Support NeoGAF

[Net_Wrecker]

The way that people almost go about praising Bioware if the Indoctrination Theory is true pisses me off. The final hour as it's presented currently deserves absolutely NO credit. Had they built on it and had Shepard wake up to finish the fight FOR REAL, hell yeah. Bravo Bioware, amazing ending. But if the Indoctrination Theory is true, to leave it where they left it and how it was executed goes so far away from what this series is and was marketed as.

If the DLC comes out, Shepard wakes up, you fight to the end, have an amazing end battle, etc. etc., it means nothing at this point. NOTHING. That would mean they purposely made the end as "out of nowhere" as possible just so fans could wildly speculate about WTF just happened in a franchise that had a COMPLETELY different identity. That's crap. By the third game, you should know your audience, you should know your genre, and if you want to try a radical departure in stoytelling execution, you don't just leave the player hanging at the end with more questions when the franchise has never been about that.

That's why whatever they do for this ending, including running with the Indoc. Theory, makes no difference to me, even if it's free. You can't have such a shift in storytelling approach after 2 games told in a specific fashion, leave it there, and then expect that your fans won't criticize it, or that you can add to it and everything's peachy. Mass Effect 3 will always be what we have now. There's no "fixing" it.

 

[Escape Goat]

I wish ME3 had a Shadow Broker fight like in ME2. That had a visceral feel and it was visually entertaining boss fight even if it was super easy.

 

[hateradio]

Does this seem out of place to anyone else? It either screams 'buy our game', but then again, so does the 'critics loved it' angle, or the 'shit, buy our game, ignore the internet hate machine'.

The message as a whole is sending a giant mixed message of 'we totally get you fans' and 'the ending was awesome, you complainers don't get it, the video game reviewers obviously did'.

Read the Forbes article if you haven't. It's clear that he's defending the game, without really caring about fan criticism.

 

[Black-Box]

Merely "Clarifying and providing closure" really won't solve all the issues this ending has, so I'm not holding my breath until we actually see something.

Also, saw this while GAF was down and it needs to be shared -

that could work against any company, But I do feel like Mass Effect should be the game that is that start to a new era...

that was awesome

 

[B_Rik_Schitthaus]

There's the underlying problem with their argument. They think games are in of themselves art. By that underlying argument, criticism of games would be invalid because it would be as the creators envisioned it. I also think most people would have a problem saying COD is any form of art.

Oh shit, gusse literature isn't art either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Final_Problem



"The Final Problem" was intended to be exactly what its name says. Conan Doyle meant to stop writing about his famous detective after this short story; he felt the Sherlock Holmes stories were distracting him from more serious literary efforts and that "killing" Holmes off was the only way of getting his career back on track. "I must save my mind for better things," he wrote to his mother at the time, "even if it means I must bury my pocketbook with him."
Conan Doyle sought to sweeten the pill by letting Holmes go in a blaze of glory, having rid the world of a criminal so powerful and dangerous that any further task would be trivial in comparison. (Holmes says as much in the story.) But this device failed in its purpose and pressure from fans eventually persuaded Doyle to bring Holmes back, writing The Hound of the Baskervilles (set before "The Final Problem") and returning him in "The Adventure of the Empty House". There were enough holes in eyewitness accounts to allow Conan Doyle to plausibly resurrect Holmes; only the few free surviving members of Moriarty's organisation and Holmes' brother Mycroft (who appears briefly in this story) know that Sherlock Holmes is still alive, having won the struggle at Reichenbach Falls and sent Moriarty to his death – though nearly meeting his own at the hands of Moriarty's henchmen.

 

[Jarmel]

Oh shit, gusse literature isn't art either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Final_Problem

"The Final Problem" was intended to be exactly what its name says. Conan Doyle meant to stop writing about his famous detective after this short story; he felt the Sherlock Holmes stories were distracting him from more serious literary efforts and that "killing" Holmes off was the only way of getting his career back on track. "I must save my mind for better things," he wrote to his mother at the time, "even if it means I must bury my pocketbook with him."
Conan Doyle sought to sweeten the pill by letting Holmes go in a blaze of glory, having rid the world of a criminal so powerful and dangerous that any further task would be trivial in comparison. (Holmes says as much in the story.) But this device failed in its purpose and pressure from fans eventually persuaded Doyle to bring Holmes back, writing The Hound of the Baskervilles (set before "The Final Problem") and returning him in "The Adventure of the Empty House". There were enough holes in eyewitness accounts to allow Conan Doyle to plausibly resurrect Holmes; only the few free surviving members of Moriarty's organisation and Holmes' brother Mycroft (who appears briefly in this story) know that Sherlock Holmes is still alive, having won the struggle at Reichenbach Falls and sent Moriarty to his death – though nearly meeting his own at the hands of Moriarty's henchmen.

Yes I know about Holmes. I would argue that nothing is in of itself 'art'. It's the intent behind the work that deems something 'art'. There are certainly novels I wouldn't deem as 'art' because they have the same issues as certain games, in that they are made for profit rather than some sort of artistic vision or intent.

 

[Dresden]

Fan input is neither new or evil in (lol) art, so people who talk about how bioware should take a stand or how it's irrevocably ruined do surprise me.

 

[SCHUEY F1]

Did any of the big reviews criticise the ending?

 

[Jarmel]

Did any of the big reviews criticise the ending?

I think a couple places mentioned the ending but that's really it.

It's absolutely shameful about the gaming media's response to all of this. It's been full of strawmen, ignorance and just flat out lack of standards.

 

[SerArthurDayne]

I guess I'm glad he said something. As I posted in the other thread, he is much better at saying nothing but almost saying something than Casey Hudson.

I also like how he pulled out the artistic integrity and critics love us card to great success- just check out Twitter to see how that worked for them.

My biggest problem is that he disregards actual complaints and misunderstands the problem as simply conclusion and clarity. Sure, those are problems, but you can't clarify bad, or an enormous plot hole. At least it wasn't, sorry it wasn't happy!

 

[Vamphuntr]

Did any of the big reviews criticise the ending?

Giantbomb review said the ending was convoluted and not satisfying but that's about it I think.

Guess they either didn't play the game until the end, never played the other entries in the series, were affraid to not get review codes from EA anymore or a combination of the 3.

 

[Digoman]

It's not that bizarre when you consider they're simply not as invested (in every sense) as 'proper' games journalists.

Oh, I understand the reasons... I guess "pathetic" or "sad" would be better words. Yeah, we all know how reviews are bought these days, but I'm still amazed by how almost all gaming sites jumped into "is art" defense. You would think at least a couple would try to pander to their readers and not EA.

 

[SCHUEY F1]

Giantbomb review said the ending was convoluted and not satisfying but that's about it I think.

Guess they either didn't play the game until the end, never played the other entries in the series, were affraid to not get review codes from EA anymore or a combination of the 3.

Thats something I guess. I have never felt like this with any other game, movie, TV show, etc.. The entire nature of the game was essentially robbed at the end. The promises they made didn't help either. It boggles my mind that people can consider it satifying. The big defence that the whole game is the "ending" is crap.

 

[Omega]

Did any of the big reviews criticise the ending?

Reviewers don't beat games.

Pretty sure when they get sent a copy, they get sent a note along with it that says "include this in your review"

 

[Jarmel]

Reviewers don't beat games.

Pretty sure when they get sent a copy, they get sent a note along with it that says "include this in your review"

Funnily enough that was actually the case. EA sent a note for reviewers to analyze the game in terms of new gamers.

 

[CharmingCharlie]

One of the ME 3 writers apparently made a post at Penny Arcarde forums (I can't link to it because it was deleted). It said this :-

I have nothing to do with the ending beyond a) having argued successfully a long time ago that we needed a chance to say goodbye to our squad, b) having argued successfully that Cortez shouldn't automatically die in that shuttle crash, and c) having written Tali's goodbye bit, as well as a couple of the holo-goodbyes for people I wrote (Mordin, Kasumi, Jack, etc).

No other writer did, either, except for our lead. This was entirely the work of our lead and Casey himself, sitting in a room and going through draft after draft.

And honestly, it kind of shows.

Every other mission in the game had to be held up to the rest of the writing team, and the writing team then picked it apart and made suggestions and pointed out the parts that made no sense. This mission? Casey and our lead deciding that they didn't need to be peer-reviewe.d

And again, it shows.

If you'd asked me the themes of Mass Effect 3, I'd break them down as:
Galactic Alliances
Friends
Organics versus Synthetics

In my personal opinion, the first two got a perfunctory nod. We did get a goodbye to our friends, but it was in a scene that was divorced from the gameplay -- a deliberate "nothing happens here" area with one turret thrown in for no reason I really understand, except possibly to obfuscate the "nothing happens here"-ness. The best missions in our game are the ones in which the gameplay and the narrative reinforce each other. The end of the Genophage campaign exemplifies that for me -- every line of dialog is showing you both sides of the krogan, be they horrible brutes or proud warriors; the art shows both their bombed-out wasteland and the beautiful world they once had and could have again; the combat shows the terror of the Reapers as well as a blatant reminder of the rachni, which threatened the galaxy and had to be stopped by the krogan last time. Every line of code in that mission is on target with the overall message.

The endgame doesn't have that. I wanted to see banshees attacking you, and then have asari gunships zoom in and blow them away. I wanted to see a wave of rachni ravagers come around a corner only to be met by a wall of krogan roaring a battle cry. Here's the horror the Reapers inflicted upon each race, and here's the army that you, Commander Shepard, made out of every race in the galaxy to fight them.

I personally thought that the Illusive Man conversation was about twice as long as it needed to be -- something that I've been told in my peer reviews of my missions and made edits on, but again, this is a conversation no writer but the lead ever saw until it was already recorded. I did love Anderson's goodbye.

For me, Anderson's goodbye is where it ended. 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.

And then, just to be a dick... what was SUPPOSED to happen was that, say you picked "Destroy the Reapers". When you did that, the system was SUPPOSED to look at your score, and then you'd show a cutscene of Earth that was either:

a) Very high score: Earth obviously damaged, but woo victory
b) Medium score: Earth takes a bunch of damage from the Crucible activation. Like dropping a bomb on an already war-ravaged city. Uh, well, maybe not LIKE that as much as, uh, THAT.
c) Low score: Earth is a cinderblock, all life on it completely wiped out

I have NO IDEA why these different cutscenes aren't in there. As far as I know, they were never cut. Maybe they were cut for budget reasons at the last minute. I don't know. But holy crap, yeah, I can see how incredibly disappointing it'd be to hear of all the different ending possibilities and have it break down to "which color is stuff glowing?" Or maybe they ARE in, but they're too subtle to really see obvious differences, and again, that's... yeah.

Okay, that's a lot to have written for something that's gonna go away in an hour.

I still teared up at the ending myself, but really, I was tearing up for the quick flashbacks to old friends and the death of Anderson. I wasn't tearing up over making a choice that, as it turned out, didn't have enough cutscene differentiation on it.

And to be clear, I don't even really wish Shepard had gotten a ride-off-into-sunset ending. I was honestly okay with Shepard sacrificing himself. I just expected it to be for something with more obvious differentiation, and a stronger tie to the core themes -- all three of them.

I didn't see the original post, just picked it up from Bioware cesspit. It really does hit the nail on the head with regards to the problem with the ending. But whether it is legit or not is anyone's guess.

 

[Metroidvania]

Didn't see this posted yet, apologies if I missed it. Thread moves too damn fast.

As far as I can gather, the rumor for this one is that a bioware writer posts on the PA forums for like an hour, then deletes the post. Take it with as much salt as you would 'the Truth DLC' from 4chan, but it will no doubt create lots of speculation.

http://pastebin.com/i2cNVDp4

I have nothing to do with the ending beyond a) having argued successfully a long time ago that we needed a chance to say goodbye to our squad, b) having argued successfully that Cortez shouldn't automatically die in that shuttle crash, and c) having written Tali's goodbye bit, as well as a couple of the holo-goodbyes for people I wrote (Mordin, Kasumi, Jack, etc).

No other writer did, either, except for our lead. This was entirely the work of our lead and Casey himself, sitting in a room and going through draft after draft.

And honestly, it kind of shows.

Every other mission in the game had to be held up to the rest of the writing team, and the writing team then picked it apart and made suggestions and pointed out the parts that made no sense. This mission? Casey and our lead deciding that they didn't need to be peer-reviewe.d

And again, it shows.

If you'd asked me the themes of Mass Effect 3, I'd break them down as:
Galactic Alliances
Friends
Organics versus Synthetics

In my personal opinion, the first two got a perfunctory nod. We did get a goodbye to our friends, but it was in a scene that was divorced from the gameplay -- a deliberate "nothing happens here" area with one turret thrown in for no reason I really understand, except possibly to obfuscate the "nothing happens here"-ness. The best missions in our game are the ones in which the gameplay and the narrative reinforce each other. The end of the Genophage campaign exemplifies that for me -- every line of dialog is showing you both sides of the krogan, be they horrible brutes or proud warriors; the art shows both their bombed-out wasteland and the beautiful world they once had and could have again; the combat shows the terror of the Reapers as well as a blatant reminder of the rachni, which threatened the galaxy and had to be stopped by the krogan last time. Every line of code in that mission is on target with the overall message.

The endgame doesn't have that. I wanted to see banshees attacking you, and then have asari gunships zoom in and blow them away. I wanted to see a wave of rachni ravagers come around a corner only to be met by a wall of krogan roaring a battle cry. Here's the horror the Reapers inflicted upon each race, and here's the army that you, Commander Shepard, made out of every race in the galaxy to fight them.

I personally thought that the Illusive Man conversation was about twice as long as it needed to be -- something that I've been told in my peer reviews of my missions and made edits on, but again, this is a conversation no writer but the lead ever saw until it was already recorded. I did love Anderson's goodbye.

For me, Anderson's goodbye is where it ended. 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.

And then, just to be a dick... what was SUPPOSED to happen was that, say you picked "Destroy the Reapers". When you did that, the system was SUPPOSED to look at your score, and then you'd show a cutscene of Earth that was either:

a) Very high score: Earth obviously damaged, but woo victory
b) Medium score: Earth takes a bunch of damage from the Crucible activation. Like dropping a bomb on an already war-ravaged city. Uh, well, maybe not LIKE that as much as, uh, THAT.
c) Low score: Earth is a cinderblock, all life on it completely wiped out

I have NO IDEA why these different cutscenes aren't in there. As far as I know, they were never cut. Maybe they were cut for budget reasons at the last minute. I don't know. But holy crap, yeah, I can see how incredibly disappointing it'd be to hear of all the different ending possibilities and have it break down to "which color is stuff glowing?" Or maybe they ARE in, but they're too subtle to really see obvious differences, and again, that's... yeah.

Okay, that's a lot to have written for something that's gonna go away in an hour.

I still teared up at the ending myself, but really, I was tearing up for the quick flashbacks to old friends and the death of Anderson. I wasn't tearing up over making a choice that, as it turned out, didn't have enough cutscene differentiation on it.

And to be clear, I don't even really wish Shepard had gotten a ride-off-into-sunset ending. I was honestly okay with Shepard sacrificing himself. I just expected it to be for something with more obvious differentiation, and a stronger tie to the core themes -- all three of them.

edit: Fuuuuu.

 

[DTKT]

I mean really, there is a good chance that newcomers have no issue with the ME3 ending. Mostly because they have no investment in the franchise whatsoever.

 

[Heshinsi]

“Fans want to make sure that they see things resolved, they want to get some closure, a great ending. I think they’re going to get that.”

Where is the Casey Hudson who said this before the game's launch?

 

[Dresden]

One of the ME 3 writers apparently made a post at Penny Arcarde forums (I can't link to it because it was deleted). It said this :-



I didn't see the original post, just picked it up from Bioware cesspit. It really does hit the nail on the head with regards to the problem with the ending. But whether it is legit or not is anyone's guess.

The middle sections sound a bit too much like fanwank, but still, good read.

 

[chickdigger802]

Here is neogaf's Garry Whitta's response to the ending on google+

I was up until 2:30 this morning finishing Mass Effect 3. I'm a huge fan of these games and this was the fastest I've ever finished any of them. Not because it was easier or shorter than the rest but because I deliberately rushed through it, which is counter to the way I usually play these games. I am a "stop and smell the roses" kind of player; I think people who blast through content in order to get to the ending more quickly are doing it wrong. Epic games like this are meant to be enjoyed and savored and made to last as long as possible, especially on a first playthrough, which you only ever get to do once. But in this case there was so much public controversy and discontent swirling around the internet from people who had blasted through it to see how it all ends that I felt like it was only a matter of time before I ran into a massive spoiler - and when it very nearly happened this week I decided to stop smelling the roses and race to the finish before my luck ran out. So now I know how the story ends.

Guess what? I didn't hate it, although I do have many questions and a few criticisms. On the whole I thought it was audacious, provocative, and only partly nonsensical. I haven't yet had time to dive into the wealth of comment that's out there and review the criticisms in detail, but I'm going to go out on a limb and suspect that a lot of the discontent comes from people who have been coddled for too long by easy "Hollywood" endings in which the hero saves the galaxy, gets the girl and everyone lives happily ever after - but with one tiny dangling thread that leaves the door open for another installment. That's been the standard endgame language of big, epic, high-production storytelling for decades, and it's created expectations that cause us to be upset and confused when they're not met. The story of the Mass Effect trilogy does not end in an easy, feel-good way which leaves a clear path for future games, nor do I suspect it was designed to make the player feel comfortable. But it's not unprecedented in storytelling, in fact I can think of at least one other very popular story, a pretty old one, in which the hero sacrifices himself to save all of mankind and in doing so becomes an immortal legend that people still talk about and follow thousands of years later.

So for those reasons I didn't hate it. But did I think it was a good ending? I don't know yet. It's still very fresh, I'm still processing, and I'd be lying if I could tell you what it all means. And I'm okay with that. Again, I don't think storytellers have an automatic obligation to answer every single question and tie off every single loose end when a story concludes. It's good to leave some stuff ambiguous and open to interpretation and debate. Now it's possible BioWare erred a little too much on that side of the line here, and I'm less surprised about some of the complaints in this area. There are certainly some ways in which the ending does not make sense, at least to me. (I had EDI as part of my London assault team so the fate of the Normandy makes even less sense than it does to most.) But I think the bigger problem is really how the final sequence was handled - it was way too talky, with so much complicated and lengthy exposition being thrown at the player in a very short space of time that it was impossible to take it all in, much less fully comprehend. Remember that scene at the end of the second Matrix movie with the Architect waffling on endlessly about stuff we barely understood? Yeah.

The other criticism flying around is that there's not enough variation in the endings, that the player is left feeling like after all they've done they don't really get to make a choice that makes much difference to the fate of the galaxy. Okay, I get that. For the record, I took the middle path, and just watched a video that shows how the other choices play out. I think BioWare simply over-promised here. The previous games had different endings but they're really just minor variations on a theme that allowed players to more or less continue from a common point in the galaxy next time out. But if you're going to fundamentally alter the galaxy I imagine it's difficult to realistically present the player with a lot of choice over the nature of that change and still keep the door open for future games. Like the previous two games, the endings of Mass Effect 3 are variations on a theme, not the wildly different scenarios some players may have been led to expect. I understand that. Although here again I think a lot of the upset is coming from people who have been conditioned by storytelling tropes to believe that the hero should always be in control and the master of their destiny - where in reality of course that is almost never the case. In the end Shepard does all he can, and makes the ultimate sacrifice, when finally faced with a situation too galactically massive for even him to fully affect.

I think BioWare made a really gutsy choice to end Mass Effect 3 the way they did and I applaud them for having the courage to do it. I do think it could have been executed a little better. But I think it has to say something that the ending has generated so much discussion, and that this is the first time ever I've written an entire article about a game's ending. It seems like BioWare is now scrambling to respond to public demand and is making noises about "fixing" the ending. I think that's a shame. When you're writing a story you should always go with what you think is right rather than try to guess what your audience wants, and I think the same is true retrospectively too. No matter all the whining and complaining I think BioWare should stick to their guns. I'm sure they had a plan for where this would all go next before the game released, so why they are second-guessing themselves now I have no idea. And I think they should be flattered that all the complaints are stemming from a place of love and affection for the characters and the universe they created. Going back to my original point, an audience conditioned by decades of endings of no real consequence and easy reset buttons because storytellers are afraid to upset the apple cart is always going to be perturbed by an ending like this one which dramatically alters the nature of the universe and characters they have come to love while leaving no easily predictable way forward. But I love that. Even if there was no way forward and this was the end of Mass Effect I'd be okay with that. Because as much as I love the games and want to keep playing them, that's what all good stories eventually do. They end.

Oh, and to those people contributing to the growing meme that the ending sucks because it's not sufficient reward for all the "work" they put in getting there? Shut the fuck up. Games aren't work, if they were you wouldn't play them. They're fun, and the game is hugely fun to play even if the ending does leave a bad taste in your mouth.

Sure I'm disappointed with the ending... but nothing ever turns out well if you backpedal from your own work.

 

[DTKT]

Didn't see this posted yet, apologies if I missed it. Thread moves too damn fast.

As far as I can gather, the rumor for this one is that a bioware writer posts on the PA forums for like an hour, then deletes the post. Take it with as much salt as you would 'the Truth DLC' from 4chan, but it will no doubt create lots of speculation.

http://pastebin.com/i2cNVDp4



edit: Fuuuuu.

Man, that really sucks. :|

I guess we'll never know what really happened.

 

[Jarmel]

Didn't see this posted yet, apologies if I missed it. Thread moves too damn fast.

As far as I can gather, the rumor for this one is that a bioware writer posts on the PA forums for like an hour, then deletes the post. Take it with as much salt as you would 'the Truth DLC' from 4chan, but it will no doubt create lots of speculation.

http://pastebin.com/i2cNVDp4



edit: Fuuuuu.

Holy shit. It seems like they didn't even fucking know what happened until way late in the process. I knew they didn't have a say but it seems they were kept completely in the dark until it was way too late.

I don't know if Walters or Hudson needs to be fired for this. Probably both.

 

[heliosRAzi]

Here is neogaf's Garry Whitta's response to the ending on google+



Sure I'm disappointed with the ending... but nothing ever turns out well if you backpedal from your own work.

He definitely needs think about it more

 

[Ros8105]

One of the ME 3 writers apparently made a post at Penny Arcarde forums (I can't link to it because it was deleted). It said this :-



I didn't see the original post, just picked it up from Bioware cesspit. It really does hit the nail on the head with regards to the problem with the ending. But whether it is legit or not is anyone's guess.

Wow. That explains a lot.

 

[Dresden]

I think BioWare made a really gutsy choice to end Mass Effect 3 the way they did and I applaud them for having the courage to do it.

he should be ashamed that just seeing the magic elevator pop in didn't trip any sense of bullshit re: narrative he had in his body

 

[Zomba13]

One of the ME 3 writers apparently made a post at Penny Arcarde forums (I can't link to it because it was deleted). It said this :-



I didn't see the original post, just picked it up from Bioware cesspit. It really does hit the nail on the head with regards to the problem with the ending. But whether it is legit or not is anyone's guess.

Very interesting if true.

 

[Jasoneyu]

I am still skeptical of that PA post, more specifically when he goes on the second half regarding the colour ending choices. Still, would love to have this source confirmed.

 

[Cake Boss]

I just finished it just hours ago, I didnt have a big problem with the ending because I seen it coming years ago when they said that there would be multiple endings to the trilogy depending on your choices in the first 2 games, I knew they would never achieve their promise because it was way too ambitious at the time, and especially when EA bough them, I knew for sure they would never deliver.

But the lack of different endings and how the choices I made in previous games made no difference to it wasnt a huge problem for me, it was the stupid plot holes any idiot could see and disect with never playing the previous gamea. Why the fuck was Normandy not in the battle like Shpeard left it, and how the fuck did my squad mates teleport to the normandy to crash in that planet, and what will happen to all of the races now that the relays are destroyed to get back home, what the fuck will happen to them. And what the fuck at the EDI Joker relationship, seriously WTF.

As for the rest of the game, I thought it was really well made, the production values were off the roof, the soundtrack was amazing, visuals were nice but fuck was it dark, pacing and the story was good, the gunplay improved and with a bit more RPG elements with the gun customizing. One of the letdowns were the squads, holy crap they sucked and their powers sucked. I stuck with the same two the whole game.

 

[aesop]

The final hour as it's presented currently deserves absolutely NO credit. Had they built on it and had Shepard wake up to finish the fight FOR REAL, hell yeah. Bravo Bioware, amazing ending. But if the Indoctrination Theory is true, to leave it where they left it and how it was executed goes so far away from what this series is and was marketed as.

I agree with this. I've put my faith in the indoc theory because it's the only thing that makes sense to me. That being said, it's complete bullshit to just end it where it ended without some kind of explanation other than "buy the end as DLC, suckers!" Maybe they just ran out time and EA was putting the hammer down to get the game shipped. If that's the case, they could have handled it much better.

If they had done what you suggested the whole thing could have been seen as a masterstroke at best or a maybe clever, still kinda stupid move at worst.

 

[Pollux]

Here is neogaf's Garry Whitta's response to the ending on google+



Sure I'm disappointed with the ending... but nothing ever turns out well if you backpedal from your own work.

Oh, and to those people contributing to the growing meme that the ending sucks because it's not sufficient reward for all the "work" they put in getting there? Shut the fuck up. Games aren't work, if they were you wouldn't play them. They're fun, and the game is hugely fun to play even if the ending does leave a bad taste in your mouth.

And this idiot doesn't fucking get it either. The ending isn't brilliant or ballsy, it's fucking stupid. It makes no sense in the context of the universe they built. They ignore lore, and they all around make shit up.

And yes, gamers should be "rewarded" for the "work" they put in. Having spent almost $200 on the games alone, not counting DLC and other media...this isn't a fucking $14 movie. Game developers more than directors in almost any other medium owe more to their fans who've been with them for years because of the enormous time and monetary investment that the fans have devoted to the developers and the series.

 

[WanderingWind]

He definitely needs think about it more

Hey! He told you to shut the fuck up. Why are you not listening?

Spoiler

EDIT: Please tell me you get this. I don't want to be banned again summarily.

 

[Zerokku]

I am still skeptical of that PA post, more specifically when he goes on the second half regarding the colour ending choices. Still, would love to have this source confirmed.

I can confirm that at least of a couple years ago, there were a couple Bioware Writers who posted over at PA (IIRC, one of them was the codex dude). I can't say if its one of the same people, but they've posted there before so...

 

[Last Hearth]

I consider it pretty solid source because that poster has been on PA for sometime and has posted things about working at Bioware for a while.

I just hope he doesn't get fired over this because Bioware pretty much knows who he is.

 

[Snuggles]

The endgame doesn't have that. I wanted to see banshees attacking you, and then have asari gunships zoom in and blow them away. I wanted to see a wave of rachni ravagers come around a corner only to be met by a wall of krogan roaring a battle cry. Here's the horror the Reapers inflicted upon each race, and here's the army that you, Commander Shepard, made out of every race in the galaxy to fight them.

This is probably my biggest gripe with the ending. I put all that work into rallying the galaxy, but I didn't even get to see them in action. At the very least I hoped to see the Rachni queen show up and wreck shit. It left me wondering if it even mattered that I took the time to do almost every single quest.

Edit - it's not so much about being "rewarded" as it is about expecting the game to recognize my actions, and deliver a fitting payoff for everything I accomplished over the course of 30+ hours.

 

[Dresden]

Whitta is fucking clueless, but that doesn't really surprise me.

I consider it pretty solid source because that poster has been on PA for sometime and has posted things about working at Bioware for a while.

I just hope he doesn't get fired over this because Bioware pretty much knows who he is.

That'd be sad.

Also any financial hit on Bioware due to the backlash is going to be felt by the non-Hudson/Walters employees, probably, so . . . man.

Fuck Walters.

 

[indigo-cyclops]

Holy shit. It seems like they didn't even fucking know what happened until way late in the process. I knew they didn't have a say but it seems they were kept completely in the dark until it was way too late.

I don't know if Walters or Hudson needs to be fired for this. Probably both.

Yea, it's telling. Seems like a major issue when these two guys go unchecked, and damages good properties. I'm actually glad to hear that the majority of the game was peer-reviewed and the product of all the writers (as I expected.) What I mean is, knowing none of them had anything to do with the ending is refreshing. Who knows how it really went down.

This all in mind if said source is true, of course.

 

[Zeliard]

I personally thought that the Illusive Man conversation was about twice as long as it needed to be -- something that I've been told in my peer reviews of my missions and made edits on, but again, this is a conversation no writer but the lead ever saw until it was already recorded.

Why, exactly? He doesn't explain this thought. The conversation with the Illusive Man was fine. In fact, if anything, it should have been even longer, much like the conversation with the Catalyst.

 

[Hero]

From Garry Whitta blog post, I really don't understand the "gutsy" part. There is nothing "gutsy" or"ambitious" about the ending. If anything, it's rushed, non-nonsensical and poorly crafted:



And I think he's missing the point there. The right word is not "work" but "choices and consequences". I mean, I crafted my Shepard throughout 3 games, I expect my decision to influence the ending. That's even part of every single marketing push they did. To not deliver on that is just disappointing.

Agree. Whitta was making some sense for a while but that last paragraph is really childish. How do you make a lengthy, seemingly educated post and then throw in a 'shut the fuck up' in the last paragraph?

http://www.virtualshackles.com/299

Mass Effect 3 Fallout: Did the Gaming Media Fail Gamers?

That’s been the question—and accusation—on the minds of many on the forums I frequent. Without giving anything away, it is safe to say that the reaction to Mass Effect 3 has evolved into the quintessential example of the Orwellian doublethink. Has any game in recent memory been more simultaneously loved and hated than this one? The consensus is as follows: the first 35-40 hours are the some of the greatest, most masterful bits of digital entertainment bliss in history, easily the best in the series to date. Then the last 10 minutes ruin the whole thing! My own review is forthcoming and so I won’t comment here on whether or not I agree with that position, but there you have it. Reaction to the ending has been so negative that massive petitions have developed online, asking Bioware to change it. A thread on their social network arguing in favor of the proposition that the ending is a dream sequence garnered some 15,000 replies. Since when do people actually hope something in a game, movie, or book is a dream sequence? That right there says it all.

This brings us to the crux of the issue: the media reaction. Mass Effect 3 earned enormous praise before its release, 8s, 9s and 10s across the Metacritic board (the less said about the user score bombing the better). This isn’t a surprise; AAA titles usually receive this sort of royal treatment. ME3 legitimately deserves those scores, and one tends to think that whatever a reviewer’s impression with the ending he or she won’t let it taint his “professional” opinion of the overall title. Furthermore, as a matter of policy it’s a good idea to avoid mentioning endings in professional reviews. This reaction is to be expected.

What is not expected is the hostility and mockery many in the gaming media displayed as this ME3 controversy developed. It is no secret that a slew of news stories have been springing up as of late, simplifying the complaints of gamers to “Gamers Demand Bioware Make a Happy Ending to Mass Effect 3”. Gamers have been called “entitled”, and derisively compared to the Kathy Bates character in the movie Misery—in truth the reaction is more akin to what happened when Arthur Conan Doyle attempted to kill off Sherlock Holmes in The Final Problem, but I digress. And no, that wasn’t a “Shepard dies?!?!” spoiler.

That response is mystifying to me. Let’s forget for a moment whether or not Mass Effect’s ending does in fact “suck”. Who does the “game media” serve if not “gamers”? Whose opinions should they acknowledge, convey, and perhaps even reflect if not those of “gamers”? Certainly not those of the publishers or the industry at large, I fear the long-term viability of this medium would be rather grim if that were the case. Is each games journalist responsible for their opinion alone, with discretion to criticize or praise as is their want? Maybe, but what an oddity for organizations to pay them to function in that capacity when they could do it best as a regular blogger—and in any case I certainly don’t believe any other journalistic discipline permits such discretion.

Without unduly lecturing others on the proper role of a games journalist, I should think a baseline level of professional courtesy is a natural and obvious requisite. Note: that does not necessarily mean politeness. Ours is a young medium, those of us who partake in it tend to be, on average, in our 20s or 30s. By all means, be sarcastic and funny. Be immature and profane, if that’s your modus operandi and it entertains your readership. Professional courtesy doesn’t mean to be nice, it means be professional enough to know and understand the issue before you write about it.

There are legitimate criticisms of the Mass Effect 3 ending. That is not to say the criticisms are artistically or mechanically valid, but they are understandable, and held by a large segment of people who finished the game. Certainly the reaction absolutely cannot be summarized as “Gamers demand Bioware make a happy ending”, or “Gamers are Behaving like Entitled Brats”. All it takes is approximately five minutes of modest research to see that people’s complaints are far deeper than that.

At this point it becomes a serious question of journalistic integrity, more so than mere insults or failing to serve the community. Mocking gamers produces catchy headlines and invites online traffic, but it seems very much a self-serving exercise in ego gratification. It may be argued that “games aren’t serious”, and therefore our media doesn’t have to take it seriously, but I don’t believe there are many who think that way anymore. Certainly the Smithsonian doesn’t, as their recent “Art of Video Games” exhibition makes clear.

This may be a young medium, but that designation only heightens the need for even a modicum of professional courtesy from the people who represent it. That doesn’t mean fairness in all instances, but it does mean you don’t have front page writers on your website ignoring the issues entirely, dismissing wide swaths of the gaming population as “whiny entitled babies”, and using your platform as their personal mouthpiece for High School level antagonism. As a passive observer, who hasn’t taken any particular “side” regarding the endings, the clash between fans of Mass Effect and the gaming media has been disheartening, to say the least.

http://www.unigamesity.com/mass-effect-3-fallout-did-the-gaming-media-fail-gamers/


All the "journalists" make fun of the majority that dislike the ending and mock them,in order to defend themselves that gave high scores(that they needed to give since it was from a big publisher) without finding anything wrong in an ending that makes no sense in such a decision heavy game!

And now.if Bioware does changes to the ending they will look even stupider.
(Especially kotaku that had everyday an article mocking the fans...)

The gaming press is a fucking joke. Most of them would never be able to get legitimate journalism jobs.

One of the ME 3 writers apparently made a post at Penny Arcarde forums (I can't link to it because it was deleted). It said this :-



I didn't see the original post, just picked it up from Bioware cesspit. It really does hit the nail on the head with regards to the problem with the ending. But whether it is legit or not is anyone's guess.

Hmm, interesting. Makes sense. Reblogging on my Tumblr!

 

[WanderingWind]

This is probably my biggest gripe with the ending. I put all that work into rallying the galaxy, but I didn't even get to see them in action. At the very least I hoped to see the Rachni queen show up and wreck shit. It left me wondering if it even mattered that I took the time to do almost every single quest.

It was fun. Didn't you have fun searching for the [Trinket] of [Species] on [Planet] in order to raise your magic bar that didn't matter in the end?

I did!

 

[CorrisD]

One of the ME 3 writers apparently made a post at Penny Arcarde forums (I can't link to it because it was deleted). It said this :-



I didn't see the original post, just picked it up from Bioware cesspit. It really does hit the nail on the head with regards to the problem with the ending. But whether it is legit or not is anyone's guess.

If true, big if there, it sounds a lot like the problem George Lucas has.

As creative as they are with their ideas and what they want to do with them at the beginning they really need people around them to tell them when to stop and what not to do. Which is what GL didn't have when putting the Prequel Trilogy together and you can tell compared to the quality of the Orignal Trilogy where he had these people around him.

 

[Vamphuntr]

Yeah, can't really agree with those saying the ending was intellectual, brillant or balsy.

It's simply a badly written ending that comes out of nowhere. It tries to give you a Shin Megami Tensei like choice in a series where said choice doesn't fit. Making a magical decision that will change how the world will function is at the core of SMT games but these games are built around magic, demons and philosophical decisions. You also know you will have to make that decision way before the end of the game and all possible choices are fleshed out through the characters you meet.

Having a super magical AI offering outrageous options to change the world doesn't feel right in a ME 3 game.

 

[Last Hearth]

Please be considerate about re-posting that. The author deleted the post and ask not to have it re-posted.

Having it spread around everywhere could do real damage to his livelihood.

 

[rozay]

Interesting post if true, and all we can hope for if the ending truly is revisited is that it gets peer reviewed as well.

 

[Dresden]

Please be considerate about re-posting that. The author deleted the post and ask not to have it re-posted.

Having it spread around everywhere could do real damage to his livelihood.

It's too late for that.

 

[Snuggles]

It was fun. Didn't you have fun searching for the [Trinket] of [Species] on [Planet] in order to raise your magic bar that didn't matter in the end?

I did!

I even grinded my readiness to like 95% percent. But that actually was fun, even if it didn't matter.

 

[Zeliard]

Please be considerate about re-posting that. The author deleted the post and ask not to have it re-posted.

Having it spread around everywhere could do real damage to his livelihood.

Maybe he should have thought of that before posting it on a popular site on the Internet.

 

[Net_Wrecker]

I agree with this. I've put my faith in the indoc theory because it's the only thing that makes sense to me. That being said, it's complete bullshit to just end it where it ended without some kind of explanation other than "buy the end as DLC, suckers!" Maybe they just ran out time and EA was putting the hammer down to get the game shipped. If that's the case, they could have handled it much better.

If they had done what you suggested the whole thing could have been seen as a masterstroke at best or a maybe clever, still kinda stupid move at worst.

At least expanding on the Indoc. Theory, waking Shepard up after you've beaten the Reapers in your head, and finishing the galactic war allows the game to get back to what it's been for 5 years. Mass Effect wasn't some "high level" psychological analysis of Shepard, or more specifically, THE PLAYER using Shepard as his/her avatar. This was a gotdamn space adventure built on choices, characters, friendship, loyalty, overcoming odds, bringing races together, etc. etc. There's nothing wrong with any of that. The Indoc Theory, left where it is, feels like they wanted to experiment with the game to bring it to some higher level intellectually with a twist at the end just for the sake of it, and forgot to FINISH WHAT THEY STARTED AND PROMISED TO DELIVER.

 

[rozay]

Please be considerate about re-posting that. The author deleted the post and ask not to have it re-posted.

Having it spread around everywhere could do real damage to his livelihood.

I'm pretty sure he'll be fired or be in serious trouble :/

 

[Rufus]

Please be considerate about re-posting that. The author deleted the post and ask not to have it re-posted.

Having it spread around everywhere could do real damage to his livelihood.

I'm sympathetic to that, but the cat's out the bag. You don't speak to a crowd of strangers about things you might regret later. The internet is a public place like any other.