212 réponses à ce sujet

[kookie28]

Finally a reasonable guess about what went wrong with the ending.

[The Heretic of Time]

Oxspit wrote...

A simple exercise for those who think the bad writing relates purely to the ending, and that the ball got dropped purely in the last few minutes.

You have carte blanche to re-write the ending - that is, everything from the start of the beam run onwards is yours to play with. Knock yourself out, but write something that ties everything together, works coherently with everything up until that point and, you know, makes sense. And makes everything else make sense too. Answers the questions that need to be answered. That kind of thing.

You don't get to introduce new themes or major plot devices, you only get to work with what you've already been given. If you like, I guess it's fair to use characters/devices Bioware *does* introduce (like the star child reaper god dude) if you really want to. Since a/the major part of the ending is finding out what crucible actually does, you can do what you like with that (although, I guess the crucible isn't a new device so that kind of goes without saying).

But you only get to re-write beam run onwards.

And .... go.

Inb4 indoctrination theorists come in and screaming "Shepard wakes up from indoctrination and then epic boss battle against Harbinger THE END, OMG MOST GENIUS IDEA EVER".

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Oxspit wrote...

A simple exercise for those who think the bad writing relates purely to the ending, and that the ball got dropped purely in the last few minutes.

You have carte blanche to re-write the ending - that is, everything from the start of the beam run onwards is yours to play with. Knock yourself out, but write something that ties everything together, works coherently with everything up until that point and, you know, makes sense. And makes everything else make sense too. Answers the questions that need to be answered. That kind of thing.

You don't get to introduce new themes or major plot devices, you only get to work with what you've already been given. If you like, I guess it's fair to use characters/devices Bioware *does* introduce (like the star child reaper god dude) if you really want to. Since a/the major part of the ending is finding out what crucible actually does, you can do what you like with that (although, I guess the crucible isn't a new device so that kind of goes without saying).

But you only get to re-write beam run onwards.

And .... go.

Actually it started in the beginning of the game. There were bright spots in Tuchanka and Rannoch, but other than that I gave the whole SP campaign of ME3 a 6.5/10. With a great ending it would have kicked it up to a 7.5 because of the crappy beginning, Thessia, and the Cerberus missions, the journal, and the way the side quests had to be discovered.

But I could write a better ending if you want.

[ld1449]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...


Actually it started in the beginning of the game. There were bright spots in Tuchanka and Rannoch, but other than that I gave the whole SP campaign of ME3 a 6.5/10. With a great ending it would have kicked it up to a 7.5 because of the crappy beginning, Thessia, and the Cerberus missions, the journal, and the way the side quests had to be discovered.

But I could write a better ending if you want.

A monkey could probably write a better ending.<_<

[The Heretic of Time]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Actually it started in the beginning of the game. There were bright spots in Tuchanka and Rannoch, but other than that I gave the whole SP campaign of ME3 a 6.5/10. With a great ending it would have kicked it up to a 7.5 because of the crappy beginning, Thessia, and the Cerberus missions, the journal, and the way the side quests had to be discovered.

But I could write a better ending if you want.

I think the whole point Oxspit is trying to make is that the problem with ME3 does not exclusively exist in the endings. There is more wrong with ME3 than just the ending.

I have no idea how I could write a better ending to ME3 without at least changing a few things about the whole plot in general. For example I would handle TIM and Cerberus completely different if it was up to me. Also no stupid vent kid in my version and the Crucible is not found on Mars but somewhere else.

[paxxton]

Yeah, Thessia could've been longer but you are rewarded with great scenes in the temple.

[nitefyre410]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Actually it started in the beginning of the game. There were bright spots in Tuchanka and Rannoch, but other than that I gave the whole SP campaign of ME3 a 6.5/10. With a great ending it would have kicked it up to a 7.5 because of the crappy beginning, Thessia, and the Cerberus missions, the journal, and the way the side quests had to be discovered.

But I could write a better ending if you want.

I think the whole point Oxspit is trying to make is that the problem with ME3 does not exclusively exist in the endings. There is more wrong with ME3 than just the ending.

I have no idea how I could write a better ending to ME3 without at least changing a few things about the whole plot in general. For example I would handle TIM and Cerberus completely different if it was up to me. Also no stupid vent kid in my version and the Crucible is not found on Mars but somewhere else.

 

I agree, the ending is a result of a badly written  and throught out main plot.   As far as vent kid,  he is  needed and there is no need for him. There is need because you need a sympathic face, their is no need because you have plenty of other sympathic   faces that can be used and there is no excuse for the Catalyst look like the kid, that just caused too much confusion. Garrus and his family, Joker and his sister and dad. Etc,etc,etc .  As  far as Crucible, I would have it  that you don;t have all the plans for the  Crucible on  Mars, you only find a part. There rest  are  scattered in other archives  and on the Citadel itself , along with info on what the Catalyst is. So by the end you have all the information but you just have the Catalyst put all together in the proper order.

[The Heretic of Time]

nitefyre410 wrote...

I agree, the ending is a result of a badly written  and throught out main plot.   As far as vent kid,  he is  needed and there is no need for him. There is need because you need a sympathic face, their is no need because you have plenty of other sympathic   faces that can be used and there is no excuse for the Catalyst look like the kid, that just caused too much confusion. Garrus and his family, Joker and his sister and dad. Etc,etc,etc .  As  far as Crucible, I would have it  that you don;t have all the plans for the  Crucible on  Mars, you only find a part. There rest  are  scattered in other archives  and on the Citadel itself , along with info on what the Catalyst is. So by the end you have all the information but you just have the Catalyst put all together in the proper order.

I like your idea about the Crucible data being scattered all over the universe and that you, Shepard, has to collect all the data. It gives a bit of a Zelda vipe. I like it. This could be nicely tied in with the uniting the galaxy plot. Shepard is uniting the galaxy not only to fight the Reapers in a combined force but also because he needs their help on finding data on the Crucible. It would be nice if it turned out that most species already found info on the Crucible during the time Shepard was still working for Cerberus (ME2). It would imply that the galaxy didn't just sit still during the events of ME2. It would make the species in Mass Effect look less retarded.

[nitefyre410]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...

I agree, the ending is a result of a badly written  and throught out main plot.   As far as vent kid,  he is  needed and there is no need for him. There is need because you need a sympathic face, their is no need because you have plenty of other sympathic   faces that can be used and there is no excuse for the Catalyst look like the kid, that just caused too much confusion. Garrus and his family, Joker and his sister and dad. Etc,etc,etc .  As  far as Crucible, I would have it  that you don;t have all the plans for the  Crucible on  Mars, you only find a part. There rest  are  scattered in other archives  and on the Citadel itself , along with info on what the Catalyst is. So by the end you have all the information but you just have the Catalyst put all together in the proper order.

I like your idea about the Crucible data being scattered all over the universe and that you, Shepard, has to collect all the data. It gives a bit of a Zelda vipe. I like it. This could be nicely tied in with the uniting the galaxy plot. Shepard is uniting the galaxy not only to fight the Reapers in a combined force but also because he needs their help on finding data on the Crucible. It would be nice if it turned out that most species already found info on the Crucible during the time Shepard was still working for Cerberus (ME2). It would imply that the galaxy didn't just sit still during the events of ME2. It would make the species in Mass Effect look less retarded.

 


Now depending on the how many   War assets  from  side quest ( which involve  helping in evacuations that help rally the survivors to fight.)  you do  has an influence of how  long... Hackett can how the Reapers are bay to give you and people time to rally the rest of  Galaxy  and find this parts of Crucible as well  information on the  Catalyst.   

[Daniel_N7]

Where did it all go wrong? - is the OP's question.

Right from the start.

Most of the details from Mass Effect 3 were developed post-Mass Effect 2. Like 99.5% of them.
Mac Walters.

If there is one thing Shepard has achieved, in Mass Effect 1, was to prevent the Reapers surprise invasion on the Citadel. That's really why they win every single cycle. Not because they are unbeatable, but because they invade the Citadel every time and take control (indoctrinate or simply destroy) of the center of galactic government.

They can't do it this time - or so we thought - and therefore they will have to enter the galaxy without the advantage of the element of surprise. This is what would give us a chance, this cycle, if we stood together.

But no.

Mass Effect 3 begins with the Reapers surprise invasion on Earth. Well, excuse me, but what super-advanced future is this, with space travel and ftl drives and such, where a massive fleet of hundreds or thousands enemy warships comes strolling down the solar system and nobody notices?

I mean, seriously, on their way to Earth the Reapers destroy Luna base, on the Moon, and you're telling me nobody issued a warning? People with telescopes on Earth could spot the Reapers destroying a moonbase, for crying out loud!

And there it is. Reapers take Earth. Shepard flees. Desperation... but, wait. Here's Hackett telling you to take a look at the Prothean archives on Mars - how convenient - to check the blueprints for a superweapon that will allegedly destroy the Reapers. Although you will not know what thet weapon will actually do for the entire duration of the game.

But that's all BioWare could come up with. Mass Effect 3 would be about galactic conflict, which was translated into the build up of EMS. And this is where it all got stupid.

You play Mass Effect 1 and you feel like you are progressing through a story.

You play Mass Effect 2 and you realize that there is a score mechanism at work, based on alliances and such, but you don't get it translated into actual points. You focus on the story, you feel invested in these alliances, and you progress in the action.

You play Mass Effect 3 and it becomes this absolutely video-gamey experience where everything is about EMS. Do they really thought people would care about fetch quests - without actual missions on them - just because you would be rewarded with EMS points? Do you really care about EMS points in the end? Is that a reason to play?

I have bought and played every DLC for Mass Effect 2. I have invested myself in Mass Effect 1 and 2 because I felt attached to that story and its characters. And that's what I would like Mass Effect 3 to have been - a journey through a powerful intense story where events progressed logically and dramatically. Instead we got a bunch of quests for the sake of EMS.

Also, lets not forget the absurdity of that mechanic. No matter what you do, no matter how small your EMS score is, the Crucible still gets built. That's right. You will have a bad destroy ending, but the overall conclusion is achievable. Meaning your actions don't even matter in regard to the construction of the Crucible - a plot device that actually disrupts the entire Mass Effect trilogy narrative.

So, yes, things went wrong long before the ending.

[nitefyre410]

Daniel_N7 wrote...

*snip*

 


I agree with all this 

and  I will co-sign. 

One of my biggest complaints about ME  as whole is the completely incompentance of the  Goverment bodies from the Citadel to Alliance Command.   

Crucible could have using the narrative but you  just  plug something like that in like  with out weaving into the plot. 

Modifié par nitefyre410, 17 juillet 2012 - 12:10 .

[The Heretic of Time]

Daniel_N7 wrote...

*snip*

Well said Daniel... well said...

I think however, it went wrong even earlier than the beginning of ME3.

Something already felt wrong during ME2, when the Council got redconned to not believe in the upcoming Reaper invasion, the whole galaxy basically doing nothing about it, except for Cerberus. Instead of focussing on a plan to stop the Reapers, Shepard is busy with fixing the daddy issues of his squad, while at the same time we get introduced to a completely new enemy with a completely obnixious Reaper leader.
Then finally in the end we defeat baby Arnold and we get our hands on a valuable base potentially full with information on the Reapers, we get the option to blow it up? Really? REALLY? We  FINALLY have something of value about the Reapers, and we get the option to blow it up because "I won't let fear compromise who I am"? DAFUQ? 

At that point I knew there was something about to go horribly wrong. Mass Effect 2's lackluster plot already assured that Mass Effect 3's plot was going to be an epic fail, we just didn't realize it.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 17 juillet 2012 - 12:28 .

[Chewin]

The reason to the endings being so horrible written is b/c of the writing of an even weaker plot.

[nitefyre410]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Daniel_N7 wrote...

*snip*

Well said Daniel... well said...

I think however, it went wrong even earlier than the beginning of ME3.

Something already felt wrong during ME2, when the Council got redconned to not believe in the upcoming Reaper invasion, the whole galaxy basically doing nothing about it, except for Cerberus. Instead of focussing on a plan to stop the Reapers, Shepard is busy with fixing the daddy issues of his squad, while at the same time we get introduced to a completely new enemy with a completely obnixious Reaper leader.
Then finally in the end we defeat baby Arnold and we get our hands on a valuable base potentially full with information on the Reapers, we get the option to blow it up? Really? REALLY? We  FINALLY have something of value about the Reapers, and we get the option to blow it up because "I won't let fear compromise who I am"? DAFUQ? 

At that point I knew there was something about to go horribly wrong. Mass Effect 2's lackluster plot already assured that Mass Effect 3's plot was going to be an epic fail, we just didn't realize it.

 

You know what you are absolutely right, things durning ME 2 did feeling off and wrong,  I just keep telling myself that  it was okay but I was too caught up in the hype to admit it back then. 

[The Heretic of Time]

The problem with ME2 is not that it's a bad game with a bad plot persee. No, the problem with ME2 is that it doesn't move the plot forward in any significant way. At the end of ME2 we literally have gained NOTHING of value towards to main plot (well, if you blew up the Collector base that is).

At the end of ME2 you literally haven't moved an inch forward compared to the end of ME1. Not an inch!

[nitefyre410]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

The problem with ME2 is not that it's a bad game with a bad plot persee. No, the problem with ME2 is that it doesn't move the plot forward in any significant way. At the end of ME2 we literally have gained NOTHING of value towards to main plot (well, if you blew up the Collector base that is).

At the end of ME2 you literally haven't moved an inch forward compared to the end of ME1. Not an inch!

 

Its stagnant which that trilogy for the second installment is not very  good as a  standalone game ME 2 works nicely but  as a second installement... not so much. Still a game that  earned all the praise but  when looking at in total with entire trilogy you can see when this started to crack. 

[Silasqtx]

I want to do with those theorycrafters what Shepard did to Khalisa, the renegade one.

[Mathias]

It's funny, looking back on it now and all the warning signs we saw during the game's production.

[Tonymac]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Oxspit wrote...

A simple exercise for those who think the bad writing relates purely to the ending, and that the ball got dropped purely in the last few minutes.

You have carte blanche to re-write the ending - that is, everything from the start of the beam run onwards is yours to play with. Knock yourself out, but write something that ties everything together, works coherently with everything up until that point and, you know, makes sense. And makes everything else make sense too. Answers the questions that need to be answered. That kind of thing.

You don't get to introduce new themes or major plot devices, you only get to work with what you've already been given. If you like, I guess it's fair to use characters/devices Bioware *does* introduce (like the star child reaper god dude) if you really want to. Since a/the major part of the ending is finding out what crucible actually does, you can do what you like with that (although, I guess the crucible isn't a new device so that kind of goes without saying).

But you only get to re-write beam run onwards.

And .... go.

Actually it started in the beginning of the game. There were bright spots in Tuchanka and Rannoch, but other than that I gave the whole SP campaign of ME3 a 6.5/10. With a great ending it would have kicked it up to a 7.5 because of the crappy beginning, Thessia, and the Cerberus missions, the journal, and the way the side quests had to be discovered.

But I could write a better ending if you want.

I bet you could write a way better ending.  I hate to think that this is the best that a professional writer could do. 

There is also the issue of this 'make a big battery for the robots' campaign called the Crucible.  Had it not needed the Citadel, it would have been a viable route - well, maybe.  As soon as they decided it had to go with the Citadel, and that we had to make friends with the king of the Reapers; we all knew the writers were high on crack.  It's Gonzo stupid.   All of the sudden the Reapers will be our pals because we 'changed the variables'? 

How is it that the writer gets to make all of this serious money, yet has the skills of a pre-schooler?  I want a job like that - where I can write stuff that is out to lunch, non-related, and laughably retarded - yet still make money.  Lots of money.

I like the Extended Cut - they did the best that they could with the ending.  I just think that a lot of the whole plot thing should have been done differently.  I hope Bioware leqarns from this - and that people get seperated from the payroll for under performing.

[paxxton]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

The problem with ME2 is not that it's a bad game with a bad plot persee. No, the problem with ME2 is that it doesn't move the plot forward in any significant way. At the end of ME2 we literally have gained NOTHING of value towards to main plot (well, if you blew up the Collector base that is).

At the end of ME2 you literally haven't moved an inch forward compared to the end of ME1. Not an inch!

The point of ME2 was to build friendships and gain close allies that are guaranteed to come for the rescue when the time comes. It was also a single mission (stop the Collectors) seen by players in great detail. You couldn't have just go and stop them alone. You had to build a team first. ME2 was more of a "life goes on after the Battle of the Citadel" game.

Modifié par paxxton, 17 juillet 2012 - 01:24 .

[xxskyshadowxx]

paxxton wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

paxxton wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

paxxton wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

paxxton wrote...

Even if you think IT wasn't planned, it fits nicely into the current ending so why not just call it a day and support IT. The more support IT has, the higher the possibility BioWare implements it in a future game.

How about you stop trying to shove down your opinion as fact and just accept that not everyone likes the IT?

I don't think the IT fits nicely, I would find it weird if it turned out to be true and I actually rather keep the current mediocre endings than going down that IT rabbit hole.

I don't understand why you persist. IT isn't about blind faith in talking rabbits but imposing order to chaos based on different aspects of ME lore.

I don't understand why you don't get it . IT is all about seeing patterns because you want to see patterns It's like seeing a cloud in the shape of  a face. You know the cloud doesn't really have a face, but you see a face anyway because you're human and it's just wat humans do. We humans have the tendency to antropomorphise things and see human characteristics in everything, even if the human characteristics aren't really there.

It's the same with IT. You see connections and clues for IT because you want to see them, even if they aren't really there, you still see them. It is a rabbit hole.

But IT isn't based on wishful thinking without any basis. The most important thing IMO is that the overall structure of the ending scenes is very similar to what is written in the Codex entry on Indoctrination (betraying a friend, trusting an enemy, viewing a Reaper with superstitious awe).

So why does rejecting the Catalyst's options and staying true to your morals result in a Critical Mission Failure?

Maybe because you can't defeat the Reapers. They are simply too powerful.  + Shepard decides NOT to use the Crucible which even further lowers the chances of winning.

You're up in space, alone with the very brain controlling the Reapers...with a magic gun filled with infinite bullets. Cut off the head and defeating the Reapers is cake.

[paxxton]

xxskyshadowxx wrote...

You're up in space, alone with the very brain controlling the Reapers...with a magic gun filled with infinite bullets. Cut off the head and defeating the Reapers is cake.

The Catalyst is incorporeal.

Modifié par paxxton, 17 juillet 2012 - 01:54 .

[Oxspit]

paxxton wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

The problem with ME2 is not that it's a bad game with a bad plot persee. No, the problem with ME2 is that it doesn't move the plot forward in any significant way. At the end of ME2 we literally have gained NOTHING of value towards to main plot (well, if you blew up the Collector base that is).

At the end of ME2 you literally haven't moved an inch forward compared to the end of ME1. Not an inch!

The point of ME2 was to build friendships and gain close allies that are guaranteed to come for the rescue when the time comes. It was also a single mission (stop the Collectors) seen by players in great detail. You couldn't have just go and stop them alone. You had to build a team first. ME2 was more of a "life goes on after the Battle of the Citadel" game.

Yeah..... that's a pretty good summary of why ME2 was so inadequate from the point of view of the greater story.

The 'too hard' poblem wasn't addressed at all. They actually made it worse, if anything, both by killing off 2 whole years of preparation time and pushing the time-frame to actual reaper invasion to really freaking soon (I mean, there's no real reason to have the reaper invasion set so soon after ME2). When Shepard says to Anderson 'How do you prepare for something like this?' at the beginnng of ME3, you actually kind of wonder if he isn't voicing the despair of the writers.

Malevolant gods are making your way towards the galaxy. For reasons inscrutable to you, they seem to exist with the singular purpose of wiping out all advanced life. They cannot be defeated by any means you know of. They cannot be reasoned with. You wake up to find two whole years of preparation time gone. So, what do you do in ME2? Well, you make a few really tight-knit friends. Go team!

[fr33stylez]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Daniel_N7 wrote...

*snip*

Well said Daniel... well said...

I think however, it went wrong even earlier than the beginning of ME3.

Something already felt wrong during ME2, when the Council got redconned to not believe in the upcoming Reaper invasion, the whole galaxy basically doing nothing about it, except for Cerberus. Instead of focussing on a plan to stop the Reapers, Shepard is busy with fixing the daddy issues of his squad, while at the same time we get introduced to a completely new enemy with a completely obnixious Reaper leader.
Then finally in the end we defeat baby Arnold and we get our hands on a valuable base potentially full with information on the Reapers, we get the option to blow it up? Really? REALLY? We  FINALLY have something of value about the Reapers, and we get the option to blow it up because "I won't let fear compromise who I am"? DAFUQ? 

At that point I knew there was something about to go horribly wrong. Mass Effect 2's lackluster plot already assured that Mass Effect 3's plot was going to be an epic fail, we just didn't realize it.

Pretty much. Even if they wanted to go with the 'Superweapon' route, it would've made much more sense introducing it in  ME2. We could've had the fantastic same character development  in ME2 while you know...preparing for the Reapers. Instead, we got the Bug People kidnapping humans for God knows what - but is such a big deal because they used the words 'reaper' and 'humans'. They're building a Reaper which will be nowhere near complete when the Reapers actually arrive.

We also have the Jesus resurrection which personally, is up there with the ME3 endings. Who knew credits was the limiting factor for human resurrection? I've thought the Asari or Salarians would've figured out something out by now.

Unfortunately, ME3 just multiplied the amound of stupid, while throwing everyone out of character. Damn shame.

Modifié par fr33stylez, 17 juillet 2012 - 02:46 .

[The Heretic of Time]

paxxton wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

The problem with ME2 is not that it's a bad game with a bad plot persee. No, the problem with ME2 is that it doesn't move the plot forward in any significant way. At the end of ME2 we literally have gained NOTHING of value towards to main plot (well, if you blew up the Collector base that is).

At the end of ME2 you literally haven't moved an inch forward compared to the end of ME1. Not an inch!

The point of ME2 was to build friendships and gain close allies that are guaranteed to come for the rescue when the time comes. It was also a single mission (stop the Collectors) seen by players in great detail. You couldn't have just go and stop them alone. You had to build a team first. ME2 was more of a "life goes on after the Battle of the Citadel" game.

Which makes ME2 a great game on it's own, but NOT in the grand scope of an entire trilogy. 

Like I said, ME2 feels more like a filler episode than an actual part of the trilogy.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 17 juillet 2012 - 04:44 .