303 réponses à ce sujet

[Youknow]

I'm going to be honest. NO. Let it go. ME3's ending was a pretty big bummer for most people, but the place they wrote themselves into was a big huge "NOPE" for any real sequel. There are too many polarized opinions as well as the plot being able to go in wildly different directions from the implications alone in the game. 

 

I'll be honest I hate several decisions made over the course of Mass Effect 3-- I'm of the opinion that the plot for Mass Effect was a downhill slope, and ME3 delivers on that slope with an ending that is a culmination of the small atrocities committed in the series finally manifesting and rearing their ugly head. 

 

My personal headcanon? Sheperd's story ended at 2. Sheperd was wrong about the reapers actually coming. That was it. Once that happened, someone flocked to the idea of making a Mass Effect movie to ride of the success and popularity of Sheperd at the time. Needless to say the movie was poorly received in the theaters. The reasons: actors in the movie not being perfect fits for the general population as well as just the plot being especially bizarre. People especially found the Mordin actor to be a bit off even if he attempted to deliver with the same gusto that the bona fide Mordin did. Sheperd especially found it hilarious when she researched why they treated her husband's subplot so awful in the movie. She later found out that the stand in for Mr. Taylor's actor was a gay man that was so uncomfortable with the notion of kissing with a woman on stage that they decided to alter the story for his benefit to not make him leave because outside of that one quirk, he was a perfect fit. Udina, of course, had the movie removed from theaters and attempted to press charges against the writer Weu Lobl for the rather slanderous tone it took against him as a politician. Although, he was later found admitting that he SHOULD have been on the Council. Regardless of the movie's dubious success, it still managed to remain a cult classic and continued to have a dedicated-- if not slightly deranged, fanbase that still discuss the finer points of the movie. 

 

Seriously, we get it. Bioware gets it. You get it. I get it. Everyone that knows anything about Mass Effect gets it. Mistakes were made with 3. Don't dredge it up. All it'll do is annoy people. Hell, people still argue about those darn endings to this day. I'm sure even people that liked the endings can agree with that one. Sheperd's story is over. I don't want to hear about that person and their friends. I'm not him/her anymore. They obviously can't be doing anything worth hearing about at that point... if they're even alive. 

[In Exile]

Except the reason for that technological stagnation was explained, and wouldn't exist in the post-Reaper era.

Or to elaborate, we dont really know what the tech was like in the 3,000 ish years of galactic history. We DO know that FTL tech did not advance at all, which is due to the fact that the FTL engines were literally described as a "black box", attributed to the Protheans, that they knew how to construct but little about how they actually worked.

The same is true of most other significant technology. The relay network, as per the Reaper plan, causes stagnation - or at least, relative stagnation along the path they desire.

Granted, it is extremely stupid that the galaxy had to wait for humans to come along to invent omnigel, and other similar examples, or that non-mass effect tech in general had not advanced that much. Honestly, that is more a result of bad writing than any in universe canon believability.

 

But it's more than that. We see things like medical technology stagnate. Military applications stagnated. It doesn't matter that "relay" technology or propulsion stagnated. Look at the last 100 years IRL. We've advanced very slowly in some areas but radically in others. There's no real evidence that the Council races advanced in any scientific field in any substantial area in millenia.

 

The actual explanation offered is incredibly stupid anyway - the assumption that absolutely no one would ever even try to figure out "black box" technology.

[Jay P]

As opposed to Heretic's delusion that HIS opinion is somehow not subjective? What the frip is it with you people and your double christ almighty standards? Grow up.

Grow up?

Ok bro.

Of course his opinion is a subjective, as is yours. That's what makes them opinions.

[ActualOjou]

0 closure.

 

What I didn't like I either begrudgingly accepted, or headcanoned the hell out of it to bring me to the current state of: "Just give me new game plz."

[Mirrman70]

In a sick and twisted way... I want them to canonize all of it. ME1-3. Every major decision. Just to see everyone's headcanon burn.

[ShadowLordXII]

As long as Star-Child's existence is canon then this question is basically moot.

[Mummy22kids]

Nope.  I have closure.  Shepard died- end of story.

 

BTW, in case anyone is wondering, I liked the endings.

[prosthetic soul]

Grow up?

Ok bro.

Of course his opinion is a subjective, as is yours. That's what makes them opinions.

Ah, I've been trolled it seems.  Well done. 

[Jay P]

Ah, I've been trolled it seems.  Well done. 

 

I'm trolling?  I watched your video.  (I'm going to assume it was your video as I don't think any rational person would link that video in their signature otherwise.)

 

It was silly.

 

It's full of "what the game did right" and "what the game did wrong."  "Right" and "wrong" are subjective.  They are your opinion as to what was right and wrong, and what the ending did differently.  There is nothing "objective" about that.

 

Lets take a quick look at the main points:

 

Genre: Your attempting to force a comparison between the original Mass Effect Trilogy (herein MET) with Star Trek.  And that's fine, there are some similarities.  But they are not the same and you can't artificially force the comparison.  You can't just ignore all of the combat in the games and just declare that MET is "talky and techy."  You can't ignore the deeper themes that ran through all three games.

 

Just because there are some similarities, doesn't mean that you should be using one imaginary world to judge a second.  The game actually more closely resembles Star Wars, but that doesn't mean you should be using the Star Wars imaginary universe to judge the MET universe. 

 

Characters: I don't need a patronizing ending where we spend a day in the life of each person.  We spent most of the third game getting closure on a number of characters.  Do we really need to see someone reading a book, or sitting in the sun or teaching an elementary school?

 

Oh wait, apparently we did, since we now have the extended cut.  So yeah, not sure what this complaint is even about.  The galaxy has just been saved from extermination, all living, sentient species have been saved from eradication, but it's not complete if you can't see Samara sitting on a park bench?  

 

Central Conflict:  For this section, you state that you need to just have "simple goals."

 

There was nothing simple about the themes and goals of MET.  Just because you choose to ignore them, doesn't mean they weren't there.

 

Most amusingly, you chose Star Wars as one of his examples of his simple goals (Star Wars: we must stop the Empire from taking over the galaxy.)

 

What a ****** joke.

 

The themes in Star Wars were much more complex, as were the themes in MET.  (I'm not stating MET was some cultural piece of excellence, but merely using using the comparison that you did.)

 

Many of the bad guys in both?  Turns out it's not that simple.  Darth Vader, the Geth, the Reapers, all more complex that just "bad guys."

 

Simple goals of just stopping the Empire?  Then what were we doing in Jabba's palace?  What were we doing on Dagobah?  The story was more complex.  Sure, part of it was about stopping the Empire, but in many ways, that was the smallest part.  

 

And that complexity is what makes them more compelling, not less so.

 

At one point in the video, when discussing Star Baby, you state that the brand "new goal is resolve the tension between organic and synthetic life."  Guess what, that wasn't a new goal.  That had been present in the very first game.  It's not my fault you can't see that.

 

Furthermore, that has always been a combination of synthetic and organic life.  In the very first game we learn that the reapers are organic and synthetic.  

 

Before we get to your final point, lets talk about the biggest problem in your video.  You are attempting to look at small parts of the game you want to use to illustrate your point, while ignoring all the various themes that have existed through the entire trilogy.  The fact that you want the trilogy to be about "simple goals" and that the reapers are the "bad guy," doesn't take away from the fact that Bioware was attempting to do more than you want to simplify it down to.  Just ignoring those parts doesn't make them go away.

 

Finally, the last point, Loss of Narrative Coherence: There is only a loss of narrative cohesion if you choose to ignore the themes running through the games.  Namely the inherent conflict between synthetic and organic life.  The game was never about just stopping the boogeymen.  It was about the inherent conflict that arises when organic life creates synthetic life.  This conflict was explicitly played out in the first game with the conflict between the geth and the quarians.  

 

(An aside, what a stupid visual illustration you use.  You asks where is the text "narrative coherence?"  Well, you covered it up purposely with your nonsensical questions.  That's not clever.  Furthermore, one of the various silly questions you asked was why was the citadel moved to earth?  Maybe if you bothered playing the game instead of making emo rage videos you would see the answer to that question, since it was explicitly stated in game.  Furthermore, many of the questions you asked, before you started layering them over each other to hide the fact that you really didn't have that many questions, were nonsensical.)

 

You may not like the ending.  

 

But that's a subjective opinion you have.  

 

Trying to make a video and using bigger words doesn't take away the fact that it's still your subjective opinion.

[Ahglock]

I'm pretty sure he is saying in his sig he he stayed objective on analyzing facts to form his opinion. At least that's what objective fact based analysis means to me. It doesn't mean my analysis is objective fact.

[LinksOcarina]

I'm pretty sure he is saying in his sig he he stayed objective on analyzing facts to form his opinion. At least that's what objective fact based analysis means to me. It doesn't mean my analysis is objective fact.

 

There is a problem with that though, and it requires something to be proven as a fact to base the analysis on, i.e, something has to be a fact first.

 

The short version of it is simple, a video game is not something that can be "objectively bad" unless it is unplayable or broken. Mass Effect, for all the faults people can have with the narrative, does not have broken gameplay. 

 

Other games like Ride to Hell or Big Rigs are the complete opposite in that regard, they are objectively bad games because they are barely playable. 

 

What is analyzed is mostly conjecture based upon taste. For example, the Star Trek comparison I don't think is appropriate for Mass Effect. I find the game to be more akin to Star Wars or Babylon 5; more space opera than the attempts at hard sci-fi Star Trek tries to do.

 

Is there anything wrong with that stance regarding Star Trek; no of course not. But that is not something factual; we know through the developers they pulled from a lot of sources like Trek and Babylon 5, Sci-Fi artwork from Paul Lehr and themes from Issac Asimov, Philip K Dick, and so forth. Mass Effect, like all Sci-fi, is a pastiche of ideas that make it Sci-Fi, so cherry picking one possible source and making it the foundation of what Mass Effect should be is dishonest at worst and misconstruing the truth of the matter at best.

 

The only fact here is that Mass Effect is a sci-fi game; trying to compare it to other sources is fruitless because the source material itself is subjective. That is the logic fail in the entire video, the comparisons are not objective-based facts, but rather subjective tastes put forward as a fact. This goes on through most of the video, which is primarily conjecture mixed in with what I say is sour grapes; at this point if anyone really believes BioWare didn't care about the fan feedback needs to simply look at the Extended Cut; because while they kept the core of the endings intact, they changed and clarified the endings to make it more concrete from their vision of things. If they didn't care, they would not have done that. 

 

Something that has proof or hard evidence to it can be fact-based and objective; that is perfectly fine and its possible to see it, we do all the time with science and mathematics, politics and fact-checking etc. Where it doesn't work is social and artistic theory; interpretations of art are not invalid because one person says so, or even if multiple people say so, that's what makes it art. Commercial art, like Mass Effect 3 or any game for that matter, is more or less the same way regarding its thematic elements, graphics or gameplay. Talking about them is always in the realm of opinion, saying something is ironclad regarding aesthetics or the story elements is not a fact, it is taste.

 

I saw Brotongues video three years ago, and the only attempt to argue this had me blocked from commenting apparently, so it's more of an echo chamber of belief that what he says is objective, so it must be true. That is the height of academic arrogance; I worked with people at my job who act like that to their students. Suffice to say, they are not good teachers for a reason. 

[CronoDragoon]

0 closure.

 

What I didn't like I either begrudgingly accepted, or headcanoned the hell out of it to bring me to the current state of: "Just give me new game plz."

 

This is what I think of it. There's no more closure to be had. Things happened and the galaxy turned out such and such ways and I either like it or I don't. Doesn't stop the fact that I know what happened and what needed to be wrapped up was wrapped up.

[Jay P]

I'm pretty sure he is saying in his sig he he stayed objective on analyzing facts to form his opinion. At least that's what objective fact based analysis means to me. It doesn't mean my analysis is objective fact.

I understand what you are saying.

However, I would humbly suggest that there is a significant difference between saying:

1. In my subjective opinion, blue (or the Monet Lisa) is the worst color (paintings); and

2. Here are the objective, fact based arguments as to why blue (or the Monet Lisa) is the worst color (painting).

[TheRealJayDee]

I'm long over expecting anything ME related. Long over any but the most basic interest in the franchise as well.

[LinksOcarina]

I understand what you are saying.

However, I would humbly suggest that there is a significant difference between saying:

1. In my subjective opinion, blue (or the Monet Lisa) is the worst color (paintings); and

2. Here are the objective, fact based arguments as to why blue (or the Monet Lisa) is the worst color (painting).

 

Pretty much this, in the nutshell.

[Felya87]

Hope for closure? No.

Want it? Yes.

 

I'd like a little more satisfation from ME3 endings, expecially since having the game for PS3 I can't use the ending mod to have an ending more of my taste (and I have no intention of re-buy the entire trylogy because BioWare could't do a job well done). But BioWare is way too occuped to run away from ME3, even if they had all the time and chance in the world to do something about the endings.

 

I don't expect anything to make ME3 ending burn less in MEA (yeah, it still burn. Sadly, I'm one of those players who play a game more than one time, and the endings still burn at every run, so much I don't even start the last mission anymore.). Can't say I would not like it.

 

I can't say for now I'm very thrilled with Andromeda yet too. One part of me is quite happy with a completely new start, but at the same time the new galaxy means leave behind many elements I loved in ME. The feeling of "familiarity" of ME being yes in the future, but a recognizable one, with still familiar elements (places on Earth, cultural references). Same for many elements in ME1 that have been trown out the window like in a moment, like Humans being the newbie mistrust race in the Galaxy, and having all the races with their own history and culture.

[N7Jamaican]

Zip. Zero. Nada. Goose egg. Zilch. Null. None. 

[warblewobble]

I'm honestly half-expecting Andromeda to be a prequel. If it isn't... I'll echo others and say 'none' and just hope that it's set so far away from the traditional setting that the ME3 endings are a non-issue. I mean, WTH Bioware. Way to screw your universe with a nonsense end- argh. Okay. It's okay. I'll be okay. Mass effect will be okay. I hate the ME3 endings.

 

I'll be very impressed if Bioware can keep continuity and set the game after ME3.

[Helios969]

If you're lucky, you might get...members of the Ark receive one garbled transmission:  Shepard did it!  He/she defeated the Reapers.  That'll be the extent of "closure."

[LinksOcarina]

Was doing some more research on the internet, found an interesting video on art and video games by a youtube entertainer.

 

 

They also did a philosophical/religious take on Mass Effect 3 which was quite interesting as well, one that I think more or less proves the point of subjunctives of interpretation and taste in any form of art, as it takes a Nietzsche approach regarding the "God is Dead" association.

 

 

Much like videos by Brotongue, Noah Caldwell Gervais, The writings of  Russ Hamer or my own writings and Sylvius' beliefs or anyone elses and so forth, it is an interpretation of events and importance of it. Unlike Brotongue, those interpretations are not presented as fact though. That is a key difference in academic discussions, which is what we are engaging in, even tangentially,that involve interpretation of events over fact and hard logic.

 

Like this entire discussion on closure. If it's inclusion is integral to the game or not is dependent on the world and story they are telling. Closure was likely already reached in the minds of the creators though, so if they don't any further closure, people can argue that BioWare dropped the ball if they anticipated closure of some kind.

 

But that is one interpretation, a shaky one too if we argue the evidence, but it is still valid as an interpretation because that is what art, be it commercial art or otherwise, allows us to do. I feel this is a bigger lesson to learn and adhere to in the long run. Games like Mass Effect, love it or hate it, are valuable in allowing us to not only shape our experience, but to talk about our experience. It involves less logic, more reason to approach thematic elements. In that way, Brotongue like everyone else has value, regardless of their beliefs. It is what makes us critically think about things.

[breakdown71289]

I expect Shepard to maybe get referenced in passing, but other than that, ME3 closure was essentially the Extended Cut. I think it's time to move on from that now and experience some brand new stories set in this wonderful universe.

[CuriousArtemis]

The answers for me are: None and none.

 

I enjoyed the whole trilogy, ending included, and was satisfied with how things finished up. I do like to imagine that Shepard was later discovered barely alive (I chose "Destroy" and got The Breath) but I leave that to fanfiction. 

 

I want to start over with a whole new crew that is entirely unrelated to Shepard, and I wouldn't mind it being entirely unrelated to the Reapers or any decisions from the trilogy.

 

And that's exactly what I expect they'll give us, too, so for once I'm on the same side as the devs (rare instance).

[Spectr61]

I'm going to be honest. NO. Let it go. ME3's ending was a pretty big bummer for most people, but the place they wrote themselves into was a big huge "NOPE" for any real sequel. There are too many polarized opinions as well as the plot being able to go in wildly different directions from the implications alone in the game. 
 
I'll be honest I hate several decisions made over the course of Mass Effect 3-- I'm of the opinion that the plot for Mass Effect was a downhill slope, and ME3 delivers on that slope with an ending that is a culmination of the small atrocities committed in the series finally manifesting and rearing their ugly head. 
 
My personal headcanon? Sheperd's story ended at 2. Sheperd was wrong about the reapers actually coming. That was it. Once that happened, someone flocked to the idea of making a Mass Effect movie to ride of the success and popularity of Sheperd at the time. Needless to say the movie was poorly received in the theaters. The reasons: actors in the movie not being perfect fits for the general population as well as just the plot being especially bizarre. People especially found the Mordin actor to be a bit off even if he attempted to deliver with the same gusto that the bona fide Mordin did. Sheperd especially found it hilarious when she researched why they treated her husband's subplot so awful in the movie. She later found out that the stand in for Mr. Taylor's actor was a gay man that was so uncomfortable with the notion of kissing with a woman on stage that they decided to alter the story for his benefit to not make him leave because outside of that one quirk, he was a perfect fit. Udina, of course, had the movie removed from theaters and attempted to press charges against the writer Weu Lobl for the rather slanderous tone it took against him as a politician. Although, he was later found admitting that he SHOULD have been on the Council. Regardless of the movie's dubious success, it still managed to remain a cult classic and continued to have a dedicated-- if not slightly deranged, fanbase that still discuss the finer points of the movie. 
 
Seriously, we get it. Bioware gets it. You get it. I get it. Everyone that knows anything about Mass Effect gets it. Mistakes were made with 3. Don't dredge it up. All it'll do is annoy people. Hell, people still argue about those darn endings to this day. I'm sure even people that liked the endings can agree with that one. Sheperd's story is over. I don't want to hear about that person and their friends. I'm not him/her anymore. They obviously can't be doing anything worth hearing about at that point... if they're even alive.

1. Telling people what to do generally reflects poorly.

2. Giving yourself advice is not considered bad. Not acting on the advice one gives oneself raises questions.

3. Will we see more posts on this same topic from you, even though you advise against it?

[kalikilic]

EA would never give the money needed to make a game with those 3 choices matter at all. 

Hit the nail on the head...somewhat.

 

that issue involved money, but not actually in the same aspect. 

 

it also involved time.

 

and a shoddy ending was the product.

[Cyberstrike nTo]

Alot of people had issues with the me3 endings, for many reasons (mine being no closure on the breath scene).

How much closure can we expect in the new game? Will BW throw us a bone, give us all a full fan-****** or try and forget the last few hours of ME3 ever existed?

Personally I'm hoping for a meeting with someone long-lived such as Liara or Grunt who can give a definitive account of what happend to Shep

 

None. I got the closure I wanted from the Extended Cut,