IliyaMoroumetz's forum posts

  • 16 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by IliyaMoroumetz (20 posts) -

Only idiots believe their stories are immune to criticism.

#2 Edited by IliyaMoroumetz (20 posts) -

@Rawrz said:

8 months ago people were acting like whiny idiots. To start petitions, and threaten to sue a company over an ending to a stupid video game is insane. The msot I got out of there discussion is that the ending was bad and there are other parts mishandled as well but overall it was still a great game. Still baffles me how people will claim its bad over 10 minutes when the rest of it is really quite good.

Because the resolution is just as important as the hook in the first ten minutes. If you can't hook people in, then you've got a bad game. If you've no good resolution to make people feel like the time they used was well spent, then you have a bad game. Granted, 'good' can be a relative term, but you get the idea.

#3 Edited by IliyaMoroumetz (20 posts) -

@TorMasturba said:

@thabigred said:

@Rasmoss said:

they pretty much agree with the stuff everone complained about 8 months ago, even though they and the entire gaming press called those people self entitled whiners at the time.

They disliked the ending that Bioware created for ME3 but they hated even more editing the ending because changing it after the fact is worse.

Especially when they're doing so to please their crowd.

I mean sure Bioware were all about listening to their audience but that should only go so far. And Bioware/EA seem to forget that some people will never see the new DLC endings/general story edits, so they may not get the next story plots in the next game. Even if it is going to be a completely seperate but linked storyline.

There's a fine line between your own 'artistic vision' and 'a product to sell' that needs to be paid attention to. While I agree that companies need to make their products the way they do in order to make a profit, they should never forget, however, that the customers should have a part in it or should at least be considered/consulted with, since it's their money they intend to part with.

It's a dangerous balancing act.

#4 Edited by IliyaMoroumetz (20 posts) -

Very well, tell me of a well done, enjoyable, and a memorable story where a vital character appeared at the end of a story? Because I sure can't think of any. You know why? It's sloppy. It says, "I can't think of any other way to fill the plot holes I made myself with the established characters, so, I have to bring in another character out of nowhere."

You say the Catalyst is not a DEM, when you go on to list EXACTLY what it does! It provides the solution! It brings forth the answers! I can cannot conceive how anyone would not be able to make the connection. Or are you rewriting the definitions of things as we speak just so you can be right?

You were, have been, and still are, being insulting by the condescending tone and ignoring the parts of my arguments that dare stand up to your 'opinions'.

This has nothing to do with what I consider to be or not to be immoral, again another point that you came to by yourself. The fact that it just so happens that every one of those choices comes with a caveat seems like they were, again, trying to hard to be 'profound' or other such nonsense. It took everything you worked for and condensed it down into something that instead of providing you with a sense of accomplishment, if leaves you feeling sick to your stomach and disgusted with the writers. Oh yes, and the Refusal Ending, which can be compared to Casey Hudson, stomping his feet, giving you the bird because you can't appreciate his 'artistic vision' and pretty much says "Rocks Fall, everybody dies'. Yeah, that's quality story telling right there.

Just so happens that what makes Synthesis so egregious is the fact that you are FORCING this state on the rest of the galaxy. I could name another action of forcing one's self upon another, but that's a dicey subject enough as it is, but that's how it seems and what I've seen it compared to. I mean, seriously, I think you're giving the writers far too much credit.

Considering that most of the DLC that's been available does little more than patch up the holes the original ending did speaks quite a bit.

And no, I was not one of those demanding the ending be changed. I was ready to go about my way and enjoy other games that wouldn't insult my intelligence by pretending to be something it's not and bid the whole series and the company good bye. Really; I've been told that they guys at Bioware were surprised at the reaction and to that, I want to hold my hands to my face and wonder what they were thinking.

Considering how little they built up the MacGuffin Crucible, they don't really make me care about where it came from. Because all the revealed plot points have made me wonder if they even knew how to finish this game in the first place; which makes me believe the rumor that Hudson and Walters did the ending themselves with no peer review at all, has some basis in reality.

And thank you for acknowledging your ass-hatery. I'm sure the Bioware writers and staff are happy you're coming to their defense after their delicate feelings were hurt after discovering people weren't falling head over heels in love with a plot twist that would sicken M. Knight Shyamaylan.

And since when did I ever claim that I wanted overused tropes? Score another for 'you came to that on your own'. Might want to remember that most stories nowadays are comprised of overused tropes. It's the execution of the story that matters. And before you say anything, this minor point is about tropes, not stories themselves.

If you're referring to any kind of story where some one can be as abstract as they want, they can do that. They can be as 'artistic' as they want, however, when you're making a commercial product, you have to be very careful with how you present you 'vision' and, considering the condescending and arrogant tone of both the gaming press and Bioware itself, we're just mental plebeians who should just take what we're given and never complain.

Really, the crux of your entire argument is that we should have just said nothing and allow the 'one ending/three colors' to stay as it was. I hate pulling this view out, but this is one of the few times where the consensus was right. That ending sucked. You can twist words as much as you like, defend it to your dying breath, but it will not change the fact that something which was meant to make people satisfied garnered such a negative reaction was nothing less than bad.

This was a VIDEO GAME. One of the ends of video games are meant to bring enjoyment, as it is a hobby. You know what happens when a game I play does the kind of stupid things ME3 does? I go elsewhere and never look back because they have lost my trust and their subsequent actions have lost me as a customer.

I distinctly recall you speaking against ME4, but you've since edited your first post and now I can't prove it.

With that; good night. I'm tired of arguing with apologists.

#5 Edited by IliyaMoroumetz (20 posts) -

Whether there's a rule or not, most stories that indulge bringing in a new character that late in the game are seldom good, for the aforementioned reasons. We have no reason to care. You want to defend it, that's you prerogative.

It is Deus Ex Machina and you can spin it all the ways until the cows come home, it does not change the general purpose of it: To come out of nowhere and magically give you an ending. That's what it does. The Crucible's a macguffin because throughout the game, we've been doing our best to put it together, but that's another subject you can be condescending, and wrong, about.

It was unnecessary because you were putting words in my mouth. Because I had the sheer audacity to come out and say that the ending was bad on a technical level, you had to come out of nowhere to not only tell me I'm wrong, but to insult me too. But since we're getting into this subject, how is it 'not' offensive to force Synthesis on the galaxy ? Or to completely kill EDI and the Geth just after their gained sentience? Or to become the basic code of the very things you've been fighting since ME1?

That argument is moot on account that there was no indication of a Crucible from ME1 or 2. Did I have a feeling that the galaxy was going to be irrevocably changed at the end of the story at the time? Of course. Seeing the status quo change is a staple of stories in video games.

Not only are you putting words in my mouth again, you're being an ass about it. And yes, I would have been ok with it, because if that was the case, the story would have changed to have been us fighting against the Catalyst's stupid paradigms from day one or something of that variety.

Time has everything to do with it. In addition, purpose, which I see you've casually glossed over since it doesn't suit your argument. We understand the purpose of characters the longer exposure we have with them. You can't sympathize or like a character on a personal level when you've only met them for five to ten minutes. And no, we were not supposed to sympathize with Vigil on account he had nothing to sympathize with.

You must have read wrong, because Mass Effect 4 is a surety, which pretty much refutes your point on this matter. And bear in mind; you were the one that came out of the gate swinging.

Prequels are rarely, if ever, justified.

#6 Edited by IliyaMoroumetz (20 posts) -


Wow. Your first post and it's summed up in one big 'WHOOSH!". And your defense is pretty feeble based on your opinion.

For one: To analyze the ending on a technical level, they introduced the Starbrat with no preamble and no warning. In good stories, you do not introduce characters THIS pivotal at the last scene. Yes, there are Deus Ex Machina devices that can be used effectively, but this was done terribly. Any writer worth their weight in salt understands this. You remember why people didn't like the Second Matrix movie, aside from how stupid it was? The Architect was the exact same thing as the Catalyst, bringing the action of what you expected in a Mass Effect game to a screeching halt with more information that should have been spread out throughout the game instead of dumping it all over your head in one instant.

Two: I said they were offensive. And that's it. You came up with the whole 'immoral' bent by yourself. So, perhaps you should try and take things at face value or ask me to explain my reasoning instead of judging me from your ivory tower, claiming that you know my thoughts as you put words in my mouth erroneously. And no, they have no merit, because they all go completely against the grain of what you have done, unless you done goofed and ended up getting more people killed by your bad choices, but that's a personal character flaw.

Three: You are wrong about EDI and Vigil being the same as the Catalyst for the following reasons: Neither one of them were introduced after the last combat encounter, EDI had significant exposure throughout the story, and Vigil's purpose was to be a record of the Protheans (not determine the fate of the galaxy).

Fourth: You must be out of the loop, junior. ME4's pretty much confirmed. Casey Hudson even tweeted that he was asking for ideas.

Finally: And no. From a technical standpoint, to go backwards after coming this far is counter productive. Why? Because we all know how it ends, with Casey Hudson and Mac Walters trying, and failing, to emulate 2001: A Space Odyssey. You may like such a decision, but I, and presumably others, will not.

#7 Posted by IliyaMoroumetz (20 posts) -

I'm just glad that Brad(?) came to the same conclusion that I did that Control was probably the least offensive of the endings.

That said, the endings are still crap.

I as a writer, felt betrayed and intellectually insulted that they had to resort to using the starbrat to explain 'everything' right at the end. It brought the game to a screeching halt and it, as they said on the cast, tarnished the name of Mass Effect.

If they do make a Mass Effect 4, however, there is one way they can make it post ME3 without having to creatively bankrupt themselves by making a prequel: just ignore the endings.

If they just ignore the endings, they can show the universe going forward. Besides, making a prequel would be a major copout. Also, it's basically them admitting that they can't go anywhere else but backwards.

#8 Posted by IliyaMoroumetz (20 posts) -


I heard that story too. Gah. I sure hope that wasn't what happened, but a more cynical part of me believes that someone in Hudson and Mac Walters' position would do that because they wanted to be 'profound'. And, irony of ironies, Hudson did say he wanted ME3 to be memorable. Well, he got his wish. Just not in the way he wanted. XD

#9 Posted by IliyaMoroumetz (20 posts) -

@Dylabaloo: A good point. I will admit, there is a part of me that thinks full-heartedly, that you can't choose the consequences, a game like Mass Effect, where player agency is the main selling point, to suddenly have that choice taken away at the last minute is very, very jarring.

Now, with Walking Dead, I completely agree. Perhaps it was because the choices were more personal and not 'OMG! WE HAS TO SAVES TEH GALAXIE!", that made those choices more agreeable.

While I also agree that Hudson was the one that ultimately made the decision, he made a very poor one. I've said it once before, but it bears repeating. He was trying to be Stanley Kubrick, creating his own take on A Space Odyssey: 2001. What it ended up looking like was some piece of self-aggrandizing tripe you'd expect from M. Night Shyamalan.

And the refusal ending? That was just him stomping his feet, giving you the bird, and him screaming, "YOU DUN"T UNDERSTAND MY GENIOUS! F*CK YOU! EVERYBURDY DIES!"

I'm not a published writer, however, I've been writing, watching movies, and playing games long enough to know when a story is bad. Is not the point of these hobbies to give pleasure? And while I admit, everyone has different tastes, the fact that so many people got up in arms over an ending that answered nothing and painted a bleak picture after everything we did to try and save the galaxy; made me utterly loathe the term 'artistic integrity'. Casey Hudson is not an artist, therefore, he has no integrity to defend.

#10 Posted by IliyaMoroumetz (20 posts) -


We're not crazy. We're disappointed. That stupid ending went against everything you did and what the games stood for. And that's what this thread is about. Disappointments. When an ending of a game does not satisfy, then it ruins the experience for you and makes you throw your hands up in the air and say, "Why bother?"

Seriously, the next person to tell me 'it's not the goal, but the journey that matters' is going to be strapped down to a chair and forced to watch Berlin Alexanderplatz, followed by the 7th Seal, and topped off with watching the unriffed version of Manos: The Hands of Fate!

  • 16 results
  • 1
  • 2