825 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

The way you say it tends to be extremely dismissive if not outright condescending.
 

Yep. Often that's deliberate, but in this particular case it's just because I was going for brevity. How about "I'm already faced with a substantial disconnect between my understanding of the game world and my character's understanding of the game world, because I know that an AAA RPG will be "winnable" unless I'm grossly incompetent or I deliberately sabotage my character. I prefer designs that reduce such disconnects as much as possible."

[Han Shot First]

I think Bioware had the right idea in aiming for a bittersweet finale to the series. It was just poorly executed. One of the chief mistakes was in having the sense of loss come from the collapse of the galactic civilization the player had grown attached to over the course of five years and three games, and to which saving it had been the primary goal of their player character. I think the endings would have been much better received had the sense of loss instead come from deaths of companion characters in the end run, or potentially the player character as well, but galactic civilization had been saved.

 

There were other problems with the endings as well beyond just the way in which Bioware tried to introduce the 'bitter' portion of the tone, but I think that was part of why the endings failed.

[katamuro]

I would have been fine completely if we had to sacrifice Shepard or one of our more martial friends, Javik seemed to be the perfect one for sacrificing in the end, Vega, Garrus, Grunt, Samara, Zaeed, Ashley/Kaidan,Anderson were all good for going down in the last blaze of glory with Shepard. I could have lived with a decimated list of people I knew but only if it felt worth it. It really did not. Even the EC didnt do much to justify it. 

I am fine with sacrifice and I was gearing up to it but what we got was an arbitrary colour coded roulette of what part of your character, its personality and beliefs do you wish to betray. Synthesis feels wrong on so many levels, Control is just basically what Illusive man wanted, Destroy is doing what you came for but only if you also execute, genocide the most inventive part of the MEU. geth were awesome, EDI was awesome and it felt like I was saving the sentient galaxy by executing its children. 

[themikefest]

If this ark thing takes characters to another galaxy and it takes 200 or 300 years to get to wherever, wouldn't their equipment be out dated compared to the species they run into? Even the Milky Way will advance during that time after the reaper war. It will be funny seeing a character exit the ark/ship whatever with a weapon that's 300 hundred years old and facing a species with weapons that are far more advanced.

[Tonymac]

If this ark thing takes characters to another galaxy and it takes 200 or 300 years to get to wherever, wouldn't their equipment be out dated compared to the species they run into? Even the Milky Way will advance during that time after the reaper war. It will be funny seeing a character exit the ark/ship whatever with a weapon that's 300 hundred years old and facing a species with weapons that are far more advanced.

I suppose that would depend upon the base technology of the galaxy you were going to.  They could be way more advanced, or perhaps even stone age.  My guess is that it gives the writers a blank slate.

[katamuro]

If this ark thing takes characters to another galaxy and it takes 200 or 300 years to get to wherever, wouldn't their equipment be out dated compared to the species they run into? Even the Milky Way will advance during that time after the reaper war. It will be funny seeing a character exit the ark/ship whatever with a weapon that's 300 hundred years old and facing a species with weapons that are far more advanced.

 

Well considering that turian and asari weapons and armour are just barely better than human, and they have been in space for hundreds of years before humanity.

Plus the other galaxy might not have any species that advanced, or they might not be using Mass Effect technology. Which is why if the next game is set in another galaxy then its pretty much not a Mass Effect game, its just Generic Scifi Game Example B variation 2.

[themikefest]

I suppose that would depend upon the base technology of the galaxy you were going to.  They could be way more advanced, or perhaps even stone age.  My guess is that it gives the writers a blank slate.

Maybe they will meet Fred Flinstone. Hahaha.

 

 I'm curious what th ewriters will come up with to explain a lot of stuff that will be seen in the game

[Vazgen]

 

I think Bioware had the right idea in aiming for a bittersweet finale to the series. It was just poorly executed. One of the chief mistakes was in having the sense of loss come from the collapse of the galactic civilization the player had grown attached to over the course of five years and three games, and to which saving it had been the primary goal of their player character. I think the endings would have been much better received had the sense of loss instead come from deaths of companion characters in the end run, or potentially the player character as well, but galactic civilization had been saved.

 

There were other problems with the endings as well beyond just the way in which Bioware tried to introduce the 'bitter' portion of the tone, but I think that was part of why the endings failed.

There are several reasons for why the endings were badly received

1. No explanation on how the Crucible works

2. Bringing forward a theme that is apparently considered major by the writers (Drew, in particular) yet was barely touched in the previous installments (ME2 in particular)

3. Explanation of Reaper motives presented in a way of information dump in the last few minutes.

Combine these three and you get an underwhelming finale to the trilogy. Shepard's death in the original version amplified the feelings. If he walked out of the rubble with a smirk, people would've accepted the endings, just as they did with Lazarus project.

Some moved on, some raged, some made up things to make it plausible. Extended Cut provides more closure to the state of the galaxy and squadmates but fails to address these three flaws (to address those, a rewrite of more things than the ending would've been needed). I prefer filling the gaps with headcanon

 

[katamuro]

 

 

There are several reasons for why the endings were badly received

1. No explanation on how the Crucible works

2. Bringing forward a theme that is apparently considered major by the writers (Drew, in particular) yet was barely touched in the previous installments (ME2 in particular)

3. Explanation of Reaper motives presented in a way of information dump in the last few minutes.

Combine these three and you get an underwhelming finale to the trilogy. Shepard's death in the original version amplified the feelings. If he walked out of the rubble with a smirk, people would've accepted the endings, just as they did with Lazarus project.

Some moved on, some raged, some made up things to make it plausible. Extended Cut provides more closure to the state of the galaxy and squadmates but fails to address these three flaws (to address those, a rewrite of more things than the ending would've been needed). I prefer filling the gaps with headcanon

 

 

 

Crucible working might not have needed the explanation if not for the other two. After all if it worked like a giant anti-reaper EMP no explanation would have been necessary. However when coupled with somehow the theme of the games and the struggle against reapers becoming synthetic vs organic? When in ME2 we were basically made to make friends with an AI and 1183 geth. That invalidates pretty much everything that was said about the whole synth vs org thing. 

And then reapers turn out to be just some puppets with one liners. That was just a huge, terrible mistake. It was also a very cheap and quite stupid way to write off one of the most awesome enemies in scifi. Especially considering that it was all revealed in a convo with what was basically a reaper version of Avina. 

 

Insulting?Yes. Patronising? Quite so. Disappointing? Massively. Made sense? Absolutely not.

[Iakus]

Why do people look down and underestimate the more traditional endings? If it fits the narrative and the theme then why not? Why invent some kind of insane plot twist just to assure yourself that you are smart enough to do it? Why go for something crazy when the non-crazy variant works and works well? After all you do not go kite-surfing during a storm just because its faster and more "exciting".

 

I had thought of putting: "and he lived happily ever afterwards to the end of his days." It is a good ending, and none the worse for having been used before.  Bilbo Baggins

Yep. Often that's deliberate, but in this particular case it's just because I was going for brevity. How about "I'm already faced with a substantial disconnect between my understanding of the game world and my character's understanding of the game world, because I know that an AAA RPG will be "winnable" unless I'm grossly incompetent or I deliberately sabotage my character. I prefer designs that reduce such disconnects as much as possible."

See, that wasn't so bad now, was it?    I can even respect that outlook.

 

But the thing is, a choice-based narrative is a strange beast.  It's a game, and a story.  Give people agency, and they will want a say in how it will turn out.  And the truth of the matter is:  lots of people prefer "happy" endings.  There was an interesting interview with some of the Telltale people during the first season of thier Walking Dead game:  an unusual number of people kept doing "the right thing" despite it being a zombie apacolypse where pragmatic actions would be more understandable.  There's an appeal to being the "White Knight "  the person who fixes everything.  You may call it escapism, power fantasy, or whatever label you wish to make it sound foolish or childish, but the desire is there.  In RL, people can't fix the world.  many can't even fix their own lives.  But in a game where you are given the illusion of choice, you can pretend to have that kind of power.  To have it suddenly snatched away, told "No, you came all this way for nothing" well, you can see what happened.

 

I think Bioware had the right idea in aiming for a bittersweet finale to the series. It was just poorly executed. One of the chief mistakes was in having the sense of loss come from the collapse of the galactic civilization the player had grown attached to over the course of five years and three games, and to which saving it had been the primary goal of their player character. I think the endings would have been much better received had the sense of loss instead come from deaths of companion characters in the end run, or potentially the player character as well, but galactic civilization had been saved.

 

There were other problems with the endings as well beyond just the way in which Bioware tried to introduce the 'bitter' portion of the tone, but I think that was part of why the endings failed.

"Bittersweet" is also a very subjective term.  Which the sameness of the endings really didn't help. 

 

And EC was only a partial success.  It shows galactic civilization surviving, but the methods used to "save" the galaxy remain deplorable to a lot of people.  Plus Shepard's death is forced in almost all ending outcomes.  And the loss of the player character hits some people very hard. 

 

Especially given it's the second time Shepard is forced to die.

[katamuro]

Dev statements heavily imply that this won't be a direct sequel. Besides not referring to the next game as Mass Effect 4, one former Bioware employee even griped about fans being wrong for using it. And in the time that has passed since this game was first announced, Bioware has repeatedly stated that Shepard's story is over and the next game won't be tied to the previous trilogy or to prior saves. All the signs are pointing to the next game being anything but a direct sequel. 

 

Which is a problem because they equated Shepards story with the whole story of the universe so far. Unlike star wars which could be set anywhere within a couple of thousand years of the movies either way the ME universe is not as flexible so if its not a sequel then its one of those abominations like alternative universe/some kind of reboot/prequel/sidequel. 

I have no idea why they decided to tie their own hands thinking that Shepards story = the story of everything so far. But I guess we will know if they are making another huge mistake soon enough. And if the experience so far + the fact that you can never underestimate the stupidity of people especially the smart ones then in a year or so, maybe a bit more we will be seeing the gravestone of MEU in all its Frostbite 3 graphical glory.

[Mcfly616]

Which is a problem because they equated Shepards story with the whole story of the universe so far. Unlike star wars which could be set anywhere within a couple of thousand years of the movies either way the ME universe is not as flexible so if its not a sequel then its one of those abominations like alternative universe/some kind of reboot/prequel/sidequel. 

I have no idea why they decided to tie their own hands thinking that Shepards story = the story of everything so far. But I guess we will know if they are making another huge mistake soon enough. And if the experience so far + the fact that you can never underestimate the stupidity of people especially the smart ones then in a year or so, maybe a bit more we will be seeing the gravestone of MEU in all its Frostbite 3 graphical glory.

There was a time when Star Wars did equate to the Skywalker's story. At one point, the whole fictional universe was contained to the Skywalker's narrative.  So, your argument against Bioware and their approach to Mass Effect really doesn't hold up.

[The Arbiter]

Dev statements heavily imply that this won't be a direct sequel. Besides not referring to the next game as Mass Effect 4, one former Bioware employee even griped about fans being wrong for using it. And in the time that has passed since this game was first announced, Bioware has repeatedly stated that Shepard's story is over and the next game won't be tied to the previous trilogy or to prior saves. All the signs are pointing to the next game being anything but a direct sequel. 

IT'S A hahahahha

[katamuro]

There was a time when Star Wars did equate to the Skywalker's story. At one point, the whole fictional universe was contained to the Skywalker's narrative.  So, your argument against Bioware and their approach to Mass Effect really doesn't hold up.

 

Not exactly, the narrative was a common one, skywalker, Leia, Darth Vader. And sure it is a bit similar(skywalker taken up to the deathstar orbiting the planet, connected by the beam shield thing, to meet the main bad guy who gives him a choice) but skywalker was not the only one in the resistance.

Anyway what I am saying is that its not necessary to do that. Its not necessary to tie the universe around one character.

[Tython]

Drone- The crucible was a fine plot device. The starchild was not. Any writer worth their salt will tell you bringing in a Godlike being at the end to "fix" everything and explain everything is poor writing. The story was fine but goes off the rails once you get the message the crucible is not firing and the elevator takes you up.

 

AlanC9- Why can't I convince the starchild that peace between synthetics and organics is possible when I already brokered it?

[The Arbiter]

Drone- The crucible was a fine plot device. The starchild was not. Any writer worth their salt will tell you bringing in a Godlike being at the end to "fix" everything and explain everything is poor writing. The story was fine but goes off the rails once you get the message the crucible is not firing and the elevator takes you up.

AlanC9- Why can't I convince the starchild that peace between synthetics and organics is possible when I already brokered it?

Because Shepard forgot the English language as well as logic oh and Bioware writers... did I mention already Bioware writers? Bioware writers

[katamuro]

Drone- The crucible was a fine plot device. The starchild was not. Any writer worth their salt will tell you bringing in a Godlike being at the end to "fix" everything and explain everything is poor writing. The story was fine but goes off the rails once you get the message the crucible is not firing and the elevator takes you up.

 

AlanC9- Why can't I convince the starchild that peace between synthetics and organics is possible when I already brokered it?

 

Yeah the crucible thing worked as long as it staid an anti-reaper weapon of not exactly known quantity. It could have worked by disabling reapers or their shields or their mass effect cores or something. Even an anti-reaper virus would work. We wouldnt even need a proper explanation of why Reapers go around harvesting the galaxy. 

And that is exactly right, we have proved not just with geth but also with EDI that peace and friendship is possible with synthetics. 

[The Arbiter]

And that is exactly right, we have proved not just with geth but also with EDI that peace and friendship is possible with synthetics. 

Yeah...or from my other thread. Shepard rejects the ghost child's logic and radios hacket to bombared the citdel where the crucible is attached which would trigger the destroy ending and giving shepard enough time to escape but nope

[Tython]

As has been said before, Walters on this project is concerning but he wrote Garrus so I'm playing a wait and see like everyone else. All we can do is hope this game is better than the last.

 

For all the talk about the ending, some other issues from ME3 I remember being Tali's reveal as a normal looking human with a picture taken from online and Cerberus replacing the Reapers as the primary antagonist. The ending could've easily been fixed and there's a lot of fans whose ideas were far better than Casey and Walters but some cool things I expected in the game, never made it.

 

After ME2, I feared a companion being indoctrinated as a sleeper agent on my ship. My initial thoughts were Jacob because of his ties to Cerberus. This would've made a much better recurring enemy rather than Kai Leng. Anyway, enough reminiscing for now...

[katamuro]

Yeah...or from my other thread. Shepard rejects the ghost child's logic and radios havket to bombared the citdel where the crucible is attched which would trigger the destroy ending and giving shepard enough time to escape but nope

 

Yeah there were too many possibilities. Getting shoehorned into choosing one of three things that the main perpetrator of war gives you is kinda silly. 

[katamuro]

As has been said before, Walters on this project is concerning but he wrote Garrus so I'm playing a wait and see like everyone else. All we can do is hope this game is better than the last.

 

For all the talk about the ending, some other issues from ME3 I remember being Tali's reveal as a normal looking human with a picture taken from online and Cerberus replacing the Reapers as the primary antagonist. The ending could've easily been fixed and there's a lot of fans whose ideas were far better than Casey and Walters but some cool things I expected in the game, never made it.

 

After ME2, I feared a companion being indoctrinated as sleeper agent on my ship. My initial thoughts were Jacob because of his ties to Cerberus. This would've made a much better recurring enemy rather than Kai Leng. Anyway, enough reminiscing for now...

 

I have said it on another thread but Tali's design was basically an extremely lazy thing to do. First of all even discounting her nearly human face the picture was so badly photoshopped that people could make something far better in less than 30 minutes. Second there were plenty of ways to make her human enough to appease people who romanced her(I was one of them) and yet make her alien enough to make it clear that it isnt just something thrown in as an afterthought. 

 

And as for Cerberus, they are nearly comically evil in ME3, spouting propaganda that is clearly lies, doing things that are bound to blow up in their faces. And Kai Leng? Its just not what you could call a great adversary, annoying mostly. i kinda hoped that in the end they would reveal that Illusive Man was getting slowly indoctrinated but that in the end he could face the truth and die in the last battle, helping shepard. Or at least we could have fought the weird brute/Illusive man hybrid we can see in the artbook. 

[WillieStyle]

If this ark thing takes characters to another galaxy and it takes 200 or 300 years to get to wherever, wouldn't their equipment be out dated compared to the species they run into? Even the Milky Way will advance during that time after the reaper war. It will be funny seeing a character exit the ark/ship whatever with a weapon that's 300 hundred years old and facing a species with weapons that are far more advanced.

 

Considering that life has existed (at least in our galaxy) for billions of years,and that sentient beings have been around for upwards of 100,000 years, 2 or 3 centuries is really just a rounding error.  Consider human history.  Yes, the difference in tech between 2015 and 1715 is huge.  How about the difference in tech between 400 BC and 100 BC.  Or Between Julius Caeser's legions and the Visigoths?

[Linkenski]

 

 

There are several reasons for why the endings were badly received

1. No explanation on how the Crucible works

2. Bringing forward a theme that is apparently considered major by the writers (Drew, in particular) yet was barely touched in the previous installments (ME2 in particular)

3. Explanation of Reaper motives presented in a way of information dump in the last few minutes.

Combine these three and you get an underwhelming finale to the trilogy. Shepard's death in the original version amplified the feelings. If he walked out of the rubble with a smirk, people would've accepted the endings, just as they did with Lazarus project.

Some moved on, some raged, some made up things to make it plausible. Extended Cut provides more closure to the state of the galaxy and squadmates but fails to address these three flaws (to address those, a rewrite of more things than the ending would've been needed). I prefer filling the gaps with headcanon

 

 

Also since we're talking about the reception which led to community meltdown as it were, also 4. desperately needed an epilogue

 

which was then fixed mostly by EC. ME3's story wasn't completely meaningless but the last 10 minutes pretty much made it so if you were to look at the story as a cohesive whole especially since it did not reflect on your choices... even some critics pointed that out: Gametrailers said something like it in their review so it wasn't just a raving of angry fans who were impossible to please. Even so the flaws were largely downplayed in reviews I felt, but most reviewers weren't looking for a deep and profound story... they just wanted their regular popcorn flick to entertain them, I found out... hell, they even chose default non-import shepard in many cases because Bioware/EA had recommended that for the review copies which made the ending seem less incoherent.

 

EC fixed most aspects that didn't work, except the core of the issue still wasn't removed, even if the exended Catalyst dialogue subverts some of the original implications.

 

...and I really don't wanna see Bioware constantly try to give more meaning to the ending in retrospect by dabbling more into it in ME4, whatever it may be. If ME4 is at large about a conflict between organics and synthetics and they use that story to shed some light on missing context within ME Trilogy's plot or the Reapers' motivations, then I'm taking that as yet another cop-out for Bioware's increasing inability to tell good stories. It's a dead horse, like everyone keeps hammering down our skulls, so Bioware should recognize that too, accept that their ending was ****, learn from it and move on. I think that's what they'll do anyway.

[Iakus]

Drone- The crucible was a fine plot device. The starchild was not. Any writer worth their salt will tell you bringing in a Godlike being at the end to "fix" everything and explain everything is poor writing. The story was fine but goes off the rails once you get the message the crucible is not firing and the elevator takes you up.

 

I'd say the Crucible is an adequate plot device.  Necessary, even, because ME2 did absolutely nothing to answer the question "How do we stop the Reapers?"

 

The Starchild is, yes, garbage.

 

 

AlanC9- Why can't I convince the starchild that peace between synthetics and organics is possible when I already brokered it?

 

Because "Art" 

[The Arbiter]

Also since we're talking about the reception which led to community meltdown as it were, also 4. desperately needed an epilogue

 

which was then fixed mostly by EC. ME3's story wasn't completely meaningless but the last 10 minutes pretty much made it so if you were to look at the story as a cohesive whole especially since it did not reflect on your choices... even some critics pointed that out: Gametrailers said something like it in their review so it wasn't just a raving of angry fans who were impossible to please. Even so the flaws were largely downplayed in reviews I felt, but most reviewers weren't looking for a deep and profound story... they just wanted their regular popcorn flick to entertain them, I found out... hell, they even chose default non-import shepard in many cases because Bioware/EA had recommended that for the review copies which made the ending seem less incoherent.

 

EC fixed most aspects that didn't work, except the core of the issue still wasn't removed, even if the exended Catalyst dialogue subverts some of the original implications.

 

...and I really don't wanna see Bioware constantly try to give more meaning to the ending in retrospect by dabbling more into it in ME4, whatever it may be. If ME4 is at large about a conflict between organics and synthetics and they use that story to shed some light on missing context within ME Trilogy's plot or the Reapers' motivations, then I'm taking that as yet another cop-out for Bioware's increasing inability to tell good stories. It's a dead horse, like everyone keeps hammering down our skulls, so Bioware should recognize that too, accept that their ending was ****, learn from it and move on. I think that's what they'll do anyway.

BINGO