626 réponses à ce sujet

[Ecrulis]

Sidney wrote...

xxskyshadowxx wrote...

The more of this stuff I read, the more I realize that the EC DLC is going to be a collossal failure....and in all likelyhood there will be an announcement that BioWare plans to merge with "Our game is GOOD, you just don't understand it!" Lexis Numerique.

It is a waste of resources. They can't win. People don't hate an ending because they don't understand it. They could explain it all but when relays blow up, shep dies and rainbows and unicorns don't come out the same crowd will still be unhappy.

Its not really about it not being a happy ending, yes Ive seen (and this includes me) people argue that there should be an OPTION for a happy ending, but ive also seen those same people say they would accept an ending where shep dies if the damn thing fit the Mass Effect Universe at all, which the current ending s do not.

[iamthedave3]

Metal Gear Solid 4 was one long goodbye. I defy anybody to come out of that game with more than a couple of questions left over.

See, even if we accept that it is all one long ending, there remains a problem. Your long ending has a final note, a point on which things end. MGS made it out with a little wave at the end of a darkened street.

Mass Effect 3 made it out with a kick in the nuts. Oddly enough, the latter approach has not gone down well with the fans...

[Eduadinho]

dreamgazer wrote...

ReggarBlane wrote...


Duane Webb: Co-director of Production at BioWare. Franchise Project Manager for Mass Effect.

He is referring to this article.
My Mass Effect 3 Ending Lasted 34 Hours. It Was Wonderful.

I'm not a "pro-ender", in that I feel the last moments of the game needed to be less cryptic and perhaps less interpretive, but I vehemently agree with this. 

Ssshhhhhh don't you know that agreeing with something that the forums disagrees on is heresy. 
I too realise that there are flaws with the ending but then I also think that the the ending is the final third of the Trilogy. When a book or series are made they typically come in three parts the beginning the middle and the end. While things come to a head in the final part of the ending many other loose ends are tied up earlier, the same occured in Mass Effect 3. 

[Iakus]

Ecrulis wrote...

Sidney wrote...

xxskyshadowxx wrote...

The more of this stuff I read, the more I realize that the EC DLC is going to be a collossal failure....and in all likelyhood there will be an announcement that BioWare plans to merge with "Our game is GOOD, you just don't understand it!" Lexis Numerique.

It is a waste of resources. They can't win. People don't hate an ending because they don't understand it. They could explain it all but when relays blow up, shep dies and rainbows and unicorns don't come out the same crowd will still be unhappy.

Its not really about it not being a happy ending, yes Ive seen (and this includes me) people argue that there should be an OPTION for a happy ending, but ive also seen those same people say they would accept an ending where shep dies if the damn thing fit the Mass Effect Universe at all, which the current ending s do not.

For a game supposedly about options, you end up with none at the end

Modifié par iakus, 11 mai 2012 - 08:45 .

[Kleli]

This just another comment from BioWare where they call the people that don't like the ending stupid. As has already been mentioned if a vast majority don't get your "art" then you have undoubtedly failed.

[razor150]

Eduadinho wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

ReggarBlane wrote...


Duane Webb: Co-director of Production at BioWare. Franchise Project Manager for Mass Effect.

He is referring to this article.
My Mass Effect 3 Ending Lasted 34 Hours. It Was Wonderful.

I'm not a "pro-ender", in that I feel the last moments of the game needed to be less cryptic and perhaps less interpretive, but I vehemently agree with this. 

Ssshhhhhh don't you know that agreeing with something that the forums disagrees on is heresy. 
I too realise that there are flaws with the ending but then I also think that the the ending is the final third of the Trilogy. When a book or series are made they typically come in three parts the beginning the middle and the end. While things come to a head in the final part of the ending many other loose ends are tied up earlier, the same occured in Mass Effect 3. 

No crap, you mean a normal story progression in a Trilogy is what happened in the Mass Effect series? Really? Wow. I guess I didn't get that ME3 was the end. Thanks to you and the author, Webb was right I didn't under stand, but I understand this now, I get it. 

Modifié par razor150, 11 mai 2012 - 08:52 .

[Jenonax]

andysdead wrote...

Jenonax wrote...

That's a cheap shot, really.

Return of the King wasn't one long goodbye.

Are you talking about the movie or the book?

Because the movie was definitely a very long, protracted good-bye. Maybe you haven't watched it recently. If you look simply at the amount of time spent in the film after the destruction of the ring, you'll see what I mean.

I watch the movie regularly.  Its one of my favourite movies.

The whole movie certainly was not a long goodbye.  We have goodbyes certainly but they are in the proper place, after the resolution of conflict.  First we have to sort out the conflict.  First we have to deal with Saruman, then the assault on Minas Tirith, Theoden's redemption.  Frodo destroy's the ring, Gollum meets his fate.  Then comes the denoument - the long slow goodbyes, and well deserved they are too.

The denoument lasts twenty minutes, the movie is nearly three hours long.  The whole movie is not the goodbye and it certainly doesn't count as the end definitively.

Mass Effect 3 was not as a whole the end.  It should have been more like ROTK.  The conflict is sorted and then we get to say goodbye to Shepard, the characters, the Universe and the story.   We get none of that.  The story doesn't end, it just stops.

Totilo seems to think that the whole game is just a denoument to the trilogy where that is patantly not true.  If that were true then we'd have a game with no conflict.  We'd have 30 hours of meandering nothingness and lots of long fluffy bye-byes to everybody we ever met.  Boring, in other words.  Instead we have a game rife with conflict, storylines coming to their natural (or not) conclusions.  We have the goodbyes poorly placed and then no real resolution.  Its a mess.

Sorry, I know I'm rambling, but this has really angered me.  I have lost all hope for the EC as clearly I am one of the plebes who don't get what the genius' at Bioware were pontificating.

[EsterCloat]

As I said at Kotaku, they're arguing semantics. They know exactly what we mean by the ending; as in the last ten minutes or so. Trying to redefine ending as everything just means you're ignoring the issue.

[Sidney]

Ecrulis wrote...

Sidney wrote...

xxskyshadowxx wrote...

The more of this stuff I read, the more I realize that the EC DLC is going to be a collossal failure....and in all likelyhood there will be an announcement that BioWare plans to merge with "Our game is GOOD, you just don't understand it!" Lexis Numerique.

It is a waste of resources. They can't win. People don't hate an ending because they don't understand it. They could explain it all but when relays blow up, shep dies and rainbows and unicorns don't come out the same crowd will still be unhappy.

Its not really about it not being a happy ending, yes Ive seen (and this includes me) people argue that there should be an OPTION for a happy ending, but ive also seen those same people say they would accept an ending where shep dies if the damn thing fit the Mass Effect Universe at all, which the current ending s do not.

A lot of people want rainbows and unicorns. Not all but that crowd they can't win.

What doesn't fit? I will have with zero argument that the starchild, red/blue/green choices suck, Gilligans Planet and the logic of the reapers for why they reap is beyond awful. Still, how much angst would you still get if they edited out everything from the magic elevator to the firing of the Crucible? Imagine insetad Shep and Anderson are sitting on the Citadel, looking out over Earth and the thing fires like it should. Part of the citadel with shep and anderson blows up (shep dead) and the pulse uses the relays to carry its energy across the galaxy to smash the reaper forces and the relays blow up (notably not going nova like people still insist "should" happen). You get the same ending, shep dead, relays gone but none of the hokum of the starchild. There's nothing about that that doesn't fit with the game. The end state of the universe isn't the problem, those 14 lines of dialog with the starchild are.

[Ecrulis]

EsterCloat wrote...

As I said at Kotaku, they're arguing semantics. They know exactly what we mean by the ending; as in the last ten minutes or so. Trying to redefine ending as everything just means you're ignoring the issue.

Of course they are ignoring the issue, they don't understand the issue and want to pretend it doesnt exist, honestly the more official bioware responses (read as the complete and total lack of any sort of information anywhere) the more I am fearing the release of the EC.

[lipebattistella]

Torrible wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

I've seen the same excuse from.pro-enders....ME3 is one big ending, therefore it covers everything.....


I'm sorry, but that is a terrible excuse......and even if ME3 were just one big ending, its ALL UNDONE BY IT'S OWN ENDING LOL

Not only does it render every choice you've made throughout the series useless, it renders ME3 useless.....yay we cured the genophage.....but I doesn't matter.....yay we united Turians, salarians, and.Krogan.....just to kill everything.....

I've seen the same presumption from anti-enders....everyone dies.

No, only synthetics get destroyed with the destroy option. Bioware has CLARIFIED. Mass relays are not destroyed. There is no galactic starvation. 

They just don't get it.

the reaper kid says "whatever you choose the mass relays will be destroyed" or something like that. only the reapers know how the relays work(and maybe the protheans who created a small one) so they cant be rebuild that fast, wich means the turians and quarians in earth WILL starve to death

[eoinnx03]

That's pretty cheap and unworthy of Bioware's track record.

[paul165]

Ah the "if you hate it, you didn't understand it argument"

We have dismissed this claim.

There is a lot of really good analysis of the ending and why it fails - I think the problem is not that the gamers didn't understand the implications its that the developers didn't.

Which is why we get twitter gems like 'you can still use normal FtL to travel it will just take a bit longer" - really did you read your own codex? and "you can assume everyone plot significant on the Citadel survived"

My personal favourite that one - that the Reapers took over the Citadel without killing anyone!

[covertdrizzt]

the whole game was the ending of the game. wtf! I feel dummer from having read that.

[WhiteKnyght]

You know, I've been saying this pretty much the entire ****ing time.

The game's segments each have their own conclusion, which is closure. The last ten minutes just wraps up the Reaper problem.

[tetsutsuru]

Re:  Linked article in OP

So, nevermind about one of the key underlying themes of the Mass Effect series, "unity IN SPITE OF diversity", and just make ONE kind of people across the galaxy because this is the only way to ensure peace?

Yes sir, you indeed get it.

Hahahahahaha... no, you don't.  Not even remotely.

Modifié par tetsutsuru, 11 mai 2012 - 09:05 .

[EsterCloat]

Another thing, all the article is really saying is, "Who cares if the ending was bad? The rest of game was awesome so it doesn't ruin it."

Nuh uh. This is the same mentality as the "it's the journey, not the destination, that matters" mantra that is full of it. In this context the destination matters just as much as the journey, which is quite self-evident in the fact that so many of us feel like the game, if not the series, is damaged irreparably by the ending. You can't tell us what we feel is wrong.

[tekkaman fear]

Well obviously the 3rd game was meant to be an ending to all the plots developed throughout the series. I don't see how anyone would disagree with that.

The problem is him saying "finally someone gets it" it comes off as arrogant and can be interpreted as him calling the majority of the base morons.

[The Night Mammoth]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

You know, I've been saying this pretty much the entire ****ing time.

The game's segments each have their own conclusion, which is closure. The last ten minutes just wraps up the Reaper problem.

The ending eliminates a lot of that closure for people. 

Primarily because the Relays blow up. 


Also, saying that is 'just wraps up the Reaper problem' is kind of disingenuous. The Reaper problem is the plot. 

[Joe Del Toro]

I actually took some time to think about this, whether the last entry to the series can be one long 'ending'.

It can't.

Narratively speaking, at the very least, you cannot make an entire story an 'ending' in this sense. It doesn't work, no matter how symbolic you want to make it. Tying up loose ends in a series doesn't necessarily have to be in an ending, a loose end can be resolved right smack bang in the middle of the series if need be, so this criteria doesn't make something an ending.

Playing through the third game, it is obviously meant to be structured as its own story, as an entry to a series should be. Regardless of how many 'goodbyes' there are, or what order it has been released in, a film/game/book needs a beginning, middle and end.

If what they were trying to do was make this entry one long ending, then conceptually that's nonsensical. Why not make the first game one long beginning, where absolutely nothing is resolved, no questions are answered and the entire time is spent introducing things? The first game doesn't do that, it tells its own story that leads into another story, huge difference.

And not to mention even if it is a series of conclusions, why is the very last conclusion the only one that isn't remotely satisfactory nor within the main themes that the previous entries worked so hard at establishing?

Frankly, if that's what this is, and they genuinely meant ME3 to be one long protracted ending and not its own story, then that makes it even more patently ludicrous that their defense is 'Artistic Integrity'.

[antares_sublight]

EsterCloat wrote...

As I said at Kotaku, they're arguing semantics. They know exactly what we mean by the ending; as in the last ten minutes or so. Trying to redefine ending as everything just means you're ignoring the issue.

Exactly, they're being "cute". And dismissive.

[Mcfly616]

Torrible wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

I've seen the same excuse from.pro-enders....ME3 is one big ending, therefore it covers everything.....


I'm sorry, but that is a terrible excuse......and even if ME3 were just one big ending, its ALL UNDONE BY IT'S OWN ENDING LOL

Not only does it render every choice you've made throughout the series useless, it renders ME3 useless.....yay we cured the genophage.....but I doesn't matter.....yay we united Turians, salarians, and.Krogan.....just to kill everything.....

I've seen the same presumption from anti-enders....everyone dies.

No, only synthetics get destroyed with the destroy option. Bioware has CLARIFIED. Mass relays are not destroyed. There is no galactic starvation. 

They just don't get it.

Haha they've "clarified"? Please tell me this is sarcasm and not conviction.....


You're going to let them use Twitter to kill off characters and retcon cinematic scenes within the series ?! Pass what you smoking bro.....

[stevefox1200]

I love games where you are SUPPOSED to feel like a complete failure and like everything was a massive waste of time at the end

I am hoping that this new "You have to lose" trend will keep going

[Ecrulis]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

You know, I've been saying this pretty much the entire ****ing time.

The game's segments each have their own conclusion, which is closure. The last ten minutes just wraps up the Reaper problem.

Execpt in doing so opens questions and plot holes bigger than the reaper threat itself,

If destroy: did the geth or EDI really die? the kids wording was no where near conclusive, how does galactic civilization survive without the relays? what about quarians and turians stranded in the sol system unless they can find a food source or get home they will die,

Control: why does shep suddenly do a 180 and decide this is ok? can the relays be repaired? who on the citadel survived? same with the food question above

synthesis: How the hell does this solve anything? how does the phrase "final point in evolution" make any sense whatsoever? what about galactic travel? what are the galactic implications of synthesis? how is SHepard anywhere near qualified to make a decision on the genetic level for the whole galaxy?

And in terms of all of them: what the hell happened to the normandy? where is it? what happened to the squad members we spent so much time getting to know? can shepard survive? if so will he ever see his LI again? 

And the biggest one for me: Where the hell did this idea that ALL synthetics will eventually turn against organics come from? certainly not from the previous games.

ME1: Geth only atacked organics as a result of the reapers
ME2: We find out that the above geth are the minority and the geth in general only feel the need to attack in order to defend themselves
ME3: Elaborates on the above even more so and can create peace between them and organics

the fact of the matter is everything the star child says violates the entirety of the Mass Effect Universe.