3214 ответов в этой теме

[Kath]

Riion wrote...

God retconned the death of Jesus due to fan outrage. He responded within three days. Now that's customer service. 

A+ 

[ArenCordial]

Katherine wrote...

Riion wrote...

God retconned the death of Jesus due to fan outrage. He responded within three days. Now that's customer service. 

A+ 

Yeah Riion you get a gold star!

[GetDaved]

Re: #retakeeaster from Bioware: Seriously you guys, you really think the ending of Mass Effect 3 and the Gospels of Jesus Christ are in the same league? I'd recommend you watch "The Happening", a movie by M. Night Shyamalan, as that is more the quality ballpark the ending dwells in.

You have a great game with a terrible ending. The ending is not misunderstood, the ending is not below average, and the ending is not in line with your own standards. It is irredeemably bad. Quit the sarcasm, quit the trollish comparisons to whatever gives you a rhetorical weapon to fire one misguided bullet from, and take your humble pie. This is the greatest underachievement in the company's history and the sooner *that* is addressed the sooner everyone wins. The problem is not "How do we appease the fan base?" or "How do we push back against those fans who are really starting to get annoying?", the problem is "Our ending unquestionably sucks and we are too stubborn to fix it out of a sense of loyalty to our team and misguided notions of integrity." Solve that problem without betraying your creative minds and your fine.

I know no one wants to throw Casey and the other ME3 team members under the bus, but seriously, with the right PR twist you can make it sound like everyone wins and not "the fans were right and Casey was wrong". The fact that Bioware has pushed against this and is married to the objectively and subjectively terrible ending is just dragging their own IP through the dirt. If they want to kill Shepard and destroy the Mass Effect universe, fine - but do it in the context of a good ending.

[SkaldFish]

Sable Phoenix wrote...

Skald, thank you for that. As an art student myself (went to college to study computer animation, took two, count them, two art history courses during), I read that comment about Van Gogh and was taken aback. You said what I would have said as well or better than I'd have said it.

There's this mistaken idea that I blame on Post-Modernism, that somehow art can only be artistic if it's depressing, misunderstood, or confusing. That somehow the great unwashed masses, solely by virtue of being great, unwashed, and massive, automatically tarnish any artwork by their approval into mere "entertainment".

News flash: Mozart and Bach and Handel and Beethoven were the premiere entertainers of their day. They were the John Lennons and the Elvis Presleys. Everything they made was for the consumption of the masses. I defy anyone to contend that they are not artists, especially not on the grounds that they merely produced entertainment.

Art is art because people can appreciate and enjoy it. There is a reason many more people have and will attend a Mozart concert in their lifetimes than a Stravinsky concert. When only the artist truly understands his art, only the artist will spend time with it. He will eventually be forgotten. Good art is good art precisely because nearly anyone can look or listen and say, "That's enjoyable." Art is art because it moves the people who both create it and witness it.

As a piece of art (and I would likewise defy anyone who says games aren't art) that is, by its very nature, meant to appeal to the masses, Mass Effect, and BioWare, have a responsibility to deliver a product that does not feel obscure, confusing, or most importantly, incomplete.

Too bad nobody seems to be paying attention to this thread any more...

Thanks, Sable, and well said.

" When only the artist truly understands his art, only the artist will
spend time with it. He will eventually be forgotten. Good art is good
art precisely because nearly anyone can look or listen and say, 'That's
enjoyable.' Art is art because it moves the people who both create it
and witness it."

^^^^Yes! This....

[FOX216BC]

 I am not sure what to think about this article.
www.computerandvideogames.com/343452/mass-effect-3-ending-dlc-designed-to-better-reflect-player-choices-new-details/

It needs some clarification don't you think?

[Jimmie_Rox]

Hmm, I missed the PAX announcements as I was away at the time. IF it stays free and is any good then it'll probably go a good way towards fixing the ending.

TBH though, they could salvage a good ending from what they gave us simply by cutting out the Starchild and everything from Shepard and Anderson sitting looking at Earth, cue good red ending and use EMS to determine if Citadel explodes, Relays explode or everything on Earth dies with the best EMS having non of these happen, and progressively worse EMS scores picking up them in order of bad to worse.

It's simple, lets them have pretty explosions, means past choices are taking into account (via EMS, though some scores could do with a buff to make Multiplayer a non-required part of the game) and, most importantly it could be done in about a week by a dedicated Dev team by cutting and pasting the existing endings. Also, would lead to a lot of speculation about post game events without pissing a lot of people off as it uses the closure already provided by plot resolutions without creating a deus ex machina, allows the Reapers to remain mysterious and ends on a suitably deep and meaningful moment.

Сообщение изменено: Jimmie_Rox, 12 Апрель 2012 - 02:01 .

[Lurchibald]

FOX216BC wrote...

 I am not sure what to think about this article.
www.computerandvideogames.com/343452/mass-effect-3-ending-dlc-designed-to-better-reflect-player-choices-new-details/

It needs some clarification don't you think?

I read that article and lol?

Gamble elaborated a little: "It's more than just a few cinematic scenes. We're happy to be doing it... We want to give more closure about some of the questions you have, and in general we wanted to give the players a sense of personalisation with the endings.

"Many people mentioned that some of the choices they made in the game are not necessarily reflected in the ending scenes. We're definitely going to focus on things like that. We want to make sure that when you see the ending of Mass Effect, you now have the information and context to be satisfied."

He added: "It wasn't in the game because we didn't know there was such a huge demand for it, to be honest with you."

Wait, wait, wait.... In a game where we have been told for over 5-6 years that our decisions will affect the ending we get, you seriously didn't think there would be a huge demand to see the product of those decisions played out in the ending?

That's like ordering a Meat Pizza and when I ring up and complain that all I got was a cheese pizza with no meat on it you act all surprised and say "I didn't know you had such a huge demand for those meat toppings"

Сообщение изменено: Lurchibald, 12 Апрель 2012 - 02:28 .

[Uriko128]

SkaldFish wrote...

Uriko128 wrote...

<snip/>

 Which is, speaking as a working artist, complete and utter horse****. If you make a movie, and you put in front of focus groups, and they categorically hate the ending, you change it. If you’re writing a book and your first readers tell you the ending is terrible, you fix it. (Ditto your second readers, your second-draft readers, your agent, your editor, your copy editor.)

No you don't. You only do that if you have a particular interest in making money out of the masses. But usually artists are misunderstood, that's why Vincent van Gogh, Toulouse Lautrec, among others, died in absolute poverty. So no, art is clearly not about pleasing people, is about expressing yourself through painting, writting, singing, or whatever you like to do. If people understand your work, then perfect, but if they doesn't, you shouldn't change it to please them.

<snip/>

That's up to them, isn't it? If they want to put their artistic integrity over their profits, then so be it. I applaud them.

I understand the desire to defend an artist's right to create for him/herself, for the pleasure of the act and of the result. I'm right there with you on that point. But Mass Effect 3 was not created to be hung in a gallery. There isn't just one "kind" of artist -- the kind you describe who sacrifices everything to defend his/her work against an imagined enemy.

Nearly everything we see and interact with in this world is art. The trashcan here at my desk was designed by someone who thought the embossed fluting around the outside was a nice touch. In fact, I bought it because I liked that fluting. But I don't imagine that trashcan made it to the store shelves because its designer stood her ground in the face of opposition, spending her last dime to market it herself, and later, shouting "My can stands alone!!!" before dying in abject poverty because she refused to change it in the face of lackluster sales.

Commerical artists simply cannot have it both ways and continue to enjoy the privileges of a loyal customer base. They cannot create products with the goal of selling them, then abdicate by invoking artistic integrity in the face of criticism. Well, not if they want to stay in business. And, your admiration of BioWare notwithstanding, they are not really making that choice.

As you say, though, it is up to them. I don't think anyone here is denying that. The reason it's been a big deal lies partly in the fact that they actively engaged their customer base in what they referred to as a collaborative endeavor, made many very clear promises about how that would play out in the finished game, then drew a line in the sand after they decided it needed to be about their personal creative space being invaded.

I understand that some ME players just don't get why it's such a big deal. I can see that. Maybe as they progress in polish and sophistication, games are becoming more important to people than they should be. Heck, I don't know. That's probably a good discussion to have, but it's not this discussion. People have the reactions they have, and yours is as valid as mine.

I do think I need to suggest that you look into that statement about Lautrec and van Gogh, though. They've always been two of my favorite painters, and I've studied their work and their lives. Neither of them fits the image you're projecting on them. Lautrec was actually one of the more successful French post-impressionists. The son of aristocrats but often ridiculed for his physical deformities, he became a raging alcoholic and often slept wherever he passed out, but he was never poor. He died of syphilis and the effects of long-term alcoholism (the absinthe probably didn't help either) in a very expensive sanitorium paid for by his mother.

Van Gogh suffered from mental illness and recurring health problems all his life (with both syphilis and absinthe playing an important role there as well). He certainly lived for long stretches in poverty, but this was more likely due to his emotional instability than the romantic notion that, in the face of an imagined cruel public who misunderstood him, choosing to sacrifice everything for the sake of his art. He was his own harshest critic, often refusing to sell paintings people offered to buy because he wasn't happy with them. During his last few years, his mental and physical health were his greatest enemies. Just as he was being hailed as a genius by the Parisian critics, he began to spiral into a final depression that he never escaped.

For both men, I suspect "artistic integrity" was more about constantly changing their work than insisting it couldn't be changed. They were both extremely prolific, constantly experimenting based on input from the public and from their colleagues. Van Gogh in particular is known for having taken even the most casual comments about his work to heart. Remarks that his early paintings were "too somber" sent him back to the canvas, and the result was the most amazing and revolutionary use of color the world has ever seen.

https://encrypted-tb...4HJxeXjQCNloXXw
Willows at Sunset - Vincent van Gogh, 1888

Thank u for the clarification of Van Gogh's and Lautrec's life, it's always a pleasure to hear some info from someone who has studied the topic.

I remain with my opinion though. I also think the ending is not an incomplete product and I still consider it art. Of course there's a lot of ways to define art, everyone of them as valid as the other, and at the same time, different from each other.

Bioware guys like the ending they did, I like it too, and I'm sure a lot of people like it too. We don't feel it is an incomplete product and we don't need explanation to the so-called-plotholes, because we don't give them any importance or because we just don't see some of them as plotholes, or maybe because we ourselves have created a "posible reason" to explain that part, so we don't consider it a plothole anymore.

I don't think Bioware will ever agree with u that their ending is bad, because they actualy like it, the same as me. Maybe it's a thing of likes? I guess so. I consider the tragical tone of the ending great, wow, I don't want to have my ass kicked by you but, u know what? I really really like the fact that no matter what u do, Sheppard dies, or your friends die, or both! I love the fact that Bioware gives u no choice, no matter what u want u are ****ed. I know that sounds weird but, whatever .

I also think the godchild is brilliant and incredibly unexpected. It makes me think "wow, ok, I don't understand a **** now" and I like that feeling, like sudenly all is too misterious and overwhelming for me to understand. It shocked me a little bit.

Well, that's all. Peace!

PD: It would be good if Bioware created a post of Q&A about the ending. I'm sure they would easily answer every of your questions about the plotholes, so you can see they are not plotholes...

PD2: I forgot to say that I agree with the guys that call bioware a bunch of liers. As far as I have seen in the interviews, hell, they are. But I try to not hype very much about a game, that always result on being upset when u play it, because u see half of the things promised weren't delivered. That doesn't mean the game is bad, and with ME3, I supose most of u can accept the game is great, and if u can not, just forget about the press for a moment and think objectively about the product itself, and not about the things the company have said about it.

Сообщение изменено: Uriko128, 14 Апрель 2012 - 05:18 .

[Lurchibald]

@Uriko128 I'd love to see how they explain this: If you have the Prothean DLC Javik tells you that his role now as the last of his kind is one of vengeance and that his only purpose is to see the reapers fall, so it boggles the mind when you can sometimes see him exit the Normandy in the end cinematic, it totally goes against his character to run like that.

or

When you are addressing your entire team before the final push they all say that they are willing to die to see the end of the reapers, so it makes no sense that they would be running away with the Normandy either, If anything you would expect they would have been regrouping together to try a final push toward the beam, even without Shepard.

and

The character of Shepard is different for everyone, I know for a fact that mine would have rejected all the options presented by the Catalyst.

and

The Normandy is the most Advanced Frigate in the Alliance Navy, do you really think Hackett would have allowed it to run?

and

The "Best" ending (Shepard Breathing) is impossible for two reasons:
A. Assuming there were air where the catalyst talks to you, it exploded so there would no longer be any.
B. Considering the size of the explosion you see on the Citadel (on the exact place you were standing) in the ending cinematic you would not be breathing because you had absolutely no armour protecting you and would be no more than chunks of flesh burning up in Earth's Atmosphere.

And to conclude, (as others have said) if the AI Child has been a part of the citadel the whole time why didn't it activate the station when Sovereign attacked?

Those are the Plot-Holes I want cleared up.

Сообщение изменено: Lurchibald, 15 Апрель 2012 - 03:03 .

[Uriko128]

Lurchibald wrote...

@Uriko128 I'd love to see how they explain this: If you have the Prothean DLC Javik tells you that his role now as the last of his kind is one of vengeance and that his only purpose is to see the reapers fall, so it boggles the mind when you can sometimes see him exit the Normandy in the end cinematic, it totally goes against his character to run like that.

or

When you are addressing your entire team before the final push they all say that they are willing to die to see the end of the reapers, so it makes no sense that they would be running away with the Normandy either, If anything you would expect they would have been regrouping together to try a final push toward the beam, even without Shepard.

Hacket and Anderson knew Sheppard reached the crucible. Hacket could have ordered your party to retreat to the normandy. And well, if there's some kind of explosion it's quite possible that joker runs. One thing is being brave and another thing is being stupid or kamikaze.

The character of Shepard is different for everyone, I know for a fact that mine would have rejected all the options presented by the Catalyst.

And he would die right there I suppose. Because the catalist have offered u three options when u were bleeding to death and the reapers where anihilating the aliance forces. If you don't take the options and start a chat with the catalist, you will save no one.

The Normandy is the most Advanced Frigate in the Alliance Navy, do you really think Hackett would have allowed it to run?

The same as I said before.

The "Best" ending (Shepard Breathing) is impossible for two reasons:
A. Assuming there were air where the catalyst talks to you, it exploded so there would no longer be any.
B. Considering the size of the explosion you see on the Citadel (on the exact place you were standing) in the ending cinematic you would not be breathing because you had absolutely no armour protecting you and would be no more than chunks of flesh burning up in Earth's Atmosphere.

It is stated at least in the books, that arround artificial constructions like stations, Omega and I suposse also the Citadel, there's a mass effect field that creates an artificial atmosphere and gravity. So I don't think is imposible to breathe on that place. You are assuming the explosion destroyed the air and destroyed Sheppard. Well, it didn't. And you are assuming that Shepard is on Earth when breathing, but maybe he is on the ruins of the cidatel. Just assumptions, it is not fair to make plot-holes from speculative stories.

And to conclude, (as others have said) if the AI Child has been a part of the citadel the whole time why didn't it activate the station when Sovereign attacked?

Those are the Plot-Holes I want cleared up.

Another assumption. You think the starchild can control the Citadel, but maybe he can't. You also think he wants to interfere with the reapers work, but maybe he want them to do everything and never take part. Maybe he want to remain hidden or some civilization would eventually discover him and destroy the Citadel. Who knows? You are just speculating, the same as me.

Сообщение изменено: Uriko128, 15 Апрель 2012 - 10:22 .

[Yagamoth3433]

So this is basically what I envision Bioware as saying with the directors cut.

We are Bioware, our logic is undeniable.

And yet for some reason I still find myself denying it.

[Lurchibald]

The "Best" ending (Shepard Breathing) is impossible for two reasons:
A. Assuming there were air where the catalyst talks to you, it exploded so there would no longer be any.
B. Considering the size of the e
xplosion you see on the Citadel (on the exact place you were standing) in the ending cinematic you would not be breathing because you had absolutely no armour protecting you and would be no more than chunks of flesh burning up in Earth's Atmosphere.

It is stated at least in the books, that arround artificial constructions like stations, Omega and I suposse also the Citadel, there's a mass effect field that creates an artificial atmosphere and gravity. So I don't think is imposible to breathe on that place. You are assuming the explosion destroyed the air and destroyed Sheppard. Well, it didn't. And you are assuming that Shepard is on Earth when breathing, but maybe he is on the ruins of the cidatel. Just assumptions, it is not fair to make plot-holes from speculative stories.

You must not understand the concept of an explosion, forgetting the SIZE of the explosion where Shepard was standing (plenty big enough to suck up all the air in that area btw)

the shock-wave alone would have been enough to kill no-armour Shepard.

Edit: On the subject of Hackett knowing about us making it to the beam, he wouldn't have known till the last minute that we had made it (at least that is what we are led to believe) and that wouldn't have been near enough time to evac anyone, and why would they evac? we can tell (from the end cinematics) that people were still on the ground fighting, so it still makes no sense that the normandy crew weren't still on the ground fighting the fight (that goes double for Javik)

Edit 2: Oh, and I never mentioned Shepard breathing on Earth, What I said was that Shepard wouldn't be breathing anywhere because Shepard would be DEAD. What I said is that (from the explosion) Shepard would have been chunks burning up in the Earth's atmosphere (judging from the force and expansion of the explosion, Shepard would be either in pieces burning up in Earth, In pieces on the Citadel or just hurtling in pieces through space "Sir Isaac Newton is the deadliest son-of-a-**** in space.") not that s/he would be amongst rubble in either place.

Сообщение изменено: Lurchibald, 16 Апрель 2012 - 01:58 .

[Uriko128]

 Seeing the explosion I have to accept that it seems quite imposible for Sheppard to survive. However in ME2, Sheppard's body went out of a ship on space and ended in a planet and I saw no one saying that was a huge plot-hole, cause it is, because it's imposible that a body could go just floating from space to a planet without desintegrating in the process.

Сообщение изменено: Uriko128, 16 Апрель 2012 - 04:44 .

[Lurchibald]

Uriko128 wrote...

 Seeing the explosion I have to accept that it seems quite imposible for Sheppard to survive. However in ME2, Sheppard's body went out of a ship on space and ended in a planet and I saw no one saying that was a huge plot-hole, cause it is, because it's imposible that a body could go just floating from space to a planet without desintegrating in the process.

Not so, that would depend on the atmosphere of the planet Shepards body landed on, it would also depend on how far Shepards body had to travel before landing (IIRC Shepards body ended up on the planet where the normandy was attacked), Also we have the fact that (Despite being dead from lack of oxygen) Shepard was fully armoured when entering the atmosphere on which s/he landed.

Сообщение изменено: Lurchibald, 16 Апрель 2012 - 05:01 .

[H4nniba11]

Vlta wrote...

Ghost Rider LSOV wrote...



Ah, choices...

See that doesn't even make sense since in two endings shepard dies, in the one ending where he doesn't die you're throwing the entire galaxy into the dark ages aka no friggin ships............so how in the hell do you reunite? Unless of course she's talking about more dlc pre-ending

Ok I know this was posted like 20 pages ago but this seriously made my day. Hope lives again!