5087 réponses à ce sujet

[tractrpl]

I had a lit professor that would always reference star wars when going into a deep discussion. I bet he'd have a thing or two to say about these endings.

[Auralius Carolus]

LucasShark wrote...

Brilliant: my lit prof was a hippie who liked stories about people doing nothing, wish I had this guy.

There are a LOT of hippie professors. "Today class, we're not going to study what we're supposed to because I have to indoctrinate you on social revolutionary theory and why squirrels have souls too."

[webhead921]

Opsrbest wrote...



Anyone for the first highlight we have conformation that it was indeed a two man show and not just the rampant speculation based from a posting on Penny Arcade?

The second point while your proffesor has a point he is complete ignoring EA's right to set that date. Maybe he may not fully understand that relationship, between developer and publisher/owner, maybe he does and he has a valid point. I just find that an odd premiss for an eglish proffesor to hold and to form a bias on that by evidence isn't exactly a strong arguement.

As much as I want to agree or disagree with this statement I won't, more so that your proffesor isn't here to state his own opinions and ideas. I will simply say that in ME1 the dichotomy of the synthetic vs organic relationship in the galaxy isn't heavily noted but is presented in the game. ME2 has a more sustained tone of it but it isn't relatively noticable based on the precession of information the player recieves and when that information is given, say for example, when retrieving the Reaper IFF. And well, ME3 had a pretty heavy dose of it.

The italicized is done because thats an emotional response to an aspect of development. And isn't symbotic with the actual story of ME but rather a player generated choice.

Off topic:
Masking an opinion as a English Lit proffesor because it may or may not give your arguements some form of subsatnce is poor form. And I say that because if there was an actual English Lit masters degree behind the information you are posting you wouldn't be relying on information used evidentiary that is readibly and easily located on these forms by those that are "Anti-Enders".

Either way have a nice day.

Great post, but nobody has responded to it!

Also, @ OP but off, Nightwing is awesome.  I think I am in the huge minority in that I like the Mass Effect 3 ending, and that I like Dick Grayson more than Bruce Wayne

[Sc2mashimaro]

Zix13 wrote...

Sc2mashimaro wrote...

RaenImrahl wrote...

Zix13 wrote...

It will also be be an example of how not to do PR. 

Indeed.  I can see the game and its ending being examined from a public/media relations standpoint - how did they handle the reaction?

--from a literary standpoint, like the OP's professor - what were the themes of the narrative and how were they enacted?
--from a rhetorical standpoint - were the developer's arguments (within the game) effective?
-- or from a media perspective - did the developers achieve and effectively use of the medium of the action/RPG video game? (that's my take)

I think it would make great examples for all of these things.

Bioware/EA should hire some Murrow College (WSU) grads for their PR team. I'm in the Broadcasting side of the Communication College and I could see the PR falling-downs right away. Also, I'm glad you both can see this is a PR failure not "standard PR lies and manipulations" - people on this forum probably shouldn't be allowed to say "PR" (it does not mean what they think it means...). Merizan is one of the few stand-out communicators on the Bioware team, but I think she needs some back-up... glad I'm not in charge of communication and public relations at Bioware, sounds like a hard job right now!

I think the issue is that EA has forgotten what PR means, as a lot of companies seem to have done. It doesn't take more than a little bit of common sense to recognize the errors they've made.

Well, I think they've meant to communicate one thing and people have seen it as another thing entirely many, many times. Then Merizan and the community people on the forum try to clarify and it creates a mess. Plus, I couldn't pass up the chance to plug for my fellow Cougars in the Comm. College. 

[Banelash]

im waiting for a proender to find a professor and clarify why the ending fits with the whole narration of mass effect.

[MissLiya]

my applause to your professor.

Modifié par MissLiya, 16 avril 2012 - 06:23 .

[The Wumpus]

incinerator950 wrote...

Sc2mashimaro wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...

Also, Dev teams suck at playing their own games, I don't know why this is the case.

I would posit there are two reasons for that:

(a) They spend most of their time making and creating the game. Their goal is not to be good at the game, but to be good at creating the experience of the game.

( Their minds limit themselves to the constraints they imagine when creating the game. Similar to all artists and writers, when you create something you see it the way YOU see it and it's hard to step outside of the boundaries you create to facilitate that creation to see it in another light. It's an important skill to develop, but a hurdle that you can never entirely overcome. In video games, this also means it's hard to step outside of how you imagine the mechanics SHOULD work to see how they might be used in more, sometimes overly-effective (broken) ways.

If you make something, you should be one of the best at utilizing it.  Don't want to remember how hard I laughed when the GoW1 Team were appalled at what you basically said. 

So yeah, you do have a point.

Another thing is that we're mostly (though not entirely) past the era where one guy could make an entire game by himself. (Sure, it still happens occasionally, but usually only on indie games.) An individual dev might be an artist, or a level designer, or a programmer, or what have you, but there isn't usually one guy whose job it is to make and play the game start to finish. (The best players on the staff are usually the testers, since they play the game constantly and learn all the Easter eggs, shortcuts, and tricks.)

[NeecHMonkeY]

It's ok for Shepard to be homosexual but you better believe that we can't have him living in peace with synthetics!

[pipemaster9000]

UnstableMongoose wrote...

pipemaster9000 wrote...

UnstableMongoose wrote...

ShepnTali wrote...

UnstableMongoose wrote...

Saying that ME1 wasn't rushed is absolutely hilarious, and the insinuation that EA stole BioWare's integrity is somewhat...problematic in terms of presentation. Can't say I agree with your lit professor.

What's your counter on his take on the theme shift, his main point?

I would counter that no thematic shift occurred. Everything that happened was foreshadowed.

No it wasn't, in ME3 Indoctrination is heavily foreshadowed. Dark Matter in ME2. You must be an EA-troll

Ummmm.....I'm not really certain what to make of what you're trying to say. A big, centralized galactic structure for controlling Dark Matter played heavily into the ending of ME3, and so did the process of Indoctrination.

The themes of sacrifice, inevitability, and risking everything on the unknown results of firing the Crucible were well-established throughout the course of ME3. I'm not sure how anything you said refutes my point.

You must be playing a different video game. The current endings invalidate Indoctrination and Dark Matter. They also invalidate ME1 all together. I guess these things aren't very obvious to others?  Shepard has been against all odds throughout the series, willingly. Why the sudden change of pace when this star-child appears? Why are the keepers relevant if the star-child has been there the whole time? I'm not sure how anything you've said relates to foreshadowing the endings of ME3.

Dark matter wasn't apart of 3. Synthetics killing organics so organics don't make synthetics that kill the organics. (insert yo dawg .jpg here) That was the ending.

Troll somewhere else.

[xxskyshadowxx]

[quote]RaenImrahl wrote...

[quote]Mr.BlazenGlazen wrote...

I'd advise against it, if only because, if you're going to do it, give yourself enough time to do it right. 

[/quote]

One could use this same argument when speaking of the ME3 endings (and a few other aspects of the game) actually. Preaching to the converted sir.

[incinerator950]

webhead921 wrote...

Opsrbest wrote...



Anyone for the first highlight we have conformation that it was indeed a two man show and not just the rampant speculation based from a posting on Penny Arcade?

The second point while your proffesor has a point he is complete ignoring EA's right to set that date. Maybe he may not fully understand that relationship, between developer and publisher/owner, maybe he does and he has a valid point. I just find that an odd premiss for an eglish proffesor to hold and to form a bias on that by evidence isn't exactly a strong arguement.

As much as I want to agree or disagree with this statement I won't, more so that your proffesor isn't here to state his own opinions and ideas. I will simply say that in ME1 the dichotomy of the synthetic vs organic relationship in the galaxy isn't heavily noted but is presented in the game. ME2 has a more sustained tone of it but it isn't relatively noticable based on the precession of information the player recieves and when that information is given, say for example, when retrieving the Reaper IFF. And well, ME3 had a pretty heavy dose of it.

The italicized is done because thats an emotional response to an aspect of development. And isn't symbotic with the actual story of ME but rather a player generated choice.

Off topic:
Masking an opinion as a English Lit proffesor because it may or may not give your arguements some form of subsatnce is poor form. And I say that because if there was an actual English Lit masters degree behind the information you are posting you wouldn't be relying on information used evidentiary that is readibly and easily located on these forms by those that are "Anti-Enders".

Either way have a nice day.

Great post, but nobody has responded to it!

Also, @ OP but off, Nightwing is awesome.  I think I am in the huge minority in that I like the Mass Effect 3 ending, and that I like Dick Grayson more than Bruce Wayne

I'm a black sheep in the minority, I don't care about the ending.  ME 2 was my favorite ending only because of the music and the beautiful explosion.  I just wanted the damn game to end so I could restart my playthrough.  

I didn't respond to it because I didn't have anything to add or pick apart.   It's not often you get people to pull up what the notion of how the game flows, because its not choice.  Synthetics vs Organics doesn't heavily imply outside of a war until a short conversation with Tali or Sovereign.  ME 2 is also like that, after the Reaper IFF and you actually see the other side with Legion. 

[yukon fire]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

He misses the point of an impossible choice.

It isn't really a "choice" when so little information is provided, you can't reason when you don't know.

[incinerator950]

The Wumpus wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...

Sc2mashimaro wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...

Also, Dev teams suck at playing their own games, I don't know why this is the case.

I would posit there are two reasons for that:

(a) They spend most of their time making and creating the game. Their goal is not to be good at the game, but to be good at creating the experience of the game.

( Their minds limit themselves to the constraints they imagine when creating the game. Similar to all artists and writers, when you create something you see it the way YOU see it and it's hard to step outside of the boundaries you create to facilitate that creation to see it in another light. It's an important skill to develop, but a hurdle that you can never entirely overcome. In video games, this also means it's hard to step outside of how you imagine the mechanics SHOULD work to see how they might be used in more, sometimes overly-effective (broken) ways.

If you make something, you should be one of the best at utilizing it.  Don't want to remember how hard I laughed when the GoW1 Team were appalled at what you basically said. 

So yeah, you do have a point.

Another thing is that we're mostly (though not entirely) past the era where one guy could make an entire game by himself. (Sure, it still happens occasionally, but usually only on indie games.) An individual dev might be an artist, or a level designer, or a programmer, or what have you, but there isn't usually one guy whose job it is to make and play the game start to finish. (The best players on the staff are usually the testers, since they play the game constantly and learn all the Easter eggs, shortcuts, and tricks.)

Umm...yeah.  I lost respect for most testers in the last three years.  I wasn't going to the entire Dev team, but I was refferencing the ones specifically who are for gameplay, because they're the ones I ran into the most.  Which is still valid. 

[snfonseka]

Made Nightwing wrote...

...

"In conclusion, I must say again that all the endings were thematically revolting. It is absolutely critical in the name of good writing that the ending of a story must match the journey. Mass Effect has never been a story about the disparity between synthetics and organics. As a matter of fact, it has been quite the obvious. For three games, BW has hinted and pointed out that life could be so much more greater and mysterious than the organic perception. It's driven the point home, time and time again, that unity is possible. So why, then, at the very end of a series that has clearly been about unity and co-existence, would they end it with the point that different forms of life simply cannot co-exist unless their diversity is totally stripped away? It makes no sense. Furthermore, it is emotionally crushing that all this hope of co-existence that has been built up from the quarian-geth storyline  (Geth Prime:...and then we will help you rebuild your world.) is suddenly yanked away at the last second. Good day."

Dr. C. Dray.

This happend because BW changed the original ending story due to the leaked script.

[Kath]

NeecHMonkeY wrote...

It's ok for Shepard to be homosexual but you better believe that we can't have him living in peace with synthetics!

I don't get what those two things have to do with each other? 

On topic, your professor is very wise OP! I wish I had a professor I could nerd-out with. 

Modifié par Katherine, 16 avril 2012 - 06:39 .

[MegumiAzusa]

yukon fire wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

He misses the point of an impossible choice.

It isn't really a "choice" when so little information is provided, you can't reason when you don't know.

That's why it's called an impossible choice.

[RockSW]

professor of awesome

[xxskyshadowxx]

snfonseka wrote...

Made Nightwing wrote...

...

"In conclusion, I must say again that all the endings were thematically revolting. It is absolutely critical in the name of good writing that the ending of a story must match the journey. Mass Effect has never been a story about the disparity between synthetics and organics. As a matter of fact, it has been quite the obvious. For three games, BW has hinted and pointed out that life could be so much more greater and mysterious than the organic perception. It's driven the point home, time and time again, that unity is possible. So why, then, at the very end of a series that has clearly been about unity and co-existence, would they end it with the point that different forms of life simply cannot co-exist unless their diversity is totally stripped away? It makes no sense. Furthermore, it is emotionally crushing that all this hope of co-existence that has been built up from the quarian-geth storyline  (Geth Prime:...and then we will help you rebuild your world.) is suddenly yanked away at the last second. Good day."

Dr. C. Dray.

This happend because BW changed the original ending story due to the leaked script.

If I recall correctly, the leaked ending was widely hated by those who saw it for similar reasons that the current ending is hated by many.

[Mylia Stenetch]

incinerator950 wrote...

I've known for a while you have to take what the Dev's say with a grain of salt. Especially after Fable 1. Hence why I never listened in on sequel games, anything I wanted usually came out on its own, or didn't.

I miss Timesplitters

Yeah I was weary after Fables. Annoyed after F.E.A.R 2. Then finally gave up after City of Heroes: Architect. So most times when a Dev comes out and says X, I expect it to be the opposite at best.

[Sc2mashimaro]

Katherine wrote...

NeecHMonkeY wrote...

It's ok for Shepard to be homosexual but you better believe that we can't have him living in peace with synthetics!

I don't get what those two things have to do with each other? 

On topic, your professor is very wise OP! I wish I had a professor I could nerd-out with. 

This is relevant because one of the OVERT themes of Mass Effect is the possibility for tolerance, unity, and peace to win the day if someone is persuasive (Paragon) or forceful (Renegade) enough to get people to put old wounds and prejudice behind them. Synthetics are clearly a part of that theme through all three games until the ending. Homosexuality debates were dismissed by the developers because, essentially, they expressed the same view as the game takes about tolerance of others and differences: it's just something you do whether because it works better (Renegade) or because it's the right thing (Paragon).

[The Wumpus]

incinerator950 wrote...

I lost respect for most testers in the last three years. 

Ran into some nasty bugs, or some other reason?

[Gwtheyrn]

The Wumpus wrote...

To be fair, developers don't "allow" publishers to set their deadlines, any more than any other sort of professional craftsman does. Hell, the reason the first Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy book ended so abruptly is because the publishers told Douglas Adams, "We're sending a guy over to pick up whatever you have. Finish the page you're on now."

Now, a lot of publishers do set unreasonable deadlines, and you can sometimes persuade a publisher to push theirs back -- which, in fact, someone did once for ME3, since the release date got pushed back from November to March -- but they're never happy about it, and you can't usually get a publisher to delay the same game twice. (Well, you can if you're 3DRealms, but that ended in tears.)

Publishers do, in fact, often set deadlines. However, EA is not JUST the publisher in this case. They are the parent-company and owner. They are literally the bosses.

[The Wumpus]

Gwtheyrn wrote...

The Wumpus wrote...

To be fair, developers don't "allow" publishers to set their deadlines, any more than any other sort of professional craftsman does. Hell, the reason the first Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy book ended so abruptly is because the publishers told Douglas Adams, "We're sending a guy over to pick up whatever you have. Finish the page you're on now."

Now, a lot of publishers do set unreasonable deadlines, and you can sometimes persuade a publisher to push theirs back -- which, in fact, someone did once for ME3, since the release date got pushed back from November to March -- but they're never happy about it, and you can't usually get a publisher to delay the same game twice. (Well, you can if you're 3DRealms, but that ended in tears.)

Publishers do, in fact, often set deadlines. However, EA is not JUST the publisher in this case. They are the parent-company and owner. They are literally the bosses.

Also true. With independent dev teams, if relationships with a publisher go sour, the devs can at least hope for better luck next time. Owned teams like BioWare don't get that luxury; they have to keep their bosses happy.

[Kath]

Sc2mashimaro wrote...

Katherine wrote...

NeecHMonkeY wrote...

It's ok for Shepard to be homosexual but you better believe that we can't have him living in peace with synthetics!

I don't get what those two things have to do with each other? 

On topic, your professor is very wise OP! I wish I had a professor I could nerd-out with. 

This is relevant because one of the OVERT themes of Mass Effect is the possibility for tolerance, unity, and peace to win the day if someone is persuasive (Paragon) or forceful (Renegade) enough to get people to put old wounds and prejudice behind them. Synthetics are clearly a part of that theme through all three games until the ending. Homosexuality debates were dismissed by the developers because, essentially, they expressed the same view as the game takes about tolerance of others and differences: it's just something you do whether because it works better (Renegade) or because it's the right thing (Paragon).

Ah, yeah that makes sense, I just didn't understand the wording in that post.
That was actually something that really bothered me about the ending. Throughout all of ME they make the point that being unified despite differences is the key to triumphing over anything, but in the last 10 minutes of the game they totally go against that theme. 

[Strange Aeons]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

He misses the point of an impossible choice.

A lot of people do, but the point he raised actually makes sense, and I for one stopped playing ME years ago just for the story or character.

He makes some good points, yes, but still misses what it's about, the impossible choice, if he had stated BW didn't very well picture it I would have agreed. As long as he doesn't do that I'm still saying that he had missed the point of the ending.
As the Guardian said: the choice is yours. Now you have to choose from 3 choices with all having bad sides to them, you cannot choose right in this one. Hints that the final choice will be one are throughout the games. Also most of the other choices are to prepare you for one final choice, it's completely a matter of perspective.
For example saving Maelons data is first the renegade choice in ME2, but after you choose it Mordin explains why it is the right thing to do, and later in ME3 it's the only way to save Eve.

Let's ignore the insanity of Shepard taking the word of the catalyst, an unknown creature who just appeared out of nowhere with absolutely no buildup or justification, at face value in making a choice that could potentially condemn the galaxy to a fate worse than death (really, the most sensible conclusion about the Catalyst from Shepard's perspective would be that it's a trap). These "choices" do not even rate as meaningful ethical dilemmas, where there's some doubt as to what's good and bad. They are outright evil, and not even in an abstract way: each manages impressively to contradict the specific lessons of the previous events in its own unique way.  After explicitly stating that he would not sacrifice his soul for victory, ME3's ending forces Shepard to do exactly that;  each "choice" demands that Shepard commit a senseless and unconscionable act and then calls the nebulous outcome victory.

Nothing in the preceding games established this sort of hopeless, futile tone, and for good reason: people do not generally play games only to have all their efforts reduced to nothing and then perverted into an atrocity.  People are revolted by the ending, in part because it's a betrayal of the themes of self-determination and strength through unity, as well as the unprecedented interactivity that they loved about the series. This is not some calculated philosophical meditation: it's just plain thoughtless and incompetent storytelling.

The only option that would actually be consistent with Shepard's character as established over three games is the one we weren't given: to defy the Catalyst and refuse to accept his false dilemma. 

Modifié par Strange Aeons, 16 avril 2012 - 07:00 .