138 réponses à ce sujet

[StElmo]

The Angry One wrote...

StElmo wrote...

Gogzilla wrote...

Allan Schumacher sure likes to argue semantics :l

Let me ask you a question to clarify what you been saying.
Considering all the feed back and backlash over the ending,
Can it be said that the ending to ME3 does not work as a result of its open ended nature and/or execution of content.
So it may actually need more closure and an epilogue sequence reflected past choices.

Now are you saying that the 'problems the fans have' may be because ME3 ending as an open ending is not executed to the level that is satisfactory to those fans.

Is it not possible that the problem may be the fact that it is as open ended as it is , and it needs the epilogue sequence ?

Give the guy a break, he is not going to bag out his own company on the official forums. Stop goading.

Naturally, but cop-out defences tend to irritate people.
Saying that the ending is open-ended for instance and therefore can't be judged as comparitively good or bad is a weak justification.
It also proves that the ending is bad, because the finale of a trilogy cannot be open-ended. That defeats it's entire purpose.

At least he's on here. I actually like the fact we know someone from BioWare dev teams is reading the forums, even if he is a dragon age dev, at least we know.

I don't think you can ask devs to come on forums and bag out their own games, especially within release/marketing window.

That said, people will often defend a point they don't believe in, learning the opposing argument and learning to accept it in the process, albeit internally.

Getting annoyed at the dude is such a waste of time. Come on now, be pragmatic.

[ozthegweat]

AlisdairMAgain wrote...

I dutifully take the 'blue' paragon option to destroy these monsters,
rather than take the renegade option of stealing the very plans of the
villain I had been battling all game.
[...]
Wait, now I read the forums and I actually used the illusive plan?
I totally failed at the very last step of the game, in the biggest way possible?
AND I DIDN'T EVEN NOTICE!!!!

The last part is unforgivably sloppy story telling.

I regard Starchild as an unreliable narrator. It tries to steer you in the direction it wants. "Destroy" destroys EDI and you too! But as we can see (with high enough EMS), that's not true. It chooses the Poor Boy Who Died form to talk to you. It's a master manipulator.

The three options are laid out spatially and colored exactly like the dialogue wheel, which is breaking the fourth wall a bit, but to keep in line with the rest of the games, Destroy should have been the blue choice and Control the red one (just like the ending of ME2, destroy or "control" collector base). That's not sloppy storytelling by BioWare, that's Starchild screwing with you, and if you're not careful, you walk right into its trap.

This goes even further: I see a lot of posts here where people are upset that the Starchild's plan (to harvest advanced civilizations because they create synthetics which kill their creators) is contradicting everything you did in the three games (EDI becoming more "organic", uniting Geth with Quarians). First of all, who's saying that what Starchild does is right? And second, no matter what ending you choose, you stop the cycle. Or, in other words: damn right it's against everything I did, and because of that, I'm stopping it.

TL;DR: Starchild is a manipulative brat.

Modifié par ozthegweat, 31 mai 2012 - 03:20 .

[Wulfram]

ozthegweat wrote...

 "Destroy" destroys EDI and you too! But as we can see (with high enough EMS), that's not true.

It doesn't say that Shepard dies.  And all the evidence I've seen suggests EDI doesn't get out of the Normandy if you pick Destroy, even if you've taken her on enough missions that she'll appear for Control.

[Lyrebon]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

It's a total cop-out to say it was just an issue of execution and the only problem was a little lack of closure. There are fundamental problems with the ending choices in themselves and the whole ending plot line, not just "execution". That's the biggest cop-out in this whole mess. The endings in themselves, not just the execution of the endings, are fundamental failures.

When I say execution, I'm more referring to the context by which the choices were provided. Had the Catalyst been completely omitted from the end of the game, but some alternative way resulted in the same three choices being provided to the player would constitute a difference in the execution of the endings. As a result, I as a player have little issue with the actual choices presented to me as they stand. The choices I find interesting and make me think. The execution of it (i.e. via the Catalyst and so forth) is where I think people would have liked to see improvement.

Unless you're trying to tell me that people don't want to see changes to the Catalyst. After all, I'm the person (that hasn't been commenting on the EC since I don't know anything about it) that "just doesn't get it" so I probably could use a little hand here.

You see, Allan, the entire problem with the ending is everything past and including the magic elevator. It isn't about the execution of the final sequence that's frustrating, it's the whole idea that everything from the past games has just been made redundant by throwing neo-religion into the mix. I didn't feel the same way you did about the choices because my brain was too busy reeling from the absurdity of the situation.

There was no point in thinking or rationalising because it didn't feel like the same game anymore. Did I black out and my brother switched the discs in my console to that one fantasy adventure I haven't played yet? That's impossible; I don't have a brother. So the only explanation is either a) I didn't get it and I'm the idiot Bioware is claiming the fans are, or the ending is so egregiously bad from its lack of narrative cohesion and turn-a-bout themes that makes me think the writers just got bored in the end and couldn't be bothered to write a decent conclusion.

[antares_sublight]

Nyoka wrote...

The geth as hostages for the red ending is so arbitrary. Yes you can destroy the reapers BUUUUUUUT you kill the geth too, just because.

You know what's funny - a device the races of the galaxy came up with and built just happens to provide the solution the catalyst thinks is the best thing to do according to his theory about organics and synthetics. What a coincidence!

+1000

[ReXspec]

Nyoka wrote...

The geth as hostages for the red ending is so arbitrary. Yes you can destroy the reapers BUUUUUUUT you kill the geth too, just because.

You know what's funny - a device the races of the galaxy came up with and built just happens to provide the solution the catalyst thinks is the best thing to do according to his theory about organics and synthetics. What a coincidence!

I read this and all I see is, "****** poor story writing at it's finest."

I can deal with the Crucible--every story has it's magic plot device.

But using the Geth as proverbial hostages was a bit much, to say the least.

[Arkwright99]

Since Allan is a DA dev, perhaps he'd like to consider what might have been had the ending of Dragon Age: Origins been as 'open-ended' as ME3... There are three basic endings to DAO: the Warden kills the Archdemon, Alistair kills the Archdemon, or the Secret Companion kills the Archdemon. Now, does anyone think that DAO would have been improved if the game had ended at this juncture:



Even taking the Dark Ritual variant ending(s) into consideration why bother revealing what happens next? According to Allan's argument, showing what happens next takes control out of the player's hands, which (apparently) is a Bad Thing; and obviously, all the Epilogue slides, which told you what the long-term consequences of the Warden's decisions were and what happened to the vatious people he/she'd met on their journey, were a narrative mistake as well because they effectively canonised specific futures on people's games that they might not have wanted. Oddly enough, I don't recall an awful lot of people complaining about being denied the opportunity to imagine 'what happened next' for themselves but maybe I missed that memo?

There is a place for open-ended endings in books, games, films, etc. but the writers need to bring the audience along with them, not spring a surprise (non)-ending on them out of left-field. The original Wicker Man film has a terrific open-ending because even though the islanders sacrifice Sgt Howie in the eponymous artefact the possibility is hinted that if his sacrifice fails to produce the expected harvest then it will be Lord Summerisle who will be taking his place in the wicker man next year. That, imo, is the way to deliver a satisfactory 'space' for the viewer to enter into the story, to speculate on 'what might happen next' because the viewer can choose to accept it or not as is their want.

On the other hand, the response from ME fans suggests strongly to me that the writers of ME3 failed in that one very important respect. Because players aren't speculating on what happened next to Commander Shepard or his companions or the fate of the galaxy; they're speculating on why Bioware FUBAR'd their beloved game. That, more than anything, should give Bioware/Hudson & Walters pause for thought. Instead we get protestations of 'artistic integrity' as if the fact that the ending(s) failed to satisfy is somehow our (the players) fault. <_<

Modifié par demos99, 31 mai 2012 - 04:37 .

[crimzontearz]

demos99 wrote...Since Allan is a DA dev, perhaps he'd like to consider what might have been had the ending of Dragon Age: Origins been as 'open-ended' as ME3... There are three basic endings to DAO: the Warden kills the Archdemon, Alistair kills the Archdemon, or the Secret Companion kills the Archdemon. Now, does anyone think that DAO would have been improved if the game had ended at this juncture:Even taking the Dark Ritual variant ending(s) into consideration why bother revealing what happens next? According to Allan's argument, showing what happens next takes control out of the player's hands, which (apparently) is a Bad Thing; and obviously, all the Epilogue slides, which told you what the long-term consequences of the Warden's decisions were and what happened to the vatious people he/she'd met on their journey, were a narrative mistake as well because they effectively canonised specific futures on people's games that they might not have wanted. Oddly enough, I don't recall an awful lot of people complaining about being denied the opportunity to imagine 'what happened next' for themselves but maybe I missed that memo? There is a place for open-ended endings in books, games, films, etc. but the writers need to bring the audience along with them, not spring a surprise (non)-ending on them out of left-field. The original Wicker Man film has a terrific open-ending because even though the islanders sacrifice Sgt Howie in the eponymous artefact the possibility is hinted that if his sacrifice fails to produce the expected harvest then it will be Lord Summerisle who will be taking his place in the wicker man next year. That, imo, is the way to deliver a satisfactory 'space' for the viewer to enter into the story, to speculate on 'what might happen next' because the viewer can choose to accept it or not as is their want. On the other hand, the response from ME fans suggests strongly to me that the writers of ME3 failed in that one very important respect. Because players aren't speculating on what happened next to Commander Shepard or his companions or the fate of the galaxy; they're speculating on why Bioware FUBAR'd their beloved game. That, more than anything, should give Bioware/Hudson & Walters pause for thought. Instead we get protestations of 'artistic integrity' as if the fact that the ending(s) failed to satisfy is somehow our (the players) fault.

but it is still good because apparently Allan LIKED the endings and thought they were all that and a bag of chips...

groans

[Clayless]

AlisdairMAgain wrote...

I am irritated because they cut scene did not clearly distinguish what had happened. I thought I had picked the opposite ending - and the cut scene was so generic I was none the wiser. That is an incredibly poor result from what is supposed to be the most monumental decision at the end of a deeply involving trilogy. I suspect the extended cut will at least correct this, if nothing else.

Picking the wrong end - my bad.
Ending so generic I don't realize - EA bad

I disagree, I find it quite disheartening that you never watched the game when it slowly showed you where all 3 choices were and then a cutscene showing them be activated before you chose them.

[ozthegweat]

Wulfram wrote...

It doesn't say that Shepard dies.  And all the evidence I've seen suggests EDI doesn't get out of the Normandy if you pick Destroy, even if you've taken her on enough missions that she'll appear for Control.

The Catalyst says "You can wipe out all synthetic life if you want. Including the geth. Even you are partly synthetic." So Shepard should die, as (s)he's probably just a pile of flesh without his/her implants. And I believe I read that EDI can step out of the Normandy with the Destroy ending. EDIT: just saw this, so EDI can't survive Destroy. Perhaps she's got Reaper tech in her?

But that's just a minor thing. The switched dialogue wheel layout of the choices is what made me not trust Starchild.

Modifié par ozthegweat, 31 mai 2012 - 04:54 .

[Wulfram]

demos99 wrote...

Since Allan is a DA dev, perhaps he'd like to consider what might have been had the ending of Dragon Age: Origins been as 'open-ended' as ME3... There are three basic endings to DAO: the Warden kills the Archdemon, Alistair kills the Archdemon, or the Secret Companion kills the Archdemon. Now, does anyone think that DAO would have been improved if the game had ended at this juncture:

I don't know about improved, but I don't think it would have been a major problem.  You could do with a "Hey look, that big explosion didn't actually kill everyone" scene, but otherwise it would have been OK.

But that's because DA:O's ending doesn't change the world in such a dramatic fashion, so you can have a decent guess as to how the worlds going to go.

[Kunari801]

Part of the problem I think is BW was telling one story but most of us players were experiencing a different story.

[ozthegweat]

ReXspec wrote...

But using the Geth as proverbial hostages was a bit much, to say the least.

Have you considered that the Starchild might be lying because it really really doesn't want Shepard to choose Destroy?

[Mcfly616]

An open.ended conclusion has never and will never work as the end of a trilogy (The Matrix Trilogy: FAIL).....Mass Effect is not Inception......Notice how Inception got rave reviews and praise over its ending.....and Mass Effect got major backlash.....

Hmm because ambiguous/vague endings only work for standalone stories.....not the "end" of a trilogy....


No...the ending is not good.....its the weakest link of the ME trilogy.....and you're only as strong as your weakest link

Modifié par Mcfly616, 31 mai 2012 - 05:01 .

[squee365]

Amazing how every single Bioware employee loves the ending.

[TransientNomad]

squee365 wrote...

Amazing how every single Bioware employee loves the ending.

Every single one that actually posts at least... or still works for them.

I kid, I kid!  XP

[crimzontearz]

michael cane revealed the ending of inception is not a dream.


Squee, of course they do, hence why I do not take anything Allan says at face falue

[Kunari801]

Mcfly616 wrote...
Hmm because ambiguous/vague endings only work for standalone stories.....not the "end" of a trilogy....

A open ending could work for a trilogy, or any mutli-part story, it just needs to be setup correctly.   Inception didn't leave the end that open really; He was dreaming or he wasn't.  But in either case HE WAS HAPPY.  That is why Inception worked, it properly setup an open-ending for the viewers. 

I do agree that Mass Effect shouldn't of had too open of an ending.  It doesn't fit with the previous games and experiences, we had a satisfying conclusion on Tuchonka and Rannoch yet a empty-void-ending for Shepard and everyone else.  

[Kunari801]

(double post) 

Modifié par Kunari801, 31 mai 2012 - 05:25 .

[Helios969]

Mcfly616 wrote...

An open.ended conclusion has never and will never work as the end of a trilogy (The Matrix Trilogy: FAIL).....Mass Effect is not Inception......Notice how Inception got rave reviews and praise over its ending.....and Mass Effect got major backlash.....

Hmm because ambiguous/vague endings only work for standalone stories.....not the "end" of a trilogy....


No...the ending is not good.....its the weakest link of the ME trilogy.....and you're only as strong as your weakest link

I don't know that I agree with you assessment ambiguous/vague endings only work as standalones.  Loved the Matrix trilogy, but then again the whole "what is real" was established early on and reoccurring.  Of course, I also didn't see Matx-trilogy as having an open-ended conclusion.  Man and machine at war, during course of war a larger menace threatens both of their existence, man fights on behalf of both man and machine demonstrating peaceful coexistence is possible.  You could draw some parallels to Geth/Quarian relationship.

Hell, one of my major complaints about the existing ending is that there is no peaceful coexistence solution (along with Indepedence Day-like destroy option that doesn't obliterate my Shep;)  Not that a peace would entail Shep putting his arm around Harbinger and saying "we forgive you."  But a wary peace could be obtained if certain criteria was met in previous play/choice options.

EDIT: Open-ending doesn't work for ME3 and Shep's story.

Modifié par Helios969, 31 mai 2012 - 05:35 .

[Allan Schumacher]

iakus wrote...

The difference here is that Denton had differnt people advocating for the different endings, explaining the justifications for them and why the others were wrong.  There wasn't a ghostly kid with 2-3 lines for each choice.

In addition, Denton had to work for each ending.  There were different mission parameters fro each one.  Denton work work on any or all of them on teh final map.  Denton makes an active choice when he finally makes his decision. He is not herded towards a light with only a vague notion of what's going to happen. I should also mention that each choice in eus Ex came with a unique ending.

You won't find any argument for me that Deus Ex did it better.

The thing I was trying to illustrate was that a more open ended ending places more emphasis on the decision, and the justification for the decision, rather than the explicit consequences of the decision that you get with epilogues.

Whether or not it works for the player depends on that player.  Obviously for a large group of people it didn't work with ME3.  But I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with the open ended ending.  I think it shifts the focus, and I think Deus Ex is an example of a game that did it quite well.

How is that a good thing? If all the endings are the same, then why even have an ending cinematic?

Endings don't need to be the same to not be definitively "better" endings compared to other endings.  When I said no ending is "good or bad compared to the others" I mean that it's perfectly justifiable for someone to feel that the choice they made was the best choice for the galaxy of the options available to them.  I'm not talking about whether or not the endings are of good or bad quality in this context, but whether or not they are desirable when compared to the other endings.

Deus Ex is a great example of a game where all 3 endings (which are all different) have merit to them and you can make an argument why any of the endings is the best ending.

[Allan Schumacher]

Gogzilla wrote...

Allan Schumacher sure likes to argue semantics :l

Let me ask you a question to clarify what you been saying.
Considering all the feed back and backlash over the ending,
Can it be said that the ending to ME3 does not work as a result of its open ended nature and/or execution of content.
So it may actually need more closure and an epilogue sequence reflected past choices.

I think the fact that there is ending DLC in the works is a fair enough assessment on whether or not the endings for ME3 worked as they are.

Now are you saying that the 'problems the fans have' may be because ME3 ending as an open ending is not executed to the level that is satisfactory to those fans.

Is it not possible that the problem may be the fact that it is as open ended as it is , and it needs the epilogue sequence ?

At the same time, there ARE people that do enjoy the ME3 endings.  Particularly the open ended nature of them.  Whether or not it needs the epilogues is evidently more of a personal thing.  If it wasn't, then there'd be definitive consensus from everyone.

This is beyond absurd reasoning if you're trying to evaluate something
on moral grounds.  You can absolutely determine and conclude whether the
ending is good or bad (moral judgements) compared to the others based
simply on the fact that the ends do not justify the means.  At least not
if you're trying to be ethical.

To reiterate, my "good or bad" comment is based upon their moral value relative to each other.  If you feel that each of the three choices are equally morally bankrupt, then you actually agree with my statement that none of the endings are good or bad compared to the other endings.  They are morally equivalent (even if that means devoid of ethical consideration).

[Allan Schumacher]

Reddof Nonnac wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

...

Whereas a game like Fallout doesn't actually provide any real choice at the end, but the epilogue nature of it shows the consequences of the choices you made throughout the game. If you want the moment to be about the choice itself, I think an open ended ending can work really well because you're left only with your own internal justifications about why that is the correct choice.


This is I think why I have no real issue with the choices as they are on a fundamental level. I think if the execution of them was a bit better done they would have been received a lot better, even if the choices were not any different.

 
But by what you’re saying, while Fallout didn’t give you a choice at the end, it did give the player the one thing the ME3 ending really didn’t, and that is your choices though out the game mattered!

That's fair and I understand that criticism with the ending of ME3.  ME3's ending could have easily been a single choice but have the divergence be in the epilogues for the choices players made throughout the game (or even the whole series).

When I brought up Fallout, I think I was more postulating that epilogues may be better served if there isn't choice at just the end.