626 réponses à ce sujet

[goofyomnivore]

Yeah as a fan who was already invested into the series that line really irked me. It made me feel like, introducing more fans was more important than ending Shepard's story for current fans.

Maybe it was, and maybe it worked 200 million sales. But I'd say, BioWare damaged some of their reputation with long standing fans in favor of gaining fickle fans who will probably be playing Halo 4 this time next year and not give a damn about any other sci-fi game, or barely remember what Mass Effect/BioWare was.

The final act of a three part story should never be the best entry point, and you should never try to design it that way.

Modifié par strive, 12 mai 2012 - 01:51 .

[Austin N]

The Angry One wrote...

And seriously who decides to make the 3rd installment of the trilogy the "best entry point" for the series?

The series already has an entry point. IT'S CALLED MASS EFFECT 1.

Yeah. Even before this controversy, I always found that statement suspicious, ESPECIALLY with how much emphasis ME places on save imports.

In fact, I know it happens, but I don't understand why any video gamers would buy the sequel first. Sure, maybe if the preceeding game got negative reviews and the sequel was greatly improved, but aside from that, why? Aren't you scared of being lost?

[The Angry One]

Austin N wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

And seriously who decides to make the 3rd installment of the trilogy the "best entry point" for the series?

The series already has an entry point. IT'S CALLED MASS EFFECT 1.

Yeah. Even before this controversy, I always found that statement suspicious, ESPECIALLY with how much emphasis ME places on save imports.

In fact, I know it happens, but I don't understand why any video gamers would buy the sequel first. Sure, maybe if the preceeding game got negative reviews and the sequel was greatly improved, but aside from that, why? Aren't you scared of being lost?

It happens, but people can deal with being a little lost.
For example, I played Saints Row 2 without playing Saints Row 1 due to it only gaining my attention for being practically the only GTA-type game ever that can have a female protagonist.
It made constant references to the first game, callbacks, storyline threads, whatever. Some things were confusing, but I dealt with it. Anything I was curious about I could, you know, look up. Sometimes I think publishers forget this is the era of the internet and we're not all drones who need to be spoonfed exposition.

Ironically Saints Row 3 would carry the same "entry to the series!" attitude as ME3, only to a ridiculous extreme that made it pure crap (well, that and other reasons).

[Phaedra Sanguine]

MaxMcKay wrote...

Jenonax wrote...

That's a cheap shot, really.

Return of the King wasn't one long goodbye. Deathly Hallows wasn't. Amber Spyglass wasn't. The last part of a trilogy ties everything together but still has to follow basic narrative structure. The whole thing is not a denoument because guess what, it would be BORING!

Sorry, but this guy needs to go back to Writing 101. I have never heard something so silly from someone who's company is supposed to be leaders in interactive storytelling.

This about sums up my thoughts very nicly I think

The fact that both of you know nothing about storyteling? Good point.

[The Angry One]

Paxcorpus wrote...

MaxMcKay wrote...

Jenonax wrote...

That's a cheap shot, really.

Return of the King wasn't one long goodbye. Deathly Hallows wasn't. Amber Spyglass wasn't. The last part of a trilogy ties everything together but still has to follow basic narrative structure. The whole thing is not a denoument because guess what, it would be BORING!

Sorry, but this guy needs to go back to Writing 101. I have never heard something so silly from someone who's company is supposed to be leaders in interactive storytelling.

This about sums up my thoughts very nicly I think

The fact that both of you know nothing about storyteling? Good point.

Do you do anything other than cry when people make points you can't counter?

[The Night Mammoth]

Paxcorpus wrote...

MaxMcKay wrote...

Jenonax wrote...

That's a cheap shot, really.

Return of the King wasn't one long goodbye. Deathly Hallows wasn't. Amber Spyglass wasn't. The last part of a trilogy ties everything together but still has to follow basic narrative structure. The whole thing is not a denoument because guess what, it would be BORING!

Sorry, but this guy needs to go back to Writing 101. I have never heard something so silly from someone who's company is supposed to be leaders in interactive storytelling.

This about sums up my thoughts very nicly I think

The fact that both of you know nothing about storyteling? Good point.

It's fine, you don't have to explain why. 

[Jenonax]

Paxcorpus wrote...

MaxMcKay wrote...

Jenonax wrote...

That's a cheap shot, really.

Return of the King wasn't one long goodbye. Deathly Hallows wasn't. Amber Spyglass wasn't. The last part of a trilogy ties everything together but still has to follow basic narrative structure. The whole thing is not a denoument because guess what, it would be BORING!

Sorry, but this guy needs to go back to Writing 101. I have never heard something so silly from someone who's company is supposed to be leaders in interactive storytelling.

This about sums up my thoughts very nicly I think

The fact that both of you know nothing about storyteling? Good point.

Do please elaborate.  I may not have put my point across in the most succinct manner in the above post but, hey, it was midnight, I was half asleep.

I know quite a bit about storytelling, thank you, but even if I didn't, to say Mass Effect 3 is the long goodbye to the series, in the context that Totilo is, is just idiotic.  His reasoning is that the details of the finale don't matter because the whole game is the ending.  That's ridiculous.  When the details don't add up, the bigger picture is skewed.  I'm not sure whether his reasoning makes the whole thing even worse.

[The Vanquished1]

Who cares anymore. Bioware loves it and it doesn't matter how unsatisfied the fans who actually bought the game are. What it boils down to is we get what they want us to have or perhaps they feel this is what we deserve and I'm okay with that actually because I won't be buying anymore of their software. In closing, they will get exactly what I want them to have in the future which is nothing. My $60 and change won't be missed much anyway. Voting with your wallet still means something.

[Stigweird85]

What difference does it make if new people came into a series at part 3?

By this logic only people who bought it on the xbox in 2007 can ever be fans as it that was the original release. The PC came later and it was never released on the PS3.

While it is irksome that the focus seemed to be on new(particuly FPS players) fans rather than existing customers it is standard practice in companies for companies to focus on customers they don't have rather than those they do.

They say it's a good entry point as they are trying to promote it, they are hardly going to say
"Mass Effect 3 is a brilliant game, but if you haven't played Mass Effect 1 and 2 you will not understand any of it so you should avoid it"

Long time players will have more connection than newer players and as a result will see things slightly differently. The love interests, the virmire survivor, returning crew members from the sucide mission, none of this means anything to new players but is there for longterm fans.

[The Night Mammoth]

bigstig wrote...

What difference does it make if new people came into a series at part 3?

No difference, but that's not the point. 

The point is more that you shouldn't really say that this is the most easily accessible game in the series so far, whilst also saying the whole game is the ending. It contradicts. 

[The Vanquished1]

I'm at the point now where I believe the best way to develop a game is to never do direct sequels. Do like a Final Fantasy/Oblivion type deal where you tell the story and wrap it up in one game and then do another game in the same world with totally different characters and storyline. At least you would get variety, plotholes would be almost non-existant, and a different team of writers from game to game could do their own stories without stomping all over the grave of a previous writers hard work.

[dreamgazer]

The Angry One wrote...

BioWare have convinced themselves there's a deeper meaning here that we philistines "don't get". There is none, and now they've grown so desperate to prove themselves right in spite of the evidence by supporting morons who spout the "it's the journey that counts!!" argument.

After reading in previous threads the process in how you deduced that Destroy is the only true decision, which very closely resembles mine, I honestly don't see how you can continue to say this.  I have my problems with the  conclusion, namely the cryptic nature of how we're supposed to process the very last images, but to say that there's not a deeper level of analysis in what's going on is off-base.  

They're not saying that there's some life-altering message, but that there's something else going on---something that takes a little more analytical thought---that people might be missing.  I'm not happy with the tone that they're taking, even if it might be reactionary to the cynical barbs being lashed at them right now, but they're really not trying to belittle their audience.  

[Jenonax]

dreamgazer wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

BioWare have convinced themselves there's a deeper meaning here that we philistines "don't get". There is none, and now they've grown so desperate to prove themselves right in spite of the evidence by supporting morons who spout the "it's the journey that counts!!" argument.

After reading in previous threads the process in how you deduced that Destroy is the only true decision, which very closely resembles mine, I honestly don't see how you can continue to say this.  I have my problems with the  conclusion, namely the cryptic nature of how we're supposed to process the very last images, but to say that there's not a deeper level of analysis in what's going on is off-base.  

They're not saying that there's some life-altering message, but that there's something else going on---something that takes a little more analytical thought---that people might be missing.  I'm not happy with the tone that they're taking, even if it might be reactionary to the cynical barbs being lashed at them right now, but they're really not trying to belittle their audience.  

The problem with deeper meanings is that you have to write them.  They don't just come about on their own.  At some point the ending was crafted, everything there was chosen to be there, every detail is important.  The endings are just what they are.  We meet the leader of the Reapers, he gives us a choice, we choose.  How much we have to analyse the endings is not down to a deeper meaning, its because they are so sparse and vague we have to mentally fill in the gaps.  Who is the StarChild really?  Is he telling the truth?  What are the real consequences after my choice?  Analysing comes from reading into the details a writer has put forward.  What we are doing is mental gymnastics in the absense of detail.

There is no deeper meaning because Bioware failed to execute the endings properly.  Its not metaphorical, its not spiritual, its literally the way it is.  The ending is not the natural conclusion to the series, it feels tacked on at the last minute.  Meaning doesn't come into it.  It feels incredibly soulless, in my opinion.

[dreamgazer]

Jenonax wrote...

The problem with deeper meanings is that you have to write them.  They don't just come about on their own.  At some point the ending was crafted, everything there was chosen to be there, every detail is important.  The endings are just what they are.  We meet the leader of the Reapers, he gives us a choice, we choose.  How much we have to analyse the endings is not down to a deeper meaning, its because they are so sparse and vague we have to mentally fill in the gaps.  Who is the StarChild really?  Is he telling the truth?  What are the real consequences after my choice?  Analysing comes from reading into the details a writer has put forward.  What we are doing is mental gymnastics in the absense of detail.

There is no deeper meaning because Bioware failed to execute the endings properly.  Its not metaphorical, its not spiritual, its literally the way it is.  The ending is not the natural conclusion to the series, it feels tacked on at the last minute.  Meaning doesn't come into it.  It feels incredibly soulless, in my opinion.

See, that's a part of interpretation, and not just "filling in the gaps". A lot of pieces of science-fiction introduce raw ideas for the audience to chew, without concretely etching out their parameters (the first that comes to mind is the fog in Solaris that causes a space station's inhabitants to hallucinate).  There's enough detail there to establish cogent viewpoints of what you're seeing; people who negatively lance the ending do so all the time, they're just doing so while following the direction that the ending simply can't possess threads of intelligent thought---and that BioWare's created some malignant monstrosity.

I agree, though: they failed to cork the whole thing off properly, and that's why the very last moments of the game feel more intentionally obscure than compelling and capable of asking the audience to glimpse deeper into what they've seen.  But the thought's there. 

[Tylea002]

Whilst I agree that ME3 is a full denouement, tying up plot threads from all the games, that doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the final 20 minutes. It's irrelevant.

If anything, it's extremely hypocritical of Bioware to state that ME3 as a whole is an ending, because it has been advertised as a full story within it's own right - an experience that players both new and returning can enjoy. If it is merely an ending, it is not that.

This is called attempting to have ones cake, and eat it.

[Jenonax]

dreamgazer wrote...

Jenonax wrote...

The problem with deeper meanings is that you have to write them.  They don't just come about on their own.  At some point the ending was crafted, everything there was chosen to be there, every detail is important.  The endings are just what they are.  We meet the leader of the Reapers, he gives us a choice, we choose.  How much we have to analyse the endings is not down to a deeper meaning, its because they are so sparse and vague we have to mentally fill in the gaps.  Who is the StarChild really?  Is he telling the truth?  What are the real consequences after my choice?  Analysing comes from reading into the details a writer has put forward.  What we are doing is mental gymnastics in the absense of detail.

There is no deeper meaning because Bioware failed to execute the endings properly.  Its not metaphorical, its not spiritual, its literally the way it is.  The ending is not the natural conclusion to the series, it feels tacked on at the last minute.  Meaning doesn't come into it.  It feels incredibly soulless, in my opinion.

See, that's a part of interpretation, and not just "filling in the gaps". A lot of pieces of science-fiction introduce raw ideas for the audience to chew, without concretely etching out their parameters (the first that comes to mind is the fog in Solaris that causes a space station's inhabitants to hallucinate).  There's enough detail there to establish cogent viewpoints of what you're seeing; people who negatively lance the ending do so all the time, they're just doing so while following the direction that the ending simply can't possess threads of intelligent thought---and that BioWare's created some malignant monstrosity.

I agree, though: they failed to cork the whole thing off properly, and that's why the very last moments of the game feel more intentionally obscure than compelling and capable of asking the audience to glimpse deeper into what they've seen.  But the thought's there. 

I agree that the thought is there.  I think they were trying to go somewhere 'deeper' with the ending.  Its just not clear where.  That's the lack of detail.

Yes, lots of authors do introduce new, raw ideas and ask us to think about them and come to our own conclusions.  But they do not introduce them into the finale.  That's simply poor writing, nothing meaningful there.  The Catalyst and his ideas should never have been in the game.  He simply does not fit.  Once you have a plot established you have to stick to it, you can't go moving the goalposts at the end. 

Poor, poor execution.

[TwelfthCrusader]

This pretty much sums up how I felt about the game tbh. I always considered the entire thing to be the ending.

[lynch108]

If it was just one big ending, it seems unethical to promote it as the perfect place to jump aboard the series as was done. Just my opinion, no need to go spreading it around.

[Apathy1989]

So they are excusing a crap ending, by saying the entire game is the ending.

[essarr71]

Jenonax wrote...

I agree that the thought is there.  I think they were trying to go somewhere 'deeper' with the ending.  Its just not clear where.  That's the lack of detail.

Yes, lots of authors do introduce new, raw ideas and ask us to think about them and come to our own conclusions.  But they do not introduce them into the finale.  That's simply poor writing, nothing meaningful there.  The Catalyst and his ideas should never have been in the game.  He simply does not fit.  Once you have a plot established you have to stick to it, you can't go moving the goalposts at the end. 

Poor, poor execution.

I agree to a point with this.  My only devil's advocate is that if ME3 took the time to groom the catalyst and his scenarios into the game well before they did, the reception would be different.  The HUGE issue isn't just that he exists.. it's that he betrays the themes of the entire series.  Even this would have been acceptable if hints were dropped, but the game actually shows you one thing, then says the other. 

Poor execution, indeed.

[Rodia Driftwood]

It's not 34 hours and it's not a goodbye. It's 10 minutes and it's a slap across the face.

[Almighty_Hoogs]

Just as i was calming down on this whole mass effect 3 ending,i see this. Oh what joy. But to be honest,if the guy likes the ending,fine. I don't

[dreamgazer]

Jenonax wrote...

I agree that the thought is there. I think they were trying to go somewhere 'deeper' with the ending. Its just not clear where. That's the lack of detail.

Yes, lots of authors do introduce new, raw ideas and ask us to think about them and come to our own conclusions. But they do not introduce them into the finale. That's simply poor writing, nothing meaningful there. The Catalyst and his ideas should never have been in the game. He simply does not fit. Once you have a plot established you have to stick to it, you can't go moving the goalposts at the end.

Poor, poor execution.

I don't think this is the right thread for this, so I won't go very far into it, but I firmly believe the options that the catalyst asserts directly correlate to contemplative ideas that stretch all the way back to the first Mass Effect: concepts of controlling and harnessing synthetic life for personal devices, the harsh and troubling notions of synthetic-organic hybrids, and the implications of eliminating races---whether flesh-based or machine-based---and whether your Shepard (taking the "red option" at complete face-value, assuming the kid is honest) is capable of destroying a small number to preserve a greater number.

And I do see elements of deeper meaning in what they executed, the two prevalent points off the top of my head being: a) our perception of synthetic life as a form of real life, and how the Mass Effect universe has shaped our perception of it through the geth and EDI, and the balance of faith and practical thinking surrounding the catalyst and his solutions. Again, like I said, these aren't supposed to be things that are meant to change our outlook on the world, and BioWare aren't delivering a philosophical dissertation here, but instead they're attempting to engage our decision-making on a more personal, interpretive, and contemplative level that "pick a color" or "pick a war crime".

I would say the execution is rough and obscure there, not necessarily poor. The intentions they have behind how we're supposed to process Joker throttling everyone to safety and the Normandy crashing on an idyllic, safe garden planet untouched by the war, however, rest too close to the line of recklessness for my own personal taste. But there's more than one way you can look at those.

Modifié par dreamgazer, 12 mai 2012 - 03:32 .

[unoriginalname1133]

I've seen this type of reasoning before, and it seems like the worst kind of semantics. If you want to call the whole game the "ending," then there still needs to be some kind of defense for the "climax" or whatever you want to call the last 15 minutes of the game. Whatever closure you got from the rest of the game is still invalidated by the events with the Catalyst. Your choice on Tuchanka? Didn't matter. Did you make peace with the Quarians and the Geth? Who cares? And that's just scratching the surface. 

As for just "enduring until you lose," since when is this the case? There was nothing about the story that forces it to have a depressing ending. The other two games and most of the third are about OVERCOMING insurmountable odds, not giving up and accepting whatever petty victory you can. Given, there where moments that forced your hand like Virmire and Arrival, but these moments were offset by moments of hope for true victory.

[LinksOcarina]

unoriginalname1133 wrote...

I've seen this type of reasoning before, and it seems like the worst kind of semantics. If you want to call the whole game the "ending," then there still needs to be some kind of defense for the "climax" or whatever you want to call the last 15 minutes of the game. Whatever closure you got from the rest of the game is still invalidated by the events with the Catalyst. Your choice on Tuchanka? Didn't matter. Did you make peace with the Quarians and the Geth? Who cares? And that's just scratching the surface. 

As for just "enduring until you lose," since when is this the case? There was nothing about the story that forces it to have a depressing ending. The other two games and most of the third are about OVERCOMING insurmountable odds, not giving up and accepting whatever petty victory you can. Given, there where moments that forced your hand like Virmire and Arrival, but these moments were offset by moments of hope for true victory.

This goes into one issue I had with Mass Effect 3 as a whole; the lack of true catharis. I said in my original review that the game felt like a long-paced marathon, a very depressing, harrowing tale that had no moments of levity or breathing into it that we were accustomed to in previous titles. They tried to do it, but it was always predecated with a sense of impending doom. "Were gonna die, so lets break the law and skeet shoot on top of the citadel." "Were gonna die, so let me dance despite having brittle bone disease." Were gonna die, so let's look for a canadian lager to drink and enjoy one last time." Were gonna die, so let me get a tattoo of N7 on my back."

Things like those above were great little moments that gave people character growth, but the problem was the "were gonna die" part. Even Shepard was doubtful for most of the game. I don't fault BioWare for doing this, but it makes the game very difficult to swallow. So in some respects, the reivewer is actually correct in saying this is an hour long goodbye in that regard. And, in following most literary tropes and creative writing courses, it tied up a lot of loose ends and culminated characters quite well up until the final ten minutes.

So for me, that was a bigger issue, coupled with a lack of closure from the ending, that made me a bit indifferent about the game. 

Still one the best out there right now, so I do hope that the Extended Cut does alleviate some more plot holes and stuff like that.