People who like the ending:
you like the ending, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the fact you like the ending, there is no need to prove to other people why you perceive the ending as good, you're not going to change other people's minds after 8 months, and you really shouldn't care, especially now.
People who don't like the ending:
You are well within your rights to criticize the ending you perceive as bad, there is no need to try to prove why you think the ending is bad, you're not going to change anyone's mind after 8 months, and as before, you shouldn't care by now.
Now go into the naughty corner and think about all the silly things you said to each other, then kiss and make up.
So yes, I LIKE the uncut endings. I feel they werent the best endings ever, but they were good, they were fitting, and the outrage they sparked is completely unfounded
and is a huge stain on all gamers that illustrates why the perception of gaming is still viewed as a toy for children instead of a form of media that can express itself creatively and challenge conventions.
Ok, so criticizing something that we feel was badly written....Criticizing something we feel that was badly written in a series that prides itself on good writing, is acting childish? Get off your high-horse.
Not everyone demanded Bioware change the ending, don't generalize.
Novels and comics have succumbed to peer pressure and editing, I guess writing can no longer be taken seriously.
Movie plots have been edited by producers because they felt they weren't marketable, I guess films can no longer be taken as a serious form of media.
viranimus said:
In short, the outrage set us back at least a decade if not more, and that truly saddens me.
Not this shit again. If anything, this controversy is a big step forward for discussion of relationships between developer and consumer. Not just for videogames, but for any form of media.
c) using glorified space magic to turn everyone against their will into half-synthetic creatures, with no guarantee (besides the Catalyst's word) that this "peace" will hold
Aaaaaaaaand like Smudboy suggested in his video: what happens if the new half organic half machine species that ensues from the "Huskyficator 3000" ending, still creates synthetics to help them? or what happens if they create a superior organic super soldier and wipes out all organic life? it isnt a machine but it technically counts as created. And so on...
Not this shit again. If anything, this controversy is a big step forward for discussion of relationships between developer and consumer. Not just for videogames, but for any form of media.
How is it possible that in the Age Of Information, people still think that this kind of crap didnt happened before both in this medium (Fallout 3 non sensical ending) and the others?
And under what context would the "we fucked up the medium by complaining" would be a valid dilemma? this like the question i keep asking that is:
"If the artist explains the meaning behind its work of art, does that mean that the work looses its status as art? is it like "If you explain the joke, there is no joke"?"
I got a better set of questions: How is it possible for Casey Hudson to say that having a final boss is "so video-gamey" when not ONLY games in 2000 like Planescape Torment have demostrated that you CAN have one and still be able to even talk it to death with the proper information that you obtained during the journey? Why developers keep polishing their turds so hard at the expense of gaming history as a whole? "Yeah, WE DID IT FIRST!! NO game up until now did what WE did. WE are the only people doing something for the medium, and stopping or critizing us means that you want to destroy the only vanguards of innovation in the medium, therefore, YOU ARE THE DEMONS DESTROYING GAMING!!!"
Well, you say kissing and make out with each other but that is too lame, i do rather put the tongue all the way and check out if any of the teeths are real or fake (so at least i know that my......"client" has a good dental health. Otherwise, if it uses fake ones, then that means that he has a good dental plan)
How is it possible that in the Age Of Information, people still think that this kind of crap didnt happened before both in this medium (Fallout 3 non sensical ending) and the others?
I don't get it either. Media did not develop cause some master of all literature handed down his pamphlets once in a while when he thought humanity was ready. People made their works and other people responded with constructive criticism, the creators decide whether or not to take this advice.
And this isn't to say that what the public wants is always 100% correct either.
DioWallachia said:
And under what context would the "we fucked up the medium by complaining" would be a valid dilemma?
Apparently videogame developers are super insecure individuals incapable of accepting criticism.....Or at least that's what gaming journalism wants us to believe. And even in the case that it were true, that would not make it any more OKAY!
DioWallachia said:
I got a better set of questions: How is it possible for Casey Hudson to say that having a final boss is "so video-gamey" when not ONLY games in 2000 like Planescape Torment have demostrated that you CAN have one and still be able to even talk it to death with the proper information that you obtained during the journey?
Yes, The problem IS you. Im not going line by line dissection re quoting the responses. My OP took long enough as it is.
Here is the issue. Just because YOU think it is bad writing, does not mean that it is. Especially when the reason you think it is bad writing is clearly identified as you misunderstanding or not even seeing what is being conveyed. I was able to sense this as the problem back in March, and I was stunned at how blatant it actually is once I completed the play through, Downright ashamed even. Bioware attempted to end this trilogy with a level of risk and complexity that rarely if ever has been seen in gaming, and the community as a whole not only missed it, they went absolutely apeshit because they missed it. This is why I claim things like this sets us back a decade. It would be hard to mirror what moviebob said on it, considering I rarely watch bobs offerings because I normally disagree with him. It doesnt set us back a decade for being upset over the writing, It sets us back a decade when we act like screaming children getting bent out of shape simply because things did not go the way we expect them to. THAT is the entire problem of the controversy. Even in the face of all the well meaning, thoughtfully worded expositions on why the ending is broken, it still comes down to the same factors. You missed the point because you put your intention/interpretation as the expected end all be all resolution and when the ending did not mesh with your expectation, you screamed like a child.
One other element to this. I have categorically illustrated so many times over in the past. the "promises" argument, is complete and utter bullshit. Again, this is nothing but reaching misinterpretation, from sources that should have never been taken to be "advertisements" of the game. Im sorry, it is not even in question especially considering agencies responsible for handling false advertisement have already said so.
Look, this isnt my first go around with trying to touch on the ME3 inflated controversy. I have made my points. You are entitled to disagree, Vehemently so if you wish, but I have yet to this day seen any compelling evidence out of the hundreds of posts this has spawned to suggest what I have been saying all along might be incorrect. You are not going to convince me otherwise by restating the same flawed arguments, just exactly like my arguments will not get those who think they were justified in their response to move from their position. It is a waste of time and effort. Sorry we cant come to consensus.
I am sorry, but the simple fact that the trilogy was being brought to a close should have made it abundantly clear well in advance that thematically the endings would need to be similar.
Since Dragon Age Origins was ALREADY mentioned before, how about a lesson in gaming history to show you that having WIDLY different endings were common even in 1997? Play the Videogame adaptation of Blade Runner of 1997. It has 13 different endings that are product not only by choices of the player but ALSO a random number generator that makes certain events to play out in a certain way for you to make a choice.
From 1997 ladies and gentlemen. What are the games around choices devolved since then?
I assume that you were trying to quote me but i didnt see it in the text. But i will answer anyway.
EDIT3: I forgot the music:
viranimus said:
You missed the point because you put your intention/interpretation as the expected end all be all resolution and when the ending did not mesh with your expectation, you screamed like a child.
1)You havent seen the Fallout 3 ending controversy then
2)Its not expectations, its about trust. BW made many games that were among the best RPGs ever made, remember? Baldurs Gate and even Dragon Age Origins. They know how to write and yet the ending is so broken that it seems that it was made by other people, we trusted them to make a "planned" trilogy but not only they started to get lazy with the plot of ME2, ME3 shows their craks even before the ending.
People, up to the vey end, trusted BW and this if how it pays them.
One other element to this. I have categorically illustrated so many times over in the past. the "promises" argument, is complete and utter bullshit. Again, this is nothing but reaching misinterpretation, from sources that should have never been taken to be "advertisements" of the game. Im sorry, it is not even in question especially considering agencies responsible for handling false advertisement have already said so.
And its inmediatelly false since the promises were made by the DEVELOPERS not the marketing whose job is to polish the turd and its expected to make bullshit up.
The developers, the people who know their shit (or so we thought) are what counts. And what do the people got?
If i cant trust the word of god then what else is there to trust?
Look, this isnt my first go around with trying to touch on the ME3 inflated controversy. I have made my points. You are entitled to disagree, Vehemently so if you wish, but I have yet to this day seen any compelling evidence out of the hundreds of posts this has spawned to suggest what I have been saying all along might be incorrect. You are not going to convince me otherwise by restating the same flawed arguments, just exactly like my arguments will not get those who think they were justified in their response to move from their position. It is a waste of time and effort. Sorry we cant come to consensus.
The only thing that people keep doing is reposting these 2 channels on Youtube:
Smudboy:
Keep in mind that this is book 5. There are 4 more ilustrating how even before the ending the game is quite broken. And of course, he already has 2 videos on the Extended Cut, that makes things even worse.
MrBtongue:
Now, why dont YOU tell me of a case where an "artistic" ending was choosen for the end of a film or game (AT THE LAST MINUTE) that:
1)Makes sense withing the context of the story
2)Manages to STILL wrap up all the loose ends of significance
Does ANY of these and still comes as a good ending:
http://www.writersdigest.com/whats-new/the-dos-and-donts-of-novel-endings
And most importantly, WHAT do YOU see in the ending that it is soooooooooo important as an artistic achievement for this medium?
EDIT1: Going along with what i wrote up there. Did Mr Hudson knows about Gaming history at ALL? otherwise, how does HE know that HIS ending can contribute ANYTHING in the medium? apparently in his interview of the last hours of ME3 he mentioned that one can leave a message in videogames without outright saying it.
Problem is that there was already a theme or message in the game: "Unity Despite Difference" kinda like Lord of The Rings in SPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACE. If he made that ending because he thought that the game had NOTHING to offer as a message it means that he doesnt know shit about his own "artistic vision" on the work that HE PRODUCED.
THIS is the true problem, the developers are so skitzophrenic that they dont know what are they doing anymore.
EDIT2: We cant reach a concensus because this kind of crap HAS to be stopped before it goes out of hand. Like i said before, if we let developers get away with this bullshit by using the "artistic integrity" card then MORE people will follow. More games will be brain-dead to the point of not caring anymore and we cant say anything wrong about it because "it will destroy the medium"
Then what in the fuck are YOU doing right now, Mr. Developer? Should we sit and watch how you destroy everything you strived for like when EA butfucked Ultima IX? Do i REALLY have to recall that memory? Are they going to keep using the word "planned trilogy" when its clear that it was made on the run? didnt they have a vision? if the ending were like that all along, wont the narrative demostrate it with proper foreshadowing? Why do i care so much about a game that i HAD to research in order to discuss it even if i havent fucking play it???
If the ending is to be congratulated in anything is the fact that i learned that we live in a world of Eternal Recurrence, where the human race loves to repeat the same fucking mistakes over and over and over and over and.....
How is it possible that in the Age Of Information, people still think that this kind of crap didnt happened before both in this medium (Fallout 3 non sensical ending) and the others?
I don't get it either. Media did not develop cause some master of all literature handed down his pamphlets once in a while when he thought humanity was ready. People made their works and other people responded with constructive criticism, the creators decide whether or not to take this advice.
And this isn't to say that what the public wants is always 100% correct either.
DioWallachia said:
And under what context would the "we fucked up the medium by complaining" would be a valid dilemma?
Apparently videogame developers are super insecure individuals incapable of accepting criticism.....Or at least that's what gaming journalism wants us to believe. And even in the case that it were true, that would not make it any more OKAY!
DioWallachia said:
I got a better set of questions: How is it possible for Casey Hudson to say that having a final boss is "so video-gamey" when not ONLY games in 2000 like Planescape Torment have demostrated that you CAN have one and still be able to even talk it to death with the proper information that you obtained during the journey?
I dont understand how people can be so blinded at the sheer bullshit displayed in our faces. Is almost like i saw a murderer killing my family, raping my dog and eating my cookies and i end up saying: "Naaaaaaaaaah, no one could possibly THAT evil. Clearly this isnt happening."
It really intrigues me how the ending is "a risk" to you. Pissing on the lore and the fans is certainly a risk but that doesnt imply merit, isnt it? Jumping off a bridge without a Bungie is a risk.........and deadly...........and stupid.
Same for art, just because it is art doesnt imply merit. Otherwise, "The Brown Bunny" movie, the one with a REAL blowjob on camera, would have been a success on the Canes Festival.
May i direct you to this gentleman?
http://blip.tv/brows-held-high
Oancitizen reviews art house cinema, and believe me when i tell you that the "art" excuse got abussed more often in films that did it did for games, and the medium of film is still strong and so is gaming.
Edit1: Now, to said that it was a risk then it has to know what are the things being gambled in order to achieve something greater in the long run. So tell me, if the narrative already has a theme going on the in background and its replaced in the last second with another that has nothing to do with what was build up already, what was gained other than confusion?
Here is a true risk for Casey Hudson: Why dont you show up in the interviews and panels to answer directly what was the point of that ending? why you always send the OTHER writers that had NO SAY during the creation of the endings, to do the answers for you? so much for "standing" for your vision, huh?
Then ending however, personally I don't like it because they really went into the stupid, cliche Jesus Christ motif that writers can't seem to let go of these days. It was pretty apparent they introduced the idea in ME2, with there being a 12 member squad selection, Shepard's resurrection, Legion and the bible quotation, and Bioware's frequent play on Shepard's name being Jesus (Casey Hudson's letter in the game guide started with "The Lore is my Shepard").
Me1 had more of an anti-Judeo/Christian belief thing going on, Sovereign for example spoke like God does in the bible. I had it in my head that the Reapers were just enforcing their belief system on everyone else, which worked a bit in Me2 with the collectors being faithful servants thinking their out to save everyone. You know, like Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons go knocking on everyone's doors to spread the good word.
I think now though that wasn't intentional on Biowares part, and when they decided they wanted to be deep about the game they had to make Shepard Jesus.
They should have let go of that cliche, sacrificial hero idea. Let go of trying to have a deep, profound ending and just wrote the ending out naturally they would have been better off.
The major problem with the ending over all is most of the players were playing Mass Effect for pure, stupid entertainment. People were playing to figure out who Shepard's going to bang, who Shepard was going to knock on their butt next, and what was going to happen to their favorite characters. They weren't playing to think very hard. Though there are some nice touches of deep stuff across the three games, Bioware didn't really focus on it to define the whole series until suddenly in the last ten minutes of the game.
Considering the mind set of the average fan, I honestly think they could have gotten away with a simple button push that destroyed all the Reapers. A much smaller group of fans would have been upset they didn't get some deep, profound ending. Though in my opinion the current ending isn't even deep and profound, it's the same old bull crap.
They should have had an ending more like ME2, which had basically a push the button solves everything, but it appeared so varied to the fans based on what crew was picked and what upgrades were done. It made the overall fan base happy, fans still like to talk about the first time playing that. They still discuss who they purposely kill now and who they think is better for what part. Fans still love that ultimate triumph in the ending, seeing who is still standing and who is not.
Only instead in ME3 it could have been entire species and armies. Several little varying choices that will make the endings appear vastly different. Pick one group of ships from the turians over a group of ships from the salarians, and it's a success over on that front. An entire asari fleet wiped out because you didn't work out a deal with the hanar that would have improved ships. Not being able to help certain species over the course of the game would end up in the extinction, or very near extinction of that species.
The only additional problem I see is the fact that the solution to the Reapers is never hinted at in the previous games. Other things were though. Bioware didn't plan this out very well and apparently changed their minds on where they were going with things. I can understand with the first game not planning for the future because it was a risky, new series. Me2 though they should have thought about it, hinted it and set it in stone. ME2 and ME3 should have connected better. But that may be a problem do to the changes to the writing staff, with new people coming in thinking they can "improve" the series with their "special" talents.
I didn't see the problem with it. Maybe it was a bit underwhelming, but it's not like the trilogy was any less fun because of it. And if it was the worst ending I'd ever seen, I'd be thrilled.
Excuse me while I go figure out how to turn off quote notifications for this comment for when the 3 dozen people inevitably chime in to tell me how I'm wrong.
Wow...8 months later and a ME 3 Ending thread got this big of a pull, eh?
I personally never had a problem with the original endings. Well, that is to say I WAS severely disappointed, but not burn-down-a-building mad. But I was able to fill in the gaps left behind by the original endings with my own theories that worked if for no one else but myself so that I could still find the game - and thus entire trilogy - to be possibly my favorite series of all time.
Then the EC came out and pretty much everything I had said (and posted here on the Escapist) proved to be true. :3
Silly Koala, that's a weird way of saying how much you hated the ending.
In a game franchise that prides itself on choice and the consequences of those choices, having an ending that thematically goes against those choices makes it a poor ending.
Also, it's been established that the ending was written by two guys, with no input by any of the rest of the team.
In my experience 2-3 writers is usually a good medium. Any more any your a committee with conflicting ideas. Just one guy, and one calls you out on your bullshit and fills in the gaps every writer inevitably comes with.
That being said, shifting from one method to another never works. So here, I agree. This story was built by the team. The ending was written by only two of them, without even considering the opinion of the others. That's not good team work when your world was built by dozens.
Should the world have BEEN built by dozens? Up for debate. But dayamn, something went wrong in the office.
If you need to "headcanon" the circumstances of an ending in order to make it better for yourself, the ending failed.
If the main character has to die for no adequately explained reason, the ending failed.
If the ending brings up new characters, questions and consequences that aren't specifically elaborated on in the narrative, and come out of left field, the ending failed.
If the majority of the fanbase chooses to believe that your (original) endings were all a dream instead of actually happening, you failed as a writer.
If you need an additional DLC pack to try and put whipped cream on top of the garbage you just up, your ending failed.
First off I do agree fully here. Though you liking it is ok. Personally I was able to ignore a lot of thing with the orginal ending, that I couldn't with the extended ending. So I like the first one better, because I am not angry at it. As long as you enjoy it, that is all that matters. Atleast then, you're getting your money's worth.
The major problem with the ending over all is most of the players were playing Mass Effect for pure, stupid entertainment. People were playing to figure out who Shepard's going to bang, who Shepard was going to knock on their butt next, and what was going to happen to their favorite characters. They weren't playing to think very hard. Though there are some nice touches of deep stuff across the three games, Bioware didn't really focus on it to define the whole series until suddenly in the last ten minutes of the game.
Considering the mind set of the average fan, I honestly think they could have gotten away with a simple button push that destroyed all the Reapers. A much smaller group of fans would have been upset they didn't get some deep, profound ending. Though in my opinion the current ending isn't even deep and profound, it's the same old bull crap.
If that were true then NO ONE would have noticed the sheer difference between bullcrap and bullshit.
The "bang everything that movies public" hypothesis only holds up for ME3 since the marketing of said game was made to appeal to the COD fans who are THAT kind of people.
If there wasnt anything worth in the series, then we wont have anyone like MrBTongue or Smudboy doing analizis on a bunch of videogames. The only one who seem to think that there wasnt anything worth a damn is, ironically, the developers themselves.
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.
