102 réponses à ce sujet

[sfam]

Here's mine:

1. Interpretive Ending with Later Paid DLC: Bioware intended to make a "interpretive" ending that wasn't clear, but got the masses talking up a storm about it (the intial marketing comments back this up).  I'm guessing their intent was to have so much dialogue about the ending that people would be clamouring for a paid DLC that answered their questions.

Clearly they way overshot the mark on that count - they got the masses talking, but convos were all about hatred and dispair.

2. Budget and Time Constraints: Bioware had to cut corners on their intended interpretive ending, and ended up cutting way too much.  We've gotten a sense from this out of some of Weeks' convo, but probably they thought that since its an intepretive ending anyways, its OK if not many answers are provided, as the paid DLC will fill in the detials. Perhaps this might also have provided the rationale why only Casey and Mac worked the ending - less minds perhaps leads to less time and budget problems.

Again, the whole Earth mission was cut short, and the ending cut scenes were virtually nonexistent. Again, they went way too overboard, so much so that the ending Normandy scene looks like the result of a bad over-editing job from a movie, where essential details were omitted.

3.  Star Child Narrative was for ME4: The only reason I can think of why Casey and Mac would horribly divert the story with the Star Child is to set up a new narrative for the next installment of ME, or perhaps a whole series of DLCs.  There is no other reason that makes a lick of sense for diverting the whole purpose of the series.  Put another way, if the Reapers all die, what's left for us to do?

In the end, my guess is these three things led to the absurd mess of an ending that we were left with.  I don't think in any way Bioware intended for the outrage they've seen happen, nor expected it.  They may have been worried about the rushed ending, but I doubt they thought it was the disaster it turned out to be.

[NoUserNameHere]

- The bespoke endings make future DLC/sequels easier to pull off.

- The reused content in each ending is the result of epic time constraints.

- The bat-guano tone of the endings was an attempt at being profound.

So a little from collumn A, a little from collumn B.

[Demarco09]

All good guesses I would say, but I am going to put my vote on 2, time constraints and I have a feeling EA didn't really give Bioware the time they needed. I have a lot of faith in Bioware... not EA. But my guess is as good as anyone else at this point.

[_aLucidMind_]

I would say the main reason is because Hudson and Walters decided to write it on their own and not run it by their team at all. It has been proven this was what happened, has it not? Its why I blame ME3 on Hudson and Walters as opposed to BioWare, who I blame and judge for their PR.

Modifié par _aLucidMind_, 22 avril 2012 - 07:04 .

[An English Gamer]

EA and/or truly delusional failed writing that was never thought about in the office at all.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

They wanted to trash the possibility of any future for sequels to Mass Effect to be done by anyone, including EA, so they destroyed the galaxy's mass relay system. This cannot be undone without some serious retconning.

[The Spamming Troll]

ego.

[pjotroos]

Hubris. "This is my franchise and I will do with it what I like! My every choice turns out golden anyway!"

[lordofdogtown19]

 

[justafan]

I think it's as simple as they miscalculated what fans wanted.

They thought we would want open ended ending, where we could headcanon in a happy or depressing epilogue as we saw fit. Instead, most fans wanted closure, for better or for worse.

Time constraints might have had a hand in this, but I doubt you go making a series like Mass Effect without having a serious idea about how you are going to end it.

[adembroski]

I believe "The Truth" was actually in the works. I believe the Bioware team was saddled with an unmanageable deadline and tried to do the best they could, and went the DLC route to finish it off. They didn't anticipate their "placeholder" ending would create such an uproar, and now they're doing their best to manage that.

In a perfect world, the Extended Cut will just be buying time for The Truth.

[Madecologist]

I have an old saying: an idea or a concept is great, a vision is bad. A bit like Rufus from Dogma about ideas versus beliefs. Whenever an artist or any creative person says, "I have a vision." More often than not you get some really wacky if not outright terrible stuff.

ME3 is the example when creative people have visions. Notice how often Bioware uses the term "believe in the team's artisitic vision." That is like a double double right there (believe and vision).

[MuckrakerElder]

Money and time.

Cutscenes and dialogue and sound effects for 16 really different endings probably just cost too much and would have delayed ME3 further. EA probably didn't like that notion.

Real world sucks sometimes.

[Isichar]

drugs?

[Ryuzetsu]

They either were on pot, or ran out of the good pot they were smoking.

[beyondsolo]

sfam wrote...

2. Budget and Time Constraints: Bioware had to cut corners on their intended interpretive ending, and ended up cutting way too much.  We've gotten a sense from this out of some of Weeks' convo, but probably they thought that since its an intepretive ending anyways, its OK if not many answers are provided, as the paid DLC will fill in the detials. Perhaps this might also have provided the rationale why only Casey and Mac worked the ending - less minds perhaps leads to less time and budget problems.

Again, the whole Earth mission was cut short, and the ending cut scenes were virtually nonexistent. Again, they went way too overboard, so much so that the ending Normandy scene looks like the result of a bad over-editing job from a movie, where essential details were omitted.

This. I see two different aspects of how time and budget affected the ending:

First, they simply ran out of time. The entire Priority: Earth mission doesn't measure up to the standard set by the Tuchanka and Rannoch story arcs. Considering the fact that it's probably the most important mission of the game, if not of the entire series, there wasn't nearly enough effort put into it. You don't see any of your war assets in action, the level design is fairly simple, the whole thing is a pretty bad military operation, and so on. When you play it, you just get the feeling that stuff that should have been there isn't.

Second, a lot of stuff was cut from the game in general, which also affected the ending. There are tons of auto-dialogue (because apparently players skipped through dialogue in ME2, which is a bad argument because when you play through the game ten times you won't listen to every conversation). The fetch-quests are weak and the lack of explorative dialoge/zoom in for conversation mode detaches the player from the universe. The game's prologue is more than weak, riddled with plot holes, and misses any relevant action (like the trial foreshadowed in ME2: Arrival). There is pretty much nothing about the asari in the entire game, which is strange considering they're the most powerful species in the galaxy. And so on...

The horrible ending is the culmination of all this. They wanted to make the development process more efficient, taking the easy route with many things (like character interaction), and in the end they still ran out of time properly flesh out the ending so it would properly conclude the trilogy and at the very least make some sort of sense.

[sfam]

MuckrakerElder wrote...

Money and time.

Cutscenes and dialogue and sound effects for 16 really different endings probably just cost too much and would have delayed ME3 further. EA probably didn't like that notion.

Real world sucks sometimes.

Totally agree with this, but money and time doesn't explain the bizarre add of the star child.

[desertwoman]

lordofdogtown19 wrote...

 

[The Night Mammoth]

Someone, or maybe a group, pretty high up the employee ladder had an idea, and forced everyone to go along with it. Budget and time constraints caused the complete **** up we have, but regardless, the same underlying problems would still be there.

[Zolt51]

sfam wrote...
1. Interpretive Ending with Later Paid DLC: 

 
I don't believe that for one second. If they had an ending DLC up their sleeve the whole time, their answer to the ending debacle wouldn't have been that confused. Holding the ending hostage isn't even business, it's suicide.

sfam wrote... 
2. Budget and Time Constraints: 

  
I don't believe that one either. The rest of the game doesn't seem rushed. So it's either a case of spectacularly bad management of their resources or else we have to assume the ending looks more or less like they wanted it to.

sfam wrote... 
3.  Star Child Narrative was for ME4:

 
Nope. If there even were plans for an ME4 as of 2011 they wouldn't have been that definite. And the "catalyst" convo can't very well happen *after* the reapers are defeated. Just doesn't make sense.

Why don't you just go back to Occam's razor and take the most simple path: They wanted to be a bit "provocative" with their ending and completely failed to gauge the response of the fans.

[Muhkida]

I think for the most part, it was trying to reach a deadline. Crysis 2, for example, wasn't a complete game as EA wanted it released for the consoles ASAP. It wasn't until much later after the launch date, that Crytek released a HUGE HD texture pack and Direct X 11 compatibility for the PC.

This may also apply to Dragon Age 2 and their HD texture pack as well, but I'm speculating here.

Modifié par Muhkida, 22 avril 2012 - 08:10 .

[Jealous Beauty]

What makes any of you think that they actually believe they "screwed up" the ending at all? Frankly, I think they wrote exactly what they wanted and were genuinely astonished that we didn't "get it."

[Bfler]

Deadline. EA's fiscal year ends at the end of march, so they were forced to finish it.

Modifié par Bfler, 22 avril 2012 - 08:13 .

[Muhkida]

Jealous Beauty wrote...

What makes any of you think that they actually believe they "screwed up" the ending at all? Frankly, I think they wrote exactly what they wanted and were genuinely astonished that we didn't "get it."

That may be true, but making an extended cut DLC tells me that not all the developers were thinking alike.

[ThinkIntegral]

Zolt51 wrote...

sfam wrote... 
2. Budget and Time Constraints: 

  
I don't believe that one either. The rest of the game doesn't seem rushed. So it's either a case of spectacularly bad management of their resources or else we have to assume the ending looks more or less like they wanted it to.

No way, the game totally had a feeling of being rushed or constraint.  You could tell by the lack of or the nature of the side quests, interactive dialogue with crew members, textures, and other minor details that they brought in ME2 that just weren't expanded and brought to higher levels in ME3. 

Modifié par ThinkIntegral, 22 avril 2012 - 08:15 .