258 réponses à ce sujet

[Oxspit]

Klijpope wrote...

I just don't get how some folk will claim that organics-vs-synthetics was never the main them of ME.

It is quite literally the first theme introduced in the whole trilogy, in the opening scene of ME1. It is reinforced across the whole game in secondary missions like the Luna VI or even tertiary stuff like the Signals Tracking side mission. The whole theme is restated when we learn that Sovereign is a Reaper and we conclude it is a synthetic lifeform - therefore, synthetics destroyed the Protheans.

That theme is then returned to in ME2, albeit from the PoV of the synthetics, in the form of EDI and Legion (in fact, much of ME2 is from the PoV of antagonists in ME1). This can (depending on the player) create a character arc in Shepard, from initial distrust of EDI to eventual trust and acceptance (as this is entirely in the purview of the player through dialogue choices this lets us decide what Shepard's conclusions are). This muddying of the waters continues when we discover that the Reapers are some form of hybrid between synthetic and organic.

Some people are saying that the overall theme was "succeeding despite impossible odds". This is not a theme - it is simply the structure of a story. How many stories do you know of that are about "succeeding in the face of no apparent adversity whatsoever"?

It really depends on what you mean by 'synthetics vs organics'. A kind of synthetics vs organics was certainly a theme throughout the ME universe.

What was not a theme throughout, or at any point until the last few minutes, was inevitable apocalyptic conflict between synthetics and organics, due to synthetics surpassing and trying to wipe organics out. They literally just inserted that at the last minute.

Quite the opposite to this was shown throughtout the rest of the series, in fact. If they really wanted us to buy into the star child's reasoning and not just want to shoot him in the head they might have made a start at it by showing us a single solitary incident where that actually happens.

Instead, there were a lot of conflicts (armed and otherwise) between synthetics and organics but they fell into two camps: 1) Reapers pulling the strings to start wars, 2) Organics turning on synthetics out of unneccessary pre-emptive fear.

[Mystiq6]

Maaaze, can you provide examples of what's in the narrative that helps fill in the plot holes, such as why the Citadel happens to have the apparatuses to activate the Crucible when there's no good reason that the reapers would build that themselves?

I also have a hard time believing that the Catalyst is telling the complete truth, or at least he's leaving out important bits (bending the truth). This is even more evident with new dialog from the Extended Cut. Fortunately for the endings, he's telling the truth where it matters and picking Destroy really does kill the reapers. I find the utopia of Synthesis hard to swallow and have little faith in a good outcome of Control for several reasons, most of them proven by the game.

As far as the Indoctrination Theory, I was touch and go with it for a bit, but while I think it is a brilliant idea, I'm pretty firm with my stance that all the evidence points to it not being BioWare's original intention. (If it does turn out to be true, I'll eat my shorts.)

As far as the question of the quality of writing of the ending, I'll leave my answer like this: there are too many important questions left unanswered, even very important little details. BioWare bills their games as emotionally engaging. You can argue up and down all you like about which game is the best but I think most people would agree all three games are emotionally engaging at one point or another.

A good story certainly engages the reader and makes you care about the characters and, importantly, the characters seem like real people, something BioWare has a gold mine with as far as Mass Effect is concerned. Mass Effect fell flat when, in the last 10 minutes, a new character was introduced and the player was only given 10 minutes to try to connect with him.

Then you have what happened to all the other characters that you do care about. Their part in the story suddenly ceased. Shepard died alone. This is something I really want to argue with someone: did Shepard die a hero? Is it even relevant? Would people's opinions on the ending change if the scene with the Catalyst took place in the presence of all of your squad mates?

My answers: No, Yes and Yes. The story was shifted dramatically at the last minute, causing a harsh shift in tone. This movie (ugh, forum censors) was criticized for a massive tone shift in the final act, going from a comedy to almost a tragedy. You can read up on the criticism for that movie to understand why this is considered poor form. You were expecting an ending to a comedy and instead what you got amounted to the ending of a drama. I bring this up because of something talking about on these forums called the writer/reader contract (and more about it here). The gist of it is that you will end the story in the same genre as it began and all the rules set in the beginning will still apply by the end.

While the overarching point of Mass Effect is to kill the reapers, a moral dilemma surrounding this idea was not something anyone probably thought was going to come to a head. You likely expected some unique twist for how to stop the reapers. Ultimately, I was expecting some awesome weapon built up by millions of cycles that would let me reap the reapers. What I did not expect was to be handed victory on a platter, given a win so easily at the last minute, as if it were a pity victory. By what came in Mass Effect 1 and 2, I would say that the writer/reader contract was broken. The rules and type of story that we ended with were not the same as what we started with.

This is not about being handed everything, or about being spoon fed or about how many questions BioWare wants to leave open for the player to contemplate. Simply leaving questions open does not make a good story. The movie Never Let Me Go had a fantastically tragic ending that left a question wide open, and it was a wonderful question. The movie In Time was incredibly preachy. That story spoon fed its plot to viewers. Being so preachy is partially what got the movie knocked down from 3 stars to 2 1/2; there is something to be said about being overly literal and not taking any poetic license.

There is also something to be said about trying to be too poetic and not drawing a satisfying conclusion to a story. Missing a reader's expectations can be a good thing when done well -- mystery stories prove this. The crux of what makes a good mystery is also why foreshadowing has been a writer's tool for thousands of years: you want to look back at the story and see the clues that said "yeah, this was coming all along."

Many of the arguments surrounding the ending are hanging on the fact of whether or not synthetics vs organics and sacrifice were big themes of the games. The ending of Mass Effect 1 was not sacrifice. Choosing whether the Council lives or dies is a minor fact -- and in the end, totally ignored -- in the grand scheme of the games. The ending of Mass Effect 2 was a fight to the death but, ultimately, I don't think a sacrifice. I lost Mordin my first play through of ME2 and I didn't know anything about the rules of the mission.

I was ok wth this outcome and didn't go back and try to save him because I didn't expect to come out of a "suicide mission" unscathed. Synthetics vs organics was the plot of the game but I would argue not a main point. It was the point of the first game, for sure. Racism was a major theme of all of the games, something virtually ignored in ME3's ending. When the games are all about working together to overcome impossible odds -- and I think many people would argue that is a gigantic theme of all of the games -- it struck me as odd that at the final hour, Shepard dies alone.

Before you stop me and bring up Mordin's sacrifice, this was more a point of redemption rather than sacrifice. Mordin died a hero (well, depending on how you went through it) in trying to correct something he now believes he did wrong in his life. Mordin is almost a tragic hero. In tragedies, the hero has, well, a tragic, fatal flaw, and dies for it.

While what makes a good story can be argued critically, a reader will probably insist for themselves if it's good or bad. When a story misses so many people's expectations, combined with other noted problems, there is probably a safe bet which is the objective answer to that question. I love Mass Effect 1-3 and have massive respect for BioWare for accomplishing what they did but the end to the trilogy disappointed me.

Modifié par Mystiq6, 20 juillet 2012 - 03:54 .

[Klijpope]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Klijpope wrote...

I just don't get how some folk will claim that organics-vs-synthetics was never the main them of ME.

It is quite literally the first theme introduced in the whole trilogy, in the opening scene of ME1. It is reinforced across the whole game in secondary missions like the Luna VI or even tertiary stuff like the Signals Tracking side mission. The whole theme is restated when we learn that Sovereign is a Reaper and we conclude it is a synthetic lifeform - therefore, synthetics destroyed the Protheans.

That theme is then returned to in ME2, albeit from the PoV of the synthetics, in the form of EDI and Legion (in fact, much of ME2 is from the PoV of antagonists in ME1). This can (depending on the player) create a character arc in Shepard, from initial distrust of EDI to eventual trust and acceptance (as this is entirely in the purview of the player through dialogue choices this lets us decide what Shepard's conclusions are). This muddying of the waters continues when we discover that the Reapers are some form of hybrid between synthetic and organic.

Some people are saying that the overall theme was "succeeding despite impossible odds". This is not a theme - it is simply the structure of a story. How many stories do you know of that are about "succeeding in the face of no apparent adversity whatsoever"?

"The Major Theme?" Hardly. "A Theme"? Sure. It was dealt with throughout the series alongside other themes. Then at the end, the little ghost boy just drops it on the player like some revelation, insisting on nullifying our very handling of this theme all through the 3 games. This is ridiculous game design. It's understandable that many players react to such crude dismissal of the very games they have played with anger and denial.

I'm playing through ME1 right now. Organics vs Synthetics is quite obviously the major theme. They keep knocking you over the head with it, repeatedly. "Never trust a synthetic"; "organics try to control synthetics". The main antagonists are synthetic.

It is neither ridiculous game design nor story design to return to the opening theme at the very end of the tale. It's really what should be done, and something a lot of games actually fail to do. And it nullifies nothing. You are given three options on how best to reflect your handling of it over three games. I've played through ME3 3 times now, and for each of my Sheps, the ending they picked did reflect their struggle over three games. It is understandable (if not really reasonable) if people react with anger and denial if those endings are not to their taste, but your dislike of the ending is not based on anything factual, just your own preferences.

ME1 is clearly, utterly, totally, not as well written as the later games. It has a fine plot, but the writing is functional, and no more. It is generally asking questions and getting answers. It is essentially exposition. Compared to the later games, there is no flow to the dialogue - each line doesn't feel like part of the same conversation. I'm not slagging it off; this was state of the art back in 2007. And it did its job. But there is no way ME1's dialogue stacks up with 2 or 3. There's at least 3 times the dialogue with your squadmates in 3, despite the so-called "auto-dialgue". And that dialogue is so much better written - it has personality and snap and emotion. ME1 is emotionally flat in comparison.

[Klijpope]

Oxspit wrote...
It really depends on what you mean by 'synthetics vs organics'. A kind of synthetics vs organics was certainly a theme throughout the ME universe.

What was not a theme throughout, or at any point until the last few minutes, was inevitable apocalyptic conflict between synthetics and organics, due to synthetics surpassing and trying to wipe organics out. They literally just inserted that at the last minute.

Quite the opposite to this was shown throughtout the rest of the series, in fact. If they really wanted us to buy into the star child's reasoning and not just want to shoot him in the head they might have made a start at it by showing us a single solitary incident where that actually happens.

Instead, there were a lot of conflicts (armed and otherwise) between synthetics and organics but they fell into two camps: 1) Reapers pulling the strings to start wars, 2) Organics turning on synthetics out of unneccessary pre-emptive fear.

Well in ME1 there is the Signals Tracking mission that shows you the logic of a synthetic - organics try to control synthetics therefore synthetics need to destroy organics to be free. This is born out by EDI's  birth (the Luna VI), and the whole Geth storyline. Tali even vocalises this. The Quarians could not allow the Geth to become sapient, as they were essentially slaves, and slaves would fight to be free - and that is what happened.

We get to the see the logic from both sides, and if you actually put it all together, the inevitability of conflict becomes a real factor. Look at EDI - she starts ME2 shackled, as everyone is afraid of unshackled AI. Once her shackles are removed, she is potentially quite scary. Listen to all the jokes she makes - we can say she just has a developed sense of humour, but they all relate to her taking over. There's a sinister edge to it. We trust her because she has shown herself, so far, to be trustworthy. However, there is no proof whatsoever that she will not eventually turn on us. As she has free will, that is always a possibility. Her relationship with Joker (can) keep her involved with organics, but what happenes when Joker passes away? Neither EDI nor bringing a truce to the Quarrian/Geth conflict is proof that organic and synthetic are never going ot fight again.

The first theme introduced in a story is the major theme to that story. If you can find an example where that is not true, please feel free to let me know. But you will struggle. And I don't think it is possible to deny that organics vs synthetics was the very first theme brought up in ME1?

[elitehunter34]

Klijpope wrote...
I'm playing through ME1 right now. Organics vs Synthetics is quite obviously the major theme. They keep knocking you over the head with it, repeatedly. "Never trust a synthetic"; "organics try to control synthetics". The main antagonists are synthetic.

It is neither ridiculous game design nor story design to return to the opening theme at the very end of the tale. It's really what should be done, and something a lot of games actually fail to do. And it nullifies nothing. You are given three options on how best to reflect your handling of it over three games. I've played through ME3 3 times now, and for each of my Sheps, the ending they picked did reflect their struggle over three games. It is understandable (if not really reasonable) if people react with anger and denial if those endings are not to their taste, but your dislike of the ending is not based on anything factual, just your own preferences.

Yes I agree it is a theme, but I think that you are misconstruing what that means.

In Mass Effect 1, organics feared the potential of synthetics.  They knew of the Geth, and this supporting their reasoning that the synthetics are bad.  The only reason why you were fighting the Geth is because they were a pawn of a Reapers.  You weren't fighting them because they were synthetic.  It wouldn't have made a difference if it they were organic or synthetic.  You only saw the side of the organics, and that side was afraid of them.

Then we have Mass Effect 2.  In this game we meet EDI, an AI who is nothing but helpful and understanding towards organics.  We also meet Legion, who tells us that the Geth only fought the Mourning War in self defense.  They could have easily exterminated the Quarians, but they chose not too because they didn't know the ramifications of such an irreversable decision.  So in Mass Effect 2 we learn that maybe organics were wrong that synthetics can be peaceful.

This is wrapped up nicely in Mass Effect 3, when through conversations with EDI we help her feel alive.  We can also bring peace to the Quarians and the Geth.  Right up until the end we are shown that synthetics are equal to organics.

This isn't until the Catalyst, who for some reason decided that organics must be exterminated to prevent them from creating advanced synthetics?  What?  Why did the writers do this?  The problem of organics vs. synthetics has already been effectively solved.  There was no reason for the writers to do this.  The series has been about stopping the Reapers, so now it's about trying to solve the Catalyst's problem?  A problem that only exisits in it's head?  So no, the series absolutely did not need to bring this issue up again.  It already ended wonderfully.

[Cirreus]

elitehunter34 wrote...


In Mass Effect 1, organics feared the potential of synthetics. 

Then we have Mass Effect 2.  In this game we meet EDI, an AI who is nothing but helpful and understanding towards organics.  We also meet Legion, who tells us that the Geth only fought the Mourning War in self defense. 

This is wrapped up nicely in Mass Effect 3, when through conversations with EDI we help her feel alive.  We can also bring peace to the Quarians and the Geth.  Right up until the end we are shown that synthetics are equal to organics.

Sorry for editing your comment down (just avoid walls of text, not diminishing your words).

In ME1 (although we technically fight Geth drones first) it's quickly escalates to the antagonist Saren. Though Geth & Reapers are introduced, they are presented in a cannon fodder sense only with virtually no context (till later). Saren on the other hand is given clear context, his the bad guy (Organic). Everything else is just scifi-pop filler.

In ME2 it's not about EDI, it's about relationships (with your squad) & the Collectors. Most people skipped Legions mission (or scrap metaled him to Cerberus). If anything ME2 was Organics vs Organics and team work.

In ME3 ... well does it matter ? From the start the game falls apart for forced heart strings on humanity & Earth ... Think of the "EARTH" & the nameless people you HAVE to save. This Man vs Machine , Organics vs Synthetics crap at best was a sub plot (like Cerberus was in ME1).

No one predicted the key elements of ME2 & ME3 as a shadowy rogue human super power interests group (aka Cerberus) from the ME1 plot line. It was Shepard & the gang against the bad guy Saren & his alien robot insect overlord's slave army. As the OP stated, ME3 it just bad writing. Did anyone miss the point of the Matrix as "Man vs Machine" & "Fate" because of the romance & betrayal subplot ? But in ME3, that is what bad written does. It construes elements that are not pure into virgin material. When most people scratched the surface, a lead brick was found, not the gold bar that they payed for ahead of time.

Modifié par Cirreus, 20 juillet 2012 - 02:07 .

[XqctaX]

CronoDragoon wrote...


You mean the other LI that didn't exist in ME1 and only got 1-2 romance scenes in ME2? The only people who can complain or Thane and Jacob romancers

 

how about miranda, not much screentime, and the same goes for more, as you said thane and jacob,
and jack to. they are not with you anymore and lack in presence/development as a result.

CronoDragoon wrote... 
Again I disagree. Sur'Kesh was great (Wrex dialogue, Liara/Garrus banter, Mordin, Eve) and I liked what failing at Thessia did for the story. Badly written missions were the extreme minority.
 

  
thessia wasnt very well written, it certainly lack an emotionall connection to the player
if you dissregard it beeing the asari homeworld in its self.

palaven wasnt even On palaven, just som barracks on a rocky moon. 
so theres no real creativity in the writing there either.
just to give some example of lazy or bad storytelling/writing in general in the game.

CronoDragoon wrote... 

 XqctaX wrote...

characters so out of character its just horrible

Like who?
 

  

Kai leng, ashley, udina to name a few

CronoDragoon wrote...  

XqctaX wrote...
and the main story arc isnt close to ME1

Me1's story is ridiculous as well. You fight telepathic plants and a choir of insects for two of the major story arcs. It wasn't until Virmire that **** got real.

  
thats kinda besides the point since i was about the writing of the Hole story rather than the antagonists there in,
plantlife and animal life that is hostile isnt really a valid critizism of writing in it self.
neither is a telepathich plant, considering biotics and the mind melding of the asari, but rather if those
protagonists are well written, the Thorian was not bad writing.
saren and soverreign was Very well done so yeah. 

and the hole story arc of ME3 only futher pushed the writers into a corner were the only option to finish the game left was a 
deus ex machina   they could have done it ALOT better. ME1 did'nt have a 
deus ex machina.

CronoDragoon wrote...   

XqctaX wrote...
find crusible plan, get assets to build it, build it, fire it, end game.

You can generalize any story enough to boil it down to one sentence. That doesn't show anything.

  

it shows how they wrote themself into a corner, so it does very well show poor writing  in this case.
the very pitch for this script is horrible and at the very early scripting anyone with atleast a modest bit of talent
would have spotted a deux ex around the corner.

CronoDragoon wrote...   

XqctaX wrote... 
You might think its better writing in me3 but that isnt the case in the ending whitch is what we are talking about.
and its not the case with the rest of the game either. some part stick out becouse they are good.
but the game is mostly mediocre at best when looking at the writing skill.

Nope. The writing in the majority of the game is great, particularly the character writing. The original endings had terrible writing, I agree, and that was what the thread was about, but you yourself brought in the "overall ME3 had terrible writing" statement to which I objected.

   

my point still stand that even thu some parts of the story is good in Me3 its
not as good as me1's story, there are misstakes all over the third installments writing.

plotholes, invalidation of previous games story, characters out of character, poorly written segments lacking of creativity and talent. but yes some parts are very very well done. but over all its not even close to standard set in me1.

Modifié par XqctaX, 20 juillet 2012 - 02:45 .

[SpamBot2000]

Klijpope wrote...


I'm playing through ME1 right now. Organics vs Synthetics is quite obviously the major theme. They keep knocking you over the head with it, repeatedly. "Never trust a synthetic"; "organics try to control synthetics". The main antagonists are synthetic.

It is neither ridiculous game design nor story design to return to the opening theme at the very end of the tale. It's really what should be done, and something a lot of games actually fail to do. And it nullifies nothing. You are given three options on how best to reflect your handling of it over three games. I've played through ME3 3 times now, and for each of my Sheps, the ending they picked did reflect their struggle over three games. It is understandable (if not really reasonable) if people react with anger and denial if those endings are not to their taste, but your dislike of the ending is not based on anything factual, just your own preferences.

ME1 is clearly, utterly, totally, not as well written as the later games. It has a fine plot, but the writing is functional, and no more. It is generally asking questions and getting answers. It is essentially exposition. Compared to the later games, there is no flow to the dialogue - each line doesn't feel like part of the same conversation. I'm not slagging it off; this was state of the art back in 2007. And it did its job. But there is no way ME1's dialogue stacks up with 2 or 3. There's at least 3 times the dialogue with your squadmates in 3, despite the so-called "auto-dialgue". And that dialogue is so much better written - it has personality and snap and emotion. ME1 is emotionally flat in comparison.

Personally I wouldn't even attempt to ascribe any theme as the single dominant one in a work like Mass Effect. But even granting that particular theme is an important one at the early stages of ME, it is very much ridiculous to reduce it to a simpleminded axiom at the conclusion. This is precisely because the actual experience of Mass Effect went so far beyond the ghost boy's absurd reduction in developing this very theme. It absolutely makes all this thematic evolution pointless and thus nullifies much of what the player achieved in the three games. I see this as a serious flaw in structure, based not solely on idiosyncratic opinion but also genre considerations and narrative conventions. Obviously sometimes an artist manages to create effective work by purposely violating these principles. However, in a case of a trilogy such as Mass Effect, any such attempt will retroactively recast the previous instalments of the trilogy as something other than what the people who have enjoyed them for years have known them as. No wonder they react with great anger.

As for Mass Effect 1, sure the writing is heavy on exposition at the expense of characterisation, but that is the nature of being the introduction to an intricate fictional universe. The sequels profited heavily from this groundwork, so it would be churlish to contrast their succesful passages with the general level of ME1. It can be noted among the failings of ME3, however, that it in several instances simply neglected the heavy worldbuilding achieved in the first game, too often in favor of bizarre borrowings from incompatible sources.

I agree that different choices on the dialogue wheel leading to the same spoken line is a regrettable shortcoming of ME1. However, I don't regard the allegedly "stilted" nature of the conversations as anything like a serious problem compared with the more "flowing" autodialogue approach of ME3. This progress towards "the cinematic" has undoubtedly led away from the role playing core of the original Mass Effect and arguably the single most defining aspect of the BioWare brand games since Baldur's Gate in 1998. This is not a trivial matter that can be glossed over as natural evolution of the medium. For a very large segment of the people who buy BioWare games, including myself, this is the factor that makes us choose these particular games over the competition. If I wanted to play a sci-fi shooter with cinematic cut scenes, I would just play Halo like so many people do. Now I have only played Halo: Reach, but the experience left me frustrated despite it being obviously an extremely well crafted game in its genre. I simply yearned to break free from being herded along the battlefield. And for some reason, BioWare decided that the lead writer of ME3 should be an individual who does not understand the traditional draw of BW games as anything but obstacles to his Halo-like aspirations. 

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 20 juillet 2012 - 02:57 .

[Klijpope]

SpamBot2000 wrote...
Personally I wouldn't even attempt to ascribe any theme as the single dominant one in a work like Mass Effect. But even granting that particular theme is an important one at the early stages of ME, it is very much ridiculous to reduce it to a simpleminded axiom at the conclusion. This is precisely because the actual experience of Mass Effect went so far beyond the ghost boy's absurd reduction in developing this very theme. It absolutely makes all this thematic evolution pointless and thus nullifies much of what the player achieved in the three games. I see this as a serious flaw in structure, based not solely on idiosyncratic opinion but also genre considerations and narrative conventions. Obviously sometimes an artist manages to create effective work by purposely violating these principles. However, in a case of a trilogy such as Mass Effect, any such attempt will retroactively recast the previous instalments of the trilogy as something other than what the people who have enjoyed them for years have known them as. No wonder they react with great anger.


As for Mass Effect 1, sure the writing is heavy on exposition at the expense of characterisation, but that is the nature of being the introduction to an intricate fictional universe. The sequels profited heavily from this groundwork, so it would be churlish to contrast their succesful passages with the general level of ME1. It can be noted among the failings of ME3, however, that it in several instances simply neglected the heavy worldbuilding achieved in the first game, too often in favor of bizarre borrowings from incompatible sources.


I agree that different choices on the dialogue wheel leading to the same spoken line is a regrettable shortcoming of ME1. However, I don't regard the allegedly "stilted" nature of the conversations as anything like a serious problem compared with the more "flowing" autodialogue approach of ME3. This progress towards "the cinematic" has undoubtedly led away from the role playing core of the original Mass Effect and arguably the single most defining aspect of the BioWare brand games since Baldur's Gate in 1998. This is not a trivial matter that can be glossed over as natural evolution of the medium. For a very large segment of the people who buy BioWare games, including myself, this is the factor that makes us choose these particular games over the competition. If I wanted to play a sci-fi shooter with cinematic cut scenes, I would just play Halo like so many people do. Now I have only played Halo: Reach, but the experience left me frustrated despite it being obvious that it was an extremely well crafted game in its genre. I simply yearned to break free from being herded along the battlefield. And for some reason, BioWare decided that the lead writer of ME3 should be an individual who does not understand the traditional draw of BW games as anything but obstacles to his Halo-like aspirations. 

Of course ME carries several themes, but traditionally the over-arching one is the very first introduced. Such as the Empire-vs-Rebellion theme of Star Wars, so well encapsulated in the opening shot.


And I'm not criticising the writing of ME1: I'm criticising attempts to paint the writing in ME1 as somehow better than in ME3, which many folk seem to be trying to do. ME1 suffers from many of the same things that people accuse ME3 of betrayal for.


For instance, we are given Saren's identity and treachery from a random bystander who's word we then take as gospel. Our proof against Saren is an oh-so-convenient recording from Tali, in which he not only uses the most incriminating wording possible, but it also reveals Matriarch Benezia. Talk about lucky break. Then there's the way Shepard is already convinced about the Reaper threat even before s/he's made head nor tail from the vision on Eden Prime. Then there is also the way we keep running into helpful VI's who stop to tell us what the plot is.


ME1 works, and it has a great atmosphere, but it reminds me more of KOTOR (which I've also replayed recently) rather than ME2 or ME3. These represent an evolution of the form, and one that has obviously been divisive. However, the writing actually improves in each version - it is the plotting that maybe suffers.


It really is daft to compare ME3 to a totally linear games, when it really is not a linear experience. That certain missions happen in a certain order has always been part of the ME franchise, from the very beginning, and ME3 really has the toughest job of all, having to tie everything up. I'm not saying that it actually does this - I'm saying in order to do so, to hit every single plot point from the first 2 games in depth, it would have to have been 3 times bigger, and that was never going to happen, so it is pointless complaining that it didn't.


The fact is ME3 is the best written game of the trilogy, in that it contains the best writing. There's never been anything so ambitious in gaming, or even storytelling, to attempt to create an interactive saga over three iterations. Of course it is not perfect - this is experimental work.


Once you can show me someone who has done this better, then I might take the complaining more seriously (note, complaints, not criticisms - these are necessary to improve the form). But you cannot, as no one else has even tried it before. No one.

[DadeLeviathan]

I've never thought the ending was anything more than poor writing. Which is unfortunate, given how many other examples of good writing there are in ME3. But the ending? The ending is some of the worst examples of bad writing I've ever seen come out of Bioware. There are some developers that are known for bad writing that I wouldn't have expected it from.

[Xamufam]

Justin2k wrote...

Thread after thread after thread about the ending, the extended cut and everything else.  What if the indoctination theory was true, what if they really mean this, what if this is the real ending.

It's all rubbish.  You have hope and faith in Bioware I get it.  But the obvious plain truth is that Starchild was a joke, Bioware realised it was a joke but rather than rewrite it, they didn't want to offend their writing staff so they "expanded" on it.

It's just poor writing, nothing more or nothing less.  A five year old child could have finished the story better.  Defeat the reapers, save the galaxy.  There, done.

There is no clever hidden underlining meaning, there is no theory.  It was just a stupid contrived ending and the writers should have their work reviewed in future before releasing it to the public.  Just imagine if Luke Skywalker had walked in to face the Emperor and Darth Vader only to be faced with a little child telling him that the empire exists because people rebel or something.  Lucas would never had found work again.

In the final hour of mass effect 3  bioware said there were going to be an ending there shepard was indoctrinated but they dropped it because of technical problems.

Yep it's poor writing

[CoolioThane]

Troxa wrote...

Justin2k wrote...

Thread after thread after thread about the ending, the extended cut and everything else.  What if the indoctination theory was true, what if they really mean this, what if this is the real ending.

It's all rubbish.  You have hope and faith in Bioware I get it.  But the obvious plain truth is that Starchild was a joke, Bioware realised it was a joke but rather than rewrite it, they didn't want to offend their writing staff so they "expanded" on it.

It's just poor writing, nothing more or nothing less.  A five year old child could have finished the story better.  Defeat the reapers, save the galaxy.  There, done.

There is no clever hidden underlining meaning, there is no theory.  It was just a stupid contrived ending and the writers should have their work reviewed in future before releasing it to the public.  Just imagine if Luke Skywalker had walked in to face the Emperor and Darth Vader only to be faced with a little child telling him that the empire exists because people rebel or something.  Lucas would never had found work again.

In the final hour of mass effect 3  bioware said there were going to be an ending there shepard was indoctrinated but they dropped it because of technical problems.

Yep it's poor writing

They actually said they were going to use a scene where player lost control of Shepard but they dropped the sequence, not the idea.

I_eat_unicorns wrote... 

why?

 

Perfect ending. We battle indoctrinated foes through the series, what better way to end it than to indoctrinate the protagonist and thus the players before finding a way to break free. It's brilliant.

[SpamBot2000]

Klijpope wrote...


Once you can show me someone who has done this better, then I might take the complaining more seriously (note, complaints, not criticisms - these are necessary to improve the form). But you cannot, as no one else has even tried it before. No one.

Indeed. I'd be extremely interested in someone else's attempt to do this, but sadly it looks for the foreseeable future that no one will. Of course the ME3 controversy is a large factor, but even assuming that everything had transpired in a smooth and pleasant atmosphere, it looks like game developers are increasingly reluctant to commit to crafting compelling single player content, let alone multilinear content. The costs of game development are in all probability only going to increase with more powerful hardware available. This was a one time opportunity, and that's one of the reasons why I feel so frustrated in what feel like some very arbitrary decisions made that, for me, result in preventing my enjoyment of ME for what it could very well have been.

[TK EL_]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Klijpope wrote...


Once you can show me someone who has done this better, then I might take the complaining more seriously (note, complaints, not criticisms - these are necessary to improve the form). But you cannot, as no one else has even tried it before. No one.

Indeed. I'd be extremely interested in someone else's attempt to do this, but sadly it looks for the foreseeable future that no one will. Of course the ME3 controversy is a large factor, but even assuming that everything had transpired in a smooth and pleasant atmosphere, it looks like game developers are increasingly reluctant to commit to crafting compelling single player content, let alone multilinear content. The costs of game development are in all probability only going to increase with more powerful hardware available. This was a one time opportunity, and that's one of the reasons why I feel so frustrated in what feel like some very arbitrary decisions made that, for me, result in preventing my enjoyment of ME for what it could very well have been.

I think you've articulated yourself very well spambot. I was probably one of the first to just point all this out for what it is; bad writing and severely missed potential. Based on your stated preferences, I highly suggest you pick up the Witcher 2 if you havn't already. It has an already deep well of lore behind it, and while that can be a bit daunting at first, it evens out very well. The pacing is excellent, the gameplay is quite unique in the current game climate and it delivers the best experience so far in gaming in regard to a branching story and multiple conclusions.

Modifié par TK EL , 20 juillet 2012 - 04:16 .

[Eterna]

The writing isn't that bad, the concept of the reapers origins and existence is fine, it could have been executed better though.

I'd like to see you guys write a compelling reason for the reapers existence.

[Klijpope]

SpamBot2000 wrote...
Indeed. I'd be extremely interested in someone else's attempt to do this, but sadly it looks for the foreseeable future that no one will. Of course the ME3 controversy is a large factor, but even assuming that everything had transpired in a smooth and pleasant atmosphere, it looks like game developers are increasingly reluctant to commit to crafting compelling single player content, let alone multilinear content. The costs of game development are in all probability only going to increase with more powerful hardware available. This was a one time opportunity, and that's one of the reasons why I feel so frustrated in what feel like some very arbitrary decisions made that, for me, result in preventing my enjoyment of ME for what it could very well have been.

I sympathise with the sentiment, but our own expectations are also partly at fault. In order to do justice to the potential set up by the first two, ME3 would need to have been not only the best game ever, but also one of the best story conclusions, in any medium, ever. That's quite a tall order, and while never out of the realm of possibility, it is quite unfair to castigate BioWare for falling short of near perfection.

And I do think the ending furore is going to make devs think twice before anything similar is attempted, a case of foot-in-mouth by the fans.

However, ME3 is still the best rated and best selling game of 2012 so far; it's unlikely to hold on to that, but it has not been a failure on any measurable, semi-objective scale. And ME3's ending has guaranteed that the franchise will become part of videogame history. Be interesting to see how it stacks up in 5 years time with some historical perspective.

[TK EL_]

Eterna5 wrote...

The writing isn't that bad, the concept of the reapers origins and existence is fine, it could have been executed better though.

I'd like to see you guys write a compelling reason for the reapers existence.

This is possibly the worst counter argument ever made, yet it is used repeatedly. If I wanted to/could write it, I wouldn't have given them my money. They didn't have to tailor to any particular person's wishes as to what to write, but the onus was on them to deliver something good and satisfying and objectively, the failed

[TK EL_]

Klijpope wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...
Indeed. I'd be extremely interested in someone else's attempt to do this, but sadly it looks for the foreseeable future that no one will. Of course the ME3 controversy is a large factor, but even assuming that everything had transpired in a smooth and pleasant atmosphere, it looks like game developers are increasingly reluctant to commit to crafting compelling single player content, let alone multilinear content. The costs of game development are in all probability only going to increase with more powerful hardware available. This was a one time opportunity, and that's one of the reasons why I feel so frustrated in what feel like some very arbitrary decisions made that, for me, result in preventing my enjoyment of ME for what it could very well have been.

I sympathise with the sentiment, but our own expectations are also partly at fault. In order to do justice to the potential set up by the first two, ME3 would need to have been not only the best game ever, but also one of the best story conclusions, in any medium, ever. That's quite a tall order, and while never out of the realm of possibility, it is quite unfair to castigate BioWare for falling short of near perfection.

And I do think the ending furore is going to make devs think twice before anything similar is attempted, a case of foot-in-mouth by the fans.

However, ME3 is still the best rated and best selling game of 2012 so far; it's unlikely to hold on to that, but it has not been a failure on any measurable, semi-objective scale. And ME3's ending has guaranteed that the franchise will become part of videogame history. Be interesting to see how it stacks up in 5 years time with some historical perspective.

Not only did ME3 fall short, it missed the mark by quite a distance, not just storywise, but that's a different discussion. The fact that it is possibly the current best rated game for the year doesn't say much as not much has been released and considering the sizable backlash, the rapid decline in sales, mass trade in's and unintended contingency plans Bioware had to put in effect, I think failure is quite an apt discription for it. If this game is remembered for anything, I can asure you the bad will outweigh the good

[Klijpope]

TK EL wrote...
Based on your stated preferences, I highly suggest you pick up the Witcher 2 if you havn't already. It has an already deep well of lore behind it, and while that can be a bit daunting at first, it evens out very well. The pacing is excellent, the gameplay is quite unique in the current game climate and it delivers the best experience so far in gaming in regard to a branching story and multiple conclusions.

I've been playing the Witcher 2, and while I remain open-minded, and am not too far in, I still think ME3 outclasses it in all areas - gameplay, writing, VO, etc. It is dense with lore, but it is very opaque, and tonally all over the place. I just don't feel I have any ownership of the story - I am a passenger in Geralt's world, not really understanding or caring of why I'm doing anything. It gets a lot of praise from Bioware detractors especially, and I am willing, nay, actively hoping, that it will still surprise me.

It is also a standalone game, in that it does not have to deal with hundreds of decision points from 2 previous titles. Most of the complaints, ending aside, stem from criticism that ME3 does not do this or that plot-point as much justice as the others, or that the overall plot is fairly clunky. The problem was that there is just too much to cover in one game.

[Darth Death]

I agree with Klijpope regarding the "Organics vs Synthetics" presented as a major theme throughout the trilogy. The whole trilogy is center around organics attempting to stop giant death robots from cleansing the galaxy. I'd say that's a major theme.

[pacientK]

KingWrex wrote...

Agreed, but it's not even the starkid the whole premise of the Crucible really is absurd.

So much this. From the very moment Crucible was revealed and Hacket or someone stated something like "we dont know what it is, how it works but we gonna coommit to building it, I had a BAD feeling about it. Boy i was not dissapointed in the slightest.

[MasterKiller64]

Agreed. All these theories are being made so people can fool themselves into thinking Bioware can do no wrong. Obviously they can and with Mass Effect 3's poor excuse of an ending to show for it.

Modifié par MasterKiller64, 20 juillet 2012 - 04:48 .

[Darth Death]

MasterKiller64 wrote...

Agreed. All these theories are being made so people can fool themselves into thinking Bioware can do no wrong. Obviously they can and with Mass Effect 3's poor excuse of an ending to show for it.

Simplicity is what the story is, but complexity is what people bestow upon it. 

[Klijpope]

TK EL wrote...
Not only did ME3 fall short, it missed the mark by quite a distance, not just storywise, but that's a different discussion. The fact that it is possibly the current best rated game for the year doesn't say much as not much has been released and considering the sizable backlash, the rapid decline in sales, mass trade in's and unintended contingency plans Bioware had to put in effect, I think failure is quite an apt discription for it. If this game is remembered for anything, I can asure you the bad will outweigh the good

Well, I wish I had your crystal ball. The drop off in sales follows the same trajectory as it did for ME1 and ME2, and it's sale price is holding steady at the big retailers. Post EC, the backlash pretty much exists only here on BSN, and the game not only made a profit at retail, it is also continuing to generate revenue via MP microtransactions. Given all the inches of commentary published on 'proper' blogs on it, about an even mix between postive and negative, it's also raised awareness of the brand. Moreover, ME is the first game taken seriously by the world at large as an artistic work (and no, this has nothing to do with artistic integrity) - they see something whose ending is taken as seriously and as divisively as the ending to Lost or the Sopranos.

So there's an awful lot of good right now.