5087 réponses à ce sujet

[Seijin8]

Yup. For me, the perfect "extended cut" would end with Shep and Anderson's scene, and then Red splosion sans Normandy. Just eliminate the nonsense entirely.

[StElmo]

Seijin8 wrote...

Yup. For me, the perfect "extended cut" would end with Shep and Anderson's scene, and then Red splosion sans Normandy. Just eliminate the nonsense entirely.

So this?

http://youtu.be/IwO6HeiDtYA

Modifié par StElmo, 10 mai 2012 - 07:42 .

[cyrexwingblade]

Seijin8 wrote...

Yup. For me, the perfect "extended cut" would end with Shep and Anderson's scene, and then Red splosion sans Normandy. Just eliminate the nonsense entirely.

You know? Sadly, that is completely correct. That would be far more satisfying then what we have.

and I love the professor who was brave enough to post here, and I'm glad the quote was moved into the OP. Thank you for a pleasure of a read!

[MrFob]

Hawk227 wrote...

Don't apologize. We spent yesterday
afternoon (in North America)  talking about the technical details of how
the Rachni War fit within the history of the Mass Effect Universe and
whether they were indocrinated, and if so what was the point.

Than I shall be at ease . I am always sorry to see how much of this thread I actually miss. I only pop by occasionally and don't have time to read a couple of pages back (especially because the dscussion has prbably lready moved on).

Seijin8 wrote...

Fair enough. Its just funny to me that "dark energy" gets passed around as a legit science term (which it is), but "space magic" is silly hokum. Dark energy is an unknown motive force that has (probably) one observable effect, but is otherwise unknown in virtually every way. Pretty much, dark energy *is* space magic.

The destruction of the relays may be seeding the necessary amounts of eezo into everything to enable the desired changes. The concept of synthesis may be as simple (?) as modifying DNA to replicate implants and enabling the nervous system to automatically interface with them, and through those implants, interface with everything else on some basic (empathic?) level.

My whole point is that it *could* be worked into the narrative in a less sketchy way, and for me - as silly as it seems - in a universe as fundamentally silly as ME could sometimes seem, it wasn't *the* breaking moment it was for others. Stupid? Yes. Unnecessary? Definitely. But I was divorced from the narrative prior to that moment, so my reaction to it has been less visceral than others.

And those others' opinions are totally valid, of course. We may not agree on which ingredients ultimately made the ending ... uh... less than ideal, but we can agree it was no good.

There isn't any single part to the ending that broke it. For me, Shepard's grandmastery of debate countering a string of utter insanity with "maybe" was pretty much the death of the narrative. It had been faltering before, but that was *my* moment of final disconnection.

I absolutely agree with you on that one. The problem is not that it's not scientifically accurate or even internally consistent at a technical level.
The problem is that since the whole narrative structure and the characterization of the protagonist beaks down at that point, you notice these detail and they make things even worse.
I have written a couple of pages back that the dark matter plot line is just as bad (if not worse, I mean, humans can stop dark energy spread in reaper form due to their genetic variability? Are you kidding me?). However, while I hope they would have coated it a little more in techno semi-believable babble, I would have swallowed that pill. Why? Because I was intrigued by the moral implications of the decision you had to make during that scenario. Because I would have been enticed to ponder the consequences of each decision, balancing the certain end of human existence versus possible destruction of all species in the galaxy. Those issues would have far outshone the technical aspects (although I probably would still have complained about them, not knowing what kind of a bullet we had dodged ).
As it is, these speculating about the implications of Shepard decision is not really relevant for me because I see them all as almost equally atrocious and none of them would have been my real decision that scenario so we get hung up on speculation about technicalities.

In that sense, Walters et al. () have succeed to provide speculation for everyone, it's just the "wrong" kind of speculation that was enticed here IMO.

[Seijin8]

StElmo wrote...

Seijin8 wrote...

Yup. For me, the perfect "extended cut" would end with Shep and Anderson's scene, and then Red splosion sans Normandy. Just eliminate the nonsense entirely.

So this?

http://youtu.be/IwO6HeiDtYA

Yup.  Not exactly fulfilling, but it wouldn't be hated (in my opinion).

[Hawk227]

Seijin8 wrote...

StElmo wrote...

Seijin8 wrote...

Yup. For me, the perfect "extended cut" would end with Shep and Anderson's scene, and then Red splosion sans Normandy. Just eliminate the nonsense entirely.

So this?

http://youtu.be/IwO6HeiDtYA

Yup.  Not exactly fulfilling, but it wouldn't be hated (in my opinion).

I like the Indoctrination Theory, and hope that was actually planned (and we'll see it).

However, in lieu of that, if they took this and added shots of the crew and former squadmates on Earth celebrating (maybe chanting "Shepard") and crying. Then a little funeral ceremony sort of deal, where Liara puts your name on the KIA plaque on the Normandy. Then maybe some real quick shots of the universe getting back to normal (Wrex and Eve with a baby Krogan, Tali building a house with the help of the Geth) and it would be totally acceptable.

Conversely, anything that legitimizes the Catalyst is a failure. Either he's Harbinger lying to shepard, he's wrong and we can tell him to shove off (and still win), or he's cut out completely.

[StElmo]

Hawk227 wrote...

Seijin8 wrote...

StElmo wrote...

Seijin8 wrote...

Yup. For me, the perfect "extended cut" would end with Shep and Anderson's scene, and then Red splosion sans Normandy. Just eliminate the nonsense entirely.

So this?

http://youtu.be/IwO6HeiDtYA

Yup.  Not exactly fulfilling, but it wouldn't be hated (in my opinion).

I like the Indoctrination Theory, and hope that was actually planned (and we'll see it).

However, in lieu of that, if they took this and added shots of the crew and former squadmates on Earth celebrating (maybe chanting "Shepard") and crying. Then a little funeral ceremony sort of deal, where Liara puts your name on the KIA plaque on the Normandy. Then maybe some real quick shots of the universe getting back to normal (Wrex and Eve with a baby Krogan, Tali building a house with the help of the Geth) and it would be totally acceptable.

Conversely, anything that legitimizes the Catalyst is a failure. Either he's Harbinger lying to shepard, he's wrong and we can tell him to shove off (and still win), or he's cut out completely.

yup

[MrFob]

Hawk227 wrote...

Seijin8 wrote...


There isn't any single part to the ending that broke it. For me, Shepard's grandmastery of debate countering a string of utter insanity with "maybe" was pretty much the death of the narrative. It had been faltering before, but that was *my* moment of final disconnection.

I've been trying to think back to when I was divorced from the narrative. It might have been the infamous "maybe", but I think it was the magic elevator. That shot evoked religious undertones and I had a little flashback to the awful ending of Lost.

Alternatively, it might have been the created will always rebel against the creators. I was thinking:

"First, I just united the Geth and Quarians, so you're wrong. Second, you can't condemn an entire race to extinction for something it might do."

That was one of the breaking points for me as well. This problem: "created will always rebel against the creators" really describes just a general fear of the uncertainty of the future, nothing else and the fact that the geth/quarians prove that it is not applicable at the moment further demonstrates this point.
In fact, none of the options solve the problem. Destroy obviously does not. Synthesis doesn't really keep anyone from creating another sentient race again. Apparently, people keep their free will with synthesis. People will still try to overcome problems, so they will try to build tools, make those tools more and more sophisticated until complexity acts upon itself and you end up with the same problem. Only now it might not be synthetics but nanotechnology, sentient energy-forms or whatever we today can't even think of yet. Control ... I don't really know how control is supposed to be a new solution in the first place? Are the reapers now watching over organics without killing them, just killing everything sentient they create?
On that note, has the catalyst actually had the thought - during the millions of years of genocide he presided over - the his reaper solution was bound to fail due to him creating the very problem? If the galactic races "develop along the paths we [the reapers] desire" and if their fate is ultimately sealed by those very reapers, can our galactic civilization not be thought of as creations of the reapers/the catalyst? Isn't Shepard a product of the cycle, the technology of the mass relays and aren't his/her actions ultimately defined by the extinction their society is facing. Isn't Shepard as an entity thus created by the reapers, rebelling against the creators?
If so, way to screw yourself over catalyst and good luck trying it again.

Modifié par MrFob, 10 mai 2012 - 08:12 .

[edisnooM]

Hawk227 wrote...

Seijin8 wrote...

StElmo wrote...

Seijin8 wrote...

Yup. For me, the perfect "extended cut" would end with Shep and Anderson's scene, and then Red splosion sans Normandy. Just eliminate the nonsense entirely.

So this?

http://youtu.be/IwO6HeiDtYA

Yup.  Not exactly fulfilling, but it wouldn't be hated (in my opinion).

I like the Indoctrination Theory, and hope that was actually planned (and we'll see it).

However, in lieu of that, if they took this and added shots of the crew and former squadmates on Earth celebrating (maybe chanting "Shepard") and crying. Then a little funeral ceremony sort of deal, where Liara puts your name on the KIA plaque on the Normandy. Then maybe some real quick shots of the universe getting back to normal (Wrex and Eve with a baby Krogan, Tali building a house with the help of the Geth) and it would be totally acceptable.

Conversely, anything that legitimizes the Catalyst is a failure. Either he's Harbinger lying to shepard, he's wrong and we can tell him to shove off (and still win), or he's cut out completely.

I would add a solid platinum statue of Shepard to that list. There's gotta be some lying around from ME2.

Modifié par edisnooM, 10 mai 2012 - 08:03 .

[Seijin8]

@Hawk227: The fundamental problem with IT is that it's not an ending. IT necessitates another ending following the three choices and subsequent (now meaningless) cutscene finale.

The concept is gorgeous, and there is ample evidence in the story to allow for it. I would accept wholeheartedly an Extended Cut that made IT canon, but I don't think it will happen.

[edisnooM]

Hawk227 wrote...

Seijin8 wrote...


There isn't any single part to the ending that broke it. For me, Shepard's grandmastery of debate countering a string of utter insanity with "maybe" was pretty much the death of the narrative. It had been faltering before, but that was *my* moment of final disconnection.

I've been trying to think back to when I was divorced from the narrative. It might have been the infamous "maybe", but I think it was the magic elevator. That shot evoked religious undertones and I had a little flashback to the awful ending of Lost.

Alternatively, it might have been the created will always rebel against the creators. I was thinking:

"First, I just united the Geth and Quarians, so you're wrong. Second, you can't condemn an entire race to extinction for something it might do."

It was a line Shep had actually spoken to the Salarian Dalatross, but couldn't muster against the stupid non-catalysty catalyst. The attempt to redeem the absolutely irredeemable was a huge no go for me.

I think it started to break gradually for me, as the conversation went on and I was talked at by the Catalyst, with no means to challenge or argue his logic that seemed so flawed. And then finally the talking ended and I was set free to make a choice I didn't want (or think I needed) to make. 

[Hawk227]

StElmo wrote...

Hawk227 wrote...

Seijin8 wrote...

StElmo wrote...

Seijin8 wrote...

Yup. For me, the perfect "extended cut" would end with Shep and Anderson's scene, and then Red splosion sans Normandy. Just eliminate the nonsense entirely.

So this?

http://youtu.be/IwO6HeiDtYA

Yup.  Not exactly fulfilling, but it wouldn't be hated (in my opinion).

I like the Indoctrination Theory, and hope that was actually planned (and we'll see it).

However, in lieu of that, if they took this and added shots of the crew and former squadmates on Earth celebrating (maybe chanting "Shepard") and crying. Then a little funeral ceremony sort of deal, where Liara puts your name on the KIA plaque on the Normandy. Then maybe some real quick shots of the universe getting back to normal (Wrex and Eve with a baby Krogan, Tali building a house with the help of the Geth) and it would be totally acceptable.

Conversely, anything that legitimizes the Catalyst is a failure. Either he's Harbinger lying to shepard, he's wrong and we can tell him to shove off (and still win), or he's cut out completely.

yup

I just saw the credits and realized it was your video. Nice job!

[Seijin8]

@StElmo: Seconded, and apologies for not realizing you were responsible for it. Excellent conclusion using the parts at hand. And a mighty fine femShep as well. Bravo.

[Hawk227]

Seijin8 wrote...

@Hawk227: The fundamental problem with IT is that it's not an ending. IT necessitates another ending following the three choices and subsequent (now meaningless) cutscene finale.

The concept is gorgeous, and there is ample evidence in the story to allow for it. I would accept wholeheartedly an Extended Cut that made IT canon, but I don't think it will happen.

I agree on (almost) all counts. There needs to be DLC that provides an actual ending (presumably the EC).

I can't decide if I think they will do it or not. My judgement is too clouded by hope. Hope that they aren't so incompetent oblivious that they gave us an ending that their own game provides all the needed counterpoints too.

@Mr Fob

I agree on all counts. The premise is a joke, and the choices aren't even solutions to the stated problem.

@edisnooM

There you go, making me laugh again.

Modifié par Hawk227, 10 mai 2012 - 08:30 .

[Seijin8]

@Hawk227: Unfortunately, I think this is where the EA hate comes in. Bioware undoubtedly has the storytelling chops to pull this off. KoTOR proved that beyond any reasonable doubt.

Replaying ME2 and dwelling on all of this, I recall the jarring disparity between ME1 and ME2. But after an hour or so in the new shiny 6 Billion credit Shepard, I was back into the swing because the narrative - while different - had continuity. The themes and approach were the same between the games, even if the gameplay had changed (for the better IMO).

ME3 *felt* different, right from the start. And it wasn't gradual. ME2's DLCs retained ME2's pacing and narrative sense. ME3 didn't. It occassionally picked up the old torch again (Tuchanka, Rannoch, moments on the Citadel), but overall it was different.

Fundamentally, I do not believe that the ME1/2 BioWare would have created ME3 this way. I assume there was a fight in a boardroom, and it went badly for the home team. Or, there was no fight at all (more's the pity if so).

The best we can hope at this stage is that said fight took place again (or for the first time) and the home team won enough concessions to make it right. The short timeline given (lets say mid-September, which is narrowly still "summer") makes me doubtful that a complete rewrite will take place. That is less time than any of ME2's better DLC had.

As an aside, I would not take the "endings will not be changed" statement as fact until it is in our hands.

[Hawk227]

@Seijin8

They've definitely stuck to their guns in regards to not changing the ending, so I'm inclined to believe them (though it's a shame). I will say that IT doesn't technically need the ending changed, just elaborated.

I'm not sure how much creative power EA has. I imagine them saying "we need multiplayer and combat mechanics that will appeal across a broad audience, get it done." With Bioware still getting creative control otherwise.

What makes me nervous is the statement on Penny Arcade forum that was attributed to Patrick Weekes (one of the genuinely good BW writers) saying that Casey and Mac locked themselves in a room and wrote the end without outside input. From what I can gather, Mac has largely been a detriment to the writing, so I wouldn't put it past him to be oblivious to how obviously the ending fails.

On the other hand, if that post was a hoax/hack (it was denied), and the full writing staff had input I can see them pulling off something as clever as IT (as you point out). It wouldn't really be that hard to work out. They entertained the idea of indoctrinating Shepard, but abandoned the mechanic. It's a simple leap to "indoctrinating the player, give them a choice between Reaper options and destroy". It's also a lot easier to make hints than decipher hints. The only big if is whether they (and EA) were actually comfortable taking the gamble.

EDIT: I just realized I hardly responded to what you actually wrote.

I didn't think ME3 really felt dramatically different. The dialogue was parsed down, and it became more linear out of necessity. But ME1 and ME2 had their own contrivances. What made this series special was the moments and the relationships. That was all there. When EDI took on Dr. EVA's body I was super skeptical, but it played out really nicely. Tuchanka and Rannoch were great, but so was Grissom Academy and the Rachni Caves. The most glaring changes were in "extra" content like side missions and random dialogue. The kind of stuff that can be cut for time/money reasons without sacrificing the larger narrative arc. I felt like the meat and bones was mostly true to the predecessors... until the end.

Modifié par Hawk227, 10 mai 2012 - 09:03 .

[MrFob]

Seijin8 wrote...

*snip*

The best we can hope at this stage is that said fight took place again (or for the first time) and the home team won enough concessions to make it right. The short timeline given (lets say mid-September, which is narrowly still "summer") makes me doubtful that a complete rewrite will take place. That is less time than any of ME2's better DLC had.

What do you mean by that? Kasumi was released in May 2010, Overlord in June and LotSB in September. How is that more time for any of them?
That said, I don't think it will be a complete rewrite. And as much as I love the IT, I doubt that will happen either for a simple reason: It would be slap in the face of everyone who took the endings at face value. I doubt they will open that can of worms even if it means disappointing a lot of IT fans. At least those already have to expect to be disappointed.

As an aside, I would not take the "endings will not be changed" statement as fact until it is in our hands.

Yes, I am very skeptical with this statement as well and that is a positive note. I do really hope they at least scratch the Normandy crash scenes because I have yet to meet a single person who likes that part, even among those who enjoy the rest of the ending.

[Grotaiche]

delta_vee wrote...

Setting aside our Could-Have-Been-King and his army of Never-Weres, I have something of a serious question. (Drayfish, RollaWarden, other lurking academics, your professional opinion as well as your personal one would be welcomed.)

When examining a work from a critical perspective, at what point can we fairly penalize said work for its unrealized potential? The audience, of course, is free to do so at any point (and we have, repeatedly), but criticism is generally expected to maintain a level of rigor. The more closely I examine ME3, the more I watch it unravel, but so much of that is believing that for every narrative tradeoff made in service of their story, there were better alternatives available.

I don't know if that's truly...fair...of me.

Well, to answer your main question, I'd say that the responsibilities have to be shared. In the case of the Mass Effect series, the problem is that most communications or announcements from BioWare plainly stated that "choices will matter", "there will be very different endings", etc... This is encouraging the audience to develop expectations and, in many cases, this goes as far as daydreaming.

So on one hand I guess it's fair to blame BioWare if they lured their audience into having false hopes or, at the very least, or feeding them with misleading information.
On the other hand, I think it is always a good idea to step back a little and wonder "OK, am I being fair here ? To what extend is my frustration due to BioWare and what part is due to me being a daydreamer ?"
There will always be plot holes at some point in most stories (especially SF ones ; thanks for your link to Bellisario's Maxim, by the way) and nitpicking will always be possible. The question is : when do these plot holes endanger the whole story's balance ? When does your suspension of disbelief drop ? And in my opinion there is no straight answer to this because we will all have very different tolerance levels.

[Seijin8]

@Hawk227: .... I just wrote 2 wordpad pages creating parallels between levels and themes in ME1 and ME2 to show how interconnected those were. As I revved up my closing argument, I found that many similar parallels could be drawn to some of the missions in ME3. I think the overall weight of "evidence" slews in my favor, but I am no longer as confident in it, and will instead admit that you are probably could possibly be right.

@MrFob: The difference with Kasumi is that the groundwork and many assets already existed when ME2 shipped. The release schedules between Kasumi and ME3 EC might be the same, but development was much longer for Kasumi.  LotSB was envisioned later as a response to people wanting more Liara (and who can blame us... er... them?), so I am unsure of what the total development time was.

So, unless BW is already sitting on a ton of unused assets for ending elements (which could be the case), I don't think the work/quality will be comparable. But then, depending on their level of ambition, a shorter DLC might serve just as well. Tough to say until we know more.

EDIT: Extended for clarity /barf

Modifié par Seijin8, 10 mai 2012 - 10:00 .

[Seijin8]

@Grotaiche: As an avid sci-fi fan, it is a poor story that tests your suspension of disbelief at the finishing line. Most sci-fi either hooks you or not. Most of the "wtf?" parts were upfront in ME1 and little was added between ME1's finale and ME3's finale. For a storyteller to require his/her creation to stretch to the breaking point just to encompass a new theme - to me - shows that it is a poor fit.

Good sci-fi interjects only as much science fiction as needed to tell the story of the characters within. ME1, ME2 and the first 90% of ME3 did exactly that. ME3's ending (contrary to everything else in the trilogy) sacrificed the characters for high-concept sci-fi, which I think most agree = bad.

Modifié par Seijin8, 10 mai 2012 - 10:03 .

[MrFob]

Seijin8 wrote...

@Hawk227: .... I just wrote 2 wordpad pages creating parallels between levels and themes in ME1 and ME2 to show how interconnected those were. As I revved up my closing argument, I found that many similar parallels could be drawn to some of the missions in ME3. I think the overall weight of "evidence" slews in my favor, but I am no longer as confident in it, and will instead admit that you are probably could possibly be right.

@MrFob: The difference with Kasumi is that the groundwork and many assets already existed when ME2 shipped. The release schedules might have been the same, but development was much longer. LotSB was envisioned later as a response to people wanting more Liara (and who can blame us... er... them?), so I am unsure of what the total development time was.

So, unless BW is already sitting on a ton of unused assets for ending elements (which could be the case), I don't think the work/quality will be comparable. But then, depending on their level of ambition, a shorter DLC might serve just as well. Tough to say until we know more.

Well, I don't really know how the production process of any DLC works or worked (they must have started to work on ME3 at some time as well after all so I don't know how much of the team worked on what and how the situation is now).
To me the fact that at least they seem to get a lot of the voice actors involved again shows a certain level of commitment although I will admit that most of the ones we have heard of so far are essential.
In the end, you are right though, we'll just have to wait and see (and hope they'll actually take that much time and not release some cur scenes in 3 weeks).

[KitaSaturnyne]

I wonder if the writing team of Karpyshyn and Walters worked so well before because they balanced each other out.

Mac Walters seems to really enjoy emotional scenes in stories, even if that comes at the cost of narrative sensibility.

Drew Karpyshyn seems to be better able to focus those emotional ideas and imbue them with a certain degree of logic so the audience can better accept them after emotionally disconnecting with the story when it's completed.

It seems like this balance of emotion vs. logic, practical vs. romantic was able to make us invest in the first two games, but the absence of one just caused ME3 to fall apart at the seams. It's almost like ME3 was overloaded with emotional moments in an attempt to blind us to the story's technical and logical failings. The thing is, humans work differently from that. We need there to be a meaning and a reason for things. A lot of the events just seem to be occurring in ME3 to illicit an emotional response at the expense of these two things, which we so desparately need in stories.

[NorDee65]

Grotaiche wrote...

delta_vee wrote...

Setting aside our Could-Have-Been-King and his army of Never-Weres, I have something of a serious question. (Drayfish, RollaWarden, other lurking academics, your professional opinion as well as your personal one would be welcomed.)

When examining a work from a critical perspective, at what point can we fairly penalize said work for its unrealized potential? The audience, of course, is free to do so at any point (and we have, repeatedly), but criticism is generally expected to maintain a level of rigor. The more closely I examine ME3, the more I watch it unravel, but so much of that is believing that for every narrative tradeoff made in service of their story, there were better alternatives available.

I don't know if that's truly...fair...of me.

Well, to answer your main question, I'd say that the responsibilities have to be shared. In the case of the Mass Effect series, the problem is that most communications or announcements from BioWare plainly stated that "choices will matter", "there will be very different endings", etc... This is encouraging the audience to develop expectations and, in many cases, this goes as far as daydreaming.

So on one hand I guess it's fair to blame BioWare if they lured their audience into having false hopes or, at the very least, or feeding them with misleading information.
On the other hand, I think it is always a good idea to step back a little and wonder "OK, am I being fair here ? To what extend is my frustration due to BioWare and what part is due to me being a daydreamer ?"
There will always be plot holes at some point in most stories (especially SF ones ; thanks for your link to Bellisario's Maxim, by the way) and nitpicking will always be possible. The question is : when do these plot holes endanger the whole story's balance ? When does your suspension of disbelief drop ? And in my opinion there is no straight answer to this because we will all have very different tolerance levels.

I don't know if I can answer that coherently, but I shall try as best I can.

The first time I finished ME3 (!) I felt massaccered, because the ending/s seemed totally removed from the rest of the game(s). It took me a long while to return to the game and I tried a second run (on a personal challenge to see exactly how many war assets I could gather, while still remaining true to "my" character, but that's another topic). As the endings of the first playthrough had me emotionally divorced from the game (well, not quite as I still had misty eyes on Tuchanka and Rannoch), I could look at the game and game mechanics and would notice things that were not adding up, the majority of those culminating in the last 15 minutes or so, but certainly not exclusively there. To me, the whole story and build-up if ME3 pretty much negated a lot of story-points of ME1 and to lesser degree of ME2. It created a sense that while ME1 and 2 were well thought out and produced games, ME3 seemed to have come from too many "parents" with totally different agendas.

If it had just been points in the story were alternatives could have been offered, it becomes a point of personal preference and is therefore subjective. But if so many plotholes, unanswered questions and contrivances come together in one game and especially in the last 15 minutes, criticism that is not just subjective (would that be "entitled whinery"?) is certainly valid.

And just to clarify, I'll add some of my points of criticism...(I'll leave the big ones out, because they have had air time already)

Plotholes and questions:
- what hapened to the Conduit on Ilos?
-construction of crucible after plans millions/trillions of years old, without any understanding whatsoever?

contrivances:
- Shepard whiling away 6 months on earth while the "Reapers are coming" (I actually thought there would be a trial, and they decided to put Shepard onto heavy medication...)...(my Shepard would probably have a lot of ulcers waiting in that nice room in Vancouver...)
- Reapers attacking Earth first, instead of taking the citadel, thus not controlling the Mass Relays
- Shepard, after having successfully survived at least 2 suicide missions, would gladly and unhesitatingly run into a deadly beam of death (well not my Shepard, dammit)

Modifié par NorDee65, 10 mai 2012 - 08:55 .

[Grotaiche]

NorDee65 wrote...

I don't know if I can answer that coherently, but I shall try as best I can.

The first time I finished ME2

You mean ME3, I am sure ;p

I felt massaccered, because the ending/s seemed totally removed from the rest of the game(s). It took me a long while to return to the game and I tried a second run (on a personal challenge to see exactly how many war assets I could gather, while still remaining true to "my" character, but that's another topic). As the endings of the first playthrough had me emotionally divorced from the game (well, not quite as I still had misty eyes on Tuchanka and Rannoch), I could look at the game and game mechanics and would notice things that were not adding up, the majority of those culminating in the last 15 minutes or so, but certainly not exclusively there. To me, the whole story and build-up if ME3 pretty much negated a lot of story-points of ME1 and to lesser degree of ME2. It created a sense that while ME1 and 2 were well thought out and produced games, ME3 seemed to have come from too many "parents" with totally different agendas.

If it had just been points in the story were alternatives could have been offered, it becomes a point of personal preference and is therefore subjective. But if so many plotholes, unanswered questions and contrivances come together in one game and especially in the last 15 minutes, criticism that is not just subjective (would that be "entitled whinery"?) is certainly valid.

Yes but had you been content with the ending, would you have payed the same attention to errors ? Strong emotional reactions will most of the time generate biases, especially in hindsight.
Just to be clear, I agree with you there are many issues with ME3's story and not only in the ending (my "favourite" being : what the **** happened to the Citadel ? So TIM can come up there with his squad, neutralize/kill everyone and move the Citadel to the Sol system ? Even though Cerberus has now diminished force and the Citadel is warned and prepared from the first coup a few days back ?). But I am not sure about most people's objectivity after huge emotional moments like deception.

[Hawk227]

Seijin8 wrote...

@Hawk227: .... I just wrote 2 wordpad pages creating parallels between levels and themes in ME1 and ME2 to show how interconnected those were. As I revved up my closing argument, I found that many similar parallels could be drawn to some of the missions in ME3. I think the overall weight of "evidence" slews in my favor, but I am no longer as confident in it, and will instead admit that you are probably could possibly be right.

In all fairness, I believe that you could tear the trilogy apart and find a lot of deviations between ME3 and the others. I was mostly just responding on how I felt while playing. Which I think is important. 

As I played, I noticed that the Journal was awful, the Crucible was unearned, that there was a bunch of fetch quests*, the reliance on auto-dialogue, and that N7 missions were few and not very good. I was bummed that so many beloved ME2 squaddies had bit parts, but it was largely justified within the narrative (Jack's new role was a wonderful surprise!). Aside from those complaints, I felt like I was playing a Mass Effect game. I thought ME3 was funnier (EDI is hilarious, Shepard even has a few good zingers here and there), I thought ME3 evoked emotion better than the predecessors (Even besides the deaths. I got chills stepping on Rannoch for the first time). I felt that ME3 had finally figured out the combat mechanics (though ME2 was pretty good). I thought the art design was largely better. Rannoch was gorgeous and the half retro-fitted Normandy felt like a ship taken mid-renovation. I still felt like Shepard and the Normandy were the lone hope for the galaxy. I even liked Vega!

I noticed those previously mentioned weak points and attributed them to EA, and kept on playing in satisfaction all the way up until that stupid magical elevator.

*Was anyone else super dissapointed that rescuing the Elcor on Dekuuna consisted of orbiting the planet, reading its description and going back to the Citadel? I would have gladly traded 3 N7 missions for the chance to race down in envirosuits to ward off ravagers as elcor hobbled onto the normandy. Talking to them in the shuttle bay like Kirrahe after Virmire. Actually, this is what the N7 missions should have been. Quick little rescue missions to different homeworlds, pulling Hanar and Drell off of Kahje, Volus off of Irune, that sort of thing.