395 réponses à ce sujet

[Vaktathi]

Amioran wrote...

Again, no. We are not talking here about a thing that you can comprehend with just a simple dialogue or explanation and/or in 5 mins of time .

Then they didn't allocate enough time to it. Plain and simple. If your ending is that complex, don't try to hamfist it into 5 minutes.

It requires study and knowledge assimilated in a moderate-long amount of time. You can only provide the references (and there are A LOT, I've already highlighted some) and have people make the connections if they can.

Two things.

First, they had 30+hours of game + a couple hours of DLC content, on top of 2 previous 30+hour games and 6 or 7 other DLC's. If they couldn't manage it in that,

Second, it's a game. It's a Shoot'em'up, Explosions Galore Space Opera. Not "War and Peace", not "The Republic", not "Les Miserables", not "Das Kapital", not "The Leviathan" or any other such work.  Nobody is looking for some deep philosophical ending, and the tempo of the game certainly wasn't building up to anything like what it eventually presented.

If you need to "study" for the ending, then it's not a good ending, that's not what people play for. It wasn't necessary for ME1. I didn't need to do homework to understand ME2. Hell, when I played DeusEx, which ME3 copy/pasted a huge amount of the ending from (Destroy AI/ControlAI/Merge with AI, in Red/Blue/Green) I didn't need to "study" for the ending. These games built up the an ending that made sense within the narrative paradigm of the rest of the content. ME3 did not. Even taking the points brought up in support of the ending, it only makes sense if you're currently trying to piece just about every iota of ME universe content together in a very specific and subjective mannger at the same time, of which no indication was given during the events that that's what was occurring.

Same as what it happens with "easter-eggs". Do you imagine if everytime they had to explain to what they refer to and what they mean specifically (and those are much less complex than this)? If the reader doesn't comprehend them then too bad.


The only difference is that "easter-eggs" are not required to understand a story, instead this other thing is, but the methodology is the same.

Easter eggs are bonus content, usually inside jokes, often completely unrelated to the game content.

If you design the ending in such a way that you treat it *anything* like an Easter Egg, you're doing it wrong. Easter Eggs aren't supposed to be gotten by everyone or experienced by everyone. They often aren't deep or witty either. The methodology of Easter Eggs shouldn't have anything to do with the ending of a trilogy. 

And all those people know nothing about the philosophical theme in the background.

I played through ME1/ME2 and all associated DLC content three or four times. I played through pretty much everything ME3 and it's DLC had
to offer. I'm not a stupid guy, I don't profess to be a genius, but I'm
not stupid. I got through college and a masters degree along with a
couple of publishing credits. If I couldn't piece it together, or any of
my friends/acquantances with simialr backgrounds who all also thought
it was rather arbritray and nonsensical, perhaps the idea that it's just
"too complex" is hooey, and if it isn't, then it's *WAY* too complex
for a video game.

If someone like me, with close to probably 500 hours played in the game world through the trilogy over 5 years, sporting two degrees, "knows nothing about the philosophical theme in the background", then perhaps it wasn't properly put together, because most people with less education and experience in the game universe aren't going to have a prayer in hell of getting it.

I'm sorry, but that's about the most insulting, conceited, and ridiculous line of thinking I think I've seen.

As I repeat you can think the authors at fault for expecting too much from the audience but that's really a fault? Who likes to be treated as an idiot?

Applying Occam's Razor, what's more likely?

That the ending is just so cerebral that only a small proportion of the millions strong player base "gets" it and the rest are just too stupid though they "got" pretty much all of what happened up until the last 5 minutes of the last game, or that they just didn't write a good ending?

One will notice that pretty much no other video game has gotten a reaction so negative to an ending, do you really intend to assert that it's because ME3's ending was just so much more complex and deep that every other game story ever, or rather is it much more understandable that the ending just deflated the narrative tempo and player investment at what otherwise would have been its peak through being poorly devised and executed, resulting in very unfavorable views?

Modifié par Vaktathi, 09 avril 2012 - 08:56 .

[78stonewobble]

MegaSovereign wrote...

I agree.

The ending itself wasn't bad, it was just executed poorly. There was so much stuff they could have shown to tie up the loose ends.

Sooo allthough the patient died it was an excellent surgery?

[Blastback]

I disagree. Reading some of what the intentions of the devs were, I feel that the goal was good, but the execution fell really short, and it became something else entirely for a lot of fans.

[TRISTAN WERBE]

Ah yes "Ending" We thought it was ****

[string3r]

There was nothing "good" about the ending. Nothing.

[sp0ck 06]

lx_theo wrote...

 *Readies Omni-Shield of Invulnerability*

Yes, I said it. The ending was good. It wasn't great. It wasn't amazing. It wasn't the quality the series deserved to end on after such a great run. But it was good.

Many of the so called "plotholes" can easily be explained relatively easily without creating a whole conspiracy around it. There are a few that seem like oversights, like the sudden appearance of certain characters in ending scenes.

The whole Indoctrination Theory is just silly, and while it would be cool, it would also make no sense for Bioware to do without having actual content afterwards in the released title. Not to mention much of this "proof" is nothing of the sort, and a lot of it is non sequitur even when together.

Other than that, the greatest failing was that it didn't provide enough closure. The universe had many ways it could develop afterwards based on how things turned out on many different fronts throughout the game. The problem with the ending is that it doesn't reference these and specify what happens to provide said closure. Bioware is doing the smart thing is offering an ending that gives more closure.

So, the ending was good. All this hate for it is absolutely ridiculous.

EDIT: Here is me addressing the issue of "plotholes"
http://social.biowar...3404/4#11197542

Yup.  The problem isn't the plot of the ending, its just how little explanation and closure we were given.  Even then, people just want every little thing gift wrapped and handed to them on a platter.  Think there's a plothole?  Use your imagination a bit and fill it.

[stonbw1]

Someone With Mass wrote...

I'd gladly post why the endings blow ass in great detail, but this is the non-spoiler section, so I'll just say this: They didn't intend to make it look like that.

They also failed to deliver on pretty much every promise they made.

OT: Yeah, right.  This section hasn't been "non-spoiler" in a long time. That's what happens when you force an awkward registration-only spoiler section.  I've owned ME3 from day one, but my console isn't hooked into the internoodle and therefore, I can't register/post in the spoiler section.  Genius, right?

[gidoru]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

lx_theo wrote...

 *Readies Omni-Shield of Invulnerability*

Yes, I said it. The ending was good. It wasn't great. It wasn't amazing. It wasn't the quality the series deserved to end on after such a great run. But it was good.

Many of the so called "plotholes" can easily be explained relatively easily without creating a whole conspiracy around it. There are a few that seem like oversights, like the sudden appearance of certain characters in ending scenes.

The whole Indoctrination Theory is just silly, and while it would be cool, it would also make no sense for Bioware to do without having actual content afterwards in the released title. Not to mention much of this "proof" is nothing of the sort, and a lot of it is non sequitur even when together.

Other than that, the greatest failing was that it didn't provide enough closure. The universe had many ways it could develop afterwards based on how things turned out on many different fronts throughout the game. The problem with the ending is that it doesn't reference these and specify what happens to provide said closure. Bioware is doing the smart thing is offering an ending that gives more closure.

So, the ending was good. All this hate for it is absolutely ridiculous.

EDIT: Here is me addressing the issue of "plotholes"
http://social.biowar...3404/4#11197542

Yup.  The problem isn't the plot of the ending, its just how little explanation and closure we were given.  Even then, people just want every little thing gift wrapped and handed to them on a platter.  Think there's a plothole?  Use your imagination a bit and fill it.

Ya guys, just use your imagination. Forget the fact that you paid $60 for a game thats supposed to have content in it, forget the promises Bioware made about the ending before the release. You know what, Bioware should have just ended the game after the Earth start sequence so we could all use our imaginations to fill in the rest. After all, providing satisfying and promised content in a game is just gift wrapping it.

Im paying for game content, not to use my imagination. I can do that for free.

Modifié par gidoru, 09 avril 2012 - 09:38 .

[vallore]

Amioran wrote...

vallore wrote...
Up until the ending, the story provides no reason for the change of attitude of Shepard - quite the contrary - there is no natural or logical reason that flow from the story development, for Shepard to accept the stargod logic as truth, or to give up and accept “fate” as it is presented.

It is inherent in the theme. As I explained an author cannot explain all these things that are so complex in the short span of a book or movie or game. The best s/he can do is to formulate the story hoping the readers will have enough background to do the proper connections.

If you try to explain these complex things in that short of a span the attempt simply backfires as I've already explained in the Matrix Revolution's example.

Sorry, I desagree. The reason why it feels artificial is simply because it doesn’t flow naturally out of the story progression. There is no cause/consequence relation uniting he dots between theme and the final dilemma apparent inevitability. (more on it later).

Amioran wrote...

vallore wrote...
In fact, the story that far seems to contradict the argument used by the stargod at every turn, and requires that we forget about EDI, the Quarian-Geth conflict, (and other stories to a lesser degree), to give any credence to it.

What? The quarian-geth conflict introduces the cardinal theme from beginning, that's then carried along by the reapers remaining in the background all the time and brought to the climax by the SC . How can you forget about it?

I didn’t forget.

ME1 traces parallelisms but in ME2 and ME3 proved the assumptions behind the star-god argument to be fundamentally wrong, as it can be proven by the disclosure of the facts pertaining the Geth conflict(s) and previous contact with Legion…. or the choices made by EDI. As a result, there is nothing inevitable in the systhetic-organic conflict as there is nothing inevitable in the end of the conflict; all is simply a result of specific factors inherent to those conflicts. The apparent parallelism results superficial.

The Geth are not the Reapers, as they are not motivated by the same reasons. Neither are the Geth as EDI is. Synthetic life is portrayed as being fundamentally diverse as organic life, (or as “chaotic” if you prefer). As consequence, presenting a more wide conflict between order and chaos, based on such, fails as the conflicts presented became more complex and are no longer a matter of synthetic vs organic.

Further, if you move a step further, you will notice parallelisms with other story-lines within ME: notably the Krogan rebellions and the Rachni wars. There is nothing about these conflicts that is fundamentally different from the Geth conflict(s). There is no impossibility driving the need for any of the three options given at the ending; there is nothing precluding a different option either; well, at least not before the introduction of the Star-god.

In the end you have organics AND synthetics freely choosing to fight on the same side against Reapers and their pseudo-order. Where is the inevitability of the three choices presented?

I can’t find any.

Amioran wrote...

vallore wrote...
The choices of the past you allude do not justify the shape of the choices take “now” and they do not close any other doors and certainly do not invalidate defiance or the will to search for another way.

They do. If you would know the philosophical theme you would understand that there's no other choice. You can read the Paradise Lost of Milton where these concepts are elaborated for example (I keep repeating the example of the Paradise Lost because it is probably the most concise and less complex one - yes, it may seem hilarious but that's so - , to understand and it is so because it is explained in religious form that everybody is probably acquainted with) so you can comprehend the motive fully of why this happens and what's the inside struggle that brings to that conclusion.

vallore wrote...
None of the previous events you seem to mention force or require such the solution proposed or impose acceptance of the situation by Shepard.

Because I cannot elaborate all those complexities here. If you study the theme they are there and you can make the proper connections with the situation of Shepard. I just made some brief references and explained some short things to try to make understand people that there's something more about it. The rest is up to you.

vallore wrote...
Her compliance is entirely artificial, forced by the author, using a god-like figure to impose it, and removing the player out of the equation by assuming complete control of her character in the arguably most important moment of the story. ME3 is full of moments of good storytelling. Unfortunately, the ending wasn’t one of them.

1) It's not artificial and not imposed, it's part of the theme. People say I repeat myself but they continue to ignore purposedly what I say.
2) To judge a thing you need to know the full picture or you cannot do it.

The theme does not preclude the need of logical consistency in the story. In the case presented before:

The premise that motivates the actions of the star-god is contradicted by the in game facts. (There is no apparent inevitability of destruction of all organic life by synthetics).

Further no logical correlation is presented demonstrating, (or implying at least), the need of the three choices enforced at the ending as the only sole viable solutions either. The theme does not eliminates the need for it to be present.

But, in truth, the reason why the theme you pointed doesn’t work is because
the final dilemma presented was not originally supposed to be present at all:

We all know that was supposed to be about Dark Energy. This is why the three choices are not inevitable as they were never planned to begin with as such. This is why their presence is feels completely artificial and the star-god contradicts the previous logic and facts of the story until that point.

[JBONE27]

Shelmusk wrote...

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and people have different demands and expectation, so good for you.

I think that not only the ending sucks Krogan quads in terms of both writing and execution, but the whole main story was just disappoingly lame with that other deus ex machina called "crucible".

And I'm not even starting with the ending plotholes...

Agreed, it would have been a stronger game if it had been all about gathering allies, tech, and finding every possible weakness to exploit instead of a BFG that apparently can do one of three things, instantly destroy advanced technology, instantly control advanced technology, instantly merge advanced technology with organic matter.

[Zany Jedi]

Tazzmission wrote...

Zany Jedi wrote...

In that case, could you please explain the plotholes? Also I would be hard pressed to call an ending with a deus ex machina good, lazy and poorly written is more like it in my opinion.

so because you dont like it your gona demand people explain it to you?


ill explain it


its unifinished plain and simple


and what i am saying is the normandy crash is the unfinished thing


star child is fine

the relays blowing up is fine

the normandy crashing imo was left on a cliff hanger

I never demanded, I asked politely, as one should. And thanks for giving me your opinion.

[Zany Jedi]

frij wrote...

Zany Jedi wrote...

lx_theo wrote...

Zany Jedi wrote...

In that case, could you please explain the plotholes? Also I would be hard pressed to call an ending with a deus ex machina good, lazy and poorly written is more like it in my opinion.

Set out the plotholes then. I don't see many that aren't just trying to pick holes in it.

Here's a link to all the problems with the ending. And as the document says, it's not nitpicking it's things about the ending that just don't make sense. Also, you never mentioned anything about previous choices not making any difference, which is my main gripe about the ending. What's your opinion about that?

Urgh that document was bit lengthy...talk about nitpicking. It sounds like the work of a crazed conspiracy theorist that finds holes in EVERYTHING *need a drink*

I agree to an extent but I like it because it's made by a lot of Bioware fans that are constantly updating it, and it's considering all possibilities even if it is nitpicking.

[BiancoAngelo7]

OP im tired of these threads, they're all like this:

"Ending was great and I will not explain why because I cant"

honestly these threads are troll threads to me

[TullyAckland]

This thread's discussion is based around spoilers, so I've moved it to the correct place.

[JBONE27]

Shelmusk wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

Agreed, it would have been a stronger game if it had been all about gathering allies, tech, and finding every possible weakness to exploit instead of a BFG that apparently can do one of three things, instantly destroy advanced technology, instantly control advanced technology, instantly merge advanced technology with organic matter.

Not only that. I've already written it elsewhere: It would've been so great if you could've started the game on either the Alliance or Cerberus side depending on your desicion to destroy/keep the collector base.

Can you imagine the possibilities? But no...

Could you link to where you wrote that?  It sounds like an interesting read.  Honestly, I would have ended up with the Alliance because I never trused TIM, but I could see why people would want to end up with Cerberus.

[M0keys]

Oh. Yay!

[Ryoten]

Sure, i guess the ending is great if you like to get stoned or high regularly with LSD.

[I am KROGAN]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

SteamieHotPlayer wrote...

good? then you are the minority.

And thats supposed to change his enjoyment of it how? For not being a sheep he should enjoy it less?

Majority or minority is irrelevant here.

Are you calling everyone who dislikes the endings sheep?  I sure hope you aren't, because that would be an extremely ... not good... assumption to make.

Edit: Rephrased my statement because I sounded like a complete jackass before the edit.

Modifié par I am KROGAN, 09 avril 2012 - 10:54 .

[Tony208]

Your whole post keeps saying how flawed the ending is but, then you say the ending is good. Something does not compute.

And every explanation you have for the plot holes comes down to speculation.

[Stevebo]

The ending didn't fit the series, plain and simple. If you enjoyed it, I'm glad for you. However, having recently played thru ME1 and ME2 once again (mainly because I just can't play thru ME3 again) I see even more how it does not fit the ME universe that they created.

In game lore is explained through codex entries which explains "most" things about the who, what, how of ME. Now, knowing that it is in fact, and rpg (at heart), Why in the last 10 minutes do we now how to use our imagination on something that should have been executed in a way that is completely understandable to those who have dedicated countless hours into the series. Not to mention dialogue and romances were created in the game to encourage us to "get-to-know" the crew and care about them (and it was well done I might add) Yet, the ending takes all of that and throws it away.

Yeah, great ending.

[Zix13]

BiancoAngelo7 wrote...

OP im tired of these threads, they're all like this:

"Ending was great and I will not explain why because I cant"

honestly these threads are troll threads to me

+1

Modifié par Zix13, 09 avril 2012 - 11:20 .