518 réponses à ce sujet

[AndyAK79]

The arguments about Mass Effect 3 seem (to me at least) to fall into three main categories; the downbeat nature of the ending and the impossibility of a perfect resolution, the issue of choices not being reflected in the ending, and the various threads of the Mass Effect story (and the choices therein) not being reflected in a satisfactory way in the ending. The stories, in other words, were not given proper 'closure.'

I have posted a previous thread on why I believe that a happy ending would have damaged Mass Effect 3, and the issue of choice ties into both that thread and the following.

I also feel, however, that the issue of closure has done a substantial disservice to Bioware's work on ME3.

There is, I believe, a real and valid reason that many choices were not represented in the ending; they had already been represented in the main game. Granted, there were (inevitably) some missed opportunities - the Rachni in particular stand out - but in general the plot threads, relationships and conflicts are resolved during the game itself.

Shepards relationship with the other characters does not feature in the ending because they are concluded during the game. There are some exceptions amongst characters from ME2, but this is because their character arcs were concluded during that game, and even then they are usually given logical epilogues (Grunt assuming a position of command, Jack working with other biotics).

The same goes for outstanding plot threads. The Geth and the quarians only feature to a limited degree, because their story is part of the game. The genophage is barely refered to at all (and then only in the EC), because it is part of the main game.

In short Mass Effect 3, as a whole game, represents the conclusion to the trilogy, not merely the last few minutes. The stories that form part of ME's greater narrative are given substantial time and attention during the main game, rather than lip service during the ending. Going over these decisions and their consequences again at the end would serve no dramatic function.

This slow resolution throughout the game ensures that the only plot threads to be resolved when the ending finally comes is Shepard's own story and the war with the Reapers - which is exactly what the ending focuses on.

[angol fear]

AndyAK79 wrote...
This slow resolution throughout the game ensures that the only plot threads to be resolved when the ending finally comes is Shepard's own story and the war with the Reapers - which is exactly what the ending focuses on.

I totally agree. 

[RatThing]

Didn't the EC solve that issue? It was an issue of the original ending indeed, but at least for me the EC brought enough closure.

[KaiserShep]

With the extended cut, Control and Synthesis are pretty much tied up fairly neatly; it's only really Destroy that leaves Shepard's fate up in the air with the breath scene. It's fairly obvious that Shepard survives though, given the setup from the memorial scene onward, but the imagery of that scene could have been handled a wee bit better. If anything, the most problematic part of the ending is now Priority: Earth, which apparently had to have some things cut, like dialogue with the geth prime and some of the prime combat lines, for example.

[Ieldra]

AndyAK79 wrote...
There is, I believe, a real and valid reason that many choices were not represented in the ending; they had already been represented in the main game. Granted, there were (inevitably) some missed opportunities - the Rachni in particular stand out - but in general the plot threads, relationships and conflicts are resolved during the game itself.

That may have been the intention, but it didn't work that way. I've put it this way: There's not so much a lack of closure rather than the fact that the (original) ending and its dark age scenario removes all closure previously achieved through in-game decisions. That, btw, reinforces my belief that the ending was writting in a closet, since one of the best explanations for the disconnect between the ending and the rest of the game is that the writers of the subplots didn't know how things would end.

[KaiserShep]

Yeah that dark age stuff was total bollocks. Glad it's dead.

[Mangalores]

AndyAK79 wrote...
...
This slow resolution throughout the game ensures that the only plot threads to be resolved when the ending finally comes is Shepard's own story and the war with the Reapers - which is exactly what the ending focuses on.

Usually you want your subplots to resonate into the main plot and you don't cut them out in the finale just because they themselves were resolved. Particularly "war with the Reapers" is hardly a story point that is helped by getting isolated from all the stuff  which was supposed to be done to help in the "war with the Reapers".

If we go by classic examples when everything comes together in the finale you usually get every side character that became the hero's ally to get one scene to show how they help, even if it's just a pad on the shoulder. That is to validate the relevance of the subplots and side characters.

Modifié par Mangalores, 09 octobre 2013 - 01:13 .

[dreamgazer]

Whether or not it worked in this execution (it's heavily, heavily flawed), I still think it's an extremely interesting idea to present a hard, monumental, no-escape decision at the end of the series that exploits the context you built through decisions across all three games.

Modifié par dreamgazer, 09 octobre 2013 - 01:18 .

[Deverz]

AndyAK79 wrote...

This slow resolution throughout the game ensures that the only plot threads to be resolved when the ending finally comes is Shepard's own story and the war with the Reapers - which is exactly what the ending focuses on.

Yeah, evidently that didn't work so well for most people. BW treated the whole game as an ending, and failed to pay it all off in the conclusion, making it feel like every decision you made along the way was for nothing. And then there was literally no closure on the fate of your friends, the races that were united for the fight for Earth, and every choice you made. Mass Relays were gone, bye bye space travel. Galaxy was a wasteland. Not even the last choice had any closure.

Anyway, I'm glad we got the EC, for what it's worth.

Modifié par Deverz, 09 octobre 2013 - 01:49 .

[dreamgazer]

Oops.

Modifié par dreamgazer, 09 octobre 2013 - 01:52 .

[OdanUrr]

My issue with the ending is that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Well, ME3 doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

[Kel Riever]

Straw man arguement is the ending needs to be happy/not happy

Quality work isn't determined by the characters you kill nor the ending being either positive or negative.

Quality work includes two things that Mass Effect 3 does not have: 1. Making sense within the context of the story, and at least in general, and 2. (in the case of this franchise) Choices worth making.

So, to continue talking about happy endings is to miss the point entirely.

@OdanUrr: Just like you said.

Modifié par Kel Riever, 09 octobre 2013 - 02:49 .

[AndyAK79]

Kel Riever wrote...

Straw man arguement is the ending needs to be happy/not happy

Quality work isn't determined by the characters you kill nor the ending being either positive or negative.

Quality work includes two things that Mass Effect 3 does not have: 1. Making sense within the context of the story, and at least in general, and 2. (in the case of this franchise) Choices worth making.

So, to continue talking about happy endings is to miss the point entirely.

@OdanUrr: Just like you said.

Since my intention was not to talk about the happiness of the ending, and even suggested a different thread was used to discuss this, I'm fairly sure I didn't miss the point at all.

[AndyAK79]

Deverz wrote...

Yeah, evidently that didn't work so well for most people. BW treated the whole game as an ending, and failed to pay it all off in the conclusion, making it feel like every decision you made along the way was for nothing. And then there was literally no closure on the fate of your friends, the races that were united for the fight for Earth, and every choice you made. Mass Relays were gone, bye bye space travel. Galaxy was a wasteland. Not even the last choice had any closure.

Plenty of decisions are addressed in the conclusion - at least in the EC (I'll admit the original ending doesn't, but my general argument still applies).

There is plenty of closure on the fate of your friends and the races that were united for earth. They were just resolved before the ending. The ending is substantial in length anyway. I don't think another half an hour nodding to every decision I made and giving me a complete biography on every character's life thereafter would have any dramatic value ("Ooh, look, Garrus became Primarch, Woah Ashley ended up an Admiral, Cool,Wrex joined the council... how long does this go on for? I desperately need to wee.")

Modifié par AndyAK79, 09 octobre 2013 - 03:07 .

[Kel Riever]

No, no, I am taking the opportunity to say it, Andy. You mentioned it, and I see you went on to make a different point from there.

I say it because every time a post comes up about the ending, someone comes along and snarks that people don't like it because the ending isn't happy.

(That's why I didn't direct my post at you specifically. My bad. I should have clarified further)

Modifié par Kel Riever, 09 octobre 2013 - 03:07 .

[dreamgazer]

Kel Riever wrote...

I say it because every time a post comes up about the ending, someone comes along and snarks that people don't like it because the ending isn't happy.

Oh, come on, Kel. You've been around long enough to know how frequently "reunion" and "Shepard survivng" are parroted in criticisms of the ending.

[AndyAK79]

Kel Riever wrote...

No, no, I am taking the opportunity to say it, Andy. You mentioned it, and I see you went on to make a different point from there.

I say it because every time a post comes up about the ending, someone comes along and snarks that people don't like it because the ending isn't happy.

(That's why I didn't direct my post at you specifically. My bad. I should have clarified further)

Fair enough, but it's worth pointing out that plenty of people do have a problem with the ending not being happy enough.

Feel free to check my other thread (I think it's called Why a happy ending would have ruined Mass Effect 3 or words to that effect) if you have any doubts - it ran to about 12 pages. Clearly your reasons are different, but there are plenty of people who clearly believe this is the problem with the ending of ME3.

Anyway, off subject. Back to the main discussion.

[Kel Riever]

dreamgazer wrote...

Kel Riever wrote...

I say it because every time a post comes up about the ending, someone comes along and snarks that people don't like it because the ending isn't happy.

Oh, come on, Kel. You've been around long enough to know how frequently "reunion" and "Shepard survivng" are parroted in criticisms of the ending.

They may be, but they are not my criticisms.  And 'closure' is, well, one of the things I at least understand.

But I'll clarify that too.  I don't need closure if the ending is actually done well enough.  There are many obvious examples of stories, and stories that could be made into video games with choices that matter, where there is neither closure or happiness....and it is actually done well.

ME3 is not an example of such a story

Does that make it clear?

[Kel Riever]

Oh, I will give happy enders and closures this point:

IF you are not such a good writer (like first off, you actually have to be willing to admit that, which it is clear the leads on ME3 haven't done yet), you SHOULD go with a happy ending and closure, and leave the hard stuff to the people who can do it...ooh, sure that burns. But it is better to be honest with oneself than burn down an entire series over it.

But the ego, man. Gotta stroke the ego....

Let me assure you, no genius doesn't need their work looked over before it goes to print...

[dreamgazer]

Any ending that actually results in the defeat of the Reapers is an implausible "happy ending", really. Y'know, these things?



The more you try and do so by any kind of conventional, no-sacrifice means, the more ridiculous it becomes. It's a problem in the series' DNA that goes back to the first game.

[Redbelle]

Indeed, it's not that the ending wasn't happy. It is that it makes no sense in the context of the narrative and play style.

I have had to write endings for stories where deadlines were against me. When that happens you have to finish. As in, get to the end of the narrative so that the story has a conclusion. When time is a factor you have to rush the process. And rushing the process means no time to sit back and think, 'have I represented what I want this scene/s to say so that it will be understood by those who read/view it'.

Rushing an ending raises the potential of either not getting the msg across. Or accidentally misrepresenting it.

ME3 did both of those things. Therefore I see the ending as a rushed bodge to get the product ready in time for release.

It's not about it being a happy ending at all. It's about the writers either not taking the time to do the job properly..... or not being allowed enough time to do the job properly. ME3's original ending tried to get away with existential mumbo jumbo and a bare minimum to context to deliver it's msg to a massive audience. It's only the ending of ME3 where this problem arises to the degree that it did.

I lay the blame down at bad writing.

Why the writing was bad I cannot say. If deliberate, or by neccessity, I can't say.

[Kel Riever]

dreamgazer wrote...

Any ending that actually results in the defeat of the Reapers is an implausible "happy ending", really. Y'know, these things?



The more you try and do so by any kind of conventional, no-sacrifice means, the more ridiculous it becomes. It's a problem in the series' DNA that goes back to the first game.

I think I get your point?  But it really doesn't disagree with mine.  Correct me if I am wrong but you are saying that defeating the Reapers in any form equates to a happy ending.

You could make that point, but that isn't the point most 'happy endings' people would agree with.  And while I do see that point, I'm going with the apparent common understanding of it.

I would counter with that defeating the Reapers does not equate to a positive or happy ending when the reason they were defeated makes no sense because it was written atrociously.  Maybe if YOU wrote the ending, you would have conveyed that idea.  But BioWare didn't, as far as I'm concerned.

[Kel Riever]

And to add, just like I don't need people to die to make me feel emotion and pull at heart strings, neither do I need sacrifice. Sacrifice, nor death, nor any trope makes the ending decent. What makes it decent is the skill of the person making it, and whether they have the ability to apply their craft or not.

[in it for the lolz]

dreamgazer wrote...

Any ending that actually results in the defeat of the Reapers is an implausible "happy ending", really. Y'know, these things?

*Pic snip*

The more you try and do so by any kind of conventional, no-sacrifice means, the more ridiculous it becomes. It's a problem in the series' DNA that goes back to the first game.

I am not really into "happy endings." I just don't like my Shepard's becoming Starkid's b*tch.