648 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

knightnblu wrote...

And a stupid waste of resources. If you can make the Reapers fly into the sun, actually making them do so is pointless.

Edit: not that I have a problem with stupid choices being in for RP purposes. I alway supported adding a Refuse option, for instance.

And what of justice?

What of it? The whole Kantian mandatory-retribution thing never struck me as being particularly sensible.

Modifié par AlanC9, 25 mars 2013 - 09:01 .

[AlanC9]

Fawx9 wrote...

..so why did the orignal 3 options basically leave the impression that they destoryed the galaxy in order to wipe the slate clean of everything and not just the space cuttlefish?

I didn't get that impression in the first place. Anyway, that interpretation didn't survive the EC, so IT should have died then and there if this is what it was about.

[Fawx9]

AlanC9 wrote...

Fawx9 wrote...

..so why did the orignal 3 options basically leave the impression that they destoryed the galaxy in order to wipe the slate clean of everything and not just the space cuttlefish?

I didn't get that impression in the first place. Anyway, that interpretation didn't survive the EC, so IT should have died then and there if this is what it was about.

Well that's what IT would have been for me, I'm not trying to speak for those that believed it afterwards. 

[Fraq Hound]

No, I have a feeling that they realize they screwed up. However, to fix the endings in a way the fans could get behind would mean a retcon of ME3. It would cost them a lot of time and money to produce and with new consoles on the horizon, it's just not worth it.

They mended what fences they could with the craptastic EC and the highly regarded Citadel DLC (packed to the gills with everything the fans had requested). Now they'll just push forward and hope that those who are still upset will forgive and forget.

Which they will, because people are weak.

It wouldn't have mattered how the fans reacted. The Mass Effect trilogy was doomed the moment that stupid star child popped into Mac and Casey's heads. (Or more likely the moment that Mac Walter's was allowed to start calling shots in the writing department.)

Don't worry, I'll stop there.

Sad FraQ is Sad.

Modifié par Fraq Hound, 25 mars 2013 - 09:11 .

[Kenshen]

Troxa wrote...

Then they thought wrong
Fallout 3 did not suffer, fans pointed out inconsistencies & the writers heard it the game got better by it bioware got hurt by protecting the ending

There wasn't as much rage with the FO3's first ending as there was for ME3 non EC ending. FO3 wasn't even a bad ending and what most people were complaining about was not being able to continue to play after finishing the game.  Bethesda went the extra mile and tweaked the ending and added it to a post game DLC.  Not many would do that and honestly I am not sure why they did but I thank them for it.

I wish I could remember everything that was said but when the rage really started to kick in on this forum someone made a post that had all kinds of links to twitter and other interviews that had all kinds of promises and other things said before ME3 was released.  One of them was pretty damaging since it was from Hudson I believe who said something to the affect that choose option A, B, or C is boring and that with ME3 we were getting all kinds of different endings.  Well that didn't happen or did it.  I guess it depends on how you look it.  From one side there are only 3 endings destroy, control, and that other thing.  From another angle there are 9 depending on your war assets score combined with A, B, or C.  However most people didn't see it that way and I have to agree with those people.

[AlanC9]

 I don't think chemiclord's right about IT, FWIW. I think IT had much more to do with what this poster was talking about:

He goes on, there's another choice. I can add my Shepard's energy to the Crucible. What? Energy? What? It will create a new DNA. What? It will be sent out and change all life in the galaxy into the final evolution. What? Oh and the Crucible firing will destroy the Relays. What? Why?

At this point my suspension of disbelief was firmly out the window, and I found myself staring blankly at the screen. The paths are open I'm told, I must choose. What is this I thought? This can't be right. I looked around for a switch, an exit, elevator, anything...

(snip)

I must of sat there for at least five minutes staring at the screen. What had I just seen? That can't have been it. Did I do something wrong? Had I made a mistake? So I went on YouTube and watched the other endings. They were almost identical. What was this?

My initial thought was that there had to be more to it, BioWare could not have made something this poor. They were among the best developers in the industry, their writing was phenomenal I'd seen it already in ME3. They had to have some sort of plan.

I think IT was about having this feeling and forcing an interpretation onto the ending that would somehow make the ending palatable, rather than just accepting that the ending was bad. Cognitive dissonance and all that.

One or two of the guys pushing IT openly said that this was what they were consciously trying to do.. But I think it was unconscious for many more.

Modifié par AlanC9, 25 mars 2013 - 09:17 .

[kobayashi-maru]

Was I the only one who didn't actually hate the original endings galactic dark age idea? I don't like ending but that was one idea I was all for it had so much potential to be explored in future games. What would the ME universe look like 200 years after, without the races basing tech on Reaper artifacts/relays but actually creating there own. The universe would have same species but would look much different. I kind of miss this aspect.

[AlanC9]

kobayashi-maru wrote...

Was I the only one who didn't actually hate the original endings galactic dark age idea? I don't like ending but that was one idea I was all for it had so much potential to be explored in future games. What would the ME universe look like 200 years after, without the races basing tech on Reaper artifacts/relays but actually creating there own. The universe would have same species but would look much different. I kind of miss this aspect.

I'm still hoping for a sequel where Destroy is canon and the relay network is still wrecked.

[Fraq Hound]

kobayashi-maru wrote...

Was I the only one who didn't actually hate the original endings galactic dark age idea? I don't like ending but that was one idea I was all for it had so much potential to be explored in future games. What would the ME universe look like 200 years after, without the races basing tech on Reaper artifacts/relays but actually creating there own. The universe would have same species but would look much different. I kind of miss this aspect.

Except that in the original endings, no matter what you chose, it all ended up being a fairy tale that someone somewhere was telling their grandchild.

You want more context? Too ****ing bad.

My opinion? The next Mass Effect game will just be the next fairy tale that old grandpa what's-his-name comes up with. It could literally look like anything and take place anywhere.

How does that make you feel?

[Kenshen]

kobayashi-maru wrote...

Was I the only one who didn't actually hate the original endings galactic dark age idea? I don't like ending but that was one idea I was all for it had so much potential to be explored in future games. What would the ME universe look like 200 years after, without the races basing tech on Reaper artifacts/relays but actually creating there own. The universe would have same species but would look much different. I kind of miss this aspect.

Nope you are not.  I thought it was a great trade-off, end the reaper threat but lose all of their tech.

[Fawx9]

Oh as for the actual topic. My take on this is that the silence from Bioware and mounting opposition from places like IGN, most likely trying to justify their scores, is what turned this place into a us vs everyone mentality.

A new article would pop up saying "Fans just didn't get it" or "It's art, deal with it" and everyone would jump on it for being rightfully dumb, and it just snowballed with each one. People saw the news articles and subconsciously linked it together with Bioware because they weren't saying anything different, but instead putting out ads marketing the 75 perfect scores. Whether the link is valid is up for debate, but a negative connection was still most likely made.

I wish that instead of trying to ride it out, someone would have come over and actually discussed a plan/vision, especially after the EC, even if just to clean up the mess so people could move on. Instead we got the stupid response to the breath scene which just made certain groups of people speculate further.

[Fawx9]

kobayashi-maru wrote...

Was I the only one who didn't actually hate the original endings galactic dark age idea? I don't like ending but that was one idea I was all for it had so much potential to be explored in future games. What would the ME universe look like 200 years after, without the races basing tech on Reaper artifacts/relays but actually creating there own. The universe would have same species but would look much different. I kind of miss this aspect.

The reason I never really liked it is more to do with the flavour of the setting. Take away the Relays and what are we left with for galactic travel? Warp Drives? Tachyon Gates(bonus points if you get the reference)? At the very least the Relays are symbol of the ME universe taking them away felt wrong to me. 

As for new space travel tech, you could still work it into a new game. Just work in a reason that travel to a part of the galaxy without a Relay was crucial. Bam exploration without the Relay's help, without also destorying a symbol of the series. 

[RocketManSR2]

ScriptBabe wrote...

Yes, that's me.  

"The Measure of a Man" was a great TNG episode (I did have to look it up to remind myself). I wish you would have written ME3's ending, I really do. There were so many better ways to end this trilogy and BioWare simply chose one of the worst possible ones.

Modifié par RocketManSR2, 25 mars 2013 - 09:49 .

[chemiclord]

Fawx9 wrote...

I'd argue IT isn't about making Destory palatable, but making the original ending so. As others have said, there was nothing broken with ME univerese outside of the Reapers, so why did the orignal 3 options basically leave the impression that they destoryed the galaxy in order to wipe the slate clean of everything and not just the space cuttlefish? IT at its core is simply a way to undo that level of destruction to the known ME galaxy. By giving the writers another shot to clean it up without blowing it up. 

IT just blows it up in a different way.  It's a cop-out, not an answer.

Modifié par chemiclord, 25 mars 2013 - 09:42 .

[kobayashi-maru]

Yes Fawx9 your 100% right, it was already heated here on the forums with the silence but the IGN stuff pushed it over the edge. Upshot is that IGN and other gaming sites are getting scrutinised more especially after the Aliens:Colonial Marines fiasco.

And still OT to my own topic but my head canon ending based on originals was essentially the galactic dark age with some changes that are not the Disney style we got branded as wanting. I would have had Cortex get injured Shep from Crucible, flew off in Normandy before it fired and still had crash.

The difference would be injured Shep being lead from wreckage on New Eden by the LI and having conversation about war being over, Relays gone and what do we do now. Shepard would die smiling looking up at the sky saying something about how this time we shape our own destiny. Or live with high EMS but be stranded on the planet with rest of surviving Normandy crew making similar speech. Cue stargazer scene implying they never left planet and the whole implication of all the races out there and what they have done with the new start. Not downbeat but hopeful even if Shepard dies.

And on another side note was never huge TNG fan, preferred DS9 and Voyager but one of the few episodes I actually love is  'The Measure of a man', so having mild geek reaction 

Modifié par kobayashi-maru, 25 mars 2013 - 09:44 .

[Fawx9]

chemiclord wrote...

Fawx9 wrote...

I'd argue IT isn't about making Destory palatable, but making the original ending so. As others have said, there was nothing broken with ME univerese outside of the Reapers, so why did the orignal 3 options basically leave the impression that they destoryed the galaxy in order to wipe the slate clean of everything and not just the space cuttlefish? IT at its core is simply a way to undo that level of destruction to the known ME galaxy. By giving the writers another shot to clean it up without blowing it up. 

IT just blows it up in a different way.  It's a cop-out, not an answer.

Well depends what way they could have taken IT. With no DLC, IT doesn't really help much(although I've read differently). If they added an IT DLC they might have been able to fill in some of the crater the OE left. Whether it would have been as good as the EC or not, we'll never know. 

[Fraq Hound]

chemiclord wrote...

IT just blows it up in a different way.  It's a cop-out, not an answer.

But what if they get it right the second time?

Then it's the best damn cop out in the history of all cop outs and I won't be able to throw my money at them quickly enough. Seriously, I loved Mass Effect!

Now it just makes me sad.

I'd pay a high price to love it once more.

[chemiclord]

I initially edited my first post, but I'll switch it to here for the sake of the conversation.

You're left with no solution to the problem, and a legion of nigh-unstoppable titans of mass destruction ripping the combined allied fleets a new one. You're asking DLC to somehow create and execute a victory scenario (the climax), AND provide resolution.

How do you think the majority of fans would approve of DLC being required to complete THAT much story? I'll give you a hint; they wouldn't.  Take a look at the rage that spawned out of "From Ashes."  Now multiply that by 100.

Kinda like the endings themselves; it'd just be a different color of ****storm.

Modifié par chemiclord, 25 mars 2013 - 09:43 .

[Reorte]

Fawx9 wrote...

The reason I never really liked it is more to do with the flavour of the setting. Take away the Relays and what are we left with for galactic travel? Warp Drives? Tachyon Gates(bonus points if you get the reference)? At the very least the Relays are symbol of the ME universe taking them away felt wrong to me. 

As for new space travel tech, you could still work it into a new game. Just work in a reason that travel to a part of the galaxy without a Relay was crucial. Bam exploration without the Relay's help, without also destorying a symbol of the series.

My idea (which seems to get ignored every time I post it) is for it to just wreck the connected relays and leave the presumably large number of dormant ones intact. That gives lots of exploration via them in order to get the galaxy back together without trashing a large part of the ME universe's identity, as well as giving a suitable post-war hard time. It would open up new areas of the galaxy, with all the story opportuinities that would create, and every now and then we could get connected back to a familiar old bit.

[ScriptBabe]

You see, I like the potential paradigm shift that occurs at the very end. I like the fact that the Illusive Man's fundamental philosophy can be interpreted as something positive. When you strip away all of Cerberus' immoral experiments and all the racism, you are left with a philosophy which encourages the exploration of new frontiers. We should embrace new technology. We should investigate that which we do not understand. We should dispel Lovecraft's fears. We should venture into the unknown. We should illuminate the dark places.

The problem is that these ideas were not presented effectively. The writers did not justify the Control and Synthesis options. Destroy is the only viable choice for many people, and that's a real shame. It doesn't help that each choice seems to validate certain unpleasant perspectives.
[/quote]

Okay, I hope this won't be a wall of text, but there are too many points to address in a few short sentences.  I'm not saying IT was the end all be all, but BioWare and EA clearly had a fire storm on their hands, and what IT does offer is that it is a _major_ theme of the games.  IT was presented as a grave threat all the way back with Liara's mama.  That means it met one essential criteria for good writing in that it had been _set up_.

This comes back to the issue of keeping the promise to your reader/viewer/player that you make in the beginning.  You better keep that contract or woe betide.  There's a big blog post about that too on my blog.  It was done perfectly in Dragon Age: Origins.  And let me offer an example from one of my novel series.  A Prometheus character tells my hero that if we follow his path he will "give us the stars".  I better pay that off or my readers are not going to be happy with me, and rightly so.

I also think the third game suffered by not having an identifiable antagonist.  Yes, they tried to make TIM a personalized opponent, but it felt very forced, and I kept finding myself asking uncomfortable questions that pulled me out of the game.  To wit -- how on Earth was Cereberus able to afford mounting these armies?  And why would humans be fighting each other and not the Reapers?  Yes, TIM and Kai Leng were indoctrinated, but presumably not every Cerberus soldier was.  

In the beginning I wanted to like The Illusive Man -- I mean it was President Bartlett,  but at it's core Cerberus is presented to us from the first game as a racist and utterly immoral organization.  They make that clear in one of Shepard's origin stories.  And doesn't the Alliance encourage exploration?  It's sort of the Star Trek Federation, except people had flaws which made them more interesting.  Point is by the middle of the third game I despised TIM and all he stood for.  I could not pick control.

Personally I found all three of the choices offered at the end to be horrific for varying reasons, and I also find the option of a "happy ending" to be perfectly acceptable and was disappointed that it wasn't offered.  (I wrote a long blog post about the efficacy of happy endings and why I think they come in for a bad rap.  People can go find it if they're interested.)  Point was that by the time it was over there wasn't a sense of choice at all, and no opportunity for the falling action and resolution scene that people need or the story feels incomplete.  The EC tried to address that, but I found it lacking.  It was adequate voice over and a few slides.  Not worthy of something this epic.

But ultimately it comes back to structure -- the Catalyst was never hinted at in game one or in game two.  For that matter neither was the Cruicible.  When something comes out of nowhere it can't feel organic and it feels like the writers are just starting to make it up as they go along.  At that point the reader/viewer/player starts to lose confidence, and you're going to lose them.  You can't introduce a new antagonist in the final 10 pages or 10 minutes.  It seems that almost every player viewed the Catalyst with disapprobation and as a villain and therefore they felt whip sawed.  It was clear that Harbinger needed to be the ultimate opponent in game three, the stand in for all his kind, but he was singularly absent from the game. 

Finally, there's the issue of theme.  All through the games Shepard is building concensus while still allowing people to keep their individuality as a person and member of a particular species.  I really thought the writer's were going to have the alliance you build be the ultimate solution.  They even partly set it up in a conversation with Javik.  He talkes about how there was no alliance in his time because the Protheans were conquers.  They had no true allies.  There could have been real consequences if you killed the Rachni queen, etc. etc. but none of it mattered. 

I suppose you could make the argument that synthesis is about unity, but it's a forced unity and so I found it abhorrant too.  I wanted a clean win where the galaxy says -- "Not this time" and that was not offered.  I go back to Dragon Age: Origins.   The players get to craft a solution to the problem of the archdemon that works for their particular Grey Warden.  Nobody suddenly told me I had to become a darkspawn, or become the archdemon and control the darkspawn.   They paid off the promise made at the end of the first 30 minutes of play -- that Allistair and I are going to go into the world, forge alliances and save Ferelden from the darkspawn.  I wanted that for Mass Effect.  

[ScriptBabe]

RocketManSR2 wrote...

ScriptBabe wrote...

Yes, that's me.  

"The Measure of a Man" was a great TNG episode (I did have to look it up to remind myself). I wish you would have written ME3's ending, I really do. There were so many better ways to end this trilogy and BioWare simply chose one of the worst possible ones.

Thank you, you are very kind.  The reason I bought an X-Box was because I was hired to write a game that unfortunately got cancelled.  I've become fascinated with this new form of entertainment, but I think the thing that's lacking is an understanding of how important narrative is to a story.  I remain very impressed with Drew Karpyshyn, but I really wish the solution to the Reaper invasion had been laid down in game one.  Mass Effect was only the second game I ever played and I went into as a writer so I was _sure_ that scanning the Keepers for Chorban was going to be hugely significant.  Just like I was sure the dark energy thread in ME2 was going to play a part.  But they all came to naught, and suddenly we had a new antagonist in the final moments.

[ScriptBabe]

kobayashi-maru wrote...

Yes Fawx9 your 100% right, it was already heated here on the forums with the silence but the IGN stuff pushed it over the edge. Upshot is that IGN and other gaming sites are getting scrutinised more especially after the Aliens:Colonial Marines fiasco.

And still OT to my own topic but my head canon ending based on originals was essentially the galactic dark age with some changes that are not the Disney style we got branded as wanting. I would have had Cortex get injured Shep from Crucible, flew off in Normandy before it fired and still had crash.

The difference would be injured Shep being lead from wreckage on New Eden by the LI and having conversation about war being over, Relays gone and what do we do now. Shepard would die smiling looking up at the sky saying something about how this time we shape our own destiny. Or live with high EMS but be stranded on the planet with rest of surviving Normandy crew making similar speech. Cue stargazer scene implying they never left planet and the whole implication of all the races out there and what they have done with the new start. Not downbeat but hopeful even if Shepard dies.

And on another side note was never huge TNG fan, preferred DS9 and Voyager but one of the few episodes I actually love is  'The Measure of a man', so having mild geek reaction 

Again, thank you.  I heard very good things about DS9.  I gather Ira did a fabulous job with that show.  I was a little kid growing up on original Trek and I found TNG to be rather bloodless by comparison.  The people were just a little too perfect.  I kept writing about Data because he held the role of "child" in the show, and in many ways he was the most interesting character.  Which is sort of a sad commentary when you think about it since he was a robot. 

[David7204]

Look, the Catalyst was not a 'new' villain in any meaningful sense. He easily could have been replaced with Harbinger, who could have said the exact same things and offered the exact same options. And it would not have made one bit of difference. The endings would still be exactly as they are now, just with people shrieking how stupid Harbinger is instead of how stupid the Catalyst is. So his introduction is clearly not the problem.

The problem is that people dislike the ending in general and are looking for something tangible to blame it on.

Modifié par David7204, 25 mars 2013 - 10:19 .

[ScriptBabe]

To address the DLC issue. I confess if they'd given me a logical ending that had been set up I would have happily paid for it. That being said it probably would have been wiser to offer that final confrontation DLC for free.

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

Look, the Catalyst was not a 'new' villain in any meaningful sense. He easily could have been replaced with Harbinger, who could have said the exact same things and offered the exact same options. And it would not have made one bit of difference. The endings would still be exactly as they are now, just with people shrieking how stupid Harbinger is instead of how stupid the Catalyst is. So his introduction is clearly not the problem.

The problem is that people dislike the ending in general and are looking for something tangible to blame it on.

. At least it would be more consistent.  Harbinger is an already known entity.  If he was the one presenting the choices I feel like 99.9% of people would pick Destroy.  BioWare didnt want that.