54 réponses à ce sujet

[Vesji]

Dridengx wrote...

Vesji wrote...

If you want your opinion to be respected

People don't come to message boards to be respected. They come to share opinions which btw you don't have to agree with

I know. My post was not intended to harm, or purge people's opinons, or right to share them - it was intended to influence the OP, and everybody, that ever wanted to share their opinion, to provide suffiecient arguments to support their claims, and ultimately - objectivise their opinion.

Imagine a cathedral without bases? Or with weak ones. I'd feel scared to go inside.  

Modifié par Vesji, 04 avril 2012 - 07:30 .

[Dezerte]

I hope they do.

If they insist on keeping what they have, at least go with the IT.

[Nassegris]

If the Star Brat wasn’t there, if the plot holes weren’t there, if I actually felt my Shepard didn’t lose every inch of her integrity during the final conversation, and if somehow, miraculously, the ending could feel like a worthy end to her story – then I’d be fine with not having a whole ‘new’ ending.

But, see, that right there is a whole new ending. There’s no clarifying that can be done that fixes the worst of the issues here. They could explain all they like but as the endings stand, I’m still picking between green, red and blue. How can any clarification make that better?

[JBONE27]

Nassegris wrote...

If the Star Brat wasn’t there, if the plot holes weren’t there, if I actually felt my Shepard didn’t lose every inch of her integrity during the final conversation, and if somehow, miraculously, the ending could feel like a worthy end to her story – then I’d be fine with not having a whole ‘new’ ending.

But, see, that right there is a whole new ending. There’s no clarifying that can be done that fixes the worst of the issues here. They could explain all they like but as the endings stand, I’m still picking between green, red and blue. How can any clarification make that better?

That's why I said end it 10 minutes earlier (just before the Starchild), and then do a final cut scene that shows what happened with the war. If Shepard's still alive (EMS high + Right decisions), have another with The Normandy picking Shepard up.  If not, have the Normandy land and a funeral held.  If your EMS is too low, have the Reapers win.

[Valkyre4]

I agree with this. Completely.

The ending needs to be fleshed out and expanded. It needs to address serious plot holes and explain what happened with your crew and friends.

But changing it is RETARDED wether you completely HATE the ending or not. I have read some of the most retarded suggestions ever from some people who want the game to end like they imagined it would. I've hearrd suggestions such as Garrus and Shepard chilling on some beach, to Shepard getting laid and drunk on Omega. Plus I dont get why everyone is so desperate to see Shepard alive and have blue babies... jeez... I thought Mass Effect was a mature story, and a happy ending like some fairytale thing would ruin the game pretty much... what did we expect to see the line "and they lived happily ever after?" Come on.... self sacrifice is the most noble thing Shepard could and should do. In fact that is how I always wanted ME to end concerning this part.

Of course there are among these some very nice suggestions, but people dont understand something. You are not to decide how Mass Effect ends. Bioware is. You dont like their ending? Good, moan, whine and express your dissatisfaction with the end. But that is as far as you should go.

Demanding to change the ending completely destroys any kind of integrity the universe and this industry has. Why? Because if they change the ending because you complained, what happens if the new ending is again not up to par with your liking? What if the new ending is also just as bad for you?

We will complain againa and demand a new ending yet again? And what if that 3rd ending is also not as good as you want it to be? If we go down that road, you make sure that you are going to completely destroy not just Mass Effect but the indusrty as a whole. I am not in the mood of being part of an industry where any story could change just because people dont like it.

I prefer an industry with a bad ending to an amazing trilogy like Mass Effect, than an industry where stories and endings are dictated by angry fans, because their artistic views are different than the creators.


Dont missunderstand me. I am not satisfied with the ending myself. I expected more. I want more, I want to see all the plotholes explained and have a better closure. But changing the ending completely is simply WRONG. We dont want to go down that path.

So yeah.... that is my opinion, hate me all you want, but I wont change completely because you hate me. (if you catch my drift)

Modifié par Valkyre4, 04 avril 2012 - 08:15 .

[floppypig]

Valkyre4 wrote...

I agree with this. Completely.

The ending needs to be fleshed out and expanded. It needs to address serious plot holes and explain what happened with your crew and friends.

But changing it is RETARDED wether you completely HATE the ending or not. I have read some of the most retarded suggestions ever from some people who want the game to end like they imagined it would. I've hearrd suggestions such as Garrus and Shepard chilling on some beach, to Shepard getting laid and drunk on Omega. Plus I dont get why everyone is so desperate to see Shepard alive and have blue babies... jeez... I thought Mass Effect was a mature story, and a happy ending like some fairytale thing would ruin the game pretty much... what did we expect to see the line "and they lived happily ever after?" Come on.... self sacrifice is the most noble thing Shepard could and should do. In fact that is how I always wanted ME to end concerning this part.

Of course there are among these some very nice suggestions, but people dont understand something. You are not to decide how Mass Effect ends. Bioware is. You dont like their ending? Good, moan, whine and express your dissatisfaction with the end. But that is as far as you should go.

Demanding to change the ending completely destroys any kind of integrity the universe and this industry has. Why? Because if they change the ending because you complained, what happens if the new ending is again not up to par with your liking? What if the new ending is also just as bad for you?

We will complain againa and demand a new ending yet again? And what if that 3rd ending is also not as good as you want it to be? If we go down that road, you make sure that you are going to completely destroy not just Mass Effect but the indusrty as a whole. I am not in the mood of being part of an industry where any story could change just because people dont like it.

I prefer an industry with a bad ending to an amazing trilogy like Mass Effect, than an industry where stories and endings are dictated by angry fans, because their artistic views are different than the creators.


Dont missunderstand me. I am not satisfied with the ending myself. I expected more. I want more, I want to see all the plotholes explained and have a better closure. But changing the ending completely is simply WRONG. We dont want to go down that path.

So yeah.... that is my opinion, hate me all you want, but I wont change completely because you hate me. (if you catch my drift)

This. This is exactly what I meant. 

This is just far more articulate

[Traim Eisenblut]

Valkyre4 wrote...

I agree with this. Completely.

The ending needs to be fleshed out and expanded. It needs to address serious plot holes and explain what happened with your crew and friends.

But changing it is RETARDED wether you completely HATE the ending or not. I have read some of the most retarded suggestions ever from some people who want the game to end like they imagined it would. I've hearrd suggestions such as Garrus and Shepard chilling on some beach, to Shepard getting laid and drunk on Omega. Plus I dont get why everyone is so desperate to see Shepard alive and have blue babies... jeez... I thought Mass Effect was a mature story, and a happy ending like some fairytale thing would ruin the game pretty much... what did we expect to see the line "and they lived happily ever after?" Come on.... self sacrifice is the most noble thing Shepard could and should do. In fact that is how I always wanted ME to end concerning this part.

Of course there are among these some very nice suggestions, but people dont understand something. You are not to decide how Mass Effect ends. Bioware is. You dont like their ending? Good, moan, whine and express your dissatisfaction with the end. But that is as far as you should go.

Demanding to change the ending completely destroys any kind of integrity the universe and this industry has. Why? Because if they change the ending because you complained, what happens if the new ending is again not up to par with your liking? What if the new ending is also just as bad for you?

We will complain againa and demand a new ending yet again? And what if that 3rd ending is also not as good as you want it to be? If we go down that road, you make sure that you are going to completely destroy not just Mass Effect but the indusrty as a whole. I am not in the mood of being part of an industry where any story could change just because people dont like it.

I prefer an industry with a bad ending to an amazing trilogy like Mass Effect, than an industry where stories and endings are dictated by angry fans, because their artistic views are different than the creators.


Dont missunderstand me. I am not satisfied with the ending myself. I expected more. I want more, I want to see all the plotholes explained and have a better closure. But changing the ending completely is simply WRONG. We dont want to go down that path.

So yeah.... that is my opinion, hate me all you want, but I wont change completely because you hate me. (if you catch my drift)

The thing is: The ending, as it is now, destroys integrity of the "universe", by completly abandoning the narrative coherence that led up to it. The Starchild-scene is not consistant with the lore established throughout all 3 games, it lacks a logical or at least sensical pattern, gameplaywise it forces Shepard to accept Starchilds logic and without reasoning, without knowing anything about the outcome and potential sideeffects, gives the player 3 "choices" which are all random in effect and bad for the universe. That feels forced, while the gameplay so far was based on choices. It actually makes you act in Starchilds favor, instead of in Shepards favor.
The main goal that has driven the protagonist and the player so far was: safe the galaxy by stopping the reapers. Stopping the reapers is only a sideeffect of any of the 3 offered choices. The main goal is replaced by the metaphysical problem that Synthetics and Organics can not coexist, a problem that was contradicted during the gameplay, that is not argued for but simply given as a fact and specially a problem the player has no emotional relation to. I couldn't care less about "oganic life" in general, it is a faceless, metaphysical figure. "Save everyone from ultimate extinction" on the other hand, is pretty clear and easily related to for the player. This new ethical problem is introduced in the last 5 minutes of the game with 14 lines of dialogue... How can you turn a story in the very end with only 14 lines of dialogue, drive it away from the main focus "safe the galaxy" to a new problem "resolve the conflict of Organic vs. Synthetic life in general" that overtops the main driving goal for the protagonist and player so far?
The conclusion to this new established problem is simply weird. "You control the reapers, but you die and loose everything you ever had". WHAT? When I`m dead...who controls the reapers exactly? And when I`m dead I also loose everything I ever had? Isn't that a sideeffect of being dead? Does it mean something else?
Merging all synthetic and organic life into a "new kind of DNA"... YEAH! Enforcing a radical change of the very basic biochemistry of each and every individual in the galaxy... that`s totalitarianism, plus messing with the creatin itself...isn`t that something god does? So Starchild is a god? A very stupid one? Or is Shepard a god, by choosing this, as he changes all life created? Isn`t trying to be god considered something evil only megalomaniacs do? What place had god so far in the ME universe? Why must something like this appear out of nowhere in the very end? That is considered to be one of the absolute cheapest ways to end a story or enforce a turning-point. It`s bad handcrafting of a story, that lowers the artistic value of a story in a whole...big time.

To me, the ending looks like someone tried to be very philosphical and smart...and failed utterly at it. I`ve never encountered that amount of nonsensical, illogical garbage outside of a fairy-tale. I`m not 6 years anymore, I don`t like fairy-tales anymore.

Changing the ending, specially cutting the whole Starchild nonsense, resolves actually 90% of the problems with the ending. The ending should stick to the conventions of the genre, to the lore that was established, it should provide a continuity and closure of the main plot, not abbandon it and replace it with something stupid. Sticking to conventional is good. The whole franchise was about making choices in the basic logical pattern of "cause and effect", both were visible and predictable to the player. The ending is neither.
No matter from what direction I look at the Starchild-scene, I just can`t find any position to see it fitting the rest of the whole franchise.
The same was said about the last book of the Mass Effect universe, it had various parts that contradicted established lore and franchise conventions. These parts were rewritten and changed in later editions. So it is actually good and ok for a book to be changed in order to be coherent, and it is actually considered as artistic integer to do so, because otherwise the whole artwork would be broken, but for a game it's a holy sacrifice?
What about Fallout 3 and Bethesda? Did they suffer from their change of the ending? Did they abandon "artistic integrity"? So the new ending of Fallout 3 has lowered Fallout 3s artistic value? How so?

And I don't want "clarification" on the ending. The plotholes and logical flaws are so many and they are so huge...it would require a 500 pages book to clarify all this and put it in a fitting, coherent narrative path. It`s much easier to just cut out the unfitting and completly unnecessary part of the end and just deliver something else, that actually stays true to the rest of the story. Deliver closure through the characters, as every main problem of the galaxy, every faction of the galaxy and every main focus of the game were introduced and represented through the characters Shepard meets. That's a simple, effective and for the audiance satisfying way to deliver a story: Give it a face the audiance care about. Who would actually have cared about the fate of the Geth if you would never have met Legion and therefor learned about their side of the story?

If a part of a story is broken, it does not require workarounds and explanations, it must be replaced with something that fits. Everything else is bad writing in the first place.

[Valkyre4]

Traim Eisenblut wrote...

Valkyre4 wrote...

I agree with this. Completely.

The ending needs to be fleshed out and expanded. It needs to address serious plot holes and explain what happened with your crew and friends.

But changing it is RETARDED wether you completely HATE the ending or not. I have read some of the most retarded suggestions ever from some people who want the game to end like they imagined it would. I've hearrd suggestions such as Garrus and Shepard chilling on some beach, to Shepard getting laid and drunk on Omega. Plus I dont get why everyone is so desperate to see Shepard alive and have blue babies... jeez... I thought Mass Effect was a mature story, and a happy ending like some fairytale thing would ruin the game pretty much... what did we expect to see the line "and they lived happily ever after?" Come on.... self sacrifice is the most noble thing Shepard could and should do. In fact that is how I always wanted ME to end concerning this part.

Of course there are among these some very nice suggestions, but people dont understand something. You are not to decide how Mass Effect ends. Bioware is. You dont like their ending? Good, moan, whine and express your dissatisfaction with the end. But that is as far as you should go.

Demanding to change the ending completely destroys any kind of integrity the universe and this industry has. Why? Because if they change the ending because you complained, what happens if the new ending is again not up to par with your liking? What if the new ending is also just as bad for you?

We will complain againa and demand a new ending yet again? And what if that 3rd ending is also not as good as you want it to be? If we go down that road, you make sure that you are going to completely destroy not just Mass Effect but the indusrty as a whole. I am not in the mood of being part of an industry where any story could change just because people dont like it.

I prefer an industry with a bad ending to an amazing trilogy like Mass Effect, than an industry where stories and endings are dictated by angry fans, because their artistic views are different than the creators.


Dont missunderstand me. I am not satisfied with the ending myself. I expected more. I want more, I want to see all the plotholes explained and have a better closure. But changing the ending completely is simply WRONG. We dont want to go down that path.

So yeah.... that is my opinion, hate me all you want, but I wont change completely because you hate me. (if you catch my drift)

The thing is: The ending, as it is now, destroys integrity of the "universe", by completly abandoning the narrative coherence that led up to it. The Starchild-scene is not consistant with the lore established throughout all 3 games, it lacks a logical or at least sensical pattern, gameplaywise it forces Shepard to accept Starchilds logic and without reasoning, without knowing anything about the outcome and potential sideeffects, gives the player 3 "choices" which are all random in effect and bad for the universe. That feels forced, while the gameplay so far was based on choices. It actually makes you act in Starchilds favor, instead of in Shepards favor.
The main goal that has driven the protagonist and the player so far was: safe the galaxy by stopping the reapers. Stopping the reapers is only a sideeffect of any of the 3 offered choices. The main goal is replaced by the metaphysical problem that Synthetics and Organics can not coexist, a problem that was contradicted during the gameplay, that is not argued for but simply given as a fact and specially a problem the player has no emotional relation to. I couldn't care less about "oganic life" in general, it is a faceless, metaphysical figure. "Save everyone from ultimate extinction" on the other hand, is pretty clear and easily related to for the player. This new ethical problem is introduced in the last 5 minutes of the game with 14 lines of dialogue... How can you turn a story in the very end with only 14 lines of dialogue, drive it away from the main focus "safe the galaxy" to a new problem "resolve the conflict of Organic vs. Synthetic life in general" that overtops the main driving goal for the protagonist and player so far?
The conclusion to this new established problem is simply weird. "You control the reapers, but you die and loose everything you ever had". WHAT? When I`m dead...who controls the reapers exactly? And when I`m dead I also loose everything I ever had? Isn't that a sideeffect of being dead? Does it mean something else?
Merging all synthetic and organic life into a "new kind of DNA"... YEAH! Enforcing a radical change of the very basic biochemistry of each and every individual in the galaxy... that`s totalitarianism, plus messing with the creatin itself...isn`t that something god does? So Starchild is a god? A very stupid one? Or is Shepard a god, by choosing this, as he changes all life created? Isn`t trying to be god considered something evil only megalomaniacs do? What place had god so far in the ME universe? Why must something like this appear out of nowhere in the very end? That is considered to be one of the absolute cheapest ways to end a story or enforce a turning-point. It`s bad handcrafting of a story, that lowers the artistic value of a story in a whole...big time.

To me, the ending looks like someone tried to be very philosphical and smart...and failed utterly at it. I`ve never encountered that amount of nonsensical, illogical garbage outside of a fairy-tale. I`m not 6 years anymore, I don`t like fairy-tales anymore.

Changing the ending, specially cutting the whole Starchild nonsense, resolves actually 90% of the problems with the ending. The ending should stick to the conventions of the genre, to the lore that was established, it should provide a continuity and closure of the main plot, not abbandon it and replace it with something stupid. Sticking to conventional is good. The whole franchise was about making choices in the basic logical pattern of "cause and effect", both were visible and predictable to the player. The ending is neither.
No matter from what direction I look at the Starchild-scene, I just can`t find any position to see it fitting the rest of the whole franchise.
The same was said about the last book of the Mass Effect universe, it had various parts that contradicted established lore and franchise conventions. These parts were rewritten and changed in later editions. So it is actually good and ok for a book to be changed in order to be coherent, and it is actually considered as artistic integer to do so, because otherwise the whole artwork would be broken, but for a game it's a holy sacrifice?
What about Fallout 3 and Bethesda? Did they suffer from their change of the ending? Did they abandon "artistic integrity"? So the new ending of Fallout 3 has lowered Fallout 3s artistic value? How so?

And I don't want "clarification" on the ending. The plotholes and logical flaws are so many and they are so huge...it would require a 500 pages book to clarify all this and put it in a fitting, coherent narrative path. It`s much easier to just cut out the unfitting and completly unnecessary part of the end and just deliver something else, that actually stays true to the rest of the story. Deliver closure through the characters, as every main problem of the galaxy, every faction of the galaxy and every main focus of the game were introduced and represented through the characters Shepard meets. That's a simple, effective and for the audiance satisfying way to deliver a story: Give it a face the audiance care about. Who would actually have cared about the fate of the Geth if you would never have met Legion and therefor learned about their side of the story?

If a part of a story is broken, it does not require workarounds and explanations, it must be replaced with something that fits. Everything else is bad writing in the first place.

My friend no, I dissagree with you.

If a story is "wrong" or "broken" then it stays broken and wrong. It doesnt get "replaced". Really you beleive that if Bioware presents to you suddenly exactly what you wish for, that you will simply forget what happened originally in ME3?

Really? No, you will never forget it.

Is it broken? Is it wrong? Too bad, I agree, but it shouldnt change.

Did Leonardi Davinci asked me or anyone if we like his Mona Lisa portrait? I for one, completely hate it...if it were up to me Mona Lisa would have huge boobs and cleavage... but that is me, Valkyre, not Davinci.

So no of course he never asked anyone about their opinion. He just made that portrait not giving a crap about what people said, and that is why it is considered a masterpiece today.

Games are different I know, but not that far different. Again I will tell you that I prefer a gaming industry where one amazing game has an awful ending, than a gaming industry where an angry mob changes games completely like it never happened. It is in my humble opinion stupid. Stupid because it looks like fans are trying to delude themselves that what they witnessed in the original game suddenly never happened and instead everything now is different.

As always simply my opinion, i dont want you to agree and as I said the ending didnt satisfy me either.

[Stealthy Cake]

A person without ME3 Registred says no... this looks familiar... Dont bother with the dlc then. Problem solved.

[Little Princess Peach]

I agree 50% of what the op is trying to say and I respect your opinion, I am torn between wanting a new ending and just5 adding to what we all ready have, I guess it's because I was not ready to say goodbye to the chars that I came to call as pixelated friends

Modifié par Tali-vas-normandy, 04 avril 2012 - 09:46 .

[Traim Eisenblut]

Valkyre4 wrote...

Traim Eisenblut wrote...

Valkyre4 wrote...

I agree with this. Completely.

The ending needs to be fleshed out and expanded. It needs to address serious plot holes and explain what happened with your crew and friends.

But changing it is RETARDED wether you completely HATE the ending or not. I have read some of the most retarded suggestions ever from some people who want the game to end like they imagined it would. I've hearrd suggestions such as Garrus and Shepard chilling on some beach, to Shepard getting laid and drunk on Omega. Plus I dont get why everyone is so desperate to see Shepard alive and have blue babies... jeez... I thought Mass Effect was a mature story, and a happy ending like some fairytale thing would ruin the game pretty much... what did we expect to see the line "and they lived happily ever after?" Come on.... self sacrifice is the most noble thing Shepard could and should do. In fact that is how I always wanted ME to end concerning this part.

Of course there are among these some very nice suggestions, but people dont understand something. You are not to decide how Mass Effect ends. Bioware is. You dont like their ending? Good, moan, whine and express your dissatisfaction with the end. But that is as far as you should go.

Demanding to change the ending completely destroys any kind of integrity the universe and this industry has. Why? Because if they change the ending because you complained, what happens if the new ending is again not up to par with your liking? What if the new ending is also just as bad for you?

We will complain againa and demand a new ending yet again? And what if that 3rd ending is also not as good as you want it to be? If we go down that road, you make sure that you are going to completely destroy not just Mass Effect but the indusrty as a whole. I am not in the mood of being part of an industry where any story could change just because people dont like it.

I prefer an industry with a bad ending to an amazing trilogy like Mass Effect, than an industry where stories and endings are dictated by angry fans, because their artistic views are different than the creators.


Dont missunderstand me. I am not satisfied with the ending myself. I expected more. I want more, I want to see all the plotholes explained and have a better closure. But changing the ending completely is simply WRONG. We dont want to go down that path.

So yeah.... that is my opinion, hate me all you want, but I wont change completely because you hate me. (if you catch my drift)

The thing is: The ending, as it is now, destroys integrity of the "universe", by completly abandoning the narrative coherence that led up to it. The Starchild-scene is not consistant with the lore established throughout all 3 games, it lacks a logical or at least sensical pattern, gameplaywise it forces Shepard to accept Starchilds logic and without reasoning, without knowing anything about the outcome and potential sideeffects, gives the player 3 "choices" which are all random in effect and bad for the universe. That feels forced, while the gameplay so far was based on choices. It actually makes you act in Starchilds favor, instead of in Shepards favor.
The main goal that has driven the protagonist and the player so far was: safe the galaxy by stopping the reapers. Stopping the reapers is only a sideeffect of any of the 3 offered choices. The main goal is replaced by the metaphysical problem that Synthetics and Organics can not coexist, a problem that was contradicted during the gameplay, that is not argued for but simply given as a fact and specially a problem the player has no emotional relation to. I couldn't care less about "oganic life" in general, it is a faceless, metaphysical figure. "Save everyone from ultimate extinction" on the other hand, is pretty clear and easily related to for the player. This new ethical problem is introduced in the last 5 minutes of the game with 14 lines of dialogue... How can you turn a story in the very end with only 14 lines of dialogue, drive it away from the main focus "safe the galaxy" to a new problem "resolve the conflict of Organic vs. Synthetic life in general" that overtops the main driving goal for the protagonist and player so far?
The conclusion to this new established problem is simply weird. "You control the reapers, but you die and loose everything you ever had". WHAT? When I`m dead...who controls the reapers exactly? And when I`m dead I also loose everything I ever had? Isn't that a sideeffect of being dead? Does it mean something else?
Merging all synthetic and organic life into a "new kind of DNA"... YEAH! Enforcing a radical change of the very basic biochemistry of each and every individual in the galaxy... that`s totalitarianism, plus messing with the creatin itself...isn`t that something god does? So Starchild is a god? A very stupid one? Or is Shepard a god, by choosing this, as he changes all life created? Isn`t trying to be god considered something evil only megalomaniacs do? What place had god so far in the ME universe? Why must something like this appear out of nowhere in the very end? That is considered to be one of the absolute cheapest ways to end a story or enforce a turning-point. It`s bad handcrafting of a story, that lowers the artistic value of a story in a whole...big time.

To me, the ending looks like someone tried to be very philosphical and smart...and failed utterly at it. I`ve never encountered that amount of nonsensical, illogical garbage outside of a fairy-tale. I`m not 6 years anymore, I don`t like fairy-tales anymore.

Changing the ending, specially cutting the whole Starchild nonsense, resolves actually 90% of the problems with the ending. The ending should stick to the conventions of the genre, to the lore that was established, it should provide a continuity and closure of the main plot, not abbandon it and replace it with something stupid. Sticking to conventional is good. The whole franchise was about making choices in the basic logical pattern of "cause and effect", both were visible and predictable to the player. The ending is neither.
No matter from what direction I look at the Starchild-scene, I just can`t find any position to see it fitting the rest of the whole franchise.
The same was said about the last book of the Mass Effect universe, it had various parts that contradicted established lore and franchise conventions. These parts were rewritten and changed in later editions. So it is actually good and ok for a book to be changed in order to be coherent, and it is actually considered as artistic integer to do so, because otherwise the whole artwork would be broken, but for a game it's a holy sacrifice?
What about Fallout 3 and Bethesda? Did they suffer from their change of the ending? Did they abandon "artistic integrity"? So the new ending of Fallout 3 has lowered Fallout 3s artistic value? How so?

And I don't want "clarification" on the ending. The plotholes and logical flaws are so many and they are so huge...it would require a 500 pages book to clarify all this and put it in a fitting, coherent narrative path. It`s much easier to just cut out the unfitting and completly unnecessary part of the end and just deliver something else, that actually stays true to the rest of the story. Deliver closure through the characters, as every main problem of the galaxy, every faction of the galaxy and every main focus of the game were introduced and represented through the characters Shepard meets. That's a simple, effective and for the audiance satisfying way to deliver a story: Give it a face the audiance care about. Who would actually have cared about the fate of the Geth if you would never have met Legion and therefor learned about their side of the story?

If a part of a story is broken, it does not require workarounds and explanations, it must be replaced with something that fits. Everything else is bad writing in the first place.

My friend no, I dissagree with you.

If a story is "wrong" or "broken" then it stays broken and wrong. It doesnt get "replaced". Really you beleive that if Bioware presents to you suddenly exactly what you wish for, that you will simply forget what happened originally in ME3?

Really? No, you will never forget it.

Is it broken? Is it wrong? Too bad, I agree, but it shouldnt change.

Did Leonardi Davinci asked me or anyone if we like his Mona Lisa portrait? I for one, completely hate it...if it were up to me Mona Lisa would have huge boobs and cleavage... but that is me, Valkyre, not Davinci.

So no of course he never asked anyone about their opinion. He just made that portrait not giving a crap about what people said, and that is why it is considered a masterpiece today.

Games are different I know, but not that far different. Again I will tell you that I prefer a gaming industry where one amazing game has an awful ending, than a gaming industry where an angry mob changes games completely like it never happened. It is in my humble opinion stupid. Stupid because it looks like fans are trying to delude themselves that what they witnessed in the original game suddenly never happened and instead everything now is different.

As always simply my opinion, i dont want you to agree and as I said the ending didnt satisfy me either.

I`m not asking for something that completly pleases me, I`m asking for something that makes sense. I could still dislike it, but if it is at least coherent to the narrative so far, I`d be fine with it.

And specially regarding paintings: What did Van Gogh do again? Paint something...than paint something completly different over it, which can be seen with X-Ray imaging of his paintings nowadays.
Did Da Vinci paint the Mona Lisa but instead of an actual face he painted a simple smily, breaking the coherent style of the rest of the painting? Would it be considered one of the greates artworks if he did that? No.
Did Beethoven compose the ninth simphony and switched to dodecaphonic in the last act? No. It would have been garbage and not the theme of the European Union nowadays.
Did Dostojewski write his dramatic thriller "Raskolnikoff - Crime and Punishment" and abandoned everything on the last 40 pages by introducing god who resolves the problem of "bad conscious vs. good intentions" killing the protagonist in the process? No.
There are artworks with actual similarity to ME:3 ending, but none of them are considered to be of any artistic value.
Same applies here. A story is not finished just because it is released. A movie can be reedited (Directors Cut!), a painting can be redone and changed, a statue can be worked over again to cut certain edges that has been overlooked in the first place. A story can be rewritten. A game can be changed with addons, DLCs, patches. It happens all the time, without any sacrifice of "artistic integrity". In fact, it happens all the time because of "artistic integrity" if the artist, and be it because of feedback from his audiance, feels that his artwork isn`t completed.

[Valkyre4]

^^ What are you talking about... these artists they did what they did exactly how THEY wanted to do. Your argument is completely irrelevant and invalid...

The point is these artists never CHANGED their work because of criticism AFTER they completed it.

It was Van Gogh's decision to do what he did it was Da Vinci's opinion to make a controversial painting (it was for that time) of a woman that resembled a man.

It was their opinion, their decision. Your argument would be valid if davinci released the painting of Mona Lisa then because of people's reaction to it, got it back, and painted over it so as to please the angry people...

Completely nothing to do with what you present as your argument.

PS: and i hope that you are not just trying to imply that art was never as unconventional or controversial in the past, yet still regarded as a masterpiece anyway...without the artist making any changes due to complaints.

Modifié par Valkyre4, 04 avril 2012 - 10:09 .

[Traim Eisenblut]

And what are you talking about? I explained how Mass Effect 3 is broken because of it`s ending. You say "but the mona lisa wasn`t changed!". Yes. The Mona-Lisa was never considered to be broken. Controversial = yes, bad style and handcraft? No.

And how do you know why Van Gogh changed his paintings? He was poor and not recognized as a great artists during his life. He became famous after he died.
Painters during that time didn't get money by auctioning their paintings, but they were got contracts from clients saying exactly what they should paint. You think that Napoleon wouldn't have criticaly reviewed his portrait from Jacques Louis David and demanded changes if he would have been dissatisfied with a part of it? Do you think the catholic church would have taken anything of Michelangelos artworks in the sistine chapel without taking a critical look at it, demanding changes where something doesn't fit?

Artworks are constantly changed, because of reviews, because of critics, because of feedback. Schiller used to show his poems to his friend Goethe before releasing them, he also rewrote several poems even 20 years after their first release, because he was dissatisfied with a simple verse. The only difference here is that BioWare gets feedback from a bigger audiance and not from close friends. Should that make any difference in a commercial publication?
BioWare said they never intended Garrus or Tali to be romanceable and invented that part because of fan-feedback. So actually they did already change their "artistic vision" to please their audiance. If that is ok in that case, than why not regarding the ending of ME:3?
As I already said: just because something is released, it is not necesseraly "finished". And changes are not bad or against "artistic integrity", but are done in favour of it.

[_RT]

Valkyre4: You do realize that Da Vinci and Michelangelo both did work for money and had to listen to clients' recommendation? Also, I hope you do realize that Van Gogh's paintings didn't sell until he was dead. Being an artist is a good thing - do anything you want, as long as you're doing it for free, nobody will have right to tell you what you should and shouldn't do. But when the money get in the play, we are now customers first, and customer is always right. And while artist can just tell you to screw yourself if you tell him to repaint the smile, game developer can't do the same on the ending. Because to see the smile you don't need anything and it's "you don't like - you don't buy". To get to the ending though, you gotta buy the game first and play through all of it. And the ending is bad not just because it's controversial, not just because it's sad, or downer, but because it's badly written. It's Deus Ex Machina at its worst, everything you did prior to this point doesn't matter, it has plot holes you could drive Sovereign through and it has no closure. We achieve nothing, and for people like me, who started way back with ME1, it's complete and utter betrayal. Even worse, it's bloody obvious they were always going to release ending DLC from the start.

Modifié par RT, 04 avril 2012 - 10:49 .

[cutegigi]

OP: do you even own and play the game?

[_Arkayne_]

Valkyre4 wrote...

The point is these artists never CHANGED their work because of criticism AFTER they completed it.

Yes, but those artist's didn't lie to  their customers about what the final product would be.

[xJohnsen]

Do we all need to make new threads every time we disagree with somebody else opinion?

[Shelled]

 The ending does not make sense. At all. None of it does. Not only that but the war assets aren't even used.

The "green" ending isn't even an ethical decision Shepard would make based on everything we know about mass effect and diversity. The blue ending does not make any sense because of the overlord DLC and doesn't seem like something Shepard would do at all. The only ending that honestly makes any ounce of sense at all is the red one and there's so many things wrong with it as well.

Listen, they screwed up big time. Not only did they manage to quite literally break mass effect's own core gameplay, you know... where you pick YOUR OWN path; they also managed to break the story and any logical sense it was making up to that point. Everything literally went flying out of the window.

It needs to be changed. It's as simple as that. It makes no sense, there is no choice other than picking which color you prefer and even if you honestly think there are 3 options there when there really isn't, two of them don't make any logical or ethical sense, (blue and green).

I say bioware admits they messed up, apologizes for the twist horrible Deus Ex terrible copycat ending, then gives us a proper mass effect ending where choices actually matter and where the story interconnects with the ending in a way that actually makes sense.

Here's a couple of video's that explains what I'm trying to say further.
www.youtube.com/watch
www.youtube.com/watch

No offense but if you're of the opinion that mass effect 3's ending is fine you either didn't play ME1 and ME2 or you really weren't interested in the story to begin with.

Modifié par Shelled, 04 avril 2012 - 11:31 .

[Valkyre4]

RT wrote...

Valkyre4: You do realize that Da Vinci and
Michelangelo both did work for money and had to listen to clients'
recommendation? Also, I hope you do realize that Van Gogh's paintings
didn't sell until he was dead. Being an artist is a good thing - do
anything you want, as long as you're doing it for free, nobody will have
right to tell you what you should and shouldn't do. But when the money
get in the play, we are now customers first, and customer is always
right. And while artist can just tell you to screw yourself if you tell
him to repaint the smile, game developer can't do the same on the
ending. Because to see the smile you don't need anything and it's "you
don't like - you don't buy". To get to the ending though, you gotta buy
the game first and play through all of it. And the ending is bad not
just because it's controversial, not just because it's sad, or downer,
but because it's badly written. It's Deus Ex Machina at its worst,
everything you did prior to this point doesn't matter, it has plot holes
you could drive Sovereign through and it has no closure. We achieve
nothing, and for people like me, who started way back with ME1, it's
complete and utter betrayal. Even worse, it's bloody obvious they were
always going to release ending DLC from the start.

You are missing the point, which is: trying to completely change something that is already decided is going to do more damage than good.

You need to decide wether you can accept a Mass Effect created by Bioware with every flaw that it has, or you want an industry where a Valkyre or a "XXX" guy will be creating Mass Effect for you.

And I will say it one more time because I am afraid that it will be lost in translation:

I MYSELF DID NOT LIKE THE ENDING OF THIS GAME.

But like I said I prefer an industry that is strong both in its good decisions and its bad, than ending up with an indusrty where everyone can potentialy create his own version and manipulate the script in ways different than the creators. Some people want an ending where Shepard is on the beach getting wasted with garrus... that is for them the best ending ever...to me though this is disgusting.

I still am waiting to see what Bioware can and will do with regards to explaining what happens. Some of us are very passionate with these games that we consider any sort of explaination impossible. people say that everyone is doomed because they are stranded in Earth or that since ME relays are destroyed the Universe is doomed. Yet many of them forget that Earth has now like thousands of dead Reapers and every single genious in the Universe to study their technology.

I am saying to just wait. it is not like they cant fix the ending if they sufficiently provide explaination to the plotholes that we have now with this rushed thing of an ending. Dont be so negative, I will give them a chance to fix the ending they had in mind. If it sucks, then so be it. Mass Effect will be an epic trilogy with a very poor ending. Thats it, moving on.

If I had the power to fix all that I hate in this life, you bet Mass effect ending will be the last thing to change.

Modifié par Valkyre4, 04 avril 2012 - 11:35 .

[AlexMBrennan]

Oh really? Oh... good then Happy about that.

Adding a new ending through DLC would not affect your experience in any way unless you went out of your way to buy it. Thus, you are happy that many people here won't get the ending they want. It's been a pleasure to meet you

[GamerJ]

they dont need to change the ending if u believe in the indoctronation theory ;-)
here a full vid about it



it all fits perfectly

[Shelled]

GamerJ wrote...

they dont need to change the ending if u believe in the indoctronation theory ;-)
here a full vid about it



it all fits perfectly

It doesn't fit at all, it's a made up hyberbowl of theories combined because bioware removed several gameplay pieces from the ending. Those large holes everywhere were bioware's DLC plan.

[Zeratul20]

GamerJ wrote...

they dont need to change the ending if u believe in the indoctronation theory ;-)

Suppose this gets blown way out of proportion and results in a new religion.

An epic new religion, but still.

[Swordfishtrombone]

Valkyre4 wrote...

^^ What are you talking about... these artists they did what they did exactly how THEY wanted to do. Your argument is completely irrelevant and invalid...

The point is these artists never CHANGED their work because of criticism AFTER they completed it.

Your analogies are inaplicable because computer games have a better resemblance with commissioned art, than art done for it's own sake.

If, say Leonardo da Vinchi had painted "The Last Supper" with 15 disciples two Jesuses, I don't think his patron would have been very pleased. By promissing a "Last Supper" painting you create some expectations, that the end product is consistent with the story it claims to depict.

With a games company that does PR to increase sales, the expectation given is even more explicit - the PR statements grant the customers the right to expect something specific, something that is consistent with the PR claims.

As I'm sure you've seen quoted many times before here on the forums, there are some PR statements from Bioware/EA about the ending to the series that are directly contradicted by the product we got.

It is THIS that gives the customers the right to demand a revision of some sort, irrespective of whether the product is art or not.

The ending was badly written and ill-fitting to the series, but more than that, it boiled down to an A, B or C ending, which was precicely what we were promissed we would NOT get.

If Bioware thinks that the ending is brilliant and the critics are wrong, that's their perogative as artists - but the  work must meet the promisses given, whether or not the ending is bad or good. They've agreed to "clarify" the endings, and it remains to be seen what this means. I sincerely hope they've at least given a hearing to the inconsistencies reported by various players, and find some way to address them.

Personally, I think the easiest solution would be to cut a certain ghostly presesense and it's role int he ending completely, as almost all the problems with the ending center on this character.

Modifié par Swordfishtrombone, 04 avril 2012 - 12:49 .

[_RT]

Valkyre4 wrote...
You are missing the point, which is: trying to completely change something that is already decided is going to do more damage than good.

You need to decide wether you can accept a Mass Effect created by Bioware with every flaw that it has, or you want an industry where a Valkyre or a "XXX" guy will be creating Mass Effect for you.

And I will say it one more time because I am afraid that it will be lost in translation:

I MYSELF DID NOT LIKE THE ENDING OF THIS GAME.

But like I said I prefer an industry that is strong both in its good decisions and its bad, than ending up with an indusrty where everyone can potentialy create his own version and manipulate the script in ways different than the creators. Some people want an ending where Shepard is on the beach getting wasted with garrus... that is for them the best ending ever...to me though this is disgusting.

I still am waiting to see what Bioware can and will do with regards to explaining what happens. Some of us are very passionate with these games that we consider any sort of explaination impossible. people say that everyone is doomed because they are stranded in Earth or that since ME relays are destroyed the Universe is doomed. Yet many of them forget that Earth has now like thousands of dead Reapers and every single genious in the Universe to study their technology.

I am saying to just wait. it is not like they cant fix the ending if they sufficiently provide explaination to the plotholes that we have now with this rushed thing of an ending. Dont be so negative, I will give them a chance to fix the ending they had in mind. If it sucks, then so be it. Mass Effect will be an epic trilogy with a very poor ending. Thats it, moving on.

If I had the power to fix all that I hate in this life, you bet Mass effect ending will be the last thing to change.

Sorry, but this point of view is... pretty sad, actually. If people won't complain and criticize, they will make the same mistake again and again. And as I said, this endings doesn't hold up as "artistic vision" or some pretentious **** like that, it's not "how somebody sees it", it's just a hastily made badly written mess. And no, no genius in the Universe will study Reaper technology. Because in every single ending everybody dies. As was shown in the Arrival DLC, when the relay blows up, it takes the system with it. And guess what? ALL RELAYS BLOW UP IN EVERY ENDING (that's the plot hole the size of Sovereign I was talking about). 

Modifié par RT, 04 avril 2012 - 01:08 .