689 réponses à ce sujet

[Blueprotoss]

Arcian wrote...

arial wrote...

 The real reason the ending(s) were poorly recieved is quite simple.

since the day ME3 was anounced, people started speculating on what features it would have, how the story would progress, etc.

It came to the state where No game could realisticly match what fans expected.

When the game finally came out, and it could not live up to what people were sure it would be, people looked for every possible reason to blame for their dissatisfaction.

No. The real reason is that they put a talentless schmuck in charge of writing it.

Thats a stawman since its conveniant to write off someone that was a writer for ME from the begining and for all we know is that Drew did most of the "bad" writing.  To be fair I don't see you making thousands of dollars for writing something.

DWH1982 wrote...

Mac Walters wrote Garrus, so no, I wouldn't say he's a "talentless schmuck."

I do, however, think that he managed to botch the ending. Which is probably why it should have been subject to the same peer reveiw as the rest of the game.

Its easy to do the finger pointing when its convenient and nobody knows all the specifics that went on.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 14 octobre 2012 - 11:16 .

[Blueprotoss]

iakus wrote...

How does laughter imply that?  

Most of the laughter associated with BSN is normally rage.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 14 octobre 2012 - 11:35 .

[Loreshield]

arial, you're actually right. I do believe that, like people do so very often, many of us have let our expectations completely run away with us.

HOWEVER. While that may be true, it says nothing about the quality of the ending on its own - which, expectations aside - was still very low, for legitimate reasons that have been explained on here countless times over.

[Blueprotoss]

Loreshield wrote...

arial, you're actually right. I do believe that, like people do so very often, many of us have let our expectations completely run away with us.

HOWEVER. While that may be true, it says nothing about the quality of the ending on its own - which, expectations aside - was still very low, for legitimate reasons that have been explained on here countless times over.

To be fair you are right with the expectation part but you are wrong with the quality part.  If quality was an issue then none of the endings for Bioware games would have been liked but no matter what ME3 has the best ending(s) out of the ME series.

[HK-90210]

Blueprotoss wrote...
but no matter what ME3 has the best ending(s) out of the ME series.

Cite?

[Iakus]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Loreshield wrote...

arial, you're actually right. I do believe that, like people do so very often, many of us have let our expectations completely run away with us.

HOWEVER. While that may be true, it says nothing about the quality of the ending on its own - which, expectations aside - was still very low, for legitimate reasons that have been explained on here countless times over.

To be fair you are right with the expectation part but you are wrong with the quality part.  If quality was an issue then none of the endings for Bioware games would have been liked but no matter what ME3 has the best ending(s) out of the ME series.

Now who's speaking for everybody? 

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

The problem was that the ending didnt have a neat, interesting mechanic to it. Building up a number is a step down from loyalty. It would have been interesting if each of the classifications from the war assets list was treated like a "loyalty" from me2. Having some bits where shepard gets to make a few orders was the thing that was running through my head. Having all of the species "heads" meet up at a base as shepard shows up and makes decisions, especially if he has to argue for it in some spots, would have been awesome.

Shepard, Wrex/Wreave, The Primarch, The Dalatras, the Council, a representative of the Geth and/or the Quarian Admirals, and Admiral Anderson all in a room debating what we should do where is what would have made it FEEL awesome. What we got was half of what the suicide mission was. Imagine the suicide mission without the squad decisions. If the end of the game was just a run through a collector ship and then you blow it up and leave. Same thing narratively, but less cool feeling. Apparently the suicide mission BARELY made it into the game. I think the ending of ME3 is fine, but I'd like the last dlc to be a suped up series of final missions, starting in Rio and ending up back in London.

[StElmo]

arial wrote...

 The real reason the ending(s) were poorly recieved is quite simple.

since the day ME3 was anounced, people started speculating on what features it would have, how the story would progress, etc.

It came to the state where No game could realisticly match what fans expected.

When the game finally came out, and it could not live up to what people were sure it would be, people looked for every possible reason to blame for their dissatisfaction.

That is quite unfair. ME2 hd big expectations from fans, whats the diference? people love that game.

Its more all the questions left unanswered that is unsettling, but I have a feeeling they will clear this up in DLC

[Cashmoney007]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Paulomedi wrote...

Blueprotoss  www.youtube.com/watch is our Architect!



To add to the discussion, I tend to think they dumbed down their story so much to appeal to a wider audience that it backfired. How else explain Illusive Man, Cerberus, Kai Leng and James Vega being as three-dimensional as a square and the Reapers losing their Space-Cthulu status, to be transformed to dumb, misguided AIs. Of course, some people may like it, because it's easier to understand/digest a stupified story (ad hominem vis a vis ergo strawman logical fallacies), but it is just insulting the way they did it and why they did it.

Hopefully you know that Will Farrel isn't the Architect while the normal Architect is pretty logical like Hal in 2001: a Space Odyssey and the Catalyst in ME3.

Its still ironic that some people think that ME3 "dumbed down" the series even when ME2 was the most simplistic game out of the ME series.  Its also ironic when people like you seem to resort to logic fallacies when it comes to a discussion of fact even when logic doesn't likes to ignore opinion.

Cashmoney007 wrote...

exactly

The logic of Vega and Leng is just nonsense.  I still always laugh that people that love the ending will say that you just don't understand it.  Because the rest of us don't want to go understand nonsense.  I still like the game and will say that, but I can't say it doesn't have faults.

How is that when Vega and Kai Lang aren't nonsense at all.  Vega was just another Alliance soldier that wanted to do his part and Kai Lang was the dark side of Shepard.  If you don't want to understand something then thats on ou just like labeling things nonsense when things are easy to understand.

You don't get to debate with me until you spell words right. lol

I have already seen two spelling mistakes in some of your posts.

Modifié par Cashmoney007, 15 octobre 2012 - 04:18 .

[Lunch Box1912]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Lunch Box1912 wrote...

Bester76 wrote...

Whenever I hear that story of Casey and Mac locking themselves away in a room to write ME3's ending, I always think of this...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

...and then realize that realistically, give a monkey a typewriter and you're going to get pages of garbage.....

The article I provided states the"Takyris” comments may or may not be true. Disregarding the "Takyris" article just play the game again, the difference between the writing, the story structure throughout the entirety of the game and the last ten minutes is not of the same ilk. It’s plain as night and day, basic fundamentals of writing vanish in the last ten minutes. 

Whether one buy’s what the monkeys are typing or not you can’t deny the breakdown of basic writing 101. Apparently Biowares monkey did not type enough to get the Shakespearean quality of ending that could live up to the rest of the game…. Maybe they should give him another banana and see what comes out next?

http://www.writersdi...f-novel-endings

To be fair everything isn't Shalespeare and everything that Shakespeare touched didn't turn to gold thus you shouldn't make expectations that can't be reached like most of  Romney's promises.  Its still ironic to see the hypocrisy here based on how writing itself its subjective and how the writing in ME3 didn't change that much from ME1 or ME2.  There are also huge differences when we're talking about video games and novels like with movies and comic books.

The reference of Shakespeare is in connection to the Infinite_monkey_theorem comment, not what the game should live up to. Please research what you’re quoting before you bash it.

Modifié par Lunch Box1912, 15 octobre 2012 - 04:27 .

[Loreshield]

iakus wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Loreshield wrote...

arial, you're actually right. I do believe that, like people do so very often, many of us have let our expectations completely run away with us.

HOWEVER. While that may be true, it says nothing about the quality of the ending on its own - which, expectations aside - was still very low, for legitimate reasons that have been explained on here countless times over.

To be fair you are right with the expectation part but you are wrong with the quality part.  If quality was an issue then none of the endings for Bioware games would have been liked but no matter what ME3 has the best ending(s) out of the ME series.

Now who's speaking for everybody? 

Exactly. As I said, the reasons many of us had beef with the ending have been explained time and again, like literary themes being non-consistent, for instance.

There is a difference between the quality of a work of art and someone's opinion of it. Kind of like every now and then there are movies that are objectively bad and still people will often say they enjoyed them - it's what they call a guilty pleasure. Although, to be fair, an objectively bad work of art has a significantly higher chance of not being received positively by people, of course.

I don't remember the ending to, say, KOTOR getting this much flak over its many apparent flaws as the ending to ME3 had. Neither did the endings to ME1 and 2. At least I didn't notice it, I could still be wrong on this, of course.

[Blueprotoss]

CastonFolarus wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...
but no matter what ME3 has the best ending(s) out of the ME series.

Cite?

ME1 ends with Shepard be shown and ME2 ends with a simple conversation with the Illusive Man, which both are neither the best of their series nor amazing endings.

iakus wrote...

Now who's speaking for everybody? [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/tongue.png[/smilie]

Haters gonna hate and it easy to notice things without being negative towards ME3 most of the time.

Loreshield wrote...

Exactly. As I said, the reasons many of us had beef with the ending have been explained time and again, like literary themes being non-consistent, for instance.

There is a difference between the quality of a work of art and someone's opinion of it. Kind of like every now and then there are movies that are objectively bad and still people will often say they enjoyed them - it's what they call a guilty pleasure. Although, to be fair, an objectively bad work of art has a significantly higher chance of not being received positively by people, of course.

I don't remember the ending to, say, KOTOR getting this much flak over its many apparent flaws as the ending to ME3 had. Neither did the endings to ME1 and 2. At least I didn't notice it, I could still be wrong on this, of course.

To be fair the endings were hinted on since ME1 and ME2 throughout every Created vs Creator conflict along with the lack of a Reaper calling itself a leader.

Its easy when you're assuming things under hindsight and art by definition will vary from person to person since it can take any shape.

Most of the trilogies in video games have mixed feelings while its nothing new that most "fans" didn't care about the endings for ME1 and ME2 because they weren't the conclusion to Shepard's arc.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 15 octobre 2012 - 04:33 .

[Blueprotoss]

Cashmoney007 wrote...

You don't get to debate with me until you spell words right. lol

I have already seen two spelling mistakes in some of your posts.

Ironicaly you''re trying to argue not debate based on how emotional you're getting.  Also you shouldn't be a hypocrite since lol isn't a word and you forgot a period at the end of your 1st sentence in this comment.  Btw this topic is far from being a grammar discussion.

Lunch Box1912 wrote...

The reference of Shakespeare is in connection to the Infinite_monkey_theorem comment, not what the game should live up to. Please research what you’re quoting before you bash it. 

Thats a strawman especially when we really don't know if Shakespeare was a real person since there are still research that could back up that Shakespeare could have been a pen name for one of the English Queens of England.  We really don't need to get this topic off topic and its funny that you cleary don't know what happened in the writing to begin with to use that theorem since its a guess like most theories are.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 15 octobre 2012 - 04:26 .

[Lunch Box1912]

I didn't use it, Bester 76 did. Iwas only using sarcasm to make a rebuttle. I'm not trying to argue with you because if that were the case you would be correct. I'm simply saying look at the conversation a little deeper before you make a case against a comment that wasn't intended to be a factual statement.

[Blueprotoss]

Lunch Box1912 wrote...

I didn't use it, Bester 76 did. Iwas only using sarcasm to make a rebuttle. I'm not trying to argue with you because if that were the case you would be correct. I'm simply saying look at the conversation a little deeper before you make a case against a comment that wasn't intended to be a factual statement.

I'm sorry about that but I wasn't completely disagreeing with you on the entire comment.   I'm surprised that  a bunch of people are using hindsight since its a gamble in itself that can't be accurately used with "writing".  I'm always interested in other's views and its fun to have a basuc discussion on that.

[ld1449]

Mac Walters is a talentless hack who fancies himself an artist when he has nothing to his name outside of Bioware.

He's been piggybacking off of his friendship with Casey and the mutual arrogance and pretentiousness of both is what gave us this...thing that passes itself off as a literary device.

[Blueprotoss]

Arcian wrote...

Drew did the bad writing? Hahaha oh wow. The writing took a sharp decline after Drew left and Walters took over.

Never said Drew was responsible but its easy to blame people without knowing who actally caused the problem.  Either way its very flawed because of a thing called opinion.  Don't forget that ME2 and ME3 were produced and developed at the same while it was never announced on how much writing Drew did.

Arcian wrote...

The reason I call Walters a talentless schmuck is because he was only involved in writing two games - Jade Empire and Mass Effect - before he was attached to the Mass Effect team as lead writer. Before Jade Empire, his only noteworthy project was a custom module he made for Neverwinter Nights - one of the merits he was hired for. As Casey states in the Final Hours app, he was friends with Mac from before because they visited the same bar in Edmonton.

It sounds like you're mad for no reason even when Drew tackled mutiple stories at the sametime.  It also sounds like you're playing favorites and that isn't allowing you to think clearly.  Btw if Mac was talentless then he wouldn't have had a lot of praise for his work specifically in ME1 and ME2.

Arcian wrote...

Mac becoming lead writer so quick feels like a blatant case of cronyism only made more painfully obvious to the fact that he and Casey shut themselves in and refused peer reviews on the endings.

This sounds like a convenient scapegoat for you.

Arcian wrote...

Mac making thousands of dollars for writing doesn't make him a good writer. I'm also not lead writer or writer for a game's company, period, so I don't see how it is in any way relevant.

If he wasn't a good writer then he wouldn't be earning thousands of dollars as a writer and it sounds like you're looking for anything but relevance since all you're coming up with is excuses based on opinion.

[Blueprotoss]

ld1449 wrote...

Mac Walters is a talentless hack who fancies himself an artist when he has nothing to his name outside of Bioware.

He's been piggybacking off of his friendship with Casey and the mutual arrogance and pretentiousness of both is what gave us this...thing that passes itself off as a literary device.

This is a good example of a strawman because Mac got overwhelming praise in ME1 and ME2 for his work, but some would rather rush to start a mindless witch hunt since they had way too high expectations on ME3.

[wantedman dan]

Blueprotoss wrote...

ld1449 wrote...

Mac Walters is a talentless hack who fancies himself an artist when he has nothing to his name outside of Bioware.

He's been piggybacking off of his friendship with Casey and the mutual arrogance and pretentiousness of both is what gave us this...thing that passes itself off as a literary device.

This is a good example of a strawman because Mac got overwhelming praise in ME1 and ME2 for his work, but some would rather rush to start a mindless witch hunt since they had way too high expectations on ME3.

Actually no, that would be an example of ad hominem.

[ld1449]

Blueprotoss wrote...

ld1449 wrote...

Mac Walters is a talentless hack who fancies himself an artist when he has nothing to his name outside of Bioware.

He's been piggybacking off of his friendship with Casey and the mutual arrogance and pretentiousness of both is what gave us this...thing that passes itself off as a literary device.

This is a good example of a strawman because Mac got overwhelming praise in ME1 and ME2 for his work, but some would rather rush to start a mindless witch hunt since they had way too high expectations on ME3.

Mac got praise? Where?

You like to talk out of your ass a lot the first time mac walters was even mentioned was after arrival sucked and people were wondering who wrote it. ME1 and 2, Drew had the spotlight for the most part.

The only reason anyone ever heard of him writting Garrus and Wrex was because they asked what he did on the project to get the lead writing position here.

Ergo, before ME3, the man was nothing, after ME3, he's less than nothing.

[ld1449]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Arcian wrote...

Drew did the bad writing? Hahaha oh wow. The writing took a sharp decline after Drew left and Walters took over.

Never said Drew was responsible but its easy to blame people without knowing who actally caused the problem.  Either way its very flawed because of a thing called opinion.  Don't forget that ME2 and ME3 were produced and developed at the same while it was never announced on how much writing Drew did.

Arcian wrote...

The reason I call Walters a talentless schmuck is because he was only involved in writing two games - Jade Empire and Mass Effect - before he was attached to the Mass Effect team as lead writer. Before Jade Empire, his only noteworthy project was a custom module he made for Neverwinter Nights - one of the merits he was hired for. As Casey states in the Final Hours app, he was friends with Mac from before because they visited the same bar in Edmonton.

It sounds like you're mad for no reason even when Drew tackled mutiple stories at the sametime.  It also sounds like you're playing favorites and that isn't allowing you to think clearly.  Btw if Mac was talentless then he wouldn't have had a lot of praise for his work specifically in ME1 and ME2.

Arcian wrote...

Mac becoming lead writer so quick feels like a blatant case of cronyism only made more painfully obvious to the fact that he and Casey shut themselves in and refused peer reviews on the endings.

This sounds like a convenient scapegoat for you.

Arcian wrote...

Mac making thousands of dollars for writing doesn't make him a good writer. I'm also not lead writer or writer for a game's company, period, so I don't see how it is in any way relevant.

If he wasn't a good writer then he wouldn't be earning thousands of dollars as a writer and it sounds like you're looking for anything but relevance since all you're coming up with is excuses based on opinion.

The woman who wrote twilight is making millions. Is She a good writer?

Also, I've yet to see any of this praise you speak of.

Show me one thread or hell, any one place on the internet where anyone has ever said something even remotely close to "Mac walters is very good at his job."

[Cashmoney007]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Cashmoney007 wrote...

You don't get to debate with me until you spell words right. lol

I have already seen two spelling mistakes in some of your posts.

Ironicaly you''re trying to argue not debate based on how emotional you're getting.  Also you shouldn't be a hypocrite since lol isn't a word and you forgot a period at the end of your 1st sentence in this comment.  Btw this topic is far from being a grammar discussion.

1. How am I getting emotional when I don't even use caps?

2. It doesn't matter if it is an argument or a debate because you still spelled some words wrong and should fix your mistakes in some of your posts.

3.  I know lol is not a word.  It just made me laugh when I typed that comment before.

But it is not going to matter what I think because you have all the answers right?  Can you next tell me why the earth was created?  

I can't wait till you have more comments because they always give me a good laugh.

Modifié par Cashmoney007, 16 octobre 2012 - 06:40 .

[Zazzerka]

Cashmoney007 wrote...

2. It doesn't matter if it is an arguement or a debate because you still spelled some words wrong. 

No idea what this argument is about, I just felt like pointing out the irony.

[Foolsfolly]

I summarized my thoughts on why the ending was poor here:

Mass Effect 3.

Now here's a fresh wound for me. Prior to this year Mass Effect was my favorite video game series ever. And I'm not so dramatic as to say that that's changed since ME3. I had thought so prior to the Extended Cut (like how the Sopranos, the Matrix, and Battlestar Galatica are dead to me) but the EC fixed just enough of my problems with the ending thatI can replay the series without thinking "What's the point."

The ending to Mass Effect 3 is almost a cliche on these boards. Because of this I'm going to really try to be brief here.

There are a few problems with the ending. But the one I'm really going to focus on is the fact that once again the PC did not earn the ending.

Mass Effect 1 had Shepard chasing down a rogue Spectre and stopping the intergalactic invasion of the Reapers. Only Shepard could do this and Shepard did. Regardless of choice Shepard suceeded where no one else could and earned the ending of Mass Effect.

Mass Effect 2 had Shepard building up a team and outfitting the Normandy for a suicide mission against an alien force abducting tens of thousands of human colonists. Shepard does this because Shepard's the only one who could inspire such loyalty and contain enough determination to pull off the impossible. And in a great move the entire suicide mission is all about Shepard making the decisions that make the mission successful or not. You cannot say Shepard did not earn that victory.

Mass Effect 3 however has Shepard going around building an alliance, much like Origins, to stop the Reapers. This is a good start because there's a direct and clear plot line "Stop the Reapers." And building this army is central to stopping them. The problem is that isn't the source of the ending. The army is needed, to be sure, but the ending is given to the player by a previously unheard of character. This isn't Shepard winning the day against the impossible it's Shepard walking into a room and being told "These are the options I'm giving you. Which do you perfer."

On a completely meta-level this is every BioWare game ever. The company tells you the choice you have and you pick. The reason ME3 doesn't get away with this while other BioWare games do is that it's never been so blantantly obvious and never given by a completely new character that the player had no connection to.

When Morrigan tells you about the Dark Ritual things click in your head. That's why Flemeth forced her on you. You know how she feels about love and see the pain this is causing her, the inner turmoil about her duty and her desires. It's the culmination of a character you've spent 80 hours with.

The Catalyst is a complete unknown, and worse reveals itself to be the force behind the intergalactic enemy you've spent years fighting. At this point even if the Catalyst had been introduced earlier in the game it would still feel weird for Commander 'I Routinely Do the Impossible' Shepard to just agree with the enemy and play the enemy's game.

While opinions differ rather harshly about which ending is the best ending or how so-in-so ending is repulsive the actual endings aren't so terrible as to be invalid. A theme throughout ME3 was victory through sacrifice and all three major endings contain both sacrifices and victories. Synthesis has unity at the cost of diversity, Destroy has victory against Reapers at the cost of all synthetic life, and Control is Utopia forced on the galaxy by a Renegade Shepard-God or a Paragon Shepard-God serving the galaxy at the cost of their humanity. And I personally think Renegade Control also has the cost of descenting opinion since Renegade Shepard-God puts down any minorities or things it perceives as a threat.

While there is no completely positive ending with no draw backs that doesn't make those endings invalid. The problem really lies with the Catalyst and how those choices were presented. Which ending you prefer is up to personal bias and how you're role-playing the Commander.