Wow, this sounds like a really cool guy. I didn't expect that (yes, I'm pretty cynical about these fan "obsession projects" unfortunately) but he comes off really well.
Update: Fan "Fixes" Mass Effect 3 Ending With A 539-Page Rewrite
- Thread starter Josh Engen
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I legitimately don't understand why people failed to accept that the Catalyst was just a rogue AI with it's own flawed morality. There's nothing wrong with this, it's also one of the most universal Science Fiction plot ideas ever. Even in the original ending it said that it was an 'Intelligence' that turned on it's creators, then people felt the need to needlessly read between the lines. It's simple and you resolve the issue, that shouldn't be a problem.
The ending is in Cannon and doesn't change anything about the story. It's just that the Reapers are tools for the Catalyst's twisted plan. Hell, even in the first game Vigil (an VI) shows up in the last hour and explains everything about the Reapers and Protheans. I'm surprised that there wasn't a "Betrayal" there.
I am glad that I waited to play ME3 after the backlash.
The ending is in Cannon and doesn't change anything about the story. It's just that the Reapers are tools for the Catalyst's twisted plan. Hell, even in the first game Vigil (an VI) shows up in the last hour and explains everything about the Reapers and Protheans. I'm surprised that there wasn't a "Betrayal" there.
I am glad that I waited to play ME3 after the backlash.
But is that really what they want? Mass Effect has always invited the player to ponder about difficult moral questions that touch upon very deep themes. The meaning of life, sentience, free will, or freedom, do the ends always justify the means, that sort of stuff - you can't really go much deeper. You could just make each and every decision straight from your gut, sure, but it was there nonetheless, in all three games. And the ending was full of that stuff - if you expected something different, something simpler, where these questions are at most background dressing (and many people did express such a preference), I can understand if you were disappointed, but I wouldn't have wanted any other way. Not in hindsight anyway; while actually being there I would've been content with just blowing the Reapers to kingdom come as well (and in the end I always did).the hidden eagle said:
And aren't BioWare games in general all about choice, about a particular kind of choice, and wouldn't these choices be rather shallow if there was never anything deeper behind it? I mean, that stuff is there in the Dragon Age universe as well, it's not just Mass Effect. Perhaps not as much, not as deep, and implemented a bit more bluntly, but it's there as well. So does the majority BioWare's audience not actually want that, is that just baggage for them? Yes, I really don't know, but at least I hope not, as that would be equal to wishing for shallower games, and that's about the last thing I want from the gaming industry.
Well, to each his own I guess. I'd rather prefer devs to aim higher even if they stumble a bit along the way.
Oooh, 539 pages worth of script format fanfiction! This is great!
Or not, because most of it is actually expanded/added romances and epilogues. Not handled well most of the time.
I'd rather stick to Mass Effect kink meme, people over there are much better at this, tbh.
Admirable effort, really, but the guy needs to work on his writing skills. And attitude, because the whole thing, but especially Introduction and James romance sections, smells of arrogance. I mean honestly, THIS is what you write in an introduction to something you hope will get you noticed by game developers?
Or not, because most of it is actually expanded/added romances and epilogues. Not handled well most of the time.
I'd rather stick to Mass Effect kink meme, people over there are much better at this, tbh.
Admirable effort, really, but the guy needs to work on his writing skills. And attitude, because the whole thing, but especially Introduction and James romance sections, smells of arrogance. I mean honestly, THIS is what you write in an introduction to something you hope will get you noticed by game developers?
Well. My issue with Biowares newer titles isn't that they are dealing with more complicated subject matters or deeper stories...it's just that they aren't doing it properly.CloudAtlas said:
Let's take dragon age 2 for instance. Yes, i understood it was meant to be a more personal and down to earth story but...by the end of it i just felt as if i had not accomplished anything. More to the point, it had the problem of happening at the same time as a much more interesting story. Which, when coupled with the repetative environments just left me feeling bored and with a sudden desire to burn Kirkwall down so I could go see the rest of Thedas then be stuck staring at the yellow walls.
But, in Biowares defense, that one they were working with some serious time constraints so...they get a partial pass on it.
Mass Effect 3's ending's problem was, aside from it being a Deus Ex Machina in it's original state, just didn't feel like the right way to end a trilogy of games. If it had come at the end of the original Mass Effect or if this game had been the first game in the series, I think it would have been better received. Now, it's been cleared up a bit with the extra DLC's and all but the fact remains that, as the end of an entire series it just felt...weak and out of place.
Biowares present problem isn't them tackling deeper themes. IN-fact, i agree with you in the respect they should continue to try to do so. The thing is, they need guidance in HOW to tackle these themes better because, as they've shown with their last two outings, they aren't quite able to do it properly. Guess what I'm saying is they need someone who's more used to writing stories like that to come aboard to help them if they try to do stuff like this again.
I'll leave this here for now, because this Topic's already got enough going on and you have enough people badgering you at the moment here to boot.
Yes, we do agree here. While I certainly view ME3 in a more positive light than you do, I didn't intend to suggest that BioWare are extremely skillful when it comes to tackling deep themes. I mean, for example the main plot of ME2 was a total mess. In fact, the thought of the Mass Effect story told with the same degree of skill as is at display in, say, Bioshock Infinite, or in the best movies out there, will send me weeping.Infernai said:
I didn't even finish Dragon Age 2, so yea, I agree it had big problems, and they better learn their lessons from that. I'm just worried, as I said, that they're drawing the wrong conclusions. Because if they intend to make me fight generic faceless demons again who just want to destroy the world or something, and that's all there is to them, and put all that in a rather generic setting and tell it in a rather generic way, just as it was true for DA:O which everyone seemed to have loved regardless (or because of it?), I won't be buying DA:I.
You made my day. And here I thought BioWare's actual romances were already a bit on the cheesy/awkward side...irishda said:Yes, otherwise we wouldn't get such gems as:Saviordd1 said:
Not everyone throwing him/herself at the player character regardless of the player lack of effort? Clearly evidence for bad storytelling!Saviordd1 said:
To anyone who thinks is is excessive: I'm making entire lorebooks so my remake of a webcomic will "make more sense".
You do *not* know what excessive is.
You do *not* know what excessive is.
Those were indeed complete bullshit. ME3 had a lot of problems and not all of them were about the ending. These days people like to say "it was a good game, people just bitched about the ending too much", but there was a lot more wrong with the game than just the ending.
Although one thing...
Test his metal? Why, is it not to manufacturer spec? Is the kind of metal it is questionable? And after he gets done testing his metal, will he then test is his mettle?
TBH I kind of figured that out when I got to the part of the article where he was testing his metal.smudboy said:
I've still held on to the theory that Shepard was just indoctrinated. It makes the most sense, really. The decisions in the end were an internal struggle within Shepard's mind. This is further bolstered by the split-second scene where Shepard is seen taking a breath in rubble.
In further conspiracy, the three endings served as a gamer vote from Bioware. If enough people chose the ending that denied indoctrination (Red - it was a trick to show the 'defiant' ending in red, as red usually meant 'evil'), then Bioware would have expanded on it. But most gamers went with instinct (erroneously) and chose Blue or "synthesis", fully accepting indoctrination. Gamers failed, gamers indoctrinated. No Shepard resolution..
In further conspiracy, the three endings served as a gamer vote from Bioware. If enough people chose the ending that denied indoctrination (Red - it was a trick to show the 'defiant' ending in red, as red usually meant 'evil'), then Bioware would have expanded on it. But most gamers went with instinct (erroneously) and chose Blue or "synthesis", fully accepting indoctrination. Gamers failed, gamers indoctrinated. No Shepard resolution..
I don't have as much of a problem with the ending as i do with how shepard dealt with kai leng. I played an engineer. He could set shit on fire, freeze things, overload machines, etc. and what does he do in the cutscenes? Uses a stupid pistol. Shepard should've been able to kill that asshole before he could get a lift from one of the cerberus transports.
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.smudboy said:
Seems a bit self-congratulatory. Why is he qualified to re-write large chunks of the game in order to appease the fans? It says he's a fan, but that's surely the last sort of person you want trying to fix 'Mass Effect' because it's difficult to critically and objectively judge something that you, yourself are a part of.
Plus, stuffing every possible moment with winks to the fans and nods to your chums is not clever. How does this make 'Mass Effect 3' more accessible to new players, and what does it fundamentally change to make your choices seem more substantial? Very little. It just builds on BioWare's original.
Wow, did we really need over 500 pages for that? I get that he's begging for a job, but you're not going to endear yourself to future employers by implying that they're all absolute morons. He's never made a game, has he? No. Of course not.
So, yes, it's a false state of lazy entitlement and an absolute waste of time. It's like taking the Mona Lisa and sketching in a pair of dangly earrings: at best utterly useless and at worst you're taking something and defacing it whilst claiming you're a thousand times better. Not that 'Mass Effect 3' is comparable to the Mona Lisa, I just chose that to make my point come across easier.
Oh, and there's nothing wrong with complaining when you're duped into buying 'Aliens: Colonial Marines' when the trailers tell you it looks and plays amazingly, but complaining about a game's story seems a little iffy. Did they officially promise you that it would be different to what it is, clearly and obviously, or is it just your misinterpretation? I was actually impressed that BioWare cared enough about their whining fans to improve upon their ending, but at the end of the day it's their series.
Plus, stuffing every possible moment with winks to the fans and nods to your chums is not clever. How does this make 'Mass Effect 3' more accessible to new players, and what does it fundamentally change to make your choices seem more substantial? Very little. It just builds on BioWare's original.
Wow, did we really need over 500 pages for that? I get that he's begging for a job, but you're not going to endear yourself to future employers by implying that they're all absolute morons. He's never made a game, has he? No. Of course not.
So, yes, it's a false state of lazy entitlement and an absolute waste of time. It's like taking the Mona Lisa and sketching in a pair of dangly earrings: at best utterly useless and at worst you're taking something and defacing it whilst claiming you're a thousand times better. Not that 'Mass Effect 3' is comparable to the Mona Lisa, I just chose that to make my point come across easier.
Oh, and there's nothing wrong with complaining when you're duped into buying 'Aliens: Colonial Marines' when the trailers tell you it looks and plays amazingly, but complaining about a game's story seems a little iffy. Did they officially promise you that it would be different to what it is, clearly and obviously, or is it just your misinterpretation? I was actually impressed that BioWare cared enough about their whining fans to improve upon their ending, but at the end of the day it's their series.
Amen. What upsets me so much about the Crucible is that so many of the games problems can be solved by simply removing it.daveNYC said:
Why does a war that supposed to seem utterly hopeless need a clear solution? If we needed one, why not go with the Leviathan? If Bioware wanted to explore the motivation and origin of the Reapers but also needed a plot device to move the story along, having Shepard track down the only creature supposedly able to kill them, which is connected to their origin as it turns out, solves both of those problems.
Or just leave it blank, like I said. Shepard and friends struggle to survive a war they have little to no chance of winning. Maybe they figure something out, maybe they don't.
On another note, it occurred to me that maybe Shepard or one of his/her friends or superiors invented the concept of the Crucible just to create enough hope to ensure the other species would keep fighting.
I feel like I should point out that what BioWare did WAS false advertising. The made statements that suggested that the ending to the game would be significantly different from the finished product.Baron Teapot said:
There was no abstraction and they were not vague; they straight up said there would be a lot more than three endings and that the story would not come down to A, B or C.
Not arguing for or against the whole "Retake" thing here, just pointing this out.
I can barely watch the first five minutes of your first video without disagreeing on pretty much everything you say. To be more precise, you're ask a lot of questions, suggesting that none of which we see makes any sense, even though you could easily explain everything if you just put the tiniest fraction of the effort that you put into making these videos into thinking about these questions for a minute instead. You're so hung up upon pointless details that it's ridiculous.smudboy said:
So much for "objective observations".
Well, I don't see the need for major changes, not in ME3 anyway, so I guess I'd have a hard time filling 800 pages. Me writing down my notions on how to improve some of the issues I see with Mass Effect's story would neither benefit me or you, since we obviously don't agree on the issues in the first place.
But let me just say this: Not only would I keep the ending, and the Catalyst, and the Crucible, I would make them even more prominent elements of the story. Whatever issues might exist, I would work from the end and make what happened before fit to the ending (all the way up to ME1), not the other way round.