164 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

chemiclord wrote...

iakus wrote...

Not to mention that ever since ME2 came out, people have been surgically taking out specific squadmates specifically to see what kind of effects it would have on ME3.  To find out how much the story changes

Sadly, the answer to that, barring a couple of exceptions is "not much"

Eh, ask yourself how much the story in ME2 changes based on the choices you make in ME1.

I think you'll find the same answer.

It's a limitation of CRPGs and the fact they cannot emulate a tabletop DM no matter how much illusionary choice you slap onto it.

Actually, you're right.  After seeig how much ME1 was sidelined for ME2, I personally I didn't expect much to come of the ME2 squad.

And I was still suprised at how marginalized some of them were.

And while yes, a cRPG can't compare to the variety a tabletop game can provide, good RPGs can maintain a credible illusion.  DAO endings  are an excellent example of that.  ME3 endings are a terrible one.

Modifié par iakus, 14 janvier 2013 - 05:30 .

[CronoDragoon]

fiendishchicken wrote...

Then they would have changed the ending like most people wanted. 

Incorrect. Just because they didn't scrap the ending doesn't mean they didn't change and add content based solely on fan response. The content in the EC was due to fan feedback, and plugging your ears and singing loudly won't change that.

[DirtyPhoenix]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Most recently, I enjoyed both Portal games... and REALLY liked Spec Ops.  The latter one really twisted my brain in loops, and showed a very grim consequence to the glorification of war that our society (and perhaps the human condition) embraces.

Haven't played Spec Ops. Thanks for the recommendation.

Spec Ops The Line is brilliant, I'd second chemiclord. It portrays war with all its ugly brutalities that you'd never see in other videogames. The main character's progression too, is amazing. And the ending is mind-raping (in a good way).

If yoiu're into the "grim and realistic" camp, I'd also suggest Assassins Creed III. Disregarding the modern day mumbo jumbo, the ancestral story is quite solid. And the final fate of Connor is quite tragic. His final words hit me in the guts. (again, in a good way )

[fiendishchicken]

CronoDragoon wrote...

fiendishchicken wrote...

Then they would have changed the ending like most people wanted. 

Incorrect. Just because they didn't scrap the ending doesn't mean they didn't change and add content based solely on fan response. The content in the EC was due to fan feedback, and plugging your ears and singing loudly won't change that.

I won't deny that it was. But it was more the manner in which it was delivered. Issues aside with the choices of where they decided to take the story, they narratively ****ed up on an epic level. There are plotholes galore. They took everything in the established lore and disregarded it to appease Casey Hudson's thoughtfullness. And when people called them out on the narrative mistakes, they jumped behind the artistic vision banner and tried to make the whole thing seem like it was the fans fault for not getting their vision instead of biting the bullet and apologizing for what can only be described as bad writing. The EC, instead of taking the opportunity to truly rectify the narrative flaws and truly address the concerns, only does the job of trying to give more exposition to the bad writing. Now the EC was mainly written with Patrick Weekes at the head. I have a lot of respect for Mr. Weekes. He did the best he could with the EC, while still being mandated to keep the endings in line with the vision of Hudson and Walters. He understood the core issue was that the fans wanted an ending that fit with the themes of the game, and the established narrative. However, Mr. Hudson's vision of the ending is literally incompatible with the prior established lore of the franchise, and Mr. Weekes was for the most part forced to write non-sense to rectify and clarify the original non-sense. 

[CronoDragoon]

Okay, I can respect that view, Chicken.

[Necrotron]

I sent a marvelous thank you to the author of this article.

While we will never see an ending befitting the wonderful story that is Mass Effect, at least, hopefully, a few more people will understand the sadness that many of us experienced.

[Necrotron]

Wow, I love this article. It articulates nearly everything about the ending that just doesn't sit right, makes no sense, or is just downright depressing (a tone which seems to be the goal of the ending in both the original and the extended cut). And it's concise!

I know it's too late to change anything. I know Bioware doesn't need to be punished for months and months on end for doing a 'bad job'. But golly, I hope at least 'someone' will finally understand how fans felt during those final moments of many of ours favorite video game series of all time. To want to never play again a series so beloved because it's so dark and depressing at the end is just...disappointing. Of course not everyone feels the same, but a lot of us do, and that's what this article so clearly articulates.

Thank you for posting this. Cheers.

[AlanC9]

CronoDragoon wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
I'm not sure I'd classify the evac scene as a way to make the endings happier -- if the squadmates had been left on Earth they'd have been just fine, like Miranda et al. It's mostly a contrivance so everyone shows up at the memorial scene.

Well, not exactly. The evac scene is there to explain the contrivance of your squad showing up on the Normandy despite having presumably been blasted to hell at the beam. So I suppose it isn't the evac scene per se but more your squad being okay on the Normandy after that beam scene that is the happy contrivance.

The way I see it, there are easier ways to do the evac if showing that the squadmates survived is the only goal. For instance, Shepard boards beam, beam shuts off, we see the injured squadmates being helped away by surviving soldiers. You don't need VO work, or really much of anything squadmate-specific. Instead, we get Shepard saying individualized goodbyes, animations of squadmates being killed in low EMS,  and so forth.

That's why I think that getting the squadmates to the Normandy/memorial/jungle planet was the priority for the scene.

[VLX11387]

fiendishchicken wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

fiendishchicken wrote...

Then they would have changed the ending like most people wanted. 

Incorrect. Just because they didn't scrap the ending doesn't mean they didn't change and add content based solely on fan response. The content in the EC was due to fan feedback, and plugging your ears and singing loudly won't change that.

I won't deny that it was. But it was more the manner in which it was delivered. Issues aside with the choices of where they decided to take the story, they narratively ****ed up on an epic level. There are plotholes galore. They took everything in the established lore and disregarded it to appease Casey Hudson's thoughtfullness. And when people called them out on the narrative mistakes, they jumped behind the artistic vision banner and tried to make the whole thing seem like it was the fans fault for not getting their vision instead of biting the bullet and apologizing for what can only be described as bad writing. The EC, instead of taking the opportunity to truly rectify the narrative flaws and truly address the concerns, only does the job of trying to give more exposition to the bad writing. Now the EC was mainly written with Patrick Weekes at the head. I have a lot of respect for Mr. Weekes. He did the best he could with the EC, while still being mandated to keep the endings in line with the vision of Hudson and Walters. He understood the core issue was that the fans wanted an ending that fit with the themes of the game, and the established narrative. However, Mr. Hudson's vision of the ending is literally incompatible with the prior established lore of the franchise, and Mr. Weekes was for the most part forced to write non-sense to rectify and clarify the original non-sense. 

^ This. Fanboys can deny it all they want and say how artsy the ending is or "how it felt right" but the core issue is still there. It's a literary and logical mess. Hell I even got told that I'm not connecting the dots but seriously, connecting dots and filling plot holes are completely different things. Sometimes I just want to tell them, "Sorry I'm just not stupid or oblivious enough to sit through and enjoy the ending. I'm glad you have some pretty rose tinted glasses though..." 

Staying on topic though, this is a beautifully written and concise overview of my own, and I'm pretty sure many other's, grievances with the ending of the game. I can only hope that from reading that article, pro-enders can begin to understand and meet us halfway at the very least. The forums on BSN has gone to sh*t and it's high time something good can come from it. This is one of them. I will personally thank the author as well. 

Modifié par VLX11387, 14 janvier 2013 - 09:11 .

[XXIceColdXX]

Removed Post.

Modifié par XXIceColdXX, 14 janvier 2013 - 09:13 .

[BSpud]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

War is hell, war is mass genocide, war is both victory and loss plus war is sacrifice. Galactic war is all these things and more. If you expected to come out hills alive with sound of music then I am glad you were shown the error of your ways.

Man, you are a bad ass. Laying down harsh truths, knocking down straw men... Look at you go! 

[Dean_the_Young]

chemiclord wrote...

iakus wrote...

Not to mention that ever since ME2 came out, people have been surgically taking out specific squadmates specifically to see what kind of effects it would have on ME3.  To find out how much the story changes

Sadly, the answer to that, barring a couple of exceptions is "not much"

Eh, ask yourself how much the story in ME2 changes based on the choices you make in ME1.

I think you'll find the same answer.

It's a limitation of CRPGs and the fact they cannot emulate a tabletop DM no matter how much illusionary choice you slap onto it.

Plot progression doesn't change, but you can get some pretty cool tone shifts and new character development when certain characters are gone: no Tali means you get a lot more involvement with the Quarian Admirals, while no Legion means the Geth are a lot less sympathetic in peace or compromise, and definitely about trusting you, which actually raises doubts over siding with them.

But by far my favorite change in tone is Grissom Academy with Jack: it goes from 'watch Jack be an adored badass with maternal instincts' to a story about a group but woefully unprepared young adults rising to the challenges of war. It completely switches from being a mission about Jack to the students.

[ZeCollectorDestroya]

BeefheartSpud wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

War is hell, war is mass genocide, war is both victory and loss plus war is sacrifice. Galactic war is all these things and more. If you expected to come out hills alive with sound of music then I am glad you were shown the error of your ways.

Man, you are a bad ass. Laying down harsh truths, knocking down straw men... Look at you go! 

He has a point, however the problem isn't that Shepard is dead, it's the way his death is handled. 

[Someone With Mass]

ZeCollectorDestroya wrote...
He has a point, however the problem isn't that Shepard is dead, it's the way his death is handled. 

Especially with all the "after this is done, you and me are going to do this and that" talk, which might have made some people actually want that to happen, since it sounds nice, only to get a metaphorical slap in the face.

If I want to know about the harsh truths of war, I'll watch some of the hundreds of documentaries and movies about the real wars that have occurred in the real world.

I have already seen and learned about all that sad crap Mass Effect 3 is trying to offer me and it's so mindless and vapid (hi, bad Matrix Revolution ripoff) to the point where it really doesn't warrant a shift in the theme and tone.

[ZeCollectorDestroya]

You are indeed correct. ME3 isn't about realism. And MOST of the sad empathetic crap doesn't work. Maybe it worked with TWD, but ME3 pulls it off badly.

[Outsider edge]

Someone With Mass wrote...

ZeCollectorDestroya wrote...
He has a point, however the problem isn't that Shepard is dead, it's the way his death is handled. 

Especially with all the "after this is done, you and me are going to do this and that" talk, which might have made some people actually want that to happen, since it sounds nice, only to get a metaphorical slap in the face.

If I want to know about the harsh truths of war, I'll watch some of the hundreds of documentaries and movies about the real wars that have occurred in the real world.

I have already seen and learned about all that sad crap Mass Effect 3 is trying to offer me and it's so mindless and vapid (hi, bad Matrix Revolution ripoff) to the point where it really doesn't warrant a shift in the theme and tone.

Well it actually warrants the question what Bioware was going for with the Mass Effect trilogy? Was it aimed at Bladerunner-esque type sci-fi or more themed at space opera?

If it was the former then the endings kinda fit thematically (not talking about execution) but the prior entries were off, if it was the latter the endings don't fit thematically but the earlier entries are thematically correct.

Perhaps that is the biggest issue with the Mass Effect trilogy as it stands it tries too thematically fit in with different sci-fi types who by their origin are almost incompatible. Hence the different entries too the trilogy feel more like standalone games then one coherent trilogy of games. With the bladerunner-esque ME3 being the odd one out.

[Someone With Mass]

Outsider edge wrote...

Well it actually warrants the question what Bioware was going for with the Mass Effect trilogy? Was it aimed at Bladerunner-esque type sci-fi or more themed at space opera?

If it was the former then the endings kinda fit thematically (not talking about execution) but the prior entries were off, if it was the latter the endings don't fit thematically but the earlier entries are thematically correct.

Perhaps that is the biggest issue with the Mass Effect trilogy as it stands it tries too thematically fit in with different sci-fi types who by their origin are almost incompatible. Hence the different entries too the trilogy feel more like standalone games then one coherent trilogy of games. With the bladerunner-esque ME3 being the odd one out.

That's certainly what it feels like. 

As if Mass Effect is trying to please everyone and ends up pleasing almost no-one.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Outsider edge wrote...

Well it actually warrants the question what Bioware was going for with the Mass Effect trilogy? Was it aimed at Bladerunner-esque type sci-fi or more themed at space opera?

If it was the former then the endings kinda fit thematically (not talking about execution) but the prior entries were off, if it was the latter the endings don't fit thematically but the earlier entries are thematically correct.

Perhaps that is the biggest issue with the Mass Effect trilogy as it stands it tries too thematically fit in with different sci-fi types who by their origin are almost incompatible. Hence the different entries too the trilogy feel more like standalone games then one coherent trilogy of games. With the bladerunner-esque ME3 being the odd one out.

That's certainly what it feels like. 

As if Mass Effect is trying to please everyone and ends up pleasing almost no-one.

Mass Effect always felt (even in ME3 where the stakes are more serious) like it belonged in the heroic sci-fi department akin to Star Wars or Star Trek. Which is another reason for why the endings feel so jarringly out of place IMO.

[Raging_Pulse]

Someone With Mass wrote...


If I want to know about the harsh truths of war, I'll watch some of the hundreds of documentaries and movies about the real wars that have occurred in the real world.

Indeed.

Fall of Earth, destruction of Thessia, all the colonies, Batarians being pretty much wiped out from the face of existence, Thane, Mordin, Legion,... 

War, death, destruction, suffering and sacrifices are already present in the game in abundance without Starkid's madness to rub more salt on the wound.

Modifié par Domecoming, 14 janvier 2013 - 12:25 .

[Seboist]

Outsider edge wrote...

Well it actually warrants the question what Bioware was going for with the Mass Effect trilogy? Was it aimed at Bladerunner-esque type sci-fi or more themed at space opera?

It was originally a homage to 80s sci-fi with the first one. The sequels however, are an unintentional homage to Ed Wood level schlock with elements of comic book silliness added in.

[Codename_Code]

Let this nightmare end, Shepard, wake up.

[Daniel_N7]

One of the things that I still can't comprehend, with the original endings or with the EC, is how or why the Catalyst's problem becomes Shepard's problem.

The entire idea that "the created will always rebel against the creators" is the Catalyst's view of evolution, based on his experience and premises. He believes that if you "Destroy" the Reapers, the universe will re-enter a similar cycle that will conduct to the revolt of synthetics against organics, simply postponing the inevitable.

But this is not a fact. This is the Catalyst's belief. There is not one single inevitable path to evolution. A new branch of life may lead to completely different outcomes. In a way, through Shepard's actions, a different path was already opening up with a possibility of peace between organics and synthetics.

Nothing is inevitable. And Shepard has proven that before during the trilogy.

So why should he accept the inevitability of the scenario that is being presented to him by the Catalyst. Why doesn't the game allows you to "refuse" the Catalyst's logic - as a successful resolution of the game?

From a storytelling perspective it denies, in my understanding, the very essence of Shepard's journey. The alternative is that I failed to completely understand Shepard for the duration of the entire trilogy. I failed to understand "the journey" or its motivations.

[RocketManSR2]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

Hope?

What hope was their for the Rachni when you drowned them in acid?

What hope was there for the Krogans when Eve died and you sabotaged the cure?

Which would be a good retort if this happened in every playthrough and there in fact wasn't any room for hope.
Excpet that's not the case.
The article never states that the way the author played was the only way it could be played, it just shows how a certain play style is utterly undermined in the last ten mintues.
This was the case for the author and myself as well.

My main is a full paragon. I chose destroy and just felt hollow afterward. The Catalyst had lost it's mind and someone could finally make them answer for their crimes. I passed judgement on behalf of every organic they ever killed. The Reapers were finally gone, but my paragon Shepard felt like s*** and so did I. Thanks, BioWare.

Modifié par RocketManSR2, 14 janvier 2013 - 02:07 .

[RocketManSR2]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Renmiri1 wrote...

Fat chance! If they were open to any imput, even constructive criticism they would have not have given us the middlefinger on EC.

Every single thing in the EC was because of fan feedback.

Yea, they read the feedback and did the opposite.

[GimmeDaGun]

Well, as one of the "fellow devoted ME fans" I respectfully disagree with the article, though I see where the guy and his opinion are coming from.