481 réponses à ce sujet

[halbert986]

nailed it. Really hope somebody who matters is forced to sit through this.

[Trauma3x]

Sticks the Landing

[Captiosus77]

Skybree wrote...


Just my Opinion but No ... the ending went to crap when your (shep) is on the Hummer on the way to the light bridge thing.
everything after this point is a complete waste of time (and its at this point I turn the xbox off).

Honestly, I would say, to me, narrative cohesion begins to fall apart at the same time Joker breaks away from the fleet to drop us off in London. At that point, the questions begin:

• Where are all the races I brought together? Sure, some are limited to the space combat only due to biology or mobility issues, but even the primary races (which I'd classify as Asari, Turians, Quarians, Salarians, and Krogan) are almost nowhere to be found. We see a couple of each, but, by and large, it's mostly humans. And the poor Geth are relegated to a single blurb spoken by Joker before we even jump into the Sol System. The fact that we see almost nothing from our efforts other than an impressive FMV makes the player wonder why we bothered.
• What in the hell are all the other characters doing? We get to speak to each and every one of them at the London FOB but what, exactly, are they doing? How is Samara helping us? Other than standing over a group of Krogan in formation, what is Wrex doing? Jack? Jacob? Zaheed? They all joined up to stand and fight but other than talking to me I get no sense that they're doing much of anything. Then I have to pick two people to accompany me toward the beam. What's the rest of my crew doing after my pep rally? Sitting on their duffs at the FOB, hoping for the best? Why am I not allowed to assign crew members to do other things while our primary SpecOps crew heads for the beam?

Then, as you point out, the downward spiral takes a nose dive with the ride towards the beam. From that point on, the plot goes down faster than the SR1 in Mass Effect 2 (see: questions listed in the video). It finally crashes into the ground with the implementation of an entirely new character with an entirely new plot arc that begins, and ends, within a 5 minute span that fundamentally alters the entire trilogy. Not only does it discard player choice, but it retroactively creates plot holes in storytelling that had been, up to this point, fundamentally sound (e.g. Sovereign, Saren, and the Citadel or the fact that Reapers seemed to have their own free will regarding harvesting based on limited conversations with Shepard and Sovereign and Harbinger).

The fact that the ending retroactively demolishes fundamental parts of the previous games (and expanded universe), as well as so readily discards player choice and the entire morality system (can anyone think of anywhere else in the franchise where we were presented with one morality option only and not picking it caused the game to come to a screeching halt with a game over screen like the TIM sequence?) is the real travesty of the ending. A five minute sequence of confusing, convoluted, bad story telling, a mistake on the part of BioWare, effectively devalued all of the content prior - all of the games, all of the books, everything.

[Baryonic-Member]

I can't believe I haven't seen this yet, I loved his Star Wars reviews. Spread this video around, it explains perfectly why so many peopöe hate the ending. Don't let BioWare "clarify", hold the line!

[BentOrgy]

You can basically apply all of the ending's failures to the entire ME3 experience; which is exactly why I played it once, had this look on my face the whole time -.-', and then deleted it.

[devilsgrin]

the best and most eloquently formulated reasoning of why the ending is so bad. Its my fervent hope that by the summer release of the Extended Cut, someone who matters at BioWare actually watches this clip and does so without the blinders of "artistic integrity" colouring their view of the video, and actually takes some or all of it into consideration when re-doing the ending. Clarification is simply not going to cut it. I have twelve Sheps i wanted to take through to the end. My main, canon, FemShep went through this existing ending, (she Destroyed and breathed) but none of my others will make it to import if the Extended ending is simply "clarification" of a plotline we don't have presented to us til the Catalyst appears.
The most important being - remove the Catalyst. Or since the Catalyst is mentioned but never described in the rest of the story, make the Catalyst the ACTUAL Citadel, or simply the interface that connects the Crucible and Citadel together, not some ridiculously contrived attempt at existentialism. 

Modifié par devilsgrin, 09 avril 2012 - 09:09 .

[Zhuinden]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Rickets wrote...

The Crucible looks big enough to serve as a ram to smash Reapers.

BWAHAHA that would have been an interesting and unexpected twist XD.


Hackett:  "It's not firing.... ah screw it ram the bastards!"

Well that would be a humorous outcome, though I wonder if it's any more satisfying than we got...
It would be quite a twist on "superweapon".

[Avatar231278]

I will just focus on parts of the whole answer, because I am short in time.

[quote]Allan Schumacher wrote...
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.
[/quote]

Thr problem with the Crucible as a whole is, that apparently every cycle has added to it (regarding the Catalyst) but then we come to the point where we ask ourselve how the first races in the cycle even knew what they were building or designing? If they made the whole thing a developement of trial and error, meaning, that 37 million years ago, the thing was a giant mass driver cannon, but ultimately didn't work on the grand scale (yes knocked out a Reaper, but it was too costly, too slow, consumed too much energy, so it evolved into something else) AND the Catalyst shouldn't know a thing about it (besides finding out how it works, when it docked with the Citadel). Instead Hackett should have told us, that - after they got some info from Javik - it apparently was a long deveopement, that's now almost complete, and there is good hope, that this cycle may use the thing to its full potential. In this it should have been pointed out, that the crucible appeared to be some real big gun a long time ago, but changed in design over time.

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

If we were to use a superweapon, then it should work as a superweapon, within the boundaries of the laws of science established by Mass Effect. Merging organic and synthetic DNA (whatever that means in terms of synthetic life) together by some ray is too much BSG-like AND even without any implication given by BSG, that a certain level of mental binding (like love) is necessary so a cylon can conceive a child. In the video it is a valid point, that McStarbrat gives us no explanation, that the player can even remotely understand what the f*** the three choices really do. All it says is "Red breaks things, but I don't tell you what it breaks. Blue controls things, but I won't explain to you what or how it controls. And green merges things, but I won't tell you if it is still necessary to eat, go to the toilet and if your poo also gets glowing blue stripes. Despite that I won't tell you how the things are merged and what that even means at all."

In short we get crappy blue info, crappy green info, a little less crappy red info and die(?) almost every time.
That is not entertaining, not logical, and as we are also getting to narrative coherence: at this point the entire screen blanks out white. We don't have to get the asked questions in the video, they aren't of importance anymore as there is nothing left that matters.

[quote]
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).
[/quote]
WRONG! When you make a game, that plays in part like Star Trek and in part like Star Wars, and then you get to the end which is like the final 10 minutes of 2001 (but without having even heard of the rest of the film), these consequences ARE arbitrary. I don't say, that it can't be that way, but in the entertainment industry pulling something off like this and then calling it "artistic vision" makes every other artist the world has ever seen a psycho with Alzheimer's desease. The ending doesn't even have to be "mainstream", but what we've got makes it far beyond "alternative". It goes to a point, where my dictionary gives up.

[quote]
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.
[/quote]
The Catalyst doesn't know what the Crucible can do, but is aware of its construction over the millions of years. Sorry. That is just beyond poor writing then. I mean giving the Citadel any form of sentience was a more than bad choice. But having the CATALYST explain to US the DEVELOPEMENT of the crucible and then speculating that McSpacebrat doesn't really know much about it... no... forgive me, but no...

[quote]
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.
[/quote]
Yes, to almost the whole part, except, that you can NOT rationalize unexplained things through unexplained nature. You can theorize and speculate about it, but it is still Space Magic then. Something Mass Effect has tried to avoid the whole time (and I am not talking about the characters in game, but about the franchise as a whole).

[quote]
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.
[/quote]
Why not large amounts of exposition? As the writers have already introduced a completely new table of chemical elements in the last 10 minutes, it is of no importance if we spend 10 minutes arguing with McStarbrat about the consequences of our choices and after we made it, get an ending, that explains these consequences in great detail. Artistic vision anyone? The good thing about art is, that the artist can change it for ANY reason and it still remains art. Something no one at EA/BioWare seemed to have thought about.

[quote]
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.
[/quote]
Okay loosing your integrity as Shepard vs. destroying a species you helped to create is called a "bittersweet ending"? No it is not. Besides that, the destroy ending is as well explained as the other two (extremely bad to none at all).
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
welcome to the club, pick a number, if you paid membership (bought a copy of ME3).

[quote]
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.
[/quote]
Sure you don't. If I was sitting as close to the developement source as you, I wouldn't either. In part because of company policy, in part because I most likely would get more information from fellow devs and in part because I work at the studio which created Mass Effect which - like it or not - gives me a certain emotional distance from the game, most fans don't have.

[quote]

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).
[/quote]
Either that, or the explanation should be less dumb. As for Tali: If she is not present in any DLC or follow up of Mass Effect, then her face should be revealed (and be more realistic!!). If yes, then it should be revealed at her last appearance in the Mass Effect universe (and be more realistic!!).

[quote]
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.  
[/quote]
As I don't agree, that McStarbrat is the protagonist, it is also definitely NOT the antagonist. It is a neutral character of apparently immense importance that is not explained and shown or even hinted to the player in any form. Not in ME1 (the planet codex entry of beings of light doesn't count, as this counts also for Avina), not in ME2  and also not in ME3. The player is presented narrative poison with the choice "eat it or die".

I don't have much to say about narrative coherence, because as soon, as McStarbrat explains the reason behind the Reapers and presents me with the three choices the coherence is gone. The video explains it with Q from Star Trek very well. Starbrat ex machina kills the meaning of the Citadel, the Vanguard, the Cycle, ....

[McCredie64]

This is an amazing video that should be shown to Mac Walters and Casey Hudson.

[Icinix]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Taleroth wrote...

Well said man, well said! The main problem with the end of ME3 is that Shepard and the player are ultimately forced to agree with the genocidal monsters the reapers and choose one of THEIR solution. As soon as the catalyst said to me "I created the reapers" everything that came out of his mouth after that was meaningless to me. The reapers liquified babies and turned mothers into husks/banshees/brutes scions all in the name of a logic I dont believe or agree with. But I had no choice and was forced to agree with the reaper logic and implement their solution.

Hmmm.  I imagine then that had the choices themselves been identical, but determined somehow by Shepard or maybe the Citadel VI or a source more trusting, how would they have been received.  Lets make the assumption that we don't necessarily get more information.

Just a question.  I know a lot of peole say their issue is with the Catalyst alone.  If that's the case then the endings and the abilities that the Crucible end up providing are still okay (or at least easier to swallow)?

Had the final choices been delivered to the remains of a smashed up Hammer squad at the tower on the Cidatel by Hackett, Kasumi and or a few other people you sent to the Crucible (In the form of Hackett asking for Destroy, Tim somehow appearing and asking for Control etc) the three choices would have still sucked hard, but at least had some kind of weight behind it, and instead of me looking at the screen going 'LOL WTF?' - I would have been been stroking my chin with the frantic thoughts of the severity of my choice. You could have Geth representatives begging not to choose Destroy or offering their sacrifice, you could have had Salarians asking for control for a chance to study the technology and Asari Matriarchs pushing for synthesis as a new age of enlightenment, some explanation on how the synthesis could work as well would be nice.

The presentation of the choices was akin to dropping three tasty morsels into a toilet bowl.

[Nicodemus]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Rickets wrote...

The Crucible looks big enough to serve as a ram to smash Reapers.

BWAHAHA that would have been an interesting and unexpected twist XD.


Hackett:  "It's not firing.... ah screw it ram the bastards!"

Actually Allan it would have made a much better ending IF the EMS was all tied into the crucible as a conventional super weapon that had been perfected over many cycles. High EMS and it works as intended and the reapers around Sol are defeated, war not over but hope given. Medium EMS, crucible only semi effective Reaper forces heavily damaged but retreat thus prolonging the war. Low EMS Crucible doesn't work, Hackett shouts ramming speed and the current cycle of species gets harvested but goes out in a blaze of glory.

I could have happily lived with those as the potential endings rather than the pick a colour crap we got as it ties in with our choices over 3 games and gives the EMS a reason to be used.

[slimshedim]

This MUST be stickie'd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ed87]

Yeah ive watched all of this guy's videos. He does the best job of presenting our argument in the best way possible

[Shepard Wins]

This is a great video, glad to see more people pick up on it.

[kalerab]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Just a question.  I know a lot of peole say their issue is with the Catalyst alone.  If that's the case then the endings and the abilities that the Crucible end up providing are still okay (or at least easier to swallow)?

Easier to swallow? Yeah. Okay? It would suck, but not as much as Catalyst. I would call it mediocre ending, nothing great and a let down after awesome series, but also nothing that would start such a nerdrage as Caralyst did (than against, thanks to which children will get toys and stuff for 100,000 bucks so some good surely came out of it).

[Kilshrek]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Just a question.  I know a lot of peole say their issue is with the Catalyst alone.  If that's the case then the endings and the abilities that the Crucible end up providing are still okay (or at least easier to swallow)?

Marginally more acceptable, in that the consequences are ours to own. We're playing with fire here, before we knew that the Catalyst was a Reaper off button. So if we do end up burning down the house, well we can't very well shift the blame now, can we?

It would still be unsatisfying, assuming every other paramater of the ending was kept, right down to Stargazer. To which I provide this post for your perusal, and the resistance from some towards the Stargazer, although iirc your personal feelings on Stargazer are ambivalent?

I believe that many others have made it clear that choice was important, and while I can certainly appreciate your stance on the tough choices, an optimal outcome is not something that everyone will gun for, every time. And I would argue that there is no "optimal" outcome for ME 3, even if the Reapers were defeated with the Crucible, and the relays remained intact (whether they do or not is of lesser importance to me than the Normandy doing what it did) as every homeworld had seen the devastation of war, many billions are displaced or dead, going up to that point, depending on your choices, your optimal outcome would still be a minimum of the deaths of 4 associates known personally to Shepard(and then the crew of SR-1), and countless other acquaintances. The number of ignominious off screen deaths are saddening. In fact, it for the longest time seemed to me that most ME 2 characters were introduced just so there'd be a name to the dead people we come across.

So, I went off on a bit of a tangent about everything else, but I'll finish off by repeating that a lack of Catalyst only makes the outcome provided by the Crucible marginally more acceptable, simply because the consequences are ours to deal with, because we pushed a button that nobody had any idea the purpose of.

[Ksandor]

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!

Say hello to my little PR stunt friend... Unofficially paraphrasing offcial lines... )) Sorry we do not need excuses. People are displeased. Please correct the ending...

Modifié par Ksandor, 09 avril 2012 - 11:20 .

[Vilegrim]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Rickets wrote...

The Crucible looks big enough to serve as a ram to smash Reapers.

BWAHAHA that would have been an interesting and unexpected twist XD.


Hackett:  "It's not firing.... ah screw it ram the bastards!"

Actually...that would rule..have the catalyst fail, then realise it's a honking great armour plated space ship and start gaffa taping thanix cannons to it


On  your previous questions: Anything the god child says should immediatly be discarded, he has chosen genocide as a life style and is the worse mass murderer in the history of sentient life, The option for Shephard to sit down and bleed out rather than choose would have been preferable to any of the options offered. It's similar to the moral quandry presented in one of David Gemmels books: If an evil king offers to spare your city from the sword if you sacrifice one child to him do you do it?  The moral answer is no.  That should have been an option.

Modifié par Vilegrim, 09 avril 2012 - 11:28 .

[panamakira]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Rickets wrote...

The Crucible looks big enough to serve as a ram to smash Reapers.

BWAHAHA that would have been an interesting and unexpected twist XD.


Hackett:  "It's not firing.... ah screw it ram the bastards!"

Ahh if only we had this choice. To be honest when I finished the "Destroy" ending I wanted to ram the Crucible, Citadel, any other fleet around and the Normandy up the Reapers. That at least would've been more satisfying. No need to expalin anything there. LMAO

[Ksandor]

Even Worf had this option. "Perhaps today is a good day to die... Prepare for ramming speed!" and then, "Sir! Another starship coming in! It's the Enterprise!"

[Dot.Shadow]

This is the most important video on the ME3 ending out there. He also released a second video, take a look at his channel to find it.

[slimshedim]

Captiosus77 wrote...

Skybree wrote...


Just my Opinion but No ... the ending went to crap when your (shep) is on the Hummer on the way to the light bridge thing.
everything after this point is a complete waste of time (and its at this point I turn the xbox off).

Honestly, I would say, to me, narrative cohesion begins to fall apart at the same time Joker breaks away from the fleet to drop us off in London. At that point, the questions begin:

• Where are all the races I brought together? Sure, some are limited to the space combat only due to biology or mobility issues, but even the primary races (which I'd classify as Asari, Turians, Quarians, Salarians, and Krogan) are almost nowhere to be found. We see a couple of each, but, by and large, it's mostly humans. And the poor Geth are relegated to a single blurb spoken by Joker before we even jump into the Sol System. The fact that we see almost nothing from our efforts other than an impressive FMV makes the player wonder why we bothered.
• What in the hell are all the other characters doing? We get to speak to each and every one of them at the London FOB but what, exactly, are they doing? How is Samara helping us? Other than standing over a group of Krogan in formation, what is Wrex doing? Jack? Jacob? Zaheed? They all joined up to stand and fight but other than talking to me I get no sense that they're doing much of anything. Then I have to pick two people to accompany me toward the beam. What's the rest of my crew doing after my pep rally? Sitting on their duffs at the FOB, hoping for the best? Why am I not allowed to assign crew members to do other things while our primary SpecOps crew heads for the beam?

Then, as you point out, the downward spiral takes a nose dive with the ride towards the beam. From that point on, the plot goes down faster than the SR1 in Mass Effect 2 (see: questions listed in the video). It finally crashes into the ground with the implementation of an entirely new character with an entirely new plot arc that begins, and ends, within a 5 minute span that fundamentally alters the entire trilogy. Not only does it discard player choice, but it retroactively creates plot holes in storytelling that had been, up to this point, fundamentally sound (e.g. Sovereign, Saren, and the Citadel or the fact that Reapers seemed to have their own free will regarding harvesting based on limited conversations with Shepard and Sovereign and Harbinger).

The fact that the ending retroactively demolishes fundamental parts of the previous games (and expanded universe), as well as so readily discards player choice and the entire morality system (can anyone think of anywhere else in the franchise where we were presented with one morality option only and not picking it caused the game to come to a screeching halt with a game over screen like the TIM sequence?) is the real travesty of the ending. A five minute sequence of confusing, convoluted, bad story telling, a mistake on the part of BioWare, effectively devalued all of the content prior - all of the games, all of the books, everything.

  
[*]I absolutely agree. I can't believe the same company, who came up with the outstanding suicide mission in ME2 created the utterly disappointing, railroaded Call of Duty sequence of Earth in ME3.

[Sir Bum]

Caz Tirin wrote...

Artistic Integtriy > Narrative Cohesion


clearly.... /facepalm

Artistic Integrity is little more than an excuse. Mass Effect is art, yes, but it is art made for consumers. This makes the "artistic integrity" excuse void, because the customer is always right. If Bioware does change the ending, they'll hardly be the first, look at Bethesda, or, if you're looking for a more prestigious example, see Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Sherlock Holmes.

[Naranna]

What a fantastic video, I completely agree with all of his points.  His other videos are also really good.