Dragon Age Origins Lead Designer speaks out against ME3 Ending

[ARCTIC_EAGLE]

I'll toss this in, though it may have been posted before
CNN reports on ME3 ending:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIq0ehGsdKE
MSNBC reports on ME3 ending: http://www.ingame.msnbc.msn.com/technology/ingame/some-mass-effect-3-players-demand-happier-ending-411424

 

[Zen Toombs]

*sigh* I really wish the people going "We want a happy ending" would stop helping.

The problem with ME3 endings doesn't seem to be that they're sad, but that they're a deus ex machina pulled out of someone's ass, invalidating the player's choices and being ridden with plot holes.

In shot, it's not the bleakness that's the problem, it's the terrible execution.

^^ This.

While I admit that an ending with sunshine and pie would be great (pie is yummy after all), the issue is not the happiness or sadness of the ending. The issue is that the entire series was based upon choice and consequences, but the series ended in a "press button A, B or C for your ending explosion color".[footnote]Hey, does anyone have a link to that image I'm referencing? Google images failed me![/footnote]

 

[Gennadios]

I don't agree with him at all, actually.
It didn't need a happy ending. It could have ended bleak as hell and worked. Most of Mass Effect 3 had incredibly bleak tone behind it and I loved the game right up to the end. It needed to be more character-based (because this is a character-based series). We care about what happens to Garrus, Liara, and everyone. It didn't need some poorly-implented space magic. And if Shepard needs to sacrifice himself, it doesn't need to be "just because". Knowles is missing the point.

I agree that the main problem with the ending is the massive last minute leap from science fiction to science fantasy, but the guy did point out that he hasn't actually beaten the game.

That aside, I agree with the body of the blog, the competent Bioware leads are slowly leaving and being replaced by people who'd rather make movies.

 

[Hyper-space]

A series can end on a good note and still not follow tropes or cliches, you do realize that right. A "good note" is way to broad to always be a cliche.

Further, he is 100% right. If I sink 50 hours into a videogame about saving the universe, I deserve to be able to save the universe. I can't comment about ME3 ending, I haven't played it, and I've tried to avoid most spoilers, but especially with a trilogy where you have built up posative expectations for several hundred hours of gameplay, to then fail to deliver on those expectations and instead give a negative ending is horrible idea.

Yeah, it's innovative, but so is having only one button and a random action occurs when you hit that button. In an fps. Just because it's innovative, doesn't mean it's good, and cliches become cliches because they deliver what most fans want. I support innovation, but being innovative isn't praise all on it's own, it has to be innovative and still deliver what the fans want.

Why is the power-fantasy so sacred? I feel as if video-gaming is still in its teenage-years, where the main character is almost always some overblown hero whose dick attracts every hot, single female in a twelve mile radius and in the end saves the day. We are only limiting video-games by demanding that it serve only the lowest common denominator, that despite its potential for incredible immersion we only want some cliche power-fantasy.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Why is the power-fantasy so sacred? I feel as if video-gaming is still in its teenage-years, where the main character is almost always some overblown hero whose dick attracts every hot, single female in a twelve mile radius and in the end saves the day. We are only limiting video-games by demanding that it serve only the lowest common denominator, that despite its potential for incredible immersion we only want some cliche power-fantasy.

Mass Effect 3 having a non sequitur ending doesn't make it any less of a power fantasy. It's still about Shepard being speshul and making decisions that effect the galaxy, just in a way that doesn't really follow up on the three games.

Not to mention that the mechanics of Mass Effect are 100% power fantasy. Shepard never comes off as significantly outmatched or in any kind of actual danger during fights (i.e., if you lose, you reload without consequences because the story requires you to win). This is pretty much industry standard partly because whenever the game mechanics portray the protagonist as outmatched [http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5139/5414757290_e93d2ac0cc.jpg] or mortal [http://www.os2ezine.com/v2n6/death.gif], everybody starts complaining about difficulty.

 

[Nimcha]

I pretty much disagree 100%. But that's alright, the points he brings up are completely subjective anyway.

 

[FFHAuthor]

Mass Effect has always been about sacrifice for victory. The first game's easily most memorable and discussed moments were 'Who did you kill on Virmire?' and 'Did you genocide the Rachni'?

Mass Effect 2 started with Shepard pretty much sacrificing herself to save Joker and the Normandy being destroyed. And of course most people lost at least a few crew members on the suicide mission.

Therein lies what seems to be the main difference between the people who enjoy the ending and the people who don't. Fans who enjoyed the ending seem to have experienced sacrifice and loss constantly. Losses on Virmire were the first, but the Suicide mission's losses compound that, and then the deaths in ME3 work neatly into the 'loss, sacrifice and death' mood that has been built up in their game style. 'Scripted' deaths in ME3 can be a part of that, and if you didn't play ME2 well, then they're compounded constantly.

The game is geared for someone who didn't save a lot of people. The endings are all geared towards that. IT's all fine and good, but what about the players who haven't lost people every step of the way? That's the issue, the game is only satisfying and fulfilling for players who have lost. The players who saved their squadmates, worked through problems without making an arbitrary 'this or that' choice, the players who saved Wrex, who made it through the suicide mission without a loss, who only lost characters when it was completely unavoidable (and even then, they died because of their willingness to give everything for a better cause, a noble death in cause of something worthwhile).

It's a tone shift for players who don't 'lose', there's no ending for us. There's no resolution for us. For those of us, we've come to see the game as being one where we can overcome the worst and most maddening conflicts, where we overcame things that people said no-one could overcome, solved problems no-one could solve. That is the problem, there's three endings to chose from, but in essence, it's the Hobson's Choice, you get the same result, no matter what.

You're either dead or in ruins, your crew is lost, the galaxy is decimated, the mass effect relays are gone. At the end, the people you care about, the central aspect of everything that the game has been about, Character Development, Character relationships, is discarded and the central reason for investment is gone, your crew is marooned somewhere (Zorya actually) that you can't reach.

No matter what, the tone of your character and the relationship you have to the characters you've been invested in is the same.

 

[SajuukKhar]

Exactly.

What Mass Effect did in it's ending is like destroying the Force, hyperspace, and the entire rebellion and all galactic civilisation to end the Second Death Star. Or something like that

Which would have been a totally acceptable ending if doing so prevented another death star from being built and destroyed the dark side and allowed for future races to rebuild galactic civilization in the future.

 

[endtherapture]

Exactly.

What Mass Effect did in it's ending is like destroying the Force, hyperspace, and the entire rebellion and all galactic civilisation to end the Second Death Star. Or something like that

Which would have been a totally acceptable ending if doing so prevented another death star from being built and destroyed the dark side.

Leia, Han and Luke would also be stuck in different systems, impossible to see one another again. The remains of the rebellions woul

A series can end on a good note and still not follow tropes or cliches, you do realize that right. A "good note" is way to broad to always be a cliche.

Further, he is 100% right. If I sink 50 hours into a videogame about saving the universe, I deserve to be able to save the universe. I can't comment about ME3 ending, I haven't played it, and I've tried to avoid most spoilers, but especially with a trilogy where you have built up posative expectations for several hundred hours of gameplay, to then fail to deliver on those expectations and instead give a negative ending is horrible idea.

Yeah, it's innovative, but so is having only one button and a random action occurs when you hit that button. In an fps. Just because it's innovative, doesn't mean it's good, and cliches become cliches because they deliver what most fans want. I support innovation, but being innovative isn't praise all on it's own, it has to be innovative and still deliver what the fans want.

Why is the power-fantasy so sacred? I feel as if video-gaming is still in its teenage-years, where the main character is almost always some overblown hero whose dick attracts every hot, single female in a twelve mile radius and in the end saves the day. We are only limiting video-games by demanding that it serve only the lowest common denominator, that despite its potential for incredible immersion we only want some cliche power-fantasy.

Games like KoTOR2 and The Witcher 1 and 2 subvert power fantasy in a great way, because they manage to still be satisfying.

My playthrough of TW2 was a giant disaster, the North ended up fractured, I was greedy and selfish and looked out for only my friends and now the North will probbly fall of Nilfgaard in the next game, but I never EVER felt depressed. I felt uplifted and heroic at the end, because despite it never being possible to save everyone, you could save enough to care about. In ME3 everything you care about is destroyed now matter how hard you try.

You can invert power-fantasy without being completely grimdark and depressing.

 

[somonels]

Perhaps he was the reason I liked Bioware back then, that and their work with the D&D license.

 

[isometry]

Bleak endings are just as cliche as happy endings. There's nothing artistically impressive about a negative ending, they are just as easy to write and understand, and don't necessarily carry any more meaning.

Therein lies what seems to be the main difference between the people who enjoy the ending and the people who don't. Fans who enjoyed the ending seem to have experienced sacrifice and loss constantly. Losses on Virmire were the first, but the Suicide mission's losses compound that, and then the deaths in ME3 work neatly into the 'loss, sacrifice and death' mood that has been built up in their game style. 'Scripted' deaths in ME3 can be a part of that, and if you didn't play ME2 well, then they're compounded constantly.

Another thing to add, is that decisions about who lives or dies in the Normandy soap opera are treated much more fully than decisions about the fate of the galaxy, which are just acknowledged in 1 or 2 scenes before merging together with the same outcome as the other choices.

That's what broke the series for me, it felt like the main plot was a linear action game and the only decisions that matter are related to characters, not the main story.

 

[SajuukKhar]

This is why we cannot have nice things, for we set up these absurd rules for video-games that only serve to permeate clichés and tired tropes, such as the Hollywood-esque notion that a movie (or in this case, Video-games) should only have happy-endings.

On the other hand somebody playing an epic role-playing video-game trilogy is going to *expect* to be the hero and save the universe. That's why they are playing the game. When expectations don't match reality, disappointment is created.

This explains why DA:O was so goddamn stale and bland, OF COURSE WE HAVE TO HAVE AN EVIL DARK FORCE THAT THREATENS TO CONSUME THE LAND AND ONLY THE CHOSEN ONE CAN SAVE US.

Jesus balls, this is the stupidest thing I have ever read, its people like him that are the reason why 90% of all RPGs have derivative-as-shit stories and character archetypes.

I have to agree with this.

Brent Knowles opinion on how games should be is almost as warped as people who think Mass Effect 3 and Skyrim aren't true RPGs because they don't have dicerolls and your ability to hit something isn't governed by your skill.

Using some pre-defined and exceedingly narrow set of rules for anything is silly.

 

[Kahunaburger]

My playthrough of TW2 was a giant disaster, the North ended up fractured, I was greedy and selfish and looked out for only my friends and now the North will probbly fall of Nilfgaard in the next game, but I never EVER felt depressed. I felt uplifted and heroic at the end, because despite it never being possible to save everyone, you could save enough to care about. In ME3 everything you care about is destroyed now matter how hard you try.

You can invert power-fantasy without being completely grimdark and depressing.

Yeah, I like how the Witcher games play with the power-fantasy dynamic. The gameplay still resembles the standard "win or reload" model, and Geralt is pretty explicitly (among other things) a highly effective killing machine. But the games are pretty effective at conveying the message that the ability to be really good at killing stuff isn't actually that useful in effecting change. In other words, Geralt is really good at killing foozles [http://www.giantbomb.com/kill-the-foozle/92-2043/] in a world where the death of foozles is beginning to matter less and less.

 

[endtherapture]

This is why we cannot have nice things, for we set up these absurd rules for video-games that only serve to permeate clichés and tired tropes, such as the Hollywood-esque notion that a movie (or in this case, Video-games) should only have happy-endings.

On the other hand somebody playing an epic role-playing video-game trilogy is going to *expect* to be the hero and save the universe. That's why they are playing the game. When expectations don't match reality, disappointment is created.

This explains why DA:O was so goddamn stale and bland, OF COURSE WE HAVE TO HAVE AN EVIL DARK FORCE THAT THREATENS TO CONSUME THE LAND AND ONLY THE CHOSEN ONE CAN SAVE US.

Jesus balls, this is the stupidest thing I have ever read, its people like him that are the reason why 90% of all RPGs have derivative-as-shit stories and character archetypes.

I have to agree with this.

Brent Knowles opinion on how games should be is almost as warped as people who think Mass Effect 3 and Skyrim aren't true RPGs because they don't have dicerolls and your ability to hit something isn't governed by your skill.

Using some pre-defined and exceedingly narrow set of rules for anything is silly.

Brent has a point and you can use both The Witcher 2 and DA:O to get across this point. In both games you can't save everyone. You're given decisions which means not everyone is going to survive, this is evident in the Dwarf and Elf sections of the game, as well the the Landsmeet and the final battle. You can minimise losses in DA:O. In TW2 it's literally impossible to save everyone, and the ending is always somewhat negative. However in both worst case scenarios for those games, there's still hope, and a somehwhat happy ending. Ferelden is saved, but in ruins (no matter what cost), and Geralt survives with Triss and his other friend, despite the North being in a terrible state and war ineviatable.

In ME it is possible to have a perfect playthrough, losing only the Virmire Casualty, however you still get this horrible bleak ending even if you did everything right. It's completely at odds with everything leading up to it if you had a perfect playthrough.

My playthrough of TW2 was a giant disaster, the North ended up fractured, I was greedy and selfish and looked out for only my friends and now the North will probbly fall of Nilfgaard in the next game, but I never EVER felt depressed. I felt uplifted and heroic at the end, because despite it never being possible to save everyone, you could save enough to care about. In ME3 everything you care about is destroyed now matter how hard you try.

You can invert power-fantasy without being completely grimdark and depressing.

Yeah, I like how the Witcher games play with the power-fantasy dynamic. The gameplay still resembles the standard "win or reload" model, and Geralt is pretty explicitly (among other things) a highly effective killing machine. But the games are pretty effective at conveying the message that the ability to be really good at killing stuff isn't actually that useful in effecting change. In other words, Geralt is really good at killing foozles [http://www.giantbomb.com/kill-the-foozle/92-2043/] in a world where the death of foozles is beginning to matter less and less.

The Witcher 2 is brilliant when you really start to look into it and see the subtext and characters journey. Geralt is a monster slayer in a world where monster slayers are a dying breed, and no matter what your decisions and motives are, he HAS to get involved in politics to survive, even if it's not his choice.

And it still has a uplifting ending despite the hopelessness of it all.

 

[Hyper-space]

Games like KoTOR2 and The Witcher 1 and 2 subvert power fantasy in a great way, because they manage to still be satisfying.

My playthrough of TW2 was a giant disaster, the North ended up fractured, I was greedy and selfish and looked out for only my friends and now the North will probbly fall of Nilfgaard in the next game, but I never EVER felt depressed. I felt uplifted and heroic at the end, because despite it never being possible to save everyone, you could save enough to care about. In ME3 everything you care about is destroyed now matter how hard you try.

You can invert power-fantasy without being completely grimdark and depressing.

Wat.

Well, yeah if you didn't get enough war assets then Earth (along with your crew) is fucked. However, in my playthrough my crew was alive and earth survived.

 

[endtherapture]

Games like KoTOR2 and The Witcher 1 and 2 subvert power fantasy in a great way, because they manage to still be satisfying.

My playthrough of TW2 was a giant disaster, the North ended up fractured, I was greedy and selfish and looked out for only my friends and now the North will probbly fall of Nilfgaard in the next game, but I never EVER felt depressed. I felt uplifted and heroic at the end, because despite it never being possible to save everyone, you could save enough to care about. In ME3 everything you care about is destroyed now matter how hard you try.

You can invert power-fantasy without being completely grimdark and depressing.

Wat.

Well, yeah if you didn't get enough war assets then Earth (along with your crew) is fucked. However, in my playthrough my crew was alive and earth survived.

Earth survived in my playthrough but was blackened and charred beyond all recognition. Galactic society is destroyed and the galactic armada is stuck on Earth, probably unable to grow any food because of the apocalyptic state of the planet. The Geth are supposedly dead, the Quarians will never see home. Krogans will probably take over and kill the Humans. Turians are going to starve cos they can't eat their special food. Humanity will probably be oppressed by the Krogans.

My crew ABANDONED ME to be stuck on some random jungle planet where Garrus might die because of the food, the Normandy will eventually run out of power. There will be inbreeding even if everyone survives, but they might all have hollow bones like Joker due to the inbreeding. It's depressing, not uplifting.

And to top it all off, it's revealed to just be A FUCKING STORY TOLD TO AN OLD GUY TO A CHILD FROM A PICTURE THEY NICKED OFF GOOGLE IMAGES, and then it tells me to buy DLC.

Fucking joke.

 

[SajuukKhar]

Brent has a point and you can use both The Witcher 2 and DA:O to get across this point. In both games you can't save everyone. You're given decisions which means not everyone is going to survive, this is evident in the Dwarf and Elf sections of the game, as well the the Landsmeet and the final battle. You can minimise losses in DA:O. In TW2 it's literally impossible to save everyone, and the ending is always somewhat negative. However in both worst case scenarios for those games, there's still hope, and a somehwhat happy ending. Ferelden is saved, but in ruins (no matter what cost), and Geralt survives with Triss and his other friend, despite the North being in a terrible state and war ineviatable.

In ME it is possible to have a perfect playthrough, losing only the Virmire Casualty, however you still get this horrible bleak ending even if you did everything right. It's completely at odds with everything leading up to it if you had a perfect playthrough.

Yes because an ending that tells you "you have just destroyed a race of evil machines hell bent on genocide and have given the races of the galaxy the chance to live and rebuild civilization under their own power instead of that of said evil race" is a bleak ending?

I swear people views of what constitutes happy are so one dimensional now a days its scary.

Its no wonder that the "everything has to have a Disney ending or else its "depressing" view-point has such a grip with that kind of thinking being perpetuated.

 

[endtherapture]

Brent has a point and you can use both The Witcher 2 and DA:O to get across this point. In both games you can't save everyone. You're given decisions which means not everyone is going to survive, this is evident in the Dwarf and Elf sections of the game, as well the the Landsmeet and the final battle. You can minimise losses in DA:O. In TW2 it's literally impossible to save everyone, and the ending is always somewhat negative. However in both worst case scenarios for those games, there's still hope, and a somehwhat happy ending. Ferelden is saved, but in ruins (no matter what cost), and Geralt survives with Triss and his other friend, despite the North being in a terrible state and war ineviatable.

In ME it is possible to have a perfect playthrough, losing only the Virmire Casualty, however you still get this horrible bleak ending even if you did everything right. It's completely at odds with everything leading up to it if you had a perfect playthrough.

Yes because an ending that tells you "you have just destroyed a race of evil machines hell bent on genocide and have given the races of the galaxy the chance to live and rebuild civilization under their own power instead of that of said evil race" is a bleak ending?

I swear people views of what constitutes happy are so one dimensional now a days its scary.

Its no wonder that the "everything has to have a Disney ending or else its "depressing" view-point has such a grip with that kind of thinking being perpetuated.

Nah it's more like "you have just destroyed a race of evil machines hell bent on genocide and have condemned the combined races of the galaxy to civil war, cannibalism, death, and a technological dark age".

 

[SajuukKhar]

Nah it's more like "you have just destroyed a race of evil machines hell bent on genocide and have condemned the combined races of the galaxy to civil war, cannibalism, death, and a technological dark age".

Except nothing at all in the game even suggest that they would go into a civil war/cannibalism. that is just something fans made up to make the game seem more bleaker then it is to hate on Bioware some more.

Also the only technology that would be destroyed is Reaper based technology, and the civilizations of the galaxy were fare more advanced then we were before they found the Mass-relays. So if having a slightly lowered technological bar, which by comparison is better then us, for a short time while they rebuild is so bad then the world as-is must be unlivable.