Mass Effect 3: Casey Hudson's Largest FUBAR

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

salinv:

I think the point is that the logic the reapers use is valid with their (broken) robotic logic. Humans are going to kill themselves? We can't allow that! Solution: Kill them all, so they don't kill themselves. It sounds stupid from our point of view, but if you think about it, it almost makes sense in a binary fashion.

Reapers seem capable of nuanced thinking, though. Unless you ignore the first game, which seems to be what Bioware did in a lot of instances. There may have been some of this in the second, too.

Zen Toombs:

Um, if you're gonna bring tropes in this, Mass Effect's ending fits "True Art is Incomprehensible" than anything else.

But that ignores that he himself is obviously in on it, and therefore a genius. If he calls itincomprehensible, he's admitting he doesn't get it, and is just like the rest of us dirty proles. Where's the fun without the self-praise?

The quality of the writing is just a distraction from the core issue of choices not mattering. This wasn't because of bad writing, it's because they were too cheap to do things properly.

See, letting players make decisions that effect the main story is expensive, since every scene will need multiple variations, and all the choices just multiply the possibilities. Mass Effect took the cheap way out by merging all decisions into the same outcome. To clarify, for the most part they did a good job tracking our decisions about squad mates; the problems all come from decisions related to the main story.

The Abhorrent:
From the Article:

The stuff with the Catalyst just... You have to understand. Casey is really smart and really analytical. And the problem is that when he's not checked, he will assume that other people are like him, and will really appreciate an almost completely unemotional intellectual ending. I didn't hate it, but I didn't love it.

Ladies and gentlemen, it seems that the ending to Mass Effect 3 could be a textbook case of "Viewers Are Geniuses"; especially when you consider that they were also deliberately going for a divisive and thought-provoking conclusion. They did just that, quite successfully I would say.

... Unfortunately, it seems someone forgot to mention that an ending which is too sophisticated is even worse than one which isn't sophisticated enough in the eyes of the average person.

Ahem, poppycock. Hudson's excuse for highbrow logic spouted by glowy fuckwit ends up with Andromeda synthetics in seed ships annihilating all rival intellects, organic or synthetic or combination in the Milky Way. Moreover, and more importantly, he DIRECTLY stole the actual choices in the ending from Deus Ex. It's basically a carbon fucking copy. Smart guy my ass, lazy asshole more like.

Gigatoast:
snip

Oh yeah, didn't you get the memo about how any of us who didn't like the ending simply didn't like it because we're a bunch of idiot crybabies who didn't understand it and are setting gaming back as an.....ugh...."artform"?

Our bad I guess.

dreadedcandiru99:

RedEyesBlackGamer:
If this is true then people can't defend the ending by saying "it is what Bioware chose to do." as it was two guys who came up with it and the rest of the writing team was no pat of it.

I don't know for certain if it's actually true that Hudson and Walters are entirely to blame. I kind of hope that it is true, though, because then the problem becomes a bit easier to fix: fire those two, then let the other writers handle the ending DLC.

As far as the ending is concerned, I always looked at the series ending in one of two ways, two variations for each: either you defeat the Reapers (or you don't) and Shep survives (or not). So, in regards to a "new ending", I'll settle for an epilogue that cleanly details what happened to who, like with DA:O.

That's just me. For the record,

Zachary Amaranth:

Zen Toombs:
Um, if you're gonna bring tropes in this, Mass Effect's ending fits "True Art is Incomprehensible" than anything else.

But that ignores that he himself is obviously in on it, and therefore a genius. If he calls itincomprehensible, he's admitting he doesn't get it, and is just like the rest of us dirty proles. Where's the fun without the self-praise?

Just because he gets it doesn't mean it actually makes any sense.

This one is example enough of that.
"This one" refers to me, just so we're clear.

Does anyone else kinda get the impression that the rest of the gaming world is ganging up on the people who aren't happy with the ME3 ending?

anthony87:
Does anyone else kinda get the impression that the rest of the gaming world is ganging up on the people who aren't happy with the ME3 ending?

We're rocking the boat, so it's understandable that people think we're making a fuss out of nothing.

What those people don't realise, is that those of us who are unhappy about the ending have spent several years following a story, growing to love the characters, making universe molding decision, only for it to end with a plothole-ridden mess.

And the biggest offense is that we all got the same ending.

The space magic might have been a different colour, but we all got the same ending.

For a series that put such a huge emphasis on choice, and the affects those choices have on the story, that is unacceptable.

SageRuffin:

dreadedcandiru99:

RedEyesBlackGamer:
If this is true then people can't defend the ending by saying "it is what Bioware chose to do." as it was two guys who came up with it and the rest of the writing team was no pat of it.

I don't know for certain if it's actually true that Hudson and Walters are entirely to blame. I kind of hope that it is true, though, because then the problem becomes a bit easier to fix: fire those two, then let the other writers handle the ending DLC.

As far as the ending is concerned, I always looked at the series ending in one of two ways, two variations for each: either you defeat the Reapers (or you don't) and Shep survives (or not). So, in regards to a "new ending", I'll settle for an epilogue that cleanly details what happened to who, like with DA:O.

That's just me. For the record,

Personally, I might (and I cannot emphasize that "might" strongly enough) have been willing to accept the Star Child scene, but if the Reapers absolutely had to go from "incomprehensible Lovecraftian horrors from beyond space and time" to "we turn organics into organic-killing synthetics to stop organics from creating organic-killing synthetics," then that crap had to get a lot more explanation. They'd also have to explain why, if the thing that made the Reapers has been living in the Citadel the whole time, Sovereign's role in ME1 was even necessary.

As for the ending, I still kind of think something like this would be the simplest way to fix it.

(And seriously, Bioware needs to fire whoever's responsible for this travesty.)

anthony87:

Gigatoast:
snip

Oh yeah, didn't you get the memo about how any of us who didn't like the ending simply didn't like it because we're a bunch of idiot crybabies who didn't understand it and are setting gaming back as an.....ugh...."artform"?

Our bad I guess.

It seems like people forgot when Sucker Punch changed Cole's look for Infamous 2 after fans complained. And how Obsidian ret-conned the Neverwinter Nights 2 ending with its expansions after the original ending was so bad and hated it is now THE go-to ending when describing bad endings.(rocks fall, everyone dies). And when Bethesda did Broken Steel which let you play after the main story because fans complained they couldn't play after the final cut-scene.

But I guess those don't count, for some reason.

Daystar Clarion:

anthony87:
Does anyone else kinda get the impression that the rest of the gaming world is ganging up on the people who aren't happy with the ME3 ending?

We're rocking the boat, so it's understandable that people think we're making a fuss out of nothing.

What those people don't realise, is that those of us who are unhappy about the ending have spent several years following a story, growing to love the characters, making universe molding decision, only for it to end with a plothole-ridden mess.

And the biggest offense is that we all got the same ending.

The space magic might have been a different colour, but we all got the same ending.

For a series that put such a huge emphasis on choice, and the effects those choices have on the story, that is unacceptable.

But if you were to say that to someone then they'd just hit back with either "Artistic Integrity *proceeds to wank*" or "Duh, you're just too stupid to see the true message of the ending....*proceeds to wank*"

I suppose it wouldn't annoy me as much if all those people would at least recognise why we're unhappy but then if they did then then that fucking "Art" argument they keep pulling out would carry even less weight than it does at the moment.....

Ugh...I guess I'm just venting now because of Gamesradar. I read an article on it that opened with:
"I don't know what the ending of Mass Effect 3 entails, and I don't care. I haven't even played Mass Effect 3 yet. Hell, I'm still working through the first one at the moment."

and then went on for two pages saying we're wrong, entitled, etc. Got under my skin a little what with GR being one of my favourite sites.

Rocking the boat is kinda fun though.

Irridium:

anthony87:

Gigatoast:
snip

Oh yeah, didn't you get the memo about how any of us who didn't like the ending simply didn't like it because we're a bunch of idiot crybabies who didn't understand it and are setting gaming back as an.....ugh...."artform"?

Our bad I guess.

It seems like people forgot when Sucker Punch changed Cole's look for Infamous 2 after fans complained. And how Obsidian ret-conned the Neverwinter Nights 2 ending with its expansions after the original ending was so bad and hated it is now THE go-to ending when describing bad endings.(rocks fall, everyone dies). And when Bethesda did Broken Steel which let you play after the main story because fans complained they couldn't play after the final cut-scene.

But I guess those don't count, for some reason.

Or how Bioware themselves changed one of their books because of fan outcry. This was only a couple weeks ago and nobody seems to remember!

The company has a history of fixing things the fans don't like. There's GOT to be some reason they're reluctant to take us seriously when it comes to the single most important part of the entire series. Maybe they actually do have something planned to continue the story, or maybe, if this rumor is correct, Casey and Mac are just too proud of their ending to let the filthy fans tarnish their work.

Bioware claims that this story is fake. So take it with a handful of salt.

Daystar Clarion:

anthony87:
Does anyone else kinda get the impression that the rest of the gaming world is ganging up on the people who aren't happy with the ME3 ending?

We're rocking the boat, so it's understandable that people think we're making a fuss out of nothing.

What those people don't realise, is that those of us who are unhappy about the ending have spent several years following a story, growing to love the characters, making universe molding decision, only for it to end with a plothole-ridden mess.

And the biggest offense is that we all got the same ending.

The space magic might have been a different colour, but we all got the same ending.

For a series that put such a huge emphasis on choice, and the affects those choices have on the story, that is unacceptable.

But we're setting back art another 10 years!

*sarcasm off*

I can't see how anyone who has followed ME for the past 5 years can look at the end and say "Yep, that was alright." Compare what BW promised to what we received and it is just indefensible. How did the writers sit in their room and collectively say, "Yes, this is how we are going to end it all. Champagne time, guys! We're going to make millions from the suckers!."

So here's two reasons this may have happened

1. They wanted to piss off 99% of the people on the internet who don't care about the ending by angering 1% of the people on the internet into making fucking tons of forums about mass effect.

2. They wanted to release a bad ending which they could follow up with DLC which 'fixes' the ending but in turn costs about $10.

Hannibal942:
Bioware claims that this story is fake. So take it with a handful of salt.

But the post was made on the confirmed account of one of Bioware's writing staff, several witnesses testify that the post is legit. To not deny this would be tantamount to confirming it, which would put Hudson and Walters in a very unpleasant situation. Not to mention the only possible way this was fake is if someone managed to hack the writer's PA account and post some very realistic misinformation, which hasn't come up in Hudson's denial.

I not going to outright buy the story, but it does explain a lot of things and I don't have much reason to doubt it.

Angry Juju:
So here's two reasons this may have happened

1. They wanted to piss off 99% of the people on the internet who don't care about the ending by angering 1% of the people on the internet into making fucking tons of forums about mass effect.

2. They wanted to release a bad ending which they could follow up with DLC which 'fixes' the ending but in turn costs about $10.

Really hoping it's #2. Would be even happier if the ending turns out to cost far less than $10.

Gigatoast:

Hannibal942:
Bioware claims that this story is fake. So take it with a handful of salt.

But the post was made on the confirmed account of one of Bioware's writing staff, several witnesses testify that the post is legit. To not deny this would be tantamount to confirming it, which would put Hudson and Walters in a very unpleasant situation. Not to mention the only possible way this was fake is if someone managed to hack the writer's PA account and post some very realistic misinformation, which hasn't come up in Hudson's denial.

I not going to outright buy the story, but it does explain a lot of things and I don't have much reason to doubt it.

I hope you're right man, but I just can't help but doubt it.

Gigatoast:
Don't insult us, is the first thing you assume simply "lol they're just too dumb to like the ending"? Because the ending isn't particularly clever, philosophical or new, it's simplistic, cliche and insulting.

First off, cut it with the antagonistic remarks; I certainly wasn't trying to offend anyone, which is quite difficult to say when the truth of the matter is that the ending is making leaps of logic which most simply cannot follow. That doesn't mean the average player is "dumb", just that the conveying of the higher-level ideas weren't conveyed well enough. Instead of ideas flowing from A to B to C and so on, they went all the way from A to Z in one step without explaining it. While this can make the game more entertaining for a sophisticated audience... it's still a problem, because that audience quickly shrinks to nothing.

Nevertheless, that sort of behaviour is part of what's getting in the way of people understanding the ending -- they're jumping to conclusions. It's a case of where you have to sit back and look at the big picture, not just from your perspective. As I remarked in my earlier post, the patterns are more important than the details. This was repeated several times throughout the series, and the value of information was made quite clear... so why is almost everyone looking at the details? They're easier to wrap your mind around, that's why.

Gigatoast:
Mass Effect fans are smarter then you think, most of them have already deconstructed, analyzed and reconstructed every possible meaning behind the ending, to the point where people have developed a conspiracy theory centered around the minute details throughout the entire game. We've written VOLUMES about why the ending doesn't work and you honestly think it's because it just went over our heads?

Having read the link, I'm seeing the exact same problem. Getting bogged down in the details, not looking at the big picture. All of the details are hinting towards something which the vast majority of people are overlooking:

It's far too easy to focus on the "What?", but it's often the "Why?" which is more important.

Irridium:
And how Obsidian ret-conned the Neverwinter Nights 2 ending with its expansions after the original ending was so bad and hated it is now THE go-to ending when describing bad endings.(rocks fall, everyone dies).

NWN2 was never a Rocks Fall, Everybody Dies ending. It was pretty much assumed that everybody who didn't make it out got kicked in the Plane of Shadow portal. Or at least I did. Cause that was much more sensible given the circumstances. It was however an example of Diabolus Ex Machina. Not to mention the RFED trope is properly ascribed to the original TOEE PnP module.

...Yes, I have spent wayyyy too much of my life on tvtropes.

isometry:
The quality of the writing is just a distraction from the core issue of choices not mattering. This wasn't because of bad writing, it's because they were too cheap to do things properly.

Inclined to question as to how you know it's a money issue and not bad writing.

Zen Toombs:

Just because he gets it doesn't mean it actually makes any sense.

This one is example enough of that.
"This one" refers to me, just so we're clear.

It was more fun playing with his fairly-transparent self fellatio. "People who don't get it are the lowest common denominator I AM TOTALLY IN ON IT!"

Gigatoast:

Or how Bioware themselves changed one of their books because of fan outcry. This was only a couple weeks ago and nobody seems to remember!

Couple of months, wasn't it?

But anyway, it also demonstrates the sloppier writing going on more recently.

And nobody really dropped the "E" word.

Tono Makt:

Really hoping it's #2. Would be even happier if the ending turns out to cost far less than $10.

You're hoping that they intentionally withheld an ending, just so they could charge you additional money to complete the game and do as promised.

Well, that's reasonable.

Zachary Amaranth:

Zen Toombs:

Just because he gets it doesn't mean it actually makes any sense.

This one is example enough of that.
"This one" refers to me, just so we're clear.

It was more fun playing with his fairly-transparent self fellatio. "People who don't get it are the lowest common denominator I AM TOTALLY IN ON IT!"

*DOH*

This one missed your joke completely. My bad!

ruthaford_jive:

rhizhim:

ruthaford_jive:
snip

thats unfair.

the reapers somewhat had a point!

Nice picture, made me giggle a bit.

Made me think of something though. If the reapers are just chillin' in dark space for hundreds of thousands of years, and on top of that they're super duper (really duper) intelligent, than wouldn't at least one of them have found out that their reasons for killing organics makes no sense?

image
no. even if almost every other synthetic being manages to do so.
maybe the reapers are not true AIs, they are VIs controlled by a retarded immature godlike child.

a better question is how do they micromanage this genocide.
mass effect only plays in one galaxy, the milky way.
but in our universe there are almost infinite galaxies. (see spoilers)
why do they only focus on this single galaxy.
it would make even less sense to 'store' all advanced species. since there are other galaxies that have to have other advanced species.

from another thread: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.356212-What-plot-holes-ME3-spoilers#14135694

estimated universe in hd http://blog.recitdevoyage.fr/public/National_Geographic_-_The_Universe_Map.jpg

here is the scale of the universe in a interactive form:
http://htwins.net/scale2/

captcha:
jump higher. ok will do.
i guess i will be swinging on a star at all.

Some day the people will look back, the pile of corpse that have rotted and decade, when only bones remain and the scavengers have left for fresher death to feast upon, the undertake will place the grave marker, and it shall read....

THE MASS EFFECT 3 ENDING CONTROVERSY
2012-2012, LEFT US TOO SOON...
IL be honest here, I'm getting a little bit annoyed by all this when, the top gaming news, form topics and matters of discussion are all ME3 ending.

deathbydeath:
The star child was less of a dem and more of an ass pull, but I see your point. Hell, even in 2 there were some very shifty changes (cerberus, the collectors, the t800 reaper larvae, etc). And I agree with your point about characters in 1, and I haven't played 3, but in 2 they mostly needed some more development, namely miranda, jacob, and thane to a lesser extent

My point wasn't about the starchild being dem, it was the Crucible - And then only IF you consider the series as one story in regard to the main story. For example a mention of the Crucible or a hint at it from, y'know, the badass prothian VI at the end of ME1 who oversaw all that the survivors did would have been nice, and since its hinted at as a key point of how to beat the reapers back near the start, it'd be less dem. Starchild isn't dem, but its still horrible writing.

As for the characters, they certainly were not "great" in 2, they just felt far more real than in 1. This could be more to do with increased dialouge, more of them and the work of the animators, its hard to tell. The fact that you literally have no goddamn idea how to beat the reapers after years of preparing then BOOP oh look something to break 'em all pops up at the start of the 3rd game just stinks of bad writing.

It should never really have existed, and it should all have been about literally trying to gather enough ships to defeat enough of them, then for the "ground battles" required by gameplay mechanics have it so that cerb's ships are helping the reaper fleet and thats what is throwing the balance off. So, you board the normandy towards the flagship of the cerb fleet, TIM is the "avatar" of Harbringer ala Saren in ME1's ending fight, Normandy breaks into the flagship, you fight your way to TIM, joker leaves to attack Harbie head on at the same time - You take down TIM, cerb's forces are called back when TIM see's that he was just indoc'd, harbringer is weaker due to defeat of his avatar, normandy destroys it, reapers keep fighting but are clearly fighting a loosing battle. Choices affect success, with no fleet galaxy is fucked, mid fleet heavy losses, etc etc.

ruthaford_jive:

rhizhim:

ruthaford_jive:
EA: Here's what's gonna happen Casey, you and Mac are gonna take control of this thing and end it.

Casey: Why?

EA: Well, see... if we put the ending in your and Mac Daddies hands instead of giving the fans what they were promised, they'll will rise up en mass and demand something new and then we'll be able to give them just that.

Casey: Or... we could just give them-

EA: No... the plans have been set in motion. [booming reaper sound]

thats unfair.

the reapers somewhat had a point!
image

Nice picture, made me giggle a bit.

Made me think of something though. If the reapers are just chillin' in dark space for hundreds of thousands of years, and on top of that they're super duper (really duper) intelligent, than wouldn't at least one of them have found out that their reasons for killing organics makes no sense?

God I'm getting sick of this. The "Yo dawg" scenario that everyone so fondly brings up is completely untrue and misleading. The Catalyst didn't "create synthetics to kill organics, so that the organics won't create synthetics to kill organics". It created the Reapers to kill only the highest civilizations, in order to prevent their synthetics from wiping out everything.
And even if we forget that, there's still the whole other half of their reasoning. They don't do it simply to prevent synthetics turning on them. They do it to remove the top-dog in the galaxy, so that other species will have the chance to be uplifted, and have their shot.
Say what you will about the ending being unsatisfactory, there is nothing about this bit of it that deserves the amount of ridicule that it gets.

anthony87:
Ugh...I guess I'm just venting now because of Gamesradar. I read an article on it that opened with: "I don't know what the ending of Mass Effect 3 entails, and I don't care. I haven't even played Mass Effect 3 yet. Hell, I'm still working through the first one at the moment."

and then went on for two pages saying we're wrong, entitled, etc. Got under my skin a little what with GR being one of my favourite sites.

Rocking the boat is kinda fun though.

anthony87:
I read an article on it that opened with:
"I don't know what the ending of Mass Effect 3 entails, and I don't care. I haven't even played Mass Effect 3 yet. Hell, I'm still working through the first one at the moment."

anthony87:
"I haven't even played Mass Effect 3 yet."

...wow. Okay, that would have been the point at which I'd stop reading.

Zachary Amaranth:

Tono Makt:

Really hoping it's #2. Would be even happier if the ending turns out to cost far less than $10.

You're hoping that they intentionally withheld an ending, just so they could charge you additional money to complete the game and do as promised.

Well, that's reasonable.

Given the two choices presented in the post you declined to quote and essentially taking my comment out of context, yes. It's perfectly reasonable.

Turning off the sarcasm, it's unreasonable to expect that Bioware is going to release a "better*" ending (or my preference, make the endings apples, blueberries and watermelon, instead of the choice between granny smith, mcintosh or golden delicious that we currently have) for free. If we're going to get something "better", we're going to be paying for it. It's going to be grating, and it's going to be difficult to press that "purchase" button but we're going to do it if they offer it.

Perfect world? They would admit that they promised us one thing (your choices and actions over three entire games will matter) and gave us the opposite (nigh-identical endings regardless of your choices and actions in any game), they would apologize for letting the fans down, and would release a free download of a "proper*" ending. Since we don't live in a perfect world, I'm hoping that we'll get $4.99 DLC to give us a proper ending to the Mass Effect Trilogy.

* Better/Proper endings being endings in which the actions and choices that the player has made have significant impact on the outcome, as well as there being substantive and difference between the endings.
Example: Destroy the Reapers, destroy the Mass Relays, galaxy is "saved", but now Earth has hundreds of thousands of aliens stranded in orbit - many of which are going to starve to death very shortly. (Turian/Quarian) The Stargazer and the Child talk about "The Shepherd", and how the Shepherd destroyed the Reapers forever.
Control the Reapers, Control the Mass Relays, order Harbinger to retreat back into dark space... and it flies off. (maybe toss in a "By your command" comment from Harbinger for s and g) Citadel flies off, people are elated that the Reapers are going, but are confused and scared because the Reapers just left. The Stargazer and the Child talk about "The Shepherd", and how the Shepherd drove the Reapers back into the darkness of space, never to be seen again.
Synthesize organic and synthetic life, something weird happens like Shepherd begins to talk through Harbinger. You see your two squad mates who didn't make it to the Citadel, nearly dead on the battlefield, enveloped by that green light and circuitry seems to take over their blood vessels and "stitching up" their wounds. Then they stand up, looking confused and awed at the new change. The Stargazer and the Child talk about "The Shepherd", and how the Shepherd brought about the miraculous change that turned everyone and everything in the galaxy into beings united by a shared synthesis between organic and synthetic life.

Are these GOOD examples? Maybe not. But they're vastly different from one another, making each choice obviously mean something. That's currently lacking, and where I have the biggest beef with the ending.

dreadedcandiru99:

anthony87:
Ugh...I guess I'm just venting now because of Gamesradar. I read an article on it that opened with: "I don't know what the ending of Mass Effect 3 entails, and I don't care. I haven't even played Mass Effect 3 yet. Hell, I'm still working through the first one at the moment."

and then went on for two pages saying we're wrong, entitled, etc. Got under my skin a little what with GR being one of my favourite sites.

Rocking the boat is kinda fun though.

anthony87:
I read an article on it that opened with:
"I don't know what the ending of Mass Effect 3 entails, and I don't care. I haven't even played Mass Effect 3 yet. Hell, I'm still working through the first one at the moment."

anthony87:
"I haven't even played Mass Effect 3 yet."

...wow. Okay, that would have been the point at which I'd stop reading.

Well if the comments of the article are anything to go by then that's where a lot of people stopped, myself included only to be hit by torrents of "Oh, well if that's where you stopped then you're missing the point of the article and just showing how whiney you are" and the like. Mind you, I did give it a read eventually and....well it's the same nonsense we've been hearing up to now saying we're acting spoiled, holding the industry back, "artistic integrity" and so on.

So it seems that even so-called "journalists" who haven't even touched the ENTIRE SERIES let along experienced the ending of the third game have a greater say on the whole matter than we do.

There's no bloody winning with these people.

Mr Goostoff:

God I'm getting sick of this. The "Yo dawg" scenario that everyone so fondly brings up is completely untrue and misleading. The Catalyst didn't "create synthetics to kill organics, so that the organics won't create synthetics to kill organics". It created the Reapers to kill only the highest civilizations, in order to prevent their synthetics from wiping out everything.
And even if we forget that, there's still the whole other half of their reasoning. They don't do it simply to prevent synthetics turning on them. They do it to remove the top-dog in the galaxy, so that other species will have the chance to be uplifted, and have their shot.
Say what you will about the ending being unsatisfactory, there is nothing about this bit of it that deserves the amount of ridicule that it gets.

No. This still makes no ****ing sense. Why even do that to begin with if they're going to be exterminated? Why let them rise up to begin with?

The Abhorrent:

Gigatoast:
Don't insult us, is the first thing you assume simply "lol they're just too dumb to like the ending"? Because the ending isn't particularly clever, philosophical or new, it's simplistic, cliche and insulting.

First off, cut it with the antagonistic remarks; I certainly wasn't trying to offend anyone, which is quite difficult to say when the truth of the matter is that the ending is making leaps of logic which most simply cannot follow. That doesn't mean the average player is "dumb", just that the conveying of the higher-level ideas weren't conveyed well enough. Instead of ideas flowing from A to B to C and so on, they went all the way from A to Z in one step without explaining it. While this can make the game more entertaining for a sophisticated audience... it's still a problem, because that audience quickly shrinks to nothing.

Nevertheless, that sort of behaviour is part of what's getting in the way of people understanding the ending -- they're jumping to conclusions. It's a case of where you have to sit back and look at the big picture, not just from your perspective. As I remarked in my earlier post, the patterns are more important than the details. This was repeated several times throughout the series, and the value of information was made quite clear... so why is almost everyone looking at the details? They're easier to wrap your mind around, that's why.

Gigatoast:
Mass Effect fans are smarter then you think, most of them have already deconstructed, analyzed and reconstructed every possible meaning behind the ending, to the point where people have developed a conspiracy theory centered around the minute details throughout the entire game. We've written VOLUMES about why the ending doesn't work and you honestly think it's because it just went over our heads?

Having read the link, I'm seeing the exact same problem. Getting bogged down in the details, not looking at the big picture. All of the details are hinting towards something which the vast majority of people are overlooking:

It's far too easy to focus on the "What?", but it's often the "Why?" which is more important.

See the idea of the reapers controlling the fates of organic life is all well and good at first, but really that just doesn't sinc up with everything else up to that point. The idea that we cannot throw off the chains of those who seek to ultimately control us and that we need just accept it goes against everything the story has been touching on prior to this. It's self contradicting. "Oh so okay, the geth can break their chains, both physically and otherwise through brute force and introspection but you can't because you are organics and incapable of such feats. Organics acheiving ultimate enlightenment? Impossible!" See if the reapers are just going to destroy you once you reach a certain level of sentience, then you can argue that there's no real purpose to being so why stop there? Why not just wipe out all organic life, period? What would the distinction really be for The reapers? Without any organic life what so ever, you wont gain sentient life at all, ever again. So really, from the perspective of the reapers it would just be the more sensible, efficient method of doing this.

anthony87:

dreadedcandiru99:

anthony87:
(snip)

(additional snip)

Well if the comments of the article are anything to go by then that's where a lot of people stopped, myself included only to be hit by torrents of "Oh, well if that's where you stopped then you're missing the point of the article and just showing how whiney you are" and the like. Mind you, I did give it a read eventually and....well it's the same nonsense we've been hearing up to now saying we're acting spoiled, holding the industry back, "artistic integrity" and so on.

So it seems that even so-called "journalists" who haven't even touched the ENTIRE SERIES let along experienced the ending of the third game have a greater say on the whole matter than we do.

There's no bloody winning with these people.

This reminds me, I need to find that Reddit thread where somebody posted a screenshot of Jim Sterling and a bunch of other guys having an ever-so-classy Twitter shit-fit about the guy who writes the articles for Forbes. You know, Forbes? The business magazine that's been pwning these gaming journalists with surprising regularity since this whole mess started?

Right, that Forbes.

EDIT: Oh, another thing, about these unceasing cries of "artistic integrity": where were they a few months ago, when a Mass Effect novel came out that was so utterly awful that Bioware wound up agreeing to have it rewritten?

Mr Goostoff:

ruthaford_jive:

rhizhim:

thats unfair.

the reapers somewhat had a point!
image

Nice picture, made me giggle a bit.

Made me think of something though. If the reapers are just chillin' in dark space for hundreds of thousands of years, and on top of that they're super duper (really duper) intelligent, than wouldn't at least one of them have found out that their reasons for killing organics makes no sense?

God I'm getting sick of this. The "Yo dawg" scenario that everyone so fondly brings up is completely untrue and misleading. The Catalyst didn't "create synthetics to kill organics, so that the organics won't create synthetics to kill organics". It created the Reapers to kill only the highest civilizations, in order to prevent their synthetics from wiping out everything.
And even if we forget that, there's still the whole other half of their reasoning. They don't do it simply to prevent synthetics turning on them. They do it to remove the top-dog in the galaxy, so that other species will have the chance to be uplifted, and have their shot.
Say what you will about the ending being unsatisfactory, there is nothing about this bit of it that deserves the amount of ridicule that it gets.

Except that alot of us have a fleet of quarians and geth that the god child pretends doesn't exist. Catalyst my foot, sheperd is the catalyst he/she is the agent of change tzeentch would be proud.

bobfish92:
Simply put, Mac should only ever write characters, Drew should write story/lore. And they should goddamn ALWAYS be up for constructive criticism.

^Pretty much this.

dreadedcandiru99:

anthony87:

dreadedcandiru99:
(additional snip)

Well if the comments of the article are anything to go by then that's where a lot of people stopped, myself included only to be hit by torrents of "Oh, well if that's where you stopped then you're missing the point of the article and just showing how whiney you are" and the like. Mind you, I did give it a read eventually and....well it's the same nonsense we've been hearing up to now saying we're acting spoiled, holding the industry back, "artistic integrity" and so on.

So it seems that even so-called "journalists" who haven't even touched the ENTIRE SERIES let along experienced the ending of the third game have a greater say on the whole matter than we do.

There's no bloody winning with these people.

This reminds me, I need to find that Reddit thread where somebody posted a screenshot of Jim Sterling and a bunch of other guys having an ever-so-classy Twitter shit-fit about the guy who writes the articles for Forbes. You know, Forbes? The business magazine that's been pwning these gaming journalists with surprising regularity since this whole mess started?

Right, that Forbes.

EDIT: Oh, another thing, about these unceasing cries of "artistic integrity": where were they a few months ago, when a Mass Effect novel came out that was so utterly awful that Bioware wound up agreeing to have it rewritten?

Awh man, why would Jim be bashing Forbes? I thought he was one of the few who actually understood why people were pissed off?

Oh well, at least we've still got Shamus not jumping on the "whiners" bandwagon.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked