• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Mass Effect 3 Spoiler Thread |OT2| Taste the Rainbow

Actually, no you can't
When a story elevates a subplot theme to the main plot at the very end, it is jarring, unsettling, and bad. This is ignoring all of the inconsistencies brought up because of this ending. It also introduces another character at the very end as well. Our choices only determine what color the ending will be and it brings up more questions than there needs to be.

It is objectively bad.
 

nel e nel

Member
The problem is that there is nothing to be gained from thinking about an artistic product in a "mind-independent" context. Art means nothing without minds. So no, "true" objectivity (if such a thing is actually possible; citing a philosophical consensus on the notion is too steeped in irony to be definitive, I'd argue) is really not possible, here. But you can look at the story in a narrative framework and decide how well the story conforms to standards of pacing and coordination that generally result in satisfying conclusions.

It's been established, by multiple writers, that Mass Effect 3 poorly handles the pacing and coordination of the ending and the ideas contained therein. You admit yourself that it was "delivered clumsily," which means that it was bad. And whether or not the ideas themselves bother you is irrelevant to the fact that elements of the end directly contradict the lore and events from all three games, particularly the most recent ones. Even if the ideas were relevant in the game's framework, they are not, as you alluded, introduced or resolved in a way that gives them real impact.

So in any useful sense of "objectivity," the ending is objectively flawed in the execution of its ideologies. Right now, it's only a matter of whether that execution disturbs you - and the more you think about the implications, the more people are disturbed. That's been a clear trend.

And this here is a great argument. I agree, that calling it clumsy is pretty much saying it's bad (I just wasn't as bothered by it as some are), and I'm sure there are alot more English majors here that are better versed in all the storytelling rules than I am.

EDIT: I also agree with your 'consensus' argument about rules being agreed upon over thousands of years, and how our brains/emotions work. Just engaging in some harmless philosophy discussion, no offense intended.

I've played through my ending twice, and have been reading/listening to various arguments over the past 2 weeks, and my opinion hasn't changed since my first experience. It's....serviceable. I still don't agree that elements of the end contradict the lore and events. That's just my take.
 

nel e nel

Member
When a story elevates a subplot theme to the main plot at the very end, it is jarring, unsettling, and bad. This is ignoring all of the inconsistencies brought up because of this ending. It also introduces another character at the very end as well. Our choices only determine what color the ending will be and it brings up more questions than there needs to be.

It is objectively bad.


What inconsistencies did you see? I'm genuinely asking.
 
And this here is a great argument. I agree, that calling it clumsy is pretty much saying it's bad (I just wasn't as bothered by it as some are), and I'm sure there are alot more English majors here that are better versed in all the storytelling rules than I am.

I've played through my ending twice, and have been reading/listening to various arguments over the past 2 weeks, and my opinion hasn't changed since my first experience. It's....serviceable. I still don't agree that elements of the end contradict the lore and events. That's just my take.

Coincidentally, I'm working on a Master's in English right now, so Mass Effect 3 is a wonderful case study. I've previously cited an interesting and similar example from 18th-century literature, Clarissa, in which the titular character basically gives up her life (starvation) in order to maintain her cultural ideals after leaving an emotionally abusive home for a rake who rapes her out of wedlock. The work was extremely popular and many people basically underwent the same emotional response to Clarissa as people have to Mass Effect 3: crying, cursing, throwing down the book, refusing to re-read the end, and sending revised endings to the author. Richardson (the author) refused to change the ending, but he very courteously explained why to all of his fans: he had a very particular vision for Clarissa, and her death ultimately serves the thematic principles he built across his one-million-word text. He planned the whole story before he wrote it.

I think it's sad that one man, writing the longest English novel by hand, managed to employ better planning and thematic consistency than Mac Walters, who churned out a contradictory and clumsy ending that probably amounts to two pages in Word. He should have been reading Clarissa rather than watching the Matrix if he needed inspiration.

Edit: Also, sorry if I came across in my earlier post as...intense. I'm still feeling the burn of the ending, even this long after finishing the game twice, ha. But you're right, it's good to participate in some (harmless) philosophical inquiry.
 
What inconsistencies did you see? I'm genuinely asking.

Whether or not the destruction of the relays destroys entire systems. Synthetics killing organics to keep organics from making synthetics that will kill organics. Normandy racing the rainbow. Characters appearing on the planet at the end when they should still be on Earth. How does Shep survive in the "best" ending.
 

Dresden

Member
Mass Effects needs more badass, truly evil squadmates. Imagine running a squad comprised of Admiral Xen and the Salarian Dalatrass.
 

Divvy

Canadians burned my passport
What inconsistencies did you see? I'm genuinely asking.


Just off the top of my head:

- Why is Joker running away with the Normandy through a Mass Relay Jump?
- How did your squadmates that were just with you running towards the elevator get onto the Normandy?
- If the Star Child was on the Citadel the whole time, what was the point of Sovereign?
- Why did Harbringer fly off when clearly Sheppard was still alive and lurching towards the elevator?
- The argument is that synthetics will inevitably rise and wipe out the organics. The solution: Develop synthetics to wipe out the organics. Why not just make the Reapers wipe out the synthetics?
- Why won't his "solution" not work anymore now that Shepard walked there. The Star child could just kill Shepard and everything would have been fine.
- Why did the organics over millions of years build the Crucible when they didn't even know that the catalyst was the Citadel. How could you even develop something like the Crucible without knowing that? The Citadel is the main part. It's like developing a brake without knowing was a car was.
- We already know that when a Mass Relay is destroyed, it causes a supernova wiping out the entire solar system it's in. So when you see those waves cascading across the galaxy, hasn't this effectively killed off untold trillions of people across the galaxy?
- The entire theme in Mass Effect has been getting wildly different people to work together, and that diversity is awesome. The arguably best ending basically causes everyone to be exactly the same.
- Why did the Reapers even assess the Geth for purposes of reapearification if their goal was to absord all the intelligent organic life?
- Why would they record history's organic life in reaper form when a lot of them die trying to wipe out the galaxy every cycle?
 
What inconsistencies did you see? I'm genuinely asking.

Here's just the first one that jumped out at me before I even started trying to make sense of the rest:

Mass Effect 1: The keepers were disabled by the protheans ~50,000 years ago. This prevents the Citadel from being activated, which prevents the Reapers from quickly ambushing the spacefaring races. Sovereign assaults the Citadel with Saren in a desperate attempt to activate the Citadel. Shepard and the crew of the Normandy thwart this plan and buy the galaxy some much needed time. This is the main plot of the Mass Effect.

Mass Effect 3: The newly introduced Reaper creator/controller, lives in the Citadel.

You have to make all kinds of logical leaps to make those situations not contradict each other. This is just one major inconsistency among many.
 

firehawk12

Subete no aware
Coincidentally, I'm working on a Master's in English right now, so Mass Effect 3 is a wonderful case study. I've previously cited an interesting and similar example from 18th-century literature, Clarissa, in which the titular character basically gives up her life (starvation) in order to maintain her cultural ideals after leaving an emotionally abusive home for a rake who rapes her out of wedlock. The work was extremely popular and many people basically underwent the same emotional response to Clarissa as people have to Mass Effect 3: crying, cursing, throwing down the book, refusing to re-read the end, and sending revised endings to the author. Richardson (the author) refused to change the ending, but he very courteously explained why to all of his fans: he had a very particular vision for Clarissa, and her death ultimately serves the thematic principles he built across his one-million-word text. He planned the whole story before he wrote it.

I think it's sad that one man, writing the longest English novel by hand, managed to employ better planning and thematic consistency than Mac Walters, who churned out a contradictory and clumsy ending that probably amounts to two pages in Word. He should have been reading Clarissa rather than watching the Matrix if he needed inspiration.

Edit: Also, sorry if I came across in my earlier post as...intense. I'm still feeling the burn of the ending, even this long after finishing the game twice, ha. But you're right, it's good to participate in some (harmless) philosophical inquiry.

This was brought up by Adam Sessler, apparently, but Dickens' "The Old Curiosity Shop" basically went through with an ending that pissed off fans so much that he got death threats (or at least people screaming at him in public).

The thing is, the reason why people remember Dickens is not because he wrote an ending people got mad at... but because he wrote an ending that isn't (objectively) "bad".

I came back into this thread after being okay for like a week now. Watched that. Got really angry again.
I'll never understand the people who think it's hokey - compared to the crap we ACTUALLY got.
 
- If the Star Child was on the Citadel the whole time, what was the point of Sovereign?

This kind of stuff... it just makes me upset. One can come up with some crazy logical sequence that would explain this, but why in the world would you create the need to do that? Why not just... NOT do that? Is it worth it in an attempt to just blow some minds? Is it really worth it?

And if you're going to go for it anyway, why would you expose it in the last 2 minutes, with no chance to explore or at least ask questions? Why would you force an incredulous Shepard to make the most important decision ever based on a 1-minute explanation?
 
This was brought up by Adam Sessler, apparently, but Dickens' "The Old Curiosity Shop" basically went through with an ending that pissed off fans so much that he got death threats (or at least people screaming at him in public).

The thing is, the reason why people remember Dickens is not because he wrote an ending people got mad at... but because he wrote an ending that isn't (objectively) "bad".


I'll never understand the people who think it's hokey - compared to the crap we ACTUALLY got.

Charles Dickens is an interesting case, because he actually did change the ending to Great Expectations after people complained that the original was "too sad." In the revised version, the ending offers the opportunity for a little happiness, but nothing concrete. I wonder if Bioware will follow the same route.
 

firehawk12

Subete no aware
Charles Dickens is an interesting case, because he actually did change the ending to Great Expectations after people complained that the original was "too sad." In the revised version, the ending offers the opportunity for a little happiness, but nothing concrete. I wonder if Bioware will follow the same route.
What else can they do? They've pretty much written themselves in a corner.
 

daedalius

Member
Have you guys seen this?


Apparently it's a leaked photo of the ending DLC

http://i.imgur.com/h7kfr.jpg


No real spoilers, but I linked just in case.

/smh

This kind of thing just makes me think they totally ran out of time. If this was in the actual game after you picked a specific rainbow (like, destruction), it would be great; as you'd be shaking off the indoctrination.

But no, DLC months later after everyone is furious at a horrible ending with no wrap up.

Or its a fake and we get no wrap up at all.
 
D

Deleted member 13876

Unconfirmed Member
Just off the top of my head:

- Why did Harbringer fly off when clearly Sheppard was still alive and lurching towards the elevator?
- The argument is that synthetics will inevitably rise and wipe out the organics. The solution: Develop synthetics to wipe out the organics. Why not just make the Reapers wipe out the synthetics?
- Why did the organics over millions of years build the Crucible when they didn't even know that the catalyst was the Citadel. How could you even develop something like the Crucible without knowing that? The Citadel is the main part. It's like developing a brake without knowing was a car was.
- We already know that when a Mass Relay is destroyed, it causes a supernova wiping out the entire solar system it's in. So when you see those waves cascading across the galaxy, hasn't this effectively killed off untold trillions of people across the galaxy?
- The entire theme in Mass Effect has been getting wildly different people to work together, and that diversity is awesome. The arguably best ending basically causes everyone to be exactly the same.
- Why did the Reapers even assess the Geth for purposes of reapearification if their goal was to absord all the intelligent organic life?
- Why would they record history's organic life in reaper form when a lot of them die trying to wipe out the galaxy every cycle?

Speaking of synthetics. What happened to all the synthetics from previous cycles? Did the Reapers wipe them out or preserve them in any way? I can't imagine the ravages of time just wiping them away like it would organic life.

As for the explosions, I don't think we were ever meant to believe those in the ending wiped out entire planets. Doesn't require as much suspension of disbelieve to think that what amounts to blowing out the fuse of a relay or whatever it is that happened here provides different results.
 

Divvy

Canadians burned my passport
The sad thing is that I would certainly pay money for any DLC that fixes the money. It's sort of like paying a doctor to fix your child after he runs him over.
 
So, with the Blade-mod, my Disciple shotgun has 64 spare rounds. With the Extra clips-mod it only has 34. What gives?

EDIT: Huh, and a cutscene later, it's back to normal. Damn. :lol
 

Dalauz

Member
gif102.gif
pixelreaperbysteeljoed4.gif


EriFat_lookup.gif
pixelreaperbysteeljoed4.gif


Spoiler:
armer_32.gif
pixelreaperbysteeljoed4.gif
 

Vieo

Member
Ending aside, no sir, I don't like this game.

It felt really "off"; like The Matrix Revolutions. I don't even know where to begin.

The first game, and especially the second game, were highly polished. There were all sorts of little details in the second game, like using the Normandy's trash compacter to eject junk into space, being able to open/close the shutters on the observation deck, a more natural looking drinking animation, a larger and more lively Citadel to explore (in the first game), being able to listen to Zaeed's war stories, the puzzle mini-games when it came to unlocking/hacking stuff, and the general sense of exploration in the first game, that were missing from this game.

Inventory management also seemed non-existent in this game. In the first game you could end up with a full inventory and eventually had to sell the crap you've collected. You didn't interact with your inventory this time around. They might as well have just automatically given you new weapons/armor at the end of every mission or upon leveling up instead of having credits. And speaking of credits, there really isn't much you can buy other than weapons/armor, model ships, or fish. So that makes having credits seem pointless as well.

Next, the weapons themselves feel indifferentiable. You have that sweet-ass sticky grenade pistol. Yeah, it's unique in comparison to the other guns, but what's the point of using it when you can just grab a shotgun with an increased capacity mod and just walk up to enemies blasting them in the face? That's pretty much how I ended every confrontation in the game as and Engineer. Place sentry, summon drone, run behind drone for mobile cover (like a quarterback does in football) as it heads towards enemies, then pop out and shotgun enemies in the face or back as they're occupied with mah drone or sentry. You have like 5 slots for guns on your back, and there's even a sniper rifle, but what's the point if the situation to use it never arises?

Speaking of enemies, I don't know if it's the A.I. or what, but they were easy as hell to kill. The only tough enemies were Brutes and Banshees, and they're only tough because they have a lot of armor and they get can up in your grill quickly. Cerberus grunts, husks, and marauders were laughable. I only died about 4 times in the whole ~30 hours it took to beat the game. So enemies only come in two varieties: easy or tough.

Also, no vehicles to control. Running people over in the M35 Mako was very satisfying in the first game.

--------

To be honest, I would of enjoyed this series more if:

A)The scope of the game's story was less apocalyptic/war-driven and was a bit more casual; like the first game before you found out about the coming apocalypse. You had a mission to find Saren, but it didn't feel all that urgent. You were free to go explore and do side-quests that weren't related to the game's main plot. Nearly all the side quests in Mass Effect 3 are related to the war, which in turns makes them related to the main plot.

B)If they used some sort of quasi turn-based combat system like Fallout.
 

Metroidvania

People called Romanes they go the house?
So where did that pic originate from?

Ditto.

It honestly looks fake (the text isn't the same font as the ME3 in-game subtitles, I think, and the post-it has a huge jaggie), but I'm curious as to where it originated from.

edit: ah, I see. Well, a shame to be sure, but not entirely unexpected.
 

flyover

Member
What else can they do? They've pretty much written themselves in a corner.

That's why they shouldn't try to append or "clarify" anything. They should just do it over, period. No indoctrination. No holokid. Redo everything from the moment Shepard and the troops start running up on Harbinger.
 
Ending aside, no sir, I don't like this game.

It felt really "off"; like The Matrix Revolutions. I don't even know where to begin.

The first game, and especially the second game, were highly polished. There were all sorts of little details in the second game, like using the Normandy's trash compacter to eject junk into space, being able to open/close the shutters on the observation deck, a more natural looking drinking animation, a larger and more lively Citadel to explore (in the first game), being able to listen to Zaeed's war stories, the puzzle mini-games when it came to unlocking/hacking stuff, and the general sense of exploration in the first game, that were missing from this game.

Inventory management also seemed non-existent in this game. In the first game you could end up with a full inventory and eventually had to sell the crap you've collected. You didn't interact with your inventory this time around. They might as well have just automatically given you new weapons/armor at the end of every mission or upon leveling up instead of having credits. And speaking of credits, there really isn't much you can buy other than weapons/armor, model ships, or fish. So that makes having credits seem pointless as well.

Next, the weapons themselves feel indifferentiable. You have that sweet-ass sticky grenade pistol. Yeah, it's unique in comparison to the other guns, but what's the point of using it when you can just grab a shotgun with an increased capacity mod and just walk up to enemies blasting them in the face? That's pretty much how I ended every confrontation in the game as and Engineer. Place sentry, summon drone, run behind drone for mobile cover (like a quarterback does in football) as it heads towards enemies, then pop out and shotgun enemies in the face or back as they're occupied with mah drone or sentry. You have like 5 slots for guns on your back, and there's even a sniper rifle, but what's the point if the situation to use it never arises?

Speaking of enemies, I don't know if it's the A.I. or what, but they were easy as hell to kill. The only tough enemies were Brutes and Banshees, and they're only tough because they have a lot of armor and they get can up in your grill quickly. Cerberus grunts, husks, and marauders were laughable. I only died about 4 times in the whole ~30 hours it took to beat the game. So enemies only come in two varieties: easy or tough.

Also, no vehicles to control. Running people over in the M35 Mako was very satisfying in the first game.

--------

To be honest, I would of enjoyed this series more if:

A)The scope of the game's story was less apocalyptic/war-driven and was a bit more casual; like the first game before you found out about the coming apocalypse. You had a mission to find Saren, but it didn't feel all that urgent. You were free to go explore and do side-quests that weren't related to the game's main plot. Nearly all the side quests in Mass Effect 3 are related to the war, which in turns makes them related to the main plot.

B)If they used some sort of quasi turn-based combat system like Fallout.

- This game has its own touches that didn't exist in the previous games, such as team members moving around the Normandy and Citadel and having conversations with other and you, instead of staying in their rooms and saying the same crap long periods of time. That's pretty much unprecedented.

- The Citadel in this game is a fine version. It rivals that in the first game, is less annoying to get around, and you even get to explore the inside of it in some battles.

- Mass Effect 1 was in no way polished; to claim ME3 is less so is laughable.

- Enemies were about the same in terms of difficulty as in ME2 on Normal, except Banshees and Brutes are actually pretty bitchy.

- The Mako sucks.

- The weapons in this game are highly differentiable. As a soldier, there was a wide variation in the different assault rifles and sniper rifles. Only thing is, the Geth pulse rifle is so superior it's kind of unfair.

- The inventory system in Mass Effect 1 was nothing short of atrocious. Bringing it up as a strength compared to this game seems backwards.

- Credits aren't pointless; you can buy the damned Black Widow in the Spectre shop. Credit were more pointless in ME1, because you could easily have 9,999,999 of them and buy anything. In this game they are at least a constraint throughout the game. And yes, you can buy weapons, armor, upgrades, mods, and models/ships. What else would you want to buy? That's how all the games have been.

Not everything you're saying is wrong, but the above really sticks out.
 

Dresden

Member
That's why they shouldn't try to append or "clarify" anything. They should just do it over, period. No indoctrination. No holokid. Redo everything from the moment Shepard and the troops start running up on Harbinger.

That's . . . pretty much what indoctrination is. lol.
 

Coxswain

Member
Well, at least we've reached the point in the cycle where someone is lamenting the loss of the bypass and hacking minigames from ME2.
 

flyover

Member
That's . . . pretty much what indoctrination is. lol.

Ha! I know what you're saying, but they shouldn't even go with the "it was all a dream" bit. I mean they should hit the rewind button and disavow that any of that ever happened, in or out of Shepard's mind.
 
My god I hope that is real.

Finally watched that 23 min video and I'm 100% onboard the indoc theory, it's really genius -- they just fucked up and never finished the game. Also I can't fathom why people still don't believe it...

Bioware fucking up and writing a bad ending is a million times more believable than them planning to ship the game with an incomplete ending.

Plus, they'd be telling anyone who picked Control or Synthesis that they outright picked the wrong ending. That would be completely insane.
 

flyover

Member
Love that article from yesterday that says (paraphrasing) when much of your audience is begging you to change your ending to it all being a dream, you know you fucked up.
 
Bioware fucking up and writing a bad ending is a million times more believable than them planning to ship the game with an incomplete ending.

Plus, they'd be telling anyone who picked Control or Synthesis that they outright picked the wrong ending. That would be completely insane.

I think it would be pretty ballsy for a game company to tell its fanbase that any choice besides genocide was the wrong choice.
 
Top Bottom