Although, honestly, when you're facing a threat that's about to wipe out all sentient life past a certain stage of evolution, I'm not sure that, no matter how personal the story, constructing a machine to turn the moon into cheese is ever going to be a viable ending.
Exactly, that is why it seems that as soon an evil power manages to pop up to kick all he puppies, it seems inevitable that the ending of the story will involve stopping it so you can resume living in the moon or take over the world yourself right where you left off.
Your thoughts on the writing are irrelavent to overall quality. We do have objective measurments for some things, electricity, temprature, speed,and the like. However writing has no objective way to measure its quality. Writing has the purpose of interesting human beings, or convincing them of a postion, and this means that we can establish things that the majority of humans like in writing, but humans are a diverse lot and what one likes another might not. Objectivity is about removing bias and emotion and evaluating things based on strict units... writing is often meant to evoke emotion therefore the only true way to objectively measure writing quality would be to hook humans up to machines and measure brain activity while they read. This wouldn't remove the human's personal bias but since the goal of writing is to appeal to people, whichever got the desired effect would be objectively better... in theory.
Its not about liking it or not. One may say that they like ME2, but objectively there is no coherent plot that expands on the overarching one of stopping the Reapers. Its fundamentally flawed.
It intrigues me how you said that there is no objective measurements for writting and yet you say: "..or convincing them of a position.." If the writer is going to argue a political view or whatever then it HAS to use logic and proper exposition into the narrative to make it natural. But if written stories are not about being objective but to evoke emotions, then all the writer has to do is use the fallacy of appeal to emotion and say: "WILL SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?"
Damn.... I seem to be in the minority again.
I loved the Mass Effect 3 Ending. I found it justified. I didn't find any logical fallacies, because I didn't look for them. I just enjoyed myself and the ending made sense.
Under those circunstances, anything can be made tolerable if you shut down your brain. May i suggest that you read Mein Kampf? how about seeing Birth Of A Nation?
My conditions for the game were the same as yours. I just knew it was superbad from everyone.
Anyway, first time I finished the game it was without the Extended-Cut and it just left me confused. Like "uhh what?" and then preceded to watch extended cut for my game ending on youtube.
I finished the game again but with the Synthesis Ending with Extended cut and I thought it was awesome. I almost cried when I saw Edi cry for Commander Shepard. Out of all the characters made by Bioware, Edi is definitely among the best for me. Sure some of the conversations about sentient life were kinda typical, but helping her along with her self-awareness and her romantic relationship with Joker (one of your best friends) to culminate in her crying at your memorial was a incredibly touching moment.
So I don't think the ending was bad, just horribly unfinished. It literally didn't make sense until they released the Extended-Cut.
Edit: Thought now honestly, I don't know how the Synthesis Ending came to be. There was some ideas for Destruction and Control endings before the final act, but the synthesis one came outta no where. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
It depends on which ending you're talking about. If you're talking about the original, I personally believe that the Mass Effect community had a point, which they made obscenely clear and screamed at every opportunity. If you're talking about the new Extended Cut, I agree.
My only problem with the ending originally was the complete lack of closure.
I don't mind the open-ended tactic when it comes to the universe as a whole, because I find it fun to think about and form conjectures on how galactic civilization changed or progressed as a result of my ultimate decision.
The original ending, however, solely conveyed (I would think) the next hour or so after Shepard makes his/her decision, then cuts to credits. It was like walking up a giant staircase and having the very last step vaporize before you could get onto it. I don't need anything spelled out for me, but you could give me things to work and use my imagination with. Especially when it came to the characters. Christ, there was nothing there.
However, the Extended Cut (in my personal opinion) fixed it all. It gave me hints on what the future held for the universe, gave closure on most or all of the characters, and had an air of resolution about it. It could've been better, don't get me wrong, but the Extended Cut put that last step there for me. It wasn't made from pure diamond and cut at an exact ninety degree angle, but it was still there.
Damn.... I seem to be in the minority again.
I loved the Mass Effect 3 Ending. I found it justified. I didn't find any logical fallacies, because I didn't look for them. I just enjoyed myself and the ending made sense.
Under those circunstances, anything can be made tolerable if you shut down your brain. May i suggest that you read Mein Kampf? how about seeing Birth Of A Nation?
and if I start to look into anything, I get bitter and cynical very quickly.
I enjoy life when I accept things as they are and just try to live at the moment.
I accepted Mass Effect the way they made it and any major glaring plotholes that would have been in the fore-front of my mind, were answered at some point during ME3. I enjoyed the game, all of the DLC and I enjoyed the ending.
You don't like the fact that I enjoyed the ending? Too fucking bad.
and if I start to look into anything, I get bitter and cynical very quickly.
I enjoy life when I accept things as they are and just try to live at the moment.
I accepted Mass Effect the way they made it and any major glaring plotholes that would have been in the fore-front of my mind, were answered at some point during ME3. I enjoyed the game, all of the DLC and I enjoyed the ending.
You don't like the fact that I enjoyed the ending? Too fucking bad.
You have the right of being bitter and cynical if you dont get what you paid for, otherwise its like getting poisoned food in the restaurant, you may get used to the pain but that doesnt mean that your bowels aren't crying in pain and for revenge right now.
To quote Yathzee: "Put your hand on a stove for 20 hours and yeah, you'll probably stop feeling the pain, but you'll have done serious damage to yourself because you no longer have an arm."
In fact, saying that you didnt think hard enough is proof that even the rest of the game is mediocre. After all, the game was supposed to be around making big hard decitions that you have to, you know, THINK and meditate hoping that you make the right decition. If you didnt think and you just skipped the dialog around or you just selected whatever option was on the screen, that that means that the game as failed (again) in keeping you involved enough to take its drama and decitions seriously.
Your thoughts on the writing are irrelavent to overall quality. We do have objective measurments for some things, electricity, temprature, speed,and the like. However writing has no objective way to measure its quality. Writing has the purpose of interesting human beings, or convincing them of a postion, and this means that we can establish things that the majority of humans like in writing, but humans are a diverse lot and what one likes another might not. Objectivity is about removing bias and emotion and evaluating things based on strict units... writing is often meant to evoke emotion therefore the only true way to objectively measure writing quality would be to hook humans up to machines and measure brain activity while they read. This wouldn't remove the human's personal bias but since the goal of writing is to appeal to people, whichever got the desired effect would be objectively better... in theory.
Its not about liking it or not. One may say that they like ME2, but objectively there is no coherent plot that expands on the overarching one of stopping the Reapers. Its fundamentally flawed.
It intrigues me how you said that there is no objective measurements for writting and yet you say: "..or convincing them of a position.." If the writer is going to argue a political view or whatever then it HAS to use logic and proper exposition into the narrative to make it natural. But if written stories are not about being objective but to evoke emotions, then all the writer has to do is use the fallacy of appeal to emotion and say: "WILL SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?"
The purpose for the writing is to intrigue and entertain people. To say it failed at that goal is impossible because people differ. In addtion what if I found Mass Effects plot entirely coherent? Or what if I agreed with you that it had flaws but considered them minor and non-important to the overall. Objectivity requires a metric unaffected by personal views or emotion, one based solely on impartial observation. To argue that one writing is better than another is a pointless as arguing over whether red rocks are better than grey. "Red rocks tend to be splotchy and non-uniform. Clearly the perfect even coloration is objectively better." You might say. "but I like the color of the red rocks, and the non-uniformness adds variety, and makes them much more enjoyable ot look at." I might reply. Anything you dislike in writing is merely your own taste, and while the majority of humans might agree on certain things there are always outliers. As for argument,I would hold that logic can be objective and logical argument can be also, though the issue is that the specific writing of a argument cannot be objectively measured. You might find a good intro that makes everyone feel united is a good way to write a speech but I might prefer to jump straight in and set the tone more serious and cold to drive home the importance of facing the issues presented. One cannot say which is objectively better because both intend to draw emotional reponses from humans, and humans are vastly diffrent. Quite frankly if a story sets out with the goal of entertaining people, and he was entertained and found it enjoyable then the story has accomplished its goal. No objective mesurement can counter-act that and none truly exists.
Hooray! A Mass Effect 3 ending thred! Whoot whoot!
I will never tire of this topic. So much passion, on both sides of the fence.
I didn't hate the ending either. I was playing it back when the shitstorm kicked off too, and i didn't see what was so bad about it that people were going 'ZOMG, I hate you bioware, you ruined my life.' and so fourth.
I get the argument that 'your decicions made no difference to the ending', but frankly, I don't think that at all. If you look upon the whole game as the ending to the trilogy, then some of your decisions do make a huge difference. I say some, because obviously no matter what you choose previously, there are some story elements that are in there no matter what choices you made, for example:
No matter what decisions you made in ME2, the Quarians will always go to war against the Geth
But y'know what? I was happy to just go along for the ride. Some of the emotional highpoints for me came purely from the character moments (and we all know which ones specifically I'm talking about). About the ending though,
yes, its rather severe that Shepard just doesn't argue against any of the starbrats points (And lets face it, the starbrats logic is deeply deeply flawed and based upon incomplete information from millenia ago that doesn't seem to take account of the progress that has been made throughout the intervening cycles)
but even so, what carried me through the ending without tearing my Mass Effect fanboy hair out was one thing. Jennifer Hales performance. Jesus Christ, if they had oscars for it I'd nominate her performance as Shepard.
We've also had the extended cut and Leviathan since then, and I really enjoyed Leviathan. I liked the way that ended (especially since it blows frigging Indoctrination Theory out of the water), even though it was fairly short and linear.
Anyway, in hindsight, I do understand why people don't like it. The worst thing about the ending for me is that is just too rushed and incomplete. There is too much of the games production concerns forcing its way into the world of the game. I would have happily waited another six months for a more rounded, more complete product. I wouldn't have a problem with the way the ending was structured, or if the choices and outcomes weren't changed much, just let me argue for the case of organics against the starbrat! Fuck, I've got a high enough paragon rating, let me convince the starbrat that he's fucking wrong, and kill himself. I mean, I shot him in the face, but things didn't turn out so well when I did.
So yeah, the ending for me contained so much potential - as it stands - but none of it wasused, and we all know why. I've kinda made my peace with that though. I'm a writer, I have imagination, and I accept that this isn't my universe, so I have no choice but to go along with it.
The purpose for the writing is to intrigue and entertain people. To say it failed at that goal is impossible because people differ. In addtion what if I found Mass Effects plot entirely coherent? Or what if I agreed with you that it had flaws but considered them minor and non-important to the overall. Objectivity requires a metric unaffected by personal views or emotion, one based solely on impartial observation. To argue that one writing is better than another is a pointless as arguing over whether red rocks are better than grey. "Red rocks tend to be splotchy and non-uniform. Clearly the perfect even coloration is objectively better." You might say. "but I like the color of the red rocks, and the non-uniformness adds variety, and makes them much more enjoyable ot look at." I might reply. Anything you dislike in writing is merely your own taste, and while the majority of humans might agree on certain things there are always outliers. As for argument,I would hold that logic can be objective and logical argument can be also, though the issue is that the specific writing of a argument cannot be objectively measured. You might find a good intro that makes everyone feel united is a good way to write a speech but I might prefer to jump straight in and set the tone more serious and cold to drive home the importance of facing the issues presented. One cannot say which is objectively better because both intend to draw emotional reponses from humans, and humans are vastly diffrent. Quite frankly if a story sets out with the goal of entertaining people, and he was entertained and found it enjoyable then the story has accomplished its goal. No objective mesurement can counter-act that and none truly exists.
If you (hyphotetically) found ME to be coherent then you will have to explain it because the narrative failed to do so. I may or may not like it but if it isnt contrived mess then i have to agree that its well written. Sadly, that would never happen because (repeat after me):
Deus ex Machina
That sound you hear is the asses of all the writers in the world, clenching in agony by the sound you made while reading those words up there (even if you read it in your mind) because its mere presence its sign of bad writting. The fact that we can say that something has bad writting means that there is a criteria that must be meet, and to say that "Well, that is like, you opinion man" doesnt change the fact one bit.
And again, if emotion is all people need to say it is good, then i can put jump scares in my horror movie and call it a day, because that is ALL i need to engage you and have an emotion.
OT: To be honest, your words can be summed up with "If it works, who cares? being distracted and avoid being intellectually stimulated, that all they care." and its quite nice for a litle proyect of mine that i am writting. And its the only valuable information that i have found while indulging in the ME3 fiasco -_-
Well, i will have try harder to obtain a more satisfying answer to your opinion.
The purpose for the writing is to intrigue and entertain people. To say it failed at that goal is impossible because people differ. In addtion what if I found Mass Effects plot entirely coherent? Or what if I agreed with you that it had flaws but considered them minor and non-important to the overall. Objectivity requires a metric unaffected by personal views or emotion, one based solely on impartial observation. To argue that one writing is better than another is a pointless as arguing over whether red rocks are better than grey. "Red rocks tend to be splotchy and non-uniform. Clearly the perfect even coloration is objectively better." You might say. "but I like the color of the red rocks, and the non-uniformness adds variety, and makes them much more enjoyable ot look at." I might reply. Anything you dislike in writing is merely your own taste, and while the majority of humans might agree on certain things there are always outliers. As for argument,I would hold that logic can be objective and logical argument can be also, though the issue is that the specific writing of a argument cannot be objectively measured. You might find a good intro that makes everyone feel united is a good way to write a speech but I might prefer to jump straight in and set the tone more serious and cold to drive home the importance of facing the issues presented. One cannot say which is objectively better because both intend to draw emotional reponses from humans, and humans are vastly diffrent. Quite frankly if a story sets out with the goal of entertaining people, and he was entertained and found it enjoyable then the story has accomplished its goal. No objective mesurement can counter-act that and none truly exists.
If you (hyphotetically) found ME to be coherent then you will have to explain it because the narrative failed to do so. I may or may not like it but if it isnt contrived mess then i have to agree that its well written. Sadly, that would never happen because (repeat after me):
Deus ex Machina
That sound you hear is the asses of all the writers in the world, clenching in agony by the sound you made while reading those words up there (even if you read it in your mind) because its mere presence its sign of bad writting. The fact that we can say that something has bad writting means that there is a criteria that must be meet, and to say that "Well, that is like, you opinion man" doesnt change the fact one bit.
And again, if emotion is all people need to say it is good, then i can put jump scares in my horror movie and call it a day, because that is ALL i need to engage you and have an emotion.
OT: To be honest, your words can be summed up with "If it works, who cares? being distracted and avoid being intellectually stimulated, that all they care." and its quite nice for a litle proyect of mine that i am writting. And its the only valuable information that i have found while indulging in the ME3 fiasco -_-
Well, i will have try harder to obtain a more satisfying answer to your opinion.
Deus Ex Machina is not objectively bad. It was invented to serve theater and people found it acceptable back then. Now we tend to demand a little more from our plots, your dislike of Deus Ex Machina is irrelavant to objectivity. Also intellectual stimiulation is one way to engage and entertain people. I am not saying that it is alright for a plot to be simplistic or stupid, I am saying it is not objectively worse than a complex and intellegent plot. All things is fiction are relavant to people, and some people find these plots acceptable. You may dislike simple plots, or plots that use Deus Ex Machina. I might agree with you, even the majority of fiction writers might agree with you. Everyone but a few select people might agree with you, but that doesn't make things objective. Also many people find horror movies that use jump scares boring, and uninteresting. If you make a movie of just jump scares alot of people won't like it but I will not claim it is objectively worse for it. Fiction is alot like ice cream in this respect, you can prefer vanilla or choclate. There is no objective measure for which is better. Even flavors that wouldn't get made because they are not generally liked like dirt flavor cannot be objectively worse, they merely do not conform to the majority of human's tastes. I might agree with you that Mass Effect's ending is sloppily written and uninteresing, I will get back to you once I finish the game, but what I will not do is mistake my own opinion for objective fac.
Actually, its more on the definiton of Diabolous Ex Machina rather than the other, but this time you get to choose how badly it will end.
Keep in mind that i already said that the rest of the game isnt precicely very stelar in presenting a dilemma but whatever, just play it all in a single woop if you must, so you can remember all the details without forgeting them by coming to the forums.
I just realised that the ending basically rips off Battlestar Galactica, with the whole cycle-of-man-versus-machine thing. Except unlike Battlestar Galactica, it's never foreshadowed or even mentioned in any way before the end. It's like they wanted to make something meaningful but had to pull it out of their asses.
This Ferrari is supposed to reach very high speeds but it really doesn't, but you'll still like it. Oh, yeah, buy out factory extras while you're at it!
That's what my opinion of the first production run of said Ferrari. Nothing against people liking it, but if you're sacrificing everything (right down to comfort) to be able to drive fast and you really can't even after paying the worth of three cars?
eheheh...I chose destroy rather than control because I didn't trust my Shepard to not go all God of Wrath on the universe eventually. She made some nasty-ass decisions over the course of that trilogy. Power corrupts and I'm not putting it in the hands of the woman who had the habit of shooting first and asking questions later.
Hmm, ok yeah. From the sounds of it I would not trust your Shepherd in charge of a bunch of all powerful robots either. She might just decide the reapers where right....
and if I start to look into anything, I get bitter and cynical very quickly.
I enjoy life when I accept things as they are and just try to live at the moment.
I accepted Mass Effect the way they made it and any major glaring plotholes that would have been in the fore-front of my mind, were answered at some point during ME3. I enjoyed the game, all of the DLC and I enjoyed the ending.
You don't like the fact that I enjoyed the ending? Too fucking bad.
You have the right of being bitter and cynical if you dont get what you paid for, otherwise its like getting poisoned food in the restaurant, you may get used to the pain but that doesnt mean that your bowels aren't crying in pain and for revenge right now.
To quote Yathzee: "Put your hand on a stove for 20 hours and yeah, you'll probably stop feeling the pain, but you'll have done serious damage to yourself because you no longer have an arm."
In fact, saying that you didnt think hard enough is proof that even the rest of the game is mediocre. After all, the game was supposed to be around making big hard decitions that you have to, you know, THINK and meditate hoping that you make the right decition. If you didnt think and you just skipped the dialog around or you just selected whatever option was on the screen, that that means that the game as failed (again) in keeping you involved enough to take its drama and decitions seriously.
I'm not a serious gamer though?
I don't play for philosophical/moral dilemma or thought.
I don't play for challenge.
I played all of the Mass Effect games several times, on the easiest difficulty.
The game could be spawned from the Virgin Mary's vagina and I still wouldn't take it seriously.
The game wasn't bad.
I did not play the game in the context that it was designed for. That does not mean the game is a failure.
I've still spent over 200 hours in the Mass Effect Trilogy and as far as games go, that's an achievement. It held my attention long enough for me to buy all the DLC and actually spend money on the Multiplayer bonus packs.
I don't understand your unbridled hatred for the series.
1. None of your choices matter. Thing was virutally the entire selling point of the series and a MASSIVE disappointment. I really can't believe they squandered such a fleeting chance to make good on a gaming phenomenon. Two guys made this ending without any input from the rest of the team and they were DELUSIONAL if they thought they did the right thing in that regard.
2. Shepard never argues with the Catalyst. It's like "Shepard, you have to choose one of three different endings, just because" and Shepard goes "Oh. Well granted that is kind of s***, but ok." Where's the bit where Shepard says "I refuse, take your Reapers and sod off".
3. The entire thing hinges on a DEUS EX MACHINA. In fact, the entire plan of the entire game's military forces was to use this thing, and they had no idea what it would do, but thought it was responsible to place every bet on it, instead of...say...equipping Cains to every space ship they had. Which have been proven to work against Reapers, along with Thanix cannons. It is just such a stupid plan.
There are a plethora of other reasons but those are the three that I thought of at the time rather than what I learnt afterwards.
1. Your choices do matter. They're the war assets? Killed the rachni queen in the first game? You don't get good rachni in the third. Killed Mordin in the second game? No Mordin in the third. You're an asshole? Less war assets...and money. They all factor into how much survives the attack.
2. Shepard doesn't have a right to argue. You're given the option to control, assimilate or destroy the reapers. You don't have any other options. You never had any other options. Even if they rewrote the ending so it wasn't so blatantly obvious that those were your choices - it would still whittle down to those 3. So what if Shepard says "I don't like any of them, just leave." What if the Catalyst told you to go fuck yourself and just allows the Reapers to destroy everything anyway? That's a brilliant ending to the game. The mysterious fabled object of the many cycles past, destined to destroy the reapers, is finally up and operational - and you decide to argue with the intelligence inside and get everything killed anyway.
Shepard's death is necessary. Shepard is synthetic - or part synthetic, the death of the greatest evil (which is machine) means the death of the greatest good. It's a poetic ending for the great legend.
3. I thought the Reaper's shields were too powerful? Punching holes in something isn't necessarily going to destroy it. The Thanix Cannons didn't stop the Collector Ship. Shepard setting off a bomb from the inside did. Cannons didn't stop Sovereign until after it's shields were taken down - and even then there was an entire armada firing upon it. A single reaper.
The Cain according to it's description was also prototype. I personally doubt it's design was even finished (as far as game lore goes) and if the many races of the cycles before placed their hopes in the crucible, I can understand why the council races would too.
The question wasn't of whether it'd work, it was of the time needed.
That is like saying that The Mona Lisa is good art because the paper (or whatever) it was painted on acts like a nice frisbie.
That is like liking the battle scenes of "Sucker Punch" when in the context of the narrative, it is supposed to be insulting to the audience, because those fat disgusting man that wants the girl to "dance" for them are supposed to be you, the audience.
You may as well play Gears of War if you wanted something mindless, at least you know that the game cares about is plot as much as you do.
Dragon Age: Origins wrapped up everything neatly in its shipped endings. Sure they may have only been text screens but they accurately reflected what you'd done in the game.
From helping a companion recover a treasured possession in order to change his opinion of you, to getting a dwarf religious freedom, to whether or not one person died during the defence of a town. Heck even how you treated a character would affect what type of ruler he would become.
Events big and small were all covered. Sure you beat the game in one of three ways but you also learnt how your actions throughout the game changed the little things.
That's where Mass Effect 3 took a big dive with the shipped endings. It dealt with the big event of the Reapers but forgot all the little things that made people want to stop them in the first place.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
