Open you eyes people, choices don't matter in Telltales' TWD. This is so obvious you're on rails, You're even driving a train!
I was just referring to the ending of TWD, which was a perfectly executed bittersweet finale to that game. The devs who wrote the finale to ME3 might have been aiming for a similar tone, but the endings they wrote paled in comparison. Everything after that final conversation with Anderson was a poorly written mess.
@Andres Hendrix
I tried googling the "grief" thing and all I could find was this thread. I'm pretty sure you're right that it was said by one or a few of the devs, since it does sound familiar. But, honestly, as a corporate approved message, it sounds like the dumbest thing in the world to say or even imply. If they were wrong, it would insult and inflame critics. If they were right, it would just inflame the critics (the internet is not too big on self reflection). I don't think they'd try to push that. They might let it organically merge though, heh heh heh.
Anyway that's all I have to say on it. I agree with Angol Fear that Weekes didn't have to say anything, and personally, he just seems like he's talking from his own experience (as most of us are unless we're writing a dissertation), and we're free to agree or disagree with his conclusions. Its a fair guess that he might have run his response past his boss or someone at corporate sometime before the panel started just to get feedback on whether he should just shut up or answer questions like that.
You have ignored everything that I wrote. I did not say that Bioware specifically singled out an emotional response, i.e. grief, as Weeks did. I said that Bioware likened the entire fan response to an irrational emotional one, and that what Weeks said simply fits into what has been said by Bioware since the fiasco began--that the fans are overly emotional. Read their President’s response, look at what their lead writers wrote. Look at what the devs said about the EC. Basicly, if you are to belive Bioware, then you belive that the endings had no logical problems, and that fan criticism was unfounded. When I talk about the corporate in this case, I'm talking about a bureaucratic team response, used to mitigate the problems of a product etc.
What I can tell from what you are writing, you are stuck in what Wittgenstein called non-sense. You don’t have an argument, you have a feeling that something (illogical) in this case a non-sequitur (what this Angol Fear wrote about Weeks not having to answer), actually has meaning for you. I do not care about what you personally believe, try making an argument and supporting it with facts.
It would be helpful for you in the future (if you ever decide to use real arguments) to actually address what people say, instead of being so discursive.
Nice to see how much discussion has been going on since last I checked. I feel that it's a good point to say that it's a bad idea to assume that everyone who hated the endings were in the same camp.
I think the bottomline is that there were multiple issues that collided within the final 10 minutes and with Shepard dying on top of all these inconsistencies it felt like a slap in the face to anyone who were invested, thus spawning an Internet horde of furious fans.
Personally though, I would still stress that if Shepard had died for a worthy cause I wouldn't have minded him dying, as sad as it would've still seemed. The reason why I put emphasis on "a worthy cause" is because I while the endings always did resolve the main conflict (end the Reaper cycle) the shift in theme and central conflict at the end makes it feel like Shepard is sacrificing himself for a wrong cause.
He does end the cycles but it feels like getting rid of the reapers is suddenly a secondary objective because the entire narrative is suddenly about resolving a nonexistant conflict (or a conflict we haven't seen any real evidence of) and to me that was always the sole reason why the endings just fell apart.
Stuff like Joker escaping and other plot holes were bad too so the Extended Cut fixing that was great, but it still didn't bother to address the main inconsistency with enough detail.
So the notion that everyone were grieving over Shepard dying for a worthy cause is misunderstood in the way I see it. Like someone wrote earlier, we've seen meaningful sacrifices in other games and despite players being very attached they found it to be sad for all the right reasons and didn't complain. I stress, the reason so many were not accepting that Shepard died is not just because we had 3 games with him and a love interest, it's because his sacrifice wasn't justified.
The reason why Shepard dies in all but the High EMS destroy which required multi-player to get with the Original Ending, is not because Shepard is dying for a noble cause. It is simply because Mac Walters didn't want to leave any possibility of having to write another installment with Shepard. The breath scene was a compromise with Hudson who wanted a more optimistic outcome.
I've never argued that it I thought it meant anything else so I don't see how it lessens the rest of the argument about it being unsatisfying.But it does mean that you understand what the breath scene is intended to convey, that Shepard survived the blast and went on to live, and it turns the rest of the arguments for the breath scene being unsatisfying into more of a personal wishlist rather than an argument.
If he doesn't want another installment with Shepard he simply doesn't have to write one.The reason why Shepard dies in all but the High EMS destroy which required multi-player to get with the Original Ending, is not because Shepard is dying for a noble cause. It is simply because Mac Walters didn't want to leave any possibility of having to write another installment with Shepard. The breath scene was a compromise with Hudson who wanted a more optimistic outcome.
I hate this idea that a MacGuffin is always bad. And an infodump as a DEM? LmaoWhat's funny is that the Conduit is actually the closest thing the series has to a MacGuffin, and Vigil's datafile is the closest thing the series has to a literal DEM. All in ME1, the trilogy's origin.
I hate this idea that a MacGuffin is always bad.
And an infodump as a DEM? Lmao
I haven't been able to understand the ME3 hate myself. I think emotional attachment to their Shepard is a large motivator behind this abnormal reaction to a game series ending. I've heard all sorts of excuses but most of it comes down to the notion that players wanted almost a "victory without casualties" scenario. Defeating the reapers against all odds wasn't enough but Shepard has to survive too?
They also felt like their decisions in the end didn't matter because the endings are the same? For the most part that's true. I myself wasn't expecting any of Shepard's choices in ME1/ME2 to have major effects in the grand scheme of things. Your choices did have repercussions though like with Maelon's data for example. They could've taken the war asset thing to a deeper level and had some more ending variations, but I don't know what people really expected.
My biggest issue with ME3's story wasn't the ending but rather the beginning where we conveniently discover there are blueprints for a super weapon that could destroy the reapers despite such a thing never even being hinted at in ME1 or ME2. Once you overlook that though the ending is pretty solid. It made me teary knowing Shepard was is dead or very likely dead in all scenarios.
You have ignored everything that I wrote.
...
Here, the implication is that Weeke's is being dishonest about what he thinks about the negative fan response to make a buck.Of course, Weeks will say that, he has to sell games. His role makes him limited in what he can say. The best thing for him to say about the fan reaction to the ME3 endings, is that the fans were just having an irrational or ‘emotional reaction’ (in this case grief) to his game. It makes the game look better (people reacted emotionally to a video game!) and it strawmans the criticism of the endings.
...
I haven't been able to understand the ME3 hate myself. I think emotional attachment to their Shepard is a large motivator behind this abnormal reaction to a game series ending. I've heard all sorts of excuses but most of it comes down to the notion that players wanted almost a "victory without casualties" scenario. Defeating the reapers against all odds wasn't enough but Shepard has to survive too?
As someone who didn't like the original endings I have to disagree with this. I never cared much about whether or not Shepard would survive, and went into ME3 even expecting that he would die in the finale. I've also criticized the Suicide Mission for Mass Effect 2 for providing an option for players to get everyone out unscathed, and hoped that the finale of ME3 would include it's own version of the Suicide Mission except with an inability to save everyone. So Shepard's potential death and casualties were never a factor for in me in not liking the ending to Mass Effect 3. In two years discussing the endings here on these forums I know I'm also far from being alone in that.
Beyond a small minority of gamers who absolutely must have the main character (and possibility his or her companions) survive in order to like an ending to a game, I don't think a desire for an ultra happy ending was a major factor at all in the ending backlash. Most gamers are okay with bittersweet endings so long as they are executed well and fit within the overall story. The Walking Dead is a good example of that.
The original endings to Mass Effect 3 however, were not executed well. The Catalyst was a mistake who should had never written into the story, the function of the Crucible in the finale was completely nonsensical even from an in-universe perspective, the destruction of the Geth was a hamfisted attempt at making Synthesis more appealing and required retconning Geth 'culture' to get there, and the price of ending the Reaper War initially (prior to EC) was the destruction of the very galactic civilization that Shepard had been fighting to save.
There was an outpouring of anger over ME3's endings not because Shepard died in a couple of them, but because the ending choices were provided by your arch-enemy in the form of a poorly written and acted child, and resulted in a whole lot of space magic that annihilated suspension of disbelief as thoroughly as it annihilated galactic civilization. It left the player stunned, and not in a good way, and feeling that Shepard had not truly won.
But the breath scene didn't really fail because you understood it. See? All the rationalization and logic that is applied by players to the scene to indicate that could mean something else, is really just to cover up the fact that players understand exactly what it meant, and they don't need more to receive the meaning, but they want more because they just do.
No, unless you think that how something is done, how it is presented, doesn't matter in the slightest, only that it is (and in this case the message is conveyed by "see established reference" rather than the actual content). By your logic if someone understands the remake of a film and the original there's no cricism of the remake that stands up to scrutiny (might as well watch the remake of Psycho as the original).
You appear to be suggesting that that's my criticism although I've never said that. I've said it's an unsatisfactory one, not a difficult one. Doing an unarguably unambiguous scene in a crayon drawing would be another bad way of doing it. Sticking a little bit of text "BTW Shepard isn't dead" after the credits would be an unsatisfactory way of doing it. Presentation is rather important in works of fiction and can make all the difference between wonderful and atrocious. Look how differently reviewed various reworks of the same story - i.e. same message, can be.
@Andres Hendrix
You can swap "grief" with "irrational emotional" or "overly emotional" if you'd like - it still sounds like a dumb statement for a corporation to try to make for the same reasons I mentioned, and again, I don't remember them making such statements about the fans or the backlash. Do you have a citation?
In the main, I was responding to this:
Here, the implication is that Weeke's is being dishonest about what he thinks about the negative fan response to make a buck.
I'm saying there is nothing that really shows that. Even if everything else you said about Bioware's response was true, which I don't see any proof of (citation?), even if your characterization of Bioware's response was true, that doesn't mean Weeke's is lying, or saying what he is saying for some ulterior motive. Given the heated response to the ending, and some of what he and the other devs dealt with, I think his understanding was reasonable, and I take the man at his word that this is what he thinks.
@Reorte
But the breath scene didn't really fail because you understood it. See? All the rationalization and logic that is applied by players to the scene to indicate that it could mean something else is really just to cover up the fact that players understand exactly what it meant, and that they don't need more to receive the meaning, but they want more because they just do.
I think that your problem is that you don't know what an argumeant is hence why you canot seem to make one. Secondly, it's like you are purposley trying to not understand what I'm saying. Here are those citaions, I doubt it will do much good, I've got a feeling that you are quite familiar with the words realitivism and subjectivity.
Citations:
Goffmn, Erving. 1993. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books.
http://blog.bioware....012/03/21/4108/
"Mass Effect 3 concludes a trilogy with so much player control and ownership of the story that it was hard for us to predict the range of emotions players would feel when they finished playing through it. The journey you undertake in Mass Effect provokes an intense range of highly personal emotions in the player; even so, the passionate reaction of some of our most loyal players to the current endings in Mass Effect 3 is something that has genuinely surprised us. This is an issue we care about deeply, and we will respond to it in a fair and timely way. We’re already working hard to do that."-Dr. Ray Muzyka-
"Some of the criticism that has been delivered in the heat of passion by our most ardent fans, even if founded on valid principles, such as seeking more clarity to questions or looking for more closure, for example – has unfortunately become destructive rather than constructive. We listen and will respond to constructive criticism, but much as we will not tolerate individual attacks on our team members, we will not support or respond to destructive commentary." -Dr. Ray Muzyka-
http://forum.bioware...-mass-effect-3/
"But we also recognize that some of our most passionate fans needed more closure, more answers, and more time to say goodbye to their stories—and these comments are equally valid. Player feedback such as this has always been an essential ingredient in the development of the series." -Casey Hudson-
No logic, all closure. Why do people need closure...? hmmmm...
As I have already asked, when at any point did they discuss the logic of endings themselves, and not these emotional passionate "fans"? Why would the writers and devs etc not address the problems in the endings themselves? That is what I've been writing about the whole time. My theory comes from social psychologist Erving Goffman. It involves how teams, especially bureaucratized groups try to maintain face.
@Han Shot First
People specifically told me they didn't like the ending because (to paraphrase) they felt they were denied a good ending that didn't have a scenario with negatives. Yes, the starchild is understandably controversial, but does it justify the outcry ME3's ending has received including the constant complaints on this message board for example? Unless the ending pulled some BS like "the reapers just decided to give organic life a chance" or "it was all a dream" I don't see how the ending deserved the abuse it received.
I should clarify that my feelings reflect the extended cut. If we're referring to the original ending, then yes, it deserves serious abuse; for me more that it was too damn short considering the build-up rather than the premise of the ending being awful.
The only thing I grieved was having to sit through a long boring piece of diatribe in the image of a kid I couldn't give two figs about. Not to mention that I couldn't just flat out argue back without dooming the galaxy. Instead you have to listen to this stupid machine prattle on about how organic and inorganics can't ever work together. And I'm expected to just stand there with my thumb up my a** although I struck peace with the Quarians and Geth, and had been working with EDI this entire time. And of course the Crucible being a giant EMP yet not an EMP device, Mind (Reaper) control device, and a magical green juice that rewrites DNA structure device all without any of the high tech scientists figuring it out is just ridiculous. lol!
But I loved strolling to that destroy tube. 
I haven't been able to understand the ME3 hate myself. I think emotional attachment to their Shepard is a large motivator behind this abnormal reaction to a game series ending. I've heard all sorts of excuses but most of it comes down to the notion that players wanted almost a "victory without casualties" scenario. Defeating the reapers against all odds wasn't enough but Shepard has to survive too?
They also felt like their decisions in the end didn't matter because the endings are the same? For the most part that's true. I myself wasn't expecting any of Shepard's choices in ME1/ME2 to have major effects in the grand scheme of things. Your choices did have repercussions though like with Maelon's data for example. They could've taken the war asset thing to a deeper level and had some more ending variations, but I don't know what people really expected.
My biggest issue with ME3's story wasn't the ending but rather the beginning where we conveniently discover there are blueprints for a super weapon that could destroy the reapers despite such a thing never even being hinted at in ME1 or ME2. Once you overlook that though the ending is pretty solid. It made me teary knowing Shepard was is dead or very likely dead in all scenarios.
When I first began the trilogy, the Extended Cut was already released, so I didn't have to deal with the sting of Shep's death or anything like that. Out of curiosity, I went to YouTube to see what the original ending was like, and it was then that I fully understood the intense hatred people had for it, and why the Extended Cut might be an inadequate balm for some players.
Now, one thing that the Extended Cut was never really able to correct was this nagging feeling that the "victory" didn't really feel like one at all. I don't care to get into this "conventional win" argument, but I think it's pretty hard to deny that the whole thing was very anticlimactic. You're in the battle for existence, but then this battle ends with a very dry, banal conversation that lacks for any drama or even thought-provoking revelations.
"I control the reapers."
"Well whoopedeedoo!"
This is why I sometimes compare the ending to The Matrix Revolutions. Things are just happening for reasons that are hard to care about, and a new, uninteresting entity makes the scene and a negotiation of sorts takes place, and regardless of the reasons why or how silly this stuff looks, we'll just have to go along for the rest of this ride or simply turn it off and watch/play something else. In any case, this encounter is just a boring formality to get us to the stuff that really matters, which is the state of the universe we've invested in. In the original ending, that just went right out the window. It really did come off as some sort of scorched earth tactic to kill the franchise once and for all. When I watched the video, I was like "What is this sh**? That's all?" It felt like a slapdash wrapup and it didn't even bother to leave any release. Emotionally, it rang with the resonance of a cement tuning fork.
My cynical senses were tingling.
@KaiserShep
I get the hate for the original ending, but the extended cut came out only a few months later and people continue to ****** about it. From what I've seen most complaints are post-EC.
I think Bioware realized that galactic civilization being annihilated was one of the chief causes of the ending backlash, which is probably why that is the biggest change introduced by the Extended Cut. In fact that is pretty much the entirely of the Extended Cut: a montage of scenes and an ending narration that tells the player, "Look, the galaxy isn't borked!"
Of course Bioware officially claimed the EC was nothing more than a clarification of their original vision, but that was quite obviously a load of nonsense to anyone that was paying attention. The original endings heavily implied that galactic civilization collapsed, and there is pre-backlash quote from Mac Walters that pretty much confirms that was the intent.
From what I've seen most complaints are post-EC.
This place was a madhouse pre-EC. I honestly don't think there is anything that quite compares to it on any gaming forum...ever. Anything that came out post-EC is tame in comparison.
Also I was here for both the initial release of the game and the release of the EC, and the reaction to the EC was far more mixed. The original endings were near universally hated, whereas post EC you had a more equal balance of people who either liked the ending, thought the EC addressed enough of their major complaints that they were now at least okay with the endings, and those who still hated it.
Polls at the time also reflected that. Ending polls posted on the forums pre-EC had like 90% of the people voting going for some version of 'dislike' or 'hate' for their ending reaction, whereas EC reaction polls were more equally split and even had slightly more people voting for a positive reaction.
At least the extended cut fixed the flashbacks
@KaiserShep
I get the hate for the original ending, but the extended cut came out only a few months later and people continue to ****** about it. From what I've seen most complaints are post-EC.
Well, in fairness, the Extended Cut was heavily constrained by the original ending's severe logical problems. Take, for example, the squad's magical return to the Normandy. The evac scene bugs a lot of people, but the magical return to the Normandy without explanation is arguably worse. Then there's the Normandy's crash on Nowheria. Joker was supposed to rendezvous with the rest of the fleet, yet despite being the fastest, most advanced ship out there, he crashes. Mercifully, the silly garden of Eden imagery gets toned back or disregarded entirely. Then of course the Catalyst's continued existence will always bug some people. With the glowworm firmly planted in the story's final act, it's always going to get a little ire. The Extended Cut's most notable fix for me is getting rid of the brief cutoff that doesn't allow us to get even the slightest glimpse of the galaxy we left behind, but it still collapses trying to juggle the other tricky things that were so terribly mishandled in the vanilla game.
Well, in fairness, the Extended Cut was heavily constrained by the original ending's severe logical problems. Take, for example, the squad's magical return to the Normandy. The evac scene bugs a lot of people, but the magical return to the Normandy without explanation is arguably worse. Then there's the Normandy's crash on Nowheria. Joker was supposed to rendezvous with the rest of the fleet, yet despite being the fastest, most advanced ship out there, he crashes. Mercifully, the silly garden of Eden imagery gets toned back or disregarded entirely. Then of course the Catalyst's continued existence will always bug some people. With the glowworm firmly planted in the story's final act, it's always going to get a little ire. The Extended Cut's most notable fix for me is getting rid of the brief cutoff that doesn't allow us to get even the slightest glimpse of the galaxy we left behind, but it still collapses trying to juggle the other tricky things that were so terribly mishandled in the vanilla game.
The EC still has teleporting squadmates. The squad who isn't with Shepard on the final push still end up on the Normandy with no explanation. They might have more time to take a shuttle to get up there but there's still the question of why Shepard's friends got resources diverted to them so they could leave the battle.
I know, but with the team that's actually with Shepard, it's a thread that's a bit easier to handle. For the other members, you'd have to have cutscenes or something to account for them, but it would look pretty terrible regardless, because you'd have them running away to the Normandy for some reason. Like, where are they going? Why weren't they out in the field helping to fight like everyone else? If Kaidan is alive, he should be leading his biotic team. Grunt would curse all of your names, you cowards!
...
To that end, since the game launched, the team has been poring over everything they can find about reactions to the game – industry press, forums, Facebook, and Twitter, just to name a few. The Mass Effect team, like other teams across the BioWare Label within EA, consists of passionate people who work hard for the love of creating experiences that excite and delight our fans. I’m honored to work with them because they have the courage and strength to respond to constructive feedback.
...
Retour en haut