3DandBeyond wrote...
I think your post is rather condescending, stating that people are confused as if they don't understand something you know to be true. It's not straightforward-you need to actually go back and review what the catalyst (not the most credible thing in the game) says will happen and then view what does happen, and then watch the incredibly juvenile epilog to it, that does not adequately show the consequences of such a thing. It makes not good GD sense at all.
No the problem isn't that BW tried to do something different at all. The problem is that BW said they would do one thing and would not do some things at the end of the game and then that was all false. They said this all repeatedly and none of it was true. And that something different you think they did-well, it would be different if they had not stolen it from other games and IPs. It was unoriginal, uninspired, and lacked coherence and cohesion with the rest of ME, because it was taken from other sources and not adequately changed to fit this one.
They did not respect video gamers and then try to appeal to them on that level. This clearly shows they didn't even think people would remember Deus ex or Babylon 5 and so on. What it shows is they didn't know how to end the thing and keep the promises they made AND make it fit with their story.
Nice of you to try and see things only from your own narrow point of view and then insult by inference here. A lot of extremely thoughty people have taken issue with this (I don't mean me), as well as real authors, literary critics, and not for pay review sites. And because BW decided to make people think it was intellectual and all, some are not seeing that the emperor has no clothes. It's pseudo-intellectualism. And it wasn't even that well done.
Ok I did not understand your post the first time but I think I get it now.
Ok, if I am right and there is something to "get", then sure, making a video game which is built around having a personal journey end this way is, at the very least, a questionable GD choice. Especially as a lot of players would probably choose differently now, and that means their first run through, which is imo always the most important, would be tainted a little by that, as thay'd feel Shepard (or themselves) had made the wrong choice.
Maybe they did it for replay value? I don't know.
Still, in the context of this discussion, I don't see how this makes the ending anti-diversity. Destroy does reject the reasoning of the Child. Moreover, Synthesis is really the only ending of 4 that promotes an anti-diversity message.
The thing is, the game asks you to choose. It does not automatically end with Synthesis and show everyone dancing in merry circles singing "no more diversity!!" It's up to you to decide how to end this videogame. Each ending has an "unfortunate implication" [clearly a euphamism if there ever was one] but perhaps some feel that in the ME universe, the Synthesis option is the best way to end the Reaper war and by extension the overall galactic conflicts.
Personally I feel that it's repellant and that it completely contradicts the story's narrative themes. But then, in my opinion, it's
supposed to. That's really where we differ, but let's not have a mini conversation about that again here.
About pseudo-intellectualism, well no, in my opinion it was just an ending with a choice that really meant something, asking you what you felt about the galaxy and about the games' themes. And uninspired, lacked coherence etc. ... you think so, I think quite the opposite. It tied together all the themes, asking you what you thought about TIM, about Saren, about the Collectors and the Genophage, about the themes of using tech you don't understand, valuing the lives of synthetic beings, etc. etc. It asks you to weigh these up and make a choice based on how you feel about these issues.
Making these choices was supposed to be one of the key things about Mass Effect - not telling you to choose, but asking what do you think? And while e.g. saving or condemning the Rachni was one such choice, I imagine that 95% of players either chose to save them, or figured that saving them was supposed to be the 'right' choice. Here was a choice where it was not made so simplistic.
In other words, it's not trying to be smug or cleverer than the player, it's asking the player: what would you do? And sure people didn't like that choice as an ending, but that doesn't make the ending "anti-diversity". Which is why I'm saying that if you (not you personally) think the ending is anti-diversity, you didn't get it.
jstme wrote...
Hmm. That could be the case if other games that tried to do something different,be clever and philosophical few years prior to ME3 - oh,like Deus Ex,you know - were causing the same outcry. Probably i did not notice it making national news then.
Because the reason for positive - or shall we say much much much much less negative? - reaction to those other games simply being ending that actually fit rest of the game as far as narrative and thematics where envolved despite raising serious questions and forcing to make serious chocies - that just can't be true.
After all ,clever and philosophical finale cut and pasted from a different story just for sake of appearing clever and phislosophical could never fail. Its audience fault!
Well the alleged Weekes rant does suggest that it tried to be too clever. Imo they maybe made the mistake of thinking that the ending would initially confuse, but after people got together and statrted talking about it, they'd start to piece it together and really like it. Evidently, that did not happen, so if that was their goal, then they failed (to some extent - bear in mind that loads of players really liked the trilogy and the ending, even if BSN wants to believe otherwise).
But I still maintain that it does fit the rest of the game. It's asking you to weigh up all the things you've thought about over the course of 3 games without having an easy "pick this Paragon option!" answer. It fits the themes, the mood, and the choice-based gameplay of the whole trilogy. The only way it doesn't 'fit' with ME1-2 is that they had more blatantly uplifting endings, while ME3 has more a tainted message of hope against the odds. But with huge numbers dying in ME1 finale and even dear squadmates dying in ME2, the game always had dark and sinister aspects even at the games' endings. And the ending is not "cut and pasted" from Deus Ex - it is similar, sure, especially the Synthesis choice, but it confronts you with Mass Effect themes at their purest, not Deus Ex themes. It's a choice based on how you feel this war should be won given the consequences, and we've learned about those consequences throughout ME1-3.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
