Update: Fan "Fixes" Mass Effect 3 Ending With A 539-Page Rewrite

CloudAtlas

New member
Mar 16, 2013
873
0
0
the hidden eagle said:
I think it would've been better if the Crucible was a Reaper Trogan Horse,after all they did leave pieces of technology behind so that space faring races can develop in ways the Reapers can predict.Any sane person who found a device in ruins that were already searched by humanity fifty years ago just after the Reapers were steamrolling Earth would find it a little suspicous.
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.

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.
 

sumanoskae

New member
Dec 7, 2007
1,526
0
0
CloudAtlas said:
The auther of this blog is equally full of it. Sorry, but if you aren't able to "fix" the stuff he thinks is so bad that it is beyond fixing (nevermind that, for many people, it isn't in need of fixing in the first place), then you're just a shitty/unimaginative writer yourself. Let's face it, 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.
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.

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.
 

CloudAtlas

New member
Mar 16, 2013
873
0
0
smudboy said:
Hostile? Where?
You don't even realize it, do you. I can't say I'm very surprised though.
Well, at least you're not objecting to the "full of it" part, I guess that's something.

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.
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.

 

CloudAtlas

New member
Mar 16, 2013
873
0
0
sumanoskae said:
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.
Making this argument does not make you ignorant, no. The way you do it though might.
 

sumanoskae

New member
Dec 7, 2007
1,526
0
0
CloudAtlas said:
sumanoskae said:
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.
Making this argument does not make you ignorant, no. The way you do it though might.
Your comment suggested otherwise;

"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.
 

Baron Teapot

New member
Jun 13, 2013
42
0
0
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.
 

CloudAtlas

New member
Mar 16, 2013
873
0
0
Baron Teapot said:
I get the impression that I'm saying all of the wrong things here.
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.

But... what should BioWare do?
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.
 

CloudAtlas

New member
Mar 16, 2013
873
0
0
sumanoskae said:
CloudAtlas said:
sumanoskae said:
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.
Making this argument does not make you ignorant, no. The way you do it though might.
Your comment suggested otherwise;

"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.
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.

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.
 

nuttshell

New member
Aug 11, 2013
201
0
0
smudboy said:
If you learn something, that's what matters.
I don't believe it is possible to change someone's mind about entertainment after a certain point.

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.
 

Aesir23

New member
Jul 2, 2009
2,861
0
0
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.
 

Loonyyy

New member
Jul 10, 2009
1,292
0
0
smudboy said:
CloudAtlas said:
smudboy said:
It's a giant pile of crap.

http://thesecondslice.blogspot.ca/2014/01/analysis-of-me3v.html
The auther of this blog is equally full of it. Sorry, but if you aren't able to "fix" the stuff he thinks is so bad that it is beyond fixing (nevermind that, for many people, it isn't in need of fixing in the first place), then you're just a shitty/unimaginative writer yourself. Let's face it, 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.
So a shitty/unimaginative writer (me) can't fix a complete catastrophe, aka, the Worst Ending in the History of Stories? That doing away with a two deus ex machinas (Crucible and Catalyst) is "too hard" or personal or not objective enough for me, and I should just edit and make it believable? Sure, one can take a succession of horrible ideas, or a broken sequence of events and make them believable, but it's ridiculously not necessary, when such a linear progression is completely bonkers and whose effect amounts to pure nonsense.

Well, just call me a shitty/unimaginative writer (editor), then. But you sir? You go right ahead and play with those piles of shit until it shines. Frankly, I like making and editing good stories, and ME3 is so broken, you simply need to replace it. Like, it's beginning and ending. Now that would be a proper re-write.

You wanted objective observations? Here you go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiN8gL40d84&list=PLEE7764FAB908A8FB

You try and fix all those problems, chief. No, really, be my guest. I'll await your 800 page fix. Be sure to point out my "personal preferences" while you're at it.
"Objective". How does it go again? "You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means."

But it's a nice show of umbrage and pretense you've got going there. Be a shame to spoil it. Carry on!
 

smudboy

New member
May 30, 2008
17
0
0
Loonyyy said:
"Objective". How does it go again? "You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means."

But it's a nice show of umbrage and pretense you've got going there. Be a shame to spoil it. Carry on!
I use objective observations in pretty much all my analyses, thanks.
 

irishda

New member
Dec 16, 2010
968
0
0
Saviordd1 said:
irishda said:
Saviordd1 said:
If this man isn't the new lead writer on ME4 instead of Mac "I'm a doofus" Walters I will cry.
Yes, otherwise we wouldn't get such gems as:
As opposed to the great and wonderful romance we got in ME3...?

Hell I don't even know why Garrus was a romance option in the first place.
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" damsel
 

ralfy

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 21, 2008
227
31
33
Since this is a game that combines RPG and adventure, then a final boss battle where one gets to use skills and assets obtained throughout the game, would have been great.
 

CloudAtlas

New member
Mar 16, 2013
873
0
0
nuttshell said:
smudboy said:
If you learn something, that's what matters.
I don't believe it is possible to change someone's mind about entertainment after a certain point.

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.
If you point at good things about something others hate, they will get equally defensive and even aggressive, ignoring or downplaying presented arguments.

What am I defensive against though? I cherish ME3 overall, yea, but I see where a lot of the criticism are coming from, I get them, and I even share some of them, and I repeatedly said as much before. I mean, there has to be a reason why the story is collapsing at the same point in this story for so many people. I'm just not believing that all the criticisms are valid, that some stuff really comes down to personal preference, lack of understanding, or being an overzealous member of the plot hole police.
I don't have an issue with people who're saying, look, there were big problems with the ending, just when they go all fundemantalist and claim that it is all utter shit, and objectively so, and anything before was equally shitty and nothing makes any sense or has any meaning and that I'm stupid and ignorant for liking what is so obviously all shit, yea, that kinda rubs me the wrong way.
 

nuttshell

New member
Aug 11, 2013
201
0
0
CloudAtlas said:
What am I defensive against though?
My post says: it is pointless to discuss this any longer. You think it's like this he thinks it's like that and none of you are going to change each others minds.

I'm just not believing that all the criticisms are valid...
That's the thing really, you believe instead of knowing, you didn't watch his videos till the end so you cannot know if all the criticism he brings to the table is valid. Sure, people make bad arguments. If you talk about something, there are people who can make a stupid comment. It doesn't make the valid criticism less valid.
 

The Great Fungus

New member
Dec 9, 2013
19
0
0
CloudAtlas said:
nuttshell said:
smudboy said:
If you learn something, that's what matters.
I don't believe it is possible to change someone's mind about entertainment after a certain point.

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.
If you point at good things about something others hate, they will get equally defensive and even aggressive, ignoring or downplaying presented arguments.

What am I defensive against though? I cherish ME3 overall, yea, but I see where a lot of the criticism are coming from, I get them, and I even share some of them, and I repeatedly said as much before. I mean, there has to be a reason why the story is collapsing at the same point in this story for so many people. I'm just not believing that all the criticisms are valid, that some stuff really comes down to personal preference, lack of understanding, or being an overzealous member of the plot hole police.
I don't have an issue with people who're saying, look, there were big problems with the ending, just when they go all fundemantalist and claim that it is all utter shit, and objectively so, and anything before was equally shitty and nothing makes any sense or has any meaning and that I'm stupid and ignorant for liking what is so obviously all shit, yea, that kinda rubs me the wrong way.
It's alright to like ME. That doesn't make you or the people you mentioned above stupid. All it does is indicate that you either didn't give it much thought, have very low standards and/or the "wrong" priorities regarding its objective quality. And I do believe there is such a thing.

Giant ass pulls like the Crucible and the Catalyst are certainly not part of a well written story. They're particularly bad when they retroactively break the plot of the previous games.
The Crucible's backstory is just ridiculous, especially considering that not even the Protheans (who managed to build a mass relay) were able to build it and that it requires a completely unknown entity to function. The idea behind it might make it romantic but it doesn't make it smart.
The Catalyst was never properly foreshadowed and single-handedly invalidates everything the Reapers have done up to that point. It makes Sovereign, the Collectors and the Reaper's plan B with the Alpha Relay totally redundant.

So, how can something that relies on such awful plot devices be good? And that's ignoring all the other problems the narrative has. A couple of good moments here and there just can't outweigh such tremendous flaws.
 

CloudAtlas

New member
Mar 16, 2013
873
0
0
nuttshell said:
CloudAtlas said:
What am I defensive against though?
My post says: it is pointless to discuss this any longer. You think it's like this he thinks it's like that and none of you are going to change each others minds.

I'm just not believing that all the criticisms are valid...
That's the thing really, you believe instead of knowing, you didn't watch his videos till the end so you cannot know if all the criticism he brings to the table is valid.
I wasn't referring to his criticism in particular here. And yes, I do not know everything, I'm not sure about everything, but admitting that is only displaying an appropriate degree of modesty, something that is often missing in this debate. It's always to proclaim one's own opinion, one's own judgement as absolute truth, I know.

The Great Fungus said:
It's alright to like ME. That doesn't make you or the people you mentioned above stupid. All it does is indicate that you either didn't give it much thought, have very low standards and/or the "wrong" priorities regarding its objective quality. And I do believe there is such a thing.
And I assume you will be more than happy to educate me about the "right" way to experience a story, the objectively "right" priorities and preferences, correct?

What is wrong, shallow, or thoughtless with liking the story for the deeper themes it touches upon, the moral ambiguity of many of its elements, the difficult questions it asks of you, while emotionally pulling you in enough to make me care about all of this in the first place?
You don't have to oblivious to any flaws for doing so. Now it certainly helps if not all supposed flaws are actually flaws to you, or at least not as bad as others make them out to be, or whatever, but saying as much will only lead to certain people repeating themselves that you're wrong/ignorant/whatever for not equally caring, for not disliking stuff as much as they do, and other similarly stupid claims, exactly the claims that made you respond in the first place, and now you're running in circles and nothing will ever come out of it.
 

nuttshell

New member
Aug 11, 2013
201
0
0
CloudAtlas said:
I wasn't referring to his criticism in particular here. And yes, I do not know everything, I'm not sure about everything, but admitting that is only displaying an appropriate degree of modesty, something that is often missing in this debate. It's always to proclaim one's own opinion, one's own judgement as absolute truth, I know.
Is modesty desirable in a debate about entertainment? How can a person even participate in a debate if it doesn't know the points of the debate? I really think it is quite nice of you to say that you don't know everything because so many won't admit that they don't but how does this further the debate?