BioWare: No Decision Yet On Mass Effect 3 Ending

TheBluePill said:
And for 580 Bioware Points, you can get the ending you crave! ;)
Click to expand...

After this much backlash, I'll really be surprised if they charge for the DLC if in fact there is any.

This late in the game, if what they're admitting to is true, there is no way they can bring in the actors and put together anything substantial and have it out by April. So either Dan's theory is right and they planned that all along and will have something big or my theory is right and all they'll throw us is an additional cut scene or two to expand on the endings with very little voice acting.
 
Dan_D said:
At some point you have to accept that it is BioWare's decision to do what they will. If BioWare said that's the end, deal with it, then I would just simply wash my hands of the series, the company and anything EA had to do with. I can respect that type of stance to a degree, but that doesn't mean I'd like it.

BioWare needs to understand and expect the reaction we have to the game's endings. We had a certain amount of trust in the developer based on what we had been told and based on what was implied by the first two games. We expected that same level of choice and that same level of quality we had always seen in the series. What we got was anything BUT that. It is no wonder we all felt betrayed. I certainly did. I'm not normally a 3rd person shooter guy, or even an RPG guy. But something about Mass Effect's universe and characters gripped me in a way I never thought possible and when I saw the ending in Mass Effect 3, I thought, "I surely screwed something up. This can't be right." When I researched it and found out that all the endings were basically the same, I was pissed off and hurt by the experience. I have a little Normandy SR-2 statue sitting on a shelf and I couldn't look at it or touch these games for two days until I cooled off and heard about the indoctrination theory, which is the only thing that makes any sense of the nonsense we were fed.

I hate general feelings of entitlement. I really do but in this case I felt entitled to what I was promised by BioWare in all their interviews about the game. I feel that the characters deserved a better ending to the series and Shepards story, and even felt like I deserved a better ending given that I played all three games and all DLC's etc. To have spent so much money and time with these characters and games only to get shafted now felt horrible. I've never had a game bother me so much. You win some and you lose some. BioWare made a mistake with this ending and they need to own up to that and make it right. BioWare is being sensitive to the community and the people who love these games. They claim to be "hurt" by the visceral reaction of the fans to what they seemed to think was a good ending to the series. Well good. I hope that's true. They should be hurt. Maybe they'll now make good on their original promises of some fucking choice and make an ending that matches an otherwise AWESOME game and a memorable series.

The thing is, I am not normally the tinfoil hat kind of guy either, but I'm almost certain this is a stunt to piss off people and get them to buy DLC and get free publicity. Mass Effect has always gained a lot of attention due to controversy. ME1 did it with their alien human lesbian sex scene and so called pornographic content. "rolleyes: ME2 did it with the DLC model. ME3 did it with multiplayer, requirements to play it to get the best endings, crazy space editions on balloons, teh man sechs, and of course endings that are subpar and piss everyone off.

But this shit kept people talking about the endings and trying to make sense of it long after they finished it. It also got people upset enough due to their investment in the characters and story, that they'd be willing to pay $10 just to have some closure to the story. Given the quality of the story and the abruptness of the ending, combined with the "Look for future play via DLC" message after you beat the game, I have to believe this was their plan all along.
Click to expand...

I agree. Most of the people that I know who have played the game aren't the guys of people who complain about things, at least not to this extent. The problem for Bioware is that they set themselves up for this, whether intentionally or not, and shouldn't be surprised by the amount of critisism.

My brother is in PR and he told me that if it is indeed a real screw up on their part, what a PR nightmare. But he said that Bioware has essentially two things that will happen here. If they make this right in the eyes of fans, Bioware's fan base will become even more loyal. If they don't, they will see a moderate impact on their bottom line. He still thinks that people will buy their games. He's also not sure about the fan reaction as he just bought the game so it'll be a few weeks before he's ready to comment on that. Either way, it'll be interesting to see what Bioware chooses to do.
 
MacLeod said:
After this much backlash, I'll really be surprised if they charge for the DLC if in fact there is any.

This late in the game, if what they're admitting to is true, there is no way they can bring in the actors and put together anything substantial and have it out by April. So either Dan's theory is right and they planned that all along and will have something big or my theory is right and all they'll throw us is an additional cut scene or two to expand on the endings with very little voice acting.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
MacLeod said:
Sorry man but I just can't get there. If they put out the crappy endings with the intent of some DLC with the real endings and all this rage started boiling up, they come out and say "hey guys just chill out cause better things are coming soon". Then if there was more backlash they could put the DLC out for free and I don't think there would be that much rage about it.

I can't see why it makes any sense to come out with an apology and admit you are surprised at the backlash and are considering how to fix it, if that's not actually what happened. That just admits that the whole thing was on purpose and there isn't some additional content coming that has long been in development. This is saying "we'll probably be throwing something together and have it out in the next couple weeks".
Click to expand...

We'll see, I can see both sides of the coin on this. But honestly, I don't think that this reaction is all that surprising to BioWare. They had to know this sucked balls before hand. They had to know that this was full of plot holes and made little sense unless they did zero internal testing on people who didn't have behind the scenes knowledge we may not.

As a fan of the series, if they had put me in a room and told me to play the game nonstop until completion before release, and tell me what they thought of it It would have gone something like this.

BioWare: So what did you think of the game?
Dan: I hated it. I absolutely hated it. Oh sure I thought 95% of it was pure awesome, almost perfect up until the final act where you assault Earth.

BioWare: What didn't you like about the final act?
Dan: Well there was no choices, or decision making that ME2 had. You fight waves and waves of frustrating Reaper forces, and I guess that feeling of being overwhelmed is what you were after, and I got through it and accept that. But I felt like all the other characters aside from my immediate squad mates were totally uninvolved with the game's climax. Unlike ME2 where everyone had a job to do and their lives hinged on your decisions. I also am not thrilled with the anti-climactic lack of a end boss in light of the fact that all I did was fight hordes of crap without any decisions or story being put to it. I had no real objectives to complete aside from getting to the beam. There is more story and soul in defusing the bomb on Tuchunka than the assault on Earth which is sad.

BioWare: Which ending did you go for and what did you think of it?
Dan: I picked the blue ending because the star child thing makes no damn sense and is presented in an awkward and abrupt manner leaving me wondering what to do without being able to carefully and fully consider my choices. BioWare game mechanics usually tell me blue is paragon, so I went with that. And could you get the writing staff of the ending sequence in here? They all need to get punched in the face a few times for creating this insulting, nonsensical and unfullfilling trash ending. Oh and after this you insulted me further by telling me to look for DLC? I want a good ending and then I'll consider DLC. Right now I'm considering removing your eyes with a ball point pen or a grapefruit spoon.

I mean seriously, how could any tester who is familiar with the series or even someone just coming into ME3 like this crap? Maybe one out of ten could, but I'd wager the numbers of I loved the ending vs. Let's lynch the development team for this atrocity has to be small.
 
MacLeod said:
After this much backlash, I'll really be surprised if they charge for the DLC if in fact there is any.

This late in the game, if what they're admitting to is true, there is no way they can bring in the actors and put together anything substantial and have it out by April. So either Dan's theory is right and they planned that all along and will have something big or my theory is right and all they'll throw us is an additional cut scene or two to expand on the endings with very little voice acting.
Click to expand...

They bring back the actors for DLC all of the time. And, if im not mistaken, the majority of the non-celebrity voices are done by local talent. (Including the Shepards).

Even then, the Changes may only be graphical in nature, with extended cut-scenes (as your suggest) or added text for context. They could keep it pretty simple, even just have a voice actor or two come in a few days.

I have read that a new ending DLC will be here in April.
 
MacLeod said:
After this much backlash, I'll really be surprised if they charge for the DLC if in fact there is any.

This late in the game, if what they're admitting to is true, there is no way they can bring in the actors and put together anything substantial and have it out by April. So either Dan's theory is right and they planned that all along and will have something big or my theory is right and all they'll throw us is an additional cut scene or two to expand on the endings with very little voice acting.
Click to expand...

And this outcome will prove which theories are right or not. At least circumstantially. We won't ever have the full truth, but if we get a real full on Lair of the Shadow Broker sized DLC with tons of voice acting, additional game play and content as early as April, then we know it was a stunt. If we get some pre-rendered cut scenes with no voice acting, or at least a monologue read by Mark Meer and Jennefier Hale respectively, then we know this was what they really intended and what we are receiving is nothing more than an attempt to placate and pacify our rage for PR reasons.

I'm still betting on this being a stunt by EA's marketing department with BioWare as either willing participants or unwilling participants with no choice in the matter. Again the ending is just so abrupt and so rushed compared to an otherwise well scripted, well thought out and satisfying game. The ending of it is just so surreal and out of character for the entire series, it had to be an after thought to allow for the removal of content to be purchased as DLC to maximize financial gain.
 
One other thing that bothers me..

Why would the physical action of shooting a conduit cause the reapers to all die? I mean.. why would the design the crucible to stop the reapers, with the "turn on" switch requiring you to shoot the damn thing?
 
Dan_D said:
We'll see, I can see both sides of the coin on this. But honestly, I don't think that this reaction is all that surprising to BioWare. They had to know this sucked balls before hand. They had to know that this was full of plot holes and made little sense unless they did zero internal testing on people who didn't have behind the scenes knowledge we may not.
Click to expand...

Just like they knew of all the plotholes that surfaced in ME2, or that atrocity of a novel (reviewed by two Bioware writers prior to release) that came out in January full of glaring retcons and further plotholes? No, I think it's time people realize that Bioware was making up this story as they went along and wrote themselves into a narrative corner. This coupled with the fact that they themselves don't understand their own lore and themes as well as their fans do lead to the Mass Effect 3 endings as they exist. No conspiracy theories over fake endings, no chances of a suitable fix to the existing endings, just no.
 
Dan_D said:
We'll see, I can see both sides of the coin on this. But honestly, I don't think that this reaction is all that surprising to BioWare. They had to know this sucked balls before hand. They had to know that this was full of plot holes and made little sense unless they did zero internal testing on people who didn't have behind the scenes knowledge we may not.

As a fan of the series, if they had put me in a room and told me to play the game nonstop until completion before release, and tell me what they thought of it It would have gone something like this.

BioWare: So what did you think of the game?
Dan: I hated it. I absolutely hated it. Oh sure I thought 95% of it was pure awesome, almost perfect up until the final act where you assault Earth.

BioWare: What didn't you like about the final act?
Dan: Well there was no choices, or decision making that ME2 had. You fight waves and waves of frustrating Reaper forces, and I guess that feeling of being overwhelmed is what you were after, and I got through it and accept that. But I felt like all the other characters aside from my immediate squad mates were totally uninvolved with the game's climax. Unlike ME2 where everyone had a job to do and their lives hinged on your decisions. I also am not thrilled with the anti-climactic lack of a end boss in light of the fact that all I did was fight hordes of crap without any decisions or story being put to it. I had no real objectives to complete aside from getting to the beam. There is more story and soul in defusing the bomb on Tuchunka than the assault on Earth which is sad.

BioWare: Which ending did you go for and what did you think of it?
Dan: I picked the blue ending because the star child thing makes no damn sense and is presented in an awkward and abrupt manner leaving me wondering what to do without being able to carefully and fully consider my choices. BioWare game mechanics usually tell me blue is paragon, so I went with that. And could you get the writing staff of the ending sequence in here? They all need to get punched in the face a few times for creating this insulting, nonsensical and unfullfilling trash ending. Oh and after this you insulted me further by telling me to look for DLC? I want a good ending and then I'll consider DLC. Right now I'm considering removing your eyes with a ball point pen or a grapefruit spoon.

I mean seriously, how could any tester who is familiar with the series or even someone just coming into ME3 like this crap? Maybe one out of ten could, but I'd wager the numbers of I loved the ending vs. Let's lynch the development team for this atrocity has to be small.
Click to expand...

Have to agree with all that.

I'm about halfway thru my ME2 playthru so I should be delving into ME3 sometime mid next week but from what I've read about the gameplay, it seems like they ran up against a deadline right at the end and couldn't get it done right, How else could you explain a near perfect game up til the last 5%? I have to admit that lends credence to your theory that they just had to get it out and then they could spend more time in finishing up the "real" ending.
 
Dan_D said:
And this outcome will prove which theories are right or not. At least circumstantially. We won't ever have the full truth, but if we get a real full on Lair of the Shadow Broker sized DLC with tons of voice acting, additional game play and content as early as April, then we know it was a stunt. If we get some pre-rendered cut scenes with no voice acting, or at least a monologue read by Mark Meer and Jennefier Hale respectively, then we know this was what they really intended and what we are receiving is nothing more than an attempt to placate and pacify our rage for PR reasons.

I'm still betting on this being a stunt by EA's marketing department with BioWare as either willing participants or unwilling participants with no choice in the matter. Again the ending is just so abrupt and so rushed compared to an otherwise well scripted, well thought out and satisfying game. The ending of it is just so surreal and out of character for the entire series, it had to be an after thought to allow for the removal of content to be purchased as DLC to maximize financial gain.
Click to expand...

Not sure if I believe that this is all one big conspiracy, but I see your point. The thing is, with this being the last game, they would have had an easy time selling DLC even if they had a great ending. People want Mass Effect. And after the game is over, they're going to want more Mass Effect.
 
TheBluePill said:
One other thing that bothers me..

Why would the physical action of shooting a conduit cause the reapers to all die? I mean.. why would the design the crucible to stop the reapers, with the "turn on" switch requiring you to shoot the damn thing?
Click to expand...

I didn't even think of that. LOL. Good point!
 
TheBluePill said:
They bring back the actors for DLC all of the time. And, if im not mistaken, the majority of the non-celebrity voices are done by local talent. (Including the Shepards).

Even then, the Changes may only be graphical in nature, with extended cut-scenes (as your suggest) or added text for context. They could keep it pretty simple, even just have a voice actor or two come in a few days.

I have read that a new ending DLC will be here in April.
Click to expand...

Yes but there is no way they can write and develop a new ending, bring in the actors, record and direct everything, get it drawn up and animated then get it out ready to download in 2-3 weeks if they're starting from scratch. Only way this gets done and is anything substantial like Lair Of The Shadow Broker is if this was in the works for a while and they've been working on it well before the game was actually released.
 
I think we may need to face the fact that Bioware is still a great developer but is getting pressures from EA to put out content perhaps faster than they can. It would explain the ME3 ending and DAII.

Similar thoughts here.
 
Dolor said:
I think we may need to face the fact that Bioware is still a great developer but is getting pressures from EA to put out content perhaps faster than they can. It would explain the ME3 ending and DAII.

Similar thoughts here.
Click to expand...

I would accept that as a viable explanation for DA2, but to me the ending of ME3 wasn't due to time constraints, rather it was a result of them not having pinned down the over-arching plot back during ME1. They were obviously making it up as they went, similar to the Battlestar Galactica series which had a terrible ending as well.
 
byusinger84 said:
Not sure if I believe that this is all one big conspiracy, but I see your point. The thing is, with this being the last game, they would have had an easy time selling DLC even if they had a great ending. People want Mass Effect. And after the game is over, they're going to want more Mass Effect.
Click to expand...

I'm not normally a conspiracy theorist and usually make fun of people who are for seeing connections that aren't there. Or unraveling one strand and worse yet, creating strands that don't exist with long shot interpretations of fairly mundane details. Even in the indoctrination theory and the link posted above which has that whole thesis like analysis of the ending, there are some alternative explanations for some of the evidence. Some of it could come down to good old human error. The analysis of the graphics in some sequences is one thing that's really out there that I can't get behind. That's the stuff I find most difficult to accept as part of the theory. But there are as I've said before, two major issues which can not be explained away with any theory other than it's all a dream or hallucination. And one of which only comes up if your EMS score is high enough and only in one of the endings.

I love the series and would buy most DLC for it without hestitation. I think most of the hardcore fans of the series would. You'd also get some more casual fans who would. The people who wouldn't buy it either don't like Mass Effect or take a moral stance against all DLC regardless of content. And those people can't be swayed no matter what.

In some ways I hope I'm right because we'll get a better game out of it if this was a plan to make money and this isn't the real way it ends. It may fuel my hatred of such business tactics, despite how understanding I can be of such things. If it turns out to be just a rationalization of the existing ending without any real expansion or change to our perceptions of what's going on, then I'll be disappointed in BioWare and the writers of the game.

I think most of us can agree that BioWare screwed up with the endings. Regardless of their intent or motivations, many of us are unhappy with what would have been a 10/10 game if it ended differently. In fact the ending is so bad it can really alter your perception of the series as a whole. That's definitely a big mistake. But what's really important is what BioWare actually does in response to the visceral reaction of the fans. So far everything they've said since April of last year is little more than half-truths and false promises.
 
SXO said:
I would accept that as a viable explanation for DA2, but to me the ending of ME3 wasn't due to time constraints, rather it was a result of them not having pinned down the over-arching plot back during ME1. They were obviously making it up as they went, similar to the Battlestar Galactica series which had a terrible ending as well.
Click to expand...

I think it's easy to take it too far (release Diablo III already!), but I think a lot of problems in the gaming development process can be pointed back to too little time.

I do wonder if they looked at the completion rates of typical games and decided not to invest time on a part of the game that few will get to. I'm not sure that is applicable for ME3, but it could explain a great game up until the end.

Just throwing around ideas...
 
Dan_D said:
So far everything they've said since EA acquired them is little more than half-truths and false promises.
Click to expand...

Fixed

It's amazing how people so quickly forget everything that was said leading up to both ME2 and DA2.
 
MacLeod said:
Yes but there is no way they can write and develop a new ending, bring in the actors, record and direct everything, get it drawn up and animated then get it out ready to download in 2-3 weeks if they're starting from scratch. Only way this gets done and is anything substantial like Lair Of The Shadow Broker is if this was in the works for a while and they've been working on it well before the game was actually released.
Click to expand...

That is a valid point. I have a feeling that they have a ton of already rendered footage put together that they may use. Its possible that they did have several ending sequences to choose from and made some kind of executive decision to use what they did.

Or.. it could be something much simpler in scope. A freebie with a voice over and a lot of still-images.

Or.. if you are the tin-foil type.. they have had it ready, as a DLC and was just waiting for the other markets to finish launching the game.

The most worrisome thing is this. If they were that creatively limited when they made the first set of endings.. how in the world are they going to get the story out of the hole that it is in, without pissing off the rest of the universe?

I can see it now..The revised ending:

Harbinger's beam kills shepard.

The Reapers win.

50,000 years later, another race finds Liara's time capsule and uses the information to stop the reapers, ending the cycle.

Game over.
 
Dolor said:
I think it's easy to take it too far (release Diablo III already!), but I think a lot of problems in the gaming development process can be pointed back to too little time.

I do wonder if they looked at the completion rates of typical games and decided not to invest time on a part of the game that few will get to. I'm not sure that is applicable for ME3, but it could explain a great game up until the end.

Just throwing around ideas...
Click to expand...

You can do a LOT with a little time and some creativity. I mean.. Look at the end of Star Wars (IV), all they had was a simple Medal ceremony and it captured the whole thrill of it all.
 
SXO said:
Fixed

It's amazing how people so quickly forget everything that was said leading up to both ME2 and DA2.
Click to expand...

Even the previous choices didnt have that large an impact. For example, a friend of mine had Mordin Die in ME2. In ME3, the Slarian/Tchunka Mission was exactly the same, except it was another Salarian Scientist.
 
TheBluePill said:
You can do a LOT with a little time and some creativity. I mean.. Look at the end of Star Wars (IV), all they had was a simple Medal ceremony and it captured the whole thrill of it all.
Click to expand...

But in a video game following hundreds of hours of gameplay, that's just fan service, awfully heavy handed and terribly shallow. It's ok for a movie that may have had to stand on its own if it didn't get funding for the next 2 movies. For a video game full of much deeper characters, with whom we have spent a lot more time and given much more though, "and they lived happily ever after, got married and had kids" (Harry Potter, for example) is just too much.
 
I will say this. After mulling it over for a few days now, while I still loved the ending, I did kinda miss out on some boss battle. I understand such battles are rare in ME, but still, the waves of baddies are not a bosss, and the boss battles in ME and ME2 were fantastic.
 
SXO said:
I would accept that as a viable explanation for DA2, but to me the ending of ME3 wasn't due to time constraints, rather it was a result of them not having pinned down the over-arching plot back during ME1. They were obviously making it up as they went, similar to the Battlestar Galactica series which had a terrible ending as well.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's really the problem with ME3. The overall story arch of the series seems to be fairly consistent for the most part. The Reapers were coming. Pretty simple and straight forward. So I don't know if it was pinned down in ME1 or not, but the fact is that you have to leave details a little vague when developing something like this and allow it to flesh out as you go.

The way I see it, once you have a formula that works in a TV show, films, or games you kind of become a slave to that formula to some extent. In this case BioWare became a slave to the fact that the games were largely all about choice. This creates additional creative constraints and challenges. It shows too. As a result of this, the appearances of your squad mates from ME2 had to be reduced to almost cameo appearances in which any generic character can replace them in order to account for your decisions in ME2, which could have gotten that squad member killed. You can only branch out so far and still reach the same basic scenario.

In ME1 you can lose up to 2 squad members and recruitment of some of them is optional. Kaiden and Ashley were rediced to an either or in ME2. Captain Kirrahe, Wrex, Ashley / Kaiden, and the Citadel council all had to have alternates should your decisions have been less than favorable to them in earlier games. With ME2 you have 12 regular squad members with one alternate, and 1 temporary squad member. So each of those had to have alternates. In Liara's case there wasn't an alternate for her as she couldn't die in ME2. You either helped her or you didn't so she was easier to deal with than the other 12. Out of that 12 it was possible for any and all of them to die so you needed 12 more alternates or cut the game shorter. Its easy to say that they should just make some completely different alternative content to cover for that, but the fact is most people probably completed ME2 with most of those characters alive. They probably never lost moer than half of them. Also, easier said than done.

So that's one example of being slave to a formula you created. The other master of your creation's destiny is the feel of it. The spirit of the story. Keeping to this is the most important, yet most difficult thing to do. And right up until the end, Mass Effect does really well with this. One problem is that the writing staff for ME3 isn't the original ME1 or ME2 staff in their entirety. You are going to have people brought into the development who have their take on things. These are the worst type of helpers because you have to give them a certain amount of control, yet they are the most likely to deviate from the spirit of the story as they may not truly understand it or feel the same way the initial creators do. The best example of this is Brannon Braga who worked with Michael Pillar in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Good work there for the most part, but once Michael Pillar left and Brannon Braga essentially ended up in charge, things changed and not for the better. This is because his vision was different than those who worked on the shows previously. Also, I suspect when they were working on stuff together, Michael Pillar probably reigned in the worst ideas or changed the worst into better ideas.

In any case Mass Effect has almost always been referred to as a space epic. And for some reason, people are taught that epics need to be a certain way and conform to literal classic sort of guidelines about the hero dying, tragedy, etc. No doubt someone at BioWare is a huge fan of the science fiction work of authors like Issac Asimov, Aurther C. Clark, and Phillip K. Dick. I won't argue the merits of these types of stories other than to say, Mass Effect never once, felt like stories from these authors, or at least not their more well known works. But some idiot up there decided that Mass Effect 3, being an epic take probably needed to be molded to fit the epic formula and to achieve some transcendence to a higher form of art and importance by going where nearly everyone has gone before and coming up with an ending that basically addresses well known and solid concepts of man vs. machine, as well as adhereing to the cerebral story telling methods of those classic authors.

I have some problems with this. To say I reject the idea that it needs to conform to the structure and themes of epic tails or surrealist science fiction is putting it mildly. First off, it's a game. I'm not going to say that it shouldn't conform to these ideas, or that it can't transcend the medium it's made in to other forms or that it can't have deep meaning. However, the spirit of Mass Effect, intentional or not is the theme of choice, and consequences making a difference. Living with those choices and working with what you have for the overall goal. The problem is that Mass Effect 3's ending does not stay true to the Mass Effect spirit because in the end your choices do not matter. They are invalididated in one stroke. This is the essence of the betrayal that the fans feel concerning the endings and the number one reason the game's ending pissed me off so bad. It didn't feel like I was playing Mass Effect in the final moments of the game. It felt like something else. Something uncomfortable and weird.

I also have a problem with the lack of foresight present in using such an ending. Like it or not, Mass Effect is a huge commercial success. The ending of Mass Effect 3 makes continuation of the series in a form that we can easily recognize difficult. The game should have ended in a way that opens doors for novels, films, and more games. Not just to make more money, but because fans of the series (like me) want more. Sure they can do prequels, but a sequel would have to take place in a vastly different Mass Effect universe than the one we are leaving and I like many others find this a hard pill to swallow. In my mind this is BioWare and EA shooting themselves in the foot creatively and commercially. As it stands now a sequel either has to be immediate and deal with all the factors and ramifications of the game's endings, or it needs to be set far into the future. Possibly in another cycle. This means almost everything in the ME universe has to be reinvented. The universe when we see it next, may not be anything we recognize and connect to. It may even make revisiting it feel all the more insulting.

I'd like to see the next game take place perhaps 30, 50, or even 200 years from now in which the universe still resembles the one we've seen in the first three games. I'd like to see what Shepard did actually count for something and preserve the galaxy in some way, despite the rebuilding needed. A game 30, 50 or 200 years from the end of ME3 could still possibly have Wrex and certainly Liara in them given their life spans. I think a protagonist or a squad mate type character who is related to Shepard or perhaps even a child of Shepards could be interesting, The way the games end now, that's a tall order. If everyone starts over in another cycle or thousands of years from now, we won't get cameos from existing characters, nor can the story really be grounded in anything we've seen up to this point. What we do get may again be unfamiliar, sub-par, and even undesirable. Fans of the earlier games just may not get it and may not like it.

From my perspective, ramifications of the current endings go well beyond watching 10 minutes of nonsense at the end of an otherwise awesome game. Obviously much of it is speculatory, but these endings really create a lot of problems if they are taken at face value.
 
Dan_D said:
I don't think that's really the problem with ME3. The overall story arch of the series seems to be fairly consistent for the most part. The Reapers were coming. Pretty simple and straight forward. So I don't know if it was pinned down in ME1 or not, but the fact is that you have to leave details a little vague when developing something like this and allow it to flesh out as you go.

The way I see it, once you have a formula that works in a TV show, films, or games you kind of become a slave to that formula to some extent. In this case BioWare became a slave to the fact that the games were largely all about choice. This creates additional creative constraints and challenges. It shows too. As a result of this, the appearances of your squad mates from ME2 had to be reduced to almost cameo appearances in which any generic character can replace them in order to account for your decisions in ME2, which could have gotten that squad member killed. You can only branch out so far and still reach the same basic scenario.

In ME1 you can lose up to 2 squad members and recruitment of some of them is optional. Kaiden and Ashley were rediced to an either or in ME2. Captain Kirrahe, Wrex, Ashley / Kaiden, and the Citadel council all had to have alternates should your decisions have been less than favorable to them in earlier games. With ME2 you have 12 regular squad members with one alternate, and 1 temporary squad member. So each of those had to have alternates. In Liara's case there wasn't an alternate for her as she couldn't die in ME2. You either helped her or you didn't so she was easier to deal with than the other 12. Out of that 12 it was possible for any and all of them to die so you needed 12 more alternates or cut the game shorter. Its easy to say that they should just make some completely different alternative content to cover for that, but the fact is most people probably completed ME2 with most of those characters alive. They probably never lost moer than half of them. Also, easier said than done.

So that's one example of being slave to a formula you created. The other master of your creation's destiny is the feel of it. The spirit of the story. Keeping to this is the most important, yet most difficult thing to do. And right up until the end, Mass Effect does really well with this. One problem is that the writing staff for ME3 isn't the original ME1 or ME2 staff in their entirety. You are going to have people brought into the development who have their take on things. These are the worst type of helpers because you have to give them a certain amount of control, yet they are the most likely to deviate from the spirit of the story as they may not truly understand it or feel the same way the initial creators do. The best example of this is Brannon Braga who worked with Michael Pillar in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Good work there for the most part, but once Michael Pillar left and Brannon Braga essentially ended up in charge, things changed and not for the better. This is because his vision was different than those who worked on the shows previously. Also, I suspect when they were working on stuff together, Michael Pillar probably reigned in the worst ideas or changed the worst into better ideas.

In any case Mass Effect has almost always been referred to as a space epic. And for some reason, people are taught that epics need to be a certain way and conform to literal classic sort of guidelines about the hero dying, tragedy, etc. No doubt someone at BioWare is a huge fan of the science fiction work of authors like Issac Asimov, Aurther C. Clark, and Phillip K. Dick. I won't argue the merits of these types of stories other than to say, Mass Effect never once, felt like stories from these authors, or at least not their more well known works. But some idiot up there decided that Mass Effect 3, being an epic take probably needed to be molded to fit the epic formula and to achieve some transcendence to a higher form of art and importance by going where nearly everyone has gone before and coming up with an ending that basically addresses well known and solid concepts of man vs. machine, as well as adhereing to the cerebral story telling methods of those classic authors.

I have some problems with this. To say I reject the idea that it needs to conform to the structure and themes of epic tails or surrealist science fiction is putting it mildly. First off, it's a game. I'm not going to say that it shouldn't conform to these ideas, or that it can't transcend the medium it's made in to other forms or that it can't have deep meaning. However, the spirit of Mass Effect, intentional or not is the theme of choice, and consequences making a difference. Living with those choices and working with what you have for the overall goal. The problem is that Mass Effect 3's ending does not stay true to the Mass Effect spirit because in the end your choices do not matter. They are invalididated in one stroke. This is the essence of the betrayal that the fans feel concerning the endings and the number one reason the game's ending pissed me off so bad. It didn't feel like I was playing Mass Effect in the final moments of the game. It felt like something else. Something uncomfortable and weird.

I also have a problem with the lack of foresight present in using such an ending. Like it or not, Mass Effect is a huge commercial success. The ending of Mass Effect 3 makes continuation of the series in a form that we can easily recognize difficult. The game should have ended in a way that opens doors for novels, films, and more games. Not just to make more money, but because fans of the series (like me) want more. Sure they can do prequels, but a sequel would have to take place in a vastly different Mass Effect universe than the one we are leaving and I like many others find this a hard pill to swallow. In my mind this is BioWare and EA shooting themselves in the foot creatively and commercially. As it stands now a sequel either has to be immediate and deal with all the factors and ramifications of the game's endings, or it needs to be set far into the future. Possibly in another cycle. This means almost everything in the ME universe has to be reinvented. The universe when we see it next, may not be anything we recognize and connect to. It may even make revisiting it feel all the more insulting.

I'd like to see the next game take place perhaps 30, 50, or even 200 years from now in which the universe still resembles the one we've seen in the first three games. I'd like to see what Shepard did actually count for something and preserve the galaxy in some way, despite the rebuilding needed. A game 30, 50 or 200 years from the end of ME3 could still possibly have Wrex and certainly Liara in them given their life spans. I think a protagonist or a squad mate type character who is related to Shepard or perhaps even a child of Shepards could be interesting, The way the games end now, that's a tall order. If everyone starts over in another cycle or thousands of years from now, we won't get cameos from existing characters, nor can the story really be grounded in anything we've seen up to this point. What we do get may again be unfamiliar, sub-par, and even undesirable. Fans of the earlier games just may not get it and may not like it.

From my perspective, ramifications of the current endings go well beyond watching 10 minutes of nonsense at the end of an otherwise awesome game. Obviously much of it is speculatory, but these endings really create a lot of problems if they are taken at face value.
Click to expand...

Very well stated.
 
Modred189 said:
make sure to read the opposing article, fwiw, it's how I have felt since playing:
http://www.gamerevolution.com/featu...e-shouldnt-change-the-ending-of-mass-effect-3
Click to expand...

That's the great thing about choice. You don't have to download any DLC which alters the game.

I disagree with the assertion that games are art for one and only one reason. Why? Because art is usually if not always static. Games are anything but static. Patches and content updates in MMOs, to patches and DLC's or expansion packs to other types of games make them far from static. It's safe to say that almost any game you buy could be vastly different in just a few short weeks after it's release. If you want to call games art then the very definition of what constitutes art must be updated to include dynamic pieces like games. If you call it art, then you have to acknowledge that game updates, DLCs and patches do not effect artistic integrity. If that's the case, then what's your issue? If games by their dynamic nature preclude the idea of them being art, then again what's the problem?

Games are a form of entertainment. Their dynamic and interactive nature alters them in contrast to another form of entertainment like films. They are more like an entertainment service than art. When a game stops pulling in subscription fees, doesn't sell well or the player base drops off games often get updates to bring people back to them. When a painting is on display, it is simply moved, intact to another gallery so that more people can enjoy it. But the painting itself isn't altered. Mass Effect 3 is more akin to an iPod or other piece of consumer electronics whos specifications are subject to change without notice than art.
 
I see what you mean, but I think you're wrong. To say that art is always or almost always static ignores plays, orchestras, musical performances, dance, and art installations that are interactive. very little art, as a universe, is static at all, and many of the examples I gave above react and change to consumer feedback.

My point is that the ending that Bioware developed should be critiqued, analyzed, broken down and criticized. And I think it's fair to say that the treatment that ME3 is getting is like no other game in history. I can think of no other game that players seem to care so much about.

BUT, to call out the writers and devs for being lazy, or half-assing it, or getting angry at feeling shorted seems to say that there exists, somewhere, a right ending to ME3. What this means is that gamers are incapable of being satisfied with a deep, complicated, messy, existential and open ended high-scifi story ending. That they need to be spoon-fed details and happy conclusive endings. That their imaginations cannot take the story beyond the pixels and silicon in front of them.

I say, it's fair to say you saw it ending another way. I think it's fair to be disappointed, to have hoped for a different ending. But i don't think it's fair to say that the creator was WRONG, to demean their work simply because you don't like it. To DEMAND that they change their vision, their story, their work because you, the consumer, were disappointed. This was, after all, THEIR vision for Shepard. THEIR story about the ME universe that you were playing in. Who are we, the gamers, to say that they are WRONG/stupid etc? Would you say that Mozart was WRONG to end a particular piece in a particular way? Or Scorsese for ending a movie in a certain way?

I say being disappointed is sometimes the mark of a good piece of art. Having imagined another ending is the mark of personal investment in the piece, and at a deeper level than most games usually garner. So be disappointed. Be sad for the crew of the Normandy or the species that are stranded across the universe. Be confused about things that Shepard could never understand, and therefore neither could you. Why can't these feelings be part of the experience, and make the game more valuable as a result?

It's somewhat of a philosophic approach to games, but as more and more character-driven games are created, that's what will happen, and we as gamers have to be ready for it. As some hated the ending of Lost (a character driven show), some loved it. Same with The Walking Dead Show.
 
Modred189 said:
I see what you mean, but I think you're wrong. To say that art is always or almost always static ignores plays, orchestras, musical performances, dance, and art installations that are interactive. very little art, as a universe, is static at all, and many of the examples I gave above react and change to consumer feedback.
Click to expand...

Then what's wrong with changing the outcome in light of the fact that those forms of art react and change based on feedback as well? I honeslty don't see a difference between changing Mass Effect 3, and doing a dance routine differently to make it more exciting or draw larger crowds.

Modred189 said:
My point is that the ending that Bioware developed should be critiqued, analyzed, broken down and criticized. And I think it's fair to say that the treatment that ME3 is getting is like no other game in history. I can think of no other game that players seem to care so much about.

BUT, to call out the writers and devs for being lazy, or half-assing it, or getting angry at feeling shorted seems to say that there exists, somewhere, a right ending to ME3. What this means is that gamers are incapable of being satisfied with a deep, complicated, messy, existential and open ended high-scifi story ending. That they need to be spoon-fed details and happy conclusive endings. That their imaginations cannot take the story beyond the pixels and silicon in front of them.

I say, it's fair to say you saw it ending another way. I think it's fair to be disappointed, to have hoped for a different ending. But i don't think it's fair to say that the creator was WRONG, to demean their work simply because you don't like it. To DEMAND that they change their vision, their story, their work because you, the consumer, were disappointed. This was, after all, THEIR vision for Shepard. THEIR story about the ME universe that you were playing in. Who are we, the gamers, to say that they are WRONG/stupid etc? Would you say that Mozart was WRONG to end a particular piece in a particular way? Or Scorsese for ending a movie in a certain way?

I say being disappointed is sometimes the mark of a good piece of art. Having imagined another ending is the mark of personal investment in the piece, and at a deeper level than most games usually garner. So be disappointed. Be sad for the crew of the Normandy or the species that are stranded across the universe. Be confused about things that Shepard could never understand, and therefore neither could you. Why can't these feelings be part of the experience, and make the game more valuable as a result?

It's somewhat of a philosophic approach to games, but as more and more character-driven games are created, that's what will happen, and we as gamers have to be ready for it. As some hated the ending of Lost (a character driven show), some loved it. Same with The Walking Dead Show.
Click to expand...

I see where you are coming from, but I don't care. Shepard and the Normandy crew deserve more than this shit. I guess that feeling comes from the fact that we expected more from BioWare based on what we were told and experienced before hand, and due to the immense personal investment and connection many of us have with it.

I don't like so called "high Sci-Fi." I think it's almost all utterly boring and not very entertaining. I also think that it's usually devoid of imagination as it often cops out of providing details or closure to the story leaving that to the viewer or reader. You call it "high Sci-Fi" I call it deflection and lazy writing. It's easier to be vague and rely on classic phillisophical concepts than to write a real satisfying conclusion to something. I can agree it can be thought provoking, and wannabe intellectuals eat that shit up. I find it irritating. It's one thing for me to pick up a an Auther C. Clarke book and know what I'm in for ahead of time and another to play a game that is more akin to Star Wars or Star Trek and then get an ending to a Phillip K. Dick novel. I have never found that stuff satisfying and I'll bet the masses don't either.

Self-proclaimed and wannabe intellectual types may call me low brow or an idiot who doesn't understand literary genius which I'd argue isn't in fact genius at all especially in light of the fact that such endings are becoming more common and dozens if not hundreds of books have already gone there. Not to mention other games have gone there as well, generating backlash of their own. I think it's pretensious crap which calls itself intellectual and high brow only to deflect how lazy and unimaginative it all is. They can say I have limited imagination or whatever they want, but I don't care. The ending was anything but satisfying. Satisfying conclusions are what I was after when I bought this game. If I wanted to broaden my horizons or watch something thought provoking in the way this ending was supposedly designed, I would do so.
 
Dan_D said:
Then what's wrong with changing the outcome in light of the fact that those forms of art react and change based on feedback as well? I honeslty don't see a difference between changing Mass Effect 3, and doing a dance routine differently to make it more exciting or draw larger crowds.



I see where you are coming from, but I don't care. Shepard and the Normandy crew deserve more than this shit. I guess that feeling comes from the fact that we expected more from BioWare based on what we were told and experienced before hand, and due to the immense personal investment and connection many of us have with it.

I don't like so called "high Sci-Fi." I think it's almost all utterly boring and not very entertaining. I also think that it's usually devoid of imagination as it often cops out of providing details or closure to the story leaving that to the viewer or reader. You call it "high Sci-Fi" I call it deflection and lazy writing. It's easier to be vague and rely on classic phillisophical concepts than to write a real satisfying conclusion to something. I can agree it can be thought provoking, and wannabe intellectuals eat that shit up. I find it irritating. It's one thing for me to pick up a an Auther C. Clarke book and know what I'm in for ahead of time and another to play a game that is more akin to Star Wars or Star Trek and then get an ending to a Phillip K. Dick novel. I have never found that stuff satisfying and I'll bet the masses don't either.

Self-proclaimed and wannabe intellectual types may call me low brow or an idiot who doesn't understand literary genius which I'd argue isn't in fact genius at all especially in light of the fact that such endings are becoming more common and dozens if not hundreds of books have already gone there. Not to mention other games have gone there as well, generating backlash of their own. I think it's pretensious crap which calls itself intellectual and high brow only to deflect how lazy and unimaginative it all is. They can say I have limited imagination or whatever they want, but I don't care. The ending was anything but satisfying. Satisfying conclusions are what I was after when I bought this game. If I wanted to broaden my horizons or watch something thought provoking in the way this ending was supposedly designed, I would do so.
Click to expand...

so much this if i wan "high Sci-fi" ill go read a Heinlein novel
i didnt buy Mass Effect for "high Sci-fi" i got because it was fun game that a "not starwars" and "not star trek" sci-fi story
 
Frankly, I'm cautiously optimistic that Bioware has taken this stance. Good for them!!! "The customer is right" attitude will always win points with me, and I'm both surprised and impressed that Bioware is responding this way to feedback.

In so many forums I see people accusing the complainers of a sense of entitlement. "You aren't entitled to anything! This game is Bioware's work of art and fiction, and if you don't like it, don't be such a baby!" I have seen countless such posts.

You know what? Bioware is not entitled to any more of my money either. It's in their best interest financially to do what they can to please customers. It's not just about Mass Effect 3, although good, solid DLC will definitely bring them in some more dollars, but it's also about getting back some faith from those that are disappointed.

If you are happy as a little smiling clam with the ending (yes, there really is only one ending...) like Morded, great! Bioware releasing DLC to mod and add further closure to the game shouldn't affect you. Don't install it! Play ME1-ME3 through all you want and enjoy those stock endings..err I mean that three-colored stock ending until you're just tickled pink! Yay! Hooray! Happy day! I'm glad you love your purchase the way it is!

However, for those that want more, Bioware will be making them happier and keeping them more loyal. This includes myself and many others that have been commending on this forum and others. There's really no entitlement either way, and I don't appreciate such accusations (again, this is not from you, Mordred, or others on [H] who are taking a rational stance on either side of the fence). It's simply a matter of a company that appears willing to work a little harder to earn some more business and brand loyalty.

One of my favorite comments:

I've played since the start. You go around the galaxy building friendships and alliances to battle the Geth, Collectors and then the Reapers. Every decision you make *should* be important to the end outcome of the game. Instead, the final decision at the end is this: what do you want the pretty colors to be when the Mass Effect relays blow up?It's not open ended, there are three endings that make no sense and are essentially identical.
Click to expand...

He then links this article, also a good read:
http://www.gamefront.com/mass-effect-3-ending-hatred-5-reasons-the-fans-are-right/
 
byusinger84 said:
Very well stated.
Click to expand...

I agree. Dan has made a bunch of terrific posts on the matter.

I do think BioWare tried to consider suffering, destruction, and death to an extent. We don't often get a choice when it comes to those things, but this may be taking the whole thing too seriously. This is just a video game, I agree. People play games to be entertained, to follow a story, or to deal with stress.

I have to deal with suffering and death as it is IRL. Why would I want to endure that in my downtime? I want an uplifting story of the triumph of human virtue. I want the themes considered throughout the series to be tied up nicely at the end of ME3. And I don't want to be depressed.
 
Even if the official ending were changed after the fact would it make playing the end of the game any more enjoyable? I can't help but feel like begging for a do over is just being shallow. Then again I'm not a huge Mass Effect fan. I only made it through about 40% of ME2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top