Update: Fan "Fixes" Mass Effect 3 Ending With A 539-Page Rewrite
- Thread starter Josh Engen
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Who is "the rest of you" though? Your thoroughly negative view is a minority position even within the group of ending haters. I mean, there would have hardly been such an outcry if everything that came before was just as bad, would it.smudboy said:
I'm sure Gerry Pugli..somthing did the same, but that didn't exlucde him from your criticism either.
I am aware that my unwillingness to argue with you on specifics is a bit unfair and looks like a cop out. But I really can't, because you make your points in these videos, and if the first 5 minutes, this endless, pointless rambling about details that don't matter, are any indication of what is to come, I really don't feel like torturing myself and watching them. Judging by that... you might be the kind of guy that'll make Hulk mad: http://badassdigest.com/2012/10/30/film-crit-hulk-smash-hulk-vs.-plot-holes-and-movie-logic/
What makes a machina a deus ex machina though? If a machina is introduced early in the story, and a central story element throughout the story, it is not a deus ex machina. So the Crucible hardly satisfies the definition here.
A device called Catalyst is first mentioned somewhere halfway in the story, although you don't know yet what it is. The AI controlling the Reapers, and while it doesn't appear totally out of the blue, you can think about whether it would be good to foreshadow it more. There were a couple of instances with the opportunity of doing so that would only require minor changes. These would be the sort of changes I would be considering.
In any way, introducing devices early enough, foreshadow them enough, have other machinery in your world that kinda sorta works similar in some way, that can turn any deus ex machina to a regular machina... by definition. If you think all that is not done enough for the Catalyst and the Crucible, well, you really don't have to stretch your imagination all to hard in order to come up with changes that help here. The ingredients are already there, and they're plentiful (except for the Synthesis part maybe).
Through and through, you caught me.
Except... I didn't play any Mass Effect game until 2012. I didn't finish ME1, I found the gameplay too awful and sorta kinda knew the outcome of the story. The Mass Effect universe in general has quite a few elements that I don't like that much, that I find silly, cheesy, or weird. I think the whole main plot of ME2 doesn't make much sense in the context of the trilogy and doesn't move the story forward in any meaningful way, and I'd call its combat at best serviceable. It is only ME3 that I thoroughly enjoyed. Oh, and I didn't enjoy any other BioWare game as much since Baldur's Gate II? back in 2000 or something. If any of that is indicative for me being a fanboy to you, well, your call.
Thanks. She's quite something, isn't she?
The rest of "us" refers to everyone who sees that ME3 is a goddamned pile of nonsense. And have the brain to explain why. Hence, "The rest of us, who have thinking minds, can see the problems of such parts of the narrative."CloudAtlas said:
So, what's your point? He wrote crap, and I called it that.
Then everything you stated is pointless, meaningless, and pure subjectivity. Either quote me or stop wasting my time by listening to your opinionated nonsense.
I welcome your opinion, but if you can't be bothered to read not only his ideas, or listen to mine, then you have nothing valuable to state.
No, I'm not reading someone who can't turn off the caps lock key.
I asked you for your opinion. Explain yourself or be quiet.
A deus ex machina is nothing but a plot device. It doesn't matter when it's introduced in a story. The problem (or why a a deus ex machina is bad) is because of how it's usually used: as a contrived form of resolving the plot.
When you can break down a story into it's devices (plot, theme, etc.), there's usually something wrong with the story.
In the classic example of The Bacchae, Dionysus (the god), is not only the Deus Ex Machina device, he's also a character. He's introduced right in the beginning of the play, and is throughout it. (But even if he wasn't, and he came out of nowhere at the end, the Greek audience of the time still had knowledge of the pantheon of gods.) There's even allusions to his "powers" that we're not aware of yet. We don't know what he's going to do. And then he brutalizes his non-followers near the end.
Plot devices by themselves aren't good or bad: it's how they're used. Both The Crucible and the Catalyst are deus ex machinas, and they're used poorly. Unless the author is worth their weight in ink, it's a crap plot device.
Mac Walters is not worth his weight in ink. Casey Hudson...
Guess what? ME3 has the worst ending, ever. And yup, those two plot devices? Contrived nonsense (mysterious super-weapon of unknown function...out of nowhere! Ghost boy...out of nowhere!) If you think other wise, prove it. Might want to start watching the last few episodes of Bookends of Destruction.
Yes, you can do minor edits, but the problem still persists: it's a contrived piece of nonsense. It's a pile of crap no matter how many clearer details there are. Foreshadowing, or subtle indications, allusions and the sort, are only good if there's some substance to the damn thing you're foreshadowing. You can't just be subtle for the sake of it. There has to be meaning, some solid foundation to base a plot upon, or everything's up in the air and characters are worse than hoping on a prayer -- they're moving forward on an idea of some device that does something. Really. That's not a military strategy. That's not a goal. And the Catalyst wasn't even figured out before the Crucible was being constructed. Everyone just started building the nonsensical monstrosity! What's that? We need a "Catalyst"? A what? Oh well, Earth time!
What is "regular machina" in regards to deus ex machina?
Nothing is "done enough" for the Catalyst or Crucible. They're both giant piles of contrived nonsense. They both have no meaning aside from "it'll end the war" and "I'm the Catalyst."
And thus, the destruction of the ME series.
Yeah stop that. Or learn to understand things without those stupid rose tinted-glasses on.
ME1 is the only worthy game of the series.
A sad, pathetic flat brick.
Well, it certainly doesn't seem like they were knowing where they were going with the Reapers right from the start. Otherwise I think there would have been more foreshadowing of the purpose of the Reapers, for instance, and we wouldn't have a middle part of the trilogy with a main plot that is oddly out of place and inconsequential in the big picture. And yea I agree that's a pity, and the Mass Effect trilogy as a whole might well have been better if things were different. It's also weird as the secondary main conflicts, the Genophage and the Quarians and such, seem more consistent... at least as far as I remember them.the hidden eagle said:
For Crucible being a convenient plot device... maybe. They wanted to tell a story about a war that you cannot win by conventional means, no matter how smart or badass or galaxy-uniting you are. So if you take that as starting point, I'd call a device like the Crucible more a necessity than a convenience. It also makes a lot of sense for the ending they were telling, as allowing the final choice at all is pretty much contingent on the Crucible.
But of course, on the other hand, you don't have to tell such a story, nor such an ending, and thus don't need such a device, and... now we're running in circles. Either way, it is as it is.
I will be opting for the latter. I'm naturally not enjoying a discussion with someone who is both very hostile in tone and so full of himself that he believes his own preferences, his every word to be the absolute truth. Case in point:smudboy said:
Hostile? Where? If you learn something, that's what matters.CloudAtlas said:
You yourself stated that ME2 was a "total mess." Well guess what? This is a trilogy. Stories are built upon themselves. If the second chapter has faulty structure, the third is sure to follow that mess. Internal consistency, especially in non-contemporary works, needs to be even more prevalent. Dark energy?
Face it: ME3 is a catastrophe. The beginning and ending were destructive. The only thing it had going for it was a solid plot in the middle. The writers were in over their head and didn't know what to do.
That, amongst many other things, is not how you write a story.
Suspicious, yea, I can't argue with that. Then again the timing of events large and small is rarely very probable in stories for the sake of drama.the hidden eagle said:
I just liked the idea of a device that is a design that has been worked on for many circles before "ours", that has becoming closer and closer to completion with every cycle, and that our cycle has been the first to finish it, and how all that ties into the ending and the final choice. The realization of the the Catalyst AI that now that the Crucible has actually been completed and deployed for the first time, it will be only a question of time when a future cycle figures out how to activate it (& the Citadel) and the conclusion that its solution to the problem will not work anymore - and all the ramifications of this conclusion. I found that all very interesting and, yea, beautiful even, even though the implementation of all of that was clunky at times.
But I heard many people explaining by now that they don't like all that and why, sometimes with more and sometimes with less sophistication, but I never really understood, and probably never will. It will probably be for the best for me to leave it at that.
I have not read the "Fix" (500 fucking pages!) and do not intend to at this time, nor have I read the blog, but that last statement struck me as rather broad.CloudAtlas said:
The argument that a story contains a poor central element that it would be better off discarding is entirely valid.
Further more, the Crucible and the Catalyst themselves have very little impact on the contents of the story; they are totally interchangeable with any other potential weapon against the Reapers, the characters in the story never treat them as anything else, none of the other traits (Origin, purpose, mechanics) of these machines change anything besides the very end, which is itself so scientifically impossible that it wouldn't have mattered how it was accomplished; using Biotics, Prothean technology or dark matter would have been no less believable. The Crucible and the Catalyst are the very definition of MacGuffin's; they have no significance other than to move along the plot.
Regarding the ending itself, I don't think it can be argued that it affects the rest of the plot; nobody even has any idea how the Crucible is supposed to function. The concept of controlling the Reapers is foreshadowed throughout the game, but there is no reason the broad options of destroying or controlling the Reapers of other synthetics has to be exclusive to the ending as it is; you could practically rip it's guts out and rewrite the whole thing and you could still fit in the three options.
The mechanics of the three options make little sense in the current ending, I don't see why changing other things and simply keeping those options would be a problem.
You obviously think the game would not benefit from an ending change, but you must concede that there is an argument to be made against it. And making such an argument does not make you ignorant.
You don't even realize it, do you. I can't say I'm very surprised though.smudboy said:
Well, at least you're not objecting to the "full of it" part, I guess that's something.
No, I stated that the main plot was a total mess. The relevant secondary plot lines weren't, and Mass Effect 3 builds directly upon them. The main plot was bad in the context of the trilogy because it is overall inconsequential, and the events of Mass Effect 3 could have unfolded pretty much in the same way as they did regardless. There certainly is no law that dictates just because chapter two was stupid chapter three has to be stupid as well.
Anyway, I said I don't want to engage you anymore, and I'll heed my own words from now on.
Making this argument does not make you ignorant, no. The way you do it though might.sumanoskae said:
Your comment suggested otherwise;CloudAtlas said:
"if someone believes central story elements like the Crucible, the Catalyst, or the final choice are so awful that the only way to "save Mass" Effect's story is to get rid of them entirely, he's likely either ignorant or so full of himself that he confused personal preferences with "objective" quality."
Again, suggesting that these elements should be removed from the story doesn't make you ignorant; it's entirely a matter of opinion.
Goodness me, the posts really mounted up here quickly. I'd like to respond to all of it, but I don't have the time right now.
But the reason I mention that complaining about the story seems a little iffy is because technical bugs and issues are easiest to demonstrate, and they're either there or not there: you just replicate the hardware upon which running it causes the problem and wait for it to happen.
As regards the story, this topic seems to be divisive enough to have people either claiming to absolutely despise the ending or to have enjoyed it equally, like BioWare were taking cues from the Marmite marketing department. There are people who say that the endings were identical and people who say that they weren't. On that note: looking at each of the endings myself, they each look different. The changes between them may be minor or insubstantial, but they are literally different endings even if all that differs is a colored light.
So, what I'm saying is that in a court of law the phrase "the game has multiple different endings" seems to be true. Whether the developers meant "the endings are different in that the light is either red, green or blue" or "the endings are different in that nothing is shared between the Control and Renegade options", it's not clear. Language is tricky like that.
I understand what 'false entitlement' means. I don't think that's the issue. If you buy a copy of the latest 'Harry Potter' book, should you get a refund because your favorite character dies? The game is functional. It ran on my machine without crashing and I got a lot of enjoyment out of it. Was it a pointless waste of time? Certainly. But it did what I expected it to do, and though I was unimpressed with the endings, and didn't fully understand what was happening around me or why (the relays exploding, for instance, trapping the Normandy on that lush planet - do these people even have survival training..?) until the 'Extended Cut' was released, at no time was I convinced that I'd been tricked.
But you guys were, right? It's a difference of opinion, rather than fact. Hell, I agree that it was a bad ending, but what exactly should be done about it, and is it too much to expect the game to be altered until it suits ALL of you? Yes.
BioWare looked at their fans and took their complaints on-board. I'm not used to this sort of thing happening and I don't expect it to happen; their game worked and was reviewed and received decent scores. The problem is that a subset of players weren't satisfied with it.
What exactly does this mean for me? Almost nothing. The fact that a game company listened to their fans was impressive, but in retrospect it was probably one of those manoeuvres designed to inspire the respect of people like me who consider this sort of thing practically unheard of, because that means more time in the media spotlight, and gamers who might otherwise have no interest could've picked up a copy, curiosity sparked. By this point, the game was out. It was less a matter of money and more a matter of respect and reputation. That's what makes it interesting. Publishers have never cared about anything other than cold, hard cash. Ask EA.
Comparing it to 'Aliens: Colonial Marines' as I did highlights the differences between the two scenarios: the 'Aliens' game was rushed out, barely completed, after much faffing about, re-writes and engine changes that left little but some of the original assets, a lot of them being re-made and replaced. The game was buggy and differed a great deal when compared to announcement trailers, lacking a number of the features that were expected, like the high quality dynamic lighting and shadow-mapping that contributed greatly to the ambient horror and tension. The enemy animations were pathetic and some of the unique and scripted animations were missing - aliens not crawling along the ceilings like in the trailer, but popping up already-upright. Basically, the game was terrible and everyone knew it.
With 'Mass Effect 3', these problems don't exist. It's a problem with opinions, rather than technical stuff, and opinions are just harder to pin down to anything concrete, and words can be twisted and re-interpreted in numerous different ways. The evidence is that some people enjoyed the game, whereas others didn't. That's the clincher: asking for a refund for a game that is objectively worse than its own trailer is different to asking for a refund because a game does not live up to your personal expectations. It's subjective. Yes, lots of people realize that there's a problem. But... what should BioWare do?
I get the impression that I'm saying all of the wrong things here. So, please tell me: how should I feel about this?
Thanks. This is an interesting thread, though.
But the reason I mention that complaining about the story seems a little iffy is because technical bugs and issues are easiest to demonstrate, and they're either there or not there: you just replicate the hardware upon which running it causes the problem and wait for it to happen.
As regards the story, this topic seems to be divisive enough to have people either claiming to absolutely despise the ending or to have enjoyed it equally, like BioWare were taking cues from the Marmite marketing department. There are people who say that the endings were identical and people who say that they weren't. On that note: looking at each of the endings myself, they each look different. The changes between them may be minor or insubstantial, but they are literally different endings even if all that differs is a colored light.
So, what I'm saying is that in a court of law the phrase "the game has multiple different endings" seems to be true. Whether the developers meant "the endings are different in that the light is either red, green or blue" or "the endings are different in that nothing is shared between the Control and Renegade options", it's not clear. Language is tricky like that.
I understand what 'false entitlement' means. I don't think that's the issue. If you buy a copy of the latest 'Harry Potter' book, should you get a refund because your favorite character dies? The game is functional. It ran on my machine without crashing and I got a lot of enjoyment out of it. Was it a pointless waste of time? Certainly. But it did what I expected it to do, and though I was unimpressed with the endings, and didn't fully understand what was happening around me or why (the relays exploding, for instance, trapping the Normandy on that lush planet - do these people even have survival training..?) until the 'Extended Cut' was released, at no time was I convinced that I'd been tricked.
But you guys were, right? It's a difference of opinion, rather than fact. Hell, I agree that it was a bad ending, but what exactly should be done about it, and is it too much to expect the game to be altered until it suits ALL of you? Yes.
BioWare looked at their fans and took their complaints on-board. I'm not used to this sort of thing happening and I don't expect it to happen; their game worked and was reviewed and received decent scores. The problem is that a subset of players weren't satisfied with it.
What exactly does this mean for me? Almost nothing. The fact that a game company listened to their fans was impressive, but in retrospect it was probably one of those manoeuvres designed to inspire the respect of people like me who consider this sort of thing practically unheard of, because that means more time in the media spotlight, and gamers who might otherwise have no interest could've picked up a copy, curiosity sparked. By this point, the game was out. It was less a matter of money and more a matter of respect and reputation. That's what makes it interesting. Publishers have never cared about anything other than cold, hard cash. Ask EA.
Comparing it to 'Aliens: Colonial Marines' as I did highlights the differences between the two scenarios: the 'Aliens' game was rushed out, barely completed, after much faffing about, re-writes and engine changes that left little but some of the original assets, a lot of them being re-made and replaced. The game was buggy and differed a great deal when compared to announcement trailers, lacking a number of the features that were expected, like the high quality dynamic lighting and shadow-mapping that contributed greatly to the ambient horror and tension. The enemy animations were pathetic and some of the unique and scripted animations were missing - aliens not crawling along the ceilings like in the trailer, but popping up already-upright. Basically, the game was terrible and everyone knew it.
With 'Mass Effect 3', these problems don't exist. It's a problem with opinions, rather than technical stuff, and opinions are just harder to pin down to anything concrete, and words can be twisted and re-interpreted in numerous different ways. The evidence is that some people enjoyed the game, whereas others didn't. That's the clincher: asking for a refund for a game that is objectively worse than its own trailer is different to asking for a refund because a game does not live up to your personal expectations. It's subjective. Yes, lots of people realize that there's a problem. But... what should BioWare do?
I get the impression that I'm saying all of the wrong things here. So, please tell me: how should I feel about this?
Thanks. This is an interesting thread, though.
Why? Because your voice is a voice of moderation? If everyone was like you, and could just accept different opinions, and in the end agree to disagree, we'd all be happy. It just gets iffy when you're told repeatedly that you're "objectively" wrong for liking/disliking something.Baron Teapot said:
As for ME3: Nothing. I mean, what else could they do? Release an extended extended cut, or, God forbid, develop Mass Effect 3: Vindication?
As for future games: They've probably been thinking hard about that themselves. Whatever they do, they won't be able to appeal to everyone, I think. I'd wish they continue down the route they've taken with DA2 and ME3 in terms of storytelling, but take their time to think everything through and properly polish their games, but I'm not very hopeful. I'm afraid they'll play it safe. We'll find out sooner or later though.
There's a difference between saying the story would be better without these elements, and claiming that these elements are so bad that any story that includes them (such as the actual story of the game) is beyond redemption.sumanoskae said:
The former could well be true. I don't think so, and it would be a story that I'd find less interesting at first sight, but who knows. The latter is a rather absolutist claim, and begets the question: If the story was so incredibly awful, how come that so many people liked it? And not just 12-year-olds, critics and others who consider themselves reasonably educated and thought about all of this a lot as well.
I don't believe it is possible to change someone's mind about entertainment after a certain point.smudboy said:
If you point bad things about something others enjoy, they will get defensive and even aggressive, ignoring or downplaying presented arguments. Some people still like Toddlers & Tiaras ffs...I don't think anybody will learn anything new after all this time.
This just seems like blatant wish fulfilment and poorly written wish fulfilment at that. What is he hoping will happen? That Bioware will notice and implement his suggestions?
Honestly, I can understand why people are upset about the endings even if I don't agree on the subject. However, it really makes me wonder why people hang on to something so trivial for years and put so much energy into hating it. Not just with Mass Effect 3 but other games, books, and movies. It just doesn't seem worth it so long after everything has been said and done.
Honestly, I can understand why people are upset about the endings even if I don't agree on the subject. However, it really makes me wonder why people hang on to something so trivial for years and put so much energy into hating it. Not just with Mass Effect 3 but other games, books, and movies. It just doesn't seem worth it so long after everything has been said and done.
Well, I believe the worst offense with that is FemShep is no longer a badass, but just another video game, helpless, "Don't ever leave me" damselSaviordd1 said:As opposed to the great and wonderful romance we got in ME3...?irishda said:Yes, otherwise we wouldn't get such gems as:Saviordd1 said:
Hell I don't even know why Garrus was a romance option in the first place.