481 réponses à ce sujet

[lofte_2000]

Has it been tweeted to them by anyone yet?

EDIT: Just seen that it has

Modifié par lofte_2000, 08 avril 2012 - 05:55 .

[MaverickPerry]

lofte_2000 wrote...

Has it been tweeted to them by anyone yet?

Me, several times. And to all the writers.

[lofte_2000]

MaverickPerry wrote...

lofte_2000 wrote...

Has it been tweeted to them by anyone yet?

Me, several times. And to all the writers.

Good job!

[Foulpancake]

wow ya fantastic, hits it right on the head

[cronosfire]

I just watched it I have to say I completely agree

[stargatefan1990]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Okay, my thoughts.  Initial high level stuff:  (NOTE: GIANT WALL OF TEXT ALERT, AND I WROTE IT WHILE TIRED SO IT MIGHT GET WEIRD BY THE END)

I enjoyed the attempts to add some humor.  In general that was good, although I would have liked to have seen all the questions he had posed that challenged narrative coherence.  And Wrex-Shepard went on a bit too long...  But alas!


I'll make my comments mostly in the same order points are brought up in the video.


His first serious beef is about the uncertainty of the Crucible's abilities.  He even states there isn't a codex entry.  Say what you will about the psuedo-Macguffin, for myself part of the intent of it was that it was mysterious and unknown.  Hackett even discusses with Shepard that he has uncertainties because he's not even sure if it will do what we want it to, so I'm not sure I entirely agree that this is a justified attempt at being nitpicky due to a lack of description.  Nitpicky justification comes at the inclusion of the Crucible in general as a plot device, but that's not an issue related directly to the ending.  I think it's fair to think the Crucible is lame, but I suppose a refutation is that we don't have any choice but to go with it.

Though the reason I don't mind a superweapon is that I did buy in that the Reapers could not be defeated conventionally.  Perhaps other alternatives could be explored, but this is what we were given as game players.  The feeling that it doesn't belong in the setting I think is a fair one, which the video does touch on.  Though IMO if you have issues with the Crucible in general, it undermines some of the events that happen in the ending because it's kind of liking counting twice.  If you think the Crucible is lame, then it stands to reason you're going to find other aspects of the Crucible lame as well.


As result, I do not agree with his concerns that the results of the consequences are arbitrary.  Yes, they are arbitrary, but not for no particular reason, but because it's part of the uncertainty that Hackett alluded to when discussing the Crucible.  We created a device we didn't fully understand and it led to consequences that we may not have been expecting.  I do not feel this undermines the narrative coherence, or makes the choice poor (in the other thread I discuss why I appreciated the fact that the Geth would probably die too).

This leads to a point that, at this poitn in the film, what he's really looking for is an explanation of what will happen.  Since he's not in favor of the idea of the extended DLC, he feels that this type of choice should be made explicit for the gamer prior to making the choice.  I disagree, but it's also clear to me that I am much more willing to accept that things were not entirely defined.  My conclusion is that the Catalyst is not an all knowing being, so even if he were to spend more time detailing out all the consequences, I have no problem if not every consequence is brought up.  I think the Catalyst's falliability is demonstrated in that Shepard can survive the decision.  This leads me to believe that it's possible with enough EMS that our Crucible is perhaps more precise than the Catalyst appreciated.  I do think that any resolution that the ending DLC may have (which I am also eagerly awaiting) may help a lot of people in this regard.  So I actually don't necessarily think "will this kill the Quarians" at the time is as reasonable as he feels.  Agree to disagree in that regard.

Concerns for the control ending are valid, although from a Shepard stand point I hesitated with it because my Shepard had doubts about what exactly it meant.  What level of control would I have?  What does it mean to control something even though I am dead?  That these questions existed, coupled with being uneasy with the Catalyst's intentions, made it hard for my Shepard to understand.  This goes double for the synthesis ending.  I can't really comprehend it as a person myself, which makes it difficult for me to decide to choose it.  Personally I think the choices were too similar to Deus Ex, and with the Catalyst being a Diabolus Ex Machina, I did have reservations with the situation.  I don't know why they were necessary, though I don't believe they're as logically inconsistent as others feel.  It's an easy cop out, which isn't a good thing, but unexplained things can be rationalized due to the unexplained nature of the Crucible itself.

Although, I think that spending a large amount of exposition detailing the consequences of my decision wouldn't have seemed right.  In my opinion, there is actually still a sense of urgency here, that needed to be better explained.  The Crucible is vulnerable, and delays will completely undermine it from doing anything as it is destroyed.  So I can understand a lack of additional explanation about the options themselves.  What I think would ahve been really good here is an opportunity to explicitly refuse these ideas.  You can sort of due this by just dying on the Crucible, but an ending that is "Critical Mission Failure" isn't really an ending.  Some sort of sequence of Shepard preserving the knowlege of this cycle for the next cycle would have been great.


Number two Character focus

I totally agree that caring about characters helps us care about what happens to them.  It's actually why I like the sacrifice of the Geth, because I do care about them.  It made me think about choosing destroy.

As for the Normandy scene, it's a scene I don't understand either.  I actually don't like it because it just seems so random and confusing.  I would have liked it for those scenes to have not existed at all.

The rest of this sequence I think details with closure, which is something I think is pretty subjective.  I am pretty indifferent and don't really feel a burning need to know the details of what happened, though at the same time I would have still enjoyed it if I did know.  The reason why I don't mind not knowing the details is I appreciate the idea of really not knowing any more than Shepard knows, and the idea that I have to make my choice with the hope that it is the right one, which I liked because the idea of hope is prevalent throughout the series.

Number Three: Central Conflict

I actually entirely agree that the Reapers didn't really need to be explained.  SImilar to how The Force didn't need to be explained, in doing so you diminish the mystique and potentially create additional confusion and questions.  I think this may have happened... hahaha.  (For the same reasons I would never have shown Tali's face).

Though I do feel that the Catalyst is the antagonist of the scene, not the protagonist.  I don't feel that the end choices are meaningless either.  

Unfortunately, combined with it being late (and me now being sleepy... haha) and some of his drawing parts out for humor, I think this area loses some steam after getting off to a really good start.


Narrative Coherence

I find this part more difficult to address based on preferring to see all the questions he had.  My concern was that to prove his point he starts to bring up issues the lie more with the general plot (what was the Crucible supposed to do) or issues that I didn't consider relevant (How did the Citadel move) to strengthen his point.

Narrative coherence does fall apart, but I think it's still maintained pretty well right up until Shepard is on the lift to see the Catalyst.  That's when the OMGWTFBBQ moment starts to happen and the uncertainty that the Crucible allows us to have goes really extreme. 


I definitely don't think that he hates Mass Effect.  No one that has spoken out with as much passion as the people that have hate the game.  If they hated the game they wouldn't care.  They wouldn't be posting clamouring for any type of response, and hanging on every announcement and making 30+ videos and sharing this video on several different threads.

I do agree that, while there's a unified movement for something to change for the ending, there are differences in what people want that complicate things.  I actually like the ending, and I had an interesting discussion with a friend of mine that said she respected the ending, as she said it made her feel sheepish about how much she really wanted a happy ending which she said surprised her.  In this sense I suppose you could argue it's an artistic interpretation, but I came away thinking it wasn't fantastic, but I don't hate it either.  To be fair, I did go into the ending expecting it to be very bad based on the internet rumors, which definitely predisposed me to going into the ending with a more open mind than I otherwise would have.


My personal opinion of the ending is that an ideal solution of Shepard and his teammates all surviving, with minimal cost, undermines the Reaper threat as much as the Reaper explanation is, so I'm definitely a "tough choices" type of guy.  But, I'm not a complete nihilist because I actually never interpreted the galaxy as going to **** at the end.  A large part of this is that I never played Arrival, so I had no expectation of what would happen with the destruction of a relay.  Even then, though, I never felt it was as cataclysmic, as the explosions in the videos definitely didn't seem to be of the supernova variety.  But I was also expecting the ending to be more in line with the first two games, where you aren't really presented a choice like we are, but rather we accomplish the goal (defeat reapers) and that experience we see events that demonstrate the reactivity of our playthroughs.


I do think I'm probably more harsh than I should be.  I do prefer his breakdown than some of the other videos I have seen.

Anyways, I'm starting to fade pretty fast now and I should probably stop as the last several paragraphs probably make less and less sense... haha.  I'll have to stop by tomorrow and explain whatever gigantic confusing mess I've put myself into!

as much as i liked your in Depth analysis i just wanted to say thank you, Thank you for talking to us and not treating us like we are Contaminated or such (which alot of us have felt that's how bioware has been treating us)

[Spectre-00N7]

Seen it before. I love the tribute in the beginning to RedLetterMedia

[Solaris1989]

I also think that they should watch this video as well. It's done by the same guy.

www.youtube.com/watch "A Tale of Two Companies."

[shadowreflexion]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I've not seen this. Watching now. Thanks for posting!

I just wanted to give you a sincere thank you for taking the time to really get involved in our discussion and for showing genuine interest on the subject. Thank you.

[Foulpancake]

I watched his second one, i agree with his standpoint as a customer, but not as a player. I do not believe he really addressed any of IT issues, instead making his big cloud of nonsense covering up "Narrative Cohesion" and many of those questions (at least the ones i could still hear and see) are easily answered. And there are just TOO many things that make IT so likely, even if bioware did not plan it at all...it just seems horribly coincidental.

My biggest one is the eyes, why does shepard get TIM eyes on control/synthesis, that would be like aliens coming down from earth wearing 1 sparkly glove on 1 hand and claiming they never heard of michael jackson...ya...sure...

The star trek clip is pretty close, but i don't think bioware was (or should have been) going for an incredibly obvious "hey guys, this is whats happening", i think it was genius to let the fans figure out we were being indoctrinated. Again though as he said, it could all be horribly wrong, bioware thought this star kid and a complete abandonment of everything the series stood for in the last 10 minutes was a GOOD idea...ugh

[RxP4IN]

the_geo_law wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

He ripped-off Plinkett's Star Wars reviews, but forgot to rip-off Plinkett's objectivity.

YES... Because Plinkett did not completely rip the prequels to shreds for being terrible... or rip on George Lucas for being a hack. TOTALLY was objective.
/sarcasm.

Plinkett exposed the outstandingly terribly nature of the prequels. This guy did no less... but for the ending of Mass Effect 3. He outright says that he ripped off Plinkett but did a great job. So you are repeating what he says himself in the attempt to be insightful? And then added something blatantly untrue about Plinkett being objective... which is laughable as I've seen his Star Trek reviews too, in which he rips apart too.

Yep. I have no clue where he got "objectivity" from.

Anyway, this video is a great tribute to Plinkett. RLM tweeted that something is in the works for ME3, I'm praying it's Plinkett....oh please let it be Plinkett.

[bpzrn]

I have given up hope, I really thought maybe the ending was all planed (to be scetchy) and they had a DLC redy to roll after 30 days or something to give us a coherent ending that fit the rest of the story. Now, I could care less what they do. The experience of ME3 is destroyed and now we have to wait 2,3,4.... 6 months for an explanation to a BAD ending of a story?

No thanks, had they anounced removal of the curent AWFUL ending after the beam part and replaced it with one that fit the trilogy and maintained character focus and not introduce a brand new super child ........... etc... etc... etc...  then I would have stuck it out.

I ordered a new game from Amazon.com with my ME3  refund form a different company due out the 17th of April, looking forward to a new story/game and company to give me loyalty and money to.

BW and./or EA seem to not want my money or loyalty

Modifié par bpzrn, 08 avril 2012 - 06:20 .

[kookman]

This video gets it EXACTLY RIGHT

[kookman]

bump

[Tovanus]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Number Three: Central Conflict

I actually entirely agree that the Reapers didn't really need to be explained.  SImilar to how The Force didn't need to be explained, in doing so you diminish the mystique and potentially create additional confusion and questions.  I think this may have happened... hahaha.  (For the same reasons I would never have shown Tali's face).

Along with everyone else, I want to say thanks for your interesting conversation on this topic. On this one point, I want to respectfully disagree though. I feel like the Force didn't need to be explained because it was introduced as a force of nature rather than an intelligence with a history. When I played ME 1, I remember being really interested in what the answers would be behind the Reapers.

I know that Sovereign said they were unknowable in their motivations and that they had no beginning, but I always assumed even back then that he was lying. They always made me feel like the Repers wanted primitive mortals to view them as unknowable gods, like the Reapers just defaulted to giving answers calculated to hide the truth and intimidate. Being machines means someone constructed them. I always thought that beating the Reapers would necessitate Shepard discovering the truth what those lies were covering up, stuff about their true history and true motivation, and using some clue there to end them, since conventionally the Reapers could not be beat.

I felt like no explanation would have been almost (but not as bad) as an incoherent explanation. And I remember in an interiew before the game was released that one of the producers said they would answer the big questions and not leave fans hanging like Lost did.

[Duzaman7]

This is his video uploaded 9 hours ago on the Extended Cut DLC. He is spot on in my opinion.

[shadowreflexion]

 I forgot to add these last night as well.

From the fans around the world.
www.youtube.com/watch 

The justifiable outrage. I'll post just this link because they show many more.
www.youtube.com/watch


Intelligent interview.
www.youtube.com/watch

Modifié par shadowreflexion, 08 avril 2012 - 07:03 .

[Oakenshield1]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I've not seen this. Watching now. Thanks for posting!

Oooo You're breaking PR coooode. You're gonna get firrrreeeddddd... lol. Nice to see some on from BioWare actually listening.

[Tovanus]

RxP4IN wrote...

the_geo_law wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

He ripped-off Plinkett's Star Wars reviews, but forgot to rip-off Plinkett's objectivity.

YES... Because Plinkett did not completely rip the prequels to shreds for being terrible... or rip on George Lucas for being a hack. TOTALLY was objective.
/sarcasm.

Plinkett exposed the outstandingly terribly nature of the prequels. This guy did no less... but for the ending of Mass Effect 3. He outright says that he ripped off Plinkett but did a great job. So you are repeating what he says himself in the attempt to be insightful? And then added something blatantly untrue about Plinkett being objective... which is laughable as I've seen his Star Trek reviews too, in which he rips apart too.

Yep. I have no clue where he got "objectivity" from.

Anyway, this video is a great tribute to Plinkett. RLM tweeted that something is in the works for ME3, I'm praying it's Plinkett....oh please let it be Plinkett.

I don't know why people are saying that even Plinkett wasn't objective. Plinkett was objective, and so is the guy who made this ME 3 video. At least relative to anything else out there. I mean, you could say that anything anyone says about Star Wars or Mass Effect is "subjective." But when it comes down to it, these guys are actually very objective in their analysis. Just because something is objectively terrible (like the ending of ME 3 or George Lucas's handling of the Star Wars prequels) does not mean that people who point that out lack objectivity.

And the "ripping off" thing is just kind of lame thing to accuse the guy of. He said he did it in that style (showing some level of tribute as you say, as he gave credit for that style to Plinkett). It's just a particular style of doing a review. Working within that style takes a lot more creativity and thought than doing a review in the regular review format. I wouldn't trust most people to be able to do it well. This guy did it great. I don't know what that IsaacShep poster is smoking.

[phat0817]

Thanks for talking with us Allen. Monday morning they should give you around of applauds for coming to speak with us. With hope the Me3 team will follow your example. I understand there why there hesitant to do so(hard to speak when people throw stones) but by seeing this thread it might change there mind.

Modifié par phat0817, 08 avril 2012 - 08:43 .

[silentwindfr]

thanks allan for take time to talk to us, promise we will not eat your brain... well maybe not yet *drools*

anyway, what make me curious, outside all this story, is this.... for a video game you have alpha tester and quality tester that say you if something is wrong or not...

did this trouble about the ending didn't appear while this testing?


on the other hand i keep believing into Bioware as a really great company for make good game. and i still believe what we have is strange in comparaison of all we have got until now!

anyway, i will finihs this with a...a..... BRAAAAAIIIINNNNN *run in direction of the people for eat them brain* (yeah the people on internet are zombie eating brain indeed ^^)