281 réponses à ce sujet

[Bantz]

DOYOURLABS wrote...

Bantz wrote...

wait.. so the senior writer and community manager explain control as their theory? And if you pick destroy you can reunite with your crew?.

Neither say control is their theory. The writer explained what the writing staff had in mind, and the community manager explained the consequences of each choice. 

ya i wrote that poorly sorry.

What I mean is the only way they could explain control is "well i have this theory that (insert explanation here)"

Honestly if that was their intention it would have taken 1 line of dialog to explain it. Have the space brat say "If you choose blue, you will die as you know it now. You will lose your physical form and take my place as the catalyst and gain full control over the reapers. You can use them to aid the races or destroy them. The choice would be yours."

Boom control ending explained. 

[Pain Train]

How do you run out of resources when you backer is EA? Wasn't that the whole point of Bioware joining EA so that Resources were not a problem? The more the Bioware devs and EA reps talk about the Ending of Mass Effect, the more they make themselves look like babbling idiots.

IF somehow this is true, than the future for EA is bleak. IF they can't support their premier franchise and developer for two years with enough resources to make a AAA game, then they must be really hurting for money overall and that does not speak well for future titles.

[Omega Torsk]

This thread actually feels like a very cool drink of water. It makes me feel better about the whole ending fiasco and feel confident enough to anticipate the free DLC coming this summer. So, thanks for getting the information you did! I hope Bioware delivers... but I guess all I can do is wait and put a modicum of trust in them.

Again, thank you for this thread! 

[xxskyshadowxx]

DOYOURLABS wrote...

xxskyshadowxx wrote...
- Allers should have been left out.

Agreed, useless character with IMO bad voice acting and dialogue. 

- Multiplayer should have been added on DLC.

I like the MP, but regardless I think adding an entire multiplayer through DLC would be difficult if not impossible. 

I've nothing against multiplayer; I just think it should have been added later if their budget was that limited. The single player game should never suffer for adding stuff like that in....especially if the series was predominantly single player. Adding it as DLC would not be impossible; it would be time consuming, which means they wouldn't be making money from it right away. That's why it was included at game launch rather than later.

[Erixxxx]

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

I guess my ascension theory just became a whole lot more likely.

[killnoob]

DOYOURLABS wrote...

Bantz wrote...

wait.. so the senior writer and community manager explain control as their theory? And if you pick destroy you can reunite with your crew?.

Neither say control is their theory. The writer explained what the writing staff had in mind, and the community manager explained the consequences of each choice. 

lmao, a lots of the player  probbaly already knew the consequences of each choice( maybe with the exception of the syntheis ending) ... the problem is they don't like these consequences for various reasons and want them to be changed.


that's the point some of the devs keep missing....

Modifié par killnoob, 09 avril 2012 - 04:52 .

[DOYOURLABS]

IsaacShep wrote...

DOYOURLABS, what's that about "believing in Indoctrination Theory". Elaborate, what did they say exactly

Just want to be clear that this is not a direct quote, but is as close as I can remember. They said that personally they found it believable, or something to that effect. 

I had 3 hours of pax, a 4 hour car ride, and roughly 10 hours of sleep seperating now from that conversation, so my memory isn't the best. 

[Jim Darksworn]

I'm not going to go so far as to call you a liar, but ultimately if we dont get any dev posts backing this up then its meaningless.

Also assuming this is true, if they wrote the game then they shouldnt be using the word "theory" either they know or they dont.

[frylock23]

See? They could satisfy all three groups if they simply added new endings around the existing along with their clarification stunt. Everyone wins ...

[shepskisaac]

DOYOURLABS wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

DOYOURLABS, what's that about "believing in Indoctrination Theory". Elaborate, what did they say exactly

Just want to be clear that this is not a direct quote, but is as close as I can remember. They said that personally they found it believable, or something to that effect.

Thx, all I needed. So they basically said "it's fun!" and nice interpretation, but obviously not what actually happened.

[PlumPaul93]

anlk92 wrote...

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.

To be fair, I think they'd want everyone who played ME3 to be happy. Those with unrealistic expectations like the endings need to be changed probably won't be happy with the DLC.

[Grusome11]

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 endow 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.

What about the fourth group? Those that know the ending is terrible storytelling.

[wicked_being]

Dead_Meat357 wrote...
I guess we will find out more Thursday.

Why? What's happening on Thursday?

[Avissel]

DOYOURLABS wrote...
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. 

Ok so..my question about this is ethier

A. They ran out of money and so the "subtle differences" couldn't be added: Why did anybody think this was an ok thing to do?

B. They ran out of money so they couldn't make as many "subtle differences: What differences? Srsly.....what differences?

[Bantz]

Jim Darksworn wrote...

I'm not going to go so far as to call you a liar, but ultimately if we dont get any dev posts backing this up then its meaningless.

Also assuming this is true, if they wrote the game then they shouldnt be using the word "theory" either they know or they dont.

agree 100%. I read somewhere that people used to marvel at how they could ask JRR Tolkien a question about the characters, world or lore of middle earth and Tolkien could off the top of his head recite it. From histories of the different civilzations, to the characters, the magic, the rings everything. He knew that story and could explain it and the backstories to anyone that asked. I means hit look how many books were written about middle earth well after the LOTR series was done.

[Bomma72]

thanks for this.

[viperabyss]

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. THE RELAYS DO NOT SUPERNOVA

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

Thanks for the information. I appreciate it.

One thing I'd like to point out is..... for a game that was supposed to tell you what happened, it contains amazingly small amount of information for players to connect the dots. Take the relay "overloading" for instance, the scene can be easily seen as relay blowing up. Even the Catalyst says releasing the energy of the Crucible would "blow up" the relays. These are just some of the instances where Bioware should've made clear their intention, but didn't.

EDIT: The Catalyst's actual word was "destroy the mass relay", which although is ambiguous by itself, but he didn't say blow up. My apologies.

Modifié par viperabyss, 09 avril 2012 - 05:01 .

[xxskyshadowxx]

Pain Train wrote...

How do you run out of resources when you backer is EA? Wasn't that the whole point of Bioware joining EA so that Resources were not a problem? The more the Bioware devs and EA reps talk about the Ending of Mass Effect, the more they make themselves look like babbling idiots.

IF somehow this is true, than the future for EA is bleak. IF they can't support their premier franchise and developer for two years with enough resources to make a AAA game, then they must be really hurting for money overall and that does not speak well for future titles.

Well EA has been treading water for quite a long while now. They're not bleeding funds or anything, but they are not rolling in profit at the moment either. They are mostly hanging even.

Regardless of how much cash they have, they are not going to keep funnelling it into a project. They assign the budget and the timeline to the developer and it's up to that developer to produce  with it. From what I have read, they are not very forgiving if you cannot meet the budget and deadlines set. There's a bit of leeway, but not much.

Modifié par xxskyshadowxx, 09 avril 2012 - 04:57 .

[Kanon777]

wicked_being wrote...

Dead_Meat357 wrote...
I guess we will find out more Thursday.

Why? What's happening on Thursday?

[DOYOURLABS]

frylock23 wrote...

See? They could satisfy all three groups if they simply added new endings around the existing along with their clarification stunt. Everyone wins ...

Adding new endings never came up, but I can see how that would be a good compromise.

Jim Darksworn wrote...

I'm not going to go so far as to call you a liar, but ultimately if we dont get any dev posts backing this up then its meaningless.

Also assuming this is true, if they wrote the game then they shouldnt be using the word "theory" either they know or they dont.

The community manager used "theory"

And I don't blame you for not trusting me, this is all paraphrasing from what I was told in imformal conversations. 

Erixxxx wrote...

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

I guess my ascension theory just became a whole lot more likely.

The word ascension was dropped in that conversation, so you are probably right with that theory. 

Mr.BlazenGlazen wrote...

You see, this sort of contradicts what Weekes said. Didn't he say that with all the reaper tech lying around survivors could just potentially improve their ships speed so much that eventually they wouldn't need to use the relays?

"Destroy would destroy the reaper tech" was another thing that was mentioned. Thanks for reminding me. 

[Mr.BlazenGlazen]

Well, couldn't they still study the reapers even though they are destroyed? Also, they could still potentially find other ways to travel around the galaxy without the relays.

[Kanon777]

double post

Modifié par tobito113, 09 avril 2012 - 05:00 .

[CELL55]

Thanks. Why didn't they just say this earlier? I'm a hell of a lot more reassured now with this one post than I ever was with a combination of all previous developer posts.

[NatOreN]

Thanks for posting, much appreciated.

[hoorayforicecream]

Pain Train wrote...

How do you run out of resources when you backer is EA? Wasn't that the whole point of Bioware joining EA so that Resources were not a problem? The more the Bioware devs and EA reps talk about the Ending of Mass Effect, the more they make themselves look like babbling idiots.

IF somehow this is true, than the future for EA is bleak. IF they can't support their premier franchise and developer for two years with enough resources to make a AAA game, then they must be really hurting for money overall and that does not speak well for future titles.

It isn't that simple. All games are set on a schedule, with a given budget. They aren't given a blank check and unlimited time. If EA said "You've got $30 million and three years", then they have $30 million and three years. If, at the end of that time the game isn't quite done yet, then who's fault is it? ME3 had already been delayed once. It was unlikely that they'd get another extension.

After you reach the end of your alotted time and budget, then the publisher has to make a decision as to whether to extend (and invest more money), or to just ship with what they have. There are many more factors than simply "Is it good yet?" in these decisions - marketing, scheduling, etc. all make a big difference as well. It isn't as simple as "EA didn't give them enough time". It could be a combination of things, like "Bioware spent too much doing X, and didn't have enough time for Y".