Mass Effect 3 Spoiler Thread so we can talk about [REDACTED]

[RickH]

Pish, that's easy. Although there were certainly reactions to those other games you mentioned, you're right that ME3 is a very different situation. Off the top of my head, I'd guess it's a combination of four things:

1) The exaggerated sense of entitlement that comes with playing three games that sold people a bill of goods about player agency, and kept up a steady stream of content between releases.

2) It's EA. Everyone hates EA because it's so easy to do.

3) A handful of very loud people driving a big band wagon, basically creating their own narrative about the game and bouncing it around in their echo chamber.

4) Writing is starting to matter more to people now that videogames are doing a better job of showcasing good writing.

-Tom

Since you objected to my characterization of you being condescending a few days ago, I've been mulling it over. As best as I can tell, you don't even know you are doing it.

When I use the word "condescending," what I mean is that your viewpoint presumes that the people who you are addressing ("enders" in this case) simply lack sufficent knowledge and sophistication to agree with you. So you verbally pat them on the head and tell them to go play elsewhere. It's a common enough tactic: by denying the legitimacy of the person making the argument, you've "won" even before you address the merits.

For example, three of the four points you listed above assume that the people who disagree with you are simply not rational people entitled to a viewpoint worth considering.

(1) "exaggerated sense of entitlement" It's not engagement, it's not affection for the fictional world, it's not frustration with the denouement of a long journey. It's entitlement, a word that indicates immaturity, selfishness, and illegitimate demands. But wait, it's not just entitlement, it's also exaggerated. Why take these idiots seriously?

(2) "Everyone hates EA because it's so easy to do." It's not an independent judgment about the game, it's just groupthink and bandwagoning. Since the complainers were biased against the publisher in the first place, why be surprised when they express dissatisfation? Since the criticism originates from irrational bias, there is no point to addressing it. Why take these idiots seriously?

(3) "very loud people . . . bouncing it around in their echo chamber" People in echo chambers are closed minded fools who only want to hear their own voices come back at them. Since we have already concluded they don't want to engage in a serious discussion, there is no point to addressing the merits of their statements. Why take these idiots seriously?

(4) This one was just a bullet point. So I'll use this space to address the "enders" trope. Associating people who disagree with you with irrational conspiracy theorists is, I must admit, a masterstroke of non-substantive verbal engagement (I can't bring myself to call it argument). Judging from all the forum puppies barking the word in your wake, it worked like a charm. Disagreement = kook. Why take these idiots seriously?

As to the substance of your arguments, it appears to me that you are reflexively siding with the creator of the product versus the consumer. If the creator has an absolute right to tell the story he wants to tell, then the consumer is an ungrateful lout for objecting to what has been crafted. Arguing for changes in a completed work is an affront to artistic integrity and an insult to the creator. Indeed, dissatisfaction by the consumer is presumptive proof of a bold artistic statement that is unafraid of criticizm.

Personally, I don't agree. Games, like movies, are products of mass appeal made by sprawling collaborations. Studios use focus groups and test audiences to see if the product is satisfying to mass audiences. Mass-market games need to grow up and apply the same sort of thinking rather than letting a handful of rogue writers mess up a franchise for the long term. And yes, I do think that's a legitimate viewpoint. : P

[Tom Chick]

I do, in fact, think the overdramatic histrionic Enders are idiots, so that might be why it sounds like I'm being condescending to them. Your problem is that you assume I'm also lumping in people who merely don't like the ending of Mass Effect 3. Which, as I've said many many times, isn't the case.

-Tom

[rattledrush]

I do think that to some extent Tom is right about the sense of entitlement. That said, I think that sense of entitlement is kinda fair and comes out of the more tangible sense of investment. It's less "exaggerated", and more simply commensurate with the time and money invested.

Imagine youre a mass effect super fan: you bought all the DLC, you had 3 different playthroughs so you could see everything, etc. Then imagine how youd feel when you reached the original ending. This wasnt some pure visceral shooter that was worth it for the gameplay alone— there were tedious mining minigames! So yeah, that agency/story stuff was important.

Like most people, I was frustrated with the ending, I thought it was really really bad, but I got over it. The matrix had a really bad synthesis ending too and I spend exactly zero time thinking about it. What does bother me though, is when people try and tell other people what theyre allowed to be upset about.

People didnt invest themselves into mass effect because of the tight gameplay, it was, as much as anything, the unique sense of player agency in a space opera. Moreover, people didnt invest 10 bucks and 2 hours of their lives— superfans probably invested about $300, and that's before factoring in all the hours and replay hours, expecting divergent outcomes.

At what point are paying customers allowed to express their displeasure? $500? More?

This isnt people complaining about the arty end of the sopranos, and it's not people complaining about the end of gears of war or something when the story is entirely superfluous. Communicated or not, it's about what people thought they were buying vs. what they feel like they got, and the chasm in between, filled with their money and time.

Were promises made that weren't kept? Then why is the customer wrong? Because game developers lie and exaggerate all the time? Is that fair?

Usually it's the superfan who is first to defend a piece of art, try and halfway fanfic a better interpretation(look at indoctrination theory). Instead, it was mostly the people with the least invested who defended the original set of endings. Why is that?

[Morrolan]

Usually it's the superfan who is first to defend a piece of art, try and halfway fanfic a better interpretation(look at indoctrination theory). Instead, it was mostly the people with the least invested who defended the original set of endings. Why is that?

As far as the superfan goes once they lose......... faith in something they feel a huge sense of betrayal. The most vocal critics of Bioware, especially recently are former fans.

[James Gutierrez]

Edit: what Pogue Mahone said. I ended up playing ME1-ME3 nearly without any gaps between them, and from "We are infinitely your betters, and you could not possibly understand our motives" to "We murder you so someone else won't have to" was kinda jarring.

Except it wasn't "we murder you"; it was "we reap you". "Reaping" = harvesting or collecting. The whole point of the Reapers is that the physics of evolution inevitably lead to the domination of the galaxy by a synthetic monoculture. The Reapers were simply the first to arrive at that state. So they show up when organic life is at its cultural peak, harvest a sample for preservation, then wipe the slate clean and watch the next cycle. Meanwhile, they nip in the bud any synthetic threat to their dominance, hence the "we're preventing chaos" angle. They're zookeepers. Or gardeners. It may not be the ending you want, but it's not illogical -- except to the extent that all post-singularity SF gets a little wonky.

That said, I agree that the shift from "heroic space opera" to "post-singularity SF" was jarring. From a critical perspective I'm glad they did it, as it provides a nice contrast to ME1 and some fodder for discussion of the relationship between games and cinema.

[Tim James]

People didnt invest themselves into mass effect because of the tight gameplay, it was, as much as anything, the unique sense of player agency in a space opera.

Well, you can certainly call it unique.

[James Gutierrez]

People didnt invest themselves into mass effect because of the tight gameplay, it was, as much as anything, the unique sense of player agency in a space opera. Moreover, people didnt invest 10 bucks and 2 hours of their lives— superfans probably invested about $300, and that's before factoring in all the hours and replay hours, expecting divergent outcomes.

I think the promise of agency is a bit overblown. The big innovation in ME1 was that they pulled back the curtain and said, 'Look, we both know it's a story. Your motivations are going to be determined by the plot points we introduce and the end state we're aiming for.' So they did away with the illusory motivational dichotomy of good/evil and replaced it with the stylistic dichotomy of paragon/renegade. The intent is clearly that you are going to end up at the same place but meanwhile you have control over the experience and the flavor of the journey.

I also think that when people complain about the lack of agency at the end of ME3, they're really complaining about the lack of spectacle. The possible outcomes of ME3 are objectively much more divergent than ME1, where you basically just press a button to decide whether the council lives or dies. Yet everyone loved ME1 because it hit all of the space opera action movie beats so perfectly. Contrast that with ME2, which actually had lasting consequences and yet the internet conversation was dominated by complaints about points of no return and how to get the perfect outcome. Players in this genre (myself included) don't want agency (and in fact it's a silly term to use in this context); they want power-fantasy and a good show. If you want agency and divergent outcomes go play Tetris.

[James Gutierrez]

And if you are going to reveal why the Reapers do what they do, USE A GODDAMNED REAPER, not a hologram of Billy G. Whillickers. You want to use avatars, have Mordin for synthesis, Legion for control and who the hell ever for Destroy. Or write a better ending (shit bonerz option)

See, I agree that the avatar boy was a failure, but one of execution not intent. I think it might have been cool if they had gone with the idea that the Reaper-mind wants to present an avatar that would make you amenable to dialogue, but it is so alien that it fails in some fundamentally creepy way. Like use the little boy visual but voiced by Peter Stormare. Or just have it desperately go through a bunch of impressions, that might have been funny at least.

[Brad Grenz]

I also think that when people complain about the lack of agency at the end of ME3, they're really complaining about the lack of spectacle. The possible outcomes of ME3 are objectively much more divergent than ME1, where you basically just press a button to decide whether the council lives or dies. Yet everyone loved ME1 because it hit all of the space opera action movie beats so perfectly. Contrast that with ME2, which actually had lasting consequences and yet the internet conversation was dominated by complaints about points of no return and how to get the perfect outcome. Players in this genre (myself included) don't want agency (and in fact it's a silly term to use in this context); they want power-fantasy and a good show. If you want agency and divergent outcomes go play Tetris.

This is spot on. The familiar refrain that "the endings were all the same" has everything to do with the fact that they were visually too similar and nothing to do with the vastly different outcomes that the game is actually implying. It always struck me as a demand for more uninterrupted CGI and not additional differentiation.

[Grifman]

Yes, this was part of it. ME1 had a climactic space battle, fight through the Citadel, and a boss fight. ME2 had a "suicide mission" where your choices could impact who lived and died, then another boss fight. ME3 did have fight to get to the beam of light, and glimpses of a space battle but once you got to the Crucible, it just kind of petered out. Rather than a dramatic climax, you got an underwhelming denouement.

I was expecting a bigger, better combination of the endings of ME1 and ME2. A massive space battle in which you saw your assets play a role. Another suicide mission, not just involving your squad, but seeing attacking Krogan, Geth, Turians, etc where you again had to make decisions about use of resources, who does what Shepard once again coordinating the battle. Everything that was good about the endings of the first two games, just bigger and better.

Instead we got a clone of the ending of Deus Ex 1/2, and a poor one at that. At least the endings of DE 1/2 made sense within the context of those games and their oftentimes philosophical nature. But it was way out of left field for the Mass Effect series to end on this note, IMO.

[ShivaX]

Players in this genre (myself included) don't want agency (and in fact it's a silly term to use in this context); they want power-fantasy and a good show. If you want agency and divergent outcomes go play Tetris.

Thats not true at all.

[RickH]

Except it wasn't "we murder you"; it was "we reap you". "Reaping" = harvesting or collecting.

I thought there was a lot of wasted story potential regarding the Reapers' plans for the species they were liquidating. I suspected they were inviting humanity to join their council of exalted races (albeit in liquid form), but it turned out they were basically self-important lawn mowers.

[davidf]

There was something else that nagged me about what i why i was disappointed by the end, but reading this I was THAT's it!!! Thanks Grifman!

Yes, this was part of it. ME1 had a climactic space battle, fight through the Citadel, and a boss fight. ME2 had a "suicide mission" where your choices could impact who lived and died, then another boss fight. ME3 did have fight to get to the beam of light, and glimpses of a space battle but once you got to the Crucible, it just kind of petered out. Rather than a dramatic climax, you got an underwhelming denouement.

I was expecting a bigger, better combination of the endings of ME1 and ME2. A massive space battle in which you saw your assets play a role. Another suicide mission, not just involving your squad, but seeing attacking Krogan, Geth, Turians, etc where you again had to make decisions about use of resources, who does what Shepard once again coordinating the battle. Everything that was good about the endings of the first two games, just bigger and better.

Instead we got a clone of the ending of Deus Ex 1/2, and a poor one at that. At least the endings of DE 1/2 made sense within the context of those games and their oftentimes philosophical nature. But it was way out of left field for the Mass Effect series to end on this note, IMO.

[mjgreeny75]

Finally found the time to replay the new ending, and I must say I'm positively impressed. The biggest problems I had with the original (squadmates/love interest suddenly turning their back on you and leaving, Normandy running away) where solved quite neatly IMO, so neatly in fact that I wonder if it wasn't in there before but taken out. I mean: with those new scenes in it, the running away makes sense, but I really don't understand how anyone at Bioware could ever have thought it would also make sense withóut these scenes....? Anyway, they are in now, and I like it quite a lot. Same with the added scenes after the end of the ending: they really just show what people wanted to see to make them less depressed, and they don't add anything you couldn't have imagened yourself, but it still helps providing the feeling of closure that people wanted so badly.

As for the ending of the ending itself: unlike many I allready didn't mind the originial ending so much, and now it's even improved. To me, with the extra information provided, the story is actually quite good and not illogical at all.....for a sciencefiction videogame. I wouldn't be cheering so much if this was a paper novel from a top-author, but this story as a means to connect a lot of shooting? Works for me! In fact, it works so well I will now go and play it again!

[nijimeijer]

I wanted to see the extended endings - grabbed the dlc and got all set up. Turned on the game and saw the Galaxy at War map come up. "Crap" I thought, remembering that damned thing.

Because of decay I'm back to 50% Readiness, which gives me around 3700 strength. I remember reading you need 4000+ to get access to all endings.

I don't want to play multiplayer, and I can no longer use the iOS app since it absolutely refuses to connect to their servers on my two devices.

Dammit.

[Starlight]

You need 3100 for all endings.

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/to...index/12695580

[nijimeijer]

Well then. I guess I need to set aside a couple of hours later this week. Thanks!

[Grifman]

You need 3100 for all endings.

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/to...index/12695580

Yeah they changed that. Before the game, Bioware said that you could see all the endings without MP, but that isn't what happened. They clearly lied about this, trying to get people to play MP to get enough military assets to see everything. I was pretty ticked off about their pre-release statements about this.

[pyjamarama]

So I don't know how any of you feel about fan fiction I never read any about a game but I was surprised when a blog I follow that is written by physics professor that talks about science had a entry about Mass Effect 3 and how he hated the ending so decided to write is own. I don't necessary agree with him about how bad the ending was but took a chance on reading and I say it was a pretty good one. For the most part the ending follows the real one until you have to make one of the 3 choices then it goes in interesting direction, so you can skip most of the text. Now I'm sure there is plenty of fan fiction that solves the Mass Effect 3 ending but I was never interested in searching for one given that for the most part liked the original, but if you hate the ending maybe isn't such a bad idea to search for one that you like and pretend that is how the game ended I think this one is a good alternative.

[Grifman]

So I don't know how any of you feel about fan fiction I never read any about a game but I was surprised when a blog I follow that is written by physics professor that talks about science had a entry about Mass Effect 3 and how he hated the ending so decided to write is own. I don't necessary agree with him about how bad the ending was but took a chance on reading and I say it was a pretty good one. For the most part the ending follows the real one until you have to make one of the 3 choices then it goes in interesting direction, so you can skip most of the text. Now I'm sure there is plenty of fan fiction that solves the Mass Effect 3 ending but I was never interested in searching for one given that for the most part liked the original, but if you hate the ending maybe isn't such a bad idea to search for one that you like and pretend that is how the game ended I think this one is a good alternative.

I've read a couple of different proposed endings but that one was very good with a nice twist. Thanks for sharing.

[Starlight]

I still like Renegade Reinterpretations myself.

[Murbella]

Yeah they changed that. Before the game, Bioware said that you could see all the endings without MP, but that isn't what happened. They clearly lied about this, trying to get people to play MP to get enough military assets to see everything. I was pretty ticked off about their pre-release statements about this.

Pretty sure it wasn't a lie, you just had to do like every side mission.

[MrCoffee]

Nah, not even with every side mission and every spot on the map searched you could see all the endings, especially the "shepard survives" one in the destroy ending.

[sangkancil99]

First of all, people complained that the different endings just show different colours of space magic shooting off into the universe.

Now people are complaining that they can't see the different endings (which according to them are just different colours of space magic shooting off into the universe) because they don't play MP.

Hmm, spot the contradictions.

[mrcjhicks]

First of all, people complained that the different endings just show different colours of space magic shooting off into the universe.

Now people are complaining that they can't see the different endings (which according to them are just different colours of space magic shooting off into the universe) because they don't play MP.

Hmm, spot the contradictions.

Turd vs Turd Sandwich: Fight!

[Grifman]

Pretty sure it wasn't a lie, you just had to do like every side mission.

Wrong, you can do every side mission and not be able to reach the minimum amount of war assets required. That's been confirmed by any number of people.

[Grifman]

First of all, people complained that the different endings just show different colours of space magic shooting off into the universe.

Correct.

Now people are complaining that they can't see the different endings (which according to them are just different colours of space magic shooting off into the universe) because they don't play MP.

The complaint isn't so much that you couldn't see the "different" endings but that Bioware did not tell the truth about the ability to do do. It does to their credibility.

Hmm, spot the contradictions.

See if you can spot the inability to understand the real issue.

[sangkancil99]

The complaint isn't so much that you couldn't see the "different" endings but that Bioware did not tell the truth about the ability to do do. It does to their credibility.

See if you can spot the inability to understand the real issue.

Again, so what? Are people actually whining about Bioware's truth telling traits when the end result is still (according to these people) the same crappy ending?

Bioware tells the truth: end result = crappy ending
Bioware doesn't tell the truth: end result = crappy ending
What's the difference?

So here's my understanding of the issue: you 're telling me that everyone would feel so much better if Bioware said you would need to invest time in MP to get...the same crappy ending. Wouldn't that inflamed the situation? I can see the posts now: "I invested 50 hours in MP so that I can see a different space magic colour!!!? But hey since Bioware is upfront and truthful, I feel good already":)

[Destarius]

Again, so what? Are people actually whining about Bioware's truth telling traits when the end result is still (according to these people) the same crappy ending?

Good to know you don't value integrity.

[Murbella]

The phrase adding insult to injury comes to mind