Conspiracy Theory: ME3 Backlash was fake

[Patrick Swayze]

This is not a a discussion about the end of ME3, just the 'fan' reaction.

This has been an idea that's been lingering around the back of mind like a bad smell in a poorly cleaned taxi.

I think most of the backlash was trolling. I'd go as high as 75%

I think a lot of the internet hivemind seems to be on some kind of Bioware hate train, though not without reason, they do have some dubious DLC practices. But then counter to that, internet crybabies couldn't get over that one member of their staff didn't play games and proceeded to attack said staff member online.

Too many people seemed to complete the game in too fast a time which leads me to think a lot of them were pirates who got the game early (Can a pirate have a valid opinion on art? Do they value what they play the same as a paying customer? - somebody should make a topic about that asap) or didn't play through the game fully, instead relying on youtube.

The vast difference between Metacritic user and review scores implies something was 'going on' too, plus Metacritic seems to be an easy target for raging internet trolls. The site has been attacked before. A lot of the user reviews talk about how the game was simplified despite the greater level of depth customization over the second game. More reviews from people who didn't play the game? I think so.

The time spent whining about the game also leads me to believe that it was children over adults making the fuss on the internet.

How many adults have the time to spend so long slandering a game over such a period of time?

How many adults have such unrealistic expectations?

Basically, I think the internet trolled itself into oblivion on this one.

[coldvvvave]

Yeah, there are cases when community trolls itself into believeing things. Not sure if it indeed happened here, but I saw some other examples. I for one finished ME3, said "okay" and moved on. Not that I'm saying ME3 ending was great, but I thought it was passable.

[SirKicksalot]

The Hamburger Helper thing started before ME3 and I'm pretty sure she wasn't a writer for that game.

I only played the demo of ME3. I read about ME3's story and saw some videos. I think it's a fucking retarded concusion to a great journey. A great journey ending in a car crash is not that great after all! Is my opinion not valid because I haven't personally experienced the crash?

[Heliocentric]

It was passable, but that's just it. ME1 had a truly great memorable ending, ME2 had a great ending with a STOOPID giant robot, ME3 had a passable ending.

[Batolemaeus]

Basically, I think the internet trolled itself into oblivion on this one.

That doesn't even make sense. The internet tried to get some reaction out of itself? How does that work?

[Cooper]

I think the issue was that it was passable, but with a hint that (maybe with, you know, some kind of editing?) it could have been fucking brilliant.

[Tritagonist]

Of course there was trolling, and attempts to coordinate such trolling can easily be found on numerous gaming forums. Baiting the moderators with puns, for example, was a quite obvious trolling scheme - and not entirely unfunny at times. Was it 75% of negative responses? Who knows. Maybe it was, maybe it was 5%. There's no way to know unless you go about analysing who's posting, making which points, how long, etc.


I think a lot of the internet hivemind seems to be on some kind of Bioware hate train, though not without reason, they do have some dubious DLC practices.
Hivemind? Hate train? In any case, more generally speaking, I think the context in which ME3 was released is important. A year earlier, Dragon Age II was seen as a disappointment by many fans of the original Dragon Age. There's that infamous sales numbers graph that shows sales numbers plumetting after the first two weeks as word started getting out about the game. This may have made people more critical when looking at BioWare. Then there was The Old Republic in the fall of 2011, which I didn't play, but I did hear of numerous people, including on this blog and forum, who were either disappointed or otherwise unimpressed by this MMO. A month before release, BioWare offered a demo for ME3, which showcased two zones that weren't exactly high-points of the series, had wonky animations, generally unimpressive texture work, and a storyline that had many people confused (the missing trial, the weird introduction of James, the kid, etc.).


Too many people seemed to complete the game in too fast a time which leads me to think a lot of them were pirates who got the game early (Can a pirate have a valid opinion on art? Do they value what they play the same as a paying customer? - somebody should make a topic about that asap) or didn't play through the game fully, instead relying on youtube.
Too fast a time as decided by who? I played through ME3 on the weekend following the Friday release of Mass Effect 3, which took about 20 hours or so. Americans could have finished it by the time the European release rolled around by just playing a couple of hours a day. Besides, people who kept a clear schedule that week to play ME3 are perhaps the biggest fans of the series, though this must of course be a suspicion only. Not everybody can take time out of their usual schedule, after all. I don't see any reason to discount the opinions of the early-finishers, so to speak.


The vast difference between Metacritic user and review scores implies something was 'going on' too, plus Metacritic seems to be an easy target for raging internet trolls. The site has been attacked before.
MetaCritic scores are not entirely inaccurate, though they do of course have their fair share of problems. You do, for instance, have to account for the numerous people that can't look beyond the Google/Facebook level of critique (LIKE!/DISLIKE!) and throw around 10s and 1s.


A lot of the user reviews talk about how the game was simplified despite the greater level of depth customization over the second game. More reviews from people who didn't play the game? I think so.
What 'greater level of depth customization' is that? That's not sarcasm, it's not apparent to me what you're referring to. On the other hand, topics that come through in the criticism, and might speak to the simplification point, is the decreased amount of 'information'-dialogue options (traditionally the left side of the wheel) and neutral responses (traditionally the center-right option on the wheel). There were less squad members to go around in ME3 as compared to ME2, the ending wasn't more advanced in terms of tying it into the earlier game or even games than Jade Empire had been almost a decade earlier (the choice as to how to treat the dragon) etc. I don't want to declare support for any of these, but they were quite prominent and probably not entirely inaccurate.


The time spent whining about the game also leads me to believe that it was children over adults making the fuss on the internet.

How many adults have the time to spend so long slandering a game over such a period of time?

How many adults have such unrealistic expectations?
Plenty, I'd say - but we'll never know what the demographic makeup of the disappointed ME3 fans is like.

[Subatomic]

Regarding "simplification": ME 3 brought back weapon customization, had a lot more weapons than ME2 and a deeper leveling system with mutually exclusive upgrade choices. I'd say mechanically it was a lot less simple than ME2 and arguably ME1, which had tons of weapons and upgrades, but very little meaningful choice involved in picking which one to use (most were just straight upgrades), while ME3 has a lot more interesting (and therefore meaningful) options to choose from.

[Hypernetic]

All I know is how I felt after playing ME3 and that was extremely disappointed. I avoided anything Mass Effect related on the internet from a few weeks prior to release until after I completed the game (as to avoid spoilers).

My feelings on the ending were completely unbiased, I love the ME series and have no malicious intent towards Bioware as a company. I just was really disappointed by the ending. Also the crap Tali photo.

As for the conspiracy theory? Bleh. I'm a skeptic at heart so you'll have an extremely hard time convincing me.

[The JG Man]

Even if there was some trolling, which is possible for sure, the finale had some god awful writing. This is at least partially evident in the number of retcons made in the extended cut, along with just how obvious they were too. There's no way supposed trolling would have been able to have maintained itself if it wasn't based on some sort of substance.

[Subatomic]

Yeah, I think a lot of the disappointment was genuine (mine sure was!). The absolutely mind boggling hate that erupted on the internet however still surprises me a bit, but maybe it was just a very extreme form of hype backlash, fueled by the feeling a lot of people had that Bioware had lost what made them special after the DA2 fiasco (though I still think that game isn't that bad), the DLC controversy etc.

[gganate]

I think the way the internet is nowadays, everything gets blown out of proportion. Someone reads one negative review, then tells someone that this game is bad, and that gets spread around until half of the people complaining are just bitching because everyone else is. The internet forms a consensus of opinion that's hard to ignore, even when you're conscious of it. I haven't played Mass Effect 3 (waiting for the price to come down) but I've heard so much about the poor ending that my opinion of it will probably be affected. We have numerous forums, blogs, review sites, facebook...people's time is limited, and judgment is rendered on things without much thought. So I would say that it's less a conspiracy regarding Mass Effect 3's reception, and more just the nature of the internet.

On another note, do the last five minutes of a game really matter all that much if the experience until then has been excellent? Was the purpose of Mass Effect to tell a great story? I just completed Rage and it had the most half-assed ending I've ever experienced, yet I'd give it a positive review, since most of the game was pretty good.

[Tritagonist]

On another note, do the last five minutes of a game really matter all that much if the experience until then has been excellent? Was the purpose of Mass Effect to tell a great story?

The story is important to the Mass Effect series. The combat is pretty basic, and the RPG elements aren't very intricate either. The story, with the characters and conversations, makes the series worthwhile. Even if it's not thought-provoking literature by any means, it's still good fun.

With regards to Mass Effect 3; pretty much everything you do is building up to that ending. You're solving problems mainly because their resolution will allow the involved parties to focus on the battle against the Reapers (the ending). Then that is all wrapped up in the two short London and Citadel missions, which are pretty lacklustre and the perceived problems with them are well documented. The feeling that the ending was so underwhelming also made the journey leading up to it (that is; the rest of the game) less compelling, and devalued it in some sense, at least it did for me. So yes, I think the ending is quite important - and since it's the ending of an entire trilogy, perhaps it was more important than in most other games.

Here's a decent talk about the importance of the (patched-up versions of the) endings by a guy who was pretty vocal about, and critical of, the original attempt: http://jmstevenson.me/2012/06/27/mass-effect-3-extended-cut/

[Godwhacker]

Thinking about this practically... if this was a trolling effort by 75% of the people claiming to hate the ending, how and where were they coordinating their trolling efforts? Because that's a lot of people doing a lot of troll-based communication, and there doesn't seem to be much evidence of it anywhere online.

I think it's more likely that a lot of people genuinely thought the ending was complete tripe. I know I did. The outrage was genuine- histrionic in places, yes, but genuine.

[DzX]

On another note, do the last five minutes of a game really matter all that much if the experience until then has been excellent? Was the purpose of Mass Effect to tell a great story?

Given the only innovation the series attempted was to do with its story [choices and personality carying across a trilogy] I'd say the answer is yes to both questions.

[DarkFenix]

I'm skeptical of any kind of 'conspiracy' to cause such a backlash. ME3's ending just left me with hollow disappointment. It didn't make me rage, if anything it's worse than that, it just dissolved the last of my ability to care about anything Bioware do. I know that 90% of the game was great, but the ending was so deflating it's entirely killed off my desire to touch it or any other Bioware game again.

I think the rage over the endings was inflated by the fact that this is the Internet; land of the angry, self-righteous and entitled. But at the same time the backlash was there and I think it was quite real. The end of ME3 didn't just fail to meet expectations (by the end of this trilogy these were so high I personally thought it impossible for it to meet them), it failed to even be a 'decent' ending (I just took a look at the extended ones on Youtube, those are what I'd call 'passable', and still not even close to good enough) and closed Bioware's flagship franchise with a fairly enormous finger to the fans. I don't think there was any way there wouldn't be a backlash.

[deano2099]

I don't think there was any way there wouldn't be a backlash.

That was always going to be the case though. It's such a big game series, so much going on, so many ideas, themes, story-threads. I didn't need the internet to tell me the ending was going to be a let-down. Few great pieces of storytelling have amazing or even decent endings.

I don't think the backlash was fake, but I think it was inevitable regardless of what Bioware did. An ending that satisfied everyone would have been so big it'd be an entire game itself. In many ways that's what ME3 was. But the final choice was always going to be a damp squib of an ending.

[random_guy]

I think the negative reactions to the ending were genuine, and helped along by the fact that for some of us, this series managed to get us emotionally invested in characters like no games have before.

But I think the reason things got so intense have a lot to do with the nature of the internet. On the one hand, you had the detractors being exposed to many others sharing the same opinion, and therefore becoming emboldened to go to higher and higher extremes.

On the other hand, you had lots of people who never even played a ME game or who didn't like the series, weighing in because they were offended by the concept of fans "demanding" a new ending. They by necessity had no inkling of the attachment hardcore ME fans have *or had* for the series.

[Hypernetic]

Eh, maybe so. I think what truly bothered most people was the fact that there was literally nothing different about the presentation of the different endings besides different colored explosions.

[soldant]

I disagree that this was a massive troll. Did some people take it too far? Undoubtedly. Expecting a complete explanation about the reasoning of the Reapers (who should have remained enigmatic) is a bit too much but that bit of deus ex machina we got with the 3 choices felt a bit ridiculous.

Much of the flawed logic behind the AI can easily be explained as "It's an enigmatic AI who, like a dementia patient, always believes it's right even if it's clearly wrong." I think people took that point a bit too far presuming that Shepard could have total and absolute control over the situation. But the endings provided pretty much no closure; the red and blue endings seemed to be bad period, while the green middle of the road ending just seemed like a pointless addition. That backlash was genuine and justified in many ways (though a "You win with absolute awesomeness and nobody else got hurt THE END" ending would be a bit dumb too).

The other thing I found amusing was people complaining that their choices didn't dictate the ending. They did to an extent (if you didn't get the war assets up past minimum you lost, period) but if you'd gone through the whole series only to be told "You did this, this, and this, but not this, so therefore you lose" or something like that I'd imagine the backlash would have been much stronger.

[deano2099]

Eh, maybe so. I think what truly bothered most people was the fact that there was literally nothing different about the presentation of the different endings besides different colored explosions.

That's interesting, as it suggest the problem people had wasn't with the ending, but only became apparent after looking up the alternate endings on YouTube or going back and playing all of them. ie - their first ending should have been 'okay' at least.

[Finicky]

I think a lot of the internet hivemind seems to be on some kind of Bioware hate train

Internet hivemind? There is nothing more the internet likes than to argue and fight with eachother over every single thing ever.

[c-Row]

Internet hivemind? There is nothing more the internet likes than to argue and fight with eachother over every single thing ever.

It's a rather schizophrenic hivemind indeed.

[DzX]

That's interesting, as it suggest the problem people had wasn't with the ending, but only became apparent after looking up the alternate endings on YouTube or going back and playing all of them. ie - their first ending should have been 'okay' at least.

The problems people had with their own, terrible, ending were multiplied when they heard all endings were near identical. This fanboy-esque concept that a horde of players were somehow duped, or trolling because they secretly thought the ending was acceptable but wanted to attack Bioware is a pretty laughable concept. It has been explained in great detail, in video and text forms, why the ending to Mass Effect 3 [the original anyway] doesn't make sense from a stylistic standpoint, nor is it consistent within its own game - yet alone the entire franchise.

There's no 'conspiracy', the ending was just awful.

[NathanH]

I don't really think we can attribute too much of the ME3 fiasco to trolls. Sure, there was quite a lot of metacritic trolling with fake homophobia for the lols, but that was mostly the sort of stuff that would have been ignored if there wasn't a major problem. The thing about the ME3 ending was just that most people seemed to hate it. That's particularly "impressive" given that Bioware's recent work from DA:O onwards seems to inspire many wildly different opinions, and often there are lots of groups who enjoy different things about Bioware games and hate different things. But the ME3 ending seems to unite a lot of these disparate groups. Every living breathing meatbag that I've talked to has the same opinion of ME3: really good game until the last five minutes when it suddenly became a bit shit. And this is a bunch of meatbags who very rarely agree on anything else in gaming.

[Kadayi]

There's no 'conspiracy', the ending was just awful.

Agreed. Ordinarily I'd weigh in on this, but Tritagonist seems to have tackled the fundamental problems with the OPs post. Certainly there exists an element of people out there who unquestionably 'hate' on anything EA related (and Bioware are popular target) for innumerable perceived personal sleights, but they're hardly the most articulate crowd (indignation over reason IME). Much of what has been said by people is very much focussed on the narrative issues with the story line.

This idea that the whole thing was just a huge troll by 'haters' seems like some vague attempt to blithely dismiss the issue rather than truly examine it and establish why things played out as they did. I'd say there are important things to learn from the whole situation in terms of how Bioware reacted and how the gaming press almost unanimously sided with them to their detriment.

[Shane]

(Can a pirate have a valid opinion on art? Do they value what they play the same as a paying customer? - somebody should make a topic about that asap)

So this applies to game reviewers getting free copies too?

[Patrick Swayze]

IRT Shane

I think it might you know.

Having way more games than you can possibly play at any given time has to have an effect on an individuals mentality towards play.

Once entertainment is free does it not become as disposable as TV does?

[Patrick Swayze]

Thanks for the discussion everyone!

Just wanted to know what people thought of the overall crowd that was attacking Bioware.

After the dumbing down of the ME series and the whole Dragon Age 2 debacle I think I'm done with Bioware now. I've got no desire for MMOEffect which will blatantly come out soon and I'm not a Starwars lover so the odds are I can take or leave their next offerings.

Unless... that C&C Generals game they are working on proves to be awesome.

I suspect it'll be a nickel and dime fiasco though with EA experimenting further with their nefarious DLC plans.

I really am having to start voting with my wallet now in the gaming industry.

[Theblazeuk]

My only issue with the backlash is that my actual opinion and utter disappointment with the end of the series was undermined because other people shared it, and a minority expressed it to an extreme.

Of course this conspiracy idea is brilliant. You should bottle that paranoia!

[georgyboy]

bad game is bad, just leave it to die

[The JG Man]

After the dumbing down of the ME series and the whole Dragon Age 2 debacle I think I'm done with Bioware now.

Hmmmm. ME1's gameplay suffered due to some ill-working mechanics, even if they were great in theory. Whilst it was a shame that ME2 removed some of these, I'd find it hard pressed to say that it didn't play a good fair bit better. At least they then went to rectify a considerable amount of this in 3. As for DA2, the thread that was on here for some time ago highlighted that there are a good few people with rational reasoning as to why they enjoyed the game, or at the very least are anticipating DA3. BioWare are not flawless and they've certainly justified some of the disdain they've picked up, but I still think they're pretty good as far as developers go.


Unless... that C&C Generals game they are working on proves to be awesome.

BioWare is the branding, but it's not done by the same team. If I remember correctly, it's mostly made up of the old EA LA studio, who worked on CnC3/4, as well as some old Bullfrog team. I'm happy to be proven wrong here on details I've potentially got wrong.


bad game is bad, just leave it to die

I feel that's a considerable hyperbole. The game plays pretty damn well and has a good narrative/story for a good 90% of its duration. It's just a shame that the ending (and I'd argue beginning) are as poor as they are. This is completely forgetting the multiplayer component which was hardly lacking either.

[Kadayi]

BioWare is the branding, but it's not done by the same team. If I remember correctly, it's mostly made up of the old EA LA studio, who worked on CnC3/4, as well as some old Bullfrog team. I'm happy to be proven wrong here on details I've potentially got wrong.

This is an important point often overlooked by detractors. Similarly the DA and ME teams, albeit in the same location are actually separate entities.

[Mohorovicic]

I think most of the backlash was trolling. I'd go as high as 75%


PROTIP: Before using the word "trolling" learn what it means.

Then go see that RedLetterMedia ripoff video about ME3 ending. "Trolling" or not, the fan's arguments are sound.

[deano2099]

Then go see that RedLetterMedia ripoff video about ME3 ending. "Trolling" or not, the fan's arguments are sound.

If it takes a 40 minute video to explain why the ending was bad then I get the impression they're over-thinking it.

A really bad ending can have the problems explained in a single sentence (albeit, that can be done for some of the ME3 criticisms too).

But if I liked the ending, I'm never going to watch a 40-minute video which, best case scenario, will result in me no longer enjoying something I used to.

[Mohorovicic]

So you refuse to listen to the other's side arguments in case they're actually right?

The derp standard here is high.

[Hypernetic]

This is an important point often overlooked by detractors. Similarly the DA and ME teams, albeit in the same location are actually separate entities.

While this is true, they still have Bioware stamped on their box. They are still part of Bioware and overseen by the founders of Bioware.

A certain level of quality has come to be expected from Bioware for some reason. I'm not really sure WHY that is, as Bioware's games have always been kind of buggy and weird, but that's how it is apparently.

[deano2099]

So you refuse to listen to the other's side arguments in case they're actually right?

The derp standard here is high.

That and it's 40 minutes of my life I wouldn't get back. It is a bit of an 'ignorance is bliss' situation I admit (though I'm not convinced there'll be anything in there that hasn't been said elsewhere) but my point was that if something was really bad, pointing out the problem would be quick, simple and obvious. If it takes 40 minutes to pull it apart and get to the issue, then to me that means the problems are more subtle, harder to spot, and hence have a lesser impact.

Doesn't mean they don't exist, but if I need a lecture to see the problem, then they're not obvious.

[Hypernetic]

That and it's 40 minutes of my life I wouldn't get back. It is a bit of an 'ignorance is bliss' situation I admit (though I'm not convinced there'll be anything in there that hasn't been said elsewhere) but my point was that if something was really bad, pointing out the problem would be quick, simple and obvious. If it takes 40 minutes to pull it apart and get to the issue, then to me that means the problems are more subtle, harder to spot, and hence have a lesser impact.

Doesn't mean they don't exist, but if I need a lecture to see the problem, then they're not obvious.

Your logic is flawed. Unless you feel like people should just say "bad ending is bad" and move on.

The reason people have long-winded criticisms of ME3 is two fold, players have invested a LOT of time in the game and it's lore and the contrast between most of ME3 and it's ridiculously bad ending are so great that it confounds people.

Your logic is similar to me saying "Explain what is wrong with the current economy and why, in 20 words or less or their is nothing wrong with the economy.".

[Kadayi]

If it takes a 40 minute video to explain why the ending was bad then I get the impression they're over-thinking it.

Not really, the dude just goes into in depth explaining the narrative flaws. Frankly given the amount of time you've wasted here arguing against peoples criticisms of the endings I'm pretty flabbergasted that you've not actually watched this (it's been linked to before on more than one occasion).


So you refuse to listen to the other's side arguments in case they're actually right?

The derp standard here is high.

It does seem like a pretty weak defense for sure.


While this is true, they still have Bioware stamped on their box. They are still part of Bioware and overseen by the founders of Bioware.

That means jack in reality. The CEOs are so far above the factory floor they are operating on a strategic level. Sure they might get approval on certain things, but by on large the teams will be self contained in terms of operation.


Your logic is similar to me saying "Explain what is wrong with the current economy and why, in 20 words or less or there is nothing wrong with the economy.".

Hypernetic 1: Deano 0

[The JG Man]

Why the ending of Mass Effect 3 sucked in two words (the shortest length I could come up with): Screwed narrative.

That, in itself, means nothing though. What was screwed about it? Is that fully indicative of it? I watched all of the smudboy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiN8gL40d84) deconstructions on YouTube and they detail all of the reasons why it falls apart. Even if you think about the more obvious points brought up instead of the particulars, there's still a crap-load to be drawn to.

Really, BioWare's writing is bad and they should feel bad.

[deano2099]

Not really, the dude just goes into in depth explaining the narrative flaws. Frankly given the amount of time you've wasted here arguing against peoples criticisms of the endings I'm pretty flabbergasted that you've not actually watched this (it's been linked to before on more than one occasion).

Is there really anything in it that hasn't been talked about to death here already? Honest question.


Your logic is similar to me saying "Explain what is wrong with the current economy and why, in 20 words or less or their is nothing wrong with the economy.".

"Money on computers isn't real money. Someone noticed."

Maybe that's why this whole ending thing rages on so much though. It's not one problem, it's myriad small issues, each of which bothers different people (closure, last minute plot twist, blown-up relays x2, war assets not directly linking in, no recognition of previous actions, no companions in final discussion and tons more).

I guess it's somewhat like the Stephen Roberts atheism argument* - everyone who doesn't like the ending finds that one or more of those things (or many others) bothers them enough to turn them off the ending. The rest they're not so bothered about. Therefore it follows that some of us won't be bothered by any of the issues enough to make us hate the ending.

*“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

[Hypernetic]

"Money on computers isn't real money. Someone noticed."



Try again.



Maybe that's why this whole ending thing rages on so much though. It's not one problem, it's myriad small issues, each of which bothers different people (closure, last minute plot twist, blown-up relays x2, war assets not directly linking in, no recognition of previous actions, no companions in final discussion and tons more).

I guess it's somewhat like the Stephen Roberts atheism argument* - everyone who doesn't like the ending finds that one or more of those things (or many others) bothers them enough to turn them off the ending. The rest they're not so bothered about. Therefore it follows that some of us won't be bothered by any of the issues enough to make us hate the ending.

*“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

I don't think that's an apt analogy, nor do I think his atheism argument is sound, but I'm not going to get into that here. (note: I am an atheist)

Your new argument seems to be centered around disproving a statement nobody made about how it's impossible to like the ME3 endings. You've kind of abandoned your old argument and created a strawman here with this new one, so I do believe we are at an impasse.

[Kadayi]

Is there really anything in it that hasn't been talked about to death here already? Honest question.

Given you apparently didn't watch the video the first time around when the whole storyline issues were addressed months back I can't really say whether you've personally heard the arguments before or not. The extent of your seeming apathy to fully investigate a subject isn't something I account for I'm afraid. My recommendation is you man up and make the time to watch the video and decide for yourself.

[The JG Man]

It's not one problem, it's myriad small issues, each of which bothers different people (closure, last minute plot twist, blown-up relays x2, war assets not directly linking in, no recognition of previous actions, no companions in final discussion and tons more).

None of those things are small issues. Closure is what gives the entire story meaning, that lingering thought that is to be taken from it. Without appropriate closure, everything beforehand becomes unravelled and all you can take from it is "What am I supposed to take from this?" Last minute plot twists are rarely used because 99% of the time they suck. One of the reasons why the Star Wars one is liked so much is because it's one of the few examples where this actually is done well and fundamentally adds or changes the previous narrative in a positive way. Why does Vader want Luke to fight with him? Oh, it's because he's a Jedi-in-training and having one fight for the Empire strengthens them. Well, that's partially true, but really, there's a more intimate reason...

The relays are easily dismissed because the error with them is simple - the inconsistency was immediately ret-conned, but its overwhelming stupidity initially meant that the entire galaxy was wiped out. That's...a pretty good reason to dislike an ending when your setting and all the effort put into it to protect it is dismissed by your own actions, of which you have no choice in. The war assets is a massive element because we're introduced to them early on as a means to gauge our successfulness, but at the end it essentially equates to nothing more than an in-game progress chart and specific-codex that adds nothing, yet there was so much opportunity for doing so. It was one of the fundamental narratives of the entire game, but in reality it was near-meaningless.

The lack of recognition and interaction with squad mates is similar to the closure issue. Whilst imagination should play a large part in what happens, you still need a guide, otherwise you might as well just provide a set-up and go "Okay, whatever you want to happens magically happens." Worse though is that the entire series, again, has been about influencing the events of an entire galaxy. To have no idea of your actions, in an interactive-based play area, is one of the worst things you can do narratively. Again, it makes what you did almost meaningless.

People are rather against having their actions prove to be meaningless at the end of a considerable amount of time spent. Nothing about the ending's suckage was small. It was just awful. The extended cut doesn't even help too much, with some of the worst narrative failings still existing.

[Theblazeuk]

Why the ending of Mass Effect 3 sucked in two words (the shortest length I could come up with): Screwed narrative.

Failed promise.

[Hypernetic]

I think "nonsensical bullshit" is the most apt if we are going for two words.

[The JG Man]

Screwed nonsensical narrative bullshit; failed promise.

How about that?

[Hypernetic]

We could simplify that to just "bullshit".

[deano2099]

We could simplify that to just "bullshit".

To be fair that works for the economy too.

I'm discussing, rather than arguing, gents. I find the sheer strength and force of the backlash to be intriguing in and of itself. Speculating on why is interesting. And why so many hated it but so many games journos didn't. It worked for me despite getting a number of things wrong.

And my dear Kad, I'm afraid I'll have to remain a boy as sitting and watching someone rant for 40 minutes about the ending is past my personal threshold of bother for this topic. I'll leave the manly video watching to the real men.

[Hypernetic]

To be fair that works for the economy too.

I'm discussing, rather than arguing, gents. I find the sheer strength and force of the backlash to be intriguing in and of itself. Speculating on why is interesting. And why so many hated it but so many games journos didn't. It worked for me despite getting a number of things wrong.

And my dear Kad, I'm afraid I'll have to remain a boy as sitting and watching someone rant for 40 minutes about the ending is past my personal threshold of bother for this topic. I'll leave the manly video watching to the real men.

I mean this in the nicest way possible, but perhaps you are simply too ignorant of things such as science and logic to see all the glaring flaws in the ME3 ending.

As for game journalists, who cares what they think, they aren't even real people.

[deano2099]

I mean this in the nicest way possible, but perhaps you are simply too ignorant of things such as science and logic to see all the glaring flaws in the ME3 ending.

Could be it, I'll admit that I haven't read much sci-fi outside of Iain M Banks. Or maybe I find it easier to suspend disbelief.

On the other hand maybe people going into it having been told how bad it was were already set to nitpick and hate it.

[The JG Man]

I knew it was bad going into it (I got to the ending at least a week after everyone else) and initially thought it was okay. Then I realised, the more I thought about it, that it was bad. I think that was the extent of previous influence on a lot of people. Something bad is bad, whether or not you go into it being told so and agree, or discover it on your own. There is no conspiracy to the ending. There is no need to have specifically read SF to get why this ending was bad. ME is pulp sci-fi at its core, where there is a central idea/theme and the rest is established around the characters. ME3's ending failed because both of these were ignored or changed for no reason.

[Kadayi]

I'll have to remain a boy as sitting and watching someone rant for 40 minutes about the ending is past my personal threshold of bother for this topic.

The fact that you think it's a rant without having seen a second of footage says everything anyone needs to know about you really Dean. Given your apparent desire to make broad judgements about the people who were unhappy about the ending of the game at any given opportunity, but complete unwillingness to put any actual leg work in to at least understand their concerns marks you out as little more than a tourist in terms of the bigger ME3 conversation Vs pretty much everyone else here truth be told. Please feel free to postulate some more about how your life is so busy that you don't have the time for these things though.


And why so many hated it but so many games journos didn't.

Because on the whole most reviewers are rarely invested in narrative. Thus why sub par B movie script games like MW2 can score 90+ reviews (storyline is not a priority). Games reviews are pretty much the antithesis of film reviews in that regard.

[deano2099]

The fact that you think it's a rant without having seen a second of footage says everything anyone needs to know about you really Dean.

I think someone called it 'a bit ranty' in the original 27-page thread which I read all of. And seriously, what's with all the personal attacks all of a sudden? You're not that guy.

I'm not attacking anyone that didn't like it, even I only thought it was 'alright', but the strength of the reaction was so huge and it's hardly the worst videogame ending ever. Which makes it an interesting subject for discussion. And yes, I feel like it's a discussion I can participate in without having watched a specific 40 minute video. Hell, plenty of people are participating here that haven't even played the extended cut and just watched it on YouTube.

[The JG Man]

it's hardly the worst videogame ending ever

That's a bit of wonky logic to use, as if to say "Well there are other worse things, focus on them first!" The fact is, it was called out because millions of people played it and the literally overwhelming majority of them called out BioWare on it and collectively said "What the hell?" Sure, there are worse things out there, but the level of attention this got was certainly appropriate. I'd actually so far as to say that the people who are not put-off by the whole thing haven't actually thought about it comprehensively. A lot of people since the cut have said that if this was the finished product, they'd have been okay with it. Well, maybe...except the cut fixes so few of the actual narrative problems that all it means is that a lot of people are happy with a bit of gloss.

BioWare keep talking about artistic integrity, but what's scary about that is that they were content with releasing...content that was poor, not just from a subjective stand-point, but objectively. What's scarier than that, is that people are happy with it still failing.

[deano2099]

That's a bit of wonky logic to use, as if to say "Well there are other worse things, focus on them first!" The fact is, it was called out because millions of people played it and the literally overwhelming majority of them called out BioWare on it and collectively said "What the hell?"
They didn't did then? Literally the overwhelming majority haven't even finished the game yet.


Sure, there are worse things out there, but the level of attention this got was certainly appropriate. I'd actually so far as to say that the people who are not put-off by the whole thing haven't actually thought about it comprehensively.
Probably true, I can see the flaws in it, but I can also remember that when I first played it, I was okay with it. It was decent. It certainly annoyed me less than DA2's ending, which I thought was far worse.

[The JG Man]

The thing is, as contrived as DA2's ending was, it made sense. There was foreshadowing of Anders' actions, that Meredith was clearly off her rocker anyhow and that mages can resort to blood magic quite readily. So, even though a lot of people thought it was drastic, the narrative still worked pretty well.

I don't get your comment regarding 'even finished the game yet' though. Are you referring to people who haven't played the cut? I haven't, but I watched all of the endings satisfied I've seen everything there is to see of narrative importance. The thing is, the fact I can even watch everything and feel that I've got everything out of it instead of needing to properly interact with it says it all.

[random_guy]

Man I wish there were accurate figures into how many people didn't like the ending. Ending-haters are convinced that the majority hated it, ending-likers are convinced it was a minority. If we had numbers one way or another, maybe the conflict wouldn't have raged so hot.

[Sketch]

The whole thing with Dragon Age 2 and Orsino was really ass, especially if you sided with the mages.

[DzX]

Man I wish there were accurate figures into how many people didn't like the ending. Ending-haters are convinced that the majority hated it, ending-likers are convinced it was a minority. If we had numbers one way or another, maybe the conflict wouldn't have raged so hot.

Clearly a decent amount of people disliked the ending so drastically they were willing to publicly complain - the outrage was so great Bioware 'fixed' the ending. Were it a mere loud minority [rather than scores of posters on a vast number of forums] I doubt they'd have payed much heed.

[deano2099]

I don't get your comment regarding 'even finished the game yet' though. Are you referring to people who haven't played the cut? I haven't, but I watched all of the endings satisfied I've seen everything there is to see of narrative importance. The thing is, the fact I can even watch everything and feel that I've got everything out of it instead of needing to properly interact with it says it all.

http://uk.xbox360.ign.com/articles/111/1117896p1.html
Roughly 50% of people who started ME2 finished it. So the chance of a "literally overwhelming majority" hating the ending of ME3 seems remote, as literally only a tiny majority will even reach it.

That's how far removed we are from things here. Only 50% of players see the end. Then of those, consider the amount that will be so incensed one way or another they'd post on forums about it. And there's not many people defending the ending because there's not much to defend. Those in the "pro" camp mostly just think it was okay, it wasn't mind-blowing or amazing by any stretch. People that just think something is alright are less likely to talk about it. Hence the overwhelming fan reaction online was negative.

But vocal players online do have an extraordinary amount of power - a few thousand or even a few hundred can really help set the narrative for the game's success or failure. I'll wager more people now know that ME3's ending sucked than have actually played it. And with no major opposing defending group of people you can't spin it as a 'love it or hate it' thing.

[NathanH]

I imagine Dragon Age 2's ending doesn't attract so much ire because there aren't as many people who reached the last five minutes thinking "so far, this has been one of the best games I've played in ages".

[Hypernetic]

I imagine Dragon Age 2's ending doesn't attract so much ire because there aren't as many people who reached the last five minutes thinking "so far, this has been one of the best games I've played in ages".

It also didn't promise you an ending based on 3 games worth of choices and then fail to deliver.

[NathanH]

That's also true; in fact most of the game is spent making it clear that you don't really have very much control over anything, so the fact that in the ending you don't really have very much control over anything is not jarring.

[DzX]

http://uk.xbox360.ign.com/articles/111/1117896p1.html
Roughly 50% of people who started ME2 finished it. So the chance of a "literally overwhelming majority" hating the ending of ME3 seems remote, as literally only a tiny majority will even reach it.

That doesn't really make any difference - those that did reach the ending were disappointed; I assume the comment meant the overwhelming majority of those who completed the game and had stuck with the series throughout.



Those in the "pro" camp mostly just think it was okay, it wasn't mind-blowing or amazing by any stretch. People that just think something is alright are less likely to talk about it. Hence the overwhelming fan reaction online was negative.

I don't know how anyone could defend that ending having read / watched the incredibly detailed explanations as to just how utterly dreadful it is. Indeed any attempts I've seen to actually defend the ending have come from those who just failed to understand how badly written it actually was and the potential implied ramifications.


But vocal players online do have an extraordinary amount of power - a few thousand or even a few hundred can really help set the narrative for the game's success or failure. I'll wager more people now know that ME3's ending sucked than have actually played it. And with no major opposing defending group of people you can't spin it as a 'love it or hate it' thing.

Given there were extensive threads on the subject on almost every popular gaming forum [Reddit, Neogaf, IGN to name a few] you're looking at a very vast potential audience of discussion. Of those that posted, the vast majority disliked the ending. Bioware saw this and made changes due to the mass outcry.

The complaints were primarily directed by those who had completed all 3 games in the series; as the lack of a personalized ending was one of the major issues. That can't be that huge an amount of people - given the statistics you've brought up.

[Kadayi]

I think someone called it 'a bit ranty' in the original 27-page thread which I read all of.

So you're more prepared to believe 'someones' three word off hand dismissal rather than any of us?


And seriously, what's with all the personal attacks all of a sudden? You're not that guy.

Pretty sure I've just called you out because you're being needlessly obtuse and contrarian for the sake of it, but feel free to regard that as me calling you fat if you wish.


http://uk.xbox360.ign.com/articles/111/1117896p1.html
Roughly 50% of people who started ME2 finished it. So the chance of a "literally overwhelming majority" hating the ending of ME3 seems remote, as literally only a tiny majority will even reach it.

If the backlash wasn't significant in terms of actual numbers then Bioware wouldn't of felt compelled to act (they didn't over DA2). That people don't finish games doesn't stop them from buying sequels. I'm also fairly sure the completion rate for ME2 likely went up significantly as ME3s launch approached as well.

[deano2099]

Given there were extensive threads on the subject on almost every popular gaming forum [Reddit, Neogaf, IGN to name a few] you're looking at a very vast potential audience of discussion. Of those that posted, the vast majority disliked the ending. Bioware saw this and made changes due to the mass outcry.

The complaints were primarily directed by those who had completed all 3 games in the series; as the lack of a personalized ending was one of the major issues. That can't be that huge an amount of people - given the statistics you've brought up.
It did 3.5million, half of that is still 1.75million. Nowhere near that many people on forums.

The stats I posted earlier are also interesting in terms of how they utterly failed to match what you'd expect from forum posts.

From internet forums, you'd extrapolate a 50/50 male/female Shep split and a relatively even split between classes (with a few more Vanguards and Infiltrators). The actual stats are more Soldiers than every other class put together, and 80% male Shep. Extrapolating from forum reactions doesn't tell you much at all.

The DLC was still a good call though, as it's generally just those active players that will make the effort to download the DLC and replay the ending anyway. As much as the masses may not have hated the ending in quite the same way the dedicated players did, they were also never going to pick up an DLC anyway.

[deano2099]

If the backlash wasn't significant in terms of actual numbers then Bioware wouldn't of felt compelled to act (they didn't over DA2). That people don't finish games doesn't stop them from buying sequels. I'm also fairly sure the completion rate for ME2 likely went up significantly as ME3s launch approached as well.

People that download/buy DLC are also the ones that post on forums. Hence it was a good call.

I can't help that I didn't hate the ending. But maybe that helps give me some insight into why other people might not hate it either. I won't deny that I'm often somewhat contrarian on purpose on forums to help stimulate debate and discussion, I'm happy to play devil's advocate. But you'll just have to take me at my word that this time I'm not. Ultimately it shouldn't matter, unless you think the point of these discussions is to convince people of things rather than explore the issues.

[DzX]

It did 3.5million, half of that is still 1.75million. Nowhere near that many people on forums.

The stats I posted earlier are also interesting in terms of how they utterly failed to match what you'd expect from forum posts.

Not really, they match the idea that there's a distinct demographic who regularly post on forums. They don't in any way counter the idea the vast majority disliked the ending, only that there're players, who finished the game, that don't post post on forums.


Extrapolating from forum reactions doesn't tell you much at all.

I'm failing to find the point in this argument. The forum argument displays that a wider range than mere rabid fans disliked the ending [given the scope of the complaints]; thus it was altered. You don't require a specific amount of casual fans to state they too hated the ending [and honestly given there's no evidence they liked the ending the argument is pretty vapid] in order to garner a general reaction.

There's no other metric on which to gauge it, thus the forum reaction is the general reaction.


I can't help that I didn't hate the ending.

You don't hate an ending that refuses to acknowledge the big reveal is directly contradicted by events of the game?

http://www.gamefront.com/mass-effect-3-ending-hatred-5-reasons-the-fans-are-right/

The article doesn't go into the depth the videos do but it's a decent quick look at the subject [as from this thread you've seemingly stated you're yet to research the reasoning behind the anger.]

[The JG Man]

Hell, I needed to only look on Facebook to see my friends who had it to find out how disappointed they were. They don't use forums, but every person I've spoken to about it has had massive misgivings. Anecdotal, sure, but this isn't just a one-off case; I'm sure many other people had similar experiences with their friends and this game.

Response was wide-spread for a reason. The ending sucked. There is no great conspiracy. And EA ran with it too in some of the most glorious examples of spin (http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/04/15/mass-effect-3-ending-provoked-a-bigger-fan-reaction-than-any-other-in-video-game-history) you will see.

[Subatomic]

You're a fan of an ending that refuses to acknowledge the big reveal is directly contradicted by events of the game?

I don't want to nitpick, but he never said he was a fan of the ending, just that he didn't outright hate it. But I guess that's part of the problem, this "You're either with us or against us" mentality prevalent in many online discussions, and the ME3 ending is certainly no exception.

[DzX]

I don't want to nitpick, but he never said he was a fan of the ending, just that he didn't outright hate it.

Good point, I've edited accordingly.


But I guess that's part of the problem, this "You're either with us or against us" mentality prevalent in many online discussions, and the ME3 ending is certainly no exception.

Ugh.

[Hypernetic]

It did 3.5million, half of that is still 1.75million. Nowhere near that many people on forums.

The stats I posted earlier are also interesting in terms of how they utterly failed to match what you'd expect from forum posts.

From internet forums, you'd extrapolate a 50/50 male/female Shep split and a relatively even split between classes (with a few more Vanguards and Infiltrators). The actual stats are more Soldiers than every other class put together, and 80% male Shep. Extrapolating from forum reactions doesn't tell you much at all.

The DLC was still a good call though, as it's generally just those active players that will make the effort to download the DLC and replay the ending anyway. As much as the masses may not have hated the ending in quite the same way the dedicated players did, they were also never going to pick up an DLC anyway.

You are making a giant mistake in assuming that the non-vocal players were happy with the ending simply because they didn't come to a message board to post about it.

To use a non-ME3 example to prove my point, I have several friends who don't frequent gaming message boards or really post on them at all that were EXTREMELY unhappy with many aspects of Diablo 3.

You make a lot of assumptions in your arguments and then continue with your argument as if those assumptions were now fact simply because you assume them to be. To use an analogy, assuming that the non-vocal majority are pleased with (or didn't hate) the ME3 ending is the same as assuming that anyone who didn't vote in the Presidential election was happy with who was ultimately elected.

Another analogy? It's the same as assuming all of a doctor's former patients who did NOT sue him for medical malpractice were happy with his treatments.

Not everyone sues doctors, votes, or posts on message boards. That doesn't mean you can just make up an opinion for them to suit your needs.

EDIT; Also why in the hell would you assume that the male/female Shepard rate would be 50/50? What are you basing that figure on? Why would you assume that all classes would be an even split? What figure are you basing THAT on? I've never seen ANY class based game where there was an even split of players among all classes. There is always a class that "seems cool" or "looks cool" that people want to play more than others (the opposite is also true, there are classes that seem weak in their descriptions or don't look cool). Look at the stats for class spreads in MMOs or even team based FPS games pr Diablo. It is NEVER split evenly among all classes.

[Memph]

There's no way supposed trolling would have been able to have maintained itself if it wasn't based on some sort of substance.

Exactly this. Metacritic is an infamous hotbed of trolls when it comes to user scores on many big name releases. It even happened to Portal 2, but people who want nothing from it bar 'the lulz', generally won't keep at it.

[soldant]

You don't hate an ending that refuses to acknowledge the big reveal is directly contradicted by events of the game?

The article doesn't go into the depth the videos do but it's a decent quick look at the subject [as from this thread you've seemingly stated you're yet to research the reasoning behind the anger.]
Just skimming the article, not much of it actually contradicts the rest of the game. Some of it is a misrepresentation. For example the part about synthetics killing organics to stop synthetics killing organics seems to forget that the organics are turned into synthetics to preserve them. Oh wait, the author mentions that... and then disregards it. The AI's reasoning (and the AI's reasoning is flawed, but it believes it's right, much like a dementia patient) was that if they harvested organics and preserved them as synthetics, they still exist, as opposed to synths just wiping everything out and trampling their organic civs into the dust. The main point worth noting is the mass relay explosion stuff... that seems a bit far-fetched and the article has a good point there.

All of the rest of it can be explained by "AI has all the power and believes it's always right." It smacks of deus ex machina but in the context of the story, Shepard has nothing. Without the Catalyst, the Crucible is absolutely useless. There's no way they can defeat the Reapers. The AI can do whatever it likes whether Shepard likes it or not. The fact that the player can't dictate how the AI conducts its business is not a plot hole in this story.

From a gameplay-story perspective (i.e. player-driven story), it's an issue because everyone was expecting to choose the fate of the galaxy in an equally-convenient-salvation style "I kill Reapers, everybody lives!" way. But the fact that the AI disregards the potential peace between the Geth and the Quarians as proof that synths and organics can live together isn't really a plot hole if you accept that the AI holds all the cards and believes that, on the basis of past history, it will not last.

[Hypernetic]

Just skimming the article, not much of it actually contradicts the rest of the game. Some of it is a misrepresentation. For example the part about synthetics killing organics to stop synthetics killing organics seems to forget that the organics are turned into synthetics to preserve them. Oh wait, the author mentions that... and then disregards it. The AI's reasoning (and the AI's reasoning is flawed, but it believes it's right, much like a dementia patient) was that if they harvested organics and preserved them as synthetics, they still exist, as opposed to synths just wiping everything out and trampling their organic civs into the dust. The main point worth noting is the mass relay explosion stuff... that seems a bit far-fetched and the article has a good point there.

All of the rest of it can be explained by "AI has all the power and believes it's always right." It smacks of deus ex machina but in the context of the story, Shepard has nothing. Without the Catalyst, the Crucible is absolutely useless. There's no way they can defeat the Reapers. The AI can do whatever it likes whether Shepard likes it or not. The fact that the player can't dictate how the AI conducts its business is not a plot hole in this story.

From a gameplay-story perspective (i.e. player-driven story), it's an issue because everyone was expecting to choose the fate of the galaxy in an equally-convenient-salvation style "I kill Reapers, everybody lives!" way. But the fact that the AI disregards the potential peace between the Geth and the Quarians as proof that synths and organics can live together isn't really a plot hole if you accept that the AI holds all the cards and believes that, on the basis of past history, it will not last.

There are still numerous plot holes, such as "Where did Anderson come from?", "How did Anderson get into this room that only has one entrance? I never saw him ahead of me and he said he came from the opposite direction.", "Where did TIM come from?", "Why can TIM suddenly control Anderson and Shepard's bodies with space magic?", "Where did this magic carnifex with no mods and unlimited ammo come from?", "How do magic space elevators work?", "How is Admiral Hackett contacting me aboard the Citadel?", "Where exactly AM I when I'm talking to SPACE GHOST?!"

There are more.

[Memph]

Whilst we're flitting around the subject of user scores, I must say I most often completely ignore them. Spotting a semi-coherent mini-review is pretty easy usually, so why not just allow a comment space and make troublesome faceless folk articulate themselves beyond ticking a 'sucks' or 'rocks' box for nothing but the hell of it? ME3 for example - a 2 for having a bad ending? Sure, it's the grand finalé and it went a bit soggy for those last few mouthfuls, but the 30+ hours previous was some jolly good stuff and the multiplayer was/is some of the tightest co-op horde mode to hit the PC. But no, I didn't like the last little bit, so nil points motherfuckers, howzat? There's fairer judges on Eurovision. Few of them manage to grasp how many numbers 7 is from 10, thus what constitutes an average score. Not to mention people 'reviewing' a game as garbage/awsome then slapping a 1/10 down having not even bloody played it (i'm looking at you GoG - clean that shit up).

tl;dr user scores simply cannot be trusted, because silly fanpeople are silly.

[Hypernetic]

Whilst we're flitting around the subject of user scores, I must say I most often completely ignore them. Spotting a semi-coherent mini-review is pretty easy usually, so why not just allow a comment space and make troublesome faceless folk articulate themselves beyond ticking a 'sucks' or 'rocks' box for nothing but the hell of it? ME3 for example - a 2 for having a bad ending? Sure, it's the grand finalé and it went a bit soggy for those last few mouthfuls, but the 30+ hours previous was some jolly good stuff and the multiplayer was/is some of the tightest co-op horde mode to hit the PC. But no, I didn't like the last little bit, so nil points motherfuckers, howzat? There's fairer judges on Eurovision. Few of them manage to grasp how many numbers 7 is from 10, thus what constitutes an average score. Not to mention people 'reviewing' a game as garbage/awsome then slapping a 1/10 down having not even bloody played it (i'm looking at you GoG - clean that shit up).

tl;dr user scores simply cannot be trusted, because silly fanpeople are silly.

That's the thing though, the ending completely ruined not just ME3 but the entire series for me. Mass Effect has become the gaming equivalent of The Matrix trilogy for me now.

Anyway, I don't read much into review scores at all (user or journalist). If I'm interested in buying something (whether that's a game or some other product on amazon or newegg, for example) I will usually read 2 or 3 of the highest reviews, 2 or 3 of the lowest, and 2 or 3 middle of the road reviews. So the score is useful I guess in that regard, but I don't pay much attention to the aggregate score.

[NathanH]

The individual user scores obviously do not honestly represent the opinions of that particular user, but the aggregate of scores can be useful. For AAA titles with a high critic average, a low user score is a warning that something may be amiss. For a more obscure game with average or low critic reviews, a high score is a suggestion that the game may be strong if you like that niche. For a game that may have a lot of content or lasting appeal, the user scores may provide longevity information that professional reviewers do not have the time to investigate.

Basically, user scores are mostly useful as a check for systematic (but not necessarily deliberate) bias in the professional reviews.

[Hypernetic]

The individual user scores obviously do not honestly represent the opinions of that particular user, but the aggregate of scores can be useful. For AAA titles with a high critic average, a low user score is a warning that something may be amiss. For a more obscure game with average or low critic reviews, a high score is a suggestion that the game may be strong if you like that niche. For a game that may have a lot of content or lasting appeal, the user scores may provide longevity information that professional reviewers do not have the time to investigate.

I've generally found that professional reviews are almost entirely worthless when they are positive. They can be good for steering you away from a really bad game, but any game that is "AAA" tends to be extremely overrated. Usually reviewers completely ignore major aspects of the game (How many D3 reviewers touched inferno before doing their reviews?)

MMOs are an example of how broken the professional review system is. They have to pump out a review within a certain time frame for their magazine or website to draw readers/subscribers while the game is still fresh. This time frame makes it impossible for them to do anything end game related whatsoever. So the meat of the game is left unreviewed, which is unacceptable. It's a sad state of affairs really, journalists need to come up with a new way for reviewing online games and MMOs.

[DzX]

Just skimming the article, not much of it actually contradicts the rest of the game.

I didn't say everything did - only that the ending does contradict the rest of the game. I was referring specifically thematically.

I wouldn't use [nor really care for opinions on] that article to explain the problems with the ending to anyone. Deano was insistent he not watch the more in-depth videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MlatxLP-xs

Is probably the best explanation.

[deano2099]

You don't hate an ending that refuses to acknowledge the big reveal is directly contradicted by events of the game?

http://www.gamefront.com/mass-effect-3-ending-hatred-5-reasons-the-fans-are-right/

The article doesn't go into the depth the videos do but it's a decent quick look at the subject [as from this thread you've seemingly stated you're yet to research the reasoning behind the anger.]

Read and commented on that way back in the previous epic thread. Any plot-holes I saw in the ending were easily explained away in my head. Thematically it was odd in that it focussed entirely on one of many themes of the games, but at least that beats the Dark Energy idea some people seem to like which addresses none of them.


You are making a giant mistake in assuming that the non-vocal players were happy with the ending simply because they didn't come to a message board to post about it.
I'm not assuming that. All the arguments you make in your post are the exact reasons you can't say "everyone hated it" any more than I can say "everyone not posting on message boards loved it".


EDIT; Also why in the hell would you assume that the male/female Shepard rate would be 50/50? What are you basing that figure on? Why would you assume that all classes would be an even split? What figure are you basing THAT on?
On a general feel based on what people talk about in forums. In threads like "What class will you play?" or "Male or Female Shepard?" - Though here's a random poll I Googled after the fact http://biowarefanclub.deviantart.com/journal/poll/2520994/ My point is simply that you can't extrapolate 90% of people on forums hate the ending therefore 90% of all people hate the ending. Because they're a self-selecting group that provably bear no relation to the total population.

Nor am I saying that everyone not posting on message boards hated it. My friends were split around 50-50 to be honest, none of them being on forums. Anecdotal, doesn't mean anything. Yes, the evidence we have from forums is the best we can get, and the best we're ever going to get (though expect to see a "Did you like the ending? Y/N" button in future Bioware games :) ) - so on the best evidence available, you guys are totally right. The problem is, the best evidence is shit. And we know that because we do have evidence on how differently Bioware 'fans' and dedicated forum-gamers react to the game compared to the total market.


That's the thing though, the ending completely ruined not just ME3 but the entire series for me. Mass Effect has become the gaming equivalent of The Matrix trilogy for me now.
But you enjoyed the preceding 100 hours of gaming right? The only thing that the ending impacts on is the last five minutes, and what you'll get out of it when re-playing it.

And again, outside of our dedicated gamer communities, the vast majority of people won't play the game more than once so for them it isn't really relevant. The ending doesn't retroactively make the time you spent on all three games leading up to it no longer fun. So sure, you mark it down for a bad ending damaging the replay value if you really want to.

[Hypernetic]

Read and commented on that way back in the previous epic thread. Any plot-holes I saw in the ending were easily explained away in my head. Thematically it was odd in that it focussed entirely on one of many themes of the games, but at least that beats the Dark Energy idea some people seem to like which addresses none of them.


I'm not assuming that. All the arguments you make in your post are the exact reasons you can't say "everyone hated it" any more than I can say "everyone not posting on message boards loved it".


On a general feel based on what people talk about in forums. In threads like "What class will you play?" or "Male or Female Shepard?" - Though here's a random poll I Googled after the fact http://biowarefanclub.deviantart.com/journal/poll/2520994/ My point is simply that you can't extrapolate 90% of people on forums hate the ending therefore 90% of all people hate the ending. Because they're a self-selecting group that provably bear no relation to the total population.

Nor am I saying that everyone not posting on message boards hated it. My friends were split around 50-50 to be honest, none of them being on forums. Anecdotal, doesn't mean anything. Yes, the evidence we have from forums is the best we can get, and the best we're ever going to get (though expect to see a "Did you like the ending? Y/N" button in future Bioware games :) ) - so on the best evidence available, you guys are totally right. The problem is, the best evidence is shit. And we know that because we do have evidence on how differently Bioware 'fans' and dedicated forum-gamers react to the game compared to the total market.


But you enjoyed the preceding 100 hours of gaming right? The only thing that the ending impacts on is the last five minutes, and what you'll get out of it when re-playing it.

And again, outside of our dedicated gamer communities, the vast majority of people won't play the game more than once so for them it isn't really relevant. The ending doesn't retroactively make the time you spent on all three games leading up to it no longer fun. So sure, you mark it down for a bad ending damaging the replay value if you really want to.

Mass Effect is a story more than it's a game. The ending of the series completely ruined the games for me. I no longer have fond memories of the previous games.

Mass Effect 2 was pointless. I didn't enjoy ME2 nearly as much as ME1 from a story standpoint, but I gave it the benefit of the doubt as a "middle of the trilogy" story that intentionally left things open ended. I figured ME3 would resolve all of these things.

Mass Effect 3 made 2 entirely pointless. Literally nothing that happens in ME2 aside from the Arrival DLC needs to happen for 3's story to make sense. (Speaking of overarching plot here, not introductions to individual characters such as Mordin). In the context of the entire trilogy Mass Effect 2's story makes absolutely no sense and the events of the game served no purpose whatsoever. This means that I may as well have never played the game. What is the point of the collectors? Why are they building a human reaper? Why do the reapers need this to happen before they attack when the destruction of the human reaper has literally no affect on their invasion? We are told they are making another human reaper at the end of ME3 anyway, why couldn't they just have done that to begin with. What was the point of Mass Effect 2?

Let's come back to the "mystery of the Reapers" part again to hopefully get you to understand why the entire series was ruined for me. The simplest example I can give is that throughout ME1 and ME2 we are told by Sovereign and Harbinger that the motives are simply too complex for our simple human minds to understand. Sovereign tells us that Reapers are entire NATIONS of minds, etc, etc, etc. Fast forward to ME3 and the God Child informs us that the goal AND motivation of the Reapers is to protect and preserve organic life.... WAT? That was the super complex explanation that neither Harbinger or Sovereign could tell us because we wouldn't be able to understand it? It takes a nation of minds to understand THAT?!

Honestly I would have been happier if they never told us anything at all. If the crucible destroyed the reapers outright, simply made them go away, or even if it didn't work and the current cycle was wiped out. If everything was left unexplained I would have been ok with it. The crucible seems like a neat idea on the surface. It's a crazy device of sorts that has been designed and pieced together by various civilizations in different cycles dating back who knows how long. Cool idea, until the God Child arrives. Once they introduce the God Child the crucible no longer makes any sense. The God Child tells us we are the first to set foot in his chamber. Nobody knew of it's existence prior to Shepard. How the FUCK did they design the crucible then? You can speculate if you want, but leaving something THAT open to interpretation is poor story telling. The one and only logical conclusion is that whoever designed the Reapers also designed the crucible, but why? There are simply too many questions created by what is supposed to the CLOSING of a series.

tl;dr: God Child completely destroyed the entire series for me. I don't look at each game as an individual story but as separate chapters of the same book. The ending of the "book" was bad enough to negate any positives from the rest of the story for me. The universe and it's lore seem stupid and contrived to me now and I can never look at it the same way again.

[DzX]

Read and commented on that way back in the previous epic thread. Any plot-holes I saw in the ending were easily explained away in my head.

If your attitude toward plot holes in a series known for its very literal story-telling is to make up your own explanations to suit events you'll be happy with just about anything.

[TillEulenspiegel]

I've generally found that professional reviews are almost entirely worthless when they are positive. They can be good for steering you away from a really bad game, but any game that is "AAA" tends to be extremely overrated.
Yep. It's extraordinarily rare to find a videogame reviewer with strong, identifiable tastes like you do with film critics. Or even one who will describe gameplay in a useful way.

Strangely, I find Zero Punctuation's nitpicking of everything tells me a lot more about a game than a typical review. I'd love to see serious written reviews in that style, aimed specifically at examining flaws: "this is a very good game, but here's everything wrong with it". Good luck selling ads for a site like that, though.

[DzX]

Strangely, I find Zero Punctuation's nitpicking of everything tells me a lot more about a game than a typical review. I'd love to see serious written reviews in that style, aimed specifically at examining flaws: "this is a very good game, but here's everything wrong with it". Good luck selling ads for a site like that, though.

Errant Signal does that to some degree though they're not really reviews.

The Max Payne 3 video does a good job of examining the games lack of consistency between gameplay and narrative, aside from nit-picking everything else in the game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lx5MZfpQIEk

[Kadayi]

No one expects anyone to hate the ending of ME3 here (there are lesser gaming sites and communities that can do that inarticulate 'rage' thing quite adequately) however one expects that the criticisms brought up by innumerable people regarding the ending can be assessed on the basis of their expression (the weight of the words themselves), not on whether they may or may not represent a majority viewpoint (which is frankly moot).

[deano2099]

Mass Effect is a story more than it's a game. The ending of the series completely ruined the games for me. I no longer have fond memories of the previous games.
That's interesting and certainly valid. Memories can be changed.


Mass Effect 2 was pointless. I didn't enjoy ME2 nearly as much as ME1 from a story standpoint, but I gave it the benefit of the doubt as a "middle of the trilogy" story that intentionally left things open ended. I figured ME3 would resolve all of these things.

Mass Effect 3 made 2 entirely pointless.
That's interesting actually. I felt the same about ME2, even before playing 3. It felt like it barely had a main plot, just some character stories. And what plot there was was awful.

To pose an interesting question, now we no longer have to give ME2 the benefit of the doubt as the middle of the trilogy, and hoping things would pay off (they didn't) - how good was the ending of ME2? The suicide mission was great, but the actual story ending, I thought it was way worse then ME3.


No one expects anyone to hate the ending of ME3 here (there are lesser gaming sites and communities that can do that inarticulate 'rage' thing quite adequately) however one expects that the criticisms brought up by innumerable people regarding the ending can be assessed on the basis of their expression (the weight of the words themselves), not on whether they may or may not represent a majority viewpoint (which is frankly moot).
Right - but this thread is specifically not about the ending itself (hence why I'm mostly avoiding engaging with debating that in any more than a very general manner - feel free to bump one of the other threads if anyone wants to argue the specifics some more) - the thread is about the reaction. Which is probably the strongest we've ever seen against a game. Stacked against a very positive critical reaction and huge sales. I think it's interesting. I think it's worth discussing. I don't think it was a conspiracy like the OP, but I also don't think it's as simple as 'everyone hated it'.

[DzX]

No one expects anyone to hate the ending of ME3 here (there are lesser gaming sites and communities that can do that inarticulate 'rage' thing quite adequately)

The word 'hate / hater' is used so often during the first few pages I get the feeling this is some kind of in-joke I'm missing.


however one expects that the criticisms brought up by innumerable people regarding the ending can be assessed on the basis of their expression (the weight of the words themselves), not on whether they may or may not represent a majority viewpoint (which is frankly moot).

It may be moot but that was the area of discussion Deano brought up - citing the fact that internet forums don't make up the majority viewpoint of players. It depends if we're discussing if/why the ending itself was so poor or the reaction to it. For the most part it's the latter, though Deano's desire to ignore the former has hurt discussion somewhat.

[NathanH]

But you enjoyed the preceding 100 hours of gaming right? The only thing that the ending impacts on is the last five minutes, and what you'll get out of it when re-playing it.

This is a spectacularly bad argument. The best video games, like the best of pretty much any form of entertainment, offer far more value than just the individual moments in which you were playing them. If there's a problem in the game that taints it globally rather than locally, then that problem has tainted every memory you have; it taints every discussion about it. For your average game you're probably not going to think about the game very much afterwards, so such a problem isn't a big deal, but when you have a series like Mass Effect that for many people was right up there as one of their favourite video game series then it's really bad to undermine it like this.

As an extreme example, suppose you've read a very intricate and detailed murder mystery which had you gripped and thrilled throughout, and kept you guessing and theorizing at every turn. If on the last page it was just revealed that a wizard did it, or it doesn't even tell you who did it, then you'd judge that book poorly, even though you only actually read the offending words for about 30 seconds.

[The JG Man]

Stacked against a very positive critical reaction and huge sales. I think it's interesting. I think it's worth discussing. I don't think it was a conspiracy like the OP, but I also don't think it's as simple as 'everyone hated it'.

I feel like Occam's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor) is the most appropriate here; it really can be as simple as the fact that people really did just hate it. For critics, they have to knock back a lot of titles under a short amount of time so they don't spend as much time dwelling on matters and, for what it's worth, the majority of the game is definitely fantastic. It's why games that come out during the summer tend to receive more scrutiny because they have the time. The worst ending for anything is the one you have to spend time on because that's when you know it's really bad. If it wasn't, the people producing whatever product that was would more than likely have picked up on it themselves.

The only thing I'll throw in critics' favour is how they went about reviewing ME3 and thus derive a result - was it its own title or the trilogy finisher of a series? Even then...

[Hypernetic]

I highly doubt most critics even finished the game before publishing their reviews.

[DAdvocate]

Fast forward to ME3 and the God Child informs us that the goal AND motivation of the Reapers is to protect and preserve organic life.... WAT? That was the super complex explanation that neither Harbinger or Sovereign could tell us because we wouldn't be able to understand it? It takes a nation of minds to understand THAT?!
The funny thing is that Harbringer/Sovereign were right in a fashion, many players didn't properly understand the explanation as seen by the "we kill organics to save organics" memes.

The Reapers don't destroy all organic life, they destroy the advanced civilisations in order to reset any technological progress. This reduces the chances of any species creating an AI that could wipe out all organic life (not just civilisations). A self-replicating super AI only has to be created once for a permanent "game over" on life in the galaxy. While this is an unlikely event from the perspective of a human lifetime, the Reapers were considering it from the “now to forever” timespan which makes it far more likely (i.e. monkeys typing Shakespeare).

It's a little like doing research on super-flu variants, it only has to escape once to cause mass devastation, the Reapers are the equivalent of those who would ban all biological research to avoid the risk, however small. Please note, I don't mean to imply that I approve of this viewpoint.

[Hypernetic]

The funny thing is that Harbringer/Sovereign were right in a fashion, many players didn't properly understand the explanation as seen by the "we kill organics to save organics" memes.

The Reapers don't destroy all organic life, they destroy the advanced civilisations in order to reset any technological progress. This reduces the chances of any species creating an AI that could wipe out all organic life (not just civilisations). A self-replicating super AI only has to be created once for a permanent "game over" on life in the galaxy. While this is an unlikely event from the perspective of a human lifetime, the Reapers were considering it from the “now to forever” timespan which makes it far more likely (i.e. monkeys typing Shakespeare).

It's a little like doing research on super-flu variants, it only has to escape once to cause mass devastation, the Reapers are the equivalent of those who would ban all biological research to avoid the risk, however small. Please note, I don't mean to imply that I approve of this viewpoint.

That's still not something that is "beyond human comprehension". Also it's entirely lame.

[Sketch]

While the 3 endings did take away from replayability a fair bit, the fact that Mass Effect 3 is almost like one big ending, resolving stuff from the previous games - the Geth, Rachni, Genophage etc I'd say there is more than enough their to justify multiple playthroughs.

[DAdvocate]

That's still not something that is "beyond human comprehension". Also it's entirely lame.
It's a relatively original and logical motivation in a genre which normally considers "these be evil people" as sufficient.

Wouldn't a genuine "beyond human comprehension" motivation involve not explaining it to the player at all, in which case you would be adding it to your list of plot holes and claiming it's another example of bad writing.

[deano2099]

It may be moot but that was the area of discussion Deano brought up - citing the fact that internet forums don't make up the majority viewpoint of players. It depends if we're discussing if/why the ending itself was so poor or the reaction to it. For the most part it's the latter, though Deano's desire to ignore the former has hurt discussion somewhat.

Totally happy to discuss it, but could we go into the specifics of it here: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/forums/showthread.php?5353-Mass-Effect-3-Ending-DLC-Update or here: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/forums/showthread.php?3428-Mass-Effect-3-endings-SPOILERS-OBVIOUSLY as I think this stands as an interesting yet separate topic


This is a spectacularly bad argument. The best video games, like the best of pretty much any form of entertainment, offer far more value than just the individual moments in which you were playing them. If there's a problem in the game that taints it globally rather than locally, then that problem has tainted every memory you have; it taints every discussion about it. For your average game you're probably not going to think about the game very much afterwards, so such a problem isn't a big deal, but when you have a series like Mass Effect that for many people was right up there as one of their favourite video game series then it's really bad to undermine it like this.
So for your average gamer who won't think about the ending that much, it wasn't that bad? That's kinda what I've been saying all along.


As an extreme example, suppose you've read a very intricate and detailed murder mystery which had you gripped and thrilled throughout, and kept you guessing and theorizing at every turn. If on the last page it was just revealed that a wizard did it, or it doesn't even tell you who did it, then you'd judge that book poorly, even though you only actually read the offending words for about 30 seconds.
I've played Still Life (yes, it a whodunnit that doesn't tell you whodunnit). Unlike that, in ME3 for me the ending didn't invalidate what went before though. I can see that choosing Destroy would (hint: that's a bad call) and the relays looking like they might explode was a spectacularly bad piece of writing. Or miscommunication between the writers and FMV team. But in the ending I picked, at the end, I'd changed the galaxy for the better. It worked for me.

As messy as the endings might be, the only way where they genuinely undermine all the prior narrative is if a) you assume the relays explode and blow up the galaxy or b) you assume everyone starves to death. These were misconceptions I never had, but many players did, and they were fixed up in the new endings.

I guess the other problem could be if people saw the whole series as a 'what are the Reapers up to?' mystery, in which case yes, the reveal sucks. But many people that really hated the ending have said they'd have been happy for that mystery to remain.

Outside of that, I'm still open to thinking it was a poor ending, but I don't get how it can invalidate everything else. To counter your example, how many cancelled TV shows have you watched that never got a real ending? I've watched loads, it's annoying when it happens, but I still enjoy them regardless. Deadwood and Carnivale are lessened by never resolving their stories but I'd still recommend them as amazing pieces of TV. A poor ending isn't enough to ruin what has come before unless it actively craps over it, and I don't see that here.



I feel like Occam's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor) is the most appropriate here; it really can be as simple as the fact that people really did just hate it.
Maybe. But you can bet some of those haters were the same ones that attacked Jennifer Hepler or had a fit about the launch DLC. The internet can be very loud sometimes, and it can sometimes feel like the majority are just morons. But sometimes you agree with them and sometimes you don't. But you don't get to selectively pick wisdom of the crowds when it suits.

[Hypernetic]

It's a relatively original and logical motivation in a genre which normally considers "these be evil people" as sufficient.

Wouldn't a genuine "beyond human comprehension" motivation involve not explaining it to the player at all, in which case you would be adding it to your list of plot holes and claiming it's another example of bad writing.

Nope. As I stated earlier I would have been perfectly fine with them NEVER explaining the Reapers' goals or motivations. In fact, I think I would have preferred it that way.

What you described is most certainly not a plot hole. God Child as a deus ex machina is bad writing. A mystery or cliff hanger is not bad writing, take for instance the end of Inception. The main plot of ME could have been resolved without the PC ever learning the true motivations of the reapers. I don't need to know what a burglar is planning to do with the money he steals from me to shoot him dead just as the galaxy didn't need to know WHY the reapers were doing what they were doing to defeat them. You already knew that the Reapers were trying to perform some cosmic balancing act between chaos and order (aka entropy) and quite frankly that was a good enough explanation to leave things at.

I would have liked to know more about the Reapers in regards to how long they had been performing their duties and possibly some information on their origins, but that's neither here nor there.

[Kadayi]

Right - but this thread is specifically not about the ending itself (hence why I'm mostly avoiding engaging with debating that in any more than a very general manner - feel free to bump one of the other threads if anyone wants to argue the specifics some more) - the thread is about the reaction. Which is probably the strongest we've ever seen against a game. Stacked against a very positive critical reaction and huge sales. I think it's interesting. I think it's worth discussing. I don't think it was a conspiracy like the OP, but I also don't think it's as simple as 'everyone hated it'.

Critical reaction and huge sales are frankly irrelevances. The number of games journalists Vs the number of consumers out there is negligible. The notion that the masses are somehow wrong in their assessment and only the voiced opinions of game critics are pertinent and to be listened to is frankly laughable. If we go by what the critics would have you believe then GTA IV is one of the greatest video games of all time. If ever there was a prime example of why games journalism fails to put much credence in the importance of story line that is indeed the crowning glory. As regards sales, the bulk of those occurred either through pre-orders or within the first month. IIRC Transformers 2 broke box office records at the time, doesn't mean it wasn't a massive turd of a movie though. It sold well, therefore it must be great doesn't cut the mustard.


It may be moot but that was the area of discussion Deano brought up - citing the fact that internet forums don't make up the majority viewpoint of players. It depends if we're discussing if/why the ending itself was so poor or the reaction to it. For the most part it's the latter, though Deano's desire to ignore the former has hurt discussion somewhat.

I'd say it's far more likely that 50K + consumers are a lot more representative of overall public reaction to the games ending as a cross section of gamer society than a rather incestuous clique of a hundred or so games journalists tbh.


This is a spectacularly bad argument. The best video games, like the best of pretty much any form of entertainment, offer far more value than just the individual moments in which you were playing them. If there's a problem in the game that taints it globally rather than locally, then that problem has tainted every memory you have; it taints every discussion about it. For your average game you're probably not going to think about the game very much afterwards, so such a problem isn't a big deal, but when you have a series like Mass Effect that for many people was right up there as one of their favourite video game series then it's really bad to undermine it like this.

As an extreme example, suppose you've read a very intricate and detailed murder mystery which had you gripped and thrilled throughout, and kept you guessing and theorizing at every turn. If on the last page it was just revealed that a wizard did it, or it doesn't even tell you who did it, then you'd judge that book poorly, even though you only actually read the offending words for about 30 seconds.

Indeed. You could be in a fantastic relationship with someone for a couple of years, but when you come home early one day and find your partner in coitus with your neighbours Labrador it's likely going to be hard to set that particular spectacle aside, either moving forward or when trying and reflect on the good times. A bad conclusion colours everything. Half the fun of ME1 & ME2 was in playing the game differently and seeing how things turned out accordingly. With ME3 all roads lead to Rome, with little real variation in outcome based on previous events.



I feel like Occam's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor) is the most appropriate here; it really can be as simple as the fact that people really did just hate it. For critics, they have to knock back a lot of titles under a short amount of time so they don't spend as much time dwelling on matters and, for what it's worth, the majority of the game is definitely fantastic.

I'm not a fan of hate, but I think underwhelming is a more apt description.

[Sketch]

Indeed. You could be in a fantastic relationship with someone for a couple of years, but when you come home early one day and find your partner in coitus with your neighbours Labrador it's likely going to be hard to set that particular spectacle aside, either moving forward or when trying and reflect on the good times. A bad conclusion colours everything. Half the fun of ME1 & ME2 was in playing the game differently and seeing how things turned out accordingly, with ME3 all roads lead to Rome, with little real variation in outcome based on previous events.


I'd say it's more like you're having a fantastic time with someone, and then one day they accidently poke you really hard in the eye. It hurts like hell, but they're sorry and try to make it better but it's still sore. You can then carry on the relationship, going back over the really great times you had, with the knowledge that quite far down the line that same poke is going to happen again.

Oh man, what am I doing?

[Hypernetic]

@Deano: I am assuming you picked synthesis? There are problems with this ending too. Most of the problems with the ME endings are beyond what appears on the surface, they only appear if you actually think about them afterwards.

Delving deeper, the entire purpose of the Reapers makes no sense. Why is their purpose only to stop synthetic life from wiping out organic life? Is it ok if organic life wipes itself out? In the grand cosmic scheme of things (which the Reapers apparently operate on a more cosmic based time scale) preserving organic life in the Milky Way is pointless. Eventually all of the energy in the Milky Way will be used up, there will be no more material to form stars and the existing stars will burn out. All that will be left is the black hole at the center of the galaxy. Eventually this will happen to every galaxy. So in the grand scheme of things, why is their task so important?

Regarding synthesis directly, how does synthesis stop the cycle? What is there to stop the new hybrid life from creating more advanced hybrid life that rebels and wipes everything out?

The whole thing is just a mess and none of it really makes sense. I honestly don't know how anyone could watch the endings and not think they were stupid.

[deano2099]

Critical reaction and huge sales are frankly irrelevances. The number of games journalists Vs the number of consumers out there is negligible...I'd say it's far more likely that 50K + consumers are a lot more representative of overall public reaction to the games ending as a cross section of gamer society than a rather incestuous clique of a hundred or so games journalists tbh.

More likely yes, but the number of people posting only is again a fraction of the people that bought it. Neither are great datapoints.

I do find it interesting that the journos got this one 'wrong' though. Personally I think that normally the journos just drive the narrative of the game. What they say gets picked up by the masses and becomes truth. This time around, enough people disliked the ending they drowned out the journos on their own sites and defined a different narrative.


@Deano: I am assuming you picked synthesis? There are problems with this ending too. Most of the problems with the ME endings are beyond what appears on the surface, they only appear if you actually think about them afterwards.

Delving deeper, the entire purpose of the Reapers makes no sense I picked synthesis yes. Interestingly in the time between getting the first two options and then synthesis, I was thinking "those are shit choices, this sucks" to be fair. Nor did I think synthesis necessarily 'solved' the galaxy - but as I mentioned in another thread, my Shepard had spent all three games getting people to work together, put aside their differences for the greater good, uniting warring nations, fighting for the rights of AIs, resolving personal issues with the crew. That the ending literally lets you put everyone together into one new race worked thematically for me. It was messy for sure, but it hit enough of the right beats that it tied things up.

And yes, the Reaper motivation made no sense, but like you said, who cares? I'd have preferred they didn't explain it either but I found it easy to skirt over.

[Hypernetic]

I picked synthesis as well, but my expectations were completely different from what actually happened. Based on the God Child's description I incorrectly assumed that all life would be wiped out and restarted as a new type of life that was part synthetic. Never did I imagine that it would simply make everyone grow circuitry under their skin (probably because that is too stupid of an idea for me to come up with).

[Kadayi]

More likely yes, but the number of people posting only is again a fraction of the people that bought it. Neither are great datapoints.

One's still likely more pertinent than the other statistically though.


I do find it interesting that the journos got this one 'wrong' though. Personally I think that normally the journos just drive the narrative of the game. What they say gets picked up by the masses and becomes truth. This time around, enough people disliked the ending they drowned out the journos on their own sites and defined a different narrative.

I'm not. This isn't the first time that games journalism has flatlined in terms of opinion Vs public reception. Doom 3 at launched was extremely highly regarded by the press but largely faceplanted with the public when released. GTA IV similarly (and as mentioned previously) failed to live up to the hypetrain in terms of the larger critical audience. Conversely The Witcher was largely snubbed/derided by the gaming press and it was only when it became apparent that RPG consumers liked it that opinions changed as to its worth.

[Sketch]

I wouldn't say GTA IV is considered a poor game by the public. I know it's reputation on PC is less than stellar, however.

[Kadayi]

I wouldn't say GTA IV is considered a poor game by the public. I know it's reputation on PC is less than stellar, however.

Technical issues aside would you say it's a 98/100 game? Would you rate it as one of the greatest games ever made? Reviewers did.

[Sketch]

I'd say it's one of my favourite games yeah. I wouldn't say it's 98/100 in that it's 2 points off being perfect, but as an experience compared to other games I've played, if I judged them on a similar scale it would be up there.

[Kadayi]

So you're ok with the narrative dissonance between what the character says and his actions. That the plot is obvious throughout. That the female characters are all fundamentally broken. That the principal NPCs are largely cultural cliches and wholly unsympathetic. That the satire is largely juvenile if not schoolboy level, and that there's really nothing that compelling about any of the non storyline related activities?

[Sketch]

Niko is pretty sad about all the stuff he's done and I agree that it's kinda opposed to what you actually end up doing, but he does express multiple times he feels that killing is all he can do.

But apart from that, yes I am OK with most of those things, mostly because I don't really think the women are all that bad, along with the rest of the cast. The humour is hit and miss, yeah definitely.

But none of that is what defined the game for me, it was the amazing experience of driving around New York, one of the best recreations of a city in a game, one of the most alive feeling, the (for the time, they've since been bettered by Max Payne/Red Dead) amazing physics and car handling and sheer amount of fun I had playing multiplayer with friends. It all added up to be a pretty damn amazing game to play for me, that just felt like it could have cut off some of the fat. Definitely up with some of my favourite games, and I'm sure a lot of people would agree, and of course a number would disagree. I still think the overall perception of the game is a positive one.

[Hypernetic]

Come to think of it... can't that apply to ME3 as well? Depending on how you played your character in the ME series you could be a cold blooded murderer. Not to mention that even if you are a paragon you have killed THOUSANDS of humans and other sentient aliens throughout the three games. Why the fuck is he so upset about some kid dying? Shepard has probably killed plenty of kids himself.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Plenty of games are enjoyable in spite of a mediocre story. I haven't played much GTA4, but take Vice City for example. All the writing is just disposable nonsense (something something Scarface now go steal a tank) that just serves to set up fun missions.

That absolutely does not apply to Mass Effect - without the story, it's just a very average shooter, which is why the terrible ending is such a big deal.

[Hypernetic]

Plenty of games are enjoyable in spite of a mediocre story. I haven't played much GTA4, but take Vice City for example. All the writing is just disposable nonsense (something something Scarface now go steal a tank) that just serves to set up fun missions.

That absolutely does not apply to Mass Effect - without the story, it's just a very average shooter, which is why the terrible ending is such a big deal.

No, you misunderstand. I'm speaking specifically to the problem some people had with GTA4 which was that Niko was very distraught throughout the game about some previous acts he committed in his home country, but then runs around slaughtering cops and innocent bystanders all day and doesn't think twice about it.

Personally I never thought of that as being an issue because it was a GTA game and I didn't care.

[random_guy]

I do find it interesting that the journos got this one 'wrong' though. Personally I think that normally the journos just drive the narrative of the game. What they say gets picked up by the masses and becomes truth. This time around, enough people disliked the ending they drowned out the journos on their own sites and defined a different narrative.

Maybe that's why the journos were so willing to mock and deride the many of their readers who didn't like the ending. I lost a lot of respect for the gaming press over their handling of the ending controversy. I've never been the type to automatically assume they're being paid off by publishers or whatever, but the way they collectively stuck their fingers in their ears over legitimate gripes about the ending was pretty shocking. Note I'm not referring to criticisms of those "demanding" the ending be changed and acting in extreme ways, except in as far as few reporting on it were wiling to even entertain the complaints those people had with the ending.

As to what you said before about the last 5 minutes not taking away the fun people had in the three games preceding it, maybe, but it does taint it. Before ME3 came out, if you'd have told me any part of the game could taint my whole perception of the series, and make me not want to play another ME game again, I wouldn't have believed you. But it has.

I also agree that GTAIV is a good example of the disconnect between professional reviewers' opinions and the general public in terms of narrative. While I think the game is generally well-liked among gamers, I can't count the number of times I've seen forumites expressing disappointment with the more serious tone compared to prior games. I know I much prefer the more outlandish approach of San Andreas or Vice City.

[Sketch]

It's true, I do see a lot of complaints about GTA IV on forums when it's brought up, but I think they really are just a vocal minority - look at the anticipation there is for GTA V. I really do think most people who played GTA IV enjoyed it.

[soldant]

...preserving organic life in the Milky Way is pointless. Eventually all of the energy in the Milky Way will be used up, there will be no more material to form stars and the existing stars will burn out. All that will be left is the black hole at the center of the galaxy. Eventually this will happen to every galaxy. So in the grand scheme of things, why is their task so important?
Okay. I guess we'd better all just kill ourselves right now then, because as you said heat death is approaching, may as well just give up while we're ahead. I'll fetch the phenobarbitol, you figure out when the next comet pass is. Everybody else, put your Away Team armbands and uniforms on, I've got your new shoes right here. We're going home!


But seriously, survival is part of life, apparently even synthetic life. I can understanding wanting to avoid death. The fact that on a long enough timeline everybody dies shouldn't be a justification to simply give up and not care. Of course the Reapers aren't a static entity either, there's nothing to say they don't magically break the gamestory-laws of physics and survive in the cold, dark recesses of space on MAGIC or something. Given the timeline though it's so far in the future that I don't think anybody really cares, in the same way that most of us will be dead in 60 years (pending medical advancements which marches on implacably) but we're not dwelling on it or even considering it.

[random_guy]

It's true, I do see a lot of complaints about GTA IV on forums when it's brought up, but I think they really are just a vocal minority - look at the anticipation there is for GTA V. I really do think most people who played GTA IV enjoyed it.

Agreed, I'm not suggesting it was a majority. I just mean that enough people were dissatisfied with the direction the game took that reviewers really should have devoted some energy to explaining the tone shift, and cautioning that not everyone is going to be happy with it, even if they themselves loved it. Just like more reviewers should have at least anticipated that the ME3 endings are not going to be universally loved, and flagged this in the reviews, even if they loved the endings.

[deano2099]

Agreed, I'm not suggesting it was a majority. I just mean that enough people were dissatisfied with the direction the game took that reviewers really should have devoted some energy to explaining the tone shift, and cautioning that not everyone is going to be happy with it, even if they themselves loved it. Just like more reviewers should have at least anticipated that the ME3 endings are not going to be universally loved, and flagged this in the reviews, even if they loved the endings.

So why do we think so many reviewers missed it then? Jim's original WIT here is fascinating as it's quite critical of much of the game, but doesn't flag up the ending: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/03/06/mass-effect-3-review-pc/

I did see some of the press offer defenses of the ending, but when the overwhelming majority of chatter is anti-ending, that's pretty much all you're left with. Would there have been any benefit to press sites running articles repeating what everyone was saying on forums? Especially when there's even an amazing 40 minute video that offers such a precise analysis of the ending it can't even be put into words.

I'm sure there were people in the press that agreed with all the people that hated the ending, but that's a damn hard sell to an editor: "hey, want my rant on ME3's ending? It's the same points as everyone's making in forum posts."

[random_guy]

So why do we think so many reviewers missed it then? Jim's original WIT here is fascinating as it's quite critical of much of the game, but doesn't flag up the ending: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/03/06/mass-effect-3-review-pc/

That's something I've been wondering for a while. Best guesses, some of which have been mentioned already: *Reviewers probably weren't as attached to the series as the hardcore fans. *Some probably didn't bother finishing the game. *Narrative has traditionally been low on the list of priorities when reviewing games, and the pros erred in not making an exception for ME3. *The subtle bias seeping in from game journos having such a cozy relationship with developers.




I did see some of the press offer defenses of the ending, but when the overwhelming majority of chatter is anti-ending, that's pretty much all you're left with. Would there have been any benefit to press sites running articles repeating what everyone was saying on forums? Especially when there's even an amazing 40 minute video that offers such a precise analysis of the ending it can't even be put into words.

I'm sure there were people in the press that agreed with all the people that hated the ending, but that's a damn hard sell to an editor: "hey, want my rant on ME3's ending? It's the same points as everyone's making in forum posts."

You've just got done arguing that people who comment on forums only represent a small minority of game players. Wouldn't it then follow that most of the masses probably don't even go to the forums at all? All they saw were journos heaping unqualified praise on the game. So yes, there would have been benefit to repeating what was being said on the forums.

[Hypernetic]

Okay. I guess we'd better all just kill ourselves right now then, because as you said heat death is approaching, may as well just give up while we're ahead. I'll fetch the phenobarbitol, you figure out when the next comet pass is. Everybody else, put your Away Team armbands and uniforms on, I've got your new shoes right here. We're going home!


But seriously, survival is part of life, apparently even synthetic life. I can understanding wanting to avoid death. The fact that on a long enough timeline everybody dies shouldn't be a justification to simply give up and not care. Of course the Reapers aren't a static entity either, there's nothing to say they don't magically break the gamestory-laws of physics and survive in the cold, dark recesses of space on MAGIC or something. Given the timeline though it's so far in the future that I don't think anybody really cares, in the same way that most of us will be dead in 60 years (pending medical advancements which marches on implacably) but we're not dwelling on it or even considering it.

The Reapers operate on such a massively different time scale than the life they are "protecting" though. They are basically immortal gods compared to humans. 50,000 years is like a blink of the eye to them, it just really doesn't make sense to me. It's like if all of humanity suddenly became enamored with the daily lives of a colony of bacteria.

It just seems silly to me that a bunch of immortal gods would care enough about the mundane activities of lesser beings.

I guess my point is that there doesn't seem to be anything about the Reaper's prime directive that serves to benefit them in any possible way. The original idea about dark energy and stuff makes more sense since they would be preserving their own existence by continuing the cycle. ME3's explanation basically paints the Reapers as the benevolent caretakers of life, their actions being completely selfless and guided only by their desire to protect the sanctity of life. I find that idea to be incredibly stupid and unbelievable.

[soldant]

It just seems silly to me that a bunch of immortal gods would care enough about the mundane activities of lesser beings.
The Reapers should have stayed an enigmatic, implacable enemy, beyond understanding. That's how ME1 set everything up. A complete understanding of why the Reapers do what they do would have been a let-down. Why do they want to preserve organic races? Because they want to. Their motivations don't necessarily have to be exposed nor do they have to be within our realm of understanding. In most other cases that'd be a cop out, but in this case they're AI entities so it's possible we can't understand their reasons.

But it's also worth noting that humanity does something similar with protecting endangered species, whether they serve any purpose or not. In the face of the fires of industry an insect or a marsupial (or bacteria since you mentioned it) aren't worth anything, nor are they worth much in the grand scheme of things, and as history teaches us one day they'd all be dead anyway. But we spend time these days engaging in conservation and preservation of various flora and fauna to prevent their extinction. Hell, we've even kept smallpox just in case one day it turns out to be the key to... oh, I don't know, building a giant, inflatable space marine warface device.



The original idea about dark energy and stuff makes more sense since they would be preserving their own existence by continuing the cycle.
It's worth nothing though that if the 'original' ending is indeed a true story, the themes of unity and peace between synthetics essentially counts for absolutely nothing, as it does in the present story. In the original, the choice was kill Reapers and hope to come up with your own solution, or become Reapers and harness the collective civilisations to save everything. So really it wouldn't have changed much of the criticism that people highlight. It would have ultimately made that stuff irrelevant.

[c-Row]

Half the fun of ME1 & ME2 was in playing the game differently and seeing how things turned out accordingly. With ME3 all roads lead to Rome, with little real variation in outcome based on previous events.

I will give you ME2 for the potential loss of squad mates depending on whether or not you gained their loyality during the main game - and even then it's quite a stretch since there is only one possible outcome with a slight variation (destroy the Reaper base or hand it over to Cerberus) if you succeed - but I don't see how ME1 had varying endings or any great repercussions from your previous actions.

[NathanH]

I went into ME3 thinking that the Reaper motivation was to harvest enormous numbers of a particular species in order to reproduce. That seemed good enough to me.

[deano2099]

You've just got done arguing that people who comment on forums only represent a small minority of game players. Wouldn't it then follow that most of the masses probably don't even go to the forums at all? All they saw were journos heaping unqualified praise on the game. So yes, there would have been benefit to repeating what was being said on the forums.

Because people that read gaming sites are also in a minority - the same one that posts on forums. Meanwhile the big sites that get larger audiences did all cover the controversy, albeit mostly from a news angle - linking directly to the campaign sites rather than having a writer regurgitate opinions. Some of the bigger tech sites also covered it too. It was reported on, even if it wasn't embraced.



It's worth nothing though that if the 'original' ending is indeed a true story, the themes of unity and peace between synthetics essentially counts for absolutely nothing, as it does in the present story.
I do sort of think that's what happened. The writers had this dark energy ending all set, then realised that would be a totally out-of-nowhere (sorry, out of two obscure side-missions) ending that didn't fit in with the themes of the game at all. It's 'space pollution' - but nowhere in the games is the notion of sentients damaging the environment or space ever used as a theme. It could be - it could be tied in with the migrant fleet and Krogan expansionism but it wasn't. Hence while it would have made more sense on a plot level, thematically it would have sucked.

It seems to me that they then decided last minute that they needed a better ending, so had to pick a theme that reflected things in the game but fit with the overall crucible/choice bit at the end. So it feels kludgy, and kind of broken, and odd that it only reflects one of the three or four themes of the game.

So then the backlash happens, and the guy that wrote the dark energy ending is pissed that they dropped it so goes public saying "hey, I had a better idea and they screwed it up".

[Kadayi]

But none of that is what defined the game for me, it was the amazing experience of driving around New York, one of the best recreations of a city in a game, one of the most alive feeling, the (for the time, they've since been bettered by Max Payne/Red Dead) amazing physics and car handling and sheer amount of fun I had playing multiplayer with friends. It all added up to be a pretty damn amazing game to play for me, that just felt like it could have cut off some of the fat. Definitely up with some of my favourite games, and I'm sure a lot of people would agree, and of course a number would disagree. I still think the overall perception of the game is a positive one.

But the problem is, you're simply saying the flaws didn't interest you. That you personally can turn a blind eye to them and instead marvel at the game engine doesn't mean they don't exist for others.


No, you misunderstand. I'm speaking specifically to the problem some people had with GTA4 which was that Niko was very distraught throughout the game about some previous acts he committed in his home country, but then runs around slaughtering cops and innocent bystanders all day and doesn't think twice about it.

The tone of the early GTA games was set very much by the limits of the technology. With GTA 1 & 2 the game was topdown so it really was driven by the gags and humour over the visuals. With GTA III albeit the game shifted to 3rd person the graphics were pretty crude as the aim was really about encompassing scope and subsequently the humour was still a big part of the equation. With GTA IV though the move towards a much more capable engine and a large scale attempt at urban versimiltude the humour and crudity felt at odds with the intended tone of the principal character and the world he inhabited. R* seemed to want to go for gritty storytelling (think Kane and lynch) but seemed unable to really pull it off and the dissonance between character thoughts and actions just undermined the experience.


I lost a lot of respect for the gaming press over their handling of the ending controversy. I've never been the type to automatically assume they're being paid off by publishers or whatever, but the way they collectively stuck their fingers in their ears over legitimate gripes about the ending was pretty shocking. Note I'm not referring to criticisms of those "demanding" the ending be changed and acting in extreme ways, except in as far as few reporting on it were wiling to even entertain the complaints those people had with the ending.

Same. Much like the end of ME3 my impressions of many games journalists have been left rather tainted by the whole affair. I can't take people like Arthur Gies or Tom chick seriously any more because they've fundamentally demonstrated to me that they are inadequately equipped to review games as the medium progresses. Whilst we have a gaming press that is largely content to overlook narrative flaws on the basis that 'it's only a game' culturally the medium isn't going to evolve to a higher level when it comes to storytelling. Without critical pressure from the gaming press we're not going to get beyond B movie reject script writing, and that's rather tragic.


As to what you said before about the last 5 minutes not taking away the fun people had in the three games preceding it, maybe, but it does taint it. Before ME3 came out, if you'd have told me any part of the game could taint my whole perception of the series, and make me not want to play another ME game again, I wouldn't have believed you. But it has.

With the face fix in I really want to replay the game (I just got past Mars and am presently on the Citadel) however despite the knowledge that the endings have been updated I'm struggling to find the motivation myself.



It's true, I do see a lot of complaints about GTA IV on forums when it's brought up, but I think they really are just a vocal minority - look at the anticipation there is for GTA V. I really do think most people who played GTA IV enjoyed it.

I'll likely purchase V because I hold out the hope that it will be a much better experience than IV as every game they've made has in some way improved on the previous but I'm certainly hoping that the storyline is much tighter than that in IV.



You've just got done arguing that people who comment on forums only represent a small minority of game players. Wouldn't it then follow that most of the masses probably don't even go to the forums at all? All they saw were journos heaping unqualified praise on the game. So yes, there would have been benefit to repeating what was being said on the forums.

Indeed. It's frankly disturbing that the professional voices of dissent over the whole ME3 ending come from sites like Forbes rather than from within the traditional gaming press.



I will give you ME2 for the potential loss of squad mates depending on whether or not you gained their loyality during the main game - and even then it's quite a stretch since there is only one possible outcome with a slight variation (destroy the Reaper base or hand it over to Cerberus) if you succeed - but I don't see how ME1 had varying endings or any great repercussions from your previous actions.

Your decisions in ME1 echo through ME2 & 3, especially with regard to Wrex and the saving of the Council.


Because people that read gaming sites are also in a minority - the same one that posts on forums. Meanwhile the big sites that get larger audiences did all cover the controversy, albeit mostly from a news angle - linking directly to the campaign sites rather than having a writer regurgitate opinions. Some of the bigger tech sites also covered it too. It was reported on, even if it wasn't embraced.

How long are you going to keep playing this minority card Dean? Minority this, minority that? If it were truly a minority of people who were behind thing why on earth did Bioware decide to do something about it and release the extended cut? If it's truly a minority of gamers why bother?



I do sort of think that's what happened. The writers had this dark energy ending all set, then realised that would be a totally out-of-nowhere (sorry, out of two obscure side-missions) ending that didn't fit in with the themes of the game at all. It's 'space pollution' - but nowhere in the games is the notion of sentients damaging the environment or space ever used as a theme. It could be - it could be tied in with the migrant fleet and Krogan expansionism but it wasn't. Hence while it would have made more sense on a plot level, thematically it would have sucked.

It seems to me that they then decided last minute that they needed a better ending, so had to pick a theme that reflected things in the game but fit with the overall crucible/choice bit at the end. So it feels kludgy, and kind of broken, and odd that it only reflects one of the three or four themes of the game.

So then the backlash happens, and the guy that wrote the dark energy ending is pissed that they dropped it so goes public saying "hey, I had a better idea and they screwed it up".

TBH there was never ever any necessity to explain the reapers motivations fully. In ME1 Sovereign quite explicitly states that the reapers motivations are beyond our comprehension. The opening of the game sets up Shepard with one simple challenge, namely to defeat the Reapers by any means necessary in order to save the galaxy. You don't need to know why Cthulhu wants to take over the world any more than why you need to know whats behind the wizards curtain and in fact by attempting to do you, you effectively diminish their mystery.

[Sketch]

But the problem is, you're simply saying the flaws didn't interest you. That you personally can turn a blind eye to them and instead marvel at the game engine doesn't mean they don't exist for others.


Well this is just opinion then. In my eyes, what they did with GTA IV was just about right. The phonecalls and friends system was annoying, but the tone was more or less OK for me, being mostly serious but having parodies wrapped in. If I was playing for story alone, I think I'd play TLAD over vanilla GTA. That said, I can understand your frustration with the game's atmosphere/tone as it does vary a lot.

[Kadayi]

Well this is just opinion then. In my eyes, what they did with GTA IV was just about right. The phonecalls and friends system was annoying, but the tone was more or less OK for me, being mostly serious but having parodies wrapped in. If I was playing for story alone, I think I'd play TLAD over vanilla GTA. That said, I can understand your frustration with the game's atmosphere/tone as it does vary a lot.

I'd be ok if the satire went somewhere, but it's deeply inconsistent. The whole portrayal of the women in the game was highly questionable. I'm not going to go down the route of labeling Dan Houser a misogynist (a much misused word tbh), but I did leave the game thinking the dude suffers from some serious whore/madonna and trust issues. I'm rather hoping that GTA V moves beyond them tbh.

[Sketch]

I don't understand the women being so bad? There's quite a varied spectrum.

[Kadayi]

I don't understand the women being so bad? There's quite a varied spectrum.

The nurse is a shallow materialist gold digger, the lawyer is a naive idealist, the party girl is just interested in you because you're a shady criminal and she wants a story. Michelle is out to frame you from the very beginning & your Cousins girlfriend is blatantly two timing him. let's also not forget the great mission where you kidnap the mobsters daughter and slap her about a bit before taking a picture. Kate is the only redeeming female character, but of course she's frigid (oh the lulz) so it can never be anything more than friends between you, plus of course if you save Roman she dies instead.

[Sketch]

I'm not sure why Michelle working for a government agency is highly questionable, then there's the fact that Elizabeta is a drug lord and quite a powerful figure in the game. As with Kate being frigid, she says loads of times that she only considers Niko a friend and that she is 'traditional' meaning she's waiting for marriage. Then there's Faustin's wife too who is a perfectly reasonable character etc. there's examples of many types of women in IV, just like there's many examples of men.

[Hypernetic]

The nurse is a shallow materialist gold digger, the lawyer is a naive idealist, the party girl is just interested in you because you're a shady criminal and she wants a story. Michelle is out to frame you from the very beginning & your Cousins girlfriend is blatantly two timing him. let's also not forget the great mission where you kidnap the mobsters daughter and slap her about a bit before taking a picture. Kate is the only redeeming female character, but of course she's frigid (oh the lulz) so it can never be anything more than friends between you, plus of course if you save Roman she dies instead.

Eh? Pretty much all of the characters in GTA4 are scumbags with some glaring character flaw, it's not just the women.

[soldant]

So then the backlash happens, and the guy that wrote the dark energy ending is pissed that they dropped it so goes public saying "hey, I had a better idea and they screwed it up".
The part that gets me is that people complain that this would have been a superior ending, and in terms of resolving ambiguity it would be, but it doesn't address any of the other complaints ("actions mean nothing", addressing major themes, SHEPARD WINS ALWAYS etc).


Eh? Pretty much all of the characters in GTA4 are scumbags with some glaring character flaw, it's not just the women.
GTA IV was such a disappointment for me in so many ways. Every time it looked like Rockstar had grown up and stopped making parodies and satire for 12 year olds, they went out of their way to destroy it. Some of the characters in IV could have been so compelling (particularly Niko) but then they go straight back to the stereotypes.

[QuantaCat]

I thought, "oh this is going to be an overly paranoid thread". But then I read a couple of sentences, came across the "Can pirates be allowed to comment on art?"

Nevermind the fact that I dislike you instantly, I don't believe in pirates of this kind.

[Hypernetic]

I thought, "oh this is going to be an overly paranoid thread". But then I read a couple of sentences, came across the "Can pirates be allowed to comment on art?"

Nevermind the fact that I dislike you instantly, I don't believe in pirates of this kind.

Yar har har!

[Mohorovicic]

Can murderers be allowed to comment on national healthcare?

[Subatomic]

Can murderers be allowed to comment on national healthcare?

Well, considering that quite a few countries exclude convicts from voting (sometimes even after they're released from prison), one could argue murderes aren't given a say in that matter. :P

[deano2099]

How long are you going to keep playing this minority card Dean? Minority this, minority that? If it were truly a minority of people who were behind thing why on earth did Bioware decide to do something about it and release the extended cut? If it's truly a minority of gamers why bother?

Because guess what word we can use to describe people who download DLC?

27% of 360s have never been hooked up to a net connection even once. They're still on the dashboard the console came with. They don't even have the option of online. I'd guess many more are only hooked up rarely (no cheap/easy wifi option for 360) - again, it's this whole thing where the sorts of gamers like you and I that post on forums about games are hugely ignorant of how big this whole thing got while we weren't looking.

The DLC was only going to ever appeal to the core players anyway, and if those ones were unsatisfied with the ending, it made sense to do it.

My only problem here is the 'nearly everyone disliked the ending' argument. It could be true, but I genuinely don't think the evidence is there:


Most people on online forums disliked the ending
A subset of those, games journos, liked the ending
Bioware have data that shows that how people on online forums played ME2 is utterly different to how the wider audience played it


Does that prove that actually most people liked the ending? No, of course not. But I think it reasonable doubt. I'm happy to say I could be wrong, me and the people that thought the ending was alright might well be just a few hundred and everyone else hated it. Fine. But equally I think you guys and the few thousand that hated it could well be wrong too. And I don't think you're that much more likely to be right given the data we have on ME2.

[DzX]

Does that prove that actually most people liked the ending? No, of course not. But I think it reasonable doubt.

Ultimately I'd argue it really doesn't matter given the majority of hardcore fans were displeased. Your point is that it can't be proven the 'majority' of players disliked the ending. That's fair enough, but trying to use the logic that, as a direct result, those that haven't voiced an opinion are more likely to accept the ending has even less supporting evidence. It's a discussion that is now going around in circles.

It's also a pretty dull argument to be honest, and the majorities opinion really has no bearing on the quality of the ending. You're just trying to argue semantics. Bioware clearly saw the 'hardcore' fans reaction to the ending, saw the logical and well written explanations as to why the ending was awful and attempted to fix it.

All we've gained from this discussion is the understanding that the majority of casual gamers don't voice their opinions on forums. The majority that publicly commented on the ending stated it was terrible.

[TillEulenspiegel]

It's also a pretty dull argument to be honest, and the majorities opinion really has no bearing on the quality of the ending.
I'll be the nerd with the list of logical fallacies: it's classic argumentum ad populum, from either side. It's a total derail, unless you're one of those very silly people who believe that everything is subjective and nothing can be evaluated on merits beyond "I liked it" or "I didn't like it", which is very boring indeed.

ME3's ending can be and has been evaluated in objective terms (logical incoherence) and within literary frameworks (theme, etc). "But I liked it" is not a rebuttal.

[deano2099]

It's a total derail

Err no, check the thread title. The argument here is about the reaction to the ending, not to the ending itself. There's two huge threads I linked just a few posts up that discuss that in huge depth.

It is a relevant argument also, maybe not to you, but it's intensely relevant to Bioware where looking at their next game. If they believe, like I do, that it's a very vocal minority that hated it (and a sizable minority at that, but 10-20% is not the 90%+ most people think) then they're not going to be so cautious over the ending of their next game. On the other hand if they think everyone did hate it then expect them to aim for the greatest ending to a videogame ever in DA3 or whatever is next.

Edit - and no it's not 'argumentum ad populum' - my entire point is that it can't be as neither side has surveyed the 'populum' - they're just trying to deduce from self-selected samples of either journos or forum-goers, each of which gives an opposing result.

[Nalano]

Edit - and no it's not 'argumentum ad populum' - my entire point is that it can't be as neither side has surveyed the 'populum' - they're just trying to deduce from self-selected samples of either journos or forum-goers, each of which gives an opposing result.

The problem with that is that while we know the internet hyperbolizes - and then subsequently buries - all comers, we have a fair idea of how narratives are born and proceed almost independently of their objective importance. Hell, the constant, endless presidential campaigns we have here are proof of that: Scandal after scandal after scandal - whether true, manufactured or just hyperbole - illustrate the lifespan and the results of popular infamy: i.e., a two-minute hate that disappears just as quick.

I don't think the hate online for ME3's ending was astroturfed. I do think it played through a classic scandal scenario where, put in its own echo chamber, it whipped itself into a frenzy quite clearly outsized to the original criticism. It created an environment where you couldn't just say "meh," let alone like the ending. It created an environment where it took its own opinions for established fact because it had repeated them often enough to itself.

The signs are obvious enough: Whiplashing from "Bioware can do no wrong" to "Bioware can do no right," constant insistence that the ending is substantively, objectively worse than other endings in similar games such as to warrant anger, blaming Bioware for the "massive disappointment" resultant from getting people's hopes up in the first place, responding to Bioware's "huge plot holes" by creating an alternative interpretation with huge plot holes, espousing poor opinions of either the original ending or the updated ending without having actually played them - i.e., regurgitating others' opinions as one's own, something that's been done on this very forum...

It all speaks of provocation, not popular opinion. Doing a poll would prove this, clearly, but a look at other 'scandals' will give an indication of just how that poll would go. In fact, by responding to it, Bioware has ensured a secondary two-minute hate: They couldn't pump out a response within the month-long frenzy the first time around (after which the story got buried as all such stories do) and as such stirred passions again by bringing it up anew, regardless of the quality of their new production or the validity of the original complaints.

[Kadayi]

Ultimately I'd argue it really doesn't matter given the majority of hardcore fans were displeased. Your point is that it can't be proven the 'majority' of players disliked the ending. That's fair enough, but trying to use the logic that, as a direct result, those that haven't voiced an opinion are more likely to accept the ending has even less supporting evidence. It's a discussion that is now going around in circles.

It's also a pretty dull argument to be honest, and the majorities opinion really has no bearing on the quality of the ending. You're just trying to argue semantics. Bioware clearly saw the 'hardcore' fans reaction to the ending, saw the logical and well written explanations as to why the ending was awful and attempted to fix it.

All we've gained from this discussion is the understanding that the majority of casual gamers don't voice their opinions on forums. The majority that publicly commented on the ending stated it was terrible.

Agreed. The only opinions that count for anything are those expressed at the end of the day. Deano can act all Nurse Ratched about it, however plain truth of the matter is the people with a voice want to watch the world series.


ME3's ending can be and has been evaluated in objective terms (logical incoherence) and within literary frameworks (theme, etc). "But I liked it" is not a rebuttal.

Indeed. Pretty much every rebuttal of the criticisms raise seems to rely upon somehow undermining their worth ('it's only a game' 'It's not the end, it's the Journey' 'the whole game is an ending'etc, etc) rather than offering up an actual critical counterpoint to the them.



It is a relevant argument also, maybe not to you, but it's intensely relevant to Bioware where looking at their next game. If they believe, like I do, that it's a very vocal minority that hated it (and a sizable minority at that, but 10-20% is not the 90%+ most people think) then they're not going to be so cautious over the ending of their next game. On the other hand if they think everyone did hate it then expect them to aim for the greatest ending to a videogame ever in DA3 or whatever is next.

They're not a vocal minority though, they're the vocal majority. The opinions of the people who don't speak, don't honestly fucking matter tbh Deano. Why not you say? Because they're not your product evangelists at the end of the day. Sure they might buy your games, but they don't sell you games through positive word of mouth. That's done by your hardcore player base. Nothing sells a product better than a happy hardcore fan and nothing kills a product faster than an unhappy one, because the great unwashed don't buy gaming magazines, or read gaming sites, but what they do, do though is leverage the knowledge of hardcore gamers they know for likely purchasing recommendations.

[deano2099]

They're not a vocal minority though, they're the vocal majority. The opinions of the people who don't speak, don't honestly fucking matter tbh Deano. Why not you say? Because they're not your product evangelists at the end of the day. Sure they might buy your games, but they don't sell you games through positive word of mouth. That's done by your hardcore player base. Nothing sells a product better than a happy hardcore fan and nothing kills a product faster than an unhappy one, because the great unwashed don't buy gaming magazines, or read gaming sites, but what they do, do though is leverage the knowledge of hardcore gamers they know for likely purchasing recommendations.

And your point is proven by the fact that Mass Effect 3 tanked at retail right?

[Sketch]

I don't think the hate online for ME3's ending was astroturfed. I do think it played through a classic scandal scenario where, put in its own echo chamber, it whipped itself into a frenzy quite clearly outsized to the original criticism. It created an environment where you couldn't just say "meh," let alone like the ending. It created an environment where it took its own opinions for established fact because it had repeated them often enough to itself.

The signs are obvious enough: Whiplashing from "Bioware can do no wrong" to "Bioware can do no right," constant insistence that the ending is substantively, objectively worse than other endings in similar games such as to warrant anger, blaming Bioware for the "massive disappointment" resultant from getting people's hopes up in the first place, responding to Bioware's "huge plot holes" by creating an alternative interpretation with huge plot holes, espousing poor opinions of either the original ending or the updated ending without having actually played them - i.e., regurgitating others' opinions as one's own, something that's been done on this very forum...


I agree with this completely, I wonder how many people were originally OK with the ending, and then read explanations of why the ending had problems and then were like "hey wait a minute I hate it too because of x". The ending has been whipped into something where it's far beyond it's original problems, things that most wouldn't bat an eyelid are scrutinized to the nth degree, because everyone wants to find something else to hate. Plotholes like why didn't Harbinger and the rest attack the Crucible at first (something I've said!) are attacked, and really it's game/movie/book logic, it's the same reason why the main characters in films aren't killed off in the first 10 minutes.

That's not to say it's a good ending! But echo chamber is a very apt description.

[soldant]

I agree with this completely, I wonder how many people were originally OK with the ending, and then read explanations of why the ending had problems and then were like "hey wait a minute I hate it too because of x".
I have nothing to support this but I'd suspect that people were slightly confused by the ending, went online, saw the hate, and then went "Yes, I don't get it, I HATE YOU TOO." As I've already said I find it pretty amusing that people pick out the 'original' ending as being vastly superior despite the fact that it doesn't address the majority of the biggest complaints about the ending (doesn't address any of the stated themes, player choices up till then still counts for nothing, etc).


and really it's game/movie/book logic, it's the same reason why the main characters in films aren't killed off in the first 10 minutes.
People seem to forget that point and seem to expect a full explanation that makes sense. Mass effect fields and FTL travel and quantum entanglement communicators? Nah, that all makes perfect sense, but enigmatic AI with motivations beyond our comprehension? Whoever thought of that crap? Meanwhile, Lovecraft is laying in his box going "It worked for me!"

There are lots of things that character do or don't do which might seem ridiculous but as you say it's a story, not everything has to be entirely rational. Though you could say that the reason Harbinger and friends don't attack the Crucible is because it's absolutely useless without the AI which controls them, so if the AI didn't decide to allow it to work the Crucible was effectively a big waste of time. Which I think creates another point - the AI has all the power. The trump card was the Crucible, everything they did was to buy time for the Crucible, and even then without that AI starchild crap it's useless. There's no bargaining position for humanity or organics. They win because the AI allows it.

In any case though you're right that the plot gets picked to pieces (just like the books, though in the case of the final book it sure as hell deserved it!) when really it's a story and doesn't have to be entirely rational all the time. Hell, people aren't entirely rational all the time.


And your point is proven by the fact that Mass Effect 3 tanked at retail right?
To be fair, the majority of the game is excellent by most accounts, namely because Bioware brought back things like weapon customisation from ME1 while keeping ME2's inventory so we didn't have a billion Lancer I assault rifles sitting there in a useless fashion. People hate the last 10 or so minutes of the game, but love the rest of it. But as Nalano said, there's no middle ground in this argument, no room for balanced criticism. Either you hate the lot, or you love the lot (apparently).

[Nalano]

People seem to forget that point and seem to expect a full explanation that makes sense. Mass effect fields and FTL travel and quantum entanglement communicators? Nah, that all makes perfect sense, but enigmatic AI with motivations beyond our comprehension? Whoever thought of that crap? Meanwhile, Lovecraft is laying in his box going "It worked for me!"

I still don't understand why people were so quick to dismiss the idea that the AI was flawed. I mean, the best kind of villain's a villain who wants to do good but whose reasoning is off. We have an AI, after all, that can't see the future, and who can't imagine circumstances beyond its own logic, and its logic says that culling advanced civilizations keeps galactic life going. So when Shepard comes along and is given the choice (and, c'mon, all your choices up until then were in getting to that point, which is further than any sapient being has ever gotten), the choice may not be exactly what Shepard wants, but have you ever gotten a poll where none of the options you were given reflected your views? (Like, all of them?) Still gotta vote.

[Kadayi]

And your point is proven by the fact that Mass Effect 3 tanked at retail right?

LOL. It's not about saving the game (that had already sold on evangelist hype and high expectations coming off of ME2) , it's about saving their brand identity (You need to think a little bigger about these things darling). Bioware have pretty much blown their entire fanbases goodwill given the backlash over DA2 and now the ME3 ending debacle. It's actually quite important for them to win back those people in the long term. Thus why they've been dishing out the free ME3 multi-player DLC and proffering the extended cut as an attempt to appease people and mitigate the damage. Reputation is incredibly important for a studio in terms of peoples expectations (consider how people judge Obsidian's games for instance for an example of how a poor reputation can haunt you indefinitely).

Right now, rightly or wrongly the hardcore fanbase isn't exactly convinced Bioware know what they are doing, or are they inclined to believe a gaming press that's effectively vilified them. That lack of confidence in the producers and the press is definitely going to temper peoples interest and attitude towards future product. No one wants to tell their friends 'this game is going to be great' and then have it turn out to be a turd on release because that reflects poorly on them. So what are they going to do? They're going to wait and see with their own eyes rather than sell off the hype. The pressure is really going to be on the DA3 team to hit it out of the park in terms of fan approval. If Bioware strike out...things could go very wrong for them tbh.

[deano2099]

I still don't understand why people were so quick to dismiss the idea that the AI was flawed.
I think it probably comes from the fact that Shepard can't even argue that. I think the line between the crazed anger and just moderate disappointment was purely in the length of that conversation. I think a lot of complaints would have been addressed by just giving you Destroy as an option, and unlocking control and synthesis via a conversation tree and renegade/paragon score respectively. Just being able to tell the AI: "I made peace with the Geth" or even having him recognise that would have stopped the whole thing feeling so disconnected.


the choice may not be exactly what Shepard wants, but have you ever gotten a poll where none of the options you were given reflected your views? (Like, all of them?) Still gotta vote.
You don't even have to, which was the funny thing. People yelling about how they wanted an option to reject the AI's choices entirely... you could always just stand there. Eventually you get a message saying the Crucible is blown up and you're dead. If people really wanted that ending, it was there. It sucked, but that's kinda the point. But instead the vast majority, when faced with not liking any choice, still chose something and didn't even realise that. Now that's indoctrination....

[deano2099]

LOL. It's not about saving the game (that had already sold on evangelist hype and high expectations coming off of ME2) , it's about saving their brand identity (You need to think a little bigger about these things darling). Bioware have pretty much blown their entire fanbases goodwill given the backlash over DA2 and now the ME3 ending debacle.

But the backlash over DA2 didn't impact the sales of ME3 one bit did it? Despite everyone declaring they were never going to buy a Bioware game again. Nor did the noise over the day-one DLC either. So this clearly isn't a game to game thing. And since there's no ME4 in the immediate future, as a franchise thing it's not something to worry about either. Is the theory that you need two backlashes in a row to affect future games?

[Nalano]

I think it probably comes from the fact that Shepard can't even argue that. I think the line between the crazed anger and just moderate disappointment was purely in the length of that conversation. I think a lot of complaints would have been addressed by just giving you Destroy as an option, and unlocking control and synthesis via a conversation tree and renegade/paragon score respectively. Just being able to tell the AI: "I made peace with the Geth" or even having him recognise that would have stopped the whole thing feeling so disconnected.

And the AI would argue that the peace wouldn't last, citing 17 million years of evidence. Regardless, this is just more stuff along the lines of "why can't I say what I want to say!?" and that's been true for all RPGs ever.

[soldant]

And the AI would argue that the peace wouldn't last, citing 17 million years of evidence.
Exactly. Players go on about how they achieved unity with Geth and Quarian, but if I ran an experiment 17 million times, all of which ended the same way, and then suddenly had one run where something different happened, I'd be tempted to call that an anomaly and presume that the 17 million other runs reflect a high probability of that outcome occurring.

Really, the Quarian-Geth alliance was always going to be about war assets and promoting galactic unity to fight the Reapers, not convincing the Reapers that everyone can leave in peace. The Reapers were always going to be a super-destructive force that you'd either defeat or be destroyed by them. The entire "synth-organic alliance" thing was always a self-contained bit of the plot, there was no requirement for the AI to reference it.

[Hypernetic]

The quantum entanglement thing doesn't necessarily need to be explained in the game since it's an actual thing in the real world. As for FTL, mass effect fields, and biotics (space magic) I think people are able to look the other way. It's really not much different from hearing explosions and PEW PEWs in space in Star Wars or Star Trek or hyperdrive, etc, etc, etc.

@the AI thing: I don't know that we can assume the Catalyst has 17 millions years worth of evidence to support his claim. The player knows about 100,000 years of history (current cycle and Prothean cycle) and an uprising of the type the catalyst fears has not happened in that time span. Yeah sure, 100,000 years is a mere snapshot in time if you live for millions, but that is not the point. The player has no evidence of synthetics being an actual problem other than the catalyst saying they are. For all intents and purposes the only evil doom bringing enemy the player knows of is the catalyst itself (and it's reaper armada).

I think it might have actually been good for the plot if it DID cite some evidence. For all we know the catalyst is full of shit and has never actually seen a synthetic uprising. It could just be following the instructions it was given when it was created. If it was created I guess, who the fuck knows what it is.

I had more, but then I started sneezing like crazy and now I can't remember.

[soldant]

The player knows about 100,000 years of history (current cycle and Prothean cycle)
But the Protheans acknowledge that the cycle has been going on much longer, and there's a hell of a lot of Reapers. They have no reason to lie about it.


The player has no evidence of synthetics being an actual problem other than the catalyst saying they are.
Which really doesn't matter for the plot. Either way, the player has no power at all in that situation. Whether the Reapers had been there since the dawn of time or whether they'd been there 5 minutes and it's all a big practical joke, in any event organics have absolutely nothing to defeat the Reapers with. The AI has all of the power. Assuming it has a reason to lie (it really doesn't, it wins regardless, why bother to lie about it?) it doesn't change the fact that the AI can do whatever it pleases and Shepard's input is no more important than the buzzing of a fly in your room.

I think (recalling the wiki here) that the Catalyst was created by an organic race in the dim and distant past, but has since drawn its own conclusions leading to the Reapers. But again it really doesn't change the plot because if the Catalyst really wanted to, it could do whatever it wants. Man, that'd be a hell of an ending - the player makes a choice, then the Catalyst does the opposite just to piss you off. Imagine the rage!

[Hypernetic]

But the Protheans acknowledge that the cycle has been going on much longer, and there's a hell of a lot of Reapers. They have no reason to lie about it.


Which really doesn't matter for the plot. Either way, the player has no power at all in that situation. Whether the Reapers had been there since the dawn of time or whether they'd been there 5 minutes and it's all a big practical joke, in any event organics have absolutely nothing to defeat the Reapers with. The AI has all of the power. Assuming it has a reason to lie (it really doesn't, it wins regardless, why bother to lie about it?) it doesn't change the fact that the AI can do whatever it pleases and Shepard's input is no more important than the buzzing of a fly in your room.

I think (recalling the wiki here) that the Catalyst was created by an organic race in the dim and distant past, but has since drawn its own conclusions leading to the Reapers. But again it really doesn't change the plot because if the Catalyst really wanted to, it could do whatever it wants. Man, that'd be a hell of an ending - the player makes a choice, then the Catalyst does the opposite just to piss you off. Imagine the rage!

I'm not saying the cycle hasn't gone on for much longer, I'm simply saying we have no evidence that there has ever been a synthetic uprising. It actually seems rather unlikely that there ever could be with the Reapers wiping everything out every 50,000 years. I guess it's kind of a paradox.

So to clarify, I'm not questioning how long the reapers have been around for but rather if there is actually any evidence to support their claim that "the created will always rebel against the creator". Based on evidence and not speculating, the answer is actually that they don't rebel, but I digress.

I'm also not suggesting the Catalyst is lying, I'm suggesting he is simply misinformed. Just a tangent that doesn't really mean anything.

Even so the biggest problem with the plot is still the crucible.

[soldant]

I'm also not suggesting the Catalyst is lying, I'm suggesting he is simply misinformed. Just a tangent that doesn't really mean anything.
Actually that's not an unimportant point - it's entirely possible that the Catalyst is wrong, particularly in this single instance. It's worth nothing however that at the time the Reaper vanguard was set to turn up, there was a synthetic uprising; the Geth kicked the Quarians out of their homeworld, though their motivations stopped short of full blown genocide.

But back to your point, you're entirely correct to suggest that the Catalyst could be misinformed or might be ignoring the evidence of this single instance. But the Catalyst believes it's right. It's why I keep referring to dementia patients - they invent memories to explain gaps and will insist that they're correct, even when faced with clearly contradictory evidence. It's like someone fully believing that they're right even if they're wrong. The Catalyst could very well be in a similar situation; it could be wrong. But that doesn't mean Shepard had any hope of convincing it that it's right.

The evidence of a single case doesn't suggest that the Catalyst is totally wrong. Peace between Quarian and Geth might not have lasted. Another AI could have risen up. There are plenty of possibilities. It's not a given that they don't rebel or strike back in the case of the Geth.

[Zaik]

Some? Sure, i buy that. 75%? that's far too unbalanced a predator/prey ratio to be survivable. They'd get bored and go elsewhere quickly if it were just trolling.

[Kadayi]

But the backlash over DA2 didn't impact the sales of ME3 one bit did it? Despite everyone declaring they were never going to buy a Bioware game again. Nor did the noise over the day-one DLC either. So this clearly isn't a game to game thing. And since there's no ME4 in the immediate future, as a franchise thing it's not something to worry about either. Is the theory that you need two backlashes in a row to affect future games?

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. People will generally give a developer the benefit of the doubt once, but they're far less likely to if they repeat the same mistake in a row. That's generally how these things work. Id are in exactly the same situation as Bioware tbh because neither Doom 3 or RAGE set the world alight. Whatever Id are upto next really needs to deliver in order to restore peoples confidence in their capabilities.

[Hypernetic]

There is no proof that sales weren't affected. Deano seems to think that sales being affected = the game tanking at retail which is definitely not going to be the case for a game series of such immense popularity.

Personally I will NOT be buying any Bioware games at launch for the foreseeable future. DA2, ME3, and TOR were all massive disappointments for me so I think I have all my Bioware developer bases covered here.

I'm not saying I won't buy or play Bioware games out of spite, I'm just going to wait and see what people think first.

I also feel like I should point out that what disappointed me the most about ME3 was NOT the ending. The ending sucked royally, but the stories throughout the game were pretty well done. What really bothered me about ME3 was the actual gameplay. Certain weapons made all other weapons completely pointless *COUGH* scoped carnifex *COUGH*. There was ZERO exploration. The side quests were really dull aside from the companion specific chains.

I know I'm in the minority in feeling this way, but I really liked the planetary exploration and mako driving in ME1. I thought the tank bits were a fun change of pace and I really liked the feeling of touching down on some alien world and exploring around for anomalies and stuff. ME1 was just a big open galaxy for you to explore. Scanning planets from orbit is boring.

[goatmonkey]

I know I'm in the minority in feeling this way, but I really liked the planetary exploration and mako driving in ME1. I thought the tank bits were a fun change of pace and I really liked the feeling of touching down on some alien world and exploring around for anomalies and stuff. ME1 was just a big open galaxy for you to explore. Scanning planets from orbit is boring.

Several missions (Novaria, Ilos and the beachy planet that got nuked) were massively enhanced by the driving while mechanically it was bad it added a sense of scale that was completely lacking from 2 and 3 and I feel removing it was a loss.

More on subject, the ending of Mass Effect 3 has completely put me off the franchise but I had been going off it since 2. I feel the first game built a fantastic universe but the sequels added nothing interesting or worthwhile (with the exception of characters). There also seemed to be a tonal shift away from a 60s/70s sci-fi homage to be much more generic army man shooter and Shepard for some reason becoming the only person capable of saving the galaxy rather than simply the right person in the right place.

[Hypernetic]

Several missions (Novaria, Ilos and the beachy planet that got nuked) were massively enhanced by the driving while mechanically it was bad it added a sense of scale that was completely lacking from 2 and 3 and I feel removing it was a loss.

More on subject, the ending of Mass Effect 3 has completely put me off the franchise but I had been going off it since 2. I feel the first game built a fantastic universe but the sequels added nothing interesting or worthwhile (with the exception of characters). There also seemed to be a tonal shift away from a 60s/70s sci-fi homage to be much more generic army man shooter and Shepard for some reason becoming the only person capable of saving the galaxy rather than simply the right person in the right place.

Yeah, I pretty much agree on all points.

[deano2099]

I'm not saying I won't buy or play Bioware games out of spite, I'm just going to wait and see what people think first.

I also feel like I should point out that what disappointed me the most about ME3 was NOT the ending. The ending sucked royally, but the stories throughout the game were pretty well done. What really bothered me about ME3 was the actual gameplay. Certain weapons made all other weapons completely pointless *COUGH* scoped carnifex *COUGH*. There was ZERO exploration. The side quests were really dull aside from the companion specific chains.


Out of interest, had you waited, would you still have bought ME3 after you saw all the fuss about the ending? I have to say I would have, I'd probably have been even more motivated to pick it up just to see what all the fuss was about.

The other oddity is that, even had you waited, you wouldn't have found out about all those other issues because any discussion about the pros and cons of the game were drowned out by discussion of the ending.

As to the whole Catalyst AI thing - I agree it was flawed but all-powerful, so it didn't matter what Shepard did. But the game really needed to let you try and reason with it and fail in order to demonstrate that. It's out of character for a paragon Shepard to not even try and talk it around.

[Hypernetic]

Out of interest, had you waited, would you still have bought ME3 after you saw all the fuss about the ending? I have to say I would have, I'd probably have been even more motivated to pick it up just to see what all the fuss was about.

The other oddity is that, even had you waited, you wouldn't have found out about all those other issues because any discussion about the pros and cons of the game were drowned out by discussion of the ending.

As to the whole Catalyst AI thing - I agree it was flawed but all-powerful, so it didn't matter what Shepard did. But the game really needed to let you try and reason with it and fail in order to demonstrate that. It's out of character for a paragon Shepard to not even try and talk it around.

I wouldn't have waited for ME3. ME is an exception because of how much I loved the universe and characters. Dragon age I could take or leave honestly.

If Bioware were to make an ME4 somehow? I'd definitely wait.

So basically, I can't answer your question.

[deano2099]

If Bioware were to make an ME4 somehow? I'd definitely wait.


And if the overall opinion is that it's a great game but the ending sucks, will you buy it?

[Nalano]

It's out of character for a paragon Shepard to not even try and talk it around.

How could you? Dude, I can't convince a 90 year old anything. Try a 17-million year old.

[c-Row]

Your decisions in ME1 echo through ME2 & 3, especially with regard to Wrex and the saving of the Council.

Which I take as a "yes, you are right about ME1" then. ;)

[deano2099]

How could you? Dude, I can't convince a 90 year old anything. Try a 17-million year old.

Right, but she'd try. I'm not saying the option to succeed should be in there. But the option to try is the best way to demonstrate that reasoning with it is pointless.

[Nalano]

Right, but she'd try. I'm not saying the option to succeed should be in there. But the option to try is the best way to demonstrate that reasoning with it is pointless.

And this minor point that changes nothing should torpedo the whole trilogy? That Shepard didn't rant impotently at this AI for a few minutes before doing what she needed to do?

[deano2099]

And this minor point that changes nothing should torpedo the whole trilogy? That Shepard didn't rant impotently at this AI for a few minutes before doing what she needed to do?

No (I liked the ending) but I think something as minor as that was the difference between vast swathes of anger and just general dislike.

[Nalano]

No (I liked the ending) but I think something as minor as that was the difference between vast swathes of anger and just general dislike.

Since I think the vast swathes of anger were wholly irrational, I don't altogether care what the difference was.

[soldant]

Certain weapons made all other weapons completely pointless
Did you get the Spectre gear in ME1? Yes? Then you also made every other weapon obsolete. ME2's weapons had enough differences to make each one different for various play styles. In ME1 all the assault rifles (for example) basically handled the same way, all you did was pick the one with the best damage and use that. So once you had the Spectre weapons, everything else was junk. And you ended up with a LOT of junk.


There was ZERO exploration.
This is one thing I sort of agree with, but the Mako was terrible and the long driving sequences were a pain. Most of my "exploration" was about trying to find a way over a ridge or something without the Mako flipping or stalling halfway up. That's not very fun. The Hammerhead they trialled in ME2 would have made for a MUCH more fun experience... but really there were one or two planets worth checking out in ME1 (off the main storyline) in terms of visuals, otherwise they were stereotypical blue/brown/red and once you'd seen one, you'd seem 'em all.


The side quests were really dull aside from the companion specific chains.
All of the side quests are dull in all of the games. I can't think of any of them which are particularly entertaining.

[Hypernetic]

I enjoyed exploring the planets that you didn't, so I don't know.

I didn't play a soldier in my first ME play through so I could only use pistols.

I wouldn't have a problem with ME3 having a "god tier" weapon in every category. The problem is that the Carnifex is simply better than ANY weapon. Body shots at any range do about the same or more damage as a close range shotgun blast. Headshots do more damage than most sniper rifles (only 1 or 2 do more but have a massively slower rate of fire). The Carnifex is a god weapon in ME3. It's so good you don't even need to carry other weapons, you can just max your CDs by having less weight. The carnifex is also one of the lightest weapons in the game...

Put a heavy barrel and scope on it and you are good to go. It's just TOO good. Even in the multiplayer, I tried so hard to use other weapons because I was bored of the carnifex, but they are all shit in comparison.

[Nalano]

Headshots do more damage than most sniper rifles (only 1 or 2 do more but have a massively slower rate of fire).

Don't care, Black Widow goes THOOM.

[Hypernetic]

Don't care, Black Widow goes THOOM.

Yeah, the widow/black widow are cool. I guess I'm just a min/maxer at heart. I had to use the Carnifex (or as I started calling it "ole fexy".

I did screw around with the Javelin for about an hour so in single player, xray vision is cool.

Speaking of broken things, did any of you play infiltrator in single player? It literally breaks the game. You can stealth right in front of enemies and they just stand there looking all dumb while you line up perfect headshots. =/

[Boris]

Several missions (Novaria, Ilos and the beachy planet that got nuked) were massively enhanced by the driving while mechanically it was bad it added a sense of scale that was completely lacking from 2 and 3 and I feel removing it was a loss.

More on subject, the ending of Mass Effect 3 has completely put me off the franchise but I had been going off it since 2. I feel the first game built a fantastic universe but the sequels added nothing interesting or worthwhile (with the exception of characters). There also seemed to be a tonal shift away from a 60s/70s sci-fi homage to be much more generic army man shooter and Shepard for some reason becoming the only person capable of saving the galaxy rather than simply the right person in the right place.

Indeed. The Mako's controls were wonky, and it wasn't always clear what it could and couldn't drive up against, and it tended to get stuck in geometry (for me at least). However, it really drove home that the planets you were landing on were actually planets and not yet another corridor. That and its utility look really gave me the exploration feel, something that the Hammerhead did not quite replicate. Also, that energy meter on the Hammerhead itself made it look tacky and cheap, totally killing my immersion.

The Mako was just fun to drive around in, even though the driving itself could have been a lot better.

[Nalano]

Speaking of broken things, did any of you play infiltrator in single player? It literally breaks the game. You can stealth right in front of enemies and they just stand there looking all dumb while you line up perfect headshots. =/

Played Inf both ME2 and 3. Currently doing top difficulty. THOOM THOOM THOOM kchack THOOM THOOM THOOM kchack THOOM THOOM-- hey Garrus, any time you feel ready, bro --THOOM

[Hypernetic]

Played Inf both ME2 and 3. Currently doing top difficulty. THOOM THOOM THOOM kchack THOOM THOOM THOOM kchack THOOM THOOM-- hey Garrus, any time you feel ready, bro --THOOM

Haha. The widow was pretty good for punching through high armor targets. It probably did about the same DPS as the carnifex, but taking huge chunks out of their armor was a lot more satisfying. That's pretty much all I used it for, most enemies died with one headshot from the Carnifex with the heavy barrel, 20% increased HS damage talent, and the damage out of stealth buff (which is also another perk of the carnifex since it has a much greater fire rate and clip size compared to sniper rifles, you get more out of the short boost).


I was a Vanguard in ME2 and I wasn't really that happy with it. The signature ability of the class (biotic charge) was basically worthless on higher difficulties as it would just lead to you dying almost instantly every time you used it. Vanguard in ME3 is INSANELY fun in lower tiers of coop (bronze or even silver if you are max level with the right load out), it falls short in gold though. I use the hornet SMG as my only weapon with armor piercing rounds on a human vanguard. I just charge in and nova which kills most enemies outright and then hornet whatever is still alive. I can take down a silver atlas by myself in like 4 or 5 seconds just chain charging to keep shields up and spamming the armor piercing hornet rounds. It's kind of silly.

edit: As a side note, I have a hard timing finding motivation to play through ME3 again and not even really because of the ending. All of the choices I made are the only choices I think I could have made, I can't see myself doing anything differently really.