Mass Effect 3 Gets An Ending

[Thammuz]

Funny how this comes from the same guy who said that if it were up to him he'd rewrite the new Star Wars trilogy after sending the ACTUAL author off to play with a colouring book.

Sure, it was a joke, but i'd really love to see him defending THAT abomination, which is ACTUALLY what the author wanted (or so he stated), while accusing us of being out of line when, it appears, most of the writing staff wasn't even aware of ME3's ending's content.

You dropped the ball, Croshaw. Big time.

 

[Vuljatar]

I'm both shocked and disappointed that Yahtzee of all people doesn't understand what the issue is.

 

[FedericoV]

The important bit you left out though is that the reapers leave. They take away the ugly monsters and let new civilizations advance.

It does not make sense still. The fact that they leave so they can do the same kind of holocaust over and over again, every bloody 50'000 years, make no sense at all if their goal is to protect organic life. Killing a child or an old man is still a form of homicide. Homicide is not the best way to preserve someone. Not to say that the whole 50'000 years cycle make no sense if it's related to technological advancement wich could go in any other way and it's hard to predict (instead it made sense in the original vision of the endings since it was linked to the way the ME universe worked in term of law of physics).

Meanwhile, the synthetics of a less-farseeing culture might have slightly more power-grabbing goals. For instance if the reapers didn't kill everyone with the capacity to make synthetics, what's to stop the Geth eventually saying "fuck this, leave us alone crap and roll on these bitches"? And then if the Geth succeed in dominating everyone, what's to stop them from eradicating all organic life?

But the Reapers themselves off course. Why kill any intelligent form of life every 50000 years if they could protect us form a race like the Geth? They could make any kind of miracle with their godlike powers. They could guide evolution anyway they want. They could intervene clinically and resolve any kind of problems with indoctrination and such.

The goal was never to preserve organic life in it's current state, but rather to ensure it's continued survival entirely.

That's not what the Starchild has to say on the issue. But most of all you must admit it is contrived at best.

There might have been better methods, but eh, this is what the team went with.

That's all that the fan who have criticized the endings have said. Point is, I've read a lot of fan fiction and constructive proposal on ME3 ending. And most of them are better than the ending we actually get.

 

[irishda]

I'll try to make it really simple:
When you are promised a wide variety of vastly different endings by multiple people, multiple times...and what you get is one ending in 3 colours...that tends to piss people off. It's not about changing the ending to cater for each individuals preference, it's not about making it a super happy ending where everyone lives and goes home. It's simply about doing what was promised would happen.

Probably because they don't. According to a number of people, Bioware promised that their choices would matter in the end, but it didn't, at least in their eyes. They felt that Bioware pretty much lied to them in this area, thus the reason that so many people are demanding that they change their ending (might be too late for that though).

No, everyone GETS that. EVERYONE understands this is why a lot of people are pissed (don't forget lots of people have listed other reasons too). There is no confusion on this point, and I promise you, Yahtzee understands people are mad because they didn't get what was promised. That's not what Yahtzee's arguing. No one is suddenly saying, "Let's not hold developers accountable." Some people might be saying, "Why the hell are you listening to presale hype?" but no one's saying developers lying isn't wrong.

Yahtzee, and the majority of bloggers that don't agree with Retaking ME, are arguing that it's a bad precedent to set that every story can be changed if the fans yell loud enough and long enough. You're both on completely different pages and that's not entirely his fault.

 

[Uszi]

Holy fuck. How did enraged fan boys get a more fair, even handed treatmet from Yahtzee, "Master Fan Boy Baiter" Crenshaw then they got from Movie Bob?

When did Movie Bob supplant Yahtzee as the Escapist's shock jockey?

 

[MasterOfHisOwnDomain]

Don't understand the Mass Effect ending furore. I mean, feel disappointment, sure. But petition Bioware to make a new ending? That doesn't "undo" the ending. The ending is the one they gave it; another would merely tack onto it, an alternate ending.

I was disappointed by the end of the Peter F. Hamilton's "Void Trilogy". That continued on from another two books, so in total I had read about 5,000 pages before reaching that ending. And it was disappointing. But I didn't go email the man and demand he re-write the ending. That would be ridiculous...

 

[littlewisp]

I never played Mass Effect anything. But, hearing the uproar, I was present when my heavily invested fiance finished it.

You know, listening to that old man talk about The Shepard story to the kid, the ending made sense to me in that Storyteller Recapping Legend sense, where it really doesn't make any sort of logical sense, but it's told because of the epicness of it. And then, when the kid asks for more Shepard stories? Oh yeah, that sounds like an invitation to explain the ending in a non-legend-story sense.

Plus, y'know, that big ol' grinning 'buy the DLC!' sign they hung up at the very end didn't ring any alarm bells? You have an ending that is essentially a cliffhanger, and then the old man, the kid and the DLC sign?

What I do know is that my fiance was very, very depressed. So, good job on the story department there, even though I do think it was pretty cheap thrills!

For an ending to a trilogy, it didn't feel like an ending to me so much as a 'come back later!'

 

[irishda]

Did he? Did he REALLY miss the point? Did he "assume" your stance despite the countless thousands of threads spent by so many of you solidifying your points? Is it more likely he characterized your positions in a way that made you look unfavorable and now you're just assuming he "doesn't understand"? Maybe you guys are assuming his position.

He is completely missing the point because he is speaking of something he has no idea about and he is not even interested a lot to begin with by his own admission. He is just supporting Bioware so his editor will be happy.

That's all I needed to hear.

 

[samaugsch]

I'll try to make it really simple:
When you are promised a wide variety of vastly different endings by multiple people, multiple times...and what you get is one ending in 3 colours...that tends to piss people off. It's not about changing the ending to cater for each individuals preference, it's not about making it a super happy ending where everyone lives and goes home. It's simply about doing what was promised would happen.

Probably because they don't. According to a number of people, Bioware promised that their choices would matter in the end, but it didn't, at least in their eyes. They felt that Bioware pretty much lied to them in this area, thus the reason that so many people are demanding that they change their ending (might be too late for that though).

No, everyone GETS that. EVERYONE understands this is why a lot of people are pissed (don't forget lots of people have listed other reasons too). There is no confusion on this point, and I promise you, Yahtzee understands people are mad because they didn't get what was promised. That's not what Yahtzee's arguing. No one is suddenly saying, "Let's not hold developers accountable." Some people might be saying, "Why the hell are you listening to presale hype?" but no one's saying developers lying isn't wrong.

Yahtzee, and the majority of bloggers that don't agree with Retaking ME, are arguing that it's a bad precedent to set that every story can be changed if the fans yell loud enough and long enough. You're both on completely different pages and that's not entirely his fault.

Oh ok. Up to this point, I didn't notice anyone other than the complainers mention that. I also assumed that when those people say that you "just don't get it", they meant that they were frustrated with Bioware lying to them.

 

[Candidus]

Again, the OP misses the point completely. What is it with journalists all `catching` blindness with this specific issue? You're not as invested in this series as some of the other journalists who've missed the point, but wow... Not one, other than the guys at GS, actually seemed to have given the fans a fair look.

The "artistic" direction they took isn't at issue. The standard of their work, which is frankly sub-fanfiction in the last 5 minutes-- a visual diatribe of plot holes(1) and inconsistencies with the lore that cheapen the entire investiture made by the fans, *that* is at issue.

1. Why normandy using relays? When and why did Joker leave the battle for Earth? How, without the sudden invention, construction and integration of beaming tech, do the squad members from London get aboard for the ass-pull EDEN WORLD FINALE? These and more.

There's also the small matter of these.
http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/10056886/1

You make statements and promises and your game isn't bang on them, that's called overstatement. Sometimes you overstate the virtues of something and you take peoples' money when you otherwise wouldn't have. That's pretty wrong.

Then there's lying. Presumably you've seen the ending, Yahtzee. Don't you think it made a lie of virtually everything in the OP of that thread? Don't you think that when those promises made up a part of the basis for my purchase of the game, I'm well within reason to say "Make adjustments or give me the money back"?

What we want is a finale that makes fucking sense. That'd be nice. If they're feeling super generous, then a finale that I couldn't have written myself during a restless nights' sleep with a pen sticking out of my ass would be a WILD bonus.

I and my fellow complainants don't care about the narrative or "artistic" direction, this isn't about those things. They could make a finale we'd hate and quite a lot of us would still support them- I would. Provided that those promises still got met and it wasn't riddled with holes.

Once more for the other Escapists, that is NOT about integrity, it's about STANDARDS. Works of literature, STORIES, are not like paintings. You can't stand back and go "oh well, there is no good or bad, there's just the ARTÉSTES VISIÓNE", like some awful worshipper of 'fine art'. Stories can be screwed up by objective, cut and dried mistakes. And that happened here big time.

 

[mfeff]

http://jmstevenson.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/all-that-matters-is-the-ending-part-2-mass-effect-3/

Great read, pretty much nails it.

Personally, all for artistic integrity.

Had there been any in this case, the game wouldn't of shipped as is.

Is not THAT the point?

If properties are disposable, does that not mitigate the value of art?

How many Journalist have working experience in or with industrial design?

Is the art gambit simply a hedge to attempt to transcend commercial products (toys) to a different status as self justification for further purchases with an aging demographic?

Clearly Patcher of GT seems to think they are just "products".

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/what-would-pach-attack/728335

Concluding that the problem with "video games" is that "gamers" whine to much.

In a perfect world the business model would look more like this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvDu3IysKiM&feature=related

 

[Falcon123]

So far, every time someone has argued against the "Retake Mass Effect" movement, the overwhelming response is that the person "doesn't get it", most without actually saying what there is to get.
Just for future reference, if you really want to tell someone that they "don't get it", tell them what it is exactly they don't get. By not providing this, it just looks like you're saying it because it's the only way you can think of to defend yourself, even if it's not. (Also, ironically, some of the "he doesn't get it" posts actually missed the point of the article...)

Also, I stand by my opinion that it's not your game, so it's not your ending. You have o right to change it. Sue for false advertising all you want, that doesn't mean Bioware is obligated to change the ending. Sorry.

Alright then, here's what people don't seem to be getting:

[link]http://jmstevenson.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/all-that-matters-is-the-ending-part-2-mass-effect-3/[/link]

To be honest I hate putting down a link and calling it "proof" or whatever but the guy who wrote that said it all a million times better than I could.

Except people do get that the ending objectively fails. But why is it different than when so many other works fail to live up to the hype? Why is it that people feel as if they have a right to change this game any more than any others? You don't have the rights to Mass Effect 3. You don't have the right to decide how it ends. You have the right to hate the ending, but not the right to "Retake" a game that was never yours to begin with

 

[Diana Kingston-Gabai]

Yahtzee, and the majority of bloggers that don't agree with Retaking ME, are arguing that it's a bad precedent to set that every story can be changed if the fans yell loud enough and long enough. You're both on completely different pages and that's not entirely his fault.

The problem I have with that argument is that it assumes every game can provoke the kind of backlash we're seeing with ME3.

Let's be honest: this is hardly the first game where the ending falls flat. But the outrage here isn't about the ending, not really; rather, it's because BioWare established a very high standard of storytelling quality across three games, and then fell substantially short of that standard in the last ten minutes of the last game. That's not exactly commonplace: you can usually tell when a game is poorly-written within half an hour and adjust your expectations accordingly.

If BioWare agrees to compose a different ending - one that at least addresses the general faults of the current conclusion - I would hope the only precedent to be set would be "Don't be complacent and let your standards slip when programming endgame content."

 

[anthony87]

So far, every time someone has argued against the "Retake Mass Effect" movement, the overwhelming response is that the person "doesn't get it", most without actually saying what there is to get.
Just for future reference, if you really want to tell someone that they "don't get it", tell them what it is exactly they don't get. By not providing this, it just looks like you're saying it because it's the only way you can think of to defend yourself, even if it's not. (Also, ironically, some of the "he doesn't get it" posts actually missed the point of the article...)

Also, I stand by my opinion that it's not your game, so it's not your ending. You have o right to change it. Sue for false advertising all you want, that doesn't mean Bioware is obligated to change the ending. Sorry.

Alright then, here's what people don't seem to be getting:

[link]http://jmstevenson.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/all-that-matters-is-the-ending-part-2-mass-effect-3/[/link]

To be honest I hate putting down a link and calling it "proof" or whatever but the guy who wrote that said it all a million times better than I could.

Except people do get that the ending objectively fails. But why is it different than when so many other works fail to live up to the hype? Why is it that people feel as if they have a right to change this game any more than any others? You don't have the rights to Mass Effect 3. You don't have the right to decide how it ends. You have the right to hate the ending, but not the right to "Retake" a game that was never yours to begin with

I really think you're taking the "Retake" in "Retake Mass Effect" way too seriously. It's meant as a play on the "Retake Earth" or "Take back Earth" thing that was floating around prior to the games release.

What people are looking for is basically what Bethesda done with Fallout 3. Why is this such a bad thing?

 

[medv4380]

From the sounds of it the arguments and grips about the ending are to be expected.

Give the audience a "Lady or the Tiger" kind of ending only encourages the audience to backlash and demand a real ending. Frank Stockton was harassed for years for writing the story, and giving an audience that was not expecting an open ended pick your ending but we won't show you what happened ending will just anger people.

This also sounds a bit like the Death of Sherlock Holmes. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wanted to end the series and make it so he didn't have to write anymore Sherlock books. So he wrote the his death into a story, and ended up enraging his entire audience. Which then forced him to write another book where Sherlock comes back and explains how he lived though the fall.

The audience was clearly expecting some form of finality and the series didn't do enough prep work for that kind of an ending its given. I'd expect a "Lady or the Tiger" style of ending in Survival Horror. In a Space Opera I don't know of any cases where that was deliberately done outside of the author giving up in the middle of the series (usually the death of the author or burnout) or where it was canceled prior to a finally. When it "appears" to be done it's usually done as the cliff hanger for a sequel.

I half expect the given ending was left the way it was so that some future Expantion or DLC could be done as Aftermath.

 

[irishda]

Yahtzee, and the majority of bloggers that don't agree with Retaking ME, are arguing that it's a bad precedent to set that every story can be changed if the fans yell loud enough and long enough. You're both on completely different pages and that's not entirely his fault.

The problem I have with that argument is that it assumes every game can provoke the kind of backlash we're seeing with ME3.

Let's be honest: this is hardly the first game where the ending falls flat. But the outrage here isn't about the ending, not really; rather, it's because BioWare established a very high standard of storytelling quality across three games, and then fell substantially short of that standard in the last ten minutes of the last game. That's not exactly commonplace: you can usually tell when a game is poorly-written within half an hour and adjust your expectations accordingly.

If BioWare agrees to compose a different ending - one that at least addresses the general faults of the current conclusion - I would hope the only precedent to be set would be "Don't be complacent and let your standards slip when programming endgame content."

Now, Bioware is certainly at fault for falling flat here, but the precedent is still set. Games can be changed at the behest of the gamers. Then if the developer refuses, does that make them worse than Bioware then because they're not catering to their customers every demands?

 

[Howling Din]

So Mass Effect thematically asserts that scientific progress and sentient civilization, no matter how great they become, are inevitably doomed to be destroyed so everything can restart.

Am I the only one who thinks that to be the most cynical, pessimistic thing any science fiction writer could possibly squirt from his pen?

A Science Fiction story is a wondrously blank slate of infinite proportions. It can be filled by anything our minds can conjure. What kind of neurotic shithead would enter this slate. And then revert to the real-world popular belief that man dare not try to become more than they are? Things like Sci-Fi are meant to give people hope. What Mass Effect ultimately gives is the hope that one day, we can have hope.

When men one day become space-faring badasses they're going to dig up the Mass Effect trilogy, play it and think: this certainly didn't help us get as far as we actually did.

 

[FedericoV]

Did he? Did he REALLY miss the point? Did he "assume" your stance despite the countless thousands of threads spent by so many of you solidifying your points? Is it more likely he characterized your positions in a way that made you look unfavorable and now you're just assuming he "doesn't understand"? Maybe you guys are assuming his position.

He is completely missing the point because he is speaking of something he has no idea about and he is not even interested a lot to begin with by his own admission. He is just supporting Bioware so his editor will be happy.

That's all I needed to hear.

"Dragon Age 2 is the best RPG of the year".

That's what I do not wanted to read in The Escapist.

 

[chadachada123]

The people saying that they actually "get it" in response to the people saying that they don't "get it" don't really seem to "get it."

It's really damn clear that Mass Effect 3 didn't ship as a full product, either because of time/budget restraints or to lead into end-game DLC. Either way, it's really obvious that the writers did not want the story to end like that, because the ending is objectively SHIT.

Changing the ending isn't an injustice in the slightest, because the current ending wasn't the planned ending to begin with.