95 replies to this topic

[guardian wolf]

I don't know what to think, on one hand, I think it has a meaning that, in the end, all stories like this, become old stories that your uncle always tells you, far off, and fairy tale-ish. On the other, I kinda want to know, WTH happens to Shepard and the rest of the team. I don't know guys, but if there is an actual story ending, it had better be either free, or an update.

[Hades Serpent]

Catharsis, on 26 March 2012 - 07:26 AM, said:

I have always been a supporter of Valve's "it will be out when it is finished" philosophy. I would have waited half a decade for Mass Effect 3 if the wait would have meant it would be that much better a game. I do not need a sequel every year to satisfy my thirst for a title. I know that, by releasing a title ever year, a publisher will earn far more money... but every now and then that attitude will bite you in the back, just like it is now with Mass Effect 3.

Stardock and CD Projekt RED are also good examples of this philosophy. Oh, and Blizzard. Well, sorta. I don't know what to think of them anymore. They definitely had brass balls back in the day; they were willing to scrap entire projects if they weren't up to snuff (I do believe Starcraft was scrapped entirely at one point and brought back to life later when things got ironed-out).

Edited by Hades Serpent, 26 March 2012 - 03:37 PM.

[guardian wolf]

Starcraft wouldn't be what I'd call the most, tactical, and flowing RTS I have played, it's like Rock, Paper, Scissors, compared to some that I have played.

[Sam Slade]

From a writers perspective it sounds like the set up for a sequal. Plenty of questions, no concrete answers. This is an ending made for the marketing department of Bioware.

Game development companies need to wake up and start employing professional writers if they want to keep pushing the digital story aspect of their products. I have read endless reviews from video game magazines and ezines praising the 'immersive story' of this or that game when all you really have is another Alice in Wonderland; if they don't wake up and realize that their target audience is older and more sophisticated son then everyone who can afford to spend money on games will end up in PvP MMO... it doesn't get more immersive then playing against another human brain.

[Catharsis]

guardian wolf, on 26 March 2012 - 05:24 PM, said:

Starcraft wouldn't be what I'd call the most, tactical, and flowing RTS I have played, it's like Rock, Paper, Scissors, compared to some that I have played.

This is so true. Starcraft is a good, solid game, but really the only reason it is SO successful is because of its popularity in Korea. Many other strategy games out there required a far more in-depth sense of tactics and management. On the micro/unit side of things, you had Ground Control which was way ahead of its time in terms of small-scale unit tactics. Then on the macro/base building side you have had games like Age of Empires and Empire Earth for years. And there there was Homeworld (which needs a 3!) that pushed our understanding of unit strategy into six degrees.

[Catharsis]

Sam Slade, on 26 March 2012 - 05:42 PM, said:

From a writers perspective it sounds like the set up for a sequal. Plenty of questions, no concrete answers. This is an ending made for the marketing department of Bioware.

Game development companies need to wake up and start employing professional writers if they want to keep pushing the digital story aspect of their products. I have read endless reviews from video game magazines and ezines praising the 'immersive story' of this or that game when all you really have is another Alice in Wonderland; if they don't wake up and realize that their target audience is older and more sophisticated son then everyone who can afford to spend money on games will end up in PvP MMO... it doesn't get more immersive then playing against another human brain.

I think the idea of bringing "professional writers" into a video game can create problems. While a writer like Stephen King or L.E. Modesitt Jr. can create a deep and moving fantasy world, I do not know if they would be able to write to the limitations and structure of a video game.

And the only time a "professional writer" was involved in a game in the past that I can remember was in Advent Rising. Remember that game? No? That is because it was a massive flop.

FOR THE MOST PART, the writers at Bioware knew what they were doing. They crafted a brilliant story across three games. They filled that story with believable characters and emotionally moving ideas. Sure there were a few weaknesses, and a few plot holes, but they did a pretty good job. Especially considering that they pretty much had to write several separate stories to fit along with all of our choices!

If you ignore the fact that they retconned Shepard's death in ME2 (by simply not allowing you to import your save) then they only place they went truly wrong was the ending. Even then, IF this indoctrination theory is true, the ONLY way they went wrong was to not include the real ending on the disc (or make an announcement confirming that a real ending DLC would come after release)

Of course, if the theory is incorrect then they really did frell up the ending. But I would not throw out the whole writing team just for that. Endings are hard to write. Does anyone remember how the Dark Tower series ended? How Lost ended?
Sure they were massive let downs, but I would not unleash the dogs of hell on the writers for a bad ending.

I want to see a better ending as much as any one does, I just do not think we should fire the writers for their mistake.

Annndddd I got carried away again

[guardian wolf]

Catharsis, on 26 March 2012 - 10:42 PM, said:

This is so true. Starcraft is a good, solid game, but really the only reason it is SO successful is because of its popularity in Korea. Many other strategy games out there required a far more in-depth sense of tactics and management. On the micro/unit side of things, you had Ground Control which was way ahead of its time in terms of small-scale unit tactics. Then on the macro/base building side you have had games like Age of Empires and Empire Earth for years. And there there was Homeworld (which needs a 3!) that pushed our understanding of unit strategy into six degrees.

Personally I play CoH, Empire at War (which can be accused of similiar situations), and a little of Ages of Empire.

[Carebear]

guardian wolf, on 26 March 2012 - 01:26 PM, said:

I don't know what to think, on one hand, I think it has a meaning that, in the end, all stories like this, become old stories that your uncle always tells you, far off, and fairy tale-ish. On the other, I kinda want to know, WTH happens to Shepard and the rest of the team. I don't know guys, but if there is an actual story ending, it had better be either free, or an update.

DLC next month and ME4 is confirmed. http://www.gamespot....-ending-6367355

Looks like EA got you by the balls and wont let you go until you understand to let go. What kind of game they play.

Edited by Carebear, 27 March 2012 - 09:19 AM.

[Sesambrot]

Carebear, on 27 March 2012 - 09:17 AM, said:

DLC next month and ME4 is confirmed. http://www.gamespot....-ending-6367355

Looks like EA got you by the balls and wont let you go until you understand to let go. What kind of game they play.

That article is based on the post which was already linked before, and your post is just a somewhat ridiculous interpretation of it anyway...

[Carebear]

Sesambrot, on 27 March 2012 - 09:34 AM, said:

That article is based on the post which was already linked before, and your post is just a somewhat ridiculous interpretation of it anyway...

You boys know how to suck.

I give 5% chance their next DLC is free.

Edited by Carebear, 27 March 2012 - 09:55 AM.

[Catharsis]

Carebear, on 27 March 2012 - 09:17 AM, said:

DLC next month and ME4 is confirmed. http://www.gamespot....-ending-6367355

Looks like EA got you by the balls and wont let you go until you understand to let go. What kind of game they play.

Video game news websites are somewhat sensationalist in their reporting. I would not trust a single report until I start hearing things from multiple sources across the board. I have found that Rock, Paper, Shotgun and Kotaku are the most "reliable" in their news reporting... and they tend to be honest when they are speculating.

[Carebear]

WOW, that was rabid fanboi action, two at once. They keep making DLCs until ME4 is ready and you pay.

Edited by Carebear, 27 March 2012 - 09:38 AM.

[Catharsis]

Carebear, on 27 March 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

WOW, that was rabid fanboi action, two at once. They keep making DLCs until ME4 is ready and you pay.

Talking to me? I do not see how I was being a fanboy. I do not deny that it is likely EA will milk the crap out of its franchises. All I meant to say was that I will not trust a single news source. No big deal

[Carebear]

Catharsis, on 27 March 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

Talking to me? I do not see how I was being a fanboy. I do not deny that it is likely EA will milk the crap out of its franchises. All I meant to say was that I will not trust a single news source. No big deal

Believe me or not, but usually they are right. If you expect to see alot of rumors/lies this is wrong industry. Who read bout website if you lie at your readers.

Edited by Carebear, 27 March 2012 - 09:45 AM.

[Catharsis]

Carebear, on 27 March 2012 - 09:43 AM, said:

Believe me or not, but usually they are right. If you expect to see alot of rumors/lies this is wrong industry.

I will give you that. I am not saying I do not believe you.
I guess I just do not actually care all that much

If Bioware never releases a proper ending to ME3, I will be sad, but life will go on.
If they do... but it costs money, I might buy it. I might not.
If they do and it is free. Great! I will get it, play it, enjoy it, and then move on.

Just like Halo I guess. I know that Microsoft is pushing Halo 4 for money, even though we all heard that Halo 3 would be the last game featuring Master Chief. If they can put the new game out and get money off of it, good for them. Again, I might buy it, I might not. Does not matter in the end

Edited by Catharsis, 27 March 2012 - 09:54 AM.

[Carebear]

I hate all this ME drama everywhere, ******* emoqueens. EA doesnt need to be friendly with you, they jsut BS you. THeres alot of more friendly companies.

Edited by Carebear, 27 March 2012 - 09:56 AM.

[Catharsis]

Carebear, on 27 March 2012 - 09:55 AM, said:

I hate all this ME drama everywhere, ******* emoqueens.

The ending, sans this indoctrination theory (which I still standby) did suck.
And I wish there was something that the community could do about that.

But the HUGE outcry and ALL the complaining that you hear on Facebook and on the Bioware forums is just too much. I am sure that the devs are quite sick of it now. Instead of giving solid feedback, most people are just screaming "oh the ending sucked! oh I hate you Bioware! Oh I am never going to buy your games again!"

THAT is what I hate. It is useless dren.
My intention in starting this thread was not to perpetuate the complaining, but to have a serious, calm, friendly discussion about the ending and this "indoctrination" theory.

I love video games, I am genuinely interested in the industry, and I enjoy talking about them. The complaining can be saved for YouTube comment sections

[Lorcan Lladd]

There was a better ending, most likely, in the original script which got leaked - the late and end game had less to do with strange, ghostly dead boys and more with dark energy...
...But apparently things change.

Still want to talk about this?

[Catharsis]

Lorcan Lladd, on 27 March 2012 - 10:16 AM, said:

There was a better ending, most likely, in the original script which got leaked - the late and end game had less to do with strange, ghostly dead boys and more with dark energy...
...But apparently things change.

Still want to talk about this?

I really do wonder how they could have gotten around the Reaper corner they wrote themselves in to.
The Reapers were scary overmind-type baddies in ME1. They still had some mystery and power to them in ME2.
But in ME3, you suddenly have an ENTIRE FREAKING FLEET of these guys show up and start slaughtering everyone. Remember in the first game, it took an entire Human battlegroup to kill Sovereign. And in ME2 it took several shots from the Cain to kill a baby Reaper.

How do you think they could have gotten around killing HUNDREDS of Reapers in ME3 without being contrived or cheap? Just discussion here. Let us see if we can be better writers than Bioware

[Lorcan Lladd]

Yeah, well, I'm probably going off-course on this one.
But, I'm guessing the 'master' purpose behind the Reapers - which the Prothean VI mentions but never elaborates on - is the preservation of the galaxy.

There's this lampshade hanging since Mass Effect 2 that the dark energy behind biotics, the Reapers and FTL travel is somehow responsible for destabilizing the cores of stars exposed to it, potentially making their systems and the resources in them impossible to exploit.
Eventually, the entire galaxy, or all galaxies, even, could be destabilized to the point that they could no longer support any kind of life, be it organic or synthetic.

In order to prevent this, the Reapers don't enter the space near stars if they can avoid it; instead, they live in the deep, dark and empty space between galaxies, so that their Eezo cores will not disrupt any systems which they depend on, running on low energy routines until comes the time to reap energy and create new Reapers.

The Reapers would control the evolution of galactic civilizations to later harvest them not only in order to propagate their 'species' but also to prevent those civilizations from - as clichéd as it sounds - destroying the universe.

Whether Shepard was supposed to acquire this knowledge before or after dealing with the Reapers is an unknown, but...
...Let's suppose the Crucible could be used to somehow destroy all Eezo cores or Eezo-infused organisms.
If it were used, that could mean the end of the threat of dark energy in the Milky Way, as well as that of the Reapers, though at the expense of space travel and perhaps even galactic civilization.

Now, those are just my thoughts, which you could probably tell by how convoluted they are, but I think it pretty much fits with the original script.

Edit; I had been thinking about this since Mass Effect 2, and I wondered how it could all fit together to end the story in a satisfactory manner - I had no idea that Bioware would come out with something like the Crucible.
I don't know what the Catalyst would've been in the original script, though.

Edited by Lorcan Lladd, 27 March 2012 - 10:44 AM.