14 réponses à ce sujet

[Reedirector]

Here is an impromptu review I wrote about ME3 soon after finishing the game, after I played from ME1 to ME3 in the course of two months. I know I'm a bit late, and you must have seem a million thoughts about the ending of the game in your time, but the main reason I'm writing this is catharsis, to vent my emotions. Please don't judge my inane rambling a too harshly: as I say, this is the first time I've experienced the final two games in the series and while you guys have had time to recover your composure, I haven't. Any input you have would be massively appreciated, as I know of no-one in my real life who has ever played Mass Effect before so all these thoughts get pressurised in my head and shoot out of my mouth and typing-fingers involuntarily. For full disclosure, I have posted these thoughts elsewhere on the Internet, so if this is looking familiar to anyone, then I can only apologise on behalf of your wellbeing.

Massive spoilers and massive, ungainly sentences ahead, although I don't go into much detail.

After five years of working on this series, I think the direction Bioware took the ending was perhaps the wrong way to go, but nonetheless I enjoyed it massively.  Shepard comes to be a conduit (lovely little pun there) for the player in a way that no other protagonist has before, so to have him die is almost like losing a part of yourself from the game (there is of course the hint that he is alive. We'll have to see what that will lead to, and I'm sure there are plenty of theories on the web I can familiarise myself with now I've completed the game. It certainly delighted me, though.) Personally, I would liked to have seen a persistent 3-game series in which the protagonist just survives, haha. There may never be another opportunity like it, and that makes me sad.

Without Companion (Loyalty) Quests, by the time you're entering the final part of the game it feels like there was a bit more character development to go through with just about very character (except maybe your romanced squadmate) There was so much more they could have done with James, for instance. That might be down to a lack of thoroughness on my part, of course.

Personally, the thing that is worst for me is the idea of (if applicable) the romanced squad mate being left on their own. The idea of the epic three-game Liara-Shepard pairing coming to such a depressing end breaks my heart, because I am a sad, empty person who cares so much about a fictional character. But I do. I am. Which brings me on to the good things about ME3, and ME in general, and they cannot be overstated.

I felt a kinship with the entire squad, past and present, in a way that no medium has ever managed before. I fell in love with Liara, and all the other characters as well. Seeing the crew interact with each other made them feel so much more real, and especially when they commented on the romance Shepard was in, whether they were saying nice or nasty things, it made it feel three-dimensional, if you catch my drift. The writing and acting was vastly superior to many "classic" films and literature in my opinion. Out of this world. (Another lovely pun for you to keep you going through this slog of a blog post)

I really enjoyed the main story. It took some interesting turns and kept me on my feet. There were epic set pieces and smaller firefights but they were almost all well paced and expressive. It might not have been as good as the first game's story (in my opinion the best story of any video game I have played, despite the... Heavy-handed influences of previous media, shall we say?) but considering the nature of the story, that was fine.

There could have been more opportunities for us to develop our Shepards' characters but I could ask for more of that ad infinum, and I'm grateful for every chance the game can give to take my character in interesting directions.

In summary, a terrific game and unequivocal series that seemed to me to have a slightly off-key ending. As it is, I have never been so immersed or invested in a game and maybe I'm just wishing for too much. I do so love happy endings.

Here's hoping that the next Mass Effect gives a better sense of closure, one way or another (or both ways).

Either way, much love to you all and don't forget to keep dancing. We need the practice.

[DarthLaxian]

"slightly off-key"

 

Damned you are kind to them - I still hate them for puting this ending in (even totally drunk I could write a better one...while I could probably not come up with the brilliant story that they created before this ****** poor ending!) and ******-slapping us with extended cut DLC (refuse-ending: need I say more?) which didn't do a thing for me....

 

Not that the game as a whole is all that great either...it trashes most of what I liked about the games (decisions become meaningless, it's linear something which an RPG should not be IMHO, it ruins a lot of the characters etc.) that came before it...so yeah, you are too nice IMHO!

 

greetings LAX

[Reedirector]

so yeah, you are too nice IMHO!

 

greetings LAX

 

Yeah, as I said I wrote this immediately after completing the game, and I was still on a buzz from it and getting the Breathe Scene, and I think you're right that this review is far too positive. Objectively speaking, the ending was poorly written, poorly explained and poorly executed. The epilogue was no very thorough and the options available to the player in terms of influencing the ending were minimal. 

 

On a personal note, I did really want a happier ending. I think it would actually have fitted quite well with the consistent theme of the games, in that you expect Shepard to die. Having him live would have made the game more... engaging. But that's just me. I can re-imagine the content of the ending with Mods and My Imagination, but a poorly executed ending is not so excusable. Thank you for your critique! 

[angol fear]

Poorly written just for you, that doesn't make it objective. Critic and literature teachers liked the ending, but people who are not expert reader didn't like it. Who is right? Who can talk more objectively? Someone who like hollywood and can't like/ understand something else or people who analyze writing?

A lot of people who can't read properly don't make it objective. Bad reading still bad reading. Frustration still frustration.

[Reedirector]

I gotta say, there are a lot of discrepancies for it to be  a well-written ending that suspends disbelief. For instance, why do we need to use the Conduit to access the Citadel? Where was TIM hiding? How did he access the Citadel? How did he communicate with Cronos station? Why did Hammer Team abandon the Conduit when Harbinger left? How could a device that safely rearranges all life in the known galaxy on a molecular level not be able to distinguish between the Geth and The Reapers?

 

I agree with you that it's almost impossible for someone to review art objectively, and there are a lot of reasons for it. I think one might be that we always look to see the way that we would have done it, given the chance, which skews our perspective. I should not peddle my personal tastes as objective truth. Thank you for your criticism! 

[StarcloudSWG]

Poorly written just for you, that doesn't make it objective. Critic and literature teachers liked the ending, but people who are not expert reader didn't like it. Who is right? Who can talk more objectively? Someone who like hollywood and can't like/ understand something else or people who analyze writing?

A lot of people who can't read properly don't make it objective. Bad reading still bad reading. Frustration still frustration.

 

"Critics" aka game reviewers, don't generally play through a game. They have deadlines to meet, and those deadlines come very close to the release of the game. They just don't have the *time*.

 

And there were many, many, MANY literature teachers who disliked the ending. The major complaint was that the ending *did not fit* the story of Mass Effect as it had been developed through the games. It broke the pattern of a good story by interrupting the 'climax and falling action' of the confrontation with the Illusive Man and Anderson's death scene and throws in another 'rising action/climax' segment. Further, the entire Catalyst scene was filled with exposition but no emotional engagement, other than the rage and confusion that it engendered in the viewer. Objectively, you can dissect the ending and analyse the pattern, comparing it to patterns common to successful stories. And you will find that the ending to Mass Effect 3 *objectively* is a bad one because of how far off it deviates.

[angol fear]

I gotta say, there are a lot of discrepancies for it to be  a well-written ending that suspends disbelief. For instance, why do we need to use the Conduit to access the Citadel? Where was TIM hiding? How did he access the Citadel? How did he communicate with Cronos station? Why did Hammer Team abandon the Conduit when Harbinger left? How could a device that safely rearranges all life in the known galaxy on a molecular level not be able to distinguish between the Geth and The Reapers?

 

I agree with you that it's almost impossible for someone to review art objectively, and there are a lot of reasons for it. I think one might be that we always look to see the way that we would have done it, given the chance, which skews our perspective. I should not peddle my personal tastes as objective truth. Thank you for your criticism! 

 

Well it was LAX who was talking as if it was objective truth when it's clear that it's frustration.

But to answer quickly your question, it's narration that was taking Shepard's point of view during that part, so you can't have that answers. It's not poorly written it's a matter of choice in narrative perspectives.

 

 

"Critics" aka game reviewers, don't generally play through a game. They have deadlines to meet, and those deadlines come very close to the release of the game. They just don't have the *time*.

 

And there were many, many, MANY literature teachers who disliked the ending. The major complaint was that the ending *did not fit* the story of Mass Effect as it had been developed through the games. It broke the pattern of a good story by interrupting the 'climax and falling action' of the confrontation with the Illusive Man and Anderson's death scene and throws in another 'rising action/climax' segment. Further, the entire Catalyst scene was filled with exposition but no emotional engagement, other than the rage and confusion that it engendered in the viewer. Objectively, you can dissect the ending and analyse the pattern, comparing it to patterns common to successful stories. And you will find that the ending to Mass Effect 3 *objectively* is a bad one because of how far off it deviates.

 

I'd like to see that : I'm working as cinema critic and literature teacher and everyone I know you played the game have found the ending really interesting, we could talk a lot about it. Sorry but I don't care about successful stories, I'm only close to masterpieces. I have talked with some people who were at university and a popular writer on internet, sorry but they didn't make a analysis of the writing, they clearly lack knowledge about art and Literature (writing to please people isn't Literature!) I know the argument people have to complain, but no! it only shows how bad reader they are. Lately I was talking on that forum with someone that couldn't understand that Mass Effect force you to change the way of reading, you can't use a linear reading, it actually works like poetry. Those who can't do that can't understand Mass Effect, they can't understand La jetée, they can't understand Snowpiercer etc... I'm sorry but when it is really well written, basic reading (that makes successful stories) is useless. On this forum, I didn't see anyone who could explain how a masterpiece works, if they couldn't do that they can't do an analysis. There's only on internet that I saw people who hate the ending.

A good reader is one who can adapt his way of reading.

[StarcloudSWG]

On a solely intellectual level, the ending is passable. There are a lot of things that are only hinted at by the Catalyst's long expositional sequence. On a solely intellectual level, there's quite a lot of room for discussion.

 

But a good story isn't *just* solely intellectual. A good story, a successful story, a story that gets told over and over again, has to engage the reader/viewer emotionally. The ending must be satisfying, evoking feelings of catharsis.

 

This ending did not do that. Instead, it took all the emotional involvement that the viewer had leading up to that point, and brutally stomps it to death with apparently faulty logic, frustrating vagueness, extended exposition and blatant attempts to manipulate the viewer. Not the viewpoint character, the *viewer*. The character of Shepard is mostly absent during the Catalyst scene.

 

I suspect that what you consider a 'masterpiece' is also considered 'boring as hell' by the vast majority of readers. Good writing engages the reader. Bad writing does not. A lot of masterpieces may be technical works of art, but if you have to say 'well, this story is really a poem' when it's clearly not meant to be one, that's bad. writing.

 

ME 3 is not a masterpiece. It is a failure. 

 

Finally, the only place I've seen people who like the ending are on the Internet. According to what you imply, that means you're not a real person and don't have real feelings. I suggest you audit a rhetoric class or two, and a logic class, just to review the different argument fallacies.

[angol fear]

Ok, there are many problems with what you say :

-a good story isn't a successful story. If you think that a good story is always a successful story, you think that best sellers and blockbusters are the best books and films.

 

-"a story that gets told over and over again", well, it seems that Mass Effect is that, even and maybe mostly the ending is that!

"has to engage the reader/viewer emotionally" Didn't many people felt frustrated just like Lax? Frustration is an emotion, isn't it?

 

-"The ending must be satisfying, evoking feelings of catharsis." That's something important : NO! The ending doesn't have to be satisfying! Anyone saying that doesn't have enough knowledge in Literature and art, it's obvious. No one working in art could say such thing. You're talking about catharsis, do you know that it's one vision of writing, you can't apply it on every aesthetic. If you think so then you lack knowledge and you should take a look at contemporary writing. You will hate that.

 

-No, I don't think a masterpiece is boring for the vast majority of people : Snowpiercer is very entertaining, I could talk about Verhoeven's Robocop too. I was saying that the vast majority of people can't understand it! 

 

-"Good writing engages the reader. Bad writing does not." Well, the two engage the reader, you should read more. Why bad writing can be so popular? Take a look at the series.

 

-"ME 3 is not a masterpiece. It is a failure. " That's your point of view, you can dislike for the reason you gave, it doesn't mean that you're right. The vast majority of people here can think that, it doesn't mean that they're right. You didn't define masterpiece, and I think that masterpiece is the conclusion of good writing for you. But you're wrong everytime you talk about good writing. Don't you see that all matter in the way you read is your own satisfaction. That's egoistic. Don't you understand that you can't like something new : you will always like things that you already consider good. It's almost like you could do 

[angol fear]

a list of you like to create a masterpiece. You're talking about your recepetion without thinking about it, and you totally ignore the creation part with the intentions and the neutral part (the writing of the game itself). you really think that what you say can be taken seriously by someone who know how to read?

 

-"Finally, the only place I've seen people who like the ending are on the Internet. According to what you imply, that means you're not a real person and don't have real feelings. I suggest you audit a rhetoric class or two, and a logic class, just to review the different argument fallacies."

Thanks but no, you're very pretentious, arrogant and ignorant. I am a real  person and I do have feelings. I teach what you want me to learn. I suggest you to learn what is reading and how to read (and take a look at masterpieces, you'll be surprised it's not what you said at all!). A good reader doesn't have a linear reading, he can adapt the way he reads.  

I understand someone saying that he didn't like, but someone saying it's objectively bad, he's just ridiculous.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Poorly written just for you, that doesn't make it objective. Critic and literature teachers liked the ending, but people who are not expert reader didn't like it. Who is right? Who can talk more objectively? Someone who like hollywood and can't like/ understand something else or people who analyze writing?

A lot of people who can't read properly don't make it objective. Bad reading still bad reading. Frustration still frustration.

 

I'm sure some did like (I haven't seen any, unless you're one). I have read those who disliked it though. And instead of using this condescending shtick about people not reading, they made an actual argument.

[angol fear]

I'm sure some did like (I haven't seen any, unless you're one). I have read those who disliked it though. And instead of using this condescending shtick about people not reading, they made an actual argument.

 

The problem is that they need lessons about what is literature, what is reading, what is writing. I can make arguments as long as I want, the answer will always be "it doesn't work on me". How can someone who eats everyday burger can appreciate the taste of real cooking/ real food? the problem is that I tried to explain things important about genre, writing, and reading, but it doesn't work because people can't understand it, they don't want to understand it because if I'm right it means that they are wrong. They have spent years of hate and they can't admit they were wrong. I've talked about art with ignorant people (explaining to me what is art, while it is my job!), I talked about the problem of "how can we define a genre?" but people ignored my post (otherwise they would to admit that the ending isn't space magic), you should try to explain how the ending isn't a deus ex machina to someone who doesn't know what is a deus ex machina but think he knows, you should try to explain that the writing of the trilogy is based on paradox to someone who doesn't know what is a pardox but doesn't want it to be etc... You can see that I've tried to explain things that are needed to understand arguments. Sorry but it is useless to give argument to people who won't listen. My condescending  tone doesn't come from nowhere.

If you can't read the frustration in Lax post, then it is useless for me to try to explain how Mass Effect is written, because you don't have level required to understand.  

If you can't define correctly what is a masterpiece, you don't have the level of reading required.  

[StarcloudSWG]

This is a fallacy called "Appeal to authority". "I'm an expert in the field, and I think this is a masterpiece. Until you're an expert in the field, you can't argue with me and therefore I'm right."

 

Until you're willing and able to discuss *specifics* of why you believe the ending works, your arguments are unconvincing, condescending, and as arrogant as you claim mine are.

 

The ending does not work. It breaks from the genre that Mass Effect evolved into (Military Space Opera) and goes into a deeply philosophical tangent harping on a theme that could be 'solved' by the player earlier in the game, if the player made peace between geth and the quarians. It throws in, for no good reason, an emotional appeal to transhumanism. The entire thing stinks of a sophmoric attempt to use Hegelian dialectic but it fails there too. Hegelian dialectic requires that the synthesis of an argument, the new understanding, arises from *both* parties arriving at it. During the entire exposition sequence, Shepard is basically passive, and does not put forth a counter-argument more sophisticated than "I don't like it." It breaks the emotional momentum of the story, putting in an extended "rising action" sequence at the end of the deneument, just before the coda / epilogue. For this reason, the ending fails at providing catharsis. And whether you like that fact or not, catharsis is absolutely important to a story that's obviously based on the 'three act structure'. Or if you prefer, the "Save the Cat" structure, if you've ever heard of it.

 

Shepard is a character archetype called the "Action Hero." Certain things are expected of this archetype; committing suicide is NOT one of those things, for any reason. Survival against all odds, on the other hand, IS.

 

The entire Catalyst sequence feels, and is, out of place. It belongs to a different game, one where transhumanist themes are front and center to the story, and not one where they're relegated to side missions, overheard conversations, and character improvements that NO ONE ever remarks on in dialog.

[Jokermania5150]

I, for one, raged for days because of the original ending(s). Not only because they were severly lacking but because I had put so much time and heart into the characters. Over time, and with the release of the free EC DLC, I became more satisfied with the conclusion. Taking Liara and Garrus with me on the run to the beam gave me the heartbreaking final scene with her. The lame talk with ghost kid was....lame. The four EC endings though...were so much better than the originals I couldn't help but be happy with them. If you want true disappointment the original endings are the way to go. Bioware upgraded the endings for free and people still bitched about them. I can understand that. But changing the endings at all was a major step in the right direction.

 

In fact, here is the link to my Thank You to Bioware: http://forum.bioware...nk-you-bioware/

 

I have no reason to worry about literature/story right way/wrong way opinions because my Shepard lived on...by Control. I ruled the Reapers, helped rebuild the Mass Effect universe, shared millions of years of knowledge, and policed the galaxy. The Geth didn't die. No one was forced into Synthesis against their will. I saved everyone!

 

Whew...didn't know I still had that in me.

 

Thank You

[angol fear]

This is a fallacy called "Appeal to authority". "I'm an expert in the field, and I think this is a masterpiece. Until you're an expert in the field, you can't argue with me and therefore I'm right."

 

Until you're willing and able to discuss *specifics* of why you believe the ending works, your arguments are unconvincing, condescending, and as arrogant as you claim mine are.

 

The ending does not work. It breaks from the genre that Mass Effect evolved into (Military Space Opera) and goes into a deeply philosophical tangent harping on a theme that could be 'solved' by the player earlier in the game, if the player made peace between geth and the quarians. It throws in, for no good reason, an emotional appeal to transhumanism. The entire thing stinks of a sophmoric attempt to use Hegelian dialectic but it fails there too. Hegelian dialectic requires that the synthesis of an argument, the new understanding, arises from *both* parties arriving at it. During the entire exposition sequence, Shepard is basically passive, and does not put forth a counter-argument more sophisticated than "I don't like it." It breaks the emotional momentum of the story, putting in an extended "rising action" sequence at the end of the deneument, just before the coda / epilogue. For this reason, the ending fails at providing catharsis. And whether you like that fact or not, catharsis is absolutely important to a story that's obviously based on the 'three act structure'. Or if you prefer, the "Save the Cat" structure, if you've ever heard of it.

 

Shepard is a character archetype called the "Action Hero." Certain things are expected of this archetype; committing suicide is NOT one of those things, for any reason. Survival against all odds, on the other hand, IS.

 

The entire Catalyst sequence feels, and is, out of place. It belongs to a different game, one where transhumanist themes are front and center to the story, and not one where they're relegated to side missions, overheard conversations, and character improvements that NO ONE ever remarks on in dialog.

 

I've forgotten this topic.

I don't want to try to convince you or any other hater here (it is a waste of time). Actually, there is a real gap between expert readers and the others :

I won't talk about my own experience because I don't have feeling or whatever you want me to be. I've got a friend, literature teacher just like me, who saw since the first Mass Effect that it is written like a Greek  tragedy. He finished Mass Effect 2 and said to me that for him maybe the ending would be about "some kind of synthesis between flesh and something mechanical". So the ending is out of place? We didn't feel this way, and the writing from Mass Effect 1 is made to have something like that in the end. I've already said it, you didn't read properly the game. I can't give you argument because it's to learn to read properly that you need. Hollywood reading is bad reading!

And using Hegel to talk about Mass Effect is just as pertinent as using Sartre... Sure Mass Effect will fail because it has nothing to do with these philosophers.