This one cover most of the problems, I think...Ilikemilkshake said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MlatxLP-xs&feature=relmfu
Star Wars and Mass Effect Fanatics
- Thread starter flecker080
- Start date
Recommended Videos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MlatxLP-xs&feature=relmfu
Did anyone complain about "artistic integrity" when Broken Steel came out?CriticKitten said:
I'll admit I haven't played Fallout 3 that much, but I don't recall Fallout 3 getting so much rage about the ending...
Broken Steel did change the ending based on fan-feedback. As far as I can recall it wasn't fan rage though.ChrisRedfield92 said:
Neither can I recall any discussion whatsoever regarding "artistic integrity". The only only thing I remember is a general feeling of "Bethesda listened, awesome! Great for them, great for us".
I wasn't very involved or anything though so I might be wrong.
Yeah, Broken Steel was a response to fan outcry that the ending for Fallout 3 kinda sucked, and they wanted to continue on exploring and playing, so Bethesda created and released an expansion pack that retconned the ending big time so you could continue playing, and added a whole new bunch of missions and stuff, it's practically a carbon copy of what happened here, except the rage is much more bitter and public for Mass Effect 3.CriticKitten said:
These are two completely seperate situations, people are mad at Lucas because his changes are unneccessary and aren't adding anything to the films, in fact a lot of them are seen as making things worse (inserting a brazenly dumb NOOOO! into the final emotional scene in ROTJ)flecker080 said:
Whereas the Mass Effect fans are annoyed because Bethesda have failed in their ending to give them proper closure on what happens to the Mass Effect universe and characters, and the paultry ending they recieved is full of plot holes and problems.
Now, we have always known that EA won't leave the series there, and DLC will be designed and created specifically for Mass Effect to give fans extra gameplay stuff and make EA money. Bethesda have been really open about asking fans what they want them to work on, and so the fans have been calling for them to use the DLC to fix the dang ending. Beth even realised that the anger at the ending was that severe that they decided to release it for free.
On the very surface of it, yes, they are calling for one creator to stop changing his work, because they like it, and demanding that another change theirs because they do not like it, but the specifics of each situation are very different, so much so that each is justified by their own circumstances.
It would work if they just added cutscenes for the renegade ending. Because that would be the problem with indoctrination theory (which I do believe): you wake up, and then the viewer has the imagine the entire last half of act 3. Including how Shepard stops the reapers.Vault101 said:
Also, just a warning, maybe it'll be different without Zeel, but people will jump on your throat for admitting to finding merit in indoctrination, so prepare for incoming "grasping at straws" "biodrone in denial" et cetera comments.
Thanks, that was a really interesting watch.ChrisRedfield92 said:
The AngryJoe video more focused on individual things that made no sense while that one you linked was more why the ending doesn't work in the context of the entire series. I think both together pretty much explains why the ending is terrible.
One of the main complaints with FO3 was that the ending was stupid and contrived. For one you're locked in a room and forced into a silly fight. Then you're given a choice with 3.5 options. Good karma you kill yourself in order to fix the water supply or Bad Karma you send in one of the Brotherhood of Steel guys to their death to fix the water supply Or More Bad karma you sabotage the water supply to kill all mutants, although someone still needs to sacrifice themselves.ChrisRedfield92 said:
Now this was pretty stupid because it came from nowhere, and seemed like it was only included to add drama.
Also you could bring 2 followers with you, two of whom are mutants and are resistant to radiation. So they wouldn't have died trying to fix the water supply.. but they refused to help because "it's your destiny"
And finally, even if you sacrificed someone else so that you could live, the game still ends and you don't get to keep wandering around the wasteland.
Broken Steel fixed this and everyone rejoiced. It's a shame we don't have that with me3
When Lucas changes Star Wars, it derails characterization, adds nothing new and decreases the quality of the film. When Ridley Scott changes Blade Runner it makes it more coherent, a better viewing experience and better conveys the story in ways the original cut failed.
When Bethesda changes the ending to Fallout 3, it adds new content, adds choices that improve the narrative coherence of the scene and additional gameplay elements (ie, main quest continuation) that better mesh with that which has come before.
When changes are made that run counter to the themes, narrative conventions, lore, characterization or even gameplay that has come before, it's generally considered a bad thing because it damages the integrity of the art as a whole. By that same logic, when a sequence in a narrative has these same problems, people have a similar reaction because the coherence of the experience is damaged by those moments. In another story, the ending we got could fit in perfectly, if it maintained the tone, themes, central conflict and gameplay precedents of what came before. It would mesh with the whole, and people would be OK with it. By that same merit, someone could write a scene where two bounty hunters sit at a table and the protagonist fires after his assailant. It's not inherently bad (though it is a bit dumb n principle) but it didn't work in the narrative it was inserted into.
This is the case with ME3's ending - the ending itself feels out of place for the same reason Lucas' changes feel out of place in Star Wars, so the rationale behind asking for them to be changed is in fact the same one as asking for Star Wars to remain the same. We want something narratively coherent, thematically consistent and in keeping with the gameplay precedents set up earlier.
People talk a log about "artistic integrity" without giving a lot of thought to what the term means, when really, it's not about the art never changing - if it was, that went out the window as soon as From Ashes was discovered, it's about art making sense and remaining true to a specific vision the whole way through. That's why From Ashes reinforces the game's artistic integrity, instead of damaging it - Javik is an important part of the lore, and a consistant, coherent addition to the game in which he fits seamlessly. If instead we got say, Blasto the Hanar Spectre as a squadmate, that would be awesome, but it would be tonally jarring and undermine the themes of the game, damaging it's integrity. In Star Wars, the original cut had artistic integrity because the themes and storyline were consistent from start to finish. It's integrity was damaged by Lucas' changes, while Mass Effect 3, had artistic integrity (which did kind of get iffy around ME2, but the game was internally consistent enough to let that slide), but the ending itself damages the artistic integrity of the series as a whole by betraying it's core principles.
A lot of people will argue the ending served to make the point that no matter what you do in life, in the end you die and all your choices are moot, but those people fail to comprehend the game as a whole. EDI's character arc involved her discovering the vales and nature of organic life, and how it creates purpose through its legacy beyond its own lifespan. Shepard's role in the entire series has been one of self-actuallization and the triumph of free will over inevitability. The core narrative of Mass Effect deals with the legacy of the Protheans and the fact that its last survivors were able to slow the eternal cycle of the reapers by giving their own lives. The theme most often reinforced by the gameplay is one of a single person influencing vast outcomes simply through an unwillignness to sit by and let things happen - even the citadel side quests and supporting different participants of an argument reinforce the theme that what you do has consequences. The ending cannot tell us what we do doesn't matter because the rest of the game tells us it does. That internal consistency is the broken integrity of the series as a coherent piece of art. It does not belong in Mass Effect, and that above all is why the ending fails.
Also, are you really surprised that after three games about how much your choices matter and how you have to fight to defend that which you hold dear some people took that to heart? It's a testament to just how well Bioware built this series that people refuse to let it end like this.
When Bethesda changes the ending to Fallout 3, it adds new content, adds choices that improve the narrative coherence of the scene and additional gameplay elements (ie, main quest continuation) that better mesh with that which has come before.
When changes are made that run counter to the themes, narrative conventions, lore, characterization or even gameplay that has come before, it's generally considered a bad thing because it damages the integrity of the art as a whole. By that same logic, when a sequence in a narrative has these same problems, people have a similar reaction because the coherence of the experience is damaged by those moments. In another story, the ending we got could fit in perfectly, if it maintained the tone, themes, central conflict and gameplay precedents of what came before. It would mesh with the whole, and people would be OK with it. By that same merit, someone could write a scene where two bounty hunters sit at a table and the protagonist fires after his assailant. It's not inherently bad (though it is a bit dumb n principle) but it didn't work in the narrative it was inserted into.
This is the case with ME3's ending - the ending itself feels out of place for the same reason Lucas' changes feel out of place in Star Wars, so the rationale behind asking for them to be changed is in fact the same one as asking for Star Wars to remain the same. We want something narratively coherent, thematically consistent and in keeping with the gameplay precedents set up earlier.
People talk a log about "artistic integrity" without giving a lot of thought to what the term means, when really, it's not about the art never changing - if it was, that went out the window as soon as From Ashes was discovered, it's about art making sense and remaining true to a specific vision the whole way through. That's why From Ashes reinforces the game's artistic integrity, instead of damaging it - Javik is an important part of the lore, and a consistant, coherent addition to the game in which he fits seamlessly. If instead we got say, Blasto the Hanar Spectre as a squadmate, that would be awesome, but it would be tonally jarring and undermine the themes of the game, damaging it's integrity. In Star Wars, the original cut had artistic integrity because the themes and storyline were consistent from start to finish. It's integrity was damaged by Lucas' changes, while Mass Effect 3, had artistic integrity (which did kind of get iffy around ME2, but the game was internally consistent enough to let that slide), but the ending itself damages the artistic integrity of the series as a whole by betraying it's core principles.
A lot of people will argue the ending served to make the point that no matter what you do in life, in the end you die and all your choices are moot, but those people fail to comprehend the game as a whole. EDI's character arc involved her discovering the vales and nature of organic life, and how it creates purpose through its legacy beyond its own lifespan. Shepard's role in the entire series has been one of self-actuallization and the triumph of free will over inevitability. The core narrative of Mass Effect deals with the legacy of the Protheans and the fact that its last survivors were able to slow the eternal cycle of the reapers by giving their own lives. The theme most often reinforced by the gameplay is one of a single person influencing vast outcomes simply through an unwillignness to sit by and let things happen - even the citadel side quests and supporting different participants of an argument reinforce the theme that what you do has consequences. The ending cannot tell us what we do doesn't matter because the rest of the game tells us it does. That internal consistency is the broken integrity of the series as a coherent piece of art. It does not belong in Mass Effect, and that above all is why the ending fails.
Also, are you really surprised that after three games about how much your choices matter and how you have to fight to defend that which you hold dear some people took that to heart? It's a testament to just how well Bioware built this series that people refuse to let it end like this.
Soooooooooo...... basically FO3's ending is just as stupid as ME3's and was changed, without the same amount of backlash as ME3...Ilikemilkshake said:
and yet, Bioware refuses to change the ending and instead add stuff to the ending which will probably make it worse...
Why?
Who is running that place?
Broken Steel allowed you to keep playing after the main quest. (aswell as seeing the consequences of your choice of fixing/sabotaging the water supply) It also has a better story than the main quest.ChrisRedfield92 said:
It also increased the level cap and added more perks, weapons and creatures.
So basically it did everything a DLC should do. No one complained that it retconned the crappy original ending. Yet everyone keeps saying it would destroy gaming as an artistic medium if Bioware did this.
Star Wars were good movies that Lucas changed for the worse.
Mass Effect was shit and we want it changed for the better.
There's a difference.
A semantic difference, but it's still different.
Before I read the OP I thought the title of the thread was "Star Wars and Mass Effect Fanfics
And now I can't get the image of Chewbacca making out with Garrus out of my head. I think I have a problem.
Mass Effect was shit and we want it changed for the better.
There's a difference.
A semantic difference, but it's still different.
Before I read the OP I thought the title of the thread was "Star Wars and Mass Effect Fanfics
And now I can't get the image of Chewbacca making out with Garrus out of my head. I think I have a problem.
Fallout 3: Broken Steel was the released ending expansion that retconned the original ending of Fallout 3 due to plot inconsistencies and needless sacrifice of the main character to achieve the ending, which the fans noticed and brought to attention.CriticKitten said:
Mask of the Betrayer retconned the ending of Neverwinter Nights 2 where everyone supposedly died in a cave-in to have the hero survive the ordeal and be transported to another land for a new adventure, which more or less several other supporting characters that supposedly died as well being revealed to have escaped as well. This was also due to fan attention.
Mass Effect 3's ending was not the original ending planned. It was the rushed ending that only two of the writers actually came up with at the last moment, without any insight from the rest of the writing staff.
Gaming journalism in general, Fuck you, you pretentious pseudo intellectual, hypocritical fucks.Ilikemilkshake said:
The damage the ending did, not just to Bioware or the Mass Effect series, but to gaming journalism sites in general will be felt for years to come.
Why is Bioware standing by this crapfest of an ending? I don't believe for a second that this is the direction they wanted to go in, or that the ending was their so called "Artistic vision" because anyone who has even the most rudimentary understanding of basic writing can say that nothing works in this ending.
Worst of all are the reviewers who said the ending was fine.
The people who allegedly have English degrees and qualifications say the ending is fine.
WTF is going on?!
That's not rhetorical, I cannot comprehend why not one reviewer called out the ending.
Even Brad Gallaway from Gamecritics.com, the guy who gave Dragon Age 2 a score of 2.5 is saying the ending was fine...
It's mindblowing... just... Why?
Answers to your questions:ChrisRedfield92 said:
1. "Artistic integrity" *vomits*
2. Monkeys ruled by EA.
Truthfully I don't get it either. FO3 vanilla was awesome. FO3 w/ Broken Steel was even more awesome. ME3 (minus last ten minutes) was awesome. Why don't people, including EA and Bioware that stand to make a ton of money and fan praise for something like this, WANT A ME3 BROKEN STEEL DLC!?!?!
In the immortal words of Yahtzee, this is pants on head retarded.
Don't even think about comparing the shlock that was the prequels and special editions to the otherwise amazing Mass Efffect series....
But since you did it anyway, no, it's not the same.
Nobody ever said "we want more closure, clarity and an ending that actually makes sense" when it came to the special edition altering. They were saying "STOP CHANGING YOUR MOVIE IT'S FINE THE WAY IT IS!!" Also, the fact that George Lucas never even gives the option of watching the original movie is just a big middle finger to everyone who he turned into a fan beforehand.
Mass Effects writing and character development is infinitely better and more detailed than Star Wars (in my opinion at least). People were pissed off because all that rich detail gets set on fire and kicked out the nearest airlock in the final 10minutes of a series you could spend over 100hours playing through.
But since you did it anyway, no, it's not the same.
Nobody ever said "we want more closure, clarity and an ending that actually makes sense" when it came to the special edition altering. They were saying "STOP CHANGING YOUR MOVIE IT'S FINE THE WAY IT IS!!" Also, the fact that George Lucas never even gives the option of watching the original movie is just a big middle finger to everyone who he turned into a fan beforehand.
Mass Effects writing and character development is infinitely better and more detailed than Star Wars (in my opinion at least). People were pissed off because all that rich detail gets set on fire and kicked out the nearest airlock in the final 10minutes of a series you could spend over 100hours playing through.
I don't get how the quality of the writing can just nosedive so suddenly, and then no one on the team has any objections. None of the supposedly qualified reviewers call it out and then the consumers that keep the companies running are so completely ignored and marginalized as whiny.Ticonderoga117 said:
Even by EA standards this doesn't make sense. Why would EA allow the release of an ending so godawful and alienating that pissed off just about everybody. You can get away with certain things that annoy costumers, but this is too much...
To be honest I don't see why an EA executive isn't telling them to exactly what the fans want.
An EA executive would have looked at this ending and said "it's not satifying, make it a happy ending so that people are satisfied and happy." And even though that would have pissed some people off, the backlash wouldn't have been nowhere near this scale.
I don't see how this ending defends DLC interests. Shepard dies in most of them.
Yeah, I don't get it either. Now it's been said that only two people brainstormed the end. It's already been mentioned here and I don't know if it's true or not. However, I don't think an EA exec would've said "Give the customers something good because we can." I see "Let's give them something good because we can make a metric-ton of money from it." Which is all the more confusing because they are NOT doing this as it currently stands.ChrisRedfield92 said:
Personally, if the Extended Cut was extremely well done and un-did all the horrible storytelling ****ups the current ending has, I would GLADLY pay some money for the quality product. As it stands, I think the Extended Cut is going to suck because it will not be quality. In attempting to explain the crap we have, more crap will show up. Being a CS student there's a sayign that applies here. "For every bug you remove, 10 more crop up."
I hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.