989 réponses à ce sujet

[Vazgen]

So it shows there was a fundemental underlying problem with the whole concept and not just with the lazy half-arsed execution. That said some liked the EC so for them the identikit endings were the real problem. For others that wasn't, and they continue to dislike it.

And for some neither was a problem. What are you trying to say?

[KaiserShep]

Earth and the Normandy's landing spot not being destroyed suggest they did NOT intend for the galaxy to be ka-put.
And again, the galaxy's gonna be in shambles, a "wasteland", because of the Reaper invasion. The galaxy's entering a new Reconstruction Era.

Not totally kaput, but the original ending pretty much illustrated the complete breakdown of galactic civilization. I'm glad that part was retcon'd to oblivion.

[Obadiah]

Not totally kaput, but the original ending pretty much illustrated the complete breakdown of galactic civilization. I'm glad that part was retcon'd to oblivion.

I was ok with the "collapse" but I'm glad it is portrayed in the EC as reconstruction.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Earth and the Normandy's landing spot not being destroyed suggest they did NOT intend for the galaxy to be ka-put.

And again, the galaxy's gonna be in shambles, a "wasteland", because of the Reaper invasion. The galaxy's entering a new Reconstruction Era.

 

You're using the word "suggest." What did we learn about mass relays when they were destroyed? Super nova type explosions. Was anyone even alive? Well, they backed off that in the EC, calling them severely damaged, and deleting the offending line from the Catalyst conversation. That changed the intent. In the Extended Cut the galaxy enters a reconstruction period. That was the new intent. The original intent was what I said. "Releasing the energy of the Crucible will destroy the mass relays."

 

Joker and Liara or Javik and Liara were supposed to restart the Asari civilization on that planet. Or if with EDI, little iChildren. lol. 10,000 year dark age. That's in the files on the disk.

 

"Shepard has become a legend. Buy DLC."

 

 

Civilization was in such a shambles they hadn't discovered space travel yet. They didn't know what was out there. It was a story. A legend.

 

It was a saccharine coating on the original ending. What was once seen cannot be unseen. I envy those who played the game only with the Extended Cut.

[themikefest]

I don't see why the Normandy is on that planet. Before the extended cut, the Normandy is seen running from the beam with Joker panicking with sparks flying around him, the thrusters on the right side are ripped apart, but the ship is able to be in one piece on the planet. It should be in pieces and no one survives.

 

Along comes the original ending polisher, and it still shows the Normandy running from the beam except with high ems(above 2600) Joker is calmly flying the ship. A moment later it shows the Normandy with no damage and it takes off with no problem. It was not the last ship to leave after the Crucible was getting ready to fire, so why didn't the Normandy rendezvous with the other fleets? It could have the memorial scene with Hackett and a representative of each species present to honor Shepard along with crew and squadmates

[Obadiah]

So it shows there was a fundemental underlying problem with the whole concept and not just with the lazy half-arsed execution. That said some liked the EC so for them the identikit endings were the real problem. For others that wasn't, and they continue to dislike it.

It shows there were a lot of complaints in the backlash, and Bioware tried to mitigate the ones they could with the EC.

But we're talking about valid reasons to hate (not dislike, not criticize, HATE) the ending and demand a new one. Asking for a longer version of the same story does not seem like a reason. More exposition and clarity? They could have fixed that with a stickied forum post.

[Reorte]

Like I said earlier "Hate" is just a further point along the same spectrum as "dislike". Do you say the same sort of thing to people who say that they love something instead of just like it?

There were those whose biggest issue was just with the poor realisation of the endings - the "pick a colour" problem. Those people were satisfied with the EC, as were those whose main problem was the "trashed galaxy" one. Other people had different issues with it so the EC did nothing for them.

A stickied forum post would hardly be a fix. What counts is only what's shown in the game. That's what it should live and die on, nothing else (although DLC is a tricky one). Shoving your information off screen, merely mentioning it, or just sketching in the barest bones necessary to tell the story makes a poor story (a synopsis of a novel is hardly a novel), and since the EC sorted out that the people who just wanted that were mostly happy, and wouldn't have been with a post.

[dreamgazer]

What did we learn about mass relays when they were destroyed? Super nova type explosions?

That they supernova when an asteroid's hurled into them. Earth and the Normandy's landsite? Neither were supernova'd.

They wanted to handicap space travel for a prolonged period after the Crucible fired, not destroy the galaxy.

Don't the files simply suggest that the Stargazer scene takes place 10k years in the future?

[von uber]

I don't hate the endings; they may be a load of old bollocks which don't fit the preceding 150hrs but I don't hate them. I just think they are crap.

 

Although the music is good.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

That they supernova when an asteroid's hurled into them. Earth and the Normandy's landsite? Neither were supernova'd.

They wanted to handicap space travel for a prolonged period after the Crucible fired, not destroy the galaxy.

Don't the files simply suggest that the Stargazer scene takes place 10k years in the future?

 

Where they don't know what is out there in space, or on the other worlds. You'd think he would have mentioned that the kid could see Asari or Turians or whatever. But no. They're legends. Technology is kaput. It's a galactic dark age.

 

And you don't really know that about Earth because the Earth scenes occur before the beam reached the mass relay. And you don't know if the Normandy landed in a system with a mass relay.

 

I said they changed the intent with the EC. But it doesn't satisfy. It's still crap because it is still a break in narrative.

[Iakus]

Depends on if it's advertised as a comedy or a comedy-drama.

If it's a pure comedy, then no, not really. Though that's at the discretion of the creators. If it's a comedy-drama combo, then yes.

Mass Effect has been advertised as a demanding moral dilemma from the beginning.
 

 

It's also been advertised as a game where Shepard has a skill for getting out alive:

 

In ME1

 

And ME2

 

No pathetic faceless torsos needed here!

[Linkenski]

Before EC my own headcanon was that Stargazer was Old Joker talking to his grandchild after screwing Ashley and Ashley's kids got inbred children together.

 

The endings are just so gross man.

[dreamgazer]

It's also been advertised as a game where Shepard has a skill for getting out alive:
 
In ME1
 
And ME2
 
No pathetic faceless torsos needed here!

Except for the death at the beginning of ME2, of course, and ME1's, uh, pathetic cut to black.

At any rate, events early in a narrative aren't "advertisements" of the way things are required to play out. There's nothing whatsoever, no agreement or anything, dictating that Shepard's required to survive at the end of the trilogy, despite surviving anyway in high-EMS Destroy.

[Autoola]

Hi, I´m new here and English isn´t my native language. Please excuse mistakes.

When I played ME 3 for the first time (2 month ago) it was with EC. But I don´t like the ending at all. Although I´m still searching for reasons (to let me understand my emotions), I have found some:

1. For example low/high EMS differences: why does it matter to Big Ben whether there are many fleets around the earth or not?
2. Evac-scene: perhaps without it the crewmembers look like cowards (or whatever the problem was), but the scene is really ridiculous. 5 seconds for the Normandy to leave the war and land on earth? And why should Squadmembers leave Shepard alone? They have done a SUICIDE MISSION together. Like: “This time, we know you´re gonna die. We don´t want to join. So please, go and die alone. If you´re not gonna solve the problem, we´ll die a little later and we´ll all meet again in our brand-new reaper.”
3. Arrival in front of the catalyst. Shep is on his/her knees and the kid says “wake up”. What??? This person – me – doesn´t sleep on knees or is unconscious. And all the words after these 2 from the catalyst make me thinking, that he isn´t that smart he would like to be
4. to be continued...

But I don´t want to discuss the ending. I´m just saying that Sheps death isn´t the main reason why people were grieving. It´s one out of… 50 (just a guess).

 

My opinion: There is no hope without light. But maybe red, blue and green are wrong colors for it.

[Iakus]

Except for the death at the beginning of ME2, of course, and ME1's, uh, pathetic cut to black.

At any rate, events early in a narrative aren't "advertisements" of the way things are required to play out. There's nothing whatsoever, no agreement or anything, dictating that Shepard's required to survive at the end of the trilogy, despite surviving anyway in high-EMS Destroy.

You know what I think of Shepard's death at the start of ME2, and in both cases you see Shepard "got better"

 

And what else serves as "advertisement" than what came before?  Are you seriously going to place more stock on a paid advertisement of something that wasn't even in the game over previous installments of the narrative?

[dreamgazer]

When it comes to "advertising" the game, yes. That's the discussion: external perception before experiencing the piece of fiction within.

There is nothing, at all, that suggests a character must live in the end of the series/trilogy/whatever if they've survived through the previous installments, especially when the stakes continue to rise.

[Commander Rpg]

Thinking that the guy that dies at the end of ME3 is not the real Shepard, but a clone with his memory implants, made at the beginning of ME2, is somewhat relieving.

[Farangbaa]

Thinking that the guy that dies at the end of ME3 is not the real Shepard, but a clone with his memory implants, made at the beginning of ME2, is somewhat relieving.

*insert extreme indoctrination picture*

[Iakus]

When it comes to "advertising" the game, yes. That's the discussion: external perception before experiencing the piece of fiction within.

There is nothing, at all, that suggests a character must live in the end of the series/trilogy/whatever if they've survived through the previous installments, especially when the stakes continue to rise.

Must, no.

 

Possibly, oh yes.  And with something more than a faceless torso and "speculations"

[Commander Rpg]

*insert extreme indoctrination picture*

Shepard's remains were just some brain cells (and not too many of them), and just that. The other stuff was cloned, and the memory substituted by the one of the real Shepard. ME3 Shepard is fake, deal with it.

[themikefest]

Thinking that the guy that dies at the end of ME3 is not the real Shepard, but a clone with his memory implants, made at the beginning of ME2, is somewhat relieving.

2 clones of Shepard in the trilogy?  Shepard  had a clone in the Citadel dlc. 

[Commander Rpg]

2 clones of Shepard in the trilogy?  Shepard  had a clone in the Citadel dlc. 

Both of them are.

[dreamgazer]

Must, no.
 
Possibly, oh yes.  And with something more than a faceless torso and "speculations"

Sure, anything's possible. That's part of the beauty and danger of storytelling.

PS: Shepard hasn't survived any of his/her near-death events without "speculations", with the exception of ME2's leap of faith.

[Obadiah]

Like I said earlier "Hate" is just a further point along the same spectrum as "dislike". Do you say the same sort of thing to people who say that they love something instead of just like it?
...

I'm not sure what your point is about the sliding scale of emotion. The contention earlier was that the initial emotional reaction is not a basis for valid criticism, or complements if you wish. Of course, one can simply say, I felt X at this point, and then explain it, but that's just an explanation of one's own feelings, not a technical criticism or complement, though it could be taken for what it is - emotional feedback. Developers value this as well since I don't think Bioware wanted their game to make people feel just bad, and if it does they'd want to know. I think I read "bittersweet" at some point, people just seemed to respond more on the "bitter" part more.

In effect, you can't use the initial emotion to say the writing is good or bad.
 

...
There were those whose biggest issue was just with the poor realisation of the endings - the "pick a colour" problem. Those people were satisfied with the EC, as were those whose main problem was the "trashed galaxy" one. Other people had different issues with it so the EC did nothing for them.
...

We're talking about the backlash. People said the original ending was "unacceptable," that they "hated" it, and they demanded that Bioware spend thousands of dollars (probably 100s of thousands) to re-work or change the ending. Your contention is that some players were this incensed because the ending cinematics were too similar, or that it wasn't explained enough? That's fairly implausible.

These are complaints, but they don't cause one to hate something and demand its change. Maybe it is true, but I don't find it credible because, during the backlash, for every criticism like that, there was another one, usually by the same poster, about wanting a different story.

[Edit]
I'm probably painting the backlash with too broad a brush. There's the "hate" I kept running into in rather vehement discussions about the story (or discussions about something else that inevitably turned into one about the story), and then there was "hate" from the general sense that the climax just wasn't as good, or was just not good, quality-wise when compared to the rest of the game. I disagreed, but I don't think those players were being dishonest in their criticism.
 

...
A stickied forum post would hardly be a fix. What counts is only what's shown in the game. That's what it should live and die on, nothing else (although DLC is a tricky one)
...

Not true. If it was, then players wouldn't have pulled in every statement by the devs before the game's release and treated them as promises that were broken during the backlash. They wouldn't have put up the 3 endings side by side and complained they were too similar - they would have stuck to criticizing the game's ending as it was presented and experienced. If critics can pull in external statements as promises, or meta-analyze the game, then I think they're capable of pulling in explanations.
 

...
Shoving your information off screen, merely mentioning it, or just sketching in the barest bones necessary to tell the story makes a poor story (a synopsis of a novel is hardly a novel), and since the EC sorted out that the people who just wanted that were mostly happy, and wouldn't have been with a post.

I don't think that is true either. Take Shotgun's interpretation of the ending - repeated before by her and others. That kind of interpretation would have zero credibility if there was a stickied forum post that said, "Well, we can see how some could come to the conclusion that X happened, but what we really meant by the ending was Y because [scene breakdown and explanation]." Creator intention matters. But, as she said, as I have said, what has been seen cannot be unseen, and the EC doesn't really change my original interpretation and understanding of the ending.

Modifié par Obadiah, 12 novembre 2014 - 12:56 .

[dreamgazer]

You guys are arguing around subjectivity. It's doomed to end in a stalemate.

Both ME1 and ME2's ending variants are also incredibly similar in appearance to one another, complete with color swaps and adjusted context in similar situations.