170 réponses à ce sujet

[Mr.House]

Icinix wrote...

dirtdiver32318 wrote...

Six endings? Can someone tell me what the other endings are?

Red Bad, Red Ok, Red Good
Blue Bad, Blue good.
Green.

And they are even called that in the game files!

[Iakus]

BrotherWarth wrote...

Bioware was already patronizing in their announcement of the EC. They tried to make the whole thing out to be our fault for not understanding their "art."
The ending wasn't over anyone's head. It was just lousy writing filled with plotholes and inconsistencies. Trying to fill in those plot holes and explain away those inconsistencies without altering the ending is nonsensical.

Yeah, I've already been patronized to being told that I "don't get it" and Bioware wrapping themselves in "artistic integrity"

But if somehow, EC manages to create clarify endings that are actually worthy of wrapping up the trilogy with, I won't care.  Because then they have actually managed to beat some very long odds.

[wizardryforever]

Veneke wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

BrotherWarth wrote...

Bioware was already patronizing in their announcement of the EC. They tried to make the whole thing out to be our fault for not understanding their "art."
The ending wasn't over anyone's head. It was just lousy writing filled with plotholes and inconsistencies. Trying to fill in those plot holes and explain away those inconsistencies without altering the ending is nonsensical.

I don't know what boards you've been reading, but around here there are all kinds of misconceptions about the details of the endings.  One of the most hilariously wrong says that the galaxy is destroyed because the mass relays broke apart, despite all the clear evidence to the contrary already in the game.  Sure, some of it is Bioware not explaining it well enough (synthesis), but there are also things that people just don't use their heads about, like the whole "starving turians and quarians" thing.

So it's partly the fans' fault, and partly Bioware's fault.

No. It is not the fans' fault, in any measure, for not filling in the plotholes they left us with the ending.

There's no 'clear evidence' that the destruction of the mass relays didn't destroy the entire universe except for the Normandy crash scene which frankly doesn't prove a single thing other than a single garden planet, seemingly unpopulated, survived the explosions. Indeed the galaxy map scene at the end of the game makes it pretty clear that some kind of massive explosion happened throughout the galaxy upon the destruction of each of the mass effect relays. Or was that just meant to be a cool cutscene?

While I agree that I don't think that we were meant to arrive at that conclusion it's clearly an error in how Bioware told the ending of the story, not in fans simply jumping to erroneous conclusions. That (and similar questions) are not misconceptions nor the fault of the fans by any stretch of the imagination. If you're going to alter the lore upon which the players believe the ingame universe is operating then you need to say why it differs in this instance and show how it differs. As it stands, that galaxy map travelling explosion scene plus Joker's attempt to outrun the blast makes it pretty clear that the entire universe is destroyed. If that isn't the case then it's simply poor storytelling and not 'the fans' fault', partly or otherwise.

Oh?  And what about the "grandfather" scene that plays at the very end?  That would not be possible if the galaxy was destroyed.  As for the massive explosion, you mean like the very visible shockwave effect of whichever choice you made?  That explosion?  The explosion that you see interacting with the people on Earth and the ships around it without destroying them?  The galaxy map scene was meant to show how the effects of the Crucible were spreading throughout the galaxy via the relay network, so you know that you're getting all of the Reapers or affecting everyone with the synthesis wave. 

People that don't think and just jump to conclusions are part of the problem, no doubt about it.  Not the whole problem by any means, but definitely part of it.  

[Veneke]

wizardryforever wrote...

Veneke wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

BrotherWarth wrote...

Bioware was already patronizing in their announcement of the EC. They tried to make the whole thing out to be our fault for not understanding their "art."
The ending wasn't over anyone's head. It was just lousy writing filled with plotholes and inconsistencies. Trying to fill in those plot holes and explain away those inconsistencies without altering the ending is nonsensical.

I don't know what boards you've been reading, but around here there are all kinds of misconceptions about the details of the endings.  One of the most hilariously wrong says that the galaxy is destroyed because the mass relays broke apart, despite all the clear evidence to the contrary already in the game.  Sure, some of it is Bioware not explaining it well enough (synthesis), but there are also things that people just don't use their heads about, like the whole "starving turians and quarians" thing.

So it's partly the fans' fault, and partly Bioware's fault.

No. It is not the fans' fault, in any measure, for not filling in the plotholes they left us with the ending.

There's no 'clear evidence' that the destruction of the mass relays didn't destroy the entire universe except for the Normandy crash scene which frankly doesn't prove a single thing other than a single garden planet, seemingly unpopulated, survived the explosions. Indeed the galaxy map scene at the end of the game makes it pretty clear that some kind of massive explosion happened throughout the galaxy upon the destruction of each of the mass effect relays. Or was that just meant to be a cool cutscene?

While I agree that I don't think that we were meant to arrive at that conclusion it's clearly an error in how Bioware told the ending of the story, not in fans simply jumping to erroneous conclusions. That (and similar questions) are not misconceptions nor the fault of the fans by any stretch of the imagination. If you're going to alter the lore upon which the players believe the ingame universe is operating then you need to say why it differs in this instance and show how it differs. As it stands, that galaxy map travelling explosion scene plus Joker's attempt to outrun the blast makes it pretty clear that the entire universe is destroyed. If that isn't the case then it's simply poor storytelling and not 'the fans' fault', partly or otherwise.

Oh?  And what about the "grandfather" scene that plays at the very end?  That would not be possible if the galaxy was destroyed.  As for the massive explosion, you mean like the very visible shockwave effect of whichever choice you made?  That explosion?  The explosion that you see interacting with the people on Earth and the ships around it without destroying them?  The galaxy map scene was meant to show how the effects of the Crucible were spreading throughout the galaxy via the relay network, so you know that you're getting all of the Reapers or affecting everyone with the synthesis wave. 

People that don't think and just jump to conclusions are part of the problem, no doubt about it.  Not the whole problem by any means, but definitely part of it.  

You have any idea when or where that 'grandfather' scene takes place?

You're confusing the explosion of the Citadel with that of the Mass Relays. The one that hits the people on earth is from the Citadel. They're /two/ different explosions. Here, watch:

[wizardryforever]

Veneke wrote...

You have any idea when or where that 'grandfather' scene takes place?

You're confusing the explosion of the Citadel with that of the Mass Relays. The one that hits the people on earth is from the Citadel. They're /two/ different explosions. Here, watch:

Does it matter?  No galaxy = no grandfather scene.  Since we have a grandfather scene, there must be a galaxy.

And you know this how?  The cutscene does a somewhat poor job of showing it, but it seems pretty clear that it was meant to be the Crucible shockwave, and not relay explosions.  Aren't they different colors depending on the ending?  That seems like a pretty big clue.  Anyway, even if it was truly ambiguous, who actually goes with what makes less sense as what actually happened?  From a purely meta standpoint, why would Bioware even bother with three choices if they all destroyed the galaxy?  Answer: they wouldn't.  That's not what happened.

[Veneke]

wizardryforever wrote...

Veneke wrote...

You have any idea when or where that 'grandfather' scene takes place?

You're confusing the explosion of the Citadel with that of the Mass Relays. The one that hits the people on earth is from the Citadel. They're /two/ different explosions. Here, watch:

Does it matter?  No galaxy = no grandfather scene.  Since we have a grandfather scene, there must be a galaxy.

And you know this how?  The cutscene does a somewhat poor job of showing it, but it seems pretty clear that it was meant to be the Crucible shockwave, and not relay explosions.  Aren't they different colors depending on the ending?  That seems like a pretty big clue.  Anyway, even if it was truly ambiguous, who actually goes with what makes less sense as what actually happened?  From a purely meta standpoint, why would Bioware even bother with three choices if they all destroyed the galaxy?  Answer: they wouldn't.  That's not what happened.

It matters because that grandfather scene could, potentially, take place in a different galaxy or thousands of years in the future when the galaxy has recovered from the mass effect explosions. The story carried down or passed along by Liara's recording device. The point is that the grandfather scene is not definitive proof that the galaxy exists after the explosions from the mass effect relays.

The cutscene is pretty clear mate, to be fair. The crucible shockwave had entirely dissapated by the time the second explosion of the mass effect relay had begun. Check out the vid again around the 1:15 mark. There's no trace of the initial shockwave. Also, how could the crucible shockwaves be coming from the other systems that we see in the galaxy map scene?

I have no idea why Bioware did half the things they did in the ending. Most of them make bugger all sense. All we can go on is what they've put before us and by all accounts, what they put before us makes a pretty convincing case that the galaxy has been destroyed. That may not have been the intent, but that's certainly what we're shown. You can't blame the fans for that, in any measure, which was my point.

Modifié par Veneke, 04 juin 2012 - 05:27 .

[aj2070]

Arrival and the Mass Effect 3 Codex both establish that destroying a relay and releasing (or as the codex entry says), liberating that much energy will have adverse affects on terrestrial planets in the star system the relay is located in (paraphrase of the codex entry).

But to the original question; yes, I believe because of the "high and mighty" tone taken by the PR campaign defending the way Mass Effect 3 stops, the Extended Cut will be patronizing.

Modifié par aj2070, 04 juin 2012 - 05:43 .

[Il Divo]

Sure, if we consider providing excessive amounts of exposition to be patronizing. But then, that's always been Bioware's modus operandi and they've been doing it since way before ME3. If you enjoy details, there's nothing wrong with the option to "investigate" into the background of the story.

[Icinix]

Mr.House wrote...

Icinix wrote...

dirtdiver32318 wrote...

Six endings? Can someone tell me what the other endings are?

Red Bad, Red Ok, Red Good
Blue Bad, Blue good.
Green.

And they are even called that in the game files!

lol - thats where I got them from.

[DaJe]

I think it will mostly feature content that they didn't have time to implement before since the game was rushed.

I also think the new content will just be a grand case of MISSING THE POINT.

Following interviews and such it has become clear to me that Bioware doesn't understand the complaints and does not bother to look into detailed articles and videos that people have made.

They think fans are upset because it's a "sad ending"and everyone wants rainbows and ponies.
Then there are insulting claims like the EC will add "even more" closure. Even more than nothing? Wow!

Don't get your hopes up for a few cutscenes that explain a thematically out of place ending made with nonsense, space magic and retcon. Sugercoating the turd will only make it only more offensive.

[Archer]

wizardryforever wrote...

BrotherWarth wrote...

Bioware was already patronizing in their announcement of the EC. They tried to make the whole thing out to be our fault for not understanding their "art."
The ending wasn't over anyone's head. It was just lousy writing filled with plotholes and inconsistencies. Trying to fill in those plot holes and explain away those inconsistencies without altering the ending is nonsensical.

I don't know what boards you've been reading, but around here there are all kinds of misconceptions about the details of the endings.  One of the most hilariously wrong says that the galaxy is destroyed because the mass relays broke apart, despite all the clear evidence to the contrary already in the game.  Sure, some of it is Bioware not explaining it well enough (synthesis), but there are also things that people just don't use their heads about, like the whole "starving turians and quarians" thing.

So it's partly the fans' fault, and partly Bioware's fault.

No its entirley Biowares fault. If they have to come back and explain how the narative concludes rather than the narative itself explaining how it ends, its an epic fail.

The actual game narative should be my sole source of understanding the conclusion of Mass Effect, not Twitter, not facebook, not aps, not the forums and certainly not an Extended Cut.

Simply put the ending is lazy, poorly written and certainly not artistic because to be frank it doesnt contain a single original idea. Its almost akin to making a photocopy of the mona lisa and then trying to pass it of as original art in an art gallery, and then claiming its someone elses fault we dont get that its art.

I dont think the EC will be patronizing, it would be an insane direction to take if it was. They would be better of putting the shutters down and sticking a closed sign on the door if they went in this direction.

I just feel its a shame we got to the point that an EC was needed. This series deserved more than the lackluster, lazy confusing, tripe of an ending it actually got.

[Simocrates]

I would prefer DLC than more cinematics.

[Aurica]

BrotherWarth wrote...

Bioware was already patronizing in their announcement of the EC. They tried to make the whole thing out to be our fault for not understanding their "art."
The ending wasn't over anyone's head. It was just lousy writing filled with plotholes and inconsistencies. Trying to fill in those plot holes and explain away those inconsistencies without altering the ending is nonsensical.

[OlympusMons423]

If I bought a hammer...would I smash my thumb with it? These kind of questions kind of sound like this to me at this point. We expect them to fail automatically. Of course if they screw it up it would be bad, but until then lets just imagine it works out somehow. There will be plenty of time for outrage if they drop the ball a second time on this masterpiece when they were so close, and had a second chance.

[RAF1940]

Yes, but not all inhabited planets are in systems with relays.

For instance, Bekenstein (the planet where Kasumi's loyalty mission takes place in ME2). IIRC, it's in a system you must fly to from the Citadel.

[RedArmyShogun]

Is the Sky Blue, and the Grass Green?

[RAF1940]

eveynameiwantisfekintaken wrote...
If they have to come back and explain how the narative concludes rather than the narative itself explaining how it ends, its an epic fail.

This, too.

[Trebor1969]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

I don't have the slightest clue what the EC will consist of, honestly. Pretty much nothing it could be would surprise me at this point.

Same here ... +1

[lordhugorune]

I have no doubt that, whatever happens, a number of people will consider the EC to be patronising.

And a number of people will likely find this post to be patronising Some things can't be changed.

[poerksen]

I envision it will be very artistic.

[Mojenator12345]

Everything BW has said thus far about the ending of ME3 has been patronizing. Why would they stop now?

[spirosz]

Il Divo wrote...

Sure, if we consider providing excessive amounts of exposition to be patronizing. But then, that's always been Bioware's modus operandi and they've been doing it since way before ME3. If you enjoy details, there's nothing wrong with the option to "investigate" into the background of the story.

Haha, "investigate".  Bioware has dismissed this option in ME3!