Dragon Age Origins Lead Designer speaks out against ME3 Ending

[adrian_exec]

ME3 doesn't need to have a happy ending, it needs CLOSURE!! That's my main problem .. no closure and no explanations since it doesn't make any sense! If the Relays were destroyed then where did the fleet of aliens ships go? Where did my love interest and companions do after the battle? Did Garrus became a drunk at the loss of his best friend? WHAT HAPPENED?!


Well anyway BioWare will pay for this! We deserved better then this!

 

[Hyper-space]

Opinions

You didn't like the ending on a subjective level, but that has hardly anything to with the ending somehow being "invalid" (as some people like to put it) or inappropriate. All of the sudden there are all these weird, arbitrary rules that somehow all story-writers need to abide (in this case: A game that gives the impression of being yet another standard Bioware RPG subverts your expectation of a formulaic ending).

There was also closure. I got told what each of my companions were doing and how the decisions I've made played out. I was expected that from ME3.

...And this is what I am talking about. All of the sudden every customer in the world is expected an ending that caters to their preconceived preferences for what they PERSONALLY consider "satisfying".

I'm not opposed to twist endings or swerves or such WHEN IT MAKES FOR A GOOD STORY.

"I'm only willing to allow experimentation when it works"

Spoiler: Gee, wonder how that would work out if everyone followed that logic

Nothing would ever change because all experimentation would be looked down upon

It has everything to do with OPINIONS

That's great, because none of the choices you have ever made in the Mass Effect series has involved grey morality and unforeseen consequences?

The only thematic changes in the ending of ME3 was that it didn't follow the standard Bioware formula (bad, neutral and good ending, small exposition of what happens to the other companions).

Really, that's it, everyone can have their opinion on whether or not they thought the endings were good. But, it doesn't change the fact that the only supposed crime of the endings was that it changed up the formula and gave us an ending with room for interpretation.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Really, that's it, everyone can have their opinion on whether or not they thought the endings were good. But, it doesn't change the fact that the only supposed crime of the endings was that it changed up the formula and gave us an ending with room for interpretation.

Oh, that's the only "supposed crime", eh?

Good to see you've been paying attention.

I'll leave this here.

http://pixelatedgeek.com/2012/03/mass-effect-iii-snatching-defeat-from-the-jaws-of-victory/

One of many, many reviews detailing the many, many problems with the ending. None of which being that it "left things open for interpretation".

 

[Merrick_HLC]

I'm not opposed to twist endings or swerves or such WHEN IT MAKES FOR A GOOD STORY.

"I'm only willing to allow experimentation when it works"

Spoiler: Gee, wonder how that would work out if everyone followed that logic

Nothing would ever change because all experimentation would be looked down upon

Except that's not remotely the same thing.

See the difference between a twist that works and twist that doesn't is pretty obvious to see.

If you make a story about hero that seems to be a superman style paragon of moral virtue and then just end the story with him crushing a babies skull and roll credits?
BAD STUPID TWIST.

Make a story about a Superman style paragon of moral virtue who is struggling with that responsibility and shown to have darker urges and have him do that same act at the end?
A dark ending that some will dislike, but makes perfect sense for the story and the character.

Don't do stupid nonsense that doesn't make sense for the story.

That IMO (and many other peoples opinions) is exactly what ME3 did.
They just threw in a twist for a twist, and that's not a 'brave experiment'.
It's a stupid lazy twist.

 

[Kahunaburger]

snip

You seem to still be stuck on the "different, therefore good" thing. Nobody's saying that it's a bad idea for Bioware to stray from their formula. The argument discussed in the OP is that the ending (from what he heard) does not successfully follow through with the narrative that was set up. I think there's some merit to this argument, as many, many ME3 players found the ending inconsistent with the theme/mood/storyline of their playthrough. Not in an interesting "wow, my mind has been blown" way, but in a "dude, where did that stupid Deus Ex Machina* come from?" sort of way. My favorite take on this is from Ferretbrain [http://www.ferretbrain.com/articles/article-848] where they make the case that the ending fails because it doesn't capture the thematic breadth of the previous games.

*In the plot sense, the literal machine-god sense, and in the "lol, they swiped this from Deus Ex" sense.

 

[shadow skill]

You know Persona 3 did the whole thing better when you think about it. You spent the entire game trying to stop the shadows only to find out that the shadows are actually generated by the human psyche and that the big bad cannot actually be destroyed at all because it is a manifestation of human desires. (Not unlike how the chaos gods in warhammer are the manifestations of sentient beings thoughts and ideas within the warp.) Mass Effect three fails miserably at this kind of thing because the reason for the big bad existing is so nonsensical that the first thing you want to do is point out that the logic is bad. The fact that you can't do that and are only able to effectively doom galactic society (Because games haven't had you losing magic or some kind of technology ever before amirite?) regardless of what you pick only serves to make matters worse.

Hell even the idea of preventing the destruction of the universe using some kind of repetitive cycle has been done better by Xenosaga.

Ps. I recently stumbled across a Warhammer wiki and read the entry on Tyranids. By god the Reapers sure as hell sound like Tyranids with a shittier plot device for how they infiltrate.

 

[endtherapture]

Found this analogy on the Bioware forums. Maybe this will help the "happy ending" crowd.

Imagine if, when Frodo and Sam have just fended off Gollum atop Mount Doom, suddenly, without any prompting or foreshadowing whatsoever, Eru Iluvatar appeared before them in all his divine glory, offering them a choice: to destroy the Ring (but also the elves and Gandalf, for... some reason), to replace Sauron as the new Lord of the Rings, or to instantly make everyone in Middle-earth part-orc or something. And Frodo, the same Frodo who has spent the entire trilogy doubting and arguing about the right thing, suddenly agrees with no prompting. Followed by a short chapter where Middle-earth is split apart with cracks in the ground, making travel impossible, the entire Fellowship is somehow stranded far away from Mordor and Frodo (including Sam, in a blatant continuity error), and nothing is really explained or resolved. The end.

Would most readers agree that it was within Tolkien's right to write such an ending, and criticizing him would damage his artistic integrity? Would it be right to say that people who bought the novel would only have issues with this ending because it's "bittersweet"? Or would it rather be because they saw that the work had unrealized potential, ruined at the last minute? And that's talking about a novel, a non-interactive medium where the reader has no control over the story.

This is the best way for it to be summed up ^^^^^^^

Gollum and Bilbo would also have to appear out of no-where on Mount Doom as TIM and Anderson respectively.

Ideally, I'd like the entire Earth sequence scrapped because the game became no longer epic, but morbid and depressing from the moment you landed on Earth. Everything after getting shot at by Harbinger is just vomit inducing.

 

[ms_sunlight]

I'm not a fan of LotR, and I don't think hypothetical alternative endings are a good comparison. I also don't like the ending of DA:O particularly; I felt the whole "dark ritual" was a bloody cop-out. You don't play BioWare games for the endings.

 

[endtherapture]

I'm not a fan of LotR, and I don't think hypothetical alternative endings are a good comparison. I also don't like the ending of DA:O particularly; I felt the whole "dark ritual" was a bloody cop-out. You don't play BioWare games for the endings.

The thing is, you don't have to take the Dark Ritual if you don't want to, you can just tell Morrigan to fuck off.

You're given no choice in the Mass Effect 3 endings.

 

[ms_sunlight]

I'm not a fan of LotR, and I don't think hypothetical alternative endings are a good comparison. I also don't like the ending of DA:O particularly; I felt the whole "dark ritual" was a bloody cop-out. You don't play BioWare games for the endings.

The thing is, you don't have to take the Dark Ritual if you don't want to, you can just tell Morrigan to fuck off.

You're given no choice in the Mass Effect 3 endings.

It was (in my opinion) a false choice. After hours of playing the game, out of nowhere and apropos of nothing, an artificial choice is introduced in order to give you the "yay, hero saves the day!" ending. There are no visible consequences, not even an ominous voiceover, if you go for the Old God Baby option. The game would have been a better game without it, and would have actually made the choice to recruit The Secret Character a more narratively sensible and satisfying one.

I get why people aren't keen on the ME3 ending, I really do. I quite liked the ending I got, but it wasn't amazing by any means. I just think that some of the game endings that people are trotting out as examples of endings done right (Baldur's Gate 2: Throne of Bhaal has been mentioned elsewhere) are not actually that great.

I love BioWare RPGs, I really do, but the endings are always second-rate. Now Obsidian, they do endings. If only they could release a game where you can actually get to said endings on release before all the bugs are patched...

 

[Hyper-space]

http://pixelatedgeek.com/2012/03/mass-effect-iii-snatching-defeat-from-the-jaws-of-victory/-

Is there a part 2 to this article? Because he never explained ANY of his apparent "points", he just said some vague shit without backing it up.

Except that's not remotely the same thing.

See the difference between a twist that works and twist that doesn't is pretty obvious to see.

If you make a story about hero that seems to be a superman style paragon of moral virtue and then just end the story with him crushing a babies skull and roll credits?
BAD STUPID TWIST.

Make a story about a Superman style paragon of moral virtue who is struggling with that responsibility and shown to have darker urges and have him do that same act at the end?
A dark ending that some will dislike, but makes perfect sense for the story and the character.

Don't do stupid nonsense that doesn't make sense for the story.

That IMO (and many other peoples opinions) is exactly what ME3 did.
They just threw in a twist for a twist, and that's not a 'brave experiment'.
It's a stupid lazy twist.

Ugh...

Your point falls into the numerous other threads that debate the logic behind it all and everyone's subjective view on it. You could reasonably say that it was lacking or that it was perfectly valid, point is that you've probably made up your mind about it and that's your right. There are other threads about it where people make their cases and I've shared my piece.

 

[archvile93]

I agree with him for the most part, but have one disagreement. I don't think the game should be garenteed to end positively, that should be one possible ending. I think without negative endings, your choices also feel kind of empty since it is gaurenteed to end well anyway. The endings should have ranged from, "and they lived happily ever after" to "reapers win and laugh while they eat everyone alive."

 

[Burst6]

Personally i believe the whole indoctrination theory. The one that said Shepherd was indoctrinated when the laser hit him/her.

Of course that means, to me, the game doesn't have an ending.

This means EA may release the real ending as paid DLC.

I was never a big fan of EA, i already don't buy their games(mass effect 3 a rare exception), but if they do this i won't even rent their games anymore.

 

[Soveru]

It's pretty much a given that the crucible is a deus ex machina right from the beginning like pretty much every piece of prothean tech. Dunno why everyone is so shocked

 

[Kolsteray]

I'd literally pay hundreds of dollars for a happy ending.
I've just come to realize that the way I engage in stories like this and specifically how I lay them down again requires a, if not happy, at least an ending that as he puts it ends with a high note.

People complain about shallowness and staleness, but I've never experience a story, be it a book or video-game, which could portrait friendship and values as strongly as Mass effect does, be shallow.

 

[Shavon513]

There is nothing wrong with wanting a happy ending. The main issue, is that ME1 and ME2 strongly emphasized player choice, while also allowing for each individual Shepard to be uniquely characterized, from gender and looks up to who Shepard bonded with in the story, as well as Shepard's worldview and life philosophy.

The ending arbitrarily rips the proverbial rug right out from underneath the player, basically saying, "No, all of your choices didn't matter in the end, anyway." It's not so much that there are no happy endings, as their are three endings all similar except in the color of the explosion, as someone put it, and how Shepard deals with the Reapers. It's incredibly generic, and denies choice. It's also in a completely different style from the rest of the series altogether. The ending jarringly clashes with the rpg elements of the game.

I think fans have more than enough reasons to be upset.

 

[tzimize]

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.

For the record, I disagree 100%. And I've been reading fantasy novels and playing rpg games since I was able to read (a couple of decades). While I have NO problems defending a "bad" ending, like for example RDR...it doesnt always fit. And Dragon Age was in no way stale. It was a great universe, with its own culture and history revolving around the wardens. Also, the in-fighting of the dwarves and the enslavement of the elves.

I am not sure I agree with Brents post that games have to end on a high note, but I REALLY understand what he means when he says that people playing games invest more or less 100 hours into a game, while people who watch movies invest a couple of hours.

Ending things on a high note, is not necessary...but when holding your fans, it definitely can be a smart decision.

ME3s ending was bad for other reasons than the tragedy. This is very important to remember. A sad ending is not necessarily bad, and a bad ending is not necessarily sad.

Its about closure and respecting the structure and purpose of the story.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

I would like a happy ending. I mean, I know the galaxy is burning and billions are dead, but I would have liked to have a sense of hope at the end. I would have preferred that Shepard lives happily ever after with Liara because that's what I wanted my Shepard to do. Other people who want their Shepard to die, I'm sure they could have made an ending for that too.
This guy seemed to cover both bases for Dragon Age: Origin. Wish he had helped with Mass Effect 3's ending.

 

[spartan231490]

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.

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.