There are enough threads about disappointed fans,so I wont add any further to it.
However, what I dont understand is, the people involved in making ME all along,the team of Bioware, how could they possibly be ok with this kind of ending "resetting" ( I wont say destroy,but I see it as ) everything they created with such effort for all the years. Many have to be a hardcore fan themselfs to pull it through with such quality and hard work and emotion. And until the ending it all felt like it, that they put so much fansuggestions into, so much extra work for long time fans etc....about to become the best masse in the series ( for me )
And then , just like that, remove it all with such an ending. I mean , if you write such an epic story, so many great ideas ,your created world comes to live , and especially all the people invovled in this idea,the characters, you gain fans who love the world as you do,are you satisfied when the end will basicly put you back on a blank page 1?
Future projects? pre me3 content feels somehow unreal and not motivating, when you know what happens later anyway. Post me3 ? I dont know about that, since the players choice change the world in 3 completly different themes.
My theory is that some of the people leading this project were burnt out from the work or they just started someday to not care anymore. They wanted it done, away, finito. Starting a new chapter of their life with new projects or whatever.
There is just like no way that the whole team agreed on that ending, sure u always have different opinions, but this ending was just too radical. And too selfish , leaving all the rest of the Biowarestaff behind...and ofc us.
Its just a theory as said, but i can hardly believe that on their side there is no frustration in some of them.
sry for my horrible english btw T_T
disppointed fans ok....but how they could do it to themselves? :/
Débuté par
focusright
, mars 09 2012 11:24
Retour en haut
#2
Posté 09 mars 2012 - 11:47
Greed1914
-
- Members
- 2 638 messages
This is something that comes to my mind when something like this happens. I mean, there are just times when I have to wonder, "Who thought this was a good idea?"
For example, I get that it would have taken a lot of effort to accumulate all decisions and create endings based on those, but at what point did somebody agree that different colored lights were the way out? I get that stranding the Normandy on some untouched planet was a way to say, "The future is what we make it" but it's hard to believe that they found that preferable to maybe seeing Wrex with his new baby, or Tali growing crops on Rannoch.
It brings to mind something that I saw in an article somewhere that basically suggested that perhaps sequels and Bioware's choice systems just don't work together. There are a number of things that get changed to the default anyway, so perhaps a trilogy of games following one character doesn't work. If nothing else, it would be far easier to account for variable in many endings if it's just one game. It might not seem as epic, or be a way to make money off of previous success, but at least they might not have felt backed into a corner on the endings.
For example, I get that it would have taken a lot of effort to accumulate all decisions and create endings based on those, but at what point did somebody agree that different colored lights were the way out? I get that stranding the Normandy on some untouched planet was a way to say, "The future is what we make it" but it's hard to believe that they found that preferable to maybe seeing Wrex with his new baby, or Tali growing crops on Rannoch.
It brings to mind something that I saw in an article somewhere that basically suggested that perhaps sequels and Bioware's choice systems just don't work together. There are a number of things that get changed to the default anyway, so perhaps a trilogy of games following one character doesn't work. If nothing else, it would be far easier to account for variable in many endings if it's just one game. It might not seem as epic, or be a way to make money off of previous success, but at least they might not have felt backed into a corner on the endings.
#3
Posté 10 mars 2012 - 12:25
Elishiaila
-
- Members
- 95 messages
Who thought New Coke would sell? - People bought less and less Coke and prefered some kind of taste. So moving that ways made sense. Yet it became a famous mistake.
Who thought D&D 4 will be a success story? - People celebrated streamlined, dungeon crawl focused game, even at cost of roleplaying when it was a selling point for 3E. They wanted more balance. Now they hate 4E for representing these extra ideas.
Bioware knew all too well we liked heroic sacrifice before, we liked tough decisions, etc. and they tried to present it. When they have started the franchise these endings made sense. It was reasonable to deal with Synthetic vs Organic conflict this way. Destroy, control, merge. 3 good options.
People in various SciFi novels and short stories love this dilemma and these options. But in the story of Mass Effect we learned another way: To Cooperate. And with this EDI, some Geth, etc. would be all better at controlling reapers than Shepard. But the best would be just to tell the Catalyst how cooperation is possible. How EDI and Joker can be in Love.
But Bioware were so focused at trying to reach the ending they planned all time, which they seen a perfect idea in the beginning that they failed to note: Why the story would lead to different endings. Why players will want different ones. How some of the planned consequences (for Normandy, etc) won't work with what we see so far.
It is strange. I think in the beginning the destroy choice would be about destroying mass relays, etc. and it would look like a sacrifice because we would erase a lot of advancement. But it wouldn't feel that bad, the question wouldn't be that tough. Then it was about removing other reaper tech. Then more advanced tech as well, that leads to synthetic life.
But at a point it made sense to make it personal: By adding an AI "friend" (EDI), and making Geth friendly to make the choice tougher, otherwise Destroy would be a clear winner.
But they haven't checked if with AI friends how many other options Shepard would choose.
These endings would be possible and OK in the game. Just we wouldn't choose them, we would choose better endings. And we can't because they aren't implemented.
Who thought D&D 4 will be a success story? - People celebrated streamlined, dungeon crawl focused game, even at cost of roleplaying when it was a selling point for 3E. They wanted more balance. Now they hate 4E for representing these extra ideas.
Bioware knew all too well we liked heroic sacrifice before, we liked tough decisions, etc. and they tried to present it. When they have started the franchise these endings made sense. It was reasonable to deal with Synthetic vs Organic conflict this way. Destroy, control, merge. 3 good options.
People in various SciFi novels and short stories love this dilemma and these options. But in the story of Mass Effect we learned another way: To Cooperate. And with this EDI, some Geth, etc. would be all better at controlling reapers than Shepard. But the best would be just to tell the Catalyst how cooperation is possible. How EDI and Joker can be in Love.
But Bioware were so focused at trying to reach the ending they planned all time, which they seen a perfect idea in the beginning that they failed to note: Why the story would lead to different endings. Why players will want different ones. How some of the planned consequences (for Normandy, etc) won't work with what we see so far.
It is strange. I think in the beginning the destroy choice would be about destroying mass relays, etc. and it would look like a sacrifice because we would erase a lot of advancement. But it wouldn't feel that bad, the question wouldn't be that tough. Then it was about removing other reaper tech. Then more advanced tech as well, that leads to synthetic life.
But at a point it made sense to make it personal: By adding an AI "friend" (EDI), and making Geth friendly to make the choice tougher, otherwise Destroy would be a clear winner.
But they haven't checked if with AI friends how many other options Shepard would choose.
These endings would be possible and OK in the game. Just we wouldn't choose them, we would choose better endings. And we can't because they aren't implemented.
