243 réponses à ce sujet

[angol fear]

Nope, I just think your brand of defending the ending is as bad as some people's railing against it.

 

Almost 3 years, trying to understand why people dislike it and defending the game make me answering this way.

[CrutchCricket]

I think the issue here is now you're assigning broad strokes to everyone in the system. To me, they're human. They're not perfect. Some are worse than others. And they're all capable of screwing up.
 
I think Mac Walters is a hack writer, and is an inept leader of the franchise (which is why I'm glad he's been reassigned elsewhere). 
 
I'm willing to give new people who are manning the boat for the first time a chance, even if it means paying for EA's marketing strategy. Granted, I'm certain I'll hold off for a few weeks to see the reception the game gets.
 
Personally, I've grown from hating the ending to looking at it again and coming to the conclusion that it wasn't all that bad of a concept. It was poorly written and executed, but the big picture wasn't something I disagree with. It's reconcilable with my playstyle and worldview, so I'm able to accept it.

 
They can be human and **** up all they want. But their time of being a trusted investment, financially or emotionally are long gone. Do I blame the level designers, modelers, programmers, or even QA testers? Not really. They weren't in charge, they didn't create this concept, they didn't decide to release it and they didn't stubbornly cling to it when everything went to hell. And realistically I'm not going to cross check every game's credits with ME3's before I buy. But there are names to run away from. Hudson, Walters. Mass Effect (for slightly different reasons). And until further notice Bioware and EA. Because while it was people that did this and they may or may not still be around, this was still the system that not only enabled and supported but encouraged them on this path.

The most basic core idea of the outcomes namely you can destroy or control the Reapers are not inherently flawed. Even synthesis can me made acceptable with massive reworking, plenty of prior setup and careful implementation. Everything else about it though is irredeemable ****. And that cannot be chalked off as mere presentation.

 

So their brand is tainted, but not tainted enough to matter?

It's EA's modus operandi really. How many people take it or its franchises seriously anymore? Yet every yearly installment still nets them the cash of fools. How long till ME becomes CoD In Space I wonder? The brand is tainted. But to the legions of console casuals that keep EA chugging it won't matter come release date. I wonder if they'll even be aware of it.

[CrutchCricket]

Almost 3 years, trying to understand why people dislike it and defending the game make me answering this way.

If you haven't gotten it by now, you never will and it's pointless to try and explain it to you. Though I could've figured that out by your previous posts. How is the weather on whatever world you live in?

[KaiserShep]

Almost 3 years, trying to understand why people dislike it and defending the game make me answering this way.

 

I can't help but be a little curious as to why you just can't see why people feel that way. In any piece of work, there's always going to be something that some people find unpalatable. It seems to me that if in 3 years, you gained no perspective on the plethora of reasons people gave for not liking the end of Mass Effect beyond some base notion of their collective intelligence being substandard, you may have failed to really view it through a truly objective lens.

[angol fear]

Oh! My post is so popular!

 

 

its ok if you like the ending but damm you are so ignorant

there are plenty of valid criticisms but you just choose to ignore it ..

 

ME3's original ending is actually the exact opposite 

its some of the worst writing I have ever seen (the last 15 minutes are absolute trash, the last hour or so pretty bad too)

 

Actually, no! At first I've spent most time listening to the "valid criticism". I didn't ignore it. Now I ignore it because these criticisms are invalid. There's a method for criticism and very few people use/know it. you didn't like doesn't mean it's bad writing. There are things I don't like but I know it's very well written and I teach them too. If you can't make the difference between the writing and your emotions, sure it can be invalid criticism.

 

 

If you haven't gotten it by now, you never will and it's pointless to try and explain it to you. Though I could've figured that out by your previous posts. How is the weather on whatever world you live in?

 

No, you'll never teach me something about writing. In the world of Art, it's quite beautiful!  

 

 

you may have failed to really view it through a truly objective lens.

 

So I failed in something I'm more familiar than most people here? Ok if you want : populus is right, populus was always right. Art is popular, isn't it? And objectivity comes from emotions!

[PresidentVorchaMasterBaits]

VORCHA HATES ENDING!! GRRAAAAAAAAGH! BAD CHOICES! NO FIRE! SHEPARD SHOULD HAVE BURNED REAPERS!!! BUT NO OPTION FOR FIRE!!!! STUPID ENDINGS!! WE SET FIRE TO CHILDREN AND SEND THEM TO SCHOOL THAT WAY! RRAAAAAAAAAWWRRR!!!

[CrutchCricket]

^ thats the problem

you can like the ending as much as you want but its just badly written there is no denying that

 

even having art and the ME3 ending in the same sentence is just wrong

He means "art".

 

Common mistake. Reading his replies is like reading the Tommy Wiseau AMA. For a second there I was actually confused as to which tab I had open.

[CrutchCricket]

Interesting analysis. I'm afraid it's likely wasted on him. If I was in a mood to amuse myself I might imagine that he actually snapped after the endings and this is just his mind trying to protect itself.

 

But anyway, I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on the precise timing of the EC announcement. If you remember back then, the Retake/HTL/whatever movement was gaining quite a bit of traction. There was a con that weekend that devs went do but refused to comment. They dropped the bomb right after and the entire thing collapsed like a house of cards, with formerly united fans fighting themselves as one half saw the empty fluff for what it was and the others were suckered with "wait and see" (or perhaps settled for cheap "closure"). I'm no expert but that was the winning move for them. That was the day we lost. I hate them for it. But I gotta admire the elegance.

[Ithurael]

<Snip>

 

Wowzas!

 

Interesting and very objective. I would also enjoy hearing your views on what CrutchCricket asked. Albeit it is a bit off topic so feel free to make a thread about it for discussion or just post it here.

 

That said...yeah. You wont reach Anglo for at least two reasons:

1 - You are not a writer - he/she is

2- Your criticisms (no matter what) are not valid because of #1

 

Anglo is, in fact, a writer, though I do not know his/her pen name and I cannot sample their work to see how their train of thought works regarding narrative cohesiveness and good vs bad writing.

 

If you want to REAALLY reach Anglo. You need to show and give citations and proof as to what makes ME3's writing sub par. The problem is he/she will rebuff it mostly with the 'art' argument or the 'that is what you use to please everyone' argument. I think the best way to deconstruct an argument to Anglo would be to represent what 'art' is in the standards of a video game and then show how that correlates to the ME3 writing and ending.

 

ME3 was riddled with issues - the ending is just the largest blemish - so it shouldn't be too difficult. It just takes time, which is hard to come by these days.

 

But in the end...at this point...I doubt Anglo will ever be swayed. You could present an air tight argument and they will rebuff it either by attempting to poison the well or just using ad-homs or over generalizing you with a whiny child.

 

Still...I like the way you think kiddo!

[God]

I agree with alleyd's assessment entirely.

 

Do I think some people overreact incredibly to ME3's ending and think that several of them are whinier than Shinji Ikari during his menstrual cycle? Yes.

 

Do I think that everything about the game, the ending, and BW is perfect? Certainly not. There are a lot of problems that are rightfully addressed by many a fan. 

[Undead Han]

VORCHA HATES ENDING!! GRRAAAAAAAAGH! BAD CHOICES! NO FIRE! SHEPARD SHOULD HAVE BURNED REAPERS!!! BUT NO OPTION FOR FIRE!!!! STUPID ENDINGS!! WE SET FIRE TO CHILDREN AND SEND THEM TO SCHOOL THAT WAY! RRAAAAAAAAAWWRRR!!!

 

Interesting perspective.

 

Mr. Vorcha how come you haven't weighed in on this thread yet? 

[KaiserShep]

So I failed in something I'm more familiar than most people here? Ok if you want : populus is right, populus was always right. Art is popular, isn't it? And objectivity comes from emotions!

The point is simple: understanding and agreement are not mutually exclusive. While many have been unreasonable and vitriolic and give little in the way of constructive criticism, plenty others have been more thorough in their analysis. Hell there are entire reviews that can sum up a lot of negative feelings. If you read any of that and still don't get an inkling as to why they dislike it beyond "they're not smart like me" that says more about you than it does them.

[God]

The point is simple: understanding and agreement are not mutually exclusive. While many have been unreasonable and vitriolic and give little in the way of constructive criticism, plenty others have been more thorough in their analysis. Hell there are entire reviews that can sum up a lot of negative feelings. If you read any of that and still don't get an inkling as to why they dislike it beyond "they're not smart like me" that says more about you than it does them.

 

Reminds me of some of the old pro-enders back in the day.

 

txgoldrush, Brovikk Rasputin, Arial, Yate...

 

I always thought angol fear was an alt account for tx goldrush. Similar profile pic and posting style. Plus the whole 'if you dislike anything about ME3's ending, you didn't understand it at all! If you understood the ending you know it was the most perfect art of all time!'

[CrutchCricket]

I thought the EC was a mistake and that producing it went against the message of Artistic Integrity. You stand and fall as a commercial artist on what you present to the public; regardless of media. Taking it back for touch-ups calls the question of the inherent integrity of the art and set  a dangerous precedent into the brand and the industry at large.

 

At the time of the EC announcement I paid more attention to the language and timing of the messages that announced that the founding fathers of the company had left the industry. IIRC there were other layoffs in more junior staff.  In the end I think that the brand was damaged more than any gamer. Gamers escaped from a powerful negative psychology in my view and I don't see it as a loss, but an opportunity to become a healthier and more informed consumer.

I disagree. If you stand based on what you present to the public, then what the endings presented was pure **** and ME deserved to fall. Bioware's use of the phrase in their bullshit notwithstanding, I don't really buy into artistic integrity as a concept. Come to think of it I'm not sure I place much stock in the art of it either. I think games like this are a product first, entertainment second. I think talking about it as art muddies the waters too much (and distracts into subjective philosophical discussion as you said before). I think it has artistic elements and thus artistic merit. But first and foremost it is made commercially, and it is made to be consumed. Which does open it up to not just criticism, but to the possibility of rejection. Now in the past rejection has simply meant it bombed and everyone cut their losses and moved on. But going past simple rejection to "no, not good enough, fix it" is not a bad thing in my view. With every other type of product "not good enough, fix it" happens all the time. The difference is it's ongoing transactions and money talks, literally. If sales go down something's wrong. You find out what, you fix it. If it works, sales go back up. Entertainment consumption is different but I don't think it's a huge fundamental gap.

 

Obviously in these cases it can be a slippery slope. Especially with the internet enabling anyone to be disproportionately loud in their feedback. But a careful application of "nope fix it" can yield more benefit then hiding behind platitudes. Provided you actually fix it of course and not simply "clarify" why everyone's who "doesn't get it" is a moron. And speaking of precedents I think the one that's been set is worse than doing nothing or actually fixing it. If we subscribe to the "any publicity is good publicity" mentality the ending debacle actually becomes a pretty good strategy to reproduce.

 

1. Get some invested fans.

2. Create a controversy.

3. Fans freak out, demand fix, gain media attention.

4. Go through the motions of "listening" and "fixing" the problem. You now not only have free press, but also an undeserved reputation for being receptive to feedback, "caring" etc.

5. Do the bare minimum to diffuse the situation. Fans still get crap, you get free advertising.

 

The brand may still be ruined for hardcore fans. But how many more casuals now know the name "Mass Effect" but not the details of why they know it? And how many people bought the game just to see what the big deal was? I'm not saying what happened is a perfect example. But lately it seems the controversy-hype phenomenon is on the rise.

[Jorji Costava]

I have to admit that in the afterglow of the ending controversy, I was one of the folks who thought it would be a good idea to change the ending, but I've since come to view this as a mistake. The main issue for me is that it's impossible to get into that psychological space you were in before having seen the vanilla ending, before having seen the whole Retake ME affair, etc., and experience a new ending in the proper frame of mind.

I felt this acutely when playing through the extended cut. Every change reminded me of something outside of the game: The whole "Normandy evacuation scene" was explicitly an attempt to deal with the whole "How did your crew get on the Normandy?" controversy, Hackett's retreat order was clearly intended to address the issue of "Why would Joker run away?", the Catalyst's fire analogy was probably a direct response to the "Yo Dawg" meme, etc. At every moment, I was being pulled out of the game and reminded of the conversations about the game.

This doesn't happen when you fix other consumer products; when my TV gets busted and I have it fixed, I'm not constantly being made to think back about that period when it wasn't working. So for me at least, I doubt think retroactively changing the ending was something that could be made to work. I respect that consumers have a right to make that request; it's just not a request that I myself would make at this point.

[KaiserShep]

I have to admit that in the afterglow of the ending controversy, I was one of the folks who thought it would be a good idea to change the ending, but I've since come to view this as a mistake. The main issue for me is that it's impossible to get into that psychological space you were in before having seen the vanilla ending, before having seein the whole Retake ME affair, etc., and experience a new ending in the proper frame of mind.

I felt this acutely when playing through the extended cut. Every change reminded me of something outside of the game: The whole "Normandy evacuation scene" was explicitly an attempt to deal with the whole "How did your crew get on the Normandy?" controversy, Hackett's retreat order was clearly intended to address the issue of "Why would Joker run away?", the Catalyst's fire analogy was probably a direct response to the "Yo Dawg" meme, etc. At every moment, I was being pulled out of the game and reminded of the conversations about the game.

This doesn't happen when you fix other consumer products; when my TV gets busted and I have it fixed, I'm not constantly being made to think back about that period when it wasn't working. So for me at least, I doubt think retroactively changing the ending was something that could be made to work. I respect that consumers have a right to make that request; it's just not a request that I myself would make at this point.

 

I have to say, being a latecomer that started the ME franchise post-EC really helps. If I was one of the early adopters, no doubt I'd feel this same disconnect.

[Iakus]

I have to admit that in the afterglow of the ending controversy, I was one of the folks who thought it would be a good idea to change the ending, but I've since come to view this as a mistake. The main issue for me is that it's impossible to get into that psychological space you were in before having seen the vanilla ending, before having seen the whole Retake ME affair, etc., and experience a new ending in the proper frame of mind.

I felt this acutely when playing through the extended cut. Every change reminded me of something outside of the game: The whole "Normandy evacuation scene" was explicitly an attempt to deal with the whole "How did your crew get on the Normandy?" controversy, Hackett's retreat order was clearly intended to address the issue of "Why would Joker run away?", the Catalyst's fire analogy was probably a direct response to the "Yo Dawg" meme, etc. At every moment, I was being pulled out of the game and reminded of the conversations about the game.

This doesn't happen when you fix other consumer products; when my TV gets busted and I have it fixed, I'm not constantly being made to think back about that period when it wasn't working. So for me at least, I doubt think retroactively changing the ending was something that could be made to work. I respect that consumers have a right to make that request; it's just not a request that I myself would make at this point.

I'd say these are all examples of Bioware simply not caring what the audience thinks.  All those things you mentioned, the evacuation scene, etc, were just slapped-on cosmetic changes that failed to address the blatant thematic shifts that hit people so hard.  They were convinced that the audience "didn't get it"  and not to change their "Art" so they plucked some of the more obvious failures that kept getting mentioned and tinkered with them a bit.  

 

Rather than actually engage the audience and find the deeper issues that people were unhappy with.  Much easier to just slap some paint on it and call it a day.

[CrutchCricket]

What Iakus said. I don't think it was so much "playing the game kept reminding you about talking about the game" as it was you noticing an obviously bad patch job. Not trying to tell you what you think or thought but the examples you mention are so glaringly obvious bandaids, it's impossible not to notice them if you've seen the original ending. I have friends who aren't on the BSN who maybe only watched a video or two reviewing the original ending and those things stuck out to them as well when the EC came out.

 

Whereas a true uprooting of the problem elements, a real change could've been accomplished that wouldn't come across as such an eye sore. When your TV is busted they actually come out and fix/replace the antenna jack or whatever. They don't just slap some electrical tape on it and call it a day- which would I think, remind you of its brokenness.

 

I admit some emotional reactions muddied the waters just as PR talk did (though I won't comment on the ratios). But it was still possible to sift through that and arrive at something that would alleviate most of the deeper issues. Maybe even without removing some elements from what already existed that people liked.

[shodiswe]

The EC made the last part "better", but priority earth still feelt mostly uninspired.

Better doesn't mean good. I was expecting it to be a better grand finale. When I was getting close to the beam the first time I was wondering if this is where the real action and fun stuff begins... I was quite wrong with that guess though.

It could have been worse, but it feelt unimaginative at best.

[God]

I think the overall message, concept of the ending, and the outcomes don't need changing. 

 

If you don't like those, deal with it. They don't need to change. I think telling someone to change their message, as it were is wrong. BW had a message. Some people didn't like it. But they have to deal with it.

 

It could have been handled much, much better, especially the first time, along with some of the over-fixes that BW put on the other problems, but the ending in general? It needed clarification rather than changing. And they handled that alright.

 

To Crutch, I want to know what you specifically think is bad about the ending and what you were going for in response.

[shodiswe]

My advise for Bioware, keep working on those great characters you keep creating. That's what you're good at. Those run of the mill, end of the world stories quickly become uninspired.

As long as you got that great character interaction going people will love your game, but most peopel arn't impressed by the presentation of Quadraxicons that wants to eat the Galaxy or Universe or consume everyones soul and leave them as an empty repulsive husk. It simply gets old eventually.

I suggest something that get's more surprising with plot twists without invulnerable supermonsters and villains. Just make it a damn great story! With great Characters and people will love it and care less for the flaws of the less than perfect story since it's just part of the background noice that propells the real story telling. The story of the most important people in the game, the people you care about.