Originally Posted by Taak Farst
For me, the ending was so bad that it turned a once-obsessed with and loved series of mine into a mehfest..I haven't bought ANY DLC for ME3, whereas I rushed to buy every single ME2 DLC there was. The ending just ruined it all. I will not be getting the Omega DLC either.
I still get the DLC's that come out. That's because I'm a completionist and, I've gotten them all up to this point; I might as well keep going.
Some of the stuff they release is pretty cool. Like the new Venom shotgun in the Groundside Resistance Pack. That is one badass freaking gun.
Originally Posted by mimartin
Not going to defend the ending as great, it wasn't IMO, but it is hard to believe people are so upset that they allow the last 5 mins to ruin the entire story. I loved ME3 as part of a trilogy up until the final elevator ride.
I have only played through ME3 twice, but that is due to another game taking all my free time, not because ME3 was a terrible game, it isn't, it is a great game with a bad ending. Just like RotJ is average movie, with a terrible ending. Ewoks...need I say more.
Originally Posted by stingerhs
you know, maybe its because i've always been more of a fan of shooters than RPG's, but i fail to see how an ending "destroys" a game. from where i stand, it really just makes everybody sound like a bunch of whining nerds that care too much about whether or not Han shot first. if you have a 5 course meal, and the first 4 courses are amazing, then how does a "mediocre and rushed" final course "destroy" the entire meal??
to me, it just comes across as utter ridiculousness, and what is equally sad is that someone will probably get offended and try to tell me why i'm wrong because this is a "special case". at the end of the day, it really boils down to this: your lofty expectations weren't met. one of these days, maybe you'll realize that, when it comes to the ME3 ending, the game put you on an emotional roller coaster with challenging combat and tough decisions that drove you to the ending in a thrilling campaign. if that part of the game hadn't been so good, you never would've reached the ending.
I think stories are more complex things than coursed meals.
Setting, characters, conflict, resolution.. These things can be modelled as a points on a line, but imho in the context of an abstract experience, they're more like joins in a skeletal tower. You can't always expect to be able to remove any point from it, and expect it to keep standing.
A better analogy may be like the strings on a guitar. They're seemingly separate, but when it comes to music, they're related in different ways on different levels. If you remove one string, you can still play your song, but it's going sound a bit off. People may come and pay to hear that certain song; some of them may think, "If it doesn't sound right, then what's the point?"
You could try imagine
playing that string at the right times, but for some people, it just wouldn't cut it.
Originally Posted by mimartin
But I shall defend their right to make crappy endings as long as the rest of the game is great. Also as in most Video Games choice is a illusion, but only BioWare is held to the higher standard.
Originally Posted by Lynk Former
Choices in real life are illusions too, but they're still important
and I certainly don't hold BioWare to any higher standard.
I really think as gamers, we have to start demanding better writing in the narrative-focused games we play. Too often, video game narrative quality lags badly behind that of other media. Improvement, or at least recursively consistent quality, is a valid expectation for any artisan endeavour, regardless of the creator.
And don't forget, that narrative is the most relatable aspect of video games to the general public, than any other part. The general quality of game narrative has the potential to make or break public opinion of our medium, and whether it gets taken seriously.
For example, before it was released, L.A. Noire was shown at the Tribeca Film Festival; the first video game to be featured there.
It didn't happen because 'the guns felt amazing to use', it happened because of Noire's then-groundbreaking characterization technology, artistic vision, and quality of narrative.
When it comes to Mass Effect 3, I think it's reasonable to expect a high standard of story quality because:
-Bioware explicitly promised it
-It's a narrative intensive game
-We've paid Bioware a boatload of money for it
-It's 2012; 40 years into the history of popularized video games
I think it's reasonable to hold Bioware to a higher standard because:
-Bioware is a self-described story-focused game company*
-They've done better previously
*If someone calls themselves a musician, you immediately hold them to a higher standard than any random guy off the street.
As for gamers not caring about story in story-games,
"If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got."