98 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

It is an old complaint that ME3's endings don't appear to fit the story in three important ways:

(1) We were never before practically forced to sacrifice our principles for the sake of a good outcome. I.e. there was never before a measurable price for not doing so.

(2) The ending affirms the organic/synthetic conflict in a way that appears to counteract the relationships we've been building with Legion and the geth, between the quarians and the geth, and with EDI.

(3) The Reapers were presented as evoking Lovecraftian horrors from the beyond, as "abominations", their minions as "perversions of life". The over-the-top horror we're presented with since ME2, and which ME3 topped yet again, left no doubt that they were intended as "things that should not exist" rather than normal enemies, beings to gun down with impunity and with no regret, and the evidence that pointed in a different direction was well-hidden in hard-to-find conversations. In the ending, we're called to consider them as powerful but normal enemies and give them consideration as valid lifeforms. That results in an emotional dissonance for many players. We may reject that call by choosing Destroy, or distance ourselves from the visceral effect of the presentation and choose Control or Synthesis, but the dissonance remains and makes us feel uncomfortable.

Regardless of my opinion of the endings as such, I think these complaints are valid, and I'd like to know: if you could change things, would you rather change the story to fit the ending or change the ending to fit the story, separately for (1), (2) and (3).

My take on things:

Ad (1): I like that we're called to sacrifice our principles for the sake of a better outcome, and I'd like the story to have reflected this very much earlier and much more often. In fact, that it never did even when it appeared reasonable that it should is one of my main complaints about the trilogy as a whole. I would've liked a story that fit the ending better.

Ad (2): I liked the way we built relationships with synthetics in the story. I liked that the geth are different from organics in a fundamental way, and I dislike that the ending implies that synthetics are only valid life if they're like organics. In that aspect, I'd have liked an ending that fit the story better.

Ad (3): I hated (this is, for once, not a rhetoric exaggeration) the overblown horror ever since ME2 for its obvious attempt at emotional manipulation. It's as if the presentation was intended to shout "this is evil" into my ear at top volume. Not only am I highly allergic against using unreflected emotion to bring a moral point across, I also found the presentation so overblown that it made me alternately groan and laugh, and the louder something shouts "this is evil" into my ear, the more I become suspicious of that voice. Thus, the evidence for a different take on things which manifested in Legion's statements about the nature of the Reapers came as a huge relief, and it's one of the main reasons I like the ending that I have the option to reject the notions the visual presentation tried to implant in me. I just wish the story that came before had reflected this better. I would have preferred a story that fits the ending better.

[Applepie_Svk]

Did you heard about method of work ? Because it´s exactly how it works, when you are building house then you are doing it in some logical steps, it´s not like that you start build roof, then few levels and ends your construction with basement - it´s exactly oposite ...

I am saying that they should focus on this method instead of doing some empty so called thought provoking stuff which caused only their own oblivion... so yes they should make an ending which fit the story instead of doing ending which is kind of mess collected from few other scifi games, books and films.

Aside from this endings have created something very interesting like impact of morality discussions about imorality of all decisions it also create IT which is kind of delusion to all those fans which are refusing to believe that BioWare would screwed so much, fyi from this I love and hate IT for my own reasons.

As much I hate endings in their actual form, I loved Drew´s idea of dark energy ending which made Reapers more as the tragic heroes than useless tools ...

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 13 novembre 2012 - 07:38 .

[Xilizhra]

I shall agree with Ieldra on points 2 and 3, for more or less the same reasons. As for 1, I don't feel that I did have to sacrifice my principles in any significant manner to get a good outcome, so I find it difficult to say.

[Ieldra]

To take up your comparison, Applepie:

The problem is that you usually don't even start building if you have no plan for the whole house. Regarding ME, the trilogy should've been designed as a trilogy rather than as three simply connected games.

[Argolas]

A better ending like MEHEM and the reaper mystery as well as the Leviathans spared for another game. Shepard vs. Reapers was effective enough for the trilogy and should have stayed the central conflict until the end.

Still, the ending would have been acceptable if it was done better. I just can't stand how the story is led to a nice emotional ending with Anderson dying and then POOF holokid shows up and explains in a few minute that in fact everything is totally different. And don't even mention the thing it calls "reasoning". Plus, although EC partly fixed that part, Shepard still seems OOC.

Of course, if IT turns out to be right after all it makes sense, but I don't think (or should I say hope?) so anymore.

So back to the original question: The first would have been best, the second at least acceptable.

[Bill Casey]

Ending fit the story perfectly...

[hiraeth]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Ad (1): I like that we're called to sacrifice our principles for the sake of a better outcome, and I'd like the story to have reflected this very much earlier and much more often. In fact, that it never did even when it appeared reasonable that it should is one of my main complaints about the trilogy as a whole. I would've liked a story that fit the ending better.

Ad (2): I liked the way we built relationships with synthetics in the story. I liked that the geth are different from organics in a fundamental way, and I dislike that the ending implies that synthetics are only valid life if they're like organics. In that aspect, I'd have liked an ending that fit the story better.

Ad (3): I hated (this is, for once, not a rhetoric exaggeration) the overblown horror ever since ME2 for its obvious attempt at emotional manipulation. It's as if the presentation was intended to shout "this is evil" into my ear at top volume. Not only am I highly allergic against using unreflected emotion to bring a moral point across, I also found the presentation so overblown that it made me alternately groan and laugh, and the louder something shouts "this is evil" into my ear, the more I become suspicious of that voice. Thus, the evidence for a different take on things which manifested in Legion's statements about the nature of the Reapers came as a huge relief, and it's one of the main reasons I like the ending that I have the option to reject the notions the visual presentation tried to implant in me. I just wish the story that came before had reflected this better. I would have preferred a story that fits the ending better.

I agree with 1 and 2.

With 3, IDK...I don't think that everything is black and white, and so I can be open to the reapers being more complex than just "this is evil." And like you, I do wish that the story coming before this had reflected this better. However, learning that they might have underlying motives that are more complex (and some might argue even more reasonable) than I thought before reaching the decision chamber wouldn't have changed my goal of destroying them (not sure if you were on this boat as well). In sum, yes, learning more about them throughout the game rather than just in the last 10 minutes would have been preferable- but even if I had learned about them and their motives before reaching the decision chamber, my distaste for the ending choices would still have been as strong.

[Yesmar]

I would change the whole game, it was awful.
I would add a plot that actually makes sense and doesn't contradict previous games and the universe's laws.

Avoid revealing the Reapers, make them all unique.
Defeat them with a logical deus ex machina and have a good epilogue.

No need for wasting time explaining what they are and why they do what they do, instead imply it by simply clues.

[GreyLycanTrope]

In all three cases my answer is I would have liked an ending that fits the story better, we have groundwork working towards all these things, hours of gameplay investment that has shaped my view point of the presented universe. These are the elements I have latched on to and enjoyed I would like to continue doing so. Consistency is always a good thing IMO.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 13 novembre 2012 - 07:39 .

[Steelcan]

I agree with you on the first and second points.

As for the third. I don't see the reapers as ever being intended as valid forms of life. A husk is not alive, it is not self aware or capable of decisions, it is just controlled, it has no say.

[Applepie_Svk]

Ieldra2 wrote...

To take up your comparison, Applepie:

The problem is that you usually don't even start building if you have no plan for the whole house. Regarding ME, the trilogy should've been designed as a trilogy rather than as three simply connected games.

Yes but the nature of plan was simpel -

Reapers were cruel and intelligent machines in their nature, but ME3 changed it into mindless tools of omnipotent AI created by even more hilarious bunch of cuttlefish guys...

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 Very much agreed with 1 & 3. Neutral on 2, because I feel like only one ending really goes into depth on this theme (Synthesis) and that was largely to be expected, so the implications are limited.

When asking this question in general, I'd say an ending that fits the story. In Mass Effect's case, I really would have liked to see a lot more 1 and 3 in the story.

[AdmiralCheez]

While I do agree that the series could have handled certain aspects better, I would have preferred an ending that matched the already established tone, rather than a total rewrite of the series to preserve CaseyMac's "artistic integrity" wangst. In my opinion, preserving the narrative themes of a long-term project is far more important than any cool ideas you might have at the end. Yeah, it's hard to maintain interest all the way through (and you might have to work really hard to find enough passion to finish and finish well), but those cool ideas are better off being used as the spark that starts your next project.

Anyway, to continue the conversation started in the OP:

(1) I don't mind playing a principled hero. Sometimes, I get a kick out of being so goddamn goody-two-shoes that my own mother would vomit, and compared to the massive gray areas that we all have to experience in real life, a clear good/evil dichotomy can be refreshing. That said, I equally enjoy fiction that embodies a less sugar-coated take on morality, as such fiction has the potential to be far more intellectually stimulating. Bringing real-world problems to light through entertainment can force the audience to question their own ideals, which is very important for personal growth. However, constantly keeping moral decisions at this level can be emotionally exhausting, so it might hinder the audience's enjoyment of the story. My favorite fiction maintains a balance of escapism and realism, resulting in something that keeps my brain active but still makes me happy at the end. I think Mass Effect 1 and 2 (2 especially) did a decent job of this, though your mileage may vary.

(2) I am in complete agreement with the OP. The ending completely invalidated a huge core theme of the trilogy, and that (at least to me) was far more jarring than its overall half-assedness. Again, THEMES ARE IMPORTANT.

(3) I already talked about good/evil/moral ambiguity in point (1). Personally, I preferred the Reapers as an unstoppable Lovecraftian horror, and thus the 180 brought on by the Catalyst especially chapped my ass. However, I think Cerberus is a bigger deal in this department: they went from a fascinatingly morally gray organization to totally vanilla cackling bad guys. I really wish Bioware had shown a little more finesse when it came to writing for TIM and Co. in ME3.

[Xilizhra]

(3) I already talked about good/evil/moral ambiguity in point (1). Personally, I preferred the Reapers as an unstoppable Lovecraftian horror, and thus the 180 brought on by the Catalyst especially chapped my ass. However, I think Cerberus is a bigger deal in this department: they went from a fascinatingly morally gray organization to totally vanilla cackling bad guys. I really wish Bioware had shown a little more finesse when it came to writing for TIM and Co. in ME3.

Er, I assume you don't actually mean "unstoppable." Also, what about this is more interesting to you?

[shodiswe]

I do think they need to look at their processes when creating endings.... It's like the endignswere given a cassual pass compared to other parts of the game. The ending isn't just there to end the story, it's supposed to be part of their crowning achivement as great novelists.

Im not sure how that ending was supposed to be great, it did end the story and it was slightly surprising if that was what they were going for... But the Surprising part didn't happen in a (imo possitive way) it wasn't surprising interesting or surprisingly epic or surprisingly creative. Maybe slightly outside the box but it didn't exactly impress me. My thought before going to bed was a confused, "was that all moment". the london mission wasn't very impressive and when you got to the citadel it feelt like the end game got skipped.
It was a decent hordemode similar to doom or quake, but it feelt detatched from the story.
Some parts feelt forced, contrived and slightly pointless and could have been done in a far more satisfying and emotionaly rewarding way with only a slight bit more effort.
That FoB turret incident could have been given an objective where succeding to "keep people safe" would save some people and possibly criticalintel.
It would also have made more sense for shepard to take over the turret if the soldier guarding the turret had been killed and had to be replaced temporarily.
It's a good game but the endig feelt rushed and it feels like there was an idea that got forced on to the ending that feelt very alien to the rest of the story. If that's supposed to be some kind of surprise plot twist im not sure I would call it a good one.
The galaxy lives on but I wish the ending in the third game had been more satisfying or feelt original in a good way.
I do think that the story outgrew the ending and the old idea of an ending was just strapped on no matter how alien it feelt. It's even possible that these concerns hindered the production and made it even harder. Then eventualy they might have decided to go on with the original idea because they couldn't find an acceptable modification or alternative.
ME3 was a massive project and it would seem it might have gained a life of it's own and evolved in unexpected ways..
I'm just speculating but, maybe that's the answer as to what happend, if it wasn't really rushed then it still got rushed due to the difficulty of completing the project.
I really like the mass effect idea of letting the player pick options and affect small things here and there and have it transfer throughout the trilogy/series. It probably grew too big in the end though.
Might have needed more quality assurance people and testers or something.
However I can see how it can be hard to tell what the problems are if you don't know the whole story and the game isn't finnished.
All im hoping for is that we can provide some useful feedback that will improve future games, considering DA2 had a "meh" ending aswell even thoguh Ididn't go to the forums about it, I think it's something they should work on in the future, make sure the ending works.
The EC did improve the ending imo, but I still don't consider it a good ending. More acceptable though, it isn't quite as weird and out of character as it used to be.

[shodiswe]

"Doubble post"

Modifié par shodiswe, 13 novembre 2012 - 07:57 .

[rekn2]

it goes beyond the endings...or is it before, lol!

the story was broken in structure prior to the ending its just the ending is supposed to be a climax. i have to leave soon, ill come back in a few hours with some semi-coherent justification for my thoughts.

i love ieldra2 posts

[rekn2]

woops double

Modifié par rekn2, 13 novembre 2012 - 07:59 .

[shodiswe]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

While I do agree that the series could have handled certain aspects better, I would have preferred an ending that matched the already established tone, rather than a total rewrite of the series to preserve CaseyMac's "artistic integrity" wangst. In my opinion, preserving the narrative themes of a long-term project is far more important than any cool ideas you might have at the end. Yeah, it's hard to maintain interest all the way through (and you might have to work really hard to find enough passion to finish and finish well), but those cool ideas are better off being used as the spark that starts your next project.

Anyway, to continue the conversation started in the OP:

(1) I don't mind playing a principled hero. Sometimes, I get a kick out of being so goddamn goody-two-shoes that my own mother would vomit, and compared to the massive gray areas that we all have to experience in real life, a clear good/evil dichotomy can be refreshing. That said, I equally enjoy fiction that embodies a less sugar-coated take on morality, as such fiction has the potential to be far more intellectually stimulating. Bringing real-world problems to light through entertainment can force the audience to question their own ideals, which is very important for personal growth. However, constantly keeping moral decisions at this level can be emotionally exhausting, so it might hinder the audience's enjoyment of the story. My favorite fiction maintains a balance of escapism and realism, resulting in something that keeps my brain active but still makes me happy at the end. I think Mass Effect 1 and 2 (2 especially) did a decent job of this, though your mileage may vary.

(2) I am in complete agreement with the OP. The ending completely invalidated a huge core theme of the trilogy, and that (at least to me) was far more jarring than its overall half-assedness. Again, THEMES ARE IMPORTANT.

(3) I already talked about good/evil/moral ambiguity in point (1). Personally, I preferred the Reapers as an unstoppable Lovecraftian horror, and thus the 180 brought on by the Catalyst especially chapped my ass. However, I think Cerberus is a bigger deal in this department: they went from a fascinatingly morally gray organization to totally vanilla cackling bad guys. I really wish Bioware had shown a little more finesse when it came to writing for TIM and Co. in ME3.

Maybe the endign we were given was part of the original longterm idea... But then through the additions from a lot of teammembers and the community the themes changed... And eventualy the intended ending of the reaper story suddenly feelt alien?
I don't want them to stop taking in possitive ifeedback and ideas but instead change the endings to fit the story that they in the end were part of creating. I do think this story evolved beyond and outside the intended parameters of the original concept.

[Ieldra]

AdmiralCheez wrote...
(3) I already talked about good/evil/moral ambiguity in point (1). Personally, I preferred the Reapers as an unstoppable Lovecraftian horror, and thus the 180 brought on by the Catalyst especially chapped my ass. However, I think Cerberus is a bigger deal in this department: they went from a fascinatingly morally gray organization to totally vanilla cackling bad guys. I really wish Bioware had shown a little more finesse when it came to writing for TIM and Co. in ME3.

I agree about Cerberus. They went totally overboard when making them the enemy. Still, this is not exactly a design flaw rather than a flaw in the execution. The Gellix mission shows that Cerberus was intended to have had good people in it before TIM went off the rails, only that gets drowned in the presentation of the evil aspects and the brainless actions Cerberus takes for the sake of having them as an enemy on certain missions. Also Miranda was denied the opportunity to embody "gray Cerberus", which didn't exactly help.

[AdmiralCheez]

Xilizhra wrote...

Er, I assume you don't actually mean "unstoppable." Also, what about this is more interesting to you?

Clarification: unstoppable in theory.  The only truly unstoppable forces in the universe are entropy and Commander Shepard.

I think Cerberus would have been better suited to the gray-evil role than the Reapers for multiple reasons.

- First, TIM is (or was) a really interesting and complex character, and he could have easily served as the Renegade exemplar as a counter to the Paragon Anderson.  Choosing whether TIM or Anderson's methods were more appropriate for the war path could have been an interesting sub-theme in ME3, and was one of the most asked-for options prior to ME3's release.

-Second, while Cerbies are fun to shoot at, they could have been interesting allies, and deciding whether obtaining Cerberus help would be worth alienating other partners in the war effort could have been one of those "OMG what do?" moments that cause forum chaos and multiple playthroughs.

- Third, by making Cerberus the main opposition to Shepard, Bioware lost an opportunity to build up serious Reaper nastiness (and there could have been more Harbinger; I am not alone when I say ME3 needs more Harbinger).

- Fourth, I want a little variety in the motivation of my villains; this lolindoctrination business is getting old, and Udina especially was way more fun when he was a turdbag fully of his own accord.  If indoctrination is going to be a major plot point, why not indoctrinate an ally?  Yeah, it's cheap emotional manipulation, but think of all the delicious fanbase heartbreak when players across the world are forced to put a bullet in their favorite squadmate's brain (although they'd have to mix up who gets indoctrinated in each playthrough, I think, since it wouldn't be fair if everybody had to shoot Liara or Garrus 100% of the time).

- Fifth, Cerberus was already established as being the Token Gray Group in ME2, just as the Reapers were cleary Totally Evil all the way back in ME1.  While plot twists and keeping the audience questioning what they thought they knew is important, narrative consistency is a FAR MORE IMPORTANT component of good storytelling.  In addition, the line between retcon and "dramatic revelation" is a fine one; twists are good if you planned and hinted at them from the beginning, but changing things just because you don't like an idea anymore is just plain bad writing (I'm looking at you, Mac).

- Sixth, keeping the Reapers as the obvious bad guys gives everybody a common foe to unite against.  This goes both for the galaxy and the fanbase, and thus gives the writers another unifying theme to focus on without cutting too much into player choice.

[Ticonderoga117]

Either works. If the story and ending are the natural foundation and conclusion, then it works. The big problem is that ME3's ending doesn't do this. It's execution doesn't help it either.

[Xilizhra]

- Fourth, I want a little variety in the motivation of my villains; this lolindoctrination business is getting old, and Udina especially was way more fun when he was a turdbag fully of his own accord. If indoctrination is going to be a major plot point, why not indoctrinate an ally? Yeah, it's cheap emotional manipulation, but think of all the delicious fanbase heartbreak when players across the world are forced to put a bullet in their favorite squadmate's brain (although they'd have to mix up who gets indoctrinated in each playthrough, I think, since it wouldn't be fair if everybody had to shoot Liara or Garrus 100% of the time).

I don't know. For delicious fanbase heartbreak, I rather prefer what we have now.

- Sixth, keeping the Reapers as the obvious bad guys gives everybody a common foe to unite against. This goes both for the galaxy and the fanbase, and thus gives the writers another unifying theme to focus on without cutting too much into player choice.

This I'll disagree strongly with. I 100% support the realization at the end that the Reapers weren't the true evil behind everything, and if it makes you more uncomfortable with committing genocide, than I call that great success. I'd have foreshadowed it better, but this is an aspect of the ending that I outright love.

[AdmiralCheez]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I agree about Cerberus. They went totally overboard when making them the enemy. Still, this is not exactly a design flaw rather than a flaw in the execution. The Gellix mission shows that Cerberus was intended to have had good people in it before TIM went off the rails, only that gets drowned in the presentation of the evil aspects and the brainless actions Cerberus takes for the sake of having them as an enemy on certain missions. Also Miranda was denied the opportunity to embody "gray Cerberus", which didn't exactly help.

Yeah, I don't think it was necessary to have Cerberus be a potential ally; they would have been perfectly okay as 100% villains provided the execution wasn't so sloppy.  To be honest, I was waiting the whole game for TIM to pull a fast one on the Reapers or to reveal that he worked for them out of self-preservation (defying them when he could, but he was ultimately trapped), but nope, we get the oh-look-at-me-I'm-so-evil comic book villain instead.  Seriously, you can have 100% bad guy and still maintain nuance.

Also, they already did the lolindoctrination thing with Saren.  Doing the exact same thing again was just tacky (although I wouldn't complain about a more subtle salute).

I agree that Miranda should have played a much bigger role in the story.  Hell, I fully expected her to be a squadmate again, and was quite disappointed when she just went back to the "oh noes my sister" thing.  Like, seriously, her insider perspective on Cerberus could have been just as useful (if not moreso) as Liara's Shadow Broker network (had she actually frickin' USED it).

@shodiswe: Yeah, I agree that the goals and themes probably evolved and changed more than originally intended throughout the series.  Gradual evolution of the narrative is perfectly fine and expected (in fact, those who cling too tightly to their original ideas are more often than not doomed to stale and lifeless stories).  However, what they SHOULD have done was keep track of these changes and adjust the end goal accordingly.

Getting the right balance between sticking to your guns and going with the flow is hard.  There's really no right answer when it comes to which one is more important, and which balance works best is something individual writers have to discover for themselves.

[Nerevar-as]

Xilizhra wrote...

- Sixth, keeping the Reapers as the obvious bad guys gives everybody a common foe to unite against. This goes both for the galaxy and the fanbase, and thus gives the writers another unifying theme to focus on without cutting too much into player choice.

This I'll disagree strongly with. I 100% support the realization at the end that the Reapers weren't the true evil behind everything, and if it makes you more uncomfortable with committing genocide, than I call that great success. I'd have foreshadowed it better, but this is an aspect of the ending that I outright love.

They have been committing genocides for tens of millions of years (at least), and when we talked to them they were quite smug about it. With that background there´s no motivation or excuse that works to whitewash them. Even if we go to the excuse of sackled AIs by another AI, I see no more trouble with destroying them themselves than I´d do with Skynet & its T-army. It´s all they do.