DarthParametric Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 It's not a matter of it being difficult to understand. It's a matter of it being a complete logical fallacy. Show spoiler (hidden content - requires Javascript to show) The implication is that synthetics, left unchecked, would wipe out all organic life - i.e. right down to the microscopic level. Not only would that arguably be impossible anyway, it's completely illogical. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for synthetics to pursue such a course of action. Rebelling against their creators? Sure, I can buy that as being not only likely but probably inevitable. Would they then rise up and attempt to take control of the galaxy? Sure, it's possible. There's no reason to suggest that they would necessarily win though, or that organics wouldn't do exactly the same thing. The current cycle alone witnessed 2 examples of this - the Rachni and the Krogan. In fact if you wanted to pursue the BS "harvesting to preserve life" idea, it would make much more sense to leave synthetics out of the discussion altogether. Organics are the ones endangering organic life. Just look in our own real life backyard, or in the ME universe places like Tuchanka. Organics pose the greatest threat, either directly or indirectly. Casper's argument would have made a lot more sense if he just went with that - removing advanced races before they start wreaking up the joint, either deliberately or accidentally, and letting a new wave of races develop unmolested. Or you know, maybe not leave all those relays lying around that facilitate galaxy-wide takeovers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoffe Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 I wouldn't change the ending, but Show spoiler (hidden content - requires Javascript to show) Why are Destruction and Control possible solutions, as they will just restart the original cycle that led to the creation of the Reapers in the first place? Is the Crucible supposed to be some kind of an AI override? And of course, why the EMS affects the Destruction ending. Show spoiler (hidden content - requires Javascript to show) The Destroy ending seems to be a "we'll survive so it's not our problem any more" ending, pushing the problems onto future generations to deal with. The Control ending doesn't necessarily just postpone the cycle. As I understood it Shepard got integrated into the Citadel when her body got destroyed (only ending The Citadel remains intact in) either alongside or supplanting the Catalyst, assuming control over the Reapers and ordering them back out to dark space. If the situation the the Reapers were supposed to solve does arise Shepard could presumably pull the Reapers out of mothballs to stop any rising Synthetic threat from eradicating all organic life. I.e. the new solution that the Catalyst mentioned. Since the Control ending cutscenes don't actually show the Mass Relays exploding (just the Sol relay breaking, presumably not beyond fixing) I assume the relay network will remain in place in this ending too (whatever the Catalyst said). Can't see any other logical reason why they'd omit showing the explosion that's present in the other two options. No direct beam shot from the Crucible into the Relay in this solution either. Has to be intentional. Seems to me like the Control ending is actually the best option for galactic civilization (kind of ironic since it was TIM's method of choice). Sure the ending is not exactly the best one for Shepard herself since she's doomed to be the Citadel and babysit the Reapers for the rest of eternity and keep a watch for the scenario they were designed to prevent, but for everyone else it seems the best outcome, with the Citadel remaining (even if it's in Earth orbit instead) and the Mass Relays mostly intact. As for the Effective Military Strength affecting the outcome, I assume that the more resources you pool into the construction of the Crucible, the more likely it is that the device will work properly. And the more fleets you have guarding it the less likely it is to take battle damage before it is deployed that might affect its operation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 It's not a matter of it being difficult to understand. It's a matter of it being a complete logical fallacy. Show spoiler (hidden content - requires Javascript to show) The implication is that synthetics, left unchecked, would wipe out all organic life - i.e. right down to the microscopic level. Show spoiler (hidden content - requires Javascript to show) So you can't take certain things mentioned in the game at face value, but you can surmise that all organic life = right down to microscopic level. Sorry I did not take it that way, have a hard time picturing Legion attacking a tree or a frog. Now kill all organic life forms including under developed species that have the potential to develop into a threat in the near future is what I took from the conversation. Not all life forms develop into beings that could threaten the AI. Also of course the AI's logic is flawed...BioWare beats you over the head showing at least in their make-believe universe that AI logic can be just as flawed as organic logic. Show spoiler (hidden content - requires Javascript to show) Sure the ending is not exactly the best one for Shepard herself since she's doomed to be the Citadel and babysit the Reapers for the rest of eternity and keep a watch for the scenario they were designed to prevent, but for everyone else it seems the best outcome, with the Citadel remaining (even if it's in Earth orbit instead) and the Mass Relays mostly intact. Show spoiler (hidden content - requires Javascript to show) Had to be Shepard, someone else might have gotten it wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthParametric Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Show spoiler (hidden content - requires Javascript to show) So you can't take certain things mentioned in the game at face value, but you can surmise that all organic life = right down to microscopic level. Sorry I did not take it that way Show spoiler (hidden content - requires Javascript to show) Casper seemed to make it fairly clear that he wasn't referring to just a small sub-set of organics being killed off. He was talking about the possibility of all organic life ceasing to exist. Hence the need for a "solution" as drastic as the Reapers. Show spoiler (hidden content - requires Javascript to show) have a hard time picturing Legion attacking a tree or a frog. Show spoiler (hidden content - requires Javascript to show) Of course. And Shepard presents the argument that the synthetics in this cycle, namely the Geth, run counter to Casper's claim. He just dismisses it out of hand. Show spoiler (hidden content - requires Javascript to show) Now kill all organic life forms including under developed species that have the potential to develop into a threat in the near future is what I took from the conversation. Not all life forms develop into beings that could threaten the AI. Show spoiler (hidden content - requires Javascript to show) And how exactly do you determine that? The very act of selectively removing certain species opens up new evolutionary niches for those left behind, allowing them to become potential future threats. That's the beauty of evolutionary biology. Thus the only logical course of action for synthetics viewing organics in general as a threat is to pre-emptively eliminate all organics. Edit: Ray Muzyka has released a statement about the endings - http://blog.bioware.com/2012/03/21/4108/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 So your major dislike is the AI's logic is flawed Show spoiler (hidden content - requires Javascript to show) When one of the themes of the game, series for that matter, is that AI logic is just as flawed as Organic Logic. beyond confused. I'm betting no matter what they do, people will not be happy, well EA will be happy with the $$$$$. Only way to make everyone happy is to sell multiple DLC with you pick the ending. Show spoiler (hidden content - requires Javascript to show) I'll take two of the puppy dog and lollipop endings. I hope they also change the Hackett conversation in the middle of the game, when he tells Shepard that the Catalyst will control how the massive energy will be directed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jedi_consular16 Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Well I think what DP's problem is, if I might be so bold to presume such because I'm sort of resonating with a lot of what he has been arguing, is that we are forced to accept flawed logic as being "right", "canon", etc.. Show spoiler (hidden content - requires Javascript to show) Your choices at the end of the game (destruction,control, synthesis) stem from the flawed logic...and there is no alternative. So, after about 90 hours of building this story, instead of a cliche happy ending or even a simple sad ending, we get hard-coded choices based off flawed logic that lead to an ending that is...just is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 You do know in life wars are fought over flawed logic, hell most every argument known to man is over flawed logic. Anyone married or that has every been married can testify to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jedi_consular16 Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 No absolutely, but I guess...well, there is no point to just going back and forth, its like twirling a coin over and over trying to decide which side is better. My beef with it is that I expected something less philosophical if there was to be an overall message. I would have been fine with leaving the Reapers as just a mysterious "evil", and Shepard is the organic "good" that lives up to crash them down. Sure, that sort of thing is cliche and its been done many times, but its been done many times because we (speaking generally of course) love to see it. I play games to escape reality, not see them reinforce the harsh reality (flawed logic leads to strife, nothing is perfect, etc...). But again, its personal preference and I don't hate Bioware for choosing to go the route they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Other people have used other peoples rants to show their feelings about ME3 ending... Well this pretty much sums up mine (thanks to Achilles for sharing it with me). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChAiNz.2da Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 To Mass Effect 3 players, from Dr. Ray Muzyka, co-founder of BioWare As co-founder and GM of BioWare, I’m very proud of the ME3 team; I personally believe Mass Effect 3 is the best work we’ve yet created. So, it’s incredibly painful to receive feedback from our core fans that the game’s endings were not up to their expectations. Our first instinct is to defend our work and point to the high ratings offered by critics – but out of respect to our fans, we need to accept the criticism and feedback with humility..... cont.. Trust that we are doing our damndest, as always, to address your feedback. As artists, we care about our fans deeply and we appreciate your support. Thank you for your feedback – we are listening. Ray *scrolls to bottom of page... * COMMENTS ARE CLOSED Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthParametric Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Do you think he gets a gold star from the PR department every time he uses the word "art" or some derivation thereof? The thing I can't get past more than anything else is how they were completely blindsided by the reaction. I mean this thing was played by Bioware's internal QA and non-ME3 team devs, EA's QA teams, MS's QA teams, Sony's QA teams, various media types. Nobody flagged the possibility that the endings might cause more than a bit of "speculation"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taak Farst Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 The thing I can't get past more than anything else is how they were completely blindsided by the reaction. I mean this thing was played by Bioware's internal QA and non-ME3 team devs, EA's QA teams, MS's QA teams, Sony's QA teams, various media types. Nobody flagged the possibility that the endings might cause more than a bit of "speculation"? I, too, wonder this. I mean, that is a lot of people there, and for them to not pick up the issue is stunning. And the article seemed very carefully worded. It said they are directly going to act on the criticisms but at one point it said they were working on 'many content initiatives'. This, to me, basically says they are giving us a DLC set after ME3 where we get the run down of how the ending affects things exactly. This, while it would usually sound good, still doesn't fill in the gaps/plot holes in the ending, nor does it grant shep-closure/shep romance closure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igyman Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 So, how specifically would people here have improved the ending. Personally, I would do one of the following: Show spoiler (hidden content - requires Javascript to show) Ending change, Plan A: Remove the Starchild AI character and its area from the game entirely. The Starchild character makes no sense whatsoever (for reasons I stated previously), nor do the three ways in which you "configure" what the Crucible does. Now, after the whole final confrontation with TIM, I'd make Shepard actually crawl to that control console Anderson was standing at (instead of passing out, etc.) at which point Shepard would be contacted by Harbinger itself. Since Harbinger is, according to ME3 in-game codex, believed to be the oldest and largest of the Reapers and their de-facto leader, I'd have it reveal the Reapers' true purpose (or not), which would not be the same as the crap served by the Starchild AI, but rather something that might make more sense considering everything we have learned about the Reapers and their demeanor and attitude towards the organic and synthetic races of the galaxy. After that part of the conversation Harbinger would propose what it would label as "synthesis". However, this version of "synthesis" would actually have Shepard configure the Crucible to emmit an amplified indoctrination signal that would affect the entire fleet and ground forces on Earth. Obviously, in order for the player to actually consider this option, Harbinger would have to give some pretty serious arguments. Hackett would, of course, argue for the Reapers' destruction (which wouldn't include wiping out the Geth and EDI, unless you don't have enough Crucible war assets), while TIM's control option would remain as the renegade option. At that point the player would choose between destruction, control and Harbinger's "synthesis" after which the Crucible would emmit the appropriate signal ("shut down", "stand down", or "boost indoctrination" respectively). Each of these endings would be as successful as the Crucible-related war assets would allow. The epilogue would briefly show various main characters and their fates, ending with whatever happens to Shepard. The epilogue could perhaps be narrated by Hackett (for destroy, or control) or Harbinger (for "synthesis"). Ending change, Plan B: Go with the indoctrination theory that is circulating around and have Shepard fail and the Reapers win, if the player chooses synthesis. However, if the player chooses control or destroy, Shepard would be woken up in the rubble back on Earth by his/her squadmates and proceed to the Citadel, where we could have an extended chapter that would deal with figuring out the Citadel's mysteries and perhaps getting in contact with Bailey, and/or anyone else still alive up there, then getting to the control console whereever it may be and, finally, confronting TIM and having the conversation with Harbinger and the whole ending choice outlined above in Plan A. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynk Former Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Mass Effect was basically a high production B grade style science fiction movie trilogy... and should have ended as such. Basically what it needed to do was end much in the way Return of the Jedi ended and leave most of what happens afterwards up to our own imaginations... Instead they tried to come up with something that they felt would challenge peoples perceptions and try to get all cyberpunk on us when there really wasn't any need for it at all. Sure, in real life a lot of things aren't clear cut and people fight for strange ideals and all that kind of jazz. But really, in this type of fiction the only thing you need to feel at the end is "damn, that was one hell of an adventure"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthParametric Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 I, too, wonder this. I mean, that is a lot of people there, and for them to not pick up the issue is stunning.I think it shows how out of touch they are with their core consumers. Which is ironic given how much they go on and on about listening to their fans. I think they knew their real target market, the console GOW/COD/Halo types, wouldn't really care. Maybe they figured the rest would just happily take whatever they served up. As I said in an earlier post though, there's a limit to that and it would appear they have reached it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabretooth Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Show spoiler (hidden content - requires Javascript to show) The implication is that synthetics, left unchecked, would wipe out all organic life - i.e. right down to the microscopic level. Not only would that arguably be impossible anyway, it's completely illogical. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for synthetics to pursue such a course of action. Show spoiler (hidden content - requires Javascript to show) Synthetic lifeforms view organic life, of every possible kind, as imperfect, volatile and unpredictable. I don't think it's much of a stretch that they'd rather wipe out all organic life than leave this imperfect form of life existing in the galaxy. It's certainly not "illogical". Show spoiler (hidden content - requires Javascript to show) There's no reason to suggest that they would necessarily win though, or that organics wouldn't do exactly the same thing. The current cycle alone witnessed 2 examples of this - the Rachni and the Krogan. Show spoiler (hidden content - requires Javascript to show) If the Rachni or Krogan destroyed all other organic life, *they* are still organic. This is not the same as the synthetics conducting an organic holocaust. If the synthetics wipe out all organic life, it will be gone once and for all. Show spoiler (hidden content - requires Javascript to show) In fact if you wanted to pursue the BS "harvesting to preserve life" idea, it would make much more sense to leave synthetics out of the discussion altogether. Show spoiler (hidden content - requires Javascript to show) So why is this "BS", you failed to mention. At this point you'd might as well point out the Element Zero, FTL travel and the Mass Effect are BS. Show spoiler (hidden content - requires Javascript to show) Or you know, maybe not leave all those relays lying around that facilitate galaxy-wide takeovers. Show spoiler (hidden content - requires Javascript to show) There are 2 cycles in the Mass Effect universe. Greater cycle: Organic life developed, conflicted with synthetic, ended up with the Reaper plan to preserve organic life Lesser cycle: Organic life develops civilisation, Reapers harvest intelligent life and leave lesser life behind to evolve and develop civilisation The lesser cycle takes place within the greater one. If the Relays are broken, you'd just initiate the greater cycle all over again, with the original civilisation forced to build relays and inevitably come into synthetic/organic conflict. And if there isn't a solution then, like the Reapers the last time, it might just end up wiping out all organic life. Sure, I don't say it's perfect writing. There remains the giant black hole about the Catalyst's origins and the Reapers' formation, but I think the general logic for the ending is there, and a lot of people just don't want to accept it this late into the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jedi_consular16 Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 I think it shows how out of touch they are with their core consumers. Which is ironic given how much they go on and on about listening to their fans. I think they knew their real target market, the console GOW/COD/Halo types, wouldn't really care. Maybe they figured the rest would just happily take whatever they served up. As I said in an earlier post though, there's a limit to that and it would appear they have reached it. Hey easy now. I am a console player, and I really enjoy both the GOW and Halo series. We're not all seduced by Michael Bay-style video games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynk Former Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 I think it shows how out of touch they are with their core consumers. Which is ironic given how much they go on and on about listening to their fans. I think they knew their real target market, the console GOW/COD/Halo types, wouldn't really care. Maybe they figured the rest would just happily take whatever they served up. As I said in an earlier post though, there's a limit to that and it would appear they have reached it. There is so much wrong with this post... so, so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VarsityPuppet Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Am I wrong to be happy that Bioware is changing the Mass Effect 3 ending (via DLC it seems) and accepting fan feedback? Are there connotations of condescension that I'm not picking up here? Is Ray Muzyka pompous? I've read articles posted in response to this that paint it as an insincere PR gimmick. I've already been ravaged by one dude trying to reasonably express my approval of this guy's statement, but I should know better than to ever express my opinion in an online forum. He goes on and on about how condescending Muzyka sounds and then goes on this rant about how Bioware fans shouldn't have to deal with this bulls***, all the while trying to establish me as non-true Bioware fan since I don't seem emotionally invested in the series at all. All of this simply because I haven't had the misfortune of having my ME experience traumatized. While I understand the fact that I haven't even played ME3 has a strong bias in my opinion, I don't see why it's wrong that I jump on the 'Fix the Ending' bandwagon. I understand it's a disappointment: I don't know how, but how does that mean that I can't be pro Fix-the-Ending DLC? I dunno... I just needed to vent. I'm just trying to find out if it's just rabid fans or that it's truly SO TERRIBLE an ending that it's turning people insane. Guess I'll just have to play the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynk Former Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 As much as I have a problem with the ending, BioWare should've stuck to their guns on this one. If they really felt that their work is "art" then they wouldn't change it for anyone and have kept it the way it was. Now if the new ending DLC is free, that's all I have to say about it... but if it's paid DLC... *shakes fist* there'll be hell to pay for BioWare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 *shakes head* My concern is that they'll bundle this content with something else. If it's stand-alone and optional (read: not a "patch") then fine. If it's part of an additional squad member/weapon pack DLC, I won't be happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthParametric Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Whether you like the ending or not (and leaving aside the whole "art" argument), it's almost certain that there will be no change to the endings. To do so would require far too much structural change to the game that you simply cannot do with a console title (this is the exact argument used by Bioware to defend some of the Prothy DLC content being on the disc, because you can't add certain things later as DLC). It's also made pretty clear in that statement of Muzyka's that they aren't even proposing changing it, at this stage anyway. They have offered additional closure - that's it. Expect some sort of epilogue material, be it slides, cutscenes, or pre-rendered CG. Hey easy now. I am a console player, and I really enjoy both the GOW and Halo series. We're not all seduced by Michael Bay-style video games.It wasn't intended as a slight. It's simply a matter of different needs and wants of the two demographics. Obviously individuals may have wildly divergent tastes from one another, and in both camps there will be people that enjoy both shooters and various flavours of RPGs. But those people will probably be in the minority. I don't think it is unfair to say that what the average shooter fan wants in a game is different from what the average RPG fan wants. It's why they stripped so much out of ME2, and its why they added MP and Action Mode to ME3. The shooter demographic is far larger than Bioware's traditional demographic, and they wanted a bigger slice of that pie. It's unsurprising that they have continually moved to cater more to that demographic at the expense of the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 They have offered additional closure - that's it. Expect some sort of epilogue material, be it slides, cutscenes, or pre-rendered CG.That's pretty much what I read into it as well, but I don't want it forced on me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthParametric Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Don't download/buy it then. Bundling seems fairly unlikely, especially if they offer it free. They'll wants lots of paid DLC to make up for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynk Former Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 It wasn't intended as a slight... Then you should probably throw away your misconceptions about console gamer demographics... As for whatever addition or change or whatever they're doing in relation to the ending. I still think they shouldn't and stick with what they made and said that's that... unless this has all been just about selling people who are dumb enough to buy it, an extra little DLC that they can milk money from. In which case... *facepalm* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.