1258 réponses à ce sujet

[Reorte]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

The ending is pretty happy already. You can destroy the Reapers and survive, and with the EC, they retconned the "galactic dark age" scenario. Not to mention the Synthesis ending, which apparently creates some kind of wacky utopia where people and husks can be friends.

The problem with the ending isn't that it's not happy enough; just that it's really bad.

Well yes but what happiness there is is rather impersonal too. If we had some personal happiness (beyond merely implied at best with high EMS Destroy) for Shepard, tempered with not glossing over the hideous losses to the galaxy I'd be OK with the tone. All the rational issues would remain of course but it would be easier to ignore them.

[78stonewobble]

Kulbelbolka wrote...

 They can't make happy ending because they don't want to create precedent when customers rage can bring creators of mass product to make critical changes.
Also there is such thing as artistic integrity (yeah, yeah, I know). Can you imagine that some book author would change the ending of a book because of fans butthurt? Yeah, there were some cases, but it's not standart procedure. And it should never be. There should be border between art and fan fiction.

But... There is still this last single player DLC coming out soon, maybe it will bring peace for some fans.

But it's not a book?

It's a videogame, not on rails, but with choice, or atleast the appearence of choice.

Which means that the story, as it plays out on my screen, is allready the combined efforts of the story writer, the game developer and me.

Putting the line for artistic integrity at the ending is just as arbitrary as putting it between picking eye colour but not nose shape in character creaton.

You're also implying in your analogue that the book author has put out a nigh perfect book and the it is, somehow a given, that any disagreement must be the mistake on the side of the readers (the butthurt fans).

Maybe the truth is a little more mixed. That everyone can make mistakes. Sometimes it's the first and sometimes it's the last.

There is also the point of whether a person is making the book or game for themselves, some people, alot of people, most people or everyone.

PS: Personally If I were to make a book or a game the point of it would be to entertain as many people as possible, unless I had a specific story that I felt needed to be told. In which case the point of it would be to satisfy my own need to tell that story.

Modifié par 78stonewobble, 19 janvier 2013 - 05:13 .

[Motherlander]

Kulbelbolka wrote...

 Also there is such thing as artistic integrity (yeah, yeah, I know). Can you imagine that some book author would change the ending of a book because of fans butthurt? Yeah, there were some cases, but it's not standart procedure. And it should never be. There should be border between art and fan fiction.

But... There is still this last single player DLC coming out soon, maybe it will bring peace for some fans.

I don't buy the artistic integrity argument for a commercial organisation for which the only good art is the one that pleases your customers.

the artistic integrity statement was propaganda statement designed to defend poor execution. A point proved by the fact that they changed the ending in the EC to please their customers.

[Reorte]

78stonewobble wrote...

PS: Personally If I were to make a book or a game the point of it would be to entertain as many people as possible, unless I had a specific story that I felt needed to be told. In which case the point of it would be to satisfy my own need to tell that story.

With a game it's almost certainly got to be the former since they aren't cheap to make (there are some indie games that are the exception to this rule of course). Although "as many people as possible" isn't 100% true there I think, otherwise every game should aim for the broadest appeal which, although this sounds rather snobby and elitist, will shut out intelligence in favour of action and not having to think about it too much. This is sadly reflected a little in Mass Effect - I've heard a few complaints about the Tower of Hanoi puzzle in ME1 and that wasn't exactly difficuly but probably did require the most thinking in the trilogy, of a logical sort; the most agonizing decision in it for me was which choice for the Heretics in ME2. The Heretic decision was probably the point that I really went "Wow", trying to wrap my head around about what it would mean for a shared conciousness that's pretty much rewriting itself all the time anyway.

[Reorte]

Motherlander wrote...

I don't buy the artistic integrity argument for a commercial organisation for which the only good art is the one that pleases your customers.

the artistic integrity statement was propaganda statement designed to defend poor execution. A point proved by the fact that they changed the ending in the EC to please their customers.

Although I know where you're coming from by that argument EA should stick all their resources into their very well-selling sports games. Unfortunately Mass Effect is going to remain a relative minority interest.

Modifié par Reorte, 19 janvier 2013 - 05:20 .

[78stonewobble]

Reorte wrote...

78stonewobble wrote...

PS: Personally If I were to make a book or a game the point of it would be to entertain as many people as possible, unless I had a specific story that I felt needed to be told. In which case the point of it would be to satisfy my own need to tell that story.

With a game it's almost certainly got to be the former since they aren't cheap to make (there are some indie games that are the exception to this rule of course). Although "as many people as possible" isn't 100% true there I think, otherwise every game should aim for the broadest appeal which, although this sounds rather snobby and elitist, will shut out intelligence in favour of action and not having to think about it too much. This is sadly reflected a little in Mass Effect - I've heard a few complaints about the Tower of Hanoi puzzle in ME1 and that wasn't exactly difficuly but probably did require the most thinking in the trilogy, of a logical sort; the most agonizing decision in it for me was which choice for the Heretics in ME2. The Heretic decision was probably the point that I really went "Wow", trying to wrap my head around about what it would mean for a shared conciousness that's pretty much rewriting itself all the time anyway.

Well it will obviously allways be a trade off. You can't satisfy everyone. On the other hand you wouldn't want your precious to be the lowest common denominator. Or something allmost everyone thinks is... just ok.

Personally I think that "what the most people consider good" is sortof a sweet spot.

Modifié par 78stonewobble, 19 janvier 2013 - 05:28 .

[Motherlander]

Reorte wrote...


Although I know where you're coming from by that argument EA should stick all their resources into their very well-selling sports games. Unfortunately Mass Effect is going to remain a relative minority interest.

One could argue that your final point has indeed been proved by ME's lacklustre ending.

Modifié par Motherlander, 19 janvier 2013 - 05:41 .

[78stonewobble]

Reorte wrote...

Motherlander wrote...

I don't buy the artistic integrity argument for a commercial organisation for which the only good art is the one that pleases your customers.

the artistic integrity statement was propaganda statement designed to defend poor execution. A point proved by the fact that they changed the ending in the EC to please their customers.

Although I know where you're coming from by that argument EA should stick all their resources into their very well-selling sports games. Unfortunately Mass Effect is going to remain a relative minority interest.

Not really. The sports games market can only absorb so and so many products. At some point it doesn't pay off to put more development ressources towards products to only that market and thus you have to branch out to other markets.

I don't know what to call the market of mass effect gamers or how big it is. It might not be wow sized profits, but I think there is potential for decent profits and I don't think theres anything wrong with that (but I'm not the one speaking to stockholders).

Modifié par 78stonewobble, 19 janvier 2013 - 05:50 .

[Reorte]

magnetite wrote...

Doesn't fit the theme of the series. Why does every game, story have to have a cliche Hollywood kind of ending anyways? (eg. happy ending, big action sequence at the end (Priority Earth rewrite), guy rides off into the sunset with LI or has babies and such, which several fan fiction was pointing to).

Glad Bioware tried to do something a little different. People are afraid of change.

On the contrary people aren't afraid of change, they just don't like different purely for the sake of it and value quality first. Different and quality is great but merely being different doesn't let you off the hook at all if the quality is lacking. In any case what we got was about a million light years from the theme of the series.

Besides, as explained above there's nothing particularly different or innovative about ME3's ending anyway and, being a medium where there's no need to be constrained to one outcome a good spread of plausible outcomes should all be possible.

Modifié par Reorte, 19 janvier 2013 - 06:04 .

[AnubisOnly]

magnetite wrote...

Doesn't fit the theme of the series. Why does every game, story have to have a cliche Hollywood kind of ending anyways? (eg. happy ending, big action sequence at the end (Priority Earth rewrite), guy rides off into the sunset with LI or has babies and such, which several fan fiction was pointing to).

Glad Bioware tried to do something a little different. People are afraid of change.

Okay, but they could give people a choice... This is a RPG game right?

[MinatheBrat]

capn233 wrote...

There is no good answer to this.

They wanted Shepard to be dead so that the would have something of a clean slate for ME4, and not have to answer "why no Shepard?"

I think it would have been easier to answer "why no Shepard?" than "why you kill my Shepard?"

[Sam Anders]

25 endings my balls.

[AB Souldier]

Reorte wrote...

magnetite wrote...

Doesn't fit the theme of the series. Why does every game, story have to have a cliche Hollywood kind of ending anyways? (eg. happy ending, big action sequence at the end (Priority Earth rewrite), guy rides off into the sunset with LI or has babies and such, which several fan fiction was pointing to).

Glad Bioware tried to do something a little different. People are afraid of change.

On the contrary people aren't afraid of change, they just don't like different purely for the sake of it and value quality first. Different and quality is great but merely being different doesn't let you off the hook at all if the quality is lacking. In any case what we got was about a million light years from the theme of the series.

Besides, as explained above there's nothing particularly different or innovative about ME3's ending anyway and, being a medium where there's no need to be constrained to one outcome a good spread of plausible outcomes should all be possible.

It is not about having a hollywood ending, It is about ending ME3, the last ME of the trilogy, in an ending that ill satisfy everyone (in game)

[MegaSovereign]

magnetite wrote...

Lucas1987Dion wrote...
Okay, but they could give people a choice... This is a RPG game right?

You had literally 25 different endings  based off of certain decisions and such. If people were expecting them to take the thousands of different choices into account as well accross the trilogy, that's asking a bit much. This game would probably cost $300 if it did have that many endings.

There were only 7 variations based on EMS. But you get some permutations in the epilogue since it showcases outcomes of previous decisions.

Still, not 25 endings.

[78stonewobble]

magnetite wrote...

Lucas1987Dion wrote...
Okay, but they could give people a choice... This is a RPG game right?

You had literally 25 different endings  based off of certain decisions and such. If people were expecting them to take the thousands of different choices into account as well accross the trilogy, that's asking a bit much. This game would probably cost $300 if it did have that many endings.

Thats like saying we have 254 colours for you to pick from for your walls. All shades of gray.

Atleast imho all these endings felt so similar that it felt like less choice.

Thats why they needed more emotional range in the endings. Atleast that wasn't there for me.

[MegaSovereign]

magnetite wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...
There were only 7 variations based on EMS. But you get some permutations in the epilogue since it showcases outcomes of previous decisions.

Still, not 25 endings.

So, you wanted to see how every single character ended up?

I never said that. I'm merely correcting your numbers.

I did like the EC epilogue though.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 19 janvier 2013 - 06:23 .

[Kulbelbolka]

magnetite wrote...

Doesn't fit the theme of the series. Why does every game, story have to have a cliche Hollywood kind of ending anyways? (eg. happy ending, big action sequence at the end (Priority Earth rewrite), guy rides off into the sunset with LI or has babies and such, which several fan fiction was pointing to).

Glad Bioware tried to do something a little different. People are afraid of change.

ME3 endings are cliche too. Protagonist dying at the end for the sake of the whole World - it's even older than standard hollywood-like happy endings.

Nobody cares about uniqueness or originality, everyone wants the endings to be natural, logical and consistent, tight to all your previous experience in game's universe. Endings of ME3 brokes some established rules (like independence of every Reaper), provide us with literally Deus Ex Machina (it looks like some joke from one of the writers) aka Catalyst and tells us that main theme of the whole series was «Organics vs. Synthetics», which was always secondary storyline that ends with great climax on Rannoch by player's choice.

Also no way that beta-testers would greenlight this endings. Focus-groups exists for modelling possible reaction of consumers to the product. In this case it should notify Bioware that this ending can crack fanbase to several parts. I don't think the whole focus-group said «Yeah, this is good ending for the trilogy». Only possible explanation - there was no focus-group, decision of making this endings was made at the last moment on the high management level. As one of the writers said shortly after release.[/i]

[78stonewobble]

magnetite wrote...

Doesn't fit the theme of the series. Why does every game, story have to have a cliche Hollywood kind of ending anyways? (eg. happy ending, big action sequence at the end (Priority Earth rewrite), guy rides off into the sunset with LI or has babies and such, which several fan fiction was pointing to).

Glad Bioware tried to do something a little different. People are afraid of change.

It's just as cliched with dark and edgy. It's worn out pop.

Unless it's a good quality ending. Then it doesn't matter whether it's happy or sad, then it's still good. They IMHO couldn't pull that off.

Atleast with a happy ending, you don't need a brilliant mindblowing ending because most people will still walk away on a somewhat happy note.

Note:

I thought that in me1 Sovereign was defeated by the, allready there, citadel fleets and human reinforcements. Not all fleets everywhere. But I might be mistaken.

Nevertheless, it was also obvious to me that we could really defeat the repears conventionally and that plot device of sorts was needed to enable "winning".

However if people we're truely going for "realism". As so many say. Then they too would be opposed to even being able to win via the catalyst.

Modifié par 78stonewobble, 19 janvier 2013 - 06:35 .

[macrocarl]

I thought it was a bitter sweet ending and to tell you the truth, everyone has a different idea of what 'happy' is. My main Shep destroyed the Reapers and lived. Not too shabby if you ask me.

[macrocarl]

magnetite wrote...

Kulbelbolka wrote...
ME3 endings are cliche too. Protagonist dying at the end for the sake of the whole World - it's even older than standard hollywood-like happy endings.

Nobody cares about uniqueness or originality, everyone wants the endings to be natural, logical and consistent, tight to all your previous experience in game's universe. Endings of ME3 brokes some established rules (like independence of every Reaper), provide us with literally Deus Ex Machina (it looks like some joke from one of the writers) aka Catalyst and tells us that main theme of the whole series was «Organics vs. Synthetics», which was always secondary storyline that ends with great climax on Rannoch by player's choice.

A Dues Ex Machina is actually a plot device that bails someone out of an impossible situation. That would be the Crucible. They did say that right from the first game that it took the entire Alliance fleet, Asari, and some Turian ships to defeat Sovereign. That was one Reaper. So that was kind of a hint that the Reapers could not be defeated using good old fashioned firepower, seeing as they are millions of years more advanced than us.

It would be similar to a guy with a catapult and a sword trying to take out a guy with a nuclear weapon (and that is only 1000 years more advanced)

As for the Starchild, he doesn't invalidate the lore or anything. If people actually listened to what he said, he explains who's side he's on, and what his plan is. He's lying to you.

Not to be too picky but a Deus Ex is actually a plot device to bail the author out of an impossible situation that ran out of control.
And you got to remember there a re multiple convos where different characters in the know, said they straight up didn't know what would happen. So surprise! It's Starkid! Admittedly it was a bit of a whammy, but if everyone kept saying that it was unknowable then it ended up being something we could have guessed (like a giant gun) then wouldn't that have been kind of silly? They happened to clear that up even more with the Levy DLC so at this point you can only use the DEM in the most literal sense meaning Starkid was in fact a godly ghost in a machine:P