1895 réponses à ce sujet

[Provo_101]

Weekes gives me hope that this extended cut won't suck nearly as much as I thought it would, probably my favorite person at Bioware.

*ahem* next to uhh... Chris Priestly... *cough*

[Calibrations Expert]

It only makes the ending all the more worse.

We have to corner (good) writers and shake them down for an interview to find out what the hell happened because they gave us an unfinished game.

[Kamuchi]

ticklefist wrote...

We also knew we'd have Vega in order for new players to have someone dumber than they were.

Ha!

lol yea, that was funny 

[Laurcus]

pikey1969 wrote...

Laurcus wrote...

pikey1969 wrote...

Hexley UK wrote...

Qutayba wrote...

I realize that this isn't official, but a few candid off-script interviews like this would do wonders for relations with fans. You feel like he gets our problems, even if he doesn't agree with everything. It's just human and honest. The cone of silence strategy wasn't smart.

Agreed.

Also +10 geek pts for the D&D reference.

D&D sux.

You're just jelly because D&D could easily own the entire Mass Effect setting.

yes sir dungone master sir, you're most probably the finest story teller of all!

pffft. you silly tabletop role players. >

I mean militarily. Any standard D&D setting can own Mass Effect. Infinite Balors with teleport > Reapers.

[M0keys]

Calibrations Expert wrote...

It only makes the ending all the more worse.

We have to corner (good) writers and shake them down for an interview to find out what the hell happened because they gave us an unfinished game.

Don't blame Weekes. He had pretty much zero to do with the ending.

[pikey1969]

Calibrations Expert wrote...

It only makes the ending all the more worse.

We have to corner (good) writers and shake them down for an interview to find out what the hell happened because they gave us an unfinished game.

There are plenty of places to look for the answer to that.

BSN not the place though.

[Jamie9]

Patrick has tweeted on the situation:

"Those are paraphrases, some with a very negative spin, which is unfortunate, because they were great questions."

It did happen then, but the paraphrasing is inaccurate.

[pikey1969]

Provo_101 wrote...

Weekes gives me hope that this extended cut won't suck nearly as much as I thought it would, probably my favorite person at Bioware.

*ahem* next to uhh... Chris Priestly... *cough*

I like Woo.

'End of Line'

so many dumb threads, he put a bullet to the head in.

[Irishkev]

I know it not offical or anything but they should do something like this offically.

Instead of going silent or giving tease tweets that just get our hopes up or make us more angry. Why not just be honest and say we tried something we didn't make it clear we can see that and we will fix the issue.

After a few weeks I was expecting a offical response from the writers explaining the ending and why they did it either for future content or something. But we didn't get that we got its art and we won't be releasing any content after the ending which may not of been there aim but came off as sit down and shut up and take the ending you got.

Fair enough they lied through there teeth when they talking about the game Pre and Post release about the ending and last mission we all know that no one can deny that. But the way the handled it could of been better they should be doing something like the OP has only offical.

Talk to your fans about the ending discuss it with them don't hide behinde the this is ART Crap. you will find that many fans have issues with the plotholes that talking to a writer or an offical reposne would solve.

Granted some want closure as well which hopefully this DLC fixes but I beleive statments like that would atleast silence a lot of people

[legion999]

Kamuchi wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Also thanix cannons. Y U NO FIRE THANIX CANNONS?

They do if your EMS is high enough...

www.youtube.com/watch

That's not a Thanix Cannon.

This is a Thanix Cannon.

And that was supposed to be the "baby" version compared what the Turians had on their cap ships (from what i understood)

And the Volus Dreadnought.

Modifié par legion999, 08 avril 2012 - 01:45 .

[Oldbones2]

pikey1969 wrote...

A fan on SA forums just posted a relatively casual Q&A with Patrick Weekes.

Source.

Personally, I still won't be fully satisfied with the RGB options that were clearly artificially/arbitrarily weighted by 'moral dilemmas' (they REALLY need to at least add another option on top of the three), but it looks like most of the people at Bioware at least coming around to at least admitting to themselves that the endings are currently too ambiguous and simply not well presented (caused by EA being pricks with deadlines/funding in my personal opinion). It also sounds like they'll have the full writing team dedicated to this project now, on top of some of the revelations from below, a LOT of promising stuff here.

The informal interview is 'quoted' below.

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. Starflight 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.

***

Things I wish I'd asked:

Why the drat Starchild?

What was up with the Stargazer? (He touched on the Stargazer once and pretty much said 'oh, yeah, the Stargazer.'

Again: NOT DIRECT QUOTES. These are NOT OFFICIAL BIOWARE STATEMENTS. Please don't gently caress Patrick Weekes over by posting these as 'official BioWare PR' or whatever. Please feel free to ask me follow-up questions, as I definitely didn't cover the whole conversation with him.

My takeaway was: the epilogue DLC is probably going to do a lot of good and be pretty well written, and Patrick Weekes should've been lead writer on ME3.  

ps. I Weekes too.

You know what's sick.

I hate Bioware, literally hate the company for lieing to me and trying to handle me.  But just listening to the Weekes interview makes me want to give them another chance because he treats me like a person instead of an ATM.

I won't give them another chance of course, but he makes me want to.

[Mr.BlazenGlazen]

It's cool that we are finally having people at BW talk to us.

Let's just...not chase them out the forums like we did with Merizan mmkay?

[Chaoswind]

The Angry One wrote...

M0keys wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

legion999 wrote...

The keepers stopped the Reapers from taking over..... WHAT.THE.****.IS.HAPPENING?!
EDI survives somehow even though she's made of Reaper tech. Seriously am I dreaming this?

I had hopes for this extended cut but now.... ugh.

Assuming this is real, he made those two up on the spot. I'm 99% sure.

Guessing since the guy forgot what Patrick Weekes said about the Keepers, it was actually a part of the Prothean scientists' plan. If they found out how to manipulate the Citadel, maybe they found out how to keep the Reapers from controlling the Mass Relays. Yeah, it's not entirely solid, but it's a decent enough retcon that I feel a little better about it.

And being being Reaper tech...partially... I can kinda see it since she was built by Cerberus, wasn't she?

The thing is, the Citadel signal was altered in such a way for the Keepers to ignore it.
But the Keepers still respond to commands from the Citadel itself. They will not countermand or interfere with commands given internally.

This is why Sovereign was interfacing with the Citadel, to give commands through the Citadel's systems.
If they're saying that the Keepers will in fact countermand orders given from within the Citadel then....... the end of ME1 was pointless.

I played ME1 a few days ago and this is what happens

VIGIL gives you a keycode that will give you TEMPORARY control of the citadel and the mass relays before CORRUPTING THE **** OUT OF THAT ****.

So the mass relay controling signal is no more because Shep/Vigil ****ed the reapers in the ass, that is why the reapers didn't bother to take the citadel (i guess they could try to fix the damage Vigil/Shep did to the code, but as we are talking about a major corruption we can asume it was better to rewrite the code from scratch and that was going to take time).

Glad i could help

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Vigil

[pikey1969]

Jamie9 wrote...

Patrick has tweeted on the situation:

"Those are paraphrases, some with a very negative spin, which is unfortunate, because they were great questions."

It did happen then, but the paraphrasing is inaccurate.

hmmm interesting. i might make a SA account just to post on their forums with taht reply.

[felipejiraya]

[General Battuta]

Jamie9 wrote...

Patrick has tweeted on the situation:

"Those are paraphrases, some with a very negative spin, which is unfortunate, because they were great questions."

It did happen then, but the paraphrasing is inaccurate.

I didn't mean to spin them negatively, but I did definitely step over the line by suggesting he 'dropped hints' that he didn't like the ending. He was never anything less than a completely professional team member.

I feel really bad about disappointing him. He was so generous with his answers, and he really lifted my spirits. I should've done a better job.

[XXIceColdXX]

Not sure if this interview is legit.

[M0keys]

Jamie9 wrote...

Patrick has tweeted on the situation:

"Those are paraphrases, some with a very negative spin, which is unfortunate, because they were great questions."

It did happen then, but the paraphrasing is inaccurate.

He's just correcting for PR sake, I think. He also just tweeted that he didn't literally mean Vega was made for "dumb" players. It's just writer talk, and I dig it.

[Vertigo_1]

felipejiraya wrote...

Hehe, I asked for a friend who wanted to know

Modifié par Vertigo_1, 08 avril 2012 - 01:47 .

[garf]

Vigil_N7 wrote...

If that is true, then it seems to imply that Shepard CAN control the reapers, or at least it was never planned for the reapers to disobey Shepard's command.

Control definitely seems the best ending now, shame shep dies but its the ultimate sacrifice.

I wish they'd define 'dies' how does shep control the reapers if she's completely dead, Ie no longer part of the living world.

If I get to end the game as a 3km tall cuttlefish with N7 painted on my hull and Harbinger as my ****... I'd 'die' happy.

[yahtzo]

Why couldn't this guy just write the whole game? Or at the very least write the ending?

[rivqa]

I'll add this to my optimism bank, thanks OP.

ETA: those tweets totally ninja-ed me. But still.

Modifié par rivqa, 08 avril 2012 - 01:50 .

[The Angry One]

Chaoswind wrote...

I played ME1 a few days ago and this is what happens

VIGIL gives you a keycode that will give you TEMPORARY control of the citadel and the mass relays before CORRUPTING THE **** OUT OF THAT ****.

So the mass relay controling signal is no more because Shep/Vigil ****ed the reapers in the ass, that is why the reapers didn't bother to take the citadel (i guess they could try to fix the damage Vigil/Shep did to the code, but as we are talking about a major corruption we can asume it was better to rewrite the code from scratch and that was going to take time).

Glad i could help

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Vigil

The Citadel and it's functions are still directly controllable through it's control panels.
Why not have TIM, or any thrall for that matter operate the controls directly?

[M0keys]

General Battuta wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

Patrick has tweeted on the situation:

"Those are paraphrases, some with a very negative spin, which is unfortunate, because they were great questions."

It did happen then, but the paraphrasing is inaccurate.

I didn't mean to spin them negatively, but I did definitely step over the line by suggesting he 'dropped hints' that he didn't like the ending. He was never anything less than a completely professional team member.

I feel really bad about disappointing him. He was so generous with his answers, and he really lifted my spirits. I should've done a better job.

It's alright, man. Whatever issues there are, we'll all get past them. Through your interview, no matter how it was phrased, I think some of our spirits have been lifted.

[Lmaoboat]

General Battuta wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

Patrick has tweeted on the situation:

"Those are paraphrases, some with a very negative spin, which is unfortunate, because they were great questions."

It did happen then, but the paraphrasing is inaccurate.

I didn't mean to spin them negatively, but I did definitely step over the line by suggesting he 'dropped hints' that he didn't like the ending. He was never anything less than a completely professional team member.

I feel really bad about disappointing him. He was so generous with his answers, and he really lifted my spirits. I should've done a better job.

Maybe apologize on Twitter, and ask him to help with the parts you don't remember. Win win?