strangematter

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

Cant beleive people are still up in arms about it. Get over it. Go outside,@Klei said:

People shouldn't bitch about the ending. You don't like it, fine, but it's not yours to change. Want to write a better story? Write a fucking book.

But then they wouldnt have anything to complain about. I liked ME3 great game.

Of course people should bitch about the ending. Anything that claims artistic credibility makes itself the subject of critical analysis. If your answer is "stop thinking about it and go outside" then you are offering nothing of value to the discussion and are, in general, part of the problem.

@JasonGeorge said:

@strangematter said:

@joku2002 said:

Wow alot of sucking up to developers recently. When did giantbomb become the Fox News of gaming journalism.

That's a bit harsh. At least Patrick is conceding that one of the major grievances is loss of player agency, even if he seems to be going out of his way to downplay that angle. Judging from the tone of the podcasts they're generally noncommittal as to whether an ending DLC is good or bad. Compare that to, say, IGN, who've basically said that a new ending would be the death of gaming as an artistic medium.

There seems to be a great deal of downplaying, evasion and deflection.

Isn't that what Bioware pays their PR people for?

Downplaying, evasion and deflection, to me, has a subtext of the critics not wanting to contribute to a controversial subject, even if they might share certain sentiments regarding that subject. It's not ideal and is hardly a paragon of journalistic rigor or originality, but it is better than intentionally shilling for an intellectually bankrupt position. Again, there are sites like IGN that are staunchly defending Bioware against the fans who have the temerity to question their immaculate authorship, which I find far more reprehensible.

@gladspooky said:

@DTKT said:

And we're back to the entitled thing.

And the "happy ending" stuff. The entire coverage of this has been truly one of the lowest point of the press.

You guys should be ashamed.

Movies: "Wow, people really hated _____'s last movie. The studio spent a lot of money on it, too, and they fell flat on their face. Guess his next one will have to be way better or he'll lose fans."

Books: "Wow, people really hated _____'s last book. He spent a lot of time writing on it, too, and he fell flat on his face. Guess his next one will have to be way better or he'll lose fans."

Video Games: "Wow, people really hated _____'s last game. What's their problem?"

People aren't used to analyzing games on any sort of critical level. There's still a level of push-back against "gettin mad about video games", the idea being that because they are "games" they are exempt from critical discourse. Which is of course nonsense, and is one of the major things holding back games from being considered genuine artistic endeavors.

If nothing else good comes out of the Mass Effect 3 shenanigans, at least the general attitude towards critical analysis will have shifted somewhat. When you actually have to sit down and figure out why the ending to ME3 fails for reasons other than "it was sad and I didnt like it" you actually start looking at things like themes and motifs and tone and narrative coherence, and that's very good for the medium.

@joku2002 said:

Wow alot of sucking up to developers recently. When did giantbomb become the Fox News of gaming journalism.

That's a bit harsh. At least Patrick is conceding that one of the major grievances is loss of player agency, even if he seems to be going out of his way to downplay that angle. Judging from the tone of the podcasts they're generally noncommittal as to whether an ending DLC is good or bad. Compare that to, say, IGN, who've basically said that a new ending would be the death of gaming as an artistic medium.

@gladspooky said:

Wow. There are still people out there who liked the Lost and Sopranos endings. Fascinating.

That's because elements of those endings, while controversial, nonetheless are in line with themes presented by their shows. Objections raised against them revolve around their failure to address viewer expectations in a satisfying way, which is certainly a problem but doesn't mean they are without merit.

The ending of Mass Effect 3 is not only a narrative disaster but fails at connecting with anything even resembling the theme of the franchise, in addition to being 100% contradictory to what the developer had told us a month before the game came out. Its failure is on a much more fundamental level than the complaints raised against The Sopranos, Lost, or hell throw Battlestar Galactica in there as well.

@Vasari said:

@Skooky: The entitlement comes from the people demanding that the ending be changed. Whether it's because you think that the ending was inconsistent, incoherent and abrupt, or that you're mad that the ending didn't take place at your wedding with Tali, the ending should absolutely not change. Bioware put that ending in the game because they thought it was a fitting end to their game, and the idea that they might change that just to make more people happy is absolutely fucking bananas.

If a game is released with broke gameplay mechanics and the developer patches them, then it is a good thing.

If a game is released with a broken story and the developer patches it, then they are compromising their artistic integrity.

What makes the story sacrosanct and immutable? Because that's the way it is in other mediums? That perspective imposes limitations on video games that do not need to be there and, and infact weakens the form by forcing adherence to restrictive conventions imported from other mediums.

@senor_delicious said:

Is it really that surprising that the ending didn't satisfy? I remember fighting a T-1000 made of human slurry at the end of ME2

While the execution was janky, the ending still satisfied. The suicide mission was wonderfully executed and at the end I got to blow up the Reaper Base as advertised, AND I got the reward of seeing the Collector General get hung out to dry. The point is that since the rest of the ending was well conceived, I was able to forgive a somewhat silly (Hudson would say "too video-gamey") endboss, because a.) it fit into the atmosphere of the game, b.) expanded the narrative in a sensible way and c.) served as an acceptable climax to the last mission. Added to that, Bioware added enough of a denouement afterwards that I felt suitably rewarded for completing the game.

@mrpandaman:

If we're only taking what we literally see in the game into account, then we HAVE to think that destroying the Mass Relays will destroy whatever solar system they're in, because the only time we have ever seen them blow-up, that's what happened. Hell, Shepard was the one who blew it up, and yet she doesn't stop to ask that question of the space kid.

In addition to being thematically inconsistent, it is also badly written. It's broken in fundamental ways that should be addressed, not praised.

@BrockNRolla said:

I'm seriously torn about whether or not Bioware should redo the ending of ME3 because I'm on the whole a believer that you create a piece of art, and then it's done. George Lucas is instantly taking his beloved classics and tweaking them, and that's a real bad thing.

On the other hand, if George Lucas decided to call a mulligan on the prequels and have actual competent writers and directors make them, I'd be pretty pleased. If failed art-- especially failed commercial art that millions of people have an emotional and financial investment in-- can be repaired, then it should be. The problem is that for most mediums there's no practical way to do that. It's one of the unique advantages that video games as a medium have.

I find it somewhat ironic that Patrick praised the ending to Lost because of its focus on the characters, when the ending of Mass Effect 3 eschews basically all of the character development you had done over the past five years in favor of a wedged in artistic statement. ME2 got it right-- while the ending was the culmination of that game's story, the device used to conclude that story was firmly centered on your crew. It balanced plot with character in a way that resonated with most of their fanbase. And by its very nature it could be either triumphant or tragic. You can clear the mission with your entire team intact, returning to the Normandy like McArthur to the Philipines, or you can suffer losses, and finish your mission at the expense of the characters you've grown close to for the preceeding 40 hours. And all of that is based on your choices. It works.

There's nothing like that in ME3. All of the character development, all of your emotional attachment to the cast is suddenly superceded by this whole new conflict that you have to make a snap judgment on. It betrays not only a lack of concern for player agency, but a failure on the part of the writer to understand what his game is even about.