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

[The Great Fungus]

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.

Well, no. I'm not going to tell you what the right way is because I don't think there is a right way. That's why I put wrong in quotation marks.
My point wasn't about whether ME is enjoyable or not, because that indeed comes down to personal preferences. I also never criticized you or anyone else for liking it. I liked it for the same reasons you named, I was just very disappointed by it. Did expectations and disappointments ever factor into your experience? They might have played a bigger role for us (the "haters") because we waited for years to watch the trilogy unfold. Perhaps that's why the whole thing left a very bitter taste in our mouths.

All I'm trying to say, and I'm sorry if I'm failing at it, is that ME's writing can't be considered good storytelling without ignoring or not thinking about its flaws.
The themes and deeper meanings were there. Some of the characters and their story arcs were interesting and moving. I'll give you that. What's bad is the thing that holds everything together. Everyone can throw in thoughtful subjects, it's how you package them that matters. Birdemic also had an important message to tell, and yet it sucks. Its saving grace though is that it's hilariously bad, ME isn't.
I just don't understand how someone can look at giant plot holes, sloppy characterizations, contrived plot devices, a deus ex machina, nonsensical motivations and whatever else has been said a thousand times and still say that those things are not important.

Please remember that I'm not one those who call it the worst thing ever made. I try not to engage in hyperbole. It just irks me that writing in gaming is still held up to an appallingly low standard. Look at how much praise Bioshock Infinite has gotten even though its plot is utter garbage.

 

[CloudAtlas]

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?

It was you who interpreted "I believe" as "I don't know". I just responded to that.

My point wasn't about whether ME is enjoyable or not, because that indeed comes down to personal preferences. I also never criticized you or anyone else for liking it. I liked it for the same reasons you named, I was just very disappointed by it. Did expectations and disappointments ever factor into your experience?

They did, in fact, not. I didn't play any Mass Effect game until... ME3 with all DLC but Citadel was out. I wasn't interested in Mass Effect (it looked too cheesy to me), I didn't follow the news, consequently there weren't really any expectations to be had, one way or another.

Please remember that I'm not one those who call it the worst thing ever made. I try not to engage in hyperbole.

Kudos for trying, I guess, but using expressions like "giant ass pull" might not be that wise then.

It just irks me that writing in gaming is still held up to an appallingly low standard. Look at how much praise Bioshock Infinite has gotten even though its plot is utter garbage.

I guess I can consider myself lucky then that I never felt like engaging in debates about Infinite.

 

[smudboy]

Kudos for trying, I guess, but using expressions like "giant ass pull" might not be that wise then.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AssPull

You need to brush up on your terms then. There's nothing wrong with calling something what it is, regardless of your emotional reaction to words. This is the TV tropes description. It is synonymous with deus ex machina (a term which you seem confused by, since you invented the term "machina" without explaining it.)

 

[CloudAtlas]

It is synonymous with deus ex machina (a term which you seem confused by, since you invented the term "machina" without explaining it.)

I didn't make the term "machina" up, it is simply latin for, guess what, machine. I didn't expect that to be confusing for someone who prides himself so much in his understanding of deus ex machina(s).

 

[nuttshell]

It was you who interpreted "I believe" as "I don't know". I just responded to that.

The term "belief" is not open for interpretation.

 

[smudboy]

It is synonymous with deus ex machina (a term which you seem confused by, since you invented the term "machina" without explaining it.)

I didn't make the term "machina" up, it is simply latin for, guess what, machine. I didn't expect that to be confusing for someone who prides himself so much in his understanding of deus ex machina(s).

Sure...while I'm aware that machina means machine, "deus ex machina" is an established term for a plot device. It comes from the historical stage control of having a crane-like device lift an object onto the stage, to represent a god or supernatural force coming down to deal with the mundane issue that some character can't resolve. Hence, machine.

What does a machine (or your machina) do? What are you talking about?

 

[CloudAtlas]

It was you who interpreted "I believe" as "I don't know". I just responded to that.

The term "belief" is not open for interpretation.

I'm pretty sure many people use the terms "I believe that..." synonymously with "I think that..." in many circumstances, and although English is not my first language, I believe there's nothing wrong with that.

What does a machine (or your machina) do? What are you talking about?

Are you taking me for stupid or what? Or are you playing stupid yourself? Do you expect me to explain to you that, or why, the Crucible is a machine, a device of some sort? Why am I even doing this again...

 

[nuttshell]

I'm pretty sure many people use the terms "I believe that..." synonymously with "I think that..." in many circumstances...

Except in this circumstance you don't want to listen to arguments (said videos), you want to argue, however, that not all arguments are good. It's fine but it really adds zero to the discussion...there is allways shit somewhere, thats nothing new. Where are we going with this anyway? I wanted to point out, discussing is pointless, yet here I am...

 

[smudboy]

It was you who interpreted "I believe" as "I don't know". I just responded to that.

The term "belief" is not open for interpretation.

I'm pretty sure many people use the terms "I believe that..." synonymously with "I think that..." in many circumstances, and although English is not my first language, I believe there's nothing wrong with that.

What does a machine (or your machina) do? What are you talking about?

Are you taking me for stupid or what? Or are you playing stupid yourself? Do you expect me to explain to you that, or why, the Crucible is a machine, a device of some sort? Why am I even doing this again...

I expect you to define a new term when you invent it, and start using, yes. (Whether it's derivative of another term is irrelevant.) I am the confused one here, and I am asking a simple question: what do you mean?

 

[userno123456789]

I had a quick read, and I have to say its good, I like it a lot more than the original.
The "three flavors" problem is not present because there are more outcomes depending on how good your score was.
I especially like how the controll ending was changed into a "victory by any means" bad ending that fits the renegade personality quite well.

 

[CloudAtlas]

What does a machine (or your machina) do? What are you talking about?

Are you taking me for stupid or what? Or are you playing stupid yourself? Do you expect me to explain to you that, or why, the Crucible is a machine, a device of some sort? Why am I even doing this again...

I expect you to define a new term when you invent it, and start using, yes. (Whether it's derivative of another term is irrelevant.) I am the confused one here, and I am asking a simple question: what do you mean?[/quote]

I didn't invent the term though, the Romans did, more than 2000 years ago. Why are you so hung up on that? It was just a play of words. I just asked, rethorically, what makes a machina (= a machine, a device... it's almost the same word, you don't need to know Latin for that, Jesus) a deus ex machina. And the Crucible hardly matches the definition.

I hope you are happy now.

 

[Beretta]

Props to him for writing all that I suppose.

But I disagree with it. Particularly:
1) A paragon is:

A model of excellence or perfection of a kind; a peerless example: a paragon of virtue.

As played out throughout the Mass Effect series, a paragon is someone who upholds the virtues of governance. The control ending fits that to a T. A paragon wouldn't destroy the Geth if they could sacrifice themself to become the ultimate paragon to be an example that leads the galaxy. I don't know why people keep missing that.

A renegade as played throughout Mass Effect is someone who fights for individuality. Even if that means sacrificing others. The destroy ending is exactly that.

2) Removing the ending choices and instead basing it on score. Choice was a big theme of Mass Effect, and he wants to take away the biggest choice of all?

Seconded, regarding part 1.
I was wondering if anyone else picked that up.
That Renegade Shepard can alone survive with the Destroy ending makes solid sense.
A Renegade has time after time chosen themselves over others, whether on a personal or species-wide level. The last reward for that kind of selfishness is to get to live when all others are dying. The reward for being a bastard is little blue babies by the bucketload. And fame. And ridiculous influence. And breeding requests. And siring half of the Asari race. And pretty much anything and everything a Shep could imagine.

A Paragon Shep has, on the other hand, finally given her all, has truly sacrificed everything. When ME 2 started she gave up her life, then was reborn and gave up her humanity. The climax of the Control choice is to make what's truly the ultimate sacrifice: Shepard gives up her Death. There will never be oblivion for her, only endless watching and waiting for the next terrible catastrophe. Unending vigilance in the truest, most remorseless sense.
A Big Goddamn Hero.

2) Also this. Destroy is Paragon? What?

 

[CloudAtlas]

Props to him for writing all that I suppose.

But I disagree with it. Particularly:
1) A paragon is:

A model of excellence or perfection of a kind; a peerless example: a paragon of virtue.

As played out throughout the Mass Effect series, a paragon is someone who upholds the virtues of governance. The control ending fits that to a T. A paragon wouldn't destroy the Geth if they could sacrifice themself to become the ultimate paragon to be an example that leads the galaxy. I don't know why people keep missing that.

A renegade as played throughout Mass Effect is someone who fights for individuality. Even if that means sacrificing others. The destroy ending is exactly that.

2) Removing the ending choices and instead basing it on score. Choice was a big theme of Mass Effect, and he wants to take away the biggest choice of all?

Seconded, regarding part 1.
I was wondering if anyone else picked that up.
That Renegade Shepard can alone survive with the Destroy ending makes solid sense.
A Renegade has time after time chosen themselves over others, whether on a personal or species-wide level. The last reward for that kind of selfishness is to get to live when all others are dying. The reward for being a bastard is little blue babies by the bucketload. And fame. And ridiculous influence. And breeding requests. And siring half of the Asari race. And pretty much anything and everything a Shep could imagine.

A Paragon Shep has, on the other hand, finally given her all, has truly sacrificed everything. When ME 2 started she gave up her life, then was reborn and gave up her humanity. The climax of the Control choice is to make what's truly the ultimate sacrifice: Shepard gives up her Death. There will never be oblivion for her, only endless watching and waiting for the next terrible catastrophe. Unending vigilance in the truest, most remorseless sense.
A Big Goddamn Hero.

2) Also this. Destroy is Paragon? What?

You could equally argue that Control is the ultimate fascist fantasy, one person alone having total control of the fate of the galaxy - not really a power that anyone should be able to wield. Destroy on the other hand removes this power gives everyone the freedom to decide their own fate, with the Geth (if they still exist at all at this point) just being collateral damage.

The final choices are simply morally ambiguous, and to make them dependent on your Paragon/Renegade score is an awful idea. The Paragon/Renegade system deeply flawed anyway. It makes players look at the color of the choices, instead of thinking about the actual question and deciding for themselves, it judges your choices and this judgement sometimes does not match your own moral beliefs, it does not distinguish between being an asshole and being a pragmatic ends-justify-the-means type, and is ultimately pretty useless on top. The mature way to tackle morally ambiguous choices would be to entirely do away with any explicit system like this.

 

[smudboy]

I didn't invent the term though, the Romans did, more than 2000 years ago. Why are you so hung up on that? It was just a play of words. I just asked, rethorically, what makes a machina (= a machine, a device... it's almost the same word, you don't need to know Latin for that, Jesus) a deus ex machina. And the Crucible hardly matches the definition.

I hope you are happy now.

Yes you did invent it. You took "deus ex machina" and reduced it to "machina". (You didn't invent the word, that's obvious. And we already know the meaning of the word machina.)

You used that word in a different way; apparently, without much reasoning. In fact, you didn't quite grasp what a deus ex machina was until after I explained it, and then started talking about machina, which is where I was confused.

And after your definition, that is that machina=machine, which is self-explanatory, is completely pointless, because the Crucible or Catalyst could have equally have been people, or natural, and not machines.

So what if they're machines? How do them being machines resolve the plot? And how is this good or bad, or done well or poorly?

So your entire point is...what exactly? That machine=machina?

 

[sumanoskae]

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.

How many people approve of something has no actual effect on it's objective quality because no such thing exists. Saying something is "Good" or "Bad" is a value judgement; it's entirely subjective because the concept of "Good" and "Bad" are entirely subjective.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the general consensus that these elements are rushed, contrived and needlessly bleak; just generally poorly written? These are all things most of us agree are bad, correct? Where we differ is weather or not the ending could be described in such a way.

 

[Loonyyy]

"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.

If you think that any review of an artistic work is objective, you've got some catching up to do. Yes, you can point out objective facts, but what you make of them, whether good or bad, isn't. That's not a fatal flaw, it's just how things work. It's a viewpoint most of us have at some point, and I'm certain that at some point, you'll be past it.

That said, your videos are pretty good. Shame it was presented amidst the ridiculous rant and feigned indignity.