TerraMantis

@Mordukai said:

@TerraMantis: Question. I LOVE the movies you mentioned in your blog and I am one of those who think the ending to ME3 is just terrible. Mind you I have no problem with what the ending was but the way it was presented. Even if you fucking loved the ending we have to agree it felt rushed and unfinished especially if you got the "extra scene". I know Casey Hudson "said" it he always intended to have this ending but his response felt like it was written by a PR person, probably was.

Personally I think what happened is another case where EA suits played "developer pretend". I think once they realized He [Casey] is going to actually finish this particular series they FREAKED OUT and went about changing the ending so they could either 1.) Exploit the series even further through DLC that they know for sure will be a must have, and 2.) Making sure Bioware leaves enough room so they can make ME4.

ME3 was a good ride no doubt about it but at the end I just felt empty and slightly depressed. This will be my first Bioware game that I played that will get multiple playthrough. They just sucked that desire right out of me.

As for your first paragraph, I see that you start by saying "Question" and then I see no question marks after that point so I don't know that everything thereafter is not so much a question as it is a statement. What's the question?

As for your second paragraph, I agree for the most part. I don't know that people came in and did this or that but I do know that the lead writer and creator of ME left BioWare only a short time before ME3's release. I also don't think that Mass Effect was ever going to be over. Shepard, on the other hand, was where the question of closure would be placed on his/her story. Mass Effect as a mythos I thought would live on for certain, maybe not as being called "ME4" so much as it could be...Mass Effect: First Contact War or something of the sort. The franchise is such a brilliant IP and the idea could be pushed into nearly endless ideas that even go beyond the current races of the Milky Way. The Citadel, as we known, spans millions or even possibly billions of years. They could introduce race/s from even before Protheans. Meaning 'race X' could be roughly 100k years before current humanity and a mission might take you to the Turrian home world where you would see them in their very early evolution stages and they could be some type of reptile or bird-like creature. The Ideas for missions and video game premises is literally endless. That being said, I don't think that they were very afraid of closing on Shepard, but I do think they always had "ME4" in mind.

That is mostly about #2 of your second paragraph. For the first part of the paragraph I completely agree. I thought the most ugly and discussing part of the ending was at the very end when it said something along the lines of "Shepard is a legend, further that legend with giving us money for DLC!!! =D" YEEAAAAHHHH. Yeah, that was just disgraceful. Sometimes I think EA has no fucking shame whatsoever.

In the last sentences you say "this will be my first bioware game that I played that WILL get multiple playthroughs". I assume you meant "will NOT get multiple playthroughs". I'm sorry to hear that, but my ME3 will get the same amount all of the others got, which is two initial playthroughs and then a replay of the entire series whenever whatever is coming next will be hitting shelves (by then they might not hit shelves, could be all digital). Sucks man, feel for you, I was on the same boat last year with DA2. I tried to playthrough it again but the first playthrough was even tedious. I was lying to myself even starting a second. At least the gameplay of ME3 is fundamentally improved and as fun as the first two. DA2 didn't even have have good gameplay for me. I see where you're coming from though.

@Tylea002 said:

When you think about it, you can come up with many different theories to explain why, in fact, the ending is actually good. But, if you need a 14 minute youtube video to explain why it was good, then it wasn't.

I'm trying to avoid responding but I had to for this one. I've seen that 20 minute video people have posted in here about why the ending is so bad. So, by your logic if that person needed a video that is 6 minutes longer than mine to explain how bad something was it must not be bad then? right? What you're saying is if I need a 14 minute video to explain why something is good then it wasn't good? I'm sorry, that is flawed logic. His explanation must have been really irrelevant then if it has a run time even longer.

And I don't need 15 minutes to explain why it was a good ending. I do that in one sentence. I say that it was ambiguous which is sadly a storytelling trait that I think a lot of gamers are not ready for. Gamers seem to want finality, blatant and Star Wars-esque with thumbs up, beers on a beach, and head nods. I knew ME3 was a good narrative with a perplexing ending the second I finished the game. I didn't need a 15 minute video. I only needed 15 minutes to explain this one possible interpretation to other people. The second half of the video is explaining my afterlife theory and the first 7 minutes are actually not about my afterlife theory at all. The first half is about Shepard's questionable mental state throughout the entire game and the last part is about how silly the idea of victory is. Actually I really spent the least amount of time during the entire video on why I actually liked the ending and what I think constitutes an intelligently composed finish to a story.

The people that seem to be truly upset seem to be the ones that fell for Mass Effect's illusion of choice throughout the series in its entirety and then when they got to the very end and discovered that the amassment of their decisions hadn't really mattered all along they were now stricken with disillusion and pissed about the sudden change. I for one never thought my choices truly impacted the game profoundly (it was always in small nicely placed nuances where choices came into play) and never really changed the way the game ended too much in any of them. That doesn't mean the choices weren't difficult to make throughout regardless.

@ShalashaskaUK666 said:

it's still fuckTACULARLY stupid to end a franchise

Fucktacularly...I like that.

@PolygonSlayer:

The internet is it's own entity. It is not a collective of multiple minds coming together. It is usually a pretty hate machine. Anyway, I agree for the most part. Sadly though I am the only one out of my true friends that is even nearly as much of a geek as myself and none of them have either played mass effect at all or have yet to finish 3. So, here I am.

But, yes, that is why I enjoy the ending. Really for the first time that I can remember in gaming the ending of a game's narrative is subjective and open for multiple routes of interpretation --a personally true sign to what makes an amazing story, a brilliant one for myself. Like you said, that's my opinion and I do understand where a lot of the anger is coming from, but I loved it.

@James_Giant_Peach said:

Remember all the Dragon Age 2 threads?

I would actually prefer to have them again than all this shit.

Yes, I do. I actually wrote like 4 things on about how I hated that game and also how to help it.

I have to get it out of my system. I'm done now.

Before anyone goes any further I'd like to state that there will obviously be spoilers.

Also, this is not some cheap attempt to plug my youtube channel that has like 6 whole subscribers. Okay? So, please GB moderators just settle down on the whole locking threads thing. A video aided representation was the best way to help me with the message in this theory about ME3's ending. So, I made this specifically for the site. It is no different than typing the thing out, accept it's not typed. Please don't lock it.

Alright, this is what I thought of Mass Effect 3's ending and the overall conclusion to the series in its entirety. I'm sure it will be difficult for people to not just simply say this is BS right from the get-go, but please actually try to watch the entire thing. I think there are some good and relevant points in there and it is at least worth a watch. Maybe it will put some perspective on the game as a whole and a new spin on the very end for you. That doesn't mean you'll have some epiphany and start to love the ending, but at least maybe it will shine some light on a possible conclusion.

Also, if you didn't like the way things like "Inception", "Primer", "Brick", or things of that nature end, and you didn't like those narratives...you're most likely never going to like ME3's ending no matter what anyone says. I for one happen to love ambiguity and really enjoy crafting my own interpretation from a handful to choose from. So, right from the get-go I say that my opinion of the subject is a bit bias. All I ask is that you try to not have a bias mind of hate toward Mass Effect when watching. I've heard a lot of the reasons why people hate the ending so much and I think many of those arguments are justifiable. So, even with a bias I'm able to listen to a different perspective. I hope you can do the same.

Let me know your thoughts and thanks for watching.

@Popskinz

Great review. I didn't like the ending though but I don't mean of ME3. The review's finish felt really abrupt, almost like you ran out of time and squeezed in that "do yourself a favor and pick up this game" line before someone cut you off or something. Maybe it was because it didn't have an ending verdict (score) that threw me for a loop. Besides that single last line i thought the entire thing was very well-done and edited fantastically. Much better than the one I'm working on currently.

As for the ending to the game, i thought it was brilliant and this is the first place I have mentioned so. I'm actually going to make an in-depth video about my personal favorite interpretation of the ending sequences and the over arching meaning of the child in relation to Shepard.

Great review and I'll be looking out for a Witcher 2, Risen 2, and Racoon City review. Hope you're picking some of those up to critique.

With the recent release of Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning and its particularly decent success for a new IP I began to think about what other project could be rather fantastic if a crack team of proven "imaginative creators" were band together to make another dream game much in the same fashion as Ken Rolston, ToddMcFarlane, and R.A. Salvatore were put together for Kingdoms of Amalur. Well here it is, my dream team for my fantasy gaming franchise.

Developer - Rockstar and BioWare

Rockstar (Red Dead Redemption) and BioWare (Mass Effect) would bring an excellent level of competence to the intellectual property and between the two of them the game would have the technical finesse to pull off a game that felt open-world while giving it the personal connection of a small group of comrades adventuring through a universe on a boat that is surrounded by life-ending subzero vacuums.

Lead Art Director - Cain Kuga

I am not the biggest fan of an anime stylization but Cain Kuga has already proven himself with an ability to artistically blend turn of the 22nd century futuristic spacefaring aesthetics with the more grounded in contemporary familiarities through Cowboy Bebop's bounty hunter cast. Oh yeah, in the mean time he created one of the best animated stories and visuals to come out of...well, anywhere and wrote and illustrated the graphic novel for Cowboy Bebop after the 26 episode season.

Lead Writer - Joss Whedon

Firefly was, quite frankly, one of my favorite television shows to ever grace any network. It was sadly very short-lived and was canceled only after a 14 episode run. It had a universe that was rich with a fascinating culture and history and the narrative exuded intrigue with a brilliant mix of high-tech and rudimentary humane survival plot situations which were sprawled across that interesting universe and its planets.

The Game - Firefly

I'd love to see a game based off of Firefly's mythology with this team of creators who have had their hand in this type of sub-sub-genre before in some form or another. Quite simply a futuristic sci-fi western would be a genre nearly untouched by the gaming industry and with the developers of Mass Effect and Red Dead Redemption behind the development you know that at the very least it would have a fantastic production value and be able to mix the best gaming has offered on both a science fiction and a wild west video game front. Cain Kuga's art styling brought forth some subtle excellence to the 'Cowboy Bebop' series and gave the show a feel that was aesthetically authentic. Finally, Joss Whedon's vision of an allied galactic space western which supported a cast of characters that were amazingly realized with a varying degree of noble, gray, and questionable ethics would make for an immersive gaming narrative that would feel fresh yet familiar to the gaming world. Taking these groups of proven sci-fi western artisans and meshing them up with one another would make for one hell of a gaming experience.

I'm fairly positive that these groups of people will not come together to create what could be an amazing new gaming franchise. But hey, I can dream can't I?

What's Your Dream Team and Game?

@BrockNRolla:

I like the cut of your jib. Very thorough and well-articulated indeed, while being short and concise. I think I pulled two separate 360s in my last statement. First, by throwing out the definitions and then by saying you were right because it was right in the text of the definitions. Second, by making the debate that the context of the two words were subject to interpretation and then saying that was all hyperbole and nonsense, only to then again state my contextual objective when not applied to a review and only when applied to the image at hand was fine.

I knew right from the first time you wrote your initial message that I had mostly misused objective in this case. I simply wanted to argue for the fun of it. Some people just call arguing by a different name --debating-- and that makes it not seem as childish. Regardless, it is still fun when someone seems to know what they're talking about and see if you can trick them into something. One of my favorite aspects of debating is that you sometimes have to defend something you don't necessarily believe or think is fact. I am sure that I could go into how even the intricacies of writing are circumstance to social convention and that the idea of 'this equals this which equals that and means this" is still subject to change when introduced to contra-standards and I could go all obfuscated on you, BUT you stuck to your guns and finished it off very analytically and I always find it hard to argue against that.

Was fun though. =)

Oh and by the way, my 200th post. You're excited, I know you are.

At this particular moment in time? I have to say either FROM SOFTWARE or CD Projeckt RED. With Dark Souls being my all around favorite of the two company's game, but Witcher 2 being the actual better role-playing game of the two. Meaning, DS has the tight and nearly perfect combat, character customizations, and masterful dungeon crawling experience through immaculate level design, BUT W2 gets a lot of those elements pretty close to par with Dark Souls' near perfected systems AND then W2 still delivers a mature and sophisticated narrative as well as other RPG elements i've come to love and expect from great role-playing games.

For all time though?

The four "B's" of course come into consideration: Blizzard, Bethesda, BioWare, and Black Isle.

Blizzard at one-point-in-time would have made it pretty high on this list, but they have become too complacent with WoW and barely even do much of anything any more; making their past-to-present ratio not that fantastic for an "of all time" rpg company.

Bethesda is, of course, one of the true greats who seem to stay true to making the games they enjoy and they're fans enjoy while simultaneously moving forward with innovative and yet derivative game mechanics to create something that is unique and gives an identity that is unmistakably theirs.

BioWare has made some great games throughout their career, minus a few harsh missteps, but have ultimately made way more fantastic games than bad.

I would say that these companies trump Black Isle alone but if you would allow me to combine Black Isle with Obsidian which would allow Black Isle to also be carried into the modern times and the past decade I would then have to go with that. Seeing as how a lot of the major people who made-up Black Isle now have either founded or work for Obsidian I don't think that is much of a stretch to combine the two.

My "of all time RPG company" would have to be Black Isle/Obsidian.

@BrockNRolla said:

@TerraMantis

I think you need to reevaluate what the word "objective" means. "Meh and so-so" is about the opposite of what "objective." Objective would be more like "Is 20 hours long," "includes 3rd-person shooter and RPG elements," and "has an art style mainly using browns and greens." These are all "objective" points of review, as in, facts. Whether or not that tells a reader something meaningful about the game depends on what those facts mean to the reader. I believe you mean "subjective.

That aside, I prefer multiple evaluations. There is a worth to requiring someone to set a "score" but absent written descriptions to justify said scores, a number or a star is meaningless.

Meh, of course, is a made-up word, but so-so is not. So-so means moderately well : tolerably. Which is basically the same thing as 'meh'.

Objective means to have a singular mind with a specific task or goal to accomplish. Like to quickly inform someone as to whether or not you believe they should purchase or not purchase an item. Objective - something that one's efforts or actions are intended to attain or accomplish; purpose; goal; target.

Where as subjectivity is just that; is it mainly speaking about subject matter; like characters, art style, dialogue, narrative, combat mechanics.

Subjective - a subject's personal perspective, feelings, beliefs, desires or discovery, as opposed to those made from an independent, objective, point of view.

So, I guess you're probably right considering i used the word "whether or not you BELIEVE" right in my explanation of objective and then the word "belief" is right in the definition of subjectivity, which subjectivity's definition then clearly states is opposed to those made from an objective point of view.

I am sure I could debate that though. The fact of whether or not the wording of "meh or so-so" is objective would have to be backed by the wording of a textual review. Simply put, it would not be subjective if the game was factually only moderately well made and tolerable. Or if a game had a 20+ hour campaign I would say that is worth a purchase. Maybe the checked choices of "worth buying, worth renting, so on" are subjective, but the actual overall goal of what that page is doing is not, it is objective because my purpose is to simply state: buy, rent, situational, moderately tolerable product, awful product in an objective manner. Couldn't I say that objectivity and subjectivity are interchangeable here because they're both out of context with no actual review to draw upon?

I think the word objective could be subjective.

Also, you can forget all of that hyperbole I just spouted because I was basically just thinking out loud, but it is as simple as this: you're using/thinking of objective and subjective from its philosophical (plato's realism) context whereas I was not. I was using the word objective to state a goal to the reader not state truths or fallacies.

Oh, context...you dirty hooker.