skills rather than an excess of them. They accept everything said by characters in the game as true and also jump to wild unsupported conclusions...which good analyzers of text would not do. The Google Doc is full of poor analysis. But, look, if someone wants to rage against the ending bolstered with poor analysis, I can't stop them. The detractors clearly don't want to hear other analyses. And they certainly don't have to.
I just want the Bioware team to know that there are also fans who appreciate what they've done.
I have to disagree with you on the basis that in any good piece of writing, when a writer is wrapping up a story, you do not introduce new elements unless there is an express purpose to expand on them--which, as evidenced by the ending cut scenes, there seems to not be. At least, there didn't seem to be until the community became vocal. Also, the "circular logic" to which you are referring to by the machines is not the same as the logical fallacy that I mentioned, not the same at all. The machines are merely following an order that was founded upon the circular reasoning, their actions are a direct result of it. They perform their task in a cycle, but that... has nothing to do with the logical fallacy. Here is the meaty post I've put up two pages ago to further elaborate on a bit of the analysis I've done of the ending:
Plot Holes: Everything up until Harbinger backhands you down to the ground is consistent. When you get up into the Citadel however, things become a little fuzzy. First of all, Anderson says he's come in behind you--yet somehow he manages to make it ahead of you when there is only one linear path from where you teleported up. When you encounter the Illusive Man he seems to appear literally, out of thin air, as on the way TO the console there are no branching paths for him to have possibly come up from behind you. So he just spawns, behind you, and starts trolling. Side note: Where do we see our choice of either blowing up, or saving the Collector Base make a difference? We don't. At any point. So the little scuffle ensues, ultimately the Illusive Man dies, and then so does Anderson.
Here is where things just become... weird. You are taken up on a magical elevator into the final area where you meet the infamous "Star Child." (Nevermind by the way that "Marauder Shields" was literally, the last boss fight. At the end of the other games there were legitimate boss fights. "Marauder Shields" was technically the "boss fight." It's funny because it's true) Here we are introduced an ENTIRELY NEW CHARACTER (I don't care that you see the child in your dreams, this is actually, in fact, a brand new character) and given only 30 seconds of hasty exposition in which you listen to the child just talk at you, with no dialogue options to ask it questions, or, in keeping with true Shepard style whether it be Paragon or Renegade, tell it to go screw off. Nope, you don't get any of those things which to get those options would actually be in keeping with true Mass Effect style.
Now, if we were to believe in the whole Indoctrination theory, each of the three endings would lead you to--not a true ending. Two of the endings involve Shepard being beaten out by the Reapers and becoming Indoctrinated in which case, the battle continues (but we do not know about it). The third ending is the one where we get the half second of breath then cut to credits, in which case... Shepard wakes up in the middle of a pile of rubble in a still ongoing battle on Earth, which means it's actually not over, and this promised ending is not really a promised ending.
That's if we accept the Indoctrination theory. If we don't, then all endings leave us with these incredibly similar cutscenes: Shepard chooses, Reapers leave, Mass Relays blow up, Normandy is stranded on a planet. The only DIFFERENCES being whether or not landmarks are blown up, whether or not the Earth is toast, and of course... the color of the magical radiant space energy. Or... EMP burst as you stated. I'll accept the EMP burst. But since when does an EMP burst make electronics explode, as in the case of the Mass Relays? Wouldn't it simply power them down? Then there was the Arrival DLC, which showed that when a Mass Relay is destroyed, which, in each cutscene they clearly blew up, the entire system that the Mass Relay was in is taken out with it.
Character Inconsistencies: This is a nice place to start talking about character inconsistencies. Never mind the fact that suddenly Shepard becomes all accepting of the information given to him by the Star Child, which is not in keeping with the true Shepard personality, but our crew has completely ditched us and is running away. At the end of the battle. Joker decided that it was a good time to peace out after you got into the Citadel, and run from the fight. Now, if Joker thought Shepard was dead, wouldn't he still stay to help with the fight anyway? ...It is Earth... Anyway, so somehow he manages to magically locate and pick up your ENTIRE CREW who are scattered about the battlefield, without a proper shuttle, and then jet on out of there and hit a Mass Relay sometime before you actually make your decision. Really? So the Normandy crash lands on a planet somewhere out in the galaxy. I'm supposed to believe that after a violent crash-landing the guy with Vrolik Syndrome is going to not only be the first one out of the ship, but be totally okay, when at the end of Mass Effect 2, when they crash on the Collector Ship he clearly remarks about breaking a rib, or "all of them?" "But he has a limp!" some would say. He's had a limp the entire time, it's because his bones are weak. Then everyone is all happy smiley, no one is wondering what the hell happened? No one is like "uh... where are we? Is Shepard okay? What... WHAT HAPPENED?!"
Poor Execution: In many, many press releases, there are quotes you can find all over the Internet where Casey Hudson states that we will see our choices affect the OUTCOME of this third game. That is inclusive of its ending. You said in your blog (referring to the OP of this thread) that we see our choices in the endings of the first and second, and how our choices throughout both games affected the journey in the third. This is true, however, that does not negate the fact that it was said that the ENDING of this game will also see the culmination of our choices, which didn't happen. What choice in Mass Effect 1 or 2 is the reason why Big Ben blows up? (It's one of the possible "endings" in ME3) Why even BOTHER making such a big deal about keeping the Collector Base, or destroying it? Would it have made the Illusive Man horrifically disfigure his troops any sooner? We don't know, we're not told.
What was promised was variety. What was promised was that the collaboration between the gamers and the developers was going to all come together in this end-all for the Shepard story. You said this in your blog (OP of the thread):
"This is something to think about, no matter how hard we struggle, how hard we push, can we truly change fate? Or merely delay the inevitable?"
And this is a quote from Casey Hudson on ME3:
"This story arc is coming to an end with this game. That means the endings can be a lot more different. At this point we're taking into account so many decisions that you've made as a player, and reflecting a lot of that stuff... the endings have a lot more sophistication and variety in them."
What happened at the end, is that our decisions did not matter, not on the scale that Casey Hudson advertised it would be. Not to mention, to quote a fantastic youtuber:
"I understand that it's the common belief that in epics like these, the hero 'has to die.' But the phrase 'the hero has to...' anything in a game like Mass Effect that's built around choice and you picking your own destiny, it goes against everything that Mass Effect is all about. If someone plays good for the entire time they should earn a good ending. You know show what's happening with your crew, show Shepard and Garrus on a beach, they're talking with each other, Shepard's all 'well we did it Garrus. We took back Earth.' Garrus is all like 'you took it back Shepard because I was there and I had your back. What would you do without me?' You know they have banter back and forth because they're really strong war buddies, and then you see the beach that they're looking at; and it's a beach, but you see like big dead Reapers sticking out of the water, and they're like: 'well it's gonna take some work, but we took Earth back.'"
Link to his video here:
This game for five years has been a COLLABORATION on the part of both the gaming community and the development team. That collaboration fell apart at the end, plain and simple. The endings weren't bad in and of themselves, but they did NOT belong to this story. Not in the slightest. The game having been a collaboration, which has been stated by the developers themselves, gives the community as much of a right to disagree with their choices as you have the right to agree with them. I tried to see things from the opposing standpoint, and I cannot agree with it.
Our disagreement with the team's decision to do the ending in the way it was done does not mean we do not appreciate everything they have given us.
PROGRESS CANNOT BE MADE IN A VACUUM.
It takes the opinions of others to better shape people in the long run, and no amount of money or notoriety places anyone above constructive criticism.
I don't see how Shepard's death was inevitable. Actually, he seemed to have quite the knack for surviving the impossible.
-getting "crushed" under debris from Sovereign in the citadel council control room, only to come out unscathed
-Literally dying, only to be brought back to life
-Surviving a suicide mission, "against all odds"
Kind of speaks for itself.
Anyways, Anderson sacrificed himself as well. That should be more than enough to appease those who demand a "bittersweet" ending.
I guess that's one way to look at it. But like I said, I would have felt like the Reapers were all smoke and no substance if there weren't some actual sacrifice, including Shepard's own life, required to stop them. I mean they talk the entire game about the inevitability of casualties and how they probably won't be coming out of this alive, all of that talk would seem pretty overdramatic if nothing came of it.
It's one thing to survive the Collectors, but the Reapers are the big bad of the entire universe. That's different to me.
The thing, with the present ending, the reapers really are just all smoke and no substance. You can stop the biggest bad asses in the history of the universe just by grabbing onto some electric wires, jumping into a beam of light, or shooting a tube. The fact that Shepard's life is required to stop them just seems completely arbitrary. If it were a necessary sacrifice, say something along the lines of what happened on Virmire, it would make a lot more sense.
Retour en haut
