Aller au contenu

Photo

Confirmed - Patrick Weekes comments on ending of Mass Effect 3 - SPOILERS!!! BEWARE!!!


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
263 réponses à ce sujet

#1
Bomberman2_0

Bomberman2_0
  • Members
  • 5 messages
This may give you guys a better idea of what direction Bioware is heading and what the ending will explain.

Confirmed - http://social.biowar...ndex/11154234/1

Taken from neogaf.com
http://www.neogaf.co...=469182&page=31
Look towards bottom.

Someone at SA apparently talked to Patrick Weekes at PAX. He answered quite a few questions.
http://forums.someth....#post402359506


Originally Posted by General Battuta:
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.



 ------------------------------------------------Take with a grain of salt.----------------------------------------------------------------------
Image IPB

Modifié par Bomberman2_0, 08 avril 2012 - 05:18 .


#2
OdanUrr

OdanUrr
  • Members
  • 11 058 messages

Bomberman2_0 wrote...

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.)


How could the Keepers interfere with the Reapers shutting down the mass relays? The Reapers created the mass relays in the first place!<_<

Modifié par OdanUrr, 08 avril 2012 - 01:51 .


#3
PiEman

PiEman
  • Members
  • 726 messages

Bomberman2_0 wrote...
-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)


Oohhhh, man, your memory is the ultimate troll :pinched:

#4
Crazyjeffy

Crazyjeffy
  • Members
  • 329 messages
Well... this is surprisingly acceptable. That's the guy who wrote Mordin right? So he can't be all wrong.

#5
PiEman

PiEman
  • Members
  • 726 messages
Eh. "Acceptable" isn't really the word I'd use here.

Moving to EA was apparently a mistake. He keeps bringing up resources, but I'm pretty sure EA is one of the biggest companies out there for making games, so if they couldn't have gotten more time and money out of them for polish, the whole move was for nothing.

#6
Bomberman2_0

Bomberman2_0
  • Members
  • 5 messages
This at least proves that the ITT is still on the table for some part.

#7
chris2365

chris2365
  • Members
  • 2 048 messages
I was surprised how much he said that resources were a limiting factor, considering that EA is one of the biggest publishers out there. Unless they decided to take part of the resources out for later (DLC)

Modifié par chris2365, 08 avril 2012 - 02:00 .


#8
PiEman

PiEman
  • Members
  • 726 messages

chris2365 wrote...

I was surprised how much he said that resources were a limiting factor, considering that EA is one of the biggest publishers out there. Unless they decided to take part of the resources out for later (DLC)


Exactly.

If by "DLC" you mean "the money pool in the back yard of every board member", then I completely agree.

#9
Kanner

Kanner
  • Members
  • 661 messages
EA has managed to lose vast amount of money in the past two years. ME3 was supposed to be a pure cash cow, and you can't have something turn into pure profit if you lavish it with resources. =/

#10
PiEman

PiEman
  • Members
  • 726 messages

Kanner wrote...

EA has managed to lose vast amount of money in the past two years. ME3 was supposed to be a pure cash cow, and you can't have something turn into pure profit if you lavish it with resources. =/


They could've at least given them more time then. The profit would've been enormous if EA didn't have a fetish for trying to squeeze every dime out of shoddy products instead of trying to produce real, quality games.

#11
kbct

kbct
  • Members
  • 2 654 messages
No question about the god-child, but he asked about EDI's camel-toe?

Lots of time and money contraints.

#12
Justin2k

Justin2k
  • Members
  • 1 119 messages

chris2365 wrote...

I was surprised how much he said that resources were a limiting factor, considering that EA is one of the biggest publishers out there. Unless they decided to take part of the resources out for later (DLC)


It could also mean that ME3 suffered because of TOR.  Well it obviously did because Drew went  there instead of overseeing  this.  Maybe other teams did too.

#13
kbct

kbct
  • Members
  • 2 654 messages
The relays didn't explode, civilizations survive, FTL travel is the future, and all key Citadel characters survive. So, basically a galaxy reset for future games.

#14
Genshie

Genshie
  • Members
  • 1 405 messages

chris2365 wrote...

I was surprised how much he said that resources were a limiting factor, considering that EA is one of the biggest publishers out there. Unless they decided to take part of the resources out for later (DLC)

*cough* Multiplayer DLC *cough*

(I have nothing against multiplayer in fact I love it and am really happy with this first multiplayer dlc coming out next week)

#15
MikoDoll

MikoDoll
  • Members
  • 178 messages
So basically more ME games? Well with those endings we'll see how that all works out.

#16
Gigam

Gigam
  • Members
  • 9 messages
Im not buying into this, I hated the ending pure and simple.

#17
wicked_being

wicked_being
  • Members
  • 1 328 messages

kbct wrote...

The relays didn't explode, civilizations survive, FTL travel is the future, and all key Citadel characters survive. So, basically a galaxy reset for future games.


I don't get it. The epilogue scene is like 10,000 years into the future and is implied that they still can't travel to the stars. 

"When can I go to the stars?"
"One day..."

Maybe this is just really vague writing that a lot of people interpreted this as everyone losing space travel. Or maybe the old man and kid are just really poor people who can't afford to travel in space?

#18
Ethical

Ethical
  • Members
  • 144 messages
It's confirmed, the thread in the spoiler section goes into way more detail
http://social.biowar...ndex/11154234/1

#19
DarxydeBluus

DarxydeBluus
  • Members
  • 140 messages

chris2365 wrote...

I was surprised how much he said that resources were a limiting factor, considering that EA is one of the biggest publishers out there. Unless they decided to take part of the resources out for later (DLC)


I think the most significant resource he's talking about is time, in which case EA would actually be detrimental (would want the game shipped as soon as possible).

#20
Kanner

Kanner
  • Members
  • 661 messages

PiEman wrote...

Kanner wrote...

EA has managed to lose vast amount of money in the past two years. ME3 was supposed to be a pure cash cow, and you can't have something turn into pure profit if you lavish it with resources. =/


They could've at least given them more time then. The profit would've been enormous if EA didn't have a fetish for trying to squeeze every dime out of shoddy products instead of trying to produce real, quality games.


The 'time' thing was alledgedly EA requiring some form of income in Q1 so they could close their books for the year with a more positive bottom line. 

Don't get me wrong:
A) It's been incredibly stupid of then, the game needed both more resources and more time, and while the potential impact of the bioware community's displeasure hasn't really been felt yet, it's probably fair to say that they've lost a considerable amount of money this way.   Bioware might make another major hit eventually, but they've lost any and all aura of invincibility now, and while shareholders read the bottom line, they also tend to be curious when a company is voted worst company in america in a semi-serious poll.

B) None of this in any way justifies the ending, which was a writing debacle instead of corporate one.  Mass Effect kinda looks doomed all the way back in Arrival, and then you play ME3 and yep, there is nothing that somehow magicially ties all the weirdness together, it's just bad.

As has been noted elsewhere, EA's modus operandi is sports games, which are story-free products released in a highly regimented schedule with updated player info/models/game engines.  They're just not cut out to manage Bioware - more or less in the same way that Bioware was not cut out to make an MMO. =/

Modifié par Kanner, 08 avril 2012 - 02:35 .


#21
Diablos2525

Diablos2525
  • Members
  • 350 messages
He brings resources up a lot, hell if double fine can raise 3.5 million through kickstarter I bet the fans of Mass Effect would have given like 20 million. That would have shored up any lack of resources from EA and we could have got an amazing ending and better game overall. Bioware why didn't you ask us for money?

#22
Arik7

Arik7
  • Members
  • 1 095 messages
Patrick Weekes seems to be in tune with what the fans want..... Make him the lead writer, PLEASE.

#23
Volus Warlord

Volus Warlord
  • Members
  • 10 697 messages

Diablos2525 wrote...
Bioware why didn't you ask us for money?


Don't give em ideas... they are not a charity...

#24
StabGuy

StabGuy
  • Members
  • 185 messages
Derp no IT ending. Gonna uninstall now. Bioware, was fun while it lasted...

I don't care too much about $60. It's about the time lost, and being left with crappy memories that have no meaning. All that time to build a shepard who ultimately gets watered down with bad writing.

cyaz, inc rage when patch actually comes out.

Modifié par StabGuy, 08 avril 2012 - 03:07 .


#25
LordDeimos4

LordDeimos4
  • Members
  • 102 messages
This does shed a lot of light on the stuff that i've been clueless about. Who know, this ending dlc just might fix the game for me (i still hate the Starchild)