1638 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

Plenty of people did indeed like it. But making a product that goes out of it's way to alienate a certain amount of the fanbase is not exactly a sign of goodwill. They explicitly wanted to make strife and diversion among their fans, and they did so in the final installment of their half-decade long trilogy. 

 

Say what you will, but I think that was a stupid thing to do. Especially for long time fans, who (perhaps unfairly) had certain expectations for a BioWare product.

 

Also, don't be an ass.

Don't worry on my account.  Now that I've figured out how it works, I'm finding the ignore feature on this forum works just fine.

[wright1978]

Prior to EC, I could have believed this. But not after EC.  That was their opportunity to show what they learned from the fans.  But doubling down on these endings show they were either willfully ignoring what people found wrong with the endings (barring a few cosmetic changes) or they simply didn't understand what the big deal was.  

 

And I think calling these endings mediocre is giving them too much credit.  DA2's ending was mediocre.  ME3 is a whole new level of bad.  

 

Yep agree it is a disservice to the word mediocre to associate it with the ME3 endings, which any many leagues worse in atrocity both pre and post EC.

[Tevinter Soldier]

the more i play it the more i like, my problems with ME3 were never the choices, it was the way it was contrived.

 

Me3 didn't flow like the rest of the games, the ending i was like HOW TE **** DID THE ILLUSIVE MAN GET THERE?

 

what the ****, what is this hologram ****?

 

but never the endings, for me it was your classical tale, something i bitched but for years on the old forums about rainbows and sunshine everywhere, like that stupid rachni queen!

 

for me the game headed where it should with ME2 presenting more of a darker path. even paragons got shown the underbelly.

ME3 as i said suffers from flow problems and stupid villains. but rather then kill it the endings save it.

 

classical literature show us the true meaning what hero's are, I'm glad bioware didn't offer the disney route. after coping out for so long and removing the actual hard choices by rewarding every single paragon option they finally showed a spine. if theres no negative consequence if every option is easy "save everybody" then theres no option! theres no choice, if you can save everyone why wouldn't you?

 

the game finally came back around to what we were promised with the original trailer, no cop out out rainbows and bunnies. time to nut up and be an adult. you want to be there hero you have to sacrifice and for saving the galaxy it requires a huge sacrifice, thats what i loved most about the the EC they could of bitched out and gave you a disney option removed any shred of morality issues the game presented where everything was honky dory.

 

Instead they said if you aren't prepared to sacrifice you lose. it re-enforces the great morality tales from the past their impact on us all the hero doesn't get to live doesn't get a happy ending except on very rare occasions and even then its requires monumental sacrifice the hero has to be prepared to die but lives anyway.

 

Disney ruined what morality tales were about, if theres a choice that always ends well its never a choice at all.

[Iakus]

the more i play it the more i like, my problems with ME3 were never the choices, it was the way it was contrived.

 

Me3 didn't flow like the rest of the games, the ending i was like HOW TE **** DID THE ILLUSIVE MAN GET THERE?

 

what the ****, what is this hologram ****?

 

but never the endings, for me it was your classical tale, something i bitched but for years on the old forums about rainbows and sunshine everywhere, like that stupid rachni queen!

 

for me the game headed where it should with ME2 presenting more of a darker path. even paragons got shown the underbelly.

ME3 as i said suffers from flow problems and stupid villains. but rather then kill it the endings save it.

 

classical literature show us the true meaning what hero's are, I'm glad bioware didn't offer the disney route. after coping out for so long and removing the actual hard choices by rewarding every single paragon option they finally showed a spine. if theres no negative consequence if every option is easy "save everybody" then theres no option! theres no choice, if you can save everyone why wouldn't you?

 

the game finally came back around to what we were promised with the original trailer, no cop out out rainbows and bunnies. time to nut up and be an adult. you want to be there hero you have to sacrifice and for saving the galaxy it requires a huge sacrifice, thats what i loved most about the the EC they could of bitched out and gave you a disney option removed any shred of morality issues the game presented where everything was honky dory.

 

Instead they said if you aren't prepared to sacrifice you lose. it re-enforces the great morality tales from the past their impact on us all the hero doesn't get to live doesn't get a happy ending except on very rare occasions and even then its requires monumental sacrifice the hero has to be prepared to die but lives anyway.

 

Disney ruined what morality tales were about, if theres a choice that always ends well its never a choice at all.

And my position is that all the options sucked and were not worth the sacrifice. Heck Shepard's survival, while a large problem with the endings, isn't the biggest problem with the game.

 

How is this a "morality tale" if all the options feel immoral to me?  It simply became a psychotic, Saw-style horror at the end.

 

I tend to find it disingenuous when peope brush off problems as people wanting a "Disney ending" It's a reductio ad absurdum argument that does nothing to address the actual issues being addressed.

[vallore]

Hate is a strong word, imo inappropriate for a game, (any game); but it was very disappointing, certainly.

 

I found ME3 story itself very enjoyable, despite the fact that the game had a few relevant problems; that is, until the ending. Then it happened.

 

Personally, I found the original ending was absolutely terrible and the EC just slightly less so. For me, it wasn’t just bad, it was a game breaker, made the story feel pointless, and so I put the trilogy aside. I only replayed it much later, when I became aware of MEHEM. That mod allowed me to circumvent the problems the original ending and the EC created; (Kudos for the author).  Even so, something was definitely lost.

 

And now, after all this time, do I still find the ending terrible?

 

Yes, of course I do; the ending didn’t change, so the causes for disliking it also remain.

 

Imo, the real million Dollar question(s) is how Bioware will react, (if at all), to offset the potentially significant loss of brand loyalty, resulting of both the ending, and the way the issue was handled... and  what  impact this  may have in the reception of games like ME4, the new IP, (and to a lesser instance DAI).

[Reorte]

the more i play it the more i like, my problems with ME3 were never the choices, it was the way it was contrived.

 

Me3 didn't flow like the rest of the games, the ending i was like HOW TE **** DID THE ILLUSIVE MAN GET THERE?

 

what the ****, what is this hologram ****?

 

but never the endings, for me it was your classical tale, something i bitched but for years on the old forums about rainbows and sunshine everywhere, like that stupid rachni queen!

 

for me the game headed where it should with ME2 presenting more of a darker path. even paragons got shown the underbelly.

ME3 as i said suffers from flow problems and stupid villains. but rather then kill it the endings save it.

 

classical literature show us the true meaning what hero's are, I'm glad bioware didn't offer the disney route. after coping out for so long and removing the actual hard choices by rewarding every single paragon option they finally showed a spine. if theres no negative consequence if every option is easy "save everybody" then theres no option! theres no choice, if you can save everyone why wouldn't you?

 

the game finally came back around to what we were promised with the original trailer, no cop out out rainbows and bunnies. time to nut up and be an adult. you want to be there hero you have to sacrifice and for saving the galaxy it requires a huge sacrifice, thats what i loved most about the the EC they could of bitched out and gave you a disney option removed any shred of morality issues the game presented where everything was honky dory.

 

Instead they said if you aren't prepared to sacrifice you lose. it re-enforces the great morality tales from the past their impact on us all the hero doesn't get to live doesn't get a happy ending except on very rare occasions and even then its requires monumental sacrifice the hero has to be prepared to die but lives anyway.

 

Disney ruined what morality tales were about, if theres a choice that always ends well its never a choice at all.

Why do some people still keep coming out with the same misguided defences? Saying "rainbows and bunnies" and "Disney" are a sure sign of missing the point.

 

The problem is that someone clearly thought "Oh, don't want it to look all neat and easy, there MUST be losses" so shoved them in there whether they made sense or not. There are losses in the trilogy (Virmire), and even ME3 (can't get everyone through Tuchanka alive that you'd like to) yet people don't complain about those because they all fit in properly with the story - they aren't the forced crap that we get at the end where we've to all intents and purposes got a device with such ridiculous power that it should indeed be able to save everyone. If you want people to accept bad things happening in a story then they need to fit in to the story and not just stink of having been shoved in there in order for things to go the way the writers wanted.

 

You say "if there's no negative consequences then there's no choice" - well, the trick with the choice is knowing whether you're making the right one. If there's a bunch of negative consequences with every choice then you may as well toss a coin to make it. The hard bit (at least if you're roleplaying a Shepard trying to do the best they can) with the choices is trying to work out which is the right choice. Sure, it's easy with metagaming but don't screw up the all-important initial playthrough just to try to deal with that.

 

Also, unlike all the stories of the past, this is a game. It is not a linear story. Not being able to achieve the near impossible (or for that matter not being able to completely and utterly screw things up - even in the low EMS endings the Reapers are still stuffed) is missing the key feature of a game as a storytelling medium - it isn't fixed. Of course achieving the near impossible should be near impossible.

[vallore]

the more i play it the more i like, my problems with ME3 were never the choices, it was the way it was contrived.

 

Me3 didn't flow like the rest of the games, the ending i was like HOW TE **** DID THE ILLUSIVE MAN GET THERE?

 

what the ****, what is this hologram ****?

 

but never the endings, for me it was your classical tale, something i bitched but for years on the old forums about rainbows and sunshine everywhere, like that stupid rachni queen!

 

for me the game headed where it should with ME2 presenting more of a darker path. even paragons got shown the underbelly.

ME3 as i said suffers from flow problems and stupid villains. but rather then kill it the endings save it.

 

classical literature show us the true meaning what hero's are, I'm glad bioware didn't offer the disney route. after coping out for so long and removing the actual hard choices by rewarding every single paragon option they finally showed a spine. if theres no negative consequence if every option is easy "save everybody" then theres no option! theres no choice, if you can save everyone why wouldn't you?

 

the game finally came back around to what we were promised with the original trailer, no cop out out rainbows and bunnies. time to nut up and be an adult. you want to be there hero you have to sacrifice and for saving the galaxy it requires a huge sacrifice, thats what i loved most about the the EC they could of bitched out and gave you a disney option removed any shred of morality issues the game presented where everything was honky dory.

 

Instead they said if you aren't prepared to sacrifice you lose. it re-enforces the great morality tales from the past their impact on us all the hero doesn't get to live doesn't get a happy ending except on very rare occasions and even then its requires monumental sacrifice the hero has to be prepared to die but lives anyway.

 

Disney ruined what morality tales were about, if theres a choice that always ends well its never a choice at all.

 

I find this interesting, as despite making partially the same diagnosis about the ending that you do, I reach to precisely the opposite conclusion.

 

Now it is true that the series allows the player to decide if they want to take a pragmatic, “hard,” option, often morally grey… or take the moral high ground and be rewarded by it.

 

Some may think this is a bad thing, but personally, I don’t think that was a flaw, or a mistake; quite the contrary.  Imo, the choices were there to allow us to choose the kind of story we wanted; not to provide equally difficult choices to choose from, or to figure what choice is right and what is wrong. Instead we got options to craft our story:

 

The player wanted to make her story about morally grey decisions? Wants pragmatism? Or the occasional “hard” decision?

 

Bioware allowed that, plus provided reasons why the character would choose such instead of going for a morally comfortable option.

The player wanted to make a story more about a “paladin-like” hero and reward virtue with success? Bioware allowed that also.

 

Imo, the choices were there to allow us to choose the kind of story we wanted. They were not created just for the pleasure of those that like a darker story, or just for those who want a brighter story, but rather for both groups and everyone in between. Would the game sell as much otherwise?

 

But then, at the very end, Bioware changed the rules; now we had three morally grey options, and, of course, that may very well fit the story and play style of those that liked such approach in the first place.

 

Unfortunately, it also denied those that preferred the opposite approach a reasonable conclusion for their story.  Because, let’s face it, if for Shepard the main goal was simple enough, (to beat the reapers), for the player that is just a necessary but not sufficient condition:

 

What mattered was how she achieved that goal. If a player was enjoying a tale about an  “bigger than life hero,” that never gives up and never compromised  her morals, (hey, not everyone likes the same kind of thing, after all),   and the story allowed and supported that player to do so through nearly all 3 games, plus DLCs, you can bet that player created quite reasonable expectations to complete the story under those terms. That is why changing the rules at the last minute is, imo, a really, really bad idea.

 

Interestingly, Bioware writer Mac Walters said that:

 

 

“The ending should reflect the way the player chose to play the game."

 

"By this point in the story, the game should have had a plethora of player choices to help ensure that the final chapter reflects the decisions made by the player. If the game refuses to acknowledge any of these choices, it takes away from a player’s sense of agency."

"Their control over the world feels diminished. This is true for all stages of a game, but it can be felt even more intensely in the final moments.”

Walters also values the idea that if a story offers choice as part of its overall make-up, its ending should also do so right down to the final moments: “Players want to be able to end their individual experiences in their own way."

 

"Obviously, every option isn’t available, but if we tried, most of us could come with at least one or two plausible and exciting versions to the ends of their favourite movies.”

 

Lastly, he believes that it’s about satisfaction with what’s actually happening to the characters in the dying throes of the experience: “It’s important that players feel as though the time and effort they spent ‘beating’ the game is recognised."

 

"While a high score can achieve this well enough, more sophisticated, narrative-based games need to have rewards and benefits tied to the narrative. A simple acknowledgement by an important character can suffice, or the game itself can chronicle the deeds of the main character.”

 

You can read the rest here:

 http://www.nowgamer....me_endings.html

 

And I agree. A pity ME3 didn't manage to do this for a substantial part of the audience.

[Iakus]

 

Interestingly, Bioware writer Mac Walters said that:

 

 

“The ending should reflect the way the player chose to play the game."

 

"By this point in the story, the game should have had a plethora of player choices to help ensure that the final chapter reflects the decisions made by the player. If the game refuses to acknowledge any of these choices, it takes away from a player’s sense of agency."

"Their control over the world feels diminished. This is true for all stages of a game, but it can be felt even more intensely in the final moments.”

Walters also values the idea that if a story offers choice as part of its overall make-up, its ending should also do so right down to the final moments: “Players want to be able to end their individual experiences in their own way."

 

"Obviously, every option isn’t available, but if we tried, most of us could come with at least one or two plausible and exciting versions to the ends of their favourite movies.”

 

Lastly, he believes that it’s about satisfaction with what’s actually happening to the characters in the dying throes of the experience: “It’s important that players feel as though the time and effort they spent ‘beating’ the game is recognised."

 

"While a high score can achieve this well enough, more sophisticated, narrative-based games need to have rewards and benefits tied to the narrative. A simple acknowledgement by an important character can suffice, or the game itself can chronicle the deeds of the main character.”

 

You can read the rest here:

 http://www.nowgamer....me_endings.html

 

And I agree. A pity ME3 didn't manage to do this for a substantial part of the audience.

 

I find it incredibly hard to believe that those things were said by someone who had anything to do with ME3's endings.

[Nightwriter]

Why do some people still keep coming out with the same misguided defences? Saying "rainbows and bunnies" and "Disney" are a sure sign of missing the point.

 

The problem is that someone clearly thought "Oh, don't want it to look all neat and easy, there MUST be losses" so shoved them in there whether they made sense or not. There are losses in the trilogy (Virmire), and even ME3 (can't get everyone through Tuchanka alive that you'd like to) yet people don't complain about those because they all fit in properly with the story - they aren't the forced crap that we get at the end where we've to all intents and purposes got a device with such ridiculous power that it should indeed be able to save everyone. If you want people to accept bad things happening in a story then they need to fit in to the story and not just stink of having been shoved in there in order for things to go the way the writers wanted.

 

You say "if there's no negative consequences then there's no choice" - well, the trick with the choice is knowing whether you're making the right one. If there's a bunch of negative consequences with every choice then you may as well toss a coin to make it. The hard bit (at least if you're roleplaying a Shepard trying to do the best they can) with the choices is trying to work out which is the right choice. Sure, it's easy with metagaming but don't screw up the all-important initial playthrough just to try to deal with that.

 

Also, unlike all the stories of the past, this is a game. It is not a linear story. Not being able to achieve the near impossible (or for that matter not being able to completely and utterly screw things up - even in the low EMS endings the Reapers are still stuffed) is missing the key feature of a game as a storytelling medium - it isn't fixed. Of course achieving the near impossible should be near impossible.

The ritual of contriving ridiculous counterarguments for your opinions to discredit the opposition is old indeed.

 

"Yes, the opposing candidate disapproves of the donations I've taken from big business, but only because HE THINKS CORPORATIONS ARE RUN BY VAMPIRE DEMONS TRYING TO STEAL HIS LIFE ESSENCE."

 

Also, I agree with the rest.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Don't worry on my account.  Now that I've figured out how it works, I'm finding the ignore feature on this forum works just fine.

 

 

Well that's no good; now he can undermine anything you post without fear of reprisal.

[Iakus]

Well that's no good; now he can undermine anything you post without fear of reprisal.

Won't make any difference.

 

He tries to undermine my post.

I defend myself

He calls a liar and declares victory.

 

Been, there done, that, got the T-shirt.

 

It will be done whether I am directly invovled or not.  I'd rather not.

[Hadeedak]

I liked the concept. The execution was a bit flawed (okay, very flawed), but honestly, I found the choice a lot more interesting than the previous pair of ending choices.

 

And yeah, I still like Mass Effect 3. I'll probably continue to like it for a while. I'm still playing away at the games, now and again.

 

I usually like to time it so I end one game and bounce directly into the next one's opener before I have to ... you know. Do things that don't involve games.

 

It has flaws. Like the other two, I'm very, very fond of it.

[Massa FX]

For me, it's a matter of MENext.  What's Bioware going to do to bring back everyone they alienated?  Why should I get invested in the Mass Effect universe again when they've made it clear they can do whatever the frak they want to my character?  

 

Iakus, sorry for the delayed response. I think BW won't attempt to get back alienated players with MENext games. They already tried with EC and Citadel DLC. If players won't buy after free DLC and fan response DLC, there's prolly nothing they can do to change their minds.

 

Shoot. They have mah money for MENext and the NextNextNext, they just don't know it yet. Or maybe they do. I've said it on BSN enough times.

 

I'm anxious to play more ME games and hope they learned a powerful lesson [or two/three/four/200 lessons] about how connected players can be to their creations. I myself was shocked at my own response to ME3. It's a game I'll remember into my old age... but not in a fully good way.

[Dean_the_Young]

Won't make any difference.

 

He tries to undermine my post.

I defend myself

He calls a liar and declares victory.

 

Been, there done, that, got the T-shirt.

 

It will be done whether I am directly invovled or not.  I'd rather not.

 

Ah, but you will anyway. Someone will quote me, or respond to me indirectly, or you'll just hit that 'show post' option. And bam, you'll do it again- for the same reason you couldn't let go for the last few years.

 

And in my own defense, when I call you a liar it's generally on claims and exaggerations you readily admit are false, like 'Shepard absolutely dies in all the endings.' You just repeat them continually afterwards to the point of deliberate falsehood. Denying you do it would be willfully ignoring the truth.

 

 

Which is a shame, as I've always pointed out I respect your views on many other conducts. But if you are truly ignoring me, than you may never know.

 

Oh, the irony.

[Dean_the_Young]

Why do some people still keep coming out with the same misguided defences? Saying "rainbows and bunnies" and "Disney" are a sure sign of missing the point.

 

The problem is that someone clearly thought "Oh, don't want it to look all neat and easy, there MUST be losses" so shoved them in there whether they made sense or not. There are losses in the trilogy (Virmire), and even ME3 (can't get everyone through Tuchanka alive that you'd like to) yet people don't complain about those because they all fit in properly with the story - they aren't the forced crap that we get at the end where we've to all intents and purposes got a device with such ridiculous power that it should indeed be able to save everyone. If you want people to accept bad things happening in a story then they need to fit in to the story and not just stink of having been shoved in there in order for things to go the way the writers wanted.

 

You say "if there's no negative consequences then there's no choice" - well, the trick with the choice is knowing whether you're making the right one. If there's a bunch of negative consequences with every choice then you may as well toss a coin to make it. The hard bit (at least if you're roleplaying a Shepard trying to do the best they can) with the choices is trying to work out which is the right choice. Sure, it's easy with metagaming but don't screw up the all-important initial playthrough just to try to deal with that.

 

I'd propose an alternate interpretation of why Tuchanka passes- it's because even with costs, it still offers the path of minimal costs for maximum smiles with the overall pro-idealism route. Mordin's death is alleviated by a number of things- the fact that he's very much willing, for one, the highly sympathetic and heroic buildup and execution, and the subsequent heroic celebration/remembrance while equally popular characters live instead... and that the alternative is much more upsetting for many people, having to kill/lose two sympathetic friend NPCs for a cause treated much less sympathetically.

 

When Mordin dies for the genophage cure, everyone is smiling and cheering the player. When Mordin dies because you sabotage the cure, you face two betrayal scenarios (you betraying Mordin, then facing Wrex) while the prior praise is hollowed with deceit.

 

What this means is that the scenario still runs into the idea of a delimma with a clearly superior/happier outcome: there's a reason a hypermajority of people cure the genophage, and it's not just on the merits of the Krogan as a whole. It's the path which makes the most friends happy with Shepard and praise the player most. (The relative happiness is also why the Renegade Wrex/Eve dead route to save Mordin pays off as well- no one the player cares about will be unhappy as a result. It's emotionally cost-less.)

 

 

Which is fine... but doesn't address the implicit goal of the end-game to have relatively equal options for all the outcomes. A Tuchanka scenario, in which nearly all the emotional levers and positive emotion rewards are pointed in one direction over the other, isn't the best comparison for an end-game delimma.
 

 

Also, unlike all the stories of the past, this is a game. It is not a linear story. Not being able to achieve the near impossible (or for that matter not being able to completely and utterly screw things up - even in the low EMS endings the Reapers are still stuffed) is missing the key feature of a game as a storytelling medium - it isn't fixed. Of course achieving the near impossible should be near impossible.

 

 

I'm confused on two points: which Bioware games of the past do you feel weren't linear, and are you suggesting that previous games did not share this 'not being able to achieve the near impossible' flaw? (Of which I am confused what you mean.)

[AlanC9]

Barring that, in my wildest dreams, I'd like them to actually acknowledge that they didn't think these endingsthrough. Not try to claim that they simply "weren't clear" about the endings, not claim that "they had no idea players would get so attached" Simply say "We didn't do right by some of our fans in ending Shepard's story the way we did. We promise to do better next time"

What makes you think that thinking the endings through would have fixed your moral-acceptability problem? I suppose it would have done something for your other problem, though; inability to accept Shepard's survival is a presentation issue, and it is their job to pound the intended meaning of a scene into every viewer's head. (I'd love to see the beta reports on that clip.)

@ Dean: Dammit! I was gonna use an OOTS avatar.

[Dean_the_Young]

What makes you think that thinking the endings through would have fixed your moral-acceptability problem? I suppose it would have done something for your other problem, though; inability to accept Shepard's survival is a presentation issue, and it is their job to pound the intended meaning of a scene into every viewer's head.

@ Dean: Dammit! I was gonna use an OOTS avatar.

 

Hey, there are plenty more magnificent bastards out there for me to use, if you'd like to be the Tarquin.

 

I'm honestly thinking about using my old account avatar, just cause.

[Raging Squid]

The ending is a porta-potty they bolted onto the kickass Ferrari of ME3. It makes no sense for it to be there, and it sticks.

 

I think it's important to distinguish between Mass Effect 3 and its' ending. Me3 was truly wonderful, and I think the best in the series (although I only played through it the once, I can't stomach playing it again know how it ends).  Eventually the rage and righteous indignation petered out. Now there's this deep disappointment, like I have a 100 kids and all of them failed math. 

 

I don't understand space child! I'm BFFs with the Geth and they're BFFS with they're former murderous makers! My pilot is boning my ship! Why do you insist synthetics will kill us?! Is it because you're just a program without the ability to adapt to new information?! An AI with a design flaw that forces the hero to choose options that are contrary to the themes of the series is not dramatically satisfying!

 

And why did you need the keepers to activate the Citadel's "Reapers come kill everything" signal if you ARE the Citadel?! It seems like you would've had time to work that kink out. 

[Fraevar]

This is always a strange topic for me to discuss. But let me start by saying that the above quote from Mac Walters, taken from NowGamer* surprises me, to say the least. Everything Mac Walters expresses there is what I felt the game failed to do, when it came to respecting diversity among the playerbase.

 

I was very disappointed when the game came out, hate is too strong a word, but I definately was left with a sense of disbelief that they could ship something in that state. ME3 was a game of issues, the textures and general level of polish were way below that of previous games, for example. A telltale sign of BioWare working frantically to beat the clock even in spite of pushing back the launch day by three months.

 

I've always held the belief that it's not just the content, but the way it's presented that caused the backlash. I personally found the content to be of incredibly poor quality, it was contrived, nonsensical and directly contradicted so much of what had come before in the series, both literally and thematically. A good example is them equating choosing Destroy to wanting to/needing to eliminate all synthetics. In ME2, Legion specifically mentions that the Geth rejected using the Reapers' technology because it lessened them as a species, since they wouldn't attain the advancements on their own. If you destroy the Collector base, Legion also directly comments on this, saying that Shepard has more in common with the Geth outlook on the advancement of life than she might think. This starts to go downhill in ME3 when a lot of Reaper tech is deliberately left unexplained in order to utilize quasi-mysticism instead. "Direct personality dissemination required." stands out there, as it really makes no sense. Plus, utilizing the Reaper technology at all does seem to run counter to Legion's position in ME2. But, I digress.

 

ME1 and ME2 were games where there was a central core of mandatory plot elements, but the way the player chose to experience these were always left more open through the dialogue wheel. Commander Shepard's personality became a reflection of the player's way of viewing the Mass Effect universe. My real issue with the ending, and sadly most of ME3, is that rather than respecting that Commander Shepard can have widely different personalities, based on player choice, BioWare forced the character, and thusly the player down one (or two if you view Renegade seperately) pre-determined paths. The fact that so much of ME3 cannot diverge from the rails it's on, is why I think so many people reacted so strongly. I also think this is where the sense of betrayal comes from, in some cases, since BioWare repeatedly stated the importance of respecting different player choices, but in the end completely abandoned those ideas when the credits rolled.

 

I had about six different Commander Shepards that I took through ME2. To date, I have only imported two of those into ME3, and I don't really see a point in doing so. I'm not angry or hateful, but I am really disappointed that what could have been a triumph of interactive storytelling ended up falling victim to so many AAA gamedesign traps.

 

*http://www.nowgamer....me_endings.html

[wright1978]

 

Interestingly, Bioware writer Mac Walters said that:

 

 

“The ending should reflect the way the player chose to play the game."

 

"By this point in the story, the game should have had a plethora of player choices to help ensure that the final chapter reflects the decisions made by the player. If the game refuses to acknowledge any of these choices, it takes away from a player’s sense of agency."

"Their control over the world feels diminished. This is true for all stages of a game, but it can be felt even more intensely in the final moments.”

Walters also values the idea that if a story offers choice as part of its overall make-up, its ending should also do so right down to the final moments: “Players want to be able to end their individual experiences in their own way."

 

"Obviously, every option isn’t available, but if we tried, most of us could come with at least one or two plausible and exciting versions to the ends of their favourite movies.”

 

Lastly, he believes that it’s about satisfaction with what’s actually happening to the characters in the dying throes of the experience: “It’s important that players feel as though the time and effort they spent ‘beating’ the game is recognised."

 

"While a high score can achieve this well enough, more sophisticated, narrative-based games need to have rewards and benefits tied to the narrative. A simple acknowledgement by an important character can suffice, or the game itself can chronicle the deeds of the main character.”

 

You can read the rest here:

 http://www.nowgamer....me_endings.html

 

And I agree. A pity ME3 didn't manage to do this for a substantial part of the audience.

That quote leaves me once again with the notion talking the talk but being incapable of walking the walk.I'm sure they didn't intend the ending to be a trainwreck but that's just what happened. Also think the Walter White Shep must die thing really clashes with reflecting how the player chose to play the game.

[kleindropper]

Do I still hate Mass Effect 3?

 

After a recent ME2/ME3 playthrough, the short answer is yes.  The combat is terrific, but that is not why I played the ME series.

 

Problem 1: The game was obviously rushed.  Why is the genophage quest so developed compared to the rest of the game (It's quite obvious this part of the game was done first and the rest of the game was rushed out.)  Why are the cutscenes magnitudes better in ME2, (a 3 year old game) compared to ME3?

 

Problem 2: Totally papering over ME2.  So I can have Wrex as a squadmate in Citadel and ANY ME2 character as a squadmate in the Armax Arena, but it was too hard to add them as a special squadmate in their "portion" of the game?  Or God forbid have them as a permanent squadmate on the Normandy? (Not even the most likely and popular squadmates Miranda, Jack, Wrex or Grunt?)  I never understood how they could pull it off with Garrus and Tali but not the rest.

 

Problem 3: Fetch Quests - what happened to the mystery and discovery of finding new missions on random planets?  ME3 shoehorns you into the main quest or MP quests and fills the gaps with Shepard being a message boy in the Citadel.  Why is there only one base destination (the Citadel) and why is that one place so small in size?

 

Problem 4: The entire storyline.  I'm not even going to get into the ending again, but the whole thing goes off the rails as soon as it's obvious that Palaven has been hit even harder than Earth.  What is the point of trying to gather resources to take back Earth again?  The whole galaxy looks like it screwed!  And why is most of Shep's time being taken up by a small terrorist group Cerberus when the Reapers are attacking galaxy wide?

 

Problem 5: Where's the decisions/consequences payoff?  OK I am going to get into the ending a little bit.  I was fully expecting curveballs and repercussions for decisions like there were in ME2 but in the end none of your decisions matter, especially if you play any amount of MP.  Turians? Krogans? Geth? Rachnii?  Don't need 'em! I have 3,500 (whatever that means) in Alliance forces.  Did you drink the Cerberus koolaid in ME2 and give the Collector base to IM?  Doesn't matter! He still screws you over!

 

The bottom line: If Bioware could somehow upgrade the combat portions of ME1 and ME2 to the ME3 style, I would play those games over and over and never bother with ME3.

[Iakus]

What makes you think that thinking the endings through would have fixed your moral-acceptability problem? I suppose it would have done something for your other problem, though; inability to accept Shepard's survival is a presentation issue, and it is their job to pound the intended meaning of a scene into every viewer's head. (I'd love to see the beta reports on that clip.)
 

 

Because I believe thought should precede action.  And thinking about these endings through would have (should have, at least) had them realize these endings would not have gone over well.  

 

Heck when I first heard rumors about these endings, I dismissed them as exaggerations.  "No way Bioware would have pulled that stunt" I thought "There'd be riots" Of course it turned out the rumors, if anything, understated things.

 

THus I believe thinking things through in the first place would have resulted in different endings.  Or at the very least, I wider range of endings.

 

Oh, and fyi, your persistent use of such terms as "pound the intended meaning into every viewer's head" is getting tiresome.  Yes I know we're not all as clever as you and need things spelled out, possibly with a bouncing ball so we call follow along.  But it really comes off as condescending.

[Iakus]

This is always a strange topic for me to discuss. But let me start by saying that the above quote from Mac Walters, taken from NowGamer* surprises me, to say the least. Everything Mac Walters expresses there is what I felt the game failed to do, when it came to respecting diversity among the playerbase.

 

I was very disappointed when the game came out, hate is too strong a word, but I definately was left with a sense of disbelief that they could ship something in that state. ME3 was a game of issues, the textures and general level of polish were way below that of previous games, for example. A telltale sign of BioWare working frantically to beat the clock even in spite of pushing back the launch day by three months.

 

I've always held the belief that it's not just the content, but the way it's presented that caused the backlash. I personally found the content to be of incredibly poor quality, it was contrived, nonsensical and directly contradicted so much of what had come before in the series, both literally and thematically. A good example is them equating choosing Destroy to wanting to/needing to eliminate all synthetics. In ME2, Legion specifically mentions that the Geth rejected using the Reapers' technology because it lessened them as a species, since they wouldn't attain the advancements on their own. If you destroy the Collector base, Legion also directly comments on this, saying that Shepard has more in common with the Geth outlook on the advancement of life than she might think. This starts to go downhill in ME3 when a lot of Reaper tech is deliberately left unexplained in order to utilize quasi-mysticism instead. "Direct personality dissemination required." stands out there, as it really makes no sense. Plus, utilizing the Reaper technology at all does seem to run counter to Legion's position in ME2. But, I digress.

 

ME1 and ME2 were games where there was a central core of mandatory plot elements, but the way the player chose to experience these were always left more open through the dialogue wheel. Commander Shepard's personality became a reflection of the player's way of viewing the Mass Effect universe. My real issue with the ending, and sadly most of ME3, is that rather than respecting that Commander Shepard can have widely different personalities, based on player choice, BioWare forced the character, and thusly the player down one (or two if you view Renegade seperately) pre-determined paths. The fact that so much of ME3 cannot diverge from the rails it's on, is why I think so many people reacted so strongly. I also think this is where the sense of betrayal comes from, in some cases, since BioWare repeatedly stated the importance of respecting different player choices, but in the end completely abandoned those ideas when the credits rolled.

 

I had about six different Commander Shepards that I took through ME2. To date, I have only imported two of those into ME3, and I don't really see a point in doing so. I'm not angry or hateful, but I am really disappointed that what could have been a triumph of interactive storytelling ended up falling victim to so many AAA gamedesign traps.

 

*http://www.nowgamer....me_endings.html

Everything in this post is worth reading, but the bolded part is what really had me going MAKER, YES!!!!

[von uber]

Good post kleindropper.

[Rosstoration]

It's not hate, it's more disappointment and frustration of how much of a "bleh" the series ending on. To be honest, I uninstalled the extending cut, I understand why people like it, but I wasn't looking to sit through a three minute slideshow and have someone tell me how everything ended happily ever after - I just wanted things to make sense and not have that woefully written pile of rubbish we got when we landed at Earth.

 

The whole game was really, meh. Taking back Earth wasn't epic, it felt boring. Maybe that was the problem, the whole game felt boring and dull, really. That was the real tragedy of the ending, it made me go back and look over the whole game and realise how bland it was. The level design was woeful as a whole, the engine was really showing it's age as well, it felt really awkward going to the citadel and basically only being able to move in a straight line, only interacting with kiosks and selected npc's (probably didn't help that I recently played through the Baldur's Gate series, which is damn near perfect as a game can get).

 

I don't really hate Mass Effect 3, I'm just not in a hurry to go back and play it - I don't think it's aged well either. Already, it feels extremely clunky and outdated, the animations are hilariously awful in some areas, and they even managed to make it visually look worse than Mass Effect 2.