We Recommend By ZergNet


  • Balaska - March 21, 2012 11:04 a.m.

    The ending isn't nonsensical, the ending makes perfect sense. The reapers, the most powerful beings in the galaxy, effed our shit up. There was never going to be a happy ending, ever. Bioware prepared us for this and we failed to listen. This is their story, if you don't like it, tough. However much choice there was in the game ulitmately there was no real choice in the end. Kind of like life. Am I the only one that gets the point?
  • TheHowetzer - March 21, 2012 11:36 a.m.

    This was the point of a couple of posts I had on the other ME3 Ending thread, I Didnt even play ME3 yet, and I think the ending was exactly what it had to be, people don't seem to think that toying with life and death on the grandest scale ever seen should have any lasting consequences...yeah makes sence to bitch about it. Oh! yeah I almost forgot, they also didnt like the fact that the choice they made to brush their teeth that time didn't affect the end outcome either. Because that is so relevent when we are dealing with the entire future of the known universe. You nailed it Balaska. I also dont like that everyone wants to bitch about it and expects them to CHANGE the effing game. Grow up people it's thier I.P. get over it and move on. I really hope they do not try to change what they've done here simply to pander to a bunch of upset children.
  • ParagonT - March 21, 2012 2:34 p.m.

    I don't think you quite understand what people are upset about in general, you seem to be generalizing the whole concept people are arguing for. Also that attitude you have is exactly why IP's like Call of Duty, exist, you don't want to break the mold and is content sitting on their ass eating up every bit of shovel-ware and sub-par games you can get your grub nubs on. People who criticize are the reason that the industry breaks the mold and is on their top game every day, because without them, you would be defending crap IP's. Mass Effect 3 was perfect to me except the ending and how the whole years of playing the series ending up being three choices that were alike (except one). The whole story was riddled with plot holes, and contradictions. You could argue with the indoctrination theory, but if you know what Occram's Razor is, you should know better unless given evidence instead of assumptions. I didn't care that it wasn't a happy ending, it's the plot holes and sub par ending (unless there is evidence for indoctrination). I also wonder why it's not cool to criticize the ending, but its fine to criticize those that criticize? (See a trend here?) One more thing, games are MADE for it's target audience, we are not slaves to how developers make their games, they're slaves to our wants. People just don't realize it yet.
  • TheHowetzer - March 22, 2012 4:16 a.m.

    Alright couple of things here on this ParagonT. First off, I have thought more about this last night and I have come to the realization that I am coming down on the wrong side of this as far as it pertains to the fans wanting something else from the developers. Obviously there are alot of people that are much more emotionally involved and have more passion for this than I do, which is perfectly fine, and I am glad for them. I guess I simply just do not share that passion, and yes that may be because I have not played the game, BTW @ Aliengmr great contribution you bring to the table here, your Mom must be proud. I have always been a free market guy and if the fans want something else and they can put enough pressure on the company, then it's simply the market at work in a very quick way which I am cool with, but I still personally don't like whinning about it, but I should not let that cloud what can be accomplished by the consumer here because of it. As far as IP's like call of Duty pertain to me, I can bet you have spent more consumer dollars on Call of duty and the like than I have Paragon so if you live in a glass house, maybe you should think twice before throwing that stone. I am not however going to change my stance on the ending itself, the ONLY problem I really saw (from the limited info I have) was that shepards crew was seemingly no where around when the relays went offline so to speak, I thought that was strange and if there is an explaination for it, they certainly didnt seem to show it. Other than that, I still can easily understand, and live with the endings. I will agree that it seems that it was rushed and if the fans can squeeze more explanation out of the pockets of the company (and hopefully for no more money) than I am fine with that. Funny you should bring up Occam's razor here though man, because I think applying that to most of the ME series is difficult for the simple fact that the whole thing is so complicated to begin with. But if you look at whats presented in the form of the ghost child/god thing if that is taken as its presented than Occam's razor dictates that we accept the endings for me at least, of course others can take other views. Anyway this is getting long, sorry but I did want to recant my earlier view on the fan involvement with getting more for their dollars.
  • ParagonT - March 22, 2012 6:45 a.m.

    "I guess I simply just do not share that passion, and yes that may be because I have not played the game" Then you have not truly experienced the game, you need to play it before there is any real validity in anything you said. It's like discussing cliff jumping, for some it's freaking terrifying, for some it's a thrill; you need to experience it to be able to talk with validity. "As far as IP's like call of Duty pertain to me, I can bet you have spent more consumer dollars on Call of duty and the like than I have Paragon so if you live in a glass house, maybe you should think twice before throwing that stone." I'm afraid not, my girlfriend borrows my step-brother's copy's and plays them, but I guess out of all of them I only play Black Ops (which is borrowed again, mainly for zombies.). So I really don't support CoD financially. My step-brother does, but he's an idiot. In all, I'm glad we can agree on somethings and were reaching for middle ground, the game is great, but Bioware is marketing a service/product and needs to cater to its fans. They're a business, not a group of artists. Although they may make video games that people consider "art", they have a ulterior motives of getting paid, and making money. The goal does not justify the means. I don't like whining as much as the next person, but I'm not going to deny the fact that it's going to happen. It's not wrong, but it's not right neither.
  • TheHowetzer - March 22, 2012 8:10 a.m.

    "In all, I'm glad we can agree on somethings and were reaching for middle ground, the game is great, but Bioware is marketing a service/product and needs to cater to its fans. They're a business, not a group of artists. Although they may make video games that people consider "art", they have a ulterior motives of getting paid, and making money." I am glad we can agree as well Paragon, also I could not have said it better myself about the company's and the consumers responsibilities. It also makes a great argument against the whole "Video games = art" disscusion, and I find disscusions fun.
  • ParagonT - March 22, 2012 9:21 a.m.

    I personally do think video games are a form of art, but I don't believe every developer is an artist. It's really in my mind what their doing it for. Is it to tell a story? Help the global/local community? Or just for fun? Because when the point of making a video game becomes a financial or social/popularity/selfish endeavor, I think that's were the line is drawn. Art speaks to people, but its the combination of your premise of creating it that defines you as an artist. Just because your a photographer does not mean your an artist, your just a good photographer. When you use your abilities to help better the world through your vision, you are on your way to becoming a true artist. If later after your work is created receives high praise and is sold, that's fine, because it was not your intended purpose for creating it. If you are just an artist in name alone, I don't believe that's enough, you have to prove yourself to the world, but I'm not sure if the world even knows what it means to be a true artist. I changed my thinking drastically after a well respected man from Mali discussed his cultures views in class. What do you think?
  • TheHowetzer - March 23, 2012 5:59 a.m.

    I think something like "Art" is very very subjective, and thus inherently difficult to put a label on. What is art to one person may not be to another. Some video games may be seen to be art, some may not. Can't they be both at the same time? I think personally this is where I come down on this one, they are (like MANY other things in this life) BOTH Art and Not Art at the same time, especially to me. To me some things that are very traditionally considered to be "art" are not art because the definition of art to me is going to be different than the definition of art to you or someone else. If we could get one concrete, complete, exact, and un-changeable definition of "art"? ....Well I guess it would depend on exactly WHAT that definition turned out to be wouldn't it? I find it interesting that even though there is no real definition for the word "art" just about everyone could tell you what it means to them. Personally, I consider art to be anything that can make anyone feel something. It's a strange definition I know, but that's what I think of art as, something that makes me feel, it makes me react emotionally. To me making money or being popular has nothing to do with art, but they can certainly go hand in hand because guess what? People will PAY to have feelings/reactions, to them it contains intrinsic value.
  • Inthedistrict - March 22, 2012 10:55 a.m.

    I agree with your argument about constructive criticism - it paves the way for developers to stay creative and keeps them on a better track with what their buyers want. I'm curious if you wouldn't mind elaborating on some of the plot holes in the game. I've heard the "plot hole" subject mentioned a lot, but I haven't actually heard any details on what any of them are (I'm simply curious is all). I do disagree with your last two points - I think it's pretty popular, or "cool" if you will, to criticize the ending right now. Almost every major news website that has covered the game, every gamer blog, in addition to a majority of gamers, have complained about the ending to ME3. I would argue that those people (like myself) who don't necessarily mind the ending, are criticized more than anyone else on the subject. Also, on my second disagreement - I think games move away from their original target audiences all the time. The first Mass Effect was much more of an RPG than the second one, and coincidentally, the second game was made for multiple platforms and had a much higher gamer count. The third game moved back a little bit (in my opinion) to be closer in style to the first game, which I liked. I don't know if you've played the first game or not, but my guess would be that a number of people here (not necessarily yourself) are basing their experience off the last two games instead of the trilogy as a whole. I feel like a lot of questions are answered when people get to play all three games as opposed to the last two (for instance, the "god-like child" at the end of the game). That scene made sense to me having played the first game, when the Protheon VI explained that he took the form of a human like object to be able to better communicate with Shepard at that time.
  • ParagonT - March 22, 2012 1:36 p.m.

    If were talking about the indoctrination theory of the ending, or even something similar, it may make sense, but its just that, a theory. It runs too much off of assumptions made and personal interpretation. I've seen the video's of it, and I think it is most likely correct, but that seems pretty weird. Bioware gave you a good story, but if the indoctrination theory is true, thats pretty much them throwing you into the sea of psychological and metaphorical shit after just getting used to a pool. Also if this is true, then it gave little closure to the franchise. I can't speak for everyone, but what does not make sense to me is how Joker got where he was (he didn't just run), how your squad was on the Normandy (two were supposed to be running for the beam with you and obliterated, they didn't just run there then retreated after being so close, assuming they lived.), how they magically teleported onto the Normandy, and Relays destruction (why it didn't obliterate the galaxy, let alone the Normandy?). More points: If the Relays are screwed, then the Turians and Quarians can’t survive since they cant eat human food (unless you assume that combined synthetics makes people unable to starve, but we don't know that). With earth in shambles, who do you think are going to be left standing since Earth most likely cannot supply enough food? No doubt the Krogans, they might just eat everybody. It's not cannibalism. Please post your idea's on this, it would be good if it was clearly and evidently shown to be false accusations. Here's some links: ------------------------------------------------------------- Popularity does not necessarily mean that its unwarranted. I would rather assume that when people do complain on issues that its not just due to the popularity of it, but the actual parts that do make them want to voice their opinion on the matter. If you (as in everyone) just assume that everyone is just on this bandwagon, then its just as valid as an assumption and really not factual at all, because the same could be said about those on the other side.
  • aliengmr - March 21, 2012 4:13 p.m.

    Since you are the expert explain the 1 ending. Ohh right playing the game helps. I don't like when people bitch about other people bitching that don't actually know what they are talking about. play the game, douche.
  • NotBraze - March 21, 2012 11:44 a.m.

    The problem is not that the ending was bittersweet or tragic, it's that it came out of left field, was riddled with gaping plot holes, and gave no sense of closure to the series. I agree that as artists, the team at BioWare have the right to preserve their artistic vision and the fans who are petitioning a new ending need to accept that, as a work of art, it is what it is and they have no right to demand a new ending from BioWare. That being said, there's a very legitimate reason why many of us are disappointed and frustrated by the ending, and it has nothing to do with whether or not there was a happy ending.
  • inkyspot - March 21, 2012 12:11 p.m.

    There are always choices in life. The ending was not well written if it is the ending. Ultimately this is a product,and with a product, you give the customers what they are expecting, there is that garbage ending for people like yourself, and there should be and ending that address all the plotholes. So we all get what we want out of this.
  • viberunner - March 21, 2012 2:04 p.m.

    It's not just the downbeat ending, it's the fact none of the choices you make in the three games really make the blindest bit of difference whatsoever.
  • slickmcwilly - March 21, 2012 5:32 p.m.

    No, you obviously don't get the point at all. Nobody is saying we want a "happy" ending. We want a new ending because the current one makes no sense. The ending just comes out of nowhere. Everything up until that stupid Catalyst kid shows up feels like Mass Effect. Then it seems like they said "You know what? Lets change the ending so it will be 'deep' and we need the story to have a moral!!!!!" The Catalyst says that it's impossible for sythetics and organics to coexist, even though Shepard has already united the Quarians and the Geth. That's just stupid writing. And why the hell is the Normandy going through a Mass Relay when Shep activates the Crucible anyway? There's no explanation as to why they would be running from Earth when the most important battle in the galaxy is happening. The whole thing is just a huge deus ex machina. What you said about there being no real choice however, is true. All that changes is you get either a blue, red or green shockwave. Everything Bioware said about your choices really making a difference isn't even true.
  • radiodeaf - March 21, 2012 10:40 a.m.

    hard at work = we snagged them boys...let's reel them in.
  • NotBraze - March 21, 2012 10:35 a.m.

    Mass Effect 3 truly is a fantastic game, and even the incoherent and nonsensical ending cannot retroactively ruin the rest of the game. While it may not have been quite as good (in my opinion) as the damn-near perfect ME2, it was an excellent addition to what is not only my favorite game series but one of my favorite fictional universes. The ending may have given the whole thing a bitter after taste, but when the overall experience was that good I would gladly go back for seconds. I'm glad BioWare is listening to their fans and I'm glad to hear that they are dedicated to maintaining the artistic integrity of the work. We may not like the ending, but we are not the artists, and when it comes down to it, we have no right to demand the artists alter their work. If they can elaborate on the ending and stay true to the original intent I will be more than happy.

Showing 61-71 of 71 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000


Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.