391 réponses à ce sujet

[Nicodemus]

Auld Wulf wrote...

ME2 started to break away from that by having its characters introduce interesting philosophies. Legion and Mordin especially. It was enough to get me interested. I loved discussing ethics with those two. Plus, it had some interesting factors, like trying to save the crew. It was a step above the usual entertainment slurry that Western gaming has become. ME3 though... it just completely blew that away and amped up the artistic values of 2. ME3 wasn't pulling any punches.

I think that's why it made people upset. People who were with the series since ME1 (I played ten minutes of ME1 and watched the cutscenes on Youtube, I fell asleep) were expecting something that was part of the usual entertainment slurry. You know, steroid pumped person with gun runs around shooting things. Very typical. I think ME2 and ME3 tried to open people up to a more mature style of game. Sadly, the effort was a failure as it didn't work for the many, but I vastly appreciated the effort. The artistic values of ME3 have cemented it as one of my all-time favourites -- right up there with Shadow of the Colossus.

My only worry is that after this reprisal, BioWare will stop being brave and return to the Western entertainment slurry, not even trying to be philosophical, poignant, clever, or intellectual. I really hope that won't be the case.

Sorry AW but you have it all wrong. I do agree with you that ME2 brought an interesting development by fleshing out the characters and the universe and trying something a bit different but if anything ME2 and ME3 fell back on the Western tropes and was mostly all about running around shooting things. It was so much so that interesting mechanics from ME1 like weapon overheating and upgrades that helped stabilise weapons etc were taken out or watered down so much when reintroduced, to allow us to just run and gun. Even so, ME2 and ME3 ended up with a single small starship still blasting away at bigger starships.

ME3 has no artistic values because it set out to do exactly what you don't like about western games, it appealed to the run and gun crowd that plays CoD or MoH or Battlefield, so much so that ME3 had a multiplayer component stuck into it to further appeal to the run and gun crowd.

I was hoping for something clever, intellectual, possibly philosophical and poignant from ME3, instead I got a Gears of War/CoD/MoH with a bad Dues Ex rehash. What could have been a brave attempt to try something different failed miserably because they rushed something that needed more time to develop so that they could explain their concept to the audience. Instead we got a mess that ended up being a nightmare for them to conclude satisfactorily for the audience and instead of saying "mea culpa", and expanding on thier concept to answer all the plotholes and dangling threads, they gave us the infamous "artistic integrity" and went into the fetal position, covered their ears and "listened" to the well deserved critisim their "art" deserved.

[GreyLycanTrope]

spirosz wrote...
Basically.  That's why I've come to terms with it.  I know it's not executed well, but I understand what was trying to be expressed and I understand limits, budget, EA sheit.

For me it comes across more like arrogance getting the better of them rather than resource limitations. They wanted something grand but seemed to forget they didn't build the frame work to support it. Which at that point just comes across as introducing a deep concept for the sake having one not so much because there some specific idea they wanted the audiance to consider. It was way too shallow, and just comes of as pretentious. Than again I've been described as a somewhat harsh critic.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 29 mars 2013 - 04:28 .

[Archonsg]

@zlurps

(bear with me, at work and have been posting from the phone, makes quoting a tad difficult)

I agree with you on the point that we need, should want higher standards.

I do think games, all games, are works of art. They are afterall a product born from the creativity of its makers. Writers, graphic artist, UI artist, AI/VI for the game all require someone's creative input.

In ME3's case, for the most part it was good, more importantly, it was art that not only engaged its user, it has the power to get that user to become emotionally invested.

And with that investment, the artist have the responsibility to craft a product that would at some level satisfy all their patrons, their customers.

ME3 as a whole is flawed, from beginning to end.
To to honest, anyone would tell you that there is no such thing as a game that does not have its flaws, its lore breaks, its plot holes.

None.

Put any game through the kind of analysis that ME3 endured and I'll bet you can name *any* story based game and something wrong can be found.

The real question then is to ask, why.
Why then, did fans of ME3 did what they did?
The most obvious answer was because Bioware claimed and stood behind ME3's creative vision and execution. That both weren't just flawed, they were so badly holed both in lore and logic that fans rightly so took offense.

If you are served faeces for desert and you point out that it's faeces and inedible , you won't appreciate someone telling telling you or imply that you don't understand or it us thier right to do so.
Especially if you are a customer expecting something else.

I am pretty sure everyone wants Bioware to become better at what they do, to produce works of art such as the Baldur’s Gate Series, Knights of the Old Republic, Jade Empire.

Just don't try to pass off really badly done creative works and then defend it because they are afraid it might lead to legal liabilities.

[darkway1]

spirosz wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

darkway1 wrote...

WHY do people defend such poor produced ending?

Honestly, I think those people like the idea of what the ending tried to accomplish in context of this story, the Asimov-like conflict of ideologies, more than they do the execution. Under better circumstances, it would've been an interesting conversation. 

Basically.  That's why I've come to terms with it.  I know it's not executed well, but I understand what was trying to be expressed and I understand limits, budget, EA sheit.

You highlight a great point that's very relevant to this thread.....lot's of people understand what Bioware tried to do (like it or not) but what Bioware tried to do was compromised by the deadline,EA,whatever.........so if the ending was compromised,artistic integrity can't be used because what the developer intended was never actually delivered................for a 5 year franchise to end on those terms is plain wrong.

[Redbelle]

Bethesda > Fallout 3 > Radioactive chamber vs the radioactivity immune mutant.

That also changed the ending of the lone wanderer to one that said he stood aside for a real hero....... wut?

It seem's that, within our dear developer's community, there is a concept that it is better to die for a cause, than use common sense to solve a problem. For if you do use common sense over a noble heroic end that is entirely avoidable then you will be berated for it! Because it's just not heroic enough! <puffs out chest>

[ZLurps]

Archonsg wrote...

@zlurps

(bear with me, at work and have been posting from the phone, makes quoting a tad difficult)

I agree with you on the point that we need, should want higher standards.

I do think games, all games, are works of art. They are afterall a product born from the creativity of its makers. Writers, graphic artist, UI artist, AI/VI for the game all require someone's creative input.

In ME3's case, for the most part it was good, more importantly, it was art that not only engaged its user, it has the power to get that user to become emotionally invested.

And with that investment, the artist have the responsibility to craft a product that would at some level satisfy all their patrons, their customers.

ME3 as a whole is flawed, from beginning to end.
To to honest, anyone would tell you that there is no such thing as a game that does not have its flaws, its lore breaks, its plot holes.

None.

Put any game through the kind of analysis that ME3 endured and I'll bet you can name *any* story based game and something wrong can be found.

The real question then is to ask, why.
Why then, did fans of ME3 did what they did?
The most obvious answer was because Bioware claimed and stood behind ME3's creative vision and execution. That both weren't just flawed, they were so badly holed both in lore and logic that fans rightly so took offense.

If you are served faeces for desert and you point out that it's faeces and inedible , you won't appreciate someone telling telling you or imply that you don't understand or it us thier right to do so.
Especially if you are a customer expecting something else.

I am pretty sure everyone wants Bioware to become better at what they do, to produce works of art such as the Baldur’s Gate Series, Knights of the Old Republic, Jade Empire.

Just don't try to pass off really badly done creative works and then defend it because they are afraid it might lead to legal liabilities.

I can only repeat that I can understand why many players came to one conclusion they did. I didn't felt like I got served plateful of crap though. I weren't that invested. I have always had some sort of ****ed up way to play these games, for me they are mostly adventure games first and then all sort of things from other genres.

But what comes to the big picture, it's all about how well product sells and in which price point. Can ME3 controversy be seen as reason to take less risks? On short term I think yes, but on long term, that developers were taking risks made the series to what it was to begin with. They dropped the ball with the last one, sad but that sort of things happen. When you market to masses, you get literally get masses, you can't have magical masses that just happen to give you feedback you wanna hear. No more than I could stick my finger in the air and say, "world, revolve around this".

What comes to what went wrong, what's for people who plan to form their own teams to learn, I made a post touching that subject couple of days ago. social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/16364640/11#16404301
If you are curious Spambot2000 may have read the same sources I have, maybe have even more info and energy to do in depth analysis. I don't think that's the topic here, though.

What you said about legal complaints. My personal belief is that production of EC didn't happen because of negative feedback on forums, but that someone filed the case for FTC. EA didn't knew how it were ended, so EC was probably pre-emptive measure.

[Mikael507]

frostajulie wrote...

you good sir feel free to purchase your art. I for one choose to purchase a video game that is fun to play and delivers an ending that fits within established lore and narrative.

Exactly my thoughts

[AlanC9]

Redbelle wrote...

Bethesda > Fallout 3 > Radioactive chamber vs the radioactivity immune mutant.

That also changed the ending of the lone wanderer to one that said he stood aside for a real hero....... wut?

It seem's that, within our dear developer's community, there is a concept that it is better to die for a cause, than use common sense to solve a problem. For if you do use common sense over a noble heroic end that is entirely avoidable then you will be berated for it! Because it's just not heroic enough! <puffs out chest>

What does this have to do with ME3, though?  There's no application of Shepard's common sense that gives him a Crucible that works the way he'd prefer it would.

[Xamufam]

AlanC9 wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

Bethesda > Fallout 3 > Radioactive chamber vs the radioactivity immune mutant.

That also changed the ending of the lone wanderer to one that said he stood aside for a real hero....... wut?

It seem's that, within our dear developer's community, there is a concept that it is better to die for a cause, than use common sense to solve a problem. For if you do use common sense over a noble heroic end that is entirely avoidable then you will be berated for it! Because it's just not heroic enough! <puffs out chest>

What does this have to do with ME3, though?  There's no application of Shepard's common sense that gives him a Crucible that works the way he'd prefer it would.

www.youtube.com/watch

Use geth/quarian peace & other things to argue

[AlanC9]

Troxa wrote...


www.youtube.com/watch

Use geth/quarian peace & other things to argue

And you figure that would work? Why should it?

The Catalyst would simply say that the AIs of the current cycle aren't advanced enough yet to exterminate organics. And he won't let them become more advanced to see if they actually do it.

Believing that his premises are wrong and demonstrating that those premises are wrong are two different things.

Modifié par AlanC9, 29 mars 2013 - 06:20 .

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

What does this have to do with ME3, though?  There's no application of Shepard's common sense that gives him a Crucible that works the way he'd prefer it would.

Only because of DM Fiat.

[AlanC9]

Sure. If we threw out all instances of DM Fiat, what would be left of the game?

Modifié par AlanC9, 29 mars 2013 - 06:22 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Here is my opinion on this whole thing....

http://social.biowar...55/blog/233020/

You can read the entire thing over there. I've said many of the same things before. A lot of my feelings are a result of the initial sting of the Original Ending and the four month wait to the Extended Disappointment which did absolutely nothing to fix the problem with the original ending: same crap with sprinkles on two of them; made more problems in the Normandy scene; and still left Shepard in a pile of rubble on Destroy. But now people got to believe it was more philosophical.

Honestly I don't mind an artistic ending if it fits the story. I don't mind a philosophical ending if it fits the story. But when it's a story about a bunch of overpowered dumb death machines, that are controlled by a glowy kid and are making different varieties of zombies out of world populations, sucking up populations of worlds and making slushies out of them to make more overpowered death machines, and you're in a fight against them for the lives of the galaxy, and you are building a superweapon that popped up at the last minute to save the galaxy, I don't see much philosophy there. I don't see much in the way of an artistic message there either. I don't see an open ending here. I see a let's blow up those bastards and send them to hell where they belong, and a let's walk away being big goddamned heroes story.

I don't see a grim-dark philosophical ending. Save that for "The Witcher" or something like that. It's not Mass Effect.

The reapers are kicking our asses. We attach the Crucible. Glowboy comes out, and says: "I give up. You can control us, but you die.; You can join everyone with us, but you die.; You can destroy us, but if you do this there is a price, and you'll either die or I'll put you under a pile of rubble forever.; and if you want to be principled and do nothing I'll just keep doing what I've been doing and trolololol. Just push button 'A' for control; button 'B' for synthesis; button 'C' for destroy; or tell me to go ****** off. If you shoot me you lose. You have 5 minutes to make up your mind."

There is your philosophical ending distilled into Cliffs Notes. There is your "Art." Some "victory". Some game winner. <_<

"Will I ever get to the stars?"
"One day my sweet. Out there, there are billions of stars. Around them are billions of worlds."
"Will you tell me another story about The Shepard?"
"It's getting late, but okay, one more story."

"Commander Shepard has become a legend. Buy DLC to continue his story."

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 29 mars 2013 - 06:26 .

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

Sure. If we threw out all instances of DM Fiat, what would be left of the game?

But we're not talking about all instances, we're talking about the Crucible, the crux of why the ending is so revolting to so many people.

[AlanC9]

And the function of the Crucible was always going to be determined by DM Fiat. The problem isn't that it is DM Fiat, it's that you don't like the particular fiat that your DM fiated.

Modifié par AlanC9, 29 mars 2013 - 06:29 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Sure. If we threw out all instances of DM Fiat, what would be left of the game?

But we're not talking about all instances, we're talking about the Crucible, the crux of why the ending is so revolting to so many people.

It's not so much the Crucible, as it is the Catalyst that I have problems with.

[xBornPredatrorx]

I liked the EC, it answered a lot of unawnsered questions, if we could get a tad bit more closure for the Destory Ending, It'd be perfect.

[darkway1]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Here is my opinion on this whole thing....

http://social.biowar...55/blog/233020/

You can read the entire thing over there. I've said many of the same things before. A lot of my feelings are a result of the initial sting of the Original Ending and the four month wait to the Extended Disappointment which did absolutely nothing to fix the problem with the original ending: same crap with sprinkles on two of them; made more problems in the Normandy scene; and still left Shepard in a pile of rubble on Destroy. But now people got to believe it was more philosophical.

Honestly I don't mind an artistic ending if it fits the story. I don't mind a philosophical ending if it fits the story. But when it's a story about a bunch of overpowered dumb death machines, that are controlled by a glowy kid and are making different varieties of zombies out of world populations, sucking up populations of worlds and making slushies out of them to make more overpowered death machines, and you're in a fight against them for the lives of the galaxy, and you are building a superweapon that popped up at the last minute to save the galaxy, I don't see much philosophy there. I don't see much in the way of an artistic message there either. I don't see an open ending here. I see a let's blow up those bastards and send them to hell where they belong, and a let's walk away being big goddamned heroes story.

I don't see a grim-dark philosophical ending. Save that for "The Witcher" or something like that. It's not Mass Effect.

The reapers are kicking our asses. We attach the Crucible. Glowboy comes out, and says: "I give up. You can control us, but you die.; You can join everyone with us, but you die.; You can destroy us, but if you do this there is a price, and you'll either die or I'll put you under a pile of rubble forever.; and if you want to be principled and do nothing I'll just keep doing what I've been doing and trolololol. Just push button 'A' for control; button 'B' for synthesis; button 'C' for destroy; or tell me to go ****** off. If you shoot me you lose. You have 5 minutes to make up your mind."

There is your philosophical ending distilled into Cliffs Notes. There is your "Art." Some "victory". Some game winner. <_<

"Will I ever get to the stars?"
"One day my sweet. Out there, there are billions of stars. Around them are billions of worlds."
"Will you tell me another story about The Shepard?"
"It's getting late, but okay, one more story."

"Commander Shepard has become a legend. Buy DLC to continue his story."

Oooooh......"Commander Shepard has become a legend. Buy DLC to continue his story.".....that little message,after the ending we got I found so insulting.........having it flash up on the main menu or some thing would have been fine but having it tagged on at the very end was just cheap.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

And the function of the Crucible was always going to be determined by DM Fiat. The problem isn't that it is DM Fiat, it's that you don't like the particular fiat that your DM fiated.

Yeah, and?  The function of the Crucible is arbitrary, and always was, since they never planned this story out to begin with.  There is absolutely no reason why it does what it does beyond Bioware's "Because I said so"  

I'm certainly not going to congrtulate Bioware on wielding their plot hammer in a way that forces Shepard to commit a suicidal galactic war crime in order to "win".  As it is these chocies were all so bad that a "Rocks fall" ending is now a perfectly valid alternative.  That is not a sign of a genius ending choice.

[dreamgazer]

darkway1 wrote...

Oooooh......"Commander Shepard has become a legend. Buy DLC to continue his story.".....that little message,after the ending we got I found so insulting.........having it flash up on the main menu or some thing would have been fine but having it tagged on at the very end was just cheap.

Wasn't there a message almost identical to it at the end of Dragon Age: Origins?

[Iakus]

Not that I recall

[dani1138]

dreamgazer wrote...

Wasn't there a message almost identical to it at the end of Dragon Age: Origins?

Not at the end of the game. As I recall, there was a shameless plug for Warden's Keep within the game itself - You could actually start the quest, prompting a pop-up message about the DLC.

[dreamgazer]

iakus wrote...

Not that I recall

For some reason, I seem to remember a pop-up that activated at the start of "free-roam".

Been a long time, though.

Modifié par dreamgazer, 29 mars 2013 - 07:22 .

[SDW]

Too lazy to read all 7 pages of it up to this point. OP, you paint a rather one-sided picture of those who asked for a new ending. There were all kinds of flavours to these requests for a new ending. I still have the mail I sent to BioWare last year, and it includes the words "(pretty) please" several times. Nothing about them owing me anything.
And the art defense ... many people take it to mean "If something is art, you can never assess its value nor criticize it, because its beyond evaluation (or, if anything, everything has the same high value)." And yet that is precisely what happens with lots of art. Otherwise, book and movie reviewers would have a lot less to talk, write and blog about. Either these people are "wrong", or there are certain rules that - at least - the art of storytelling can be held up to. And that is precisely what was criticized here.
Yes, ultimately, BioWare can end the game in whichever way they want. Though, that doesn't make the ending "good" according to the established rules of storytelling, which were broken in several ways (e.g. breaking of the reader-writer contract, i.e. saying the story is about something else than what it apparently was about all the time). And while they didn't have to change the ending, it was financially smart to at least do something about it.

[Wayning_Star]

SDW wrote...

Too lazy to read all 7 pages of it up to this point. OP, you paint a rather one-sided picture of those who asked for a new ending. There were all kinds of flavours to these requests for a new ending. I still have the mail I sent to BioWare last year, and it includes the words "(pretty) please" several times. Nothing about them owing me anything.
And the art defense ... many people take it to mean "If something is art, you can never assess its value nor criticize it, because its beyond evaluation (or, if anything, everything has the same high value)." And yet that is precisely what happens with lots of art. Otherwise, book and movie reviewers would have a lot less to talk, write and blog about. Either these people are "wrong", or there are certain rules that - at least - the art of storytelling can be held up to. And that is precisely what was criticized here.
Yes, ultimately, BioWare can end the game in whichever way they want. Though, that doesn't make the ending "good" according to the established rules of storytelling, which were broken in several ways (e.g. breaking of the reader-writer contract, i.e. saying the story is about something else than what it apparently was about all the time). And while they didn't have to change the ending, it was financially smart to at least do something about it.

Makes me wonder why such great art over time has accomplished their financial value and collectors are loath to alter them in any way.

(of course there is that starving artist thing... don't want to forget that..)