I was waiting for the day that someone would incorporate this into a research paper. Quite frankly, I am surprised that it took so long. Good on you though. There are so many things involved with this case that it has been fun to watch from the outside. PR. Social dynamics. The role of art in games. It's all been fun stuff.
I guess I can do my part...for science.
Section 1
(1) I have not completed Mass Effect 3, yet. Thought I better go 1-3 fully. I have always known the entirety of the story though. Mass Effect 3 is certainly not an unknown quantity.
(2) This is either philosophical or simple. Until the Extended Cut, nobody really KNOWS how the story ends...it's all speculation. But do I know the three cutscenes they currently use? Yes.
(3) Yes
(4) Liara. She seemed like the LI the story was designed for. I have no attachment to any of the LIs. A little romance just makes the story more complete.
(5) Save everyone? Hell yes. Made sure of that. The main theme was unity in the face of overwhelming odds. Coming through in the end? A little bit, I guess. Mostly the idea that there is something that everyone is willing to fight for. Not always the same thing, and each person fights in their own way. But, nonetheless, all are fighting for the same purpose and by doing such they create a legend and never leave a friend behind.
(6) Yeah, I have never played renegade. I just can't, mentally. I did punch the reporter both times, and will in the third.
(7) Suicide mission. Reconciling the Geth and Quarians. Tuchanka and the Genophage (remember, I do know the story). The common theme is always unity and strength within that unity. Overcoming old grievances and working towards the betterment of all.
Section 2
(1) I believe that video games are a product with artistic components. More specifically the art is secondary to the status as a consumer product. Art itself is static, it is made as it is to be appreciated or not. In a different sense, it is also fluid in that it is always evolving and each person has their own interpretation of art. I guess that is a bad answer. Oh well, what do you expect when you talk about art?
(2) Not in particular. Though Shepard's personality switch at the end was jarring and not appropriate.
(3) The themes of Mass Effect are to celebrate the differences between all types of life (organic and synthetic alike). To force them together actually removes from the overall direction of the story. I was never a fan of the synthesis ending.
(4) While I know the story, most of the specific dialogue has escaped my attention thus far. However, the memes made out of this one have been significantly better. Bioware now has two games of previous content to subtly mock, so I expect it is much funnier. Bioware is too proud of their ending to detract from it, despite the fact that it was rushed.
(5) If they have a specific reason for what they did, ie: the next game absolutely depended on it, then yes. But they better damn well say so. Otherwise, it appears to be a rapid compensation for the initial ending being leaked and the personal brainchild of a select few individuals. This is not up to the original standard of the rest of the work and has a right to be criticized. If the ending was not given due care, wasn't that a breach of artistic integrity in the first place? The fans may actually be acting in the capacity of editors after all.
(6) There is no meaning to it. The deaths of previous characters fit well established motivations, plot developments, and overarching themes. They were also dignified. The crash of the Normandy was arbitrary, meaningless, and done to make an unnecessary allusion to Adam/Eve. Also, it let you imagine it. Imagining the demise of your favorite characters can hurt more than seeing it.
(7) Antagonist? You mean the reapers? I'm pretty neutral. I have a feeling it would have been better received if they just left well enough alone.
(8) The lore is not as important to other series. In this series the background information draws the individual in. It is like Star Wars in that respect. Have you seen how many EU books there are? That is because the story and lore has a life of its own. The Matrix and Deus Ex are largely self-contained. Mass Effect broke that container and spread into more aspects of culture. Any deviations are going to stand out much more and will be called out.
(9) Both. I certainly think Tali was poorly handled. IGN already has a bad reputation for score padding so how could Jessica have made it any worse? I will say, though, that IGN basically made itself a scapegoat. Look at Forbes, it did a much better job of looking at both sides.
Section 3
(1) None.
(2) Completely incoherent and unacceptable to the narrative. Takes a left turn from what the series has been building up to and removes the well established convention of true player choice. However you argue the last two, the fact that the ending cinematics are the same has always been a facepalm moment. Never introduce new plot elements at the end of a story. The best endings are those that you could predict and don't care if you can. I believe the concensus is that the Starchild was a very poor decision in all aspects. 14 lines of dialogue? Really? That was one of my big criticisms.
(3) Mass Effect 3's endings have reduced replayability because there is no REASON to play the other ones since the ending is the same regardless. Perhaps the Extended Cut will address this, maybe not. The PR has been bad though. Stonewalling does not win many friends. Multiplayer is typically added to extend the player audience. I think that is what occurred here. I do not think that the intents behind it were malicious.
(4) The Joker example is spot on. They neglected the character to get their Adam/Eve metaphor...that is bad storytelling. One of the first rules of writing is to never abandon the characters that you write. It turns people off very fast. I always thought Garrus and Tali were an Easter Egg and little else and never really cared much. Kai Leng. Meh.
(5) After Harbinger's lazer. Ironically, the place where the writing falls apart is where the IT theory begins...simply because the inconsistencies and abnormalities just keep piling up.
(6) What a loaded question. Extended Cut has promised cinematics and text, so I hope we do not have to choose one or the other. If pressed, I would rather have a proper/complete ending than just a text epilogue.
(7) I think that the IT theory hold its water only because people believe that Bioware holds up to its RPG-god-like past. I do not think that EA has that level of depth and has slowly been corrupting Bioware. Currently, I would like to believe in IT, simply because it would make it make some sense and does have merit if the inconsistencies were INTENTIONAL. However, I am a bit more practical and think that it was certainly not the case.
Section 4
(1) I bought Arrival, SB, and Kasumi. Basically, all of the story DLC.
(2) Yes. It will make people review their work before they put it out and make cause game developers to take more time before they put something on the market. I actually think that this would be a good thing. The video game market in particular has lost sight of the player as a customer. We are not people at an art gallery or cash cows, we are customers who have every right to participate in market driven economics. EA may have actually felt the first hit in a long time. Why do you think they offered both the Extended Cut and Multiplayer initiatives free? They sure as hell didn't plan that months ago.
(3) No, but I will. I will also always believe that it was a horrendous misuse of DLC. He was essential and Day-ONE DLC will always be a point of contention. But that is EA. Huzzah! It is getting worse and I know that many people are already not going to Pre-order DA3. Keeping essential content out of games will bit EA hard in the future if they do not back off.
Study of Retakers and Proenders
Débuté par
Infinityphoenix
, avril 05 2012 05:37
Retour en haut
#102
Posté 08 avril 2012 - 09:23
Noelemahc
-
- Members
- 2 126 messages
Holey-moley, I apologize in advance for the wall of text.
[Section 1 – Prior Gameplay Experience]
1. Have you completed Mass Effect 3?
Yes.
2. If not, do you know how the trilogy ends?
--
3. Have you played the previous 2 installments of the Mass Effect franchise?
Yes.
4. If you have, which character was your LI in each installment? Did this affect how you enjoyed the game?
For my main DudeShep playthrough, nobody in ME1, Tali in ME2, Tali in ME3.
For my main FemShep, Liara in ME1, Garrus in ME2, Liara in ME3.
Yes, it did affect the impressions of the game, as the narrative for each provides additional emotional involvement and additional backstory for each character (and sometimes further than that) if you choose to romance them. You can watch Tali suffer through the embarassment of proposing to a member of an entirely absolutely biologically incompatible species, struggle through her crippling self-doubt and come out stronger for it -- by the end of ME3, if you kept loyal to her, her unique biology has adapted to Shepard, reminding us that she and her people have a bizarre journey ahead towards reclaiming their homeworld. Or, rather, HAD, until the horrible ending put it under a lot of doubt.
Liara, on the other hand, comes from a race who is technically "compatible" with anyone, yet she's that weird nerd at the back of the class who has spent more time studying and less time socializing. Watching her evolution and struggle for Shepard's life (and death, as the comics reveal) puts an entirely different spin on the story - and the importance of one man (or woman) to the fate of the galaxy.
5. In Mass Effect 2, presuming you saved every team member during the final chapter, was the overlying stories of the characters the main influence in saving them?
Among other things, although the only two things unifying my five cross-game playthroughs was absolute loyalty to the crew. It was less about who they were (however wonderful each of them was individually) and more about the fact that Shepard has a responsibility to them - to all of them - to bring them back out of this hellhole he/she dragged them into.
6. Did the reactions of renegade choices in the franchise forced you to play one way over the other?
Sometimes. The games present the Paragon and Renegade options as equals, a move away from the Good-vs-Bad or Light-vs-Dark systems prior BioWare games employed. However, this is a little hollow - Renegade more often than not is penalized for its actions, to the point where the third game is a lot harder for a Renegade. The amount of times where being a trusting tree-hugging do-gooder genuinely backfires can be counted on one hand -- giving the Collector Base to The Illusive Man yields more resources for Cerberus (but also means Shepard gets to salvage more for him/herself after blowing up HIS base), sparing the Eclipse mercenary in the second game reveals that she was the criminal we were looking for (yet she NEVER shows up again anywhere), and, of course, not taking the shots on Udina and The Illusive Man in the third will have negative effects. That's it. Most of the other times, the outcomes are either only cosmetically different (for example, talking Wrex down on Virmire, or Tali's trial or making peace on Rannoch -- both outcomes are identical, the only thing that changes are Shepard's lines) or Renegade is penalized, either immediately (like killing the colonists on Feros) or in the long run (pretty much ANY Renegade decisions from the first two games as interpreted in the third cuts down on your war assets and available quests -> assets AND money AND reputation).
7. What are your favorite 3 memories of the story’s franchise? Is there a common theme among them?
The sacrifice on Virmire. The first moment that you realize "there is real drama here; these are two real people you have to choose between, and the way they keep telling you to save the other one? they have feelings for each other! and you can only save one!"
Helping Jack find inner peace. The resolution of her romance line in ME2 was one of the best examples of writing, that also touched me personally because I've dealt with a similar kind of emotional trauma, and helping someone overcome their damage, helping them be able to feel properly again, is intensively gratifying. And that final scene, where other storylines had sex, or at least sex surrogates, Jack's ends with tears of joy and a comforting hug. And it is wonderful.
The final peace on Rannoch. Due to a save import bug, I had to suffer and wade through tears with all the possible outcomes, each more tear-jerking than the last, until I fixed my save manually via an editor, and saw what the actual peaceful resolution is. That made it more... impacting, shall I say. Overall, the entire plot behind getting Tali a real home - starting with the gesture of handing her a rock from the spot she picked for it, "to carry her home with her". Brilliant, elegant, touching.
So yes, the theme? Instilling emotional response. The Mass Effect series were one of only three gaming franchises to ever bring tears to this cynical gamer's eyes. The other two being Metal Gear (the original Solid, then Ghost Babel, then AC!D2, then Solid 4 all had endings that had me crying my eyes out) and Final Fantasy (VI was the first time I ever actually cried over a video game's ending).
Section 2: Bioware and Artistic Integrity
1. Do you believe video games are a form of art? Do you believe art is static or fluid?
Yes, I do believe that games are art. It's an evolving form of art, involving a large amount of meta-elements, the most important of which is, of course, immersion to the utmost degree. Books and movies can envelop you with their stories, but with games, you ARE part of that story. You can be exposed to narrative elements that can only be experienced and used in this particular medium, and that allows the interaction and interplay of suspension of disbelief and immersion and storytelling to reach an apex unavailable to any other form of media. Depending on the exact format, it can both be static (as one painting will probably always inspire the same emotion in the same viewer) and fluid (in that less linear games, those that recognize player interactions and change the story accordingly, might have different effects on the player -- even if he or she is simply replaying a sequence that they have only just finished). The blending of everything is an important aspect of gaming art.
2. Throughout the third installment, some fans believed that Bioware /EA rewrote specific characters during important sequences. Do you have a similar opinion? If so, which characters do you have a problem with?
Not entirely. Most of the "changes" people have complained about are believable evolutions of those characters over the time that Shepard has spent away from them -- so it is plausible that Ashley got in touch with her feminine side, Jacob was always a bit disloyal (after all, he did EASILY abandon a rather prestigious special forces unit to join Cerberus, and his breakup with Miranda was implied to be his fault at least partly) and Jack, given time, could become responsible and maternal.
The big breaks for me personally came in the much-maligned ending. How does Joker, the only unwaveringly loyal companion of Shepard, abandons him/her in London with no apparent reason? Why does Shepard, who up to this point resisted and rejected and defied the Reapers and their pretense of superiority, suddenly accept anything and everything the Catalyst, a self-proclaimed creator of those very same Reapers, at face value, and then procceed to follow his advice of dubious quality and purpose? That's one of the elements that breaks the entire ending, sadly, one of very very many.
3. Do you think the Adam and Eve reference at the end of the game made sense, given the theme of co-existence between organic and synthetic organisms?
No, I do not. The comparison of Joker and EDI to Adam and Eve is only marginally applicable if you chose the Synthesis ending, but it is so vague, unspecific and, what's worse, contradictory with the established universe, that you really have to stretch to consider the fact that they might, theoretically, procreate.
4. Do you think Mass Effect 3 had more humorous moments than previous installments? If so, do you think it was to cut the theme of war and death in the game, or was this an attempt to detract fans from over thinking the ending?
No, I do not. It had about the same amount. The only noticeable changes are related to censorship. The first game had little profanity and kid-friendly nudity with "explicit" (but actually rather tastefully done) sex scenes. The second dropped the sex almost entirely, the nudity was gone altogether, but suddenly swearwords came pouring from every direction. The third returned SOME of the sex, but not as much, and some of the profanity, again, not as much. It was actually character-breaking to hear some of the second game's worst potty-mouths suddenly clam up and filter their speech. It was well-justified for Jack, but not Joker, or Aria, or the myriad background characters. Doubly so since the overal war theme would imply that people would actually swear MORE now that they're under more duress and stress. Bizarre, simply bizarre.
As for the humour... it simply became more noticeable because it contrasts more with the darker tone of the plot -- most of the usual suspects are the same, with the core gang providing most of the levity. Joker, some choice encounters with Tali, Garrus and Ashley and the others. All of it was done in a believable manner befitting people trying to deal with the stress of being stuck in a war you cannot win.
5. Given Bioware’s previous experience with incorporating player feedback into the series, do you think changing the ending all together would compromise Bioware / EA’s previous decisions and artistic integrity?
I think that making an ending that didn't leave virtually ANY players satisfied had already compromised their artistic integrity. Pre-release promises about a satisfying and clear and FINAL conclusion aside (none of which were fulfilled), I think that changing the ending -- changing, not "explaining", as their current stance says -- would actually strengthen said integrity, proving that they do care about fan feedback. Unfortunately, judging from how badly the entire situation was mismanaged both while the game was being developed (between the November plot leaks and the final game's conclusion) and after it was released (as the entire ending scandal is one big example on why a good PR team is imporant and why most of BioWare and EA's current PR team should be fired immediately).
6. With the death of well accepted characters in Mass Effect 3 as a part of trying close that character’s story, what makes stranding the crew any different?
Because the deaths of all those characters made sense in the story. They were justified, explainable, understandable, and, most importantly, dramatically significant. None of those deaths was pointless, worthless or meaningless. Not to diminish the fact that in a real war there are plenty of meaningless deaths. It's just that the concept of "in war there can be meaningless deaths" is only touched upon in tangential plot lines - the boy that Shepard ends having nightmares about, Joker's sister, the poor Quarian kid named Jona who lost both his parents after ME2 and ME3... Stranding the crew may have worked as a plot device if it had a clear and concise reason, but as it stands now, it's just one giant jungle-planet shaped plot hole that begins with Joker's unexplained flight after the equally unexplained teleportation of your squadmates who were with you under Harbinger's fire onto the Normandy which was up in space, in the big battle at the time. And that's the problem - the stranding comes out of the left field, with no build-up, no justification, no plausible explanation other than "we should strand the crew, let's have them crash after Joker takes the ship through a mass relay just as the whole system breaks down, we don't need a real reason for him to do so, do we?" And that's bad writing.
7. Do you think Bioware made the right choice in explaining the antagonist’s role in the series, or should it have been left alone?
Was trying to explain the role right? Yes. Was it handled well? No. It contradicts almost EVERY major plot point of Mass Effect 1, diminishes the importance of the conflict between Shepard and Harbinger in Mass Effect 2 (and with it, about half that game's plot goes out the window as well), and since Harbinger has ZERO lines in the third game despite being crucial to the plot of the second, only helps to aggravate the damage.
The salt-in-the-wounds moment isn't even in the fact that we suddenly know the purpose of the Reapers - that in itself isn't bad, although the merit of introducing an incomprehensible blue-and-orange morality antagonist race in the first game, expanding and playing up their incomprehensibility and superiority in the second, and then explaining their morality into a very primitive black-and-black morality in the last minutes of the third... the merit of that is highly debatable, to put it mildly. The salt-in-the-wounds comes from how casually it is done, how easily the authors discard the plot which has been carefully constructed by them - and, to an extent, by us - throughout the previous three games.
8. A lot of fans found the ending of Mass Effect 3 to be reminiscent of the ending’s of other franchises. Despite various amounts of plot holes in these franchises, they did well. What makes Mass Effect 3 different?
Deus Ex had the merit of not having any sequels planned originally. It's one of the reasons why the second game did so badly - more was expected of it than it could deliver, particularly in relation to continuing the plot of the first. Human Revolution had the merit of having to perfectly fit in with the original's backstory. Yet, it had more endings than Mass Effect 3, and those endings, while debatable in their own right, had a lot less forced and obvious plotholes.
The difference is that Mass Effect was supposed to be about Shepard, his decisions and their impact on the galaxy. The way the ending to the third game tosses all of those decisions out the window in favour of three identically repugnant options makes me suspect that it was all a ploy to set up the setting for a fourth game, just without Shepard. And it would be easier if the third ended on a singular non-divergent ending. Sadly, the way BioWare handled the fallout seems to prove that theory correct -- their reticence about adding new endings or trying to fix, rather than explain, the existing ones is very palpable.
I use the word "repugnant" because even forgetting for a moment that we were promised that there would be NO A-B-C ending selection at the last moment (which there is), and NO "Reaper off switch" (ending B is exactly that), they all come with what BioWare posits to be "bittersweet" tradeoffs. Sadly, since they all incorporate the destruction of the mass relays, the tradeoffs - Shepard's death in B and C and the destruction of the Geth and, implied, all AIs and VIs, including EDI, in A - are immaterial in the face of a collapse of galactic economy and general way of life for the past several thousand years. Official statements concerning how "everything is not THAT bleak" and "nobody starves to death" have only been made after a month, accompanied by genuine surprise from BioWare writers that anyone could actually infer what we inferred from the endings. This only further strengthens the idea that the ending was poorly (if at all) thought out and was tacked on at the very last moment.
9. Bioware used 3-dimensional facial rendering for voice actress Jessica Chobot’s character Diana Allers, but photo-shopped a picture of Miss England 2005 Hammasa Kohistani for the character Tali’Zorah vas Normandy. Do you think Bioware put more emphasis in designing an Easter Egg character over improving characters that were introduced in Mass Effect 2 (such as Thane, Jacob, Miranda and Jack)? Given IGN’s defense of the game and its endorsements, do you think Jessica’s role had an influence in the site’s score of the game? Do you the upset fans correct in making this presumption, or is it biased by looking for a scapegoat?
In short? Yes, I thnk they put too much emphasis on Allers instead of existing characters. Yes, I think IGN's fanatical defense of the game at least partly owes to getting one of their own into it. And yes, it is biased, but the fact that nobody involved tried to attempt ANY kind of defence for their decisions did not help. At all.
In long, Allers feels very alien to the rest of the game. She has weird story pacing, bears little significance to the gameplay (Javik at least wanders about the ship and gets into arguments with various crew members -- and he's a DLC, and therefore optional, character!) and for many, myself included, felt like a cheap attempt at replacing Emily Wong, a long-time fan favorite, who was unceremoniously (if rather stylishly) killed off on one of the game's tie-in twitter accounts. The fact that there was time to make her, and her 3d appearance (which, incidentally, doesn't actually LOOK like Jessica Chobot all that much) throw a lot of suspicion onto the entire poorly-photoshopped-Tali situation. It is a well-known fact that fans have been clamoring to see her face ever since the FIRST game, and felt the unreveal of it in the second to be insulting. Shorly after release, the developers said that they have reached a conclusion as to how to handle it in the third -- and if this is what they decided on TWO years ago, I must say, they're either poor liars or poor time-managers. As was pointed out numerous times, the photo-shop is very poorly done, contradicts the shape of Tali's in-game appearance (particularly the hands) and, of course, breaks her entire premise of being unable to survive prolonged exposure to open air outside of a sterile clean room. If that isn't disrespect to fans, I don't know what is.
Similar complaints have been made about other characters -- most of them get very little screen time and next to zero closure (at least those who do not die). The so-called tethercat principle is in full swing with this underexposure. Jack will never get to have sex with Shepard after the victory, Miranda will never find peace, Zaeed will never rebuild Jessie, Kasumi will never get Jacob who will never name his child "Shepard". Yes, there are explanations for why SOME of them cannot join Shepard on his mission -- Jack has her students, Kasumi wants to not die violently in some battlefield she doesn't care about, Miranda worries about her sister -- but some are meaninglessly shoved off to the side - Grunt's squad dies in most outcomes of his mission, he really can take off with Shepard; Samara never had any luggage or overarching mission to worry about, once Shepard saves her daughters, she might've joined him, etc, etc. Compared to that, the inevitability of Thane and Legion's deaths (and the almost inevitable death of Mordin) is a minor issue.
Section 3: The Endings
1. Given that the game has been released since March 6 (in North America) have you beaten the game? How many times have you replayed the game?
Yes, I have. I am in the middle of my second playthrough, considering abandoning it until the ending-fixing DLC is released, because there is no real difference between the endings for different Shepards, they all get the same unpleasant choices with zero explanations or relation to prior events.
2. What did you think of the ending? What is your position on it? Why do you have that opinion?
It is a poorly-written story-breaking experience-shattering exceptionally cheap cop-out. I would rather prefer the entire Deus Ex Machina be excised entirely. The game would win artistically if it would end with Shepard blacking out in front of the command console, the moment before we see the lift activate. Seriously. Consider how horrible the actual ending is, if a Bolivian Army ending is preferable to it?
The problems are numerous - an introduction of an antagonist we do not have enough time to make up our minds about, who spouts drivel that contradicts almost EVERYTHING said and done in the preceding three games in a glitchy, not-really interactive section after a long and well-thought-out and very interactive game. It feels misplaced, as if someone cut a random 10 minute segment of the Evil Dead in place of the resolution of one of Hercule Poirot's cases. As Poirot is about to explain the villain's grand scheme and unmask them, the undead start crawling out of every available orifice and slaughter everyone. Then Ash Williams comes charging in with his boomstick, slaughters them, throws a one-liner at the screen, and we suddenly resume in Poirot's world, except that it's being filled to the brim with the undead. Roll credits. THAT is how bizarrely out of place the Mass Effect 3 ending is.
3. Mass Effect 1 and 2 were both known for their replay-ability value, what about Mass Effect 3? Do you think the ending is the main factor in this inability to replay the game, or do you think it’s because Bioware has been largely quiet about these reactions? Do you think this is why they added multiplayer capabilities?
For Mass Effect 1, the replayability was never too high, since it only had two major ending differences, (whether the Council lived or died) with small variations (would the new Council be human? would Udina or Anderson lead it?), but when it was announced that it would turn into a trilogy, the scheme changed. Your decisions in the first two games would greatly affect the third, they promised, and everyone speculated just how that would work, and replayed the games, seeping in the details, building theories and vastly different universes and Shepards to see how it all would end... and then Mass Effect 3 showed that while yes, some of them WILL affect the story, the ending will remain the same, incomprehensible and unconnected, and all hope was lost.
BioWare failed this on several levels. They have NOW revealed that they did not foresee any of the inferrences people have thought up, ranging from galactic holocaust, to economic breakdown, to the intense hatred for the "Starchild" (as the usage of the boy from Shepard's nightmares as the avatar of the Catalyst was immensely illogical, far more sense would have been to have it assume the shape of the Virmire sacrifice, and it would also spare us some of the indignity of the poorly-written lines the Catalyst has), that they meant completely different things with the endings and, what's worse, they waited for a whole month to say all that. During which they kept repeating that THEY think the ending is clear, understandable and "bittersweet", but consistenly failed to point out where the bitter was supposed to end. It felt like a deaf man explaining to a blind man what a rainbow looks like, while ignoring the blind man's pleas for a more sensible explanation with better comparisons and similes.
The multiplayer, in my opinion, had nothing to do with the ending's quality. It did not require the attention of the writing team, therefore the only thing we can accuse it of (aside from being poorly coded and easily foiled by cheaters) is that despite previous claims, it WAS necessary to get the "best" ending (for a very loose definition of best, unfortunately).
4. Some pivotal moments in Mass Effect 3 have fans debating whether or not Bioware is degrading the values and quality of known characters in the franchise. For the most part, fan opinion of Cerberus assassin Kai Leng’s portrayal in Mass Effect 3 has been negative, mostly described by fans as being due to having multiple authors since the character’s introduction in the novels creating inconsistence’s in his personality. Others examples are the pairing of Garrus and Tali if the player does not romance them in the previous installment of the franchise, and Joker (the pilot of the character’s ship) abandoning the fight during its climax. What is your opinion of this? Are these accurate examples?
Yes, they are. Kai Leng was established as a meticulous, thorough, COLD killer capable of fooling Aria T'Loak even as he slaughters her daughter in the first books. Come Deception, he is a show-off with no sense of logic and no manners, and suddenly the daughter slaughter is forgotten altogether. Unfortunately, ME3 somewhy accepted the already dis-canoned Deception as the base for him. Where we expected to have at least The Man With The Golden Gun, if not The Jackal, we got a stock parody of cyber ninjas that seems ripped straight out of Metal Gear Solid 4. Without the character development requisite of MGS characters, to boot.
The pairing of Garrus and Tali makes sense, at least to me -- there has been chemistry between them since the second game (some would argue, since the first, but people tend to associate the elevator talks with only negative impressions, which is bad -- they were a good world-building element and I was sad to see it go). A lesson learned from Dragon Age, no doubt, as DA2 introduced the idea of "pairing the spares" to keep the world believable. Sadly, since the only other applicable pairing was Ashley/Kaidan, fans decided to lash out.
Joker's abandonment of Shepard is a major issue, but it comes bundled with the whole slew of issues with the ending I've already brought up -- it's not a broken characterization, the entire ending is suspect and should be either rewritten entirely or expanded astronomically to make any sense.
5. At which point do you think the quality of the writing changed the pace and feel of Mass Effect 3?
The moment Kai Leng dies. The moment Vendetta says the Crucible is part of the Citadel, and the Catalyst IS the Citadel. The moment Shepard was supposed to say "but that means the Reapers interfered with the Crucible plans! It's a Reaper trap! Stop the presses!"
It goes downhill from there - London barely changes based on our plot decisions, barring two or three dialogues, although we WERE supposed to get wildly different army layouts based on how well our recruitment drive went. No matter what, you see mostly Alliance soldiers, no matter what, only 50% of Hammer makes it through, no matter what, you never see or feel their presence in the No Man's Land, no matter what, you fight the endless battle for the missiles with zero support, no matter what Harbinger will wordlessly shoot Shepard AND LEAVE. No matter what Anderson will die, and the Illusive Man will die, and Shepard will accept the Catalyst's words at face value and do as he says. No matter what, the mass relays are destroyed, no matter what Joker leaves Shepard behind, no matter what the Normandy is stranded. No matter what.
6. Despite the popularity of the Shadow Broker text files in the Mass Effect 2 DLC [Lair of the Shadow Broker], would you pay for a new ending over a free text epilogue of the current endings?
Yes. The popularity of the Shadow Broker dossiers was in that they were fluff. Completely optional. And in what was well in advance announced to be the SECOND game in a TRILOGY. A justified conclusion of a trilogy should not be some text bits. Especially a trilogy as cinematic as Mass Effect. Not we, the fans, but the game, the ART, deserves the endings to be long-winded and cinematic and fully voiced and FULLY REFLECTIVE OF PLAYER CHOICES. Not some pre-rendered identical-save-for-coloration grainy videos that do little to explain what just happen... and then cut to the Normandy crashing and then cut to credits. Only Assassins' Creed is allowed to pull that stuff off, and it compensates by making the protagonist say "WHAT. THE. F***." at the same time as the player does it. (not an exagerration, that is EXACTLY what Desmond says at the end of AC2).
7. Another point that fans argue about is whether the end game sequence of Mass Effect 3 was real or whether it was a dream. What is your opinion of this, where do you stand? Do either have good claims to support, or is this just a part of Bioware desiring speculation amongst fans? How is this different from the people who support a rewrite of the last sequence?
I am firmly against the so-called Indoctrination Theory. While it does have grounds in the plot, it is mostly used to nullify Shepard's sacrifice in favour of a fully-sweet ending. I am not against it, I'm just against making it so easy. They have fallen into the other side of the cop-out roadside ditch, the overcompensation. The only way the Indoctrination Theory could work from a narrative perspective is if, after its revelation, there would be another gameplay section, at least 30 or 40 minutes long, to reclaim the idea that Shepard is, you know, winning the war.
Bad as it is, the current ending does actually provide sufficient tragedy, it's just misplaced and unrelated to the events of the game.
I am in favour of removing the Deus Ex Machina entirely in exchange for an on-foot battle against Harbinger, this time done Shadow of the Colossus style. The Rannoch Reaper fight established that Reapers can be defeated this way, and I honestly expected Shepard to do just that there. After that... who knows, I'm not the one paid to fix the story. If I was, my suggestions can be found in the forum signature, but the crux is this: Shepard should've been able to tell the Catalyst to shove off, and leave the Citadel, ordering Hackett to destroy it. Even if this wouldnot have led to victory over the Reapers, it WOULD have led to the cycles being disrupted because they hinge on the Catalyst AI and the Citadel to survive into the next cycle.
The difference between the IT and the Rewriters is that the supporters of Indoctrination suggest keeping the Starchild sequence for its scare value. Rewrite means rewrite, the Catalyst is merely a part from the Citadel that can be cut out, there should be NO Machine God overseeing the Reapers. ME2 already established Harbinger as the Head Reaper, why did BioWare have to change that?
Section 4: Economic Input
1. Mass Effect 2 was known for having lots of Down-Loadable Content (DLC). Did you buy all of them? If not, which ones did you buy, and what was the reasoning behind buying them?
Yes, I bought all of them. I wanted more game content, and boy, did I get it!
2. The Retake Movement has claimed responsibility over the recent decrease in EA stock prices, as well as causing the price of the game to decrease by 25%. In these instances, do you think the stigma against poor writing in entertainment will be a factor in the future aspects of entertainment, or will it be exclusive to the gaming industry?
Unfortunately, there's a fitting saying in Russian. "Пипл хавает", or "the people gobble it up [anyway]". So long as there are potential customers who do not care about quality writing, the stigma imposed by those who do will be insufficient to cause any significant financial harm to all but the narrowest genres of media. Sadly, only the original Mass Effect was sufficiently narrow for that, and it sold poorly only on the PC and only because the quality of the port was atrocious.
3. Did you buy the “From Ashes” DLC? Given the premise of the plot, do you think the produces alienated themselves from their consumers by making them pay extra for a character that plays a crucial role in the history of the franchise, and have caused another rallying point for players upset about the vagueness of the ending?
I bought the Collector's Edition, so I got the DLC bundled. Yes, I think that having Javik contain so much of the game's plot, and so much of the universe's backstory in a way that screamed "this was part of the main game and its plot, look how neatly it fits!!!!" was ultimately bad. After all, the original promise was that the thing we would have to buy would be the ability to use him as a squadmate, and all his story and lines would be IN the actual game free of charge. Sadly, this was not the case.
This led a lot of people to assume that the ending got similar treatment - that it was purposefully cut up in order to be sold separately at a cost. The intensity with which BioWare underscores the free-of-chargeness of the Extended Cut DLC does not help alleviate the problem one bit. It's as if their (still miraculously un-fired) PR Department still fails to understand the reason behind the fan's uproar, which is being ignored time and again, not having their questions answered, and then getting answers to questions nobody asked about because they didn't matter enough, and told to like it or leave it because there would be NO further alterations to the ending. Another slap in the collective face of the fandom, sadly.
Really, BioWare, you're better than this. Talk to us. LISTEN TO US. We desperately want to trust you again, but you're not helping!
[Section 1 – Prior Gameplay Experience]
1. Have you completed Mass Effect 3?
Yes.
2. If not, do you know how the trilogy ends?
--
3. Have you played the previous 2 installments of the Mass Effect franchise?
Yes.
4. If you have, which character was your LI in each installment? Did this affect how you enjoyed the game?
For my main DudeShep playthrough, nobody in ME1, Tali in ME2, Tali in ME3.
For my main FemShep, Liara in ME1, Garrus in ME2, Liara in ME3.
Yes, it did affect the impressions of the game, as the narrative for each provides additional emotional involvement and additional backstory for each character (and sometimes further than that) if you choose to romance them. You can watch Tali suffer through the embarassment of proposing to a member of an entirely absolutely biologically incompatible species, struggle through her crippling self-doubt and come out stronger for it -- by the end of ME3, if you kept loyal to her, her unique biology has adapted to Shepard, reminding us that she and her people have a bizarre journey ahead towards reclaiming their homeworld. Or, rather, HAD, until the horrible ending put it under a lot of doubt.
Liara, on the other hand, comes from a race who is technically "compatible" with anyone, yet she's that weird nerd at the back of the class who has spent more time studying and less time socializing. Watching her evolution and struggle for Shepard's life (and death, as the comics reveal) puts an entirely different spin on the story - and the importance of one man (or woman) to the fate of the galaxy.
5. In Mass Effect 2, presuming you saved every team member during the final chapter, was the overlying stories of the characters the main influence in saving them?
Among other things, although the only two things unifying my five cross-game playthroughs was absolute loyalty to the crew. It was less about who they were (however wonderful each of them was individually) and more about the fact that Shepard has a responsibility to them - to all of them - to bring them back out of this hellhole he/she dragged them into.
6. Did the reactions of renegade choices in the franchise forced you to play one way over the other?
Sometimes. The games present the Paragon and Renegade options as equals, a move away from the Good-vs-Bad or Light-vs-Dark systems prior BioWare games employed. However, this is a little hollow - Renegade more often than not is penalized for its actions, to the point where the third game is a lot harder for a Renegade. The amount of times where being a trusting tree-hugging do-gooder genuinely backfires can be counted on one hand -- giving the Collector Base to The Illusive Man yields more resources for Cerberus (but also means Shepard gets to salvage more for him/herself after blowing up HIS base), sparing the Eclipse mercenary in the second game reveals that she was the criminal we were looking for (yet she NEVER shows up again anywhere), and, of course, not taking the shots on Udina and The Illusive Man in the third will have negative effects. That's it. Most of the other times, the outcomes are either only cosmetically different (for example, talking Wrex down on Virmire, or Tali's trial or making peace on Rannoch -- both outcomes are identical, the only thing that changes are Shepard's lines) or Renegade is penalized, either immediately (like killing the colonists on Feros) or in the long run (pretty much ANY Renegade decisions from the first two games as interpreted in the third cuts down on your war assets and available quests -> assets AND money AND reputation).
7. What are your favorite 3 memories of the story’s franchise? Is there a common theme among them?
The sacrifice on Virmire. The first moment that you realize "there is real drama here; these are two real people you have to choose between, and the way they keep telling you to save the other one? they have feelings for each other! and you can only save one!"
Helping Jack find inner peace. The resolution of her romance line in ME2 was one of the best examples of writing, that also touched me personally because I've dealt with a similar kind of emotional trauma, and helping someone overcome their damage, helping them be able to feel properly again, is intensively gratifying. And that final scene, where other storylines had sex, or at least sex surrogates, Jack's ends with tears of joy and a comforting hug. And it is wonderful.
The final peace on Rannoch. Due to a save import bug, I had to suffer and wade through tears with all the possible outcomes, each more tear-jerking than the last, until I fixed my save manually via an editor, and saw what the actual peaceful resolution is. That made it more... impacting, shall I say. Overall, the entire plot behind getting Tali a real home - starting with the gesture of handing her a rock from the spot she picked for it, "to carry her home with her". Brilliant, elegant, touching.
So yes, the theme? Instilling emotional response. The Mass Effect series were one of only three gaming franchises to ever bring tears to this cynical gamer's eyes. The other two being Metal Gear (the original Solid, then Ghost Babel, then AC!D2, then Solid 4 all had endings that had me crying my eyes out) and Final Fantasy (VI was the first time I ever actually cried over a video game's ending).
Section 2: Bioware and Artistic Integrity
1. Do you believe video games are a form of art? Do you believe art is static or fluid?
Yes, I do believe that games are art. It's an evolving form of art, involving a large amount of meta-elements, the most important of which is, of course, immersion to the utmost degree. Books and movies can envelop you with their stories, but with games, you ARE part of that story. You can be exposed to narrative elements that can only be experienced and used in this particular medium, and that allows the interaction and interplay of suspension of disbelief and immersion and storytelling to reach an apex unavailable to any other form of media. Depending on the exact format, it can both be static (as one painting will probably always inspire the same emotion in the same viewer) and fluid (in that less linear games, those that recognize player interactions and change the story accordingly, might have different effects on the player -- even if he or she is simply replaying a sequence that they have only just finished). The blending of everything is an important aspect of gaming art.
2. Throughout the third installment, some fans believed that Bioware /EA rewrote specific characters during important sequences. Do you have a similar opinion? If so, which characters do you have a problem with?
Not entirely. Most of the "changes" people have complained about are believable evolutions of those characters over the time that Shepard has spent away from them -- so it is plausible that Ashley got in touch with her feminine side, Jacob was always a bit disloyal (after all, he did EASILY abandon a rather prestigious special forces unit to join Cerberus, and his breakup with Miranda was implied to be his fault at least partly) and Jack, given time, could become responsible and maternal.
The big breaks for me personally came in the much-maligned ending. How does Joker, the only unwaveringly loyal companion of Shepard, abandons him/her in London with no apparent reason? Why does Shepard, who up to this point resisted and rejected and defied the Reapers and their pretense of superiority, suddenly accept anything and everything the Catalyst, a self-proclaimed creator of those very same Reapers, at face value, and then procceed to follow his advice of dubious quality and purpose? That's one of the elements that breaks the entire ending, sadly, one of very very many.
3. Do you think the Adam and Eve reference at the end of the game made sense, given the theme of co-existence between organic and synthetic organisms?
No, I do not. The comparison of Joker and EDI to Adam and Eve is only marginally applicable if you chose the Synthesis ending, but it is so vague, unspecific and, what's worse, contradictory with the established universe, that you really have to stretch to consider the fact that they might, theoretically, procreate.
4. Do you think Mass Effect 3 had more humorous moments than previous installments? If so, do you think it was to cut the theme of war and death in the game, or was this an attempt to detract fans from over thinking the ending?
No, I do not. It had about the same amount. The only noticeable changes are related to censorship. The first game had little profanity and kid-friendly nudity with "explicit" (but actually rather tastefully done) sex scenes. The second dropped the sex almost entirely, the nudity was gone altogether, but suddenly swearwords came pouring from every direction. The third returned SOME of the sex, but not as much, and some of the profanity, again, not as much. It was actually character-breaking to hear some of the second game's worst potty-mouths suddenly clam up and filter their speech. It was well-justified for Jack, but not Joker, or Aria, or the myriad background characters. Doubly so since the overal war theme would imply that people would actually swear MORE now that they're under more duress and stress. Bizarre, simply bizarre.
As for the humour... it simply became more noticeable because it contrasts more with the darker tone of the plot -- most of the usual suspects are the same, with the core gang providing most of the levity. Joker, some choice encounters with Tali, Garrus and Ashley and the others. All of it was done in a believable manner befitting people trying to deal with the stress of being stuck in a war you cannot win.
5. Given Bioware’s previous experience with incorporating player feedback into the series, do you think changing the ending all together would compromise Bioware / EA’s previous decisions and artistic integrity?
I think that making an ending that didn't leave virtually ANY players satisfied had already compromised their artistic integrity. Pre-release promises about a satisfying and clear and FINAL conclusion aside (none of which were fulfilled), I think that changing the ending -- changing, not "explaining", as their current stance says -- would actually strengthen said integrity, proving that they do care about fan feedback. Unfortunately, judging from how badly the entire situation was mismanaged both while the game was being developed (between the November plot leaks and the final game's conclusion) and after it was released (as the entire ending scandal is one big example on why a good PR team is imporant and why most of BioWare and EA's current PR team should be fired immediately).
6. With the death of well accepted characters in Mass Effect 3 as a part of trying close that character’s story, what makes stranding the crew any different?
Because the deaths of all those characters made sense in the story. They were justified, explainable, understandable, and, most importantly, dramatically significant. None of those deaths was pointless, worthless or meaningless. Not to diminish the fact that in a real war there are plenty of meaningless deaths. It's just that the concept of "in war there can be meaningless deaths" is only touched upon in tangential plot lines - the boy that Shepard ends having nightmares about, Joker's sister, the poor Quarian kid named Jona who lost both his parents after ME2 and ME3... Stranding the crew may have worked as a plot device if it had a clear and concise reason, but as it stands now, it's just one giant jungle-planet shaped plot hole that begins with Joker's unexplained flight after the equally unexplained teleportation of your squadmates who were with you under Harbinger's fire onto the Normandy which was up in space, in the big battle at the time. And that's the problem - the stranding comes out of the left field, with no build-up, no justification, no plausible explanation other than "we should strand the crew, let's have them crash after Joker takes the ship through a mass relay just as the whole system breaks down, we don't need a real reason for him to do so, do we?" And that's bad writing.
7. Do you think Bioware made the right choice in explaining the antagonist’s role in the series, or should it have been left alone?
Was trying to explain the role right? Yes. Was it handled well? No. It contradicts almost EVERY major plot point of Mass Effect 1, diminishes the importance of the conflict between Shepard and Harbinger in Mass Effect 2 (and with it, about half that game's plot goes out the window as well), and since Harbinger has ZERO lines in the third game despite being crucial to the plot of the second, only helps to aggravate the damage.
The salt-in-the-wounds moment isn't even in the fact that we suddenly know the purpose of the Reapers - that in itself isn't bad, although the merit of introducing an incomprehensible blue-and-orange morality antagonist race in the first game, expanding and playing up their incomprehensibility and superiority in the second, and then explaining their morality into a very primitive black-and-black morality in the last minutes of the third... the merit of that is highly debatable, to put it mildly. The salt-in-the-wounds comes from how casually it is done, how easily the authors discard the plot which has been carefully constructed by them - and, to an extent, by us - throughout the previous three games.
8. A lot of fans found the ending of Mass Effect 3 to be reminiscent of the ending’s of other franchises. Despite various amounts of plot holes in these franchises, they did well. What makes Mass Effect 3 different?
Deus Ex had the merit of not having any sequels planned originally. It's one of the reasons why the second game did so badly - more was expected of it than it could deliver, particularly in relation to continuing the plot of the first. Human Revolution had the merit of having to perfectly fit in with the original's backstory. Yet, it had more endings than Mass Effect 3, and those endings, while debatable in their own right, had a lot less forced and obvious plotholes.
The difference is that Mass Effect was supposed to be about Shepard, his decisions and their impact on the galaxy. The way the ending to the third game tosses all of those decisions out the window in favour of three identically repugnant options makes me suspect that it was all a ploy to set up the setting for a fourth game, just without Shepard. And it would be easier if the third ended on a singular non-divergent ending. Sadly, the way BioWare handled the fallout seems to prove that theory correct -- their reticence about adding new endings or trying to fix, rather than explain, the existing ones is very palpable.
I use the word "repugnant" because even forgetting for a moment that we were promised that there would be NO A-B-C ending selection at the last moment (which there is), and NO "Reaper off switch" (ending B is exactly that), they all come with what BioWare posits to be "bittersweet" tradeoffs. Sadly, since they all incorporate the destruction of the mass relays, the tradeoffs - Shepard's death in B and C and the destruction of the Geth and, implied, all AIs and VIs, including EDI, in A - are immaterial in the face of a collapse of galactic economy and general way of life for the past several thousand years. Official statements concerning how "everything is not THAT bleak" and "nobody starves to death" have only been made after a month, accompanied by genuine surprise from BioWare writers that anyone could actually infer what we inferred from the endings. This only further strengthens the idea that the ending was poorly (if at all) thought out and was tacked on at the very last moment.
9. Bioware used 3-dimensional facial rendering for voice actress Jessica Chobot’s character Diana Allers, but photo-shopped a picture of Miss England 2005 Hammasa Kohistani for the character Tali’Zorah vas Normandy. Do you think Bioware put more emphasis in designing an Easter Egg character over improving characters that were introduced in Mass Effect 2 (such as Thane, Jacob, Miranda and Jack)? Given IGN’s defense of the game and its endorsements, do you think Jessica’s role had an influence in the site’s score of the game? Do you the upset fans correct in making this presumption, or is it biased by looking for a scapegoat?
In short? Yes, I thnk they put too much emphasis on Allers instead of existing characters. Yes, I think IGN's fanatical defense of the game at least partly owes to getting one of their own into it. And yes, it is biased, but the fact that nobody involved tried to attempt ANY kind of defence for their decisions did not help. At all.
In long, Allers feels very alien to the rest of the game. She has weird story pacing, bears little significance to the gameplay (Javik at least wanders about the ship and gets into arguments with various crew members -- and he's a DLC, and therefore optional, character!) and for many, myself included, felt like a cheap attempt at replacing Emily Wong, a long-time fan favorite, who was unceremoniously (if rather stylishly) killed off on one of the game's tie-in twitter accounts. The fact that there was time to make her, and her 3d appearance (which, incidentally, doesn't actually LOOK like Jessica Chobot all that much) throw a lot of suspicion onto the entire poorly-photoshopped-Tali situation. It is a well-known fact that fans have been clamoring to see her face ever since the FIRST game, and felt the unreveal of it in the second to be insulting. Shorly after release, the developers said that they have reached a conclusion as to how to handle it in the third -- and if this is what they decided on TWO years ago, I must say, they're either poor liars or poor time-managers. As was pointed out numerous times, the photo-shop is very poorly done, contradicts the shape of Tali's in-game appearance (particularly the hands) and, of course, breaks her entire premise of being unable to survive prolonged exposure to open air outside of a sterile clean room. If that isn't disrespect to fans, I don't know what is.
Similar complaints have been made about other characters -- most of them get very little screen time and next to zero closure (at least those who do not die). The so-called tethercat principle is in full swing with this underexposure. Jack will never get to have sex with Shepard after the victory, Miranda will never find peace, Zaeed will never rebuild Jessie, Kasumi will never get Jacob who will never name his child "Shepard". Yes, there are explanations for why SOME of them cannot join Shepard on his mission -- Jack has her students, Kasumi wants to not die violently in some battlefield she doesn't care about, Miranda worries about her sister -- but some are meaninglessly shoved off to the side - Grunt's squad dies in most outcomes of his mission, he really can take off with Shepard; Samara never had any luggage or overarching mission to worry about, once Shepard saves her daughters, she might've joined him, etc, etc. Compared to that, the inevitability of Thane and Legion's deaths (and the almost inevitable death of Mordin) is a minor issue.
Section 3: The Endings
1. Given that the game has been released since March 6 (in North America) have you beaten the game? How many times have you replayed the game?
Yes, I have. I am in the middle of my second playthrough, considering abandoning it until the ending-fixing DLC is released, because there is no real difference between the endings for different Shepards, they all get the same unpleasant choices with zero explanations or relation to prior events.
2. What did you think of the ending? What is your position on it? Why do you have that opinion?
It is a poorly-written story-breaking experience-shattering exceptionally cheap cop-out. I would rather prefer the entire Deus Ex Machina be excised entirely. The game would win artistically if it would end with Shepard blacking out in front of the command console, the moment before we see the lift activate. Seriously. Consider how horrible the actual ending is, if a Bolivian Army ending is preferable to it?
The problems are numerous - an introduction of an antagonist we do not have enough time to make up our minds about, who spouts drivel that contradicts almost EVERYTHING said and done in the preceding three games in a glitchy, not-really interactive section after a long and well-thought-out and very interactive game. It feels misplaced, as if someone cut a random 10 minute segment of the Evil Dead in place of the resolution of one of Hercule Poirot's cases. As Poirot is about to explain the villain's grand scheme and unmask them, the undead start crawling out of every available orifice and slaughter everyone. Then Ash Williams comes charging in with his boomstick, slaughters them, throws a one-liner at the screen, and we suddenly resume in Poirot's world, except that it's being filled to the brim with the undead. Roll credits. THAT is how bizarrely out of place the Mass Effect 3 ending is.
3. Mass Effect 1 and 2 were both known for their replay-ability value, what about Mass Effect 3? Do you think the ending is the main factor in this inability to replay the game, or do you think it’s because Bioware has been largely quiet about these reactions? Do you think this is why they added multiplayer capabilities?
For Mass Effect 1, the replayability was never too high, since it only had two major ending differences, (whether the Council lived or died) with small variations (would the new Council be human? would Udina or Anderson lead it?), but when it was announced that it would turn into a trilogy, the scheme changed. Your decisions in the first two games would greatly affect the third, they promised, and everyone speculated just how that would work, and replayed the games, seeping in the details, building theories and vastly different universes and Shepards to see how it all would end... and then Mass Effect 3 showed that while yes, some of them WILL affect the story, the ending will remain the same, incomprehensible and unconnected, and all hope was lost.
BioWare failed this on several levels. They have NOW revealed that they did not foresee any of the inferrences people have thought up, ranging from galactic holocaust, to economic breakdown, to the intense hatred for the "Starchild" (as the usage of the boy from Shepard's nightmares as the avatar of the Catalyst was immensely illogical, far more sense would have been to have it assume the shape of the Virmire sacrifice, and it would also spare us some of the indignity of the poorly-written lines the Catalyst has), that they meant completely different things with the endings and, what's worse, they waited for a whole month to say all that. During which they kept repeating that THEY think the ending is clear, understandable and "bittersweet", but consistenly failed to point out where the bitter was supposed to end. It felt like a deaf man explaining to a blind man what a rainbow looks like, while ignoring the blind man's pleas for a more sensible explanation with better comparisons and similes.
The multiplayer, in my opinion, had nothing to do with the ending's quality. It did not require the attention of the writing team, therefore the only thing we can accuse it of (aside from being poorly coded and easily foiled by cheaters) is that despite previous claims, it WAS necessary to get the "best" ending (for a very loose definition of best, unfortunately).
4. Some pivotal moments in Mass Effect 3 have fans debating whether or not Bioware is degrading the values and quality of known characters in the franchise. For the most part, fan opinion of Cerberus assassin Kai Leng’s portrayal in Mass Effect 3 has been negative, mostly described by fans as being due to having multiple authors since the character’s introduction in the novels creating inconsistence’s in his personality. Others examples are the pairing of Garrus and Tali if the player does not romance them in the previous installment of the franchise, and Joker (the pilot of the character’s ship) abandoning the fight during its climax. What is your opinion of this? Are these accurate examples?
Yes, they are. Kai Leng was established as a meticulous, thorough, COLD killer capable of fooling Aria T'Loak even as he slaughters her daughter in the first books. Come Deception, he is a show-off with no sense of logic and no manners, and suddenly the daughter slaughter is forgotten altogether. Unfortunately, ME3 somewhy accepted the already dis-canoned Deception as the base for him. Where we expected to have at least The Man With The Golden Gun, if not The Jackal, we got a stock parody of cyber ninjas that seems ripped straight out of Metal Gear Solid 4. Without the character development requisite of MGS characters, to boot.
The pairing of Garrus and Tali makes sense, at least to me -- there has been chemistry between them since the second game (some would argue, since the first, but people tend to associate the elevator talks with only negative impressions, which is bad -- they were a good world-building element and I was sad to see it go). A lesson learned from Dragon Age, no doubt, as DA2 introduced the idea of "pairing the spares" to keep the world believable. Sadly, since the only other applicable pairing was Ashley/Kaidan, fans decided to lash out.
Joker's abandonment of Shepard is a major issue, but it comes bundled with the whole slew of issues with the ending I've already brought up -- it's not a broken characterization, the entire ending is suspect and should be either rewritten entirely or expanded astronomically to make any sense.
5. At which point do you think the quality of the writing changed the pace and feel of Mass Effect 3?
The moment Kai Leng dies. The moment Vendetta says the Crucible is part of the Citadel, and the Catalyst IS the Citadel. The moment Shepard was supposed to say "but that means the Reapers interfered with the Crucible plans! It's a Reaper trap! Stop the presses!"
It goes downhill from there - London barely changes based on our plot decisions, barring two or three dialogues, although we WERE supposed to get wildly different army layouts based on how well our recruitment drive went. No matter what, you see mostly Alliance soldiers, no matter what, only 50% of Hammer makes it through, no matter what, you never see or feel their presence in the No Man's Land, no matter what, you fight the endless battle for the missiles with zero support, no matter what Harbinger will wordlessly shoot Shepard AND LEAVE. No matter what Anderson will die, and the Illusive Man will die, and Shepard will accept the Catalyst's words at face value and do as he says. No matter what, the mass relays are destroyed, no matter what Joker leaves Shepard behind, no matter what the Normandy is stranded. No matter what.
6. Despite the popularity of the Shadow Broker text files in the Mass Effect 2 DLC [Lair of the Shadow Broker], would you pay for a new ending over a free text epilogue of the current endings?
Yes. The popularity of the Shadow Broker dossiers was in that they were fluff. Completely optional. And in what was well in advance announced to be the SECOND game in a TRILOGY. A justified conclusion of a trilogy should not be some text bits. Especially a trilogy as cinematic as Mass Effect. Not we, the fans, but the game, the ART, deserves the endings to be long-winded and cinematic and fully voiced and FULLY REFLECTIVE OF PLAYER CHOICES. Not some pre-rendered identical-save-for-coloration grainy videos that do little to explain what just happen... and then cut to the Normandy crashing and then cut to credits. Only Assassins' Creed is allowed to pull that stuff off, and it compensates by making the protagonist say "WHAT. THE. F***." at the same time as the player does it. (not an exagerration, that is EXACTLY what Desmond says at the end of AC2).
7. Another point that fans argue about is whether the end game sequence of Mass Effect 3 was real or whether it was a dream. What is your opinion of this, where do you stand? Do either have good claims to support, or is this just a part of Bioware desiring speculation amongst fans? How is this different from the people who support a rewrite of the last sequence?
I am firmly against the so-called Indoctrination Theory. While it does have grounds in the plot, it is mostly used to nullify Shepard's sacrifice in favour of a fully-sweet ending. I am not against it, I'm just against making it so easy. They have fallen into the other side of the cop-out roadside ditch, the overcompensation. The only way the Indoctrination Theory could work from a narrative perspective is if, after its revelation, there would be another gameplay section, at least 30 or 40 minutes long, to reclaim the idea that Shepard is, you know, winning the war.
Bad as it is, the current ending does actually provide sufficient tragedy, it's just misplaced and unrelated to the events of the game.
I am in favour of removing the Deus Ex Machina entirely in exchange for an on-foot battle against Harbinger, this time done Shadow of the Colossus style. The Rannoch Reaper fight established that Reapers can be defeated this way, and I honestly expected Shepard to do just that there. After that... who knows, I'm not the one paid to fix the story. If I was, my suggestions can be found in the forum signature, but the crux is this: Shepard should've been able to tell the Catalyst to shove off, and leave the Citadel, ordering Hackett to destroy it. Even if this wouldnot have led to victory over the Reapers, it WOULD have led to the cycles being disrupted because they hinge on the Catalyst AI and the Citadel to survive into the next cycle.
The difference between the IT and the Rewriters is that the supporters of Indoctrination suggest keeping the Starchild sequence for its scare value. Rewrite means rewrite, the Catalyst is merely a part from the Citadel that can be cut out, there should be NO Machine God overseeing the Reapers. ME2 already established Harbinger as the Head Reaper, why did BioWare have to change that?
Section 4: Economic Input
1. Mass Effect 2 was known for having lots of Down-Loadable Content (DLC). Did you buy all of them? If not, which ones did you buy, and what was the reasoning behind buying them?
Yes, I bought all of them. I wanted more game content, and boy, did I get it!
2. The Retake Movement has claimed responsibility over the recent decrease in EA stock prices, as well as causing the price of the game to decrease by 25%. In these instances, do you think the stigma against poor writing in entertainment will be a factor in the future aspects of entertainment, or will it be exclusive to the gaming industry?
Unfortunately, there's a fitting saying in Russian. "Пипл хавает", or "the people gobble it up [anyway]". So long as there are potential customers who do not care about quality writing, the stigma imposed by those who do will be insufficient to cause any significant financial harm to all but the narrowest genres of media. Sadly, only the original Mass Effect was sufficiently narrow for that, and it sold poorly only on the PC and only because the quality of the port was atrocious.
3. Did you buy the “From Ashes” DLC? Given the premise of the plot, do you think the produces alienated themselves from their consumers by making them pay extra for a character that plays a crucial role in the history of the franchise, and have caused another rallying point for players upset about the vagueness of the ending?
I bought the Collector's Edition, so I got the DLC bundled. Yes, I think that having Javik contain so much of the game's plot, and so much of the universe's backstory in a way that screamed "this was part of the main game and its plot, look how neatly it fits!!!!" was ultimately bad. After all, the original promise was that the thing we would have to buy would be the ability to use him as a squadmate, and all his story and lines would be IN the actual game free of charge. Sadly, this was not the case.
This led a lot of people to assume that the ending got similar treatment - that it was purposefully cut up in order to be sold separately at a cost. The intensity with which BioWare underscores the free-of-chargeness of the Extended Cut DLC does not help alleviate the problem one bit. It's as if their (still miraculously un-fired) PR Department still fails to understand the reason behind the fan's uproar, which is being ignored time and again, not having their questions answered, and then getting answers to questions nobody asked about because they didn't matter enough, and told to like it or leave it because there would be NO further alterations to the ending. Another slap in the collective face of the fandom, sadly.
Really, BioWare, you're better than this. Talk to us. LISTEN TO US. We desperately want to trust you again, but you're not helping!
Modifié par Noelemahc, 08 avril 2012 - 09:24 .
#103
Posté 08 avril 2012 - 10:19
viperabyss
-
- Members
- 422 messages
[Section 1 – Prior Gameplay Experience]1. Have you completed Mass Effect 3?
Yes
2. If not, do you know how the trilogy ends?
n/a
3. Have you played the previous 2 installments of the Mass Effect franchise?
Yes
4. If you have, which character was your LI in each installment? Did this affect how you enjoyed the game?
Liara / Liara / Liara. I enjoyed the game a lot more knowing that I can emotionally invest in the game.
5. In Mass Effect 2, presuming you saved every team member during the final chapter, was the overlying stories of the characters the main influence in saving them?
Yes. Team members will only be expendable when you don't know anything about them.
6. Did the reactions of renegade choices in the franchise forced you to play one way over the other?
Not necessarily, although I'm a Paragon person myself.
7. What are your favorite 3 memories of the story’s franchise? Is there a common theme among them?
a) Alliance swoop in to save the Destiny Acension in the Battle of Citadel, ME.
The final cutscene in ME2, after talking with the Illusive Man about the outcome of the Suicide Mission.
c) The cutscene after the Human Reaper was defeated in ME2.
The common theme is the heroic elements embodied in all three events, and that the game developers do try to give gamers a sense of accomplishment.
Section 2: Bioware and Artistic Integrity
1. Do you believe video games are a form of art? Do you believe art is static or fluid?
Yes, I believe video game is a form of art, and I believe art is fluid.
Most arts are defined by how they interact with their audiences. Paintings elicit emotional or philosophical response from the audiences. Music elicit emotional response from the listeners. Dances elicit emotional response from the audiences. And in the case of video games, the interactive element could not be any stronger.
2. Throughout the third installment, some fans believed that Bioware /EA rewrote specific characters during important sequences. Do you have a similar opinion? If so, which characters do you have a problem with?
I don't believe so, or that I haven't observed it yet.
3. Do you think the Adam and Eve reference at the end of the game made sense, given the theme of co-existence between organic and synthetic organisms?
I do not believe the synthetic ending makes practical sense. The Adam and Eve reference is a nice touch on that ending, however.
4. Do you think Mass Effect 3 had more humorous moments than previous installments? If so, do you think it was to cut the theme of war and death in the game, or was this an attempt to detract fans from over thinking the ending?
I do not believe there are more humorous moments in Mass Effect 3 than the previous installments. If so, I think those moments were an attempt to show how people try to look on the bright side, despite the desperation.
5. Given Bioware’s previous experience with incorporating player feedback into the series, do you think changing the ending all together would compromise Bioware / EA’s previous decisions and artistic integrity?
I do not believe so. I believe the final ending does not fit in with the rest of the series, as the main core story has changed. I also do not believe in the merit of artistic integrity in this case, when Bioware / EA are considered as commercial artists who create art to their customers' (gamers) satisfaction, in return for monetary compensation.
6. With the death of well accepted characters in Mass Effect 3 as a part of trying close that character’s story, what makes stranding the crew any different?
The difference is the logical conclusion of the crew being stranded on the world, with no additional explanation. The accepted reality of the ME universe would indicate all the crews would die out due to starvation, or inability to maintain a colony. As opposed to characters who received a proper "send off" in the game (such as Mordin), the stranded characters would have suffered a fate unfitting to their story.
7. Do you think Bioware made the right choice in explaining the antagonist’s role in the series, or should it have been left alone?
It depends on which antagnist you're referring to. Before the ending, the antagonist was the Reaper, while the ending itself, the antagonist was the Catalyst.
Personally, the game would've been fine if the original antagonist's (Reapers) role was not properly explained, since Mass Effect is not about their story. There would be some backlash from fans who demands an answer, but it would truly be a minority among the fans themselves. However, the second antagonist (the Catalyst) does require a lot of explanation of his role in the series.
8. A lot of fans found the ending of Mass Effect 3 to be reminiscent of the ending’s of other franchises. Despite various amounts of plot holes in these franchises, they did well. What makes Mass Effect 3 different? The difference of genre. For instance, the ending of Mass Effect 3 shares a lot of similarities with the ending of Deus Ex: Machina / Human Revolution. The difference, however, is that Mass Effect 3 is a character driven game, while Deus Ex is a philosophy driven game. Throughout the game, developers of Deus Ex have consistently dropped clues of the cause and effect of human augmentations. It inspires the players to think of the consequences of the actions they are taking, as well as the ethic issue behind it.
Mass Effect 3, on the other hand however, does not have a clear philosophy throughout the series. The main core of the series have always been to stop the Reapers. There were no clue throughout the game that focuses on the issue of organics vs. synthetics. There were indeed elements of the argument, but it was never the main backbone of the story.
9. Bioware used 3-dimensional facial rendering for voice actress Jessica Chobot’s character Diana Allers, but photo-shopped a picture of Miss England 2005 Hammasa Kohistani for the character Tali’Zorah vas Normandy. Do you think Bioware put more emphasis in designing an Easter Egg character over improving characters that were introduced in Mass Effect 2 (such as Thane, Jacob, Miranda and Jack)? Given IGN’s defense of the game and its endorsements, do you think Jessica’s role had an influence in the site’s score of the game? Do you the upset fans correct in making this presumption, or is it biased by looking for a scapegoat?
It is somewhat understandable for Bioware to not include a 3D facial rendering for Tali'Zorah vas Normandy. Since her fans have widly different expectation of what she would've looked like, it would be difficult to know what is considered "accepted appearance" by the community. However, it is indeed very disappointing to see Bioware only spent very limited amount of time photoshopping the photo, on a character that was present since the beginning of the franchise. To see that they spent an enormous amount of time preparing a non-essential character, while spending virtually none on an essential character, is disappointing to say the least.
I believe Jessica Chobot's role has a profound effect on IGN's scores of the game, as well as the subsequent response to the Retake Mass Effect Movement. It is difficult to argue that IGN, with one of it's staff featured in the game, would be impartial in reviewing the game.
Section 3: The Endings
1. Given that the game has been released since March 6 (in North America) have you beaten the game? How many times have you replayed the game?
I've finished the game twice.
2. What did you think of the ending? What is your position on it? Why do you have that opinion?
My belief is that the current ending does not fit into the core story of the Mass Effect franchise, and it is perhaps best to be replaced. The current ending introduces a new line of philosophy not seen in the previous games, as well as a new character that received only 14 lines of dialogue, yet is crucial to the entire trilogy.
3. Mass Effect 1 and 2 were both known for their replay-ability value, what about Mass Effect 3? Do you think the ending is the main factor in this inability to replay the game, or do you think it’s because Bioware has been largely quiet about these reactions? Do you think this is why they added multiplayer capabilities?
Mass Effect 3's replayability is definitely a notch below both ME and ME2. The Mass Effect 3 ending is a major deal breaker for me, because it is difficult to accept an ending that does not wrap up the storyline presented in the trilogy.
I think the multiplayer capabilities were developed independent of the single player campaign. The multiplayer, in my view, was added at the request of EA, who wants to obtain more revenue by selling additional multiplayer DLCs.
4. Some pivotal moments in Mass Effect 3 have fans debating whether or not Bioware is degrading the values and quality of known characters in the franchise. For the most part, fan opinion of Cerberus assassin Kai Leng’s portrayal in Mass Effect 3 has been negative, mostly described by fans as being due to having multiple authors since the character’s introduction in the novels creating inconsistence’s in his personality. Others examples are the pairing of Garrus and Tali if the player does not romance them in the previous installment of the franchise, and Joker (the pilot of the character’s ship) abandoning the fight during its climax. What is your opinion of this? Are these accurate examples?
I've not read the Mass Effect novels, so I cannot comment on Kai Leng. The pairing of Garrus and Tali was a bit odd, but not entirely out of touch with "making the most in these desperate times". Joker (and your squadmates) leaving the scene, however, was unacceptable.
5. At which point do you think the quality of the writing changed the pace and feel of Mass Effect 3?
For me, it was the ending, after Shepard took the elevator to meet the Catalyst
6. Despite the popularity of the Shadow Broker text files in the Mass Effect 2 DLC [Lair of the Shadow Broker], would you pay for a new ending over a free text epilogue of the current endings?
I would pay for a new ending, IF the ending contains playable material, an extended epilogue (~5 minutes), as well as an explorable universe after the destruction of the Reapers.
7. Another point that fans argue about is whether the end game sequence of Mass Effect 3 was real or whether it was a dream. What is your opinion of this, where do you stand? Do either have good claims to support, or is this just a part of Bioware desiring speculation amongst fans? How is this different from the people who support a rewrite of the last sequence?
I'm not a believer of the indoctrination theory. While it would be clever for Bioware to pull it off, it is difficult to think that Bioware / EA would release a game without an actual ending, only to be released at a later time. Furthermore, a lot of the "evidence" put forth by the crowd are mostly just design oversight, or pure exaggerations. The Stargazer sequence also does not add to the theory itself.
I think the indoctrination theory exists because people continue to cling on to the fact that Bioware could not have abandon it's lore at the last minute. The ending's intended speculative nature also does not help gamers to clarify the situation. Personally, I don't think this is the speculation effect Bioware was looking for. I think they were looking for speculation on ethic issues (such as organics vs. synthetics).
The indoctrination theory is different from those seeking a rewrite because the theory works (somewhat) and expands on the existing controversial material. As opposed to those looking to replace the entire ending, the indoctrination theory seeks to expand on it.
Section 4: Economic Input
1. Mass Effect 2 was known for having lots of Down-Loadable Content (DLC). Did you buy all of them? If not, which ones did you buy, and what was the reasoning behind buying them?
I purchase all of the story-related DLC, and none of the gun / appearance packs. I bought them because they expands on my understanding of the story.
2. The Retake Movement has claimed responsibility over the recent decrease in EA stock prices, as well as causing the price of the game to decrease by 25%. In these instances, do you think the stigma against poor writing in entertainment will be a factor in the future aspects of entertainment, or will it be exclusive to the gaming industry?
The stigma against poor writing have existed for a long time now. It is said that Sir Authur Conan has changed the ending of the beloved Sherlock Holms due to fan outcry. Life of Sir Thomas More has also been changed by Shakespear due to response from readers. More recently, the ending of Fallout 3 was modified to accommodate the fans' reaction. Mass Effect 3's ending was not the first public outcry, and if Bioware decides to change it, is also definitely not the first time an artist changes his/her work due to negative reaction from his/her customers.
3. Did you buy the “From Ashes” DLC? Given the premise of the plot, do you think the produces alienated themselves from their consumers by making them pay extra for a character that plays a crucial role in the history of the franchise, and have caused another rallying point for players upset about the vagueness of the ending?
I purchased the Collector's Edition, which includes the "From Ashes" DLC. I certainly think Bioware has alienated a sizable portion of it's loyal fanbase by separating a plot-crucial character, and selling it separately. However, I don't think it has any effect on why people are upset at the ending. If not for the ending controversy, the outcry against Day 1 DLC would probably be mostly contained in the Mass Effect community.
If you have further question or need me to clarify, please message me on BSN.
Yes
2. If not, do you know how the trilogy ends?
n/a
3. Have you played the previous 2 installments of the Mass Effect franchise?
Yes
4. If you have, which character was your LI in each installment? Did this affect how you enjoyed the game?
Liara / Liara / Liara. I enjoyed the game a lot more knowing that I can emotionally invest in the game.
5. In Mass Effect 2, presuming you saved every team member during the final chapter, was the overlying stories of the characters the main influence in saving them?
Yes. Team members will only be expendable when you don't know anything about them.
6. Did the reactions of renegade choices in the franchise forced you to play one way over the other?
Not necessarily, although I'm a Paragon person myself.
7. What are your favorite 3 memories of the story’s franchise? Is there a common theme among them?
a) Alliance swoop in to save the Destiny Acension in the Battle of Citadel, ME.
The final cutscene in ME2, after talking with the Illusive Man about the outcome of the Suicide Mission.c) The cutscene after the Human Reaper was defeated in ME2.
The common theme is the heroic elements embodied in all three events, and that the game developers do try to give gamers a sense of accomplishment.
Section 2: Bioware and Artistic Integrity
1. Do you believe video games are a form of art? Do you believe art is static or fluid?
Yes, I believe video game is a form of art, and I believe art is fluid.
Most arts are defined by how they interact with their audiences. Paintings elicit emotional or philosophical response from the audiences. Music elicit emotional response from the listeners. Dances elicit emotional response from the audiences. And in the case of video games, the interactive element could not be any stronger.
2. Throughout the third installment, some fans believed that Bioware /EA rewrote specific characters during important sequences. Do you have a similar opinion? If so, which characters do you have a problem with?
I don't believe so, or that I haven't observed it yet.
3. Do you think the Adam and Eve reference at the end of the game made sense, given the theme of co-existence between organic and synthetic organisms?
I do not believe the synthetic ending makes practical sense. The Adam and Eve reference is a nice touch on that ending, however.
4. Do you think Mass Effect 3 had more humorous moments than previous installments? If so, do you think it was to cut the theme of war and death in the game, or was this an attempt to detract fans from over thinking the ending?
I do not believe there are more humorous moments in Mass Effect 3 than the previous installments. If so, I think those moments were an attempt to show how people try to look on the bright side, despite the desperation.
5. Given Bioware’s previous experience with incorporating player feedback into the series, do you think changing the ending all together would compromise Bioware / EA’s previous decisions and artistic integrity?
I do not believe so. I believe the final ending does not fit in with the rest of the series, as the main core story has changed. I also do not believe in the merit of artistic integrity in this case, when Bioware / EA are considered as commercial artists who create art to their customers' (gamers) satisfaction, in return for monetary compensation.
6. With the death of well accepted characters in Mass Effect 3 as a part of trying close that character’s story, what makes stranding the crew any different?
The difference is the logical conclusion of the crew being stranded on the world, with no additional explanation. The accepted reality of the ME universe would indicate all the crews would die out due to starvation, or inability to maintain a colony. As opposed to characters who received a proper "send off" in the game (such as Mordin), the stranded characters would have suffered a fate unfitting to their story.
7. Do you think Bioware made the right choice in explaining the antagonist’s role in the series, or should it have been left alone?
It depends on which antagnist you're referring to. Before the ending, the antagonist was the Reaper, while the ending itself, the antagonist was the Catalyst.
Personally, the game would've been fine if the original antagonist's (Reapers) role was not properly explained, since Mass Effect is not about their story. There would be some backlash from fans who demands an answer, but it would truly be a minority among the fans themselves. However, the second antagonist (the Catalyst) does require a lot of explanation of his role in the series.
8. A lot of fans found the ending of Mass Effect 3 to be reminiscent of the ending’s of other franchises. Despite various amounts of plot holes in these franchises, they did well. What makes Mass Effect 3 different? The difference of genre. For instance, the ending of Mass Effect 3 shares a lot of similarities with the ending of Deus Ex: Machina / Human Revolution. The difference, however, is that Mass Effect 3 is a character driven game, while Deus Ex is a philosophy driven game. Throughout the game, developers of Deus Ex have consistently dropped clues of the cause and effect of human augmentations. It inspires the players to think of the consequences of the actions they are taking, as well as the ethic issue behind it.
Mass Effect 3, on the other hand however, does not have a clear philosophy throughout the series. The main core of the series have always been to stop the Reapers. There were no clue throughout the game that focuses on the issue of organics vs. synthetics. There were indeed elements of the argument, but it was never the main backbone of the story.
9. Bioware used 3-dimensional facial rendering for voice actress Jessica Chobot’s character Diana Allers, but photo-shopped a picture of Miss England 2005 Hammasa Kohistani for the character Tali’Zorah vas Normandy. Do you think Bioware put more emphasis in designing an Easter Egg character over improving characters that were introduced in Mass Effect 2 (such as Thane, Jacob, Miranda and Jack)? Given IGN’s defense of the game and its endorsements, do you think Jessica’s role had an influence in the site’s score of the game? Do you the upset fans correct in making this presumption, or is it biased by looking for a scapegoat?
It is somewhat understandable for Bioware to not include a 3D facial rendering for Tali'Zorah vas Normandy. Since her fans have widly different expectation of what she would've looked like, it would be difficult to know what is considered "accepted appearance" by the community. However, it is indeed very disappointing to see Bioware only spent very limited amount of time photoshopping the photo, on a character that was present since the beginning of the franchise. To see that they spent an enormous amount of time preparing a non-essential character, while spending virtually none on an essential character, is disappointing to say the least.
I believe Jessica Chobot's role has a profound effect on IGN's scores of the game, as well as the subsequent response to the Retake Mass Effect Movement. It is difficult to argue that IGN, with one of it's staff featured in the game, would be impartial in reviewing the game.
Section 3: The Endings
1. Given that the game has been released since March 6 (in North America) have you beaten the game? How many times have you replayed the game?
I've finished the game twice.
2. What did you think of the ending? What is your position on it? Why do you have that opinion?
My belief is that the current ending does not fit into the core story of the Mass Effect franchise, and it is perhaps best to be replaced. The current ending introduces a new line of philosophy not seen in the previous games, as well as a new character that received only 14 lines of dialogue, yet is crucial to the entire trilogy.
3. Mass Effect 1 and 2 were both known for their replay-ability value, what about Mass Effect 3? Do you think the ending is the main factor in this inability to replay the game, or do you think it’s because Bioware has been largely quiet about these reactions? Do you think this is why they added multiplayer capabilities?
Mass Effect 3's replayability is definitely a notch below both ME and ME2. The Mass Effect 3 ending is a major deal breaker for me, because it is difficult to accept an ending that does not wrap up the storyline presented in the trilogy.
I think the multiplayer capabilities were developed independent of the single player campaign. The multiplayer, in my view, was added at the request of EA, who wants to obtain more revenue by selling additional multiplayer DLCs.
4. Some pivotal moments in Mass Effect 3 have fans debating whether or not Bioware is degrading the values and quality of known characters in the franchise. For the most part, fan opinion of Cerberus assassin Kai Leng’s portrayal in Mass Effect 3 has been negative, mostly described by fans as being due to having multiple authors since the character’s introduction in the novels creating inconsistence’s in his personality. Others examples are the pairing of Garrus and Tali if the player does not romance them in the previous installment of the franchise, and Joker (the pilot of the character’s ship) abandoning the fight during its climax. What is your opinion of this? Are these accurate examples?
I've not read the Mass Effect novels, so I cannot comment on Kai Leng. The pairing of Garrus and Tali was a bit odd, but not entirely out of touch with "making the most in these desperate times". Joker (and your squadmates) leaving the scene, however, was unacceptable.
5. At which point do you think the quality of the writing changed the pace and feel of Mass Effect 3?
For me, it was the ending, after Shepard took the elevator to meet the Catalyst
6. Despite the popularity of the Shadow Broker text files in the Mass Effect 2 DLC [Lair of the Shadow Broker], would you pay for a new ending over a free text epilogue of the current endings?
I would pay for a new ending, IF the ending contains playable material, an extended epilogue (~5 minutes), as well as an explorable universe after the destruction of the Reapers.
7. Another point that fans argue about is whether the end game sequence of Mass Effect 3 was real or whether it was a dream. What is your opinion of this, where do you stand? Do either have good claims to support, or is this just a part of Bioware desiring speculation amongst fans? How is this different from the people who support a rewrite of the last sequence?
I'm not a believer of the indoctrination theory. While it would be clever for Bioware to pull it off, it is difficult to think that Bioware / EA would release a game without an actual ending, only to be released at a later time. Furthermore, a lot of the "evidence" put forth by the crowd are mostly just design oversight, or pure exaggerations. The Stargazer sequence also does not add to the theory itself.
I think the indoctrination theory exists because people continue to cling on to the fact that Bioware could not have abandon it's lore at the last minute. The ending's intended speculative nature also does not help gamers to clarify the situation. Personally, I don't think this is the speculation effect Bioware was looking for. I think they were looking for speculation on ethic issues (such as organics vs. synthetics).
The indoctrination theory is different from those seeking a rewrite because the theory works (somewhat) and expands on the existing controversial material. As opposed to those looking to replace the entire ending, the indoctrination theory seeks to expand on it.
Section 4: Economic Input
1. Mass Effect 2 was known for having lots of Down-Loadable Content (DLC). Did you buy all of them? If not, which ones did you buy, and what was the reasoning behind buying them?
I purchase all of the story-related DLC, and none of the gun / appearance packs. I bought them because they expands on my understanding of the story.
2. The Retake Movement has claimed responsibility over the recent decrease in EA stock prices, as well as causing the price of the game to decrease by 25%. In these instances, do you think the stigma against poor writing in entertainment will be a factor in the future aspects of entertainment, or will it be exclusive to the gaming industry?
The stigma against poor writing have existed for a long time now. It is said that Sir Authur Conan has changed the ending of the beloved Sherlock Holms due to fan outcry. Life of Sir Thomas More has also been changed by Shakespear due to response from readers. More recently, the ending of Fallout 3 was modified to accommodate the fans' reaction. Mass Effect 3's ending was not the first public outcry, and if Bioware decides to change it, is also definitely not the first time an artist changes his/her work due to negative reaction from his/her customers.
3. Did you buy the “From Ashes” DLC? Given the premise of the plot, do you think the produces alienated themselves from their consumers by making them pay extra for a character that plays a crucial role in the history of the franchise, and have caused another rallying point for players upset about the vagueness of the ending?
I purchased the Collector's Edition, which includes the "From Ashes" DLC. I certainly think Bioware has alienated a sizable portion of it's loyal fanbase by separating a plot-crucial character, and selling it separately. However, I don't think it has any effect on why people are upset at the ending. If not for the ending controversy, the outcry against Day 1 DLC would probably be mostly contained in the Mass Effect community.
If you have further question or need me to clarify, please message me on BSN.
Modifié par viperabyss, 08 avril 2012 - 10:23 .
#105
Posté 09 avril 2012 - 02:23
Hicks233
-
- Members
- 399 messages
Infinityphoenix wrote...
[Section 1 – Prior Gameplay Experience]
1. Have you completed Mass Effect 3?
Yes.
2. If not, do you know how the trilogy ends?
---
3. Have you played the previous 2 installments of the Mass Effect franchise?
Yes.
4. If you have, which character was your LI in each installment? Did this affect how you enjoyed the game?
ME1 Kaiden
ME2 Garrus
ME3 Garrus
I found the internal conflict in Kaiden to be well handled and interesting allowing him to grow as a character while revealing vulnerabilities. In the case of Garrus watching him open up and trust. Both rewarding arcs.
5. In Mass Effect 2, presuming you saved every team member during the final chapter, was the overlying stories of the characters the main influence in saving them?
In the majority of cases yes. There were a small number of characters who felt like a burden, after replaying ME2 a few times though it came across more to me as being due to their character not being explored enough. Jacob, Miranda, Legion. All good characters that after a number of playthroughs I'm fond of. At that time though they felt a little hollow.
6. Did the reactions of renegade choices in the franchise forced you to play one way over the other?
Played as a Paragon as the Renagade choices were suitably reprehensible (particularly in ME3) tried to have renegade playthoughs but never got far as the way I was treating my crew and others just didn't sit right with me.
7. What are your favorite 3 memories of the story’s franchise? Is there a common theme among them?
The Normandy Reborn, it's unveiling in ME2, perfect soundtrack, perfect moment.
The Suicide Run in ME2, consequences of actions were clearly shown and well handled. Fitting conclusion that you had been working towards all the way through the game.
First catch up meeting with Garrus in the Main Battery in ME3 with him as a love interest. Seeing his character open up and how the relationship between Garrus and Shepard was becoming defined.
Section 2: Bioware and Artistic Integrity
1. Do you believe video games are a form of art? Do you believe art is static or fluid?
They can be in some cases. Most aren't, in the majority of cases they are a product. I would be happier if they were comfortable with being excellent products without worrying if they are art or not. Art changes depending on cultural perceptions and social trends I think. Uniqueness though does afford more opportunity to be regarded as an artwork though.
2. Throughout the third installment, some fans believed that Bioware /EA rewrote specific characters during important sequences. Do you have a similar opinion? If so, which characters do you have a problem with?
Characters I'm fine with. The ending/s however feel very disjointed and pasted in from another story.
3. Do you think the Adam and Eve reference at the end of the game made sense, given the theme of co-existence between organic and synthetic organisms?
I think the ending/s were badly thought out and implemented and showed a schism between aims of the writers and the desires of the player. The Adam and Eve reference felt out of place and slightly ridiculous.
4. Do you think Mass Effect 3 had more humorous moments than previous installments? If so, do you think it was to cut the theme of war and death in the game, or was this an attempt to detract fans from over thinking the ending?
I think ME3 was more comfortable with its world for the most part and while you have an overarching sense of fear, anxiety and loss it makes sense that humour is more apparent as a coping mechanism. I felt it was handled in character and with tact. Not used as a diversion. The ending/s as I've said before were just a mess that didn't fit.
5. Given Bioware’s previous experience with incorporating player feedback into the series, do you think changing the ending all together would compromise Bioware / EA’s previous decisions and artistic integrity?
I think there was a clear expectation from the players based on marketing and previous form. That those expectations were not met and the product was counter to what was advertised render claims of artistic integrity mute. The more I hear artistic integrity raised as a defense the more irritated I become and less trusting of Bioware/EA as a whole.
6. With the death of well accepted characters in Mass Effect 3 as a part of trying close that character’s story, what makes stranding the crew any different?
It's out of character for Joker. It makes no sense and runs counter to the overall consistency of characters behaviour. This is before you get to the issue of how are the team you fought on Earth with magically on the Normandy. Sloppy writing and a kick in the nuts to the player.
7. Do you think Bioware made the right choice in explaining the antagonist’s role in the series, or should it have been left alone?
I would have been happy without an explanation. The choice they made of the Catalyst is not only infuriating, nonsensical and insulting but just sloppy writing. Taking an emotionally and atmospheric experience driven trilogy and ending it with a dry, uninvolving and frankly boring lecture is a major disparity that again failed to understand the audience. The consistency utterly fell apart with the introduction of the Catalyst and its nonsensical "logic".
8. A lot of fans found the ending of Mass Effect 3 to be reminiscent of the ending’s of other franchises. Despite various amounts of plot holes in these franchises, they did well. What makes Mass Effect 3 different?
The advertising, the (lack of) involvement that defines games and the disparity in tone and delivery.
9. Bioware used 3-dimensional facial rendering for voice actress Jessica Chobot’s character Diana Allers, but photo-shopped a picture of Miss England 2005 Hammasa Kohistani for the character Tali’Zorah vas Normandy. Do you think Bioware put more emphasis in designing an Easter Egg character over improving characters that were introduced in Mass Effect 2 (such as Thane, Jacob, Miranda and Jack)? Given IGN’s defense of the game and its endorsements, do you think Jessica’s role had an influence in the site’s score of the game? Do you the upset fans correct in making this presumption, or is it biased by looking for a scapegoat?
IGN's behaviour has been suspect in a number of cases though not unexpected - issues of journalistic integrity and bias could be argued about for a long time save to say I don't put much stock in the gaming press anyway. I do feel that the character of Diana Allers was a waste of resources when there were pre-existing characters that could have been used. I see nothing wrong with using a stock image for what they are intended for, the hand was sloppily done and it would have had more credability if there was a 3D model reveal of Tali's face to back it up. If this had been done alongside the character of Diana Allers inclusion I would have been happier.
Section 3: The Endings
1. Given that the game has been released since March 6 (in North America) have you beaten the game? How many times have you replayed the game?
Once through with an imported character across ME1 & 2. Tried reimporting that ME 3 character but lost interest after Mars due to the endings. Why bother playing with ending/s that render your actions pointless?
2. What did you think of the ending? What is your position on it? Why do you have that opinion?
Important to think in terms of plural and not singular. We all have an ideal ending that we want. It's more important to realise that we were expecting and were advertised ending-s. Variety is almost non-existent. Actions fail to be adequately realised. They are as a whole unfulfilling, nonsensical, contrary to the delivery and theme of the rest of the story across the trilogy, fail to meet marketed expectations and render replays or the purchasing of subsequent DLC pointless.
3. Mass Effect 1 and 2 were both known for their replay-ability value, what about Mass Effect 3? Do you think the ending is the main factor in this inability to replay the game, or do you think it’s because Bioware has been largely quiet about these reactions? Do you think this is why they added multiplayer capabilities?
The ending/s do for me render replay of ME3 in particular but by extension the trilogy as a whole pointless. With DLC for ME2 unpurchased I currently have no reason to buy it either. The multiplayer being tied into the singleplayer was a massive irritation - so much so I edited the savegames to not have to play multiplayer. I have no desire to play it - finding it a tedious grindfest. I suspect that multiplayer was added with a view to make cash back on the weapon packs and future DLC.
4. Some pivotal moments in Mass Effect 3 have fans debating whether or not Bioware is degrading the values and quality of known characters in the franchise. For the most part, fan opinion of Cerberus assassin Kai Leng’s portrayal in Mass Effect 3 has been negative, mostly described by fans as being due to having multiple authors since the character’s introduction in the novels creating inconsistence’s in his personality. Others examples are the pairing of Garrus and Tali if the player does not romance them in the previous installment of the franchise, and Joker (the pilot of the character’s ship) abandoning the fight during its climax. What is your opinion of this? Are these accurate examples?
I would agree with some. I think that people are overprotective of the characters of Tali and Garrus and fail to realise that if characters within the world can form relationships if they are not with the player then that adds a sense of life to the world. That it doesn't exist solely to give you tasks to do. Something that I would personally encourage.
Jokers turning tail. Yeah... bad writing that flies contradictory to character.
Kai Leng. I've not read the books and have no desire to do so. Kai Leng functioned as an antagonist. I wanted to eliminate him so he served his narrative function exceedingly well. As for the depth of his character I found the files you can read on the computer adequate. The implementation of his boss battle was cringeworthy though for me. In a series that has been so strongly narrative led having a bog standard boss battle just felt boring. The renegade interupt ending felt far more suitable. If that conflict had been handled in a similar fashion via interupts and dialogue (akin to Vega and Shepard's sparing) I'd have found that more fitting and interesting.
5. At which point do you think the quality of the writing changed the pace and feel of Mass Effect 3?
As soon as you go up on the Catalyst lift. If the Indoctrination Theory had been used I'd have found it a very clever and interesting plot twist. It would still mean though that the game was badly unfinished requiring a resolution after the indoctrination attempt had been established. From the moment you see that lift the series went from an emotionally involving one to a dry and boring lecture devoid of emotion.
6. Despite the popularity of the Shadow Broker text files in the Mass Effect 2 DLC [Lair of the Shadow Broker], would you pay for a new ending over a free text epilogue of the current endings?
I would be willing to pay for ending-s that fulfil the original advertising claims. I would be willing to pay for a continuance that uses the Indoctrination Theory as its base. I would be willing to pay if there was also an admitance that the endings failed to deliver on promises - without hiding behind claims of artistic integrity. Clarification built on the faulty Catalyst base with the same dry and uninvolving, lecture type tone... no. I'd not waste money on that. This all should have been in the product to begin with however. By rights we ought not have to pay extra for what is an incomplete product.
7. Another point that fans argue about is whether the end game sequence of Mass Effect 3 was real or whether it was a dream. What is your opinion of this, where do you stand? Do either have good claims to support, or is this just a part of Bioware desiring speculation amongst fans? How is this different from the people who support a rewrite of the last sequence?
I think it can be put simply. Bioware dropped the ball badly. They have a way out by using the Indoctrination Theory. If they were trying to be smart, they failed badly. If they intending these endings, they failed badly. If this was an attempt at creating interest in a product, they'd do well to remember that we are paying customers, not guinea pigs to be dismissed.
Section 4: Economic Input
1. Mass Effect 2 was known for having lots of Down-Loadable Content (DLC). Did you buy all of them? If not, which ones did you buy, and what was the reasoning behind buying them?
Bought Kasumi's DLC but no others. Until the ending/s are fixed I've no desire to buy any others.
2. The Retake Movement has claimed responsibility over the recent decrease in EA stock prices, as well as causing the price of the game to decrease by 25%. In these instances, do you think the stigma against poor writing in entertainment will be a factor in the future aspects of entertainment, or will it be exclusive to the gaming industry?
Games are participatory which gives them a special nature. Poor writing though is poor writing regardless of media. Tie that together with marketing that essentially is lies and you have a problem. I think all products should be held to account if they fail to deliver on their marketing. Any media that promises one thing and delivers another ought to be held to account.
3. Did you buy the “From Ashes” DLC? Given the premise of the plot, do you think the produces alienated themselves from their consumers by making them pay extra for a character that plays a crucial role in the history of the franchise, and have caused another rallying point for players upset about the vagueness of the ending?
I pre-ordered the N7 Collectors Edition so it was included with. I feel that From Ashes ought to have either been released for free or included with the game even if that meant a delay in release. ME3 has been a catalogue of bad decisions - especially in the manner which communication or the lack thereoff between EA/Bioware and the customers has at each stage caused further anger. The condescending PR doublespeak, hiding behind claims of artistic integrity and failure to understand their audience - the customers and the failure to match their advertising have came back to bite them. These are all things that can be resolved. It will require honesty without PR spin and fixing the mistakes and flaws as well as an apology. On the part of the customers though if this is forthcoming it will require patience and understanding that things are not fixed overnight.
#106
Posté 09 avril 2012 - 04:03
chcknwng
-
- Members
- 5 354 messages
[Section 1 – Prior
Gameplay Experience]
1. Have you
completed Mass Effect 3?
Yes
2. If not, do you
know how the trilogy ends?
na
3. Have you played
the previous 2 installments of the Mass Effect franchise?
ME2.
I played on PS3. Part of ME1 on PC. Didn’t finish.
4. If you have,
which character was your LI in each installment? Did this affect how you
enjoyed the game?
Kaiden,
Garrus, Liara and Thane.
5. In Mass Effect 2,
presuming you saved every team member during the final chapter, was the
overlying stories of the characters the main influence in saving them?
Yes.
I felt like they were actually my teammates, who had full-fledged personalities.
6. Did the reactions
of renegade choices in the franchise forced you to play one way over the other?
Yes.
I wanted to be “good” and caring, especially to friends.
7. What are your
favorite 3 memories of the story’s franchise? Is there a common theme
among them?
Shooting bottles
with Garrus on top of Presidium.
Legion
sacrificed himself to give Geth intellect.
When
taking Miranda to the suicide mission and refused to surrender the human reaper
Miranda would say “Then, I quit”.
Section 2: Bioware and Artistic Integrity
1. Do you believe
video games are a form of art? Do you believe art is static or fluid?
Not really.
2. Throughout the
third installment, some fans believed that Bioware /EA rewrote specific
characters during important sequences. Do you have a similar
opinion? If so, which characters do you have a problem with?
Not really.
3. Do you think the
Adam and Eve reference at the end of the game made sense, given the theme of
co-existence between organic and synthetic organisms?
I
thought they were trying to convey a sense of hope. A sense of future and
possibility.
4. Do you think Mass
Effect 3 had more humorous moments than previous installments? If so, do
you think it was to cut the theme of war and death in the game, or was this an
attempt to detract fans from over thinking the ending?
I
do recall laughing more playing ME3 than ME2. I think it’s just to cut the
theme of war and sacrifices.
5. Given Bioware’s
previous experience with incorporating player feedback into the series, do you
think changing the ending all together would compromise Bioware / EA’s previous
decisions and artistic integrity?
No
I don’t think so. For me, it is obvious that it was rushed so much that the
team failed to present the consumers a finished product. I just want to see a
finished product. Their insisting selling a half-baked pie as a pie doesn’t
mean it’s a pie. Artistic integrity doesn’t come into the equation.
6.
With the death of well accepted characters in Mass Effect 3 as a part of trying
close that character’s story, what makes stranding the crew any different?
Because the stranding crew survived all the
previous deaths. To think they might die as well, and for nothing while others
sacrificed for a goal is not consistent with the game. But I don’t really hate
the ending with the stranding crew except that it seems every time your LI
would be there with Joker, and there is no grief or whatsoever on their face.
7. Do you think
Bioware made the right choice in explaining the antagonist’s role in the
series, or should it have been left alone?
With
this explanation we had I’d rather be left in the dark.
8. A lot of fans
found the ending of Mass Effect 3 to be reminiscent of the ending’s of other
franchises. Despite various amounts of plot holes in these franchises,
they did well. What makes Mass Effect 3 different?
I don’t play a lot
of games so I can’t compare with other games. For me, this ending isn’t logical.
They introduced something totally new in 1 minute, which basically explained
nothing. There were signs about organics vs synthetics in ME3, especially in
the conversation with EDI and mission about Geth/Quarians, but this was never
something that ME focused on. In the last minute, Reapers were completely taken
out of the picture, and the question got upped a level, which made me feel very
unprepared.
9. Bioware used
3-dimensional facial rendering for voice actress Jessica Chobot’s character
Diana Allers, but photo-shopped a picture of Miss England 2005 Hammasa
Kohistani for the character Tali’Zorah vas Normandy. Do you think Bioware
put more emphasis in designing an Easter Egg character over improving
characters that were introduced in Mass Effect 2 (such as Thane, Jacob, Miranda
and Jack)? Given IGN’s defense of the game and its endorsements, do you
think Jessica’s role had an influence in the site’s score of the game? Do
you the upset fans correct in making this presumption, or is it
biased by looking for a scapegoat?
I
don’t know enough about gaming industry to guess the relationship between IGN response
and Jessica Chobot. But the fact that Tali’s face is a very simple Photoshop
work, the stargazer scene is also aPS work, and the three endings differ very little
made me feel creating a coherent and meaningful ending wasn’t very high on
Bioware/EA’s list.
Section 3: The Endings
1. Given that the
game has been released since March 6 (in North America) have you beaten the
game? How many times have you replayed the game?
Yes. I finished it twice.
2. What did you
think of the ending? What is your position on it? Why do you have
that opinion?
I
didn’t like it very much, felt it was very abrupt but ok before plunging into
BSN. The fact that the final conversation with Starchild was only 1 min long
and were left with 3 choices none of which was really consistent with the game
made it a very hard decision and detached from the rest of the game.
3. Mass Effect 1 and
2 were both known for their replay-ability value, what about Mass Effect
3? Do you think the ending is the main factor in this inability to replay
the game, or do you think it’s because Bioware has been largely quiet about
these reactions? Do you think this is why they added multiplayer capabilities?
It was replay-able
especially with different decisions made in ME1 and 2 and different classes. Some
characters did get closure and to see different ways they get closure is nice. I
don’t think the ending a big problem for me. I enjoyed the action portion thoroughly.
IMHO if you really don’t like it, you can play it until the last missile
mission and then not continue.
I
think Bioware’s lack of response is a huge letdown to the fans. Together with
the poor treatment of PS3 owners and fans I have a heart to left ME forever.
I
think it was the decision makers who wanted a multiplayer capabilities (without
enough development time) since it seems every game has that now.
4. Some pivotal
moments in Mass Effect 3 have fans debating whether or not Bioware is degrading
the values and quality of known characters in the franchise. For the most
part, fan opinion of Cerberus assassin Kai Leng’s portrayal in Mass Effect 3
has been negative, mostly described by fans as being due to having multiple
authors since the character’s introduction in the novels creating
inconsistence’s in his personality. Others examples are the pairing of
Garrus and Tali if the player does not romance them in the previous installment
of the franchise, and Joker (the pilot of the character’s ship) abandoning the
fight during its climax. What is your opinion of this? Are these
accurate examples?
I don’t have an opinion about Kai Leng. Garrus and
Tali’s relationship’s been hinted from ME1, IIRC. I don’t really dislike them being
together.
Joker’s
abandoning (together with LI) is a huge letdown. I cannot fathom how he could
do that, given that he would rather die than leaving Normandy I.
It’s
my understanding with characters in TV series that none of them are written by
one writer. In TV, it is the creator/showrunner’s responsibility to make sure
the characters are consistent. In this case, I would speculate it is the head
writer’s responsibility to check consistency.
5. At which point do
you think the quality of the writing changed the pace and feel of Mass Effect 3?
I liked Tuchanka
and Geth/Quarian missions. Those two just involve so much history and so many
decisions and emotions it left you thinking and sad for a long time. Thessia, Horizon
and Ceberus HQ are obviously trying to bring the game to an end. They were ok
and did a good plotline job but were nothing special. I didn’t like the idea to
involve Miranda and her sister in there. It seems a little too much.
Earth
II doesn’t really make sense. With tactics on that level, it’s a miracle the
Reapers had won against the Protheans. I guess throughout the game the writing
on Reapers’ tactics doesn’t make sense. The writers were trying to figure out a
way to have a war, while in fact the Reapers should just seize the Citadel and
ended all war forever. And of course, everything after the missile launched on
earth doesn’t really make sense and cannot be explained (by us, at least).
6. Despite the
popularity of the Shadow Broker text files in the Mass Effect 2 DLC [Lair of
the Shadow Broker], would you pay for a new ending over a free text epilogue of
the current endings?
At
this point, I would wait for reactions of other players. If most people liked
the new ending Bioware/EA is going to get my money. If not I am done with
Bioware. Even though I don’t think this is setting a very good example for
games to come.
7. Another point
that fans argue about is whether the end game sequence of Mass Effect 3 was
real or whether it was a dream. What is your opinion of this, where do you
stand? Do either have good claims to support, or is this just a part of
Bioware desiring speculation amongst fans? How is this different from the people
who support a rewrite of the last sequence?
I
have no idea if it’s a dream or reality. Both had their weak points and both
made sense to some of the events that happened after you are hit by Harbinger.
The conversation with the Illusive Man strongly suggests some kind of mind
control. But if it is indoctrination, then where did Shepherd ended up? There was
one big inconsistency for indoctrination, I forgot what it was.
I
think it’s just “lots of speculation from everybody” from Bioware’s part.
I
think a lot of people who believed in indoctrination theory also wanted a
rewrite. The fact that this fan-fic like theory made more sense than what
appeared in game is a huge letdown for a game company.
Section 4: Economic Input
1. Mass Effect 2 was
known for having lots of Down-Loadable Content (DLC). Did you buy all of
them? If not, which ones did you buy, and what was the reasoning behind
buying them?
PS3 version came with all DLC but
Arrival (Shadow broker, Kasumi, Zaeed). I bought Arrival. I bought it because DLC
that came with ME2 are great also I learned Arrival was the “proper” ending to
ME2 and beginning of ME3. Also because it was on sale…
2. The Retake
Movement has claimed responsibility over the recent decrease in EA stock
prices, as well as causing the price of the game to decrease by 25%. In
these instances, do you think the stigma against poor writing in entertainment
will be a factor in the future aspects of entertainment, or will it be
exclusive to the gaming industry?
Poorly written
script is a stigma in entertainment industry. No movie companies would produce
a bad script. No publishers would publish a badly written book. The
exceptionally poorly written Season 1 ending of The Killing has generated an
outrage. This is certainly not exclusive to game industry. But I think there
are more interactions between the perceivers and makers in gaming industry than
any other entertainment industry, and ME3 is the first one to elicit a response
on this scale. I doubt how much the Retake Movement accounts for the financial
loss of EA, but if most people are of this opinion then certainly writing would
attract more attention in the future, and gaming industries would pay more
attention with the game they come up since it’s pretty clear that people want
good coherent stories.
Clarify:
I am more familiar with TV industry. In my opinion, two of the many kinds of tv
are: one for smart people, people who want to think about what they saw, and
one for “just relaxing after a long day”. Both made tons of money. Reality show
like American Idol and the megahit like Big Bang Theory are the latter, and
show like Mad Men also made tons of money even though only a few people actually
watch it (the median income of Mad Men viewers are more than $100,000). Here,
we also have the causal gamers who are not that obsessed with the ending of the
game, and the hardcores who participate the Retake movement. Maybe in the
future some games would cater to those who care, and who just want to relax
after a long day.
3. Did you buy the
“From Ashes” DLC? Given the premise of the plot, do you think the produces
alienated themselves from their consumers by making them pay extra for a
character that plays a crucial role in the history of the franchise, and have
caused another rallying point for players upset about the vagueness of the
ending?
Yes
I did. From my perspectives Javik is fun to have, but not necessary. I played
the Thessia/Ceberus HQ mission both with
and without him. The only function he served is adding some comments (which are
not crucial). I don’t think Javik played a crucial role. Suggesting this means
that without him we cannot continue the mission, which is not the case. I only
bought the DLC before Thessia mission on my first playthrough, and I don’t
think without him it would be any different. He did provide some information as
to how the Protheans fought the Reaper, but he did not provide any information
about the Crucible or even how to take down a Reaper.
I
chose to believe the developers when they said they could not have included
this in the final game. However, charging extra for a “day-one” DLC is pretty
drastic and left bad taste in my mouth. I think the fans had a valid point
being antagonized by this.
Gameplay Experience]
1. Have you
completed Mass Effect 3?
Yes
2. If not, do you
know how the trilogy ends?
na
3. Have you played
the previous 2 installments of the Mass Effect franchise?
ME2.
I played on PS3. Part of ME1 on PC. Didn’t finish.
4. If you have,
which character was your LI in each installment? Did this affect how you
enjoyed the game?
Kaiden,
Garrus, Liara and Thane.
5. In Mass Effect 2,
presuming you saved every team member during the final chapter, was the
overlying stories of the characters the main influence in saving them?
Yes.
I felt like they were actually my teammates, who had full-fledged personalities.
6. Did the reactions
of renegade choices in the franchise forced you to play one way over the other?
Yes.
I wanted to be “good” and caring, especially to friends.
7. What are your
favorite 3 memories of the story’s franchise? Is there a common theme
among them?
Shooting bottles
with Garrus on top of Presidium.
Legion
sacrificed himself to give Geth intellect.
When
taking Miranda to the suicide mission and refused to surrender the human reaper
Miranda would say “Then, I quit”.
Section 2: Bioware and Artistic Integrity
1. Do you believe
video games are a form of art? Do you believe art is static or fluid?
Not really.
2. Throughout the
third installment, some fans believed that Bioware /EA rewrote specific
characters during important sequences. Do you have a similar
opinion? If so, which characters do you have a problem with?
Not really.
3. Do you think the
Adam and Eve reference at the end of the game made sense, given the theme of
co-existence between organic and synthetic organisms?
I
thought they were trying to convey a sense of hope. A sense of future and
possibility.
4. Do you think Mass
Effect 3 had more humorous moments than previous installments? If so, do
you think it was to cut the theme of war and death in the game, or was this an
attempt to detract fans from over thinking the ending?
I
do recall laughing more playing ME3 than ME2. I think it’s just to cut the
theme of war and sacrifices.
5. Given Bioware’s
previous experience with incorporating player feedback into the series, do you
think changing the ending all together would compromise Bioware / EA’s previous
decisions and artistic integrity?
No
I don’t think so. For me, it is obvious that it was rushed so much that the
team failed to present the consumers a finished product. I just want to see a
finished product. Their insisting selling a half-baked pie as a pie doesn’t
mean it’s a pie. Artistic integrity doesn’t come into the equation.
6.
With the death of well accepted characters in Mass Effect 3 as a part of trying
close that character’s story, what makes stranding the crew any different?
Because the stranding crew survived all the
previous deaths. To think they might die as well, and for nothing while others
sacrificed for a goal is not consistent with the game. But I don’t really hate
the ending with the stranding crew except that it seems every time your LI
would be there with Joker, and there is no grief or whatsoever on their face.
7. Do you think
Bioware made the right choice in explaining the antagonist’s role in the
series, or should it have been left alone?
With
this explanation we had I’d rather be left in the dark.
8. A lot of fans
found the ending of Mass Effect 3 to be reminiscent of the ending’s of other
franchises. Despite various amounts of plot holes in these franchises,
they did well. What makes Mass Effect 3 different?
I don’t play a lot
of games so I can’t compare with other games. For me, this ending isn’t logical.
They introduced something totally new in 1 minute, which basically explained
nothing. There were signs about organics vs synthetics in ME3, especially in
the conversation with EDI and mission about Geth/Quarians, but this was never
something that ME focused on. In the last minute, Reapers were completely taken
out of the picture, and the question got upped a level, which made me feel very
unprepared.
9. Bioware used
3-dimensional facial rendering for voice actress Jessica Chobot’s character
Diana Allers, but photo-shopped a picture of Miss England 2005 Hammasa
Kohistani for the character Tali’Zorah vas Normandy. Do you think Bioware
put more emphasis in designing an Easter Egg character over improving
characters that were introduced in Mass Effect 2 (such as Thane, Jacob, Miranda
and Jack)? Given IGN’s defense of the game and its endorsements, do you
think Jessica’s role had an influence in the site’s score of the game? Do
you the upset fans correct in making this presumption, or is it
biased by looking for a scapegoat?
I
don’t know enough about gaming industry to guess the relationship between IGN response
and Jessica Chobot. But the fact that Tali’s face is a very simple Photoshop
work, the stargazer scene is also aPS work, and the three endings differ very little
made me feel creating a coherent and meaningful ending wasn’t very high on
Bioware/EA’s list.
Section 3: The Endings
1. Given that the
game has been released since March 6 (in North America) have you beaten the
game? How many times have you replayed the game?
Yes. I finished it twice.
2. What did you
think of the ending? What is your position on it? Why do you have
that opinion?
I
didn’t like it very much, felt it was very abrupt but ok before plunging into
BSN. The fact that the final conversation with Starchild was only 1 min long
and were left with 3 choices none of which was really consistent with the game
made it a very hard decision and detached from the rest of the game.
3. Mass Effect 1 and
2 were both known for their replay-ability value, what about Mass Effect
3? Do you think the ending is the main factor in this inability to replay
the game, or do you think it’s because Bioware has been largely quiet about
these reactions? Do you think this is why they added multiplayer capabilities?
It was replay-able
especially with different decisions made in ME1 and 2 and different classes. Some
characters did get closure and to see different ways they get closure is nice. I
don’t think the ending a big problem for me. I enjoyed the action portion thoroughly.
IMHO if you really don’t like it, you can play it until the last missile
mission and then not continue.
I
think Bioware’s lack of response is a huge letdown to the fans. Together with
the poor treatment of PS3 owners and fans I have a heart to left ME forever.
I
think it was the decision makers who wanted a multiplayer capabilities (without
enough development time) since it seems every game has that now.
4. Some pivotal
moments in Mass Effect 3 have fans debating whether or not Bioware is degrading
the values and quality of known characters in the franchise. For the most
part, fan opinion of Cerberus assassin Kai Leng’s portrayal in Mass Effect 3
has been negative, mostly described by fans as being due to having multiple
authors since the character’s introduction in the novels creating
inconsistence’s in his personality. Others examples are the pairing of
Garrus and Tali if the player does not romance them in the previous installment
of the franchise, and Joker (the pilot of the character’s ship) abandoning the
fight during its climax. What is your opinion of this? Are these
accurate examples?
I don’t have an opinion about Kai Leng. Garrus and
Tali’s relationship’s been hinted from ME1, IIRC. I don’t really dislike them being
together.
Joker’s
abandoning (together with LI) is a huge letdown. I cannot fathom how he could
do that, given that he would rather die than leaving Normandy I.
It’s
my understanding with characters in TV series that none of them are written by
one writer. In TV, it is the creator/showrunner’s responsibility to make sure
the characters are consistent. In this case, I would speculate it is the head
writer’s responsibility to check consistency.
5. At which point do
you think the quality of the writing changed the pace and feel of Mass Effect 3?
I liked Tuchanka
and Geth/Quarian missions. Those two just involve so much history and so many
decisions and emotions it left you thinking and sad for a long time. Thessia, Horizon
and Ceberus HQ are obviously trying to bring the game to an end. They were ok
and did a good plotline job but were nothing special. I didn’t like the idea to
involve Miranda and her sister in there. It seems a little too much.
Earth
II doesn’t really make sense. With tactics on that level, it’s a miracle the
Reapers had won against the Protheans. I guess throughout the game the writing
on Reapers’ tactics doesn’t make sense. The writers were trying to figure out a
way to have a war, while in fact the Reapers should just seize the Citadel and
ended all war forever. And of course, everything after the missile launched on
earth doesn’t really make sense and cannot be explained (by us, at least).
6. Despite the
popularity of the Shadow Broker text files in the Mass Effect 2 DLC [Lair of
the Shadow Broker], would you pay for a new ending over a free text epilogue of
the current endings?
At
this point, I would wait for reactions of other players. If most people liked
the new ending Bioware/EA is going to get my money. If not I am done with
Bioware. Even though I don’t think this is setting a very good example for
games to come.
7. Another point
that fans argue about is whether the end game sequence of Mass Effect 3 was
real or whether it was a dream. What is your opinion of this, where do you
stand? Do either have good claims to support, or is this just a part of
Bioware desiring speculation amongst fans? How is this different from the people
who support a rewrite of the last sequence?
I
have no idea if it’s a dream or reality. Both had their weak points and both
made sense to some of the events that happened after you are hit by Harbinger.
The conversation with the Illusive Man strongly suggests some kind of mind
control. But if it is indoctrination, then where did Shepherd ended up? There was
one big inconsistency for indoctrination, I forgot what it was.
I
think it’s just “lots of speculation from everybody” from Bioware’s part.
I
think a lot of people who believed in indoctrination theory also wanted a
rewrite. The fact that this fan-fic like theory made more sense than what
appeared in game is a huge letdown for a game company.
Section 4: Economic Input
1. Mass Effect 2 was
known for having lots of Down-Loadable Content (DLC). Did you buy all of
them? If not, which ones did you buy, and what was the reasoning behind
buying them?
PS3 version came with all DLC but
Arrival (Shadow broker, Kasumi, Zaeed). I bought Arrival. I bought it because DLC
that came with ME2 are great also I learned Arrival was the “proper” ending to
ME2 and beginning of ME3. Also because it was on sale…
2. The Retake
Movement has claimed responsibility over the recent decrease in EA stock
prices, as well as causing the price of the game to decrease by 25%. In
these instances, do you think the stigma against poor writing in entertainment
will be a factor in the future aspects of entertainment, or will it be
exclusive to the gaming industry?
Poorly written
script is a stigma in entertainment industry. No movie companies would produce
a bad script. No publishers would publish a badly written book. The
exceptionally poorly written Season 1 ending of The Killing has generated an
outrage. This is certainly not exclusive to game industry. But I think there
are more interactions between the perceivers and makers in gaming industry than
any other entertainment industry, and ME3 is the first one to elicit a response
on this scale. I doubt how much the Retake Movement accounts for the financial
loss of EA, but if most people are of this opinion then certainly writing would
attract more attention in the future, and gaming industries would pay more
attention with the game they come up since it’s pretty clear that people want
good coherent stories.
Clarify:
I am more familiar with TV industry. In my opinion, two of the many kinds of tv
are: one for smart people, people who want to think about what they saw, and
one for “just relaxing after a long day”. Both made tons of money. Reality show
like American Idol and the megahit like Big Bang Theory are the latter, and
show like Mad Men also made tons of money even though only a few people actually
watch it (the median income of Mad Men viewers are more than $100,000). Here,
we also have the causal gamers who are not that obsessed with the ending of the
game, and the hardcores who participate the Retake movement. Maybe in the
future some games would cater to those who care, and who just want to relax
after a long day.
3. Did you buy the
“From Ashes” DLC? Given the premise of the plot, do you think the produces
alienated themselves from their consumers by making them pay extra for a
character that plays a crucial role in the history of the franchise, and have
caused another rallying point for players upset about the vagueness of the
ending?
Yes
I did. From my perspectives Javik is fun to have, but not necessary. I played
the Thessia/Ceberus HQ mission both with
and without him. The only function he served is adding some comments (which are
not crucial). I don’t think Javik played a crucial role. Suggesting this means
that without him we cannot continue the mission, which is not the case. I only
bought the DLC before Thessia mission on my first playthrough, and I don’t
think without him it would be any different. He did provide some information as
to how the Protheans fought the Reaper, but he did not provide any information
about the Crucible or even how to take down a Reaper.
I
chose to believe the developers when they said they could not have included
this in the final game. However, charging extra for a “day-one” DLC is pretty
drastic and left bad taste in my mouth. I think the fans had a valid point
being antagonized by this.
#107
Posté 09 avril 2012 - 07:29
Infinityphoenix
-
- Members
- 24 messages
Wow, everytime I come back to the topic, the answers I'm recieving are much more indepth and more remincient of full fledged papers 
. To everyone who responded, keep up the great work, theres officially 24 more hours till I start complying all of the data.
As for personal responses:
@stefanomarq: I liked the Da Vinci metaphor, and don't worry, your grammar is excellent.
@stcalvin13: Thanks for adding, and I'll do my best!
@AlloutAce: Thanks for contributing; I did find the lack of emotion in Sheppard during the [Save Geth] option on Rannoch was chosen, especially if Tali was the LI.
@Nightdragon8: The novels you suggested, I looked up on wiki; aren't they all romance novels with adventure added in, as apposed to Mass Effect being an adventure with romance added in?
@Federally: I think ME3 had great scenes involving potential LI; those scenes had emotional impact to the player even if they weren't LIs.
@Torudoom: Thanks for adding.
@Alphadoom: Thanks for answering the questions.
@Laurenci: Neutrality is what I desire as I write the paper. If this is the case, can you suggest any articles pieces of ME3 that can make me get a rounded perspective?
@Robert-42: Thansk for contributing.
@Sundance31us: Legal aspects on the rights of Intellectual Property? Hmm, didn't think of adding that in, thanks for suggesting that.
@Hussain747715: The cut Anderson/Sheppard scene totally counts as a favorite part! When you say TIM conversations, are you saying all of the TIM conversations, or are you excluding the one's that are done along side Anderson near the end of ME3?
@Electric Pig: I think the theme of your favorite parts is Character Development. Thanks for replying.
@FaultenXIII: We all punched that sleazy reporter. Wait, are you suggesting that the endings left you in a state of emotional shock since you haven't played a game since beating ME3?
@Rumbutt: Thanks for adding.
@Darkzabre: For Science! Thanks for taking the time to complete the survey BTW.
@Noelemalc: Hmm, its pretty different for your concept of Liara LI to be just about 2 people, especially in a franchise that focuses on the big picture. Liked the Poirot analogy. You're right, that type of ending fits AC, but I wouldn't expect ACIII to have cut to black, especially since its suppose to be the end of Desmond's story. BTW, your responses are some of the most well written ones I've seen yet! I'm hoping that Bioware will see the finished paper once I finish and post it. Else, I may just mail it to them.
@Hicks233: Wow, thanks for going through the questions with such a high degree of detail.
@wngmv: Hopefully with a new headwriter for the DLC, the plot will be a bit more consistent?
Keep up the good work everyone!
. To everyone who responded, keep up the great work, theres officially 24 more hours till I start complying all of the data. As for personal responses:
@stefanomarq: I liked the Da Vinci metaphor, and don't worry, your grammar is excellent
.@stcalvin13: Thanks for adding, and I'll do my best!
@AlloutAce: Thanks for contributing; I did find the lack of emotion in Sheppard during the [Save Geth] option on Rannoch was chosen, especially if Tali was the LI.
@Nightdragon8: The novels you suggested, I looked up on wiki; aren't they all romance novels with adventure added in, as apposed to Mass Effect being an adventure with romance added in?
@Federally: I think ME3 had great scenes involving potential LI; those scenes had emotional impact to the player even if they weren't LIs.
@Torudoom: Thanks for adding
.@Alphadoom: Thanks for answering the questions
.@Laurenci: Neutrality is what I desire as I write the paper. If this is the case, can you suggest any articles pieces of ME3 that can make me get a rounded perspective?
@Robert-42: Thansk for contributing
.@Sundance31us: Legal aspects on the rights of Intellectual Property? Hmm, didn't think of adding that in, thanks for suggesting that
.@Hussain747715: The cut Anderson/Sheppard scene totally counts as a favorite part! When you say TIM conversations, are you saying all of the TIM conversations, or are you excluding the one's that are done along side Anderson near the end of ME3?
@Electric Pig: I think the theme of your favorite parts is Character Development. Thanks for replying.
@FaultenXIII: We all punched that sleazy reporter
. Wait, are you suggesting that the endings left you in a state of emotional shock since you haven't played a game since beating ME3?@Rumbutt: Thanks for adding
.@Darkzabre: For Science! Thanks for taking the time to complete the survey BTW.
@Noelemalc: Hmm, its pretty different for your concept of Liara LI to be just about 2 people, especially in a franchise that focuses on the big picture. Liked the Poirot analogy. You're right, that type of ending fits AC, but I wouldn't expect ACIII to have cut to black, especially since its suppose to be the end of Desmond's story. BTW, your responses are some of the most well written ones I've seen yet! I'm hoping that Bioware will see the finished paper once I finish and post it. Else, I may just mail it to them.
@Hicks233: Wow, thanks for going through the questions with such a high degree of detail
.@wngmv: Hopefully with a new headwriter for the DLC, the plot will be a bit more consistent?
Keep up the good work everyone!
#108
Posté 09 avril 2012 - 08:54
Noelemahc
-
- Members
- 2 126 messages
I know there's a big picture, but in my mind Liara the Archaeologist, Liara the Lovestruck Virgin (or, well, No-Longer-Virgin if you romanced her) and Liara the Shadow Broker are three different people. In fact, she herself treats herself that way, the way she switches modes is pretty apparent throughout Mars, and LotSB, and in those bits in ME3 where she tears herself away from her terminal to be with Shepard. Maybe it's about how I view people in general, I don't know, maybe a fault of the fact that her Archaeologist and Shadow Broker mode dialogues were not doubled to accomodate the "have we had sex?" factor. It's one of the things people usually hate her for - the way she seems to compartmentalize her commitments to Science, to Shepard (regardless of whether she had sex with him/her) and to Shadow Brokering. If you cheat on her with Tali in ME2 and then come back to Liara, then bring along Liara to the Geth Dreadnaught mission, you will see that Tali shares that dislike =)Hmm, its pretty different for your concept of Liara LI to be just about 2 people, especially in a franchise that focuses on the big picture.
AC3 will probably end with the End of the World everyone's dreading. Or the re-arrival of the aliens, because of wild misinterpretation of the facts. It's a crazy setting full of insane stuff, it can get away with almost anything by this point. I'm surprised they didn't try to pull a gender bender by making Desmond connect to a female ancestor. AC3, maybe? =)You're right, that type of ending fits AC, but I wouldn't expect ACIII to have cut to black, especially since its suppose to be the end of Desmond's story.
Thanks, I'm glad you liked them =)Liked the Poirot analogy. <...>BTW, your responses are some of the most well written ones I've seen yet! I'm hoping that Bioware will see the finished paper once I finish and post it. Else, I may just mail it to them.
Modifié par Noelemahc, 09 avril 2012 - 08:57 .
#109
Posté 09 avril 2012 - 09:34
SystemsAlliance
-
- Members
- 23 messages
[Section 1 – Prior Gameplay Experience]
1. Have you completed Mass Effect 3?
Yes
2. If not, do you know how the trilogy ends?
3. Have you played the previous 2 installments of the Mass Effect franchise?
Yes
4. If you have, which character was your LI in each installment? Did this affect how you enjoyed the game?
ME 1 : No one
ME 2 : Tali Zorah
ME 3 : Tali Zorah
Yes, it affects my enjoyment.
5. In Mass Effect 2, presuming you saved every team member during the final chapter, was the overlying stories of the characters the main influence in saving them?
No, the reason I save them because there are my responsibilities as a commander.
6. Did the reactions of renegade choices in the franchise forced you to play one way over the other?
No.
7. What are your favorite 3 memories of the story’s franchise? Is there a common theme among them?
- The arrival of the Human Fleet to save Destiny Ascension (ME 1)
- The death of Thane (ME 3)
- The unveiling of Normandny SR 2 (ME 2)
No common theme.
Section 2: Bioware and Artistic Integrity
1. Do you believe video games are a form of art? Do you believe art is static or fluid?
Yes. Game is art, and art shall be fluid.
2. Throughout the third installment, some fans believed that Bioware /EA rewrote specific characters during important sequences. Do you have a similar opinion? If so, which characters do you have a problem with?
I don't have problems with character's rewrite.
3. Do you think the Adam and Eve reference at the end of the game made sense, given the theme of co-existence between organic and synthetic organisms?
No.
4. Do you think Mass Effect 3 had more humorous moments than previous installments? If so, do you think it was to cut the theme of war and death in the game, or was this an attempt to detract fans from over thinking the ending?
No, ME 3 has a lot of dark moments.
5. Given Bioware’s previous experience with incorporating player feedback into the series, do you think changing the ending all together would compromise Bioware / EA’s previous decisions and artistic integrity?
No, Bioware could just implement indoctrination theory, without sacrificing their artistic integrity.
6. With the death of well accepted characters in Mass Effect 3 as a part of trying close that character’s story, what makes stranding the crew any different?
Stranding the crew in ME 2 is my responsibility, and I can do my best to keep everyone alive. Thane's death, knowing that he won't stand against Kai Leng yet he still fights, is his choice, an honourable cause. Mordin's death, to save the Krogan is his choice also, which is the highest emotional moment in the game. Legion's death, to bring Geth to a better race, is also his choice.
7. Do you think Bioware made the right choice in explaining the antagonist’s role in the series, or should it have been left alone?
Bioware is already doing good enough in this.
8. A lot of fans found the ending of Mass Effect 3 to be reminiscent of the ending’s of other franchises. Despite various amounts of plot holes in these franchises, they did well. What makes Mass Effect 3 different?
Because ME 3 is not just a game, ME 3 is a great game that is continiously great from ME 1, and the key of its success is incorporating player's choices, and enable us to change the shape of galaxy. This incorporation is totally gone in ME 3 ending.
9. Bioware used 3-dimensional facial rendering for voice actress Jessica Chobot’s character Diana Allers, but photo-shopped a picture of Miss England 2005 Hammasa Kohistani for the character Tali’Zorah vas Normandy. Do you think Bioware put more emphasis in designing an Easter Egg character over improving characters that were introduced in Mass Effect 2 (such as Thane, Jacob, Miranda and Jack)? Given IGN’s defense of the game and its endorsements, do you think Jessica’s role had an influence in the site’s score of the game? Do you the upset fans correct in making this presumption, or is it biased by looking for a scapegoat?
IGN's defense of this game, is due to Jessica's role, which I strongly hate. Tali, my LI, is a more important character than Jessica. Tali, Admiral of the Quarian Fleet, has saved the Citadel, has travelled to the Collectors base, has gathered information on Saren that enables Shepard become Spectre, has collected information on exploding stars, has trusted Shepard despite Cerberus's connection, has escaped trial of treason, has fought with Shepard countless times, and many others, while Jessica is just a useless reporter that give me 5 War Assets. Jessica is useless. I am disappointed at Bioware for this. They should give the main characters more attention.
Section 3: The Endings
1. Given that the game has been released since March 6 (in North America) have you beaten the game? How many times have you replayed the game?
I have beaten the game. I don't replay the ME 3 because the ending sucks. I replay ME 1 4 times, and ME 2 5-6 times.
2. What did you think of the ending? What is your position on it? Why do you have that opinion?
I hate the ending. Because, as many fans here, thinks that :
- The ending did not incorporate my choices, and my actions
- Only 3 ending exists, despite Bioware's promises
- Ending use a lot of space magics
- The ending betrays the whole ME franchise
- The ending is not clear
- The ending is full of plothole
3. Mass Effect 1 and 2 were both known for their replay-ability value, what about Mass Effect 3? Do you think the ending is the main factor in this inability to replay the game, or do you think it’s because Bioware has been largely quiet about these reactions? Do you think this is why they added multiplayer capabilities?
No. I won't replay ME 3, or play any of its MP. MP sucks. The ending that makes me wont play it again. Why should I play it again? The galaxy is dead.
4. Some pivotal moments in Mass Effect 3 have fans debating whether or not Bioware is degrading the values and quality of known characters in the franchise. For the most part, fan opinion of Cerberus assassin Kai Leng’s portrayal in Mass Effect 3 has been negative, mostly described by fans as being due to having multiple authors since the character’s introduction in the novels creating inconsistence’s in his personality. Others examples are the pairing of Garrus and Tali if the player does not romance them in the previous installment of the franchise, and Joker (the pilot of the character’s ship) abandoning the fight during its climax. What is your opinion of this? Are these accurate examples?
Accurate. Joker abandonding the fight is absolutely weird, despite his bravado in ME 2 that cost Shepard's live.
5. At which point do you think the quality of the writing changed the pace and feel of Mass Effect 3?
Just the ending. All other changes are acceptable.
6. Despite the popularity of the Shadow Broker text files in the Mass Effect 2 DLC [Lair of the Shadow Broker], would you pay for a new ending over a free text epilogue of the current endings?
For the ending? Which is broken? I won't pay a dime. If they do fix the ending, change the ending, and release other text-based like Shadow Broker, I am good to pay. I won't pay for anything if the ending is bad. I won't buy any DLC, or even any EA games, if the ending is not fixed.
7. Another point that fans argue about is whether the end game sequence of Mass Effect 3 was real or whether it was a dream. What is your opinion of this, where do you stand? Do either have good claims to support, or is this just a part of Bioware desiring speculation amongst fans? How is this different from the people who support a rewrite of the last sequence?
I stand at the ending is only a dream. Though I have faith in Bioware, although they fail in DA 2, my faith in Bioware is already gone. Repair this, or Bioware will go down in ashes of its former glory. In fact, I am sure in 10 years ahead there will be case studies involving ME 3, on how failure of a private sector to listen to customers, or how underdelivered market promises can really damages the company.
Section 4: Economic Input
1. Mass Effect 2 was known for having lots of Down-Loadable Content (DLC). Did you buy all of them? If not, which ones did you buy, and what was the reasoning behind buying them?
I buy all of them.
2. The Retake Movement has claimed responsibility over the recent decrease in EA stock prices, as well as causing the price of the game to decrease by 25%. In these instances, do you think the stigma against poor writing in entertainment will be a factor in the future aspects of entertainment, or will it be exclusive to the gaming industry?
Of course. Gamers and companies ahead will think twice before they release a crappy game, which is great for the gaming industries. Gaming industries these days has transformed into a slow-moving turtle, instead of it's glory days. Gaming industries are dominated by large corporations that are able to do buyouts, which is why market is dominated by EA, while small time companies (Zenimax, Bioware, Maxis, etc.) are swallowed by the large companies. Thank goodness that Blizzard and Bethesda still independent, their games are much better.
3. Did you buy the “From Ashes” DLC? Given the premise of the plot, do you think the produces alienated themselves from their consumers by making them pay extra for a character that plays a crucial role in the history of the franchise, and have caused another rallying point for players upset about the vagueness of the ending?
I purchased the Digital Deluxe Edition, therefore I get the DLC for free. Jarvik is an important character, it's whitewash on Bioware's part that only said that Jarvik is an additional only. 50,000 years on stasis, only live to fight another final battle? Epic.
1. Have you completed Mass Effect 3?
Yes
2. If not, do you know how the trilogy ends?
3. Have you played the previous 2 installments of the Mass Effect franchise?
Yes
4. If you have, which character was your LI in each installment? Did this affect how you enjoyed the game?
ME 1 : No one
ME 2 : Tali Zorah
ME 3 : Tali Zorah
Yes, it affects my enjoyment.
5. In Mass Effect 2, presuming you saved every team member during the final chapter, was the overlying stories of the characters the main influence in saving them?
No, the reason I save them because there are my responsibilities as a commander.
6. Did the reactions of renegade choices in the franchise forced you to play one way over the other?
No.
7. What are your favorite 3 memories of the story’s franchise? Is there a common theme among them?
- The arrival of the Human Fleet to save Destiny Ascension (ME 1)
- The death of Thane (ME 3)
- The unveiling of Normandny SR 2 (ME 2)
No common theme.
Section 2: Bioware and Artistic Integrity
1. Do you believe video games are a form of art? Do you believe art is static or fluid?
Yes. Game is art, and art shall be fluid.
2. Throughout the third installment, some fans believed that Bioware /EA rewrote specific characters during important sequences. Do you have a similar opinion? If so, which characters do you have a problem with?
I don't have problems with character's rewrite.
3. Do you think the Adam and Eve reference at the end of the game made sense, given the theme of co-existence between organic and synthetic organisms?
No.
4. Do you think Mass Effect 3 had more humorous moments than previous installments? If so, do you think it was to cut the theme of war and death in the game, or was this an attempt to detract fans from over thinking the ending?
No, ME 3 has a lot of dark moments.
5. Given Bioware’s previous experience with incorporating player feedback into the series, do you think changing the ending all together would compromise Bioware / EA’s previous decisions and artistic integrity?
No, Bioware could just implement indoctrination theory, without sacrificing their artistic integrity.
6. With the death of well accepted characters in Mass Effect 3 as a part of trying close that character’s story, what makes stranding the crew any different?
Stranding the crew in ME 2 is my responsibility, and I can do my best to keep everyone alive. Thane's death, knowing that he won't stand against Kai Leng yet he still fights, is his choice, an honourable cause. Mordin's death, to save the Krogan is his choice also, which is the highest emotional moment in the game. Legion's death, to bring Geth to a better race, is also his choice.
7. Do you think Bioware made the right choice in explaining the antagonist’s role in the series, or should it have been left alone?
Bioware is already doing good enough in this.
8. A lot of fans found the ending of Mass Effect 3 to be reminiscent of the ending’s of other franchises. Despite various amounts of plot holes in these franchises, they did well. What makes Mass Effect 3 different?
Because ME 3 is not just a game, ME 3 is a great game that is continiously great from ME 1, and the key of its success is incorporating player's choices, and enable us to change the shape of galaxy. This incorporation is totally gone in ME 3 ending.
9. Bioware used 3-dimensional facial rendering for voice actress Jessica Chobot’s character Diana Allers, but photo-shopped a picture of Miss England 2005 Hammasa Kohistani for the character Tali’Zorah vas Normandy. Do you think Bioware put more emphasis in designing an Easter Egg character over improving characters that were introduced in Mass Effect 2 (such as Thane, Jacob, Miranda and Jack)? Given IGN’s defense of the game and its endorsements, do you think Jessica’s role had an influence in the site’s score of the game? Do you the upset fans correct in making this presumption, or is it biased by looking for a scapegoat?
IGN's defense of this game, is due to Jessica's role, which I strongly hate. Tali, my LI, is a more important character than Jessica. Tali, Admiral of the Quarian Fleet, has saved the Citadel, has travelled to the Collectors base, has gathered information on Saren that enables Shepard become Spectre, has collected information on exploding stars, has trusted Shepard despite Cerberus's connection, has escaped trial of treason, has fought with Shepard countless times, and many others, while Jessica is just a useless reporter that give me 5 War Assets. Jessica is useless. I am disappointed at Bioware for this. They should give the main characters more attention.
Section 3: The Endings
1. Given that the game has been released since March 6 (in North America) have you beaten the game? How many times have you replayed the game?
I have beaten the game. I don't replay the ME 3 because the ending sucks. I replay ME 1 4 times, and ME 2 5-6 times.
2. What did you think of the ending? What is your position on it? Why do you have that opinion?
I hate the ending. Because, as many fans here, thinks that :
- The ending did not incorporate my choices, and my actions
- Only 3 ending exists, despite Bioware's promises
- Ending use a lot of space magics
- The ending betrays the whole ME franchise
- The ending is not clear
- The ending is full of plothole
3. Mass Effect 1 and 2 were both known for their replay-ability value, what about Mass Effect 3? Do you think the ending is the main factor in this inability to replay the game, or do you think it’s because Bioware has been largely quiet about these reactions? Do you think this is why they added multiplayer capabilities?
No. I won't replay ME 3, or play any of its MP. MP sucks. The ending that makes me wont play it again. Why should I play it again? The galaxy is dead.
4. Some pivotal moments in Mass Effect 3 have fans debating whether or not Bioware is degrading the values and quality of known characters in the franchise. For the most part, fan opinion of Cerberus assassin Kai Leng’s portrayal in Mass Effect 3 has been negative, mostly described by fans as being due to having multiple authors since the character’s introduction in the novels creating inconsistence’s in his personality. Others examples are the pairing of Garrus and Tali if the player does not romance them in the previous installment of the franchise, and Joker (the pilot of the character’s ship) abandoning the fight during its climax. What is your opinion of this? Are these accurate examples?
Accurate. Joker abandonding the fight is absolutely weird, despite his bravado in ME 2 that cost Shepard's live.
5. At which point do you think the quality of the writing changed the pace and feel of Mass Effect 3?
Just the ending. All other changes are acceptable.
6. Despite the popularity of the Shadow Broker text files in the Mass Effect 2 DLC [Lair of the Shadow Broker], would you pay for a new ending over a free text epilogue of the current endings?
For the ending? Which is broken? I won't pay a dime. If they do fix the ending, change the ending, and release other text-based like Shadow Broker, I am good to pay. I won't pay for anything if the ending is bad. I won't buy any DLC, or even any EA games, if the ending is not fixed.
7. Another point that fans argue about is whether the end game sequence of Mass Effect 3 was real or whether it was a dream. What is your opinion of this, where do you stand? Do either have good claims to support, or is this just a part of Bioware desiring speculation amongst fans? How is this different from the people who support a rewrite of the last sequence?
I stand at the ending is only a dream. Though I have faith in Bioware, although they fail in DA 2, my faith in Bioware is already gone. Repair this, or Bioware will go down in ashes of its former glory. In fact, I am sure in 10 years ahead there will be case studies involving ME 3, on how failure of a private sector to listen to customers, or how underdelivered market promises can really damages the company.
Section 4: Economic Input
1. Mass Effect 2 was known for having lots of Down-Loadable Content (DLC). Did you buy all of them? If not, which ones did you buy, and what was the reasoning behind buying them?
I buy all of them.
2. The Retake Movement has claimed responsibility over the recent decrease in EA stock prices, as well as causing the price of the game to decrease by 25%. In these instances, do you think the stigma against poor writing in entertainment will be a factor in the future aspects of entertainment, or will it be exclusive to the gaming industry?
Of course. Gamers and companies ahead will think twice before they release a crappy game, which is great for the gaming industries. Gaming industries these days has transformed into a slow-moving turtle, instead of it's glory days. Gaming industries are dominated by large corporations that are able to do buyouts, which is why market is dominated by EA, while small time companies (Zenimax, Bioware, Maxis, etc.) are swallowed by the large companies. Thank goodness that Blizzard and Bethesda still independent, their games are much better.
3. Did you buy the “From Ashes” DLC? Given the premise of the plot, do you think the produces alienated themselves from their consumers by making them pay extra for a character that plays a crucial role in the history of the franchise, and have caused another rallying point for players upset about the vagueness of the ending?
I purchased the Digital Deluxe Edition, therefore I get the DLC for free. Jarvik is an important character, it's whitewash on Bioware's part that only said that Jarvik is an additional only. 50,000 years on stasis, only live to fight another final battle? Epic.
#110
Posté 09 avril 2012 - 09:38
8-bit Infinity
-
- Members
- 36 messages
[Section 1 – Prior Gameplay Experience]
1. Have you completed Mass Effect 3?
Yes
2. If not, do you know how the trilogy ends?
N/A
3. Have you played the previous 2 installments of the Mass Effect franchise?
Yes
4. If you have, which character was your LI in each installment? Did this affect how you enjoyed the game?
Liara. Surprisingly it did. I ws certainly more invested in the game. Whether I like it or not, the character and my interaction with that character enticed me in ways that I wouldn't have thought possible for a video game; moreso than the main story I'd say.
5. In Mass Effect 2, presuming you saved every team member during the final chapter, was the overlying stories of the characters the main influence in saving them?
Not particularly. I mainly wanted to save them because they were my team, and Commander Shepard doesn't let down his team (except for the non-VS character).
6. Did the reactions of renegade choices in the franchise forced you to play one way over the other?
Yes. I always feel disgusted with myself playing as a pure renegade. I've played a renegade character, but there are some choices that I refuse to make.
7. What are your favorite 3 memories of the story’s franchise? Is there a common theme among them?
Exploring the galaxy for the first time in ME1, Suicide Mission in ME2, and the LI subplot. There isn't mushc of a common theme unless you count player choice, but that's pretty thematic throughout the series.
Section 2: Bioware and Artistic Integrity
1. Do you believe video games are a form of art? Do you believe art is static or fluid?
Yes, and they are definitely fluid
2. Throughout the third installment, some fans believed that Bioware /EA rewrote specific characters during important sequences. Do you have a similar opinion? If so, which characters do you have a problem with?
I didn't get that impression when I first played, though I admittedly didn;t look that closely. In retrospect, the only character I can see as being somewhat different is Legion, though I can also see motives, reasonings, etc. for his behavior.
3. Do you think the Adam and Eve reference at the end of the game made sense, given the theme of co-existence between organic and synthetic organisms?
Only in the synthesis ending. The others were silly.
4. Do you think Mass Effect 3 had more humorous moments than previous installments? If so, do you think it was to cut the theme of war and death in the game, or was this an attempt to detract fans from over thinking the ending?
This is hard to judge. The fact that it does have so much doom and gloom makes the funny parts seem few and far between in retrospect. I remember laughing more in ME2, but I'm not sure.
5. Given Bioware’s previous experience with incorporating player feedback into the series, do you think changing the ending all together would compromise Bioware / EA’s previous decisions and artistic integrity?
I think it could, depending on how it was handled. Certainly if thery were to scrap what they had completely I feel that would compromise it. Instead use their ideas mingled with fan ideas or use IT to explain why etc.
6. With the death of well accepted characters in Mass Effect 3 as a part of trying close that character’s story, what makes stranding the crew any different?
Mordin's, Legion's, and Thane's deaths happened to serve a purpose to cite a few. I can't think of any permutation that resulted in a death that wasn't for a reson. The stranding is pointless and silly, because the Normandy fleeing is pointless and silly.
7. Do you think Bioware made the right choice in explaining the antagonist’s role in the series, or should it have been left alone?
With the direction they were going with the Reapers, they were bound to be explained. The first had them seem unknowable, then in the second we learned a bit about their motives: they harvest people to make more reapers, reproduction essentially. A Lovecraftian unknown would have been better in my opinion though.
8. A lot of fans found the ending of Mass Effect 3 to be reminiscent of the ending’s of other franchises. Despite various amounts of plot holes in these franchises, they did well. What makes Mass Effect 3 different?
I can't speak to the number of plotholes in other franchises, as I haven't played any of the ones the endings are compared to.
9. Bioware used 3-dimensional facial rendering for voice actress Jessica Chobot’s character Diana Allers, but photo-shopped a picture of Miss England 2005 Hammasa Kohistani for the character Tali’Zorah vas Normandy. Do you think Bioware put more emphasis in designing an Easter Egg character over improving characters that were introduced in Mass Effect 2 (such as Thane, Jacob, Miranda and Jack)? Given IGN’s defense of the game and its endorsements, do you think Jessica’s role had an influence in the site’s score of the game? Do you the upset fans correct in making this presumption, or is it biased by looking for a scapegoat?
The way Tali's face was done is rediculous. It should have been rendered in-engine, not photoshopped onto an existing photo. Use a model for her face, that's fine, but make it in the game engine. And no I do not think they put more emphasis into Allers (I assume that's who you mean) because it seems little to no effort was put into the character at all. I doubt it had much of an impact if any on the score, since other sites gave similar scores, though the advertising that goes to all of those sources might have an impact.
Section 3: The Endings
1. Given that the game has been released since March 6 (in North America) have you beaten the game? How many times have you replayed the game?
Yes, none.
2. What did you think of the ending? What is your position on it? Why do you have that opinion?
It was subpar, compared to ME3 and abysmal compared to the series as a whole. Poor writing, plot holes, railroading, dissapointing final mission (not eough like the SUicide Mission in my opinoin)
3. Mass Effect 1 and 2 were both known for their replay-ability value, what about Mass Effect 3? Do you think the ending is the main factor in this inability to replay the game, or do you think it’s because Bioware has been largely quiet about these reactions? Do you think this is why they added multiplayer capabilities?
Certainly the ending is a factor. I didn't have much of a desire to play after I finished, but part of that was because it was all over. The other part was dissapointment, etc.. I doubt they added MP because they anticipated this.
4. Some pivotal moments in Mass Effect 3 have fans debating whether or not Bioware is degrading the values and quality of known characters in the franchise. For the most part, fan opinion of Cerberus assassin Kai Leng’s portrayal in Mass Effect 3 has been negative, mostly described by fans as being due to having multiple authors since the character’s introduction in the novels creating inconsistence’s in his personality. Others examples are the pairing of Garrus and Tali if the player does not romance them in the previous installment of the franchise, and Joker (the pilot of the character’s ship) abandoning the fight during its climax. What is your opinion of this? Are these accurate examples?
I agree with the assessment of Kai Leng, but not Garrus and Tali. I thought that was a good touch, adding an extra aspect to both the characters. Joker, it remains to be seen whether his fleeing was out of charcter or not. Hopefull the EC DLC will clarify this.
5. At which point do you think the quality of the writing changed the pace and feel of Mass Effect 3?
Hard to say. The Catalyst was the most glaring point but it was probably far before that. Actually the character writing was superb in ME3, but the plot writing thoughout was pretty bad (see: the entire opening sequence, the Crucible)
6. Despite the popularity of the Shadow Broker text files in the Mass Effect 2 DLC [Lair of the Shadow Broker], would you pay for a new ending over a free text epilogue of the current endings?
Yes, though I doubt the EC DLC will be pure text
7. Another point that fans argue about is whether the end game sequence of Mass Effect 3 was real or whether it was a dream. What is your opinion of this, where do you stand? Do either have good claims to support, or is this just a part of Bioware desiring speculation amongst fans? How is this different from the people who support a rewrite of the last sequence?
I am a supporter of IT, but it's equally likely to be wrong as right. It's different in that it doesn't require a rewrite, just clarificationa and extension.
Section 4: Economic Input
1. Mass Effect 2 was known for having lots of Down-Loadable Content (DLC). Did you buy all of them? If not, which ones did you buy, and what was the reasoning behind buying them?
I bought all of the plot-centric one. The appearance and weapons packs were pointless. I boght the ones I did purely for story and character purposes (Liara!)
2. The Retake Movement has claimed responsibility over the recent decrease in EA stock prices, as well as causing the price of the game to decrease by 25%. In these instances, do you think the stigma against poor writing in entertainment will be a factor in the future aspects of entertainment, or will it be exclusive to the gaming industry?
I doubt it will be widespread, even in gaming. The only reason it is relevant here is because of BioWare's reputation as excellent storytellers. Without good storytelling, their games are mediocre.
3. Did you buy the “From Ashes” DLC? Given the premise of the plot, do you think the produces alienated themselves from their consumers by making them pay extra for a character that plays a crucial role in the history of the franchise, and have caused another rallying point for players upset about the vagueness of the ending?
I bought the CE so in a way I did, and certainly.
#111
Posté 09 avril 2012 - 10:21
Flextt
-
- Members
- 703 messages
[Section 1 – Prior Gameplay Experience]
1. Have you completed Mass Effect 3?
Yes.
2. If not, do you know how the trilogy ends?
-
3. Have you played the previous 2 installments of the Mass Effect franchise?
Yes.
4. If you have, which character was your LI in each installment? Did this affect how you enjoyed the game?
Liara. Yes, it helped me relate to my Shepard.
5. In Mass Effect 2, presuming you saved every team member during the final chapter, was the overlying stories of the characters the main influence in saving them?
My motivation before ME 3 was to get a perfect ending. Well written and presented characters like Thane and Garrus obviously motivated me more than, let's say, Jacob. With ME 3 soon to be available, my main motivation switched to take as much squadmembers as possible into ME3.
6. Did the reactions of renegade choices in the franchise forced you to play one way over the other?
No, since I play Paragon exclusively.
7. What are your favorite 3 memories of the story’s franchise? Is there a common theme among them?
Sovereign's defeat (ME 1)
Run for the Normandy after the Human-Reaper's death (ME 2)
Peace between Geth and the Quarians on Rannoch (ME 3)
Section 2: Bioware and Artistic Integrity
1. Do you believe video games are a form of art? Do you believe art is static or fluid?
Art is always a product of its time, thus I see it as fluid. Video games are a new media establishing itself and thus strives to be art as well. While there are games exclusively designed as art, most games are in my opinion only partially art. They often lack the thought-provoking mechanisms established arts have.
2. Throughout the third installment, some fans believed that Bioware /EA rewrote specific characters during important sequences. Do you have a similar opinion? If so, which characters do you have a problem with?
Vega, Ashley, Kai Leng. Kai Leng was intended to be a recurring antagonist, but there is nothing serious about him, because he only wins through game mechanics. Ashley continues her ranting from ME 2 about my alliance with Cerberus, which gets annoying after a few hours. Vega because he was badly introduced and I couldn't relate with him very good.
3. Do you think the Adam and Eve reference at the end of the game made sense, given the theme of co-existence between organic and synthetic organisms?
Since "organics vs synthetics" was a motif from Mass Effect 1 very early on and forcefully pushed into the foreground in ME 3, I think no. ME 3 as it stands went through a lot of effort to water down their own major theme. The whole premise of the ending choices become questionnable after achieving peace between Geth & Quarians.
4. Do you think Mass Effect 3 had more humorous moments than previous installments? If so, do you think it was to cut the theme of war and death in the game, or was this an attempt to detract fans from over thinking the ending?
No, I don't think ME 3 offers more or any comic relief, except moments with Garrus as always.
5. Given Bioware’s previous experience with incorporating player feedback into the series, do you think changing the ending all together would compromise Bioware / EA’s previous decisions and artistic integrity?
Artistic integrity is a difficult thing. First, it is based on the premise that something is art. I cannot decide that. Then the expression was used to shield ME 3 from criticism, which is ludicrous, because art is not something sacrosanct. And since the ending is, in my opinion, constructed in a bad way, the whole "artistic" part is pulled into question. There is a market for Bioware / EA to give a satisfying, optional resolution to many players and like any profit-oriented enterprise, they should act on it, since they wouldn't even be setting precedent.
6. With the death of well accepted characters in Mass Effect 3 as a part of trying close that character’s story, what makes stranding the crew any different?
Because the Normandy scene isn't really explained and simply confusing. A simple explanation could have sufficed, instead I wonder about the implemention of the scene as a whole. Besides it makes no sense for Joker to behave that way (see below).
7. Do you think Bioware made the right choice in explaining the antagonist’s role in the series, or should it have been left alone?
The Reapers were designed to be a Lovecraftian villain: Inherently evil for the fun of it and unknowable in their motivations. Explaining them damaged the whole concept from an observer's point of view.
8. A lot of fans found the ending of Mass Effect 3 to be reminiscent of the ending’s of other franchises. Despite various amounts of plot holes in these franchises, they did well. What makes Mass Effect 3 different?
I think a lot of people had issues with Synthesis: How does it work? How does it look afterwards (Do Geth get fleshy bits?)? Aren't the moral implications absolutely horrible? Somewhere along the line during the Retake Earth mission, people stopped suspending their disbelief, which unveiled a lot of issues.
9. Bioware used 3-dimensional facial rendering for voice actress Jessica Chobot’s character Diana Allers, but photo-shopped a picture of Miss England 2005 Hammasa Kohistani for the character Tali’Zorah vas Normandy. Do you think Bioware put more emphasis in designing an Easter Egg character over improving characters that were introduced in Mass Effect 2 (such as Thane, Jacob, Miranda and Jack)? Given IGN’s defense of the game and its endorsements, do you think Jessica’s role had an influence in the site’s score of the game? Do you the upset fans correct in making this presumption, or is it biased by looking for a scapegoat?
I think it was both fan service and a service to IGN, even though I wouldn't want to implicate that it also improved the score of ME 3. We have to remember, that Jessica Chobot serves as a host for IGN and hence, as a public face for it. About Tali, you somehow wonder: Why would they model Jessica Chobot into the game, but photoshop Tali? It seems like poor decision-making, since the "Talimancers" are especially vocal about their affiliation, second only to the Garrus-fans.
Section 3: The Endings
1. Given that the game has been released since March 6 (in North America) have you beaten the game? How many times have you replayed the game?
I have beaten the game on March 8th. Afterwards, I did another playthrough once.
2. What did you think of the ending? What is your position on it? Why do you have that opinion?
I hate it. It think it is the product of poor writing and bad decision-making. The theme of "Synthetics vs. organics" was minor at first and suddenly gets pushed into the foreground in ME 3. It wouldn't bad as it is, if the game would not constantly weaken its own stance through characters like EDI and races like the Geth. They are likable, they are synthetics and they want to coexist out of their own accord. The theme gets especially weak, if we consider that every hostile action of synthetics is either incited by the Reapers or happening out of self-defence. (Zha'til (Prothean cycle), Saren's Geth, EDI, Geth heretics, regular Geth). The only time a VI lashes out is Project Overlord, where David Archer was tortured to the point of insanity by Cerberus scientists. But we don't get the choice to reject the logic of the Catalyst. The options presented and their justifications are awful. If the Catalyst has strong evidence to base his premise on, that synthetics would wipe out all organic life, why doesn't he bring it forth? If the Catalyst is an instance above the Reapers, why should the player trust him, that Shepard could control the Reapers? If coexisting between synthetics and organics is possible, why should we force homogenization on everyone? How does Synthesis even work? How does Synthesis stop conflicts about religion & politics? Isn't homogenization the polar opposite of actual peace? A lot of players worked hard to achieve compromises and peace and suddenly, only if equality is the way out? Even though I griefed for the Geth and EDI and was aware of other implications, I took Destroy to end the threat once and for all.
3. Mass Effect 1 and 2 were both known for their replay-ability value, what about Mass Effect 3? Do you think the ending is the main factor in this inability to replay the game, or do you think it’s because Bioware has been largely quiet about these reactions? Do you think this is why they added multiplayer capabilities?
I think the multiplayer was included to somehow recycle the efforts of the intended Multiplayer shooter set in the ME universe and cater to casual players, that are less immersed into ME. The decaying "Galatic Readiness" forces you to play it regularily, but since you only need about 5k EMS for the Breath scene, there is no need to go for 100% readiness. Yes, I do think ME 3 ending has destroyed a lot of replayability for the whole trilogy, because I feel my choices mattered little in the end. Bioware's use of special bonusses during the last three weekends suggests they try to fill the time for the Extended Cut and keep players busy.
4. Some pivotal moments in Mass Effect 3 have fans debating whether or not Bioware is degrading the values and quality of known characters in the franchise. For the most part, fan opinion of Cerberus assassin Kai Leng’s portrayal in Mass Effect 3 has been negative, mostly described by fans as being due to having multiple authors since the character’s introduction in the novels creating inconsistence’s in his personality. Others examples are the pairing of Garrus and Tali if the player does not romance them in the previous installment of the franchise, and Joker (the pilot of the character’s ship) abandoning the fight during its climax. What is your opinion of this? Are these accurate examples?
I don't necessarily think that Bioware's quality regarding characters and values is degrading overall, but a lot of things about ME 3 seem to be the product of poor decision-making. I haven't read the novels, so I don't know about him before ME 3, but he seems like a Shepard rip-off, eager to please TIM by defeating Shepard. Unfortunately, on Thessia this is done in the most absurd way, when he crouches out in the open and gets immune to any damage, even if you could easily tear him apart. Game-play mechanics and a plain character work together to make Kai Leng look weak.
I do not have any issues with Tali & Garrus. They have always been friendly, but teasing, towards each other, especially in ME 1 and, hey, the apocalypse is upon us, so why not just spend the night together?
Joker's flight however is unforgivable. He is the second oldest acquaintance of Shepard throughout the trilogy, second only to Anderson. It makes absolutely no sense for him to flee the scene. Because..
- The Normandy's Thanix cannons could inflict serious damage upon Reaper vessels
- Joker's loyalty is absolute towards Shepard.
- If Shepard dies and Joker realizes it, it is more likely to assume, that the Reapers will win this cycle. Joker should stay and give his best instead of a making a futile escape attempt. This is the strongest argument against the scene imho.
- If Shepard does not die and Joker realizes it, why would he not try anything to save him?
5. At which point do you think the quality of the writing changed the pace and feel of Mass Effect 3?
In the course of the Cerberus mission, when the player is told TIM made a run for the Citadel and informed the Reapers.
6. Despite the popularity of the Shadow Broker text files in the Mass Effect 2 DLC [Lair of the Shadow Broker], would you pay for a new ending over a free text epilogue of the current endings?
Yes. I was content with Dragon Age: Origins ending, even though how high my satisfaction will be is questionnable after this disaster.
7. Another point that fans argue about is whether the end game sequence of Mass Effect 3 was real or whether it was a dream. What is your opinion of this, where do you stand? Do either have good claims to support, or is this just a part of Bioware desiring speculation amongst fans? How is this different from the people who support a rewrite of the last sequence?
I don't think stuff like the Indoctrination theory was intended by Bioware. It is more likely a sign for the inguinity of the community rather than Bioware's. Unfortunately, the theories have neither been confirmed nor debunked, but Bioware decided the ending will stay as it is. I am completely ambigious. There are indicators for the sequence to be a dream, but statements from Bioware suggest it was real. Bad enough, that the ending, if taken at face value, is horrible.
Since a lot of theories are about the encounter with Starkid and TIM and the possiblitiy that they are dreams and the rewrite people want especially starkid out of the game, I think differences are small. If a dream sequence was Bioware's intention all along, it would be a great coup, but it doesn't seem like it, because their response to the situation has been largely unorganized.
Section 4: Economic Input
1. Mass Effect 2 was known for having lots of Down-Loadable Content (DLC). Did you buy all of them? If not, which ones did you buy, and what was the reasoning behind buying them?
I did not buy any of them.
2. The Retake Movement has claimed responsibility over the recent decrease in EA stock prices, as well as causing the price of the game to decrease by 25%. In these instances, do you think the stigma against poor writing in entertainment will be a factor in the future aspects of entertainment, or will it be exclusive to the gaming industry?
It will probably serve as a cautionary tale to not insult and belittle your customers while not justifying misinformation as advertisement. Claiming responsiblity for the falling stock price is a big arrogant, but overall, EA has suffered a lot of bad PR and the economy is not what it was.
Mass Effect has been unique in the amount of lore and interactivity it provided. A lot of writing was simply touching and excellent. I hope, more developers will try and develop the genre as a whole, even if they would have to fear something like Retake.
3. Did you buy the “From Ashes” DLC? Given the premise of the plot, do you think the produces alienated themselves from their consumers by making them pay extra for a character that plays a crucial role in the history of the franchise, and have caused another rallying point for players upset about the vagueness of the ending?
Yes. I think making a DLC about Protheans was a devious move targeted at the core fans. But it was worth it from my opinion. Javik provides numerous insights into his race and the incidents around his cycle's Reaper invasion. Ultimately however, he and the Protheans as a whole have little influence, if any, on the ending and hence couldn't contribute to it, for the better or worse.
1. Have you completed Mass Effect 3?
Yes.
2. If not, do you know how the trilogy ends?
-
3. Have you played the previous 2 installments of the Mass Effect franchise?
Yes.
4. If you have, which character was your LI in each installment? Did this affect how you enjoyed the game?
Liara. Yes, it helped me relate to my Shepard.
5. In Mass Effect 2, presuming you saved every team member during the final chapter, was the overlying stories of the characters the main influence in saving them?
My motivation before ME 3 was to get a perfect ending. Well written and presented characters like Thane and Garrus obviously motivated me more than, let's say, Jacob. With ME 3 soon to be available, my main motivation switched to take as much squadmembers as possible into ME3.
6. Did the reactions of renegade choices in the franchise forced you to play one way over the other?
No, since I play Paragon exclusively.
7. What are your favorite 3 memories of the story’s franchise? Is there a common theme among them?
Sovereign's defeat (ME 1)
Run for the Normandy after the Human-Reaper's death (ME 2)
Peace between Geth and the Quarians on Rannoch (ME 3)
Section 2: Bioware and Artistic Integrity
1. Do you believe video games are a form of art? Do you believe art is static or fluid?
Art is always a product of its time, thus I see it as fluid. Video games are a new media establishing itself and thus strives to be art as well. While there are games exclusively designed as art, most games are in my opinion only partially art. They often lack the thought-provoking mechanisms established arts have.
2. Throughout the third installment, some fans believed that Bioware /EA rewrote specific characters during important sequences. Do you have a similar opinion? If so, which characters do you have a problem with?
Vega, Ashley, Kai Leng. Kai Leng was intended to be a recurring antagonist, but there is nothing serious about him, because he only wins through game mechanics. Ashley continues her ranting from ME 2 about my alliance with Cerberus, which gets annoying after a few hours. Vega because he was badly introduced and I couldn't relate with him very good.
3. Do you think the Adam and Eve reference at the end of the game made sense, given the theme of co-existence between organic and synthetic organisms?
Since "organics vs synthetics" was a motif from Mass Effect 1 very early on and forcefully pushed into the foreground in ME 3, I think no. ME 3 as it stands went through a lot of effort to water down their own major theme. The whole premise of the ending choices become questionnable after achieving peace between Geth & Quarians.
4. Do you think Mass Effect 3 had more humorous moments than previous installments? If so, do you think it was to cut the theme of war and death in the game, or was this an attempt to detract fans from over thinking the ending?
No, I don't think ME 3 offers more or any comic relief, except moments with Garrus as always.
5. Given Bioware’s previous experience with incorporating player feedback into the series, do you think changing the ending all together would compromise Bioware / EA’s previous decisions and artistic integrity?
Artistic integrity is a difficult thing. First, it is based on the premise that something is art. I cannot decide that. Then the expression was used to shield ME 3 from criticism, which is ludicrous, because art is not something sacrosanct. And since the ending is, in my opinion, constructed in a bad way, the whole "artistic" part is pulled into question. There is a market for Bioware / EA to give a satisfying, optional resolution to many players and like any profit-oriented enterprise, they should act on it, since they wouldn't even be setting precedent.
6. With the death of well accepted characters in Mass Effect 3 as a part of trying close that character’s story, what makes stranding the crew any different?
Because the Normandy scene isn't really explained and simply confusing. A simple explanation could have sufficed, instead I wonder about the implemention of the scene as a whole. Besides it makes no sense for Joker to behave that way (see below).
7. Do you think Bioware made the right choice in explaining the antagonist’s role in the series, or should it have been left alone?
The Reapers were designed to be a Lovecraftian villain: Inherently evil for the fun of it and unknowable in their motivations. Explaining them damaged the whole concept from an observer's point of view.
8. A lot of fans found the ending of Mass Effect 3 to be reminiscent of the ending’s of other franchises. Despite various amounts of plot holes in these franchises, they did well. What makes Mass Effect 3 different?
I think a lot of people had issues with Synthesis: How does it work? How does it look afterwards (Do Geth get fleshy bits?)? Aren't the moral implications absolutely horrible? Somewhere along the line during the Retake Earth mission, people stopped suspending their disbelief, which unveiled a lot of issues.
9. Bioware used 3-dimensional facial rendering for voice actress Jessica Chobot’s character Diana Allers, but photo-shopped a picture of Miss England 2005 Hammasa Kohistani for the character Tali’Zorah vas Normandy. Do you think Bioware put more emphasis in designing an Easter Egg character over improving characters that were introduced in Mass Effect 2 (such as Thane, Jacob, Miranda and Jack)? Given IGN’s defense of the game and its endorsements, do you think Jessica’s role had an influence in the site’s score of the game? Do you the upset fans correct in making this presumption, or is it biased by looking for a scapegoat?
I think it was both fan service and a service to IGN, even though I wouldn't want to implicate that it also improved the score of ME 3. We have to remember, that Jessica Chobot serves as a host for IGN and hence, as a public face for it. About Tali, you somehow wonder: Why would they model Jessica Chobot into the game, but photoshop Tali? It seems like poor decision-making, since the "Talimancers" are especially vocal about their affiliation, second only to the Garrus-fans.
Section 3: The Endings
1. Given that the game has been released since March 6 (in North America) have you beaten the game? How many times have you replayed the game?
I have beaten the game on March 8th. Afterwards, I did another playthrough once.
2. What did you think of the ending? What is your position on it? Why do you have that opinion?
I hate it. It think it is the product of poor writing and bad decision-making. The theme of "Synthetics vs. organics" was minor at first and suddenly gets pushed into the foreground in ME 3. It wouldn't bad as it is, if the game would not constantly weaken its own stance through characters like EDI and races like the Geth. They are likable, they are synthetics and they want to coexist out of their own accord. The theme gets especially weak, if we consider that every hostile action of synthetics is either incited by the Reapers or happening out of self-defence. (Zha'til (Prothean cycle), Saren's Geth, EDI, Geth heretics, regular Geth). The only time a VI lashes out is Project Overlord, where David Archer was tortured to the point of insanity by Cerberus scientists. But we don't get the choice to reject the logic of the Catalyst. The options presented and their justifications are awful. If the Catalyst has strong evidence to base his premise on, that synthetics would wipe out all organic life, why doesn't he bring it forth? If the Catalyst is an instance above the Reapers, why should the player trust him, that Shepard could control the Reapers? If coexisting between synthetics and organics is possible, why should we force homogenization on everyone? How does Synthesis even work? How does Synthesis stop conflicts about religion & politics? Isn't homogenization the polar opposite of actual peace? A lot of players worked hard to achieve compromises and peace and suddenly, only if equality is the way out? Even though I griefed for the Geth and EDI and was aware of other implications, I took Destroy to end the threat once and for all.
3. Mass Effect 1 and 2 were both known for their replay-ability value, what about Mass Effect 3? Do you think the ending is the main factor in this inability to replay the game, or do you think it’s because Bioware has been largely quiet about these reactions? Do you think this is why they added multiplayer capabilities?
I think the multiplayer was included to somehow recycle the efforts of the intended Multiplayer shooter set in the ME universe and cater to casual players, that are less immersed into ME. The decaying "Galatic Readiness" forces you to play it regularily, but since you only need about 5k EMS for the Breath scene, there is no need to go for 100% readiness. Yes, I do think ME 3 ending has destroyed a lot of replayability for the whole trilogy, because I feel my choices mattered little in the end. Bioware's use of special bonusses during the last three weekends suggests they try to fill the time for the Extended Cut and keep players busy.
4. Some pivotal moments in Mass Effect 3 have fans debating whether or not Bioware is degrading the values and quality of known characters in the franchise. For the most part, fan opinion of Cerberus assassin Kai Leng’s portrayal in Mass Effect 3 has been negative, mostly described by fans as being due to having multiple authors since the character’s introduction in the novels creating inconsistence’s in his personality. Others examples are the pairing of Garrus and Tali if the player does not romance them in the previous installment of the franchise, and Joker (the pilot of the character’s ship) abandoning the fight during its climax. What is your opinion of this? Are these accurate examples?
I don't necessarily think that Bioware's quality regarding characters and values is degrading overall, but a lot of things about ME 3 seem to be the product of poor decision-making. I haven't read the novels, so I don't know about him before ME 3, but he seems like a Shepard rip-off, eager to please TIM by defeating Shepard. Unfortunately, on Thessia this is done in the most absurd way, when he crouches out in the open and gets immune to any damage, even if you could easily tear him apart. Game-play mechanics and a plain character work together to make Kai Leng look weak.
I do not have any issues with Tali & Garrus. They have always been friendly, but teasing, towards each other, especially in ME 1 and, hey, the apocalypse is upon us, so why not just spend the night together?
Joker's flight however is unforgivable. He is the second oldest acquaintance of Shepard throughout the trilogy, second only to Anderson. It makes absolutely no sense for him to flee the scene. Because..
- The Normandy's Thanix cannons could inflict serious damage upon Reaper vessels
- Joker's loyalty is absolute towards Shepard.
- If Shepard dies and Joker realizes it, it is more likely to assume, that the Reapers will win this cycle. Joker should stay and give his best instead of a making a futile escape attempt. This is the strongest argument against the scene imho.
- If Shepard does not die and Joker realizes it, why would he not try anything to save him?
5. At which point do you think the quality of the writing changed the pace and feel of Mass Effect 3?
In the course of the Cerberus mission, when the player is told TIM made a run for the Citadel and informed the Reapers.
6. Despite the popularity of the Shadow Broker text files in the Mass Effect 2 DLC [Lair of the Shadow Broker], would you pay for a new ending over a free text epilogue of the current endings?
Yes. I was content with Dragon Age: Origins ending, even though how high my satisfaction will be is questionnable after this disaster.
7. Another point that fans argue about is whether the end game sequence of Mass Effect 3 was real or whether it was a dream. What is your opinion of this, where do you stand? Do either have good claims to support, or is this just a part of Bioware desiring speculation amongst fans? How is this different from the people who support a rewrite of the last sequence?
I don't think stuff like the Indoctrination theory was intended by Bioware. It is more likely a sign for the inguinity of the community rather than Bioware's. Unfortunately, the theories have neither been confirmed nor debunked, but Bioware decided the ending will stay as it is. I am completely ambigious. There are indicators for the sequence to be a dream, but statements from Bioware suggest it was real. Bad enough, that the ending, if taken at face value, is horrible.
Since a lot of theories are about the encounter with Starkid and TIM and the possiblitiy that they are dreams and the rewrite people want especially starkid out of the game, I think differences are small. If a dream sequence was Bioware's intention all along, it would be a great coup, but it doesn't seem like it, because their response to the situation has been largely unorganized.
Section 4: Economic Input
1. Mass Effect 2 was known for having lots of Down-Loadable Content (DLC). Did you buy all of them? If not, which ones did you buy, and what was the reasoning behind buying them?
I did not buy any of them.
2. The Retake Movement has claimed responsibility over the recent decrease in EA stock prices, as well as causing the price of the game to decrease by 25%. In these instances, do you think the stigma against poor writing in entertainment will be a factor in the future aspects of entertainment, or will it be exclusive to the gaming industry?
It will probably serve as a cautionary tale to not insult and belittle your customers while not justifying misinformation as advertisement. Claiming responsiblity for the falling stock price is a big arrogant, but overall, EA has suffered a lot of bad PR and the economy is not what it was.
Mass Effect has been unique in the amount of lore and interactivity it provided. A lot of writing was simply touching and excellent. I hope, more developers will try and develop the genre as a whole, even if they would have to fear something like Retake.
3. Did you buy the “From Ashes” DLC? Given the premise of the plot, do you think the produces alienated themselves from their consumers by making them pay extra for a character that plays a crucial role in the history of the franchise, and have caused another rallying point for players upset about the vagueness of the ending?
Yes. I think making a DLC about Protheans was a devious move targeted at the core fans. But it was worth it from my opinion. Javik provides numerous insights into his race and the incidents around his cycle's Reaper invasion. Ultimately however, he and the Protheans as a whole have little influence, if any, on the ending and hence couldn't contribute to it, for the better or worse.
Modifié par Flextt, 09 avril 2012 - 10:26 .
#112
Posté 09 avril 2012 - 10:52
Hicks233
-
- Members
- 399 messages
Infinityphoenix wrote...
Wow, everytime I come back to the topic, the answers I'm recieving are much more indepth and more remincient of full fledged papers
As for personal responses:
@stefanomarq: I liked the Da Vinci metaphor, and don't worry, your grammar is excellent
@stcalvin13: Thanks for adding, and I'll do my best!
@AlloutAce: Thanks for contributing; I did find the lack of emotion in Sheppard during the [Save Geth] option on Rannoch was chosen, especially if Tali was the LI.
@Nightdragon8: The novels you suggested, I looked up on wiki; aren't they all romance novels with adventure added in, as apposed to Mass Effect being an adventure with romance added in?
@Federally: I think ME3 had great scenes involving potential LI; those scenes had emotional impact to the player even if they weren't LIs.
@Torudoom: Thanks for adding
@Alphadoom: Thanks for answering the questions
@Laurenci: Neutrality is what I desire as I write the paper. If this is the case, can you suggest any articles pieces of ME3 that can make me get a rounded perspective?
@Robert-42: Thansk for contributing
@Sundance31us: Legal aspects on the rights of Intellectual Property? Hmm, didn't think of adding that in, thanks for suggesting that
@Hussain747715: The cut Anderson/Sheppard scene totally counts as a favorite part! When you say TIM conversations, are you saying all of the TIM conversations, or are you excluding the one's that are done along side Anderson near the end of ME3?
@Electric Pig: I think the theme of your favorite parts is Character Development. Thanks for replying.
@FaultenXIII: We all punched that sleazy reporter
@Rumbutt: Thanks for adding
@Darkzabre: For Science! Thanks for taking the time to complete the survey BTW.
@Noelemalc: Hmm, its pretty different for your concept of Liara LI to be just about 2 people, especially in a franchise that focuses on the big picture. Liked the Poirot analogy. You're right, that type of ending fits AC, but I wouldn't expect ACIII to have cut to black, especially since its suppose to be the end of Desmond's story. BTW, your responses are some of the most well written ones I've seen yet! I'm hoping that Bioware will see the finished paper once I finish and post it. Else, I may just mail it to them.
@Hicks233: Wow, thanks for going through the questions with such a high degree of detail
@wngmv: Hopefully with a new headwriter for the DLC, the plot will be a bit more consistent?
Keep up the good work everyone!
Glad it is of some use. I think at least for me it can be summed up as the players, the customers, the fans have such expectation and favouritism for Bioware that the thought they could drop the ball quite so badly makes no sense to them. It seems more likely to them that this was all a ruse when it's just more likely that they goofed. Or to be more fair it's a schism between what the customer expects and is marketed and the manufacturer produces. Outside of the questionable marketing claims if you look at the series as a whole the player becomes emotionally invested in the journey. They have a clear goal and varying degrees of success that are attainable.
We the player have hope but we know that there is a chance of failure. The issue at least for me with ME3's ending/s is that they run contrary to the style and tone of the rest of the series. There is no hope, no chance for success, (this is at the overall level - before getting into peoples personalised wants of children or settling down with a love interest. Something that is a problem in that it treats the ending/s as just one canon ending regardless of that we were marketed ending-s) what we get is just a stale lecture that was tagged on and fails to understand the audience before it then takes away choice, particularly the one to say "No" and find another way that would in that case return hope, treats the player as an idiot and then contradicts the experience and characters across the series up until that point.
Sacrifice has been raised as an issue by the developer. I can understand and agree with this in terms of ME1 & 2. Sacrifice without choice or based on faulty assumptions and explanations isn't sacrifice. It's ignorantly throwing your life away. It's also kicking your audience square in the quad.
Looking forward to the analysis of this thread, best of luck.
Modifié par Hicks233, 09 avril 2012 - 10:58 .
#113
Posté 09 avril 2012 - 10:57
Adanu
-
- Members
- 1 400 messages
I'd consider this... if you were actually neutral. As it is, being a retaker type just makes this whole thing invalid for me. I just can't respect anyone from that movement anymore.
#114
Posté 09 avril 2012 - 11:04
Fulgrim88
-
- Members
- 1 585 messages
Doing this with Googledocs or something similiar would go a long way to make this easier to both fill out and analyse.
Anyway, this really is a topic that warrants some attention. I have a mind of writing a psychological paper on the reasons for why consumerism has such a hard time establishing itself in the plane of virtual media (going so far as consumer rights being actively fought, rather than encouraged) but I doubt I'll get around to that in the wake of ME3.
So, thanks for doing your part. Here goes
I bought the Collectors edition, thus gaining the From Ashes DLC.
Yes, I think it was a very bad move from the developers. One that may ultimately harm them more than it gained.
They are "lucky" that the ending debate has overshadowed this issue.
Anyway, this really is a topic that warrants some attention. I have a mind of writing a psychological paper on the reasons for why consumerism has such a hard time establishing itself in the plane of virtual media (going so far as consumer rights being actively fought, rather than encouraged) but I doubt I'll get around to that in the wake of ME3.
So, thanks for doing your part. Here goes
Infinityphoenix wrote...
[Section 1 – Prior Gameplay Experience]
1. Have you completed Mass Effect 3?
Yes
2. If not, do you know how the trilogy ends?
/
3. Have you played the previous 2 installments of the Mass Effect franchise?
Yes
4. If you have, which character was your LI in each installment? Did this affect how you enjoyed the game?
Liara, Tali, Tali.
Yes, it did. Although the connection I felt to my LI wasn't wholly greater than the connection to some of the other characters. Still - the relationships to the crew were what made this game great, for me
5. In Mass Effect 2, presuming you saved every team member during the final chapter, was the overlying stories of the characters the main influence in saving them?
Yes.
Even though I was generally inclined to be a good leader and save anyone I could, the bond I felt towards the crew gave me a much stronger motivation
6. Did the reactions of renegade choices in the franchise forced you to play one way over the other?
No.
I picked what felt right to me. My character is pretty much a 60/40 Renegon
7. What are your favorite 3 memories of the story’s franchise? Is there a common theme among them?
I'm picking these based on their huge impact on the story/narrative. There where a whole lot more great moments, but they were ofttimes of little consequence towards the big picture.
Although I'll openly admit that these answers are also heavily influenced by Recency, something you might wanna consider.
So my top 3 are:
Tuchanka
Rannoch
Sucessfull Suicide Mission
The common theme would be pacifying/uniting former adversaries towards a common goal, or "strength through diversity".
Personally, I see this as the main theme of the franchise
Section 2: Bioware and Artistic Integrity
1. Do you believe video games are a form of art? Do you believe art is static or fluid?
Yes, I believe they are art.
They are an interactive medium, though and thus inherently flexible.
2. Throughout the third installment, some fans believed that Bioware /EA rewrote specific characters during important sequences. Do you have a similar opinion? If so, which characters do you have a problem with?
Joker in the final scene, and everybody (including your LI) stepping out of the Normandy seemingly emotionally unaffected.
3. Do you think the Adam and Eve reference at the end of the game made sense, given the theme of co-existence between organic and synthetic organisms?
The whole Joker/EDI romance seemed a little far fetched to me, as does the Synthesis ending.
There's simply no scientific reason behind any of it.
4. Do you think Mass Effect 3 had more humorous moments than previous installments? If so, do you think it was to cut the theme of war and death in the game, or was this an attempt to detract fans from over thinking the ending?
I think it was in order to provide a balanced range of emotions despite a (necessarely) very dark theme.
It didn't feel overdone or unrealistic. I think real people in the same circumstances would act similiar (gallows humor)
5. Given Bioware’s previous experience with incorporating player feedback into the series, do you think changing the ending all together would compromise Bioware / EA’s previous decisions and artistic integrity?
No, I don't think it would.
On the contrary, it would show a great degree of interest for the needs of their customers. Something any corporation should aim for.
6. With the death of well accepted characters in Mass Effect 3 as a part of trying close that character’s story, what makes stranding the crew any different?
It's disconnected from the narrative context.
The other characters died in a way that made sense, both from their personal story arcs and for the narrative as a whole.
The stranded crew felt unnatural. It didn't fit the characters and it served no purpose, other than introducing an Adam and Eve reference.
7. Do you think Bioware made the right choice in explaining the antagonist’s role in the series, or should it have been left alone?
Like with any myth, explaining it can only lead to diminishing it.
I think they would've been better off leaving this alone completely. To find a satisfying explanation for something that has always been described as incomprehensible can only lead to disappointment.
8. A lot of fans found the ending of Mass Effect 3 to be reminiscent of the ending’s of other franchises. Despite various amounts of plot holes in these franchises, they did well. What makes Mass Effect 3 different?
That the endings did not fit the previously established lore, nor the previously established "theme" of the narrative.
Thus it became hard to keep up the necessary suspension of disbelief, which worked in favor of similiar plotholes in the other games. E.g. Deus Ex has always been about some sort of transhumanism. Introducing this as an ending choice makes sense, despite being somewhat unexplained, maybe even implausible from a logical point of view. What matters is, that it fits the underlying theme of the narrative.
9. Bioware used 3-dimensional facial rendering for voice actress Jessica Chobot’s character Diana Allers, but photo-shopped a picture of Miss England 2005 Hammasa Kohistani for the character Tali’Zorah vas Normandy. Do you think Bioware put more emphasis in designing an Easter Egg character over improving characters that were introduced in Mass Effect 2 (such as Thane, Jacob, Miranda and Jack)? Given IGN’s defense of the game and its endorsements, do you think Jessica’s role had an influence in the site’s score of the game? Do you the upset fans correct in making this presumption, or is it biased by looking for a scapegoat?
Tali: I think this is just looking for a scapegoat. Pictures like that have been used before, without any similiar backlash.
Personally, I wouldn't have shown her face at all (see: "diminishing myth" above), but the stock foto didn't bother me.
Jessica Chobot: Again, I think this has spiralled out of proportion. She didn't have unreasonably much screentime.
Could the development time going to her gone elsewhere? Probably.
Did she ruin the game? Hardly.
IGN: I think this played a role in IGNs defense of the game, or at least made them look somewhat biased. To what extent, I can't tell.
Section 3: The Endings
1. Given that the game has been released since March 6 (in North America) have you beaten the game? How many times have you replayed the game?
I've beaten it once.
No replays, due to a feeling of pointlessness - given the striking similarity of the ending, and the non existant impact of our choices
2. What did you think of the ending? What is your position on it? Why do you have that opinion?
I hate it with a passion. A stance that has hardly diminished over the course of the past weeks.
There are many many well written posts, videos even, describing the gripes with the ending, and I agree with most, so I won't repeat these points more than necessary.
In short, I have three main gripes:
1. The disconnect from the main narrative. In every way, the ending feels divorced from the spirit, quality and narrative structure of the rest of the franchise. In that, it hurts it's own "artistic integrity" far more than any retcon could do.
2. The lack of diversity: The ending(s) are all pretty much the same. Every single one is identical in all the major outcomes (Mass Relays gone, Shepard dead, Crew stranded).
This was both a stark contrast to the many advertisements prior to release (impact of choice, diversity) and again, to the feel of the game up to that point. Especially with Tuchanka and Rannoch being so satisfyingly different based on a multitude of things. Compared to that, the ending fell flat on its face.
3. The utter lack of logical coherence. It contradicts the games lore, it goes against every law of writing and storytelling, all in favor of...what? I see nothing to be gained from all the grave damage the ending has done to the narrative.
3. Mass Effect 1 and 2 were both known for their replay-ability value, what about Mass Effect 3? Do you think the ending is the main factor in this inability to replay the game, or do you think it’s because Bioware has been largely quiet about these reactions? Do you think this is why they added multiplayer capabilities?
Yes, I think the ending is the main reason why there's so little replayability.
It conveys the feeling that all you did up until the final miniutes was pointless, so there's little incentive to do it again.
No, I don't think it's the reason why Bioware has added Multiplayer. I think that's simply rooted in the fact that these days, Multiplayer is simply considered a "must have" feature.
4. Some pivotal moments in Mass Effect 3 have fans debating whether or not Bioware is degrading the values and quality of known characters in the franchise. For the most part, fan opinion of Cerberus assassin Kai Leng’s portrayal in Mass Effect 3 has been negative, mostly described by fans as being due to having multiple authors since the character’s introduction in the novels creating inconsistence’s in his personality. Others examples are the pairing of Garrus and Tali if the player does not romance them in the previous installment of the franchise, and Joker (the pilot of the character’s ship) abandoning the fight during its climax. What is your opinion of this? Are these accurate examples?
Kai Leng: I agree that he felt very hollow, almost to the point of being comical.
He was too heavily scripted for someone you could actually fight. This became most obvious on Thessia.
Joker: I've described my opinion on him earlier
Tali & Garrus: Didn't bother me at all. In fact, I liked the possibility. Inter-crew relationships where a major improvement in this game as far as I see it, compared to the earlier games where it all boiled down to everyone interacting with Shepard - and no one else.
So while the other two characters are accurate examples of "degrading the values" I think the latter is not. Quite the contrary.
5. At which point do you think the quality of the writing changed the pace and feel of Mass Effect 3?
I think this boil down to three points, with increasing orders of magnitude
London. At this point, everything started to feel heavily scripted and forced into a certain course of events. Still it didn't feel entirely wrong. A necessary design flaw maybe.
Things started to get awry when Harbingers beam hit. Things got even more heavily scripted, to a point where it almost felt like the game was taken out of your hands entirely. Still, there was remaining hope that this would be a necessity for dramatic effect, and things would change for the better.
It wasn't until the elevator of light appeared and the figure popularly known as Star Child made his entry.
This is when the "pace and feel" of Mass Effect was changed beyond recognition, for reasons stated earlier.
6. Despite the popularity of the Shadow Broker text files in the Mass Effect 2 DLC [Lair of the Shadow Broker], would you pay for a new ending over a free text epilogue of the current endings?
Yes, I would have payed - grudgingly - for a very, very good ending dlc changing the current ending into the diverse multitude of endings we were led to expect.
But I fear this is now out of the question
7. Another point that fans argue about is whether the end game sequence of Mass Effect 3 was real or whether it was a dream. What is your opinion of this, where do you stand? Do either have good claims to support, or is this just a part of Bioware desiring speculation amongst fans? How is this different from the people who support a rewrite of the last sequence?
I don't believe in the Indoctrination Theory.
I think it has some merit, and is a good way to cope with what I believe was essentially bad writing, but I don't think it's true, for several reasons.
1. If it were true, Bioware would have said so long ago. The moment to announce it, gaining the air air of "genius" that many attributed to such a move, has come and went.
2. It's simply what I gather from Biowares statements up to this point. They didn't fully debunk it yet, solely because it serves a purpose to calm many otherwise disgruntled fans.
IF it were true, I'd be even more enraged, because it would be day 1 DLC all over again, just with a much bigger impact on the possibility to enjoy the game. To willingly cut out the ending in order to cash in again, would be unprecedented and inacceptable.
Section 4: Economic Input
1. Mass Effect 2 was known for having lots of Down-Loadable Content (DLC). Did you buy all of them? If not, which ones did you buy, and what was the reasoning behind buying them?
I'm against the concept of DLC in general.
Didn't buy any of it, except those coming with Collectors or Regular editions
True ending DLC would've been my first. And as I stated - only grudgingly so.
2. The Retake Movement has claimed responsibility over the recent decrease in EA stock prices, as well as causing the price of the game to decrease by 25%. In these instances, do you think the stigma against poor writing in entertainment will be a factor in the future aspects of entertainment, or will it be exclusive to the gaming industry?
I certainly hope that will have an impact.
The belief amongst publishers, that they could get away with pretty much anything - leading to a sad trend of heavily advertised, but rushed and flawed games - has gone on way too long.
I think this is an issue of consumer rights, far beyond "just" Mass Effect 3.
3. Did you buy the “From Ashes” DLC? Given the premise of the plot, do you think the produces alienated themselves from their consumers by making them pay extra for a character that plays a crucial role in the history of the franchise, and have caused another rallying point for players upset about the vagueness of the ending?
I bought the Collectors edition, thus gaining the From Ashes DLC.
Yes, I think it was a very bad move from the developers. One that may ultimately harm them more than it gained.
They are "lucky" that the ending debate has overshadowed this issue.
#115
Posté 09 avril 2012 - 11:27
Linnea Jenner
-
- Members
- 7 messages
[Section 1 – Prior Gameplay Experience]
1. Yes
2.N/A
3.YES
4.Did 3 different playthroughs, tried all 3 romances in ME1, in ME2 i saved then tried most romances and then went on to complete the game but main ME2 romances were Thane, Tali and Garrus, only have 2 playthroughs of ME3 so far so have romanced Kaidan and Tali thus far. This doesn't change the story that much, but since the romance lets you see more of a charachter you like it does add to the experience.
5.Nope, I wanted an achievement. I also made an ME2 playthrough where I worked hard to kill as many squadmates as possible. Gonna do the same in ME3, trying to save everyone versus killing everyone. Fall Tali, fall! Yes, I am evil. No, actually I just want to experience all the content whilst achievement hunting.
6.Only in my firsta playthrough, after that I did whatever I wanted.
7.The Thorian(ME1), the derelict reaper(ME2) and the Tuchanka story arc in ME3. The first two are kind of mysterious, the 3rd is simply a good story about the female krogan who interacts differently depending on if you have Wrex or Wreav.
Section 2: Bioware and Artistic Integrity
1.Yes. 2nd question is kind of retarded, art relies on imagination otherwise it's not art but plagiarism, or at best mediocre art.
2.Not throughout, just a bit of a disjointed ending and Shepard acting weird, but since they're bringing out new content I don't want to comment on that now.
3.Yes.
4.Yes. To 2nd question, seriously, any good movie/gaming expereince benefits from some humour so one does not need an ulterior motive to add it.
5.Artistic integrity is about sticking to your vision. In this case the ending is so disjointed, either through bad writing or poor delivery of the story arc that artistic integrity in this case would be to change the delivery/portrayal of the vision in such a way that it doesn't look like giant massive plothole, plotholes being a great sin in the art of writing.
6.Is your assumption based on that numerous charachters will die stranded in the Sol system? Quarians survived without a planet on their ships, they might be able to teach the others how to survive in space on limited resources. Otherwise I didn't understand your question.
7.That decision is the prerogative of the artist.
8.Different to which franchises? Since these are not specified I can not/will not answer.
9.To be fair, the lighting when you see the picture of Tali makes it somewhat unclear, ie it still leaves some wiggle room for future portrayal of Quarians by Bioware. Don't care much for the Diana Allers thing to be honest. She sits in her cabin nice and quiet most of the time so she doesn't bother me.
Section 3: The Endings
1.Beaten it once, near the ending of the 2nd playthrough.
2.Given the tone of the ME games and the powerfulness of the reapers I'm ok with a dark ending as it would fit into the story. I'm not ok with plotholes though, plotholes aren't art.
3.First, you're assuming everyone feels the same way about replayaility, you should make your questions more neutral as this is for a paper and not for a fan forum. Anyway, 98% of ME3 is perfection so I'm happy to replay it. The decision to add multiplayer might be for any number of reasons which have nothing to do with the ending at all.
4.Your question would be better put as "do you feel that the writing of the charachters are inconsistent, here are some examples". I can't comment on Kai Leng, haven't read the books, nor do I have an issue with Tali and Garrus' romance as Quarians and Turians have been known to romance each other in ME2 for example plus that the games span several years and people change... The reason why Joker abandoning the fight during its climax might become clear in the extended cut so I don't want to comment on that. It seems like the ending was cut short due to production deadlines, ie the artist vision has not been fully realised yet.
5.It's unclear how the illusive man and Anderson, got to the citadel, however the tone of this section is consistent with the rest of the game. It's once you meet the citadel child it feels really disjointed.
6.The new ending shouldn't be paid for in whichever form it comes as the main problem is plotholes, ie failed writing and/or delivery of the vision.
7.The indoctrination theory is plausible. I don't think this is Bioware inciting to speculation, I think this is the result of too tight production deadlines, the realease of SWTOR felt a bit rushed as well but the format of MMORPGs is more fit for post release amendments. I think the goal of the indoctrination theory supporters and those who demand a rewritten ending is in essence similar, ie plotholes fixed. There's those calling for a happier ending on both sides.
Section 4: Economic Input
1.Yes. I'm a ME fan so I wanted all the content.
2.Only when a complete product is delivered at once. For example, ME3 takes at most 40 hours to complete so you get the whole experience relatively quickly when you buy the game. Compare with the TVseries Lost and those consumers couldn't do anything as the ending was delievered long after they "subscribed" to the product, ie money (if any) had already been spent a long time ago and it was thus hard for the consumers to put pressure on the producers. In the case of movies and games the full product can be seen much quicker, ie the backlash if production deadlines detract from quality will have a much larger impact. Consumers have more leverage when a product is "instantly consumed" as compared to "consumed over a long period of time".
3.Yes. Bioware didn't do themselves any favours milking their consumers, but consumers are willing to pay for quality content so that's why the producers will charge for it. The gaming industry is a business and that's what businesses do. I believe Bioware could have largely gotten away with the paid extra content if they hadn't shot themselves in the foot with the ending though.
Your paper is about whether the Consumer (Public Good) or the Producer (The Private Sector) should have the last say in creation of products in the entertainment industry. However, the problems with the ME3 ending appears, at least to me, revolve more around production deadlines than artistic visions. No good artist/writer (we know the bioware writers are good) with self respect would release a story so ridden with plotholes, the decision to release ME3 in it's current form was thus a business decision rather than artists decision. This is about consumers dissatisfied with a product that was not fully constructed/completed vs a business who prioritised deadlines before completing the product fully. Customers who pay for an incomplete work of art in the belief that it was completed have a right to complain, but a business might reject the complaint trying to save face and funds, hence the "struggle". Ultimately the customer is always right, but Bioware know they screwed up hence they are fixing it, but since this is of course very embarassing they will claim they are just "clarifying" the product rather than "fixing" it. The result remains to be seen in the extended cut of ME3.
1. Yes
2.N/A
3.YES
4.Did 3 different playthroughs, tried all 3 romances in ME1, in ME2 i saved then tried most romances and then went on to complete the game but main ME2 romances were Thane, Tali and Garrus, only have 2 playthroughs of ME3 so far so have romanced Kaidan and Tali thus far. This doesn't change the story that much, but since the romance lets you see more of a charachter you like it does add to the experience.
5.Nope, I wanted an achievement. I also made an ME2 playthrough where I worked hard to kill as many squadmates as possible. Gonna do the same in ME3, trying to save everyone versus killing everyone. Fall Tali, fall! Yes, I am evil. No, actually I just want to experience all the content whilst achievement hunting.
6.Only in my firsta playthrough, after that I did whatever I wanted.
7.The Thorian(ME1), the derelict reaper(ME2) and the Tuchanka story arc in ME3. The first two are kind of mysterious, the 3rd is simply a good story about the female krogan who interacts differently depending on if you have Wrex or Wreav.
Section 2: Bioware and Artistic Integrity
1.Yes. 2nd question is kind of retarded, art relies on imagination otherwise it's not art but plagiarism, or at best mediocre art.
2.Not throughout, just a bit of a disjointed ending and Shepard acting weird, but since they're bringing out new content I don't want to comment on that now.
3.Yes.
4.Yes. To 2nd question, seriously, any good movie/gaming expereince benefits from some humour so one does not need an ulterior motive to add it.
5.Artistic integrity is about sticking to your vision. In this case the ending is so disjointed, either through bad writing or poor delivery of the story arc that artistic integrity in this case would be to change the delivery/portrayal of the vision in such a way that it doesn't look like giant massive plothole, plotholes being a great sin in the art of writing.
6.Is your assumption based on that numerous charachters will die stranded in the Sol system? Quarians survived without a planet on their ships, they might be able to teach the others how to survive in space on limited resources. Otherwise I didn't understand your question.
7.That decision is the prerogative of the artist.
8.Different to which franchises? Since these are not specified I can not/will not answer.
9.To be fair, the lighting when you see the picture of Tali makes it somewhat unclear, ie it still leaves some wiggle room for future portrayal of Quarians by Bioware. Don't care much for the Diana Allers thing to be honest. She sits in her cabin nice and quiet most of the time so she doesn't bother me.
Section 3: The Endings
1.Beaten it once, near the ending of the 2nd playthrough.
2.Given the tone of the ME games and the powerfulness of the reapers I'm ok with a dark ending as it would fit into the story. I'm not ok with plotholes though, plotholes aren't art.
3.First, you're assuming everyone feels the same way about replayaility, you should make your questions more neutral as this is for a paper and not for a fan forum. Anyway, 98% of ME3 is perfection so I'm happy to replay it. The decision to add multiplayer might be for any number of reasons which have nothing to do with the ending at all.
4.Your question would be better put as "do you feel that the writing of the charachters are inconsistent, here are some examples". I can't comment on Kai Leng, haven't read the books, nor do I have an issue with Tali and Garrus' romance as Quarians and Turians have been known to romance each other in ME2 for example plus that the games span several years and people change... The reason why Joker abandoning the fight during its climax might become clear in the extended cut so I don't want to comment on that. It seems like the ending was cut short due to production deadlines, ie the artist vision has not been fully realised yet.
5.It's unclear how the illusive man and Anderson, got to the citadel, however the tone of this section is consistent with the rest of the game. It's once you meet the citadel child it feels really disjointed.
6.The new ending shouldn't be paid for in whichever form it comes as the main problem is plotholes, ie failed writing and/or delivery of the vision.
7.The indoctrination theory is plausible. I don't think this is Bioware inciting to speculation, I think this is the result of too tight production deadlines, the realease of SWTOR felt a bit rushed as well but the format of MMORPGs is more fit for post release amendments. I think the goal of the indoctrination theory supporters and those who demand a rewritten ending is in essence similar, ie plotholes fixed. There's those calling for a happier ending on both sides.
Section 4: Economic Input
1.Yes. I'm a ME fan so I wanted all the content.
2.Only when a complete product is delivered at once. For example, ME3 takes at most 40 hours to complete so you get the whole experience relatively quickly when you buy the game. Compare with the TVseries Lost and those consumers couldn't do anything as the ending was delievered long after they "subscribed" to the product, ie money (if any) had already been spent a long time ago and it was thus hard for the consumers to put pressure on the producers. In the case of movies and games the full product can be seen much quicker, ie the backlash if production deadlines detract from quality will have a much larger impact. Consumers have more leverage when a product is "instantly consumed" as compared to "consumed over a long period of time".
3.Yes. Bioware didn't do themselves any favours milking their consumers, but consumers are willing to pay for quality content so that's why the producers will charge for it. The gaming industry is a business and that's what businesses do. I believe Bioware could have largely gotten away with the paid extra content if they hadn't shot themselves in the foot with the ending though.
Your paper is about whether the Consumer (Public Good) or the Producer (The Private Sector) should have the last say in creation of products in the entertainment industry. However, the problems with the ME3 ending appears, at least to me, revolve more around production deadlines than artistic visions. No good artist/writer (we know the bioware writers are good) with self respect would release a story so ridden with plotholes, the decision to release ME3 in it's current form was thus a business decision rather than artists decision. This is about consumers dissatisfied with a product that was not fully constructed/completed vs a business who prioritised deadlines before completing the product fully. Customers who pay for an incomplete work of art in the belief that it was completed have a right to complain, but a business might reject the complaint trying to save face and funds, hence the "struggle". Ultimately the customer is always right, but Bioware know they screwed up hence they are fixing it, but since this is of course very embarassing they will claim they are just "clarifying" the product rather than "fixing" it. The result remains to be seen in the extended cut of ME3.
#116
Posté 09 avril 2012 - 01:33
Sunflash0
-
- Members
- 12 messages
Infinityphoenix
wrote...
[Section 1 – Prior Gameplay Experience]
1.
Have you completed Mass Effect 3?
Yes
2.
If not, do you know how the trilogy ends?
n/a
3.
Have you played the previous 2 installments of the Mass Effect
franchise?
Yes, multiple times.
4.
If you have, which character was your LI in each installment?
Did this affect how you enjoyed the game?
My main play
through I did Liara/Liara/Liara
5.
In Mass Effect 2, presuming you saved every team member during the
final chapter, was the overlying stories of the characters the main
influence in saving them?
I saved them because my main Shepard
was a paragon that made sure everyone was focused on the final
mission. I was also very interested in learning the most I
could from all of my characters. For instance my main Shep
brought Legion to Tali's loyalty mission.
6.
Did the reactions of renegade choices in the franchise forced you to
play one way over the other?
I hope when you write your paper
you have a few people proof read it for spelling and gramar mistakes
No, I was very methodical about sticking to paragon, with a
few small exceptions.
7.
What are your favorite 3 memories of the story’s franchise? Is
there a common theme among them?
1) The entirety of
Lair of the Shadow Broker.
2) Punching the admiral for attacking
the Geth dreadnaught while you were still on it.
3) Watching the Thresher Maw take
down the reaper.
Section 2: Bioware
and Artistic Integrity
1.
Do you believe video games are a form of art? Do you believe art
is static or fluid?
I believe video games are as much of
an art as shipbuilding is. I wouldn't exactly call minesweeper or a
lifeboat art, while I would absolutely consider epic RPGs and
intricately designed wooden schooners art. I also believe that art
can be both. Art is very difficult to quantify, so good luck.
2.
Throughout the third installment, some fans believed that Bioware /EA
rewrote specific characters during important sequences. Do you
have a similar opinion? If so, which characters do you have a
problem with?
I have only played through the game
once, so I really only noticed inconsistency in Shep when confronted
with the star-child. If other characters were rewritten it was done
subtly enough that a fan-boy playing though on his first run wouldn't
notice.
3. Do you think
the Adam and Eve reference at the end of the game made sense, given
the theme of co-existence between organic and synthetic organisms?
I suspect you are referring to the
crash. To which I would say, I didn't care about the Adam and Eve
reference because I was too busy not understanding why Liara was
there when I had figured she had been incinerated by the reaper beam
(in fact I was really pissed that I had brought her with me after the
beam went off). I also feel that this is a somewhat less than
neutral question (though I understand what you are trying to get at).
In fact I think the co-existence **** went out the window when the
star-child deemed it so.
4.
Do you think Mass Effect 3 had more humorous moments than previous
installments? If so, do you think it was to cut the theme of war
and death in the game, or was this an attempt to detract fans from
over thinking the ending?
I feel like ME3 had a few more really
well written humorous parts. I also feel like this was just good
writing to show that people are still three dimensional even during
bad times. I don't think it was related to cut the theme of war and
death or to detract fans from over thinking the ending.
5.
Given Bioware’s previous experience with incorporating player
feedback into the series, do you think changing the ending all
together would compromise Bioware / EA’s previous decisions and
artistic integrity?
I personally think that the Mass Effect
Series as it stands would be like seeing The Black Pearl's hull
painted in a zebra print - Hawaiian shirt flowers pattern. I think
that rewriting the ending would be like repainting the hull to a
solid tasteful color.
6.
With the death of well accepted characters in Mass Effect 3 as a part
of trying close that character’s story, what makes stranding the
crew any different?
Stranding the crew isn't any
different and is perfectly acceptable IF it didn't require the amount
of “interpretation” that it currently needs to make sense.
Imagine if you were in a chemistry
class and the first thing you were taught was that hydrogen and
oxygen are all water is. The second thing you learn is that if you
can break a hydrogen atom, you can create an extremely powerful bomb
that can destroy cities. Your homework is to find the
connection.
7. Do you
think Bioware made the right choice in explaining the antagonist’s
role in the series, or should it have been left alone?
That is a difficult question. As it
stands, I think my answer would be no. However, I think that Bioware
was well within reason to explain the antagonists a little they just
didn't do as thorough a job as I think the ought to have.
8.
A lot of fans found the ending of Mass Effect 3 to be reminiscent of
the ending’s of other franchises. Despite various amounts of
plot holes in these franchises, they did well. What makes Mass
Effect 3 different?
Plot holes are one thing, especially
minor plot holes, they happen sometimes and honestly, if the ending
had have been done right this message board would be flooded with
threads about the little plot holes instead of ripping on the ending
as it stands. The problem with Mass Effect's ending (intentionally
referring to the entire series here) was that it made no sense. It
was like I stopped playing Mass Effect and was instead playing some
super flashy sci-fi game where the budget went to graphics and story
was an afterthought.
9.
Bioware used 3-dimensional facial rendering for voice actress Jessica
Chobot’s character Diana Allers, but photo-shopped a picture of
Miss England 2005 Hammasa Kohistani for the character Tali’Zorah
vas Normandy. Do you think Bioware put more emphasis in
designing an Easter Egg character over improving characters that
were introduced in Mass Effect 2 (such as Thane, Jacob, Miranda and
Jack)? Given IGN’s defense of the game and its endorsements,
do you think Jessica’s role had an influence in the site’s score
of the game? Do you the upset fans correct in making
this presumption, or is it biased by looking for a scapegoat?
The only thing I can say about this is
they should have put more effort into Tali's face. I feel this
question is a little too loaded for me to give a fair answer and I am
not as informed as I would like to be.
Section 3: The
Endings
1. Given that
the game has been released since March 6 (in North America) have you
beaten the game? How many times have you replayed the game?
I have beaten and played the game
once.
2. What did you
think of the ending? What is your position on it? Why do
you have that opinion?
The ending was complete ****. Bioware
probably could have made that ending work especially since a fan made
a choose your own epilogue site that didn't change Bioware's endings
and actually gave proper closure to the ending.
The ending stunk of rushed writing. It
felt like a college student that had asked a professor for an
extension to get the ending right and the **** professor played
the “I don't bend the rules for ANYBODY” card. So the student
had to write something that night and had no time to give it a proper
read through (above and beyond typos).
3.
Mass Effect 1 and 2 were both known for their replay-ability value,
what about Mass Effect 3? Do you think the ending is the main
factor in this inability to replay the game, or do you think it’s
because Bioware has been largely quiet about these reactions? Do
you think this is why they added multiplayer capabilities?
Mass
Effect as it stands is has no replay-ablity for me. The ending is
hands down the reason. The entire time I was playing through the
game I was thinking about my decisions and what I would like to do in
different play-throughs. Bioware being quiet has nothing to do with
it. The ending was worse than painful. It was painful and
insulting. Painful I can handle. Shep dying no matter what I can
handle. What I can't handle is terrible and inconsistent writing for
an ending.
Multiplayer I think was added because
the fans wanted it. It is actually the only reason I didn't return
my game to Amazon.com.
4.
Some pivotal moments in Mass Effect 3 have fans debating whether or
not Bioware is degrading the values and quality of known characters
in the franchise. For the most part, fan opinion of Cerberus
assassin Kai Leng’s portrayal in Mass Effect 3 has been negative,
mostly described by fans as being due to having multiple authors
since the character’s introduction in the novels creating
inconsistence’s in his personality. Others examples are the
pairing of Garrus and Tali if the player does not romance them in the
previous installment of the franchise, and Joker (the pilot of the
character’s ship) abandoning the fight during its climax. What
is your opinion of this? Are these accurate examples?
I
honestly don't understand what the overall point of this question is.
I didn't find any of this to be the case, though I suspect that if
the ending hadn't been what it was, this is the type of thing that
would be discussed on this forum by the hardcore Mass Effect fans
(I'm a big ME fan, not a hardcore one).
5.
At which point do you think the quality of the writing changed the
pace and feel of Mass Effect 3?
I think there were a few moments
throughout the game where I mildly questioned what was going on. But
I think the point I started to really notice was when we had bum rush
the beam. Then it got better after the Illusive man crap and your
sitting there with Anderson. Then it went to **** again.
6.
Despite the popularity of the Shadow Broker text files in the Mass
Effect 2 DLC [Lair of the Shadow Broker], would you pay for a new
ending over a free text epilogue of the current endings?
I'm going to be a whiny fan for a
moment. I think I deserve a free new ending, and not just one new
ending, but several new endings that I can play though. Now that
I've gotten that out, I would absolutely prefer new endings to text
epilogues. I would most likely be willing to pay for them (even
though I bought the PC collectors edition AND the PS3 version to play
with different friends).
7.
Another point that fans argue about is whether the end game sequence
of Mass Effect 3 was real or whether it was a dream. What is
your opinion of this, where do you stand? Do either have good
claims to support, or is this just a part of Bioware desiring
speculation amongst fans? How is this different from the people
who support a rewrite of the last sequence?
I
doubt that having a large portion of your fans decide that the ending
was a dream as the only logical conclusion is either spot on verbatim
what they wanted OR is a sign of some terrible disconnect and a huge
insult that fans would rather YOUR ending be a fake ending. I don't
think it was a dream, I think it was a terribly written ending. I
think both parties have grounds to support their claims, I've read a
little about the indoc theory and I can see it. But this is the end
of a ****ING TRILOGY. I don't want to have to speculate if the
ending was a dream or if it was actually complete ****.
Section
4: Economic Input
1.
Mass Effect 2 was known for having lots of Down-Loadable Content
(DLC). Did you buy all of them? If not, which ones did you
buy, and what was the reasoning behind buying them?
I
bought all the story ones except Kesumi and the one right before the
launch of ME3. I liked the writing in ME2 and really enjoyed playing
with all the characters. The only thing I didn't buy was the weapon
packs because I don't need better weapons to enjoy the fantastic
story (also the weapon system in ME2 was crap).
2.
The Retake Movement has claimed responsibility over the recent
decrease in EA stock prices, as well as causing the price of the game
to decrease by 25%. In these instances, do you think the stigma
against poor writing in entertainment will be a factor in the future
aspects of entertainment, or will it be exclusive to the gaming
industry?
I think there is a stigma against poor
writing in the entertainment industry. I can't comment on this being
one of the first times this has happened. If you look at TV. If a
TV show has excellent writing people flock to it and watch it. If
the writing quality goes down people slowly stop watching it. The
show gets canceled. The big difference here is that people paid a
lot of money for this game. Even if a movie sucks I'm only out of
two hours and $10. In this case people are robbed of $60 and 20-40
hours. Me personaly, I dropped $130 on this game (PC Digital Delux
and PS3 as previously mentioned). I also sunk 40 hours into the game
because I did all the stupid side quests. I am livid with Bioware, I
have invested a lot of my time and money into this game. I think
that is why you are seeing a lot of this extensive uproar. People
invested a lot of time and money into this game.
Back to your question. While the
stigma against bad writing exists, it doesn't stop bad writing. Bad
writing is a part of life, sometimes people just unintentionally
write bad things.
I'd like to think that the stigma won't
necessarily stop bad writing, but it will provide developers and
incentive to acknowledge bad writing and fix it.
3.
Did you buy the “From Ashes” DLC? Given the premise of the
plot, do you think the produces alienated themselves from their
consumers by making them pay extra for a character that plays a
crucial role in the history of the franchise, and have caused another
rallying point for players upset about the vagueness of the ending?
I bought the Digital Delux pack, so I
got the DLC. Looking back I really think that the From Ashes DLC was
originally intended to be a part of the game. So yes I think the
producers alienated themselves by making them pay extra for this
character. While that kind of DLC was alright for ME2, especially
for the characters they did it for, taking the Prothean out and
charging people for it wasn't very cool.
The decision was a little shady, but
the fans would have no doubt overlooked it for the most part. But
the ending being as terrible as many people think it was made it so a
lot of the grabs for money are a lot more glaring and infuriating.
People don't mind paying money (and lots of it) when they are getting
a quality product. I know that I will never purchase another EA or
Bioware game when they first come out. If I do end up wanting to try
out another game by them I will be easing my way back into them by
buying used games first. My money will no longer be going to them
and my word of mouth will discourage people from supporting both
companies. Which I feel is terribly ironic because one month ago I
convinced a friend of mine to buy ME3. I feel betrayed not only
because I hated the ending but also because convinced him to buy a
game that he hated the ending to. I recommended a bad game to this
friend. He will most likely think twice about buying games I suggest
now. That hurts me a lot.
