244 réponses à ce sujet

[God]

For those trying to "shame" people for being angry still..... there are people still angry over Alien 3 and Resurrection, the Star Wars prequels, series getting cancelled over a decade ago.... I mean, I could go on but time doesn't necessarily mean you don't look back and still get a little pissed off by **** decision making by someone.  ME3 will always have that black cloud of a horrid ending over it.  Bioware and some defenders of the ending will just have to live with it.

 

At the same time, it's rather easy to separate the people who have fallen into the category of not even trying to understand, analyze, or accept the endings. This guy, Chronoid, isn't being rational or logical in his dissection of the ending. He's not pointing out why the narrative is weak in the ending, he's making an emotional appeal that the ending is bad because he didn't get what he wanted out of the ending. While I understand your point here, there is a point to be made here.

 

The people being 'shamed' here, in this particular context over this particular issue have every need to be 'shamed'.

[Batarian Master Race]

I don't know why everyone's complaining about not getting what they paid for. I didn't pay a single cent for my ending.

 

Spoiler

MEHEM superiority established once more.

[prosthetic soul]

At the same time, it's rather easy to separate the people who have fallen into the category of not even trying to understand, analyze, or accept the endings. This guy, Chronoid, isn't being rational or logical in his dissection of the ending. He's not pointing out why the narrative is weak in the ending, he's making an emotional appeal that the ending is bad because he didn't get what he wanted out of the ending. While I understand your point here, there is a point to be made here.

 

The people being 'shamed' here, in this particular context over this particular issue have every need to be 'shamed'.

So....in other words....you're BODY SHAMING me? 

 

ULTRA PC LIBERALS ASSEEEEEEMBLE! 

 

Actually, I have on numerous occasions perfectly described why the ending was factually, objectively terrible.   Many other people have as well.  I'm not going to regurgitate them simply because you refuse to even see a FRACTION of my view point. 

[God]

So....in other words....you're BODY SHAMING me? 

 

ULTRA PC LIBERALS ASSEEEEEEMBLE! 

 

Actually, I have on numerous occasions perfectly described why the ending was factually, objectively terrible.   Many other people have as well.  I'm not going to regurgitate them simply because you refuse to even see a FRACTION of my view point. 

 

Yes, along with intellectual and rational shaming.

 

And no, you have never once described (especially not perfectly) why the ending is factually or objectively terrible. You never have, and you never will (unless you radically change your perspective). Others have pointed out much more valid flaws with the ending than what you've come up with, and they're still falling well short of that. 

 

I see your viewpoint in its entirety, believe you me. I have no sympathy for it because your argument, going by your google document, has nothing of objective value to it. I'll disassemble it right here, right now in fact:

 

 

 

At the end of the day the ending has to stand up to the standards of the rest of the game, it has to give you at the end all of the things that make you want to play the game during the beginning and middle. The same great writing, the same great characters, the feeling of player choice and character agency, and the ending should be every bit as meaningful as the rest of the game we love.

 

Negative, it does not, and in fact, this is a rather loaded perspective based entirely around what you personally got out of the game. You're criticizing the ending because it doesn't hold up to what you saw out of the writing, the characters, and the agency of the player in the game (which never existed to the extent you believe, nor was it far reaching as you believe, nor was your personal view and perspective of these as adaptable or applicable as you believe).

 

That you don't get meaning out of the ending is your own problem, not BioWare's.

 

Hardly anything objective in this argument of yours. 

 

 

 

ME3's ending and even Extended Cut had none of that.

 

Once again, this is entirely subjective. I saw almost all of my stances on the ideologies and issues raised throughout the games validated (and the ending was no exception). That I disagree alone is proof that this is not an objective ideology. 

 

Another strike against your 'objectivity'.

 

 

 

It's easy to insult people who hated that ending that they simply wanted a happy ending. That is short-sighted at best. People want the ending that they've been working towards. People want the ending that matters to them. Some people want to earn their happy ending. Doesn't matter how many damn flowers and rainbows you end with, that doesn't negate the hours and hours of virtual blood sweat and tears your virtual characters gave to get the ending the players wanted.

 

It is indeed easy to do so, and I will continue to do so. That you're adding some type of thought-expansion in the terms of 'short-sighted' into this makes no sense. People can want whatever they want or think they've been working towards, but that absolutely does not mean that they're entitled to it at all. They're not, they never were, and, unless they're making the game themselves, they never will be. That alone is a fundamental failure in understanding for you. You aren't owed or entitled to any kind of happiness or 'good' ending (by your view) whatsoever. 

 

 

 

Noble heroic sacrifice to save the entire galaxy? Sure that's fine for some people. But the truth is, no one really gives a crap about the galaxy. If you failed spectacularly in ME, guess what? The galaxy would be just fine, it would keep on spinning. There's literally no way you can do anything that would require you to save the galaxy. The trillions of sentient beings that you might save? Meaningless really. Just a wave of nameless, faceless statistics.

 

That's a pretty big statement to make for everybody. As well, even if what you said was true, your conclusion drawn from it is grossly inaccurate and imprecise. 

 

 

 

In the end that wasn't what most people were fighting for. They were fighting for their friends, their crew members, their lovers, the people that they actually knew and cared for.

 

Perhaps that's what you were fighting for, but what you're fighting for need not be reflective of what you're fighting or why. 

 

Lot's of people fight wars for people they care about. Oftentimes, those wars have absolutely nothing to do with what they believe or understand about the world. You're saying that this reasoning for what people fight for makes them entitled to see the conflict and its resolution reflect that. That is simply untrue.

 

 

They were fighting for those little blue babies.

They were fighting to build that house on Rannoch.

They were fighting for one more round of shooting bottles.

 

They can fight for whatever they want to fight for, but by no means does the ending need to reflect that or provide them with such things. In fact, BW was generous enough to leave you with a survival scenario in High EMS Destroy.

 

All said so far, this has been more of an emotional appeal rather than an objective, factual reasoning as to why you're correct.

 

 

 

That was the ending that people were working so hard for. And yes, that was their happy ending. And they got none of that. By comparison "Saving The Galaxy"™ was completely worthless.

 

As I said, they can fight for whatever the hell they want to fight for, but they are not entitled or deserving of getting what they wanted. At all. 

 

And anyway, they do get that. High EMS Destroy is right there. Shepard's survival is right there, for you to interpret as you please. Whatever validation you want is right there, for you to headcanon as you please.

 

Anywho, the 'saving the galaxy' bit isn't worthless to me, a utilitarian. As well, it allows me to function as a leader and model for a newer, streamlined authoritarian system to push forward my views in the galaxy and make the universe into something I want it to function as, ala social construct modeled off of Machiavelli and Plato.

 

But back to the point of this, no, it's not completely worthless. To say so objectively is to be ignoring the many people who you claim 'ignore' your views. You don't get to decide what works for everybody. You not liking something doesn't mean that it didn't work for somebody else.

 

 

 

People have every right to want a happy ending to play for. And it's not one bit less valid, particularly since they can, and want to, work so hard to earn it.  By contrast, an Ultimate Sacrifice just to save the world is, on its own, not terribly valid. For some people it is their ideal ending, I don't argue that. But that is the story that is important to them and that they would work towards. For others, saving a bunch of generic NPCs and some nebulous idea of "saving the world" - which means little more then trying to maintain some status quo - just isn't the same meaningful reward if there isn't something else to enjoy this saved world with. Something that makes you happy about the world you saved, and eager to continue living in it. I wanted my happy ending, but then I'm not a big fan of playing games just to feel worse.

 

Yes, they have a right to want a happy ending to play for. However, they have no right to actually have that ending. They can want to work for that ending as much as possible. If BioWare doesn't want to make it, and doesn't feel that it fits the story, that's the end of it. It's their story, not yours, not mine, not any other players. And on the contrary, an Ultimate Sacrifice ending is seen more as the ultimate in altruistic ideological ends. It is not 'hardly valid'. 

 

Again, if there's no meaningful reward for you, then that's your own problem. 

 

Deal with it.

 

All in all, there was absolutely nothing objective or factual about your entire document or argument. What your argument consisted of was an emotional appeal to have your point of view validated because the ending and its writing (and story) didn't reflect what you wanted it to reflect, which I, as an intellectually appreciative fan of such concepts raised in the ending that acknowledge extrinsic and external circumstances that are intellectual and erudite in nature did in fact enjoy.

 

That alone kills any idea of objectivity that you have in regards to the ending.

[prosthetic soul]

-snip-

1.  Yes I have.  And never will?  What kind of arrogant thought-process is that?  

 

2. So far all you've offered is subjectivity of your own followed by a very long-winded diatribe that doesn't argue against my points so much as it does just directly state that they're wrong without backing it up. 

 

3. So, you're saying if a movie suddenly fell apart at the very end in terms of narrative coherence, thematic relevancy, writing, etc, etc, you would still laud it to be some sort of masterpiece of fiction?  Suddenly it seems to me that is less about my subjectivity and more about your lack of standards. 

 

4. This isn't about me getting meaning out of the endings.  The endings are fundamentally broken in every conceivable way.  This is about false promises and exaggerated claims and outright lies. 

 

5. They can be entitled to it if that's what they were told they were going to be given and paid for with their own money.  This is a product after all.  Not purely a piece of art. 

 

6. What you're doing is the exact same what you claim I am doing.  Demanding everyone cowtow to your opinion without even listening to a shred of what anyone else says.  And did you honestly just say that "That I disagree alone is proof that you are wrong"?  Really?  How can anyone take you seriously after such a comment is beyond me. 

[KCMeredith]

Screw Shepard

 

Why did you kill Legion?

[Jay P]

So this thread is still going?

You are either a bad, unimaginative troll, or you really lack a significant amount of insight and critical thinking skills.

But carry on, rage against all logic.

[God]

1.  Yes I have.  And never will?  What kind of arrogant thought-process is that?  

 

2. So far all you've offered is subjectivity of your own followed by a very long-winded diatribe that doesn't argue against my points so much as it does just directly state that they're wrong without backing it up. 

 

3. So, you're saying if a movie suddenly fell apart at the very end in terms of narrative coherence, thematic relevancy, writing, etc, etc, you would still laud it to be some sort of masterpiece of fiction?  Suddenly it seems to me that is less about my subjectivity and more about your lack of standards. 

 

4. This isn't about me getting meaning out of the endings.  The endings are fundamentally broken in every conceivable way.  This is about false promises and exaggerated claims and outright lies. 

 

5. They can be entitled to it if that's what they were told they were going to be given and paid for with their own money.  This is a product after all.  Not purely a piece of art. 

 

6. What you're doing is the exact same what you claim I am doing.  Demanding everyone cowtow to your opinion without even listening to a shred of what anyone else says.  And did you honestly just say that "That I disagree alone is proof that you are wrong"?  Really?  How can anyone take you seriously after such a comment is beyond me. 

 

1. No, you haven't. Your argument consists entirely of 'The Catalyst was a failure of writing! It's logic was ***t! It was horrible in every way!' But then you decline to speak how or why this is the case. The rest of your standard argument is 'Shepard should have lived! I hate this ending!' It's not an objective validation of your claims. At absolute best, it's you screaming that you hate the ending from your own perspective. The reason you never will have a credible argument on this is because you have no ability to understand how this is a problem of conventional rationality. As I said, unless you radically change your outlook on the ending (not even your stance or opinion on it, just your insight into it) you will never be in a position to argue credibly or validly about this.

 

2. I am not arguing that liking the ending is subjective. I am not telling you to like the ending. I am stating why your argument (and your views) on the ending are not good, rational, strong, valid, or empirical like you claim. And I have backed up my statements. Numerous times. There is a limit to what I can argue against however when you yourself fail to provide a complete argument as to why the ending is bad. I'm still waiting on the reason why you think the Catalyst is a failure of logic and writing.

 

3. In some cases, and it clearly depends on how the ending is tied into the rest of the narrative. Mass Effect 3's ending, especially post EC, has a valid point that does tie it into the rest of the series. That it doesn't validate you, the players, own views (or reflect them) is not necessary or relevant. The Reapers aren't bound to your Shepard's idea of them, and the Catalyst isn't bound to what you want him to be. Not to mention, this is a strawman argument. You made this statement that I'm reacting too. Not me.

 

4. It's fine to not get any meaning out of the ending. However, that does not mean that the ending is broken in every conceivable way. You will have to define (as you have repeatedly failed to do) how the ending is a complete failure on such a scale. Once again, the ending is not bad just because it wasn't what you thought or wanted it to be.

 

5. No, they are not, and never have been, and never will be entitled to getting something just because 'they paid for it'. They're paying money to a retailer, a publisher, and a developer to receive a game that they, the consumer, has had no input or place in the process and development of the game. They are paying to play somebody else's creation. As a product, this fulfills everything the player paid for, and doesn't short them simply because the story didn't work out or pan out the way they wanted it too. You have no entitlement to a happy ending to your story, no matter how much you want or think otherwise. Because it's not your story, and it never was your story, and it never will be your story from a legal perspective. 

 

6. I'm not demanding that you like the ending (unlike several threads where you overtly attack and criticize people for liking or praising the ending). As well, yes, the fact that I disagree with your opinion does indeed prove that your opinion is not objective. Objectivity is fact, a term to be used (not casually thrown out) when there is no question to the veracity or confirmation of what has happened. Your opinion is subjective, an interpretation, not a fact. You aren't scientifically (or narratively in this context) correct by claiming that the ending is bad.

[The Heretic of Time]

It was bad idea to kill Shepard in the 2nd game, him dying at the end of ME3 is completely fine.

[dorktainian]

try to keep it civil peeps.

[prosthetic soul]

It was bad idea to kill Shepard in the 2nd game, him dying at the end of ME3 is completely fine.

Him being railroaded into dying in three endings and having him maybe survive in the fourth is not completely fine. 

[Iakus]

It was bad idea to kill Shepard in the 2nd game, him dying at the end of ME3 is completely fine.

As a possible outcome due to choices made, sure.

 

But it shouldn't be the only outcome.  There should have been outcomes where Shepard clearly lived (not just as a gasping, faceless torso) as well as where Shepard dying.

 

And that's just the start of what's wrong with the endings.

[The Heretic of Time]

As a possible outcome due to choices made, sure.

 

But it shouldn't be the only outcome.  There should have been outcomes where Shepard clearly lived (not just as a gasping, faceless torso) as well as where Shepard dying.

 

And that's just the start of what's wrong with the endings.

 

Why shouldn't it be the only outcome? Shepard's story is over. It's done. Fin. Finito. The End.

 

Killing Shepard off at the end is perfectly fine, even if it's the only outcome.

 

Killing Shepard at the end is the only thing that's NOT wrong with the endings of ME3.

[S.W.]

Him being railroaded into dying in three endings and having him maybe survive in the fourth is not completely fine. 

 

1. Shep's death provides narrative closure which allows the writers to move onto a new story arc within the Mass Effect universe which isn't concerned with the Reapers.

2. Shep's death helps with suspension of disbelief: the Reapers' power was already downgraded in ME3 just to make the possibility of winning an all-out invasion plausible. A triumph without sacrifice, without effort, without some loss, against a force that powerful could potentially be quite cheap. This can arguably be done without Shep's death in particular, of course, but I think it's a point in favour of their death fitting the narrative.

3. Shep's death also fits artistically with the themes and atmosphere that had been in place throughout ME3 - which was a dark, pretty tragic tale about making difficult choices and sometimes sacrifices in order to stop a doomsday scenario. The lack of a 'perfect' ending is not out of place in such a setting.

 

This is all moot anyway because Shepard does survive in one ending. I don't understand how you can be 'railroaded' into having Shepard die when one ending clearly provides a choice where they do not. The epilogues were so short and vague anyway, giving limited insight into the fates of individual characters in the longer-term, that the little evidence you get - the breath at the end of the sequence - is hardly out of place, or surprising.

 

I don't like the endings, I don't think they make much sense, but I don't think Shepard's death is actual problem with what had happened. If the "good" endings weren't the bittersweet, heroic sacrifice ending that it could have been, then that's a problem with execution of Shepard's death and less with the concept of Shepard dying. Those concerns are dwarfed by other problems in the endings, which I won't begin to list.

[Goodmongo]

At the same time, it's rather easy to separate the people who have fallen into the category of not even trying to understand, analyze, or accept the endings. This guy, Chronoid, isn't being rational or logical in his dissection of the ending. He's not pointing out why the narrative is weak in the ending, he's making an emotional appeal that the ending is bad because he didn't get what he wanted out of the ending. While I understand your point here, there is a point to be made here.

 

The people being 'shamed' here, in this particular context over this particular issue have every need to be 'shamed'.

 

You are mostly correct.  It's the OUTCOME that they hate.

 

I can rewrite the endings, putting in tons of story and plugging every single hole or giving detailed explanations for everything.  But I can also guarantee that people won't like it.  Some will only ever accept a HEA (happy ever after) ending.

 

Let's say in my endings I create a great story, great dialogue but in the destruction ending it results in:

 

1) All reaper technology is destroyed and can never be recreated.

2) All AI's are dead and gone.

3) Organics can rebuild AI's if they want.

4) The catalyst was telling the truth that sometime in the future organics and synthetics will fight and synthetics will exterminate organics.

5) Shepard lives.

6) Control and synthesis will never happen as reaper technology is completed destroyed beyond repair.

 

Let's say I really do a great job giving statements and evidence to support all of this.  I guarantee that people will complain.

 

So that means it's outcome based and not just bad writing.

[Batarian Master Race]

 

4) The catalyst was telling the truth that sometime in the future organics and synthetics will fight and synthetics will exterminate organics.

 

Let's say I really do a great job giving statements and evidence to support all of this. 

 

 

Seeing as you haven't really done that in this thread, I doubt you could do it in your rewritten endings. Or that ANYONE could do it, unless we introduce precognitive powers / a fundamental fact that would cause this fight.

[prosthetic soul]

3. Shep's death also fits artistically with the themes and atmosphere that had been in place throughout ME3 - which was a dark, pretty tragic tale about making difficult choices and sometimes sacrifices in order to stop a doomsday scenario. The lack of a 'perfect' ending is not out of place in such a setting.

 

Did we play the same trilogy?

 

Also, did any of you stop and think that maybe....just maybe...

 

Spoiler

I hated the outcome...AND hated the fact that the ending was terribly written?  No, no no that would make too much sense!  If Bioware made an ending in which Shepard survives but didn't fix every thing else I'd still be mad and vice versa.  My level of mad would probably be cut in half but just in half.  All I'm saying is, there are multiple layers to this turd sundae known as the ME 3 ending.

[Fixers0]

I have no fundamental issues with shepard dying in certain endings, of course the way it happend was pretty contrived, (grabbing two electrified rods and jumping in a glowing energy beam). That said I would have desired a post ending scene in which you control shepard and see the new world, alternatively the player would controlled a young alliance marine but that would require an entire rewritten ending so i won't go into detail.  

[Goodmongo]

Seeing as you haven't really done that in this thread, I doubt you could do it in your rewritten endings. Or that ANYONE could do it, unless we introduce precognitive powers / a fundamental fact that would cause this fight.

 

I think I could do it.  But that's not the real point here.  Would someone try to nitpick it or not agree with some basic fundamental assumption?  Of course they would.  That was my point.  No matter how well written by the best writers in history some assumption or foundation would be made that someone would hate.  You hate it because it forces a certain outcome that you would not want.

 

Let me put it this way.

 

1) There are people that do not like the actual writing.  They don't like the grammar or don't like some aspect of the narrative.  Maybe they just need more.  But they do NOT have issues with the concept for each ending.  

2) There are way more people that do not like the concept of the various endings.  They don't like synthesis no matter how it would be presented.  Or maybe they demand a HEA alternative.

 

I suspect there are way more people that fit #2 than fit #1.  For these people writing is an excuse and not the root cause of their problem with the endings.  If you simply will never accept synthesis then no matter how great the writing they will never agree or approve of it.

 

So they cite a common cause but have different motivations.  Fixing one aspect (writing) will not fix it for all.

[KaiserShep]

All reaper technology is destroyed and can never be recreated.

Everything from ships to Traynor's toothbrush uses technology reverse-engineered from whatever the reapers left behind. Simply knowing how that works, and having a continuous supply of element zero is all galactic society needs to recreate it. The groundwork has already been laid ages ago. The only thing that's required is the reapers out of the way to not interrupt them with a mass culling. 

[judgezee]

Personally, I think Shepard's death was the mean to justify the end. The way he died was a bit iffy at best (all 3 ways) but I think it's fine, only the Commander could be the one to save the entire world 

[fhs33721]

Did we play the same trilogy?

 

 

S/he was talking about ME3 specifically I think. And while the first two games are rather lighthearted for most of the time ME3 is decidedly not. Don't let the occasional calibrating-jokes from Garrus and heartwarming moment with companions fool you. ME3 is dark and tragic. Very dark.

People die in the billions. Entire civilizations are on the brink of anihilation (some may actually end up being wiped out). People die left and right (Most likely including former friends/teammates of Shepard unless you metagame to the maximum). Shepard and crew finally start to break down under the pressure. Not to mention that victory is presented as extremely unlikely and leadership throws all it's ressources at a vague superweaopn that might backfire or not even do anything at all because it is literally the only option that provides even slightest chance at any sort of survival.

Also pretty much every single bit of ambient dialogue you can overhear on the citadel is some sort of tear-jerker story that is just sad at best and extremely dark at worst (Asari patient in the hospital comes to mind for the latter).

[prosthetic soul]

S/he was talking about ME3 specifically I think. And while the first two games are rather lighthearted for most of the time ME3 is decidedly not. Don't let the occasional calibrating-jokes from Garrus and heartwarming moment with companions fool you. ME3 is dark and tragic. Very dark.

People die in the billions. Entire civilizations are on the brink of anihilation (some may actually end up being wiped out). People die left and right (Most likely including former friends/teammates of Shepard unless you metagame to the maximum). Shepard and crew finally start to break down under the pressure. Not to mention that victory is presented as extremely unlikely and leadership throws all it's ressources at a vague superweaopn that might backfire or not even do anything at all because it is literally the only option that provides even slightest chance at any sort of survival.

Also pretty much every single bit of ambient dialogue you can overhear on the citadel is some sort of tear-jerker story that is just sad at best and extremely dark at worst (Asari patient in the hospital comes to mind for the latter).

This is the entire trilogy we're talking about though.  Not just the third game.  And the entire trilogy is most decidedly not super dark and tragic in nature.  Mass Effect 3 is not even close to the amount of dark you're trying to paint it as anyway. 

 

Face it, the game went from Star Wars to Game of Thrones in the last 10 minutes.