5087 réponses à ce sujet

[delta_vee]

Briefly, Phil Hornshaw and Ross Lincoln have a big article out now on the Refusal ending (full disclosure: I'm quoted in it).

http://www.gamefront...grity-achieved/

Very much worth a read.

In other (strange, off-topic) news, Tom Bissell of all people is writing Gears of War: Judgement. Huh.

Edit: well, this hasn't happened in a while.

Dog Days, Florence and the Machine

Modifié par delta_vee, 30 juin 2012 - 12:05 .

[NobodyofConsequence]

delta_vee wrote...

Briefly, Phil Hornshaw and Ross Lincoln have a big article out now on the Refusal ending (full disclosure: I'm quoted in it).

http://www.gamefront...grity-achieved/

Very much worth a read.

In other (strange, off-topic) news, Tom Bissell of all people is writing Gears of War: Judgement. Huh.

Edit: well, this hasn't happened in a while.

Dog Days, Florence and the Machine

Interesting read, thanks for posting. Interesting choice of song, too.

I'd like to pose a question to the broader audience here - what do you think the creative team were trying to say with the endings, taken as a set, in the EC? Question prompted in part by the middle-finger analogy, certainly, but also by my perception that there's been  a lot of excellent analysis and deconstruction of what we think of what they've done, but not so much on what they were actually trying to say but seemingly failed to. Because I really struggle with the notion that it's either 'this is our work, not yours' or 'resistance is futile'. It seems as though I still have more respect for the team than to believe either of those propositions.

[edisnooM]

@delta_vee

Good article, but you have revealed to us your true name.

Prepare the circle, and call forth the Jabberwock! :-)

[drayfish]

AloraKast wrote...
 
So for three games we have made all these choices of who lives and who dies… and we had that option, that one possibility of refusing to give in, refusing to accept what we are presented with at face value… “In the darkest hour, there is always a way out.” That is what has been hammered home for us time and time again.

And yet, when it really comes down to it, we are presented with these three “choices” each one more unacceptable than the one before. What the EC did right was introduce the reject option… but the problem is they didn’t go far enough with that option. Yes, absolutely, have it so that our rejecting of the Catalyst’s philosophy carries a great risk with it, dooming the galaxy and continuing the cycle… but what Bioware forgot was the very foundation of the games they have made thus far… “In the darkest hour, there is always a way out.” They forgot that possibility, that one chance. I truly believe that if you went out of your way, completing all or very nearly all of the side missions, getting your EMS as high as it can be, gathering all the forces of the galaxy together in one united front that all your hard work… and stubbornness too, the refusal to give in, ought to pay off.

@ AloraKast: Wonderful post. I couldn't agree more; and as I was reading your thoughts all of those images and anecdotes of hope in the face of overwhelming odds peppered through the games kept flooding into my mind: Eve giving Shepard the crystal to light up her darkest hour; Javik's pep talk before the final push, that unlike his cycle we have hope even at the end. 
 
Then we get to the end and at our darkest moment, compelled to make a deal with the devil, we either accept his bargain and watch the pretty lights play out, tainted by the knowledge that we had to compromise the universe's freedoms in order to achieve them, or refuse, staying resolute and holding on to our faith, only to watch the galaxy literally fade to black. No light in the dark, just ruination, and Shepard left standing like a chump as the curtain falls.
 
Not exactly the 'hold firm to your faith' I had thought they were going for.
 
 
@delta_vee: A handful of well-deserved praises: Nice work, and great post. I had meant to bow to your statement earlier: ' I was allowed to draw a line. I took them up on their offer.' Goddamn powerful stuff. And good to see AWTR getting some much deserved love. Congratulations.

Also: great song.  And I've got to agree with edisnooM: You fool! We have your name now!  By all the powers of the interwebs I name thee and call thee to my command!


Hm. That did nothing. Stupid internet black magic.

What am I going to do with all this slaughtered goat?

Modifié par drayfish, 30 juin 2012 - 01:28 .

[delta_vee]

@edisnooM

My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.

In all seriousness: meh. My real name's on my Twitter, too. All over the place, in fact. I try not to write anything I'd be ashamed of.

Edit: @drayfish

Thanks! And again, I should say the same about your eulogy for Tess. (You really should poke in more often Over There, though...)

Modifié par delta_vee, 30 juin 2012 - 01:38 .

[jbauck]

@NobodyofConsequence

It's difficult to talk about their intent without talking about the ways in which it fails, or to discuss the intended message without contrasting it with the actual message.

Their ridiculous confusion about the core conflict of the game - their insistence, through the Catalyst that, no, we've been fighting against synthetics this whole time - is honestly perplexing. I can't speak to that point, because I really have no idea where that came from. They didn't notice that there are no synthetic villains in the game by ME3? Normally, I'd call myself out on nitpicky quibbling for something like this, but it's important to note that the Reapers are synthetic/organic hybrids. This isn't nitpicking in this case, though, because that's proposed as a solution. How can the Reapers be the antagonist of the game when they represent one of the solutions ... or, more to the point, flipping the question - how can one of the solutions represent the antagonist of the game?

Not just any solution - The Solution. The Great Big Grand Solution that will Make Peace Forever? The one that only unlocks with a very high EMS, indicating that it is a reward for mastery of the game? Yeah, that. That's already embodied in the Reapers themselves, who are synthetic/organic hybrids who refer to themselves as the "Pinnacle of Evolution".

They were going for a huge, rewarding pay-off, with peace and prosperity and cooperation between all the various types of life in the world, with everyone glowing green and being happy. Shepard wins! Shepard ... makes everyone more Reaper-like! Life in the galaxy finally takes a form that the Reapers find acceptable! Now the Reapers don't want to kill anyone anymore!

Umm ... hurray?

The EC, I think, did nothing to change the inherent thematic flaws of the original ending - doubling down on those flaws in some way - merely adding the promised clarity and closure (unless you picked red with high EMS, in which case, screw your closure). Clarity and closure was all they committed to, and that's what they delivered. As a whole, taken all together, the overall message - that perplexes me as well. The addition of the Refuse ending - though it's now my favorite - taken into the context of the whole says "Your Contribution To This Story Has Been Cute And All, But The Naive Idealism Your Paragon Shepard Successfully Used To Navigate Three Games Up Until Now Is No Longer A Viable Path To Success."

I'd be bothered by the fact that the Refuse ending seems to be passing judgment on me and the way I play games, and finds me distinctly lacking, except that the Refuse ending is a great way for me to say the same thing about the direction they suddenly took the ME Universe. Because the fact of the matter is, if they thought that "Refuse" was a legitimate choice, it would have a) been in the original game, or was an oversight on their part, added in such a way that defeating the Reapers was possible with very, VERY high EMS after the players switched on the lightbulb over their heads. I can't imagine a scenario where they're not - at least a little - throwing a rather condescending "be careful what you wish for ... isn't this >worse<?" at players who wanted a Refuse ending.

Laugh's on them, though. It's not worse. It's so much better. It's so much infinitely better.

[Caenis]

delta_vee wrote...

Briefly, Phil Hornshaw and Ross Lincoln have a big article out now on the Refusal ending (full disclosure: I'm quoted in it).

http://www.gamefront...grity-achieved/

Very much worth a read.

In other (strange, off-topic) news, Tom Bissell of all people is writing Gears of War: Judgement. Huh.

Edit: well, this hasn't happened in a while.

Dog Days, Florence and the Machine

Finally got finished reading this article, it was very good and insightful! Puts into words a lot of what I've been hearing from people here and some of my own thoughts and feelings. Nice.

NobodyofConsequence wrote...

delta_vee wrote...

Briefly, Phil Hornshaw and Ross Lincoln have a big article out now on the Refusal ending (full disclosure: I'm quoted in it).

http://www.gamefront...grity-achieved/

Very much worth a read.

In other (strange, off-topic) news, Tom Bissell of all people is writing Gears of War: Judgement. Huh.

Edit: well, this hasn't happened in a while.

Dog Days, Florence and the Machine

Interesting read, thanks for posting. Interesting choice of song, too.

I'd like to pose a question to the broader audience here - what do you think the creative team were trying to say with the endings, taken as a set, in the EC? Question prompted in part by the middle-finger analogy, certainly, but also by my perception that there's been  a lot of excellent analysis and deconstruction of what we think of what they've done, but not so much on what they were actually trying to say but seemingly failed to. Because I really struggle with the notion that it's either 'this is our work, not yours' or 'resistance is futile'. It seems as though I still have more respect for the team than to believe either of those propositions.

 

As I have heard it mentioned time and time again. I think the Refusal ending was a dialogue between Players and Creators. It was a head on clash. Filled with resentment and anger from both sides, as well as deep emotional meaning. It is the stubborness of both Player and Creator, and perhaps one of the greatest reasons for why the Star Child thinks peace is impossible. Where does the line between "Creating something from the Heart" and "Giving in and Creating the Story you tell us to tell" begin, can there be compromises, should their be compromises? Or is there a way to tell the story one wants to tell while satisfying the largest number of people? Bioware is unique in that the emotional investment and choice given to players within the games, means that players expect the largest reward esp. when a character they have played as has to die...we become these characters, our Shepard is US, it's not about SHEPARD getting put out respectfully, it is about "US", we feel like we were unjustly sacrificed, murdered, killed, we feel slighted...we feel entitled because we sacrificed our life to be these characters...but Bioware also sacrificed their life to give us, and so they are just as entitled...what to do with that? So here are 4 ideas for what it was:

• It was the ability for Bioware to say, these are our rules, you have a choice not to play by them. Just know that in the world we created if you don't make a choice everybody dies.
• It was the ability for players to flip the bird back and say, GOOD, we refuse to play by YOUR rules, we reject your offer and we're willing to kill everyone to prove it.
• It was an Easter Egg XD
• And finally, it was a fourth choice, and rings true to what the Star Child said, "The created will always rebel against their creators"

[jbauck]

drayfish wrote...
Hm. That did nothing. Stupid internet black magic.

What am I going to do with all this slaughtered goat?

Offer it to Batman.

Duh.

[delta_vee]

@NobodyOfConsequence

I'd like to pose a question to the broader audience here - what do you think the creative team were trying to say with the endings, taken as a set, in the EC? Question prompted in part by the middle-finger analogy, certainly, but also by my perception that there's been a lot of excellent analysis and deconstruction of what we think of what they've done, but not so much on what they were actually trying to say but seemingly failed to. Because I really struggle with the notion that it's either 'this is our work, not yours' or 'resistance is futile'. It seems as though I still have more respect for the team than to believe either of those propositions.

(Bold mine.)

That question - and the one before it, too, pre-EC - is the question I've been asking since the game released. I have no idea. And because of the endings, both pre- and post-EC, I now have no idea what they were trying to say with the entire goddamned series.

[AloraKast]

Caenis wrote...

You know once again I have never thought about that, the message of hope. I still have a feeling of hope with these new EC's even the Refusal ending, but I think that's because of mental addition and rationalization, where I've added/filled in enough mentally with my imagination that I'm like oooo so there is still hope after all (if not downright Utopia ;-) ! ! ! ) it's also possible that that "Techno-Utopia" is destroyed like Atlantis was , there are no guarantees, but there's always the hope for a guarantee . 

I also got the feeling when playing the game that they had been rushed the first time, and when they made an effort to add an ending that there may have been a little resentment and "Rushing" on this one too, like the slideshows, as they felt like they had to hurry up and feed the angry mob, followed by that feeling of resentment as they did receive a LOT of hate and while they tried to be humble about it...it's kinda hard when people are reacting so violently. I think there could have been a better and more respectful way to have gotten Bioware to change this ending, but hopefully Gamers now know more of what they want and look for in an ending, and Bioware learned from this experience as well, to learn how to express their story while still giving us something that makes us feel satisified...that or they learned that "You can't please everyone, best we can do is give it our best within the time constraints and budgets that we have, and let those who appreciate it appreciate it, and accept that everyone will not be pleased/happy." As was mentioned else where they probably did hope to rely on fanbase loyalty when they rushed out a bit, it's hard not to believe that they don't depend a little bit on that when it comes to taking risks etc., I also assumed people would react with the same loyalty I did albeit a little disillusioned.

I am somewhat glad people did react though because it just shows that we are vocal and we do expect something more from someone who has always given more, but also I hope that we don't become 'too entitled', or at least not in a rude way, more in constructive way vs. Passionate Hatred way as I feel that mindset could poison the company that we love. We could have peacefully petitioned Bioware and gave constructive feedback, etc. etc. maybe the EC's would have not had some 'middle finger/resentment' in it like in the Refusal option, but there's still hope, we just have to imagine what happened after the lights went out.

I would like to point you to an superb post earlier in this thread where Fapmaster5000 examines Bioware's handling of the Reject option with a very clear analysis and explanation. Of course, we may never "know" for sure the exact intent and thought process of the developers when they were working on the EC, but we have the impressions that we gleam from how it was executed, how it was presented to go by... in the end, that may be all we have.

http://social.biowar...86/165#12809193

With respect to the fundamental themes and message of Mass Effect, I do get the sense that in trying to hammer home the message of just how violent and desperate things get during the course of Mass Effect 3, whoever was in charge of driving that message home became overzealous in their efforts, so much so that the fundamental themes of Mass Effect... it's very soul if you will, got overshadowed, gobbled up and ultimately lost in that drive to raise the stakes, to try to make the players aware of just how bad, how tragic and desperate things became.

Take all the deaths, all the loss that ME3 if filled with. I am referring to the personal loss here, all those characters, both major and minor, who we met before, however briefly, and managed to create some sort of bond with. Not only do we lose Mordin, Thane, Legion (all beloved characters), we also can lose Grunt (although I refuse to lose him and so forefit the Rachni and gladly so, just to ensure Grunt's survival, because I just adore him, he is part of my family and he fought beside me during the events of ME2), we lose even those less major characters like Kal-Regan, Charr (the sweet Krogan poet whom we help in ME2), the biotic kid from Pragia... Heck, even Tarquin Vicus, all are afforded to go out doing something noble, but in the end, they are killed off. When I actually thought about it, I was shocked to realize just how far Bioware had gone with killing off all these characters that we have formed bonds with... and all this is in addition to the countless and nameless casualties on each planet.  They focused on the war, on the devastation, on all the bad, horrendous, monstrous... While no one had a strong enough voice to stand up and say, "Hold on for a second here, aren't we going a little overboard here? This is Mass Effect after all!".

Don't get me wrong, I get that they had to try and make us understand the gravity of the situation... but I always come back to this argument; this is Mass Effect and not Halo (not sure if best example) or some other tragic and brutal game series; this is Mass Effect and the rules of the universe they created were broken, for I feel they went too far in their desire to show us just how dark it could get - too far because in the process, in that desire to drive home how horrendous things actually got, the very soul of Mass Effect was lost.

Please do not assume that my view of Mass Effect is all sunshine and rainbows and my little ponnies... What I am trying to convey here is that while things certainly can and ought to get bad (the threat of the Reapers is nothing to scoff at, after all), what is glaring missing is that one tiny sliver of hope, that one possibility for a victory. What is missing is Shepard's leadership, his refusal to accept what someone else tells him is his fate, his unwavering strength and convcition that, if we all work together, we can overcome any odds, no matter how great or seemingly insurmountable...

"In the darkest hour, there is always a way out."

[january42]

Interesting read, thanks for posting. Interesting choice of song, too.

I'd like to pose a question to the broader audience here - what do you think the creative team were trying to say with the endings, taken as a set, in the EC? Question prompted in part by the middle-finger analogy, certainly, but also by my perception that there's been  a lot of excellent analysis and deconstruction of what we think of what they've done, but not so much on what they were actually trying to say but seemingly failed to. Because I really struggle with the notion that it's either 'this is our work, not yours' or 'resistance is futile'. It seems as though I still have more respect for the team than to believe either of those propositions.

The middle finger effect is certiantly there, but I'm not sure if that was the intent or they just missed the point.

The problem wasn't the absence of a happy ending. The problem was....the absence wasn't explained. Just forced.    Synthesis was especially bad at this.  If the catalyst can do that, why the heck does it need shepard to jump into the beam?!?!? Lol wot?   This makes no sense and feels like they are just forcing shepard to die for no reason.

Destroy also has this problem.  If Synthesis is possible....why is the destructo beams so indescriminate?  You can space-magic reformat the universe...but can't only target reapers?  WTF?  Againt, it just feels like a forced "bad" ending.  If we're gonna let Shepard live, well, we have to kill someone...just, well, because.

Beyond that, Refusal gives shepard the ability to turn down the catalyst's alternatives, but doesn't do the obvious thing of presenting new ones.   The problem is, there are many things that could be done that would be more palatable to the fans, would fit thematicaly, and would not have been any harder for bw to implement. (Only one is needed). Off the top of my head.

Negotiation:
The Catalyst says "We need to find a new solution"...So, we could talk about and figure something out.  Maybe if you manage to unify the Geth and the Quarians, you could convince the catalyst of the error of it's premises. It's never really explaind why the only new solutions are the catalysts options and why the desicions has to be made NOW.

Destory v II
Shepard has Sword Fleet   fire on(or RAM) and destroy the Citadel, destroying the Catalst.  Freed of the Starbrats control, the Reapers either fall or perhaps can be talked to. Honestly, if they did this, I wouldn't mind Shepard dying. It would make some sense, algouth you could have the Normandy swoop in for a pickup before the blows up at high EMS also.

There are some other ways, but that's quick and I don't want to take up to much space.

There is only two ways you can interpret refusal.

1)It's meant a s a giant FU to the critics.  "Our way or the highway"

2)BW never understood what the problem was in the first place.  

I'm a bit inclined toward 2, as I cannot understand what thought process thought the original endings made sense thematicly in the first place.

The original endinges where a poor thematic and logical fit that was badly implemented.  The EC expanded them into a poor thematic and logical fit that was implemented much better.

[CuseGirl]

delta_vee wrote...
@NobodyOfConsequence

I'd like to pose a question to the broader audience here - what do you think the creative team were trying to say with the endings, taken as a set, in the EC? Question prompted in part by the middle-finger analogy, certainly, but also by my perception that there's been a lot of excellent analysis and deconstruction of what we think of what they've done, but not so much on what they were actually trying to say but seemingly failed to. Because I really struggle with the notion that it's either 'this is our work, not yours' or 'resistance is futile'. It seems as though I still have more respect for the team than to believe either of those propositions.

That question - and the one before it, too, pre-EC - is the question I've been asking since the game released. I have no idea. And because of the endings, both pre- and post-EC, I now have no idea what they were trying to say with the entire goddamned series.

Yea, alot of the anger has almost prevented the fanbase from discussing what Casey and Mac Bioware were trying to say. The thing is, I think if we could understand what they were trying to say, we'd still be upset. At this point, pre and post-EC, all I can glean from their message is "if you want to be integral to massive change in your world, you must give up something and most likely you won't have a chance to enjoy the changes you made". That's all I can see. Somehow, they forgot this was a sci-fi action shooter where the message usually is "you're the one guy who can do whatever is necessary to win and when it's over, you'll deserve what you worked for".

[CuseGirl]

january42 wrote...
The middle finger effect is certiantly there, but I'm not sure if that was the intent or they just missed the point.

The problem wasn't the absence of a happy ending. The problem was....the absence wasn't explained. Just forced.    Synthesis was especially bad at this.  If the catalyst can do that, why the heck does it need shepard to jump into the beam?!?!? Lol wot?   This makes no sense and feels like they are just forcing shepard to die for no reason.

Destroy also has this problem.  If Synthesis is possible....why is the destructo beams so indescriminate?  You can space-magic reformat the universe...but can't only target reapers?  WTF?  Againt, it just feels like a forced "bad" ending.  If we're gonna let Shepard live, well, we have to kill someone...just, well, because.

Beyond that, Refusal gives shepard the ability to turn down the catalyst's alternatives, but doesn't do the obvious thing of presenting new ones.   The problem is, there are many things that could be done that would be more palatable to the fans, would fit thematicaly, and would not have been any harder for bw to implement. (Only one is needed). Off the top of my head.

Negotiation:
The Catalyst says "We need to find a new solution"...So, we could talk about and figure something out.  Maybe if you manage to unify the Geth and the Quarians, you could convince the catalyst of the error of it's premises. It's never really explaind why the only new solutions are the catalysts options and why the desicions has to be made NOW.

Destory v II
Shepard has Sword Fleet   fire on(or RAM) and destroy the Citadel, destroying the Catalst.  Freed of the Starbrats control, the Reapers either fall or perhaps can be talked to. Honestly, if they did this, I wouldn't mind Shepard dying. It would make some sense, algouth you could have the Normandy swoop in for a pickup before the blows up at high EMS also.

There are some other ways, but that's quick and I don't want to take up to much space.

There is only two ways you can interpret refusal.

1)It's meant a s a giant FU to the critics.  "Our way or the highway"

2)BW never understood what the problem was in the first place.  

I'm a bit inclined toward 2, as I cannot understand what thought process thought the original endings made sense thematicly in the first place.

The original endinges where a poor thematic and logical fit that was badly implemented.  The EC expanded them into a poor thematic and logical fit that was implemented much better.

ALL of THIS, especially the bolded parts. There is no narrative flow to explain why EDI, the Geth, the galaxies genetic diversity, or Shepard him/herself are narrative victims in the ending. None. Those characters or aspects of the galaxies inhabitants need to be sacrificed because somehow it's just too happy if the Reapers just die and ALL of those people get to rejoice in it. Somehow, the player didn't experience enough consequence for killing the Reapers or (somehow) telling the Reapers to go away.

[Seijin8]

It is pretty clear that the artistic intent was nihilism, and rather than creating a game for nihilists by nihilists, they thought it would be all the more painful and consuming to instead wreck something of value.

Point taken.

[SkaldFish]

Now that I've had time to calm down (...not that I have, necessarily; I've just had the time to...), I'd like to surface an underlying theme that has certainly driven my responses and seems to weave in and out of other responses I see here as well. I'm just realizing its impact on me, but I'm sure others here have long recognized it.

When I reach out across the forum and gather together what I know of the totality of reactions to the endings, I feel a significant portion of the community thinking "Wait -- I know the Mass Effect team is better than this." The universe they painstakingly built, the characters they lovingly developed, the immersive power they instilled into the experience -- all resulted in a whole far greater than the sum of its constituents. As CGG pointed out a few pages back, the ME series could have stood as a masterpiece that would begin a significant shift in the public's perception of gaming from adolescent shoot-em-up time-waster toward fully realized art form.

So... is the perception that "they are better than this" an accurate one? In retrospect it seems the answer might be "no." If the EC does, as Hudson and Walters have claimed, more accurately tell the story that represents the team's artistic vision (according to Walters they wouldn't know how to tell any other story), what happened? Did we ascribe competence to coincidence? Did we see flawed potential and fill in the blanks ourselves? Did we see a glimmer of something precious and ignore amateurish, ham-handed flaws until we could ignore them no longer?

Personally, I see significant evidence to suggest that BioWare doesn't really understand what it had created -- or could have created. Or perhaps they did, but were just not up to the task of realizing it. Or perhaps they were simply incapable of seeing past a perceived need to manufacture profundity.

But I'd be very interested in others' thoughts along these lines.

[Caenis]

AloraKast wrote...

I would like to point you to an superb post earlier in this thread where Fapmaster5000 examines Bioware's handling of the Reject option with a very clear analysis and explanation. Of course, we may never "know" for sure the exact intent and thought process of the developers when they were working on the EC, but we have the impressions that we gleam from how it was executed, how it was presented to go by... in the end, that may be all we have.

http://social.biowar...86/165#12809193

With respect to the fundamental themes and message of Mass Effect, I do get the sense that in trying to hammer home the message of just how violent and desperate things get during the course of Mass Effect 3, whoever was in charge of driving that message home became overzealous in their efforts, so much so that the fundamental themes of Mass Effect... it's very soul if you will, got overshadowed, gobbled up and ultimately lost in that drive to raise the stakes, to try to make the players aware of just how bad, how tragic and desperate things became.

Take all the deaths, all the loss that ME3 if filled with. I am referring to the personal loss here, all those characters, both major and minor, who we met before, however briefly, and managed to create some sort of bond with. Not only do we lose Mordin, Thane, Legion (all beloved characters), we also can lose Grunt (although I refuse to lose him and so forefit the Rachni and gladly so, just to ensure Grunt's survival, because I just adore him, he is part of my family and he fought beside me during the events of ME2), we lose even those less major characters like Kal-Regan, Charr (the sweet Krogan poet whom we help in ME2), the biotic kid from Pragia... Heck, even Tarquin Vicus, all are afforded to go out doing something noble, but in the end, they are killed off. When I actually thought about it, I was shocked to realize just how far Bioware had gone with killing off all these characters that we have formed bonds with... and all this is in addition to the countless and nameless casualties on each planet.  They focused on the war, on the devastation, on all the bad, horrendous, monstrous... While no one had a strong enough voice to stand up and say, "Hold on for a second here, aren't we going a little overboard here? This is Mass Effect after all!".

Don't get me wrong, I get that they had to try and make us understand the gravity of the situation... but I always come back to this argument; this is Mass Effect and not Halo (not sure if best example) or some other tragic and brutal game series; this is Mass Effect and the rules of the universe they created were broken, for I feel they went too far in their desire to show us just how dark it could get - too far because in the process, in that desire to drive home how horrendous things actually got, the very soul of Mass Effect was lost.

Please do not assume that my view of Mass Effect is all sunshine and rainbows and my little ponnies... What I am trying to convey here is that while things certainly can and ought to get bad (the threat of the Reapers is nothing to scoff at, after all), what is glaring missing is that one tiny sliver of hope, that one possibility for a victory. What is missing is Shepard's leadership, his refusal to accept what someone else tells him is his fate, his unwavering strength and convcition that, if we all work together, we can overcome any odds, no matter how great or seemingly insurmountable...

"In the darkest hour, there is always a way out."

XD did you know that you can save Grunt AND the Rachni XD  

I know what you mean, there was that one sliver of hope with Refusal and Destroy which Is I think why people chose it, in hopes that by rejecting the options of the Star child they could save everyone and live, and it showed a lot of people were willing to if they had no choice to reject and save everyone, to commit mass genocide just for the chance to live. There can still be a sliver of hope XD writing one's own ending I'm cracking my knuckles to continue working on my  "After the Battle-Post Epilogue" just to sew in the stitches on some closure here.

I want my LI to meet Godly Shepard (like Witch Hunt (DA:O), Redemption), going back to the site of destruction and searching for Shepard's remains only to find that there's nothing there which is odd because Anderson's body is there and they went up together. And ultimately LI meeting face to face with Shepard. I'm trying to decide what kind of reunion it will be. Bitter Sweet, Angry, Rejecting, Peaceful, idk. 

I'm doing 4 different ones, one for Refusal, Destroy, Synthesis, and Control. I guess it's just that...I'm not really ready for Shepard to die, and while I can accept Shepard's death I need more, like working on my own personal story of closure. Not Bioware's story or anyone elses, just something particular to the story that I had with the characters and feelings that I invested in. I think that's what we all want? We all want Bioware to write a story that speaks true to how we as invidiuals feel, but at the end of the day how can that be done? At some point we've gotta make our own ending, hehe kinda like I did with Bastila and female Revan (There's no such thing as Canon in my book :  )

[CuseGirl]

SkaldFish wrote...
Now that I've had time to calm down (...not that I have, necessarily; I've just had the time to...), I'd like to surface an underlying theme that has certainly driven my responses and seems to weave in and out of other responses I see here as well. I'm just realizing its impact on me, but I'm sure others here have long recognized it.

When I reach out across the forum and gather together what I know of the totality of reactions to the endings, I feel a significant portion of the community thinking "Wait -- I know the Mass Effect team is better than this." The universe they painstakingly built, the characters they lovingly developed, the immersive power they instilled into the experience -- all resulted in a whole far greater than the sum of its constituents. As CGG pointed out a few pages back, the ME series could have stood as a masterpiece that would begin a significant shift in the public's perception of gaming from adolescent shoot-em-up time-waster toward fully realized art form.

So... is the perception that "they are better than this" an accurate one? In retrospect it seems the answer might be "no." If the EC does, as Hudson and Walters have claimed, more accurately tell the story that represents the team's artistic vision (according to Walters they wouldn't know how to tell any other story), what happened? Did we ascribe competence to coincidence? Did we see flawed potential and fill in the blanks ourselves? Did we see a glimmer of something precious and ignore amateurish, ham-handed flaws until we could ignore them no longer?

Personally, I see significant evidence to suggest that BioWare doesn't really understand what it had created -- or could have created. Or perhaps they did, but were just not up to the task of realizing it. Or perhaps they were simply incapable of seeing past a perceived need to manufacture profundity.

But I'd be very interested in others' thoughts along these lines.

Honestly, I think we're looking way too deep. The answers are simpler: they ran out of time or money, Casey and Mac took the responsibility to write the ending, they took little extra feedback mostly because of lack of time. When the contraversy started (after players started finishing the game), the PR started: basically "whatever we did, it's right, it's good, there's nothing wrong with it, they just don't get it", because in corporate business, admitting a mistake means exactly that, you're admitting you didn't do something correctly and you can't be trusted with another big project. Simple as that.

If the game was to be released this fall, like October or November (just in time for the secondary sales boost during Christmas season), i think the ending would be different. they would have had more time for another writer to say "this Starchild thing? this is nonsense. where's Shep's crew? how did they get onto the Normandy with Joker? Why is TiM on the Citadel? Where's Miranda at Cronos? Why is Vendetta such an insufferable git? Stargazer? WTF?"

[Seijin8]

@Skaldfish: Yeah, it is certainly possible. I think of the profound moments from prior BW games, really (for me) kicking off with KoTOR's Revan reveal. I'd enjoyed their games before, but that was... new territory.

And in my mind that has stood as proof positive of their talent. Mass Effect and (for me to a lesser extent) Dragon Age Origins all had superb moments in them. Maybe not "Revan reveal" superb, but damn good. Any yet... those works are largely derivative. Most of Mass Effect is just other great sci-fi sewn together. Dragon Age isn't really anything more than any other post-Tolkien fantasy tale.

So, I concede that you may be on to something in greatly overestimating their abilities.

However... dozens of people in this thread have posited their own thematically consistent endings... and many of them were better than what we received. I have trouble believing that BioWare are SO incompetent as to be less capable at storytelling than a broad array of their fans. It is easier for me (at this stage) to ascribe malice rather than simple idiocy. (A violation of Hanlon's Razor, I know.)

Modifié par Seijin8, 30 juin 2012 - 04:02 .

[edisnooM]

@NobodyofConsequence

I'd like to pose a question to the broader audience here - what do you think the creative team were trying to say with the endings, taken as a set, in the EC? Question prompted in part by the middle-finger analogy, certainly, but also by my perception that there's been a lot of excellent analysis and deconstruction of what we think of what they've done, but not so much on what they were actually trying to say but seemingly failed to. Because I really struggle with the notion that it's either 'this is our work, not yours' or 'resistance is futile'. It seems as though I still have more respect for the team than to believe either of those propositions.

Others have already made good responses but I thought I might try as well.

One of the things I find really maddening about the ending is that the theme seems so completely in contrast to what we have seen throughout the previous instalments, but Gamble at least has stated that it is in keeping with the theme, at least as far as the Synthetic v. Organic aspect.

But I don't really know what they were trying to say exactly since, and I may be wrong, I don't know that they have said anything about it. They seem to want to keep quiet and let us interpret it, to the extent that I don't know if they even know what they were trying to say. They certainly appropriated enough elements from other stories that maybe they just threw stuff together and hoped it would work.

But as for my opinion:

Destroy: It seems to be about victory at any cost, much like the Primarchs son said earlier. But really I don't know that there is much more to say about it. You do what we were supposed to do for three games, but you killed allies and friends in the process. Congratulations?

Control: It seems to be about sacrifice, the giving up of all that Shepard was, all that s/he had in order to rule, or protect the future. That even from evil good can spring maybe. That's all very noble and nice, but all I can think is, didn't we just argue about this with TIM like five minutes before?

Synthesis: This again seems to be about sacrifice, and unity, building a better tomorrow etc. But what I take from this is that it is BioWare's official stance that Synthetic life begins with the green wave and not before. All the evidence we saw to the contrary was wrong.

Refuse: I really don't know what else to say other than sticking to your guns doesn't work, that hope is great but it doesn't necessarily pan out, welcome to real life I guess.

But the overall theme I see is that compliance is the only sure way to victory, that if you want to win you must go along with the enemy you have been fighting for three games.

This of course doesn't make any sense for many reasons, but especially since the only choice that makes any sort of sense for the Catalyst to show us is Synthesis. Destroy, he is literally showing us how to kill him and his minions. Control, he is showing us how to replace him, and he actually says he doesn't look forward to that.

Anyway that's just my view, I am a bit cynical but I've tried to put what I think they were trying to say. I mean it's hard not to see Refuse as a jab at those that dissented, but maybe that wasn't there intent.

Modifié par edisnooM, 30 juin 2012 - 04:15 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

The thing about the ME series is that we'd been playing by BioWare's rules all along. We deluded ourselves into thinking it was any different. Then we reacted when the final moment came and we realized the truth.

[elitehunter34]

january42 wrote...

Interesting read, thanks for posting. Interesting choice of song, too.

I'd like to pose a question to the broader audience here - what do you think the creative team were trying to say with the endings, taken as a set, in the EC? Question prompted in part by the middle-finger analogy, certainly, but also by my perception that there's been  a lot of excellent analysis and deconstruction of what we think of what they've done, but not so much on what they were actually trying to say but seemingly failed to. Because I really struggle with the notion that it's either 'this is our work, not yours' or 'resistance is futile'. It seems as though I still have more respect for the team than to believe either of those propositions.

The middle finger effect is certiantly there, but I'm not sure if that was the intent or they just missed the point.

The problem wasn't the absence of a happy ending. The problem was....the absence wasn't explained. Just forced.    Synthesis was especially bad at this.  If the catalyst can do that, why the heck does it need shepard to jump into the beam?!?!? Lol wot?   This makes no sense and feels like they are just forcing shepard to die for no reason.

Destroy also has this problem.  If Synthesis is possible....why is the destructo beams so indescriminate?  You can space-magic reformat the universe...but can't only target reapers?  WTF?  Againt, it just feels like a forced "bad" ending.  If we're gonna let Shepard live, well, we have to kill someone...just, well, because.

Beyond that, Refusal gives shepard the ability to turn down the catalyst's alternatives, but doesn't do the obvious thing of presenting new ones.   The problem is, there are many things that could be done that would be more palatable to the fans, would fit thematicaly, and would not have been any harder for bw to implement. (Only one is needed). Off the top of my head.

Negotiation:
The Catalyst says "We need to find a new solution"...So, we could talk about and figure something out.  Maybe if you manage to unify the Geth and the Quarians, you could convince the catalyst of the error of it's premises. It's never really explaind why the only new solutions are the catalysts options and why the desicions has to be made NOW.

Destory v II
Shepard has Sword Fleet   fire on(or RAM) and destroy the Citadel, destroying the Catalst.  Freed of the Starbrats control, the Reapers either fall or perhaps can be talked to. Honestly, if they did this, I wouldn't mind Shepard dying. It would make some sense, algouth you could have the Normandy swoop in for a pickup before the blows up at high EMS also.

There are some other ways, but that's quick and I don't want to take up to much space.

There is only two ways you can interpret refusal.

1)It's meant a s a giant FU to the critics.  "Our way or the highway"

2)BW never understood what the problem was in the first place.  

I'm a bit inclined toward 2, as I cannot understand what thought process thought the original endings made sense thematicly in the first place.

The original endinges where a poor thematic and logical fit that was badly implemented.  The EC expanded them into a poor thematic and logical fit that was implemented much better.

Yes, yes a thousand times yes.  Especially the bolded part.

 The decisons we had to pick from were completely terrible, there was no reason to pick any of them because they were all supported the terrible logic of the Catalyst.  Bioware seems to think that they made some deep philosophical statement with the end of the game because why else would the refuse option lead to utter defeat?  Seriously, why wouldn't they, it would make everyone who hates the current endings happy.  They knew that if we could win through refusal, it would make the crucible and catalyst pointless.  They don't want to be seen as bad writers so they stuck to their guns, which ironically makes them even worse writers because they can't accept that the endings even in their current form are thematically awful and riddled with plot holes.  Bioware would earn the respect of everyone who understands why the ending was so bad if they simply realize they made a mistake and fixed it.

[Jorji Costava]

Warning: Lots of speculation ahead.

Leaving aside considerations having to do with limited time and resources, here's a guess as to how they came up with the ending they did. Two things I think the writers desperately wanted to avoid were the "Star Wars medal ceremony" and the "Reaper off-switch." A third consideration might have been to make the endings 'high-concept,' and this tweet from Hudson might tell us what informed their idea of what 'high-concept' consisted in. In their minds, all of these things might have translated into the following:

1. There must be some unavoidable cost to defeating the Reapers (i.e. the Mass Relays, possibly the Geth and Shepard himself). Otherwise, the Reaper threat is trivialized if they can be beaten with everyone unscathed.
2. The Reapers' motivations must be at least morally ambiguous, if not outright correct. Otherwise, we would just have a cliched conflict between good and evil which runs against our high-concept aspirations.

I don't know how seriously we should take the dark energy ending rumors (it was probably briefly considered, but never in place as the true ending), but I think both that ending and the ending we got are geared toward solving these problems. Both give the Reapers understandable motivations, and impose a terrible cost on defeating them. The writers probably believed that their take on the technological singularity and transhumanism satisfied all three of these criteria. I think that it failed horribly at being 'high concept,' and it may have satisfied goals (1) and (2), but only at the cost of the thematic dissonance which has been the subject of this thread. It's also entirely worth questioning whether (1) and (2) really are such important goals in a story like Mass Effect. Mass Effect 3 desperately tried to convey a "war is hell" theme, which conflicted with "triumphing against impossible odds" theme of the first two games.

I'm not sure if it's correct to say that this ending expressed their true vision from the outset of the trilogy, or even at the outset of the development of Mass Effect 3. If I have to guess, it probably didn't occur to them in its current form until the later stages of the development cycle, and even then I'm not sure how deeply invested in the concept they were, except as a way to accomplish the goals described above. My hypothesis is that it was only later when they encountered the backlash against the ending choices that they really doubled down on it. It's similar to when someone you know expresses a really strange belief, and you point out an absurd consequence of that belief. Instead of revising their belief, they accept the absurdity as true, whether due to stubbornness or pride or whatever. I don't think Hudson and company ever intended to imply that synthetics weren't really legitimate (thus my earlier reference to the TIM recording at the Cerberus base; surely he's not meant to be the mouthpiece for their actual views). It was only when they realized that their ending concepts committed them to this that they doubled down on it.

EDIT: Fixed the wording of a sentence.

Modifié par osbornep, 30 juin 2012 - 04:31 .

[edisnooM]

@SkaldFish

I don't know?

I mean KOTOR, Jade Empire, these were well written intricate stories, both had reveals that were both unexpected and foreshadowed. I loved how everyone commented on my characters fighting style in JE and how that played into the reveal. So it's not as though they were incapable of writing before Mass Effect, and both ME1 and 2 seemed to still have that spark of creativity.

Maybe the ran out of steam, or panicked now that they were in the big league blockbuster arena? But I mean I hear and read stuff from Weakes and I think, man this guy knows this universe. And he's just one part of the team, I can't help but feel that collectively they should have been capable of more than this


@KitaSaturnyne

True. But you still seem to be a bit grim. Did you follow the instructions in my Picard pep-talk? That should have kicked the doldrums right out. :-)

[De1ta G]

BioWare did a good job in that a lot of you guys actually think that the synthetics like the geth are legitimate forms of life. They wanted you to think that so that the other choices were actually choices. And it worked. All of the discussions with EDI, leading up to where she seems very organic. And learning the geth spared the last quarians and some of them refused to worship the reapers. In reality their lives aren't as valuable as the organics. They are machines and have no souls, they may have personalities, but no soul. This all worked on me in my play through, as I chose synthesis thinking about EDI an Joker, another tactic by BioWare to get you to not want to pick Destroy. Destroy is all about the ultimate sacrifice for the greater good.

[elitehunter34]

osbornep wrote...

Warning: Lots of speculation ahead.

Leaving aside considerations having to do with limited time and resources, here's a guess as to how they came up with the ending they did. Two things I think the writers desperately wanted to avoid were the "Star Wars medal ceremony" and the "Reaper off-switch." A third consideration might have been to make the endings 'high-concept,' and this tweet from Hudson might tell us what informed their idea of what 'high-concept' consisted in. In their minds, all of these things might have translated into the following:

1. There must be some unavoidable cost to defeating the Reapers (i.e. the Mass Relays, possibly the Geth and Shepard himself). Otherwise, the Reaper threat is trivialized if they can be beaten with everyone unscathed.
2. The Reapers' motivations must be at least morally ambiguous, if not outright correct. Otherwise, we would just have a cliched conflict between good and evil which runs against our high-concept aspirations.

I don't know how seriously we should take the dark energy ending rumors (it was probably briefly considered, but never in place as the true ending), but I think both that ending and the ending we got are geared toward solving these problems. Both give the Reapers understandable motivations, and impose a terrible cost on defeating them. The writers probably believed that their take on the technological singularity and transhumanism satisfied all three of these criteria. I think that it failed horribly at being 'high concept,' and it may have satisfied goals (1) and (2), but only at the cost of the thematic dissonance which has been the subject of this thread. It's also entirely worth questioning whether (1) and (2) really are such important goals in a story like Mass Effect. Mass Effect 3 desperately tried to convey a "war is hell" theme, which conflicted with "triumphing against impossible odds" theme of the first two games.

I'm not sure if it's correct to say that this ending expressed their true vision from the outset of the trilogy, or even at the outset of the development of Mass Effect 3. If I have to guess, it probably didn't occur to them in its current form until the later stages of the development cycle, and even then I'm not sure how deeply invested in the concept they were, except as a way to accomplish the goals described above. My hypothesis is that it was only later when they encountered the backlash against the ending choices that they really doubled down on it. It's similar to when someone you know expresses a really strange belief, and you point out an absurd consequence of that belief. Instead of revising their belief, they accept the absurdity as true, whether due to stubbornness or pride or whatever. I don't think Hudson and company ever intended to imply that synthetics weren't really legitimate (thus my earlier reference to the TIM recording at the Cerberus base; surely he's not meant to be the mouthpiece for their actual views). It was only when they realized that their ending concepts committed them to this that they doubled down on it.

EDIT: Fixed the wording of a sentence.

I'm going to have to agree.  I wasn't expecting a sunshine and unicorns ending, but I wasn't expecting an ending that was just so nonsensical.  Its just so frustrating how you have to give in to the Catalyst or die.  That's not what Mass Effect is about.  The game didin't need the Catalyst or any of its choices based on terrible logic.  

I mean wasn't there already enough suffering caused by the Reapers?  They already effectively wiped out the batarians and killed billions (not absolutely sure, but this amount isn't unreasonable) of organics.  If that isn't enough of a loss then I don't think Bioware understands how big of a number a billion is.