Yes, most of the rest of the story to the game was badly written, so this Theory has the most evidence.
Was the Ending just Badly Written? - Bad Writing Theory!
Débuté par
The Heretic of Time
, juil. 16 2012 11:54
Retour en haut
#27
Posté 16 juillet 2012 - 03:49
DistantUtopia
-
- Members
- 953 messages
Xandurpein wrote...
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
I seem to recall a quote from BW stating just that. I need to start thread hunting though.
#28
Posté 16 juillet 2012 - 03:52
nitefyre410
-
- Members
- 8 944 messages
DistantUtopia wrote...
Xandurpein wrote...
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
I seem to recall a quote from BW stating just that. I need to start thread hunting though.
Yeah I remember that thread and the quote..
That quote just makes me do this
Even if you don't get the make other two projects you at least have ending idea planned in case you do.
#29
Posté 16 juillet 2012 - 04:03
Swordfishtrombone
-
- Members
- 4 108 messages
Xandurpein wrote...
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.
I think that the Citadel was just the preferred path - a quick victory - with the slower entrance into the galaxy being the backup plan, so I don't think that there's any sort of inconsistency there; it was never the Citadel that allowed the reapers to win, the Citadel was there to allow the reapers to win FAST.
But there IS a serious problem brought to us with that wonderful ghostly character we all love - if the catalyst is in control, and the catalyst always recided in the Citadel, then the plot of ME1 makes no sense at all.
The CATALYST could have opened the way to the reapers, not requiring an external agent like Saren to do the whole song and dance to get there to push a button or two.
And you really cannot explain this away believably - given that the Catalyst is in control, and the Citadel is the tool of the catalyst and the reapers, there is no plausible reason at all why the catalyst would deprive himself of the ability to activate the Citadel to open the path for the reapers, and make it so that only an external agent, fighting it's way through to the Citadel tower, could do this. From the catalysts' and the Reapers' perspective, this would be like purposefully, deliberately, shooting yourself on the foot.
This pretty much demonstrates that the catalyst could not have been conceived at the time of the writing of ME1, and his presense completely contradicts the events of ME1.
#30
Posté 16 juillet 2012 - 04:18
Pantanplan
-
- Members
- 556 messages
social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/13024845/1nitefyre410 wrote...
DistantUtopia wrote...
Xandurpein wrote...
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
I seem to recall a quote from BW stating just that. I need to start thread hunting though.
Yeah I remember that thread and the quote..
That quote just makes me do this
Even if you don't get the make other two projects you at least have ending idea planned in case you do.
Here's the thread. Mac Walters openly admits it, like he's proud of it or something.
Modifié par Pantanplan, 16 juillet 2012 - 04:21 .
#31
Posté 16 juillet 2012 - 04:38
spockjedi
-
- Members
- 748 messages
Yes, they dropped the Dark Energy stuff and replaced it with something even worse.
#32
Posté 16 juillet 2012 - 04:43
flanny
-
- Members
- 1 164 messages
Swordfishtrombone wrote...
Xandurpein wrote...
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.
I think that the Citadel was just the preferred path - a quick victory - with the slower entrance into the galaxy being the backup plan, so I don't think that there's any sort of inconsistency there; it was never the Citadel that allowed the reapers to win, the Citadel was there to allow the reapers to win FAST.
But there IS a serious problem brought to us with that wonderful ghostly character we all love - if the catalyst is in control, and the catalyst always recided in the Citadel, then the plot of ME1 makes no sense at all.
The CATALYST could have opened the way to the reapers, not requiring an external agent like Saren to do the whole song and dance to get there to push a button or two.
And you really cannot explain this away believably - given that the Catalyst is in control, and the Citadel is the tool of the catalyst and the reapers, there is no plausible reason at all why the catalyst would deprive himself of the ability to activate the Citadel to open the path for the reapers, and make it so that only an external agent, fighting it's way through to the Citadel tower, could do this. From the catalysts' and the Reapers' perspective, this would be like purposefully, deliberately, shooting yourself on the foot.
This pretty much demonstrates that the catalyst could not have been conceived at the time of the writing of ME1, and his presense completely contradicts the events of ME1.
actually the reapers used to use the citadel to shut down the relay network, so it took the centuries to reap before.
as for the second point, yeah, it's pretty much accepted nothing in ME1 or ME2 happened in ME3
#33
Posté 16 juillet 2012 - 06:29
The Heretic of Time
-
- Members
- 5 612 messages
Baa Baa wrote...
Yes, most of the rest of the story to the game was badly written, so this Theory has the most evidence.
Evidence? No. But it's reasonable to assume that there isn't anything meaningful behind the nonsensical ending of ME3 based on the fact that Mass Effect was never really that deep to begin with, and the writing in ME3 was never really that good to begin with either.
#34
Posté 16 juillet 2012 - 06:48
Zaalbar
-
- Members
- 845 messages
Mac + Space Cakes = Artistic Integrity
#35
Posté 16 juillet 2012 - 06:52
Eain
-
- Members
- 1 501 messages
Conniving_Eagle wrote...
Two pseudo-intellectuals saw the ending as an opportunity to subliminally cram their philosophical bull**** down the fans' throats.
Wasn't very subliminal.
#36
Posté 16 juillet 2012 - 06:57
Vox Draco
-
- Members
- 2 939 messages
Bad Writing? After the EC now verifies this is truly Bioware's vision to end the story, I belive their writing team failed, failed horribly...
I am not a professional writer, yet for me it is clear that one major problem of the series is that, if looked at in a whole, doesn't feel like one coherent piece of writing. A story can evolve as you tell it. Characters sometimes change as the story advances, they grow eith the story, and things planned suddenly don't make sense any more for certain characters or even story-parts, so you adapt.
But I strongly believe that you need to have at least a vision of the story you want to tell, how you want to tell it, the pillars you want to build it upon, and the conclusion to it all.
ME2 already made me doubt that such a vision really existed. It was a nice game, a middle part of a supposed trilogy, but never felt like a true bridge between part one and the supposed epic conclusion in part 3. Like "Empire strikes back" it was focused more on the characters than the conflict, and was darker and maybe a little more mature in that regard, but ME2 made some bad mistakes in contrast to Star Wars ESB
First, to many new characters are introduced, instead of focusing more on the already established ones. Very bad mistake. Half of the new characters had sufficed as true squadmates, if you ask me. Second, the threat of the Reapers? It needed to be build up, emphasized, increased. Instead we get some aliens that even though controlled by the Reapers, somehow just don't advance the plot of the looming galactic war.
Far too long we jsut wonder what the collectors are up to, and the rest of the galaxy is simply not involved enoguh at this stage of the story. Mass Effect 3 has to pay the price for that, because Bioware missed it to stage their huge and epic galactic war of survival propery in ME2.
Instead we now have this epic war pressed tightly into just one game. Now everything feels so rushed and hasty. Granted, this can be used to create some thrill. But with an enemy like the Reapers it truly feels the whole time like every second in ME2 was a waste of time we now would need to stop them...
To make up for this, we get the supposed super-weapon of the crucible. An intersting concept, a weapon of vengeance designed by multiple cycles prior, a nice way to finish of the Reaper with a goodbye from the ones they killed, I actually liked that. But again, why didn't the writers put some hints of this in the games prior? Proper foreshadowing would have made it much better to swallow for all of us. For me another clear hint they had no idea how to end the Reaper-Threat
I could go on forever it seems, but one last thing: Cerberus. Yes, they are important and dubious in ME2, and I can accept them as an antagonist in part 3 to wrap things up. But again the writers failed, because Cerberus as a second true war-enemy, an army in itself fighting agaisnt the alliance, has only one effect: It diminishes the Reaper-conflict. It takes too much focus away from the true enemy, and at some points I actually felt like "Who am I fighting here again?"
Yes, I think the writers either never had or lost their vision of the series, and just wanted to get over with it. The whole series more and more loses coherence up to the point when the endings abandon all themes and violate the lore and most important don't care anymore about the protagonist and what Shepard stood for...very, very bad writing, if you ask me....
A lot of words, but I was in the mood to write it...
I am not a professional writer, yet for me it is clear that one major problem of the series is that, if looked at in a whole, doesn't feel like one coherent piece of writing. A story can evolve as you tell it. Characters sometimes change as the story advances, they grow eith the story, and things planned suddenly don't make sense any more for certain characters or even story-parts, so you adapt.
But I strongly believe that you need to have at least a vision of the story you want to tell, how you want to tell it, the pillars you want to build it upon, and the conclusion to it all.
ME2 already made me doubt that such a vision really existed. It was a nice game, a middle part of a supposed trilogy, but never felt like a true bridge between part one and the supposed epic conclusion in part 3. Like "Empire strikes back" it was focused more on the characters than the conflict, and was darker and maybe a little more mature in that regard, but ME2 made some bad mistakes in contrast to Star Wars ESB
First, to many new characters are introduced, instead of focusing more on the already established ones. Very bad mistake. Half of the new characters had sufficed as true squadmates, if you ask me. Second, the threat of the Reapers? It needed to be build up, emphasized, increased. Instead we get some aliens that even though controlled by the Reapers, somehow just don't advance the plot of the looming galactic war.
Far too long we jsut wonder what the collectors are up to, and the rest of the galaxy is simply not involved enoguh at this stage of the story. Mass Effect 3 has to pay the price for that, because Bioware missed it to stage their huge and epic galactic war of survival propery in ME2.
Instead we now have this epic war pressed tightly into just one game. Now everything feels so rushed and hasty. Granted, this can be used to create some thrill. But with an enemy like the Reapers it truly feels the whole time like every second in ME2 was a waste of time we now would need to stop them...
To make up for this, we get the supposed super-weapon of the crucible. An intersting concept, a weapon of vengeance designed by multiple cycles prior, a nice way to finish of the Reaper with a goodbye from the ones they killed, I actually liked that. But again, why didn't the writers put some hints of this in the games prior? Proper foreshadowing would have made it much better to swallow for all of us. For me another clear hint they had no idea how to end the Reaper-Threat
I could go on forever it seems, but one last thing: Cerberus. Yes, they are important and dubious in ME2, and I can accept them as an antagonist in part 3 to wrap things up. But again the writers failed, because Cerberus as a second true war-enemy, an army in itself fighting agaisnt the alliance, has only one effect: It diminishes the Reaper-conflict. It takes too much focus away from the true enemy, and at some points I actually felt like "Who am I fighting here again?"
Yes, I think the writers either never had or lost their vision of the series, and just wanted to get over with it. The whole series more and more loses coherence up to the point when the endings abandon all themes and violate the lore and most important don't care anymore about the protagonist and what Shepard stood for...very, very bad writing, if you ask me....
A lot of words, but I was in the mood to write it...
#37
Posté 16 juillet 2012 - 06:57
teh DRUMPf!!
-
- Members
- 9 142 messages
Discouraged_one wrote...
You...big...STUPID...Jellyfish!!
oh...wait
#38
Posté 16 juillet 2012 - 07:02
Eterna
-
- Members
- 7 417 messages
Why are we still ****ing about endings? EC is released, it's over, done. Stop beating a dead horse and move on.
#39
Posté 16 juillet 2012 - 09:14
The Heretic of Time
-
- Members
- 5 612 messages
Eterna5 wrote...
Why are we still ****ing about endings? EC is released, it's over, done. Stop beating a dead horse and move on.
This is not just about the ending. You would have realized this if you had actually read the OP.
#40
Posté 16 juillet 2012 - 09:15
dsl08002
-
- Members
- 1 779 messages
yes it war poorly written, like an easy way out instead of make a complicated ending but at least satisfactory
#41
Posté 16 juillet 2012 - 09:16
Eterna
-
- Members
- 7 417 messages
Heretic_Hanar wrote...
Eterna5 wrote...
Why are we still ****ing about endings? EC is released, it's over, done. Stop beating a dead horse and move on.
This is not just about the ending. You would have realized this if you had actually read the OP.
If you thought anything besides the ending was poorly written you were probably impossible to please anyway.
#42
Posté 16 juillet 2012 - 09:23
The Heretic of Time
-
- Members
- 5 612 messages
Vox Draco wrote...
Bad Writing? After the EC now verifies this is truly Bioware's vision to end the story, I belive their writing team failed, failed horribly...
I am not a professional writer, yet for me it is clear that one major problem of the series is that, if looked at in a whole, doesn't feel like one coherent piece of writing. A story can evolve as you tell it. Characters sometimes change as the story advances, they grow eith the story, and things planned suddenly don't make sense any more for certain characters or even story-parts, so you adapt.
But I strongly believe that you need to have at least a vision of the story you want to tell, how you want to tell it, the pillars you want to build it upon, and the conclusion to it all.
ME2 already made me doubt that such a vision really existed. It was a nice game, a middle part of a supposed trilogy, but never felt like a true bridge between part one and the supposed epic conclusion in part 3. Like "Empire strikes back" it was focused more on the characters than the conflict, and was darker and maybe a little more mature in that regard, but ME2 made some bad mistakes in contrast to Star Wars ESB
First, to many new characters are introduced, instead of focusing more on the already established ones. Very bad mistake. Half of the new characters had sufficed as true squadmates, if you ask me. Second, the threat of the Reapers? It needed to be build up, emphasized, increased. Instead we get some aliens that even though controlled by the Reapers, somehow just don't advance the plot of the looming galactic war.
Far too long we jsut wonder what the collectors are up to, and the rest of the galaxy is simply not involved enoguh at this stage of the story. Mass Effect 3 has to pay the price for that, because Bioware missed it to stage their huge and epic galactic war of survival propery in ME2.
Instead we now have this epic war pressed tightly into just one game. Now everything feels so rushed and hasty. Granted, this can be used to create some thrill. But with an enemy like the Reapers it truly feels the whole time like every second in ME2 was a waste of time we now would need to stop them...
To make up for this, we get the supposed super-weapon of the crucible. An intersting concept, a weapon of vengeance designed by multiple cycles prior, a nice way to finish of the Reaper with a goodbye from the ones they killed, I actually liked that. But again, why didn't the writers put some hints of this in the games prior? Proper foreshadowing would have made it much better to swallow for all of us. For me another clear hint they had no idea how to end the Reaper-Threat
I could go on forever it seems, but one last thing: Cerberus. Yes, they are important and dubious in ME2, and I can accept them as an antagonist in part 3 to wrap things up. But again the writers failed, because Cerberus as a second true war-enemy, an army in itself fighting agaisnt the alliance, has only one effect: It diminishes the Reaper-conflict. It takes too much focus away from the true enemy, and at some points I actually felt like "Who am I fighting here again?"
Yes, I think the writers either never had or lost their vision of the series, and just wanted to get over with it. The whole series more and more loses coherence up to the point when the endings abandon all themes and violate the lore and most important don't care anymore about the protagonist and what Shepard stood for...very, very bad writing, if you ask me....
A lot of words, but I was in the mood to write it...
You know, you stole the words from my mouth. This is EXACTLY what I've been thinking myself. I honestly couldn't have said it better myself.
I've made some posts about the problems with ME3 and I've said several times that this mess all started with ME2, but you basically just nailed it with this post of yours.
#43
Posté 16 juillet 2012 - 09:25
Vox Draco
-
- Members
- 2 939 messages
Eterna5 wrote...
If you thought anything besides the ending was poorly written you were probably impossible to please anyway.
Quite wrong I'd say...I think a "conventional" ending, with Harbinger killed in battle by Shepard and the Reapers destroyed, and an ending based on our decisions and EMS, and Sheaprd alive with her LI...hey, nobody here would argue how inconsistent the trilogy feels as a whole...
Mass Effect isn't bad, but the ending is just the pinnacle, the drop too much that made a lot of people have a closer look on things they generously ignored before, in favor of enjoyable moments with Shepard and the characters...
#44
Posté 16 juillet 2012 - 09:30
Eterna
-
- Members
- 7 417 messages
Vox Draco wrote...
Eterna5 wrote...
If you thought anything besides the ending was poorly written you were probably impossible to please anyway.
Quite wrong I'd say...I think a "conventional" ending, with Harbinger killed in battle by Shepard and the Reapers destroyed, and an ending based on our decisions and EMS, and Sheaprd alive with her LI...hey, nobody here would argue how inconsistent the trilogy feels as a whole...
Mass Effect isn't bad, but the ending is just the pinnacle, the drop too much that made a lot of people have a closer look on things they generously ignored before, in favor of enjoyable moments with Shepard and the characters...
How is it inconsistent? It ties up almost every lose end.
#45
Posté 16 juillet 2012 - 09:32
The Heretic of Time
-
- Members
- 5 612 messages
Eterna5 wrote...
Heretic_Hanar wrote...
Eterna5 wrote...
Why are we still ****ing about endings? EC is released, it's over, done. Stop beating a dead horse and move on.
This is not just about the ending. You would have realized this if you had actually read the OP.
If you thought anything besides the ending was poorly written you were probably impossible to please anyway.
And on what grounds do you base this accusation? There is plenty wrong with the writing of Mass Effect 3, not just the ending. That does not mean I'm impossible to please. I have plenty of games that managed to please me in the writing department. The first game that comes to mind if The Witcher 2. I simply loved the story, plot and characters in that game. It also sets up the stage for The Witcher 3 quite nicely, something ME2 failed to do.
#46
Posté 16 juillet 2012 - 09:33
SubAstris
-
- Members
- 1 721 messages
The Crucible itself wasn't where it went wrong, it was just the fact that it did what it was meant to that it was such a bad plot device.
#47
Posté 16 juillet 2012 - 09:33
Vox Draco
-
- Members
- 2 939 messages
Eterna5 wrote...
How is it inconsistent? It ties up almost every lose end.
You truly get this feeling when looking at the entire series, from the very beginning to the end? Amazing...all I have to say actually...
#48
Posté 16 juillet 2012 - 09:34
Eterna
-
- Members
- 7 417 messages
Heretic_Hanar wrote...
Eterna5 wrote...
Heretic_Hanar wrote...
Eterna5 wrote...
Why are we still ****ing about endings? EC is released, it's over, done. Stop beating a dead horse and move on.
This is not just about the ending. You would have realized this if you had actually read the OP.
If you thought anything besides the ending was poorly written you were probably impossible to please anyway.
And on what grounds do you base this accusation? There is plenty wrong with the writing of Mass Effect 3, not just the ending. That does not mean I'm impossible to please. I have plenty of games that managed to please me in the writing department. The first game that comes to mind if The Witcher 2. I simply loved the story, plot and characters in that game. It also sets up the stage for The Witcher 3 quite nicely, something ME2 failed to do.
.......Are you trying to say that Mass Effect 2 did not forshadow the reaper invasion?
#49
Posté 16 juillet 2012 - 09:36
Eterna
-
- Members
- 7 417 messages
Vox Draco wrote...
Eterna5 wrote...
How is it inconsistent? It ties up almost every lose end.
You truly get this feeling when looking at the entire series, from the very beginning to the end? Amazing...all I have to say actually...
It ties up constant themes from the series, The Geth and Quarian conflict, the Krogan and Salarian stuff. How the Asari are so advanced, gives closure to the ME2 cast and ends the cerberus arc. The only thing that comes completely out of the blue is the catalyst.
#50
Posté 16 juillet 2012 - 09:40
Vox Draco
-
- Members
- 2 939 messages
Eterna5 wrote...
.......Are you trying to say that Mass Effect 2 did not forshadow the reaper invasion?
*laugh* sure it did. ME1 did that too. Yet ME2 failed to properly increase the menace of this incoming invasion. Also if forgot to foreshadow too many other plot-elements needed later in ME3, like. for example, the whole singularity-thingy the catalyst thinks is important, or the creators-created-theme of being more important then in mere skippable side-quests...not to mention the crucible should have been foreshadowed as well...
Again, ME2 isn't a bad game, but if ails, for me, to properly set the stage as a middle of a trilogy for an upcoming war with the Reapers...but I already lined out my thoughts further up this thread...
and thank you OP for the nice response!
