One Last look at Mass Effect 3.

[DioWallachia]

You appear to be arguing with part of what I said but ignoring the clarifications. Hype is hype, I even said it wasn't targeted at the main fans. But that the main fans weren't the only ones getting angry about the ending, not by a long shot. You are actually just saying roughly the same thing as I did except dismissing all the players who weren't diehard bioware fans as completely irrelevant. Though regardless of that I was referring to all the talk of how important your actions would be, how you would be deciding the fates of races etc etc, that was directed just as much at the fans. It's still hype.

And doesnt that says something to you? that the non fans of the series that played only ME3 can ACTUALLY TELL how broken the ending is?

I still dont see how can i decide ANY fate for everyone when the Starchild doesnt see how...."organic and flawed" instead of "calculating and perfect" his logic is.

Sooooo, this may be a shocker to you but MY opinions are also based on facts. ME2 was an enjoyable game with vastly improved combat, good characters and character development as well as an almost unique final mission (that was great up to the human reaper, that was a bit off at the time, makes more sense now but still wasn't that great) but a lackluster story. See, we both have opinions based on observations, I don't think mines any more valid than yours or vice versa but it *is* an opinion.

Ok, ME2 had good characters and no plot.....................so? what are we arguing here? didnt i said that too? you say that there are good characters, so what? they are no relevant to the plot (like i said), because as you know, there isnt a plot.....just like you said. Now that you mention Character development, how come the side characters actually have character arcs but not the Space Jesus Shep? you know, the protagonist of the story? if he/she doesnt change or is affected in some way then its a brick, the protagonist should have been someone else because even ME2 forgot that Shep has The Cypher, thus making him a Living Prothean, but apparently that wasnt enough to work with.

And the suicide mission and the loyalty is just as contrived (but at least its unique right? so its Daikatana with its "last gen" parter AI)

Spoiler: Smudboy videos from 4 to 6 about the suicide mission

Yes I am sure that his logic was sound. I've looked at it from both ways and did plenty of research on it at the time. It's logic is based off the assumption that sooner or later (without interference) organics would create synthetics that would destroy them. Based off that assumption his logic makes perfect sense. He was likely coded with that base assumption as it was exactly this that he was designed to do. Programs are logical, if it is programmed to have that assumption there isn't a problem. Even beyond that, standard procedure for proving/disproving something is to test it again and again and see what happens and the catalyst has been observing the exact same cycle of untold millenia. It's conclusion *is* logical.This doesn't mean it is the only logical train of thought on the matter but it is still valid.

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/13006636

Read that and try to keep an open mind if you like. But at this point I doubt that anyone who thinks its logic is invalid is likely to change their minds and vice versa.

Funny that you mention "open mind", you will understand later. But now let me explain what you just did (mind you, i havent read the other forum but i trust you have actually though your words carefully and that you wrote HERE is what the other forum reached as a conclusion)

You are assuming that the AI did JUST THAT because most AI do it in almost everywork ever (being logical and stuff) but did the narrative of ME3 prove it? after all, if such events happened before then The Starchild has to tell Shep (who doesnt trust it and nor we) the evidence. If he doesnt show it then it didnt happen and its lying.

Lets use something equally baddly written as Twilight as an example of how that kind of assumption can be applied to anything that ISNT on the narrative:

In New Moon, Bella has a mental breakdown because Edward abandoned her because he feared that his enemies are going to kill her. Up to this point, the narrative has demostrated that what they "think" its love its more like a teenage lust thing, most converzations seem forced and always are about when she is going to be converted as a vampire and when he is going to FUCK her, necrophilia style. Her thoughts are always about how beautiful he is, instead of anything meaninful of how he and her relate to one another, and Edward is an abusive controlling son of a ***** that doesnt let her do anything on her own because "its dangerous".

So the evidence seems to be that she doesnt love him at all and wants sex. And yet these actions here, the mental breakdown and subsecuent attempts of suicide to see hallucinations of him (that happens, really), seems to be a bit overboard for something as simple lust.

So your though ts would be something like this: "There is NO way that she is THIS bad now that he is gone and doesnt contol her anymore, this CANT be simple lust. Therefore, it must be that she trully loves him"

Now lets try that to ME3: "There is no way that synthetics WILL (absolutist statement) destroy all organics, i just saved the Geth (who were nice even in their backstory i saw in the VR Matrix thing) and the Quarians (who where assholes the whole time to the point that the statement should be Organics WILL kill all Synthetics) and now they work together. He never showed me ANY evidence of why they WILL kill one another. The ONLY way his statement would be true is if he did test it in his superior machine intellect in previous cycles and was correct that it ALWAYS happen. After all, that is what perfect logical machines do, they never fuck up with this kind of things when it comes to math and probability..........but he doesnt show it to me nor even explain how this exception with Geth Quarian is possible"

"Since Bioware ALWAYS makes good stories like Baldur's Gate, KOTOR, Neverwinter Nights and Dragon Age Origins, its impossible for the fans to say that Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3 had bad writting. Therefore, the fans are wrong and not Bioware"

Couldnt resist the last one

It's not that you need to have read/played other sci-fi to understand it, the logic is still correct without it in that AI's, being machines, will still be entirely logical regardless. That isn't a sci-fi concept, a program does Exactly what it is told. Having seen/read other sci-fi does help it make more sense but it isn't neccesary. However, the ending was horribly unclear about it meaning that it WAS hard to understand and I have never denied that this was a serious flaw in the ending.

Here is something weird that the narrative gave us: The Geth developed consiousness in a few years (compared to the Reaper lifespan of MILLIONS at least) So if we wait a million of years then maybe they will be more smart, right? not as the Reapers but still smarter than before, they will eventually exceed their programing. But why The Starchild, the collective counciousness of ALL the Reapers, during ALL the MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of years it had, DIDNT trascend his programing? why is it still captured under the laws of simple machines rather than the "We are each a nation, independent, free of all weakness" godlike creatures they pretend they are? Are they even programed to lie about their function? arent they supposed to be preservers of all life? why act so so much disdain towards organics if you are going to protect them from Synthetics? why Sovereing allied himself with the Geth instead of wiping THEM out? they were the only synthetic available in the cycle but instead you help THEM? If preserving life is so important then why dont they act as a galactic body disposal service instead of developing EYE BEAMS that, you know, could be considered an act of war instead of a chemical reaction (fire) that isnt in conflict nor war with everyone ?

Do the organic they preserve inside the Reapers are still alive or concious in some way? are they PART of the collective counciousness of The Reapers? if so then why doesnt HE ask all the organics inside their bodies what its in their best interest? they were created to preserve us right? it would be like Helios from Deus Ex who wanted to control the world but needed JC Denton to understand human motives and interests to reach true understanding, so why dont they ask THEM instead of Space Jesus Brick Shep?

Sorry but that flow chart is flawed. 'AI preserving organic life contradicts premise'.....no, just like not all people are mass murderers neither are AI's. It was never said that ANY AI that was created would inevitably rebel, simply that eventually there would be created AI's that would rebel and succeed.

This is the part where i told you before that i found funny the "open mind" bit, because you didnt saw the Extended Cut 3 video of smudboy (view it at 11:38 if you feel lazy), and if you really saw it then you would be saying "It was never said that ANY AI that was created would inevitably rebel" The Catalyst did speak in Absolutist Statements even before and after the EC. Absolutism refers to the words: WILL, ALWAYS, MUST, ALL

Here is the Catalyst dialog from the original cut:

Spoiler

"The Created WILL ALWAYS rebel against their creators"
"Without us to stop it, synthetic WILL destroy ALL organics"

And the 'real' ending was dlc? The extended cut did nothing but improve and expand on the existing one because the fans wanted it, and added a new ending because the fans wanted it. Now if they had set out to reserve the ending for DLC (even free DLC) from the start that would be an asshole move, not to mention fucking stupid.

Remember when i said Azura's Wrath and FF XII-2? those werent for decoration, those were example of the INDUSTRY AS A WHOLE getting away with not giving the full story when we pay for it, and placing the REAL ending for DLC (that we pay). If they had announced something like the Walking Fead and done on episodic releases then it would be fine and dandy, we already expect that at some point the story would end in a incomplete form, but those 2 didnt have the decency to tell us.

As you have already said, its a legitimate concern. I am just guessing that with all the crap we endure, the "Arty" card excuse is going to join those elements above. All thanks to the ME3 fiasco (even if the original ending WAS the real ending)

Where did I say you were being paranoid?

You didnt. I played the Yahtzee gimmick of "I know what you are going to say"

I openly agreed that it was a legitimate concern. The journalists and many reviewers 'let them get away with it' the community as a whole decidedly did not. You remember amazon's offer to refund the game? Have you noticed how it now costs roughly $30 less in stores than any other AAA title released around that time or in the year before? The number of people who have said they will never buy another bioware game? That is NOT letting them get away with it. Unless you expected people to riot and burn down their office or something.

It may be enough as you said, but here is a question: If the "dont fuck with us" message was made clear, then why Casey Hudson is controlling the (rumored) Mass Effect movie and Mass Effect 4? i would at least expect that someone keep an eye on him.

And the price reduction is nothing compared to the sheer ammount of DLC (of cut content mind you) like Leviathan and Omega that should have been in the game if it was THAT plot critical to begin with.

Once again as I said before. Shared ownership. The game devs owe the fans yes, but it goes both ways. You are trying to tell me that essentially anytime fans didn't like something in a game they should be able to get it changed. This would firstly make games companies go out of business as the only way they could keep people happy would be to spend at least half their time trying to change everything for their fans. This would also drive a lot of people out of the industry. You could merrily wave goodbye to any innovative games. Because they aren't precisely what people already want. It is just as legitimate a concern as the devs waving stuff off with 'artistic integrity' and honestly I believe that in the case of ME3 the two dangers broke roughly even. The fans got some changes but the games company didn't just do whatever the hell fans asked for and at the same time the company didn't get away with their bullshit.

I think i answered with a video of Total Bizcuit about how Capitalism works. And i also said that artist can do whatever if only they dont sell their souls to the devil know as EA. Whatever art they want to make, WILL be destroyed by EA before it reaches our hands. Best bet is doing Kickstarter or human sacrifices to ensure enough money to make art.

However, there is this document:

Armando Troisi - "Get Your Game Out of My Movie". Lead cinematic designer of Mass Effect 2

He explains in "The Agreement" how this is ALSO the player story. So even if he wasnt working on ME3, its clear that the previous titles were designed with the player in mind.

It would be nice if someone ACTUALLY took the time here to understand what it means.

 

[DioWallachia]

If you dont provide then we will find another way.

To do what? Keep missing the point! I already argued on this very thread about the game and gave in to a superior agrument. With you it's a different story. What you are saying is that a man that has watched someone else drive through the Alps in a sports car, can freely claim that he has experienced the same thrill! Yes, he might have learned through observation every bend, the way to go through every tight corner, will have memorised all sights and sounds recorded, but will he have experienced it- NO! This is what's wrong with you. I cannot prove to you that the dialogue is good, because it is subjective. I like it, someone else didn't. The gameplay was perfectly fine for me- not because of any system or anything that can be described, but simply because it put a smile on my face. The best thing about this game is the way one feels when playing it or at least that's what I believe. You come at that with nothing of your own. You keep citing other people's experiences as if they are benchmark, but they are simply another person's experience with the game. You have nothing to call your own. Simply cold data gathered from others. That is insulting to the fond experience I had with the game. It's heartless! I'm tired with arguing with you, it's like trying to teach a robot the meaning of humor. Keep watching your videos and keep missing out on the real deal- that is entirely your loss! I'm done!

"DOES THIS UNIT HAS A SOUL??"

You are racist towards synthetics.

Hehehe. Irony. Humor. Funny.

Of course its heartless, I.CANT.FEEL.SHIT. Lack of Empathy is one of the products of being a Schizoid. I can act like i do give a crap but that would be deluded, isnt it? However that doesnt mean that i dont KNOW that people have feelings and get hurt by it. The best you could describe my actions is with a Harbinger voice: THIS HURTS YOU???

"I cannot prove to you that the dialogue is good, because it is subjective."

Lets see, lets pretend i am making a script that only has lines whose purpose is to make the plot move foward. "A" must follow "B" and therefore "C", in the most natural way possible. We have 2 persons, one is being interrogated as a suspect by the detective who needs to find the whereabouts of a victim the day previously.

-------Here is exhibit 1:

Armando Esteban Quito: "So what was Bob Page doing yesterday?"
Aquiles Meo: "The old bastard couldnt keep his mouth shut about his obsecion with Aquinas during "The Margarita Happy Hour" of 21:30 to 22:30 last night, i had the boys escort him to the exit discretely when he went to the bathroom."

Armando: "Where did he go being drunk and all?"
Aquiles: "As you can see, i have the window just in the right place for me to take a look at the backdoor. After being "kindly" removed from this place, he staggered around like he was going to try the main door again but then when in the oposite direction, to the Chapulin 8th Street"

Armando: "So you saw him from the window and 2 others going there?"
Aquiles: "No, Ophelia from the Babalon building, the crazy cat lady as we all know her, was looking at him the whole time from her window on the second floor when he was going to that street, but she went inside when he was about to reach it. I presume that she went to intercept him."

Armando: "Ophelia huh? Thank you, that is all i need"

--------Exhibit 2:

Armando Esteban Quito: "So what was Bob Page doing yesterday?"
Aquiles Meo: "I was promised a pony.........with missiles"

Armando: "Where did he go being drunk and all?"
Aquiles: "In a few hours, the sun will raise"

Armando: "So you saw him from the window and 2 others going there?"
Aquiles: "My name is a spanish pun. Your name is a pun too. WE WILL AAAAALL PUN.....IN THE END!!! SO SAIDS THE GREAT GOD PAN!!"

Armando: "Ophelia huh? Thank you, that is all i need"

One of those is not like the other. One moves the plot foward, makes sence and a purpose. The other is batshit insanity as seen in a Seltzer and Friedberg or Michael Bay movie.

Since one betrays the purpose it was made, it can be said, without a shadow of a doubt, that dialog can be objectively bad. No ammount of emotion is going to change that (admitedly, the human mind IS strong enough to make shit up and believe it. So tecnically one CAN believe that what you felt was true)

----

Now for the main dish. In ME general, shooting people in the face doesnt add anything to the lore, nor shooting them non lethaly to interrogate them and obtain information/plot progression/whatever........because that feature doesnt exist. If i had played and had better accuracy with my gun in doing headshots than other players it wont change anything either, because the lore and plot progression in ME is only given during set pieces where the squamates talk while i shoot, audio logs and The Dialog Wheel for the converzations that arent in full auto dialog mode. Those are the things we pay attention for something as the ending of ME3 because that is what builds up the tension and drama of the story (the thing that people here are discusing)

Sure, i cant be an expert by LOOKING at someone in sport cars, but lets suppose that its a videogame, and the game is programmed to leave lore trivia in......lets say Blue Shells like in Mario Kart that you collect by simply touching it with the car. Since i already stablished that i am here for the story (and so is everyone else) does that mean that making my car spin 360º in mid air with my hands tied will give me more lore/plot??? no. What if i kill every other racer? would that give more more or less lore/plot? no. Would loosing or winning the races, remove ANY of the Blue Sheels containing the story/lore/plot??? no.

In all cases, tha game is programmed to give those in shells. Regardless if i suck or not. Therefore, it doesnt matter how i play or if i play AT ALL. All i need is drive and collect those shells for their story and nothing else......but its more cheaper to do that with a video on Youtube.

Simple and efficient in its design. The only game i know that provides a true experience each time is Minecraft given how everything is randomised. ME doesnt have that, it is still a hallway of choices that are predetermined, limited and quantifiable.

Also, you idea that i cant comment without experience something kinda reminds me of how the people that made SOPA didnt give 2 shits about the rest of the world, who i remind you, also use the Internet and get buttfucked with this law. But gives a crap about them right? they are just foreigns they dont EXPERIENCE the american way, so they have no say on how wrong we manage our country.

Imagine that there are more people that CANT buy games they like because they are fucking expensive. The only way they could contribute towards the game industry is by saying their opinion because their wallet is dead. Do they have to sit down and shut up and see how the industry crumbles before their very eyes and do NOTHING?

 

[Blachman201_v1legacy]

This more or less hints at a part of what I think made the ME3 discussion possible. Up until Dragon Age Origins, people were pretty damn satisfied with Bioware and stopped just short of outright worship of the company. ME2 made changes to the formula which elicited an outcry that they were dumbing it down (an argument I didn't find particularly valid but that is a debate for a two year old thread). DA2 came out and left many people who wanted another game similar to the first but with a new story and characters out in the cold. TOR did much the same. The reaction to ME3 far more negative than it would have otherwise been I think because of the various perceived offenses of Bioware's recent work.

I think this is a big part of the whole thing. After DA2 and TOR disappointed quite drastically, the goodwill of a large part of Bioware's core fanbase was starting to wear very thin. Many, including myself I must admit, saw Mass Effect 3 as their chance for proving they still had the touch and could make good RPGs.

So for Bioware to drop the ball so spectacularly hard just before finish, after making a game that had some genuinely good and enjoyable sequences, was the last straw for many people. Especially when you realize the multitude of very simple ways they could have done a better job.

If they had played it safe, and just gone with a Blockbuster/RotJ ending instead trying of being "memorable" and "artistic" (i.e. pretentious and forced), they would have been better off today.

 

[DioWallachia]

Snip

Trust me. The ending hits you harder when you play it for yourself. At first I watched it from YT, "Nothing too major", I thought. Then I played it and I found myself walking like a zombie for the rest of the the day and unable to sleep the night.

Hell, I wasn't really that invested in the story but the ending still got me.

Also, playing the game for yourself, instead of watching someone else play it, creates immersion.

That's all I got to say.

Well, movies can inmerse you too, not just games. (i cant believe that i am defending a medium i dont give 2 shits about)

You will have to TELL ME how was your though process while watching it on YT. Maybe you were like: "It seems that the Dialog Wheel doesnt have many options but doesnt matter. MY playthough has the highest EMS score, i am sure that i will receive different options because the inmortal AI would have noticed my acomplishments of uniting the Geth and Quarian and had the option to prove him wrong"

Youtube has videos of ME3 for even THE MOST MINUTE THING POSSIBLE. Dialog in Control with Paragon, Control with Renegade and so on. Even the titles of the videos tell you already what kind of configuration has the person before reaching this point.

So it seems that i havent missed anything or otherwise anyone would have tell me already instead of just dismissing me. Also, unless the people that made the videos that say the ending is shit are, in fact, lying by OMITING vital information to convince everyone, the defenders will have to prove that with evidence too.

Its a back and forth struggle that will only move towards the truth when everything has been said and done.

 

[Savagezion]

You don't have to play the game to criticize it. That's retarded. You have to know what the content is, period. You can get that besides playing the game. If I told you that I watched "Amazing Spider-Man" and right before the final battle, a shark falls out of a tree on Lizard and Spider-Man and kills them both. Roll credits. You don't have to watch the whole movie to know that is a stupid thing to do and that it makes no sense. Even if people point out that the shark had ended up in the tree due to their last battle from a previous scene. See, no matter how much you explain a stupid idea, it never ceases being stupid. You just killed the hero of a superhero movie in an embarrassing way to die on top of it in a movie people attend to see the tale of a hero. A hero you not only chump out, but you also revoke the final battle the entire movie was building up to. This is what ME3 did. It pulled some dumb crap out that was totally out of place and said "the end?"

That is just for the ending. And trust me in a game that is an RPG (a genre that relies on story) that claims to be cinematic (relies even more on story) someone is perfectly qualified to look at the story through some other means (Synopsis, overview, YouTube, etc) and criticize or praise it on its faults and merits. You can also take an outside look at the design premise and finished product through other resources and do the same. Actually, an argument could be made that this type of outside critique could be better for removing bias as you have no investment ($60, hours of time, etc) to protect with your conclusion. I would say that Dio has watched/read quite a bit of stuff on this topic so his opinion is just as valid as anyone else's. to say you have to play the game and invested something in it is fallacious. It isn't without merit, but its merit is highly bias.

 

[DioWallachia]

You don't have to play the game to criticize it. That's retarded..

I suppose that my comments could be considered, in a way, dumb if not properly explained. Kinda like how people in this VERY MOMENT are saying that Mass Effect 3 and Dynasty Warriors are responsible for the school shooting that happened even if they havent played yet. However, most of those people dont even TRY to site an example of the narrative itself that points to the cause of the violent behavior.

Remember Night Trap? It received a lot of enemies who had never even played the game (and even admitted to having never played it) They claimed that the game was about kidnapping and raping women, never mind that if a girl died, you got a game over because you were supposed to save the women. As for the scantily clad? The most scantily clad you get are nightgowns...which would be scantily clad to fundamentalist Muslim or Amish people and no one else.

It ended contributing to the ESRB ratings; one bathroom scene in particular led to intense Senate hearings in the United States, although the game specifically calls you out for failing to spare the woman.

 

[Boogie Knight]

Y'know, there's one good thing about Mass Effect 3's endings being utter rubbish: I'm getting a good refresher on the craft of good story telling. People have put a lot of time and effort and brain power to analyze the why and how of BioWare royally screwing up. Let's just hope that the writers took a few hints.

 

[RedDeadFred]

I was fine with the ending after they released the extended cut. The rest of the game blew me away. It was a roller coaster of emotions and I loved every second of it. I even enjoyed the multiplayer for a bit. I haven't bought any of the DLC because honestly, Bioware doesn't seem to do that very well (Lair of the Shadow Broker aside).

I never really understood why people made such a fuss over the ending not really taking into account our decisions (in a meaningful way, not the crappy number representation). I guess I just never expected them to pull off an ending of that scale. I was right. I don't get why people harp on Mass Effect 3 for this (and at least some of your prior choices mattered to other parts of the game, just not the ending) but not The Walking Dead. You are only really given the illusion of choice in that game. None of it matters in the long run. I liked the story but it was more of an interactive movie than a game.

As much as I loved Mass Effect 3 though, it's not even my GOTY. That honor goes to Borderlands 2. I'm getting XCOM and Dishonored for Christmas too so they might even push it farther down.

 

[lord Claincy Ffnord]

And doesnt that says something to you? that the non fans of the series that played only ME3 can ACTUALLY TELL how broken the ending is?

I have never said that the surface of the ending wasn't shit and most of these people we are referring too would not appreciate/understand (due to lack of knowledge not mental capability) the logic behind the ending which we are debating. So it tells me that the presentation of the ending was absolutely awful, but we already knew that. Incidentally this whole train of argument is coming from my original statement about how we could learn something of the dangers of hype from me3. There was hype, and that made the backlash worse when things went badly. That is all I was trying to say.

To summarize the whole AI thing. A program is always going to function exactly as it was written. There are two possible reasons for the existence of an illogical AI:

1) That it was intentionally designed to be illogical and to leave decisions to chance. As a general rule of thumb creating an AI like that is often pointless and stupid. Although it can be used effectively to a small degree in games by making enemies select from a couple of good options randomly rather than always doing the very best one tactically to make the game a bit more interesting and varied. But for an AI specifically designed to make the most important decision that they had ever faced/ to solve the ultimate question as such and making it illogical in any way would make no sense whatsoever. That leaves us with...

2) There was a mistake in the programming. This, is a much better answer. Particularly in a very complicated AI it would be fairly easy for a mistake to be made and not discovered and this could lead to illogical assumptions or actions.

Apart form that, again the presentation of the ending was terrible, some evidence was given through Javik if you had him but precious little other evidence was ever shown. That was one of the flaws of the ending. Although it is to *some* extent understandable because ending the game with a huge lump of data about past cycles would also be a pretty terrible ending .

Just to be perfectly clear, the "open minded" comment was not intended as an insult in any way. Fairly sure the two of us are roughly equally closed or open (either way) minded on this topic.

This is the part where i told you before that i found funny the "open mind" bit, because you didn't saw the Extended Cut 3 video of smudboy (view it at 11:38 if you feel lazy), and if you really saw it then you would be saying "It was never said that ANY AI that was created would inevitably rebel" The Catalyst did speak in Absolutist Statements even before and after the EC. Absolutism refers to the words: WILL, ALWAYS, MUST, ALL

OK, mistake made there. About the catalyst saying whether or not every single synthetic race would eventually rebel. The catalyst was either exaggerating (pretty standard tactic in any argument) or it was just a fucked up statement. The other absolutes it used regarding that eventually synthetics would destroy organics still fit with its logic. (Incidentally this has nothing to do with open-mindedness, I simply didn't remember the catalysts wording for that statement). Regardless i would still consider the flow chart flawed as, as I said before, the catalyst did not 'rebel'.

EDIT: oh, just reread the OP again. Thread isn't supposed to be about debating the quality of the ending , not that we were either getting anywhere in convincing the other. What we really showed is that not much has changed in regards to opinions of it/arguments either in the past few months.

"Since Bioware ALWAYS makes good stories like Baldur's Gate, KOTOR, Neverwinter Nights and Dragon Age Origins, its impossible for the fans to say that Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3 had bad writting. Therefore, the fans are wrong and not Bioware"

Couldnt resist the last one

Anyone who actually tried to use something like that as a serious argument when arguing/discussing with me would find themselves suddenly alone.

Remember when i said Azura's Wrath and FF XII-2? those werent for decoration, those were examples

Yeah I got that. And I didn't in any way contradict it. I simply stated the degree to which I thought Bioware hadn't gotten away with it regardless of what you consider them to have done. And yes, the 'it's art' line was kind of what I was referring to from the first time I agreed it was a concern.

For the record, I wasn't thinking you were paranoid because, as I have said it is a legitimate concern.

It may be enough as you said, but here is a question: If the "dont fuck with us" message was made clear, then why Casey Hudson is controlling the (rumored) Mass Effect movie and Mass Effect 4? i would at least expect that someone keep an eye on him.

Well hopefully he has learnt something. He made a mistake yeah, pretty big one. But we don't know the full circumstances even now. We cannot be certain where exactly blame should be placed or where it has been placed by EA/Bioware. Is him still being in control a good thing, probably not but he may have been able to divert enough blame to be given a second chance or something idk. But one thing you can be pretty certain of, EA cares about money, and the public outcry was definitely bad for business. At the very least EA/Bioware are paying for it financially. (Also someone may very well be keeping an eye on him, but its not the kind of thing that would be told to the public.)

About the last bit. What do you expect me to say that hasn't already been said. Of course the consumers have a large stake in it. But it is simple fact that their viewpoints will not always agree at all with the devs viewpoints and the devs DO still have a stake in it. If games are built solely the way gamers Ask for then many devs will get fed up and quit because if all they are doing is making Exactly what the users want they will NOT find it enjoyable. The game development industry is not an easy one and people work in there because they care about what they are making, if you take that away then the games industry would lose most of its best talent. I maintain that this IS a concern every bit as legitimate as the other.

I don't think there is really all that much more to say on the topic that is much more than examples to further either point and we are getting waaaaay further off topic with every post

Lets just try to summarize things.

I maintain that both the artistic integrity line AND complete consumer control are legitimate issues that were present in the controversy but that neither became much more of an issue through it, it was merely highlighted in it. You believe that the artistic integrity etc got worse because of it and do not agree on the severity (or the existance?) of the other problem.

We did get horribly off track with the ME2 discussion, initially it was used as ME2 being a point against Bioware, I disagreed and we somehow devolved into discussing/arguing while saying the same things as each-other (aren't we clever).
I think a summary that we agree on is that you can have opinions based on facts. And that both your and my opinions on ME2 are based on different facts and its basically down to which we consider more important. Both are valid but neither gives an edge over the other.

(I would just like to quickly point out that this whole thing started with you objecting to my opinion (which was again based on facts).

As for the ending: You believe it was a lot worse than I do. You also believe that Bioware betrayed their fans where I just believe that they failed us.

Just to conclude my own views on the game. I enjoyed the game. A lot. I didn't think much of the ending but don't loathe it, well, not for the reasons most others do. I found other parts of the game to be truly excellent (including, the multiplayer) and it is still one of the better games I've played. I have shoved roughly 100 hours into the game and definately overall got my money's worth from the amount of enjoyment I got from it. So when looking at it like that, do I still trust bioware? yeah, I spose, certainly enough to look forward to me4. And if me4 is decent I *will* buy it.

 

[crazyrabbits]

Sorry, but you are wrong here. Games are unique in the fact of them being an interactive medium. The story is key, but is only one aspect of a complex puzzle that comes down to so much more than the sum of its parts. I'm not against people having a look before they buy and saying "that's not my thing" and moving along. But this guy comes here with no actual experience with the game and states that his comments hold as much merit as mine or yours. That is simply not so! You should be angered by this fact as well.

I'm not, because I didn't buy ME3.

Full disclosure: I bought ME2 after watching a full playthrough of it online and seeing the entire story in one fell swoop. While I knew that it had a number of problems, I still felt reasonably assured buying it, and I not only bought all the DLC afterwards, but I also bought the original game, sight unseen, to play through as well.

I did the same thing with ME3, and chose not to buy it based on what I found to be an otherwise lackluster and poorly-thought story.

There is a demarcation line for an open-world story that allows the player to craft their own sequence of gameplay events (with a loose series of main story beats) and a heavily scripted RPG/FPS/genre game that holds the hand of the player and relies exclusively on its story to sell the product. Again, telling someone, in effect, "you can't criticize something unless you've paid for it" is a well-known fallacy. Games are no different.

The only thing the gaming medium offers over film/television is interactivity, and even that can (and has, for older games) be replicated by Youtube. As mentioned above, I can pull a video containing just about every variation of the ending, and make an informed argument why it does/doesn't work. I can see every permutation of squadmate who accompanies Shepard on a mission - in fact, one of the big selling points of ME2 (for me) was seeing how there was an abundance of unique dialogue and situations in different missions, which helped the immersion and story factor.

Unless I'm talking about the gameplay (which I'm not, because I have no experience with ME3's in particular), I have just as much right to discuss the game's strengths/failings as anyone else, and I'm not out $60 because of it. This speaks to the "cognitive dissonance" I mentioned earlier - I'd wager many of the people who non-ironically like the game only do so because they spent money for it and don't want to be viewed as having wasted their money, while still trying to fit in with the prevailing opinion.

 

[White_Lama]

Still don't know why people are complaining about the ending.

It was completely fine.

 

[Machine Man 1992]

I share the same opinion as Film Critic Hulk

Ahh Film Critic Hulk, that was one of the first columns of his that I had serious disagreements with. It isn't even that I fault him for liking the ending, with the proper execution the ending would've been as great as he made it out to be, my problem with his column was the lack of critical analysis. He focused too much on the message and ignored the delivery, which were the series of contrivances, plot-holes, character derailments and retcons needed to set the ending up. Most glaringly is how wrong he is about the ending not being a deus ex machina; a new character is introduced at the eleventh hour offering new possibilities that are not explained for an illogical reason that is never proven to be true and executed in a manner that should've resulted in mass extinction based upon what we've seen in the previous game.

I should amend that, he focused far too much in both columns on the reactions of others. I agree with him that fan reaction was unreasonable, honestly I used to be in one of the "change the ending" camps but I've revised my position after I first read his article because he's right that, it is entitled and anti-art. Bioware should be allowed to make the statement they wanted, the rest of us should learn to live with that. Not to mention that as someone who never had any intention of purchasing the game as part of a principled stand against EA, I shouldn't have had a dog in that fight to begin with.

However, part of my major disagreement that I alluded to above was that he never actually addressed why he liked the ending. The delivery of the ending was only ever briefly touched upon along with waxing poetic about the nature of the ending and yadda yadda cycles, blah-blah death and rebirth.

This shit right here in bold, This. Pisses. Me. Off.

The game is both a product and art (Yes, it is possible for it to be both, shut up.), and as such it is subject to the rules of both. It can be analyzed and examined, like art, but its also a major, big budgeted release made for millions and sold, sold, for sixty dollars. I paid eighty goddamn dollars for the collectors edition; as a paying customer, I have the right to demand a satisfactory product, that's how business works: you give the people what they want for their money. When there's a bug, you tell the developers and they release a patch to fix it. When the ending to the story, which is a major component of the product, and in fact was marketed as such, is so utterly broken fans, no, customers have a right to call Bioware on their bullshit and demand they fix their product.

 

[Machine Man 1992]

When there's a bug, you tell the developers and they release a patch to fix it. When the ending to the story, which is a major component of the product, and in fact was marketed as such, is so utterly broken fans, no, customers have a right to call Bioware on their bullshit and demand they fix their product.

Free speech guarantees that you have the right to make any demands you want, Bioware is under no obligation to change the ending, in-fact, they shouldn't change the ending. You aren't entitled to a full refund for theater tickets, the price of a DVD or even a different ending to Gangs of New York because you didn't like the original ending.

I never saw Gangs of New York.

You're right, Bioware has no obligation to change the ending. Just like I'm not obligated to give them my money.

If they want to maintain the good name of the Bioware brand, it's in their best interests to make the fans happy, or at least less pissed off.

(as a side note, several people did receive full refunds for their games)

 

[Machine Man 1992]

I never saw Gangs of New York.

I don't know what movies you saw and the ending wasn't controversial, it was provided as an example and I knew it wouldn't cause a secondary discussion about the ending of Gangs of New York to pop-up.

You're right, Bioware has no obligation to change the ending. Just like I'm not obligated to give them my money.

Correct, this is how the market system works.

If they want to maintain the good name of the Bioware brand, it's in their best interests to make the fans happy, or at least less pissed off.

I agree, however it's an arguably worse precedent to provide refunds to everyone who at least claims to be unsatisfied with their product. When you purchase a piece of entertainment you take a calculated risk that you may not enjoy the media you're about to consume. It isn't a fair process but I've yet to hear practical solutions.

Expending resources to create a new ending everytime an ending is controversial and fans are dissatisfied is a bad precedent to set as well. Especially when there is no guarantee that it will result in sales.

(as a side note, several people did receive full refunds for their games)

Due to dissatisfaction with the ending? Do you have a source for that?

I don't have a source, sadly. It was something that popped up amongst the fucking INSANE number of articles that were cranked out during the fiasco.

Anyway, I was hoping you'd bring up "the bad precedent" fallacy. How is bad that fans are holding a company accountable for their fuck-ups? How is it a bad thing that fans care enough about a video game that they're willing to donate money to charity to prove they can and will put their money where their mouths are? And then there's this line:

"it's an arguably worse precedent to provide refunds to everyone who at least claims to be unsatisfied with their product."

That makes no sense. What, is there some scientific scale of measurement for dissatisfaction? If they claim they're unhappy with their product... Then they're unhappy! End of story! Give the man his sixty bucks back and hopefully fix the problem before he tells his equally dissatisfied friends and they come back for refunds too.

Fixing the ending may not guarantee sales of ME3 (even with a cover that boasts "new and improved ending!"), but it would restore consumer loyalty and faith in the brand. So, when Bioware makes Mass Effect 4, or Dragon Age 3, or KOTOR 3, they'll have the given sales of their hardcore fans (who, in this hypothetical scenario, haven't descended into the black cloying void of dispassionate loathing born of hurt and betrayal).

 

[Blachman201_v1legacy]

I think I got a good analogy for this: Let's say that Leonard da Vinci had decided to paint donkey ears on the Mona Lisa. As the artist, he would certainly have been free to do so, but I don't think Francesco del Giocondo, the guy who commissioned the painting, would have accepted such an insult against his wife, and much less paid any money for it. He would probably have called da Vinci a hack or something worse, and told all his merchant colleagues not to commission art from him, and da Vinci would have ended up forgotten and hungry because no one in their right mind would trust him with a job.

Or in other words, look at this mean, old, entitled and whiny pope disrespecting Michelangelo's artistic integrity:

 

[keosegg]

snip

snip

I'll have you know, the only reason I'm coming out of my fortified flame shelter is because I forgot to bring the porn. I mean, what was I supposed to do instead? Read a book?

Seriously though. I do agree with you that he did spend too much time discussing the fan reaction and too little time talking about why he liked it. From what I gathered, he liked the original ending because it ended the cycle and a new one was beginning. A brave new world to be populated by the weird half robot, half man offspring of Joker and Edi. The ending left no sense of closure because that's the point of the "brave new world", to leave everything uncertain.

I personally didn't see what he saw in the ending. I found the original to be inoffensive at worse. I mean, the ending of the first Assassin's Creed was the worst video game ending I had ever encountered. Seriously, it just ended. Left me very angry.

Sorry about that, got a bit sidetracked.

I also agree with your opinion on the ending, but I would say that all of that stuff you mentioned was the right way to end the series. In my mind, nothing short of divine intervention would end the conflict against the Reapers. That's the problem with having a race of magical space Cthulhu's as your bad guy, the only way to end that story is to bring a god in to fix everything. I guess that's why I found the ending so inoffensive. I had prepared myself for the Space Child, an eleventh hour character with game changing abilities that utterly changed the world at large.

Not sure what that says about me. Maybe I'm precognitive? Or perhaps I'm just a retard, since in addition to liking the original ending I also liked the entire second season of The Walking Dead.

Also.

I agree with him that fan reaction was unreasonable, honestly I used to be in one of the "change the ending" camps but I've revised my position after I first read his article because he's right that, it is entitled and anti-art. Bioware should be allowed to make the statement they wanted, the rest of us should learn to live with that.

In total agreement