212 réponses à ce sujet

[The Heretic of Time]

 Most of us see by now that there is definitely something fishy going on with the ending of Mass Effect 3. There are a lot of things about the ending that raise questions that are, as of now, still unanswered. All of us who realize that there is something not right about this ending try to make sense of this nonsensical ending.

Why did Harbinger not shoot te Normandy during the beam run?
Why did Harbinger's beam not kill Shepard when Shepard got hit?
Why does the scenery change after Shepard got hit by Harbinger's beam?
How was Anderson able to follow Shepard up to the Citadel?
What's up with the Catalyst?
Why Why does this ending make so little sense? 

These are all valid questions and it's understandable that most of you search for answers to these questions. There has been some wild speculation going on about the ending of Mass Effect 3, some speculate even wilder than the others. But let me clear something up.


There is been a myth going on for quite some time now. The myth that BioWare games have good writing. Like every myth, this myth does have some truths to it. Back in the days, way back in the days, BioWare games did indeed have marvelous writing. It's because of these games that BioWare earned the reputation of producing games with good stories.

Today, BioWare still has this reputation of having well-written games. Everyone says BioWare games contain good writing, so it must be true, right? This leads to most people outright refusing to believe that the nonsensical endings of ME3 are exactly that: nonsensical.

"BioWare games contain good writing, BioWare's writers are the best! So how could it be that the endings of ME3 are so nonsensical? Surely there must be something mysterious behind it! It couldn't be just bad writing and a rushed job, this is BioWare after all!"
It's this type of reasoning that leads people to some of the most crazy theories, such as the imfamous Indoctrination Theory. 


This thread however, is for the people who realize that the writing in Mass Effect 3 just isn't that good. This thread is for all those people who feared there was something horribly wrong about Mass Effect 3's story/plot as soon as the first drafts (leaked scripts) of the ME3 script were leaked on the internet. Some of us already feared the worst at that point, when we saw all the silly crap in the leaked scripts.

This thread is not about speculation. We do not speculate here. Instead we analyze and scrutinize the story and plot of the Mass Effect series and try to pin-point where exactly it went wrong with the Mass Effect trilogy. 


Where did it all go wrong? Was it when the Crucible got introduced? Was it when the Catalyst's true nature got revealed? Was it when we first saw Kai Leng? Or was it when we realized the whole of Cerberus got indoctrinated? Or was it much, much, MUCH earlier than that? Perhaps it already went wrong during Mass Effect 2? Perhaps Mass Effect 1 wasn't all that good either?


Analyze, scrutinize and discuss! Where did it all go wrong with Mass Effect's writing?

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 01 mars 2013 - 11:14 .

[ld1449]

It was the Space hamsters fault!!!

[shurikenmanta]

Maybe we should start the Dead Horse theory...

Or maybe the '5000 Threads Aren't Enough' theory.

Modifié par shurikenmanta, 16 juillet 2012 - 12:01 .

[Discouraged_one]

Sloppy writing is the result of a rushed product? Thats all I can see in ME3s writing. If the game had more time in development, I'm sure the overall product would have been of far better quality in terms of writing.

or it could be planned to expand on with DLC content?

[The Heretic of Time]

shurikenmanta wrote...

Maybe we should start the Dead Horse theory...

Or maybe the '5000 Threads Aren't Enough' theory.

My goal is to turn this thread into a hub for all of us who think the writing of ME3 just isn't that great. This thread is to analyaze, scrutinize and discuss that possibility. If we could turn this thread into a hub for people who agree that the writing of ME3 just isn't that good, we could spare the forum from 4999 more threads aboutt the same topic.

The indoctrination theorists have their thread where every ITer posts, I hope to turn this thread into something similar, but instead of speculating and posting hypothesises, I want to analyze and scrutinize the plot of Mass Effect in order to pin-point where it exactly went wrong, together with those who also feel the desire to do so.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 16 juillet 2012 - 12:08 .

[The Heretic of Time]

Discouraged_one wrote...

Sloppy writing is the result of a rushed product? Thats all I can see in ME3s writing. If the game had more time in development, I'm sure the overall product would have been of far better quality in terms of writing.

or it could be planned to expand on with DLC content?

It could indeed be that the sloppy writing is just the result of a rushed product. But how could DLC possibly fix that. I mean sure you can polish a turt, but in the end isn't it still just a turt?

I think there is more behind it than simply a rushed product. When I look at the gameplay of Mass Effect 3 I see nothing but good stuff. The gameplay of ME3 is not perfect but it sure as hell improved on ME2's gameplay. I do not see any traces of a rushed product in the gameplay of ME3, I only see traces of a rushed product in the writing of ME3. How could that be? Doesn't the writing happen before the development of the gameplay, mission designs and level designs?

[Rombomm]

This theory is utter crap, what were you on when you came up with this?

[Dmthoth]

they wanted some 'Drama' and failed.. anybody has no such a talent.. unfortunately..

[The Heretic of Time]

Dmthoth wrote...

they wanted some 'Drama' and failed.. anybody has no such a talent.. unfortunately..

Could you please give us some details? What do you mean with "they wanted some drama" and why do you think they failed?

[Dendio1]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Dmthoth wrote...

they wanted some 'Drama' and failed.. anybody has no such a talent.. unfortunately..

Could you please give us some details? What do you mean with "they wanted some drama" and why do you think they failed?

One phrase:

Speculations for everyone

[The Heretic of Time]

Dendio1 wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Dmthoth wrote...

they wanted some 'Drama' and failed.. anybody has no such a talent.. unfortunately..

Could you please give us some details? What do you mean with "they wanted some drama" and why do you think they failed?

One phrase:

Speculations for everyone

Yeah yeah we get it. That "speculation for everyone" joke is getting kinda old now.

[The Angry One]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Dendio1 wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Dmthoth wrote...

they wanted some 'Drama' and failed.. anybody has no such a talent.. unfortunately..

Could you please give us some details? What do you mean with "they wanted some drama" and why do you think they failed?

One phrase:

Speculations for everyone

Yeah yeah we get it. That "speculation for everyone" joke is getting kinda old now.

Artistic integrity!

[DirtyPhoenix]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

It could indeed be that the sloppy writing is just the result of a rushed product. But how could DLC possibly fix that. I mean sure you can polish a turt, but in the end isn't it still just a turt?

I think there is more behind it than simply a rushed product. When I look at the gameplay of Mass Effect 3 I see nothing but good stuff. The gameplay of ME3 is not perfect but it sure as hell improved on ME2's gameplay. I do not see any traces of a rushed product in the gameplay of ME3, I only see traces of a rushed product in the writing of ME3. How could that be? Doesn't the writing happen before the development of the gameplay, mission designs and level designs?

I agree with this jellyfish:D

[The Heretic of Time]

The Angry One wrote...

Artistic integrity!

Artistic integrity?

[flanny]

of course it was a result of bad writing, why?

1) it was rushed
2) it was made to incorporate a multilayer function
3) bioware put it's best writers, like drew karpyshyn, on SWTOR
4) they needed to keep the ending open so they can continue the franchise

[spockjedi]

I agree with the OP.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence. [1]

[TK EL_]

They decided to prioritize the combat because the inclusion of MP demanded combat that was good enough to sustain it, plus Eric Fagnan and C Gaspur are really good at their jobs. Also the inclusion of 'Action mode' necessitated it for the people that can't be bothered by all that other RPG stuff some people buy game for...

[Discouraged_one]

You...big...STUPID...Jellyfish!!

oh...wait

[Conniving_Eagle]

Two pseudo-intellectuals saw the ending as an opportunity to subliminally cram their philosophical bull**** down the fans' throats.

[DOGMA23]

I'm certain that i and most of the community could of wrote a better end to the series, so in protest i will continue to shoot the catalyst in the face, turn off my computer and imagine a competent ending.

[Kamfrenchie]

I think i stated going badly in ME2 when the council and evryone decided not to trust shepard even thoug he saved the citadel.

It meant no one prepared for the coming of the reapers which "forced" the writer into the crucible ass pull.
Still, ME3 could have done wel despite that. The council couldjust have been lying to shepard, he crucible could be a weapon made with the plans for harbinger, and the delay between ME2 an 3 coul havebeen bigger than a few month.

So it's mostly ME3 that fails, fom the beginning of the mars section, where cerberus just goes stupid evil an execute everyone, while even if they had to be evil, it woul be a better idea to take prisoner and indoctrinte them.
The crucible apparition confirms the poblem....

[Swordfishtrombone]

I find the writing in ME3 to be mostly OK to good, with a few glimpses of greatness, with the exception of everythign that happens after the last scene with Anderson. That's when it all goes pear shaped, and what follows is the worst writing I've ever seen from Bioware. Not commenting here on the additions of the extended edition - they did what they could, with mixed results, with the attrocious mess they had to work with.

I think there were a few low points earlier (like Kai Leng as a villain - just not up there with the great lineup of other Bioware villains), but it was the catalyst that was an incomprehensibly bad idea, that should not have come out of the pen of any good writer - not any decent writer either. Bafflingly bad. The game, at the end, must have been HORRIBLY rushed, that's all I can think of to explain such a nose dive.

But even then, they would have done much better if they'd cut everything between the last Anderson scene and the "destroy" ending sequence - have instead Shepard do something at the console, and Hackett reporting that the crucible is activating, and then go on to the destroy ending, with the epilogues brought by the EC.

That would have been fine, might even have been a GOOD ending to the series.

Instead, what the introduction of the catalyst brought was:

1. a new, and unbelievable major character at the last minute of the game

2. a character that expected you to believe what he was saying, inspite of taking form that was lifted straight out of your head, with the knowledge that YOU know the ability of the reapers to mess with the minds of organics.

3. The total deflation of the Reapers as the great villain of the series, by giving them a dubious motive that was trying to make them appear, at least to a degree, like the good guys? What does that make you, did you become the antagonist?

4. The introduction of a totally inappropriate, genre breaking option to the end - the synthesis ending - which doesn't bear any critical scrutiny, doesn't have any plausible mechanism behind it even if we stretch our "poetic licence" and suspension of disbelief to it's breaking point, and thus clearly belongs to a fantasy game, not SciFi. This was the only ending that was made worse by the EC, that just emphasized how really implausible the whole thing was.

And that's just the problems that weren't addressed by the EC - how could they have been, without just deleting the flawed, deus ex machina character?

Bioware can do great writing, but does not consistantly manage to reach that high bar. This is the first time they've produced anything so totally horrendous though. I wish it wasn't at the end of such a great series.

What Bioware usually excells at is character writing, and I don't think that was any different in ME3 - the meetings with the old companions were excellent, and Vega, that looked a bit dubious a-priori, was actually a well written character.

I hope that they manage to put this whole affair behind them, start fresh, and never, ever, ever again consider bringing in a new major character, or so totally messing with a great villain, at the last minute again. And I hope they return to sticking with SciFi on a SciFi series, and keep out the overt fantasy elements. If they haven't learned these lessons from ME3's ending debacle, then they are beyond hope, and I don't think they are.

[brettc893]

An interesting take, but I must disagree.

I think we can all agree that the David Bowie Theory has far more merit.

[comrade gando]

badly written is an understatement. the way that ending was written was just malicious to the integrity of the series, it purposefully throws out everything the series has stood for since mass effect 1. It is "thematically revolting"

[Xandurpein]

I honestly think that a huge problem was that they didn't seem to have had a proper idea for how to end the series when they wrote Mass Effect 1, or if they did, they changed their mind at least once along the way. You could see a shift in focus already in Mass Effect 2, where Harbinger seemed obsessed with Shepard, when Sovereign had treated him like an insect, but it wasn't until Mass Effect 3 when everything was supposed to be neatly summed up, that the lack of cohesion in the build up to the end became really apparent.

In Mass Effect 1 we learn that the Citadel is a huge trap and that the Reapers use it to launch a decapitation strike at the Galactic civilizations, paralyzing them and winning the war. In Mass Effect 3 we are more or less told that any conventional victory against the Reapers is impossible anyway. They never needed the Citadel to win so the the victory in Mass Effect 1 just became pointless.