I don't really believe that is Melinda Snodgrass.
You know with the power of the internet, you could essentially write a rant like that and pretend to be anyone. Without matching the IP address of her computer to the IP address recorded on that blog, I am very skeptical.
Yet Another Mass Effect 3 Rant
This is from her personal blog. Looks to be the same person. So....
The bar is set extremely low with ME3's endings.
You could lock a chimpanzee in a room with a 5th of bourbon and a typewriter and the end result would probably be a better ending than the one produced by Mac Walters and Casey Hudson.
That's part of the problem. People are completely unable to accept a bad ending. This thing had to be the best ending ever created because it's one of the best video game franchises ever as they claim.
All these posts clamoring for "better endings", "we deserve a better ending", "Bioware must give us the ending this franchise deserves".
You forget that once you install the game, all bets are off. If the ending sucks, that's on you, not on the game or the writers anymore.
And you know what, that's the price you pay when you invest hundreds of hours into a franchise like this. Like any coin toss, there is a chance that at the end of 3 games, you might get a good ending, or a bad one, but you don't know until you get there.
Sounds to me like a lot of you got the bad ending. While for some the coin flipped the other way, and they felt the ending was good.
This is from her personal blog. Looks to be the same person. So....
Okay fine, but that's one person's opinion. It's not like everyone who writes for a living and has heard of this controversy feels the same way that she does.
You forget that once you install the game, all bets are off. If the ending sucks, that's on you, not on the game or the writers anymore.
What a sack of it and a poor attempt to excuse horrible writing.
That's part of the problem. People are completely unable to accept a bad ending. This thing had to be the best ending ever created because it's one of the best video game franchises ever as they claim.
People shouldn't have to accept a bad ending. Why should anyone have to accept a substandard product?
All these posts clamoring for "better endings", "we deserve a better ending", "Bioware must give us the ending this franchise deserves".
You forget that once you install the game, all bets are off. If the ending sucks, that's on you, not on the game or the writers anymore.
No, if the ending sucks, that's on them. They made it. We bought it. And if they want more of our money, they'll do well not to p*ss off their fan base too much.
And you know what, that's the price you pay when you invest hundreds of hours into a franchise like this. Like any coin toss, there is a chance that at the end of 3 games, you might get a good ending, or a bad one. Sounds to me like a lot of you got the bad ending. While for some the coin flipped the other way, and they felt the ending was good.
FUnny thing, though. We were told there'd be multiple endings. And they managed to make every single one of them bad...
What a sack of it and a poor attempt to excuse horrible writing.
Someone didn't read their license agreement and clicked I agree. That's on you, no offense. It actually tells you that the game is sold "as is" and all faults rest with the consumer. By clicking agree, you accepted those risks. That includes the possibility of a bad ending. Don't get mad at something you agreed to.
People shouldn't have to accept a bad ending. Why should anyone have to accept a substandard product?
Not everyone thought the ending was bad but the fans come in with polls and such to try to say that the ending was loathed by every single person who bought the game. There are lots of people who liked the ending. So some people got a substandard product, and some didn't.
No, if the ending sucks, that's on them. They made it. We bought it. And if they want more of our money, they'll do well not to p*ss off their fan base too much.
Ahh, but as an informed consumer, you could wait and if the ending sucks, not buy the game and save yourself $60. Do your research next time. I do it all the time before I make a purchase.
FUnny thing, though. We were told there'd be multiple endings. And they managed to make every single one of them bad...
Not everyone felt the endings were bad. I liked destroying the Reapers. While others thought synthesis was the best ending. Some liked control too. That is your opinion that the endings were bad.
ah the multiple endings thingy. red blue or green, pick a colour because that's what you get in effect.
Slideshows, showing the after effects of your colour preference. One ending, 3 different flavours.
certainly one of the, if not the most devisive endings in video game history.
Maybe that is exactly what they wanted?
You want to try that again?
Yes, that's easy!
Different endings : we already had this in Mass Effect 3. The endings were about a choice, three paths opened by this choice. So her problem isn't that there is no choice. So what's her problem? she answered herself : she wants moral endings. She actually want a happy ending and justify it by different endings from sad ending to happy ending. But if you really listened to her, if you really read her blog, you know that she only care about the happy ending (She talked about the power of happy ending that was underestimated).
So now we can see the problem : she compares Mass Effect to dragon age (while they can't be compared because of their story, their genre, their gameplay etc...), just to justify the possiblity of a happy ending. She really doesn't care about the story. I have already said that she didn't analyzed Mass Effect, she doesn't care that the writing is about cycle, circle, determinism, fate etc... All that she wants is her happy ending, and you too, that's why you insist everytime to quote her.
So she wants traditionnal endings from sad ending to happy ending, but Bioware didn't want it. And they didn't write Mass Effect to end like this. The ending is amoral, there is no moral, but it's all about moral problem. The high level Bioware wanted is above good and evil. All the choices are equal, no good choice no bad choice. That's the high level. If you don't understand that, you can't understand why in the EC the catalyst says that there is no conflict, and compares the reapers to fire.
So all that she wants is the exact opposite of what Bioware wanted, she clearly ignored the writing. She thinks that because we had this in DA:O we can have the same thing in Mass Effect, she doesn't care about the content and the form, she doesn't use the basis of a real analysis. So yes, she is a bad reader because she criticizes Mass Effect not on its writing, but she bases herself on her own pleasure (the happy ending!). A writer who doesn't care about the writing (themes, structure etc...), that's quite strange, isn't it? There's a real difference between writers who write to please the audience, and those who try to write literature. Their level of reading isn't the same.
Ah I knew there was some cricism of her floating around in BSN space. Didn´t remember where it came from, though.
1. Personal opinion.
2. Do you have a link for that conversation or was it PM?
3. Which one?
1 if you want.
2 PM
3 The measure of a man
Not everyone thought the ending was bad but the fans come in with polls and such to try to say that the ending was loathed by every single person who bought the game. There are lots of people who liked the ending. So some people got a substandard product, and some didn't.
Ahh, but as an informed consumer, you could wait and if the ending sucks, not buy the game and save yourself $60. Do your research next time. I do it all the time before I make a purchase.
Not everyone felt the endings were bad. I liked destroying the Reapers. While others thought synthesis was the best ending. Some liked control too. That is your opinion that the endings were bad.
1) There were a whole heck of a lot of people who got a substandard product. And I can say it's terribad with every bit as much authority as someone can create a thread titled "MAss Effect 3's Ending is Absolutely Brilliant!"
2) What do you think I did with DAI? Thanks to Bioware's preying on their players' trust, I have to spoil myself on their endings going forward. You thinkI'm going to touch MEA with a ten foot pole without knowing in advance whether they're going to yank the rug out from under me in the last ten minutes?
3) And many, many people think the endings are just plain BAD. Why do you think MEHEM, Alternate MEHEM, and the CItadel Epilogue Mod are so popular?
Yes, that's easy!
Different endings : we already had this in Mass Effect 3. The endings were about a choice, three paths opened by this choice. So her problem isn't that there is no choice. So what's her problem? she answered herself : she wants moral endings. She actually want a happy ending and justify it by different endings from sad ending to happy ending. But if you really listened to her, if you really read her blog, you know that she only care about the happy ending (She talked about the power of happy ending that was underestimated).
So now we can see the problem : she compares Mass Effect to dragon age (while they can't be compared because of their story, their genre, their gameplay etc...), just to justify the possiblity of a happy ending. She really doesn't care about the story. I have already said that she didn't analyzed Mass Effect, she doesn't care that the writing is about cycle, circle, determinism, fate etc... All that she wants is her happy ending, and you too, that's why you insist everytime to quote her.
So she wants traditionnal endings from sad ending to happy ending, but Bioware didn't want it. And they didn't write Mass Effect to end like this. The ending is amoral, there is no moral, but it's all about moral problem. The high level Bioware wanted is above good and evil. All the choices are equal, no good choice no bad choice. That's the high level. If you don't understand that, you can't understand why in the EC the catalyst says that there is no conflict, and compares the reapers to fire.
So all that she wants is the exact opposite of what Bioware wanted, she clearly ignored the writing. She thinks that because we had this in DA:O we can have the same thing in Mass Effect, she doesn't care about the content and the form, she doesn't use the basis of a real analysis. So yes, she is a bad reader because she criticizes Mass Effect not on its writing, but she bases herself on her own pleasure (the happy ending!). A writer who doesn't care about the writing (themes, structure etc...), that's quite strange, isn't it? There's a real difference between writers who write to please the audience, and those who try to write literature. Their level of reading isn't the same.
Comparing Mass Effect to Dragon Age is a heck of a lot more accurate than comparing it to Breaking Bad. At least DA is partof the same form of media!
It's not about good and evil, it's about the story the player is trying to tell. A heroic Shepard, a Shepard out of his/her depth. a cruel Shepard, Playing the game in different ways should have allowed for different outcomes. If anything, it was Bioware who ignored the writing, ignored the stories they let players tell in favor of pushing their own version.
Also, I love how the goalposts keep getting moved.
I liked destroying the Reapers.
I like destroying them as well. Seeing them fall over. Excellent.
I didn't like what it took for that to happen. Like getting up-close-and-personal with the tube while shooting at the thing.
I like destroying them as well. Seeing them fall over. Excellent.
I didn't like what it took for that to happen. Like getting up-close-and-personal with the tube while shooting at the thing.
I also don't like that you kill every synthetic life form in the galaxy in the process.
I get that some do, and that's cool. But there should have been another way.
And yes, walking into the explosion like an idiot was...idiotic...
I get that some do, and that's cool. But there should have been another way.
There could've been another way.
No one knew exactly what the crucible would do. Only that it might have enough energy to destroy the reapers.
When the arms to the Citadel are fully opened, the crucible fires a pulse throughout the galaxy that changes the reaper programming causing them to stop the harvest and haeding back to darkspace.
Or it just destroys the reapers. Depending on ems, Shepard would survive, and maybe have Anderson survive as well. He just passed out and not die right away.
There could've been another way.
No one knew exactly what the crucible would do. Only that it might have enough energy to destroy the reapers.
When the arms to the Citadel are fully opened, the crucible fires a pulse throughout the galaxy that changes the reaper programming causing them to stop the harvest and haeding back to darkspace.
Or it just destroys the reapers. Depending on ems, Shepard would survive, and maybe have Anderson survive as well. He just passed out and not die right away.
Yeah the whole EMS system practically screamed of different ways to end the game, depending not just on random numbers, but what kinds of allies and assets you have acquired. There could have been dozens of effects and side effects the Crucible could have done, depending on how you played the trilogy.
Someone didn't read their license agreement and clicked I agree. That's on you, no offense. It actually tells you that the game is sold "as is" and all faults rest with the consumer. By clicking agree, you accepted those risks. That includes the possibility of a bad ending. Don't get mad at something you agreed to.
The idea that the consumer is somehow and someway at fault for this ingame circular logic:
Is pure concentrated idiocy.
The writers screwed up and the consumers made sure they knew about it hence the damage control with the extended cut.
In addition the assumption that the consumer is at fault for something the developer did is a ******-poor attempt at absolving the developer of criticism.
The idea that the consumer is somehow and someway at fault for this ingame circular logic:
Is pure concentrated idiocy.
The writers screwed up and the consumers made sure they knew about it hence the damage control with the extended cut.
In addition the assumption that the consumer is at fault for something the developer did is a ******-poor attempt at absolving the developer of criticism.
The circular logic that you speak of in game isn't what the Reaper motives are. Least that's not how I and others saw them.
The Extended Cut wasn't as a result of the fan backlash. They chose to make it under their own volition and were very proud of what they had accomplished. They also wanted to use only the most constructive criticism, while ignoring any destructive criticism (the above image you posted, or saying the endings were just 3 different colors). However, they did realize people wanted more answers, closure, etc.
They could have just told you to deal with it. It's my understanding that most people didn't want an extended ending, but rather a new ending. They didn't get it, so that says to me that you didn't get what you wanted, and weren't listened to. They ignored your complaints.
Well here's the thing. I've worked in customer service for over 15 years, and anyone who tries to deflect from the customer being at fault to putting everything on the developer is essentially using the "customer is always right" argument. Anyone who has worked in the industry or business in general knows this is not true. The customer is always right is not an argument in any way shape or form. Yeah, sometimes the customer is wrong on things.
Like I said many pages ago, if no one could make sense of the ending, then yes, you are correct, the game is at fault. However, if some people could, but not everyone, then no, the game or writing isn't at fault. The fault lies with the consumer. It's not their job to make sure everyone understands it either.
Yeah the whole EMS system practically screamed of different ways to end the game, depending not just on random numbers, but what kinds of allies and assets you have acquired. There could have been dozens of effects and side effects the Crucible could have done, depending on how you played the trilogy.
I agree that the ems was not executed very well.
The circular logic that you speak of in game isn't what the Reaper motives are. Least that's not how I and others saw them.
The Extended Cut wasn't as a result of the fan backlash. They chose to make it under their own volition. They could have just told you to deal with it. It's my understanding that most people didn't want an extended ending, but rather a new ending. They didn't get it, so that says to me that you didn't get what you wanted, and weren't listened to. They ignored your complaints.
From the mouth of Super Mac himself:
Complex: What are your thoughts on all the people who complained about the third game’s ending?
Mac Walter: It’s been 18-19 months since it came out and my thoughts on it are that we addressed it the best we could in the extended cut. We’re obviously not going to be changing anything now. We’re only going forward. But you know what’s interesting? The only view I’ve had on it was, well, I was watching Breaking Bad, and that deals with (spoiler alert) the main character dying. And in no way do I think that anybody was surprised that he died. It was set up, even from the get-go, that this was a character that was going to die. But the interesting difference there is that that’s not a character that people had control of. They didn’t have any say at any point at what would happen to Walter White. Period.
And I think that’s one of the things we really underestimated, which was how much ownership people would take over a character that they could do that. You know, you’ve been given free choice to make all these decisions with this character, with the fates of millions of people, and then, you don’t get to choose your own fate. And I’m not saying that our decision was wrong or right. I think we just underestimated the impact that would have on certain players. To be fair, I get people, especially at the Cons, who will say, “I loved it. It was heart-wrenching, but I felt it was right for my Shepard.” And to me, that’s why it was the right path. But because there was no choice, it was going to be right for some people, and for others, in the middle, and other people were obviously very upset about it. In hindsight, I don’t think there was anything we would have changed about that, but it is a really good lesson learned.
http://www.complex.c...er-white-moment
Sounds like you're purposefully dense.
Extended cut happened because people were pissed off and BioWare attempted to fix that with mixed results.
The Extended Cut wasn't as a result of the fan backlash. They chose to make it under their own volition. They could have just told you to deal with it. It's my understanding that most people didn't want an extended ending, but rather a new ending. They didn't get it, so that says to me that you didn't get what you wanted, and weren't listened to. They ignored your complaints.
Oh, the EC was a result of fan backlash. People were returning their games in droves. There was so much fan outrage even teh mainstream press was picking up on it. Sadly, though, Bioware came to the conclusion that the only error they made was overestimating the intelligence of the audience: it must be that we simply didn't understand the endings 
Well here's the thing. I've worked in customer service for over 15 years, and anyone who tries to deflect from the customer being at fault to putting everything on the developer is essentially using the "customer is always right" argument. Anyone who has worked in the industry or business in general knows this is not true. The customer is always right is not an argument in any way shape or form. Yeah, sometimes the customer is wrong on things.
I've been in public service a good many years myself. So I see this from both sides. And I can say is Bioware did pretty much everything possible to build up ill will from their customers. They placed the blame squarely on the players fro "not getting it" and never for a moment considered that maybe they screwed up.
Like I said many pages ago, if no one could make sense of the ending, then yes, you are correct, the game is at fault. However, if some people could, but not everyone, then no, the game or writing isn't at fault. The fault lies with the consumer. It's not their job to make sure everyone understands it either.
Understanding the ending and the ending making sense are not the same thing. You can understand the ending fine but if it doesn't mesh with the rest of the story being told, it's still a cr*p ending.
Sadly, it was Bioware's high-handed assumption that the problem was simply the players not understanding, rather than the ending not meshing with the story that is EC's big failing.
Well here's the thing. I've worked in customer service for over 15 years, and anyone who tries to deflect from the customer being at fault to putting everything on the developer is essentially using the "customer is always right" argument. Anyone who has worked in the industry or business in general knows this is not true. The customer is always right is not an argument in any way shape or form. Yeah, sometimes the customer is wrong on things.
Ahaha. A bad comparison doesn't become good because there is a comparison that is worst. Anyway you see you are in denial, you ignore the writing too. And you know that the player plays and the narrator tells the story. It's more complicated than the player being the narrator ( or you don't understand how a video game works.) the form and the content, that's the basis !1
Comparing Mass Effect to Dragon Age is a heck of a lot more accurate than comparing it to Breaking Bad. At least DA is partof the same form of media!
It's not about good and evil, it's about the story the player is trying to tell. A heroic Shepard, a Shepard out of his/her depth. a cruel Shepard, Playing the game in different ways should have allowed for different outcomes. If anything, it was Bioware who ignored the writing, ignored the stories they let players tell in favor of pushing their own version.
Also, I love how the goalposts keep getting moved.
Ahaha. A bad comparison doesn't become good because there is a worst comparison. Anyway you see you are in denial, you ignore the writing. And you know that the player plays and the narrator tells the story. It's more complicated than the player being the narrator ( or you don't understand how a video game works.)
So enlighten me. Give me "clarity and closure" WHY is Dragon Age: Origins a bad comparison? Even back in the day people were making a big deal on how similar their stories were.
I think the term you are looking for is "cooperative storytelling" It's s thing with RPGs. Unless you have an overly controlling GM.
Uh yeah, had one or two of these. Mass Effect looked like freeform sandbox style compared to that, if we exclude the 3.
Oh, the EC was a result of fan backlash. People were returning their games in droves. There was so much fan outrage even teh mainstream press was picking up on it. Sadly, though, Bioware came to the conclusion that the only error they made was overestimating the intelligence of the audience: it must be that we simply didn'tunderstand the endings
Really,something like that happened?REALLY?!!!!!People were returning games in droves???!!!
Melinda snodgrass again ? That's one of the two professional writers who criticized mass effect 3.
1. Arguing about people again.
2. Metric is missing meaning. How many professional writers have defended the ending?
(I mean writers who have actually played the game, and not those two who immediately send out statements similar to "Writers can do whatever they want and it is good")
>>Did you see the star trek episode she wrote ? it's structurally and philosophically very basic.<<
Deflection attempt, not based on presented argument.
Besides: OF COURSE the structure of that episode was basic. It was a 40 min. television episode with very limited time to introduce characters (2 new ones), state the relevant characters characteristics (5 characters), introduce the problem, then deal with it and come to an conclusion. In fact there were even several filmed scenes cut out from that episode and never made it into the final version + whatever did not make it into the filmed draft because of time limits.
Also: That this episode is continuously regarded as one of the best trek episodes ever, and was nominated for a writers award likely means that she actually does understand her business.
>>she compares Mass Effect to dragon age (while they can't be compared because of their story, their genre, their gameplay etc...)<<
Lets see:
Story:
DA:O.: Standard hero journey. Hero + team have to travel to several locations, recruit allies of some sort and face a vastly superior enemy. And there is a treacherous human faction in there somewhere.
ME: Standard hero journey. Hero + team have to travel to several locations, recruit allies of some sort and face a vastly superior enemy. And there is a treacherous human faction in there somewhere.
Genre:
DAO: Squad based RPG. Fantasy setting
ME: Squad based RPG/shooter hybrid. Science fiction setting.
Gameplay:
DAO: Squad based, dialogue choices, auto attack, + powers
ME: Squad based, dialogue choices, shooter for player, auto attack companions, + powers
Looks pretty comparable to me.
The real difference here is that DA:O is a single game, whereas ME is a trilogy of which the first part had to be self contained, and the second part lost track of what it should have done, accomplished and introduced to enable a really fitting last series entry.
>>The ending is amoral,[...] but it's all about moral problem.<<
Isn't presenting a moral dilemma (which the ending is supposedly now all about) without actually providing any kind of focus, emphasis on that dilemma, or even presenting it as a moral dilemma in the first place bad writing?
Besides, I still don't get how 3 games of implied "A,B,and C are good" (or bad respectively) statements fit together with ending-choices of the exact opposite attitude.
>>If you don't understand that, you can't understand why in the EC the catalyst says that there is no conflict, and compares the reapers to fire.<<
Please enlighten me!
These statements are actually complete bullcrap to me.
There is obvious conflict. There is a conflict of interests, there is an actual physical confrontation in the gorram backround and the Reapers are actively participating. So how can bratalyst completely ignoring those make any kind of sense?
Reapers are like fire?! What is that eve supposed to mean? Are they a dumb force of nature? Are they not in control of what they do? Do they reap/burn until there is nothing left to sustain them? (Hey that would actually do make some sense...)
The only way in which that sentence makes any sense for me, is if it would result in: "if controlled, it can be utilized for certain things".
But it doesn't. Instead that statement is even more hollow than the "I'm an AI in the same way you are an animal"(paraphrased) -one.
>>she doesn't care about the content<<
Considering that she is complaining about said content....
Also: Still arguing about people.
Last remark:
>>There's a real difference between writers who write to please the audience, and those who try to write literature.<<
Yes: The fact that those who try to write 'literature' these days are only read by people that try to be 'literature critics'.
Which just as well really could show for how superfluous both are.
Really,something like that happened?REALLY?!!!!!People were returning games in droves???!!!
Yes, really. March 2012 was pretty much the definition of "interesting times" here.
Sounds like you're purposefully dense.
Extended cut happened because people were pissed off and BioWare attempted to fix that with mixed results.
No. I just have an opinion you disagree with.
So he says they underestimated how much control people had over Shepard. Name me one game that gives the player absolute control over everything.
The truth is, there is choice in the ending. You can choose Shepard's fate. Shepard can live or die. You can either control, synthesize, or destroy the Reapers. Or refuse their choices in the Extended Cut. In addition with the Extended Cut, they give you a ton of slides showing you what happens to the rest of the galaxy.
There is choice, but it's not like they give you so much choice that you can end the story on your own terms. Or solve any problem in your own unique way instead of what the game presents you. It's a choose your own adventure book with the plot and such already predetermined before hand by the studio.
I suggest you read this article again.
Understanding the ending and the ending making sense are not the same thing. You can understand the ending fine but if it doesn't mesh with the rest of the story being told, it's still a cr*p ending.
Sadly, it was Bioware's high-handed assumption that the problem was simply the players not understanding, rather than the ending not meshing with the story that is EC's big failing.
It is your opinion that the ending doesn't fit with the rest of the game, but I've got lots of articles bookmarked that say otherwise. Again, if everyone said the ending didn't make sense or mesh with the rest of the story, then you'd have a legitimate problem that would need to be addressed.
Retour en haut