@reedmilfam: Play Mass Effect 3 and you'll see. It'll probably break your mind for a few days, though. Most heavy-invested fans were baffled for a few days, or so I've read.
I never finished ME3 actually it's too much of a FPS for my tastes. I just searched the end videos to know what all the outrage was about and never touched the game again.
DA2 was a let down, though I think those of us who played and enjoyed DA:O and Awakenings were expecting the exact same thing for DA2.
In DA2, I didn't care about my "siblings" or my "mother" I was just like, "Yeah Yeah I know you hate Lowtown, I'm going over here to loot shit"
I would hope that the guys at Bioware stop being EA's lapdog, and really learn from their mistakes with DA2 and the ending of ME3 (not to say that the game wasn't freaking AWESOME!!!) and hopefully release something that will redeem them.
I've played far worse than DA2. It was a victim of high expectations. So they had a miss with one game (DA2) - after how much greatness?
That´s exactly it. You would expect the company to miss it with their first, second, maybe third game, but not with their tenth or so game, after 15 years in business and title which means to be one of their old school ones, with which they should have the most experience. We all know where the problem lies and that makes me believe, that their games won´t get back to the way they were 10 years ago.
DA2 was done by a relatively new team, they got some folks who worked on DAO back for DA3 though
@reedmilfam: Play Mass Effect 3 and you'll see. It'll probably break your mind for a few days, though. Most heavy-invested fans were baffled for a few days, or so I've read.
I never finished ME3 actually it's too much of a FPS for my tastes. I just searched the end videos to know what all the outrage was about and never touched the game again.
I am not an FPS guy either but I enjoyed all the Mass Effect games. Even though they went more FPS in the latter 2, I still feel there was enough story and enjoyable non-combat action to make them worthwhile. I do understand why fans were not happy with the ending, but I didn't understand the rage except to explain it by people getting a little too caught up in their fandom. Of course, this is coming from someone who doesn't see believe Bioware has made any awful games.
DA2 was a let down, though I think those of us who played and enjoyed DA:O and Awakenings were expecting the exact same thing for DA2.
...
I would hope that the guys at Bioware stop being EA's lapdog, and really learn from their mistakes with DA2 and the ending of ME3 (not to say that the game wasn't freaking AWESOME!!!) and hopefully release something that will redeem them.
If you got more of the same then people would complain that it was the same.
As for the ending of mass effect. You'll find that most game companies put more money into the start io the game than the end because very few people actually finish games.
DA2 was a let down, though I think those of us who played and enjoyed DA:O and Awakenings were expecting the exact same thing for DA2.
...
I would hope that the guys at Bioware stop being EA's lapdog, and really learn from their mistakes with DA2 and the ending of ME3 (not to say that the game wasn't freaking AWESOME!!!) and hopefully release something that will redeem them.
If you got more of the same then people would complain that it was the same.
As for the ending of mass effect. You'll find that most game companies put more money into the start io the game than the end because very few people actually finish games.
Putting effort into the start of games is just good business sense, and speaks well of the developer in the eyes of the investors.
Putting effort into the end of games is just good, and speaks well of the developer in the eyes of the fan community
I feel like a minority here. I enjoyed both Dragon Age games and I think people really overreact to the ME ending.
I enjoyed DA:O and DA 2. However, the ME ending.... sorry, cant follow you on that one, haha. I just didn't like it at all. Maybe some people did overreact, but the ending was terrible terrible, indeed.
I didn't play ME3 because of Origin, but from all the discussions I've seen there'd were some major reasons to dislike it:
- People were promised that the choices of the other games would have consequences for the ending. They didn't. This was actually used in the marketing too, so it almost borders false advertising. Since it wouldn't stand a second in court, though, I guess I should actually call it Dick Advertising.
- It's a total Deus Ex Machina.
- The ending completely goes against the messages of not only the series but the game itself. Different species overcoming their differences, working together for the greater good? Nope, all out of nowhere this kid shows up and tells you AI and Bio can't get along, because they're too different. Even though that goes against previous interactions with AI and you just made peace between AI and Bio that were mortal enemies. And why? No reason, just because. Nevermind how it's ridiculously irrational in itself, it's complete thematic dissonance.
From an outside perspective, these seem to be the main issues. And yeah, they all seem legit to me.
From what I understand, they originally *were* going to do an ending that took into effect all your choices and whatnot, and then two of the writers (including the lead designer) decided the ending was going to be the one the series ended with. I had purchased the first two games, but inexplicably, they don't work on my computer. As for the ending to ME3, it seems like a few humungous spliffs and a long, lost weekend were involved in the storyline.
Okay let me see if I can offer a counterpoint without writing a wall of text(I failed.)
[SPOILER]- People were promised that the choices of the other games would have consequences for the ending. They didn't.
I actually agree that it was garbage to advertise the ending that way, and I think that term you mentioned "dick advertising" can sum up the marketing for the whole series. I would like to say though when you look at the games alone, separate from any other media, the lack of major consequence is pretty in sync with the rest of the series, I can elaborate but since you weren't actually disputing it (just that they promised something different) I'll keep it to myself for now.
- It's a total Deus Ex Machina.
No more than a piece of jewelry in a volcano destroying evil or a moon-sized space station having an open shaft leading to a highly volatile core. The Citadel was already known to be reaper tech, and the catalyst the work of many reaper cycles, that is different from Shepard and friends just stumbling upon the "kill reaper" button at the end of the game. Besides if it were a true Deus Ex Machina the catalyst would've just destroyed the reapers with no fuss and everyone would all go down to Earth and have a party.
- The ending completely goes against the messages of not only the series but the game itself.
This is really the argument that I don't understand, the ending is where the themes of Mass Effect almost become literal. The ME series, from the beginning, has been about the life cycles of the galaxy, specifically the games cover the ending of a cycle, easily categorized by existence of the reapers. All three choices have slight variances but all lead to a rebirth. This is not to say the choice of the three endings isn't important, since they reflect the different way major characters throughout the game wanted to approach the new cycle.
Anderson wanted a pure victory, even if it requires a torrent of violence, destruction, and for some, extinction.
The Illusive Man wanted to sacrifice himself (and many others) to achieve a golden age even if it meant the looming threat of complete destruction with the reapers so close and so integral to the new utopia.
Then there is Saren, who I'm surprised was not mentioned at the end, since he was in favor of the "if you can't beat em, join" approach, similar to synthesis with the reapers.
The games where never about preserving the status quo, even if that is what Shepard wanted.[/SPOILER]
Wait guys, are you mentioning spoilers about the ending? Because I haven't played ME3 yet, and I'd quite like the experience the ending myself and for it to be as shocking as I invision it.
Putting effort into the end of games is just good, and speaks well of the developer in the eyes of the fan community
One of the developers of the Final Fantasy series was asked why the beginings of FF games were so brilliant and why the endings were rather crap and he gave the response I stated.
Blame the gamers who don't bother finishing games. If they can't finish a game in a couple of hours they get bored and don't finish, if they do finish a game in a couple of hours they complain that it was too short. Devs are on a hiding to nothing.
I'm so tired of the people who just didn't follow the entire story of ME, didn't listen to all the dialogue, plot points etc etc and either were too lazy or too biased because of their individual, pre-conceived notions of how they expected the game to end. Had you followed everything to it's proper end and put the pieces of the puzzle together the end made sense.
I don't really want to start up the whole argument again here as i and the other MAJORITY of players who also "got it" have exhausted ourselves on bioware's ME forums trying to make people see this. People made up their minds and no discussion could sway them no mattter how logical. Almost every game throughout history has gone through this, the deflation of expectation, yet never with such hatred as ME3. nuff said.
Wait guys, are you mentioning spoilers about the ending? Because I haven't played ME3 yet, and I'd quite like the experience the ending myself and for it to be as shocking as I invision it.
Try to ignore threads or conversations about ME3(hard sometimes i know)and just play the game, enjoy it and draw your own conclusions. Enjoy ME3 :-)
Wait guys, are you mentioning spoilers about the ending? Because I haven't played ME3 yet, and I'd quite like the experience the ending myself and for it to be as shocking as I invision it.
Oh man sorry about that, I added spoiler tags, hopefully I didn't ruin anything. Play ME3 when you get the chance, I thought it was great.
I just got DA2 the other week, but I've stopped playing it already. I can't have any empathy with my family in the game so the story has no real motivation at the start, and if you're going to make it hack 'n' slash gameplay then at least do it well. I'm not expecting God of War standard but Bioware probably lacks the expertise at that kind of game to pull it off.
I loved ME1, it had a great story and a great feeling of exploration and the unknown. ME2 tightened up a lot of the flaws such as the combat and the repetative areas, as well as boasting an improved cast of characters. I felt ME3 took it a step to far in this direction, as while the gameplay was improved again until it was almost as smooth as Gears of War, it was too focused on individual mission and simply cleaning out areas with very little exploration.
For me I will not be pre-ordering DA3. In fact, I may not buy the game at all until the community has reached some consensus. If you look at Metacritic.com (which arguably has its own built in bias), it's hard to ignore that DA:O scored a 8.4 User score while DA2 scored a dismal 4.3 User score!
You can also make these comparisons between Mass Effect 1,2, and 3.
That being said, the reason I didn't like DA2 was the story wasn't really about the central character. You were just some sort of bystander that happened to be standing around during the mage-templar conflict. In the end, you make no lasting mark. Instead you just sorta slink off to the hills.
Okay let me see if I can offer a counterpoint without writing a wall of text(I failed.)
- People were promised that the choices of the other games would have consequences for the ending. They didn't.
I actually agree that it was garbage to advertise the ending that way, and I think that term you mentioned "dick advertising" can sum up the marketing for the whole series. I would like to say though when you look at the games alone, separate from any other media, the lack of major consequence is pretty in sync with the rest of the series, I can elaborate but since you weren't actually disputing it (just that they promised something different) I'll keep it to myself for now.
- It's a total Deus Ex Machina.
No more than a piece of jewelry in a volcano destroying evil or a moon-sized space station having an open shaft leading to a highly volatile core. The Citadel was already known to be reaper tech, and the catalyst the work of many reaper cycles, that is different from Shepard and friends just stumbling upon the "kill reaper" button at the end of the game. Besides if it were a true Deus Ex Machina the catalyst would've just destroyed the reapers with no fuss and everyone would all go down to Earth and have a party.
- The ending completely goes against the messages of not only the series but the game itself.
This is really the argument that I don't understand, the ending is where the themes of Mass Effect almost become literal. The ME series, from the beginning, has been about the life cycles of the galaxy, specifically the games cover the ending of a cycle, easily categorized by existence of the reapers. All three choices have slight variances but all lead to a rebirth. This is not to say the choice of the three endings isn't important, since they reflect the different way major characters throughout the game wanted to approach the new cycle.
Anderson wanted a pure victory, even if it requires a torrent of violence, destruction, and for some, extinction.
The Illusive Man wanted to sacrifice himself (and many others) to achieve a golden age even if it meant the looming threat of complete destruction with the reapers so close and so integral to the new utopia.
Then there is Saren, who I'm surprised was not mentioned at the end, since he was in favor of the "if you can't beat em, join" approach, similar to synthesis with the reapers.
The games where never about preserving the status quo, even if that is what Shepard wanted.
The ending to LotR and Star Wars are not Deus Ex Machina. I think you don't understand what that term means.
Deus Ex Machina means a god figure shows up to solve the problem of the mortals involved in the story. It came out of Greek story-telling as they worked the pantheon of the Gods into everything. The end of the Oddysey for example, despite the literal decades trying to return to Ithaca and the extreme effort involved in returning home, the Gods ultimate resolve the struggle. It isn't Odysseus who does, despite being the hero.
We knew from the outset of the Lord of the Rings trilogy what the end goal was: to destroy the ring. They figured out how to do it. They set out and accomplished the goal. While the secret weakness of the Death Star was cheesy, it was still destroyed by the main character's special abilities. That is not the case in Mass Effect 3. A god-figure comes and takes the final decision out of your hand, swooping in to "solve" everything with wisdom beyond that of mere mortals. It's fucking terrible story-telling. There's a reason Deus Ex Machinas have been considered literary faux pas since the Greeks: it mitigates the meaning of any human experiences in the story. It makes the struggle ultimately meaningless.
Does this make sense? The Mass Effect 3 ending was terrible and it's not defensible. Anyone with a remote iota of knowledge of English literature would know ending the game in that manner would be met with outrage. It was lazy, high-school level writing.
I have lurked on this thread up to this point, but I will finally chime in: Unless they return the combat to how it was in DA:O, I won't even remotely care about DA3. BioWare has proven they are incapable of crafting meaningful narrative anymore, so if the gameplay isn't there neither am I.
The ending to LotR and Star Wars are not Deus Ex Machina. I think you don't understand what that term means.
Deus Ex Machina means a god figure shows up to solve the problem of the mortals involved in the story. It came out of Greek story-telling as they worked the pantheon of the Gods into everything. The end of the Oddysey for example, despite the literal decades trying to return to Ithaca and the extreme effort involved in returning home, the Gods ultimate resolve the struggle. It isn't Odysseus who does, despite being the hero.
We knew from the outset of the Lord of the Rings trilogy what the end goal was: to destroy the ring. They figured out how to do it. They set out and accomplished the goal. While the secret weakness of the Death Star was cheesy, it was still destroyed by the main character's special abilities. That is not the case in Mass Effect 3. A god-figure comes and takes the final decision out of your hand, swooping in to "solve" everything with wisdom beyond that of mere mortals. It's fucking terrible story-telling. There's a reason Deus Ex Machinas have been considered literary faux pas since the Greeks: it mitigates the meaning of any human experiences in the story. It makes the struggle ultimately meaningless.
Does this make sense? The Mass Effect 3 ending was terrible and it's not defensible. Anyone with a remote iota of knowledge of English literature would know ending the game in that manner would be met with outrage. It was lazy, high-school level writing.
I have lurked on this thread up to this point, but I will finally chime in: Unless they return the combat to how it was in DA:O, I won't even remotely care about DA3. BioWare has proven they are incapable of crafting meaningful narrative anymore, so if the gameplay isn't there neither am I.
I know what Deus Ex Machina is, but looking back at how I worded my argument I can see the confusion, I meant that the ending isn't a Deus Ex Machina, and I was trying to draw similarities between the two film trilogies.
You are omitting a lot of details concerning the ending, as well as the series. The Reaper's having a single unifying figure, or at the very least a particular design to their plans has been implied since ME1 (granted I don't think they mention it in ME2). I already mentioned the crucible was a device meant to be used with reaper tech, in this case the giant mass relay that is the Citadel. There was no swooping involved. Shepard also worked for the damn thing to exist in the first place, the whole game was gathering resources to make and defend the crucible. The Crucible/Catalyst didn't just show up at the end of the game, the entire focus was getting it working
My other block of text already went into the human (and one turian) element of the choices offered, although we are only talking about the Deus Ex Machina so I don't know if you read that one.
In the interest of keeping the thread on track, I wish they would go back to Origins combat as well. The problem with DA2 combat for me was not so much the talent tree reshuffle but that the majority of the battles were really derivative.
1. Kill some minions 2. Wait for more minions to magically show up behind you. 3. Kill some minions 4. Repeat
As for DA2 fights, yep. I just won. No, wait. They're coming down the walls. And behind me... I think this was to make it harder to shield the mages from melee attackers, but it was over used. Wouldn't have minded one or two fights like that, just for variety, but it got silly. One reason I never re-played that game.
Does this make sense? The Mass Effect 3 ending was terrible and it's not defensible. Anyone with a remote iota of knowledge of English literature would know ending the game in that manner would be met with outrage.
This sort of comment is unhelpful and combative. This is completely subjective and a matter of opinion ONLY. Any sort of negative judgment of the intelligence of others who may have a different opinion ought not to be tolerated on these forums.
Just because we knew we were activating a catalyst doesn't mean it wasn't DXM. At the end of the day, it's a literal god-figure "saving the day" as it were.
I didn't expect it to be a sentient being, for sure. I figured it was a magic red button that just killed all reapers, or something. But no, we were treated to a ghost thing that had some seemingly divine essense who said, "Well, all your struggle doesn't matter. All that stuff you tried to do uniting the world and synthetics doesn't matter because I am God and arbitrarily decided they can't ever get along. So my plan is a synthetic race will come wipe out all organic life every 50 million years, so that organic life isn't wiped out by synthetic life every 50 million years."
Does this make sense? The Mass Effect 3 ending was terrible and it's not defensible. Anyone with a remote iota of knowledge of English literature would know ending the game in that manner would be met with outrage.
This sort of comment is unhelpful and combative. This is completely subjective and a matter of opinion ONLY. Any sort of negative judgment of the intelligence of others who may have a different opinion ought not to be tolerated on these forums.
That is all.
You're right, my tone came across as derivative to people who did like it. My bad. That wasn't my intention.
Thing is, most people who did like it had to put a lot of thought into why they liked it, no? It wasn't something easily accessible to Western storytelling. There are a lot more people who hated the ending than liked it. Everyone I know who went through Mass Effect 3 without reading internet spoilers first all loathed the ending. Most everyone I know who did like it were prepared somewhat to be disappointed. Funny how expectations and narrative-framing can change people's opinions.
Literary faux pas are considered as such because of years and years and years of culture and study informing us it's not an ideal way to piece together a story. I feel like if you're writing dialogue for a game, and part of the selling point is plot and storycrafting and the like, you'd have at least one guy on staff who went to school for an English degree, who could have spoke up and said, "You know, this is probably a bad idea."
Comments
In DA2, I didn't care about my "siblings" or my "mother" I was just like, "Yeah Yeah I know you hate Lowtown, I'm going over here to loot shit"
I would hope that the guys at Bioware stop being EA's lapdog, and really learn from their mistakes with DA2 and the ending of ME3 (not to say that the game wasn't freaking AWESOME!!!) and hopefully release something that will redeem them.
As for the ending of mass effect. You'll find that most game companies put more money into the start io the game than the end because very few people actually finish games.
Putting effort into the end of games is just good, and speaks well of the developer in the eyes of the fan community
Maybe I'm just a freak though, I thought the extended endings mucked up the original too. :P
- People were promised that the choices of the other games would have consequences for the ending. They didn't. This was actually used in the marketing too, so it almost borders false advertising. Since it wouldn't stand a second in court, though, I guess I should actually call it Dick Advertising.
- It's a total Deus Ex Machina.
- The ending completely goes against the messages of not only the series but the game itself. Different species overcoming their differences, working together for the greater good? Nope, all out of nowhere this kid shows up and tells you AI and Bio can't get along, because they're too different. Even though that goes against previous interactions with AI and you just made peace between AI and Bio that were mortal enemies. And why? No reason, just because. Nevermind how it's ridiculously irrational in itself, it's complete thematic dissonance.
From an outside perspective, these seem to be the main issues. And yeah, they all seem legit to me.
[SPOILER]- People were promised that the choices of the other games would have consequences for the ending. They didn't.
I actually agree that it was garbage to advertise the ending that way, and I think that term you mentioned "dick advertising" can sum up the marketing for the whole series. I would like to say though when you look at the games alone, separate from any other media, the lack of major consequence is pretty in sync with the rest of the series, I can elaborate but since you weren't actually disputing it (just that they promised something different) I'll keep it to myself for now.
- It's a total Deus Ex Machina.
No more than a piece of jewelry in a volcano destroying evil or a moon-sized space station having an open shaft leading to a highly volatile core. The Citadel was already known to be reaper tech, and the catalyst the work of many reaper cycles, that is different from Shepard and friends just stumbling upon the "kill reaper" button at the end of the game. Besides if it were a true Deus Ex Machina the catalyst would've just destroyed the reapers with no fuss and everyone would all go down to Earth and have a party.
- The ending completely goes against the messages of not only the series but the game itself.
This is really the argument that I don't understand, the ending is where the themes of Mass Effect almost become literal. The ME series, from the beginning, has been about the life cycles of the galaxy, specifically the games cover the ending of a cycle, easily categorized by existence of the reapers. All three choices have slight variances but all lead to a rebirth. This is not to say the choice of the three endings isn't important, since they reflect the different way major characters throughout the game wanted to approach the new cycle.
Anderson wanted a pure victory, even if it requires a torrent of violence, destruction, and for some, extinction.
The Illusive Man wanted to sacrifice himself (and many others) to achieve a golden age even if it meant the looming threat of complete destruction with the reapers so close and so integral to the new utopia.
Then there is Saren, who I'm surprised was not mentioned at the end, since he was in favor of the "if you can't beat em, join" approach, similar to synthesis with the reapers.
The games where never about preserving the status quo, even if that is what Shepard wanted.[/SPOILER]
Blame the gamers who don't bother finishing games. If they can't finish a game in a couple of hours they get bored and don't finish, if they do finish a game in a couple of hours they complain that it was too short. Devs are on a hiding to nothing.
I don't really want to start up the whole argument again here as i and the other MAJORITY of players who also "got it" have exhausted ourselves on bioware's ME forums trying to make people see this. People made up their minds and no discussion could sway them no mattter how logical. Almost every game throughout history has gone through this, the deflation of expectation, yet never with such hatred as ME3. nuff said. Try to ignore threads or conversations about ME3(hard sometimes i know)and just play the game, enjoy it and draw your own conclusions. Enjoy ME3 :-)
I loved ME1, it had a great story and a great feeling of exploration and the unknown. ME2 tightened up a lot of the flaws such as the combat and the repetative areas, as well as boasting an improved cast of characters. I felt ME3 took it a step to far in this direction, as while the gameplay was improved again until it was almost as smooth as Gears of War, it was too focused on individual mission and simply cleaning out areas with very little exploration.
The Blight isn't really all that interesting, probably why there was an extra scoop of political intrigue to even things out.
You can also make these comparisons between Mass Effect 1,2, and 3.
That being said, the reason I didn't like DA2 was the story wasn't really about the central character. You were just some sort of bystander that happened to be standing around during the mage-templar conflict. In the end, you make no lasting mark. Instead you just sorta slink off to the hills.
The ending to LotR and Star Wars are not Deus Ex Machina. I think you don't understand what that term means.
We knew from the outset of the Lord of the Rings trilogy what the end goal was: to destroy the ring. They figured out how to do it. They set out and accomplished the goal. While the secret weakness of the Death Star was cheesy, it was still destroyed by the main character's special abilities. That is not the case in Mass Effect 3. A god-figure comes and takes the final decision out of your hand, swooping in to "solve" everything with wisdom beyond that of mere mortals. It's fucking terrible story-telling. There's a reason Deus Ex Machinas have been considered literary faux pas since the Greeks: it mitigates the meaning of any human experiences in the story. It makes the struggle ultimately meaningless.
Does this make sense? The Mass Effect 3 ending was terrible and it's not defensible. Anyone with a remote iota of knowledge of English literature would know ending the game in that manner would be met with outrage. It was lazy, high-school level writing.
I have lurked on this thread up to this point, but I will finally chime in: Unless they return the combat to how it was in DA:O, I won't even remotely care about DA3. BioWare has proven they are incapable of crafting meaningful narrative anymore, so if the gameplay isn't there neither am I.
My other block of text already went into the human (and one turian) element of the choices offered, although we are only talking about the Deus Ex Machina so I don't know if you read that one.
In the interest of keeping the thread on track, I wish they would go back to Origins combat as well. The problem with DA2 combat for me was not so much the talent tree reshuffle but that the majority of the battles were really derivative.
1. Kill some minions
2. Wait for more minions to magically show up behind you.
3. Kill some minions
4. Repeat
As for DA2 fights, yep. I just won. No, wait. They're coming down the walls. And behind me... I think this was to make it harder to shield the mages from melee attackers, but it was over used. Wouldn't have minded one or two fights like that, just for variety, but it got silly. One reason I never re-played that game.
That is all.
Just because we knew we were activating a catalyst doesn't mean it wasn't DXM. At the end of the day, it's a literal god-figure "saving the day" as it were.
Thing is, most people who did like it had to put a lot of thought into why they liked it, no? It wasn't something easily accessible to Western storytelling. There are a lot more people who hated the ending than liked it. Everyone I know who went through Mass Effect 3 without reading internet spoilers first all loathed the ending. Most everyone I know who did like it were prepared somewhat to be disappointed. Funny how expectations and narrative-framing can change people's opinions.
Literary faux pas are considered as such because of years and years and years of culture and study informing us it's not an ideal way to piece together a story. I feel like if you're writing dialogue for a game, and part of the selling point is plot and storycrafting and the like, you'd have at least one guy on staff who went to school for an English degree, who could have spoke up and said, "You know, this is probably a bad idea."