197 réponses à ce sujet

[Bill Casey]

Taboo-XX wrote...

I can appreciate it and it IS something that is implemented in films. Sometimes you do get a 2001-esque ending whether you like it or not.

It's not really a 2001-esque ending...
The conflict resolution in 2001 ended conventionally...
The ending only got abstract after HAL 9000 was defeated in a satisfactory manner...


It would have been like 2001 if the Galaxy defeated the Reapers, and then Shepard touched an ancient artifact that gave us a bunch of weird imagery...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 19 avril 2012 - 10:03 .

[Taboo]

Verhner wrote...

It is about the expectations of the audience.
We expected to take earth back, not blow it up.
We expected at least some kind of victory, all of them feels like "critical mission failure"
We expected our choices to matter.
We expected Harbinger to be the ultimate bad guy
We expected Shepard to tell the starchild to bugger off, i mean really in essence he IS the reapers!
We expected the ending to make sense

These are the expectations of a mainstream audience. This is what I was implied in the original post. It's nothing to be ashamed of. This is exactly why the ending came as such a shock.

I will dsicuss "Narrative minimilism" in my next update.

[TonViper]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Verhner wrote...

It is about the expectations of the audience.
We expected to take earth back, not blow it up.
We expected at least some kind of victory, all of them feels like "critical mission failure"
We expected our choices to matter.
We expected Harbinger to be the ultimate bad guy
We expected Shepard to tell the starchild to bugger off, i mean really in essence he IS the reapers!
We expected the ending to make sense

These are the expectations of a mainstream audience. This is what I was implied in the original post. It's nothing to be ashamed of. This is exactly why the ending came as such a shock.

I will dsicuss "Narrative minimilism" in my next update.

Maybe if Bioware had marketed the game as "artsy" at any point during its development, it could be argued that the ending we got was fitting, but they didn't. Make no mistake. the Mass Effect series is main stream and should have kept it up through the ending as well. Or at the very least they should have made more of an effort to not make the ending feel like a non sequitur to a large part of their player base.

Modifié par TonViper, 19 avril 2012 - 10:05 .

[Taboo]

It was marketed as mainstream and that was their mistake. The ending is NOT commercial in it's current state. It mirrors the minimilist films of Robert Bresson. Those are some vague films guys.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 19 avril 2012 - 10:06 .

[Laurencio]

Verhner wrote...

It is about the expectations of the audience.
We expected to take earth back, not blow it up.
We expected at least some kind of victory, all of them feels like "critical mission failure"
We expected our choices to matter.
We expected Harbinger to be the ultimate bad guy
We expected Shepard to tell the starchild to bugger off, i mean really in essence he IS the reapers!
We expected the ending to make sense

I expected Earth to burn actually

I was completely fine with and expected a phyrric victory where I mostly lost, but won anyway because the reapers are gone. I was also half expecting just losing completely.

I did not expect Harbinger to be the bad guy, he was sort of the "leader" in the last game. Sovreign had ME1, Harbinger had ME2. I expected something more sinister than a creature that took over minion boddies and made one liners to be perfectly honest.

Modifié par Laurencio, 19 avril 2012 - 10:10 .

[Wulfram]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Arty and bad writing go hand and hand in the film industry. When someone doesn't know what they're doing they can fumble and make it into an incomprehensible mess. I can guarantee you that there are people here who would accuse Andrei Tarkovsky of bad writing simply because his shot length is long and his films have little dialouge. It's the way the narrative IS.

I've only seen the american remake of Solaris as far as Tarkovsky goes, but if it's any guide then his sort of work would be really bad writing if it was stuck on the end of the Mass Effect series

[Taboo]

Wulfram wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Arty and bad writing go hand and hand in the film industry. When someone doesn't know what they're doing they can fumble and make it into an incomprehensible mess. I can guarantee you that there are people here who would accuse Andrei Tarkovsky of bad writing simply because his shot length is long and his films have little dialouge. It's the way the narrative IS.

I've only seen the american remake of Solaris as far as Tarkovsky goes, but if it's any guide then his sort of work would be really bad writing if it was stuck on the end of the Mass Effect series

Tarkovsky's films move at a glacial pace. They are incredibly slow films and can go for ten or so minutes with a single word. It's hard to describe without sounding rude but some of the people here have no idea how dense films can become.

[Harbinger of your Destiny]

Kick 'em when they're up

Kick 'em when they're down.

Modifié par Harbinger of your Destiny, 19 avril 2012 - 10:18 .

[Taboo]

Harbinger of your Destiny wrote...

Kick 'em when they're up

Kick 'em when they're down.

Which is what we're doing. At least someone listened to the song..........

[Wulfram]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Tarkovsky's films move at a glacial pace. They are incredibly slow films and can go for ten or so minutes with a single word. It's hard to describe without sounding rude but some of the people here have no idea how dense films can become.

Well, the american remake of Solaris I saw certainly moved slowly, so I guess I at least vaguely understand what you mean.

But my point is that suddenly shoehorning in that sort of style to the end of the Mass Effect 3 series would constitute extremely poor writing.  Even if it's really good writing as part of it's own thing.

[schwarzaj]

Taboo-XX wrote...

eddieoctane wrote...

And the destruction of the relays serves zero purpose. Technologically, it would be much more feasible to try to rebuild the relays than to try to develop new FTL tech from the ground up. There's a saying in engineering "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The relays work. The Protheans figured out how to build them. It would be the first thing on any politician's list. So the "effect" the Reapers had by leaving the relays for us is permanent. It's not going away. What was seen cannot be unseen. So there is no long term benefit of getting rid of Reaper tech (other than the actual Reapers) and in the short term we are in a galactic dark age.

I know it's hard to swallow but they have already started retconning. Mr. Gamble confirmed that the relays are disabled on Twitter. Oh and the citadel isn't going to be destroyed. The problem now is that the ending was so poor that people have picked it apart and Bioware has quite a task ahead of them if they are going to fix it.

Wait a second. Gamble came out and said that the relays are now disabled, menaing that in the EC they won't be blown to bits, just turned off? Also, the Citadel isn't going to blow? To be honest, I can stomach Starbrat so long as they redue the scene. If the choices stay, then they'll actually be different becasue they'll actually have major differences in the ending. For example, Iimagine a scene where the Geth all just die on Rannoch, or the Geth and the Quarians are celebrating the end of the Reaper War, or the Geth and the Quarians are fused together. If this is what the EC does, then it might just work.:happy:

Also, Shepard has to live with his LI in the end. I want my god damn blue children!

[Laurencio]

No exploding Citadel? Aww.... That means the catalyst and the symbol of reaper dominance in the galaxy survives, how is that acceptable?

Modifié par Laurencio, 19 avril 2012 - 10:24 .

[Taboo]

 People need to understand that they aren't changing the ending choices per se but they rearranging the narrative structure.

The narrative structure as it stands right now is as such:

A B C

they are adding a "D"

You know have (surprise, surprise)

A B C D

You are "techinically" getting new endings.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 19 avril 2012 - 10:24 .

[Bill Casey]

I would recommend checking out Duchamp's "The Fountain"...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 19 avril 2012 - 10:29 .

[schwarzaj]

Taboo-XX wrote...

It was marketed as mainstream and that was their mistake. The ending is NOT commercial in it's current state. It mirrors the minimilist films of Robert Bresson. Those are some vague films guys.

Like the whole Garden of Eden reference when the Normandy crash landed on that world, the freedom from the Reapers control over galatic civilization with the destruction of the relays and the citadel. Ya, when you look at it metaphorically, it makes sense, but like you said, Bioware tried to do something very high concept that wasn't going to fly in such a technical universe.

[Taboo]

Bill Casey wrote...

I would recommend checking out Duchamp's "The Fountain"...

I recommend the twin sciene fiction films Solaris and Stalker.

or if you like seventies excess (and sex) you can watch The Man Who Fell to Earth (with David Bowie).

[schwarzaj]

Taboo-XX wrote...

 People need to understand that they aren't changing the ending choices per se but they rearranging the narrative structure.

The narrative structure as it stands right now is as such:

A B C

they are adding a "D"

You know have (surprise, surprise)

A B C D

You are "techinically" getting new endings.

What's choice D?

[Taboo]

schwarzaj wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

It was marketed as mainstream and that was their mistake. The ending is NOT commercial in it's current state. It mirrors the minimilist films of Robert Bresson. Those are some vague films guys.

Like the whole Garden of Eden reference when the Normandy crash landed on that world, the freedom from the Reapers control over galatic civilization with the destruction of the relays and the citadel. Ya, when you look at it metaphorically, it makes sense, but like you said, Bioware tried to do something very high concept that wasn't going to fly in such a technical universe.

I'll make an update later about this. I usually know what I'm talking about. It's my writing that isn't very coherent. 

[Harbinger of your Destiny]

Taboo-XX wrote...

 People need to understand that they aren't changing the ending choices per se but they rearranging the narrative structure.

The narrative structure as it stands right now is as such:

A B C

they are adding a "D"

You know have (surprise, surprise)

A B C D

You are "techinically" getting new endings.

I thought they were simply giving more context to endings A B and C not adding a D.

[Bill Casey]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

I would recommend checking out Duchamp's "The Fountain"...

I recommend the twin sciene fiction films Solaris and Stalker.

or if you like seventies excess (and sex) you can watch The Man Who Fell to Earth (with David Bowie).

No, I mean he put a toilet on display to essentially illustrate how pretentious abstract art really is...

[Taboo]

schwarzaj wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

 People need to understand that they aren't changing the ending choices per se but they rearranging the narrative structure.

The narrative structure as it stands right now is as such:

A B C

they are adding a "D"

You know have (surprise, surprise)

A B C D

You are "techinically" getting new endings.

What's choice D?

I apologize for being incoherent again.

"D" is the new addition to the narrative structure. This includes everything that happens with the inclusion of the Extended Cut DLC.

[Taboo]

Bill Casey wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

I would recommend checking out Duchamp's "The Fountain"...

I recommend the twin sciene fiction films Solaris and Stalker.

or if you like seventies excess (and sex) you can watch The Man Who Fell to Earth (with David Bowie).

No, I mean he put a toilet on display to essentially illustrate how pretentious abstract art really is...

Dadaism is not my forte sadly but I understand what you're saying. It's still very much art but it's a "different" type.

[Pelle6666]

Very nice! very nice indeed!

[ahandsomeshark]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Arty and bad writing go hand and hand in the film industry. When someone doesn't know what they're doing they can fumble and make it into an incomprehensible mess. I can guarantee you that there are people here who would accuse Andrei Tarkovsky of bad writing simply because his shot length is long and his films have little dialouge. It's the way the narrative IS.

I've only seen the american remake of Solaris as far as Tarkovsky goes, but if it's any guide then his sort of work would be really bad writing if it was stuck on the end of the Mass Effect series

Tarkovsky's films move at a glacial pace. They are incredibly slow films and can go for ten or so minutes with a single word. It's hard to describe without sounding rude but some of the people here have no idea how dense films can become.

those are my favorite types of films. But I don't get the relevance to Mass Effect.

[Creston918]

Taboo-XX wrote...
 The only people you should be paying attention to are Bioware employees.

Like Jessica Merizan, who makes stuff up on the spot on Twitter?
But I agree with your point; people are allowing themselves to be trolled by everything and everyone.

An extended cut can:

Add footage
Restore plot points
Remove plot points and replace them with others (!)

Except, of course, that they've said they're not going to change anything, they're just going to clarify. You can make me understand all about a turd's chemical makeup and why it's necessary for a body to dispose of its waste in such a matter, it doesn't make it any more pleasant.

Now, it's possible they said that and just explained themselves poorly, and they will in fact fix the utterly massive plotholes contained in the final, but the whole hammering hammering hammering hammering home that "over 75 perfect scores!" in every single byte of ME3 media tends to lead me to believe otherwise. "We believe strongly in our team's artistic vision," indeed.

  They need to make it more palatable to a mainstream audience.

I kind of dislike the idea that just because I don't like the ending, I must therefore somehow not be smart enough to "get it."
It's a card that several Bioware employees have played, and it's the favorite card of the pro-enders. I'm more than capable of understanding art; I'm also more than capable of recognizing crap thinly disguised as art. I'm also firmly in the camp that says you don't just get to call your own stuff art and then stand there with a smug grin on your face and refuse to let anyone criticize it.

Finally, art is produced for art's sake; it serves no other purpose than to BE art. Mass Effect 3 was produced

1) To make a lot of money.
2) To entertain.

It did both those things extremely well, and as such it can be heralded as an excellent example of profitable entertainment, and may even be considered 'art' because of that (which is an entirely different discussion), but this whole "Well, it's our artistic vision, and you guys need to shut up about it!" attitude is just utter BS.

The ending SUCKED. I have no idea whether the "Extended cut" is going to make it suck any less, though I'm fairly skeptical. If Bioware would just say "Look, we thought you guys would have loved the ending, and you didn't. We realise we promised a lot of things and we didn't deliver on most of them with regards to how it ended. We're sorry about that." I think most people would shrug and move on.

But it's that constant, EA-fed, arrogant, holier-than-thou attitude that pisses people off. "You guys just didn't understand our ending, and 'some fans need more closure', so we'll 'explain the endings for those of you that didn't get it!'"

Anyway, I'm sure that like a lot of people here, the only reason I bother to discuss it is because it's an interesting discussion, and I'm bored at work. I've long since moved on from ME3's SP. (Only ever played it once. I played ME1 and ME2 a total of 23 times combined. I don't know that I'll ever replay ME3 again.)

Modifié par Creston918, 19 avril 2012 - 10:34 .