238 replies to this topic

[Selena]

Well, I wouldn't say it's a growing trend. People have been getting up in arms over bad endings (or bad writing moments in general) in media since before the internet was even a thing -- the internet just makes it more noticeable and allows them to congregate. Internet-rage was previously water-cooler-rage. Twin Peaks (back in 1990) had a similar "WTF ARE YOU DOING" ending reaction... though that was mostly because they ended on crazy cliffhangers and didn't get renewed.

Sadly, obnoxious people predate the internet.

[Nevermind]

Anno Hideaki received death threats in the mail for his original television series ending to Evangelion. Hand-written death threats.

If something is not perfectly portrayed how a fan pictures it, then it sucks/is bullshit. Fan rage is the worst. I would love to be in the games industry but I dunno how I'd go with hating the fans so much. The only thing they ever want is "more" and "better".

[Fin]

to be honest, i find the responses on bioware's end more annoying.

[Nevermind]

to be honest, i find the responses on bioware's end more annoying.

Button, get him.

He's one of them. =___=



Related to topic, I'm about to finish ME1 with $9,999,999 space credits in my space wallet all to be thrown away when I switch over to number 2 (the shop items suck and I mined the universe into swiss cheese). I'm rather lenient with plots for movies and games because I tend to look at the intention of the writer; what they were trying to do, rather than what they did. From the sounds of the ME3 ending, I think I will enjoy the idea at least.

Edited by Lazurukeel, 05 April 2012 - 11:42 PM.

[Fin]

i suppose it could be that i've managed to avoid some of the more obnoxious fan criticisms. though honestly, that's kind of a big so what to me. they royally screwed up the ending. of course there's going to be criticism, and of course some of that will be obnoxious. i'm more concerned with the attitudes of the people i bought the game from.

[Selena]

Everybody is pretty much annoying at this point -- the flaming nerd corps can't let go, and Bioware is somehow flabbergasted and offended that people weren't exactly receptive of their "deep art" after saying pre-launch that the ending was going to be the exact opposite of what it actually was. The series warbled a bit in ME2 when they started sacrificing story, but gameplay was still good (better). All of ME3 was flying off the rails, and the ending was when it crashed into a wall. Again, you can't help but see that they were running into deadlines all over the place. Good cinematics during the important bits, but otherwise felt very slapped together and hollow. Not "unfinished," just... empty. Not the "2" it's rated on metacritic, but definitely no more than an "8."

I would love to be in the games industry but I dunno how I'd go with hating the fans so much. The only thing they ever want is "more" and "better".

In fairness, if the creators aren't thinking "more" and "better" even more than the fans, then that's probably where some of the problems come from.

There are always some loud-mouthed critics with every book/movie/game/etc., but, generally, if you do a good job, the fans reciprocate with hugs and cookies and worship rather than death threats. Skyrim being an example that I've recently played. Bitches love Skyrim.

[Nevermind]

What I mean is there is no level of satisfaction. Whatever is presented, they will always find something that it could/should have had. Or something could/should have been done instead. Even Skyrim.

[Selena]

Well, yeah, but that's a given for anything in the artistic realm. Or humanity in general. The whole "can't please everybody all of the time.... unless I'm having fun with yer mom" saying. But when you make an awesome game (or whatever), the harsh critics are barely noticeable amongst the well-deserved praise. And the remaining criticism is usually more constructive than ragetastic. And that's a good thing to have, since nothing's perfect and there's always something to improve and build upon. That's part of writing for an audience - especially an existing fanbase.

Now, when you get a shitstorm of rage all over the place and get score-bombed and have movement dedicated against your work, that's.... a pretty good sign you've bypassed the "can't please everyone" stage and have meandered into "uh oh we done did somethin' wrong" territory.

It's hard to say whether ME's general fanbase (ignoring the especially strong flamers) was overreacting. On the one hand, it was a solid enough game if context is removed. Not great, but okay. Now just a generic third person shooter with cinematic interrupts rather than an RPG-shooter hybrid. On the other hand, it was pretty sub par as far as the series is concerned once the new-game shiny factor wears off, and that alone is going to get people upset. Since, after all, the third entry in a trilogy is primarily graded on how it works within the series.

But, all in all, there's nothing that can really be done. Just gotta chalk it up as (a lot of) misfired potential and find a new series to gush over.

Obnoxious fans still obnoxious, though.

[SOAP]

Well I couldn't help myself so out of curiosity I went and peeked at the endings to Mass Effect 3. Just to see what all the fuss was all about.

Okay, coming from a place of complete ignorance as someone who hasn't played the games, I have to say the endings weren't... that bad. There certainly was not much a distinction either. I find it interesting that it got compared to Battlestar Galactica's ending. It's kinda like that... if Battlestar Galactica ended with Kara Thrace disappearing into thin air and there wasn't all the nice exposition to explain what exactly everyone's plans were once they arrived on Earth. I can see how ME3's ending would leave fans feeling unfulfilled.

Serious Speculation: I really like the Indoctrination theory. Seems plausible, even for someone like me. The ending even implies that there at least one more story to tell. If the indoctrination theory is true, then perhaps it's to prepare for what's in store for ME4.

Totally Not Serious Speculation: ME3 is actually Hyrule's Creation story. Blue obviously represents Nayru because she's all about law and order. Red represents Din who's all about brute strength. Green represents Farore and having the courage to go into a no-man's land by embracing a third option. The planet the ship lands on actually turns out to be Hyrule.

Edited by SOAP, 06 April 2012 - 05:16 AM.

[SteveT]

Personally, I count it as a good thing that people are becoming less tolerant of stupid crap.

[Selena]

The ending even implies that there at least one more story to tell. If the indoctrination theory is true, then perhaps it's to prepare for what's in store for ME4.

I wouldn't read too much into it being a continuation. Whether there's an ME4 or not, Shepard's story is over (as it should be), so any other games will be set in the far future or the past.


...Though, if set in the future, you can expect them to do a "technically, ALL the endings happened!" explanation for how things went down, like with Deus Ex: Invisible War or any Elder Scrolls game after Daggerfall.

[SOAP]

I'm not sure a sequel set in the distant future would be all that interesting. It would have to be so removed from everything that had happen so far in order to make the key differences in the endings inconsequential that it might as well be set in the distant past. A prequel might be interesting. However, if the indoctrination theory is correct, then that opens up a sequel were Shepards story is not quite over but only just beginning.

[Selena]

Eeeeeeeeh, can't say I'd buy that. Three games is a good number for Shepard and this story. Any more and it'd feel like it was just dragging on and on and on. Especially at the rate things have gotten watered down. Ideally, even if Shepard is indoctrinated and survives ME3, you've solved just about all the big problems in the galaxy and concluded all character story-arcs, so there'd be very little left to do. It'd be slapping Shepard on the cover for little more than profit. Any additional games should involve a new character and a new setting.

Hard to do prequels - humanity's only been in the galactic community for just one or two generations, according to game lore.

I'm mostly seeing an MMO set in the moderate to distant future. A single-player ME4 where you could choose your species might be nice, though.




According a Bioware employee's twitter, you can see the relays being rebuilt in one of the new extended endings, but only under certain circumstances. Probably the blue ending. Also a chance to reunite with your crew, which can only be the red ending, obviously. I'm sure mint-flavor will have something too.

[Fin]

well, at least they're doing something to differentiate them

[SOAP]

The green ending is so weird

Eeeeeeeeh, can't say I'd buy that. Three games is a good number for Shepard and this story. Any more and it'd feel like it was just dragging on and on and on. Especially at the rate things have gotten watered down. Ideally, even if Shepard is indoctrinated and survives ME3, you've solved just about all the big problems in the galaxy and concluded all character story-arcs, so there'd be very little left to do. It'd be slapping Shepard on the cover for little more than profit. Any additional games should involve a new character and a new setting.

Hard to do prequels - humanity's only been in the galactic community for just one or two generations, according to game lore.

I'm mostly seeing an MMO set in the moderate to distant future. A single-player ME4 where you could choose your species might be nice, though.




According a Bioware employee's twitter, you can see the relays being rebuilt in one of the new extended endings, but only under certain circumstances. Probably the blue ending. Also a chance to reunite with your crew, which can only be the red ending, obviously. I'm sure mint-flavor will have something too.

That seems reasonable.

Also, as far as sequels, what about a side story, that doesn't necessarily involve Sheperd but could happen congruently with the other three stories. Such as your idea to have a game where you get to play as something other than human.

[Egann]

Personally, I count it as a good thing that people are becoming less tolerant of stupid crap.

Totally agree. Although, parenthetically, I have to admit, I derive a certain pleasure from stuff that's not particularly wonderful...because the great majority of my story ideas are looking at someone else's work and saying "hey, that was horrible execution, but this idea and that idea were pretty good," and then I proceed to write my own version of it when I fix things. You'd be amazed how many good ideas I've salvaged from unlikely places.

I'm mostly seeing an MMO set in the moderate to distant future. A single-player ME4 where you could choose your species might be nice, though.I'm mostly seeing an MMO set in the moderate to distant future. A single-player ME4 where you could choose your species might be nice, though.

...
All of ME3 was flying off the rails, and the ending was when it crashed into a wall. Again, you can't help but see that they were running into deadlines all over the place. Good cinematics during the important bits, but otherwise felt very slapped together and hollow. Not "unfinished," just... empty. Not the "2" it's rated on metacritic, but definitely no more than an "8."

I seem to remember the idea of a ME MMO being bandied about before ME3 was ever released, but it was only ever fan talk, and even there in the pejorative "oh, I bet they'll want to make even more money and exhaust the intellectual property."

That said, I distinctly remember you saying that you felt ME3 was a great overall experience except for the final cutscene. Something make you change your mind?

[DarkJuno]

You know, if you've played the first two, it really is still a nice experience going through the game because you do get to see proper resolutions of the minor subplots - stuff like the Quarian/Geth conflict, the Krogan and the Genophage, Miranda dealing with her Father, what Cerberus is up to, etc. Unlike the end, those do depend a lot on what you've done int he past - the fate of Tali and Legion for example completely and utterly depend on whether they're loyal to you and your decisions for their missions along with what you've done in this game. Ultimately though it is up to you if that's worth it or not with the ending being what it is. Pretty sure we've all said our own piece about it by this point and are about to start repeating ourselves.

If nothing else, I have a save right between the final Cerberus Mission and the actual Earth one, so I'll give it another play to see. How substantial the extra cutscenes are will decided whether I play the two more times to see the Red and Blue endings. My main worry for an ME4 now, of course, is how they'll handle this - go the Elder Scrolls route where everything can vaguely be wedged in as canon, or do what Bioware has been doing and have everything kind of end up the same regardless, a la KotOR where Revan leaves in-between games no matter what. Hell, even in ME3 itself, Liara's the Shadow Broker and Shepard destroyed that relay even if you never bought those DLC missions, or having Anders be alive in DAII even if he flat out died in Awakenings with a crappy handwave reason.

Edited by DarkJuno, 07 April 2012 - 11:27 AM.

[TheAvengerLever]

Personally, I count it as a good thing that people are becoming less tolerant of stupid crap.

Unfortunately, "stupid crap" is completely subjective. For instance, I think the Star Wars prequels are just as good as the original trilogy and I find no fault in them. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there who find them to be stupid crap and tout it off as fact to try to convert those of us who still enjoy those films.

[Selena]

That said, I distinctly remember you saying that you felt ME3 was a great overall experience except for the final cutscene. Something make you change your mind?

Time to let it sink in.

As DJ said, there are very good moments in the game (resolving the genophage issue, resolving the quarian-geth conflict) that even the most die-hard naysayers generally seem to give a thumbs-up to. The writers were also very good about including jokes about the series as a whole, which gave it a somewhat home-y feeling at times. I was also partly defending the game from the trolls - I would still say that if you're a fan of Mass Effect, then it's still worth playing. But I was also playing the game marathon-style and, in my dash to see what happened next, I was overlooking the less desirable elements of the game (excluding the endings). Recognized them, but put it aside for... maybe the first couple days after playing.

After starting a second playthrough, I stopped playing after the first "big" mission, and every moment before that felt like a struggle. When the "what will happen next?!" element is taken out of the equation, and the game is left to stand on just its mechanics, it's actually not that fun. But I'm still not saying it's a "bad" game. It's a decent game. Just one with minimal replay value. The honeymoon is over quick.



I had an equal-but-opposite effect when I played ME2. I initially hated it, because the "main" plot was barely present, and it was more about solving emotional problems rather than finding out what's really going on. After a little while, it grew on me. It's the only game in the series that I'll still play for mere shits and giggles, because the gameplay is that good. Enemies and their behavior seem more natural. While the final evolutions of biotic powers in ME3 were fun, ME2's combat seems a lot smoother. The paragon/renegade interrupts are actually fun to watch (they were sparse in ME3). You have more freedom. It's fun to go back and see how things play out on the other moral scale, because the whole dynamic changes. It helps that renegade-shep in ME2 is more of a violent smartass than the genocidal douchebag (s)he is in ME3.





And I agree that - to an extent - it's a good thing that people are getting less tolerant of media sell-outs. The Star Wars prequels are their own creatures. Even if people didn't like them, they were still solid in the sense that they stayed true to a vision. And, if you really hate them (like yours truly!), the original trilogy can stand alone. There were moments in the writing that violated logic, but the prequels didn't start out jaw-dropping amazing and then turn into total shlock because Lucas and his financial backers decided to cut corners or stretch things out beyond their natural life expectancy for the sake of money. It was an even level of "meeeeh" throughout.

The worldwide audience has gotten complacent about demanding originality and quality in their media, though. Which is why we're stuck with so many remakes of bad TV shows, remakes of films that didn't even need to be remade, the invasion of reality TV, and - regardless of medium - obvious half-assed effort or rushed production. There's a vibe throughout ME3 that the staff just faceplanted into deadlines and shoved out whatever they had, and kept changing things at last minute (tons of buildup in ME2 for certain things, then tossed out in ME3). Which is probably why it suffered.

It's one thing for something to be subjective "crap" - it's another when it's obvious that executive meddling was involved.

[Ninja]

I think they could easily do some prequels. The whole conflict on Shaxni with the Turians during the Initial Contact war could make an interesting standalone game. Or they could jump even further back in time. There are the entire Krogan Rebellions to think about. Start with the beginning dissent between the Krograns and the other races, then escalate into the actual war. It could end with you deploying the genophage on behalf of the Salarians. Protagonist could be a Turian. They've got a lot of history to work with. There wouldn't be as much choice involved as the outcome is already determined, but it could be a fun game none the less.

[Nevermind]

With DLC for Torfin or whatever. Scenario presented according to the background history you chose.

Edited by Lazurukeel, 07 April 2012 - 10:10 PM.

[Selena]

I don't think they'd make a game without humans. Seeing as the focal point of galactic armageddon just "HAD" to be Earth - an otherwise unimpressive, relatively primitive planet as far as the whole galaxy is concerned - and all of ME3 involves you tearing species away from their own homeworlds to go save humanity. Because what else is more important? Saving Thessia, the most advanced homeworld of them all? Fighting in neutral space? Don't be silly! Humans more important than everyone else because human!

The First Contact War might be possible, but I doubt it.

[Fin]

They've got a lot of history to work with. There wouldn't be as much choice involved as the outcome is already determined, but it could be a fun game none the less.

it would certainly be interesting seeing them continue to make it even less of an rpg.

[Egann]

I would actually be curious to see a no-humans game purely for the "Burnside's Zeroth Law of Space Combat" exception. But that's a purely academic interest.

Unfortunately, "stupid crap" is completely subjective. For instance, I think the Star Wars prequels are just as good as the original trilogy and I find no fault in them. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there who find them to be stupid crap and tout it off as fact to try to convert those of us who still enjoy those films.

I don't think "bad" is the word for the prequels so much as pretty, but inept. The prequels are basically a glorified dumb blonde joke. I still think they should have gone forward in time and made a Kyle Katarn movie or, even better, one about the Yuuzhan Vong invasion (I can't believe I actually KNOW this crap!)

I don't think that badness is too subjective, though. Just that people have a remarkable ability to suspend disbelief. I also think that the last 5-8 years of internet "terribologists" like the Nostalgia Critic (and others) has probably triggered a swing over the next 10-15 years when consumers will demand less camp and more quality.

[SteveT]

Delightful egoraptor alternate endings:

[Selena]

Paraphrased transcript of a fan interview at PAX of Patrick Weekes, one of the writers.

Okay, here is what I asked Patrick Weekes, and his answers as best as I can remember them. I've paraphrased but I'm doing my best to stick to what he said rather than introduce any interpretation.

THESE ARE NOT DIRECT QUOTES.

-Is there still a setting to explore after the ending? Is everything ruined?

The setting is definitely not ruined. We still have a big, lively galaxy.

-Will long-distance superluminal travel still be possible post-Ending? (will Tali or Wrex or Garrus see their homeworlds again? Will everyone starve?)

Galactic civilization will rebuild. The mass relays were not necessary for interstellar flight. Remember, what does it say in the Codex about the speed of ships? That's right, 12 lightyears per (day? hour? minute?). And that's only the cruising speed, not the maximum speed.

People have never needed to research basic FTL improvements before because they have mass relays. With the relays gone, new technology will increase that speed. Additionally, the element zero cores of the dead/controlled Reapers can be used to improve FTL drives. will continue using conventional FTL.

-Why did Joker leave Shep behind?

Joker would never abandon Shep without a good reason. Hopefully this will be clear in the Expanded Cut.

-Why can EDI survive the Destroy ending?

We argued a lot about this, I said that she was made of Reapertech and should therefore be destroyed, but (unclear, don't remember - wish I'd been able to ask a followup as his response doesn't make much sense)

-Did anyone on the Citadel survive?

Yes. We would never, ever do anything that made the player feel, on replay, that it would be better for everyone on the Citadel if they just died. The Citadel has emergency shelters and kinetic barriers - even if it blows up, millions might survive. You should assume that everyone plot-important on the Citadel survived.

-Is it better for Kelly Chambers if we talk her into suicide?

No, see above.

-Who wrote the death of Joker's sister?

I did! We intentionally did not connect the dots. We were very interested to see how fast gamers figured it out.

-Whose idea was it to make the Rayya fall out of the sky if you destroy the Quarian fleet?

Someone in the audio department, it was brilliant.

-Did the mass relays pull an Arrival and go supernova?

No, they didn't. (i'm paraphrasing here, please don't interpret this too hard) They overloaded, they didn't rupture. We really didn't mean to imply that the whole galaxy had been destroyed. People interpreted the ending in ways we really didn't expect.

(Mr. Weekes dropped a lot of hints that he really didn't like the ending. He also said something that was almost 100% verbatim from the Penny Arcade Forum post often attributed to him)

-Why did Legion pull a 180 from his Mass Effect 2 philosophy?

He and the Geth were backed into a corner. They'd been made a lot dumber by the attack on the Dyson swarm. There was no other choice for Geth survival.

-What was up with the Rachni story? Why did we get railroaded?

Welcome to game development. In some games (Alpha Protocol) they make a bold choice where some decisions can knock entire missions out of the story. At BioWare, we never want people to be locked out of content due to a decision several games ago. We just didn't have the resources to do an alternate for the Rachni mission, so we decided that the Rachni mission could occur whether or not players saved the Queen.

-Why didn't (X squadmate from ME2) return?

There was a very ugly month of development where we fought out who would return. We knew we had to have a smaller cast so we could fit in more squad banter. Eventually we decided to bring Garrus and Tali back, so they could be squadmates in all three games. We also knew we'd have Vega in order for new players to have someone dumber than they were.

I was very resentful of Vega at first because I thought he was taking a slot that could've gone to a ME2 character, but he grew on me.

-Why did EDI have cameltoe?

We don't get a lot of feedback from the art department but (unclear, wish I remembered this better )

Lots of discussion about how he was uncomfortable doing Pinocchio stories for both Legion and EDI because 'EDI was fine, she was an AI, she was cool - do we really need her to turn into Commander Data? We had seven seasons of Data, that was enough.'

-Why did you write Pinocchio stories for all the synthetic characters?

See above

-What was up with the Human Reaper in ME2? Why did it look so dumb?

We wanted to use the Suicide Mission to show several steps of the Reaper development process, from human reaper embryo all the way to cuttlefish. But the mission grew too complicated so it was cut for time.

Do the Reapers really only generate one capital ship per cycle? How do they ever break even?

Well, we never totally pinned that down. But this cycle was really anomalous. They don't normally take any capital-size Reaper losses at all.

-What was up with Kai Leng? How do you feel about him?

We really wanted to have a recurring antagonist for Shep, a 'Darth Maul' (his words). But I feel like there was some definite conflict between cutscene and gameplay there, and I think it's something we have to work on.

'He was a great antagonist in the books'

-Why did we only get top and bottom dialogue choices, no middle?

Part of it was resources. Part of it is that Mass Effect 3 is a war story and it's really hard for Shep to feel middling about the Reapers.

-How did YOU feel about the ending?

(I didn't ask this, but he seems to have gone to GREAT lengths to think ways around a lot of stuff the ending implied.)

Why no female (alien X?)

Resource limitations. They have a very strict budget for how many different characters they can use in a given area. Some are basically free - if you have human males you have Batarians because they're humans with funny heads, if you have human females you have asari, etc.

Where was Harbinger? Can we ASSUME DIRECT CONTROL of him?

I definitely want more closure on Harbinger. That'd be hilarious. Stop punching yourself, Harbinger.

How did the Reapers storm the Citadel? Why didn't they shut down the relays as per their original plan once they had control?

Originally we planned to have a cutscene of Reapers taking over, Reaper monsters punching buttons, et cetera. But we cut it, partially for resource reasons and partly because it disrupted the pacing.

The Reapers didn't shut down the mass relays because the Keepers interfered with that. (I wish I could've asked a follow-up here, it doesn't make much sense.)

Why don't Ken and Gabby have more dialogue?

They actually have a bunch more on disk, but we somehow introduced a bug where their dialogue is tied to your approval level with Ash. If Ash has low approval, or isn't present, most of Ken and Gabby's dialogue won't play.

Why do you guys do Star Wars style space battles instead of the battles described in the codex?

We want to provide a familiar, compelling visual experience for people who grew up on Star Wars and stuff like that. These are some of our favorite parts of the game.

***

[Ninja]

Why don't Ken and Gabby have more dialogue?

They actually have a bunch more on disk, but we somehow introduced a bug where their dialogue is tied to your approval level with Ash. If Ash has low approval, or isn't present, most of Ken and Gabby's dialogue won't play.

Oh Ashley. It took me 3 hours to figure out who they were talking about in ME3 whenever they referenced this mysterious, "Williams" person. I finally remembered that "Ashley Williams" was the true name of the Beautiful Pink Beast of the Normandy that I'd left to die two games ago after she insulted Garrus, questioned my sanity for trusting non-humans, and then shot Wrex because I was taking too long in talking him around (I loaded back and fixed that last one).

I had wondered why Gabby and Ken had no lines at all in my game aside from, "Commander" and "Shepherd". Guess if their dialogue is linked to Ashley I wouldn't' get any at all. I barely talked to her in ME1, and she's been dead for 2 games in all my playthroughs. Guess I should work up a playthrough where I keep her around and see how that changes things. Aside from the ending. Which never changes.

[Veteran]

"Cut for resources" is all I got from that interview. It's a shame really.

[Selena]

By the way:






Also:




ALSO:

[Nevermind]

Okay, so I should FINALLY be starting this game tomorrow or the day after.

For now, I can confirm that the saucy, sassy Yeoman Kelly Chambers will most definitely NOT be making an appearance in my game, due to her molecular decommission from the Normandy.


And....existence.


Game over, everyone's alive (except Kelly and the entire crew save Dr Chakwas and Corporal Noname). Yay. Ready to catch up to everyone else.

Did feel sorry for the abandoned Harbinger avatar at the end. Little fella wakes up just in time to realise HO SHIT. :C

Edited by Lazurukeel, 18 April 2012 - 02:20 PM.