5087 réponses à ce sujet

[CulturalGeekGirl]

I really think that, with an ending focused on either galactic unity of human military superiority (based on your particular choice of path), Mass Effect 3 would have been a pretty damn good game. Like, about 80-90% as good as ME2. All the most touching moments in ME3 are about unity and hope and forgiveness, and some of the other interesting setpieces are about evolution and loss.

I can come up with a list of problems in ME1 and ME2 as long as any list of problems in ME3. Remember why "Shepard" "Wrex" became a meme? Remember dem Calibrations?

In my opinion, ME3 was doin' pretty OK until the dash to that beam. It wasn't perfect, but it wasn't significantly more imperfect than any of the other ones. If it hadn't ended this way, and if they hadn't been so silent and grim about the idea of fixing it, I don't think people would be nearly as disillusioned.

[edisnooM]

@CulturalGeekGirl

I agree, and I've stated before that if it had ended with Shepard and Anderson staring out at Earth I for one probably would've been fine with it. Maybe a bit depressed at the fact that it was over and a bit ticked I didn't get to see more results of the choices I had made, but it still would have been good.

I have found I can forgive a heck of a lot in a game if the story is good (or at least gives me enough material to imagine a better story or plot in my head, am I the only one that does that?).

Modifié par edisnooM, 19 mai 2012 - 12:25 .

[drayfish]

@ CulturalGeekGirl:
 
Agreed. People have already mentioned how limited the galaxy felt this time around (only one hub world), how creepy and leery they made Shepard in this game in service of the stripped bare side missions ('Oh, hi, I know you were having an incredibly private conversation about your religious/emotional/occupational circumstances, but I'm a complete stranger who just happened to be lurking like a serial killer, and I thought you wouldn't mind me getting all up in your business') and, hate me forever, but I would rather mine planets and beg for scraps than the game of Reaper Pac-Man that they loaded into the galaxy map this time around.
 
But for all of the niggles I was experiencing, I was wholly invested in Mass Effect 3 until we step into the Build-A-Bear of moral horror. ('Do you want some plastic glasses on his nose? How about a cute little vest? What about exterminating an entire race of autonomous creatures who have fought beside you for survival? ...Or a hat?') Even to the point that it was only after the credits rolled and Buzz Aldrin dismissed all my experiences as the mad ramblings of a meme that I realised how arbitrary that turret section was during the final crew conversations, and how (comparatively) dull the guarding of the missiles in the final push became.
 
Until that point I was all in, because up until that point the majority of the game was resonating with me, all tied to the notions of sacrifice in service of unity and healing: the resolution of the Genophage, with Mordin attempting to absolve his regret in an act of galactic restoration; the Geth and Quarians finally lancing the psychological wound of war, with Legion and Tali each growing beyond their subjective limitations; the gathering and unification of the galactic forces, revealing how arbitrary such division has always been; but then that ending... 
 
And while I can see how people could read Shepard's final acts as a similar act of sacrifice for harmony, it didn't connect for me in any way. Rather, each of the three conclusions just drove a wedge back into all of that accord that cracked a fissure through the whole enterprise.

Modifié par drayfish, 19 mai 2012 - 01:00 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

So, asking in a general way, not looking for specifically written scenes... what events need to occur for the ending to reconcile with the rest of the story? If you were an editor, and someone handed ME3 to you for proofreading, what would you have the author change, and in what way?

Leave out the rest. Just concentrate on the ending.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

So, asking in a general way, not looking for specifically written scenes... what events need to occur for the ending to reconcile with the rest of the story? If you were an editor, and someone handed ME3 to you for proofreading, what would you have the author change, and in what way?

Leave out the rest. Just concentrate on the ending.

Ok, not to dither, but where can I start from in the script, and how much can I change? Can I rewrite everything from "priority earth" on, or can I just do minor changes to priority earth and completely bulldoze the ending to the ground?

Anyway, I'm thinking about this. I'll get back to you sometime.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 19 mai 2012 - 02:02 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

So, asking in a general way, not looking for specifically written scenes... what events need to occur for the ending to reconcile with the rest of the story? If you were an editor, and someone handed ME3 to you for proofreading, what would you have the author change, and in what way?

Leave out the rest. Just concentrate on the ending.

Ok, not to dither, but where can I start from in the script, and how much can I change? Can I rewrite everything from "priority earth" on, or can I just do minor changes to priority earth and completely bulldoze the ending to the ground?

Anyway, I'm thinking about this. I'll get back to you sometime.

You can go to the beginning of Priority: Earth. For an extra challenge, you can begin at Anderson's death.

[MrFob]

drayfish wrote...
But for all of the niggles I was experiencing, I was wholly invested in Mass Effect 3 until we step into the Build-A-Bear of moral horror. ('Do you want some plastic glasses on his nose? How about a cute little vest? What about exterminating an entire race of autonomous creatures who have fought beside you for survival? ...Or a hat?') Even to the point that it was only after the credits rolled and Buzz Aldrin dismissed all my experiences as the mad ramblings of a meme that I realised how arbitrary that turret section was during the final crew conversations, and how (comparatively) dull the guarding of the missiles in the final push became.
 
Until that point I was all in, because up until that point the majority of the game was resonating with me, all tied to the notions of sacrifice in service of unity and healing: the resolution of the Genophage, with Mordin attempting to absolve his regret in an act of galactic restoration; the Geth and Quarians finally lancing the psychological wound of war, with Legion and Tali each growing beyond their subjective limitations; the gathering and unification of the galactic forces, revealing how arbitrary such division has always been; but then that ending... 
 

It's interesting and sadly amusing that ME3 could unravel like this. I was in another thread yesterday in which the author claimed that s/he doesn't like the ending because of it's (scientific) inconsistency with the universe. I find that reasoning preposterous. The ME universe is possibly one of the least consistent universes I have ever seen, in terms of it's science as well as characters and factions. Just look at Cerberus in all three games. Look at things like the Lazarus project or the reaper journey through dark space that soddenly became possible (not to mention that it only took 6 months for some reason). Look at fleet sizes and discrepancy between the theory and praxis of space battles.
All of these points (and those are only some of the the major ones) are inconsistent to an outrageous degree.
However, hardly anyone cared (well, SablePhoenix and the Lazarus project aside) and that, I think, is exactly because of what you describe. The universe could get away with a lot because it resonated with the audience. Once that failed and we go ahead and view the universe through a critical lens, we suddenly see all the little details.
It's not that we didn't see this before, we just had that capacity to lock ourselves into a think walled bubble of suspension of disbelief. Once that was pierced, or rather shattered by the ending hammer, that was when the inconsistencies hit us, of course first and foremost within the ending itself but also throughout the trilogy. For me personally, that is why I have a hard time replaying even the first two games even though, I could hardly stay away from them before ME3.

Unfortunately, I am not so sure even a spectacular EC can mend that bubble. It might well be that now Pandora's box is open and we'll have a hard time closing it up again.

P.S.: I think if you really wanted to end the game with Anderson's scene, you still need a very long final cinematic. There are just too many things hanging in the air at that point.

Modifié par MrFob, 19 mai 2012 - 04:28 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

MrFob wrote...

P.S.: I think if you really wanted to end the game with Anderson's scene, you still need a very long final cinematic. T Here are just too many things hanging in the air at that point.

A long cinematic would be a fine way to cap off the trilogy, as a way to sum up the consequences of all your major choices made over the course of the three games.

[delta_vee]

 

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

MrFob wrote...

P.S.: I think if you really wanted to end the game with Anderson's scene, you still need a very long final cinematic. T Here are just too many things hanging in the air at that point.

A long cinematic would be a fine way to cap off the trilogy, as a way to sum up the consequences of all your major choices made over the course of the three games.

A very long, very modular cinematic. Which was, by the by, exactly what I expected once Anderson died. The Crucible doing...something, the allied forces winning at some-cost-tied-to-my-damned-score, cue victory, cue funeral for Shepard, cue epilogue.

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I can come up with a list of problems in ME1 and ME2 as long as any list of problems in ME3. Remember why "Shepard" "Wrex" became a meme? Remember dem Calibrations?

Indeed. But they made very different mistakes between those two games. I for one was hoping they'd learn from both sets in the third. A kind of synthesis, if you will.

In my opinion, ME3 was doin' pretty OK until the dash to that beam. It wasn't perfect, but it wasn't significantly more imperfect than any of the other ones. If it hadn't ended this way, and if they hadn't been so silent and grim about the idea of fixing it, I don't think people would be nearly as disillusioned.

Here I'll highlight where drayfish says:

drayfish wrote...

Until that point I was all in, because up until that point the majority of the game was resonating with me, all tied to the notions of sacrifice in service of unity and healing: the resolution of the Genophage, with Mordin attempting to absolve his regret in an act of galactic restoration; the Geth and Quarians finally lancing the psychological wound of war, with Legion and Tali each growing beyond their subjective limitations; the gathering and unification of the galactic forces, revealing how arbitrary such division has always been; but then that ending... 

Everyone mentions Tuchanka and Rannoch. A lot of people speak as if those two sequences were the majority of the game. They weren't, by any stretch. They were merely the ones which resembled what we expected the whole game to be.

I get how resonant those two sections were, for most if not all players. I understand. To a large extent I agree. But those two sections comprised what, a third of the main plotline? I don't hear anyone singing the praises of Mars, or Palaven (except for the amazing, terrible view of Palaven burning), or Sur'Kesh (a few humorous preambles aside), or Horizon, or the thrice-damned Citadel coup, or the too-short Kai-Leng-infected Thessia (opinions are so very mixed on this one), or the seemingly unnecessary Cerberus HQ, and gods know the slog through the ruins of I-was-born-in-London were only worth it for the goodbyes.

The high points were high. But we shouldn't forget that so much of the game fell so far short of them. Certainly for me, somewhere between "a lot" and "most" (and way past "too much") of the game was a slog in the direction of the end, in hopes of a payoff to make it all worthwhile.

MrFob wrote...

The ME universe is possibly one of the least consistent universes I have ever seen, in terms of it's science as well as characters and factions.

Quoted for unfortunate truth.

Modifié par delta_vee, 19 mai 2012 - 03:47 .

[frypan]

If we are compiling a wish list then I'd like to add a couple of ideas

1. A scene that explains clearly why I need to make a decision on behalf of the galactic forces I brought for a stand up fight, and wy I cannot just let the battle play out. From what I saw, while not winning, the various peoples were fighting for their survival and doing a fine job of it too. I need to know that if I must make a decision on their behalf, its because they clearly are losing.

That said, I'd rather have a chance of them winning, or be able to do something in the citadel to help their odds, but if neither of those options are available I at least want to know why I have to make a choice, and why I must make it so quickly.

2. That was my rubbish choice though. A more satisfying personal preference (cue Grieg's Hall of the Mountain King or Sovereigns theme for effect - music is so important to the scene) is for Shepherd to have a confrontation with the Reapers at the end, standing on a platform in the citadel surrounded by those cold, vastly superior lifeforms who gaze down at him from a position of apparent power, judging him insignificant even now.

As they dismiss Shepherd and his armada, Shepherd turns the tables on them in conversation. They raise his insignificance and their numerous past victories, he responds with the things he has done, the things he has witnessed, that prove them wrong.

If Shepherd mentions that the Quarians and Geth are united, we see a cutscene of Quarians and Geth ships fighting together and dying, yet taking Reapers with them. We see scenes of Krogan and Salarians working together, humans like Ashley hauling aliens to safety, anything that summarises the actions taken throughout the games that epitomise the values and choices made.

This brings meaning to the cutscenes, and ties them into Shepherds simple refutations of the Reapers logic and power. How it ends depends on the success of Shepherd at various points through the game, and the combined effect of these decisions. The Reapers might submit or see their forces destroyed based on the level of renegade or paragon choices made, or even offer up a form of negotiated synthesis if Shepherd has been only partially successful.

It can even end with a boss fight with Harbinger, giving gamers a physical release to follow the emotional and rational victories, similar to the way ME2 jumped to a final battle after the decision to destroy or save the collector base. (Harbinger may hold personal animosity towards Shepherd after all)

The idea of this small, frail, wounded organic facing down the reapers in conversation, backing up his argument with the cumulative effect of the major gameplay decisions and philosophy used throughout the series, is the basic concept. Win or lose, it is about reasoned defiance that follows and grows from the events of the trilogy. How it ends is not so important as the chance to ultimately defy the Reapers on both physical and ideological grounds.


EDIT: For clarity...

EDIT No2: For new playes, simply make the criteria easier or based only on the decison made in the third game. A player's import stats can easily determine which criteria are used.

Modifié par frypan, 19 mai 2012 - 05:01 .

[SkaldFish]

delta_vee wrote...

<snip/>

The high points were high. But we shouldn't forget that so much of the game fell so far short of them. Certainly for me, somewhere between "a lot" and "most" (and way past "too much") of the game was a slog in the direction of the end, in hopes of a payoff to make it all worthwhile.

<snip/>

This is so true.

I just wrote a bunch then realized it was basically a repeat of this old blog post, so I'll just link it. In short, in ME3 there were at least two trajectories (narrative and gameplay) that should have ended at a single point labeled "Satisfying Experience." Both of them missed.

[frypan]

Wonderful blog Skaldfish. Hope any wish list ending encompasses both narrative and gameplay resolution. I'd be happy with anything that addresses these with something more than the bombast we were given.

As was noted above (by CGG I think) we were played for our emotions without any substance to back it up. this is why in my case is why it took a little while to sink in why I felt all wrong at the end. All the music and explosions said I should be satisfied, but that wasnt the case.

[KitaSaturnyne]

It's not really a wish list. What I'm asking is what about the narrative would need to change in order for the ending to be satisfactory. If someone told you to go back to the drawing board with the ending, and you did, how would you make it different? What things would need to happen in order for the ending to be satisfactory, rather than what we have now? What storytelling techniques would be the best to utilize?

I'm not sure how to articulate what I'm asking. I'm not asking for specific scenes per se, I'm just asking what techniques would have to be used in order to construct an ending that would feel more satisfying to its audience. And then you can get a little more specific by adding things like, "a scene depicting X should be included because it ties in with Y".

[frypan]

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

It's not really a wish list. What I'm asking is what about the narrative would need to change in order for the ending to be satisfactory. If someone told you to go back to the drawing board with the ending, and you did, how would you make it different? What things would need to happen in order for the ending to be satisfactory, rather than what we have now? What storytelling techniques would be the best to utilize?

I'm not sure how to articulate what I'm asking. I'm not asking for specific scenes per se, I'm just asking what techniques would have to be used in order to construct an ending that would feel more satisfying to its audience. And then you can get a little more specific by adding things like, "a scene depicting X should be included because it ties in with Y".

Apologies for jumping in with a wish list of my own. Didnt mean to derail the question. Not able to add much on technical grounds as I only have a cursory grasp of such things.

Plus, I got all excited and  wanted to run with an idea.

[KitaSaturnyne]

frypan wrote...

Apologies for jumping in with a wish list of my own. Didnt mean to derail the question. Not able to add much on technical grounds as I only have a cursory grasp of such things.

Plus, I got all excited and  wanted to run with an idea.

Heh in that case, run with it! And let us know what you come up with. I was just (failing at) articulating what I was asking.

[frypan]

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

Heh in that case, run with it! And let us know what you come up with. I was just (failing at) articulating what I was asking.

It is a good question to ask though, and I wonder if there is a set of tools for this situation, such as a vocabulary that addresses the approaches to a game's ending. We have toyed with narratology a bit in classics, but it is still a relatively new field for us and I'm only aware of how it applies to ancient literature.

I wonder if game design has a similar vocabulary and approach beyond the gameplay aspects. Something that would give us a more technical language for criticism specifically game related. Delta_Vee seems to understand terms such as ludonarrative, and maybe CGG would know.

It would be nice to have a template by which to judge the game - but Bioware to their eternal credit have forged ahead of the pack in so many ways that maybe story aspects have only been given a cursory address in game design theories - just look at what passes for story in most games and it seems to be varied depending on the game, or even left to the player to piece together into one as is often the case in Skyrim, Civ et al.

Reminds me of a moment at the end of ME2. Miranda (who always has to come with me to give the Illusive Man the big kiss off) got stuck fighting on top of a barrier in the final moments of the game. She kept blasting away until a collector knocked her down, and on revival would jump right back up there to continue the fight.

Something wasn't right, and it must have been a glitch - Katsumi had the right idea and kept her head down the whole time. However I loved it. The cool as a cucumber professional finally went all out of control at the end, and it now sits a canon in my view of Miranda.

Is that "emergent" gameplay or is that term typical PR nonsense? I have no idea.

[JedTed]

I see the Synthesis choice as the lesser evil as Control makes no sense at all, and Destroy literally DESTROYS all the progress you've made with the geth.

However i think that Synthesis is the most Happy-Hippy ending i've seen in a video game. It be great if that's how the universe worked but nothing in Mass Effect has ever been that easy.

[TheMarshal]

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

It's not really a wish list. What I'm asking is what about the narrative would need to change in order for the ending to be satisfactory. If someone told you to go back to the drawing board with the ending, and you did, how would you make it different? What things would need to happen in order for the ending to be satisfactory, rather than what we have now? What storytelling techniques would be the best to utilize?

I'm not sure how to articulate what I'm asking. I'm not asking for specific scenes per se, I'm just asking what techniques would have to be used in order to construct an ending that would feel more satisfying to its audience. And then you can get a little more specific by adding things like, "a scene depicting X should be included because it ties in with Y".

I don't know that I'm capable enough as a writer to come up with something that's actually interesting if all I have to revamp is Priority: Earth.  I dislike the Crucible as a plot point, at least in its current form as an superweapon that we would devote all of our resources and countless manhours in order to build.  The fact that questioning the wisdom of building it only comes up once in the entire game makes me a little upset.

[frypan]

TheMarshal wrote...

I don't know that I'm capable enough as a writer to come up with something that's actually interesting if all I have to revamp is Priority: Earth.  I dislike the Crucible as a plot point, at least in its current form as an superweapon that we would devote all of our resources and countless manhours in order to build.  The fact that questioning the wisdom of building it only comes up once in the entire game makes me a little upset.

As far as the crucible goes, with all those scientists and technicians crawling all over it, building it from scratch, nobody discerned its purpose? Its not like the ark of the covenant or another unknown that just gets opened. This thing was built by the finest minds in the galaxy and nobody could figure what it was going to do. I had a problem with that idea all through the game. Similar to yourself, I questioned the wisdom of every "success" in adding war assets to its construction.

I know it was written that way to make the ending a suprise but it flew in the face of sound strategy, and as with the end, felt a little too contrived. CultureGeekGirl presented a much better alternative for its construction earlier in this thread, where we learn about it through EDI and can get a feel for what is going to happen. Made for a much more sensical approach to its construction, and built the foundation for a satisfying ending.

Also, if you are the ones who build the Macguffin is it still a Macguffin? Yet another technical term in need of clarifaction in the case of ME3.

Modifié par frypan, 19 mai 2012 - 06:29 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

This is the analysis that's more about the functional purpose the ending would need to serve, not a specific rewrite. I may still do the other, and tie it in with this.

I don't think there's a term for the kind of thought and investment Mass Effect induces in some people, which is again why I feel its loss so keenly Since we're still frequently having the "are video games art?" debate, we don't have a lot of solid words for things. They're coming, but they're not all here yet.

The term that comes closest to it is... well... Roleplay. That word is overused a lot these days, I know. I'm talking about inhabiting a character to participate in collaborative storytelling. It's something that we've been trying to take from the table to the screen since the most ancient days, but this (and DA:O) are the only games where I've really felt something similar. My Shepard and my Mahariel are as real to me as any character I've spent long evenings on with friends, over dice and drinks and good meals.

'Cause yeah, like people keep saying, a lot of the choice in Mass Effect is illusory... except that it isn't. Choices aren't illusory, but they are often less effective than you might want. This is true in D&D as well. If the GM needs you all to accept this quest to get the show on the road, he's going to find some way to make you want to do this quest and head in that direction, and you're going to go with him on that journey rather than saying "nah, my character decides to skip out on the adventure and start a nice herbalism business in town. I go search the woods for herbs in for several hours. What do I roll?" And if you do go out into the woods, who will show up there but the same mysterious questgiver?

Still, the first or second refusal can mean something, even if you do end up eventually going along with the quest anyway (which often happens.) It lets you be a part of the story, it lets you say "this elven ranger is not the type to take up the first task offered him, if he has no reason to feel it is important." So the choice does matter even if the result is the same, beause the choice is about who your character is. One of the main choices real roleplay offers is the choice of how to feel about something, and how to react to it. If one character reacts with disgust while opening a tomb while another giggles fiendishly, they may both be attacked by liches, but they've made very different decisions and created very different characters.

When we sit down with a GM for a regular game, we make a pact. We will try to let him guide us, but we share the story. We make the story together.

And in exchange for letting him lead, letting him build the worlds, we get the assurance that he won't just say "rocks fall, everyone dies" and kill us all for no reason. We're in this together, and we both want the other to have fun.

These recent Bioware games have come the closer to the table than anything I have ever experienced. I felt like I was invited to be Shepard, to feel her feelings, to express myself through her in the same way I'd do if I were Himiko, doing tea ceremony with her Daimyo, or Crow the acrobat (the original Crow), silently and invisibly deciding who would be the next to die.

I do believe that Bioware wants us to do this. They give Shepard backgrounds that barely matter to the gameplay, so that we have a basis upon which to begin our imaginative play. Her reactions are expressive enough to feel as if we were emoting through her, but she is subtle enough that we can project upon her a rich inner life.

My enjoyment of Mass Effect really did feel collaborative, and I don't think that that's an accident. I don't think it's presumptuous. I think it's what they were trying for all along, and for someone to come along at the end and say "it was never your story, it was always Bioware's!" is disingenuous. We were asked to participate and given all the tools to do so. That is a wonderful gift, but once you let someone in like that, you have to be careful not to push them out again.

Everything in Mass Effect right up until the ending asked us to inhabit Shepard, and the ending pushed us out again and took control away. It's very telling that, when talking about revisions to the end scene, they said they removed dialogue options because Shepard didn't need to know these things. Delivering exposition has never been the primary purpose of the dialogue wheel, not for me anyway: it has always been the voice through which I express the emotions that Shepard is feeling as I inhabit her.

The ending pushed us out and said "you're not welcome here. This is our place, our story, our ending."

What the ending needed to be was... an invitation.

If you are a dreamer, come in
If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar,
A hope-er. a pray-er, a magic bean buyer...
If you're a pretender, come sit by the fire
For we have some flax-golden tales to spin.
Come in!
Come in!

-Shel Silverstein

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 19 mai 2012 - 06:53 .

[TheMarshal]

frypan wrote...

As far as the crucible goes, with all those scientists and technicians crawling all over it, building it from scratch, nobody discerned its purpose? Its not like the ark of the covenant or another unknown that just gets opened. This thing was built by the finest minds in the galaxy and nobody could figure what it was going to do. I had a problem with that idea all through the game. Similar to yourself, I questioned the wisdom of every "success" in adding war assets to its construction.

I know it was written that way to make the ending a suprise but it flew in the face of sound strategy, and as with the end, felt a little too contrived. CultureGeekGirl presented a much better alternative for its construction earlier in this thread, where we learn about it through EDI and can get a feel for what is going to happen. Made for a much more sensical approach to its construction, and built the foundation for a satisfying ending.

Also, if you are the ones who build the Macguffin is it still a Macguffin? Yet another technical term in need of clarifaction in the case of ME3.

Seriously...  In my fantasy "rewriting ME3" fic, the current idea for the "Crucible" is that it's actually a completed (or nearly completed) dark energy weapon that the Protheans were working on but could never use because the Citadel (still part of the catalyst, perhaps?) had been captured.  The Mars archives had the plans and the location for what was left of it, but Cerberus made off with the entirety of the plans before Shepard could obtain them.  Cerberus continues work on finishing it, but Shep and co are unable to discern its location until later.

Once it's been discovered, they find out that it's the reason Haestrom's sun is going wonky, and that it's also responsible for the destruction of several other stars throughout history.  Cerberus was still planning on using it to control the Reapers, believing that the Protheans intended us (humanity) to have it.  Shep and co are now unsure if it's something that could or should be used, given its massive destructive potential.  It could wipe out the Reapers, it might even be able to control them, but there's also the possibility that it will just cause every star to go nova and wipe out everything.

Not quite sure how I want to handle bringing it to the final battle, though...  A big part of me simply wants to end the fight through sheer force of combined arms.  Another part of me thinks that sort of victory is going to cost too many lives, and that we need some iWin button, even if there is a huge risk involved.

[TheMarshal]

@CGG - Is there a way to "favorite" posts? 'Cause you hit the nail on the head there. Not only did they take away what control we had of Shepard, they then went and told us that nothing we did, no background story we came up with mattered in any way, shape or form. Because the "details were a little fuzzy" and Shepard is now a legend. Not the person we've come to inhabit over the series.

[frypan]

@TheMarshal- I'm with you all the way on a conventional victory against the odds. We've beaten a proto-reaper with smallarms, why can't we beat the rest through sheer guts and the will to win.

In other words, the things that make us better than cold machine intelligence, characteristics even shared by versions of synthetic life the game has introduced, are a perfectly acceptable way to beat the odds in this game.

@CultureGeekGirl. The rpg analogy is perfect, but I might add another poimt. If a GM has a prediliction for campaigns centred around assasins and general evilness, I have choice about whether to participate in their campaigns - the converse with Paladins and so forth also applies.

In the case of many computer games a similar situation applies. I wont play games like The Darkness, or GTA, precisely because I dont find the character or milieu I'm role playing in appealing.

In the case of ME3, we had two games where the invitation to play was based on a particular premise, and it felt like the milieu changed in the third, going from heroic storytelling to something darker. If a GM tried that at the table, players would either drift off it it wasnt their thing, or ask what was going on.

The parallels are there in terms of who we sit down to play with at a table- and why unlike other computer games we feel our voice matters in the case of the ME3 story. We joined up for a different campaign than what we ended with, and the GM is now being prickly that we dont like it.

[drayfish]

Okay, I've apologised for walls of text before, but this one – this one is really going to hurt. Brace yourself. Maybe get under a heavily fortified structure or lie down or something, because here it comes... I'm going to try and bury it here at the bottom of the page...
 
(Dear God, do you know I actually have a ridiculous amount of work to do this weekend, and instead I did this for several hours. I don't know if that's crazy or not...)
 

[KitaSaturnyne]

Awesome, CCG. I second your assertions. Or third. Whichever.

Are there any particular topics covered by the overall narrative that you feel would need to be touched upon for the ending to be more satisfactory?

Not just a question for CCG, but to anyone who considers my earlier query.