626 réponses à ce sujet

[Mcfly616]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

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. 

Umm....yeah.....the last 10 minutes render everything that you've done up to that point, USELESS....


this satisfies you? Wow....

[Ytook]

I wonder if he's read the Kotaku article which says that mass effect 3's ending is an insult to the fans?

[TODD9999]

That guy liked the ending. Okay. I would like to do the same, which is why I thought and hoped the game would incorporate a range of endings. BioWare themselves said that since this was the end of Shepard's story, they didn't have to take care to have the endings wind up in the same place (for the beginning to the next game) and could really cut loose. That did not happen. I wanted a full gradient from "galactic civilization wins and Shepard and squaddies help to rebuild and make a new future" to "the Reapers are unstoppable, everyone is wiped out", and throw in some silly endings in there - the whole thing was, in fact, a weird dream after Shepard's run-in with the prothean beacon on Eden Prime.

I don't want the only ending to the game to be *my* ending, I want there to be endings for *everyone* to enjoy. Not only does it allow each person to have their personal experience, it means I can go back, replay, and get an entirely new experience for myself.

Furthermore, the idea of the whole game as a goodbye to longstanding characters and issues seems quite wrong to me. The major conflict hasn't been resolved yet - how can we be saying goodbye? Aragorn and Arwen didn't get married while Sauron's forces rampaged through Gondor, nor did Sam marry his sweetheart, the elf leaders take ship into the west, or any other major goodbyes. Yoda and Obi-wan did not appear to Luke at an ewok party being held while the Death Star II loomed in the night sky. If they had, it would have been incredibly jarring to me. And furthermore, those events occurred in books/movies, not in a video game. The level of personal involvement was likely to be less, as well as the theme/mechanic present in all the games regarding the players making choices that had consequences on the setting.

If they intended the game to be a "long goodbye" to all the parts of the ME setting, then it completely failed as that for me. I have thought of the possibility that was what they meant during these last months, but discarded it as being incredibly weak. If that's what BioWare intended . . . well, then I disagree with their ideas on game development and storytelling, and will be quite satisfied to no longer give them my money (and to encourage others to not give them money, either).

[razor150]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

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. 

Exactly, the Reaper problem is the plot since the first game, and the way the wrapped in up was what was awful. It is like some are being willfully ignorant of the series to try and make excuses for the last game. 

I personally have no real problem with the Relays being destroyed, it makes sense thematically. You just have to show me why I shouldn't assume everyone is screwed because of it. 

Modifié par razor150, 11 mai 2012 - 09:26 .

[Jenonax]

Joe Del Toro wrote...

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'.

This.  Well done good sir, this is the absolute truth.  Fail Bioware, just ... fail.

[NubXL]

Penny Arcade said the same thing within a week of launch. That the whole game is the ending. Nothing new.

[EsterCloat]

Joe Del Toro wrote...

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'.

At this point I think Bioware is just latching onto anything that's positive about their ending.

[Joe Del Toro]

EsterCloat wrote...
At this point I think Bioware is just latching onto anything that's positive about their ending.

Oh, most likely. Doesn't mean he had to insinuate that unhappy customers were morons, however.

[Malchat]

Hey, who cares about loyal fans pointing out... in huge numbers, with eloquence, spreadsheets, movies, essays, chairty donations and cupcakes...  that your finale is flawed in content and execution?

Apparently Bioware can subsist on selling their titles to game pundits - I have it on good authority they have at least 75 fans there.

They deserve each other.

[Sidney]

Ecrulis wrote...

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,

GalCiv goes on w/o the relays rather easily. Civs eixsted before they used the relays. Yes it will be disruptive, yes there will be a lot of consequences to the loss of the relays but civlization and life gos on. The fall of the Roman Empire destroyed unity, wiped out communication and commerce. The world was different but very much still alive.

The Turians and Quarians trapped in sol...sucks to be them. Again, the idea that there is a "win" w/o cost is what people keep wanting (that's the aforementioned rainbows and unicorns) but nothing in the series said success came w/o a price.

[BigGuy28]

Saw he chose synthesis and stopped reading.

[EsterCloat]

Joe Del Toro wrote...

EsterCloat wrote...
At this point I think Bioware is just latching onto anything that's positive about their ending.

Oh, most likely. Doesn't mean he had to insinuate that unhappy customers were morons, however.

Of course he did, otherwise everything we've said might have a point and thus they might be wrong and we can't have that can we?

[razor150]

Sidney wrote...

Ecrulis wrote...

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,

GalCiv goes on w/o the relays rather easily. Civs eixsted before they used the relays. Yes it will be disruptive, yes there will be a lot of consequences to the loss of the relays but civlization and life gos on. The fall of the Roman Empire destroyed unity, wiped out communication and commerce. The world was different but very much still alive.

The Turians and Quarians trapped in sol...sucks to be them. Again, the idea that there is a "win" w/o cost is what people keep wanting (that's the aforementioned rainbows and unicorns) but nothing in the series said success came w/o a price.

BS, and people saying those who don't like the ending because there are no rainbows or unicorns are just being @ssholes. People can handle endings that have cost, but the cost in ME3 is all left to speculation. That is how you get the IT theory, that is how you get the idea that the relays blowing up killed everyone, and that is why there are so many different beliefs about what really happened. What people mainly want is answers, and not trite ones that rely on retconning what people saw on screen. 

[EsterCloat]

Sidney wrote...

Ecrulis wrote...

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,

GalCiv goes on w/o the relays rather easily. Civs eixsted before they used the relays. Yes it will be disruptive, yes there will be a lot of consequences to the loss of the relays but civlization and life gos on. The fall of the Roman Empire destroyed unity, wiped out communication and commerce. The world was different but very much still alive.

The Turians and Quarians trapped in sol...sucks to be them. Again, the idea that there is a "win" w/o cost is what people keep wanting (that's the aforementioned rainbows and unicorns) but nothing in the series said success came w/o a price.

I suppose the destroyed homeworlds of most species and billions, if not trillions, of lives lost wasn't enough, huh?

Modifié par EsterCloat, 11 mai 2012 - 09:32 .

[majormajormmajor]

Who is this f***nugget? More human filth.

[The Night Mammoth]

Sidney wrote...

Ecrulis wrote...

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,

GalCiv goes on w/o the relays rather easily. Civs eixsted before they used the relays. Yes it will be disruptive, yes there will be a lot of consequences to the loss of the relays but civlization and life gos on. The fall of the Roman Empire destroyed unity, wiped out communication and commerce. The world was different but very much still alive.

Just no. 

The Relays are what allowed galactic civilization to exist. There's nothing to fall back on. 

The Turians and Quarians trapped in sol...sucks to be them. Again, the idea that there is a "win" w/o cost is what people keep wanting (that's the aforementioned rainbows and unicorns) but nothing in the series said success came w/o a price.

Ending the Collectors came basically without a price, and I'd have thought that any price that needs to be paid has been with the amount of characters that can die in this game, the number of people that die (hint: it's in the millions), and the number of planets left as little but rubble (hint: the majority of them). 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 11 mai 2012 - 09:34 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Mcfly616 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

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. 

Umm....yeah.....the last 10 minutes render everything that you've done up to that point, USELESS....


this satisfies you? Wow....

It doesn't satisfy me, no.

[RMP _]

I don't even mind the ending as much as most here (though I have my fair share of complaints), but what an arrogant attitude. "Finally, someone who gets it."

Plus, the article's statement that the whole game is one big ending is complete nonsense. It's part 3 of a trilogy, the same as every other part 3 of 3 of a game/book/movie series out there. Really a stupid thing to say.

[antares_sublight]

NubXL wrote...

Penny Arcade said the same thing within a week of launch. That the whole game is the ending. Nothing new.

Disingenuous semantics. That's not what people are referring to when they say they're unhappy with the "ending". Pretending to not know that is childish.

[akenn312]

Segameister wrote...

akenn312 wrote...

Yeah this is probalby a guy just trying to passevly aggresivly poke at the "whiny fans" but to me is says that Bioware has lost touch with their true fanbase and the RPG genre. Sure a goodbye to all the characters is cool but that's what they wanted us to see and didnt care to put in any effort in the ending scene or even care or think about what the players might want to see or why we bought the game at all.

Honeslty they can do what they want to now they made millions off Mass Effect 3 even with the backlash. They are at the we can throw out poo and still make money stage. They know people like the article writer will lap it up because it has the Mass Effect logo on it.

So I guess the question is answered about the endings now. The didn't really give a toss if the endings made sense or not or how the story ended because they can just fall back and say. You guys just don't get it, we're on another level.

And they are pretty much right, we all are on the edge of our seats hoping they will give us drippings of more Mass Effect. This basically says, up yours fanboys and girls. I'll do what I want!

Agree to a point.  ME3 signifies the end of the 'honeymoon' phase with the gamer.  The ending saw to that.  IF Bioware continues down this route, then this series will be doomed to the same fate as other once popular franchises, where the next 3 games don't sell well due to a disenfranchised fan base.  At that point (we'll start hearing talk about 'ressurecting' the franchise, new direction, blah blah blah.... 

I'll answer with my wallet, its the only true way to get these 'artists' attention, OR EA for that matter.

Yeah the honeymoon is over, but you know what really sucks? It's the fact that they are not even really trying to see the true RPG fans side of it. Sure the game can be a final farewell and have multi-player for dumb****es and iOS games, but it also can be a good RPG with a variety of ending choices that make sense and give you a feeling that all your dedicated gameplay had accomplished something in the endgame.

And really, how much more are game reviewers going to kiss Biowares collective butts for this of course they would agree with a fluff peice like that. No one ever said the goodbyes were not touching or entertaining, but to say the ending part of the story dosn't matter in a RPG is just riduculous.

Can't wait for Mass Effect Sythesis Warfare 4 next...with Col. Price and Soap Shepard.

[KingZayd]

if he does indeed "get it", then there's not much hope for the EC

[AndreasShepard]

I just don't understand how he can say the whole game was an ending when in the last 10 minutes the entire galaxy is cut off from each other and your crew is stranded. It makes everything you accomplished seemingly meaningless. Sure they're saying now that galactic civilization will rebuild but there was no possible way the player could have known that based on the lore the game had provided up until that point.
It's also so dissapointing that someone on the bioware dev team is overlooking these glaring issues and even mocking fans on his twitter account with comments like "I didn't like the ending to the movie I saw last night, where do I send cupcakes?" He doesn't even realize that Mass Effect was supposed to be about player choice and is therefore incomparable to a typical film.

[N7Gold]

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

jstme wrote...
By the way, i noticed that lots of people who like the ending, choose synthesis. Inckluding the writer of the article.

Synthesis kind of "choice of adult who does not see world in white and gray and mature enough to shoulder responsibility for the fate of the universe" (or, actually, a person's who would like to appear so).
But in reality, such scenario is quite a cliche. "I don't want to choose black or white, this makes me deep".

And that is how Cerberus suckers people into joining their cause, appealing to people who believe gray is always right. It makes a whole lot of sense how some people choose synthesis because it appears as the "gray" choice between destroy and control-- they always think gray is the best choice, which is also another reason why some ME players blindly trust Cerberus.

Modifié par N7Gold, 11 mai 2012 - 10:00 .

[Mcfly616]

Jenonax wrote...

Joe Del Toro wrote...

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'.

This.  Well done good sir, this is the absolute truth.  Fail Bioware, just ... fail.

This

This.

This!


Goddess.....THIS.....

[N7Adept]

i knew they were going to pull this. As soon as i played Tuchanka the first time i knew that they would try to say the WHOLE game is your ending and your goodbye, and that youre building your "closure" through your actions. I'd be ok with it if the Relays weren't destroyed and the future so bleak. We make peace with Geth and Quarians only to wipe out Geth? Uhm?

And for the record, i was "ok" with the endings, I didnt like them, but the didnt ruin the series for me either, I did think they need to clarify a lot though. But my illusion that the endings can be fixed is based on me only considering the Destroy option, maybe Control..maybe, but I despise Synthesis, and I hate that it appears Bioware keeps insisting that this is the #1 ending, this is the "best" ending, Synthesis is a cop out, its lame, and its not original.