858 réponses à ce sujet

[Devil Mingy]

pfellahX wrote...

sp0ck 06 wrote...

Of course you shouldn't have to read lengthy third party explanations to appreciate the ending.  The author doesn't claim the ending as it stands is in any way good and points out all the plot holes and mistakes made.

But the fact is, this is the ending we got.  This article illustrates how the ending is conceptually sound and doesn't abandon logic or reason.  If you just want to love to hate on the game and the ending, fine.  But if you want to try and improve your perception of it, read it and you might be of a different mindset.

Old Me: They probably screwed up the ending because they rushed it.

New Me: They probably screwed the ending up because they rushed it, but they may have screwed it up because they read A Brief History of Time one too many times and wanted their ending to be an intellectual circle-jerk that would alienate anyone who played the game to... you know... have fun.

I've seen the light!

I agree. It's disheartening to imagine that not only did Bioware create a poorly executed ending, but that they may have created an ending that they knew would only click with a very small fraction of its target audience in an attempt to make themselves feel intelligent.

I would hate for my respect of Bioware's writers to be lowered to the level of my respect for Richard Kelly.

Modifié par Devil Mingy, 19 avril 2012 - 05:02 .

[Cobra's_back]

Nice read and interesting concept. If this was where they were going, they should have included more conversations leading to this.

[semidefinite]

It is amazing how this author manages to repeatedly just state an obvious fact and is then surprised that someone else does not immediately see it as desirable. Also the general false assumption that the reapers do not want to kill all organic life. The reaper do in fact intend to kill all organic life. Not at the same time, but eventually (unless it kills itself or in billions of years never manages to crawl out of a cave). What they want to protect is not all organic life. It is the abstract concept of organic life. And it is supposed to be obvious that this is a good thing. Please remind me why this abstract concept is so much more valuable than all sentient beings currently alive in this galaxy.

[Electric Pig]

Read it.

Still hate the ending.

Besides. A good ending wouldn't need some journalist to go through 20 plus Lore holes and logic holes anyways ¬_¬

[sp0ck 06]

This is from the comments of that article, thought I'd just throw it out there.  This is pretty much how I felt about the ending and why I thought it was an appropriate end to Shepard's journey (although NOT an appropriate end to the mass effect universe).  Again, I'm not trying to prove anything or say I'm "right" or "got it," this is just a perspective. 


After guiding the player through a world full of externally constructed meaning (paragon/renegade choices, the ability to know conclusively the consequences of your decisions within the scope of the gameworld), that meaning is removed in the final sequence. There is no clear paragon/renegade decision (I agree with your analysis on which would be which, but there is a clear attempt to introduce a moral muddying with the association of the Illusive Man and Anderson with the “wrong” colours). There is no way (currently, pre-Extended Cut) to know what it is you just unleashed on the galaxy. You are put in Shepard’s position, with imperfect information, forced to make a choice based on experience and hope. You must find the meaning in your own decision.

This works for *me* because I don’t feel that question was asked in a vacuum. I feel the games developed a web of scenarios and questions all designed to provide a huge amount of context and backstory to this final question. I feel the final choice, therefore, is an opportunity to contextualise Shepard’s journey. To make, after having lived in it for a hundred hours, a determination about what I felt it *meant*.

I also feel that, as I said, tackling the question of whether meaning matters when not externally validated (by your games console or by the universe at large), is an appropriate question to raise. In your original article you talk about how you feel the ending is good but not great because it didn’t surprise you. I understand that perspective. To me, this narrative choice to turn the ending into an exercise in practical existentialism was that surprise. But I recognise that as highly subjective.

It also backfired. Whether intentional or due to lack of resources or creativity, the ending removes external validation from the player, and then asks her – did your choice still matter?It seems the majority of those players rose up and said, no. Which makes me kinda sad.

Modifié par sp0ck 06, 19 avril 2012 - 05:05 .

[Mycrus Ironfist]

i will read the article later, it looked interesting..

i regard myself as a sharp pencil...

in terms of endings - i was one of the few people in the cinema that 'got' the endings aronofsky's black swan & the fountain immediately...

i did not 'get' the me3 endings - my 1st impression was it was rushed and sloppy...

[Jayelle Janson]

I find the final two sentences rather bizarre

... Bioware could not have fit the whole story’s closure in the ending sequence. It just doesn’t work that way for a game of this scope, not without becoming painfully cheesy.

I really don't understand what he's trying to say here.  They couldn't end the story properly because it's too big a subject?  If the author can't end a story properly in a game then maybe they're trying to tell the wrong story, not because it's scope is too big.

Modifié par Jayelle Janson, 19 avril 2012 - 05:10 .

[AshirahTSparkle]

The theories are nice and can be conceptually sound (but still, they are just hypothesis with no proof that it is true). But if it wasn't built upon in ME1 and ME2, it doesn't exist. You don't just throw a curve ball and suddenly come up with complex theory stuff at the last minute that has no explanation whatsoever.

[Gruzmog]

All this does is that while they could have pulled off the story with a catalyst they failed to do so in a spectacular way.

The series lacks context for and ending like this to work. If you want to build a game on these theories it should be integrated into the story. Either it was not, or it was done so poorly that most people missed it. Either way, the ending is still broken.

Besides that, just that some famous minds are behind these theories does not mean they are right. If any single one of the under lying assumptions fail the prediction is null and void. Does not mean they can't be right thoug.

The nanoselfreplicator seems feasible enough, but I have a problem with the assumption that any AI would see no need for organics and thus decide to destroy it. As I see it their is no purpose to life other then what you decide it is, the existence of the AI is just as pointless as our own. Just because something has no practical use does not mean it should not exist. I find that a very narrow point of view.

[Shaigunjoe]

Carlthestrange wrote...

Its a game. Its not supposed to be rocket science. I'll stick to my guns and hope for a better ending.

I appreciate the sentiment, but I think it's this kind of mentality that is holding video games back as a medium.  The subjects they carry throughout the series and the ending (ethics and conscience, AI and creator/createe relationsships,xenocide) are each deep enough that a college degree can be obtained in each respective field, however to appreciate and comment on the issues presented only requires a very top level view of things.

It is interesting to see so many people complain about the synthesis ending, I'm surprised nobody seems to worry as much about the real work going toward reaching a technical singularity in modern society.

[IUDEX99]

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.  

Well, quite at the very beginning of the article I found the following lines:
"[...]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 esoteric theories and hypotheses in astrobiology
being discussed in the past few years[...]"

I stopped reading to post here and will continue after having posted.

But first I have a question to you, dear OP:

Are you serious?
The ending of a videogame will only be understood by those who know about esoterric theroies and hypothesis in astrobiology?
Funny idea. And aou are willing to defend that?
Even those who have the knowledge about theese astrobiological stuff should be smart enough to understand that people are disliking the end.

It's like watching a movie (thriller/crime) and the end is just understandable for those who graduated in law and have higher knowledge especially in criminal law and are specialized in criminal law relating to business offenses.
I don't think that the audience would like the movie if they don't get the endiing.

If the ending of ME3 is just understandable with internet-research or very sepecialised knowledge in science the writers simply failed at their work. No more no less.

And now I'm going to read the rest of the article, maybe it's understandable for someone who is a lawyer and not an astrbiological liminary.

Cheers

Dex

[MattFini]

Lyme Eilserv wrote...

 I approve of Rikers reply

A+ x 10000000

[balance5050]

Well, that was dumb.... I laughed hard at this part-


"Shepard isn’t going to suffocate in the Catalyst area; there’s no reason at all not to suppose that the room has windows."

[Scorpii]

Ok.. that didn't do it for me... Ending aside, terrible use of great theories... I mean "Galaxy Big Crunch"? LOL, good one...

The consequence felt in a galaxy due to a big crunch are universe wide, if a galaxy big-crunches is because the entire universe is big-crunching not just the galaxy... If you want to avoid a big crunch it would have to be universe-wide.

We could discuss and speculate a lot about the mechanics of the big crunch, and now the mass of celestial bodies plus dark matter plus dark energy plus any other factor we want to take into account could affect such phenomena. but in this example it was way bad used and overlooked.

So, a big NO.

[LucasShark]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

This is from the comments of that article, thought I'd just throw it out there.  This is pretty much how I felt about the ending and why I thought it was an appropriate end to Shepard's journey (although NOT an appropriate end to the mass effect universe).  Again, I'm not trying to prove anything or say I'm "right" or "got it," this is just a perspective. 


After guiding the player through a world full of externally constructed meaning (paragon/renegade choices, the ability to know conclusively the consequences of your decisions within the scope of the gameworld), that meaning is removed in the final sequence. There is no clear paragon/renegade decision (I agree with your analysis on which would be which, but there is a clear attempt to introduce a moral muddying with the association of the Illusive Man and Anderson with the “wrong” colours). There is no way (currently, pre-Extended Cut) to know what it is you just unleashed on the galaxy. You are put in Shepard’s position, with imperfect information, forced to make a choice based on experience and hope. You must find the meaning in your own decision.

This works for *me* because I don’t feel that question was asked in a vacuum. I feel the games developed a web of scenarios and questions all designed to provide a huge amount of context and backstory to this final question. I feel the final choice, therefore, is an opportunity to contextualise Shepard’s journey. To make, after having lived in it for a hundred hours, a determination about what I felt it *meant*.

I also feel that, as I said, tackling the question of whether meaning matters when not externally validated (by your games console or by the universe at large), is an appropriate question to raise. In your original article you talk about how you feel the ending is good but not great because it didn’t surprise you. I understand that perspective. To me, this narrative choice to turn the ending into an exercise in practical existentialism was that surprise. But I recognise that as highly subjective.

It also backfired. Whether intentional or due to lack of resources or creativity, the ending removes external validation from the player, and then asks her – did your choice still matter?It seems the majority of those players rose up and said, no. Which makes me kinda sad.

You're ignoring everything people have said.  And few here want apologetics.  Because that is what this is in the end: it's the same thing biblical litteralists do.  They look back at a work in retrospect and cherrypick what they want to see.

[ahandsomeshark]

ahandsomeshark wrote...

I read it, but like the author itself says in order for bioware to have thought this was a proper ending they must have assumed the fan base has some familiarity with these concepts. Which makes no sense. Especially since mass effect is a specific type of speculative science fiction which has always attempted to explicitly explain the science behind their speculations (i.e how eezo and mass effects work). So why all of a sudden would we think that they abandoned that to go with an ending where there's no scientific explanations (just theories) in or even out of the game? Along with that it's pretty much been debunked by the writers themselves that any sort of long-term outline existed so it's unlikely that any of the foreshadowing mentioned in the article is more than coincidence.

Basically to accept the authors theory as put forth you have to accept the idea that bioware DID have a long-game plan for the story and just opted not to foreshadow it. Which makes no sense within the context of what we know about bioware, including specific statements they have made themselves and the ways they set up the first game.

But most importantly the author puts this assertion forth:

"Otherwise life throughout the galaxy is in as much danger of extinction as we are here on earth."

and earlier implies that the danger of extinction would be from synthetics, but at NO point in the rest of that section, or even the rest of the paper does he/she ever give any justification for this assumption, which is kind of what his entire argument is based on. Without giving some sort of explanation as to why he's making that statement/assumption I don't see how any of the rest of his argument can be relevant.

[added] also there is no source provided for "Supposing it’ll take humanity another 1,000 years to develop AI and for humanity to be rendered obsolete" I read the linked articles around it and none referenced humanity becoming obsolete.

quoting for response from OP.

[Vasparian]

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.  

I am not even going to bother. There is nothing good about the ending. People can attack me for this, but I consider the ending being worthless to be fact. It is, in every way, awful. There is no way anyone can accept the ending as it stands with not not give a damn about story.

[pottman]

Read half of it, it's ok. But if needed to convinced to like an ending to a game, than the ending must be bad.

[ArchDuck]

As for the glancing focus on science. The article just glosses over how the ending completely misconstrues evolution and never explains robo-DNA.

Modifié par ArchDuck, 19 avril 2012 - 05:11 .

[jumpingkaede]

IUDEX99 wrote...

It's like watching a movie (thriller/crime) and the end is just understandable for those who graduated in law and have higher knowledge especially in criminal law and are specialized in criminal law relating to business offenses.

I don't think that the audience would like the movie if they don't get the endiing.

lol

"You know that mafia boss that we spent the entire trilogy hunting down and gathering evidence on his illegal activities?  Well, as it turns out, we have a surprise witness in the final few minutes which as the jury will understand in light of the seminal business law case Nelson v. J.R., Inc. in 1932 which holds that for a S Corporation incorporated within 50 miles of its principal place of business but which issues fewer than 2,000,000 shares of stock, with less than 20% of stock going to its parent company, then the subsidiary of that..."

"Ladies and gentleman of the jury, have you reached a decision?"

"We have Judge.  We find the defendant-"

[roll credits, directed by Casey Hudson]

[Epic777]

Nicely written but its not validated in the games(s).

[sp0ck 06]

ahandsomeshark wrote...

ahandsomeshark wrote...

I read it, but like the author itself says in order for bioware to have thought this was a proper ending they must have assumed the fan base has some familiarity with these concepts. Which makes no sense. Especially since mass effect is a specific type of speculative science fiction which has always attempted to explicitly explain the science behind their speculations (i.e how eezo and mass effects work). So why all of a sudden would we think that they abandoned that to go with an ending where there's no scientific explanations (just theories) in or even out of the game? Along with that it's pretty much been debunked by the writers themselves that any sort of long-term outline existed so it's unlikely that any of the foreshadowing mentioned in the article is more than coincidence.

Basically to accept the authors theory as put forth you have to accept the idea that bioware DID have a long-game plan for the story and just opted not to foreshadow it. Which makes no sense within the context of what we know about bioware, including specific statements they have made themselves and the ways they set up the first game.

But most importantly the author puts this assertion forth:

"Otherwise life throughout the galaxy is in as much danger of extinction as we are here on earth."

and earlier implies that the danger of extinction would be from synthetics, but at NO point in the rest of that section, or even the rest of the paper does he/she ever give any justification for this assumption, which is kind of what his entire argument is based on. Without giving some sort of explanation as to why he's making that statement/assumption I don't see how any of the rest of his argument can be relevant.

[added] also there is no source provided for "Supposing it’ll take humanity another 1,000 years to develop AI and for humanity to be rendered obsolete" I read the linked articles around it and none referenced humanity becoming obsolete.

quoting for response from OP.

Post that in the comments of the article and get an answer from the author.  I'm not a scientist, I don't know these theories well beyond  a basic understanding.

[Cobra's_back]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

This is from the comments of that article, thought I'd just throw it out there.  This is pretty much how I felt about the ending and why I thought it was an appropriate end to Shepard's journey (although NOT an appropriate end to the mass effect universe).  Again, I'm not trying to prove anything or say I'm "right" or "got it," this is just a perspective. 


After guiding the player through a world full of externally constructed meaning (paragon/renegade choices, the ability to know conclusively the consequences of your decisions within the scope of the gameworld), that meaning is removed in the final sequence. There is no clear paragon/renegade decision (I agree with your analysis on which would be which, but there is a clear attempt to introduce a moral muddying with the association of the Illusive Man and Anderson with the “wrong” colours). There is no way (currently, pre-Extended Cut) to know what it is you just unleashed on the galaxy. You are put in Shepard’s position, with imperfect information, forced to make a choice based on experience and hope. You must find the meaning in your own decision.

This works for *me* because I don’t feel that question was asked in a vacuum. I feel the games developed a web of scenarios and questions all designed to provide a huge amount of context and backstory to this final question. I feel the final choice, therefore, is an opportunity to contextualise Shepard’s journey. To make, after having lived in it for a hundred hours, a determination about what I felt it *meant*.

I also feel that, as I said, tackling the question of whether meaning matters when not externally validated (by your games console or by the universe at large), is an appropriate question to raise. In your original article you talk about how you feel the ending is good but not great because it didn’t surprise you. I understand that perspective. To me, this narrative choice to turn the ending into an exercise in practical existentialism was that surprise. But I recognise that as highly subjective.

It also backfired. Whether intentional or due to lack of resources or creativity, the ending removes external validation from the player, and then asks her – did your choice still matter?It seems the majority of those players rose up and said, no. Which makes me kinda sad.

Sorry it was a good read, and thank you for the effort. Again, if this was where they were going they really should have added more conversation. The bright side may be the ending DLC. They should change the Catalyst conversation with Shepard. This might help.

[Shaigunjoe]

ArchDuck wrote...

As for the glancing focus on science. The article just glosses over how the ending completely misconstrues evolution and never explains robo-DNA.

There was no robo-DNA, a new DNA framework was created that makes evolution null and void..