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

#76
Terror_K

Terror_K
  • Members
  • 4 362 messages

Bomberman2_0 wrote...

-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.


Well it would have been nice to know this was your philosophy back before ME1 even came out. This is why the Mass Effect series ended up ultimately failing and why our choices didn't matter: because you guys had a philosophy that was completely counter to what you were claiming to be trying to do. No wonder our choices never really matter and don't have an impact when you've got such a stupid rule as that and pandering to potential whining players because they might miss out on stuff. Games like Alpha Protocol and The Witcher games got this right, and this is a "bold choice" you guys should have made from the start given what you were claiming to be trying to do with Mass Effect. Is this why the likes of Parasini and Shiala never even got so much as a cameo: because PS3 players miss out thanks to having no ME1 and how ME2 handled the default options?

Thanks of the years of lies, BioWare. You go about claiming you're creating a series where player choice matters, and when it's all over outright admit that you've got a major design philosophy flaw that prevents that from being possible. What a ****king crock! <_<

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.


But you had enough resources for Kinect support, multiplayer, etc. <_< It's pretty clear to me that your priorities were totally screwed up when it came to ME3 as a whole.

#77
AlanC9

AlanC9
  • Members
  • 35 687 messages
Yeah, Dridengx, you're right -- but I'm glad for the thread. Since my rig won't handle ME3 I don't have my own copy yet, so I don't read the spoiler board too often -- too frustrating since I can't post.

Note that half the threads on this board are spoilers these days, and Bomberman did flag the thread.

Modifié par AlanC9, 08 avril 2012 - 06:00 .


#78
AlanC9

AlanC9
  • Members
  • 35 687 messages

Terror_K wrote...
Well it would have been nice to know this was your philosophy back before ME1 even came out. This is why the Mass Effect series ended up ultimately failing and why our choices didn't matter: because you guys had a philosophy that was completely counter to what you were claiming to be trying to do.


Of course, Bio's always had that philosophy.

In retrospect, I'm embarassed that I didn't see the trouble coming, since what Bio actually does and what many people thought they were doing got more and more unrelated the longer the series went on.

#79
AlanC9

AlanC9
  • Members
  • 35 687 messages

AshirahTSparkle wrote...
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.


This is incorrect, I think. The Alliance Fifth Fleet is waiting on the other side of the relay. If Saren had disabled the relays, they wouldn't have been able to show up until Shepard regained control of the station.

Modifié par AlanC9, 08 avril 2012 - 06:02 .


#80
Saintthanksgiving

Saintthanksgiving
  • Members
  • 334 messages
The biggest thing for me is the companion and war asset related cut scenes that were apparently intended to be part of the ending.

If the Starchild ending is the actual ending, I can live with it.  It sucks, but if that was really the intended finale...fine.

But at least DO IT WELL

Even if the starchild ending made sense, it is horribly executed.  Hours of gameplay making choices about the coming battle don't show up anywhere in the ending!  The entire game is about Assembling armies, war assets, companions, etc.... and we get a blast of light and roll credits?  WHAT HAPPENED TO THE DAMN WAR?

Don't get me wrong, I want the Indoctrination Ending.  I don't care if it was the original plan or not.  Charge me another ten bucks, and give me something that makes sense... please.

but If thats not possible, at least do the bad ending well!  Give the characters their final bow, not some quick meaningless skype chat.... and show me, somewhere, that my decisions made some difference in the final battle! 


As for the Vega/Grunt debate... Vega was useless.  The Normandy was distractingly empty the entire game, and seeing Vega hanging around just made me angry.  A lot of missing ground could have been made up by using one of the
returning ME1 characters as the token "dummy" instead of creating a new
character that we never really come to care about. 

The mission-based companion cameos were a great idea and mostly done well (especially in Grunt and Mordin's case).  We all knew there was no way everyone was coming back as a full crew member, and that was a good way to include everyone. 

I just think more attention should have been paid to returning characters instead of introducing people that we really don't have time to grow attached to.  To be honest, I never even grew attached to some members of the ME2 crew... you are spreading the story too thin with fluff characters.

if another Virmire decision came up, who wouldnt have chosen Vega to take one for the team?

I'm not even gonna touch the Diana Allers nonsense.

Fix the Game Bioware.  This isn't DA2,  there is still hope.  Just fix the ending and we can be cool.



#81
JBONE27

JBONE27
  • Members
  • 1 241 messages

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!<_<


Honestly, I thought that the Keepers created the mass realys and the reapers, but the reapers indoctronated them.

#82
Father_Jerusalem

Father_Jerusalem
  • Members
  • 2 780 messages
Can y'all please stop whining about "genocide" and the relays now?

Pretty please?

#83
The Sarendoctrinator

The Sarendoctrinator
  • Members
  • 1 947 messages
It's nice to see some detailed answers about all this from BioWare. Thanks for the info, OP.

#84
AlanC9

AlanC9
  • Members
  • 35 687 messages

Saintthanksgiving wrote...
The Normandy was distractingly empty the entire game,


Huh? There's a lot more happening on the ship in ME3 than in ME2.

#85
Terror_K

Terror_K
  • Members
  • 4 362 messages

AlanC9 wrote...

Saintthanksgiving wrote...
The Normandy was distractingly empty the entire game,


Huh? There's a lot more happening on the ship in ME3 than in ME2.


Yeah... beyond your crew becoming Zaeed/Kasumi all over again a great majority of the time. The Normandy ended up becoming boring, when in the other games it was a highlight.

#86
Father_Jerusalem

Father_Jerusalem
  • Members
  • 2 780 messages

Terror_K wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Saintthanksgiving wrote...
The Normandy was distractingly empty the entire game,


Huh? There's a lot more happening on the ship in ME3 than in ME2.


Yeah... beyond your crew becoming Zaeed/Kasumi all over again a great majority of the time. The Normandy ended up becoming boring, when in the other games it was a highlight.


So you'd prefer it the way it was in ME1 when after you exhausted the new conversation options in between plot missions, they... had the exact same options and offered no new dialogue. Seems to me it's the exact same way in ME3 - only without wasting time on a little scene to show you walking up and talking to the companion. 

But then, I liked the endings. And we all know what that says about me.

*makes boogeyman gestures with his hands*

#87
llllshadowllll

llllshadowllll
  • Members
  • 174 messages
If this is true, Bioware and EA can go to hell i will never buy a game of theirs again!

#88
AtreiyaN7

AtreiyaN7
  • Members
  • 8 395 messages

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Saintthanksgiving wrote...
The Normandy was distractingly empty the entire game,


Huh? There's a lot more happening on the ship in ME3 than in ME2.


Yeah... beyond your crew becoming Zaeed/Kasumi all over again a great majority of the time. The Normandy ended up becoming boring, when in the other games it was a highlight.


So you'd prefer it the way it was in ME1 when after you exhausted the new conversation options in between plot missions, they... had the exact same options and offered no new dialogue. Seems to me it's the exact same way in ME3 - only without wasting time on a little scene to show you walking up and talking to the companion. 

But then, I liked the endings. And we all know what that says about me.

*makes boogeyman gestures with his hands*


There's considerably more dialogue and banter in ME3 than in previous games, and I quite enjoyed it.  Having more interaction would have been nice of course, but I preferred all the ME3 Normandy-related dialogue to the massive dead zones of nothingness in ME1.

#89
Terror_K

Terror_K
  • Members
  • 4 362 messages

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Saintthanksgiving wrote...
The Normandy was distractingly empty the entire game,


Huh? There's a lot more happening on the ship in ME3 than in ME2.


Yeah... beyond your crew becoming Zaeed/Kasumi all over again a great majority of the time. The Normandy ended up becoming boring, when in the other games it was a highlight.


So you'd prefer it the way it was in ME1 when after you exhausted the new conversation options in between plot missions, they... had the exact same options and offered no new dialogue. Seems to me it's the exact same way in ME3 - only without wasting time on a little scene to show you walking up and talking to the companion. 

But then, I liked the endings. And we all know what that says about me.

*makes boogeyman gestures with his hands*


ME1's only problem was that they dried up far too quickly. At least they had something pertinent to say after each major mission and you got to have proper conversations and interactions with them. Liara was my L.I. in my ME3 playthrough and I was seriously going "WTF?!!" when the first time I spoke to her on the ship I didn't even get a proper conversation. After so many complained about the way Zaeed and Kasumi were handled in ME2, and yet aside from a few random instances in ME3, everybody is just like them. Even worse, you're not even sure if they're even going to be worth visiting or are simply going to say something like "hey Shepard" and nothing else.

#90
TigW

TigW
  • Members
  • 2 messages

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
.

this is a polite way of saying that your choices doesn't matter in Bioware games.

#91
xsvrrx

xsvrrx
  • Members
  • 80 messages
cool thanks for this update.

#92
Father_Jerusalem

Father_Jerusalem
  • Members
  • 2 780 messages

Terror_K wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Saintthanksgiving wrote...
The Normandy was distractingly empty the entire game,


Huh? There's a lot more happening on the ship in ME3 than in ME2.


Yeah... beyond your crew becoming Zaeed/Kasumi all over again a great majority of the time. The Normandy ended up becoming boring, when in the other games it was a highlight.


So you'd prefer it the way it was in ME1 when after you exhausted the new conversation options in between plot missions, they... had the exact same options and offered no new dialogue. Seems to me it's the exact same way in ME3 - only without wasting time on a little scene to show you walking up and talking to the companion. 

But then, I liked the endings. And we all know what that says about me.

*makes boogeyman gestures with his hands*


ME1's only problem was that they dried up far too quickly. At least they had something pertinent to say after each major mission and you got to have proper conversations and interactions with them. Liara was my L.I. in my ME3 playthrough and I was seriously going "WTF?!!" when the first time I spoke to her on the ship I didn't even get a proper conversation. After so many complained about the way Zaeed and Kasumi were handled in ME2, and yet aside from a few random instances in ME3, everybody is just like them. Even worse, you're not even sure if they're even going to be worth visiting or are simply going to say something like "hey Shepard" and nothing else.


And after every major mission in ME3, they had something pertinent to say as well. I remember MANY conversations I had with my entire crew (except Vega, because f him). I also remember a GREAT deal more interaction between members of the crew - from going to talk to Javik and having Liara talking to him over the coms, to seeing Tali and Garrus hanging out together... 

If you're saying that you never got actual conversations with your crew and that they're "just like Zaeed and Kasumi" then, frankly, you're either exaggerating for emphasis, or flat out lying.

#93
T1l

T1l
  • Members
  • 1 545 messages
Seems like when the devs get honest about all of this it boils down to, "Why did/didn't x play out like y? Because resource limitations. Next question."

Confirms my worst suspicion - the developers had their hands forced. Bioware really needs to break away from EA, or create a new studio. I'm sure the pay check is good, but it's horrid for the product.

#94
PiEman

PiEman
  • Members
  • 726 messages

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Saintthanksgiving wrote...
The Normandy was distractingly empty the entire game,


Huh? There's a lot more happening on the ship in ME3 than in ME2.


Yeah... beyond your crew becoming Zaeed/Kasumi all over again a great majority of the time. The Normandy ended up becoming boring, when in the other games it was a highlight.


So you'd prefer it the way it was in ME1 when after you exhausted the new conversation options in between plot missions, they... had the exact same options and offered no new dialogue. Seems to me it's the exact same way in ME3 - only without wasting time on a little scene to show you walking up and talking to the companion. 

But then, I liked the endings. And we all know what that says about me.

*makes boogeyman gestures with his hands*


Ugh, you again?

I was really hoping you'd been hit by a bus since the last time I saw you post <_<

#95
Artemis_Entrari

Artemis_Entrari
  • Members
  • 551 messages

Terror_K wrote...

Bomberman2_0 wrote...

-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.


Well it would have been nice to know this was your philosophy back before ME1 even came out. This is why the Mass Effect series ended up ultimately failing and why our choices didn't matter: because you guys had a philosophy that was completely counter to what you were claiming to be trying to do. No wonder our choices never really matter and don't have an impact when you've got such a stupid rule as that and pandering to potential whining players because they might miss out on stuff. Games like Alpha Protocol and The Witcher games got this right, and this is a "bold choice" you guys should have made from the start given what you were claiming to be trying to do with Mass Effect. Is this why the likes of Parasini and Shiala never even got so much as a cameo: because PS3 players miss out thanks to having no ME1 and how ME2 handled the default options?


To be honest, I would have rather they went with the Alpha Protocol strategy.  That would have been a perfect example of a player's actions having consequences.  If a player makes a decision that could possibly result in no mission in a future game because of that decision, THAT'S A GOOD THING.  Otherwise, there's no real tough decision to make since you end up getting that mission in ME3 either way.

I would have been so stoked if my decisions had that kind of impact.  On one play through I don't get to partake in a mission because of something I did in a previous game.  Then on a second play through I come across a mission and would be, "OMG are you kidding me?  So my choice DID have an impact!".  Instead I'm left thinking, "Wait ... didn't I kill this creature before ...?".

#96
LexXxich

LexXxich
  • Members
  • 954 messages
Deadlines, lazyness, greed.

#97
xsdob

xsdob
  • Members
  • 8 575 messages

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!<_<


Prothean reprograming, remeber? You know, vigil, ilos, the entire reason why soveringn had to go to the citadel and couldn't activate the relay remotly, The entire reason the battle of the citadel even occurs.

Seriously people, for the hardcore fanbase, you guys sure know how to forget key plotpoints and let continuity slide sometimes.

Modifié par xsdob, 08 avril 2012 - 07:14 .


#98
xsdob

xsdob
  • Members
  • 8 575 messages

Justin2k wrote...

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.


And people thought multiplayer took away from the single player resource. What about the giant humongus undertaking the went through to create an entire mmo, and how they were doing it at the same time mass effect 3 was still in development.

#99
FlyingWalrus

FlyingWalrus
  • Members
  • 889 messages
In response to the people screaming about the incredulity of the Keepers interfering with the Reapers' shutdown of the Relays: interference doesn't imply rebellion. The Keepers, having been reprogrammed, simply did not react to the Reapers, effectively blocking their ability to affect the Relays.

Also I wasn't a big fan of the conversations on the Normandy. There was a lot more, yeah, that was nice. But as Terror_K said (ugh), you never knew who would have something to say and who would just repeat his or her iteration of 'hey, Shepard' ad nauseaum. Furthermore, the lack of close ups and cuts back and forth for the majority of one-on-one convos really took me out of it. Seems to run counter to all the work Bioware bragged about considering facial animations from back in ME2's development cycle, especially in the eyes.

Reading Weekes' off-the-clock opinions makes me smile. It makes me feel as though they know what they're doing, and with the several months they have they can really make something that will patch up the current ending nicely.

#100
Terror_K

Terror_K
  • Members
  • 4 362 messages

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

ME1's only problem was that they dried up far too quickly. At least they had something pertinent to say after each major mission and you got to have proper conversations and interactions with them. Liara was my L.I. in my ME3 playthrough and I was seriously going "WTF?!!" when the first time I spoke to her on the ship I didn't even get a proper conversation. After so many complained about the way Zaeed and Kasumi were handled in ME2, and yet aside from a few random instances in ME3, everybody is just like them. Even worse, you're not even sure if they're even going to be worth visiting or are simply going to say something like "hey Shepard" and nothing else.


And after every major mission in ME3, they had something pertinent to say as well. I remember MANY conversations I had with my entire crew (except Vega, because f him). I also remember a GREAT deal more interaction between members of the crew - from going to talk to Javik and having Liara talking to him over the coms, to seeing Tali and Garrus hanging out together...


Then my game must be broken, because it seemed to be a coin-flip as to whether they had a proper conversation or not, and more often than not their either just stood there yammering on with my Shepard either just standing there listening with no input  on my part (except maybe some auto-dialogue from Shepard) or they'd just say their generic greeting response, with no cinematic camera shift or dialogue wheel at all.

The first time my love interest (Liara) got aboard the Normandy I didn't even get a proper cinematic conversation with her... when I finally got Ashley back after half a game without her  (btw, another cop out: vastly reducing the VS role in ME3 rather than giving us opportunity to two very different outcomes depending on whether it was Kaidan or Ashley) and all she said when I first when to speak with her was, "Hey, Shepard."

Seriously... why the hell did BioWare think it was a good idea to change crew conversations like this? It just boggles my mind. Yes, there were nice additions such as crew interacting with each other and moving around the ship rather than being static, and they had some interesting things to say much of the time, but it still just boggles my mind why BioWare decided to treat them like Zaeed and Kasumi all over again for around 80-90% of the time you spoke with them and didn't allow Shepard to properly interact with them, instead choosing to just have you click on them repeatedly to listen, and sometimes even have to visit them multiple times each visit to get all the content, due to some interactions requiring you visit Companion A first if you want to see their banter with B and C, etc.

Overall, it was a classic case of an element from ME1 and ME2 not being broken, so BioWare decided to change the formula for some reason I can't fathom and screw up a good thing. But, that's a common theme with ME3 (a completely linear plot, less Charm/Intimidate options in the entire game than on just Noveria in ME1, Shepard speaking automatically more times than not, only two dialogue choices 90% of the time rather than 3 or more, choices being purely cosmetic, etc.)

If you're saying that you never got actual conversations with your crew and that they're "just like Zaeed and Kasumi" then, frankly, you're either exaggerating for emphasis, or flat out lying.


I didn't say "never" at all, just that they were far and few between. In ME1 and ME2 every time you clicked on a (non-DLC) character you got a cinematic camera shift, a dialogue wheel and a chance to chat with them about something. In ME3 roughly 80 to 90% of your :"conversations" just have you clicking on them and listening without a chance to respond, a dialogue wheel or even a cinematic camera shift... just like Zaeed and Kasumi. Quite frankly, BioWare completely ballsed it up. It wasn't worth the extra interaction between the crew members and Citadel moments to lose the proper interaction and dialogue we had in the previous two titles. BioWare futzed too much with the core dialogue gameplay in ME3 and cut the player's ability to actually control and define Shepard, basically ruining the game because of it.