692 réponses à ce sujet

[txgoldrush]

windsea wrote...

in my opinion one of the problems is the presentation, if the three endings came from different device, say the control comes from a cerberus device, crucible for destroy, and a reaper device for synthesis, then the crucible would not seem like as much of a deus ex machina.

also the lack of a epilogue and real information on what happen because of the endings hurt it too, the extended cut help a little but is still way to vague on happens.

No, the endings, at least two, come from the Catalyst, like the narrative always told you. You are interacting with the Catalyst (its core) when you are destroy and control the Reapers.

The Crucible is far from a deus ex machina.

[Podge 90]

iakus wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

You are not getting it,

Everyone do a shot!

Imma have to skip this round, I can't take anymore.

[Fixers0]

Bad writing is bad, nothing more needs to be said.

[angol fear]

Bad reading is bad, nothing more needs to be said.

[Iakus]

c091n87 wrote...

I personally believe those who say its poorly written have been listening to too many internet memes, or spending too much time on the internet and not enough time playing the game. People will use that poorly written excuse because something isn't fully explained to you. Not everything is going to be spelled out in works of fiction. A lot of the stuff during the last 20 minutes of the game does require a bit of work on your part, as well as being able to connect the dots with the subtle clues that were provided.

Thing is though, a lot of you didn't want a simple explanation, you wanted them to completelty redo everything (not just the final 20 minutes, but the last hour as I recall reading over the last year or two), which was never going to happen.

Another "You don't get it!"

Do a shot everyone!  ::sip::

[N7Gold]

I remember opinions like yours as if I had them yesterday, OP. i also remember the complaints I had and everyone else's back in 2012. Here's my take. About BioWare's responses, when I look at ME3 along with the Extended Cut and Leviathan DLC today,  I have to say that the climax of the story DID need some clarification because as I played through the game, before the Extended Cut was released, I found many things that did not make sense to me and all of you: I had no idea where my squad disappeared to after Shepard nearly got fried by Harbinger's laser beam, I couldn't understand how Hackett found out that Shepard got into the Citadel when everyone thought the team who was supposed to get into the Citadel via the beam was decimated by Harbinger, and in the Catalyst scene, I was still under the impression that the Reapers' goal is to harvest organic life-- when the Catalyst explained that the Reapers were meant to protect organic life from a conflict between synthetic life, I was severely confused about that because through the game I saw no evidence that proved otherwise other than the face that the Reaper on Rannoch said that organics are doomed without the existence of the Reapers. also what bugged me is why the Crucible can do more than destroy the Reapers. Strangely enough, the choices align with Anderson (Destroy), Illusive Man (Control) and Saren (Synthesis) respectively. However, like everyone else, I was too angry at the climax and endings of ME3 and BioWare to see that some parts at the end truly needed clarification, especially when everyone, including me were afraid that with the destruction of the mass relays, there would be a galactic dark age for every race in every planet and colony that are cut off from each other. My mind was near irrational with confusion and anger.
 

I'm not going to go so far to say that the game was rushed, because it was NOT, I recall that March 6th 2012 was not the game's original release date, initially it was supposed to be released in the fall of 2011 but it wasn't released then because of leaks of the game's script and reports that no one liked the game's ending. But I also remember being angry that the endings were not as diverse and complex as BioWare promised it would be before the game was released. I followed every interview involving ME3 before its release, so I was clearly upset that not all of BioWare's promises were true.

When the Extended Cut came out, I was finally able to learn the true motives of the Reapers, but what was left untold by the Catalyst is the nature of his creators, I assumed that they were galactic peacekeepers or peacemakers since the Catalyst was created to bring peace between organcs and synthetics and to establish some kind of connection between the two forms of life,, and I had a feeling my belief was wrong, considering the Reapers are the antagonists of the game no matter how "benevolent" their motives may sound. However, when the Leviathan DLC came out, when I played it and learned about some of the history of the Catalyst's creators, the pieces of the puzzle began to come together in my mind, I realized that his creators are not galactic peacekeepers or peacemakers after all, and it slowly occurred to me that destroying the Reapers was not a bad choice after all.


That's my perspective.

[Roux72]

KaiserShep wrote...

Not sure why anyone would want to do anything with the rebellions, rachni war or the first contact war, as none of them have anything of particular interest. The first two would not likely be an option anyway, as I doubt that BioWare would ever create a Mass Effect game that totally excluded humans.

Agreed. Hence a problem I have with the ending.

[Reorte]

iakus wrote...

c091n87 wrote...

I personally believe those who say its poorly written have been listening to too many internet memes, or spending too much time on the internet and not enough time playing the game. People will use that poorly written excuse because something isn't fully explained to you. Not everything is going to be spelled out in works of fiction. A lot of the stuff during the last 20 minutes of the game does require a bit of work on your part, as well as being able to connect the dots with the subtle clues that were provided.

Thing is though, a lot of you didn't want a simple explanation, you wanted them to completelty redo everything (not just the final 20 minutes, but the last hour as I recall reading over the last year or two), which was never going to happen.

Another "You don't get it!"

Do a shot everyone!  ::sip::

Indeed, I cringe every time someone comes up with that tired old insult. People who don't like the ending get it all too well, and see right through it. Being able to invent some wildly implausible headcanon to fill the gaps isn't working things out on your part.

[Roux72]

N7Gold wrote...

I remember opinions like yours as if I had them yesterday, OP. i also remember the complaints I had and everyone else's back in 2012. Here's my take. About BioWare's responses, when I look at ME3 along with the Extended Cut and Leviathan DLC today,  I have to say that the climax of the story DID need some clarification because as I played through the game, before the Extended Cut was released, I found many things that did not make sense to me and all of you: I had no idea where my squad disappeared to after Shepard nearly got fried by Harbinger's laser beam, I couldn't understand how Hackett found out that Shepard got into the Citadel when everyone thought the team who was supposed to get into the Citadel via the beam was decimated by Harbinger, and in the Catalyst scene, I was still under the impression that the Reapers' goal is to harvest organic life-- when the Catalyst explained that the Reapers were meant to protect organic life from a conflict between synthetic life, I was severely confused about that because through the game I saw no evidence that proved otherwise other than the face that the Reaper on Rannoch said that organics are doomed without the existence of the Reapers. also what bugged me is why the Crucible can do more than destroy the Reapers. Strangely enough, the choices align with Anderson (Destroy), Illusive Man (Control) and Saren (Synthesis) respectively. However, like everyone else, I was too angry at the climax and endings of ME3 and BioWare to see that some parts at the end truly needed clarification, especially when everyone, including me were afraid that with the destruction of the mass relays, there would be a galactic dark age for every race in every planet and colony that are cut off from each other. My mind was near irrational with confusion and anger.
 

I'm not going to go so far to say that the game was rushed, because it was NOT, I recall that March 6th 2012 was not the game's original release date, initially it was supposed to be released in the fall of 2011 but it wasn't released then because of leaks of the game's script and reports that no one liked the game's ending. But I also remember being angry that the endings were not as diverse and complex as BioWare promised it would be before the game was released. I followed every interview involving ME3 before its release, so I was clearly upset that not all of BioWare's promises were true.

When the Extended Cut came out, I was finally able to learn the true motives of the Reapers, but what was left untold by the Catalyst is the nature of his creators, I assumed that they were galactic peacekeepers or peacemakers since the Catalyst was created to bring peace between organcs and synthetics and to establish some kind of connection between the two forms of life,, and I had a feeling my belief was wrong, considering the Reapers are the antagonists of the game no matter how "benevolent" their motives may sound. However, when the Leviathan DLC came out, when I played it and learned about some of the history of the Catalyst's creators, the pieces of the puzzle began to come together in my mind, I realized that his creators are not galactic peacekeepers or peacemakers after all, and it slowly occurred to me that destroying the Reapers was not a bad choice after all.

That's my perspective.

I don't know. The Extended cut helped, but (to use another analogy), it felt like sticking a band-aid over a deep gash that needs real bandages and stitches. I appreciate they spent the time and effort on it. But I still maintain the endings were broken at their fundamental core and remain so after EC. I just felt a complete lack of emotion when witnessing the ending after investing myself in a really emotionally compelling game... Thane's death still brings tears to my eyes... We should've fought the reapers but instead the Crucible turned out to be this wierd God-device. As a plot device, the crucible never made much sense to me. It felt so forced, so artificial. The fact that we were spending all these resources to build this giant thing that no one even knew what it would do (or at least Shepard was never told what it would do, maybe we were supposed to assume the scientists knew what it was), made it every hard to accept it and head-canon it in my mind, which sort of put a drag on the rest of the game. The fact that it turned out to be this God-device that invokes the catalyst (our favorite playa starchild)  is just so wierd and so (as I've said before) un-mass effecty-y and more supernatural.

As far as the people saying "you don't get it." Can you make me get it?... Or am I just not on the your intellectual level, and clearly not capable of posessing the mental processing power required to interpret the ending?... I guess I'm just a simple lowly pleb.

Modifié par Roux72, 13 janvier 2014 - 05:57 .

[GimmeDaGun]

Off: I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but aren't you (I mean all of you: pro- and contra- enders alike) tired of this endless and sensless debate? I mean two years of constant, purposeless fighting over the ending of the game makes it kind of evident that this whole thing does not lead anywhere. Everybody had made up their minds about it ages ago, and nothing will change that. Those who dislike it will dislike it no matter what and vice versa. Writing down the same thing over and over and over for the xilonth time will not help anybody's case.



Edit:

It's not about getting it or not getting it. It's more about liking it or not. 

Everybody is different. There are people who like this sort of thing and can take something away from it. It gives them something or some things. It could be the feel of the ending, its harshness, its merciless grittiness, even the creative approach it takes. There could be several reasons behind their enjoyment of it. 

Others dislike it. To them it is a let down. It does not give them anything, what they could take away from it. Even they could feel that it actually took something away from their enjoyment of the series and\\or the universe. Either because they expected something completely different, or because it is totally not their thing. But again there could be many reasons. 

The ending is not rocket-science really (neither is the whole series). It's not genious, but it's not the 9th level of hell stupid either. It's up to every individual player to judge.

You should also consider the that not everybody likes the series for the same reasons. Not everybody loves it for its characters for instance. Each player aproaches the whole game series differently and likes it for different reasons. Also the level of emotional attachment can be very different in each player's case. 
For instance, I'm not so over-fond of the characters, nor I am very emotionally invested. I haven't played the games a hundred times, nor I plan to. I'm not a Bioware fan. etc. etc. etc. These factors can all influence people's attitude towards the game and its ending.

Modifié par GimmeDaGun, 13 janvier 2014 - 06:15 .

[Reorte]

c091n87 wrote...

I'm not sure what people expect; that if war assets are high enough the reapers can die with no casualties or something?

I actually admire the situation where you are not given a truly "good" choice. Like the Virmire situation, you can't get the happy ending like you could with the Suicide Mission where everyone survives. Sometimes it doesn't work that way.

A lot of people essentially wanted something where the mass relays weren't destroyed. EDI and the Geth don't die. No one starves to death on Earth. No one gets stranded. Everything more or less returns to normal and the galaxy rebuilds itself. An ending where you make a choice, but no serious consequences to go with it. People seem to forget, this game is about choices...and consequences.

Casualties in a war story are fine, as long as they're there for a good reason. The trouble with having a device like the Crucible / Catalyst is having it able to do what it does in a single shot yet still have a good reason for anyone else getting hurt, unless it's just a huge bomb that wipes out everything indiscriminatly. Any "ends the enemy with a single action" plot device is going to suffer the same problem. The Reapers might be too big an enemy to be defeated without loss (once we've got as far as push the button time), but if that's the case then they need a better way of being defeatable.

Not being gived a "good" choice because that's where the story naturally leads is one thing, it's quite another when you're not given one simply for the sake of not being given one because that would be too good.

Also - "sometimes it doesn't work that way". Sometimes it does. If I'm supposed to be able to influence the story at all it should be possible to do differently in different playthroughs. That's the massive strength of a game as a storytelling medium, and why losses can have such a big emotional impact (which is good), if they've happened because you've screwed up, or even if you didn't screw up but weren't good enough.

[Reorte]

GimmeDaGun wrote...

Off: I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but aren't you (I mean all of you: pro- and contra- enders alike) tired of this endless and sensless debate? I mean two years of constant, purposeless fighting over the ending of the game makes it kind of evident that this whole thing does not lead anywhere. Everybody had made up their minds about it ages ago, and nothing will change that. Those who dislike it will dislike it no matter what and vice versa. Writing down the same thing over and over and over for the xilonth time will not help anybody's case.

The game has been out for long enough now that you could say the same thing about everything in it. Why still come to the boards if you feel there's nothing left to say?

[GimmeDaGun]

Reorte wrote...

GimmeDaGun wrote...

Off: I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but aren't you (I mean all of you: pro- and contra- enders alike) tired of this endless and sensless debate? I mean two years of constant, purposeless fighting over the ending of the game makes it kind of evident that this whole thing does not lead anywhere. Everybody had made up their minds about it ages ago, and nothing will change that. Those who dislike it will dislike it no matter what and vice versa. Writing down the same thing over and over and over for the xilonth time will not help anybody's case.

The game has been out for long enough now that you could say the same thing about everything in it. Why still come to the boards if you feel there's nothing left to say?

Old habits die hard, one could say. I'm just looking for something new and interesting. Sometimes I find it, most of the times I don't. Sometimes I feel like chipping in, most of the cases nowadays I don't. I also anticipate to find out something about the next game, or get info on new mods. Plus it's about the only forum I'm registered to where I can practice my English. That's about it. 

Modifié par GimmeDaGun, 13 janvier 2014 - 06:18 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

iakus wrote...

c091n87 wrote...

I personally believe those who say its poorly written have been listening to too many internet memes, or spending too much time on the internet and not enough time playing the game. People will use that poorly written excuse because something isn't fully explained to you. Not everything is going to be spelled out in works of fiction. A lot of the stuff during the last 20 minutes of the game does require a bit of work on your part, as well as being able to connect the dots with the subtle clues that were provided.

Thing is though, a lot of you didn't want a simple explanation, you wanted them to completelty redo everything (not just the final 20 minutes, but the last hour as I recall reading over the last year or two), which was never going to happen.

Another "You don't get it!"

Do a shot everyone!  ::sip::

I can't drink, but I live in Washington. Can I take a hit off my bong? 

[ImaginaryMatter]

c091n87 wrote...

I personally believe those who say its poorly written have been listening to too many internet memes, or spending too much time on the internet and not enough time playing the game. People will use that poorly written excuse because something isn't fully explained to you. Not everything is going to be spelled out in works of fiction. A lot of the stuff during the last 20 minutes of the game does require a bit of work on your part, as well as being able to connect the dots with the subtle clues that were provided.

Thing is though, a lot of you didn't want a simple explanation, you wanted them to completelty redo everything (not just the final 20 minutes, but the last hour as I recall reading over the last year or two), which was never going to happen.

I'm probably going to regret this... but what subtle clues? An in-depth breakdown of the ending sequence only highlights how shoehorned it was into the story.

[AlanC9]

Reorte wrote...

Also - "sometimes it doesn't work that way". Sometimes it does. If I'm supposed to be able to influence the story at all it should be possible to do differently in different playthroughs. That's the massive strength of a game as a storytelling medium, and why losses can have such a big emotional impact (which is good), if they've happened because you've screwed up, or even if you didn't screw up but weren't good enough.

Surely you can't be saying that all losses should be avoidable, or under the player's control.

[AlanC9]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

I can't drink, but I live in Washington. Can I take a hit off my bong? 

Sounds appropriate.

I'm going to have to time-shift mine into the evening. I'll do them while watching "Archer."

Modifié par AlanC9, 13 janvier 2014 - 07:19 .

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

Surely you can't be saying that all losses should be avoidable, or under the player's control.

To a certain degree, the losses should be under a player's control.  If it's unavoidable that there will be loss, then there should be flexibility in the payment.  It adds to player agency.

[AlanC9]

We had flexibility in ME3, didn't we?

And in any case, sometimes we shouldn't. Unless we want to rule out an awful lot of stories as being inappropriate for video games, and I'm not inclined to do that.

Modifié par AlanC9, 13 janvier 2014 - 08:47 .

[Eterna]

You don't need handcannon to understand the endings.

[Almostfaceman]

iakus wrote...

c091n87 wrote...

I personally believe those who say its poorly written have been listening to too many internet memes, or spending too much time on the internet and not enough time playing the game. People will use that poorly written excuse because something isn't fully explained to you. Not everything is going to be spelled out in works of fiction. A lot of the stuff during the last 20 minutes of the game does require a bit of work on your part, as well as being able to connect the dots with the subtle clues that were provided.

Thing is though, a lot of you didn't want a simple explanation, you wanted them to completelty redo everything (not just the final 20 minutes, but the last hour as I recall reading over the last year or two), which was never going to happen.

Another "You don't get it!"

Do a shot everyone!  ::sip::

I have some catching up to do.

*glug!*

[Roux72]

Eterna5 wrote...

You don't need handcannon to understand the endings.

Pretty sure you do actually. Hand cannons are required for most fun things in life.

[Roux72]

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Surely you can't be saying that all losses should be avoidable, or under the player's control.

To a certain degree, the losses should be under a player's control.  If it's unavoidable that there will be loss, then there should be flexibility in the payment.  It adds to player agency.

This.

[Roux72]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

c091n87 wrote...

I personally believe those who say its poorly written have been listening to too many internet memes, or spending too much time on the internet and not enough time playing the game. People will use that poorly written excuse because something isn't fully explained to you. Not everything is going to be spelled out in works of fiction. A lot of the stuff during the last 20 minutes of the game does require a bit of work on your part, as well as being able to connect the dots with the subtle clues that were provided.

Thing is though, a lot of you didn't want a simple explanation, you wanted them to completelty redo everything (not just the final 20 minutes, but the last hour as I recall reading over the last year or two), which was never going to happen.

I'm probably going to regret this... but what subtle clues? An in-depth breakdown of the ending sequence only highlights how shoehorned it was into the story.

Once agains. This.