Has anywhere other than Forbes been sympathetic in any way? I feel like the entirety of the enthusiast press all had the same word a day callender that said entitlement when the ME3 news broke originally.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Mass Effect 3 Spoiler Thread |OT2| Taste the Rainbow
- Thread starter Patryn
- Start date
Has anywhere other than Forbes been sympathetic in any way? I feel like the entirety of the enthusiast press all had the same word a day callender that said entitlement when the ME3 news broke originally.
This is basically how I would describe anyone who has experienced the ending of Mass Effect 3:
Boobphysics101 is currently one of the worst cases
Everyone has gone through those stages.
The word 'entitlement' has quickly become a red flag for me. Whenever I see somebody generalize all buyer/user criticism of a product, legitimate or not, as a simple juvenile feeling of 'entitlement', I know to never take that person serious again.
How is it that the media covering this industry, specifically to provide a service to consumers (reviews), are almost all unilaterally attacking consumers for not being satisfied by a product that they themselves failed to warn them against?
What the fuck do I need people in the games press for if they're so completely out of touch with their audience that they're incapable of understanding basic arguments and rhetoric, and would prefer to invent some kind of non-existent and completely unreasonable 'phantom consumer', whose arguments they can then proceed to diffuse, in order to promote publishers and developers as some kind of infallible 'artists'?
How is it that the media covering this industry, specifically to provide a service to consumers (reviews), are almost all unilaterally attacking consumers for not being satisfied by a product that they themselves failed to warn them against?
What the fuck do I need people in the games press for if they're so completely out of touch with their audience that they're incapable of understanding basic arguments and rhetoric, and would prefer to invent some kind of non-existent and completely unreasonable 'phantom consumer', whose arguments they can then proceed to diffuse, in order to promote publishers and developers as some kind of infallible 'artists'?
Bought all of the ME2 DLC today, played half of it, while the Firewalker missions are in general not good at all, there's a Mass Effect 1-y feeling to Overlord played in that semi-nonlinear way. Isn't it odd that they spent the time implementing that post-release and then dropped it entirely for ME3? Maybe it's coming in DLC for this one as well?
RedRedSuit
Member
It's not really a bad interview. It gives a reasonably balanced view.
It also has some serious flaws in reasoning, which I think is the biggest problem with it (not the mention of bittersweetness; whether you want to admit it or not, the "DID I JUST FUCK UP THE GALAXY" is a big factor in people's unhappy reactions). I think the main flaws are:
1, giant, gaping plot holes and characters introduced in the last 5 minutes are not OK. (This has nothing to do with closure or the lack of a happy ending.) They're just poor, period.
2, Lost's ending is thematically similar to/true to the rest of the series. Mass Effect 3's is a complete departure.
It also has some serious flaws in reasoning, which I think is the biggest problem with it (not the mention of bittersweetness; whether you want to admit it or not, the "DID I JUST FUCK UP THE GALAXY" is a big factor in people's unhappy reactions). I think the main flaws are:
1, giant, gaping plot holes and characters introduced in the last 5 minutes are not OK. (This has nothing to do with closure or the lack of a happy ending.) They're just poor, period.
2, Lost's ending is thematically similar to/true to the rest of the series. Mass Effect 3's is a complete departure.
PedroLumpy
Member
Indeed he does get to the nature of player agency etc. afterwards, but the 'save the princess' argument does get leaned into pretty heavily right off the bat.
PinkCrayon
Member
There were originally some firewalker sections in ME3, but they got cut. Personally, I would love to see the Mako return. A fixed Mako of course, but I would love to go planet exploring again...
Light reading through the Klepek article now it's not really as bad as the first comments here would imply. Certainly nowhere near that podcast of game journalists two (?) weeks ago that called it the best ending ever and praised Bioware's bravery. Not the optimal interview, but maybe he's not too into the series.
And people stop reading the article at that point and start making broad generalizations about journalists 'missing the point'.
I've had some time away from ME3 after finishing it and posting in the earlier OT, gone and cleared some of my backlog (F:NV, Bastion, DE:HR). Life's been good.
However, one of my open tabs right now, is a 20 minute video titled:
Mass Effect 3 - Shepard's Indoctrination (NEW)
I'm going to watch it after lunch. It better live up to the arguments in these threads!
However, one of my open tabs right now, is a 20 minute video titled:
Mass Effect 3 - Shepard's Indoctrination (NEW)
I'm going to watch it after lunch. It better live up to the arguments in these threads!
PedroLumpy
Member
Well I read the full article, how much of a generalization are you making?
That video is probably the best support for the theory.
LightofRohan
Member
Yea. I don't fucking get it. My favorite Mass Effect missions? Overlord and Bring Down the Skies. They both knew EXACTLY what makes the game great; sense of exploration, variation in the experience, rpg elements, important choices and with BDtS great ending accomplishment/loot.
Wish they could have done more of that...
I don't really have an issue with this article as such but more that almost none of the mainstream sites seem to have bothered to look at he actual reasons people are complaining but instead are focused on what they assume it is and the actions of outliers like the FTC complaint guy.
Although I think this interview was done closer to the games release so perhaps most people's reasons had been verbalised as much as they have now.
Reading the comments on the article on Giant Bomb (never the best place for discussion), I will say I think some people have lost all perspective with regard to discussion on this topic. Whenever there is an new article people will immediately jump on anything about 'some people don't like sad endings' and the word 'entitled', completely disregarding anything else that is being said and just spewing hate about the enthusiast press (except for the pandering Forbes contributors) and BioWare. It's that kind of loss of perspective people on the internet have that created the 'cry baby' reactions in the first place.
LightofRohan
Member
Yea, but it still misses the, "Wake up!" / "Why are you here?". That one still gets me...
I think the best argument/evidence against indoc. is why would they force you to choose the 'right' ending if you did so poorly?
My guess is EA's time restrictions and budget restrictions caused Bioware to scrap exploration ala Firewalker and Overlord from the start.
LostVector
Neo Member
They most definitely did plan it out. Only a plot plan for an halfway point ending like this can explain why the game both allows you to rechoose if you pick the indoctrinated choices, as well as why only the destroy choice ends with Shepard waking up IN LONDON. It may not be obvious to anyone that doesn't pick the right endings and can't see their choices in the context of the other choices, but it's very clear once you see how it's all mapped out.
Greatest ending in video game history in the making. Indoctrinating the player himself into believing he can synthesize with or control reapers is a literal stroke of genius.
Unfortunately people are assuming the worst and thinking EA will charge for the true ending, but my current assumption is that the true ending was always intended to be part of the game and will be released as free DLC. If they do charge, I think that will be unethical.
I don't think I get your question, but I think the comments about the article illustrate how people are going about discussing it in a poor fashion.
I think you are literally insane.
Seek help.
RedRedSuit
Member
You that think it would be genius to confuse the shit out of 99% of the players and then give out the real ending as free DLC months down the line? That would a literal stroke of genius?
I feel like I'm a crazy person I thought the vehicle portions of firewalker/overlord were by far the worst parts of the game (loved the characters/story in overlord.)
Cool, so you're willing to pay $60 for a game that doesn't even have an ending. I'll forward your message to EA.
I really, really hope that it was all part of Bioware's master plan, and if that is the case, I could care less about having to pay for the "true" ending. The way Bioware has responded to the ending and the details we know about the development process however just makes it impossible for me to think this was Bioware's plan.
Personally more willing to pay for a game that is enjoyable for the first 98% than has a batshit crazy in his mind ending than a game that I enjoy the first 98% of then is followed by an ending that seems written by someone who hasn't seen/read/played anything from the universe it's ending.
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
No worries, their viral marketers here will pass it along!
rollingstart
Banned
I would've liked ME3 to have a batshit incomprehensible ending like EoE. Harbinger' ship cracks open and a giant space butterfly flies into the sun and it turns into a black hole and we enter the fifth dimension and Shepard is given a choice to transcend into godhood or stay behind as an immortal and assist the next cycle in catching up. Something really fucking stupid like that.
The thing that makes indoctrination theory seem weirdest to me is that I can't figure out the why of it. What's the point?
Unlike the "indoctrination" in MGS2 (which has obvious textual support and supports the game's existing themes of information control), indoctrination in Mass Effect would just be a twist for the sake of a twist. The designers "pulling one over" on the player might spur discussion, but it has shit-all to do with anything else that has happened over the course of the trilogy.
WrenchNinja
Member
I read the whole article. I also read the comments and you calling everyone dumb assuming everyone didn't read the article.
LostVector
Neo Member
Indoctrination is supposed to be confusing. You don't know what's real or not. In fact, you and many apparently still don't know if this ending is real or not, and won't until the DLC comes. This would never have been possible had they just presented you with a kill screen and a reload to pick the non-indoctrinated and keep fighting.
I agree it's so subtle that the endings are frustrating to any player that has no idea this is what is happening. I'm not confident that I would have recognized the signs myself without hearing about them on the Internet.
Bioware may have had too much faith in the masses for such a seemingly disappointing terse ending that actually has much deeper meaning. This has never been tried before, but conceptually it is super gutsy and original. As long as they don't charge for the ending DLC, I fully support them in this.
Apparently I read the article differently than everyone else from the looks of it.
RedRedSuit
Member
You fully support them in shipping an incomplete, frustrating game and finishing it off with free DLC later.
I suppose you're free to feel however you want, but seeing as how "the masses" (including yourself) didn't recognize this supposed genius plan through the game itself -- and needed YouTube videos to get signs of it -- I'd say it's safe to say Bioware's supposed genius plan failed miserably.
(Of course, there was no plan. But let's suppose there was.)
I think Hackett would kind of figure you were on the Citadel since the arms opened up. All the other reasons in that video are decent I suppose. Still, it's not really the story that gets me mad, or pretty much everyone else for that matter, it's just how they prided themselves on choice and kind of screwed you in the end.
Anyway, if they were planning on completing a trilogy with only having speculation and no clear ending, even though they ostensibly crafted this interesting plot of Shepard being indoctrinated, they need to be slapped. Hard.
PedroLumpy
Member
Quote my post and comment on how 'people' aren't finishing reading the article, am I so unreasonable for thinking those 'people' may include myself and others here?
LostVector
Neo Member
I consider DLC to be part of games nowadays, so if they pull it off, yes I do. This is a horribly risky choice you would normally only see in an indie game. Obviously it didn't go over well with a lot of people, and this both doesn't surprise me but is also disappointing if people don't warm up to it once told what is happening on the Internet. It would mean the executives in suits are right about the "masses" and that all mass market games should stick to happy buttoned up endings because your average gamer can't stand not knowing what's going on for just a month.
Of course, I cannot be certain the indoctrination theory is their master plan, but it's really hard to explain why Shepard wakes up on Earth with the destroy option and why the game gives you options to make your choice again if you choose incorrectly.
All the hazy plot points are open to interpretation (although my belief is that the analysis of all the extensive foreshadowing is on the money). But the game mechanic edits or changes cannot be explained without Bioware having been prepared for this from the get go.
Where is this "option to make your choice again" you speak of?
The game makes an autosave at the beginning of the final section.
Psychoward
Banned
That's probably just for DLC
So the game tells you at the end that you should continue the adventure with DLC, and starts you right back before the the point of no return. How are you supposed to play DLC you purchase after beating the game with your character otherwise?
RedRedSuit
Member
wat
The hell?
Executives would LOVE to think that gamers are OK with games being incomplete and made complete only with DLC. That's their dream!
Since when have executives in suits fought for games to be as complete and all-inclusive as possible? Is it Opposites Day?
And there is absolutely nothing wrong with the "masses'" desire for the final game of a trilogy to in fact be final. Denigrating that desire with the "happy buttoned up endings" rhetoric doesn't work.
It's only as hard as explaining any number of things that make no sense: how the relays exploding didn't kill all life in the galaxy; how any green beam can somehow fuse organics and machines; etc. Answer: space magic and/or Shepard somehow gets to a Citadel arm, which then falls to Earth.
How so? It makes a save at the start of the mission, as any game would in this case. You have to play through the whole thing again from M. Shields up. How is this in any way unusual?
Hell, it won't even let you save anytime within the Citadel.
I have no idea what this means. Surely not the infinite ammo pistol, which is a standard gameplay conceit in these situations?
Psychoward
Banned
I love taking Garrus on the 1st Rannoch mission with Tali. When Tali heard that the sexy Dr.Michel gave Garrus some Turrian Chocolate:
Tali: "She gave you chocolate?!"
Garrus: *confused* "Yeah, why?"
Tali: "Oh nothing."
J.Shepard: *awkward* "Hmm, let me get the door opened on my own"
Tali: "She gave you chocolate?!"
Garrus: *confused* "Yeah, why?"
Tali: "Oh nothing."
J.Shepard: *awkward* "Hmm, let me get the door opened on my own"
I thought the article was fine and I viewed the comments on GB and see people jumping on 'save the princess' and said they've stopped reading it at that point and ONLY focusing on that point.
That was where my comment was more directed at but I still don't see what others are seeing from Patricks article.
PedroLumpy
Member
I admit, conceptually I think I'd be really cool if it was actually true. By hiding the indoctrination ending, they make sure the player choice is as pure as possible, with only the information presented within the game determining their decision.
Of course when you consider the real world implications of such a scheme, it's ridiculously insane and would never be done on such a high profile game.
Perfectly fine then, carry on sir.