Re-Take The Cabin

[Raesvelg]

The illusion of choice.

Which the ending of ME3 destroys.

Endings in general destroy the illusion of choice. You can argue that the writing was better in ME & ME2, and that earned them more leeway in the destruction of that illusion (though, frankly, I disagree on your assessment of the situation), but it doesn't alter the fact that the ending is invariably going to involve the player losing most aspects of choice, since it's simply not practical to forsee and program in every potential choice & outcome thereof that a player might make.

But it is the end of the civilisation you've been fighting to protect for the whole series.

It's hardly the end of civilization, just the end of that particular stage of civilization. The various galactic races are all still around, still alive, and still technologically competent enough to most likely rebuild the galaxy, just as it was, complete with Mass Relays if that's the best answer they can come up with for interstellar travel, in a handful of generations.

really nothing in the game really supports TSH's thesis.

Except that everyone freaks right the hell out when you say "AI". Which generally supports the impression that there have been quite a number of problems akin to the one experience with proto-EDI when it went berserk.

And there's that whole bit with the Protheans fighting synthetics, and whatnot.

The Citadel races had an established protocol against creating AI. We're generally led to assume that that protocol exists for a reason.

Yet was hardly what one would call a win condition for Europe either.

And?

At this point you're slipping into the stereotype that many people branded the Re-Take folks with, specifically that they're really just pissed that the ending isn't all sunshine, light, and Space Jesus Shepard blasting the Reapers apart with his particle beam penis, before riding off into the sunset with his chosen Space Waifu.

I believe this is also given as the reason why a huge percentage of the galaxy is unexplored, there's a lot of dead space between star clusters.

Supposition. More likely, galactic civilizations spring up around the Mass Relays because it's simply easier, and given the scope of the galaxy and the fact that someone conveniently wipes out all advanced life forms every 50,000 years or so, there's rarely any real shortage of conveniently placed real estate. Why go to a colony that requires three months of travel along a very carefully arranged route, if you can just hop on a Mass Relay and zip to a planet that's just as good in a matter of hours?

Couple that with the Citadel race's prohibition against activating primary relays that don't link to known space... and it would be hardly surprising that a lot of the galaxy is unexplored.

And there is [/i]not[/i] a lot of dead space between star clusters. Since... y'know... we're not in one. And there are close to 100 stars within travel range of the average ship in the Mass Effect universe.

Also, bear in mind that while 12 light years a day sounds fast, the Milky Way Galaxy is 100000?120000 Light years across, those Quarians and Geth, with Rannoch being on almost the total opposite end of the galaxy, are going to have a long, long way home (since they have to go up a spiral arm across and down another since you can't cross dark space for the reasons stated), if they can even get there.

The spaces between the arms of the galaxy aren't really what one would term "dark space" either. Just less dense with stars than the arms. Even allowing for a somewhat circuitous route, however, and assuming that they can move at maybe half the possible speed established for the average ship... The Migrant Fleet could still be home in considerably less time than they had already spent wandering the galaxy after the loss of Rannoch.

Worst case scenario, they spend another couple generations getting back to Rannoch, but it's still perfectly feasible.

True there's lots of stars, but how many of them have planets? How many have planets with Magnetospheres (only 6 planets in our solar system, including Earth, have one)? If you are in a desert, perhaps there is usually an oasis every 5 miles or so, but it doesn't help much if you can't find it or you find that between you and your final destination there's a 100 mile stretch of empty desert.

And here we confront a handful of technological inconsistencies in the Mass Effect universe.

First, space stations not placed near a planet have their own discharging facilities, so clearly there are options present as far as how difficult it is to actually dump drive charge, and what can be done with that charge upon dumping.

Second, the Reapers travel into the galaxy from far out in dark space beyond the galactic rim, by means of normal FTL drives before they hit the Mass Relay network... so clearly there are technological solutions to the problem that might be rather accessible given that the galaxy now has its hands on a whole lot of Reaper corpses.

And yet, the series has very much been about doing the impossible,

And just because something is difficult doesn't make it impossible. Brokering peace can be hard, curing the Genophage difficult, etc etc etc, but none of these things are impossible in the same sense that the Reaper problem is portrayed in.

There is a world of difference between curing a disease, and stopping an alien race that has scoured the galaxy clean of advanced life over seven hundred times (that we know of), without once looking like it was close to failure.

EDIT: And at this point we're getting a bit far afield from the actual point of the debate, so I've no plans to indulge further in discussion of the ME3 ending. Perfectly willing to debate Bob's point further, though.

 

[SnakeoilSage]

I don't see what's so clever or unique about taking the piss out of a genre's fans, particularly sub-genre fans. The whole reason they love their particular genre is because of the formula. No one praised the Friday the 13th series for its brilliant musical scores and underlining moral dilemmas. When you change that formula, it stops being the genre they love. It's like getting a hotdog with ketchup when you've always eaten them with mustard. Some generalizing twit will insist it's still a hot dog, but you will notice the difference.

It seems petty, and it is when you're just comparing hot dogs. But we're comparing multi-million dollar films (or multi-million dollar video games) that some self-entitled producer thinks is God's gift to moviegoers. His blatant disregard for tradition and formula will blow up in his face at a level equal to the amount of time, money and effort he put into pissing off the fans.

Or not, considering the amount of money Michael Bay continues to make from movies that are, by all reports, universally reviled.

Point is, if you're going to get mad because the fans aren't appreciating your "creativity," eventually you have to stop and ask yourself "maybe the problem is... me."

Or you can make Cabin in the Woods, piss on the fans, and pretend you're so much much more righteous and smart than they are. The critics--being to movie-makers what groupies are to rock bands--will praise you for it.

 

[Promethax]

Moviebob is to RME what Chris-Chan is to Religion: they both have no idea how it works.

 

[Raso719]

I suppose it's interesting to note that I have no problem with my anime and JRPG cliches and tropes but are right put off by FPS and conventional Hollywood cliches and tropes. While I don't think I would become ragingly pissed when a JRPG has a cast of characters who look ripped right out of Blackhawk Down (as if such a game would ever exist) I think many other people would cry bloody murder.

My point being that it's not just that we crave these tropes and cliches but we want OUR tropes and cliches and not someone else's.

In a way it makes me sad to know I'm self ware enough to understand this and actually crave something off the beaten path every now and then knowing that I'm apparently "broken" for desiring new ideas that push my comfort level. If I was just one of those blind, deaf mutes I could be forever happy with my bland cliches and tropes, forever grazing in the fields and harmlessly passing my time in the grassland away. Sadly I'm cursed with taste, intellect and free thought so I'm doomed to loath the mush and nonsense that is modern media.

 

[grenideer]

The premise that people are angry because of the Cabin in the Woods ending is just fabrication. This is a movie that is scoring 83% in audience satisfaction on rotten tomatoes. Fans in general thought it was a fun movie.

Here's my counter argument: audiences will surely eat up and be sated by generic horror, but they aren't the ones demanding it and certainly aren't averse to fresh premises. It is the studios themselves that are calling the shots and claiming 'what the public wants'.

Anyway, the movie was fun, but I didn't find it especially clever or groundbreaking.
http://whyihateeverything.com/?p=1195

 

[1337mokro]

You can put down the controller and not play. That's always an option. Rather than doing what Bioware wants me to do I could just say "Yeah this isn't fun any more, let's go play this game." The story Bioware wants to tell effectively ends the second I stop playing along with it.

You can put down the book and not read, or you can turn off the film and not watch, and so on.

Does that make these into interactive media?

The story ends where the story ends, regardless of where you choose to finish it.

To say that "the game is unaffected by your choices" and "everything else [but the endings] are window dressing" is selling the medium short and quite honestly also the game you probably enjoyed playing. Not to mention the fast differences between different genres, story telling mechanics and gameplay styles you're ignoring by simply saying everything is "an illusion of choice".

Oh, I certainly enjoyed the game, but I don't operate under any illusions when it comes to the "choice" factor in games. Each significant parameter of the game has a binary set of options: Pass, or fail. If you fail, you have to go back, and do it again.

You can pass in a handful of ways, in games that emphasize choice, but while there might be slight variations in the story, in the end you're back to that pass/fail mechanic.

Take a look at ME2. Strip away the insignificant bits like who among your crew dies, which is really only there to make you feel good about being a completionist, and you have two choices at the end of the game. Keep the base, or destroy the base, but in both of those cases, you have to defeat the Collectors. There is no other option. You do things the game's way, or not at all.

Part of the issue I have with the Re-Take crowd is that they distill the "ending" of ME3 down to the last 5 minutes or so. I went into the game viewing the game as a whole as the ending, and was pretty satisfied with the way it incorporated all my choices from the previous two games.

And again, my only complaint about the game is that the ending lacks resolution. I may get to see the impact of the choices I made in ME/ME2, but for the most part I only get a hint at the impact of my choices in ME3. I cured the Genophage, do the Krogan go on a rampage? I reunited the Quarians and the Geth, does that peace last? Hell, I fused all organic and synthetic life in the galaxy together; what, precisely, does that mean?

Most of those are questions I don't really need answered, of course, but it would be nice to know.

I was saying that the gamer is part of the story. You choose not to watch a movie, you can put down a book. Does this mean the story stops being told? No. You can leave the room and the movie goes on without you. The book will forever contain the words that make up the story, but a game without the player.

Does this mean that books and movies are interactive. Well yes. Never heard of pop up books where you need to flip parts of the book for the story to progress? I joke of course, but a book and a movie don't need a reader nor a viewer to do something besides be there and watch/read to tell their story.

Nor does a movie change depending on the audience watching it or does a book rearrange entire chapters depending on how the reader flips the pages.

If the choices that you are offered, even if they are binary, are just illusions then isn't everything an illusion? If you vote for the president aren't you really just voting between party A and party B? If you wake up today aren't you really just making another binary choice. Go to work or stay in bed? Maybe add a third option of phone in sick and spend the day playing videogames. The amount of options a single choice has doesn't really change it's validity.

In the end it's all the same, we die, favourably as dignified old people surrounded by loving families, though most of us don't have a choice there. Isn't life just an entire huge illusion of choices? Hundreds upon thousands of options that in the end really didn't matter all that much seeing as we all end up as dust in the wind? If you strip down all the insignificant choices like how many kids do I have or do I take that big step and do what I always wanted to do it all comes down to two choices.

Do I keep living until I die or Do I jump of this cliff.

Why should videogames be similar then, when no real choice exists how do you expect them to present you with choices that are any more real than the ones you take everyday? They all lead to the same ending. So you do things life's way or not at all.

You see what I mean? You can argue and philosophise until the stars fall out of the sky from boredom about what "choice" is but in the end choice, as defined by everyday actions, is nothing more than making a decision that changes something. It's ridiculous to say that "without the insignificant choices" you just have two illusionary choices because the end is the same no matter what.

In the game you can choose to slap the reporter or not. That is a choice. Illusionary choice that doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, but so was you're decision to write a reply to my previous post. A choice that in the end doesn't really matter. So why did you do it? You could have chosen not to respond. Was that an illusionary choice two? Cause in the end you would probably still have replied simply because I questioned your own opinion on something.

It's pretty pointless to debate Significant and Insignificant, Illusionary and Real choices because I think we are both not smart enough to basically break down a human question that has haunted people since the dawn of time. It comes down to opinions, my opinion being that Slapping the reporter is a choice. Despite that it all ends the same way I can still look back and say. Yep. I made a choice at that point.

Now that that's done let's get back to the re-take crowd.

I get your point about the re-take crowd, but I also get what the re-take crowd is about. The funny thing is though that what you accuse them of "distilling the ending to the last 5 minutes" when you are doing that with ME2. You say that the ending is basically the collector base getting destroyed/captured and the Human Reaper is killed. Isn't the entire game the ending to that game as well? How the collector base gets destroyed, what team mates make it out, if the reporter got slapped or not? Doesn't that mean then that whatever illusionary choices were made in that game actually do affect the ending because as you said. You should see the entire game as the ending.

That does happen in ME3. Whether you resolve the Quarian-Geth conflict, are the Krogans back to breeding, are there any more reporters left to slap. It all still ends the same way, but it's not explained why it ends that way, the ending isn't affected in anyway by what you have done, even the minute difference of dead crew mates. You see people that get hung up on the conclusion to a game. However that's not what I see in the re-take crowd.

How many times have you heard a reviewer, including Bob here, say "The movie/book/comic/game was great but the ending was a let down." and allot of people feel the same way, including me, about ME3. Great game, but the ending let me down. It just felt weird, nonsensical and simply created to allow Mass Effect 4 to be released.

The ending to a game usually gets made at the end of development just to tie up the story in the game. Meaning that allot of endings are just slapped together or changed depending on how people financing the game think about it. Dark Void is a good example where the game abruptly ends, resolving nothing and basically waving a big white flag saying "we ran out of money for the rest of it". To claim artistic integrity on something that can be "slapped together" is nonsense and it really is the only defence that has been issued for how ME3 ended.

Now we have a crowd of people demanding what was advertised. They WANT their illusionary choices. They WANT Bioware to go back into their office and actually write a cohesive ending (the last 10 minute cut scene) for this game. Yet media personalities and reporters alike suddenly turn on them calling them out for the crazy idea of demanding a better ending to something.

Isn't that exactly what Bob is doing when he reviews something? He is actively warding people from a movie because in his opinion something was lacking. Basically sending the message off "Had you made a different ending you would have gotten more customers". I just find that incredibly hypocritical of these people that are supposed to safeguard public interest and haven't for a long time with "Add Revenue" reviewing.

Of course you are in your right to have whatever opinion of the re-take crowd you want and being content with the ending is also within your rights and your own choice. Then again so is the re-take movement.

I in the mean time am struggling with the imaginary choice of what to put on my sandwich whatever I pick in the end I'll just fill my stomach for a few hours.

O and it's not the destination that matters, but the journey. I think both you and the re-take crowd should think about that.

 

[Fox242]

I suppose it's interesting to note that I have no problem with my anime and JRPG cliches and tropes but are right put off by FPS and conventional Hollywood cliches and tropes. While I don't think I would become ragingly pissed when a JRPG has a cast of characters who look ripped right out of Blackhawk Down (as if such a game would ever exist) I think many other people would cry bloody murder.

My point being that it's not just that we crave these tropes and cliches but we want OUR tropes and cliches and not someone else's.

In a way it makes me sad to know I'm self ware enough to understand this and actually crave something off the beaten path every now and then knowing that I'm apparently "broken" for desiring new ideas that push my comfort level. If I was just one of those blind, deaf mutes I could be forever happy with my bland cliches and tropes, forever grazing in the fields and harmlessly passing my time in the grassland away. Sadly I'm cursed with taste, intellect and free thought so I'm doomed to loath the mush and nonsense that is modern media.

What does any of that have to do with the discussion at hand. Also, what's with the asshole "I'm better and smarter" than everyone else attitude?

 

[Raesvelg]

How many times have you heard a reviewer, including Bob here, say "The movie/book/comic/game was great but the ending was a let down." and allot of people feel the same way, including me, about ME3. Great game, but the ending let me down. It just felt weird, nonsensical and simply created to allow Mass Effect 4 to be released.

Leaving the rest aside, I'm going to address this point since I'd really like to get back to the original point of the thread lol.

If Bioware wanted to pick an ending that would allow Mass Effect 4 to be released, this is not the ending they would have chosen. Think about it; you've got three radically different outcomes, one of which completely redefines the galaxy as a whole. There's no possible way to make that into a sequel; you'd have to make three games, one for each outcome, and pick one to play.

A cop-out sequel-fodder ending, ironically, would have been the one that the Re-Take crowd, for the most part, have been clamoring for. The one where Space Jesus Shepard lays waste to the Reapers with his particle beam penis and rides off into the sunset with his Space Waifu. An ending where the universe as a whole sees no major changes, except for the elimination of the Reaper threat.

There's no need for Bioware to justify the choice that they made, but given how incredibly simple it would be for them to whip up a quick, 10-minute epilogue, I can't imagine that it was, in fact, anything other than an artistic choice. One that has not been popular with a vocal portion of the fanbase, mind, but an artistic choice regardless. It would have been vastly easier to simply give the audience what they wanted, but Bioware chose to complete the story in a way that left a lot of people feeling unsatisfied, and frankly left a significant portion who weren't inclined to think things through wondering what happened.

Now we have a crowd of people demanding what was advertised. They WANT their illusionary choices. They WANT Bioware to go back into their office and actually write a cohesive ending (the last 10 minute cut scene) for this game. Yet media personalities and reporters alike suddenly turn on them calling them out for the crazy idea of demanding a better ending to something.

But the audience got their illusory choices, they just didn't get to see the resolution of those choices. The ending is cohesive, not inconsistent with the universe lore, directly foreshadowed in Mass Effect 2, and while it doesn't necessarily reflect the choices people made during the game, neither does the outcome of the previous two games. Again, to take Mass Effect 2 as an example: Give the Collector Base to Cerberus, or destroy the Collector Base. Neither of those choices have anything to do with the choices you made during the game; the difference lies in knowing which of your crew members survived the mission.

It's not about "better", it's about "more in line with our expectations", and it's best not to confuse the two.

As for the "the whole game is the ending", that's part of my point, actually. The end of the series is Mass Effect 3. The whole game. It resolves all the loose threads from the first two games. Where it falls flat, arguably, is in resolving its own plot threads.

The choice at the end, however, is what the Re-Take crowd complain about, and aside from that lack of resolution, I cannot view their complaints as anything more than what Bob talked about in this piece; that they're angry not because it's not a good ending, but because it wasn't the ending they expected. It did not fit the formula.

And to be honest I haven't seen anything so far to convince me otherwise.

 

[userwhoquitthesite]

MovieBob is an obvious troll.

Careful, comments like that get you modded. Besides, that's not true, trolls aren't serious about their offensive or inflammatory statements, whereas Bob gets well and truly butthurt when people have differing opinions

 

[keserak]

I find it hilarious that first you attempt to chastise me on being presumptuous and self-indulgent, only to follow that up with a few paragraphs of such self-involved wankery that it makes Bob seem modest.

a) I attempted nothing. You were arrogant because you presumed to know what was in the mind of another human being without evidence and

b) the fact that you're self-indulgently find said stupidity "hilarious" pretty much speaks for itself. If you're claiming you're not behaving like a jerk, posting a follow-up where you claim to be acting like a jerk irl doesn't really help matters.

I take it you haven't read Whedon's draft of Alien IV? *clipped subjective fanboy bullshit*

Alright, so you follow up your arrogant presumption with, drum roll another arrogant presumption. Why would you assume I haven't read the script? I just called you out on it and you do it again. Are you that locked in your own little self-indulgent bubble?

And claiming the script was good because of what boils down to your own fiat hardly improves your position. Your praise of the script, where not simply subjective, is simply not based on fact. You conveniently ignore the fact that I already pointed out that just because the director was awful doesn't mean the script wasn't awful.

But hey, don't let me stop all that "self-involved wankery" you're indulging in (and projecting on others, even as you do it in public!). I'd ask how you can manage wankery that isn't "self-involved," but I'm desperately afraid you might tell me, so we'll leave that secret in your private bubble.

 

[keserak]

I was saying most movies about life for the lower classes aren't funded and made by the lower classes.

Okay, I can't see how that was even implied from your statement. That said, it doesn't matter, because your point, whether true or false and regardless of what is meant by "lower classes," is completely irrelevant.

You're saying he can't complain? He has the platform to complain all the artists who can't make it don't have the platform.

No, you're clipping my point, which is bizarre, because there wasn't much there to clip. He can't complain that he can't make unseemly sums without doing unseemly things. I said that already. Many times. This has fuck-all to do with "all the artists who can't make it don't have the platform." What are you talking about? Seriously, this has nothing to do with Bob, Cabin, or anything at all. This is very confusing.

So once you're making money that's it, you must have job satisfaction?

WTF? No, I never said that either. What are you going on about? What does job satisfaction have to do with anything?

Whedon does some projects that make ludicrous amounts of money -- but those projects often produce distasteful media. He also does projects he likes, but those do not often create ludicrous sums of money (though they may still make enough money to live on). Are you referring to one or both of those as "jobs?" If so, that makes no sense. The point is that making huge sums of money is so massively unfair that complaining that you don't like how you have to make it is nothing short of arrogant. And the point of such a project is to make schlock, so complaining that you're making schlock is foolish.

He's successful and that's an injustice?

WTF? Since when does making millions of dollars become the only measure of artistic success? I said nothing you're repeating. It's literally upthread. Are you arguing with yourself?

Seriously, why are you being so aggressive about this?

*blink* Since when is snidely belittling the powerful "aggressive?"

You claim that I said that movie makers therefore can't make "a statement about life for the lower classes" -- something I didn't say. Ever. Didn't even come close to that.

I know! I was drawing a comparison.

Between what and what?! There was no comparison given. That said, I think you're assuming you've said things you really haven't and that there may not be much hope here.

 

[1337mokro]

How many times have you heard a reviewer, including Bob here, say "The movie/book/comic/game was great but the ending was a let down." and allot of people feel the same way, including me, about ME3. Great game, but the ending let me down. It just felt weird, nonsensical and simply created to allow Mass Effect 4 to be released.

Leaving the rest aside, I'm going to address this point since I'd really like to get back to the original point of the thread lol.

If Bioware wanted to pick an ending that would allow Mass Effect 4 to be released, this is not the ending they would have chosen. Think about it; you've got three radically different outcomes, one of which completely redefines the galaxy as a whole. There's no possible way to make that into a sequel; you'd have to make three games, one for each outcome, and pick one to play.

A cop-out sequel-fodder ending, ironically, would have been the one that the Re-Take crowd, for the most part, have been clamoring for. The one where Space Jesus Shepard lays waste to the Reapers with his particle beam penis and rides off into the sunset with his Space Waifu. An ending where the universe as a whole sees no major changes, except for the elimination of the Reaper threat.

There's no need for Bioware to justify the choice that they made, but given how incredibly simple it would be for them to whip up a quick, 10-minute epilogue, I can't imagine that it was, in fact, anything other than an artistic choice. One that has not been popular with a vocal portion of the fanbase, mind, but an artistic choice regardless. It would have been vastly easier to simply give the audience what they wanted, but Bioware chose to complete the story in a way that left a lot of people feeling unsatisfied, and frankly left a significant portion who weren't inclined to think things through wondering what happened.

Now we have a crowd of people demanding what was advertised. They WANT their illusionary choices. They WANT Bioware to go back into their office and actually write a cohesive ending (the last 10 minute cut scene) for this game. Yet media personalities and reporters alike suddenly turn on them calling them out for the crazy idea of demanding a better ending to something.

But the audience got their illusory choices, they just didn't get to see the resolution of those choices. The ending is cohesive, not inconsistent with the universe lore, directly foreshadowed in Mass Effect 2, and while it doesn't necessarily reflect the choices people made during the game, neither does the outcome of the previous two games. Again, to take Mass Effect 2 as an example: Give the Collector Base to Cerberus, or destroy the Collector Base. Neither of those choices have anything to do with the choices you made during the game; the difference lies in knowing which of your crew members survived the mission.

It's not about "better", it's about "more in line with our expectations", and it's best not to confuse the two.

As for the "the whole game is the ending", that's part of my point, actually. The end of the series is Mass Effect 3. The whole game. It resolves all the loose threads from the first two games. Where it falls flat, arguably, is in resolving its own plot threads.

The choice at the end, however, is what the Re-Take crowd complain about, and aside from that lack of resolution, I cannot view their complaints as anything more than what Bob talked about in this piece; that they're angry not because it's not a good ending, but because it wasn't the ending they expected. It did not fit the formula.

And to be honest I haven't seen anything so far to convince me otherwise.

Actually you have the one "True ending" with Shepard gasping for breath, the indoctrination theory etc. Bioware might not have intentionally done so but they basically were handed a sequel theory by their fans. In each of the three endings the Normandy escapes. A ME4 doesn't have to be ABOUT Shepard.

Tell me honestly tell me that an ending where the last scene of the game focusses on a body in a N7 suit taking a gasp of breath is not the thickest, biggest most huge herring you ever saw? It's a sequel baiter. Pure and simple someone walked into a business meeting overheard the words "end of the series" and decided to change that to "end of this game".

The Re-take crowd has several people asking different things. So far as I've read is that the Official statement is an ending that "clarifies the events in the current ending and takes into account the choices made in the past two games". The vocal minority of the vocal majority are the ones clamouring for a Space Jesus happy ending.

The death of Shepard isn't really what the fans latch onto. What I heard most about and have the most problems with myself is the explosions of the Mass Relays, the stranding of the fleet, the weird logic of the AI, the fact some squad mates that were on the ground with you get teleported into the crashed Normandy, Joker deserting his post and making a run for it with the entire Normandy crew, the entire ending basically being a shot for shot remake of Toppen Tengen Gurren Lagan and so on. Right up until a certain point the ending makes sense. But then there is a huge gear change into nonsense. Right until you meet TIM the ending is basically going as it normally would, final climactic battle, huge space ship fight overhead, etc, but after that it feels like someone came into the studio. Slapped an ending together an shipped it.

It's not a matter of artistic choice were talking about here. It's a matter of lots and lots of unexplained plot holes that culminate into a broken ending. An artistic choice would have been to have Shepard Agree with the Reapers and let them assimilate the entire universe because that way Life itself will continue rather than fight and risk killing all life in the galaxy in a devastating war. Hoping that the AI will realize that life will always struggle to better itself and that one day the AI will meet a challenge beyond it's grasp.

That is an artistic choice, going against the grain. Choosing to kill Shepard? Please if anyone didn't expect a heroic sacrifice you have your head stuck in the sand. This isn't what it's all about though Bioware said here is a list of statements and quotes from interviews and their own sites.

"It?s not even in any way like the traditional game endings, where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got ending A, B, or C.....The endings have a lot more sophistication and variety in them."

?Experience the beginning, middle, and end of an emotional story unlike any other,
where the decisions you make completely shape your experience and outcome.? Notice the OUTCOME in that sentence.

?[The presence of the Rachni] has huge consequences in Mass
Effect 3. Even just in the final battle with the Reapers.? The Rachni have no effect on the ending whatsoever.

?I?m always leery of saying there are 'optimal' endings, because I think one of the things we do try to do is make different endings that are optimal for different people ? Bioware is basically going against your defence of their own ending.

?Um? You know, at this point, I think we?re co-creators with the fans. We use a lot of feedback.? Hudson basically saying the fans are part of crafting the ME story.

The link to a post with sources and other quotes.

http://social.bioware.com/forums/forum/1/topic/355/index/10409105/1

How did the game end? With Destruction, Control or Synthesis. So yes it wasn't technically ABC. It was DCS. Completely different from what was promised. O and as for not seeing the endings you quite literally have 3 rooms that represent the 3 endings. The re-takes movement is in the lack of choice in the ending because they were promised something different then what they got.

You keep coming back to the fact that the final choices have nothing to do with the other choices in the game. Of course they don't. What are you trying to prove here? That two separate events with different choices are separated? Well yes. What do you want to prove with that that the event the game has been building up to will happen despite your choice in armour to wear. Well all right you proved that. Now what does that mean? That it was pointless to put any story deviations in the game that it would have been better as a linear rail road?

How does this invalidate people complaining about an ending, besides the plotholes, not delivering on the promises made by the people who made it. They aren't demanding a personally tailored ending where Shepard lives. All they demand is the diversity promised in press statements or at least an explanation of the events in the current ending is delivered to them.

Of course there are people in the movement and outside the movement that won't take anything less than a happy ending but guess what, those people of course exist. But I wouldn't take Bob's statements to close to heart. He is after all himself a Massive Nintendo fan boy. Jumping to the gun to defend the misogyny in Other M for example, guilty of the same things he accuses others of. In this article I basically see Joss Whedon being Joss Whedon, trying to be clever to a fault. Using an incredibly blunt metaphor to hammer home a point about having to please your fans being a constant burden.

Guess what you're in the entertainment business, that's your fucking JOB. You are here to make something that entertains me. People like familiarity. I don't want my comedy to suddenly feature a monologue about a miscarriage, I would raise hell about that because One it's not funny and Two it doesn't belong in my comedy. I go to a comedy to laugh and I go to a horror movie to be scared. You can mix those two, but if you mix them poorly I'm going to complain. If you advertise your documentary as an action drama I'm going to be pissed if it's a documentary about egg painting.

Joss and Bob can clamour all they want about that stifling the creative process but remember this though. The Jimquisition wouldn't be here if he hadn't listened to the fans giving him feedback. Because someone Makes something using a camera, a pen, brush, chisel, photoshop or whatever, doesn't make that thing beyond criticism and people can demand change.

Had Jim continued to act like a smug prick simply repeating ideas and established tropes rather than becoming a smug prick that states unconventional ideas and obscure tropes we would not have a monday show on the escapist.

People asking for change to conform to their perceptions of quality does not make them entitled whiners. You (Joss and Bob not you guy that replied to me) whining about people complaining about your shortcomings being pointed out by people or your projects failing to meet expectations does make you entitled whiners.


After all that serious talk I just have to post this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAmVVAjZZeM

It just amuses me to no end how many similarities can be drawn.

 

[Raso719]

I suppose it's interesting to note that I have no problem with my anime and JRPG cliches and tropes but are right put off by FPS and conventional Hollywood cliches and tropes. While I don't think I would become ragingly pissed when a JRPG has a cast of characters who look ripped right out of Blackhawk Down (as if such a game would ever exist) I think many other people would cry bloody murder.

My point being that it's not just that we crave these tropes and cliches but we want OUR tropes and cliches and not someone else's.

In a way it makes me sad to know I'm self ware enough to understand this and actually crave something off the beaten path every now and then knowing that I'm apparently "broken" for desiring new ideas that push my comfort level. If I was just one of those blind, deaf mutes I could be forever happy with my bland cliches and tropes, forever grazing in the fields and harmlessly passing my time in the grassland away. Sadly I'm cursed with taste, intellect and free thought so I'm doomed to loath the mush and nonsense that is modern media.

What does any of that have to do with the discussion at hand. Also, what's with the asshole "I'm better and smarter" than everyone else attitude?

The fact that the movie is an analogy about our craving tropes. I thought I might point out an observation that it's not just that we crave the same cliches over and over but that we only want our own cliches and see other people's cliches as a sign of stagnation. Sadly I'm not nearly as much as a movie buff so I didn't have a good movie reference to use. Or was I supposed to be bickering about Mass Effect 3's ending and ignore all other subject matter in the video like almost everyone else is?

And if I came off as an ass hole it's only because I am one. I say what I mean and I'm not afraid to be blunt.

 

[Karnesdorff]

EDIT: And at this point we're getting a bit far afield from the actual point of the debate, so I've no plans to indulge further in discussion of the ME3 ending. Perfectly willing to debate Bob's point further, though.

Fair enough, but let me clarify one thing first...

At this point you're slipping into the stereotype that many people branded the Re-Take folks with, specifically that they're really just pissed that the ending isn't all sunshine, light, and Space Jesus Shepard blasting the Reapers apart with his particle beam penis, before riding off into the sunset with his chosen Space Waifu.

Not really, there's a difference between a last minute burning down the setting and a downer ending, even if the relays stay up, the galaxy is totally screwed, it looks like continental Europe circa May 9th, 1945 writ large, most of the place is levelled and the 'powers' are shattered shadows of themselves, and on every major planet there are probably people driven insane by indoctrination. Things are probably going to get worse before they get better. Plus the scenes towards the end with your squadmates would have lost a lot of impact if Shep had survived with nary a scratch. I don't want a 'happy' ending, just one that doesn't seem to have wandered in from a different story and use circular logic to justify itself.

As to the film...eh, complaining you get paid millions of dollars for making stuff your bored with is hardly a novel position, most people get paid to churn out stuff they are long-bored with. People can make 'art'/take a more fulfilling job if they wish, they just may not make any money if they do so. To carry the analogy forward, most people work to get money so they can fund other things they like doing, despite romantic ideals of the contrary, the creative process is much the same, do 'Generic Blockbuster part XIV' so you can get funding for something you are really interested in further down the road. Though Audiences can be quite receptive to new ideas done well, Joss Whedon himself did Dr. Horrible when he and his friends all had nothing to do, and that's an idea that probably would have been laughed out of many an executive's office, but has quite the cult following.

K.

 

[Xman490]

"Every cloud has a silver lining."
"Where there's a will, there's a way."

This film takes those phrases and tears them to shreds like the monsters have torn up people in the film. It is a "sad" ending, for sure. I guess that would make it "bad", too, but not "broken" like ME3's ending with its plot holes and incoherence.

The reason why I equate "sad" to "bad" is because I like to think on the bright side. In my Literature class, I was the only one who thought the main character didn't die. I thought that her near-death hallucinations of her family helping her out of the sea before she drowned were real.

I don't like death. Death is bad, mmkay?

 

[DioWallachia]

Again with the shots to the Retake: Mass Effect group. Jeez, enough already. The metaphors in Cabin in the Woods are fine on the whole Audience/Filmakers dynamic... or at least it would be if there was a cevat that the ways they made sacrifices in the first place worked so they did it ad neaseum until the Elder Gods couldn't tolerate anything different, so they dug their own hole with the formula.


Cabin of the Woods is still good though. Just, some comparisons don't work as well as first thought out.

Bob fails to see that we have the right to complain because even if we are a bunch of Eldritch Abominations (especially me) the deal we had with the humans is a win-win scenario.

We had our product in form of a videogame and the developers gained our money in exchange (in this case, we dont blow up their world) and we were informed before release that it contained the "there is no A B C kind of endings like OTHER games" and "it will give a satisfying closure to the series"

We got something different and we had the right to complain like someone who asked for a burger and received the raw meat. They told us to be patient and that the answers will come during PAX but that was a lie, nothing was explained and therefore EA won the "Worst American Company in The World" ...... Oh and i guess that we have to destroy the world now just for that.

Hold on a second...
*snaps fingers and the world gets sucked in a black hole*

Well, it is done. Planet EA has failed to deliver a deal that was fool-proof and for his hubris, it has paid the higher price.

Its this too much? Well, Planet EA could have been spared if it wasnt for his own pride of "delivering the best videogame experience to the customers" If they didnt raise the hand for a task that they weren't ABLE to deliver then they would have been spared. Someone else could have done the job better if it wasnt for the hype that EA give us, they tought that we could be tamed.......and know they know the name of the king.

Oh, by the way Bob, the trailer of Sucker Punch did a better job at.....well sucker punch us into thinking that the movie would be about action girls in fetish outfits.

This movie however gives away the twist of being watched in the trailer, therefore the people who want to watch Cabin the the Woods EXPECT that to be on the movie because its what apparently sets it apart from the other horror movies. Hell, even the tagline is "You think you know the story"

What does this mean? It means that you cant use the Mass Effect 3 analogy because no expectations were betrayed on CITW, ME3 did however. You had more chance of making an analogy of failed expectations using The Last Airbender trailer.

But you know, i am just a random guy on the Internet, not worth listening because i dont have any prestige. Kinda like the same way EA and Bioware is not listening to the fans because they are a bunch of morbid creatures unworthy and unclean, whose opinion its invalid no mater if the claims are based on logic.

We could tell them that their hair is on fire but because we are the equivalent of hobos with cheeto dust on the beard, our opinion doesnt count. Only if we have a nice suit and hookers around THEN they would listen.

If someone still has doubts about if the ending really sucks or its just fanboy bitching then i will just leave this here:


I know that the Game Overthinker once said that the "I will just leave this here" its lazy but then again, Bob is being lazy for not actually listening the fans so i guess i am inspired by him

[HEADING=3]Guys, guys! Don't even mention his preposterously hypocritical comments on ME3; He's doing it for the traffic.[/HEADING]

If he really is doing it for the trafic the lets just make a new thread an continue where we left off

 

[DioWallachia]

Re-Take The Cabin

A spoiler filled look into Cabin in the Woods and its take on our culture.

Read Full Article

I haven't seen so many people miss the point of a movie since Moulin Rouge. But it also appeals to my inner sense of Smug to watch it play out. There are basically three groups of people here:

Group A: The people who, in the process of their complaining, are inadvertently demonstrating the criticisms this movie levies at them.

Group B: The people who enjoy the movie at face value, unaware of the subtext. It's making fun of you, laughing at not with you, and you're laughing right along without realizing it.

Group C: The people who watch groups A and B with a certain sense of smug (or maybe sadistic) satisfaction, the way a young boy might watch ants roast under a magnifying lens... only superficially realizing that they're enjoying the same "guilty pleasures" they accuse the "lesser" groups of being slave to.

No one is safe, and that's what makes the whole thing great!

Groupd D: The asshole who wanted to write and make something in Adobe Flash something with the same theme of "pleasing the Outer Gods by using creatures of the universe as "actors" of whatever bullshit they want to see happen" and the "the Outer Gods are an analogy of the audience". But now that the movie exist, EVERYONE and their mother will accuse the asshole of ripping it off even if there are different reasons of why each movie was made.

This is the reason of why no one should have dreams of glory, EVER. Just make a fanfic on the net with a bunch of text rather than using sprite art on Flash and pretend you are happy with that.

 

[Kian2]

I don't know if he made it on purpose, but I thought it was a funny parallelism that in bringing up the Retake deal with mass effect in the ending to his article, he's doing the same thing Bioware did. Ruining a perfectly good article by bringing up at the end themes and issues that were not alluded to at all during the rest of the article and have no place there.

I don't think I need to explain it, but anyway; the reason why the ending to Cabin and Mass Effect are not comparable is that in Cabin, the ending is the result of the premise. There is a secret underground base controlling monsters and things. This sets up the expectation that if something goes wrong in the facility, all hell would break loose. The premise of the movie is being explained all throughout the movie. And I think it's a brilliant premise.

Imagine if instead the movie was exactly as it is, but with no mention of the underground facility until the last minute, when all the monsters break loose. So you're watching the exact same movie about zombies and cliche archetypes, and suddenly there is a murderous unicorn running around. You are shown a quick glimpse of the facility, a few words to the effects that "The elder gods are going to be unhappy" and it ends however the movie ends. It's the same premise, but instead of it being developed through the length of the movie, it's shoehorned at the last minute to give some kind of 'deeper meaning' to the story.

Would you still be singing the praises of this movie, or complain that they ruined a perfectly good premise and a perfectly average movie at the same time?

 

[Lionsfan]

Holy shit and I thought [user]Daystar Clarion[/user] was the only person capable of derailing a thread. So ignoring the pointless digs at the Retake ME3 [footnote]Whatever you're thoughts on that, it has no relevence on this movie[/footnote], I see part of the point you're trying to get at. That filmmakers resent being forced to make cliched films over and over again and blah blah blah. It's also incredibly annoying to be insulting the fans for liking these tropes, and I think it's pretty pretentious how people are trying to assign it all this meaning. Why can't we just take it straight? Why can't we just take it a horror film that deconstructs the tropes of every other horror film, why are we trying to assign pointless subtext to it, and then subsequently looking down on people who may or may not see it the same way?

As for filmmakers, you have a choice. You want to film brand new, bold, interesting stuff? Go to Kickstarter and pitch it there, getting funding to make films is not as impossible as it seems. If you really think you have a winner, go film it instead of being pissy about your current role