858 réponses à ce sujet

[JesseLee202]

If you need to read that much just to understand the endings, they failed.

[optimistickied]

JesseLee202 wrote...

If you need to read that much just to understand the endings, they failed.

I know this is totally unrelated, but you have no idea how many volumes I've had to read in school just to try to get a complete understanding of an 90 page book like The Heart of Darkness.

Modifié par optimistickied, 21 avril 2012 - 05:12 .

[SparkyRich]

Aw no - they're nerfing Paladins again!

[Korubrus]

I like how hard the pro-ending people are trying to explain the ending. But they all say the same things which basically is that none of the events that result from the ending are clear.

The very moment someone must consider posting an article to explain a game's ending is immediate FAIL. If enough people dont 'get it' from playing the actual game (even 1, 2 and 3 start to finish) then it is an absolute FAIL.

Furthermore IF the ending made sence, Bioware wouldn't waste time creating extended DLC for FREE when they could have just 'explained' it. Why spend more money if what they had done was sufficient?

It is almost irrelevant what any article says about the ending. If it is NOT IN THE GAME - IT IS IRRELEVANT. It is like releaseing a game 50% complete, then releasing an article to tell everyone what happends in the last 50%.

Waste your own time creating an article about you grasping desperately at straws to try and convince yourself that the ending is somehow fitting and deserved on the ME universe, but DO NOT expect it to CHANGE THE ENDING or to actually make the ending make sence or that any of your theories are accurate.

[D_Dude1210]

I think it's been established that, unless you have already a strong preferential bias towards the ending or a strong need to have the ending somehow make sense in your head, the article is a monumental waste of time at worst and slightly misinformative at least.

Sorry author, I understand that you feel strongly about your work and it does seem like you put a lot of thought, time and passion into what you wrote. But overall, it just seems like you're missing the true point of why the ending was bad to begin with: Target audience. ME3 is a game sold to the mass market. If you have to put in 400 (yes, i guesstimated) lines of highly speculative text in order to explain 14 lines of in-game dialogue then you have to admit that the ending is pretty bad, makes little true sense and people have a good reason to hate it.

[3DandBeyond]

D_Dude1210 wrote...

I think it's been established that, unless you have already a strong preferential bias towards the ending or a strong need to have the ending somehow make sense in your head, the article is a monumental waste of time at worst and slightly misinformative at least.

Sorry author, I understand that you feel strongly about your work and it does seem like you put a lot of thought, time and passion into what you wrote. But overall, it just seems like you're missing the true point of why the ending was bad to begin with: Target audience. ME3 is a game sold to the mass market. If you have to put in 400 (yes, i guesstimated) lines of highly speculative text in order to explain 14 lines of in-game dialogue then you have to admit that the ending is pretty bad, makes little true sense and people have a good reason to hate it.

Exactly.  Bad storytelling, even if followed up by tons of scientific research and authenticity, breaks a story.  Shepard isn't a rocket scientist.  Shepard's smart enough, but basically is a Marine's Marine.  The player is Shepard.  How many times throughout these games did Shepard say something like, "and that means".  S/he listened to scientists, but then wanted the bottom line as to what it all meant.  Liara's time capsule didn't say Shepard studied all the collected works of Stephen Hawking before making a decision.  The ending breaks faith with the story as it is presented.  It was always a story about what Shepard would do with the information s/he was given and the choice was always one of accept, get clarification, reject.  Simple, straight to the point.  Shepard's motivations were clear.  The player should not have to read tomes of theory to understand why any choice is the best choice.  Or to explain that afterward.

The ending fails in part because it leaves behind the gut reaction you have to all the decisions you've always made.  It leaves behind the clarity of your decisions.  It abandons the reality of the world you have lived in within the game, not within Hawking's writings, but within the ME universe.  It stops telling an identifiable story and drops you off in speculation land.


Bottom line is we all allowed ourselves to go with some space magic along the way because it fit the story and moved it along.  We didn't demand the data or theory to back it up.  It was storytelling.  But, at the end we were subjected to an overwhelming exhausting supply of space magic that suspended and story cohesion.  The OP and the theory pointed to tries to then back up the other parts of the ending with scientific postulations and theoretical science as if that is proof that it does make sense.  But, we are still left with super space magic.  Bad storytelling.


Case in point, scientists are now theorizing that the reason the universe has not slowed its expansion (something they always thought would happen due to gravity) is due to Dark Energy.  This is a theory.  No one can see Dark Energy, no one can quantify Dark Energy.  It is a theory.  I cannot propose it as fact to support anything.  And it would be all too easy to make a boring story about it.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 21 avril 2012 - 03:33 .

[sp0ck 06]

Korubrus wrote...

I like how hard the pro-ending people are trying to explain the ending. But they all say the same things which basically is that none of the events that result from the ending are clear.

The very moment someone must consider posting an article to explain a game's ending is immediate FAIL. If enough people dont 'get it' from playing the actual game (even 1, 2 and 3 start to finish) then it is an absolute FAIL.

Furthermore IF the ending made sence, Bioware wouldn't waste time creating extended DLC for FREE when they could have just 'explained' it. Why spend more money if what they had done was sufficient?

It is almost irrelevant what any article says about the ending. If it is NOT IN THE GAME - IT IS IRRELEVANT. It is like releaseing a game 50% complete, then releasing an article to tell everyone what happends in the last 50%.

Waste your own time creating an article about you grasping desperately at straws to try and convince yourself that the ending is somehow fitting and deserved on the ME universe, but DO NOT expect it to CHANGE THE ENDING or to actually make the ending make sence or that any of your theories are accurate.

No one is claiming the ending as is is an acceptable one, including the author.  You obviously didn't read the article.

Furthermore, its perfectly fine for there to be 1000s of threads saying the exact same things about why everyone hates the ending, 40 minute youtube videos, endless blog posts....whats the problem with posting a lengthy article some defending the ending?  

[3DandBeyond]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

No one is claiming the ending as is is an acceptable one, including the author.  You obviously didn't read the article.

Furthermore, its perfectly fine for there to be 1000s of threads saying the exact same things about why everyone hates the ending, 40 minute youtube videos, endless blog posts....whats the problem with posting a lengthy article some defending the ending?  

Because it's indefensible in reality.  And I can create and have created a host of theories explaining it.  Just because I can explain it, doesn't make it play out any better.

And I'm sorry, but if as you say the author says the ending is unacceptable, then why defend it?  If it's unacceptable, it's indefensible.  Period.  You don't tout the merits of anything that at its core is not worth it, because it doesn't matter how many points it gets right.  The places where it gets it all wrong, make the whole thing wrong.

I can't pick and choose what parts I defend in a formula that has parts that are wrong in order to try and defend the whole formula.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 21 avril 2012 - 04:06 .

[N7Gold]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

 If you hated/disliked/didn't understand/were let down by the ending, read this editorial.

http://galacticpillo...ffect-3-ending/

It really might make you look differently at not just the ending but the whole of ME3.  If you want to love the conclusion to the series but just can't, please give this a read.  It's long but worth it.  

Why can't endings be both emotional and analytical?

[XRAY1975]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

This ending is worthless, period. It violates the very themes and design choices of ME1 and 2, end of story.

Reading that article might change your mind about that.

TL;DR
 i would like to beleive something like IDT, but, if you have to quote outside sources to prove your point about the meaning of the endinds, whats the point?

[JShepppp]

Awesome article if people have the time to read it.

Very interesting to explain the Reaper goals simply in terms of the technological scale, and it also gives a very clear indication as to why the Catalyst couldn't do what the Crucible wants and why Shepard has all the control.

Bump

[StarcloudSWG]

A whole lot of verbiage but not a single addressing of the *fact* that the ending was so badly plotted, written and illustrated that it has enraged, angered, and disappointed most of the people who've played the game through to the end.

If you *have* to rely on sources outside the game to explain the ending, it's a bad ending. If you *have* to speculate (and the writer speculates quite a bit) it's a bad ending.

Further, let's address the idea that the Citadel/Crucible was a type III civilization's device. It's instantly refuted when you realize the Reapers (a type II civilization) created the Citadel. If the Citadel is now a type III civilization's artifact, then you have proof of the technological singularity resulting in an AI that doesn't want to destroy all organic life. Thereby contradicting its own argument.

In the end, the only proper solution is to blow up the Reapers and wipe that genocidal nonsense out of the galaxy.

And no matter what outside theories this kind of speculation brings in to explain the ending, the *fact* remains that it is a terrible ending that violates the rules of good storytelling.

Modifié par StarcloudSWG, 21 avril 2012 - 05:54 .

[Sohlito]

Read it. And no, didn't change my mind.

[viperabyss]

I stopped reading after the first sentence.

The ending is very strongly foreshadowed throughout the whole series, but to see it, you need to be aware of the some of the rather esteric theories and hypotheses in astrobiology being discussed in the past few years by the likes of Michio Kaku and Stephen Hawkings.

Now, first of all, the line "very strongly foreshadowed" has a hyperlink to the conversation with Sovereign, in which it just talked about how organics come as genetic mutation, and how Reaper (not synthetics) is eternal. One can argue that Reapers are synthetics. Now, let us ignore the "yo dawg" meme, and focus on the facts. In ME2, Reapers are established not to be a synthetic, but rather "sentient machines". So, if the Reapers are not synthetics, as established in ME2, that entire sentence is out of the window.

Secondly, Mass Effect is a self-contained game. That is, players do not need technical information, other than common sense, to play and understand the game. If I have to read Stephen Hawkings and Michio Kaku to understand the game, Mass Effect would not be considered as a mainstream game.

And lastly, this is the world of Mass Effect, not world of us. Is Mass Effect somewhat based on the real world? Sure, but it is definitely not based on the world theorized by Nikolai Kardashev.

The fact of the matter is, Bioware thought they did something cool by giving us "morally difficult decisions on insufficient information". Bioware did not think it through, and it backfired. The ending is poorly implemented even by elementary creative writing standards. I can get behind the "morally difficult decisions" part, but asking me to choose between three outcomes that I spent the last 80 hours fighting against, is idiotic.

[Manton-X2]

I appreciate the attempt by the author to help explain the ending, but it comes down to what it so often comes down to with people who liked the ending and that's simply "The reason you think the ending was bad is that you're ignorant and don't understand it."

I'm not sure that the people who thought the article made things clear realize this, but that entire thing is no more valid a speculation than Indoctrination Theory or anything else anyone has come up with. It has to be because it is built upon theories and formulas that are, by their very nature, speculative.

What it comes down to is what someone said simply up in the thread. If you need 1000 lines of text to -try- and make 14 lines of dialogue make sense, then as a storywriter you have failed miserably at your job and you should be ashamed.

[viperabyss]

AwesomeName wrote...

I have to admit, I never bothered to read that part of the author's article (I skipped the whole science section) - he makes very good points elsewhere in the article though.  I just assumed he was referring to really general ideas like the technological singularity but I guess not.  I've never really heard of things like Type I, II, whatever, civilisations before.

In any case, what I did get from ME1 and 2 was enough for me to be unsurprised and prepared for what I got from the ending.  What the Catalyst said was pretty consistent with what we had learned before I thought.  Still wish we could have talked to the Catalyst more though for the sake of more information and to keep Shepard more in character - not that it would've made a difference to the choices (he made it clear he couldn't physically do anything).

Very good points?

No. Most of his points were already posted by members of the BSN community. For starters, all his "explanations" of common misconception of the ending are all based on the Catalyst's assumption (that organics will eventually be wiped out by synthetics). The problem is, everything we've seen throughout all three games does not support that assumption. In fact, a lot of times we saw things that's opposite of those assumption. A significant portion of Legion's loyalty mission, as well as the Rannoch arc talks about how Geth was relentlessly destroyed by organics, and how EDI was always met with skepticism (especially from Javik) because she was an AI. Given that, the assumption should be the other way around, which is "organics will always destroy the synthetics", shouldn't it?

And his point of explaining the out of place "organics vs. synthetics" was "look at the science explanation". Like I said, Mass Effect is not about theories from the real world. It is about a fictionalized world created by the author. I have a feeling that he is no longer explaining his points based on the events of ME, but rather based on the theories of the real world, which is both unnecessary and irrelevant.

And I find his notion that the entire game of Mass Effect 3 being an ending really hilarious. The main theme of the ME trilogy is not about solving the rift between the Quarian / Geth, or about the genophage. The main theme of ME trilogy is about defeating the Reapers. It is about fighting for the future, and fighting for survival. Solving the rifts, and curing the genophage is the mean to obtain the support from different factions to defeat the Reapers. In simple terms, those story arcs you did were the means to an end. We've not seen a proper denouement, and the ending choices itself has nothing to do with Reapers. How is that a proper ending?

[Tigerman123]

I enjoyed the article, especially because we both had the same response to Bioware's extension of the Reapers role as a solution to fermi paradox and the homogeneity of technology throughout the galaxy; some kind of mental orgasm!

[Skyrix]

Just finished reading the article. I give it an A for effort and appreciate what it was trying to do, but I'm not really impressed.

The first part about the stages of civilizations? Sure. Not something that was ever called into question, really. Next, the article goes on to say that there must certainly be aliens out there in our real-life galaxy (cool!) and that the idea that synthetic life will eventually go haywire and kill everyone is accepted as fact in the scientific community. If that turned out to be true, it would make sense for the Reapers to "police" the galaxy and maintain order to protect and serve organics. But the article doesn't point out that that's not at all what the Reapers do, so it only emphasizes the stupidity of the Catalyst kid's solution.

Later, the article points out that despite the Geth being portrayed as nothing more than acting in self-defense, and despite EDI's unwavering loyalty to Shepard and crew, the Catalyst kid thinks he knows beyond any doubt that they will eventually become so wicked that they will want nothing more than to snuff out everyone, going so far as to hunt down every last Pyjak in the universe. Doesn't seem likely to me, but I actually have proof that it's not an eventuality: the freakin' Catalyst Kid. HE'S A SYNTHETIC. And all he has ever wanted for millions and millions of years is to preserve organic life. He's convinced that something like himself cannot exist. What an idiot.

The article goes on to try to explain why the Catalyst can't make any of the choices and has to rely on Shepard. Fine, fine; I was never really concerned with that. What the article doesn't try to explain is why the catalyst kid even brought Shepard to that room, woke him up, and explained the options in the first place. He could have just left him to die with Anderson and continued the cycle, no? Right; he felt that his solution wouldn't work anymore because... organics finished the Crucible? Well, they did have a setback when the keepers didn't activate the citidel a few years prior, so they were a bit late in getting going. Why the Catalyst Kid himself didn't just push the button and let the Reapers into the galaxy, we'll never know. Also, that organics had the plans to build the Crucible only means they weren't being thorough enough in cleansing the galaxy of technology. Maybe the kid felt he couldn't be any more thorough than he already was, and just gave up. Maybe the crucible itself forced the kid's hand and made him wake up Shepard and tell him all that stuff, I guess. Not that that makes much sense since no one even knew about the kid in the first place. Whatever. It's all just dumb and it doesn't matter since if it's not in the game, it's just fanfiction.

I do agree, however, that it's wrong for people to think that the rest of the game or the series is inconsequential and that your choices don't ultimately matter. They do, all the way up to the stupid finale. The genophage, the geth war, and all the little things, too; it's all fantastic. But it doesn't excuse the ending. You can't use "but the rest of the game was good" as a defense for the ending, because all that's doing is further pointing out how much of a disappointment the ending really is.

The inclusion of a list of quotes from people who likely don't care enough to be disappointed or don't care enough to even know the details of this debacle are given in an attempt to discredit, disrespect and dismiss anyone who thinks Bioware should be held to their own standards and called out for substandard work. The old "I don't know what the this Mars Effect thing is, but stuck-up, self-important artists like me should stay true to our daring, groundbreaking masterpieces and not let the ignorant, unwashed masses ruin it with their simpleton needs" argument: one I don't respect because it's born of apathy, ignorance, and selfishness.

Finally, the comparison to the ending of Astro Boy is insulting. It's implying that Mass Effect's ending made us little kids cry because Shepard died saving the world. That, maybe when we're older, we'll understand that the ending was actually so fantastic and satisfying that tech companies, universities, and Vancouver are probably going to use Shepard as their mascot. I'm at a freakin' loss for words.

[LinksOcarina]

Korubrus wrote...

The very moment someone must consider posting an article to explain a game's ending is immediate FAIL. If enough people dont 'get it' from playing the actual game (even 1, 2 and 3 start to finish) then it is an absolute FAIL.

Just like everyone posting obtuse and unwarranted hatred for an ending because reasons A, B, C in an article is a hero?

Thats not biased at all, now is it.

[Manton-X2]

LinksOcarina wrote...
Just like everyone posting obtuse and unwarranted hatred for an ending because reasons A, B, C in an article is a hero?

Thats not biased at all, now is it.

Here's your irony badge ... wear it well.

[LinksOcarina]

Manton-X2 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...
Just like everyone posting obtuse and unwarranted hatred for an ending because reasons A, B, C in an article is a hero?

Thats not biased at all, now is it.

Here's your irony badge ... wear it well.

I shall, it's nice and shiny too!

[Peranor]

I posted this in the other thread about this article, and im going to post it here as well.


You can't defend a plot filled with holes with more wild speculations. It's like saying

"Look, if I take that speculation and put it in that hole, and this speculation over here in this hole and explain that inconsistency with a little bit of astrobiology and sparkle it with a pinch of "you're just to stupid to understand" arguments the plot holes are totally gone man!"

Yeah right...
Im sorry, but bad writing is just that, bad writing.
You can write an 50 pages long in-depth analysis on a turd if you want to. But in the end it's still a turd.
 
And also this, what daecath wrote

daecath wrote...
He's doing exactly what the IT group is doing - searching for a way to make the endings make sense. Even the people that like it are grasping at straws to make it better.

 

Modifié par anorling, 21 avril 2012 - 08:52 .

[Manton-X2]

LinksOcarina wrote...
I shall, it's nice and shiny too!

You're not right in the head ..... I like you.