41 réponses à ce sujet

[krogstor]

See this thread:

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/10595227/

Please tell us why you did it.

This is complete and utter BULL****, the ending that we've worked so hard for, the dialogue is ALL  there! WHY in gods name did you rush it?  Why did you do this to us?

You're setting a dangerous precedent that your parent company is more valuable than your fans.

[Militarized]

That's how Corporations work, they have to listen. We should blame EA if you're going to blame someone.... unless it was a decision by Bioware due to "artistic integrity".

[krogstor]

Whatever it was, it ****ed up my favorite game, second only to Zelda.

Good job BW, if you don't handle this appropriately, you've lost a customer, a fan, a supporter, and a friend.

[CroGamer002]

No, Casey's and Mac's ego killed Mass Effect.

[Astrogenesis]

Bioware = Saran
EA = Sovereign

The End 0.o

[shengar]

With Drew out of the team, ME universe are already doomed

[Shallyah]

Not the way to go to voice your complains...

[zarnk567]

Mesina2 wrote...

No, Casey's and Mac's ego killed Mass Effect.

^this^ you can keep blaming EA all you want..... but it  does not change the fact Bioware knowingly let the game ship with this ending.....

[CroGamer002]

shengar wrote...

With Drew out of the team, ME universe are already doomed

Drew wrote Dark Energy ending, which is way worse then one we got.
Considering Casey and Mac were also co-creators of ME universe, it's looks like they always wanted to destroy it.

Seriously; Drew, Casey and Mac are Reapers.

[FPS Harbinger]

I should go.

[Melancholic]

We don't, in fact, know who are to blame...

[shengar]

Mesina2 wrote...

shengar wrote...

With Drew out of the team, ME universe are already doomed

Drew wrote Dark Energy ending, which is way worse then one we got.
Considering Casey and Mac were also co-creators of ME universe, it's looks like they always wanted to destroy it.

Seriously; Drew, Casey and Mac are Reapers.

What I'm point out its not just about the ending actually, but the consistency of theme and the universe of Mass Effect.
Just yesterday I replayed  escape from earth scene and already found something that completely ridiculous and lore breaking: A dreadnought in Earth atsmosphere, shooting the reaper? Correct if I'm wrong, but Pressly in ME1 said that it was impossible for Cruiser class and any thing bigger than that to 'land' on a planet.

And with dark energy, it at least have theme consistency with it rather than space magic that we got now.

Modifié par shengar, 25 mars 2012 - 11:50 .

[Saremei]

Shengar, that wasn't lore breaking. The ship didn't land. The idea is that the ship cannot touch down and land like a smaller vessal because the weight of it would crush parts of the lower decks as they are designed to not sit on the surface of a planet in the first place.

[Militarized]

zarnk567 wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

No, Casey's and Mac's ego killed Mass Effect.

^this^ you can keep blaming EA all you want..... but it  does not change the fact Bioware knowingly let the game ship with this ending.....

That is a fair point. We cannot forget that. 

[McAllyster]

Bioware = EA.

Dr. Ray is vice president of EA.

This ending controversy is absolutely the fault of ME3 management - not EA. Casey and Mac decided this ending, not EA nor the other writers / developers.

[Iron Spetsnaz]

Unless that dialogue was recorded then I'm not gonna whine to BioWare or EA about it

[Ricvenart]

I don't think this all rests at EA's feet, sadly. I think thier hearts just weren't in it anymore, maybe I'm wrong, I'd like to be but some things say otherwise.
Mass Effect was planned to be done in 2 years (final hours I think) so maybe that's part of the problem.
At the least though EA are probably at fault for turning the game into something that appeals to a wider audience and some cuts due to budget and time.

[krogstor]

Whoever is at fault, I am now extremely depressed. Thank you EA/BW.

I don't even want to talk about it, I'll probably be back later, or maybe not. This is officially worse than "it was just a bad ending".

[Ironhandjustice]

You guys need the developer viewpoint. Its weird for a massive selling videogame be out on march.

ME3 was intended to be out for Dec11, but went out on March12. The question is, that was a fine job until the end -the last part done in a game-, and is very clear that there is a cut on the ending. The marauder shield-thing and star child.

If you look at carefully, this part has retaken corpses from ME2, almost no dialogue, almost no... nothing. The citadel was almost empty. Its logical to think that TIM bringed the last soldiers with him, and have make a battle to reach the crucible. But nothing indicates this. No Reaper minions corpses. Nor Cerberus. Just a star kid (the same animation from the beggining child, different textures), and ends with many things cut.

I suppose that the crappy-end comes from:

BW:"Sir, we need another month for the ending"
EA:"NO WAY! IT NEEDS TO BE SOLD NOW!!! ITS AIRDATE WAS ON DEC"
BW:"But the ending..."
EA:"Do it right now. No matter the cost"
BW:"But..."
EA:"Or this, or you can consider yourself fired"
BW: (Thinking on their family and the crysis, but painfully) "Ok sir, will be ready for 6th March launch..."

And that, kids "is show you true power", or "assuming direct control of the project"

[shengar]

Saremei wrote...

Shengar, that wasn't lore breaking. The ship didn't land. The idea is that the ship cannot touch down and land like a smaller vessal because the weight of it would crush parts of the lower decks as they are designed to not sit on the surface of a planet in the first place.

I thought "landing" here in ME is where ship enter the planet atmosphere low enough but not necessary land by the conventional meaning. And that's why I though they give a kodiak shuttle for SR2 because its Mass Effect field can no longer support SR2 mass against the planet gravity pull force, thus they can't fly in atmosphere low enogh to drop transport like Mako from safe altitude. Correct me if 'm with anything but that the thing I know.

[nitefyre410]

No .. EA did not do this Bioware own arrogance did this

[Quietness]

Why do people have such a hard time grasping that Bioware and EA are one and the same, The dr.s are high up execs at EA. EA's primary function is to fund distribution and advertising.

[showes13]

I was thinking about it, and EA being a publicly traded company, it is in their interest to please the largest percentage of their audience as possible. Therefore, I do not think EA would have made or pushed for the ending we got, their goal is not "artistic" it is more like "how can we make everybody like this so we get the most profit". I don't think they would have purposefully taking such a risk for the sake of "art".
Bioware on the other hand, although owned by EA, is more separated from this public company mentality. They could legitimately want to get all artistic on us with the ending, and maybe were able to convince EA to let them do so, neither of course realizing the repercussions that would have.
I am not trying to say anything bad about either company, I'm just looking at it from a business standpoint, and to me it is more likely that Bioware pushed for the artistic ending and not EA.
Of course what others are saying could hold true as well, about the deadlines and it being rushed.

[sergeym1990]

BioWare is part of the EA. This is the fact and there is noway that changes in the near future. So they share the blame.

[Aldyramon]

There is not EA and Bioware, it is one big company. Everybody works for EA, they just call some of the development Studios "Bioware" because it has a nice tone to it (and a better Reputation that EA). They could also call it EA Games Edmonton if they wanted to...

This whole "Oh it is totally EAs fault, they because presured Bioware" so getting soo old. It is one company now, deal with it.