Mass Effect 3

[DarthParametric]

Saying the game's writing was lazy, saying question were not answered and saying the game had no closure are meritless

In your opinion. I think you'll find quite a few people that disagree with you, including a number of writers of one sort of another that cite all three of those as problems with the ending.

[Lynk Former]

I always figured you for a Van Gogh hater.

I like sunflowers

[mimartin]

@DP Much like the game, I think you only read the part of my post you wanted to read and ignored the rest. I didn't say they or you were wrong in saying it didn't have enough answers or enough closure (for you), but saying it had NONE of either is BS.

 

As for lazy writing that is a lazy opinion.

 

 

Publisher EA rushing or affecting Bioware ....meaning did EA give Bioware just to small of a development cycle and money for a project that would have cemented the Mass Effect franchise to a level close to other great sci-fi like Star wars and star trek...

Nope, even most I have read that hated the ending of ME3 thought the other 99.% of the game was close to a masterpiece. Hell even the BioWare haters on the forum seem to like the game (which is funny since they also like the ending). Star Trek great? Did you watch the ending seasons of Enterprise?

Game Journalism- What are the core problems here? Why do they attack the fan base/ readers? Is there review of games 1-10 setup flawed and needs to be overhauled? What is Game Journalism?

Could it have something to do with their readers attacking them for their opinion? IMO I read some reviews, I don’t base purchases off of game reviews. I’d much rather get my gaming recommendations from Achilles, Sabre, stoffe, Mav, Jeff, Rhett, ChAiNz and Lynk (mainly stoffe ) I also don’t get angry when someone has a different opinion than mine even a game reviewer. I do get a little miffed when reviewers give misinformation or misleading information.

Should these publications just show reviews or should they actually look into the industry like in the Hard News media where they would look into wither it should be illegal to have a publisher hire a marketing company to Troll through forums to deflect bad press or to side track fans from issues with (blank) game/publishing/company etc.

Yes I am a mole for a BioWare. I’ve been biding my time since 12/2004 just waiting for this moment to represent.

 

That is completely up to the reviewer. Many are not journalist merely gamers with an opinion. They have no responsibility to protect us from marketing companies. I also find it hard to blame sites that do represent themselves as journalist to go after publishers if it means killing the goose that laid the golden egg. We are talking games here after all anyone with brains should have enough to know that you should not believe everything you read on the internet.

 

What is games? Art? Entertainment? Something new hybrid? and if so what are the defining borders/laws to this new or existing media?

There is nothing new or hybrid about it. Art has been entertainment since before man first drew on cave walls.

 

Yes, games are a art form.

 

Yes, games are entertainment.

 

No, there is nothing new about it.

Are design/developers losing their "artistic integrity" by large publishers who are for profit over a good game? Does this actually make a game less art/entertainment and more a product.

I always love this arguments/questions. 1st and foremost game companies are in business to make money. If they don’t make money, then it doesn’t not matter what they do, they will not be in business for long. Sorry I just always find these either or questions when it comes to the business side of it funny. Making money is not always about ripping people off. You can make money and still produce something that you are proud of and the buyer is entertained by.

If there are literary rules in story telling, do they matter in games? Are they excluded from these rules by the essence of it's interactive medium?

There are rules, but that does not mean that the writers have to follow those rules all the time. I know “Pulp Fiction” and “MEMENTO” are two successful movies I can remember that certainly pushed literary rules, but were still good.

 

Roles of gamer and game developer? What are the rules?

Gamers play games and game developers make games. Rules? No clue what you are talking about. Are you implying game developers should only make games that gamers what to play? Take request? They listen to gamers and if they don’t then they will be out of business. Problem is Gamers are not this one size fits all thing. Gamers have different opinions about what they want and even that changes with time and mood.

 

 

Is it ok for a game developer to know what they fan expects in the ending or how a game flows and themes,..then simply change or break them just to but a twist- knowing it would cause issue with fans?

 

I fail to see how anyone can say that is the case with the Mass Effect trilogy. You pretty much learned in Mass Effect 1 that the galaxy somewhat united could barely defeat one Reaper, one rogue specter and a handful of Geth. So at least I knew the ending would be very difficult to pull off when considering thousands of reapers even if you united the entire galaxy. I remember worrying in the Mass Effect 1 or Mass Effect 2 thread about the “Independence Day” ending or the giant off switch. So the answer is twist for the sake of twist are stupid, but I fail to see how there is even a twist in the ME3 ending. It is pretty much as advertised to me. People don’t like it, I have no problem with that, but there are plenty of hints and themes in the entire trilogy that I guessed pretty close to the ending about ½ through ME3.

 

I really didn’t know you hated KotOR that much Logan23. That is one twist that I always found stupid and full of plot holes….same company too.

 

 

Lessons in how PR and marketing a game one way and then giving a game with an ending that conflicts with the marketing's perspective.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Do you ever watch advertisements? What I watch is rarely true, I've drank bud for years and unlike the commercials all I got was a hangover.

 

I found Mass Effect advertisement to actually be honest, my opinion is the ending does not conflict with the marketing in anyway.

Can game developers/publishers be held to promises made during the time when the game is about finished/ finished but before release? Is it right to use them to show there was some disconnect and failure.

Yes you can hold them to whatever standard YOU wish. That does not mean they are legally held to that standard. If you don’t like it, don’t buy their games. Again personally, I don’t want them to tell me the story and show me the ending in advertisement. I want to play the game.

Been doing a lot of reading on this whole controversy....

lol people not liking the ending of a game is considered a controversy.

[Sabretooth]

I'm Commander Shepard and this is my favourite thread on the Outlander Club.

[Q]

Lulz.

[Darth333]

Artistry is just a lame excuse of a lame ending (or "endings" as Bioware like to call it/them): unfortunately, not all so-called "artistry" decisions are of the same artistry quality: they can be anything between lame and grandiose...in the present case, I think we are closer to the lame side. Merely invoking artistry doesn't automatically make something a "work of art"...

 

Besides devs just contradict themselves when you look at the marketing stunts included in the game (Chobot, anyone? I find paperweights more useful and interesting than Allers...).

 

Saying the game's writing was lazy, saying question were not answered and saying the game had no closure are meritless because clearly the game had all three.

Please explain. Although I thought it was lame and lazy, I can still live with the unimaginative space magic (similar "press button" ending worked well in DE:HR but not ME3) but not all the other non sense spouted by the god child. And wait, Garrus was right behind me and now he is...must have been the blood loss...

[mimartin]

Please explain.

Explain what?

 

I really don't understand the question. Do you want me to explain how many of the questions from ME1 and ME2 are answered in dialogue in Mass Effect 3 and that I find it unfair saying the writters did not include answers when they are staring people in the face.

 

Or do you want me to explain that I find it unfair to criticize BioWare for no closure to the trilogy when you are given the opportunity to say goodbye to everyone and their dog.

 

Not saying people could not want more or that all their question are answered, but it is just not correct to say there was none of either.

 

As to the laziness of the writing, I personally find that difficult to define. How exactly do people know they were just lazy instead of that being the best they could come up with? Judging my 99% of Mass Effect 3 I would say it had nothing to do with laziness, I would say they just took a huge risk and failed as seen from their vocal fans at least. I would have actually found it more lazy had they produced the ending it seems most of the people want. Against enemy as strong as they made the Reapers out to be, the hero saving the day and living happily ever after would seem lazy to me.

[Achilles]

I realize the question was addressed to Mimi, but it would probably be helpful to specify which parts of the story you felt didn't have closure and/or which questions weren't answered. I believe there are already a few posts in this thread (one or two may even be mine) that attempt to address the closure/questions issue.

 

EDIT: Whoops. Too slow

[mimartin]

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)

By the sound of Darth333 post she is wondering how Garrus got back on the ship. I know DP doesn't like this answer, but Harbinger lands by the portal and shoots. We see this. I hope there isn't an argument there. Shepard is knocked out. When Shepard awakens you see Harbinger taking off.

Anderson already said the Reapers knew what the organics were up to. The Crucible arrived in the system as Harbinger descended from space. The Citadel’s arms were closed, so the only vulnerable attack to the Reapers was the beam. So it makes sense to me that Harbinger did not just land fire a few shots and leave. Harbinger stayed until it thought the beam was secured. No clue how long that would be, but I would imagine it would be more than a few seconds. Once Shepard awakens we also hear the ground commanders saying everyone is dead. So Harbinger wasn’t the only one that underestimated Shepard or Anderson.

So I really don’t see it as a stretch of the imagination or out of character for Garrus, Tali or anyone else to see Shepard get shot at point blank range by a Reaper, hear a retreat order and leave. Figuring Earth was lost, it died when what they considered their last hope for the galaxy died. The only plot hole I see here is how Shepard survived Harbinger’s attack. I just don’t see a problem with time since we don’t know how long Shepard was out, but like I wrote before it seems pretty clear to me that they had some time between the shot and Harbinger leaving.

[DarthParametric]

I know DP doesn't like this answer

Because it involves you making up a bunch of stuff to fill in the plot holes.

[Sabretooth]

(similar "press button" ending worked well in DE:HR but not ME3)

 

Actually, I thought the exact opposite. But more accurately, I had a problem with DE:HR's ending in the first place, that

 

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)

they are not new. The issue of transhumanism is known to you even before the game starts. The entire game is like a documentary thesis on transhumanism's pros and cons. Having that same choice at the end of the game is like ticking an answer at the end of the sheet. You could predict it was going to be one of those endings even before you started the game, whereas in DX and IW, you couldn't possibly imagine the ending from the premise or the beginning alone.

 

My point is, ultimately it feels like the ending of that thesis, not a story. When you reach that endingtron, you pretty much forget what you want to do and watch all the endings (the game is kind enough to autosave here). In ME3 though, I stuck with the ending I got and made it my canon ending (even when I didn't know the other ends had mostly the same movie).

[Achilles]

DP: Your interpretation that events occur quickly is better than his interpretation that they happen over time is better why? That the events occurred is not up for debate, but while his interpretations explain "plot holes" yours create them.

 

I guess that we both agree that some people are clearly making stuff up.

[mimartin]

Because it involves you making up a bunch of stuff to fill in the plot holes.

 

I really think you play games with your eyes and ears closed if you think I made a bunch of stuff up.

 

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)

So Harbinger didn't land?

 

Harbinger didn't knock out Shepard?

 

Anderson did not say the Reapers know what they were up to?

 

You don't see Harbinger take off when Shepard wakes up?

 

That wasn't the only access point to the Citadel?

 

Harriger wasn't trying to stop them from entering the Citadel?

 

Shepard's party members were not following him/her?

 

I connected a few dots, but the dots were really close together.

 

At least now I understand why you hate all games. Don't understand why you play them, but understand why you dislike everything.

[Sabretooth]

Because it involves you making up a bunch of stuff to fill in the plot holes.

 

I like the part where you quoted the parts where Mimi was making stuff up.

[DarthParametric]

I have posted my issues with this theory previously, the major thrust of which you have ignored in your last few tag-team posts. It has less to do with the time period and more to do with the supposed "retreat" order and whether certain actions are out of character. Seeing as we are going in circles about this, I have no real desire to endlessly repeat myself. You have your position, I have mine, and never the twain shall meet.

 

At least now I understand why you hate all games. Don't understand why you play them, but understand why you dislike everything.

Don't presume to know anything about me or what I like and dislike. My reactions are a little more diverse than a binary response. I can like something and still be critical of certain elements of it.

[mimartin]

I can like something and still be critical of certain elements of it.

I haven't meet anyone that does not have that ablility. It isn't really unique, so I did not assume you were different.

[Pavlos]

Artistry is just a lame excuse of a lame ending (or "endings" as Bioware like to call it/them): unfortunately, not all so-called "artistry" decisions are of the same artistry quality: they can be anything between lame and grandiose...in the present case, I think we are closer to the lame side. Merely invoking artistry doesn't automatically make something a "work of art"...

A famous incident from the BBC's Newsnight:

 

(This BBCode requires its accompanying plugin to work properly.)

[Lynk Former]

Everything is art. The real question is, what out of everything is considered to be "high art"?... you know, the kind where pompous rich people swill brandy while in art galleries making long winded comments about some picture of a dude screaming on a wall.

[logan23]

@DP Much like the game, I think you only read the part of my post you wanted to read and ignored the rest. I didn't say they or you were wrong in saying it didn't have enough answers or enough closure (for you), but saying it had NONE of either is BS.

 

As for lazy writing that is a lazy opinion.

 

 

Nope, even most I have read that hated the ending of ME3 thought the other 99.% of the game was close to a masterpiece. Hell even the BioWare haters on the forum seem to like the game (which is funny since they also like the ending). Star Trek great? Did you watch the ending seasons of........................................Yes you can hold them to whatever standard YOU wish. That does not mean they are legally held to that standard. If you don’t like it, don’t buy their games. Again personally, I don’t want them to tell me the story and show me the ending in advertisement. I want to play the game.

 

lol people not liking the ending of a game is considered a controversy.

 

mimartin, I can see your a person with strong opinions

 

The point I was making with these questions were that I believe its healthy for these and other topics being discussed in the game industry. It better helps us understand our medium.

 

 

Originally Posted by logan23 View Post

Publisher EA rushing or affecting Bioware ....meaning did EA give Bioware just to small of a development cycle and money for a project that would have cemented the Mass Effect franchise to a level close to other great sci-fi like Star wars and star trek...

 

Nope, even most I have read that hated the ending of ME3 thought the other 99.% of the game was close to a masterpiece. Hell even the BioWare haters on the forum seem to like the game (which is funny since they also like the ending). Star Trek great? Did you watch the ending seasons of Enterprise?

 

I think you miss understood the question. I was hinting to the idea that maybe they should have added another year to the cycle to put in more side quest content since that was lacking.

 

 

Originally Posted by logan23 View Post

Should these publications just show reviews or should they actually look into the industry like in the Hard News media where they would look into wither it should be illegal to have a publisher hire a marketing company to Troll through forums to deflect bad press or to side track fans from issues with (blank) game/publishing/company etc.

 

 

Yes I am a mole for a BioWare. I’ve been biding my time since 12/2004 just waiting for this moment to represent.

 

That is completely up to the reviewer. Many are not journalist merely gamers with an opinion. They have no responsibility to protect us from marketing companies. I also find it hard to blame sites that do represent themselves as journalist to go after publishers if it means killing the goose that laid the golden egg. We are talking games here after all anyone with brains should have enough to know that you should not believe everything you read on the internet.

 

I would never guess you were a mole for Bioware lol

 

The whole Publisher hires marketing firm to troll or to impersonate a person to mislead or to hype up a product is something that bothers me.

 

Ex. Lets say the Publisher is someone like a child friendly Nintendo type of brand that aims for kids. Since some of those on forums are minors and then you have someone that's a marketing-viral marketer come in and simple lies and uses miss direction. This is not a case of them saying hey I'm a marketing person who is here PR-ing for a product. This is hired people who's job is to pretend they are a kid to influence the people in forums and other social media outlets.

 

Using the "know that you should not believe everything you read on the internet" defense just gives companies the freedom to do anything they wish since they now have an easy defense.

 

There is nothing new or hybrid about it. Art has been entertainment since before man first drew on cave walls.

 

Yes, games are a art form.

 

Yes, games are entertainment.

 

No, there is nothing new about it.

 

I disagree that games due to it's interactive nature makes them different then movies, TV and books. The industry is still young and they are finding there way to define what they are exactly.

 

 

There are rules, but that does not mean that the writers have to follow those rules all the time. I know “Pulp Fiction” and “MEMENTO” are two successful movies I can remember that certainly pushed literary rules, but were still good.

 

These are two good examples that do push the literary rules. One of the first things they both do is well is introduce to the viewer how this world/film will be different. Once they set the rule- memento-going backwards; pulp fiction-showing scenes out of order- the film does not break these rules since they are part of the film's pacing.

 

I fail to see how anyone can say that is the case with the Mass Effect trilogy. You pretty much learned in Mass Effect 1 that the galaxy somewhat united could barely defeat one Reaper, one rogue specter and a handful of Geth. So at least I knew the ending would be very difficult to pull off when considering thousands of reapers even if you united the entire galaxy. I remember worrying in the Mass Effect 1 or Mass Effect 2 thread about the “Independence Day” ending or the giant off switch. So the answer is twist for the sake of twist are stupid, but I fail to see how there is even a twist in the ME3 ending. It is pretty much as advertised to me. People don’t like it, I have no problem with that, but there are plenty of hints and themes in the entire trilogy that I guessed pretty close to the ending about ½ through ME3.

 

I really didn’t know you hated KotOR that much Logan23. That is one twist that I always found stupid and full of plot holes….same company too.

 

 

I wish you wouldn't make assumptions that i "hated" kotor. That comment had nothing to do with the topic of the question. That comment just makes you sound like your taking this thing way too personal almost on the verge of fan-boy/girl.

 

Don't worry i still think your awesome =)

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Do you ever watch advertisements? What I watch is rarely true, I've drank bud for years and unlike the commercials all I got was a hangover.

 

I found Mass Effect advertisement to actually be honest, my opinion is the ending does not conflict with the marketing in anyway.

 

 

I was simply stating that this thing could be used as a lesson of marketing hype and PR leading to promises that ended up putting the design team up against the wall. Other companies might want to see what worked and what didn't with this marketing and game delivery.

 

 

Been doing a lot of reading on this whole controversy....

lol people not liking the ending of a game is considered a controversy.

 

You missed the point.

The controversy is wither Bioware should change the ending to their game.

 

Since we now know bioware is doing something but now the question is how will they walk this tight rope- concerning the ending. I guess in April we will find out what they announce.

 

=)

[Drunkside]

Oh, ****ing a...

 

 

 

So much logic fail. Is it really that bad?

 

 

 

This post has spoilers, but since im writing it on an abhorrent excuse of a computer (ipad), i cant add the tags.

 

 

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)

not quite, but still pretty much that. If the godchild can create reapers, and by adding the crucible he gets the space magic power:destroy synthetics, then

why didnt he just come up with that at the beginning, warned the civilisations about making robots, and if they didnt listen, just burst out a wave of robot doom?

 

By the way, i cant remember if i already stated this, but the geth spared the quarians even after being oppressed by them. Then in the game its quarians who are attaking the geth, who are simply defending themselves...

[Salzella]

haha, missed a '/' there dude

[Achilles]

I think you miss understood the question. I was hinting to the idea that maybe they should have added another year to the cycle to put in more side quest content since that was lacking.

Studios do not have infinite budgets. And not everyone agrees that the game was lacking content.

 

Please understand that there is a segment of the population that reads "content lacking" and cannot fathom what you mean.

 

not quite, but still pretty much that.

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)

If the godchild can create reapers, and by adding the crucible he gets the space magic power:destroy synthetics, then

why didnt he just come up with that at the beginning, warned the civilisations about making robots, and if they didnt listen, just burst out a wave of robot doom?

Because that wasn't The Solution. And please keep in mind the alternative you're suggesting is dangerously close to what did happen anyway. The objective wasn't to warn. The objective was to control.

 

You want to argue that there may have been better ways to do that, and you may be right. However, the purpose of the story to tell what did happen, not what you thought should happen.

 

By the way, i cant remember if i already stated this, but the geth spared the quarians even after being oppressed by them. Then in the game its quarians who are attaking the geth, who are simply defending themselves...

Yep, which leads to what? A war between synthetics and organics.

 

The idea being that while synthetics might be content to live and let live, organics are too stupid to leave well enough alone and will keep pushing things until synthetics feel the only recourse is to wipe out everything. I really felt as though they were pretty clear about this.

 

haha, missed a '/' there dude

Naw, Drunkside believes that spoiler tags are for lesser beings.

[Drunkside]

haha, missed a '/' there dude

 

Ye, i hate apple crap...

 

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)

By the way, im very surprised to see how many of you accept this clumsy ending, as you have always struck me as the most demanding crowd on teh interwebs...

 

I would also like to point out this: the godchild is a synthetic.

[Achilles]

Help me understand what you mean by "clumsy".

 

Edit response to Drunkside's edit:

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)

I think it would be more accurate to point out that the AI is an AI. It doesn't have a "mobile platform" the way Geth do, for instance. If you question this, ask yourself if EDI is a synthetic in ME2.

[mimartin]

I disagree that games due to it's interactive nature makes them different then movies, TV and books. The industry is still young and they are finding there way to define what they are exactly.

Going to ignore the rest for now. Because this is my biggest "what."

 

What are you disagreeing with? Games are art? Games are entertainment? Or games are a product?

 

I happen to think games are all three. Don't get me wrong I am not comparing games to Vinvent van Gogh's Starry Night. But I do consider Games to be

Art - The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination.

After-all at lot of what my cousin brings home from school to hang on my refrigerator is not high art, but the class she made it in is art class.

 

Don't think you can be disagreeing with me calling it entertainment.

 

It is for sell, so it is difficult for someone with a business background to see how anyone would think games are not a product.

 

I'm at a loss, so it must be the art you are disagreeing with and you are correct it isn't just like movies or books, but to be defined as art it does not have to be like books or movies.

 

If you take Lynk question about high art as an example. No, I would not include games as high art, but then again I wouldn't take many movies as high art either. However, that is a very subjective. I would look at it in a business sense. High art to me would be when someone is willing to pay a high amount of money for a piece and other are will to sell it for that. I've seen some art that I wouldn't give 2 cents for, but i was told they were priceless.