333 réponses à ce sujet

[Drone223]

Personally i don't think the Dark Energy angle makes them righteous. I mean they are sill machines who's only concern is to fufill the purpouse they were built for who operate in a very utilitarian manner without any concerns for morality. The whole "synthetics vs orgaics" theme is still very much intact and still is a very large part of the plot.

It also leaves room for Shepard to be, well Shepard and go "hell no, we'll find our own sollution." Or go some kind of pure renegade, no cost is to high route and leave the reapers to do their thing.

A villian without a reasonable goal or purpouse is just a bad villan. I mean they still wanto wipe out entire civilazations like they have done for millions of years, even if it is for "the greater good" they can still easily be viewed as the bad guys. Just not some flawed space boogiemen with messed up circle logic. WIth the dark energy plot they're still flawed in the way anything that is programmed is(or atleast can be flawed) but atleast their logic would be sound rather than stupid.

 

I also think it would tie into ME4 nicely. Shepards story is done, she stopped the reapers, now it's time for some new hero to step up and help solve the dark energy problem.

The DE plot makes no sense, the reapers intend to stop the spread of DE yet they create technology that not only increases its spread they encourage species to develop their technology based on it thus making the problem worse. Here's a better idea instead of making technology that increases the spread of DE, they should develop technology that slows the spread of DE and stop species from developing technology that willl only make the problem worse.

[Rittmeister64]

The writing in ME3 was just beyond terrible, so it is really a miracle to my why Mac Walters is lead writer again for Next.

Two examples that come to mind are:

 

a.) Shepard whining around that he has to leave Earth to gather support at the Beginning. Anderson practically has to kick him from the Planet. This feels so dumb and concocted, because Shepard of all people would know he can't defeat the reapers with an M16 from the surface. Also, the bad writing just oozed "Shep, no he's no coward who runs away. See - he wants to stay *really badly*, fo sure". Apparently they felt that players new to the series needed a ton of this handholding style. REALLY REALLY BAD WRITING. I had to facepalm myself during much of the dialogue at the beginning.

 

b.) Liara getting angry and blaming Earth, Shepard for not helping her planet is of course super-irrational. They wanted to show that the girl has some emotions, but do you really need to throw out all logic out of the window and make her act like a brat who gets her cookies denied at the supermarket cash-desk? Making her the Shadow-Broker was already ridiculous enough. I hated the whole arch in ME2. I suppose the writer's logic was "How can we make Liara more important and not just the silly (but cute) LI she was in ME1... Let's make her take over the SB and then tell the whole galaxy about it in almost every scene" ...real good idea (facepalm).

 

There's tons more of badly written dialogue and story, like the useless dream sequences with the kid from earth. "Lets make Shep dream about a random kid on Earth to foreshadow his death all the time and show that he has feelings too." Alright, that wouldn't have been that bad - if only they hadn't used the kid in the end as the Catalyst persona.

[Lee T]

The writing in ME3 was just beyond terrible, so it is really a miracle to my why Mac Walters is lead writer again for Next.

He's not, the Halo guy is, Walters is creative director :

http://blog.bioware....xt-mass-effect/

[LisuPL]

I know it's been discussed to death but I've recently finished ME3 and I'm completely in awe. What happened to the dark energy foreshadowing? everything went well until PICK A COLOR.

 

Seriously? I hope the writer got fired.

"What went through the writers mind when they came up with this ending?"

 

Must have been a lot of booze, 2 wheelbarrows of cocaine and a few dozens of Taiwan prostitutes...

[Rasande]

The DE plot makes no sense, the reapers intend to stop the spread of DE yet they create technology that not only increases its spread they encourage species to develop their technology based on it thus making the problem worse. Here's a better idea instead of making technology that increases the spread of DE, they should develop technology that slows the spread of DE and stop species from developing technology that willl only make the problem worse.

 

You've got it wrong, in the DE plot the reapers don't create the relays. The reapers or the catalyst are created by the race that invented the mass relays to stop the universe from imploding and their solution is to wipe out every race that uses the mass relays untill they can come up with a better one, to help them find a better solution the harvest gentic matterial hence the Collectors.

[Vazgen]

You've got it wrong, in the DE plot the reapers don't create the relays. The reapers or the catalyst are created by the race that invented the mass relays to stop the universe from imploding and their solution is to wipe out every race that uses the mass relays untill they can come up with a better one, to help them find a better solution the harvest gentic matterial hence the Collectors.

Except it's pretty much stated in ME1 that relays and Citadel are Reaper creations.

[CptFalconPunch]

The writing in ME3 was just beyond terrible, 

 

Of course it isn't.

 

And it is stilll better than ME2's writing thats for sure. Yet the past years have been interesting. Seeing how mad people get over video game stories.

 

To OP: Have no idea.

[Rasande]

Except it's pretty much stated in ME1 that relays and Citadel are Reaper creations.

 

Really? I must've missed that, where do they say that? If that's true then yeah, their logic would still be stupid lol

[Iakus]

Really? I must've missed that, where do they say that? If that's true then yeah, their logic would still be stupid lol

Sovereign: The pattern has repeated itself more times than you can fathom.  Organic civilizations rise, evolve, advance, and at the apex of their glory they are extinguished.  The Protheans were not the first. They did not create the Citadel.  They did not forge the mass relays. They merely found them.  The legacy of my kind.

 

Shepard: Why would you construct the mass relays and leave them for someone else to find?

 

Sovereign: Your civilization is based on the technology of the mass relays.  Our technology.  By using it, your civilization develops along the paths we desire.  We impose order on the chaos of organic life.  You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it.

[Faerlyte]

I want to know what was going through their mind when they wrote most of ME3. 

 

Of course it isn't.

 

And it is stilll better than ME2's writing thats for sure. Yet the past years have been interesting. Seeing how mad people get over video game stories.

 

To OP: Have no idea.

No it's not. lol. 

[Dantriges]

Nothing to see here. Posted i the wrong thread.

[AlanC9]

Did this really need a necro? It's not like you can't find a more recent ending-bashing thread.

[Dantriges]

Ups, sorry, seems that I jumped from the current bashing thread to this one without realising it.   I am sorry.

[Golden_Persona]

The people who think the Dark Energy ending are blind to just how badly it was written, even moreso than the original endings. They just hate the endings we got, and everything else seems better to them by comparison. The truth is the endings could have been a lot worse. With both having strange plot holes, atleast they went with the conflict that has raged in ME since the first game. The entire first game was about organics and synthetics. The main villain that everyone loves from ME1 is the poster child for the most hated ending in the entire trilogy.

 

There's got to be a rationale to the hate. There are worse directions they could have gone. The only reason to really prefer the dark energy ending is that it's unique, meanwhile organics vs synthetics has been a theme in a lot of sci-fi stories. The DE endings actually made the endings even more vague, more unresolved, and with even less options to choose to boot. In the endings we got we either definitely defeated the Reapers, or got obliterated by them which then meant the cycle carried on, and ended, during the next civilizations. Either way the Reaper threat is done with. With the DE ending we don't get a straight answer, and by all means things could still be doomed. Do you want a trilogy that just ends on a cliffhanger?

 

But it gets a pass because Drew thought of it? The entire series wasn't planned from the get-go, even when he was in charge of it. He's just as much to blame for leaving without giving Bioware something solid to work off of. The problem with the ending was also that they had one guy write the ending, when the normal writing process is to have every writer join in and give their thoughts. It was just too big for one man to be able to accomplish.

[Mcfly616]

Dark Energy could have been epic. But the unfinished, half-baked state that the concept was left in wouldn't have been even halfway decent. It was but one route they could've taken with the narrative. And they didn't take it. Which is fine. It seems Dark Energy gets more air time than anything that has ever been left on the cutting floor in the history of videogames. When in reality, it's the status quo. The name of the game. An everyday occurrence in that particular business.

 

What we got far surpassed the "idea" that was Dark Energy. Maybe the actual ending/final draft/implementation of Dark Energy would've been better. We'll probably never know (or maybe it'll be the endgame for future installments in the series). Either way, the organic/synthetic conflict was prevalent since the jump. The current ending fits. 

 

 

 

What went through their minds? Awesomeness.

[AlanC9]

And that's the great thing about DE. Since it was never finished, you can a,ways oretend that it would have been great.

[Dantriges]

If the reapers are after biotic people, setting up a scheme to continously harvest biotic people would be better. So the reapers make a show, do some "I am your god now" speech and people who are getting old or sick are harvested. Go into the light to join the gods in heaven.

 

If you go more atheist just show up, give a lesser species that is just developing mass effect space flight the data how using mass effect technology is bad for the galaxy and broker a deal. If you, lesser speces, want to go into space, hand over (dying or even healthy) biotics. If you do not submit, you will be harvested. 

Emission control at gunpoint would probably be more effective than resetting the galaxy.

 

Why did the Reapers provide the Mass Relays if they are contibuting to the death of the galaxy? Is that some kind of low emission technology? Is there some other way to achieve spaceflight without it. We have FTL after all, the relays are used because they are faster and IIRC humanity was developing FTL at the time when the archives and the relays are found. .  

 

Or at least leave some data that mass effect tech is polluting the galaxy so that the new species don´t use it for everything like weapons (there is even an in game alternative with Particle Rifles) or convenience stuff like toohtbrushes. The Mako doesn´t need a mass effect core for air drop either.

 

Do we actually need to kill everyone? Isn´t a DNA sample enough? This whole essence of the being sounds a lot like this prothean DNA memory.

 

AFAIK the choice at the end would have been harvest humans so the Reapers solve the problems or hope that you solve it on your own in the next few hundred years. How about a deal? We send you the bodies of the people you can use in your project(if DNA samples don´t work because of space magic reasons) or the dying, which you put to death gently, you leave us alone. The Reapers will probably get more bodies this way to build a new Reaper over time than killing everyone at once. Forced euthanasia and body donation is a thorny issue but still better than genocide. Sacrificing your whole species to save the whole galxy in the ending is an interesting choice, doing it because you and the starkid are dumb makes it pointless.

 

It would be funny if you came up with the idea and the starkid goes "Duh, it seems I am an idiot."

[Get Magna Carter]

As I see it, the core problem is that Bioware had no experience or understanding in making a series.

 

When Mass Effect was made there were plans for it to be the first part of a trilogy but no ideas on how to end the trilogy.

As the first game was focussed on organics vs A.I.s concepts that did not fit that theme (an ally A.I., friendly Geth) were removed.

The resolution of the Cerberus storyline also didn't make it so that sub-plot ended with a declaration that Cerberus mus pay for what they've done.

 

The came Mass Effect 2.  Bioware apparently forgot how much they had established Cerberus as bad guys/enemies and tried to promote them as a "cool" black-ops unit for Shepard to work with.  Bioware moved away from the organics/A.I. conflict of the first game with EDI and friendly Geth and new information about the beginning of the Geth/Quarian conflict.

Bioware started coming up with rough ideas for the ending and placed hints about Dark Energy to be picked up in the third game.

 

Then came Mass Effect 3.  This continued the movement away from the organics/A.I. conflict of the original game making EDI a full squad member with a romantic link to Joker and enabling the player to negotiate peace between the Quarians and the Geth.

The lead writer of the first 2 games left, the Dark Energy idea was not developed into something workable but instead abandoned completely leaving the new lead writer to come up with a new idea for the ending and an idea was rushed out,  He picked the A.I. vs organic conflict of the original Mass Effect and declared it to be the theme of the trilogy (ignoring how far Mass Effect 2 and 3 had moved away from that theme).

 

One story-telling rule is "show, don't tell".  In Mass Effect 3 we are shown A.I. and organics coming together to leave together in peace and then one character tells us that the conflict is unavoidable.  This character has declared himself responsible for the main problems faced during the trilogy and thus the arch-enemy and someone we have no reason to trust or believe yet the original ending gave the player no option to argue and is instead forced to ignore all the in game evidence and just trust everything their enemy tells them...

[AlanC9]

Well, you have to trust him about the Crucible's functions, sure. Though I suppose you could disbelieve him and roll a die to see what to do, if you have a d4 handy.

You don't have to trust him about the inevitability of synthetic/organic conflict, though. And if you pick Destroy, it looks like he was wrong.

[Linkenski]

They thought they'd created a masterpiece. The day before the game's release Casey Hudson said in IGN's Up At Noon show: "I can't wait to see how people react to the endings. It's one of the most climactic endings we've ever done..." and Mac Walters later said, when asked about the angry reaction towards the endings "It was definitely unexpected!"

 

The fact that you can write something awful like that and NOT expect there to be an outcry is kind of outrageous to me. That alone tells me enough to know Mac Walters should not ever be a plot-writer again. Usually, directors are all style over substance. See Zack Snyder or Christopher Nolan. They all want cool ideas in their movies but they insert them without thinking about the narrative ramifications, stuff like Christopher Nolan wanting a scene in Interstellar where they traveled faster than the speed of light until their physicist finally made him realize that it was just impossible and he should cut it, or Zack Snyder's awful jesus-symbolism in his Superman movies or stuff like Superman mindlessly flying through buildings to "make it seem more mythological".

 

It's all style over substance and that's a director-trait I guess.

[The NightMan Cometh]

I am fine with every single ending. There was some heavy foreshadowing...so on my 1st playthrough..i was expecting it....like when Liara came to the cabin to tell you about the Shepard beacon & on London when you are saying goodbye to everyone.  Shepard sacrificed so much, so why not make it the ultimate sacrifice?

[JamieCOTC]

Can't remember where I read it, but someone, maybe Walters, maybe not, was heavily influenced by Uncharted 3. That's why Shepard becomes more of a predefined character and not a PC the player controls. As to the ending, Casey Hudson wanted Mass Effect to have a memorable ending, go beyond the typical boss fight and be done w/ it ending. They wanted the ending to be special and I don't bame them. I believe what happened is that they really just drew a blank on how to end this game and then got stuck on one thing and couldn't let go (the singularity).  I wouldn't call the singularity an asspull as the threads are there, but given it took two DLCs to explain the ending, I'd say it was not the original intent. The idea itself is not that bad, but the implementation of the ending is clunky.

[prosthetic soul]

Can't remember where I read it, but someone, maybe Walters, maybe not, was heavily influenced by Uncharted 3. That's why Shepard becomes more of a predefined character and not a PC the player controls. As to the ending, Casey Hudson wanted Mass Effect to have a memorable ending, go beyond the typical boss fight and be done w/ it ending. They wanted the ending to be special and I don't bame them. I believe what happened is that they really just drew a blank on how to end this game and then got stuck on one thing and couldn't let go (the singularity).  I wouldn't call the singularity an asspull as the threads are there, but given it took two DLCs to explain the ending, I'd say it was not the original intent. The idea itself is not that bad, but the implementation of the ending is clunky.

No.  Both the idea and the implementation is terrible.  I blame M. Night Shyamalan and Hollywood for this.  Game developers see these big budget films with HUGE TWISTS at the end and think they need something memorable right at the last second to make an impact on the player.  And it simply isn't true.  Most of the time you just got to keep things simple.  Casey Hudson and Mac Walters forgot this.  And they paid the price.  Doubt they learned from the mistake though, judging by the PR I've been reading. 

 

Oh and don't even get me started on no last boss fight.  "Too video gamey"?  Puh lease.