692 réponses à ce sujet

[Roux72]

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.

You are assuming I am trying to speak for the community. I am not. I speak for myself.

I am simply saying that there are others. Many others. Who would simply like endings that make sense to them. That may or may not make up a larger portion of the community. Who is to say?

Modifié par Roux72, 11 janvier 2014 - 06:23 .

[AlanC9]

ArcherTactlenecks wrote...

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.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to point out upthread. It's a distraction.

[AlanC9]

Roux72 wrote...

You are assuming I am trying to speak for the community. I am not. I speak for myself.

I thought you were speaking for objective reality.

(See what I mean?)

Modifié par AlanC9, 11 janvier 2014 - 06:23 .

[dreamgazer]

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.

Objectively, there are at least three endings in the vanilla cut. Subjectively, you might consider it one.

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.

That would make the ending awesome by your objective parameters, right? It completely revolves around a huge final choice.

[Roux72]

AlanC9 wrote...

Roux72 wrote...

You are assuming I am trying to speak for the community. I am not. I speak for myself.

I thought you were speaking for objective reality.

(See what I mean?)

Objective reality can only be determined by the individual observing it. Which makes it subjective in a way... Oh crap philosophy what are you doing?... Philosophy! Stahp!

The point being that the fact that I included the word objective isn't really that big a deal unless you make it a big deal. Since you could argue that there's no such thing as objectivity since each individual human sees things differently.

[Roux72]

dreamgazer wrote...

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.

Objectively, there are at least three endings in the vanilla cut. Subjectively, you might consider it one.

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.

That would make the ending awesome by your objective parameters, right? It completely revolves around a huge final choice.

Yeah I guess so. Why does the ending leave me feeling a lack of any emotion then?... This thread was useful for something! We have determined that trying to look at video games objectively doesn't work! (I'm only half-joking tbh).

[MegaSovereign]

You are assuming I am trying to speak for the community. I am not. I speak for myself.

Well you said that problems involving closure were "FALSE assumptions." The OP read like an angry letter to Bioware and you disregarded what some other fans' issues with the ending in place of your own.

I am simply saying that there are others. Many others. Who would simply like endings that make sense to them. That may or may not make up a larger portion of the community. Who is to say?

Well uh, duh. Unless you're insane you're going to prefer an ending that makes sense.

But different perspectives, bla bla

The endings mostly make sense to me (at least in terms of what Bioware tried to do with them), but I still didn't like them. Sooo..Yea go fish.

[Roux72]

MegaSovereign wrote...

You are assuming I am trying to speak for the community. I am not. I speak for myself.

Well you said that problems involving closure were "FALSE assumptions." The OP read like an angry letter to Bioware and you disregarded what some other fans' issues with the ending in place of your own.

I am simply saying that there are others. Many others. Who would simply like endings that make sense to them. That may or may not make up a larger portion of the community. Who is to say?

Well uh, duh. Unless you're insane you're going to prefer an ending that makes sense.

But different perspectives, bla bla

The endings mostly make sense to me (at least in terms of what Bioware tried to do with them), but I still didn't like them. Sooo..Yea go fish.

I am not angry at Bioware, simply confused. I'm sorry if it read as angry. I thought I stated clearly in the beginning that I like Bioware. A lot I might add.

[AlanC9]

I'll leave "objective" to others for now; no reason I should have all the fun. Might as well actually get into this.

Moving on to the argument itself, that opening bit about how Bioware should have disliked the ending themselves, or pretended to, or something, is another distraction. What Bio did or didn't do with their fan relations doesn't have anything to do with the topic, and shouldn't have been there. As for the superficial complaints, I've seen plenty of people making those "superficial" complaints, including people who claim to think they're superficial themselves. I'm OK with dismissing those superficial complaints out-of-hand myself, but that's easy enough for me since I don't have any serious problem with the endings in the first place.

On this issue of choice, I would like to discuss the war asset rating system. This was something that had so much potential for the ending, but unfortunately resulted in having almost no affect on the ending. I should've seen the merc fleets I gathered from Aria, the Geth fleets I saved on Rannoch, the Volus bombing fleets I aquired from the little rotund fellow on the Citadel, etc, etc. What I see in the ending is the same cinamtic scene no matter which war assets I invested the time in getting all resulting in the same three endings. In Mass Effect 2, on the contrary, the loyalty missions and how I deployed my squad had real consqeunces on who died and whoI got to see again in Mass Effect 3.

You're muddling up choice and cinematics here. Seeing the Volus bombing fleet doesn't imply any actual different effects of the war asset, or any choices. Your argument's about choice, so don't talk about pictures.

Then we've got some complaints about people complaining about complainers. Again, a distraction. It's got no relevance to your argument. You sure you don't want to just talk about how people are being mean to you rather than talk about the ending?

And then we've got a wrap-up.

Where's the actual argument? ME is about choice, and therefore  the ending was bad because........

Modifié par AlanC9, 11 janvier 2014 - 06:43 .

[tracesaint]

ME3 is the ending. Throughout the game you make your choices on the Krogan, Quarians, Geth and other races during side quests. How you deal with the Reapers simply effects the ending choices you have already made prior to meeting the Catalyst.

[AlanC9]

Roux72 wrote...

The point being that the fact that I included the word objective isn't really that big a deal unless you make it a big deal. Since you could argue that there's no such thing as objectivity since each individual human sees things differently.

My point was that claiming to be objective was a bad idea. All it can do is make you look ridiculous. I'm not the only person in the thread telling you that, you know

[Roux72]

Yes people were mean to me. Boo-hoo.

I don't know if there was any singular argument in there. The choices you made in ME3 simply did not matter. I'm sorry they didn't. At all. Cured the genophage? Too bad doesn't do anything. Saved the rachni queen? Too bad, doesn't actually change a thing. Oh you even went out of your way to recruit Aria's mercs? Why did you do that, it doesn't affect anything in the ending?... Oh but you might get your ems high enough for synthesis.What does the magic green powder do? I'm still not even sure what synthesis means? Infuse all organic and synthetic life? That could me literally a billion different things.

So if I had one singular argument it would be that the endings don't make sense to me. Forgetting the whole "objective."

My point was is that there are objective facts that can be used to support my subjective opinion.

[JamesFaith]

Roux72 wrote...

I don't know if there was any singular argument in there. The choices you made in ME3 simply did not matter. I'm sorry they didn't. At all. Cured the genophage? Too bad doesn't do anything. Saved the rachni queen? Too bad, doesn't actually change a thing. 

....

My point was is that there are objective facts that can be used to support my subjective opinion.

Lets say I didn't save Rachni in ME1 and then free clone Queen. Result was penalty - 300 (not exactly sure) EMS comparing to game where I saved them both. And result would be that I would miss, lets say, 50 EMS point to get ending choice Destroy, Control and Synthetis and got only options Destroy and Control.

This look like saving Rachni queen changed something  to me in basic meaning of word change. 

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Roux72, here's the problem. The plot of the entire series is about stopping the reapers from killing everyone in the galaxy. It didn't matter what their motive was. Their motive didn't affect what you had to do in the end. If you stopped them you were the hero. If you failed you were the chump.

Granted the main plot may have not been that compelling because "the reapers" were not compelling villains. Quite honestly the sub plots were far more interesting. This sauteed cuttlefish I'm having for dinner is excellent. The characters in the sub-plots were far more interesting. We cared about them. That's why we bought the games. The majority of us didn't buy them because we wanted to see reaper ships. We wanted our characters to interact with these other characters and participate in the sub-plots.

Freed the werewolves in DAO? Did it make a difference? No. You could have killed them and the spirit of the forest and gotten the same result. Chose Bhelen over Harrowmount? Did it make a difference? No. You still got Dwarven support.

Do you get it now? In RPGs you get an illusion of choice unless you're playing a pen and paper game. That's the bottom line. You can't give open choice in a computer RPG. The writers have to bring everything back to a single point somewhere. At the end? They can do multiple choices. But if they continue the series, I've got new for you, they're going to have to minimalize the impact of those choices so much that it becomes effectively a single choice. There simply aren't enough resources in a game to do otherwise.

[AlanC9]

Roux72 wrote...

Yes people were mean to me. Boo-hoo.

I don't know if there was any singular argument in there. The choices you made in ME3 simply did not matter. I'm sorry they didn't. At all. Cured the genophage? Too bad doesn't do anything. Saved the rachni queen? Too bad, doesn't actually change a thing. Oh you even went out of your way to recruit Aria's mercs? Why did you do that, it doesn't affect anything in the ending?... Oh but you might get your ems high enough for synthesis.What does the magic green powder do? I'm still not even sure what synthesis means? Infuse all organic and synthetic life? That could me literally a billion different things.

So if I had one singular argument it would be that the endings don't make sense to me. Forgetting the whole "objective."

My point was is that there are objective facts that can be used to support my subjective opinion.

Well, at least there's actually something like an argument here, as opposed to a bunch of disconnected ramblings. (But since when do subjective opinions need facts to support them? Nobody's telling you that you have to like the game.)

How'd you feel about the ME1 ending? By your standards nothing you do in that game matters either. Same for KotOR... same for almost all RPGs. 

And of course, curing the genophage does change stuff. It might change the ending, might not, but it changes what happens to the krogan.

Modifié par AlanC9, 11 janvier 2014 - 08:39 .

[AlanC9]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...
Freed the werewolves in DAO? Did it make a difference? No. You could have killed them and the spirit of the forest and gotten the same result. Chose Bhelen over Harrowmount? Did it make a difference? No. You still got Dwarven support.

Though you do get different sprites in the final battle depending on who you side with. Doesn't change what happens, or gameplay, but if your standards for something "mattering" are low enough it might do.

Modifié par AlanC9, 11 janvier 2014 - 08:42 .

[Roux72]

AlanC9 wrote...

Roux72 wrote...

Yes people were mean to me. Boo-hoo.

I don't know if there was any singular argument in there. The choices you made in ME3 simply did not matter. I'm sorry they didn't. At all. Cured the genophage? Too bad doesn't do anything. Saved the rachni queen? Too bad, doesn't actually change a thing. Oh you even went out of your way to recruit Aria's mercs? Why did you do that, it doesn't affect anything in the ending?... Oh but you might get your ems high enough for synthesis.What does the magic green powder do? I'm still not even sure what synthesis means? Infuse all organic and synthetic life? That could me literally a billion different things.

So if I had one singular argument it would be that the endings don't make sense to me. Forgetting the whole "objective."

My point was is that there are objective facts that can be used to support my subjective opinion.

Well, at least there's actually something like an argument here, as opposed to a bunch of disconnected ramblings. (But since when do subjective opinions need facts to support them? Nobody's telling you that you have to like the game.)

How'd you feel about the ME1 ending? By your standards nothing you do in that game matters either. Same for KotOR... same for almost all RPGs. 

And of course, curing the genophage does change stuff. It might change the ending, might not, but it changes what happens to the krogan.

I kind of agree and kind of disagree with what you're saying at the same time. I don't think the choice is always an illusion. In Mass Effect 2, based on decisions you made in regards to whether or not spending time doing loyalty missions, and making sure to buy upgrades for your ship, as well, as well as correctly deploying your squad in the final suicide mission has a direct impact on who lives and dies. Characters you spent a whole 30-50 hours bonding with and learning their stories. The first time I played through the suicide mission, not knowing what to expect, I saw squad mates die on screen that I like because I didn't take the time to buy armor plating for the ship, or because I didn't help them out, or because I deployed them wrong. I can could then choose whether or not to destroy the collector base, or give it to the illusive man. A tough decision, because back in ME2 the Illusive man was not a black and white evil guy, he was much more morally grey... Sure mayb leaning towards evil, but definitely grey.

I don't even know what happened... I can't put my finger on exactly what it is. The endings are meaningless because they reverse everything you've done. Maybe the Krogan genophage was cured, maybe it wasn't. Irrelevent now, since no one will be able to come or go to Tuchanka.

Maybe my issue is that the endings are dull. If you write in a character, this case starchild, who can snap his fingers and make all the badies go away... What was the point of it all?

In Mass Effect1? There was a very clear antagonist, Sovereign. We defeated him. The Citadel and galactic civilization. Starchild comes out of no where in the last ten minutes and tells us he's the antagonist. Excuse me? What? Twists are cool. When you execute them right. But writing in a new god-like being to snap his fingers and change the world. If you can use artistic integrity to defend that, that I can use it to defend running around the house drawing penises on the walls with crayon. In Mass Effect one we defeated sovereign and saved Galactic community. In Mass Effect 3 we defeated the reapers... Maybe. Not still quite clear on what control actually does... Or synthesis for that matter... But in doing so you've ruined galactic civilization. Relays destroyed. Earth destroyed (it was in proximity to a relay correct?). You've damned everyone and everything you were supposed to be fighting the reapers for. An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. I think a more sound way to go  would have been to have with enough ems, you can just about overcome the reapers with albeit the sacrificing uncounctable numbers of lives and ships... But not damning the galaxy.

... Because at this point all our efforts become meaningless.

[Eterna]

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.

I would as I find them narratively coherent and always have, but lets be honest, you won't really read what anyone types. Your mind is made up. 

[Redbelle]

I have to agree with the OP in that by the time the ending rolled on..... the player was no longer the centre of the game.

The game responds to player input and responds to that input by making alterations to how event's play out. Getting an ending screen with your LI would have tailored to the emotional desire to see their characters resolve the purpose of their game playing existence by having a good ending that all gamers recognise as good....... this possibility on top of the endings we got I would say.

But before getting into a discussion on what I call the range of endings, that gamers understand best as a sliding scale of success were Total bad = Death and Defeat, while Total good equals Alive and Triumphant........ Let's think about those war assets and harken back to the days of ME2 where assets were seen to have an effect on the level of success of the suicide mission.

Basically, if you don't do something before the mission to prepare, you are treated to a cut scene of a squad mate dying before you set foot on the Collector base.

If you delay to prepare you lose kidnapped crew.

Make the wrong decision in ME2's party piece suicide mission and you lose a party member.

What you did in ME2 had a direct effect on how future events played out. Not in one big finale but in small events that occured throughout the ending.

ME3 does not have that.

And at this point we should talk about game progression from one game development to another.

ME2 built on the game mechanis of ME1, But in contrast, ME3 took the core game playing principle of the titles and added nothing more to them for the gamer to manipulate. ME3 demonstrated a step backwards in how the game related to players. The only points of innovation in gameplay coming from DLC where we are given a CSI sequence and a distract the guard mechanic in Citadel DLC.......

......Which does nothing to describe how NOT getting your assets to fight alongside you during the ending...... is a missed opportunity of epic proportions.

ME2 offered a dirty dozen style, know your squad, know their strength's and apply them to the task at hand.

ME3 did not progress as a game development out of ME2 to take this game mechanic and develop it in a way that made sense in the context of the galaxy being at war, and that army's were needed to fight it.

Since nothing we did developed into an army that made a difference to the way event's played out in the final mission of ME3, (Krogan speech notwithstanding....... I'd rather fight with a computer contolled horde of Krogan at my back). The way the game was developed was done so very....... I'm just going to say non Bio Ware like. The game had much story, but not the intriquacy of narrative that merges with the gameplay.

Finally, to talk about someones point that ME1 also lacks this ME2 style of game ending.......

.......

Well yes!

It comes back to game progression development from title to title.

ME1 was the first game in the series and set the benchmark for how ME plays out.

ME2 raised the bar of how ending's take form by redefining event's based on player decisions.

ME3..... was more like ME1, with the occasional splash of ME2 thrown in here and there. ME3's ending plays very linear. And things do happen which are based off past player decisions...... But none of them matter in the wider cotext of the last mission because they have no consequences.

If Steve lives or dies because you talked him into grieving for his husband.....There are no consequence beyond him living or dying. I'd have liked to have seen Steve swing by to get Shepard off the Citdael if he lived/Shepard get's caught in the explosion and dies if Steve dies..... (Not really, that's just to highlight how ME3's choice mechanic could have resulted in differnet outcomes).

If the Krogan are seen in the prep before the final mission, you get a couple of Krogan computer controlled support guys who you can aim the reticle at and hit the action button to control the direction of their attack...... Or if you have mor than the Krogan in your army you have to pick the race that backs you up for the final assault on the beam, meaning you have to choose between Asari gunship support, Rachni pulling enemy's underground. Salarian STG sniper support. Quarian orbital supply drops..... etc...... (Okay, these example are very superficial as they are not based on narrative but rather, expanding gameplay....... but the segment before Shepards speech could have had Shepard talking to the War Asset represetive NPC's where you are told of what this army you have gathered can do, and how much of it you can bring to bear).

ME2 showed us that our actions have consequences beyond the immediate and that by taking certain actions, we can either set ourselves up for an easier ride in the future, or not if we choose something different.

Hopefully, in ME4, BW game development staff, who as I understand it, carried alot of people who ahve never worked on a ME game before, will keep in mind that they are not working on a straight shooter. They are working on a shooter that expands the role of the person behind the gun.

Modifié par Redbelle, 11 janvier 2014 - 10:37 .

[frostajulie]

NeonFlux117 wrote...

The endings-(at face value interpretation), are lore breaking, silly, poorly executed and lacking in all major areas of otherwise decent storytelling.

They suck cause they suck. Nuff said. But the series was still amazing and ME3 was still a great game. ME1 and ME2 are masterpieces. Always were. Always will be.

I can get behind this.  Fact is 2 years? later I still play ME1 and ME2 for fun but can't really stand to boot up ME3.  That says everything about  how I feel about the final installment when the last 5 minutues make the entire game unplayable to me. And I am in love with Citidel DLC but have only played it once. makes me sad but whatevs

[Redbelle]

frostajulie wrote...

NeonFlux117 wrote...

The endings-(at face value interpretation), are lore breaking, silly, poorly executed and lacking in all major areas of otherwise decent storytelling.

They suck cause they suck. Nuff said. But the series was still amazing and ME3 was still a great game. ME1 and ME2 are masterpieces. Always were. Always will be.

I can get behind this.  Fact is 2 years? later I still play ME1 and ME2 for fun but can't really stand to boot up ME3.  That says everything about  how I feel about the final installment when the last 5 minutues make the entire game unplayable to me. And I am in love with Citidel DLC but have only played it once. makes me sad but whatevs

How about one last playthrough of ME3 and save before Citadel.

Then you can go back to it whenever.

[Cobalt2113]

In your OP you claim that the "vocal minority" thing is untrue. Can you back up that statement with facts at all? Given that ME3 had sold over 3.5 million this time last year. That would mean at least 1.75 million people would've had to have complained for that to be accurate. Can you provide any proof whatsoever that that is the case? Otherwise I'm going to keep assuming the logical... that it IS a minority of the total player base.

Modifié par Cobalt2113, 11 janvier 2014 - 12:32 .

[GimmeDaGun]

 Objective opinion view thread number X. No offence OP, but this horse had been beaten to death "ages ago". Also it is quite strong a word to use on pretty much anything when it comes to people's opinions. If you have a strong opinion about something you can't look at it from a neutral, distant point of view and take all the different pespectives and opinions of people about the thing concerned into consideration. Maybe you want to be objective, but since you are one person who cares about the issue so much that you even creat your own thread about it, you simply can not be.  

 People can hardly be objective. Also objectivity does not equal general consensus about something or the opinion of the majority of a population (in this case the ME-fans).

Human beings as they are are not objective. 

 The ending is controvertial and debated to death by many people. This is about the only thing close to being "objective" which I could and dare to say about the ending. All the rest is personal opinion.

I like the ending: the current version of it with all the dlc-s out and installed. Ok, maybe I could live without The Citadel dlc, which I found cheesy and silly, but at least well produced and entertaining in a way. See this is also a personal opinion. There's nothing objective about it. 


Edit: fixing type-os.

Modifié par GimmeDaGun, 11 janvier 2014 - 11:34 .

[von uber]

Just to say the witcher 2 managed divergent plots with different endings. It would not have been beyond the wit of bioware to do so if they had wished.

[Reorte]

AlanC9 wrote...

You're muddling up choice and cinematics here. Seeing the Volus bombing fleet doesn't imply any actual different effects of the war asset, or any choices. Your argument's about choice, so don't talk about pictures.

Seeing the volus bombing fleet bombing in one playthrough but getting wiped out because it doesn't have any cover in another would though, even if in both cases you've still got enough not to affect the final decision.