989 réponses à ce sujet

[Andres Hendrix]

@Andres Hendrix
My posts were a refutation of your accusation about Weekes' motives for making the statement in this thread's title. You made an argument, and I responded that your conclusion isn't really supported your premises, even if your premises were true, which I don't think they are anyway. So basically, I was saying that you're the one with the non-sequitur.

With respect to the blog post, it says the ending provoked a wide range of emotions, which it did, and that some fan response was passionate, which it was. I don't know how that could be denied since it obviously was pretty heated/emotional here on the forum. Since the blog post also characterized Ray himself and the Mass Effect development team as passionate (not cited in your quote), I take "passion" to not mean something negative ("irrationally emotional" or "overly emotional") - intensely emotional maybe, which does not disregard the arguments being made by the fans as part of their reaction to the ending of ME3.

Here's the post where Ray addressed feedback:

The whole blog post is diplo-speak to defend their game, defend their developers, and acknowledge the fan response without validating every complaint, or making the fan reaction worse, which is what I expected. Of course it didn't work (see misplaced "artistic integrity" meme).

First, emotions are irrational per se, there is nothing "negative" about it (that is your misapprehension ). Good luck with trying to prove that emotions are rational. Intensly and overly is just arguing semantics, and thus a waste of time. Secondly, you did not refute my argument about Weeks, I am saying that he as a part of Bioware cannot just come out and say that the endings were flawed. To do so would risk face; this would itself risk future profit. All of those examples that I gave you show no acknowledgement of the logical problems in the endings, they do talk about the passion and emotions of the players and how the ‘passionate’ emotional players needed closure. Why do the players need closure? Because they are emotional (which you admit; I did not say that their was not a spectrum of emotions only that Bioware ignored the actual criticism, and used a line of discourse concerning emotion instead of logic). Weeks' notion about grief fits into everything that Bioware said since the start of the fiasco, this is probably the third time I have written this point. I am not going to do it again. Bioware looks better, if they convince people that their own characters in the game, the story & plot (etc) drew out such an ‘emotional reaction’, instead of the bad logic in their endings drawing out a critical response. 

 I would never have imagined that people would be so ardently opposed to the notion that a person who is a part of a business, a corporate team (in this case he is a writer) would not go against his team discourse, something that would make them look weak (they would lose face). We live in an uber-rational highly bureaucratised society wherein lack of credibility can destroy companies, and kill carriers. We are talking about peoples' jobs and livelihoods, I would not hold it against Weeks for trying to maintain face alongside his fellows. We are all traped within the iron cage of bureaucracy.

[angol fear]

@Andres Hendrix

So you see that I didn't missed the point.

 

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.

 

 

I actually think that you overestimate logic. You are trapped in logic, that's your problem. It even makes you arrogant with me and Obadiah. Before you say anything, I'd just say that I know what are logic and formal logic, it's something that I teach. I understand why logic is so important for you because it's the basis of our culture. But it's only a basis. Even in our culture "logic" have been attacked and sometimes destroyed and these works are masterpieces. But I'll stop here.

 

You can say that there's a problem of logic in the ending but you actually missed the point of the writing. You didn't see that the ending is about higher level, you didn't see that the whole writing is based on paradox so the ending had to destroy the common logic to get to this higher level.

But let's say that it's not important, while it's the basis to understand the ending.

You want Bioware to discuss the logic of the ending. Fans will say "there's no logic so it's bad" and Bioware will say "we wanted to do it this way" ("so it's not bad", but Bioware will not say that). There will be no discussion. It's not simple as : logic = good ; non-logic = bad. If you think so, then you missed a lot of things in the XXth century and now.

But let's say it's not important.

 

Let's talk about Weeks. What we've been saying isn't what you think we've been saying. In an industry like that, people can't criticize their company. I agree with you and I can say that in cinema people sign contract to not go against the marketing of the film. Paul Schrader's problem shows that :http://insidemovies....raders-protest/

But what we are saying is it's not because he can't criticize his company that he will say anything to support something that he dislikes (and actually you suppose that he dislikes, you're the one who wants him to think like you and to support your thoughts).

If he really disliked the writing of the ending, and wanted to support the company, I think that he would try to calm down people, saying that Mass Effect isn't only the ending etc... But I don't know him personally so it's just an hypothesis.

But for me it's not black or white, criticize or support (even if he disagrees). Silence can be done too, and it's a better way to support something he is supposed to dislike. That's why I think he is honest.

[voteDC]

The big problem with the endings for me was not the themes but in their execution. The Catalyst tells us that we are going to see hugely different repercussions from our choices and then Bioware proceeds to show us near identical ending cinematics. Don't tell me that my choices are going to be different and then show me that they are not.

Personally speaking this is why I think if the shipped endings had been what the Extended Cut delivered, the three choices made distinct, the 'backlash' would have fizzled out near straight away.

Also I'm still not sure how an ending showing Shepard alive, to me the breath scene doesn't count, would have been 'happy'.

We have thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, of people trapped in a solar system where they can't eat anything. Sure they can head out at FTL but are they going to be able to reach a compatible solar system before they all starve. Are their ships going to be able to make the journey without repairs.

The krogan could very likely turn violent when they realise they are trapped and aren't going to be taking part in the krogan 'rebirth' back on their homeworld.

Heck the only race that has a full chance of peacefully settling is the asari.

If we can fix the Mass Relay at our end, there is no guarantee that the people at the other end would be able to do the same. We could end up pretty much isolated from the rest of the galaxy.

Then there's the state of Earth. Are we going to be able to feed our own people, let alone the settled krogan and asari. Death and disease is going to be rife on a massive scale. We are going to have to rebuild with only the resources we have in our own solar system.

Struggle and suffering on a scale never seen before. Yet an ending where Shepard is clearly shown to be alive makes it all better and is happy?

[Reorte]

@Reorte
As far as I can tell you're saying you understand the scene, and in fact it is easily understood, but because you can argue rationally and with logic that it *could* mean something else, it is unsatisfying. That just sounds intellectually dishonest.

Why does that sound dishonest? The "could mean something else" always leaves that nagging doubt in the back of the mind, no matter what else is said to the contrary. I see nothing dishonest about finding that unsatisfying. That, however, isn't my main problem with it. The problem is that it simply isn't a satisfying way of giving the message, any more than a quick little text box that flashes up saying "BTW Shepard lives". Imagine at the end of Tuchanka you get to the maw hammers and the game stops and just pops up "Reaper dead, genophage cured, Mordin dead" (or whatever conclusion you drew that arc to). Exactly the same message as what was in the game, no ambiguity at all, but it would be incredibly unsatisfying. In a work of fiction the way it is presented is very, very important. Why else do films spend lots of money on sets, costumes, cinematographers etc?

[Obadiah]

@Reorte
It is intellectually dishonest because you're basing part of the dissatisfaction on the ambiguity of the scene, when the scene isn't ambiguous. It is intellectually dishonest because you've likened the scene to a popup text message mid-game explaining a sequence of events, which would not be understood by one quick scene, and would indeed require further explanation in the form of a textbox. A proper example of the finger twitch used mid-game would be: a chest breath scene for Kai Leng at the end of Cronos Station, or a Reaper twitch at the end of Tuchanka or Rannoch, indicating that these enemies are still alive and will need to be dealt with.

Without that, the argument of dissatisfaction is based more on personal taste, a taste shared by others.

[Reorte]

I'm making two separate arguments, you're trying to muddle them together. Neither of them are intellectually dishonest.

For the first one, the scene IS ambiguous, taken entirely on its own content. That a bit of thinking outside the game suggests what the intention almost certainly was doesn't change that.

For the second I'm pointing out that, even if it's not ambiguous, the means of conveying a message are very important.

Of course it's all about personal taste, any form of entertainment is.

[angol fear]

I'm making two separate arguments, you're trying to muddle them together. Neither of them are intellectually dishonest.

For the first one, the scene IS ambiguous, taken entirely on its own content. That a bit of thinking outside the game suggests what the intention almost certainly was doesn't change that.

For the second I'm pointing out that, even if it's not ambiguous, the means of conveying a message are very important.

Of course it's all about personal taste, any form of entertainment is.

 

If you're talking about the breath scene, no there's no ambiguity. When you have a sequence : death, death, death, and suddenly you have a breath scene that doesn't appear in any other sequence, you can't think that it is the last breath. There's no ambiguity because ambiguity wouldn't work like this. Actually this scene isn't ambiguous, this scene uses implicit, and that why people don't like it. People need more and more the narrator to tell them everything. That's Hollywood's writing. And because of that people are less an less reader and more and more consumers/customers.

[KaiserShep]

I don't consider it really ambiguous, but it's not very satisfying.

 

The big problem with the endings for me was not the themes but in their execution. The Catalyst tells us that we are going to see hugely different repercussions from our choices and then Bioware proceeds to show us near identical ending cinematics. Don't tell me that my choices are going to be different and then show me that they are not.

Personally speaking this is why I think if the shipped endings had been what the Extended Cut delivered, the three choices made distinct, the 'backlash' would have fizzled out near straight away.

Also I'm still not sure how an ending showing Shepard alive, to me the breath scene doesn't count, would have been 'happy'.

We have thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, of people trapped in a solar system where they can't eat anything. Sure they can head out at FTL but are they going to be able to reach a compatible solar system before they all starve. Are their ships going to be able to make the journey without repairs.

The krogan could very likely turn violent when they realise they are trapped and aren't going to be taking part in the krogan 'rebirth' back on their homeworld.

Heck the only race that has a full chance of peacefully settling is the asari.

If we can fix the Mass Relay at our end, there is no guarantee that the people at the other end would be able to do the same. We could end up pretty much isolated from the rest of the galaxy.

Then there's the state of Earth. Are we going to be able to feed our own people, let alone the settled krogan and asari. Death and disease is going to be rife on a massive scale. We are going to have to rebuild with only the resources we have in our own solar system.

Struggle and suffering on a scale never seen before. Yet an ending where Shepard is clearly shown to be alive makes it all better and is happy?

 

From what I understand, Arcturus Stream is only a few days journey from Sol via FTL. Anyway, the death-and-disease ending doesn't really occur in the epilogue. Of course, we don't know what happens between the end of the war and when things are rebuilt, but they obviously get over it. In the original ending it would've been something left to nag us, but the DLC pretty much got rid of that.

[Reorte]

"The problem is with the players, not the game". No, that doesn't cut it and neither do the other insulting implications.

The scene IS ambiguous. Logically someone in that position is pretty well screwed. So taken in that light there's no hope. Taken in context along with a "why else would they put it in there?" view it's clearly meant to indicate something else, but that convention and second-guessing is a rather lousy way of saying something and being satisfied with it isn't something to be proud of. So it leaves me thinking that "They definitely intended to suggest that Shepard is alive" but to claim that it's not ambiguous at all, that there's no rational room for doubt, is to throw rational thinking to the wind. It's like thinking a relative is dead, getting a letter saying he's been seen alive, but your mind still won't be completely at rest until you've seen them.

You'd do well to learn the difference between tossing out a few half-arsed crumbs and not having to spell out everything.

[essarr71]

If you're talking about the breath scene, no there's no ambiguity. When you have a sequence : death, death, death, and suddenly you have a breath scene that doesn't appear in any other sequence, you can't think that it is the last breath. There's no ambiguity because ambiguity wouldn't work like this. Actually this scene isn't ambiguous, this scene uses implicit, and that why people don't like it. People need more and more the narrator to tell them everything. That's Hollywood's writing. And because of that people are less an less reader and more and more consumers/customers.

 

I don't think anyone doubted Shep was alive.  The ambiguity came from if he lived after that.  While I agree that showing such a scene only to imply Shep dies a few minutes later is pointless and not the intention of the reveal, it was perfectly justifiable for people to question it.  Where was Shep exactly?  If Shep was bleeding out before, why are they fine now after taking a fireball to the face and being buried under rubble?  If they're fine, how are they breathing?  If they're breathing, how is anyone going to find them?  In those conditions, just how long can Shep survive without help? 

 

Again, I agree it *should* be assumed Shep gets pulled from the rubble.  However, given the situation and narrative (and just how incomplete the information the player can draw from what was seen) it's hard to say, "well Shep lives because the file says so."

[KaiserShep]

"The problem is with the players, not the game". No, that doesn't cut it and neither do the other insulting implications.

The scene IS ambiguous. Logically someone in that position is pretty well screwed. So taken in that light there's no hope. Taken in context along with a "why else would they put it in there?" view it's clearly meant to indicate something else, but that convention and second-guessing is a rather lousy way of saying something and being satisfied with it isn't something to be proud of. So it leaves me thinking that "They definitely intended to suggest that Shepard is alive" but to claim that it's not ambiguous at all, that there's no rational room for doubt, is to throw rational thinking to the wind. It's like thinking a relative is dead, getting a letter saying he's been seen alive, but your mind still won't be completely at rest until you've seen them.

You'd do well to learn the difference between tossing out a few half-arsed crumbs and not having to spell out everything.

 

I think sH0tGuN's claim that the scene is a compromise makes sense. If you're going to definitely have the character live, there are much better, more satisfying ways that can be used to convey this.

[Daemul]

The breath scene is the worst imaginable way ever to convey that someone is alive. The dude is bleeding out and actually passed out from blood loss before he was raised up to meet the catalyst, he was right in the middle of an explosion which blows the Citadel up, the Allied fleets are shown flying past the broken Charon relay AWAY from the citadel where Shepard is, so no one sure as hell came back for him, and to round it all up, he's in a part of the Citadel which no one even knows exists. The dude is, for a lack of a better word, f***ed. Not even in Hollywood action movies does the hero have that much going against their survival, survival in Shepard's situation is literally impossible. 

[sveners]

The breath scene is the worst imaginable way ever to convey that someone is alive. The dude is bleeding out and actually fainted from blood loss before he was raised up to meet the catalyst, he was right in the middle of an explosion which blows the Citadel up, the Allied fleets are shown flying past the broken Charon relay AWAY from the citadel where Shepard is, so no one sure as hell came back for him, and to round it all up, he's in a part of the Citadel which no one even knows exists. The dude is, for a lack of a better word, f***ed. Not even in Hollywood action movies does the hero have that much going against their survival, survival in Shepard's situation is literally impossible. 

 

But but.... tropes and conventions....

[KaiserShep]

But but.... tropes and conventions....

 

Sometimes it seems like it's come to the point where just about anything remotely positive in a story's resolution can be considered far too cliche to live. It's why I don't take this forum's ideas about "Hollywood" endings very seriously. If my eyes glazed any more, I'd be legally blind.

[Valmar]

Anyone who puts that much logical thought and consideration for rather or not Shepard survives isn't going to be someone who likes the endings, regardless of Shepard's ambiguity. If logic hinders you that much with Shepard then it already should've demolished you with the rest of the ending. Clearly we're not meant to think so deeply on this because the more you think about it the more nonsensical the entire thing becomes. Which is totally a sign of great writing on BioWare's part.

 

If we can suspend-belief for the star brat then having Shepard survive is hardly a stretch. This is the guy who had a reaper crash on him AND crashed into a planet after having his ship destroyed around him. If he can pull off two Jason Voorhees' why not another. By comparison Shepard is in significantly better shape after the destroy ending than he is after the planet-crashing. Plus is it really fair to even look at him from "strictest logical human standards" for survival. Shepard isn't exactly a normal human. Bone weaves, muscle weaves, skin weaves... Tough enough to fire weapons that would shatter normal humans... He isn't 'normal', hell even his humanity could be brought  to question considering all the cybernetic upgrades her has going on.

 

The survival could and SHOULD'VE been handled in a more fulfilling way than just a gasping chest plate under some rubble... but at least survival is an option. Even if they don't make it feel satisfying.

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

I think that, personally, I was grieving the loss of the series' potential far more than I was grieving the loss of Shephard. Regardless of how I feel about what they chose to do with the main character, it was the loss of the series' culmination in an epic climax that I was upset about.

 

If The Emperor had transformed into the Star Child at the end of Return of the Jedi, told Luke that everything that he had experienced up until that point was irrelevant and meaningless, and that the only purpose Luke ever had was to make a single decision that would result in the undoing of everything up until that point, I can assure everyone that people would be upset, but it wouldn't be because they were mourning the death of Luke Skywalker. At best, mourning Luke would be secondary to people being upset over RotJ having a bad ending.

[KaiserShep]

I think that, personally, I was grieving the loss of the series' potential far more than I was grieving the loss of Shephard.

 

This is a good point. All the arguments on how a sequel would or wouldn't work pretty much shows just how much damage such universe-altering decisions can inflict on the franchise.

[sveners]

Anyone who puts that much logical thought and consideration for rather or not Shepard survives isn't going to be someone who likes the endings, regardless of Shepard's ambiguity. If logic hinders you that much with Shepard then it already should've demolished you with the rest of the ending. Clearly we're not meant to think so deeply on this because the more you think about it the more nonsensical the entire thing becomes. Which is totally a sign of great writing on BioWare's part.

 

If we can suspend-belief for the star brat then having Shepard survive is hardly a stretch. This is the guy who had a reaper crash on him AND crashed into a planet after having his ship destroyed around him. If he can pull off two Jason Voorhees' why not another. By comparison Shepard is in significantly better shape after the destroy ending than he is after the planet-crashing. Plus is it really fair to even look at him from "strictest logical human standards" for survival. Shepard isn't exactly a normal human. Bone weaves, muscle weaves, skin weaves... Tough enough to fire weapons that would shatter normal humans... He isn't 'normal', hell even his humanity could be brought  to question considering all the cybernetic upgrades her has going on.

 

The survival could and SHOULD'VE been handled in a more fulfilling way than just a gasping chest plate under some rubble... but at least survival is an option. Even if they don't make it feel satisfying.

 

Shepard has only once been in a worse condition than during the ending, and died that time. Passing out from pain/blood loss is not a good sign for long-term survival....

 

In my mind the crux of the problem is that it feels like an "out" for the developers. I am being completely honest here, and it might sound crazy (probably is);

 

I think they wanted Shepard dead. For story reasons, and because Mac Walters wanted the character out of the way. What to do? Create an ending where tropes, not logic, decide the fate of the character. That way they can write ME4 with Shepard out of the way, and fans (those who felt it was important) happy in the belief that he/she lived.

 

Same applies to Tully Aucklands post linked earlier here. "There is hope they will be reunited"... like Iakus mentioned, hope=/= certainty. I would think a reunion would be absolutely certain, unless Shepard ...somehow... dies before it happens.

 

 

I've been obsessing over this for too long now

[Obadiah]

...
The scene IS ambiguous.
...

I disagree, because...
 

...
Taken in context along with a "why else would they put it in there?" view it's clearly meant to indicate something else
...

This is actually the only valid way to read any scene in the game. Sure, we're usually wrapped up in the moment at any given point, but it is all contextualized by the story, depiction, medium, contemporary references, etc etc. Dissatisfaction from not doing this, or analyzing the scene to find something that was clearly not meant to be communicated (ie Shepard is alive but screwed), is not really the fault of the developers.

[cap and gown]

I think that, personally, I was grieving the loss of the series' potential far more than I was grieving the loss of Shephard. Regardless of how I feel about what they chose to do with the main character, it was the loss of the series' culmination in an epic climax that I was upset about.

 

If The Emperor had transformed into the Star Child at the end of Return of the Jedi, told Luke that everything that he had experienced up until that point was irrelevant and meaningless, and that the only purpose Luke ever had was to make a single decision that would result in the undoing of everything up until that point, I can assure everyone that people would be upset, but it wouldn't be because they were mourning the death of Luke Skywalker. At best, mourning Luke would be secondary to people being upset over RotJ having a bad ending.

 

But there's still the spear-chucking teddy bears!

[dreamgazer]

But but.... tropes and conventions....

But but.... Mass Effect is about making the impossible possible!

If anyone could survive that, our upgraded half-cyborg Mary Sue could.  And did, apparently. 

[von uber]

I always got the impression the idea was to terminate the Mass Effect universe, with only the three games being made. Viewed in that context, the endings (pre EC) made some sort of sense.

[ImaginaryMatter]

But but.... Mass Effect is about making the impossible possible!

 

Row Row fight the power!

[congokong]

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.

It's hard to argue logic, within reason, in something so fictional as the ME universe. To an extent you have to give it the benefit of the doubt at times. Ex: In ME2's prologue Shepard suffocates/gets incinerated while falling into some planet's atmosphere, but is somehow able to be revived with their memories still intact 2 years later. To me that's more absurd than Joker flying off in ME3's ending and yet many consider ME2 to be the best game in the series with a comparative lack of angry complaints regarding such a stupid character revival.

 

The anger I've seen isn't based on "this doesn't make sense" but more "I FEEL BETRAYED!" which I haven't been able to understand. The outrage is more emotional than logical.

[KaiserShep]

Outrage is purely emotional, but as far as I've seen, the list of complaints were pretty much all over the place. Things not making sense to betraying themes or agency or whatever just about covers the gamut of grievances I've read throughout these threads.

 

But if we focus on the purely emotional side of it, I would really just sum it up to its total lack of catharsis as the reason why a lot of fans hate it so much.

 

The Extended Cut was clearly made to correct that, but it was so clumsily executed that it didn't quite hit the mark. Of course, it's easier when Shepard simply dies, but the baffling variation in the memorial scene, coupled with the very disorganized chronological order of the epilogue doesn't do it many favors.