281 réponses à ce sujet

[DOYOURLABS]

 I made a thread thanking BioWare for being friendly at PAX East, but I also implied I got information from them on the ending. Which I did, but that thread was in the non-spoiler section, so I'm putting the information I got here. In case there is something I wasn't supposed to post, I won't mention their names. 

Senior Writer- Their vision was essentially what you saw, but with more focus on the details. They wanted players to use their lore knowledge and look carefully at the subtle differences in the endings to piece together what happened. They were running out of resources (maybe money, maybe time) so they could not as effectively represent that. 

Community Manager- They will not make a new ending, because that would be unfair to the people who liked the ending. The way they explained it was basically this: There are three groups, people who liked the ending, those who were just confused and didn't get answers so they got angry, and people who were angry because they didn't like the ending. In the closure DLC, they are aiming to make the people who were confused happy. They know they can't make everyone happy, so they want to please as many people as possible. 

They also all but confirmed that in Destroy endings if you are alive you can reunite with the crew but cannot rebuild the relays (quickly at least, as reaper tech is destroyed) and in Control you cannot reunite with your crew but can rebuild the relays quickly. Synthesis remains a mystery. THE RELAYS DO NOT SUPERNOVA.

As for the starkid, they said he was basically bluffing with the consequences of Destroy, since its possible Shepard and EDI can live. Starvation may occur, but it isn't going to wipe out large amounts of people. (Near exact words were: "They think everyone is going to starve to death, but no that's not happening")

Also, their personal theory is that in control you become a "being of light". I'm pretty sure they said they believed Indoctrination Theory. Their main point was that the devs won't tell you what exactly happened, because they want the game itself to do that. They said: "In 200 years, there won't be a Casey Hudson to tell you what happened, so ME3 has to do it itself."

Destroy with Shepard being alive will be considered the "golden ending" to many.

Multiplayer Developer- He can't confirm anything, but they are considering new enemies in MP. He also said they don't plan on taking the Mass Effect franchise out of the Milky Way galaxy. The red/blue/green reference to the ending in the multiplayer trailer was intentional. 

For any more information, email me at admin @ lukgaming.com

Modifié par DOYOURLABS, 09 avril 2012 - 11:46 .

[Diligent_d2]

Interesting. Thanks for the info.

[jds1bio]

Is this another example of paraphrasing, because if it is, it's only exacerbating the communication problems between fans and BioWare.

[DOYOURLABS]

jds1bio wrote...

Is this another example of paraphrasing, because if it is, it's only exacerbating the communication problems between fans and BioWare.

These are not direct quotes, but the statements in quotation marks are as close to what they actually said as I could remember. 

[eldingo12]

"In 200 years, there won't be a Casey Hudson to tell you what happened, so ME3 has to do it itself."
Why couldn't they have thought of this six months ago?

[CrutchCricket]

I suspect this will be as useless as ever but again, it's not a matter of simply "not liking" the endings. The endings NULLIFY everything we previously knew about the series, protagonist, antagonists, themes, technologies, laws, common sense...
But I guess they'd rather keep trying to tell us a circle's a square then admit they were overworked, under pressure and just messed up.

[Dead_Meat357]

DOYOURLABS wrote...

 I made a thread thanking BioWare for being friendly at PAX East, but I also implied I got information from them on the ending. Which I did, but that thread was in the non-spoiler section, so I'm putting the information I got here. In case there is something I wasn't supposed to post, I won't mention their names. 

Senior Writer- Their vision was essentially what you saw, but with more focus on the details. They wanted players to use their lore knowledge and look carefully at the subtle differences in the endings to piece together what happened. They were running out of money so they could not as effectively represent that. 

Community Manager- They will not make a new ending, because that would be unfair to the people who liked the ending. The way they explained it was basically this: There are three groups, people who liked the ending, those who were just confused and didn't get answers so they got angry, and people who were angry because they didn't like the ending. In the closure DLC, they are aiming to make the people who were confused happy. They know they can't make everyone happy, so they want to please as many people as possible. 

They also all but confirmed that in Destroy endings if you are alive you can reunite with the crew but cannot rebuild the relays (quickly at least) and in Control you cannot reunite with your crew but can rebuild the relays quickly. Synthesis remains a mystery. 

Also, their personal theory is that in control you become a "being of light". I'm pretty sure they said they believed Indoctrination Theory. Their main point was that the devs won't tell you what exactly happened, because they want the game itself to do that. They said: "In 200 years, there won't be a Casey Hudson to tell you what happened, so ME3 has to do it itself."

Multiplayer Developer- He can't confirm anything, but they are considering new enemies in MP. He also said they don't plan on taking the Mass Effect franchise out of the Milky Way galaxy.

For any more information, email me at admin @ lukgaming.com

It is stuff like this that leads me to believe the ending is more or less to be taken at face value, and therefore makes me like the ending even less. It's fairly grim either way. The only thing good about the control ending is that the Citadel doesn't explode. The Renegade ending at least leaves Shepard alive, but that scene also contradicts the idea that anything can be taken at face value.

Either way, as I expressed in another thread, cinematics and clarification are a far cry from what is needed to fix the botched final act of the game.

I guess we will find out more Thursday.

[lillitheris]

DOYOURLABS wrote...
There are three groups, people who liked the ending, those who were just confused and didn't get answers so they got angry, and people who were angry because they didn't like the ending.

I really f*$&(ng hope they didn't say that.

Also, their personal theory is that in control you become a "being of light". I'm pretty sure they said they believed Indoctrination Theory.

Does not compute.

[shepskisaac]

DOYOURLABS wrote...

Also, their personal theory is that in control you become a "being of light".

I think we all assumed that too, that you become the new Catalyst "living" in the Citadel

lillitheris wrote...

Does not compute.

The first part is rather clear (IMO) that they intended SHep to be the new Catalyst (in control). I already thought that based on the game alone

Modifié par IsaacShep, 09 avril 2012 - 04:30 .

[Kronner]

Thanks for the info OP!

[anlk92]

DOYOURLABS wrote...

Community Manager- They will not make a new ending, because that would be unfair to the people who liked the ending. The way they explained it was basically this: There are three groups, people who liked the ending, those who were just confused and didn't get answers so they got angry, and people who were angry because they didn't like the ending. In the closure DLC, they are aiming to make the people who were confused happy. They know they can't make everyone happy, so they want to please as many people as possible.

Well such a shame then.

Modifié par anlk92, 09 avril 2012 - 04:30 .

[ebevan91]

So it seems like they're giving the "A, B, C" choices at the end a pro and a con for choosing whatever you chose.

Destroy = Shep lives, but the galaxy is slightly ****ed for a long time
Control = Shep dies, but the galaxy is slightly ****ed only for a short time
Synthesis = ???

[Grudge_NL]

Thanks for sharing. Anyway, still waiting for the Summer DLC. These dont really look like direct quotes.

[pablosplinter]

DOYOURLABS wrote... Their main point was that the devs won't tell you what exactly happened, because they want the game itself to do that.

Whoever said this is insane

[lillitheris]

IsaacShep wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

Does not compute.

The first part is rather clear (IMO) that they intended SHep to be the new Catalyst (in control). I already thought that based on the game alone

Yeah, I get the Control part (I figured probably an AI or AP), but that's utterly incompatible with Indoctrination Theory.

[Grasser]

I wonder if the the Citadel is simply repaired in the other 2 endings? I mean we only saw a few explosions on it before we went to the Normandy crashing.
The Citadel has been one the most important and unique places in the Mass effect series, I really hope it's around in Future ME games.

(Actually i just remembered hearing the people on it don't die, so maybe it does indeed get repaired? lets hope so.)

[Grudge_NL]

pablosplinter wrote...

DOYOURLABS wrote... Their main point was that the devs won't tell you what exactly happened, because they want the game itself to do that.

Whoever said this is insane

Err no. That's what every game does.  Mass Effect only failed at it. The Entire Elder Scrolls series is about discovering the plot by reading ( books, misison quotes, dialogue etc), side missions and easter eggs

Modifié par Grudge_NL, 09 avril 2012 - 04:34 .

[DOYOURLABS]

Grudge_NL wrote...

Thanks for sharing. Anyway, still waiting for the Summer DLC. These dont really look like direct quotes.

These are mostly summarizations of the conversations

[lillitheris]

Imperium Alpha wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

DOYOURLABS wrote...
There are three groups, people who liked the ending, those who were just confused and didn't get answers so they got angry, and people who were angry because they didn't like the ending.

I really f*$&(ng hope they didn't say that.

What the problem with saying that? It's true. There 3 groups like it or not.

I'd like to invite you to think on it for a while.

[xxskyshadowxx]

They ran out of money for fully fleshed out endings, but had plenty of money to add in a IGN employee who's character contributes absolutely nothing to the game....and also enough money to add a multiplayer feature to what has been a SP game series. Well done.

Here are some thoughts to address their points:

- Allers should have been left out.
- Multiplayer should have been added on DLC.
- The ending should have been original and not ripped from another game.
- Sure people liked the ending, and no one is asking for it to be changed. Leave it in as a possible ending and develop all the OTHER endings that were promised pre-release.
- Peer check the work, regardless of who's work it is before it's sent off as completed. If someone wants to get off on their own ego, let them self publish their own crap. Peer check everyone's work. QA, discuss and rewrite as needed.
- In the future....don't say your game will have something unless you are for damn sure you will deliver on it.

[shepskisaac]

lillitheris wrote...

Yeah, I get the Control part (I figured probably an AI or AP), but that's utterly incompatible with Indoctrination Theory.

Let's be honest. Indirectly, they keep confirming IT is wrong because they keep confirming all endings (including Blue and Green) are real, they happened, wasn't just hallucination. Even though they won't say directly "IT is wrong" because they like fans speculating blah blah, they still make it obvious it's not correct

[killnoob]

here's a radical idea: making a new alternative ending and sell it as DLC

people who liked the original ending don't have to buy them, and people who do not liked the ending can buy the DLC and get what they want. In the end Bioware gets some extra cash and credit for trying their hardest to make everyone happy?

Modifié par killnoob, 09 avril 2012 - 04:37 .

[ed87]

If theyre going to 'run out of money' during development then what was the point of EA aquiring Bioware in the first place? Sounds like they were just trying to hit a certain profit margin with the game but failed, so now theyre blowing development money to try to save their fanbase, the brand, and their reputation

[Grudge_NL]

lillitheris wrote...

Imperium Alpha wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

DOYOURLABS wrote...
There are three groups, people who liked the ending, those who were just confused and didn't get answers so they got angry, and people who were angry because they didn't like the ending.

I really f*$&(ng hope they didn't say that.

What the problem with saying that? It's true. There 3 groups like it or not.

I'd like to invite you to think on it for a while.

I'd think. Hmm so

I've seen threads with people who:
1. Hate the ending.
2. Are satisfied with clarification
3. Are satisfied with the current ending.


The Dev's right.

ed87 wrote...

If theyre going to 'run out of money' during development then what was the point of EA aquiring Bioware in the first place? Sounds like they were just trying to hit a certain profit margin with the game but failed, so now theyre blowing development money to try to save their fanbase, the brand, and their reputation

Nope. Bioware joined EA because EA provides money. Bioware reached that budget at some point.  I think you dont have much experience in real life regarding money, do you ?

Modifié par Grudge_NL, 09 avril 2012 - 04:37 .