858 réponses à ce sujet

[kw0lf]

The end is a time for choices to have consequences. Period. It's not a time for new choices.

[Tairram]

Nobrandminda wrote...

I read the article, and it brought me right back to my first impression of the ending.  Before I even had time to think about about the ending.  Before it really set in just how terrible the ending was, I had this to say about the ending.

It's like if Return of the Jedi had the ending to 2001: A Space Odyssey.

So go ahead and cite Moore's Law and the Drake Equasion.  That doesn't change the fact that is is simply not what the series was building up to.  Everything that happens in Mass Effect has been building up to one thing: defeating the Reapers, not a complex hard science philosophical descusion about the future of galactic life, just the end of a war.  You have to earn that type of thought provoking ending, and Mass Effect simply did not earn it.

I'll just touch on a couple specifics from the article that I disagree with:

- Just because you can fit the various races on the Kardashev Scale, that does not count as foreshadowing for the importance of the Kardashev Scale.

- Again with this insistance that the Crucible forced the Catalyst to surrender?  I've seen it brought up a couple of other times and I still don't buy it.  All the Catalyst would have to do is keep Shepard occupied for long enough to get the Crucible destroyed and then keep an eye out for it in future cycles.  Problem solved.  The Catalyst lets Shepard win, which cheapens any feeling of accomplishment you might have gotten from the series.

-  "The ending discards important philosophies and themes.  It does, but it doesn’t do so without very good reason."  This may be slightly subjective, but I'm just going to say: No.  You don't get to just throw out all of the previously established themes in a piece of literature because you want to make a statement with your ending.  Well, you can, but if you do, we're rightfully going to call it a terrible ending.

- And I have just one question concerning the Closing Thoughts section, where the author is alarmed that we're "bullying" Bioware into "changing" the ending:

What would you have us do?  All we've done is reacted to the ending, and if that reaction has seemed hostile, it's only because the ending affected us that badly.  So what should we have done?  Ignored our own opinions?  All we've done is used our powers as consumers to say "this is not the product I was promised" and seeing as how the BBB partially agreed with our claim, I'd say it's safe to say this does not qualify as an abuse of power.  We are allowed to choose what games and stories we buy, just as Bioware is allowed to tell the stories they want to tell.  

Bioware told a story that we didn't want to hear, so what would you have us do about it?

exactly

[Mylia Stenetch]

Vasparian wrote...
The only people I can see at all liking the ending are those that only played ME3. They didn't play ME1 or 2, and they are pretty much just Shooter game fans that don't care about story. IMO, anyone else that says they like the ending are just deluding themselves or bioware fanboys.

I played the ME1, ME2 and ME3, I am a large Tabletop guy that does love to RP. I liked the endings for them simply being an ending. I fan-conned stuff to make it more my own. I still believe there needs to be some clarification to this.

Liking =/= calling everything about it is perfect.

[Malordus]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

MattFini wrote...

When you have to start referencing the work/theories of astrobiologists as a means of suggesting this was ALWAYS the intended direction of the series, you have absolutely failed.

Why?  Its a game about space faring civilizations and galactic cycles of evolution and extinction.  Astrobiology seems relevant.

Because it is at no point acceptable for a game/book/movie to expect the gamer/reader/viewer to do additional research after it's conclusion to understand what just happened. Never ever. It may well be relevant, but if that were the case it should have been made blatantly clear from start to finish and adequately explained throughout. I am afraid it was not.

It would be like getting to the end of a great book series, putting it down and saying 'that didnt make sense to me,' then to see 'Please read X,Y and Z to understand the ending of this book' embossed on the reverse cover. This is why the ending fails.

[Devil Mingy]

An interesting read, though I do not agree with a lot of his interpretations.

Personally, I hope this is not what Bioware was intending. Otherwise, I seriously doubt they ever expected even half of their fanbase to see it as a satisfying conclusion, let alone appreciate it for what it is. It would also diminish my hope for the Extended Cut making any difference to the ending without becoming a 15 minute info-dump.

[LucasShark]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

sp0ck 06 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

Why throw positive light on something which IS objectively badly written and poorly concieved?  It should be ridiculed as such, and then either improved or abandoned.

THIS^

Because I think there's a lot to like about the ending and want to try to be positive about it.  They aren't going to change it no matter how many rage threads are started.  So you can either be angry about it or try and like it.

Explain what there is to like in an ending which outright destroys everything you'd been working towards?

So "try and like" that they are actively selling me sewage and claiming it's fine wine, and if I disagree I'm stupid?  If you honestly buy that, then you are a truly weak willed person.

Why would you honestly try to like someone ripping you off?  That's just sad, almost stockholm syndrome-like in effect.

Companies shouldn't get to dictate that we should buy or like whatever they produce: respect is not something just dolled out, it must be earned.

Why do you feel compelled to "prove" the ending is bad?  If I liked it, and I post something trying to explain why, you can't simply respectfully disagree?  You claim Bioware thinks if you disagree with them, "you're stupid," but since I disagree with you, I'm "weak-willed" and fail to see that I was "ripped off?"  

Come on dude, seriously?  I'm going out of my way to be as non confrontational about this and just want to have a discussion, and you pull this crap?

If you are going to go about it in that way: use your terminology properly.
Thus:
Subjective: from your view point, you CAN subjectively like something which is objectively bad (ie: of poor quality).  I CAN subjectively like Starship Troopers, it is still a bad movie.
Objective: Irrespective of your view point.  Case in point: an ending which contradicts its own story, is filled with plot holes, and poorly written and executed, is OBJECTIVELY bad.  Ie: of poor quality.

My point is: don't accept or try and like things of poor quality marketed as things of high quality.  Demand high quality for your money.

[Mylia Stenetch]

LucasShark wrote...
If you are going to go about it in that way: use your terminology properly.
Thus:
Subjective: from your view point, you CAN subjectively like something which is objectively bad (ie: of poor quality).  I CAN subjectively like Starship Troopers, it is still a bad movie.
Objective: Irrespective of your view point.  Case in point: an ending which contradicts its own story, is filled with plot holes, and poorly written and executed, is OBJECTIVELY bad.  Ie: of poor quality.

My point is: don't accept or try and like things of poor quality marketed as things of high quality.  Demand high quality for your money.

Then "you" should hate everything that is AAA rated akin to movies, books, games and TV series?

[Spectre Impersonator]

 Challenge not accepted. The ending sucks and nothing I read will change what I experienced. 

[KingNewbs]

It's a thoughtful article but the author essentially misunderstands Indoctrination Theory, and seems to think that we don't like the ending because we don't know about The Singularity.

All in, it's nothing that hasn't been said before, though rarely this coherently.

Modifié par KingNewbs, 19 avril 2012 - 06:04 .

[Bill Casey]

Seriously though...
If space-faring AI are a threat to all organic life in the universe, and the law of accelerating returns regarding technology is correct, and the drake equation is correct, why haven't we been killed by spacefaring AI yet?

[Titan_HQ]

crappyjazzy wrote...

sp0ck 06 you don't actually believe the majority of respondents actually read that article even if they say they did?

My friends who have all enjoyed the game and loved the ending are all doctors, well read, they love science and science fiction. Maybe that played a part.

Perhaps Bioware thought they had that kind of audience (in my experience, they do) but it obviously wasn't for everyone.

At any rate, not knowing something whether it's considered esoteric or not does not make someone stupid.

Coincidence. Having a different job title does not make you better or smarter than someone else. Which is what you are suggesting here., intetionally or otherwise.

This is an odd phenomenom I have seen all across BSN in paticular, that stating you are, or know people with qualifications or fnacy job titles somehow justifies anything that comes out of your mouth.
Actually that gives me a thought, Imma put my CV in my sig so that everybody will believe everything I say!

[LucasShark]

Mylia Stenetch wrote...

LucasShark wrote...
If you are going to go about it in that way: use your terminology properly.
Thus:
Subjective: from your view point, you CAN subjectively like something which is objectively bad (ie: of poor quality).  I CAN subjectively like Starship Troopers, it is still a bad movie.
Objective: Irrespective of your view point.  Case in point: an ending which contradicts its own story, is filled with plot holes, and poorly written and executed, is OBJECTIVELY bad.  Ie: of poor quality.

My point is: don't accept or try and like things of poor quality marketed as things of high quality.  Demand high quality for your money.

Then "you" should hate everything that is AAA rated akin to movies, books, games and TV series?

Way to miss the point: I do dislike a lot of "AAA" games because they are often mediocre to poor quality, sold as high quality.  That is unacceptable to me.

[The Angry One]

Oh look appeals to (unrelated) authority. How charming.

[Dead_Meat357]

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.

Sorry but it doesn't. I've read that and frankly I don't agree with the sentiment. The game abandones it's own style and story telling methods, and even it's most important and prominant themes which were used for 2.9 games at the very end for some jarring, contradictory, wannabe intellectual hipster garbage. It isn't that we don't understand the material it is that we don't like it. Synthesis is stupid, destroy amounts to genocide, control can be thought of in negative context as well but the biggest issues are that it is overly negative, and it's out of context for the series. BioWare's ego got the better of them and they wanted the story to transcend into something else more "high brow". There are two problems with that.

1.) It's a video game. You need to have a way to WIN. As it is now, you can't win. You don't even do a little better each time. All the endings are negative.
2.) So called "high science fiction" isn't really that popular with the masses and there is a reason for that. It tends to
be overly dark, negative and of course deus ex machina runs rampant with a lot of it and the conclusions are left "open" in order to be deep and thought provoking. 

That last part is just lazy. Actually writing something that concludes in a satisfying way which closes all the plot elements and events takes more organization, more skill and more talent.

This is something closer to the style of Star Trek, with many of the qualities of Star Wars. This is not a Phillip K. Dick or Arther C. Clarke novel. If anything prior to this was presented in that fashion I don't think I'd have continued playing past the first game. This isn't even art or anything like that. It rips of Deus Ex, Star Trek the Motion Picture and Battlestar Galactica. (The new one.) 

Modifié par Dead_Meat357, 19 avril 2012 - 06:05 .

[Cadeym]

Does this article explain:


How the explosion from Harbingers beam which hit in front of Shepard manage to teleport him/her closer to the beam?

The unlimited ammo gun. We know that the weapons found during Jacobs loyalty mission needed thermal clips, which means that all weapons were somehow magically altered to need the clips.

How a beam of light is capable of instantaneously transport Shepard aboard the Citadel. Is it a mass relay? if not then what is it.

How TIM managed to control or prevent Anderson from moving. The indoctrination is not instantaneously and the reapers can't control a person whos mind is still intact. We know that Shepard has cerberus implants which are probably reaper tech so that atleast makes sense.

Why the elevator activate. Shepard didn't push any buttons.

Why Shepard isn't as close to death after meeting the Catalyst as he/she was while crawling to the console.

How Shepard knew what to do after approaching each of the three choices. We the player were shown a cinematic but how did Shepard know?

Modifié par Mouseraider, 19 avril 2012 - 06:11 .

[solarom]

The article is curious, but unfortunately it doesn't translate your point very well. A bunch of theories are thrown, but none of them actually resolve any plot inconsistencies, sudden (and, arguably, incompetently handled) theme shifts and narrative "hiccups" the ending suffers from.

To make an example...

Speculation/Reflection 1.
"The balance of power throughout Mass Effect is firmly grounded in the dynamics of the Kardashev Scale: the Type I Citadel/spacefaring species are threatened by the Type II Reapers, who are interested in preventing the Type I from becoming Type II or Type III (the protheans almost make it – at the end of the first game, it’s revealed that the Conduit is actually a mass relay) and destroying all of the Type 0 and non-civilized life. The Type I species, over millions of years, develop Type III technology, which at the end of Mass Effect 3, finally forces the Type II Reapers to surrender."

Ok, this works. I know of the Kardashev Scale and I understand how, if need be, one could apply it to the ME universe.

Conclusion 1.
"With this daunting difference in scope between the Citadel races’ concerns and the Reapers’ concerns, it’s no surprise that the Reapers are skeptical that organics would ever understand their motives. Ironically it may also be why audiences felt alienated by the ending.

This is why Shepard’s sense of ethics applies perfectly throughout most of the game, but is turned completely upside down when confronted with the potential for the known species to become a Type II civilization – thus why the ending throws out practically everything prior to it. It’s understandable that the emotional effect of Shepard’s epiphany is lost to people who haven’t given any thought to the significance of this transition."

Ok, so I assume (I'm not sure, because the transition between speculation and the conclusion the author draws from it is far from obvious) the author is trying to show how coming into contacts with something too advanced to comprehend (eg. Sovereign in ME1, the Catalyst + the Crucible and the options it presents) can serve to create a sense of alienation within the character, and by extension the player.

To this I have to say, yes. So what?

An encounter with Sovereign was one of the highest emotional points in gaming history for me personally. I did feel threatened, creeped out and alienated, and it was fantastic. I didn't alienate me as a player towards ME1. So a sense of alienation, when introduces properly, can actually be a good thing, no?

Similarly, the Synthesis option in the ME3 ending wasn't the reason I didn't like the ending, and let's be honest, you don't even need to know of the Kardashev Scale to comprehend it at least on a metaphorical level. I have some degree of understanding of quantum mechanics (from reading Hawking etc.) while not being a scientist, all through metaphors and basic knowledge of physics.

So yeah, the idea of Synthesis or, say, Control could seem repulsive to Shepard and undesirable to some of the players, but a) not due to their inability to understand them, and what does it prove? Most of the qualms people have with the options you get at the end were not with the options themselves, but with how they were introduced. I could see how the idea of Synthesis could be beautiful and desirable, if not for the horrific case of Space Magic in its explanation. Or how the Control could actually seem as a necessary evil, if prior to those events we were shown at least some evidence that TIM might actually be right in his obsession. All three endings could've been presented with more sense and coherence, and the fact that they weren't is IMO the main reason people didn't like them, and not because those players aren't educated enough.

Most importantly, the article's reasoning fixes none of the ending's actual issues. What it's been talking about mostly are problems of tone and theme, and most people could overlook and/or forgive that if the plot worked really, really well. Sadly, the introduction of the Catalyst basically troughs all logic out of the window, and I don't think there's enough scientific lingo in the world to explain why hasn't Casper (who was there the whole time, apparently) activated the Citadel relay back in ME1. That's just one of many, many giant plot holes that I personally consider unacceptable in a work of art that wants to qualify as science-fiction, a genre where details matter more than anywhere else, and the sheer presence of such holes makes the idea that Bioware discarded/replaced important concepts only because Hudson/Walters assumed the players' "familiarity with some rather esoteric concepts" seem very far-fetched.

And that's also why I think the article, thoughtful as it is, is basically another Indoctrination Theory. Not thematically, of course. It just seems that a critical, intelligent person who loves ME series very much and doesn't want to be disappointed with it is left with no other choice but to rationalize and create long, elaborate explanations to salvage the mess of its finale.

Modifié par solarom, 19 avril 2012 - 06:28 .

[zarnk567]

Read it..... still think the ending is bad writing.... try again OP.

[The Angry One]

I just love this arrogant attitude going around. "The ending isn't bad, you need it explained!".

Yeah, no. We understand the ending, we need nothing explained. We are intelligent people. No, you are not more intelligent for liking this mess. You do not "get" something we don't, and I have to wonder why you insist on thinking that.

[Mylia Stenetch]

LucasShark wrote...
Way to miss the point: I do dislike a lot of "AAA" games because they are often mediocre to poor quality, sold as high quality.  That is unacceptable to me.

I did not miss the point you are telling *people* to hate something they might enjoy. I do not like Transformers movies I think they are utter gutter trash, but I know people who love them. That is their choice. It is the same as you liking Starship Troopers although it should be classified as garbage since it is B movie at best.

People enjoy what they want and get what they deserve most of the time. As always it is up to them to make a desicions if they like it or hate it.

[Mylia Stenetch]

The Angry One wrote...

I just love this arrogant attitude going around. "The ending isn't bad, you need it explained!".

Yeah, no. We understand the ending, we need nothing explained. We are intelligent people. No, you are not more intelligent for liking this mess. You do not "get" something we don't, and I have to wonder why you insist on thinking that.

The editorial does go say that the ending is poor, and poorly executed. He does critizie Bioware, IT supports, and HTL extremists. This is his own speculation which has been seen on either side of the coin.

[Kunari801]

lillitheris wrote...

Yeah, we get it. We're not too dumb to understand what they changed their story to attempt to say at the last minute. That's not the problem with the ending. Sorry.

Abreu Road wrote...

You know why most people played and loved Mass Effect?

Characters. Tali, Garrus, Wrex and so many others. What we got in the ending? Everyone you care about is dead or stranded on Sol System or Jungle Planet. The lack of closure for the most important part of the Mass Effect universe, it's characters, is an insult.

^- Both of them. As Mordin said in his speech before curing the genophage. The galaxy is too big to personalize, you need to personalize it on a scale we can relate to. For Mordin it was his nephew, but for my Shepard it's my "Family" and that's my crew and my friends. For me it wasn't so much if my Shepard lived or not, I was willing to sacrifice to save my "Family" it's just none of the endings (as is) gives me that feeling.

I understand what they tried to say, they just did it very poorly and forgot WHY we played Mass Effect. It wasn't the morality tale, it was for the characters.

[FatalX7.0]

That didn't change my opinion at all.

[goose2989]

ReggarBlane wrote...

Speculations based on sloppy work is equally sloppy.

[LucasShark]

Mylia Stenetch wrote...

LucasShark wrote...
Way to miss the point: I do dislike a lot of "AAA" games because they are often mediocre to poor quality, sold as high quality.  That is unacceptable to me.

I did not miss the point you are telling *people* to hate something they might enjoy. I do not like Transformers movies I think they are utter gutter trash, but I know people who love them. That is their choice. It is the same as you liking Starship Troopers although it should be classified as garbage since it is B movie at best.

People enjoy what they want and get what they deserve most of the time. As always it is up to them to make a desicions if they like it or hate it.

That was sort of the point of the example: there's nothing wrong with people "liking" poor quality products, but they have to simaltainously admit that it is their opinion and the product is still of poor quality.  People can like the aste of McDonalds, but it is still objectively bad for you.

What I was taking issue with in the OP's posts, and in AAA gaming in general is this: claiming "I like it, therefore it is objectively good", which is a logical falicy.