I don't care how vague and un-fleshed out their initial thoughts were, it included stuff revolving around dark energy or dark matter or something like that... They didn't includ starchild and that's good enough for me.
The Ending of ME3, time for an objective look
Débuté par
Roux72
, janv. 11 2014 04:07
Retour en haut
#27
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Posté 11 janvier 2014 - 05:48
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
-
- Guests
Roux72 wrote...
That's also not entirely true about choice. At the very end of Mass Effect you could choose to save or kill the council, at the end of ME2 you could choose to save or destroy the Collector base. These are central plot devices.
Fine. I will concede that "demanding" is going too far. I will also go as far as to say that it probably wasn't EA's fault. But not because EA was on their backs, I do think that was likely the case, EA has a financial stake in this after all, they want their products on the shelves.
... I don't really care who's fault it is... Well I do... But not to point fingers... I want a real explanation as to what happened. If they just dropped the ball, then someone should just come forward and admit that they dropped the ball.
I very specifically mentioned Reapers, and made note that these choices were about side things. How you dealt with the Reapers was always linear.
Maybe they didn't drop the ball. Maybe they created something that you just don't like. It's certainly possible, and unless you like every game that's ever come out, has already happened with other games. It's happened to me with NFS, it's happened to many people. It doesn't have to be a case of someone being wrong.
#28
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Posté 11 janvier 2014 - 05:51
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
-
- Guests
Roux72 wrote...
I don't care how vague and un-fleshed out their initial thoughts were, it included stuff revolving around dark energy or dark matter or something like that... They didn't includ starchild and that's good enough for me.
You said in this post that ME3 "abandoned" the original plot set out by Drew. That's just not true. You prefer it because it doesn't have the Catalyst? That's great, but that doesn't mean they "abandoned" it--because they didn't.
There was never a Dark Energy main plot, not even enough for a side plot (there were five throwaway lines, less than five minutes of game time).
#29
Posté 11 janvier 2014 - 05:52
Roux72
-
- Members
- 63 messages
The council is not a side thing.
The collectors were not a side thing.
Objective - (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
I did my best to stay away from personal feelings. The poop in the ice cream, although admittedly in poor taste was simply an analogy to explain how although the extended cut DLC did make improvements, it couldn't fix something that was fundamentally broken at its core.
The collectors were not a side thing.
Objective - (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
I did my best to stay away from personal feelings. The poop in the ice cream, although admittedly in poor taste was simply an analogy to explain how although the extended cut DLC did make improvements, it couldn't fix something that was fundamentally broken at its core.
#30
Posté 11 janvier 2014 - 05:52
dreamgazer
-
- Members
- 15 742 messages
And how much of that dark energy content was mandatory?
#31
Posté 11 janvier 2014 - 05:54
JamesFaith
-
- Members
- 2 301 messages
Roux72 wrote...
I don't care how vague and un-fleshed out their initial thoughts were, it included stuff revolving around dark energy or dark matter or something like that... They didn't includ starchild and that's good enough for me.
And "objective" thread is slowly and inevitably dissolving in subjetivity acid.
#32
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Posté 11 janvier 2014 - 05:55
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
-
- Guests
Roux72 wrote...
The council is not a side thing.
The collectors were not a side thing.
Objective - (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
I did my best to stay away from personal feelings. The poop in the ice cream, although admittedly in poor taste was simply an analogy to explain how although the extended cut DLC did make improvements, it couldn't fix something that was fundamentally broken at its core.
The Council is not the Reapers.
The Reapers are the main plot.
Ergo: the Council is a side thing.
Granted, it's one of the (conceivably, anyway) fairly important side points, like genophage, geth-Quarian, in that it involves the world state of the galaxy, but it was indisputably subordinate to the plot of "Reapers coming. STOP THEM."
#33
Posté 11 janvier 2014 - 05:59
Andrew Lucas
-
- Members
- 1 571 messages
So hey guys whats up? Oh... endings i see,ok then i will be going.
Later!
Later!
#34
Posté 11 janvier 2014 - 06:00
dreamgazer
-
- Members
- 15 742 messages
Roux72 wrote...
I don't care how vague and un-fleshed out their initial thoughts were, it included stuff revolving around dark energy or dark matter or something like that... They didn't includ starchild and that's good enough for me.
It never specified who or what stated the options to Shepard. You never know! Drew, after all, had a foreign AI tell us about the Conduit.
Also, how well do you think this dark energy ending would have incorporated your trilogy's choices?
#35
Posté 11 janvier 2014 - 06:00
Roux72
-
- Members
- 63 messages
... In poor taste... No pun intended. Honestly.
#36
Posté 11 janvier 2014 - 06:01
MattFini
-
- Members
- 3 571 messages
I love that I predicted most of these responses before clicking on this thread.
I just hate that you all beat me to it.
I just hate that you all beat me to it.
#37
Posté 11 janvier 2014 - 06:03
Roux72
-
- Members
- 63 messages
If you can explain to me why the ending or ending(s) made logical sense and were narratively coherent. I will back down and admit defeat. I swear by my honor I will admit defeat. Just explain it to me.
#38
Posté 11 janvier 2014 - 06:06
AlanC9
-
- Members
- 35 618 messages
You're the one pushing a theory; burden of proof's on you.
#39
Posté 11 janvier 2014 - 06:07
MattFini
-
- Members
- 3 571 messages
I would never do that because the endings ARE terrible in my mind.
I just think it's funny that you think you're being objective.
I just think it's funny that you think you're being objective.
#41
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Posté 11 janvier 2014 - 06:08
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
-
- Guests
Roux72 wrote...
If you can explain to me why the ending or ending(s) made logical sense and were narratively coherent. I will back down and admit defeat. I swear by my honor I will admit defeat. Just explain it to me.
"Narratively coherent" is not an objective term. it is an inherently subjective term, as it relies on one's perception of what the base narrative was in the first place.
In my opinion, Mass Effect was about beating the Reapers. Hence, the endings--which did, in fact, involve beating the Reapers--had perfect narrative coherence. The fact that Bioware used the endings to bring in a seemingly minor theme (though it wasn't minor at all IMO--ME1 established it strongly with the Geth) is irrelevant to the fact that ME began and ended with the Reapers.
#42
Posté 11 janvier 2014 - 06:09
Roux72
-
- Members
- 63 messages
Again. Yeah I think I was being pretty objective. Quote something from the op and I'll look at it.
#43
Posté 11 janvier 2014 - 06:11
Roux72
-
- Members
- 63 messages
I don't think narrative coherence is subjective. Something either makes sense within its established context or it doesn't.
#44
Posté 11 janvier 2014 - 06:13
AlanC9
-
- Members
- 35 618 messages
Roux72 wrote...
I'm pushing a theory?
Sure. Your ideas about the ending are just a theory even if you think they're objective facts.
Not that there's anything wrong with pushing theory, mind.
Modifié par AlanC9, 11 janvier 2014 - 06:14 .
#45
Posté 11 janvier 2014 - 06:14
JamesFaith
-
- Members
- 2 301 messages
Roux72 wrote...
I don't think narrative coherence is subjective. Something either makes sense within its established context or it doesn't.
Yet someone clearly saw sense here and someone not because everyone see ME series in different light.
If it was objective, there would be only one viewpoint.
#46
Posté 11 janvier 2014 - 06:16
MrMrPendragon
-
- Members
- 1 445 messages
Just change your title, because instead of discussing ME3's ending, people are going to keep pointing out that "objective" part of your title, to which you will reply that it is objective, leading us to go in circles and stretch this thread all the way to 10 pages even though we are just talking about what "objective" means.
Modifié par ArcherTactlenecks, 11 janvier 2014 - 06:17 .
#47
Posté 11 janvier 2014 - 06:17
MegaSovereign
-
- Members
- 10 794 messages
So here's my take. I think the thing that was the worst was the response to the ending by Bioware. It does not need more "clarification." If your initial response to something after recieving criticism is to throw up a shield such as "artistic integrity" or to jump to "let me clarify," there is a good chance (albeit just a chance, this is not a totalizing statement) that what you created was simply not very good. If Bioware had owned the endings (and no hiding behind artistic integrity does not in any way shape or form constitute owning up to a mistake), I could at least have respected them for that. If they had come out and said, "We're sorry, EA was on our backs for a holiday release, we had to retcon the ending, and we were rushed" - I could have respected them for being honest. But responging to the hordes of angry fans (and yes they are hordes, this "vocal minority" chant is simply untrue) by saying "we don't understand the ending" or, once more, hiding behind artistic integrity, does not serve anyone. It doesn't add to a functional company/consumer dialogue and merely results in coming across as patronising, one of the worst things a company can be when communicating to its consumer base, I should add.
Dude, most of your so-called Bioware quotes aren't actually things they said. I know because I read and watched every PR response back in 2012. Even the "artistic integrity" phrase is quoted out of context. In general, the so-called condescending tone from the Bioware PR was virtually nonexistent.
Just saying. If you're gonna label your post as objective you better prepare for scrutiny.
The FALSE assumption is that the problems with the ending revolve around "not getting closure" or that "its too dark" or "why can't we see Shepard sitting on a beach with Garrus." Those are incredibly superficial complaints that aren't actually to do with why the ending (yes singular), was just simply bad. The real reason it was bad is because the Mass Effect series is about choice. Choice between Paragon vs. Renegade, choice between who you romance, choice in your missions, choosing outcomes that affect that world on a galactic scale.
Yea, uh I personally didn't care about getting a happy ending either but there's a lot of people on this forum who would have wanted one. It gets on my nerves when one disgruntled fan thinks he can speak for the whole community.
Sit down sir.
#48
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Posté 11 janvier 2014 - 06:17
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
-
- Guests
Roux72 wrote...
I don't think narrative coherence is subjective. Something either makes sense within its established context or it doesn't.
How do you determine "established context?"
That's so broad that something like twenty Prothean scientists busting out of a hiding place on the Citadel and magically killing the Reapers, which they've been studying how to defeat for the last 50,000 years, is acceptable. Because ME1 DID leave it open that they went through the Conduit but no one heard from them again.
The problem is you are going to draw lines restricting what is "established context," and those lines are subjective.
Edit: I'm leaving for now. Don't take my lack of prompt response for ignoring you. I just can't agree that you'll ever find an objective say to call this "good" or "bad" or "narratively coherent" or any of that.
Modifié par EntropicAngel, 11 janvier 2014 - 06:21 .
#49
Posté 11 janvier 2014 - 06:18
Roux72
-
- Members
- 63 messages
AlanC9 wrote...
Roux72 wrote...
I'm pushing a theory?
Sure. Your ideas about the ending are just a theory even if you think they're objective facts.
Not that there's anything wrong with pushing theory, mind.
I guess you're right I am pushing a theory of sorts. I might not think of it like that, but no you're right that is what I am doing.
#50
Posté 11 janvier 2014 - 06:19
Roux72
-
- Members
- 63 messages
MegaSovereign wrote...
So here's my take. I think the thing that was the worst was the response to the ending by Bioware. It does not need more "clarification." If your initial response to something after recieving criticism is to throw up a shield such as "artistic integrity" or to jump to "let me clarify," there is a good chance (albeit just a chance, this is not a totalizing statement) that what you created was simply not very good. If Bioware had owned the endings (and no hiding behind artistic integrity does not in any way shape or form constitute owning up to a mistake), I could at least have respected them for that. If they had come out and said, "We're sorry, EA was on our backs for a holiday release, we had to retcon the ending, and we were rushed" - I could have respected them for being honest. But responging to the hordes of angry fans (and yes they are hordes, this "vocal minority" chant is simply untrue) by saying "we don't understand the ending" or, once more, hiding behind artistic integrity, does not serve anyone. It doesn't add to a functional company/consumer dialogue and merely results in coming across as patronising, one of the worst things a company can be when communicating to its consumer base, I should add.
Dude, most of your so-called Bioware quotes aren't actually things they said. I know because I read and watched every PR response back in 2012. Even the "artistic integrity" phrase is quoted out of context. In general, the so-called condescending tone from the Bioware PR was virtually nonexistent.
Just saying. If you're gonna label your post as objective you better prepare for scrutiny.The FALSE assumption is that the problems with the ending revolve around "not getting closure" or that "its too dark" or "why can't we see Shepard sitting on a beach with Garrus." Those are incredibly superficial complaints that aren't actually to do with why the ending (yes singular), was just simply bad. The real reason it was bad is because the Mass Effect series is about choice. Choice between Paragon vs. Renegade, choice between who you romance, choice in your missions, choosing outcomes that affect that world on a galactic scale.
Yea, uh I personally didn't care about getting a happy ending either but there's a lot of people on this forum who would have wanted one. It gets on my nerves when one disgruntled fan thinks he can speak for the whole community.
Sit down sir.
If I wasn't prepared for scrutiny good sir, I never would never have posted to begin with.
Modifié par Roux72, 11 janvier 2014 - 06:19 .
