Aller au contenu

Photo

Unofficial Interview with Patrick Weekes conducted by a fan at Pax - UPDATED


1895 réponses à ce sujet

#1701
kimuji

kimuji
  • Members
  • 122 messages

EnforcerWRX7 wrote...

Bioware's biggest problem now is making the ending make sense.  No amount of glitter and gold can make the ripped off desu ex ending any better.

I'll say it right now: I have no hope for the clarifications extended cut to make this any better...

I think this is possible even if they don't want to remove the Catalyst part. Here's why:

After my thoughts on the "green ending" this is what I think of the "red one" and what we can "clarify" in order to restore ME's main plot continuity that so many people found broken by the Catalyst's statements.

First this is the only one allowing Shepard to definitively stop the Reapers, which is Shepard's goal from the start. This also the ending the Reapers and the Catalyst dislike the most, the Starchild says himself that he thinks that won't solve his problem (his "synthetics/organics" issue), but he can't directly object nor prevent Shepard from choosing that path, Shepard only has to pull the trigger and shoot the "cable" to shut him up. But it also brings up a, interrogation, why would the Catalyst allow Shepard to destroy him and the Reapers if he thinks that it is going against their goal. The only explanation that comes to my mind is that the Catalyst doesn't control the Crucible, so the three solutions are probably not his, this is only what he figured about the Crucible possibilities. Like I said I think the Catalyst tried to subtly push Shepard to accept the fusion solution because this is the only one that makes sense with his motives  (from his perspective). On the other hand he has some warnings about the destruction solution: he says this is only a temporary one, he also says that it will destroy everything that is synthetic the Geth and even Shepard. I really had the feeling that "and you don't want that" was totally implicit behind the Catalyst's words. So we have this: the Catalyst thinks this won't solve anything, organics will build new AIs/synthetics and worse, after the Reaper's destruction nothing will stand between organics and synthetics. The Catalyst can't reasonably want that to happen, so why doesn't he try to stop Shepard? Because he can't, he doesn't have control over the Crucible all he can do is to try to manipulate Shepard.

Now we're hitting the sensitive spot, what is exactly destroyed when you choose this solution? That's where we need a "clarification" as promised for the DLC because it changes absolutely everything. The catalyst says it destroys everything that is synthetic or partly synthetic. Reapers, Geth, AIs, and even Shepard, remember:

Image IPB

Shepard is bio-synthetic. Though he can survive with enough EMS, and some even saw EDI getting out of the crashed Normandy after the Reapers destruction. So we need to know what happens to the Geth. Besides that we also need to know the why. For the moment the best explanation is that with a higher EMS the Crucible is correctly build and arrives in a good condition to the Citadel (he had a strong escort preventing it from being hit by the Reapers), it has its full effectiveness and can precisely distinguish Reapers from the other kind of synthetic technology. So Shepard and EDI survive. But what for the Geth? They are based on Quarian technology but they upgraded themselves by inserting a Reaper code into their consensus. Their destruction is possible but it isn't certain. Frist this is only code not real hardware, the Geth are still 100% Geth hardware, the code is software. Second it is possible to separate and erase Reaper code inside the consensus without destroying the whole. That's what Shepard did on Rannoch. My guess is, if Shepard can do it, so does the Crucible.

But this is only my guess, we still need a "clarification" or a fix on this. Yes that part must be "clarified" or fixed because it has many implications and opens satisfying perspectives for many players:

- If the Geth survive we can speculate on the Reapers/Catalyst real motives and behaviour. With that new element  we can strongly assume that he has been either lying or not fully aware of the true power of the Crucible. This point is important because it potentially can satisfy both the players who liked the end as it is now and those who didn't like because they hated the Catalyst's statements and logic. We can think he's been lying all along or had a complelty flawed logic but we also can assume that he exposed his true motives but never thought that the Crucible could perform a pin point attack (or tried to hide it). Yes you can either believe what you want about what the Catalyst said (and replace it by Sovereign's words fr instance) or believe him and keep his motives as the real Reapers pupose. That should satisfy both those who think the plot is broken and those who don't think it is broken.

- If the Geth survive it will help the Quarians, remember their suits are now symbiotic with the Geth, destroy the Geth and the Quarians will be in trouble (provided you ended the conflict).

- this is an easy to add clarification or implementable fix, let's face it, I'll be honest I would have liked a new ending but this won't happen. Bioware will never remove the Starchild and put something else in its place, this clarification doesn't break the "artistic integrity", there's nothing to remove from the existing ending, but it adds more satisfying perspectives for those who didn't like the whole Catalyst part. In my opinion it also makes it look better and more charismatic (one of the many complaints about him), letting people suspecting him to be manipulative adds more substance to his character. His looks could also be interpreted as a part of his manipulation attempt, making him look friendly and sincere like a child freely speaking his mind.

- Many players complained because all the endings were forcing Shepard to betray his ethics, if the Geth survive that issue is solved too.


Yes it looks a bit like "lots speculations from (and for) everyone" but this time these are statisfying ones for the majority. Well that was for the "red" ending and what the DLC could clarify or fix regarding it.

Modifié par kimuji, 09 avril 2012 - 08:56 .


#1702
Syokhan

Syokhan
  • Members
  • 346 messages

kimuji wrote...

Snip.


Since we can't lose the GodChild, I like your alternative. That'd make the other choices (Control and Synthesis) a bit pointless though. (... I really don't mind...)

(edited because the BSN likes to eat posts)

Modifié par Syokhan, 09 avril 2012 - 09:01 .


#1703
chapomon

chapomon
  • Members
  • 38 messages

pikey1969 wrote...

...It also sounds like they'll have the full writing team fully dedicated and hard at work with this project now. On top of some of the revelations from above, there's a LOT of promising stuff here for the coming Extended Ending content update.

ps. I <3 Weekes too.


One can hope.

I for one, as I'm sure may others, have been upset at this whole ending debacle. This unofficial interview at least brings it into prospective a bit and reminds us all of what we all knew why this happend: resource constrant, probably brought on by those big wigs at EA. How I would have rather wait another year to have our individual decisions fleshed out through the story rather than have Dragon Age style recant ("The Maker said it wasn't my time" said the Rachni Queen Contruct). I feel a little better shifting the blame to Bioware's leash holders EA but as the years go by it feels harder to distinguish the two. It feels reassuring that the writers and the rest of the team are doing the best they can given what they have to work with. Despite that, I feel sad to say that I think Bioware as a company is clinging to its soul by thread.

#1704
Kanon777

Kanon777
  • Members
  • 1 625 messages

T-Dawg135 wrote...

The very fact that there is so much speculation regarding the endings proves their failure as narrative. A well written narrative, even one that was designed to leave things vague, will never create so many questions with so many options, especially concerning things of such dramatic importance. Take for example the movie Inception. At the end the audience is left asking themselves if the main character really has rejoined his family or if he's still trapped in the dream world. This leads to speculation and discussion, as intended.


They wanted people to speculate so it wasnt a failure. They also suceded in pissing off alot of people, but i dont think that was part of the plan...

#1705
kimuji

kimuji
  • Members
  • 122 messages

Syokhan wrote...

kimuji wrote...

Snip.


Since we can't lose the GodChild, I like your alternative. That'd make the other choices (Control and Synthesis) a bit pointless though. (... I really don't mind...)

(edited because the BSN likes to eat posts)

Not pointless, it sure makes it look like the right choice but games are not about the right choice, if you do 2 runs of the same game you won't automatically choose the same ending even if you like one better than the others. If your Shepard is a bit full of himself the control solution can satisfy him, if he belives in the Starchild's statements the synthesis can seduce him. From my experience I can say I have deliberately picked the "bad" ending in many games.

You doubt someone could voluntarily pick an ending implying the bad guy's victory (WARNING JADE EMPIRE SPOILERS):



I did, for fun on my second run. And I was amazed Bioware put such an unconventionnal way to end a game.

Modifié par kimuji, 09 avril 2012 - 09:13 .


#1706
Xyos

Xyos
  • Members
  • 37 messages
I can appreciate the open-endness of their ending, it provokes you to think, and I must say no other story ending I've read has had me thinking more than this one.

My only problems were I wanted more choice (example, sparing the geth but destroying the reapers), but I can live with that. The other problem was just alot of basic things not answered (like how the crucible created those choices with the Catalyst, how your crew gets back on normandy, etc). Ill be happy if the DLC keeps their endings but just expands and explains some of it (but still leave some in the air for the fun of thinking about it ourselves).

Its nice to actually talk to some people from Bioware, its a humanizing thing that I think makes it very hard to say some of the stuff that has been going on in the forum to a person. I can tell you guys do really really care about your story and how the fans see it. Thank you for ME and thank you for meeting us partway with some of our complaints. :)

Modifié par Xyos, 09 avril 2012 - 09:13 .


#1707
T-Dawg135

T-Dawg135
  • Members
  • 10 messages

tobito113 wrote...

T-Dawg135 wrote...

The very fact that there is so much speculation regarding the endings proves their failure as narrative. A well written narrative, even one that was designed to leave things vague, will never create so many questions with so many options, especially concerning things of such dramatic importance. Take for example the movie Inception. At the end the audience is left asking themselves if the main character really has rejoined his family or if he's still trapped in the dream world. This leads to speculation and discussion, as intended.


They wanted people to speculate so it wasnt a failure. They also suceded in pissing off alot of people, but i dont think that was part of the plan...


They may have achieved the result they were seeking, but that doesn't make it an effective narrative. In much the same way that BMW is the "pinacle of German engineering" (if their ads are to be believed), doesn't make them the worlds greatest storytellers.

BMW wants people to drive their cars. People drive BMW cars. BMW did not fail... at making cars. If someone told me that the new BMW convertable was trying to be a great narrative, I would have to point out that BMW failed. It's a car, even a succesful car, but it's still a failure as a narrative.

#1708
AllThatJazz

AllThatJazz
  • Members
  • 2 758 messages
@kimuji. That's a great post, incredibly well thought out. I hope the Bio writers read it and take your points into consideration.

#1709
Spectre Impersonator

Spectre Impersonator
  • Members
  • 2 146 messages
Great interview, even if it can't be taken as 100% accurate. I believe Weekes is the guy they should have had in charge of the ending and I believe he's with the majority of fans who thought it sucked. In fact, I'd bet most of Bioware's writers could have come up with a better ending. Mike Gamble's acting like a team player but I'm sure he was just as disappointed with what (allegedly) Casey and Mac came up with as the rest of us.

It's a pity that guys like Gamble and Weekes weren't in charge from day 1. Let's hope they're on board for the Extended Cut.

#1710
JPR1964

JPR1964
  • Members
  • 791 messages

tobito113 wrote...

They wanted people to speculate so it wasnt a failure. They also suceded in pissing off alot of people, but i dont think that was part of the plan...


Speculating of the future of the galaxy is good, speculating of what happens to your character, to the people you care, in a roleplaying point of view, is bad, imo : very bad...

All good Gamemaster I've played with, knew that : even if a session don't finish in a way expected by the players, a good aftermath is always welcome... 

But, effectively, if you don't use the roleyplaying part of the game, I can understand you don't care about the ending...

JPR out!

#1711
kimuji

kimuji
  • Members
  • 122 messages

AllThatJazz wrote...

@kimuji. That's a great post, incredibly well thought out. I hope the Bio writers read it and take your points into consideration.

Thanks, at first I was sceptical about the "clarifications and closure" DLC but in fact I realized there were still room for something satisfying for the majority (ie already satisfied players and most of the unsatisfied ones) even without removing/replacing importants parts of the ending.

#1712
mupchu777

mupchu777
  • Members
  • 45 messages
Well I do have one thing about the red ending the gives a fairly easy out... The Star Child Lies!!!! Let's face it we've all assumed that SC (Star Child) is telling the truth and not trying to push us twords a different solution (at doesn't involve destroying reapers)... The fact that sheapard lives in a red cut scene does offer that what SC is spouting off may not be absolute truth here. Furthermore... I think if you listen to the conversation again... SC is only really sure it will destroy the reapers and the relays... Everything else is a question. Tech will be destroyed but what that really means... I think there is so definete wiggle room here. That in a nut-shell is why so many hate the ending... Too open ended and not a lot of answers. No closure. Clear as a foggy day.

#1713
xsdob

xsdob
  • Members
  • 8 575 messages
I have question about the citadel, why wouldn't it simply disintegrate into tiny little pieces? When I killed saren, his purely reaper tech corpse literally turned to ash in a matter of seconds. Why can't they implement this same type of thing into the citadel or into the destroy ending itself, such as all the AI core components burn up into dust and that's why indoctrination doesn't work anymore, because there isn't a physical brain left to even dream and to influence people with it's will.

Also, having the citadel break down into little pieces other than the center or something would be pretty cool. Or maybe even have each arm engage it's own mass effect field so that ti stay's in orbit even as the main structure falls. I don't know but it's better to speculate this than to accept the cynical and pessimistic view of it crashed and killed everyone and than they all starved to death the end.

#1714
Valorefane Dragonwinter

Valorefane Dragonwinter
  • Members
  • 346 messages
Image IPB

#1715
kimuji

kimuji
  • Members
  • 122 messages
I love the Garrus mattress (I wouldn't use it for my bed though).

#1716
Valorefane Dragonwinter

Valorefane Dragonwinter
  • Members
  • 346 messages

kimuji wrote...

I love the Garrus mattress (I wouldn't use it for my bed though).


It is a bit on the small side.

Also, no disrespect is intended with that cartoon.  I just found it amusing and wanted to share it.

EDIT:  I just noticed the space hamster.  LOL

Modifié par Valorefane Dragonwinter, 09 avril 2012 - 11:21 .


#1717
kimuji

kimuji
  • Members
  • 122 messages
I don't think there is any disrespect in that, it is amusing indeed.

#1718
Anduin The Grey

Anduin The Grey
  • Members
  • 799 messages
What happens to the all and ever present hamster during the ice cream stage and after??? Damn you triple choc fudge ice cream!
:crying::crying::crying::crying:

Modifié par Anduin The Grey, 09 avril 2012 - 11:40 .


#1719
Lurchibald

Lurchibald
  • Members
  • 178 messages

kimuji wrote...

I love the Garrus mattress (I wouldn't use it for my bed though).


It looks more like one of those creepy Anime body pillow things.

Modifié par Lurchibald, 09 avril 2012 - 11:41 .


#1720
Reptilian Rob

Reptilian Rob
  • Members
  • 5 964 messages

kimuji wrote...

I love the Garrus mattress (I wouldn't use it for my bed though).

I hear you lound and clear...

#1721
pikey1969

pikey1969
  • Members
  • 799 messages

kimuji wrote...

EnforcerWRX7 wrote...

Bioware's biggest problem now is making the ending make sense.  No amount of glitter and gold can make the ripped off desu ex ending any better.

I'll say it right now: I have no hope for the clarifications extended cut to make this any better...

I think this is possible even if they don't want to remove the Catalyst part. Here's why:

After my thoughts on the "green ending" this is what I think of the "red one" and what we can "clarify" in order to restore ME's main plot continuity that so many people found broken by the Catalyst's statements.

First this is the only one allowing Shepard to definitively stop the Reapers, which is Shepard's goal from the start. This also the ending the Reapers and the Catalyst dislike the most, the Starchild says himself that he thinks that won't solve his problem (his "synthetics/organics" issue), but he can't directly object nor prevent Shepard from choosing that path, Shepard only has to pull the trigger and shoot the "cable" to shut him up. But it also brings up a, interrogation, why would the Catalyst allow Shepard to destroy him and the Reapers if he thinks that it is going against their goal. The only explanation that comes to my mind is that the Catalyst doesn't control the Crucible, so the three solutions are probably not his, this is only what he figured about the Crucible possibilities. Like I said I think the Catalyst tried to subtly push Shepard to accept the fusion solution because this is the only one that makes sense with his motives  (from his perspective). On the other hand he has some warnings about the destruction solution: he says this is only a temporary one, he also says that it will destroy everything that is synthetic the Geth and even Shepard. I really had the feeling that "and you don't want that" was totally implicit behind the Catalyst's words. So we have this: the Catalyst thinks this won't solve anything, organics will build new AIs/synthetics and worse, after the Reaper's destruction nothing will stand between organics and synthetics. The Catalyst can't reasonably want that to happen, so why doesn't he try to stop Shepard? Because he can't, he doesn't have control over the Crucible all he can do is to try to manipulate Shepard.

Now we're hitting the sensitive spot, what is exactly destroyed when you choose this solution? That's where we need a "clarification" as promised for the DLC because it changes absolutely everything. The catalyst says it destroys everything that is synthetic or partly synthetic. Reapers, Geth, AIs, and even Shepard, remember:

Image IPB

Shepard is bio-synthetic. Though he can survive with enough EMS, and some even saw EDI getting out of the crashed Normandy after the Reapers destruction. So we need to know what happens to the Geth. Besides that we also need to know the why. For the moment the best explanation is that with a higher EMS the Crucible is correctly build and arrives in a good condition to the Citadel (he had a strong escort preventing it from being hit by the Reapers), it has its full effectiveness and can precisely distinguish Reapers from the other kind of synthetic technology. So Shepard and EDI survive. But what for the Geth? They are based on Quarian technology but they upgraded themselves by inserting a Reaper code into their consensus. Their destruction is possible but it isn't certain. Frist this is only code not real hardware, the Geth are still 100% Geth hardware, the code is software. Second it is possible to separate and erase Reaper code inside the consensus without destroying the whole. That's what Shepard did on Rannoch. My guess is, if Shepard can do it, so does the Crucible.

But this is only my guess, we still need a "clarification" or a fix on this. Yes that part must be "clarified" or fixed because it has many implications and opens satisfying perspectives for many players:

- If the Geth survive we can speculate on the Reapers/Catalyst real motives and behaviour. With that new element  we can strongly assume that he has been either lying or not fully aware of the true power of the Crucible. This point is important because it potentially can satisfy both the players who liked the end as it is now and those who didn't like because they hated the Catalyst's statements and logic. We can think he's been lying all along or had a complelty flawed logic but we also can assume that he exposed his true motives but never thought that the Crucible could perform a pin point attack (or tried to hide it). Yes you can either believe what you want about what the Catalyst said (and replace it by Sovereign's words fr instance) or believe him and keep his motives as the real Reapers pupose. That should satisfy both those who think the plot is broken and those who don't think it is broken.

- If the Geth survive it will help the Quarians, remember their suits are now symbiotic with the Geth, destroy the Geth and the Quarians will be in trouble (provided you ended the conflict).

- this is an easy to add clarification or implementable fix, let's face it, I'll be honest I would have liked a new ending but this won't happen. Bioware will never remove the Starchild and put something else in its place, this clarification doesn't break the "artistic integrity", there's nothing to remove from the existing ending, but it adds more satisfying perspectives for those who didn't like the whole Catalyst part. In my opinion it also makes it look better and more charismatic (one of the many complaints about him), letting people suspecting him to be manipulative adds more substance to his character. His looks could also be interpreted as a part of his manipulation attempt, making him look friendly and sincere like a child freely speaking his mind.

- Many players complained because all the endings were forcing Shepard to betray his ethics, if the Geth survive that issue is solved too.


Yes it looks a bit like "lots speculations from (and for) everyone" but this time these are statisfying ones for the majority. Well that was for the "red" ending and what the DLC could clarify or fix regarding it.


This is a nice write up.

#1722
CronoDragoon

CronoDragoon
  • Members
  • 10 411 messages

kimuji wrote...

EnforcerWRX7 wrote...

Bioware's biggest problem now is making the ending make sense.  No amount of glitter and gold can make the ripped off desu ex ending any better.

I'll say it right now: I have no hope for the clarifications extended cut to make this any better...

I think this is possible even if they don't want to remove the Catalyst part. Here's why:

After my thoughts on the "green ending" this is what I think of the "red one" and what we can "clarify" in order to restore ME's main plot continuity that so many people found broken by the Catalyst's statements.

First this is the only one allowing Shepard to definitively stop the Reapers, which is Shepard's goal from the start. This also the ending the Reapers and the Catalyst dislike the most, the Starchild says himself that he thinks that won't solve his problem (his "synthetics/organics" issue), but he can't directly object nor prevent Shepard from choosing that path, Shepard only has to pull the trigger and shoot the "cable" to shut him up. But it also brings up a, interrogation, why would the Catalyst allow Shepard to destroy him and the Reapers if he thinks that it is going against their goal. The only explanation that comes to my mind is that the Catalyst doesn't control the Crucible, so the three solutions are probably not his, this is only what he figured about the Crucible possibilities. Like I said I think the Catalyst tried to subtly push Shepard to accept the fusion solution because this is the only one that makes sense with his motives  (from his perspective). On the other hand he has some warnings about the destruction solution: he says this is only a temporary one, he also says that it will destroy everything that is synthetic the Geth and even Shepard. I really had the feeling that "and you don't want that" was totally implicit behind the Catalyst's words. So we have this: the Catalyst thinks this won't solve anything, organics will build new AIs/synthetics and worse, after the Reaper's destruction nothing will stand between organics and synthetics. The Catalyst can't reasonably want that to happen, so why doesn't he try to stop Shepard? Because he can't, he doesn't have control over the Crucible all he can do is to try to manipulate Shepard.

Now we're hitting the sensitive spot, what is exactly destroyed when you choose this solution? That's where we need a "clarification" as promised for the DLC because it changes absolutely everything. The catalyst says it destroys everything that is synthetic or partly synthetic. Reapers, Geth, AIs, and even Shepard, remember:

Image IPB

Shepard is bio-synthetic. Though he can survive with enough EMS, and some even saw EDI getting out of the crashed Normandy after the Reapers destruction. So we need to know what happens to the Geth. Besides that we also need to know the why. For the moment the best explanation is that with a higher EMS the Crucible is correctly build and arrives in a good condition to the Citadel (he had a strong escort preventing it from being hit by the Reapers), it has its full effectiveness and can precisely distinguish Reapers from the other kind of synthetic technology. So Shepard and EDI survive. But what for the Geth? They are based on Quarian technology but they upgraded themselves by inserting a Reaper code into their consensus. Their destruction is possible but it isn't certain. Frist this is only code not real hardware, the Geth are still 100% Geth hardware, the code is software. Second it is possible to separate and erase Reaper code inside the consensus without destroying the whole. That's what Shepard did on Rannoch. My guess is, if Shepard can do it, so does the Crucible.

But this is only my guess, we still need a "clarification" or a fix on this. Yes that part must be "clarified" or fixed because it has many implications and opens satisfying perspectives for many players:

- If the Geth survive we can speculate on the Reapers/Catalyst real motives and behaviour. With that new element  we can strongly assume that he has been either lying or not fully aware of the true power of the Crucible. This point is important because it potentially can satisfy both the players who liked the end as it is now and those who didn't like because they hated the Catalyst's statements and logic. We can think he's been lying all along or had a complelty flawed logic but we also can assume that he exposed his true motives but never thought that the Crucible could perform a pin point attack (or tried to hide it). Yes you can either believe what you want about what the Catalyst said (and replace it by Sovereign's words fr instance) or believe him and keep his motives as the real Reapers pupose. That should satisfy both those who think the plot is broken and those who don't think it is broken.

- If the Geth survive it will help the Quarians, remember their suits are now symbiotic with the Geth, destroy the Geth and the Quarians will be in trouble (provided you ended the conflict).

- this is an easy to add clarification or implementable fix, let's face it, I'll be honest I would have liked a new ending but this won't happen. Bioware will never remove the Starchild and put something else in its place, this clarification doesn't break the "artistic integrity", there's nothing to remove from the existing ending, but it adds more satisfying perspectives for those who didn't like the whole Catalyst part. In my opinion it also makes it look better and more charismatic (one of the many complaints about him), letting people suspecting him to be manipulative adds more substance to his character. His looks could also be interpreted as a part of his manipulation attempt, making him look friendly and sincere like a child freely speaking his mind.

- Many players complained because all the endings were forcing Shepard to betray his ethics, if the Geth survive that issue is solved too.


Yes it looks a bit like "lots speculations from (and for) everyone" but this time these are statisfying ones for the majority. Well that was for the "red" ending and what the DLC could clarify or fix regarding it.


Love this post.

#1723
Valorefane Dragonwinter

Valorefane Dragonwinter
  • Members
  • 346 messages
Yes, I was too lazy to re-order them.
I think Mr. Weekes is on to something.  Let's quit pointing fingers (I've done it once or twice, myself... I'm not innocent in that at all) and give the writers at Bioware some kudos. 

Let's not forget that 99% of Mass Effect was the most amazing journey many of us have taken in a game.


Image IPB

Modifié par Valorefane Dragonwinter, 10 avril 2012 - 12:46 .


#1724
SamJH90

SamJH90
  • Members
  • 71 messages
This thread is incredible. Thank you to the poster, the interviewer and the staff that have contributed.

#1725
Moogberg

Moogberg
  • Members
  • 17 messages

chapomon wrote...
I for one, as I'm sure may others, have been upset at this whole ending debacle. This unofficial interview at least brings it into prospective a bit and reminds us all of what we all knew why this happend: resource constrant, probably brought on by those big wigs at EA.


Resource constraints is what happens to every production in every media. Film, television, video game, even books. There are sacrifices because there's not an illimited budget. ME1 and ME2 had budget constraints, there are definitely elements that could have been done better, with more resources.
Then, on the other hand, constraints can also stimulate creativity. If you can't do something, because you don't have the budget or the time and if you're a good artist or developer, you'll be able to find an alternative solution, a good compromise. If you cannot successfully represent a battle with tens of thousands of people, focus on a detail, on a symbol such as a duel to express what you wanted to tell.
If you don't care for constraints, deadlines, you end up working on Duke Nukem Forever for a decade, polishing irrelevant stuff, while your game is just awfully bad.

I know nothing about what Electronic Arts imposed to BioWare concerning resources for ME3 and I have absolutely no sympathy for EA, but the issues with the ending have little to do with EA-imposed constraints, or else the rest of the game would have suffered the same way. From what we can tell, they are mostly the result of a misguided decision that was internal at Bioware. Then, some constraints exarcebated the issue because they weren't able to flesh out the most obvious implications of your final choice.