Errrrr right, except book or movie ticket cost you about 10 bucks and a game cost you around $50. A bit of a difference wouldn't you think? And, for the final time, it's not "Fix IT so I Like It" but "Fix it because it's Broken".
Errrrr right, except book or movie ticket cost you about 10 bucks and a game cost you around $50. A bit of a difference wouldn't you think? And, for the final time, it's not "Fix IT so I Like It" but "Fix it because it's Broken".
Not really, in the end it's all about "did I get the satisfaction expected from money spend". If i didn't, I'm understandably pissed, but unless I got a satisfaction guaranteed promise, there is nothing I can do but use this experience as a lesson for future behavior. It's my perception after all, someone else might got exactly the opposite experience.
And, for the final time, who defines if "it's broken"? (is it not one's perception ?). At least one person in this discussion does not find it "broken". Is that perception "wrong" or is it "right"?
The whole notion of putting words into other people's mouths is not only silly; its offensive. The whole notion of needing to win an argument, any argument, so badly that you argue with statements no one has even made is more than a bit creepy.
The whole notion of putting words into other people's mouths is not only silly; its offensive. The whole notion of needing to win an argument, any argument, so badly that you argue with statements no one has even made is more than a bit creepy.
I'm really not trying to win anything, or to offend anyone. Just trying to pass some insomnia time by communicating my perception on an issue that caught my fancy.
I didn't realize that "bit silly" was such a strong negative comment. That's just my reaction to people's demand of "fixing" things (taking Back Control, Retake Mass Effect etc) not necessarily in this thread.
Probably best to get to sleep, this is heating up beyond my wish or intention.
Well honestly then, have you finished the game? If so, what specifically did you not like about the ending? If not, then your opinion (which you may still be entitled to) has very little validity.
The general sense I get with the gripes about the ending is that there was no "best case scenario" ending where if you make the "right" decisions everyone will live happily every after (strange people expected this considering the tagline before it's release was something like "this time not everyone will survive"). A smaller subsect seems to complain that it did not provide enough closure. At least the second has some degree of validity, but in most places the average user scores for Gears of War are higher than Mass Effect 3 — simply because of ME3's ending! I guess people were plenty satisfied with how Gears of War ended after their couple hours of game time…
Interestingly, it looks like the place where users have actually scored the game the highest is on IMDB (overall and in comparison to other titles)…primarily a movie website. I wonder if this has to do with the way film buffs view a story compared to the way the average gamer does.
@Caidh - as I stated, the ending made sense how I interpreted it, so it clearly wasn't inconsistent with the series and full of plot holes to everyone. As I stated previously, I thought it made sense with a major theme permeating throughout all three games.
@Maylander - I agree, particularly with the last part of your statement.
Well honestly then, have you finished the game? If so, what specifically did you not like about the ending? If not, then your opinion (which you may still be entitled to) has very little validity.
I find it disturbing that you think that anyone with a problem with the ending did not finish the game. Honestly, did you see so little wrong with it that you need to jump to this sort of assumption?
For me, nothing made sense about ME3's ending from the perspective of previously established lore and story (although this can be said of most of the main story arc throughout the trilogy, the end is where it hits hardest). In other words, it lacked narrative cohesion. It introduced a deus ex machina NPC in the last five minutes. Because of the plot holes, retconning etc you can't intelligently debate about what happens after your "custom" red/green/blue explosion, because one minute relays are indestructible, the next they can be blown up by a simple collision with an asteroid. One minute destroying a relay = destruction of a system, the next it is *tweeted* that what you saw in ME3 was not the "bad" kind of explosion but more of a "power down" of the relay (ie new lore via tweet and don't believe your eyes in the cutscene). When essential plot (eg did my paragon just do worse than the Reapers ever could?) needs to be tweeted to be clear, you know you have a problem. It also lacks closure - where did the companions you spent the last 200 hours with go? Did they live or die? These open-ended issues would only be half bad if they were not accompanied by an invitation to buy DLC seven seconds later.
To follow up on some ideas about themes, closure, and poor endings. There will be some spoilers (think thats to be expected in a thread about the endings being explained) but will try to tag the biggest ones.
I have seen many arguements, often sarcastic, about books and movies getting endings changed. With few exceptions books/movies do not provide interaction. The consumer experiences what ever story is being told without any option to interact, change, or influence what is happening. Some games, the ME series in particular, made a contract with their customers, per advertisement, that the player has the ability to interact with the game. They will be able to shape the story and Shephard with their choices. They can influence and change their companions, make decisions that can affect key plots, and have the ability to impact the endings.
Of course this is all done with-in the overall story and atmosphere that the company dictates. However there is a balance that must be managed between the main story and the fact that they have contracted with the players who purchase the game that they will be able to interact and help shape the story and characters in it. This is a far cry from a book or movie.
While the company MUST have the right to follow their overall artistic goals they must also accept the right of the customer to have some ability to interact and change the story. Their is also the underlying unwritten expectation that the company will create a story in a somewhat responsible, logical and coherent manner. In the case of the endings of ME3 this promise (both the direct and indirect) were broken.
Anyone who wants to can find any number of examples of this or inconsistentcies with many of the themes that thread themselves throughout the series (spirituality and hope, overcoming adversity in the face of all odds, embracing diversity and working together, getting the job done no matter the cost, struggle of organic and synthetics, technical singularity, the hero's jounrey, etc.) This post will be long enough without me going into detail about every theme and how it *could* be seen as broken - so much of this is opinion after all. If someone wants to discuss a key example feel free.
Then there is the lack of closure that is so important to games with so much emotional investment. Clearly something Casey Hudson didn't feel was important:
"But then me and Casey talked and decided, let's keep the conversation 'High level' - give you the details that you need to know, but don't get into the stuff that you don't need to know. Like, 'How long have [the Reapers] been reaping?' You don't need to know the answers to the Mass Effect universe. So we intentionally left those out." and "One night [Mac] Walters scribbled down some thought on various ways the game could end," Hudson shared, "with the line, 'Lots of speculation for everyone,' at the bottom of the page.
In the end the company could have easily kept to some artistic vision of a dark and bittersweet ending, as their canon (as all games tend to have a canon version regardless of how much C&C people are given or how many endings there are) while also providing more options to people and taking into account some of the choices made, the paragon/neutral/renegade aspects of the players character, and kept things fairly coherent.
Just some very simple and quick ideas, that could HAVE been done in addition to the "canon" bittersweet endings - to give people the option to choose. There is no logical reason to, at this particular juncture, to remove that option - an option provided to consumers through the series. You can still keep an overall story idea while also doing what you did through out the entire series - choice between endings. You can still provide a dark and gritty ending while giving some closure and logical consistency.
• Going to have a god-child? Well have it show up a bit more often, even if cryptic, besides the one planet lore entry in ME1. It could have been handled a whole lot better by carefully providing some subtle hints through the series.
• Don't want civilization to continue with the mass relays? well have them disenergrate or perhaps start to fail and decay over a week or two - enough time for fleets to get home. [to clarify this would be an alternative, more positive twist, on the existing explosion ending - which could have remained as well]
• Give some closure. Want shephard to die? Well any of the endings could have had that option with more closure. For example in the destroy option instead of shephard in the rubble have him being held by his lover/BFF as he slowly dies in their arms. Or perhaps in the control/synthetic option have the companion ask to go with Shephard and let shephard refuse or accept that offer ... i.e. in the Synthetic version Liaria/Garrus/Kaiden could have asked Shephard to merge with him in the catalyst - becoming the new evolutionary step. Shep could have said "Yes" or "No - it would not be right for you make this sacrafice. Return to tell people what happened and help rebuild", etc.
The point is that the endings could have been done a lot better, with closure and logic, while still meeting artistic needs and goals within the agreement made with the consumers of their product.
One last example to do with Thane. Actual ending with this character:
I know some folks loved Thane and probably really liked the closure and ending you got with him at the hospital. You get to be there as he dies, with his son that you helped rescue (as one option). As he dies you get to talk with him and then say a prayer with his son. You close his eyes as he passes away peacefully and get the very deep and warm feeling that the prayer was actually meant for you. I was very touched. Yet his death was okay as I had closure.
Lets NOW compare that to a hypothetical scenario more typical of the endings provided in ME3:
You are at the ship and you get an email from Dr. Michael (or whatever her name was). "Shephard I believe you had a Drell friend under our care. Think his name was Thane or something. There was an attack on the hospital and an explosion. We believe he died in that explosion as we can't find the body ... but someone thought they saw a mangled Drell body being carried away. Anyhow just thought you might want to know as he had asked us to send you a special message ... but that was also destroyed so this email will have to do.."
So which ending would you prefer? One with good closure or one without? Both are sad and bittersweet and still get the overall story content across but done in a much better fashion.
My main point here is that this game, in particular, is a different medium that should allow for options in guiding the end. There does not have to be a happy ending but there should be more variety in the options for people and more closure. There are logical inconsistencies in the game, broken themes abound (even if some are not - for example I agree the spiritual and "get the job done at all cost" themes remain vaguely consistent), and the ending was rushed and poorly done.
I have yet to see a solid arguement, capabale of persuading my opinon, that indicates the ending was well done and consistent. It is a shame that they followed the Hero's journey so well through the entire series right up until the last 5-10 minutes of the game.
All that being said do NOT change the ending. Its done. I am merely enjoying some forum posting and addressing some logical fallicies I see going around.
I completely agree with wofgrimdark. Well said sir.
I had a blast playing ME3 and there were many truly great moments in the game and right up until the end I was really looking forward to playing it again with my Renegade Shepard … and then I experienced the ending and I was utterly drained of any need/desire to play any of the ME games again.
I was expecting a sad/bittersweet ending, I mean you can't play ME3 and witness all the destruction the Reapers are causing all over the galaxy and expect a happy ending. But I was not expecting the illogical and sloppy piece of dredge that I got … but wolfgrimdark already mentioned many of the points so I won't repeat them here.
All I can say here is that as far as I know my Paragon Shepard, who united the galaxy, brokered a truce between bitter enemies, helped cure a doomed species and help facilitate the only known weapon against the Reapers … consciously chose to inflict even greater harm on the galaxy than the Reapers would have done if left to finish wiping out most organic life … and I'm pretty certain that that is NOT what the developers had in mind. So I'll be happy if they can "fix" the ending so that we don't have to make up our own little "what really happened was this" ending in order to cover all the holes in inconsistencies.
Talking about "god-child"... he/she is more like a idiot-savant than a god-child. His/her explanation for creation of Reapers is just downright stupid!
I find it disturbing that you think that anyone with a problem with the ending did not finish the game. Honestly, did you see so little wrong with it that you need to jump to this sort of assumption?
I'm not sure where you get that I assumed anything. I simply asked. Not sure why that would "disturb" you either. The response to me that I was responding to said that they are entitled to an opinion. It's true that they certainly are, but this is an open forum that exists to have a discussion about the Mass Effect 3 ending. The reason I asked is because I wasn't actually provided any information about what specifically was wrong with it. And what I stated is also true — if you have not experienced it, then your opinion is less valuable to this discussion.
In response to the second part of your statement, please see my earlier posts. Yes
the Catalyst was a deus ex machina
, but so what? These types of plot contrivances exist in a great variety of classic stories (whether it be film or literature), including the vast majority of works created by Bill Shakespeare. And as I have stated, it certainly didn't seem to come out of nowhere to me. It was something that I almost expected, since it was related to, from my perspective, a consistent theme existing in all three games.
As for closure…the question you asked about what happens to your companions depends on how you interpret it. Oh, and by the way, nobody has asked you to purchase more DLC to find out what happens to them yet — unless or until that happens, you have nothing to gripe about there (and you were saying how disturbed you were by my presumed assumptions!).
@ Wolfgrimdark
Another well-thought out post. I disagree that through advertising Bioware created a contract with the end users meaning that every decision made throughout the course of the game would impact the way the story ended in a different way. Not only is that an unreasonable expectation of the consumer (considering nothing really even remotely close to that has ever been created), but to me it is like saying that if I buy Axe body spray that I am guaranteed to have orgies with dozens of supermodels at a time.
Otherwise, I agree with almost everything you said that they could have done. And often times I see a movie or play a game and think I could have provided better direction. But I am less concerned with the endings they could have come up with or things they could have done differently than I am with what they chose to do. For me, the question as to why the reapers existed to begin with opened the door for what other people apparently would have like to see more often throughout the series to make it more "cohesive":
such as regular appearances by the god-child or the voice of the god entity speaking to Shepard, etc.
Otherwise, I still think it was better than the ending to most games out there. The fact that we are talking about it now at least demonstrates there was something interesting about it (for others, something mysterious, or perhaps incomprehensible). There was a lot open to interpretation, and I think the people that have had a problem with the ending either were unable to interpret the information in a way that made sense (note: I am not saying this means those people are unintelligent) or they interpreted it in a way that they did not like. For me, it worked. But I am more than willing to defend what I thought was good about it against those that thought it was complete drivel — people are trashing the entire game, the series, and the developers because of this!
I agree that there were many parts of ME3 that were good. For example, I particularly liked how they fleshed out EDI.
As to whether ppl have overreacted to the ending, it must be remembered that ME3 is a story based game. The ending is a significant part of the story. Just as a well conceived and well written ending can add meaning and value to the story as a whole, so can a poorly conceived and poorly written ending undercut the story as a whole. That's just the way it is. Added to that, this ending is the ending to an entire trilogy, and impacts all three games.
In the case of a non-story based game, the ending wouldn't necessarily be so important. But in the context of a game that emphasizes and focuses on story, fallout from a poor ending is bound to contaminate the whole thing.
IMO people have identified numerous objective and meaningful criteria to articulate the sub-par nature of ME3's ending. These criteria are well understood and generally accepted as important factors for evaluation of literary and multimedia works. This isn't to say there is anything wrong with enjoyment or appreciation of the ending. It is to say, however, that there is more than adequate basis for disappointment with ME3's ending, and for an objective evaluation of the ending as "poor".
No arguments from me about anything you just said. I think we are getting a little side-tracked discussing our motives behind defending/attacking the ending rather than spending time actually debating what was missing, what was bad, and what was good about the ending.
My only worry about Bioware "fleshing out" the ending is that they will turn the meaning into something other than how I interpreted it. I was satisfied with what I took away from the ending and if they change it to mean something different, I might end up pissed off about it, just like a lot of you are now! The biggest issue is that they are succumbing to pressure from the public, which means the ending (which as we have learned was intended to be open to interpretation) may be fleshed out in the most popular way. Currently the most popular interpretation to the ending is the "indoctrination" theory, and if they decide to flesh it out that way (because it is popular), some fans may be pleased, others still will not, and those that interpreted it the way I did will end up pissed as well.
My only worry about Bioware "fleshing out" the ending is that they will turn the meaning into something other than how I interpreted it. I was satisfied with what I took away from the ending and if they change it to mean something different, I might end up pissed off about it, just like a lot of you are now!
But I can see there going to please others and make others rage at the new content. Seems no one will win. Just another damned if you do, damned if you don't situations.
My only worry about Bioware "fleshing out" the ending is that they will turn the meaning into something other than how I interpreted it. I was satisfied with what I took away from the ending and if they change it to mean something different, I might end up pissed off about it, just like a lot of you are now!
We probably all should just take a page out of the old Russian book, which states something to the effect, "Vodka fixes many things." (Pro tip: remember to switch the game to casual mode at a point when you still remember to remember).
I'm not sure where you get that I assumed anything. I simply asked. Not sure why that would "disturb" you either. The reason I asked is because I wasn't actually provided any information about what specifically was wrong with it.
so what? These types of plot contrivances exist in a great variety of classic stories (whether it be film or literature), including the vast majority of works created by Bill Shakespeare. And as I have stated, it certainly didn't seem to come out of nowhere to me.
As for closure…the question you asked about what happens to your companions depends on how you interpret it. Oh, and by the way, nobody has asked you to purchase more DLC to find out what happens to them yet — unless or until that happens, you have nothing to gripe about there (and you were saying how disturbed you were by my presumed assumptions!).
I was "disturbed" because of the implicit insinuation of the question (that someone would be irresponsible enough to dislike something they have only second hand information on). In the same way as you might be "disturbed" by the question "What! you liked the endings? Are you under 12?". Innocent question, unpleasant sub-text.
Plot contrivances are possibly acceptable to the human brain if they result in a "good thing". OTOH if the protagonist effectively fails (massively and ultimately) due to a plot contrivance, this is more problematic. If you read a story and suddenly the antagonist is suddenly killed by (say) a flying elephant, and the world lives happily ever after - this might work. If the protagonist is killed in the same way, and the villain burns the world, then people start asking about why elephants fly, why the hero was unable to duck, why were flying elephants introduced in the last minute of the story etc.
If ME3 wanted a hardcore arty sad ending (which is odd for soft sci-fi space opera with almost no deep themes like KOTOR2 or Star Trek), then it should have built up to it correctly and followed the lore. But making it all depressing, and breaking the rules (lore, established story, known facts) to achieve that, results in audience rage.
Besides, while plot holes and inconsistencies might be forgivable in a first or second part of a trilogy (because they can be filled later) there is no excuse to have them in a supposed grand finale.
And Ross, ME3 is (except for the last 10 minutes or so) a good game. But it only goes to underline how botched the ending is.
A very crude and disgusting example would be watching a pair of master "pastry chefs" (not sure about the actual title but the ones who specialize in making huge wedding cakes) creating a really tasty looking layered cake.
Layer upon layer is just absolutely scrumptious and all they way through you've been drooling so when they are finally at the last layer your shirt is all wet … and then instead of juice cherry on top they put a tiny dog shit.
Now, the wet shirt and the saliva on your chin is proof that you DID enjoy the experience up until the very last moment but after having witnessed the placement of the dog shit on top I'm fairly certain that you'll have lost your appetite and that you'll decline tasting the finished cake. 99% of the cake is still a delight to eat but because you've witness the defilement of the cake by the dog shit the entire cake has been spoiled for you. You can't "unsee" what you've seen.
Or at least that is pretty much how I feel at the moment.
Seems like good news to me.
If they´ll let the other writers in on it (well, ideally the two guys who conceived the current iteration in an echo chamber won´t have much further say in the matter), there would be a fairly good chance that at least some of the numerous issues will go away, or won´t be as glaring.
Hopefully they´ll manage to deliver something at least resembling a worthy end of the trilogy, but even meh ending would be already a significant improvement .
