Why I think the ME3 fans are actually mad

[Varrdy]

Think about it for a minute... the Crucible was constructed as a weapon against the Reapers. A weapon that is supposed to use the Catalyst/Citadel as a stabilizing component needed for it to work properly. It's designed to be a weapon, but The Illusive Man believes it can also be used to control the Reapers. So what manner of weapon can it possibly be with those two possible uses?

The Illusive Man also believed that indoctrination was the secret to controlling the Reapers. That the very thing that allows them to control their forces can be used to control them instead. Do you see the connection there?

The Crucible was an ambitious project (by the Protheans and races that preceded them) to disrupt Reaper indoctrination, and possibly even communication between the Reapers themselves. We were shown multiple times that the Protheans had studied indoctrination to the point where they had technology able to detect it. Working on a way to disrupt it is the logical way to proceed from there.

I've been saying something similar for a while now although your pointing out that Protheans could actually detect the "taint of indoctrination", as Vigil put it, was something I missed and is an excellent point!

Having the Crucible use the relays to transmit a signal that nullifies the effects of indoctrination would deny the Reapers of what the Codex describes as "Their most insidious weapon".

When Joker hands Shepard that datapad at the end of ME2, I think it's pretty much a given that they were schematics for the most common form of Reaper and that they will have been studied at length to find any weaknesses that could be exploited. Vigil said that Reapers were not invincible and Shepard's actions in delaying their arrival could have given the right people valuable time to work on the data and find possible weak-spots that could be exploited.

The fact that Reapers are taking big damage in the final battles, both on Earth and in the skies above, shows that some progress in that area has been made but without any dialogue to back it up, it makes it look like another plot-hole, which is a shame.

 

[Varrdy]

Because if game companies are going to just treat us like walking wallets, then why should we treat them as artists?

I think that, with that one sentence, you've pretty much hit the nail on the head - not that the "games are art so hands off!" crowd would ever admit it!

Bravo!

I hope you don't mind but I might quote this line (but never take credit for it!) if the need arises because I think it's the best point made on this subject, thus far!

 

[HanabPacal]

Great post Rafael. I think your take on things is absolutely spot-on for the situation. However, I also believe that this has been growing (more like festering) as a larger, more encompassing issue for a while with both gaming ?journalism? and BioWare.

With BioWare it?s not just that they have made a succession of games that have been less than well-received by customers. It?s the fact that they seem wholly incapable of dealing with the massive amount of criticism concerning their latest projects and have reacted badly (immaturely defensive rather then coolly professional) with blame, smug insinuation and outright fallacy, all the while refusing to even take responsibility for the most obvious flaws in their work. (Well, they did admit to the re-used dungeons in DAII but they attempted to spin it in their favor. Plus, that was actually a minor issue in comparison to the more deep-seeded and destructive problems within the game.)

With Dragon Age II they (BioWare) began and then continually perpetuated the notion that ?people can?t accept change? which eventually morphed into ?people only wanted DA:O2? in an attempt to deflect any criticism of the product as being valid. They completely ignored the fact that the overwhelming majority of people who expressed a wish for the game to be more like DA:O did so as a reaction to their disappointment with DAII after the fact, rather than as an absolutely defining criteria for being able to enjoy DAII in the first place. The evidence for this is all over the DAII forum, but BioWare chose to engage in the blame game rather than dealing with the facts. And by choosing the particular blame game that they did, they thus chose to paint DAII?s detractors as stubbornly dysfunctional, as people that would have disliked the game no matter how great it was - simply because it wasn?t a carbon copy of DA:O. Then, in a fine example of adding insult to injury, they continued to do so for many months after the product was out as Ray Muzyka perpetuated this very sentiment in interviews with gaming ?journalists? three and four months after the release of DAII. (Of course the ?journalists? asked only soft, BioWare friendly questions that did nothing to address the real situation and left the unsatisfied customers unfairly holding the proverbial bag of responsibility in print.) Thus, through their own hubris, insecurity, or that most interesting psychological mix of the two, BioWare started the ball rolling for people to have a legitimate reason to not only distrust them when it came to delivering a product, but to hold them in a measure of earned contempt as well.

Then we have gaming ?journalism?.

In every other form of mainstream entertainment media the journalists (critics/reviewers) for the most part act as a solid front-line of defense for consumers against poorly made products. The critics (again for the most part ? there are of course exceptions) are actually critical of the particular media that they cover because it helps to motivate the various artists to strive to do better, as well as serving the intended function of the job ? to objectively inform the public. These critics don?t act as mouthpieces for pre-release hype of the products, nor do they splash full page ads for the media they review on their websites or beside their columns. They realize that things like these constitute as a huge conflict of interest and very much go against being able to present themselves and their opinions as objective and not influenced by them being beholden to publishing houses and production studios. Also, as a rule when writing a review, they don?t allow themselves to be swept away as adoring fans when assessing something in order that they don?t dismissively hand-wave away problems (sometimes major problems) that can and will adversely affect the enjoyment (as well as the objective quality) of the product by others. All of these things covered above we expect from critics/reviewers - because it?s their raison d?etre and it?s professional. Unfortunately, where gaming ?journalism? is concerned we get exactly the opposite of what is expected, of what is professional.

One of the most telling things for me is the fact that professional film, literature, and television review scores are almost always lower than reader/viewer scores ? upwards of 90% of the time. While, on the other hand, ?professional? game review scores are almost always higher than the user scores ? again, upwards of 90% of the time - and when looked at collectively for AAA titles the overwhelming majority of them sit between 75 and 95 on a scale of 1-100. Even more damning is the fact that such a large percentage of those AAA titles actually come in at or above the 90 mark. No artistic/entertainment medium is so top heavy with quality releases and must have titles. This perpetually ongoing situation serves to make the ?professional? game critics look deservedly ridiculous (and anything but professional) not only to gamers, but also to anyone on the outside of gaming looking in.

While a fair amount of distrust concerning game review scores has always been floated around, gaming ?journalists? and game publishers have been able to maintain plausible deniability by perpetuating, and hiding behind, the defense that the reason people question the scores is because those scores simply don?t match the opinion of those making the accusations. Unfortunately, the fact that there is some truth to this line of defense lends an air of credibility to it, but it?s certainly not the whole story. Even more unfortunate is the fact that this is used in almost all cases where a portion of the consuming public questions a game?s review scores and is given more surface level credibility because (invariably) gamers who like the game in question back up the perspective without thinking ? without looking at the bigger picture. This has led to the knee-jerk reaction of branding anyone and everyone that questions the scores (and actual quality) of game X as being somehow, in some way ?entitled? and/or as a conspiracy theorist. However, when you pull back and actually look at that bigger picture and consider not only the overall trend of game review scores skewing to the extremely high side of the scale, but the manner in which gaming ?journalists? conduct themselves and the perpetuation of their opinions in comparison to the journalists of other artistic mediums, it is pretty obvious that something is rotten in the state of games ?journalism?.

I?m not going to get into the motivating factors for why the system exists as it does (as that is an essay all unto itself) beyond saying that although some corruption definitely exists (it is an 8 billion dollar a year industry after all) between (some) publishers and (some) games ?journalists? there are other factors at play as well. Some of the factors are personal in nature ? quests for legitimacy gone awry for some ?journalists? ? while other factors are more benign than outright mutually agreed upon instances of corruption ? wanting the extra free advertising that comes with proclaiming something superlative, a game of the year candidate, etc. ? but no less detrimental to the overall state of things.

Thus we arrive at the current situation. With the confluence of the objectively bad (read poorly written) Mass Effect 3 ending, BioWare?s response (a combination of pulling inside their shell and continuing their recent history of smugness) and the overwhelming positive reviews of the product by games ?journalists?, reviews which ignore not only the problems with the ending but all of the other problems within the game as well, all hell has broken loose. Never before has a game release and games ?journalism? in general been put under such intense scrutiny and criticism by so many at one time with a singular point of focus.

Quite simply the dam broke and the games ?journalists? panicked. This situation provided them a chance to self-evaluate and a chance to evaluate the merits of the overall system in place. They could have directed their energy to creating a standardized review system that uses a scale which makes a semblance of sense and reevaluated the multiple conflicts of interest present in the system, but they didn?t. That would have taken some self-actualization and an ability to admit being wrong, which from their responses thus far shows them to be incapable of. Unfortunately, (and expectedly) the ?journalists? for the larger gaming sites/publications showed everyone where their priorities and loyalties really rest - with serving the largest publishers (and subsequently the developers that fall under the aegis of them) rather than with the consumers and/or with journalistic integrity.

I?m certain that some of these ?journalists? actually believe that they are working in the best interests of the games industry (while some definitely fall into the less than ethical motivating factors listed above). I think that they believe that they are fighting for the recognition and the legitimacy of the medium by taking the stance that they are. Unfortunately, by ignoring the bigger picture and the overarching problems, and not actually taking up the mantle of being reporters and presenting the whole situation, factually as it exists, they are further perpetuating the problem. Those that are falsely throwing around artistic integrity (I will expound on this for anyone that wishes ? it?s another long topic all unto itself) and accusations of entitlement are not only making the situation worse but are revealing a contempt for the consumers of games.

What publishers/developers and games journalists fail to understand is that when looked at from the outside they are held in as much a sense of ridiculous contempt as the gamers that they continually paint as the bad guys. What they also fail to understand is that to continually generalize any consumer-minded gamers with the worst of the ?fit throwers? is also to undermine the legitimacy of the industry. The bottom line is that gamers (we are the very worst consumer group out there, being ruled more than any other group by ?But I want?? rather than informed purchasing decisions) publishers/developers and games ?journalists? are all equally responsible for the poor perception of games and the games industry by the mainstream media and the public at large. Until they come to that realization and actually do something to correct that highly questionable course that they are on, true legitimacy will remain a pipedream.

 

[J.d. Scott]

The reason you're being derided as immature children is because you are. The fact that you didn't like the ending, and to claim that this "ruined" the entire product and constituted false advertising is ridiculous. It's their story. More importantly, if you took the time to actually understand what they were trying to do with that ending instead of simply joining the knee-jerk reaction parade, you might realize that the ending is brilliant. It's a smart, creative, subtle ending - slightly flawed, but it literally reshapes 300+ hours and thousands of paths and choices in less then two minutes. It gives qualities to the plot and characters that were never there before, and makes you question every moment and every choice you ever made. The fact that they used a scalpel and not a sledgehammer seems to make inaccessible to people, and I think that any changes will simplify appeal to the lowest common denominator by simply explaining what was supposed to be thought-provoking and diagramming what was once philosophical.

People keep saying these things, but they never go into detail to explain their reasoning. Meanwhile, the fans arguing against the current ending have produced detailed deconstructions of the ending, compared the stories and themes both between the games in the trilogy and with celebrated traditional literary works, and explained why it's unfitting for the genre and emotionally unsatisfying.

It would seem you can't really counter the arguments, so instead you attack the ones making them, all the while spouting vague nonsense about finding subtle brilliance in a sequence of events that are proven to suffer from last-minute cuts, rewrites, and complete displacement of several important subplots.

Fine. I'll do your homework for you.

The basic idea is that ending of Mass Effect 3 turns each individual game of Mass Effect 1-3 into a seperate version of a monomyth. The concept is that you're not experiencing the events as they happened or when they happened but a retelling several thousand or hundred thousand years in the future, after the effects of the reaper invasion.

Quoting Joseph Campbell, who came up with the concept: A hero ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man.

The idea here is that basic patterns from a monomyth when moved into the future becomes interwoven into several different narratives, via cultural biases and constant retelling. Details become lost, new details get added, things get changed. They all end up slightly different from one another.

You are not playing as Shepard. You're playing as somebody's version of Shepard from the future. In this way, all the choice you made were right, and all the choices were wrong, because nobody knows exactly what happened. It allows for deviation from game to game while simultaneously keeping all ideas the same. There was somebody named Shepard. He/She saved humanity from Saren and Sovereign. He/She built a crew from all the intelligent races in the galaxy. He/She defeated the Collectors. He/She stopped the reapers from destroying all life.

That's it. Each individual choice you made - male/female, renegade/paragon, gay/straight, relationship/no relationship, who you fell in love with, Krogan hero / Salarian hero, Quarians/Geth/Peace is just the splintered variant effects of time and personal choice. You're telling the story, so you get to tell it the way you want but you at the core still some facts to build you story on.

The endings have to be similar because the details are not completely lost. The Citadel was there. The crucible was used. The Reapers were stopped.

There are some notable plot holes. Shepard should have ordered Joker and Edi from the crucible to take the crew and run. Obviously they were supposed to flee to set up the green-side new creation mythos (with Joker and Edi as representative of the new origins of the organic/synthetic unified race). The destruction ending should have destroyed Victory Fleet (the Sol Relay exploding should have blown them to shreds) and the blue and green endings should not have destroyed the relays. The Blue ending is especially bad because destroying the relays left Victory Fleet stranded. If Earth was destroyed, there isn't even a habitable planet. They could clean the Citadel, but that's a lot people. Turians/Quarians need special food. At least Green side they could say that the changeover alleviated these issues, but the blue side left everyone to die. Disabling the mass relays (with the knowledge of the reapers or combined advanced races to repair them) would make more sense.

They could have done a slightly better job of expounding on their concepts. A simple text/VO narrative after each cut-scene would have done wonders. They can still effectively add this type of thing. Or they could extend the storyteller/child against blue snow scene to add some individual dialogue for each ending, or at least give a slight representation that each ending, no matter how brutal, lead to a future.

I also wouldn't be too averse to two special endings that involved both a rather advanced military and extensive paragon/renegade choices that didn't just have Shepard survive as a five second cutscene of a broken soldier on a dead ship with virtually no way out, but allowed you to utilize your primary skill to convince the "child" (he also could have used a touch of explaining - is he a VI controlling the reapers, the physical manifestation of an advanced consciousness, a representation of a reaper collective - what?) that you were either capable of coexisting with synthetic or capable of subjugating synthetic races. In both cases, Shepard could survive and thrive, allowing for Bioware to DLC to its heart content, while simultaneously obtaining the final objective - Shepard becomes a legend, Reapers are stopped, and lots of people died.

(As a final note, everyone who's wondering about the Citadel being moved seems to be ascribing an particular intelligence or subtlety to the Reapers that they never showed in the game. When you land on Palaven and discuss strategy with the leader of the Turian ground forces, he says bluntly that the Reapers could care less about proper military strategy. The Turians set a flanking maneuver and the Reapers walked right in and simply used their sheer technological advantage as well as their mass and ability to take damage to simply overwhelm the Turians. The reaper that died on Rannoch basically attempted to solo overwhelm the home of either the largest synthetic race in the galaxy or the most powerful fleet in the galaxy, or both. They obviously don't plan things out. Why wouldn't they move the Citadel to where they were most powerful? Since they failed the last time they tried to archive humanity in reaper form, why not start production again? The Reapers are really powerful genetic archives/genetic vacuum cleaners. Assuming they viewed the current cycle as any more of a threat and worthy of alternate strategies is silly.)

 

[Fwee]

I think one of my biggest problems is that the ONLY thing I've heard about Mass Effect 3 is the ending. Nothing about the gameplay, story, multiplayer (is it worth signing up for Origin?), characters (I wish Jessica Chobot wasn't in it), or graphics and controls.
So people made it all the way to the end and got let down? What about everyone who bought Crackdown 2? That was a letdown from the very beginning. I think the Mass Effect 3 reaction should have happened with that one.

 

[JediMB]

~snip~

So what you're saying is basically that all three games follow The Hero's Journey (except ME3, as it jumps ship when it's time to "Return with the Elixir"), and since the game is choice-oriented and features a tragic joke of an epilogue where it appears that the whole story has been told by someone in the Mass Effect universe's future, the ending somehow becomes a work of subtle genius?

Despite that all these things would still hold true with almost any resolution to main conflict, and that the chosen resolution simply doesn't make any sense, which is what we're all complaing about here?

 

[Nimcha]

This is a great thread. Tell people they're right and the big gaming companies are being mean and disrespectful and suddenly, you get 6 pages. Well done OP.

 

[Louzerman102]

Snip

Personal question.

Do you believe that shifting the game-play/story focus was a good decision?

99% of the mass effect series focuses on choices and lasting consequence, show by the transferable save game system.
This suddenly shifts to the monomyth concept of Shepard is a vessel, his(her) individual choices do not matter only that the reapers were ultimately defeated.

Do you believe this was a good concept to develop in the last 5 minuets of game play?

 

[SweetLiquidSnake]

They're mad because they've spent 3 games and roughly 200+ hours perfecting decisions only to have none of them matter in 10 minutes.

But I hope people realize that by making all those videos explaining the ending and perfecting it, you've ruined it because now if they do remake it, they obviously cant just cut and paste some bloggers ideas, so now theyre going to have to rewrite something which will be less than acceptable, and still not what you wanted.

I bet the entire reason we got the ending we did is cuz some asshole leaked the proper one so they had to change it. Gamers are causing their own misfortunes and crying about it.

 

[JediMB]

I think one of my biggest problems is that the ONLY thing I've heard about Mass Effect 3 is the ending. Nothing about the gameplay, story, multiplayer (is it worth signing up for Origin?), characters (I wish Jessica Chobot wasn't in it), or graphics and controls.

The gameplay is mostly an improvement over ME2. There's a better balance between combat/tech/biotic powers, so Adepts won't feel as useless as they did in ME2 or as overpowered as they did in ME1. That said, BioWare have gone a bit far with the context-sensitive combat moves (map EVERYTHING to the space bar!), which takes some getting used to and probably won't ever work perfectly.

The story varies a bit in quality, but it's VERY easy to forget about the bad parts (usually certain aspects of the "main" story) because the recruitment and side missions are so damn good... and because the ending's gigantic dip in quality really overshadows most everything else.

Multiplayer is fun co-opy goodness with some nice community challenges for the weekends. There's not that much to say about it, except that you play as somewhat simplified versions of the classes you're used to seeing for Shepard, and can unlock new class/species combinations as well as weapons, items and customization options through the purchase of "booster packs." Said booster packs some in three basic flavors, plus a weekly special back, and are purchased through credits earned while playing the game.

As far as characters go, the game has a mix of new and old characters, with a squad size more comparable to ME1's than ME2's. Most characters utilize both the traditional conversation types in the Normandy, and the monologue system used for Zaeed and Kasumi in ME2... except Shepard also sometimes auto-replies in ME3. If you can't stand Chobot, you only have to talk to her ONCE in the entire game, by denying her entry to the Normandy, but she's actually... okay, and not very intrusive.

The graphics are a step up from ME2. Not much I can say, since I don't care as much as I used to about these things. Shepard's face mesh has been reworked quite a bit, which I suspect is why importing faces from ME1 isn't possible at this time. Personally I might say it's an improvement, but I'm not sure what the consensus is.

So people made it all the way to the end and got let down? What about everyone who bought Crackdown 2? That was a letdown from the very beginning. I think the Mass Effect 3 reaction should have happened with that one.

A letdown is relative to both the expectations and the emotional investment. (As well as personal biases which may lead to the discovery of redeeming or further damning qualities.)

 

[JediMB]

This is a great thread. Tell people they're right and the big gaming companies are being mean and disrespectful and suddenly, you get 6 pages. Well done OP.

To be fair, almost any thread on the subject of ME3 should be expected to get a couple of pages worth of replies at this point in time.

 

[darkorion69]

Gamers are consumers. We choose to buy games and accept the potential risk that we will not enjoy a particular game. If we do not enjoy a particular game (for whatever reason) we are allowed to voice our discontent both in word and deed. I do not think anyone is saying that ME3 Fans should not be able to voice their discontent regarding the ending of ME3.

What I have a problem with is that some ME3 fans seem to think that their subjective feedback means Bioware has done something objectively wrong and that Bioware must cater to fan reaction post launch. You see, it is one thing to complain about a given game, or to refuse to buy another title from a given company...but it is unprecedented to demand that a developer alter their game after release to cater to any portion of its fan base.

None of us has the right to bully Bioware into answering our demands, however reasonably we couch our argument. None of us are entitled to more than our opinion about ME3. Sadly, enough people complained loudly enough that Bioware looks like it is going to cave-in on the issue with Free DLC. This, I fear, will set a dangerous precedent.

Game companies may open themselves up to after release pressure to alter their finished products. This will mean that developing a game may become even more stressful and a potentially never ending hassle for developers. Imagine them having to please EVERYONE or being pressured to re-write their games on a regular basis. Try to look at the Developers side of this problem for a moment please.

Imho, too many people look at this emerging issue in gaming solely from the perspective of the small, but vocal, section of fans displeased by the ME3 ending. If we badger game developers and demand concessions post launch, we may only succeed in alienating developers and creating more adversarial relationship between gamers and developers. why can't we just thank them for their games, voice our discontent, and then move on to trying their next game (which will likely be changed in light of negative fan reaction to their last title.)

 

[RafaelNegrus]

This is a great thread. Tell people they're right and the big gaming companies are being mean and disrespectful and suddenly, you get 6 pages. Well done OP.

To be fair, almost any thread on the subject of ME3 should be expected to get a couple of pages worth of replies at this point in time.

And also, to be fair, taking either side in this issue will have at least a few people to support it, but I think that Nimcha misses my point a little.

My point is that many of the people frustrated by the ending aren't actually frustrated by the ending at all, they're now feeling angry and betrayed because those very places where they go to vent those feelings have in turn insulted them for their views, and the fans therefore have had no way to let out those feelings in a potentially more productive matter.

 

[Fappy]

Ah the escapist, where one comes to make a reasoned argument, and gets Fappy making masturbation jokes

Games are supposed to be fun though, and so we should have fun no matter how much others try to suck it out of them. But I for one thinks a new age is coming!

Why do you think he's called Fappy

Single track mind, that one.

Just because you guys didn't quote me doesn't mean I don't know you are talking behind me back! Jerks! >:O

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Ah the escapist, where one comes to make a reasoned argument, and gets Fappy making masturbation jokes

Games are supposed to be fun though, and so we should have fun no matter how much others try to suck it out of them. But I for one thinks a new age is coming!

Why do you think he's called Fappy

Single track mind, that one.

Just because you guys didn't quote me doesn't mean I don't know you are talking behind me back! Jerks! >:O

I'm surprised you could keep your hands idle enough to type that

 

[Fappy]

Ah the escapist, where one comes to make a reasoned argument, and gets Fappy making masturbation jokes

Games are supposed to be fun though, and so we should have fun no matter how much others try to suck it out of them. But I for one thinks a new age is coming!

Why do you think he's called Fappy

Single track mind, that one.

Just because you guys didn't quote me doesn't mean I don't know you are talking behind me back! Jerks! >:O

I'm surprised you could keep your hands idle enough to type that

As it turns out asari can in fact masturbate and don't require hands to accomplish the task. Does it make you feel dirty that you're conversing with someone who is currently going solo on their own nervous system?

Okay, I've taken this too far haven't I?

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Ah the escapist, where one comes to make a reasoned argument, and gets Fappy making masturbation jokes

Games are supposed to be fun though, and so we should have fun no matter how much others try to suck it out of them. But I for one thinks a new age is coming!

Why do you think he's called Fappy

Single track mind, that one.

Just because you guys didn't quote me doesn't mean I don't know you are talking behind me back! Jerks! >:O

I'm surprised you could keep your hands idle enough to type that

As it turns out asari can in fact masturbate and don't require hands to accomplish the task. Does it make you feel dirty that you're conversing with someone who is currently going solo on their own nervous system?

Okay, I've taken this too far haven't I?

I'm more interested to know how you cam across such... information.

 

[Fappy]

Ah the escapist, where one comes to make a reasoned argument, and gets Fappy making masturbation jokes

Games are supposed to be fun though, and so we should have fun no matter how much others try to suck it out of them. But I for one thinks a new age is coming!

Why do you think he's called Fappy

Single track mind, that one.

Just because you guys didn't quote me doesn't mean I don't know you are talking behind me back! Jerks! >:O

I'm surprised you could keep your hands idle enough to type that

As it turns out asari can in fact masturbate and don't require hands to accomplish the task. Does it make you feel dirty that you're conversing with someone who is currently going solo on their own nervous system?

Okay, I've taken this too far haven't I?

I'm more interested to know how you cam across such... information.

I rolled my eyes back and said, "embrace eternity".

I was not prepared for what happened next. D:

 

[Nimcha]

This is a great thread. Tell people they're right and the big gaming companies are being mean and disrespectful and suddenly, you get 6 pages. Well done OP.

To be fair, almost any thread on the subject of ME3 should be expected to get a couple of pages worth of replies at this point in time.

Oh no, it's a regular survival of the fittest out here. 'Fittest' in this intance means 'most likely to be liked by people who think the ME3 ending only boils down to picking a color'.