4048 réponses à ce sujet

[ar487]

Wow... Just finished ME3 EC, and all I can say is... [silence]

Let me reiterate what everyone else who disapproves of the EC is probably thinking.

Artistic integrity... uh sure. This doesn't involve the domineering view of what a single writer thinks qualifies as a good ending → Therefore the original ending should have been cut out completely. As MrBtongue said the extended cut was simply throwing good writing on top of bad.

Also it is blatantly obvious this game was being marketed for mass appeal, hence the auto dialoge (I mean like talking to DLC players in ME2), multiplayer content, fetch quest planet scanning, and COD like combat controls. Remember when Mass Effect used to be about good story telling and not fast pacing? I prefer good storytelling to improved combat any day.

The story itself was incoherent, the only choice should have been destroy and the choices surrounding that should have been how. But no, the reapers are are friends, our genocidal, war-mongering friends. So the plot devices of the first two games were irrelevant. We should have just let sovereign take over the citadel or let the collectors abduct the entire human race. The star brat is the new protagonist and Shepherd is, well... what about him/her. The reapers are the good guys, and Shepherd is suddenly a menace (Okay I'm exaggerating but his/her role is abruptly diminished in the end).

Sure we ended the reaper threat with the choices the star brat gave us, but we lost our souls in the process, which I seem to recall Shepherd saying we wouldn't. We either destroy all synthetic races (genocide), control the reapers (as galactic overlords or “peacekeepers”) or we synthesize and homogenize all cultures and races (imperialism and genocide). Or we can choose the morally right option and reject our reaper overlords, which results in our extinction (but the reapers get destroyed in the next ending). These choices are abhorred and the morally correct ones are implied to be incorrect or morally reprehensible. Oh and good job destroying the masterfully thought up indoctrination theory, you sufficiently extinguished all hope of an epic ending to mass effect simply because it interfered with your “artistic vision” (which is incoherent). Sorry BioWare, you just lost one of your most loyal customers : (

Modifié par ar487, 17 juillet 2012 - 06:36 .

[Zan51]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Ever hear the saying, "pride goeth before the fall"?  I know they haven't.  To be honest and fair, giving us what we wanted would have required them to cut out and rewrite the ending and would have cost some money.  They could have instead kept this garbage and made the refuse ending into some semblance of what the ending should have been-still, money. 

They screwed up from the beginning and should have just come clean.  Prior to release they should have been honest with fans and said the game was unfinished in its current state and ended it earlier-say even before London.  And then they should have made a real go of it.  Hype what's to come (honestly) and make a game of the thing being too big for just one game.  Release the From Ashes DLC for free. And then get people going with the idea that they will play ME3 in order to get to Earth where they will be taking Earth back and will then go on to gake the galaxy back in another game or even 2 or a game and DLC or DLC.  Along with that then they could be working on the Leviathan DLC which might foreshadow some things as far as the origins of the reapers, and release all the other DLC (Omega and the other blocked star systems DLC throughout the year). 

But get rid of the kid, or use some other avatar if they needed a character to explain things about the reapers, lose the choices or make them part of some trick by the reaper controller (Harbinger or whoever)-let Shepard reject them and be threatened by Harbinger or whoever and have a real fight.  Yes, do the impossible.  Release the fight for the galaxy in a 2nd ME3 game or DLC.

That's what I wish would have happened.  Then on this forum they really could have made it fun-get people to say what they'd like to see in the 2nd part of the game-taking Earth and the galaxy back.  Krogans on dinos.  Rachni singing as they kill reapers-their songs getting sweeter with each kill.  Or whatever.

I think pride wouldn't let them consider anything but the crap of the original ending, thought statistically speaking it's like only one person there could have liked it.  Instead of releasing the EC they could have been releasing DLC that added to the build up before getting the Earth.  But we got the EC, meant to explain the original endings and not meant to fix anything.

Again you hit the nail on the head. I really like the way your minds thinks so analytically!
Yes, I think the story IS too big for one game. and I think even at this stage, with a real promise of doing it properly, no more half and worse truths in the hype, I would buy it.

Hell, right now ALL they needed to do to the Destroy ending was have a still of Kaidan (my LI as Fem Shep) and Joker plotting a course back to the Citadel in there instead of the damned stupid Memorial scene! Instant upbeat ending yet still with some interpretation there for those who want negativity.

Let's face it, we're NOT asking for the whole thing to be changed, only an option for those of us who do not feel that a dark, depressing ending, dying along burrned to a crisp in a pile of rubble out in space is the bee all and end all of Artistic Endings!

I'm beginning to wonder if maybe even all this anger and angst they are causing us is orchestrated too. I mean, such a monumental misjudgement of the ending, of the alienation of core, loyal fan, beggars belief.  But to what purpose? Are they actually planning a reprise game? Let's face it, they could have Shepard in another game, just not have him/her a playable character, I suppose ... crappy idea, but I dunno. But to get it so monumentally wrong when they have gotten so much of the triligy so right is .. odd.  Maybe the Reapers have tindoctrinated EA/Bioware!

Modifié par Zan51, 17 juillet 2012 - 06:53 .

[RampantBeaver]

If they had done the game with a new graphics engine, kept it longer in production and really fleshed out the ending I would have paid £20-30 to have a far superior game in 2 parts.

So how about that EA, that's £60 I would have spent in place of the ME3 we got this year. It's laughable to think that if they had actually encouraged Bioware to make the best game possible they would have made more money.
It pains me when I realise that I can come up with a better business model than the smuck that was paid for having the game rushed out with a cop-out ending.

Bioware you are out of touch with your fan base. Where as ME3 and ME2 were preordered, I think it's safe to say I won't be laying my money down early in future.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Okay, I just finished the game with the EC this time. I watched the Control ending and the Synthesis endings on Youtube. I played the Destroy ending.

I'll give you my honest opinion. Never end a story on a head canon. The Control and Synthesis endings had closure. The Destroy ending did not. It was bad. I had 100% readiness, 7650 EMS. I'm supposed to now fabricate a head canon that somehow they found Shepard on the Crucible, and BTW that rubble really looks like concrete on Earth, and that Liara and Shepard somehow got together again. Right. I've got beachfront property.

Can you guys write a proper ending to a story? Five years! Five years, and you give use this crap for an ending? This is the best you could do? :facepalm: And you had two tries at it! The first try that was the original ending was just horrible. This one was the same crappy ending with some Sweet & Low sprinkled on it. It was a little sweeter, but still had that bitter aftertaste.

You wouldn't even throw us a bone of Shepard surviving. We get this stupid breath scene that was supposed to be a "glimmer of hope", which got yanked away by Hepler over the weekend. It tells me that BW writers came up with this: "We don't know how it ends. You guys figure it out."

It looks like perhaps in about 100 - 200 years they might be able to get the mass relays repaired. But rebuilding the homeworld is going to take at least that long so I'm betting probably another 400 years before they do that. The Citadel still looks like a bloody buggery mess in pieces.

And I guess this is because you guys really wanted to sell Synthesis as the canon ending? Is this the deal? Then why did you give us choice at all?

I can tell you this. It will be a cold day in hell before I buy another BioWare game before reading the spoiler section of the forums, and Amazon user reviews. You guys cannot seem to write a ending to a series that makes any sense at all. Keep your "art". Even the leaked scripts sucked.

The best part of this Mass Effect 3 is the multi-player.

The ME universe had so much potential, and you wasted it. You totally trashed the future of it. Keep it. Some other company will with some writing talent will come up with a better story.

Rating of the single player campaign: 6.5/10

[3DandBeyond]

RampantBeaver wrote...

If they had done the game with a new graphics engine, kept it longer in production and really fleshed out the ending I would have paid £20-30 to have a far superior game in 2 parts.

So how about that EA, that's £60 I would have spent in place of the ME3 we got this year. It's laughable to think that if they had actually encouraged Bioware to make the best game possible they would have made more money.
It pains me when I realise that I can come up with a better business model than the smuck that was paid for having the game rushed out with a cop-out ending.

Bioware you are out of touch with your fan base. Where as ME3 and ME2 were preordered, I think it's safe to say I won't be laying my money down early in future.

You see this is the thing.  A lot of people are willing to put the blame on EA for all this because they probably rushed Bioware to complete it (this is contrary to some things Bioware employees have said, though).  EA is all about profit-they're a business, it makes sense.  So, whenever you want to create a project or define it's worth you need to convince your bosses (EA) that it will make money.  You don't just give up and tell people to wrap up the project and dump it out the door.  I know EA wouldn't want that. 

I think Hudson and the rest boxed themselves into a corner and then thought their hype would save the day-it may have been meant even more for their bosses than for us.  And that's because fans always complain and have never complained to this extent before.  On the one hand Bioware thought there'd be some usual complaints-didn't like this, this wasn't great, moving on.  They were not prepared for "real" and sustained anger.  They tried to contain it by getting it characterized as whining and then claimed artistic integrity and all.  They said they'd explain the endings when peopl had had a chance to play the game.  I think they were continually trying to just "wait it out" and once the criticism had fallen off it would be forgotten.  Again, a lot of the worry seemed about how EA perceived things and not fans.  I think the figured all this would always be seen as just disgruntled fans and they even tried to say it was all because people were unhappy this was the end of Shepard's story.  Fans knew this to be untrue and fans found a voice.  Bioware misjudged the love fans had for ME and Shepard and they took for granted that complaints never amount to much of anything.  This has never happened to this extent before-fans consolidated and eloquently expressed their disgust.  SWTOR lost 400k subscriptions-not all due to this, but a lot. 

To be continued......

[3DandBeyond]

I think there were ways to appeal to EA.

EA is about profit. Businesses are. Bioware needed to offer a real solution when it was first apparent to them the endings were not going to write themselves. They could have turned this into a really epic adventure, in the game and in the forums. They actually still could do so.

This is what I would tell them:
Create new content that replaces the endings as they are. Eat your pride, come clean, really look at what people have said. Talk to fans and ask them what they'd like to see as far as content that is ending related and that would take back the galaxy. Have a dialogue. And yes, explain that the story was too big to put into one game, but that there was a desire to give people what had been previously promised-an end within ME3. It didn't appease everyone and so new thoughts are being developed and even offer some prize to a fan who comes up with a voted on best ending or best story line within the ending. Make it clear that there is no promise to use stories or suggestions in the game, but build a relationship with fans. Build bridges.

Tell IGN, xplay (IGN), and others to stuff the rhetoric and make a new start. Let them know that your fans are your fans. This is a precious gift that companies dream of: a vast variety of people love what you have created and speak up for good or bad. Silent customers are not your best customers. Those that are willing to talk to you, whether they love or hate what you have done are the most important customers you have and even better, they have loved you even when you've faltered. You still have a chance to reclaim what is yours. Fans are still talking to you and no matter what they say, it means they still care. See that for what it is and stop being hurt. I don't think you are stupid people and I don't think you are hateful people. I think you are feeling burned, but so are fans. But you Bioware have the power. That's an enviable position. You can choose to create a new beginning. Fans are captive or they will just walk away. In telling them you don't care it's ok if they walk away, you actually are driving them off.

Don't work on ME4 until this game has been finished well. Create DLC that has meaning to the end of this game and that returns players to the goal of the game. As someone so aptly put it (Puppies, I believe), the artificial choices and the kid are the problem. The ending should have been about how to destroy the reapers, not how to work together with them and how to achieve the star kid's goals.

I urge Bioware to create a real forum discussion and yes, in doing so you will get a wide variety of opinions. That's not a bad thing, but it seems that some have decided having too many options, too many thoughts is bad. Well, that's kind of the problem in a nutshell. The reapers exist because a rogue AI that was created to find solutions to one perceived problem was never meant to adapt and imagine. It did what computers do-it threw out what it could not understand and kept reducing its options until it saw only one. It shut out any alternative. It thought in terms of right or wrong, yes or no, 0 or 1. Eventually, this star kid found more reasons to say no than to say yes and it closed itself off to any rational thought that threatened its one main belief. Bioware is like that now and its practices are destroying fans and even Bioware itself.

They need to look at what even people that like the EC have said. They say they have finished the game now and basically that it's over. Well that means no replayability. Once you play it 3 times or play the ending 3 times, ME is done. That doesn't mean there's a lot of desire even for more DLC. I want Bioware to give me a reason to buy DLC, but they have to destroy their own programming to do that. I don't see it happening because it requires something that they used to have and that is a kind of pioneering spirit. Do the unexpected, the difficult, and challenge the status quo.

[sdinc009]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Skirata129 wrote...



[*]yeah, that sealed it. ME2 squadmate LI's are considered second class by bioware.

[*]There is a certain list somewhere of how LIs are viewed by Bioware.  As much as they have denied it there is a canon LI-not a Love Interest everyone would want certainly and personally I do wish there was more of a real variety.  But, Liara is if I recal correctly the only LI that can be romanced in all 3 games.  They tried to make her appear non-canon by making her not be a paramour in ME2-trying to force you to choose someone else.  But as many have noticed she is unequivocally Shepard's best friend-more than Joker, more than Garrus.  She looks for Shepard's body and all but stalks a non-LI Shepard in ME3.  She also seems to hero worship Shepard-so she is just plain there all the time.  But as a love interest she also says odd things out of order, so she's flawed.

[*]What you will notice is that there are other LIs that are more important than the ME2 ones as well, so the ME2 ones apparently didn't matter to Bioware.  I actually think something really odd must have happened between making ME2 and ME3 because they brought on Vega, instead of using someone from ME2 and brought on Cortes as well-though he's not on the team.  It's really kind of like they didn't like the ME2 characters much at all.

[*]Though I don't disagree with you here since I've had a full 3 story Liara LI character I thought that another should be mentioned. My first character had Ashley as a LI and there was a very realistic and dramatic dynamic that plays out with that arch. It takes off in the first game, then there's the encounter on Horizon where she basically dumps Shepard (which almost allows for a guilt-free LI with one of the ME 2 crew if you want to go that way), and then a in ME 3 there's almost a will-they-won't-they reconciliation because Ashley has trouble trusting Shepard cause of the Cerberus ties and the whole being dead thing. But, ulimately wind up together (well at least until *cough cough crap ending cough*). Now again I'm not discoutning the Liara arch, but that one is more of the they meet, fall in love, and that's that kind of arch, which is fine. The Ashley one has it's merit because it's not perfect and it's the flaws that give it realism after all what relationship is truly perfect.

[sdinc009]

There's always been 1 thing about this whole debacle that's really been like a thorn lodged in the rage center of my brain and that's the use of the phrase "artistic integrity". This is the defense being used so PR reps, reviews, and all sorts shout to those who dislike the ending, "artistic integrity" "artistic integrity" "artistic integrity"!! But wait, is it really? Here's the definition of integrity:

Integrity is a concept of consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations, and outcomes. In ethics, integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions. Integrity can be regarded as the opposite of hypocrisy,[1] in that it regards internal consistency as a virtue, and suggests that parties holding apparently conflicting values should account for the discrepancy or alter their beliefs.

The word "integrity" stems from the Latin adjective integer (whole, complete).[2] In this context, integrity is the inner sense of "wholeness" deriving from qualities such as honesty and consistency of character. As such, one may judge that others "have integrity" to the extent that they act according to the values, beliefs and principles they claim to hold.

A value system's abstraction depth and range of applicable interaction may also function as significant factors in identifying integrity due to their congruence or lack of congruence with observation. A value system may evolve over time[3] while retaining integrity if those who espouse the values account for and resolve inconsistencies

So where's the integrity here? A staggering 91% of players can all agree on where ME 3 falls apart. If integrity is basically identified as a wholeness, completeness, then isn't the fact that the ending of ME 3 breaks away from the story structure created through 2.99 games the very opposite of integrity? It doesn't adhere to the artistic integrity the series has created and have up until that point done so well. One could say that it is, in fact, the total lack of artistic integrity that has us all so outraged. So I'm going to say right now that I'm taking this phrase "artistic integrity" back. I'm sick and tired of the meaning of words and phrases being changed for convenience. You do not have "artistic integrity" when you change the artistic vision in the final 10 minutes what you have is "artistic transition". Sorry this was so long, but that phrase and it's misuese has been really pissing me off for about 4 months now.

[3DandBeyond]

sdinc009 wrote...

[*]Though I don't disagree with you here since I've had a full 3 story Liara LI character I thought that another should be mentioned. My first character had Ashley as a LI and there was a very realistic and dramatic dynamic that plays out with that arch. It takes off in the first game, then there's the encounter on Horizon where she basically dumps Shepard (which almost allows for a guilt-free LI with one of the ME 2 crew if you want to go that way), and then a in ME 3 there's almost a will-they-won't-they reconciliation because Ashley has trouble trusting Shepard cause of the Cerberus ties and the whole being dead thing. But, ulimately wind up together (well at least until *cough cough crap ending cough*). Now again I'm not discoutning the Liara arch, but that one is more of the they meet, fall in love, and that's that kind of arch, which is fine. The Ashley one has it's merit because it's not perfect and it's the flaws that give it realism after all what relationship is truly perfect.

[*]Oh yes absolutely I agree that plays out as authentic and real.  It's just for one to maintain an ongoing relationship there is (sadly and wrongly) only one possible partner.
[*]I think this is the product of limiting choices to begin with-there were 3.  Liara could be for either sex and at first Ashley and Kaidan strictly straight.  What I don't think you'd disagree with me here is that in ME2 there needed to be more contact with Shepard and the other LIs.  If you romanced Ashley a bigger scene where you clearly see how torn she is about all of it and how it plays into all her self-doubt as well.  I mean, I didn't have a Shepard romance her and my Shepard still got the dump scene on Horizon.  Ashley at first proclaims my Shepard is a god and then gets mad at Shepard.  I don't know how different that is from what LIs got.
[*]My only real point is that Bioware has at times created canon and then worked to make it seem non-canon.  Liara is not the most compelling LI for many people which is as it should be.  But she is always there.  And add to that that she is there for male or female Shepards and she is like the Swiss Army Knife of LIs.

[AresKeith]

3DandBeyond wrote...

sdinc009 wrote...


[*]Though I don't disagree with you here since I've had a full 3 story Liara LI character I thought that another should be mentioned. My first character had Ashley as a LI and there was a very realistic and dramatic dynamic that plays out with that arch. It takes off in the first game, then there's the encounter on Horizon where she basically dumps Shepard (which almost allows for a guilt-free LI with one of the ME 2 crew if you want to go that way), and then a in ME 3 there's almost a will-they-won't-they reconciliation because Ashley has trouble trusting Shepard cause of the Cerberus ties and the whole being dead thing. But, ulimately wind up together (well at least until *cough cough crap ending cough*). Now again I'm not discoutning the Liara arch, but that one is more of the they meet, fall in love, and that's that kind of arch, which is fine. The Ashley one has it's merit because it's not perfect and it's the flaws that give it realism after all what relationship is truly perfect.

[*]Oh yes absolutely I agree that plays out as authentic and real.  It's just for one to maintain an ongoing relationship there is (sadly and wrongly) only one possible partner.

[*]I think this is the product of limiting choices to begin with-there were 3.  Liara could be for either sex and at first Ashley and Kaidan strictly straight.  What I don't think you'd disagree with me here is that in ME2 there needed to be more contact with Shepard and the other LIs.  If you romanced Ashley a bigger scene where you clearly see how torn she is about all of it and how it plays into all her self-doubt as well.  I mean, I didn't have a Shepard romance her and my Shepard still got the dump scene on Horizon.  Ashley at first proclaims my Shepard is a god and then gets mad at Shepard.  I don't know how different that is from what LIs got.

[*]My only real point is that Bioware has at times created canon and then worked to make it seem non-canon.  Liara is not the most compelling LI for many people which is as it should be.  But she is always there.  And add to that that she is there for male or female Shepards and she is like the Swiss Army Knife of LIs.

                                                                                                                                                                               
It was strange that they made Kaiden bi-sexual all of a sudden in ME3

[Zan51]

The Kaidan LI romance was just the same as the Ashley one, You get "dumped" on Horizon with no chance o say anything much to him, then the reunion is the same as far as I know in ME3.
I did love that they had tender moments, but I would have liked more of them too. Loved the meeting in the Presidium cafe and him kissing her hand, Loved him actually flirting properly with her! And I could live with her bra and panties love scene - SO much better than the awful way they did it in ME2! (watched them on You Tube as I had no ME2 Romance)

I think Liara was there as the one constant because she was bi - she could appeal to both sexes. As a straight woman, she didn't appeal to me as a LI however. Probably Kaidan was suddenly Bi to suit the fans who waned him as a male LI I expect I have no real problem with that because that is a side of him as Fem Shep I didn't see, which is as it should be. Sexuality is personal and between 2 folk.
Dunno why they added Cortez. But the jailer from the beginning, Vega, I always thought of as "Well Jacob failed, let's try Vega!" Ah, no. Not for me. Yes I know he was there for Males not us ladies, but no anyway.

What I wanted was at least an email connection LI with Kaidan in ME2. No one can tell me that some contact between us wouldn't have been encouraged to have advanced Alliance knowledge of my loyalties.

Modifié par Zan51, 17 juillet 2012 - 06:27 .

[katness]

This is going to bother me until I say something. Why didn't Bioware just let Shepard die at the beginning of ME2? I mean, at least that death meant more (meant more as in not buying into Reapers star child bull). I wouldn't have gotten so attached and furthered my LI relationships, nor give false hope I would return. It just seems that if they wanted a new ME hero, then killing Shepard in ME2 would have been just as good bad.

To me, it just seems to prove that this was not the intended ending.

I don't know I'm just starting to rant and complain now, which is really unlike me. I've never been so bothered by an ending before.

Modifié par katness, 17 juillet 2012 - 07:07 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

katness wrote...

This is going to bother me until I say something. Why didn't Bioware just let Shepard die at the beginning of ME2? I mean, at least that death meant more (meant more as in not buying into Reapers star child bull). I wouldn't have gotten so attached and furthered my LI relationships, nor give false hope I would return. It just seems that if they wanted a new ME hero, then killing Shepard in ME2 would have been just as good bad.

To me, it just seems to prove that this was not the intended ending.

I don't know I'm just starting to rant and complain now, which is really unlike me. I've never been so bothered by an ending before.

Because they wanted originally to kill off Shepard at the end of ME1 (I'm guessing) because it was the real beginning of BioWare's grim/dark ending bull****, but decided to let her survive to see how sales went on the game.

Then at the beginning of ME2 they killed her off because they wanted to get her in debt to Cerberus, but then since they don't know how to write story and were making up stuff as they went along we got ME2, none of which ended up having any purpose at all except being a shooter with conversation options. There were some fun missions, but the connectivity in a story arc? None. Look at them as individual episodes that were complete on ending? Okay. Like CSI: Mass Effect -- each episode an hour long with an ending and no connectivity to the next episode. The suicide mission was the season finale. LOTSB was added. Overlord was added. Arrival was added. All three of these 90 minute summer specials.

ME3? They didn't know what they were doing. I really gave them a chance on this. I actually did a full playthrough from the beginning of ME1 - ME3 and timed it almost perfectly for the EC. I had 7650 EMS at 100% readiness. This time I've come to a very painful conclusion. ME3 was overall a very poorly written story. I don't really know if Rannoch and Tuchanka were really well written or that they stand out because the rest was so poorly written.

The EC? why did they even bother? Same crappy ending with sprinkles. The end result is that they wanted to kill off Shepard. That's the bottom line. They didn't have the guts to do it. Hudson and Walters were tired of writing the story so instead of letting their customers enjoy one last final hurrah, they wanted to give them the big middle finger. This is a game. This is what people do for escape. Don't **** with us.

The EC.... one ****ing six second cutscene replacing the breath scene that showed Shepard in a hospital bed alive and conscious at the end of the high EMS ending. Really that's all it would have taken to completely salvage this series, and they couldn't bring themselves to even do that. Because "art." FY.

You knew Tony Soprano was eventually going to get whacked. It's the life of a gangster. That happens. He was a bad man. That story was about Tony. Tony gets shot. That's the end. He had a run of 10 years. But that's different than a fracking game.

[AresKeith]

because they wanna follow the 5 year ago game trend were the main characters dies now, everyone basically expects that to happen now, it'd be cool if they broke away from that and have Shep die based off of how you played

Modifié par AresKeith, 17 juillet 2012 - 09:00 .

[Ukomba]

I really enjoy the improvement of ending 4. The simple Mission failed screen was disappointing. Making it an actual ending makes mulch-player feel worth it again and opens up a possible to expand on that ending with increased war assets. Not saying it'll happen with Leviathan, but could see a future DLC it possible to win without using the crucible.

[duncank]

Just finished Synthesis, then the destruction ending... watched Control on youtube. Basically, I'm finished with Mass Effect. Bioware and their 'artistic integrity' ruined the best RPG out there.

I can appreciate that some are quite happy to see their character killed off. However, I play games as a form of escapism from the grim reality of life, so I was after the most basic KotOR ending... Shepard alive, the odd medal or two, LI on his arm. That would do.

ME1 I replayed and replayed, over and over... bought all DLC. ME 2, the same. ME3? I've played it twice. I'm done and extremely disappointed.

[Thore2k10]

Ukomba wrote...

I really enjoy the improvement of ending 4. The simple Mission failed screen was disappointing. Making it an actual ending makes mulch-player feel worth it again and opens up a possible to expand on that ending with increased war assets. Not saying it'll happen with Leviathan, but could see a future DLC it possible to win without using the crucible.

i think its good that they actually did something about that mission failed screen...

but what do they want to tell us with it? shepard dead, every character dead, galaxy dead, reaper dead... some guys 50000 years from then tell storys   WTF?

[Ukomba]

Thore2k10 wrote...

Ukomba wrote...

I really enjoy the improvement of ending 4. The simple Mission failed screen was disappointing. Making it an actual ending makes mulch-player feel worth it again and opens up a possible to expand on that ending with increased war assets. Not saying it'll happen with Leviathan, but could see a future DLC it possible to win without using the crucible.

i think its good that they actually did something about that mission failed screen...

but what do they want to tell us with it? shepard dead, every character dead, galaxy dead, reaper dead... some guys 50000 years from then tell storys   WTF?

With the your current War Assets.  Betting Leviathan Will raise your total War Assets, and so will future DLC.  I see a DLC in the future revising that.

Then again, it only sugests everyone dies, it doesn't show it.  Liara planted those before going to earth after all, just in case.  Ending 4 would make a good start to a 4th game... just saying.

[Thore2k10]

Ukomba wrote...

Thore2k10 wrote...

Ukomba wrote...

I really enjoy the improvement of ending 4. The simple Mission failed screen was disappointing. Making it an actual ending makes mulch-player feel worth it again and opens up a possible to expand on that ending with increased war assets. Not saying it'll happen with Leviathan, but could see a future DLC it possible to win without using the crucible.

i think its good that they actually did something about that mission failed screen...

but what do they want to tell us with it? shepard dead, every character dead, galaxy dead, reaper dead... some guys 50000 years from then tell storys   WTF?

With the your current War Assets.  Betting Leviathan Will raise your total War Assets, and so will future DLC.  I see a DLC in the future revising that.

Then again, it only sugests everyone dies, it doesn't show it.  Liara planted those before going to earth after all, just in case.  Ending 4 would make a good start to a 4th game... just saying.

doesnt her hologram say something about the crucible not working? it means she must have hid it after they went to earth or not?

[3DandBeyond]

sdinc009 wrote...

There's always been 1 thing about this whole debacle that's really been like a thorn lodged in the rage center of my brain and that's the use of the phrase "artistic integrity". This is the defense being used so PR reps, reviews, and all sorts shout to those who dislike the ending, "artistic integrity" "artistic integrity" "artistic integrity"!! But wait, is it really? Here's the definition of integrity:

Integrity is a concept of consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations, and outcomes. In ethics, integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions. Integrity can be regarded as the opposite of hypocrisy,[1] in that it regards internal consistency as a virtue, and suggests that parties holding apparently conflicting values should account for the discrepancy or alter their beliefs.

The word "integrity" stems from the Latin adjective integer (whole, complete).[2] In this context, integrity is the inner sense of "wholeness" deriving from qualities such as honesty and consistency of character. As such, one may judge that others "have integrity" to the extent that they act according to the values, beliefs and principles they claim to hold.

A value system's abstraction depth and range of applicable interaction may also function as significant factors in identifying integrity due to their congruence or lack of congruence with observation. A value system may evolve over time[3] while retaining integrity if those who espouse the values account for and resolve inconsistencies

So where's the integrity here? A staggering 91% of players can all agree on where ME 3 falls apart. If integrity is basically identified as a wholeness, completeness, then isn't the fact that the ending of ME 3 breaks away from the story structure created through 2.99 games the very opposite of integrity? It doesn't adhere to the artistic integrity the series has created and have up until that point done so well. One could say that it is, in fact, the total lack of artistic integrity that has us all so outraged. So I'm going to say right now that I'm taking this phrase "artistic integrity" back. I'm sick and tired of the meaning of words and phrases being changed for convenience. You do not have "artistic integrity" when you change the artistic vision in the final 10 minutes what you have is "artistic transition". Sorry this was so long, but that phrase and it's misuese has been really pissing me off for about 4 months now.

Don't apologize-I suck up space at every opportunity-it's the way I am because when I try to be brief in anything I can't make my point.  More words may not help, but I try.

You hit the ball out of the park with that one.  It's the same argument going on in one thread where people are speaking up about not wanting to have to head canon a happy ending and maybe a reunion scene.

What you hear time and again in this debate is that other stories do that so what's wrong with it?  It's artisitc.  It's their art.  Bioware wants you to use your imagination and fill it in as you see it-that is art.

Wrong.  If I accept that ME and video games can be art, I then do accept artistic integrity.  But that doesn't give anyone a free ticket to change up the integrity of that art.

Two points where this is exactly what happened:
The endings
And head canonning for a Shepard lives scenario

The total integrity of anything artistic is non-existent here.

Paintings are art and so too are stories/books.  If you write a book, your story sets a pace and a theme at the outset.  If it's a drama, it does not become a comedy at the end.  That is the integrity of your "art".  So too if you create a series and within that series you do specific things, you have set what you must remain true to.

ME is a series and within that series certain truths/promises are set and made.  The lore of the story needs to be followed and all the things you set up as being central to that story need to be remembered and remain true.  The art of ME is defined at the beginning.  In many stories there's a prologue that defines everything, but other writers prefer to let the story create the prologue (which usually contains descriptions of places and characters). Some stories just begin the story-ME does that and they fill you in by using the codex entries. 

By the time you hit ME3 and even with trailers and pre-launch discussions you are pretty sure how the story will go-you don't know specific events, but you understand the art.  You are told you will fight to take Earth back.  This is what everything you've done has set the stage for.  The art of the story pushed you ahead to a fight for survival.

So too the endings of major story lines as well as the end of ME1 and 2 set the stage for what might happen and that you would indeed see the end scenes of good or bad outcomes-the outcomes determined as they were in the other games, by your actions and choices all along and at the end, and the epilogue containing context for that outcome.  This is artistic integrity-remaining true to the art that was created before and that ME3 is a part of.

In the end a nuke went off in the middle of that integrity and these endings are in no way true to the art that came before.  Do that and as a creator you have effectively destroyed your art by ripping out the integrity.  As well, no previous story line, nor either previous game required the player to head canon Shepard's status-that status was seen as a core part of the story and held in high regard.  In the final act of destruction of the integrity that might have been, people are told they must head canon one ending for their own personal closure.  A game where part of the art was in defining the character of the hero, the hero's status is not fully disclosed or set in game-never has this been done before.  The reasons have run the gamut and are more like excuses but the most unauthentic one was that people might want personalized endings and that would be hard to do.  The problem is, that was an integral part of the art within ME-personalization.  And it is exactly why personalized closure should exist.  The game never was about free-form, make your own story choices-the player was given choice within limits. 

Artistic integrity does mean the art that comes from its creator but the creator of art has a responsibility to its devotees as well.  That is a part of the integrity and the art.

ME as a work of art is to be judged on its whole, not by its parts.  You don't look at a painting and say it has value because 30% of it works and is good.  The parts must fit to make a whole.  And the parts must "agree" with each other.  It would be easy to see how this integrity can be destroyed if suddenly Shepard had sprouted wings in ME2 and claimed to be the Sun God and would use a majic ray from his/her eyes to destroy the reapers.  Even if it was really well done and cool looking and sounding, and broke new ground in terms of play mechanics, it wouldn't be a part of the art of ME.

The term artistic integrity has been done to death and most often really abused as it's been something they hide behind as if once something has been created it is sacrosanct.  Well, it isn't.  If Leonardo Da Vinci had put rabbit ears on the Mona Lisa or any work of art that he created under commission, he wouldn't have gotten paid until it was changed.  Art is not immovable and to have integrity, it must follow certain truths.  You nailed this one, scinc009.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Yes it does say the Crucible didn't work. Then Bioware tweets that the next cycle used the Crucible to defeat the Reapers. Bioware can't write story people.

[AresKeith]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Yes it does say the Crucible didn't work. Then Bioware tweets that the next cycle used the Crucible to defeat the Reapers. Bioware can't write story people.

yea, they can't keep there own story straight anymore

[3DandBeyond]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Yes it does say the Crucible didn't work. Then Bioware tweets that the next cycle used the Crucible to defeat the Reapers. Bioware can't write story people.

Ha yeah.  I love it when you choose destroy and the kid says the crucible is just about complete or mostly complete, so great.  We built this thing and no one knows what it does and now it's not even complete.  What an utter waste of time.  Instead of working on it, they  should have sent out the time capsules, gone off on vacation, waited for the reapers to find and kill them and let the next cycle finish the thing.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

3DandBeyond wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Yes it does say the Crucible didn't work. Then Bioware tweets that the next cycle used the Crucible to defeat the Reapers. Bioware can't write story people.

Ha yeah.  I love it when you choose destroy and the kid says the crucible is just about complete or mostly complete, so great.  We built this thing and no one knows what it does and now it's not even complete.  What an utter waste of time.  Instead of working on it, they  should have sent out the time capsules, gone off on vacation, waited for the reapers to find and kill them and let the next cycle finish the thing.

I got the "the crucible is complete and almost intact. There will be very little damage that your civilization shouldn't be able to repair in a very short period of time." I'm thinking, cool. Then I fire the damned thing and the relays are severely damaged as in pieces like the one in Aratoht, the Citadel is in pieces. I'm not talking about pieces that can easily be reassembled. I'm talking about needing major fabrication work. This is going to take thousands of years to repair.

I'm thinking. "Wow this is like getting a top level performance evaluation during a recession and being told you're only going to take a 30% permanent paycut as a reward for your hard work."

This get's me to this point: Weeks wrote the narrative through the firing of the catalyst. Walters reviewed the graphics work and wrote everything from thereon.

The multi-player is the best part of this game. I care nothing for any SP DLC coming out at this point in time. They blew it.

[GodSentinelOmega]

Whenever bioware scream artistic integrity or patronising journalists talk about videogames being a true artform and that companies should not pander to the fans as this sets a dangerous precedent etc.

All i can think of is: Art is IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER!

Artists paint pictures, but it is the people who view them that decide whether they are art. Take the Mona Lisa, arguably Da Vincis most important painting, but he never considered it a masteroiece. Other people did and continue to do so.
Authors right books, but it is the people who Read them that decide if they are art or just derivative. Take LOTR, the second most read book behind the Bible and considered to be the benchmark for fantasy writing. But tolkiens aim was to write a thrilling adventure, he never thought 'i'm writing the most artistic and important work of fiction Ever'.

And game companies make games, an INTERACTIVE medium that combinies the best of books, pictures, music, movies and more. Games are there to entertain and enthrall. Mass Effect 1 and 2 did this brilliantly. Not perfectly, but brilliantly. Atno point in the hype or aftermath of either did bioware use the terms artistic integrity or artistic vision.

Yes they had a vision for their games. An idea to create a living universe in which the player could inhabit a personalised avatar. A world that was apparently defined as much by the fans as the makers at bioware.

But somewhere along the line in making ME3, someone at ea or bioware got the idea that they just might be making the game franchise that defined videogames as an art form. So they decided to make the conclusion to Mass Effect the most beautiful, intellectual and thought provoking ending that had ever been. To show everyone THEIR artistic vision.

Only it isn't. Because art is defined by those who view it, who play it. Make the best game you ca and let your audience decide how good it is.

I could probably slap together a picture of something i like in a few minutes and say its art. That doesn't mean it is.

The endings of mass effect as many have said fich the deus ex endings. The EC endings like deus ex human revolution. And yet they are art according to bioware and many others. Its like somepne making a copy of the Mona Lisa with a different woman and proclaiming it superior to Da Vinci. Then when enough people say no, they go away and do it again, only with flashier clothes and more makeup.

Art is art because of the viewer, not the maker, if only bioware had remembered this we could have had the epic and varied conclusions and resolutions we were promised and hyped for.

Instead we got some albeit interesting conceptual endings based off of transhumanism, the technological singularity and the bleak, fatalistic truth that sometimes to when you must compromise your soul.

Oh yes and before i go. As 3danbeyond and others have said above, the idea of the final fight being spread across two games would have been a truly epic conclusion. And one i would have gladly preordered for.

Such wasted potential.

Apologies if whati've written comes across as very negative,

Modifié par GodSentinelOmega, 17 juillet 2012 - 11:04 .