Mass Effect 3 Ending Scandel Makes Kevin Levine Sad - Polidicks

the only reason it was so well received is they never really presented you with the false notion of "options" like mass effect does, and when they "take it away," the way in which they do it is so overt and in your face you can't really help but appreciate it, even without thinking about it.

ITT people don't understand eachother. "A game is designed to sell" "SO A GAME'S VALUE IS DECIDED ON IT'S SALES?!?!" Holy shit people, calm your tits. Take Portal 2 for example. It can be considered a consumer product because the company that made it expects to get money from it by selling it to other people, but it can be (and has been) considered as art. Movies can be art. Movies can be consumer products without being art (Disaster Movie). Movies can be art without being consumer products (some indie movies which are released for free). Same can apply to videogames, music, and a lot of other things. Bioware shouldn't have to rewrite the ending and[I] nobody in their right mind is telling them to[/I], but should seriously stop giving bullshit excuses. They promised an ending that would be affected by the player's decisions, they didn't deliver. You have no right to tell Bioware to rewrite and rerelease the ending, and they won't care if you do, as they're not legally bound to. They are obligated to deliver a finished, functional product, though, and the glitches and bugs should be taken care of.

bioware should apologize for false promises, but yeah, the ending is the ending. [editline]20th March 2012[/editline] and of course gameplay issues should be patched. no one is arguing the opposite in that regard

[QUOTE=thisispain;35227317]in any other fiction that would be considered a quality or a characteristic. in games that's considered a flaw.[/QUOTE] How is that a flaw? HL2 had fairly linear gameplay and you never got a choice apart from the main plotline other than staying where you are without anything happening or dying, and I can list literally decens of games that do the same.

[QUOTE=latin_geek;35227334]ITT people don't understand eachother. [/QUOTE] no we just don't agree. there's a difference. [QUOTE=latin_geek;35227334]Take Portal 2 for example. It can be considered a consumer product because the company that made it expects to get money from it by selling it to other people, but it can be (and has been) considered as art. [/QUOTE] that's not what a consumer product is. getting money doesn't make it a consumer product, else any art except free art would be consumer product. a consumer product is something you buy for utility like a wrench or a dishwasher. if it doesn't do what you want it to do and why you bought it it's obviously defective because it has no other purpose. you didn't buy it because you wanted to experience it. [QUOTE=latin_geek;35227334]Movies can be art. Movies can be consumer products without being art (Disaster Movie). Movies can be art without being consumer products (some indie movies which are released for free). Same can apply to videogames, music, and a lot of other things.[/QUOTE] even disaster movie or the worst of the worst movies are art. even nickleback is art.

[QUOTE=Vedicardi;35226099]he's saying you can't please everyone. they told the story they wanted to tell and changing it now, would be compromising that and just pandering to their audience to please them rather than creating their own vision[/QUOTE] I would be ok with that if they hadn't already teased post-ending DLC. They told the story they wanted to tell, and in the future will tell the rest of it for a small fee.

[QUOTE=thisispain;35227235]ever seen French new wave films?[/QUOTE] I think we have to define just what a plot hole is. When I think of a plot hole, I think of it as subset of internal inconsistency. Something that contradicts the logic of the story. For example, Alice in Wonderland's world's logic is inherently nebulous and undefined. It is established that relatively anything can happen at most any time, so it doesn't feel out of line when fantastic things occur. It's hard for plot holes to occur in such a universe, because things aren't defined as being one way or another. On the other hand, we have things like Star Trek and Mass Effect. Well developed universes with clearly defined and established limits. It is established that the Normandy functions on science and not on magic. It is established that characters will behave to their character unless they're mentally compromised. It is established that Reapers are dangerous, the Illusive Man is smart, and that you are able to control Shepard's actions to a large degree. These are tenants that are adhered to throughout the entirety of the trilogy. Joker comes to save you when you're in trouble because that's in Joker's character. So if for example there were to be a situation where you were in danger and Joker had no defined character reason for leaving, he would come and save you, or at the very least try. If he did say, the opposite of that, running away from the most important battle in history when it's also clearly established that he's stubborn, then that would be a break in the logic of the story. Joker has just now completely broken character, and as such is much harder to empathize with. Since he's harder to empathize with, things that happen to him have less emotional impact. That's what a plot hole is. A piece of information that contradicts the internal logic of the story to the detriment of the direction the story is headed.

no, just among people playing the game. pain isn't saying he considers it a flaw, but players do, ie the ending of the deus ex games etc etc when you are given choices earlier in the game. they assume it should effect the outcome and so on and on and have absurd expectations

[QUOTE=latin_geek;35227359]How is that a flaw? HL2 had fairly linear gameplay and you never got a choice apart from the main plotline other than staying where you are without anything happening or dying, and I can list literally decens of games that do the same.[/QUOTE] don't ask me, i'm not the one making that criticism mr. "people don't understand eachother". i just remember plenty of people criticizing bioshock for its lack of choice.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;35227384]I think we have to define just what a plot hole is. When I think of a plot hole, I think of it as subset of internal inconsistency. Something that contradicts the logic of the story. For example, Alice in Wonderland's world's logic is inherently nebulous and undefined. It is established that relatively anything can happen at most any time, so it doesn't feel out of line when fantastic things occur. It's hard for plot holes to occur in such a universe, because things aren't defined as being one way or another. On the other hand, we have things like Star Trek and Mass Effect. Well developed universes with clearly defined and established limits. It is established that the Normandy functions on science and not on magic. It is established that characters will behave to their character unless they're mentally compromised. It is established that Reapers are dangerous, the Illusive Man is smart, and that you are able to control Shepard's actions to a large degree. These are tenants that are adhered to throughout the entirety of the trilogy. Joker comes to save you when you're in trouble because that's in Joker's character. So if for example there were to be a situation where you were in danger and Joker had no defined character reason for leaving, he would come and save you, or at the very least try. If he did say, the opposite of that, running away from the most important battle in history when it's also clearly established that he's stubborn, then that would be a break in the logic of the story. Joker has just now completely broken character, and as such is much harder to empathize with. Since he's harder to empathize with, things that happen to him have less emotional impact. That's what a plot hole is. A piece of information that contradicts the internal logic of the story to the detriment of the direction the story is headed.[/QUOTE] i dont get how people can say there is "logic" in mass effect when the reapers have mind control and functions that are literally beyond human comprehension [editline]20th March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=jeimizu;35227382]I would be ok with that if they hadn't already teased post-ending DLC. They told the story they wanted to tell, and in the future will tell the rest of it for a small fee.[/QUOTE] yep

[QUOTE=Vedicardi;35227242]I already did. you just have to think about the implications of each one. I mean each ending clearly states what it will "do," and all of the three options presented are significantly different. I can't argue how it is shown to occur varies at all, but the concepts of [sp]synthesis, or control of the reapers, or destroying ALL synthetic life[/sp] are massive within the context of that universe. [editline]20th March 2012[/editline] we can nitpick all day lol [editline]20th March 2012[/editline] you're only assuming it is a hole in the first place.[/QUOTE] Those are massive choices you're right, but the way they were presented was abysmal. Also there remains as I understand no available option to completely disown or neglect everything the godchild thing at the end gives you as an available choice.It's especially abrupt as apparently the whole game focuses on having you unify the universe only resulting in a choice to have you make the whole universe synthetic which completely defeats the idea of diversity created throughout your unification of the many races, and the only two other choices are some totally off-radar regarding any choice that makes sense given the rest of the games themes. The other choices are abysmal too and I don't mean yet again just in their presentation. Destroying all the mass relays would result in every species being stranded on a post-apocolyptic earth, how the fuck would they survive. Also why would Shepard do this, the massive deaths that would be caused by doing so would be far greater then any Reaper destruction, I get it's the renegade option but as an 'Evil' option for a character who's traversed so far even in a Renegade context to save the universe it makes literally no sense. Essentially the biggest problem though is there exists no option for what you spent or at least most people spent the majority of the game doing, which is unifying the different races and kicking the reapers ass out of the galaxy. It's almost as if like one person put it, that a different team wrote the ending of the game and another wrote the rest of it because of how horribly they mesh together, not including the plot holes and the outright misleading and disingenuous statements from Bioware regarding how significantly, and by significant they said the endings would be almost indistinguishable from another, once again 98% similar. Please bare in mind the terribad presentation with 98% the same content, different colored explosions and 2% actual new choice based content.

[QUOTE=thisispain;35227262]only in context perhaps, not in intent. ultimately people are pissed off because the story isn't what they wanted. [editline]20th March 2012[/editline] it's admired for its non-linear storylines and ambiguity.[/QUOTE] One can have murderous feelings and still punch someone in the arm as a jest of friendship. Just because it's likely that consumers feel that it should be changed because they didn't like it doesn't mean they're commanding that it be changed because they're entitled to it. There is a difference between statements based in emotion and statements based in logic, and I see nothing wrong with the latter.

[QUOTE=Vedicardi;35227331]the only reason it was so well received is they never really presented you with the false notion of "options" like mass effect does, and when they "take it away," the way in which they do it is so overt and in your face you can't really help but appreciate it, even without thinking about it.[/QUOTE] "Appreciate" and "be frustrated by" seem to be synonymous now.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;35227384]On the other hand, we have things like Star Trek and Mass Effect. Well developed universes with clearly defined and established limits.[/QUOTE] star trek constantly changes and retcons random shit. have you seen Star Trek Generations? that movie made no sense but you have to accept it based on the terms of it being Star Trek. i don't think mass effect's ending is anything but shit either but i don't think a story is broken just because it takes a few liberties with its story. some movies rely on plot holes to communicate something, one example being french new wave.

[QUOTE=Drax-Quin;35227404]Those are massive choices you're right, but the way they were presented was abysmal, also there remains as I understand no available option to completely disown or neglect everything the godchild thing at the end gives you as an available choice. It's especially abrupt as apparently the whole game focuses on having you unify the universe only resulting in a choice to have you make the whole universe synthetic which completely defeats the idea of diversity created throughout your unification of the many races. The other choices are abysmal too and I don't mean yet again just in their presentation. Destroying all the mass relays would result in every species being stranded on a post-apocolyptic earth, how the fuck would they survive. Essentially there exists no option for what you spent or at least most people spent the majority of the game doing, which is unifying the different races and kicking the reapers ass out of the galaxy. And like I said the above isn't even considering the terribad presentation with 98% the same content, different colored explosions and 2% actual new choice based content.[/QUOTE] yeah I said the presentation was the bad but that doesn't take away from the gravity of the choices. yeah the lack of that ending sucks but it would be kinda silly as it would negate everything you'd done up to that point far more than the other options. and [sp]destroy the mass relays happens in every ending so it doesn't matter what you choose[/sp] in my eyes you are not promoting diversity at all, you are trying to bridge the gap between humans and synthetics and other races (if you chose to play the game that way). merging them is the ultimate form of that. Also it's a great solution to the issue that spawned the reapers. I think the fact all the endings are ultimately, so bleak in their nature is great. Dark sci-fi huhuhu

[QUOTE=Vedicardi;35227395]i dont get how people can say there is "logic" in mass effect when the reapers have mind control and functions that are literally beyond human comprehension[/QUOTE] As Scorpio himself said, Mass Effect generally adheres to its own internal consistency very, very well. The "space magic" at the end of ME3 completely defies every single thing about the trilogy thus far. It even gets rid of Shepard's ability to paragon/renegade his way through a conversation, and instead cheapens the character by just accepting whatever StarChild tells him.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;35227418]Just because it's likely that consumers feel that it should be changed because they didn't like it doesn't mean they're commanding that it be changed because they're entitled to it. There is a difference between statements based in emotion and statements based in logic, and I see nothing wrong with the latter.[/QUOTE] yeah that's fair.

[QUOTE=Vedicardi;35227395]i dont get how people can say there is "logic" in mass effect when the reapers have mind control and functions that are literally beyond human comprehension [editline]20th March 2012[/editline] yep[/QUOTE] Basic sci-fi writing skills 101: [url]http://www.avclub.com/articles/why-fictions-freest-genres-need-its-most-rigid-rul,65053/[/url] In summation: "The problem with pulling this kind of thing the wrong way in a speculative-fiction story is that science fiction, fantasy, and horror don’t necessarily share mainstream fiction’s baseline expectations for how reality works, and it’s far too easy to leave audiences feeling cheated, annoyed, or just plain confused when the rules change abruptly, or were ill-defined in the first place"

[QUOTE=thisispain;35227444]star trek constantly changes and retcons random shit. have you seen Star Trek Generations? that movie made no sense but you have to accept it based on the terms of it being Star Trek. i don't think mass effect's ending is anything but shit either but i don't think a story is broken just because it takes a few liberties with its story. some movies rely on plot holes to communicate something, one example being french new wave.[/QUOTE] But Star Trek Generations was complete shit for that reason. It was established to be a Star Trek movie that acts within the confines of the Star Trek universe and then it presents a series of, dare I say, illogical actions and events that don't mesh with the established universe, resulting in a confusing and muddled mess. Generations is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;35227443]"Appreciate" and "be frustrated by" seem to be synonymous now.[/QUOTE] I was referring to bioshock, where you never had choices other than how you chose to kill people and if you killed little sisters (which ultimately did have an effect on the ending) as opposed to how you spoke to people etc etc [editline]20th March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Drax-Quin;35227453]Basic sci-fi writing skills 101: [url]http://www.avclub.com/articles/why-fictions-freest-genres-need-its-most-rigid-rul,65053/[/url][/QUOTE] the fact reapers can do this is established in the very first game...

[QUOTE=Drax-Quin;35227453]Basic sci-fi writing skills 101: [url]http://thebitterscriptreader.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/internal-rules-and-logic-in-sci-fi.html[/url][/QUOTE] did you read the part about random changes to provide a conclusion? to be honest i don't see how shepard could really shoot himself out in the end, that's how convoluted the story-line became. a failure in the chekov's gun principle.

[QUOTE=Vedicardi;35227462]I was referring to bioshock, where you never had choices other than how you chose to kill people and if you killed little sisters (which ultimately did have an effect on the ending) as opposed to how you spoke to people etc etc[/QUOTE] Bioshock used the common tropes of FPS's in a clever and insightful way to tell a story about the nature of choice and self determination, a theme that fit in with the Randian utopia that served as the backdrop. You aren't frustrated when control is taken away from you in Bioshock because you're never focusing on choice, you're focusing on advancing through the plot.

[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;35227449]As Scorpio himself said, Mass Effect generally adheres to its own internal consistency very, very well. The "space magic" at the end of ME3 completely defies every single thing about the trilogy thus far. It even gets rid of Shepard's ability to paragon/renegade his way through a conversation, and instead cheapens the character by just accepting whatever StarChild tells him.[/QUOTE] well you can turn off the game lol. your final choice is the ultimate "paragon/renegade." what did you expect, shepard to go "well this isn't very nice" and the he'd go "oh okay here I just made up another bullshit choice" or alternatively "fuck you!" and then you'd get another bullshit choice?

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;35227457]But Star Trek Generations was complete shit for that reason. It was established to be a Star Trek movie that acts within the confines of the Star Trek universe and then it presents a series of, dare I say, illogical actions and events that don't mesh with the established universe, resulting in a confusing and muddled mess. Generations is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.[/QUOTE] oh i don't agree with that at all. star trek is known for not making any fucking sense logically. inertia dampers, warp drives, and guns do whatever the fuck they want to fit the ending of the plot-line. data or worf do something out of character and it's said that they are learning.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;35227487]Bioshock used the common tropes of FPS's in a clever and insightful way to tell a story about the nature of choice and self determination, a theme that fit in with the Randian utopia that served as the backdrop. You aren't frustrated when control is taken away from you in Bioshock because you're never focusing on choice, you're focusing on advancing through the plot.[/QUOTE] that's exactly what I was saying. People liked when the illusion of choice was taken away because there was so little choice given to you in the first place. if they did something similar in mass effect people would be furious (as you can see now) even though it's no different.

[QUOTE=Vedicardi;35227489]well you can turn off the game lol. your final choice is the ultimate "paragon/renegade." what did you expect, shepard to go "well this isn't very nice" and the he'd go "oh okay here I just made up another bullshit choice" or alternatively "fuck you!" and then you'd get another bullshit choice?[/QUOTE] Actually, I was 100% expecting Shepard to be able to tell the StarChild to go fuck itself. Matter of fact, I maintain that's how it should have been since it's how Shepard has handled every single decision he doesn't disagree with. And if the StarChild refused to give me anything better, I'd leave the Crucible alone, radio Hackett and tell them that we're going to win this war the conventional way. Instead, for the first time in his life, Shepard simply accepts what's presented to him and doesn't argue it at all.

[QUOTE=thisispain;35227478]did you read the part about random changes to provide a conclusion? to be honest i don't see how shepard could really shoot himself out in the end, that's how convoluted the story-line became. a failure in the chekov's gun principle.[/QUOTE] And that's where a decision has to be made. Do you adhere to the emotional direction of the series and break the logic of the universe, or do you adhere to the logic of the universe and deliver an emotionally lacking ending? Obviously, torn between the two, Hudson decided to fulfill neither.

[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;35227506]Actually, I was 100% expecting Shepard to be able to tell the StarChild to go fuck itself. Matter of fact, I maintain that's how it should have been since it's how Shepard has handled every single decision he doesn't disagree with. And if the StarChild refused to give me anything better, I'd leave the Crucible alone, radio Hackett and tell them that we're going to win this war the conventional way. Instead, for the first time in his life, Shepard simply accepts what's presented to him and doesn't argue it at all.[/QUOTE] For one, I don't appreciate you referring to shep as a man!!! sure, that should've been an option, but it wasn't and it wasn't for a reason. [editline]20th March 2012[/editline] I would've liked that as an option at least, it would've been interesting

[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;35227506] I'd leave the Crucible alone, radio Hackett and tell them that we're going to win this war the conventional way. [/QUOTE] i can honestly say that would be an even worse ending.

[QUOTE=Vedicardi;35227500]that's exactly what I was saying. People liked when the illusion of choice was taken away because there was so little choice given to you in the first place. if they did something similar in mass effect people would be furious (as you can see now) even though it's no different.[/QUOTE] Except you miss the point of the games. Mass Effect is about shaping your character and your universe through your decisions. Decision is a core element of how the story is conveyed. Take it away, without reason especially, and you take away the attachment of the audience to the plot. Bioshock was linear, shooting based, and simple. You were given objectives and you fulfilled them. You never thought to do anything else because the option was never presented. This quirk of how the brain works is what that twist was about, but that's not what the game was about. If the twist was instead that you were attacked by a splicer and were suddenly rendered helpless for no adequately explained reason, people would be just as furious. Because that would be breaking the logic of the game, wherein splicers are easily dispatched threats that you would have no trouble fending off.