3598 réponses à ce sujet

[Cobwebmaster]

I'm glad you liked it. No, actually I'm not, because it's terrible and cheap.

 I agree. the ending or to be more precise the writing was appalling!

First the star child (or Shepard's nightmare given an avatar) was daft. The only option that made sense (assuming you accumulated enough points) was the one where Shepard opted to replace the construct with himself thus saving "the same number of casualties" as had already been scooped up by the reapers and citadel. This particularly makes sense if Shep brokered a peace between the Quarians and the Geth and encouraged EDI to develop her own free will thus giving consistency to Shep's role as mediator/guardian

for the Galactic races

What sort of ending is it where everyone (though this is not explained directly) in the citadel including all those who were encouraged to take refuge there gets mashed when the reapers acquire it? During the 2 years following the revelation that the keepers were in fact creatures of the reapers, no one tightened security on the Citadel to keep the Reapers (or anyone else) out??

Talking of that issue, what sort of administration knowing from ME1 that the reapers knew how to control access to the Citadel would reccommend that all races flee there for safety in the first place! Personally I'd rather book a place on the shadowbroker's ship, or Helstrom even though that planet was due to fall into it's sun! The Citadel was always going to be a ticking time bomb

We have a story which has Shepard playing catch up with Cerberus all the way to "the penultimate battle". What on earth (no pun intended) were the other 99 spectres doing while this is going on? We know that there are about 100 Spectres, so  counting the Salarian group that helps Shep after the Hanar arrest there is still around 80 or so other top Council agents around doing what? Taking an extended coffee break?

It would have made much more sense for a battle for the Citadel to take place in space while Allied forces contest the harvesting processes. The citadel was not defended? No mention of that when the Reapers just "took control of it"
 
How hard could it be after Cerberus attacks the  Citadel and Council to find or at least narrow down and severely restrict Cerberus and their activities? Council Spectres should have been on their case anyway! The first place I would start to look from ME1 and 2 is Noveria and the surrounding systems. Wouldn't take long to root out the Illusive man and his base using the available evidence of that dirty great white star which IM seems to be so keen on staring at!. There surely would be enough resources among the Salarians and The Alliance to take Cerberus out much earlier in the game, and get the vital intel. All we get is Shep defeating the coup attempt and the Citadel "turtling up" (copyright James Vega)

No the ending has always looked as though someone realised that the budget had been exhausted and decided to wrap it all up pdq- the term indecent haste springs to mind on that one. 

The huge space battle (and it's launch) just outside earth's orbit? What was all that about? Someone's idea of an old Hollywood grandstand where to fill the screen up you throw as many extras in as possible making the whole scene look ridiculous 

At the wave of a magic wand Shepard went in a few months from an officer stripped of rank and responsibility to someone commanding the greatest armada in galactic history!

Shep was about the best Spectre around and about the alliances best warrior, not a fleet commander or grand strategist


Turning to the op briefly, don't have a problem with constructs opting for a regular pruning of animal life. That theme has been doing the sci fi rounds for more years than I can remember reading about, which is at least 50! In terms of how Humans, Asaris, Turians, Salarians, et al evolve after the reapers have been neutralised - that is the big question and hopefully ME4 will move that forward in a Trekkian sort of way

As it is too late to re-write the ending of ME3 we need to write that off to an unnecessary experience, but can we hope that ME4 evolves and at least has a tight storyline without obvious plot holes?

[KrrKs]

The ending is what reveals the ambition they had for that trilogy

 

Are you by any chance talking about this monstrosity?

Spoiler

That message still makes me angry.

[angol fear]

@tim, to defend and to make publicity, to promote are different things. What you said has nothing to do with what I said. Since you misunderstand and misinterpret everything I say I guess that we don't live in the same world. You should read more what is written.

Ps : critics are reevaluating star wars prequel. Maybe you are wrong here too.

@krr, I don't know. Probably. Or not.

[rossler]

This game was always going to have post-launch DLC. Most of it came before the ending though. With the exception of the Extended Cut, which was free.

[Iakus]

This game was always going to have post-launch DLC. Most of it came before the ending though. With the exception of the Extended Cut, which was free.

"We forced you to kill your character and burn down the setting you spent five years enjoying in the process.

 

Now buy our DLC."

[Dantriges]

Editing as a hobby makes you an armchair editor, not a professional editor like the ones at Bioware. Who went to university and earned their education instead of being trained on internet sites like TV Tropes.

 

Hudson has a degree as a mechanical enginer, Muzyka, the CEO, who was named as a defender, has a degree in medicine. No idea about Walters bio.

 

Anyways a degree doesn´t make you immune to mistakes and people can screw up even with a lot of experience. Otherwise everything would work like clockwork. We wouldn´t need comittees after big accidents, courts or laws about compensations, when someone screws up or tries to screw you over.

 

So well sometimes the customer is a jerk, especially the ones who vent their frustration at the poor guy in CS, who´s probably not to blame for the problem with the thing that was bought. Sometimes fans are real jerks, who think they know everything better.

And sometimes professionals or whole companies screw up.

[Natureguy85]

Give me an example where people defended something that they knew to be bad.

 

I don't know if they knew it to be bad or not. All I know is that it was bad. The point is that they did not defend it on the basis of what was in the ending, but rather on the fact that it was what their writers came up with.

 

Edit: For example, this is like a GM saying he supports his team's head coach after a questionable decision. He may disagree with the call but he's not going to throw the coach under the bus. So I really don't know what he actually thinks of the decision.

 

 

 

I care and anyone who cares about the writing cares about what he has said. He was part of the process of creation.

You obviously don't know how it works in a teamjob like cinema or video games. When you interpret someone, you don't do it just like that. Do you really think that actors spend their time ignoring the writing, ignoring how they have to play etc...? They have to understand the writing, their character etc... They talk with the creators, the writers, the director. Even the composer talks with the director and knows the intention the director has.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure you didn't listen to what he has said, did you? (otherwise you would not be saying that)

 

Actors often have some influence in the creative process, sure, but that doesn't make their words gold. His job is based on his ability to deliver lines in a satisfactory way, not his knowledge of writing and editing. I do find it interesting that you rely on the voice actor so many people seem to not like very much or certainly not as much as the other. Personally, I found each did parts of the role better than the other.

 

 

It's easier to ignore things, sure.

 

I'm not ignoring them; I'm challenging or questioning their value. Even professionals make mistakes. The expertise of a source is certainly something to consider, but it is not the be all, end all.

 

 

 

So you can't understand when it's not said explicitly?

They defended their game because the ending was criticized. I said that they defended it, and what you are actually saying is that they didn't argue to defend it. The artistic integrity that many here can't understand is their vision of the game, they always had some ambition for this trilogy, they ended the way they wanted it to end. And if they change it because people complain, that's where the artistic integrity will be lost.

Now seriously, do you really think Bioware could argue with you? Your opinion is made, you won't change it.

 

It wasn't even implied. They defended the writers themselves more than the writing. You just admitted it; they defended their artistic integrity, as in; we're not changing it. An argument against change is not automatically an argument for the thing in question. Saying "It's the ending they wanted" is not the same as "It's the ending that fit this story." If Bioware can't argue with me, it would be because they have no legs to stand on. They could try and show me how the end actually fits everything that came before, but I'd challenge them on a lot.

 

 

Show me where Ray Muzyka has said that. You are interepreting the way you want what he has said (actually you interpret nothing you are imposing your point of view). You are ignoring the context (the problem, when he has said that, was the original ending). The ending is what reveals the ambition they had for that trilogy, it's their best work thank to the ending. It's not your point of view, it doesn't change anything about what the game is.

 

Why? I never claimed he said that. I was responding to the quote. Take a breath before you respond to stuff.

 

 

Editing as a hobby makes you an armchair editor, not a professional editor like the ones at Bioware. Who went to university and earned their education instead of being trained on internet sites like TV Tropes.

 

You're just going to have to accept that the people who made this game disagree with you, and things won't be fixed exactly how you want them to be. If the ending was fixed so that everything fits with how you view the story, it might break it for someone else who views things a bit differently.

 

It's okay to dislike what they did with the ending though.

 

All that tells you on it's face is that I don't get paid for it. You know nothing of my background, experience, or education. Of course, I've learned far more by picking up and reading a book and doing things than I ever did in college. Plenty of people go to school or have jobs related to something and then are bad at it. Sometimes people that are good at things screw up. There are also plenty of professionals that agree with me. I've picked up some of their ideas to incorporate into my analyses and arguments.

 

I fully accept that people disagree with me on things. Depending on what the thing is, I may say they're wrong.

 

 

So the fans and amateurs know it better than the professionals who wrote it in the first place?

 

That depends on what "it" is and what it means to "know it better." I can't know what was in a writer's head at the time, but I might know better what they actually communicated. A great example I heard recently is with these two sentences.

 

Last week, I hung out with two whores, George W Bush, and Barack Obama.

 

Last week, I hung out with two whores, George W Bush and Barack Obama.

 

In the first sentence, I was with 4 people. In the second, I was with two and called two Presidents "whores." One little comma completely changed the meaning of the sentence.  It would be very easy to say one while meaning the other. Also, remember that the writers changed. So one writer had to write based on another writer's work.

 

 

It's worth noting here that I am not claiming to be some creative genius. Like any editor, I am working with what was already given to me. If I thought the writers were totally talentless hacks, I'd want to throw out Mass Effect, not fix it. All the good stuff is what makes the bad stuff stand out as such a disappointing mess.

[voteDC]

Here is the problem with the developers, producers, voice talent etc  supporting the ending. They had insider knowledge the people playing did not have.

For example. When the game first came out people asked what the point was of all the missions helping people on the Citadel when they all die in the end anyway.

Now Bioware were surprised by this, as to them it was obvious that those folk had survived.

Yet was that really an obvious thing to gamers who had just seen the Reapers take the Citadel and then seen the massive explosions that rippled across it?
 

[voteDC]

I would also like to add that sometimes not everything the artist intends is what ends up in the hands of the public.

Sometimes that vision changes thanks to time constraints or orders from a publisher.

Reading this thread I get the impression that some people see what was released is exactly what Bioware wanted.

[Natureguy85]

Here is the problem with the developers, producers, voice talent etc  supporting the ending. They had insider knowledge the people playing did not have.

For example. When the game first came out people asked what the point was of all the missions helping people on the Citadel when they all die in the end anyway.

Now Bioware were surprised by this, as to them it was obvious that those folk had survived.

Yet was that really an obvious thing to gamers who had just seen the Reapers take the Citadel and then seen the massive explosions that rippled across it?
 

 

But that's exactly what I'm talking about. That's not insider knowledge; that's complete BS. It might be insider knowledge had the Citadel not been blown apart. We'd be asking what happened to those people and then guessing that they died because Reapers kill things. Then they could say that everyone lived by Writer Fiat. I might have a hard time swallowing that but wouldn't have direct evidence against it. When I see that explosion and someone says they lived, I call BS.

 

 

I would also like to add that sometimes not everything the artist intends is what ends up in the hands of the public.

Sometimes that vision changes thanks to time constraints or orders from a publisher.

Reading this thread I get the impression that some people see what was released is exactly what Bioware wanted.

 

Well, it may go back to towing the company line, but that belief is bolstered by Bioware saying exactly that.

[voteDC]

But that's exactly what I'm talking about. That's not insider knowledge; that's complete BS. It might be insider knowledge had the Citadel not been blown apart. We'd be asking what happened to those people and then guessing that they died because Reapers kill things. Then they could say that everyone lived by Writer Fiat. I might have a hard time swallowing that but wouldn't have direct evidence against it. When I see that explosion and someone says they lived, I call BS.

 

 

 

Well, it may go back to towing the company line, but that belief is bolstered by Bioware saying exactly that.

Perhaps insider knowledge is not exactly the correct term, but it does seem to fit.

The example I gave is an easy trap to fall into. You become so familiar with a subject that you consider it common knowledge subconsciously. You expect people to know what you know.

A real world example would be trying to show a computer illiterate person how to do something on their PC. It can quickly become frustrating because it seems so obvious when you've been doing it for a while.

[rossler]

I would also like to add that sometimes not everything the artist intends is what ends up in the hands of the public.

Sometimes that vision changes thanks to time constraints or orders from a publisher.

Reading this thread I get the impression that some people see what was released is exactly what Bioware wanted.

 

Yes, a lot of games have things cut during pre-production or other places. Certain parts that were in the leaked script do not appear in the final game.

 

The time constraints come in because there's a certain window you can release the game. What with other games being released around the same time. More time doesn't always mean better though.

[voteDC]

 

Yes, a lot of games have things cut during pre-production or other places. Certain parts that were in the leaked script do not appear in the final game.

 

The time constraints come in because there's a certain window you can release the game. What with other games being released around the same time. More time doesn't always mean better though.

You won't find me arguing against you there.

However the point remains. What we get as gamers is not always what the developer intended to give us. And their impression of what we do get is coloured by their knowledge of what was intended.

[rossler]

That depends on what "it" is and what it means to "know it better." I can't know what was in a writer's head at the time, but I might know better what they actually communicated. A great example I heard recently is with these two sentences.

 

Last week, I hung out with two whores, George W Bush, and Barack Obama.

 

Last week, I hung out with two whores, George W Bush and Barack Obama.

 

In the first sentence, I was with 4 people. In the second, I was with two and called two Presidents "whores." One little comma completely changed the meaning of the sentence.  It would be very easy to say one while meaning the other. Also, remember that the writers changed. So one writer had to write based on another writer's work.

 

It's worth noting here that I am not claiming to be some creative genius. Like any editor, I am working with what was already given to me. If I thought the writers were totally talentless hacks, I'd want to throw out Mass Effect, not fix it. All the good stuff is what makes the bad stuff stand out as such a disappointing mess.

 

I'm pretty sure the writers know how to use commas. That's elementary school English.

 

It's a bit too late to fix anything, because they're too busy working on the next game. Like I said, they have to be able to reproduce the problem. They can't just do it because a bunch of professional writers agree with you, or that you have the knowledge of a professional writer without being trained as one. It's not about credentials. They don't really care what credentials people have, they need to see the problem themselves.

 

The ending being good or bad is a matter of an opinion.

[Gago]

Wow this thread is still going full speed huh. Most amusing. 

[Natureguy85]

Perhaps insider knowledge is not exactly the correct term, but it does seem to fit.

The example I gave is an easy trap to fall into. You become so familiar with a subject that you consider it common knowledge subconsciously. You expect people to know what you know.

A real world example would be trying to show a computer illiterate person how to do something on their PC. It can quickly become frustrating because it seems so obvious when you've been doing it for a while.

 

Yes, you're absolutely right, but that has to do with lack of information. I'm talking about issues with contradictory information.

 

 

I'm pretty sure the writers know how to use commas. That's elementary school English.

 

 

Whoosh!

 

That was the sound of the point flying past you.

 

 

It's a bit too late to fix anything, because they're too busy working on the next game. Like I said, they have to be able to reproduce the problem. They can't just do it because a bunch of professional writers agree with you, or that you have the knowledge of a professional writer without being trained as one. It's not about credentials. They don't really care what credentials people have, they need to see the problem themselves.

 

Oh yeah, nothing is going to be changed. We're just discussing "what could have been." But these lessons should be learned for future work. Let me know when you decide if credentials matter or not though.

 

The ending being good or bad is a matter of an opinion.

 

No, it really isn't. There are objective things we can look at. Sure, some people will still like it, but enjoyment is what's subjective.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Are you by any chance talking about this monstrosity?

Spoiler

That message still makes me angry.

 

Making money is ambitious.

[Iakus]

Here is the problem with the developers, producers, voice talent etc  supporting the ending. They had insider knowledge the people playing did not have.

For example. When the game first came out people asked what the point was of all the missions helping people on the Citadel when they all die in the end anyway.

Now Bioware were surprised by this, as to them it was obvious that those folk had survived.

Yet was that really an obvious thing to gamers who had just seen the Reapers take the Citadel and then seen the massive explosions that rippled across it?
 

And part of what makes me so angry is when the backlash started, they claimed they were "listening" to fan complaints and EC would address things.

 

And yet what do we get?

 

A laughably bad "farewell scene" at the beam run

We can question the Catalyst, and get incomplete, inane, or extremely handwavy answers that raise more questions than they answer and in the end, changes nothing.

Slide shows that do little more than say "look, you didn't kill the galaxy.  Happy?"

And a Force-Sensitive LI scene that's a huge middle finger to anyone that didn't like the breath scene.

And Refusal was the other middle finger to those who didn't like the endings in general

About the only thing is "fixed" was not destroying the relays.

 

None of the illogic or the massive focus shift was touched.  They didn't even have the decency to make a genuine "Shepard survives" outcome for those who wanted it.  They weren't "listening" they simply looked for ways to make the cinematics different so they can say 'We changed it, so shut up already!"

[themikefest]

A laughably bad "farewell scene" at the beam run

Yeah it was.

I would like to hear an explanation of how Steve got back on the Normandy
 

About the only thing is "fixed" was not destroying the relay.

For me, the best part  the extended cut fixed was the flashbacks as Shepard is choosing one of the endings

[rossler]

Listening and agreeing with you are two separate things. They may have listened, but they didn't agree with you.

[Natureguy85]

 

None of the illogic or the massive focus shift was touched.  They didn't even have the decency to make a genuine "Shepard survives" outcome for those who wanted it.  They weren't "listening" they simply looked for ways to make the cinematics different so they can say 'We changed it, so shut up already!"

en the backlash started, they claimed they were "listening" to fan complaints and EC would address things.

 

I don't know about that. The same people that thought the endings were good might have also thought the fixes were great.

 

 

Listening and agreeing with you are two separate things. They may have listened, but they didn't agree with you.

 

Very true. People often combine them.

[Iakus]

Listening and agreeing with you are two separate things. They may have listened, but they didn't agree with you.

Which goes back to actually talking about the endings and why they were made.  WHich they have never done.

 

So, did they listen and not agree?  Or just not listen?

[wright1978]

And part of what makes me so angry is when the backlash started, they claimed they were "listening" to fan complaints and EC would address things.
 
And yet what do we get?
 
A laughably bad "farewell scene" at the beam run
We can question the Catalyst, and get incomplete, inane, or extremely handwavy answers that raise more questions than they answer and in the end, changes nothing.
Slide shows that do little more than say "look, you didn't kill the galaxy.  Happy?"
And a Force-Sensitive LI scene that's a huge middle finger to anyone that didn't like the breath scene.
And Refusal was the other middle finger to those who didn't like the endings in general
About the only thing is "fixed" was not destroying the relays.
 
None of the illogic or the massive focus shift was touched.  They didn't even have the decency to make a genuine "Shepard survives" outcome for those who wanted it.  They weren't "listening" they simply looked for ways to make the cinematics different so they can say 'We changed it, so shut up already!"

Yeah their idea of listening was to dig even bigger holes to try and patch the huge holes in the ending people had spotted. So instead of accepting the notion of the squad being on the Normandy being stupid we instead get shep being character assassinated to dump squaddies on Normandy which lands whilst reapers are off having a cigarette break


Not having the decency to genuinely deal with the shep lives scenario was the final in the teeth for me though. It's dumped at the end like a turd they had forgotten to flush, completely jarring and incompatible with the epilogue they'd crafted, which included a memorial sequence clearly only crafted to dead shep and then tweaked ludicrously with force sensitive squaddie a. After that I was extremely motivated to ignore dev team and just use the ending that at least made an iota of sense via mods.

[rossler]

Which goes back to actually talking about the endings and why they were made.  WHich they have never done.

 

So, did they listen and not agree?  Or just not listen?

 

Well they listened to the ones who wanted more closure, but not to the ones who wanted a new ending. They didn't agree about the plot holes or inconsistencies though.

 

They made the endings this way, because that is the story they wanted to tell. They don't really need to explain why. The customer doesn't need to know that.

[Iakus]

Well they listened to the ones who wanted more closure, but not to the ones who wanted a new ending. They didn't agree about the plot holes or inconsistencies though.

 

They made the endings this way, because that is the story they wanted to tell. They don't really need to explain why. The customer doesn't need to know that.

"Organic energy" is not clarity

 

An inexplicably Force-Sensitive LI is not closure.

 

How do we know they disagree?  They never addressed the feedback?  Do they even know or care?