258 réponses à ce sujet

[The Spamming Troll]

bioware had the potential for gold with ME3. its stupid to think about the potential that was lost.

id rather have some false hope with beleiving in the IT then going with the nonsense hudson and walters gave us with that ending.

[v3paR]

Thread after thread after thread about the poor writing. Can we stop making threads about poor writing again and again?

[nhsknudsen]

v3paR wrote...

Thread after thread after thread about the poor writing. Can we stop making threads about poor writing again and again?

No - It is the only way to voice our discontent and it is better than those crappy LI threads any day.

[kyban]

maaaze wrote...

Justin2k wrote...

maaaze wrote...

I thought it was written pretty good...

maybe people should stop to pretending it was badly written and just admit that either they simply did not understood the ending or they did not like the direction the ending took.

I think you are deluding yourself.  I am a literature major.  I understood the ending just fine.

Shepard finds out that the protheans planned a super weapon.  He/She didn't have a clue what it did but decided to spend valuable time and resources on building it anyway.  Shepard then goes to the Citadel to find the Catalyst, to find out the heart of the citadel is some boy Shepard saw get killed earlier on. 

Shepard asks boy how to defeat the reapers.  He gives Shepard several choices, none of which are going to satisfy the majority of the millions of fans of the series.  Most of which are trivial.

If you like it, thats fine, but people understand it just fine.  It's just not a great ending to a triology.  It also abandons many themes that have been set in the previous installments such as the races struggling to get on, the human race believing they are superior etc.  They finally all unite and lose? 

You can like what you like, but the ending still to this day has many plotholes and seems poorly thought out.  It is badly written from a literary standpoint.  You liking it does not make it otherwise.

I think you are deluding yourself. 

I think you are deluding yourself because you don´t like the ending and thats all there is to it.

I am a literature major. 

and?

 I understood the ending just fine. 

Well you OP suggestes otherwise...

Shepard finds out that the protheans planned a super weapon.  He/She didn't have a clue what it did but decided to spend valuable time and resources on building it anyway.   

"It is not much of a plan ...but it is the only thing we got."

Shepard then goes to the Citadel to find the Catalyst, to find out the heart of the citadel is some boy Shepard saw get killed earlier on.  

It is only a representation of the catalyst...he is not actually the boy....He manifests itself through the memorys of Shepard.

Shepard asks boy how to defeat the reapers.  He gives Shepard several choices, none of which are going to satisfy the majority of the millions of fans of the series.  Most of which are trivial.

The only thing the Catalyst does is to explain the motivations of the reapers and what the crucible does.
He does not give him the choice...he gives him the context.

It's just not a great ending to a triology.  It also abandons many themes that have been set in the previous installments such as the races struggling to get on, the human race believing they are superior etc.  They finally all unite and lose?   

The organics vs. synthetics theme was present throught the series...it began with the very first death in the series.
futhermore the motivations of the antagonist have nothing to do with the themes of the series.
The actions of the protoganist do...it was always about sacrifice and the understanding of what life is, among other things.

They finally all unite and lose?  

They are ending a cycle which was in place for millions of years...if thats not a victory than what is?

You can like what you like, but the ending still to this day has many plotholes and seems poorly thought out.  It is badly written from a literary standpoint.  You liking it does not make it otherwise 

What most claim as plotholes are created through baseless assumptions ... It is not hard to find explonations for everything that is not spelled out... the narritve in end holds strong.

The ending lets you reflect on important questions : what is life? do the ends justify the means ? how can good intentions go bad ?...should there be a higher power (control)...what makes life unique (synthesis)...ect.

exploring these questions is what makes the ending meaningful and in my mind equals good.

I was going to read your counter arguments Maaaze, but your spelling errors made me give up and disregard your points.
I will chime in on one thing though. I would agree that organics vs. synthetics was always a present theme in the series, but was not emphasized to such a point that it is in the last few minutes of the third installment. Things like valor, companionship, camaraderie, survival, and opposition to the odds were much more prominent.

[Arken]

v3paR wrote...

Thread after thread after thread about the poor writing. Can we stop making threads about poor writing again and again?

Not until Bioware announces a new game for us to complain about. And I mean this literally.

I agree with the OP, and I believe that Bioware's writers are vastly overrated.

Opinion is subjective, but a well constructed story is something that can be proven.

You can prove that Mass Effect 3 was just bad writing. It doesn't mean people can't like it, but it contains various examples of bad writing.

I don't see a very bright future ahead for Mass Effect, and I'm honestly tired of people thinking Bioware's writers are infallible.

John Dombrow, and Patrick Weekes are the only ones who seem to understand how to properly tells a story.

I guess I can give credit to the writers of the Rannoch arc as well, but that one had its iffy moments. Such as the illogical nature of Legion's death and the fact that the geth thought it would be a good idea to destroy the most powerful dreadnought in the galaxy when we're in the middle of a war with the Reapers.

Still better than the rest of Mass Effect 3.

[ld1449]

Justin2k wrote...

maaaze wrote...

-snip-

Firstly good writing doesn't require you to ask questions and make up your own answers.  Good writing gives you the answers to all the important questions.

Secondly, whether you like it or not, you cannot tell me that this ending resonated with the millions of fans of the series.  So many people were disappointed.  And that in itself makes it bad as the first rule of writing is to connect with your target audience.  They weren't writing Mass Effect for their own benefit, they were writing it to sell to customers.

You seem to believe you are superior or smarter than everyone else because you "got" the ending.  The truth is you invented stuff that wasn't present in the text so that it made sense to you. 

I wouldn't bother 2k. I've discovered its like talking to a mule after a certain point.

[Thore2k10]

kyban wrote...

I was going to read your counter arguments Maaaze, but your spelling errors made me give up and disregard your points.
I will chime in on one thing though. I would agree that organics vs. synthetics was always a present theme in the series, but was not emphasized to such a point that it is in the last few minutes of the third installment. Things like valor, companionship, camaraderie, survival, and opposition to the odds were much more prominent.

agreed! it was a subplot between quarians and geth. worse it was already solved and suddenly it becomes the crux of the whole story...

Modifié par Thore2k10, 18 juillet 2012 - 11:43 .

[kyban]

ld1449 wrote...

Justin2k wrote...

I agree.  As stated before, anyone is free to form their own opinion.

While "is this good?" on an opinion basis is not a great question, "is this good?" on a literary basis is easily proven.  The fact there are plotholes, that fans have to invent and make up things that are not present in the plot so that it makes sense or satisfies them tells us that it is badly written. 

The fanboys do not help.  By defending writing that is evidently sub-par in many ways (the ending being only one of those ways), all you do is encourage such writing to continue.  If you loved Mass Effect 2, the attitude shouldn't be "well i'll forgive Bioware for this because i loved Mass Effect 2" it should be "Why is this nowhere nearly as good as Mass Effect 2?"  If they feel they can get away with sub par, and by all means there was plenty of sub par about ME3 from gameplay elements to story elements, then sub par is what you will get.

The fact the average parts aremixed with brilliance shouldn't make a difference.  In fact we know they're capable of coming up with better.  You shouldn't defend what comes down to slack writing.

Agreed.

Seconded.

[Justin2k]

Lets be honest. Mass Effect was nothing more than a hero saves the galaxy thing. Like Star Wars, Halo and all those that came before it.   It wasn't art, it wasn't a literary classic, just a feel good space story.

The ending should be a saved galaxy. You can have effects of war, you can have people die, you can do whatever you wish. But Harbinger should be beaten and the galaxy as it is should be saved.

You can argue that altering that is artistic, but i say it is stupid. There is a reason Luke beat the Emperor, Frodo destroyed the ring etc. It works. It sends your audience home happy. For a triology, thats what is needed. For something with less investment, a stand alone game, you can do other things, but in this, people expected and wanted their crew to defy the odds. So giving them what they got just shortchanged the audience.

They were not writing Mass Effect for themselves. If it was art, and they were writing a story, they could do whatever they want, they coulda had a big dragon fly in and eat Tali. But they were wrapping up a triology with a target audience of millions of invested people and taking their money. You cannot argue that they understood their audience because clearly the backlash tells you otherwise, and that makes it bad.

Modifié par Justin2k, 18 juillet 2012 - 11:46 .

[wantedman dan]

kyban wrote...

ld1449 wrote...

Justin2k wrote...

I agree.  As stated before, anyone is free to form their own opinion.

While "is this good?" on an opinion basis is not a great question, "is this good?" on a literary basis is easily proven.  The fact there are plotholes, that fans have to invent and make up things that are not present in the plot so that it makes sense or satisfies them tells us that it is badly written. 

The fanboys do not help.  By defending writing that is evidently sub-par in many ways (the ending being only one of those ways), all you do is encourage such writing to continue.  If you loved Mass Effect 2, the attitude shouldn't be "well i'll forgive Bioware for this because i loved Mass Effect 2" it should be "Why is this nowhere nearly as good as Mass Effect 2?"  If they feel they can get away with sub par, and by all means there was plenty of sub par about ME3 from gameplay elements to story elements, then sub par is what you will get.

The fact the average parts aremixed with brilliance shouldn't make a difference.  In fact we know they're capable of coming up with better.  You shouldn't defend what comes down to slack writing.

Agreed.

Seconded.

Thirded.

Perfectly stated.

[davidshooter]

I have to admit,

I never get tired of reading posts from the people who think the ending was well done and the story overall was well told.

You like the gameplay and the crappy story doesn't bother you? Fair enough.
You like the multiplayer? Sure, it gets old fast, but it was well done, I get that too.
You liked Ranoch and Tuchanka? Sure, they are the game's high points.

But the story overall and the ending?
LOL!

Modifié par davidshooter, 18 juillet 2012 - 11:48 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

I've always been a strong proponent of the bad writing theory. The whole catalyst scene was very poorly conceived.

[Mazebook]

Justin2k wrote...

maaaze wrote...

-snip-

Firstly good writing doesn't require you to ask questions and make up your own answers.  Good writing gives you the answers to all the important questions.

Secondly, whether you like it or not, you cannot tell me that this ending resonated with the millions of fans of the series.  So many people were disappointed.  And that in itself makes it bad as the first rule of writing is to connect with your target audience.  They weren't writing Mass Effect for their own benefit, they were writing it to sell to customers.

You seem to believe you are superior or smarter than everyone else because you "got" the ending.  The truth is you invented stuff that wasn't present in the text so that it made sense to you. 

Firstly good writing doesn't require you to ask questions and make up your own answers.  Good writing gives you the answers to all the important questions. 

Are you serious???

I guess you are still waiting for godot to finally show up.

The best writers are those who bring up questions...without giving permant answers...they explore the topic...add points to it...and let the reader conclude...everything else is preaching.

Secondly, whether you like it or not, you cannot tell me that this ending resonated with the millions of fans of the series.  So many people were disappointed.  And that in itself makes it bad as the first rule of writing is to connect with your target audience.  They weren't writing Mass Effect for their own benefit, they were writing it to sell to customers. 

So you are agruing the endings were not mainstream enough...yeah being mainstream is surly a indicator of the quality of writing.

You seem to believe you are superior or smarter than everyone else because you "got" the ending.  The truth is you invented stuff that wasn't present in the text so that it made sense to you.  

No ... I am not more than average ...I am just shocked how people justify not liking the ending in such condencending ways... the amount of baseless arguing is staggering...

The truth is i do not have to invent stuff...it is all in the narrative....if you are willing to connect the dots...it all fits very well...

[Indylavi]

I have to agree. This is now in the realm of company politics. The reason EA won't change or significantly alter the ending, is they have to protect the dev staff. Coming in and changing the end would basically say that, any dev team that works for EA is not backed by the studio if they mess up.

EA might be a monster but they are not completely stupid. No studio or team would sign up to create a game only to have the threat that the game would be totally changed after release by the publisher. Yes, it was poorly written but the end is the end.

EA will now say that they did a good job. Then after the storm quiets down they will move the lead writers to other positions and bring in a new team for the next ME game.

[Justin2k]

maaaze wrote...

-snip-

The best writers ask a lot of questions but give no definitive answers?  Really?  I'm pretty sure Shakespeare, Dickings, Rowling and most successful writers will disagree with you.  Yes imagination plays an important part of writing but you should not have to dream up parts of a conclusion to a triology.  While ending a series that people are invested in, that is where you wrap up loose ends.  Bioware didn't.
 
Again, you may choose to rationalise it as "connecting the dots" but what you've actually done is made things up so that the ending makes sense to you as it isn't coherent in the version presented by Bioware.

I'm sorry, but I'm done talking with you, you've made your opinion very clear and I'm not going to change that.  If you enjoy it, I'm pleased for you.  Millions didn't.

Modifié par Justin2k, 18 juillet 2012 - 11:55 .

[Mazebook]

kyban wrote...

I was going to read your counter arguments Maaaze, but your spelling errors made me give up and disregard your points.
I will chime in on one thing though. I would agree that organics vs. synthetics was always a present theme in the series, but was not emphasized to such a point that it is in the last few minutes of the third installment. Things like valor, companionship, camaraderie, survival, and opposition to the odds were much more prominent.

well than...if you don´t  like spelling errors...my post are not for you...I am still learning english...
started to express myself in english about a month ago...

i think i am making progress...slowly...

[Arken]

kyban wrote...

I will chime in on one thing though. I would agree that organics vs. synthetics was always a present theme in the series, but was not emphasized to such a point that it is in the last few minutes of the third installment. Things like valor, companionship, camaraderie, survival, and opposition to the odds were much more prominent.

I apologize for the double post, but I think there's a very good point in this post.

The ending essentially ignores the real themes and messages of Mass Effect. It's nonsensical, and doesn't really have any message. That's what makes it inferior to the Tuchanka and Rannoch levels.

Tuchanka and Rannoch were so interesting, and well received because they had applicability to the real world. They both represented two real world concepts that went beyond fighting giant robots.


The story of the krogan is clearly the story of a group of people whose ultimate destiny is the hands of those with more power than them. The krogan have no real freedom outside of what is allowed to them. Whether the genophage is cured or not isn't in their hands. It's in the hands of those with more power than they are allowed to possess.

The genophage arc asks us a question, and that question is whether or not the player has the right to decide the future of an entire race.

What makes this interesting is that there is no right or wrong answer. The situation can be different, and it's pretty easy to see that the different scenarios make the player lean towards a different answer. With Wrex around there's hope for the krogan to decide their own future, but with Wrev there's that doubt of whether or not the krogan can truly govern themselves.

The Rannoch situation is similar. The player must answer a question before they can choose between the quarian or the geth. That question is a question of what constitutes as life, and whether or not rights can be denies to the geth based on whether or not they are truly alive.


You can replace these fictional groups with real world societies or civilizations. They're not directly symbolic of any specific group, and that's a good thing. It demonstrates the the idea behind these conflicts is truly applicable to the real world. That it's not just a reinterpretation of a single incident. It's a general concept that could happen anywhere at anytime.

That's something the ending lacks, and various other parts of Mass Effects story.

It fails to be applicable anywhere outside of the Mass Effect universe.

[D24O]

Thore2k10 wrote...
agreed! it was a subplot between quarians and geth. worse it was already solved and suddenly it becomes the crux of the whole story...

Yeah. IMO the lead up and conclusion tot he Rannoch arc had explored the idea of Organic and Synthit relations much better than the end sequence, which just has us listen to the Catalyst's pontifications and then tells us we have to agree to either his idea or method, or die.

[WarGriffin]

Arken wrote...

kyban wrote...

I will chime in on one thing though. I would agree that organics vs. synthetics was always a present theme in the series, but was not emphasized to such a point that it is in the last few minutes of the third installment. Things like valor, companionship, camaraderie, survival, and opposition to the odds were much more prominent.

I apologize for the double post, but I think there's a very good point in this post.

The ending essentially ignores the real themes and messages of Mass Effect. It's nonsensical, and doesn't really have any message. That's what makes it inferior to the Tuchanka and Rannoch levels.

Tuchanka and Rannoch were so interesting, and well received because they had applicability to the real world. They both represented two real world concepts that went beyond fighting giant robots.


The story of the krogan is clearly the story of a group of people whose ultimate destiny is the hands of those with more power than them. The krogan have no real freedom outside of what is allowed to them. Whether the genophage is cured or not isn't in their hands. It's in the hands of those with more power than they are allowed to possess.

The genophage arc asks us a question, and that question is whether or not the player has the right to decide the future of an entire race.

What makes this interesting is that there is no right or wrong answer. The situation can be different, and it's pretty easy to see that the different scenarios make the player lean towards a different answer. With Wrex around there's hope for the krogan to decide their own future, but with Wrev there's that doubt of whether or not the krogan can truly govern themselves.

The Rannoch situation is similar. The player must answer a question before they can choose between the quarian or the geth. That question is a question of what constitutes as life, and whether or not rights can be denies to the geth based on whether or not they are truly alive.


You can replace these fictional groups with real world societies or civilizations. They're not directly symbolic of any specific group, and that's a good thing. It demonstrates the the idea behind these conflicts is truly applicable to the real world. That it's not just a reinterpretation of a single incident. It's a general concept that could happen anywhere at anytime.

That's something the ending lacks, and various other parts of Mass Effects story.

It fails to be applicable anywhere outside of the Mass Effect universe.

Honestly that's what  Palaven, Sur'Kesh and Thessia lack

A real connection

Thessia, they really try to play up that the Fall of Thessia is the single most lowest point in the history of ME -If Shepard had been beaten by a compentently written villian and I had spent time on Thessia in ME2- but it falls flat


The Fall of the Citadel, would be the low point knowing all those lives you saved and sent there, that it represents the heart of the Galaxy... and it's offscreened and gets a meh reaction

Earth they don't even attempt to let you be attached to it -they do the assume you are human you give a damn about Earth by default-

[Mazebook]

Justin2k wrote...

maaaze wrote...

-snip-

The best writers ask a lot of questions but give no definitive answers?  Really?  I'm pretty sure Shakespeare, Dickings, Rowling and most successful writers will disagree with you.  Yes imagination plays an important part of writing but you should not have to dream up the entire conclusion to a triology.

Again, you may choose to rationalise it as "connecting the dots" but what you've actually done is made things up so that the ending makes sense to you as it isn't coherent in the version presented by Bioware.

I'm sorry, but I'm done talking with you, you've made your opinion very clear and I'm not going to change that.  If you enjoy it, I'm pleased for you.  Millions didn't.

Okay...I am seriously beginning to doubt you visted any class of Arts...

or read any books of beckett or watched any movie of Kubrick or played a minute of Braid.

Raising Questions and adding Points to it is the main porpuse of any kind narrative structure.

Again, you may choose to rationalise it as "connecting the dots" but what you've actually done is made things up so that the ending makes sense to you as it isn't coherent in the version presented by Bioware. 

No...i just take what the narrative gives me...and just don´t make any baseless assumptions...

Every narrative in the world takes less time explaining things for the sake of pacing...you just have to assume the reader can figure it out on their own to move the plot forward...doing otherwise would be infact bad writting. 

I'm sorry, but I'm done talking with you, you've made your opinion very clear and I'm not going to change that.  If you enjoy it, I'm pleased for you.  Millions didn't


well than...keep on preaching...as it is what you are expecting of a narrative.

[Arken]

WarGriffin wrote...

Honestly that's what  Palaven, Sur'Kesh and Thessia lack

A real connection

Thessia, they really try to play up that the Fall of Thessia is the single most lowest point in the history of ME -If Shepard had been beaten by a compentently written villian and I had spent time on Thessia in ME2- but it falls flat


The Fall of the Citadel, would be the low point knowing all those lives you saved and sent there, that it represents the heart of the Galaxy... and it's offscreened and gets a meh reaction

Earth they don't even attempt to let you be attached to it -they do the assume you are human you give a damn about Earth by default-

See what I mean? When you really think about it, the most interesting aspects of the Mass Effect universe were the ones that were applicable to real life.

You can substitute the names of made up species and factions, but in the end you're left with something that actually is worth dwelling on.

That's what Rannoch and Tuchanka left you with. Something to dwell on.

Does anyone have the right to decide someone else's fate?

What is life? How do we decide who does and doesn't deserve the same rights everyone else enjoys? Do rights even exist?

That's what leads me into...

Justin2K wrote...
Lets be honest. Mass Effect was nothing more than a hero saves the galaxy thing. Like Star Wars, Halo and all those that came before it.   It wasn't art, it wasn't a literary classic, just a feel good space story.

This is true. And I think that's one of the things Mass Effect could have done to set itself apart. The introduction of Legion, and the genophage plot started to plant the seeds of something more than a hero's journey. These actually sounded like real controversial issues that had deeper meaning than blowing up robots.

The problem with the ending was it failed to do either of these things. It failed to be applicable to the audience's own experiences or potential experiences, and it failed to tell the story of a hero's journey.

Tuchanka and Rannoch gave hope that Mass Effect had started to move towards Tolkein territory of real world applicability.

The ending is incomparable in how badly it fails at everything it should have been.

[robertthebard]

Can we stop pretending that these threads are anything more than whine?  Wish we had a cheese smiley.

[ld1449]

maaaze wrote...


No...i just take what the narrative gives me...and just don´t make any baseless assumptions...

Every narrative in the world takes less time explaining things for the sake of pacing...you just have to assume the reader can figure it out on their own to move the plot forward...doing otherwise would be infact bad writting. 

......Soooooo.

You take only what the Narative gives you.

But writers have to assume the readers can figure out on their own certain points. Meaning that the readers have to MAKE ASSUMPTIONS which according to you. You did not do... seeing as how you stress that you only took what the narative gave you...but some how have a magnificent understanding of this ending that eluded millions without having to make assumptions...huh.

You know. At this point I'm curious.

What exactly are the "baseless assumptions" you believe people made.

And what did the Narative give you that let you reach conclusions that was not basless like "everyone elses."

[Femlob]

Can we stop pretending it was anything more than poor writing?

Holy shit on a sesame seed bun, this.

It's sub-par writing from a sub-par writer who has zero publications of note or fame to his name. These are facts, plain and simple. Professional education is on the side of those who complain, and I'll take the opinion of a professor of literature (we've got a thread here on the BSN with one, remember?) over some dolts who can't - or refuse to - recognize bad writing to save their lives any day.

Those who continue to defend this writing need to go and do themselves a huge favor: go and play Planescape: Torment. Come back here once you have, and be prepared to eat your own words.

Modifié par Femlob, 19 juillet 2012 - 12:20 .

[Justin2k]

Also remember that the ending wasn't just ending Mass Effect 3, but the entire triology.

Sovereign existed to wipe out all prganic life forms, because they were fighting with the synthetics. Yet the synthetics in this cycle (Geth) did not become a real threat until Sovereign's emergence. They were deep in Geth space doing no harm to anybody. If not for the reapers (machines who's sole purpose is to wipe the world clean because synthetics fight people) there would have been no war, besides the quarian/geth thing which seemed to be at a stalemate until Sovereign came.

My honest impression is that the ending for Mass Effect 3 was not thought about or considered until they started writing Mass Effect 3. When really it should have been set out when writing Mass Effect or at least during the writing of ME2.

Also there is the fact that ME3 made the plot of ME2 almost entirely irrelevant to the triology, the fact that the reapers had been established as a race of machines, but suddenly every race can become a reaper and James knows what a harvester is before he has ever encountered one. Also how is it impossible to defeat the reapers by conventional means when they can be taken out by a worm, by a well placed laser, by a fleet etc etc. Are they infinite in number?