3597 réponses à ce sujet

[Natureguy85]

Yeah, it sucks that the MrBtounge vid got taken down by CBS (probably for the Star Trek footage), but here are some other reviews, analysis, videos and writeups on the failings of ME3:

 

MR BTounge: Tasteful Understated Nerdrage: ME3 Ending (Original Ending)

 

Click

 

MR BTounge: Additional Clarity (Original Ending)

 

Click

 

MR BTounge: Extended Cut Review

 

Click

 

Rageaholic Game Mechanics Review (Original Ending)

 

Click

 

FUFriendsUnited Game Mechanics Review (Original Ending)

 

Click

 

Art Argument & Mass Effect 3 (Original Ending)

 

click

 

Shameus Young on Mass Effect and Everything that went wrong: (Original Ending)

http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=27792

 

This is not a Pipe review (Original Ending)

http://awtr.ca/long:this-is-not-a-pipe

 

There are many more, and even more representations on the rules/standards of writing and how ME3's ending breaks those rules/standards. I think Angol is trying to 'Poison the Well' on anyone who uses citations, facts, and current standards to show that ME3s ending is incoherent. A part of me thinks that he believes that by liking ME3's ending and going against the norm one becomes like that of Galileo Galilei or other correct intellectuals who were radical at the time. This is not really that true as much as it is just a bit of idealism seeping in.

 

The irony is that Galileo did have a whole bunch of writeups, analysis, and observable (and repeatable) information to back up his claim. The Church just shut him down because of what their own beliefs said (one could say it was their own headcanon). Which, in a way, is kinda funny when you see BSN interactions.

 

Basically, the absolute best way to create a valid arguement is to:

-be consistant

-be objective

-represent or follow the scientific method

-cite your sources

-ensure your results are repeatable

 

I feel like you posted my signature

[Abedsbrother]

Seriously, though, you folks need to post more critiques from post-Extended Cut and post-Leviathan DLC. All those "Original Ending" links, and only two links that discuss the endings with the Extended Cut? That's called "proof padding."

 

Disagree with MrBtongue's statement that opinions are formed collectively. They can be formed and frequently are expressed collectively, but their formation is highly personal. It's a paper-thin excuse he created for gaming journalists who gave the game a high rating. "They were locked on a [figurative] desert island with no ability to collectively form an opinion!" Wtf? An opinion shared is an opinion more likely to be - correct? Implying that there is a "correct" opinion is an incredibly dangerous path to walk. 

 

I'm not saying that the Mass Effect 3 endings were the best that could have been devised, but I would love to see some criticism that does not rely on essentialist empiricism. It can be argued that Mass Effect 3's endings incorporate existentialism, surrealism and (depending on the ending chosen) elements of transhumanism, in addition to traditional sci-fi tropes (discussed by GalaticPillow guest Rei). Throw enough "isms" together, and you've got art - which is, itself, defined by what people view as art (i.e., there is no objective standard of art, as discussed by Hume - which undercuts the very first sentence of the This is Not A Pipe review). 

[Natureguy85]

Seriously, though, you folks need to post more critiques from post-Extended Cut and post-Leviathan DLC. All those "Original Ending" links, and only two links that discuss the endings with the Extended Cut? That's called "proof padding."

 

Disagree with MrBtongue's statement that opinions are formed collectively. They can be formed and frequently are expressed collectively, but their formation is highly personal. It's a paper-thin excuse he created for gaming journalists who gave the game a high rating. "They were locked on a [figurative] desert island with no ability to collectively form an opinion!" Wtf? An opinion shared is an opinion more likely to be - correct? Implying that there is a "correct" opinion is an incredibly dangerous path to walk. 

 

I'm not saying that the Mass Effect 3 endings were the best that could have been devised, but I would love to see some criticism that does not rely on essentialist empiricism. It can be argued that Mass Effect 3's endings incorporate existentialism, surrealism and (depending on the ending chosen) elements of transhumanism, in addition to traditional sci-fi tropes (discussed by GalaticPillow guest Rei). Throw enough "isms" together, and you've got art - which is, itself, defined by what people view as art (i.e., there is no objective standard of art, as discussed by Hume - which undercuts the very first sentence of the This is Not A Pipe review). 

 

Why? The Extended Cut was either made specifically to address mistakes in the original ending, meaning those mistakes existed, or was there to "clarify" as they claimed, meaning they did a poor job of communicating what they wanted to. Leviathan is cool and I love the investigation aspect, but it really doesn't add anything to the ending of the game. Both are arguments after the fact. Add into that the amount of criticism the Extended Cut got for making things worse in some people's eyes.

 

But if you need it: https://www.youtube....hva3Vxa8Y9jsLRD

 

Btongue's point is that, while you might be right that your initial opinion is formed personally, opinion shaped over time by sharing and discussing with others, which is absolutely true. Sometimes people remind you of something you forgot or offer another way to look at an event or line of dialogue. Or maybe you see a different movie or game and see how an idea was better implemented there.

 

The lack of a hard and fast definition of art doesn't undercut the "this is not a pipe" article in the least bit. He simply described one characteristic of art. Adding a bunch of "ism" words doesn't magically make something art either and the very assertion is ridiculous. Even if the ending had all of those things, were they present in the rest of the series? If not, that further validates the criticism that the ending didn't fit the rest of the story.

[JJ Likeaprayer]

So many ungrateful player haters here....hating on their own.Poor BioWare,designed this absolutely incomparable game and what do they get on their own forum?A bunch of...Anyway,that's reality for you! I'm glad you like BioShock:Infinite tho,I found that game quite disappointing...I miss Rapture and Big Daddy and the little sisters. The racism issue in that game is very good,that's the subject always makes you wanna fight...my only complain is that game is too short and a little too commercial! Unlike BS1 and BS2...Back to ME3,yes! If this was a movie,the script alone would to win an Oscar...at least!! I've played countless videos games since a kid,and they were always just video games for me...until I've played the ME series,never in a million years I would think a "video game" can reach this kind of level! It's not just a video game,it's also an education of humanity...Even if I'm the only one here to say this,but BRAVO BioWare!!

[Cobwebmaster]

Hm, I fell in love with the Inquisition's cast. Mostly anyway. I also enjoy the game. Not that I think it's perfect, but still.

 Certainly a wide variety of NPCs and characterisations. I enjoyed playing the game overall but unlike Bioware's predecessor RPGs I saw little to recommend replayability 

 

Not so sure about that to be honest. Refunds if it had been unplayable buggy but because people didn't like it (no matter how well-deserved that dislike was)? As much as I despised the ending (and didn't think much of some other bits) that would be going too far IMO. Mind you I've had more than my money's worth with MP.

Agreed, that's why I used the term other reasons. 

I would not expect a refund for the shabby ending, but it does impact on how I view any of that game company's end product, for the future. Hanging on to my money pending some really independent review would seem a wise move. Besides the way most games of this ilk go now, you only have to hang back for a while and 50% discounts start to appear which makes you really wonder how much you should have been charged in the first place! 

[Cobwebmaster]

People take everything a game developer says as some kind of promise, and if they don't follow through with it, they'll go nuts. Got news for you, lots of companies have said things that never came, because plans change......
 

Dictum meam pactum

People only do business with people they trust

[HowElse?]

Do you honestly believe EVERYTHING the 'Starchild' Says?
He did say he Habors the Collective Intelligence of All Reapers.
What would that make him? Just Another Reaper if not Harbinger.

[Abedsbrother]

Why? The Extended Cut was either made specifically to address mistakes in the original ending, meaning those mistakes existed, or was there to "clarify" as they claimed, meaning they did a poor job of communicating what they wanted to. Leviathan is cool and I love the investigation aspect, but it really doesn't add anything to the ending of the game. Both are arguments after the fact. Add into that the amount of criticism the Extended Cut got for making things worse in some people's eyes.

So because the Extended Cut made things worse "in some people's eyes" it's not worth considering?

 

Leviathan "doesn't really add anything to the ending of the game" - you're kidding, right? And no, I'm not just referring to the few lines of dialogue that the Catalyst has that refer to his "creators."

 

"both are arguments after the fact" - doesn't de-legitimize them, especially when one (Extended Cut) was specifically designed to add context to the ending, and the other (Leviathan) provided context to the Catalyst. How well these DLC accomplished their goal is debatable, but discarding them because they were released "later" or after the fact" is refusing to acknowledge that BioWare made any attempt to patch their ending. 

 

Yes, I know about Smudboy's videos. I find his patronizing, smug, know-it-all, holier-than-thou (call it what you want) attitude obnoxious. I watched his videos once, have no desire to watch them again.

 

Btongue's point is that, while you might be right that your initial opinion is formed personally, opinion shaped over time by sharing and discussing with others, which is absolutely true. Sometimes people remind you of something you forgot or offer another way to look at an event or line of dialogue. Or maybe you see a different movie or game and see how an idea was better implemented there.

Collective exchange of ideas is great, but that is not what MrBTongue says in his video; he is specifically referring to opinion.

8:34 "Forming an opinion about something - anything - is a more collaborative activity than most recognize or admit. The same is true of game reviewers, which puts them in awkward position when reviewing games. Instead of having the grounding of collaboration around them, they're put onto a desert island with the game and asked to come up with an opinion in a near vacuum." The issue is opinion, not idea exchange. MrBTongue presents this lack of collaborative opinion, this perceived (by him) isolation as the reason why game reviewers didn't comment on the ending of Mass Effect 3 in their reviews when it was released. Implying that collaborative opinion would have been better - some how. That sounds almost Soviet.

 

The lack of a hard and fast definition of art doesn't undercut the "this is not a pipe" article in the least bit. He simply described one characteristic of art. Adding a bunch of "ism" words doesn't magically make something art either and the very assertion is ridiculous. Even if the ending had all of those things, were they present in the rest of the series? If not, that further validates the criticism that the ending didn't fit the rest of the story.

You completely missed the point of my post. "He described one characteristic of art." If there is not an objective standard of art, that means the only standards that exist are the ones we create. This means that the "characteristic of art" that is described is the writer's, and not necessarily anyone else's. That's fine if you accept jbauck's created framework for what constitutes art, and his opinion is interesting; if you agreed with his opinion, good for you. I personally don't. But as an opinion piece, it does not constitute proof of anything except his own impressions.

[Cobwebmaster]

......................

I'm not saying that the Mass Effect 3 endings were the best that could have been devised, but I would love to see some criticism that does not rely on essentialist empiricism. It can be argued that Mass Effect 3's endings incorporate existentialism, surrealism and (depending on the ending chosen) elements of transhumanism, in addition to traditional sci-fi tropes (discussed by GalaticPillow guest Rei). Throw enough "isms" together, and you've got art - which is, itself, defined by what people view as art (i.e., there is no objective standard of art, as discussed by Hume - which undercuts the very first sentence of the This is Not A Pipe review). 

Mmm interesting! If I may, I'd like to draw a parallel on this by exampling a satirical review of British artist Tracey Emin's  controversial creation "My Bed" which sold recently for in excess of £2.5 million. The art format which is basically Tracey's bed in a rather abject state contains evidence of bodily secretions, discarded underwear complete with stains, and other detrius too grisly to mention on this forum.

The review concluded that the artist had a lot to say about birth and death, a lot to say about the nature of self, a lot to say about defecation and renewal in contemporary society, and it has a hell of a lot to say about art itself. It is almost, as if in some extraordinary way, the artist were asking us to confront the very nature of what we call ****! What is it? Where is it? And who will buy it?

[Cobwebmaster]

So many ungrateful player haters here....hating on their own.Poor BioWare,designed this absolutely incomparable game and what do they get on their own forum?A bunch of...Anyway,that's reality for you! I'm glad you like BioShock:Infinite tho,I found that game quite disappointing...I miss Rapture and Big Daddy and the little sisters. The racism issue in that game is very good,that's the subject always makes you wanna fight...my only complain is that game is too short and a little too commercial! Unlike BS1 and BS2...Back to ME3,yes! If this was a movie,the script alone would to win an Oscar...at least!! I've played countless videos games since a kid,and they were always just video games for me...until I've played the ME series,never in a million years I would think a "video game" can reach this kind of level! It's not just a video game,it's also an education of humanity...Even if I'm the only one here to say this,but BRAVO BioWare!!

I don't see that many of the comments here are too far away from disagreeing about the quality of the ME series in principle, just the finale. The game got better and better in every aspect as roles were fleshed out, combat improved and the scope of the game broadened tremendously. It was a bit like the rapid evolution of Henry Ford's Model T to a Mustang racing for the finish line only to get a puncture about half a mile out and be forced to reduce speed and limp home

As a Bioware fan of long standing I loved the BG series, NWN, and Dragon Age Origins. Other recent games in the RPG genre  worth a mention are The Elder Scrolls, and of course The Witcher series

[Ithurael]

For the record - if there is any - I really do think the EC is an improvement on the vanilla release.

 

The vanilla release was just..awful. It broke the narrative illusion as well as the mechanical illusion of choice. For a video game breaking the mechnics is damnable The EC (as per writer intention) focuses on and delivers on - from what i have seem - the most important failure from the vanilla relese: The consequences from our choices.

 

Yes, the normandy Evac opens a few more plotholes. Yes the Relay Destruction is somewhat remediated. And yes, there still are retcons and many plotholes. They fixed what they could in the time they had. Personally, I just wish EA hadn't rushed them in the first place and given they about 3 (or maybe 4) years to deliver ME3 vs the less than 2yrs max (initial relese schedule).

[Natureguy85]

Do you honestly believe EVERYTHING the 'Starchild' Says?
He did say he Habors the Collective Intelligence of All Reapers.
What would that make him? Just Another Reaper if not Harbinger.

 

When first presented or role-playing in Shepard's shoes? No, but I don't have any option to doubt or really challenge him. Even Refuse isn't really that. In retrospect as an observer looking at the whole? Yes.

 

So because the Extended Cut made things worse "in some people's eyes" it's not worth considering?

 

Leviathan "doesn't really add anything to the ending of the game" - you're kidding, right? And no, I'm not just referring to the few lines of dialogue that the Catalyst has that refer to his "creators."

 

"both are arguments after the fact" - doesn't de-legitimize them, especially when one (Extended Cut) was specifically designed to add context to the ending, and the other (Leviathan) provided context to the Catalyst. How well these DLC accomplished their goal is debatable, but discarding them because they were released "later" or after the fact" is refusing to acknowledge that BioWare made any attempt to patch their ending. 

 

I never said it isn't worth considering but it only goes so far and depends on what we are discussing. If you're going to say that the ending was brilliant, as this thread asserts, then the EC shouldn't have been needed. It was an attempt to fix some of the obvious plot holes which had exposed the writers' lack of attention to detail and how poorly the ending was thought out. At least they added some sort of epilogue, even though I didn't find them particularly compelling. Something was better than nothing. And they got rid of that awful ad for DLC at the end, so all credit there. But the EC doesn't fix any of the thematic issues.

 

I notice you didn't say what Leviathan supposedly added to the ending. What did we learn and what does that change from what was before? I should note that this isn't a knock against Leviathan. For the most part, DLC probably shouldn't impact the story in any major way. Similarly, you chose to comment about the section of the Btongue video that didn't deal with the ending itself.

 

 

 

Yes, I know about Smudboy's videos. I find his patronizing, smug, know-it-all, holier-than-thou (call it what you want) attitude obnoxious. I watched his videos once, have no desire to watch them again.

 

Well I can't fault you for not liking the delivery, but the content is largely on point. However the attitude never bothered me since it wasn't directed at me.

 

 

 

Collective exchange of ideas is great, but that is not what MrBTongue says in his video; he is specifically referring to opinion.

8:34 "Forming an opinion about something - anything - is a more collaborative activity than most recognize or admit. The same is true of game reviewers, which puts them in awkward position when reviewing games. Instead of having the grounding of collaboration around them, they're put onto a desert island with the game and asked to come up with an opinion in a near vacuum." The issue is opinion, not idea exchange (and for the journalists involved, perhaps deadlines). MrBTongue presents this lack of collaborative opinion, this perceived (by him) isolation as the reason why game reviewers didn't comment on the ending of Mass Effect 3 in their reviews when it was released. Implying that collaborative opinion would have been better - some how. That sounds almost Soviet.

 

Yes, and while I had an initial impression that was entirely my own, my current opinion on the game and series has been shaped and influence by other people's opinions and comments. I think that's what he was driving at in that part of the video.

 

Your "soviet" comment shows how little you know about that, so I advise you to drop it before you make as much a fool of yourself as Rossler with his stupid, desperate comments about free speech.

 

 

You completely missed the point of my post. "He described one characteristic of art." If there is not an objective standard of art, that means the only standards that exist are the ones we create. This means that the "characteristic of art" that is described is the writer's, and not necessarily anyone else's. That's fine if you accept jbauck's created framework for what constitutes art, and his opinion is interesting; if you agreed with his opinion, good for you. I personally don't. But as an opinion piece, it does not constitute proof of anything except his own impressions.

 

I didn't miss the point of your post at all. I'm saying that the fact that we can't come up with a complete definition of something doesn't mean we can't define certain characteristics of that thing. I'm also disagreeing with your preposterous assertion that throwing in enough fancy concepts, however half baked their implementation, makes something art (giving a partial definition of art in the process, by the way).

[angol fear]

@Natureguy85, interesting...so you don't know the story of Galileo Galilei. But you still avoid my question, you give me no answer to my question.

 

@Ithurael, the example about Galileo galilei was just here to say that sometimes arguments and analysis can't convince people. When people think they are right, when they are convinced that they are right, it doesn't matter if a scientific talk about science and they don't know anything about science, they will always find some source to counter-argument that, and if they have power they can oblige the scientific to act against his will. So my question still who valids the points?

 

 

That pile of videos makes me think of that scene from Kubrick's A clockwork orange, the lobotomy scene. 

 

@Natureguy85, since you've started to talk about art, is the ending art?

[Ithurael]

@Ithurael, the example about Galileo galilei was just here to say that sometimes arguments and analysis can't convince people.

This is something I very much agree with and do speak a bit about at the end of my second response. People in the throes of Brand Loyalty/Identification (we call it fanboyism/fangirlism) will completely ignore reality or the myriad of facts put in front of them. The reason for this is due to a cognitive bias rooted in the persons social identity and their cognition. This can be potentially remediated by staying objective and following a strict methodology ala the scientific method.

 

 

 

When people think they are right, when they are convinced that they are right, it doesn't matter if a scientific talk about science and they don't know anything about science, they will always find some source to counter-argument that, and if they have power they can oblige the scientific to act against his will. So my question still who valids the points?

 

Well, I am no conspiracy theorist here but I do think the very basis of how we come to understand and build standards of our information is rooted in our cognition and consensus with our peers. For instance, on the topic of Narrative Coherence, people tend to see a narrative that remains consistent and logical to itself as more enjoyable and better crafted vs a narrative that introduces retcons or contrivances that break the internal logic or consistency of the narrative. This desire for coherence is an aspect of how our brains have evolved.

 

Now, while we can try to poison the well by saying "anything can be influenced by the powerful" that point will only go so far Angol. Science is science. Physics is physics. Standards are standards. Defying or going against standards because you don't agree with them is not really the most rational way to represent your position. If we take your logical basis that "Standards" could be influenced by anyone, we potentially poison the well on anything and it gives us infinite ability to define things the way we want. Don't get me wrong, it is a sweet idea, but it doesn't work. Having a dissenting opinion is fine for you, but it doesn't change reality. If you really want to redefine things, you need to do the research to prove it and you need to stay objective in this practice. The scientific method is the best tool to change the state of things.

 

I highly recommend reading "The Logics of Disintegration" it is a great book on logical thought and post structrualism. or you could try James Williams "Understanding Post Structuralism"

 

In addition you can look at these:

http://www.auburn.ed...ct-opinion.html

http://www.break.com...r-stuff-2883651

http://www.independe...s-a6757731.html

https://www.librarie...luate_info.html

http://study.com/aca...of-sources.html

http://johntreed.com...-debate-tactics

 

The best way to show if a point is valid is to research it. What does the writing community have as a consensus? What are the current standards? What has the strongest correlation to the point? In the end Angol, it really does fall into GIGO (Garbage In Garbage Out)

 

In the case of ME3 and its ending, we see it is, notably and overwhelmingly, incoherent to the series and itself (represented in my other posts and validated by multiple sources). You can still like the product (I know you will), but that doesn't change it. I like poorly written films/games! Hell I LOVE the Transformers Series, I love watching "The Room", and I loved the Matrix Trilogy. Don't get me wrong, I do fully understand the problems people had with these films and - upon review - could validate that these were valid criticisms. However, I just like them either out of comedy, style over substance, or my own personal aesthetic interpretation.

 

 

 

 

That pile of videos makes me think of that scene from Kubrick's A clockwork orange, the lobotomy scene. 

 

Nah, that was IT documentaries

[Abedsbrother]

I notice you didn't say what Leviathan supposedly added to the ending. What did we learn and what does that change from what was before? I should note that this isn't a knock against Leviathan. 

I did. Read my post again. "Context to the Catalyst."

 

Well I can't fault you for not liking the delivery, but the content is largely on point. However the attitude never bothered me since it wasn't directed at me.

Since you agree with him, no, his attitude isn't directed at you. But since I don't, it is directed at me.

 

Your "soviet" comment shows how little you know about that, so I advise you to drop it before you make as much a fool of yourself as Rossler with his stupid, desperate comments about free speech.

Didn't want to get into ad hominems but: your comment actually reveals how little you know about it. So maybe you should drop it before embarrassing yourself further. Not sure what Rossler's comments about free speech were; while I've been tracking the thread for a while, I don't really want to go back and re-read the entire thing. MrBTongue's mistake is assuming that having a free exchange of opinions would have resulted in different opinions. 

 

I didn't miss the point of your post at all. I'm saying that the fact that we can't come up with a complete definition of something doesn't mean we can't define certain characteristics of that thing. I'm also disagreeing with your preposterous assertion that throwing in enough fancy concepts, however half baked their implementation, makes something art (giving a partial definition of art in the process, by the way).

There are no completely 100% universal characteristics of art, since there is no objective standard of art. So "defining certain characteristics of that thing" is still subjective and valid only for the people who agree with the framework. I only embarked on this line of critique because Ithurael posted a link to the This is Not A Pipe blog as some kind of proof that the Mass Effect 3 ending was bad, when really the blog post was an opinion that does not constitute objective proof of any kind.

 

The point of the "isms" comment was that combining enough "isms" in a mish-mash can result in a confused mess, which some people will then call "art" as an excuse for the sloppiness. All this time, apparently you thought I was defending Mass Effect 3's endings. A number of these opinions and analyses are great imo, but they shouldn't have been necessary. The endings work for me on a number of different levels, but there are some micro (as opposed to macro) flaws. Much like the way the ending of Bioshock Infinite works on many levels, but has its own share of flaws. Or like any kind of created entertainment, I guess.

[KrrKs]

Seriously, though, you folks need to post more critiques from post-Extended Cut and post-Leviathan DLC. All those "Original Ending" links, and only two links that discuss the endings with the Extended Cut? That's called "proof padding."

AFAIK this thread constantly shifts between EC and original version, depending on the argument.

About DLC in general and Leviathan in particular:

 Including a DLC; something which is not part of the original game, and completely optional, (and not for free) into an argument about an inherent and important game part is wrong, imo. That's similar to saying that one can't judge the original Star Wars movie without knowing the extended universe.

Furthermore, the only thing that Leviathan does for the ending is to introduce the intelligence and its 'assignment' sooner.

The last minute introduction of it is actually one of my problems with the ending, but there are many more.

 

>>Disagree with MrBtongue's statement that opinions are formed collectively. They can be formed and frequently are expressed collectively, but their formation is highly personal.<<

I concur.

 

>>[...] I would love to see some criticism that does not rely on essentialist empiricism.<<

Do I get that wrong, or do you want to leave the argument out of an argument?

 

>>It can be argued that Mass Effect 3's endings incorporate existentialism, surrealism and (depending on the ending chosen) elements of transhumanism, in addition to traditional sci-fi tropes.<<

Which is exactly one of the endings main problems! Suddenly trying to incorporate such ideas in the last few minutes, when they've never played a role before. Some of those, like existentialism and transhumanism, were actually forcefully played down before, whenever they dared to appear!

 

 

@Ithurael, the example about Galileo galilei was just here to say that sometimes arguments and analysis can't convince people. When people think they are right, when they are convinced that they are right, it doesn't matter if a scientific talk about science and they don't know anything about science, they will always find some source to counter-argument that, and if they have power they can oblige the scientific to act against his will. So my question still who valids the points?

Usually an argument fits to what is presented, and to the 'data' used. Or it presents reasons why the data and/or conclusions are invalid.

"Gaben said so" and derivatives are no reason and no argument.

[This place to rent!] (I'm short on time. Rest follows, probably)

 

About whether the end is art or not: Does it really matter?

[JonathonPR]

The ending was not properly set up and was disingenuous to the consumer at the time of release. The final antagonist was not foreshadowed. Bioware had to release DLC to retroactively justify it. It took inspiration from good material but did not combine and implement it effectively. 

 

 

The intro was also bad and had too much protagonist idolization and false competence by forced npc incompetence. Action was forced too quickly and the strengths of the scifi series that inspired the first game were brushed over. 

 

People can like poorly made things and not be wrong to like them but the quality of a product should be recognized.

[Natureguy85]

@Natureguy85, interesting...so you don't know the story of Galileo Galilei. But you still avoid my question, you give me no answer to my question.

@Natureguy85, since you've started to talk about art, is the ending art?

 

Sure I do. You said we knew how it ended, which is exactly what I posted. I know you were thinking of the criticism and oppression he faced at the time, but the entire point is that wasn't the end. Also, I dismissed your question as the wrong one, which is why I didn't answer it directly. There is no "who" answer because it can be lots of different people. The "how" is more important.

 

As for the endings being art, I'd say yes because I think they tried and failed to be deep. I don't think they were just throwing big words together and hoping it sounded good. It's bad though, and some would argue that there has to be a certain level of quality or craft for something to be considered art.

 

 

 

I did. Read my post again. "Context to the Catalyst."

 

 

Yeah and that phrase "context to the catalyst" is as empty, vague, and vapid as every defense of the ending. What value was that context? So what if I met the organics that made them and why? How does that change the ending? How does that influence your view of the catalyst or decision in the end?

 

 

Didn't want to get into ad hominems but: your comment actually reveals how little you know about it. So maybe you should drop it before embarrassing yourself further. Not sure what Rossler's comments about free speech were; while I've been tracking the thread for a while, I don't really want to go back and re-read the entire thing. MrBTongue's mistake is assuming that having a free exchange of opinions would have resulted in different opinions.

 

Because if the Soviet Union was about anything, it was the free exchange of opinions, right?

 

 

 

There are no completely 100% universal characteristics of art, since there is no objective standard of art. So "defining certain characteristics of that thing" is still subjective and valid only for the people who agree with the framework. I only embarked on this line of critique because Ithurael posted a link to the This is Not A Pipe blog as some kind of proof that the Mass Effect 3 ending was bad, when really the blog post was an opinion that does not constitute objective proof of any kind.

 

The point of the "isms" comment was that combining enough "isms" in a mish-mash can result in a confused mess, which some people will then call "art" as an excuse for the sloppiness. All this time, apparently you thought I was defending Mass Effect 3's endings. A number of these opinions and analyses are great imo, but they shouldn't have been necessary. The endings work for me on a number of different levels, but there are some micro (as opposed to macro) flaws. Much like the way the ending of Bioshock Infinite works on many levels, but has its own share of flaws. Or like any kind of created entertainment, I guess.

 

Ok, so can you provide anything to disprove or disqualify the opening of This is not a pipe or is your response just "nuh-uh!"? I don't know that the article was proof, but is certainly one more thing on the mountain of evidence and a well written piece.

Every rule has exceptions, though someone already tried and failed to come up with some for the opening position of the. Maybe you'll be able to think of one and we can discuss it.

 

As to the bolded statement, that's not what you said at all. You said that throwing those "isms" in there made it art. That was your claim, not pointing out that some people do that. I completely agree with this different statement.

[angol fear]

@Ithurael, in the other topic and here you are talking about retcon as inconsistency, breaking the internal logic. But don't you think that Mass Effect 2 is a big retcon of Mass Effect 1?

 

Why did you give me link about a study about the relation between low intelligence and acceptance of pseudo intellectual things?

 

"Validated by multiple source", the problem still here : I can say the same thing and those who can validate my points are not supposed to be stupid (some people who work in art and some literature teachers).

 

@KrrKs, it doesn't matter if you want.

 

@JonathonPR, the A.I. isn't an antagonist. He wasn't foreshadowed? What did you see in the dreams sequences? Did you listen to the prothean VI? the DLC were not done to create foreshadowing, it was done to create explicit foreshadowing. Just like Hitchcock said, if you want people to understand something, you have to say it twice.

 

@Natureguy85, yes you can ignore what happened to Galileo Galilei or ignore the fact that it took years and other scientifics. Answering like that, you're not wrong, but, most important, you're not right. You deliberatly say what you want to say about it, not what happened and how it happened.

And for what he has said about heliocentrism, you should know that Nicolaus Copernicus defended that point of view ealier and we can go further in the Antiquity. So arguments and analysis ? That's really how we know we are right? So why did we spend all that time thinking that Earth was the center of the galaxy?

 

Ok there is no "who" answer, that's all I wanted to know.

 

So failed at trying to be deep? Then what is supposed to be deep? What does it mean "being deep"?

[voteDC]

AFAIK this thread constantly shifts between EC and original version, depending on the argument.

About DLC in general and Leviathan in particular:

 Including a DLC; something which is not part of the original game, and completely optional, (and not for free) into an argument about an inherent and important game part is wrong, imo. That's similar to saying that one can't judge the original Star Wars movie without knowing the extended universe.

Furthermore, the only thing that Leviathan does for the ending is to introduce the intelligence and its 'assignment' sooner.

The last minute introduction of it is actually one of my problems with the ending, but there are many more.

That is very true. My complaints have always been about the shipped endings. As I've said before I didn't hate the ideas, just the execution of them.

While the Extended Cut does have problems of its own, they don't break anything for me that I can't put aside. It takes the ideas and makes them properly individual.

I can't help but feel that Leviathan should have been the day one DLC. I've often wondered if people who played it before they finished the game appreciate the Catalyst more because it's appearance wasn't as much of a  surprise.

[Cobwebmaster]

The ending was not properly set up and was disingenuous to the consumer at the time of release. The final antagonist was not foreshadowed. Bioware had to release DLC to retroactively justify it. It took inspiration from good material but did not combine and implement it effectively. 

 

 

The intro was also bad and had too much protagonist idolization and false competence by forced npc incompetence. Action was forced too quickly and the strengths of the scifi series that inspired the first game were brushed over. 

 

People can like poorly made things and not be wrong to like them but the quality of a product should be recognized.

Excellent points andmost of the arguments here stem from our perception of the contrast in grade of quality between the ending and other aspects of the ME story reflected in ME3 which in lore terms tends to be full of niggling contradictions. One example is the potential romance between a male Shephard, and Kaidan Alenko, when Alenko states that he has never felt anything for anyone until now (over drinks on the Presidium). This is untrue as in ME1 Alenko talks to Shepard about the relationship he developed with a fellow biotic during his training. Ig guess that having different writers between trilogy installments poses such problems, but the lack of consistency is clearly highlighted in ME3 as you have stated

In appraisal I think it is ok to like the game, and be disappointed with the lack of professionalism and thoroughness in which aspects of ME3's story were delivered. 

I think I spotted somewhere a comment on ME2 getting some backlash from the discontent with ME3. I have no major issues with ME2 at all, but do have a comment when I compare the grade of quality and value for money between the 2 sets of DLCs. ME2 DLCs such as The Shadow Broker and Kasumi's burglary had solid content and challenging adventure with well created characters, while ME3's DLC by comparison were barely cosmetic.  A change in policy seems to have been applied

[Ithurael]

@Ithurael, in the other topic and here you are talking about retcon as inconsistency, breaking the internal logic. But don't you think that Mass Effect 2 is a big retcon of Mass Effect 1?

 

Of course there are retcons in ME2. Hell it opens with a substantial contrivance. However, trying to justify contrivances by using contrivances is not really the best approach Angol and may tie back into the brand loyalty topic I mentioned in the start and in the second post of the Harbinger thread. Please ensure to review both of my prior two posts in the Harbinger thread and definitively read through each sourced article, book, interview, etc to find out where and why.

 

 

Why did you give me link about a study about the relation between low intelligence and acceptance of pseudo intellectual things?

 

That was a bit more for fun, but it shows the difference between those who reject standards and prefer to define things the way they want to believe them. Maybe it is contrarianism maybe something else. Though I am happy you are starting to read my sources

 

 

"Validated by multiple source", the problem still here : I can say the same thing and those who can validate my points are not supposed to be stupid (some people who work in art and some literature teachers).

 

Then cite them please. I know if you only look at the aesthetic meaning of ME3's ending you get a great bit to talk about (just like almost anything). But when you look at the actual writing - the transmission - it completely falls apart. Most when defending the ending just focus on the ideas and meaning interpreted rather than the actual presentation (and this does include you Angol). And simply being a literature teacher or 'working in art' does not mean they have valid counter points, in the same way that working in Finance doesn't mean one is good with money. The career of the person means little, it is their arguments that matters and the quality and rationality of those arguments. If they can cite their points back to rational conventions (as what is already defined and represented) then I am all for this. Conversely, if they can objectively represent across multiple sources and studies that Narrative coherence is not what i cited many times over but something that allows for ME3's ending to be coherent I would be interested in review.

 

Redefining things or only representing a subjective point and attempting to redefine things is a great debate tactic - and one that surely can get a substantial amount of people angry. However, if we just focus on depth and meaning as opposed to narrative coherence then we are being a bit pretentious. In addition, here is a review for one of the greatest movies of our generation - surpassing Snowpiercer, Gone with the WInd, and all others hands down:

 

 

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The moment I saw "Night of 1000 Cats" in the bargain bin of my local Wal-mart, I was perplexed. Why was such a promising looking movie being sold in so degrading a fashion? Out of curiosity, I bought it on impulse, and let me tell you, "Cats" is worth every penny of its price, and more so.

The plot follows a young playboy billionaire named Hugo, who flies around what may or may not be a Mexican city in his helicopter seducing beautiful women and the occasional little girl. Hugo is so charming, he can seduce women without even having a conversation with them, all he needs is his helicopter and his winning smile. But there's a catch, for Hugo is not truly a Casanova, he is more of a CATSanova, for he is the owner of 1000 bloodthirsty cats, and once he is satisfied with his women, he feeds them to these voracious felines.

And now for my review. "Night of 1000 Cats" is truly a film masterpiece, and I am shocked at the low ratings this film has garnered on this otherwise esteemed site. Those who gave this a low rating should go back to watching the sellout, brain-dead pap that Hollywood normally pumps out. I suppose, however, that most people can not appreciate this movie as the pure work of art that it is. It is the Mona Lisa of film, and it distresses me that people's tastes have deteriorated so much.

Hugo, or as I like to call him, the Catsanova (the reason I rated this as a 9 instead of a 10 was because I feel Rene Cardona Jr. really missed a great opportunity to use this brilliant play on words in the movie) is one of the most interesting characters in cinematic history. We never really know much about the character. He apparently has no job, and like all other characters in this movie, he rarely speaks (a brilliant minimalistic decision on the part of the director). We are led to assume his Catsanovic ways all began after his mute Mongolian butler killed one of his girlfriends. Tragically, he took the wrong path after this, and decided to buy 1000 cats so that he could feed women to them. This was truly a tragic, yet natural decision that I think many other men in his position would take, myself included admittedly. We can see the Catsanova's anger and internal anguish occasionally when he randomly tosses a nearby cat over a 12 foot tall cage wall and later when he drowns a cat in his swimming pool. A foolish viewer would claim these scenes were pointless and didn't make sense, but they would be dead wrong, much like the Catsanova's women friends.

The direction in this movie is impeccable. You can really understand the movie's symbolism when, during a sex scene, the camera zooms in quickly, dramatically, and repeatedly into the faces of stuffed rabbits, bears, owls, and mooses the Catsanova keeps in his bedroom. This likely symbolizes the Catsanova's descent into the natural animal instinct to feed his sexual partners to cats. Another cool trick the director pulls is adjusting the focus until everything gets blurry. You can tell that Rene Cardona Jr. was very inventive, as no other director is talented enough to bring a shot from clearness into unfocused mystery. Another compliment I have to give Cardona is his reuse of footage. In the ten to twenty minute helicopter seduction sequence for example, Cardona demonstrates incredible efficiency by reusing the same few shots over and over.

Overall, "Night of 1000 Cats" is a must see movie, and will change your life. The movie has a very important moral: "If you become rich, avoid the temptation to feed women to flesh- eating cats."

9 out of 10

http://www.imdb.com/...ews?ref_=tt_urv

 

Now, I know and you know this is made with comedy in mind, but hopefully you are getting my drift on the interpretation piece vs the execution. The standards we have to define and represent the world around us are there as a measurement for us to match things against. If you want to re-define narrative coherence to allow for ME3's ending to be coherent then I would definitely want to see some proof that is not someone paying attention to only the aesthetic and their interpretation of the words.

 

I know you really do want ME3 to be coherent, but it is not by the conventions that have been established. If you want to redefine those conventions I say go for it, but you need to do the research and heavy lifting to do so. Please read through both of my posts in the Harbinger thread and make sure to read through each citation especially as my words are really just a high level representation of the citations. Some are books - yes, but books are so much fun to read

[Midnight Bliss]

For me the only real unforgivable offense related to the ending was that the Catalyst scene simply didn't fit with the emotional themes presented in the ending, or even the entire game, or hell, arguably the entire franchise. - The Catalyst scene in it's entirety is cold, unemotional and purely intellectual. So much so that it asks it's viewer to literally become aware of, contemplate, and ultimately decide the application of the Crucible's next move which is going to have Galaxy wide consequences all in a couple minutes. ME3 is a primarily emotional story, with themes such as hope, love, friendship, finding one's humanity and what truly defines being a person. These are all things I felt strongly throughout each step of the story, most of all in the ending, which was sad, hopeless and very dark even with the requirements for the "best" War Assets score having been fulfilled. I get to see Shep's home world, my world, presented as nothing short of a apocalyptic wasteland, with death everywhere and everyone virtually out of hope and out of time. I play through the stage and watch heartbreaking goodbyes between Shep and her friends, a gust twisting scene with Kaidan, whom she loves where both are practically in tears and desperate not to lose each other again, and think to myself "is this actually happening? I heard the ending was bad, but this is so sad and emotional and not bad at all". I then continue through the second part up to what appears to be a heroic, final charge to reach the Citadel and watch Shep save her boyfriend, her friends and the Galaxy to boot but am surprised when a massive beam of destruction rains down, killing almost everyone in the area and see another scene with Kaidan which manages to be even more gut-rending than the first, watch Shep again try to reach the portal, only for her to end up be near dead with her Hard Suit seared in her flesh and barely clinging to life only to suffer ANOTHER emotional snap kick to the dick when she finally enters the Citadel and finds it transformed into a hellish nightmare looking like it came out of Hellraiser or Event Horizon. I watch, as she reaches the control center and has a powerful, emotionally significant and relevant showdown with her shadow self Illusive Man and where she's forced to gun down her pseudo father, barely activate the Crucible and finally the scene with her and Anderson which was probably most emotionally powerful of the entire franchise, only to have my tear factory and emotional rollercoaster slammed to a utter, slamming halt by her being magically lifted through the ceiling into a weird room that looks like a teleportation hub in an MMO complete with weird Sci Fi UFO music that sounds nothing like the other audio from any other part of the ending. Then, just when I think things can't get any stranger, some annoying, persnickety, bratty ghost child appears and starts talking about machines vs organics, ultimate solutions for the galaxy, and being inexplicably changed forever by the presence of the Crucible whose author's names he can't remember and expecting Shep to help him figure it all not. And just like that all the emotion the entire game has built up, the tidal wave of sad the ending has built up, is utterly disrupted by a awkward, sterile and emotionally lobotomized conversation with essentially a filler character who seemingly exists only to "explain" The Reapers and some weird, out of story pick a door style ending related choice to me. Even Shepard, who not just a moment ago was sad over her lost mentor and probably nearing death from wounds obtained reaching the Citadel is now standing upright and speaking in a calm and unemotional way that's completely unlike every other instance of her talking in the entire ending. Stranger still, she doesn't even seem to have a problem digesting the mental barf of pointless revelations this crazy AI child is throwing her way, or the prospect that her ultimate goal she's been fighting for three installments of the franchise to realize apparently might not actually be the goal she should be fighting for, but instead might be the goal of her crazy, indoctrinated nemesis or some completely unheard of, misplaced sounding mishegoss about everything in the Galaxy becoming a Cyborg. Then, just when I wonder if I'm hallucinating or really did fall down the virtual rabbit hole it's all over, the creepy space brat and his price is right style final solution is never again mentioned at any point in the ending, and everything goes back to being sad, feeling important and plays out, basically, how I imagined it was going to after the the last moments with Anderson.

 

Obviously, I know everything isn't for everybody, and I stand by my previous comment that the ending wasn't THAT bad, especially not compared to most Sci Fi series endings. But the Catalyst conversation was the most weird, pointless, irrelevant, dross bunch of nothing I think I've ever seen, and if nothing else is the ultimate example of developers needing to trust in the fact they made an emotional story that mattered to it's fans, made characters who you could be invested in and root for, and that their story about a talented but mostly ordinary woman who never lost her hope no matter how bad things got, fought like hell with the people she loved and ended up somehow beating the odds one last time and saving life as they knew it was enough. That it mattered enough, that it didn't need fake attempts to be deep and philosophical, that it didn't need contrived, cliché mary chosen one implications with Shep that never previously existed anywhere and actually sort of defeat the point of what makes her awesome, that it didn't to convince me to somehow care more than I already did, because the truth is I already cared more than I cared in any other game/tv show/movie I've seen to date.

 

Sometimes it's best to trust in what you've made to speak and succeed for itself, and sometimes simple and sweet is actually better. Leave the pointless information, silly gimmicks and pretentious revelations to other inferior series who tryhard like that because they have to, and let the ending be about stopping the reapers, what became of Shep, the characters everyone came to care about so much, and the Galaxy they all worked so hard to save, like it deserves. I really wish there was a way to just hack everybody's computer and install MEHEM or JAM as a mandatory prerequisite for playing ME3 so the conversations about the ending can be about it's other flaws, or strengths, or anything, whatever.

 

 

TLDR; I think the ending was decent, but the Catalyst scene in it's eternity is pointless and completely out of emotion and off topic with the rest of the ending and ultimately the rest of the story, and that JAM or MEHEM should be a required install before playing ME3.

[Abedsbrother]

Yeah and that phrase "context to the catalyst" is as empty, vague, and vapid as every defense of the ending. What value was that context? So what if I met the organics that made them and why? How does that change the ending? How does that influence your view of the catalyst or decision in the end?

If you've played the game, you know what the Leviathan DLC does, and the context to the Catalyst it provides. Catalyst origin, reason for creation, and a more detailed history of its operation, beginning with the destruction of the Leviathans. Basically, BioWare created a race that has "all the answers." Does it change the ending? No. But it changes the perception of the ending (for me, anyway). The Catalyst goes from being a (pseudo) mysterious being to just another AI that is functioning with murderous intent, like so many others in the Mass Effect series: the AI in the console in ME1, the AI that killed an entire station's crew (ME2 MSV Corsica plotline, forget the exact mission), or even EDI (though retconning EDI as the Rogue VI from ME1 seems like BioWare trying too hard to make everything neat and tidy). What had been an outrageous shoe-horn of a new figure into the ME3 ending is instead given a place in the world beyond just being a super "being who explains the wonders of the universe to Shepard" (quote from the leaked script). You sound like you wanted / expected / wished the Leviathan DLC to be more than just a dialogue-driven information dump; I think it adds a measure of understanding and foreshadowing to the ending, making the ending feel like an actual ending, instead of - well, the original ending that we had.

 

My choice during the ending is influenced by some research I've done on trans-humanism. The Catalyst and his Synthesis can go to hell.

 

Because if the Soviet Union was about anything, it was the free exchange of opinions, right?

Heh. You jest, of course. A large part of living in the Soviet Union was about professing and sharing the same collective opinion as was handed down by the political bureaus responsible for the topic in question. Because individualism was considered obsolete.

 

Ok, so can you provide anything to disprove or disqualify the opening of This is not a pipe or is your response just "nuh-uh!"? I don't know that the article was proof, but is certainly one more thing on the mountain of evidence and a well written piece.

"I don't know that the article was proof" but "one more thing on the mountain of evidence" 

 

Contradictory. Does the article constitute proof in your opinion or not? If not (as you seem to indicate here), then it is not evidence either, as I expressed previously. Well, it is evidence of outrage. Again, as I said previously, it is an interesting discussion of the ending, but not proof of anything other than the writer's professed disgust / anger / resignation about the endings.

 

As to the bolded statement, that's not what you said at all. You said that throwing those "isms" in there made it art. That was your claim, not pointing out that some people do that. I completely agree with this different statement.

It was a satiristic statement. Those who know me (who have read the forum) understood that right away. I should have been clearer in my post. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

[Iakus]

If you've played the game, you know what the Leviathan DLC does, and the context to the Catalyst it provides. Catalyst origin, reason for creation, and a more detailed history of its operation, beginning with the destruction of the Leviathans. Basically, BioWare created a race that has "all the answers." Does it change the ending? No. But it changes the perception of the ending (for me, anyway). The Catalyst goes from being a (pseudo) mysterious being to just another AI that is functioning with murderous intent, like so many others in the Mass Effect series: the AI in the console in ME1, the AI that killed an entire station's crew (ME2 MSV Corsica plotline, forget the exact mission), or even EDI (though retconning EDI as the Rogue VI from ME1 seems like BioWare trying too hard to make everything neat and tidy). What had been an outrageous shoe-horn of a new figure into the ME3 ending is instead given a place in the world beyond just being a super "being who explains the wonders of the universe to Shepard" (quote from the leaked script). You sound like you wanted / expected / wished the Leviathan DLC to be more than just a dialogue-driven information dump; I think it adds a measure of understanding and foreshadowing to the ending, making the ending feel like an actual ending, instead of - well, the original ending that we had.

 

My choice during the ending is influenced by some research I've done on trans-humanism. The Catalyst and his Synthesis can go to hell.

The Leviathans were yet another way to justify Bioware's terribad ending by providing retroactive foreshadowing rather than actually listen to the negative feedback.

 

At the low, low price of $10.