Mass Effect 3 Ending Controversy
- Thread starter Shamus Young
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Another minor thing is that Bioware changed the look of Batarians. And if you have the official patch for ME1 it retcons them from having a head that looks vaguely like a hammerhead shark to more human shaped. Incredibly minor in the grand scale but worth mentioning that they have violated the principle of "unchanging artistic vision"jthm said:
Thanks for this. It's really helped me understand the position of people who don't like the ending. Some of the best discussion I've ever had on this site.ThingInTheCoat said:
Awesome speaking with you.
I really think that them writing about 1000 Dragon Age Origin (Animal House)style flash cards would do the trick for the broadest number of people.
It won't change how crappy the ending was but it will give closure to a ton of issues that were left hanging in the most half-assed way possible. (And honestly can you expect anything more from Bioware now days?)
I'll be happy if the Indoctrination theory is a real thing.
Maybe even happy enough to buy the next game you make Bioware. nudge nudge, wink wink. If anyone from Bioware is listening...
It won't change how crappy the ending was but it will give closure to a ton of issues that were left hanging in the most half-assed way possible. (And honestly can you expect anything more from Bioware now days?)
I'll be happy if the Indoctrination theory is a real thing.
Maybe even happy enough to buy the next game you make Bioware. nudge nudge, wink wink. If anyone from Bioware is listening...
Nah man, why would anyone flame you? If you truly enjoyed the ending as it stands then more power to you.Ken Sapp said:
We'd just like people to understand why we're unhappy with the ending instead of just skirting around the issue and shouting "ART!ART!ARTISTIC INTEGRITY!!!" over and over again and calling us entitled crybabies.
I mean that's the kind of thing that I'd expect but your run of the mill forum poster but now it's the stuff being said by numerous actual fucking journalists. It's pretty disheartening as far as I'm concerned.
I think this sums up my feelings nicely and my thoughts on this article. Now that I have calmed down from my hatred of the endings, I can step back and look at it as a little more objectively. I still think the endings are atrociously bad, but only because, as Shamus said, they don't do the three things you need to have a good ending.tautologico said:
Spoilers ahead, you have been warned.
I don't need the ending to be changed, I need it expanded show me a clip of Earth that shows how badly damaged it was based on my EMS. Show me if my companions survived, hell just a shot of them standing over Shepard's/Anderson's/Both flag-draped casket would be enough. Explain to me why the hell Joker, who has stood beside me, been unswaveringly loyal, and never gave up on me even when I was working with the ENEMY, suddenly turns tail and high-tails it out of system in the middle of the biggest battle of our lives.
But most of all, show me what the difference between the three endings I was given. That alone would have shut down a -lot- of the hate and anger that Bioware is receiving. I know I would have been perfectly content had each of the choices shown the -actual- result of that choice. For instance, if Control was picked, show the Shepard controlled Reapers (Reapards? Sheapers?) helping to rebuild Galactic society, repair the Mass relays, and undo the damage they've caused. If Destroy, Show the survivors dismantling the Reapers to clear them away and study them as they try and put their world back together. And for synthesis, maybe show some of your crewmates admiring/being horrified by their new upgrades.
But I am delving into fan-fiction speculation once again.. and should really stop that. So I'll close with saying that Shamus has definitely proved himself as being the most rational and objective opinion-piece writer who has yet sounded off on this debacle.
So, they changed the ending to Blade Runner, indeed the hole feel of the film. Most people seem to think that was a good change.
It occurs to me that the ending of Mass Effect 3 feels a lot like the ending to Neon Genesis Evangelion. For those of you who don't know, the show ran out of money and couldn't produce the ending they had planned so they instead made up some "cryptic" ending that basically didn't mean anything.
Everything up until getting hit by the reaper beam makes seance. It's just that last 20min or so. Personally I won't let that ruin the rest of the game for me but if they could make some different endings (not even remove the one they have just add a couple more) that would be grate.
It occurs to me that the ending of Mass Effect 3 feels a lot like the ending to Neon Genesis Evangelion. For those of you who don't know, the show ran out of money and couldn't produce the ending they had planned so they instead made up some "cryptic" ending that basically didn't mean anything.
Everything up until getting hit by the reaper beam makes seance. It's just that last 20min or so. Personally I won't let that ruin the rest of the game for me but if they could make some different endings (not even remove the one they have just add a couple more) that would be grate.
I can't accept the notion that Bioware shouldn't change the ending because "It's their game" and "artistic integrity is at stake." Neither of those statements is inherently true.
If you're a fan of the ending, either as indoctrination artistry or simply as an ending that doesn't make much sense but is still an ending, then fine. But the ending?if it *was* an ending and not a ploy to engage gamers' ire and induce a DLC-request?was simply no good.
And do you know what artists do when their "art" is substandard? They revise it. This is true. How many times have museums discovered that there was evidence of first-draft paintings under the paint of famous paintings? Did not many famous novelists, poets and playwrites revise their scripts? George Lucas?pretty much the king of this sort of controversy?has revised his Star Wars franchise more times than may be necessary, but many of those revisions are actually appealing (and some not).
Revision is not untenable. Not for film, not for novels, not even for games.
There is also plenty of social polemic to support the idea that a work of art *does not* belong to the creator, but to its audience. The works of Hans Robert Jauss, Wolfgang Iser, Stanley Fish?all noted reception theorists/reader response theorists?argue that the reader (or the gamer, in this case) has a say in the work. And games are as much literature as plays or tv shows or films, as they start with a concept, then a script, and like much of literature are then performed. So, arguing that Bioware "owns" the ending is true only in terms of copyright; but there is also a social contract that the company must respect, which is that the players have invested money and time into playing, enough that their involvement with the series gives them substantial cache in determining what the endings should potentially involve.
As for Bioware's artistic integrity, I'd like to see them exhibit some of that. I don't think they have so far. They can show what integrity they have by releasing an ending that makes sense; or, even better, they can continue the story just enough that Shepard can fight off indoctrination and make another attempt at getting onto the Citadel (for real) and destroying the reapers. Whether Shepard lives or dies, the game's developers and producers can only prove their artistic integrity by providing a more suitable ending and thereby making the Mass Effect series undeniably one of the best of all time.
If you're a fan of the ending, either as indoctrination artistry or simply as an ending that doesn't make much sense but is still an ending, then fine. But the ending?if it *was* an ending and not a ploy to engage gamers' ire and induce a DLC-request?was simply no good.
And do you know what artists do when their "art" is substandard? They revise it. This is true. How many times have museums discovered that there was evidence of first-draft paintings under the paint of famous paintings? Did not many famous novelists, poets and playwrites revise their scripts? George Lucas?pretty much the king of this sort of controversy?has revised his Star Wars franchise more times than may be necessary, but many of those revisions are actually appealing (and some not).
Revision is not untenable. Not for film, not for novels, not even for games.
There is also plenty of social polemic to support the idea that a work of art *does not* belong to the creator, but to its audience. The works of Hans Robert Jauss, Wolfgang Iser, Stanley Fish?all noted reception theorists/reader response theorists?argue that the reader (or the gamer, in this case) has a say in the work. And games are as much literature as plays or tv shows or films, as they start with a concept, then a script, and like much of literature are then performed. So, arguing that Bioware "owns" the ending is true only in terms of copyright; but there is also a social contract that the company must respect, which is that the players have invested money and time into playing, enough that their involvement with the series gives them substantial cache in determining what the endings should potentially involve.
As for Bioware's artistic integrity, I'd like to see them exhibit some of that. I don't think they have so far. They can show what integrity they have by releasing an ending that makes sense; or, even better, they can continue the story just enough that Shepard can fight off indoctrination and make another attempt at getting onto the Citadel (for real) and destroying the reapers. Whether Shepard lives or dies, the game's developers and producers can only prove their artistic integrity by providing a more suitable ending and thereby making the Mass Effect series undeniably one of the best of all time.
Im glad to see the Escapist has some competent minds writing for it aswell. I will never believe this ending is the result of anything else but being rushed for a deadline. If it is their actual vision, well then I guess me and the people at Bioware no longer see eye to eye. I can accept that, but the rest of the game gives me the feeling that we still do somehow. We'll see come april how things stand I suppose.
From what I have seen, it is. It is things that happen to be in the game that can be linked together to form an image of indoctrination, but none of which act as concrete or empirical evidence to support the theory. If you think there is something concrete, by all means present it. I doubt it will be anything I have not already been told, or anything that actually is concrete.SmashLovesTitanQuest said:
Karpshyn wasn't as terrible as the rest of the Bioware writers.CosmicCommander said:
It would be interesting to hear what he thinks of the ending, since he was the original lead-writer of the series.
It must suck to see some hack destroying your brainchild.
I only expected to be flamed because everything I have heard so far has been "RAAAARRGH, RAAAARGH" tooth-gnashing over the ending. At most I don't think Bioware should do anything more than clarify the endings and add closure. Not rewrite it as a lot of people seem to want and be calling for.anthony87 said:
It's the Eden Prime beacon. Everything after he touches it is just him tripping balls as the beacon plays at being The Ghost of Christmas Future.Zakarath said:
Well I can only speak for myself but a little closure is all I was looking for. Hell, I think that's pretty much what most people wanted but between people saying we're entitled, people saying we're acting like children and people saying we just don't understand the ending it seems to have gone from "closure" to "entirely new ending".Ken Sapp said:
There's mountains of good discussion on the matter that are much more than just "RAAAARRGH, RAAAARGH". Unfortunately with this, just like many other things it's always the loudest and stupidest you hear from the most.
Because that'd be much harder. If you hadn't noticed, it already takes quite a while and considerable effort to wipe out simple organics. A war between the Reapers and synthetics of equal or near equal strength would almost certainly end in a stalemate or maybe even a loss of the Reapers and in both those cases the organics are completely wiped out anyway.UltimatheChosen said:
@ Shamus, great post, great blog, look forward to more of your work.
Concerning ME3
http://geek.pikimal.com/2012/03/22/controversy-erupts-over-mass-effect-3-writers-forum-post-name-release/
Think that about covers it.
Personally, ME3 ending, like soooooo much of ME is either trope, homage, or just copied from another source.
ME3 Ending, is Matrix films. The indoctrination theories work, for TIM and Anderson, but the conversation with "Space God" is literal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ythY_GkEBck
Think Matrix films. Neo = Sheppard, Space God = Architect, Galaxy = matrix. Literally, this IS HAPPENING in the narrative. This establishes the cycle, half ass why, and allows for Sheppard/Player to choose the ending "they" want. It also loosely tropes Babylon 5 and cosmic consciousness ascension. The ending, not to be seen, but to be imagined. The Jungle scene was some crap for a DLC, that was also hijacked.
Why?
The Reaper "Beam", is where the game was supposed to do the WA check, it was canned, and art assets that where "sitting around" welded together to make this 11th hour vision work. This is precisely what happens when work flow is hijacked by a single person. If WA was high enough, the idea was to have joker fly in with the Normandy and chase the reaper away, post "dream sequence". At this point Shepard "ascends" consciousness... or whatever extremely weak metaphysical crap (poorly understood outside of Drew's vision).
There is nothing more to this than that... it is a hand of god, 11th hour character introduction to tie up the game, done extremely poorly, as it was never really the plan in the first place, certainly not as the ending. Missing at least 25 percent of the game/narrative, it was done for cost, lazy, and to cater to a marketing arm more interested in making movies and T.V. spots, than they are their game.
Do not think in terms of "order" that one played the game, think in terms of modifying scenes and modules to turn "what game" one has, into a game in a box. If it feels broken and out of place, it is, because it is... this ending, is from the second act, ripped, and put in "as the ending" to shorten development time, and "take earth back".
Concerning ME3
http://geek.pikimal.com/2012/03/22/controversy-erupts-over-mass-effect-3-writers-forum-post-name-release/
Think that about covers it.
Personally, ME3 ending, like soooooo much of ME is either trope, homage, or just copied from another source.
ME3 Ending, is Matrix films. The indoctrination theories work, for TIM and Anderson, but the conversation with "Space God" is literal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ythY_GkEBck
Think Matrix films. Neo = Sheppard, Space God = Architect, Galaxy = matrix. Literally, this IS HAPPENING in the narrative. This establishes the cycle, half ass why, and allows for Sheppard/Player to choose the ending "they" want. It also loosely tropes Babylon 5 and cosmic consciousness ascension. The ending, not to be seen, but to be imagined. The Jungle scene was some crap for a DLC, that was also hijacked.
Why?
The Reaper "Beam", is where the game was supposed to do the WA check, it was canned, and art assets that where "sitting around" welded together to make this 11th hour vision work. This is precisely what happens when work flow is hijacked by a single person. If WA was high enough, the idea was to have joker fly in with the Normandy and chase the reaper away, post "dream sequence". At this point Shepard "ascends" consciousness... or whatever extremely weak metaphysical crap (poorly understood outside of Drew's vision).
There is nothing more to this than that... it is a hand of god, 11th hour character introduction to tie up the game, done extremely poorly, as it was never really the plan in the first place, certainly not as the ending. Missing at least 25 percent of the game/narrative, it was done for cost, lazy, and to cater to a marketing arm more interested in making movies and T.V. spots, than they are their game.
Do not think in terms of "order" that one played the game, think in terms of modifying scenes and modules to turn "what game" one has, into a game in a box. If it feels broken and out of place, it is, because it is... this ending, is from the second act, ripped, and put in "as the ending" to shorten development time, and "take earth back".