211 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

Destroy:  Organics and synthetics cannot get along.  So kill all the synthetics and hope this time organics will be able to stay on top.

Control:  The galaxy  cannot survive without some kind of Big Brother watching over them, guiding their destinies.  You can't be trusted to build your own future

Synthesis:  Organics and synthetics can't get along unless you forcibly combine the two.  Choice doesn't matter

All of them to some degree validate the Catalyst's assertions.  the only route which Shepard can take a stand against them leads to 'SO BE IT"  and rocks falling

What does "validate" mean here? A particular organic utilizes a particular  function of the Crucible in a particular situation, yep. I don't see how that proves any general point.

[Dr_Extrem]

Jonata wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

mass effect is a simple story of survival against all odds

I hate to sound like an elitist fo some sort, but considering the Mass Effect trilogy a "simple story of survival" is probably one of the main problem we got here and probably one of the main problems with gamers these days: they simply "did not get it" and started to rage against something they were not understanding.

It's like poeple complaining about torture in the recent Zero Dark Thirty without grasping the fact that the movie was not about torture at all and was telling a different story. We're talking a bout a Sci-Fi franchise who tried to tell dozens of different, very deep messages during Shepard's journey, from the need to overcome racial differencies to the classical questions about synthetics beings that are part of the main staples of Science Fiction.

Saying that, instead, the game is a basic videogamey "The hero fight against thousands of enemies and wins because he VERY MUCH CARE" device shows that some people are still very shortsighted when it comes to plot and story in videogames. I don't blame you nor other gamers, since 90% of the game industry is actually capable of doing that and only that (with few exceptions, like David Cage), but I simply think that all this whining becomes futile and it actively damages the name of a company who did the impossible and managed to create a succesfull, "blockbuster" franchise with a deep and compelling story inside it. 

I won't explain the Mass Effect endings so that people will start bashing my take on them, since this would be pointless and almost previdible, but I can assure to everyone that judging The Catalyst as a Deus Ex Machina is like considering a statue a piece of stone. Sure, The Catalyst has the basic characteristic of a narrative DEM, but through this all-solving entity a much greater point is stated, and bashing the feet of a statue because you are unable to see its beaufiully-crafted face is not something that should be so common as it is now amongst "gamers". 

you actually like the elitist sound ..


this is basicly the "you just did not get it"-speach with the "i will not teach you schoolboys/girls wht it is about"-undertone.

mass effect has a relativly simple main plot: the reapers will arrive and kill us all, if we dont stop them. the main colouring is clear as well: shepard beats the odds. our method is there: we beat the reapers, by building a giant plot device.

the question is more how we achieve it. by cooperation - here, the sideplots and little problems come to light ...

the sideplots bring salt to the universe. is uplifting other cultures right? is it right to use others as our tools? where begins life? is it possible to overcome old grudges? 

i did get the little questions ... the problem is, that they are covered with big explosions. the presentation f**kes up the plot.

the catalyst is a narrative dem - you admitted that yourself. this is a plot device, that has to be avoided. it is uninspired to retreat to tricks like this. the writers needed a way to present the endings and build a fragile bridge.


edit: it is hard to embrace the beauty of the face, if you are distracted by the deformed and crippled feet. the totality is disturbed by this crude plot-bridge.

Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 29 décembre 2012 - 02:42 .

[Olympiclash]

drayfish wrote...

And so my question remains: what did you see in it?  

That wasn't your question. Go back and check out your post. You didn't ask for my personal opinion, you said...

"I literally have still never heard an argument for why these endings are deep that extends beyond: 'Hey, morality is relative and stuff...'"

Well, Hulk's article is an argument for that. You may not agree with it but there it is.

However, if you want my take on the ending - I actually really liked the "morality is relative and stuff..." aspect of it. Also, for me the series is about choice and in the end you are presented with the biggest choice yet with monumental consequences. That's what I liked about it. I'm sorry I can't explain it in a deeper and more meaningful way that satisfies you.

[drayfish]

Jonata wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

mass effect is a simple story of survival against all odds

I hate to sound like an elitist fo some sort, but considering the Mass Effect trilogy a "simple story of survival" is probably one of the main problem we got here and probably one of the main problems with gamers these days: they simply "did not get it" and started to rage against something they were not understanding.

It's like poeple complaining about torture in the recent Zero Dark Thirty without grasping the fact that the movie was not about torture at all and was telling a different story. We're talking a bout a Sci-Fi franchise who tried to tell dozens of different, very deep messages during Shepard's journey, from the need to overcome racial differencies to the classical questions about synthetics beings that are part of the main staples of Science Fiction.

Saying that, instead, the game is a basic videogamey "The hero fight against thousands of enemies and wins because he VERY MUCH CARE" device shows that some people are still very shortsighted when it comes to plot and story in videogames. I don't blame you nor other gamers, since 90% of the game industry is actually capable of doing that and only that (with few exceptions, like David Cage), but I simply think that all this whining becomes futile and it actively damages the name of a company who did the impossible and managed to create a succesfull, "blockbuster" franchise with a deep and compelling story inside it. 

I won't explain the Mass Effect endings so that people will start bashing my take on them, since this would be pointless and almost previdible, but I can assure to everyone that judging The Catalyst as a Deus Ex Machina is like considering a statue a piece of stone. Sure, The Catalyst has the basic characteristic of a narrative DEM, but through this all-solving entity a much greater point is stated, and bashing the feet of a statue because you are unable to see its beaufiully-crafted face is not something that should be so common as it is now amongst "gamers". 

This reads as: 'Everyone is stupid and has failed, but I won't explain why...'

For someone who worries about sounding 'elitist' you guard your inspired knowledge in a very unhelpful way.

[Jagri]

Olympiclash wrote...

drayfish wrote...

And so my question remains: what did you see in it?  

That wasn't your question. Go back and check out your post. You didn't ask for my personal opinion, you said...

"I literally have still never heard an argument for why these endings are deep that extends beyond: 'Hey, morality is relative and stuff...'"

Well, Hulk's article is an argument for that. You may not agree with it but there it is.

However, if you want my take on the ending - I actually really liked the "morality is relative and stuff..." aspect of it. Also, for me the series is about choice and in the end you are presented with the biggest choice yet with monumental consequences. That's what I liked about it. I'm sorry I can't explain it in a deeper and more meaningful way that satisfies you.

I believe within that post he also stated these questions.

What does knowing that personally you are more comfortable employing genocide on allies than ushering in a new age of totalitarianism tell you about yourself or humanity? Why does knowing that for you embracing imposed eugenics is preferable to racial slaughter befit throwing away the celebration of inclusivity and hope that led up to such a betrayal?

[Olympiclash]

Jagri wrote...

Olympiclash wrote...

drayfish wrote...

And so my question remains: what did you see in it?  

That wasn't your question. Go back and check out your post. You didn't ask for my personal opinion, you said...

"I literally have still never heard an argument for why these endings are deep that extends beyond: 'Hey, morality is relative and stuff...'"

Well, Hulk's article is an argument for that. You may not agree with it but there it is.

However, if you want my take on the ending - I actually really liked the "morality is relative and stuff..." aspect of it. Also, for me the series is about choice and in the end you are presented with the biggest choice yet with monumental consequences. That's what I liked about it. I'm sorry I can't explain it in a deeper and more meaningful way that satisfies you.

I believe within that post he also stated these questions.

What does knowing that personally you are more comfortable employing genocide on allies than ushering in a new age of totalitarianism tell you about yourself or humanity? Why does knowing that for you embracing imposed eugenics is preferable to racial slaughter befit throwing away the celebration of inclusivity and hope that led up to such a betrayal?

Yup, but those are questions that relate to my own personal beliefs and I do not feel I should have to explain them, nor will I as they are not any better or worse than his or yours or anyone else's here.

[drayfish]

Olympiclash wrote...

drayfish wrote...

And so my question remains: what did you see in it?  

That wasn't your question. Go back and check out your post. You didn't ask for my personal opinion, you said...

"I literally have still never heard an argument for why these endings are deep that extends beyond: 'Hey, morality is relative and stuff...'"

Well, Hulk's article is an argument for that. You may not agree with it but there it is.

However, if you want my take on the ending - I actually really liked the "morality is relative and stuff..." aspect of it. Also, for me the series is about choice and in the end you are presented with the biggest choice yet with monumental consequences. That's what I liked about it. I'm sorry I can't explain it in a deeper and more meaningful way that satisfies you.

Actually, as I said, Hulk's argument is positing a specific poetic analogy quite abstracted from the philosophical and ethical debate being discussed here (one that actually contradicts the 'monumental consequences' you mentioned in your reading.  His point was that we all end up in the same place no matter what.)  But nevermind...

And again, this was never about 'satisfying me'.  Who cares what I think?  It was you who argued that others had failed to glimpse the deep meaning of the ending - who had not seen Bioware's splendor amidst all the angry haze.

If 'all morality is relative' is really all that we get from this story, then I would argue that the vast majority of players understood the text just fine.  They simply did not enjoy being told that the whole journey was therefore just a hopeless, self-serving, arbitrary fight for survival at any cost.

Modifié par drayfish, 29 décembre 2012 - 02:49 .

[Olympiclash]

drayfish wrote...

Olympiclash wrote...

drayfish wrote...

And so my question remains: what did you see in it?  

That wasn't your question. Go back and check out your post. You didn't ask for my personal opinion, you said...

"I literally have still never heard an argument for why these endings are deep that extends beyond: 'Hey, morality is relative and stuff...'"

Well, Hulk's article is an argument for that. You may not agree with it but there it is.

However, if you want my take on the ending - I actually really liked the "morality is relative and stuff..." aspect of it. Also, for me the series is about choice and in the end you are presented with the biggest choice yet with monumental consequences. That's what I liked about it. I'm sorry I can't explain it in a deeper and more meaningful way that satisfies you.

Actually, as I said, Hulk's argument is positing a specific poetic analogy quite abstracted from the philosophical and ethical debate being discussed here (one that actually contradicts the 'monumental consequences' you mentioned in your reading.  His point was that we all end up in the same place no matter what.)  But nevermind...

And again, this was never about 'satisfying me'.  Who cares what I think?  It was you who argued that others had failed to glimpse the deep meaning of the ending - who had not seen Bioware's splendor amidst all the angry haze.

If 'all morality is relative' is really all that we get from this story, then I would argue that the vast majority of players understood the text just fine.  They simply did not enjoy being told that the whole journey was therefore just a hopeless, self-serving, arbitrary fight for survival at any cost.

Where exactly did I argue that "others had failed to glimpse the deep meaning of the ending...".

What I did do was state that they, the endings, make ME think. If somehow you or anyone else took that as a slight against them I am sincerely sorry but I do not know a simpler way to refer to myself than to say "I" or..."me."
 

[thefallen2far]

Olympiclash wrote...

I enjoy the endings and I believe it would be pretty much impossible for Bioware to please even most people, let alone everyone.

I disagree with this. There are endings where the majority of those who experience it love it. to say it's impossible to please everyone is a falicy. If they were attempting to do so, they just flat out, simply, failed. That's only if that was their goal, I'm still not convinced they tried to please audiences. I really think it's as simple as someone having an idea that wasn't thought through and went with it.

They dedicated a lot of time, money and hard work from their lives on those endings and when a very vocal portion of their audience DEMANDED "BETTER"...(let that sink in a bit)...they went back in and gave players more and didn't ask them to pay for it.

I go back to the original metaphore....if you're in a relationship, and they cheat on you, are you really going to allow 10 minutes of letting them enjoy themselves ruin any chance of you trusting them ever again? Some people react calmly and stay in the relationship, while others would be upset about it. If they buy a car to try to make things better, you can appreciate the gesture, but but it doesn't have to effect your opinion of the situation. My opinion is simply that the current writing and development team is just not as talented. As those involved with th first 2. There's nothing notorious or "evil" I liteterally think they're not that good. Simplistic writing themes, abandoning story structure, abandoning established rules of the fiction, melodrama replacing sociopolitical intrigue, dumbed down conflict, abandnment of the theme of perseverence and fighting corruption, shady buisness practices on release and the whole "accept what we say as truth" even though it makes no sense and doesn't show a bit of editorial thought. The EC doesn't change my opinion.

Personally, I just find it quite sad that a property I love so much, and clearly others do as well, is being looked at in such a negative light now because of ten minutes of gameplay. Ten minutes out of HUNDREDS of hours of gameplay is apparently "so bad" that they are willing to let it ruin the entire franchise for them. Is it really that bad?

Yes. It really is. Do you want someone else to break down why? Do you want me to help you understand why the ending was badly developed? Do you want me to help you unerstand the reason people thought it was bad? Or are you just saying "forget those people, they don't matter anyway.... let's all prase how great it was and belittle any critical thought like the writers intended."

I don't believe it is. Is the ending exactly like I had envisioned it would be? Thankfully it is not, as in retrospect that ending would look like something out of a Michael Bay film - lots of explosions and epic action scenes...yet quite shallow. The endings make me think and allow for what is ultimately a philosophical debate among players.

Yeah, so instead of it ending like a Michael Bay, it ended like M Night Shyamalan. And not Sixth Sense or Unbreakable M Night, Lady in the Water and the Happening M Night. Do those bad endings ruin your enjoyment of his movies or do you just give up and say "wow, that was pretty bad". The debte we end up having is why it was bad. I think it was the writers changing from noveists to comic book writers. Some people said it was budget constraints. See? Controversy.

Modifié par thefallen2far, 29 décembre 2012 - 03:14 .

[Olympiclash]

You don't need to explain anything.

I asked a question and then answered it with my opinion. You are stating it as if it being "bad" is fact.

It's not. It's subjective.

[Olympiclash]

Is there someone else I can tag in here? I'm getting pretty tired. lol

Anyone? Dang it...

[drayfish]

Olympiclash wrote...

Where exactly did I argue that "others had failed to glimpse the deep meaning of the ending...".

What I did do was state that they, the endings, make ME think. If somehow you or anyone else took that as a slight against them I am sincerely sorry but I do not know a simpler way to refer to myself than to say "I" or..."me."

Olympiclash wrote...

I actually wrote this for another thread where, upon pressing submit, found the thread locked. I almost cried. lol

I enjoy the endings and I believe it would be pretty much impossible for Bioware to please even most people, let alone everyone. They dedicated a lot of time, money and hard work from their lives on those endings and when a very vocal portion of their audience DEMANDED "BETTER"...(let that sink in a bit)...they went back in and gave players more and didn't ask them to pay for it.

Bioware has reacted to this whole controversy with nothing but class IMO. If I were in their shoes and people started calling for my job and, in some extreme cases, my LIFE, my reaction wouldn't be as polite. Believe it or not, they actually DO care about their audience. That does not mean they have to cave in to every demand. Does a parent not love their child just because they don't buy the kid a toy even though the kid throws a temper-tantrum?

Personally, I just find it quite sad that a property I love so much, and clearly others do as well, is being looked at in such a negative light now because of ten minutes of gameplay. Ten minutes out of HUNDREDS of hours of gameplay is apparently "so bad" that they are willing to let it ruin the entire franchise for them. Is it really that bad? I don't believe it is. Is the ending exactly like I had envisioned it would be? Thankfully it is not, as in retrospect that ending would look like something out of a Michael Bay film - lots of explosions and epic action scenes...yet quite shallow. The endings make me think and allow for what is ultimately a philosophical debate among players.

I actually think that's pretty cool. Just my opinion though.

Modifié par drayfish, 29 décembre 2012 - 03:16 .

[Jagri]

*Tag* I got this... The endings were deep and stuff because the hero dies in the end. Neo Matrix style foo!

[xeNNN]

Olympiclash wrote...

I actually wrote this for another thread where, upon pressing submit, found the thread locked. I almost cried. lol

I enjoy the endings and I believe it would be pretty much impossible for Bioware to please even most people, let alone everyone. They dedicated a lot of time, money and hard work from their lives on those endings and when a very vocal portion of their audience DEMANDED "BETTER"...(let that sink in a bit)...they went back in and gave players more and didn't ask them to pay for it.

Bioware has reacted to this whole controversy with nothing but class IMO. If I were in their shoes and people started calling for my job and, in some extreme cases, my LIFE, my reaction wouldn't be as polite. Believe it or not, they actually DO care about their audience. That does not mean they have to cave in to every demand. Does a parent not love their child just because they don't buy the kid a toy even though the kid throws a temper-tantrum?

Personally, I just find it quite sad that a property I love so much, and clearly others do as well, is being looked at in such a negative light now because of ten minutes of gameplay. Ten minutes out of HUNDREDS of hours of gameplay is apparently "so bad" that they are willing to let it ruin the entire franchise for them. Is it really that bad? I don't believe it is. Is the ending exactly like I had envisioned it would be? Thankfully it is not, as in retrospect that ending would look like something out of a Michael Bay film - lots of explosions and epic action scenes...yet quite shallow. The endings make me think and allow for what is ultimately a philosophical debate among players.

I actually think that's pretty cool. Just my opinion though.

i have two problems with what you said, "bioware acted with class" and "is it really that bad". 


bioware acted with class.....no i really dont think so, they could of fixed this so easily if they had actually listened instead of being like "yeah but i created it so im not changing it........"  considering the gaming industry would be nothing without the fans i think that kind of mentality was quite pathetic, people would say fair enough they created it, sure fine they created it but they essentially screwed over a massive chance for the game to go down in history has one of the greatest of all time. but no they have to claim artistic ingegrity over the ingerity of the story & the game ingeneral.  yes we acted stupidly but so did they. alls they had to do was change it...... any person on this forum could of written a better ending. why? because they arent stupid enough to incoperate a MAIN antagonist at the end point of a trilogy not only is it completely stupid its incompetent. I could go on but yeah....... they handled it horribly and without any class at all. they didnt even come out and recognise the faults. If they had come out and said something about it instead of shoving the artistic ingerity crap down our throats then this forum may be slightly more positive and so would the fans. 

Is it really that bad? you tell me? 3 coloured ending completely ignoring the players choice of paragon or renegade then having synthesis...........all 3 morally objectional no choice other than what colour to pick, main antagonist being introduced, completely removing the "unknowable" part of the reapers, revealing that not only are they "knowable" but quite "stupid" to. we have computers today that wouldnt produced such failed logical deductions as the catalyst and his repear children i mean really.........  

im actually going to stop now its making me angry just taking about such rediculous dribble urgh.

[thefallen2far]

Olympiclash wrote...

You don't need to explain anything.

I asked a question and then answered it with my opinion. You are stating it as if it being "bad" is fact.

It's not. It's subjective.

You stated your opinion it was intelligent, thought provoking and dignified as fact. That is also opinion. I said I thought it was simplistic, unimaginative and embarassing. See? Opinions all. You're glad it wasn't Michael Bay[assuming that's the only way people who didn't like it would be satisfied] and I wih it was less M Night Shyamalan [infering a parrallel where a bad ending can ruin a reputation and explain why there was some negative feedback that could be simplified as "that ending was worse than Lost".]

[Jeffonl1]

There's really no getting around it - the Catalyst just didn't make sense. I mean prevent chaos ("conflict" - or rather genocide) by restoring order through "destruction" (genocide)? Better to have revealed the Catalyst as just a homicidally insane AI.
As long as many people can't understand or at least sympathize with, on a basic level, the Catalysts explanation (and no a long series of rationalizations doesn't cut it), the ending must remain controversial.

Modifié par Jeffonl1, 29 décembre 2012 - 03:29 .

[Jagri]

vivaladricas wrote...

Jagri wrote...

*Tag* I got this... The endings were deep and stuff because the hero dies in the end. Neo Matrix style foo!

Endings are straight trash, you trying to fight!!  Parking lot, after school! 

Parking lot! I will teach you that emo neo matrix endings are the rage now a day bro! Cause like they are deep... And stuff... So deep I can't even talk about it but I can understand it! Ya understand it bro!

[Hurbster]

The endings were 'deep' and had 'hidden meanings' ?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA !

Well they rip off the Matrix, 2001 and ALL the Deus Ex endings - all condensed into 'chose your favorite colour'. Awesome stuff, must have taken all of 10 minutes to think that rubbish up.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Destroy:  Organics and synthetics cannot get along.  So kill all the synthetics and hope this time organics will be able to stay on top.

Control:  The galaxy  cannot survive without some kind of Big Brother watching over them, guiding their destinies.  You can't be trusted to build your own future

Synthesis:  Organics and synthetics can't get along unless you forcibly combine the two.  Choice doesn't matter

All of them to some degree validate the Catalyst's assertions.  the only route which Shepard can take a stand against them leads to 'SO BE IT"  and rocks falling

What does "validate" mean here? A particular organic utilizes a particular  function of the Crucible in a particular situation, yep. I don't see how that proves any general point.

Bioware could have made the Crucible do anything.  I mean literally anything.  It'a s ginormous chunk of space magic.  Drop the Reapers' shields. Screw up their IFFs  . Reformat their hard drives.  Turn them into pinatas full of candy.  Anything.

So what do they do?  Three things that back up the Catalyst'sd statements:

The created always turn against the creators.  So kill them first.

Conflict is inevitable.  So you need godlike Space-cthulhus to make sure everyone plays nice.

Organics and synthetics can never coexist because they are too different.  So we need to forcibly alter every living think in the galaxy against their will so they'll all get along.

Not one option actually says "Let the galaxy build their own future"

[Ishiken]

Mass Effect 3 has upgraded their gameplay immensely compared to Mass Effect 2. I liked the new power system that allowed it to scale into the higher difficulties so if a player wishes to actually play a power-based character then they can do it. Flare is the only exception but I can overlook this flaw, because I can edit the ME3 Coal file to fix the problem. However it seems that the improvement to gameplay came at the cost of storytelling.

The problem with ME3 story goes beyond just the ending. The major "boss" fights with Cerberus are all atrociously done. The Mars Archive fight with Dr. Eva was interesting. If you are able to stop her from charging you with only two shots from a gun, then what was Shepard doing when the robot was busy bashing Kaidan/Ashley's face into the car. Was he too busy panicking to pull a gun and shot the robot? Then there was the fight with Kai Leng in Thessia that broke the basic cardinal rule of games, which is using plot armor to allow a boss to fight the player. The player feels cheated and the fight might as well have been a cutscene. These are two glaring gameplay problems with ME3.

Then there is the ending, which makes absolutely no sense. Let's start with Synthesis. Basically Shepard is violating the basic rights of every single organic being in the galaxy by forcing them to merge with synthetics. In the Extended Cut, Shepard can even ask the Catalyst if Synthesis was done before, and the Catalyst answers that it was tried and organics was not able to accept Synthesis because they were not ready. So what makes this time so different suddenly? The Catalyst never actually addresses why organics would suddenly accept synthesis besides waving aside by stating that this time it was Shepard that made the decision. With the Destroy Option, Shepard has basically called for the genocide of an entire sentient species, who apparently only wanted to be left alone. And with Control, Shepard has basically stated that the Reapers cannot actually be defeated without either forcing singularity on every single living being or forcing genocide on every synthetic life. Also all three choices also kills off Shepard, which is far from giving variety to the player. Shepard never actually defeats the Reapers in the end, because if the Star Brat didn't raise the magical elevator then Shepard would have died in front of the panel. There is no sense of accomplishments at the end of the game. Shepard didn't reach the Catalyst on his own. The Catalyst basically spared Shepard's life and then gave him the three choices.

The way that Bioware handled the Extended Cut was also a slap in the face to all of the fans that adhored the ending. Basically the EC was created to explain the three concepts to the angry fans, who obviously lacked the intellectual capability to understand the deep philosophies of the ending choices. Bioware thinks that as soon as the players download the EC and was enlightened by the knowledge, then some magical lightbulb would go off and they would suddenly see the light. Then with the EC installed, if you shoot the Star Brat, then you instantly get the refusal option and loses the game. This is not classy move.

From a business standpoint, Bioware's reputation with their core fanbase has been damaged and it would be smart for them to actually create a "happy ending" to appease the fans. Having a huge core fanbase means more people would pre-order, which allows the business to budget development and control risk. Also when more people pre-order, it means a more effective marketing campaign. Anyone with a business degree can tell you that it costs 10 times more to get a new customer than to retain a customer. By tarnishing their brand, Bioware has effectively damaged the sales of all of their subsequent products, because everytime a player sees the Bioware logo they would remember the debacle of the ME3 ending. Artistic expression is great, however Bioware is huge company where the main objective should be pleasing the consumer and not the artist.

[AlanC9]

thefallen2far wrote...

I disagree with this. There are endings where the majority of those who experience it love it. to say it's impossible to please everyone is a falicy.

So "pleasing everyone" is just a euphemism that actually means "pleasing the majority"? OK.

If they were attempting to do so, they just flat out, simply, failed. That's only if that was their goal, I'm still not convinced they tried to please audiences. I really think it's as simple as someone having an idea that wasn't thought through and went with it.

My bet would be that they didn't figure the ending they had would displease audiences as much as it ended up doing, but that "pleasing the audience' wasn't something they felt they really needed to focus on as a goal. I guess this isn't too far from your perspective.

[Jere85]

I'm sure its been said before. But class from BW?
Damage control, thats all. Sure it was free, but they all knew how pissed people would get if it wouldn't be free. Even when in my opinion the endings still suck post EC, i am grateful for them trying.
I'm not grateful for the fact BW seemed to think the original endings were any good.

[ld1449]

Olympiclash wrote...

drayfish wrote...

And so my question remains: what did you see in it?  

That wasn't your question. Go back and check out your post. You didn't ask for my personal opinion, you said...

"I literally have still never heard an argument for why these endings are deep that extends beyond: 'Hey, morality is relative and stuff...'"

Well, Hulk's article is an argument for that. You may not agree with it but there it is.

However, if you want my take on the ending - I actually really liked the "morality is relative and stuff..." aspect of it. Also, for me the series is about choice and in the end you are presented with the biggest choice yet with monumental consequences. That's what I liked about it. I'm sorry I can't explain it in a deeper and more meaningful way that satisfies you.

I'm sorry am I reading this right? The hulk's article is a defense???

The Hulk merely romantisized the symbolism in the game for the mere sake of it having symbolism at all. Completely forgetting/dismissing that symbolism is the most subjective aspect of Literacy.

Someone may see Irony, another person may just see a bird on a ladder.

Symbolism is an abstract concept by its very nature, it cannot carry a story completely on its shoulders without the "strength"/"Concrete nature" that is PLOT. To do so would be to make a building without columns, a boat without a frame.

The Hulk only saw beautiful symbolism (which only he perceived because again symbolism is purely subjective.) and decided that it was magnificent and engaging, which given his ignorance it probably was every bit so.

Three days later he apologised for the article and flat out admitted that he'd never played ME1, never played ME2 and hadn't played Deus Ex either. Granting the audience the right in their arguments against his article because of what they relayed to him after he posted the first glowing review. He'd only been looking at part of the picture, when he saw the whole song and dance that's when he realized that he'd been wrong.

So how can an article that the author himself has said is erroneous going to be used as a defense of these endings???