263 réponses à ce sujet

[LohnPondai]

Sooo... in a certain way Bioware blames EA for the lack of resources/time costraints. Interesting, interesting. Wonder what EA thinks about this.

Also looks clear that they knew the end wasnt all that polished but stil shipped it as it is, promising the earth and the moon. Shame really, shaaaame....

Modifié par LohnPondai, 08 avril 2012 - 04:37 .

[Jedi31293]

All of his answers can be summarized as:

"We were gonna do something totally cool and groundbreaking...but we didn't have the money."

[LohnPondai]

Double post

Modifié par LohnPondai, 08 avril 2012 - 04:37 .

[sedrikhcain]

sth128 wrote...

MrnDpty161 wrote...

If they would have just given out honest answers like this in the first place, perhaps they wouldn't have been in the position they are in now.

Agreed.

So true. At this point, their biggest problem isn't the (lame) ending, itself. It's people's reactions to their dismissive, high-handed way of dealing with objections to the ending.

[PiEman]

Imperium Alpha wrote...

As usual even with answer hater gonna hate. Not even surprising anymore.Seriously at that point if you are not happy you will never be so your life would probably better if you calm down for a bit.

On topic, as someone who like the ending in the first place even if i had issue I really like the answer we get from this and it only give me more hope that I will get answer and more reason to play again to the campaign once dlc is release.

This is about where your opinion stopped being valid.

[Nejeli]

MrnDpty161 wrote...

If they would have just given out honest answers like this in the first place, perhaps they wouldn't have been in the position they are in now.

This is what I was going to say. Part of the reason things got out of hand was the dismissive attitude and radio silence.

[MrnDpty161]

sedrikhcain wrote...

sth128 wrote...

MrnDpty161 wrote...

If they would have just given out honest answers like this in the first place, perhaps they wouldn't have been in the position they are in now.

Agreed.

So true. At this point, their biggest problem isn't the (lame) ending, itself. It's people's reactions to their dismissive, high-handed way of dealing with objections to the ending.

Yeah that whole, banging the gavel and then going back to tea and buiscuits while the mob is still out there wasn't exactly the brightist thing to do.

Would it have hurt them to say --  " You know what people, we understand your concerns and in some cases, flat out  dislike of  how we ended it ---- on behalf of my team, we would have much rather done it different so what we're now going to try to do is fix those issues and then maybe this will bring you back to the game company you've shone much dedication to... and we are sorry but working hard to get that relationship back" 

Boom. Thats all.  I think about 80% would have cooled off and waited.

But NNooo....  we got to get our monicles and top-hats on, light our cigars and claim something about artistic integrity nonsense.

[DeinonSlayer]

MrnDpty161 wrote...

sedrikhcain wrote...

sth128 wrote...

MrnDpty161 wrote...

If they would have just given out honest answers like this in the first place, perhaps they wouldn't have been in the position they are in now.

Agreed.

So true. At this point, their biggest problem isn't the (lame) ending, itself. It's people's reactions to their dismissive, high-handed way of dealing with objections to the ending.

Yeah that whole, banging the gavel and then going back to tea and buiscuits while the mob is still out there wasn't exactly the brightist thing to do.

Would it have hurt them to say --  " You know what people, we understand your concerns and in some cases, flat out  dislike of  how we ended it ---- on behalf of my team, we would have much rather done it different so what we're now going to try to do is fix those issues and then maybe this will bring you back to the game company you've shone much dedication to... and we are sorry but working hard to get that relationship back" 

Boom. Thats all.  I think about 80% would have cooled off and waited.

But NNooo....  we got to get our monicles and top-hats on, light our cigars and claim something about artistic integrity nonsense.

Maybe they wanted to include the content in this extension DLC, but EA pulled the plug. They had to sit back and let the pressure build until EA finally relented.

[HBC Dresden]

I don't know about you all, but after PAX and all this, I'm just about out of time and energy to worry over this. Between geting my BA in a couple months and having read/seen/played many things where the end fell apart (I really love Deus Ex: HR but really hate it's ending but no one talks about that) I can't dwell on this anymore even though Mass Effect is my favorite franchise of all time. You all have got EA to divert resources that could go to paid DLC to free cutscenes/epilogue at the end, you should all be proud and be happy you got something. Most games would not have done this and many of BioWare's writers are very talented people (Tuchanka, Rayya blowing up, Joker's sister, etc.), we should be ok in the upcoming DLC (probably not future games, but ME3 will be just fine). I just don't like this continuing of fury.

[MrnDpty161]

HBC Dresden wrote...

I don't know about you all, but after PAX and all this, I'm just about out of time and energy to worry over this. Between geting my BA in a couple months and having read/seen/played many things where the end fell apart (I really love Deus Ex: HR but really hate it's ending but no one talks about that) I can't dwell on this anymore even though Mass Effect is my favorite franchise of all time. You all have got EA to divert resources that could go to paid DLC to free cutscenes/epilogue at the end, you should all be proud and be happy you got something. Most games would not have done this and many of BioWare's writers are very talented people (Tuchanka, Rayya blowing up, Joker's sister, etc.), we should be ok in the upcoming DLC (probably not future games, but ME3 will be just fine). I just don't like this continuing of fury.

I disagree with some of your statements.  I don't perform servitude to anything, and therefore, its not an expectation of being proud or happy, its bringing fourth a cadre of voices in order to create a change. Some folks don't like that sort of thing and many don't have the stomach for a prolonged battle - which is fine - but perhaps someone should say that people such as your self should be proud and happy that there were individuals willing enough to go down this route in order to get this supposed fix...

...otherwise it would have been buisness as usual and even perhaps --- the NEXT game would be worse -- eh?

One should ask how and why the fury exists before basically throwing it on the way side.  They've listened with their feet firmly dragging in the mud... but one way or another,  it was going to be heard.

On a side note...

What was wrong with the endings of Dues Ex: HR?    You either said freedom,  Illuminati control, or  Pro-Science

[Zambayoshi]

Bomberman2_0 wrote...

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.----------------------------------------------------------------------

Obviously the 'no spoilers' rule means nothing to you.

[PiEman]

There's not much of an ending to spoil anyway.

Or were you referring to EDI having cameltoe?

[Bomberman2_0]

Zamba - If you or anyone else doesn't know of the endings or hasnt played it, you have been living under a rock. Obviously, people should read the title before coming in. If they dont, then oh well. Plus at this point, what's to spoil?

Modifié par Bomberman2_0, 08 avril 2012 - 05:19 .

[dakka dakka]

OdanUrr wrote...

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!<_<

If the Citadel is the center of the "trap" that the Reapers set then one could assume that the Citadel has access to all Relays in the Galaxy. And since the Keepers on the Citadel were tampered with by the protheans the ability to control the Relays were lost.

Just speculation. But it makes sense..... Why didn't Weekes write the ending? he seems to have a lot better grasp of how to tell a good story :-/

[InvincibleHero]

dakka dakka wrote...

If the Citadel is the center of the "trap" that the Reapers set then one could assume that the Citadel has access to all Relays in the Galaxy. And since the Keepers on the Citadel were tampered with by the protheans the ability to control the Relays were lost.

Just speculation. But it makes sense..... Why didn't Weekes write the ending? he seems to have a lot better grasp of how to tell a good story :-/

Weekes is responding with what the pool of writers came up with. That was likely known by BW all along. They cannot connect every dot for the people playing the game or we'd get 10 hours of exposition to ten minutes gameplay like a Kojima game.

[PiEman]

InvincibleHero wrote...

dakka dakka wrote...

If the Citadel is the center of the "trap" that the Reapers set then one could assume that the Citadel has access to all Relays in the Galaxy. And since the Keepers on the Citadel were tampered with by the protheans the ability to control the Relays were lost.

Just speculation. But it makes sense..... Why didn't Weekes write the ending? he seems to have a lot better grasp of how to tell a good story :-/

Weekes is responding with what the pool of writers came up with. That was likely known by BW all along. They cannot connect every dot for the people playing the game or we'd get 10 hours of exposition to ten minutes gameplay like a Kojima game.

If by "a pool of writers" you mean "Casey Hudson, Mac Walters, and EA's time limit".

[Taritu]

Weekes wasn't dismissive, because the evidence we have is that he hated the ending, and now he (and Bioware) are trying to make it into something both they and the fans can stand (and something which allows for ME4).

It's fairly clear Bioware/EA has chosen to stand by Hudson/Waters, but we'll see how they fare about a year from now, if they leave to spend more time with their families or somesuch.

[PiEman]

Taritu wrote...

Weekes wasn't dismissive, because the evidence we have is that he hated the ending, and now he (and Bioware) are trying to make it into something both they and the fans can stand (and something which allows for ME4).

It's fairly clear Bioware/EA has chosen to stand by Hudson/Waters, but we'll see how they fare about a year from now, if they leave to spend more time with their families or somesuch.

Yeah, EA might be letting their families out of those holding cells by now and telling the armed guards not to shoot on sight...

[AlanC9]

Zambayoshi wrote...
Obviously the 'no spoilers' rule means nothing to you. 

Anyone who gets more than a couple sentences into that post should be able to figure out that Here There Be Spoilers.

Bomberman, thanks for the post.

[Dridengx]

AlanC9 wrote...

Zambayoshi wrote...
Obviously the 'no spoilers' rule means nothing to you. 

Anyone who gets more than a couple sentences into that post should be able to figure out that Here There Be Spoilers.

Bomberman, thanks for the post.

spoilers are seperated for a reason. this thread already exists in spoiler section anyway.

not to mention anyone who read the title of the forum would know This HERE be NO Spoilers derp

Modifié par Dridengx, 08 avril 2012 - 05:50 .

[OdanUrr]

dakka dakka wrote...

If the Citadel is the center of the "trap" that the Reapers set then one could assume that the Citadel has access to all Relays in the Galaxy. And since the Keepers on the Citadel were tampered with by the protheans the ability to control the Relays were lost.

Just speculation. But it makes sense..... Why didn't Weekes write the ending? he seems to have a lot better grasp of how to tell a good story :-/

There's the fact that the Reapers take control of the Citadel in ME3. Do we ignore that?

[Sanctioned Psyker]

PiEman wrote...

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.

Pretty sure he meant "game resources."  There is a finite amount of things that can occurr within the framework of the game.  

[HenchxNarf]

AlanC9 wrote...

Zambayoshi wrote...
Obviously the 'no spoilers' rule means nothing to you. 

Anyone who gets more than a couple sentences into that post should be able to figure out that Here There Be Spoilers.

Bomberman, thanks for the post.

Wow, Dude, it's the NO SPOILERS section. Take it somewhere else.

Modifié par HenchxNarf, 08 avril 2012 - 05:55 .

[AshirahTSparkle]

dakka dakka wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...

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!<_<

If the Citadel is the center of the "trap" that the Reapers set then one could assume that the Citadel has access to all Relays in the Galaxy. And since the Keepers on the Citadel were tampered with by the protheans the ability to control the Relays were lost.

Just speculation. But it makes sense..... Why didn't Weekes write the ending? he seems to have a lot better grasp of how to tell a good story :-/

If I recalled correctly, during ME1, Saren not only closed the arms, he also disabled the mass relays, no?? The Protheans tampered with the Keepers so the Keepers do not react to remote signals.

Initially I thought it made sense, because the Protheans might have tampered with the Keepers in a way that lets me want to restore stuff to the original settings (shutting down mass relays would just make the keeper go and reactive them back because of default settings)

But....what about Saren??

[HBC Dresden]

MrnDpty161 wrote...

I disagree with some of your statements.  I don't perform servitude to anything, and therefore, its not an expectation of being proud or happy, its bringing fourth a cadre of voices in order to create a change. Some folks don't like that sort of thing and many don't have the stomach for a prolonged battle - which is fine - but perhaps someone should say that people such as your self should be proud and happy that there were individuals willing enough to go down this route in order to get this supposed fix...

...otherwise it would have been buisness as usual and even perhaps --- the NEXT game would be worse -- eh?

One should ask how and why the fury exists before basically throwing it on the way side.  They've listened with their feet firmly dragging in the mud... but one way or another,  it was going to be heard.

On a side note...

What was wrong with the endings of Dues Ex: HR?    You either said freedom,  Illuminati control, or  Pro-Science

Thanks for reading my comment, thought it would get buried by the others! I understand the notion of rallying together to bring a change and you say: "perhaps someone should say that people such as your self should be proud and happy that there were individuals willing enough to go down this route in order to get this supposed fix."

First, I did say this: "You all have got EA to divert resources that could go to paid DLC to free cutscenes/epilogue at the end, you should all be proud and be happy you got something." (Or did I misinterpret you?) But the more I think about it and after I wrote my own alternate endings in reponse to fan complaints whether or not they read it (it's in my sig if you care), I am nor longer angry about it. I love Mass Effect, but I'm noting really into any other EA game, including Dragon Age. Also, the problems of industry deadlines and budget problems are larger than BioWare and EA. You fix ME, just another game will be rushed by another company if not EA. 

Secondly, you use the analogy of fighting a battle/war, and I'll play along with. I was angry and I even wrote over 5,000 words to make my own ending. I know I did not contribute as much to the movement as others but I was part of it because I felt some of the same feelings. Therefore, I felt more of a sense of duty to help fight (if you care, read the hold the line link in my sig about another BSNer's story on this). However, I can no longer abide by the movement and will not be conscripted in it. See, it seems the movement believe the ends justify the means, the means being driving the Mass Effect name into the ground and dominating every discussion on the game because of the emotional betrayal they felt and want the ending changed. However, where do you draw the line between the end and means? When will you stop? What will you settle on? A war is an accepted atrocity in the name of peace. I can no longer abide by this furor because there is no end in sight, no sign of peace. And there is not conscription on BSN, right? Please don't question my patrioti- I mean, passion, as I am a passionate fan as well but disagree with your means.

Side note: I don't like DX:HR's endings because they really aren't a consequence of your choices throughout the game other than how many options are open to you. True, the ending fit the themes of the game perfectly, but this only makes the disappointment of the ending choice worse. All, the ending cutscenes are just photomontages of file footage with Jensen's voice over and we don't see the result of the choice.

sedrikhcain wrote...

sth128 wrote...

MrnDpty161 wrote...

If
they would have just given out honest answers like this in the first
place, perhaps they wouldn't have been in the position they are in
now.

Agreed.

So true. At this point, their
biggest problem isn't the (lame) ending, itself. It's people's
reactions to their dismissive, high-handed way of dealing with
objections to the ending.

Didn't help Jessica Merizan. People picked apart her sincere statements.

Modifié par HBC Dresden, 08 avril 2012 - 05:56 .