102 réponses à ce sujet

[Guanxii]

My impression is that they winged it the entire time. This worked fine for the most part for the first two [basically stand alone] games... but the original concept was never going to work on a wing and a prayer.... and it shows in the execution. You can't just wing the ending with three months left to go.

It was because they were winging it that they only had three months left to come up with an ending. It's also the real reason [besides the obvious] why the levels are so self-contained and why the branching paths never happened.

They clearly didn't plan to have a DEM and an A) C) ending because they didn't really have a plan and this is the best they could come up with with 3 months to go. While we can sit back and say it was an obvious cop out... it was really the only option they had I think. It was more like the ending you'd have expected to SFX than what Mass Effect had turned out to be.

The fact that they were even considering the god awful dark energy stuff and the number of structural changes to the narrative so late in the game shows they really had no idea where they were going with this.

That said, I did not dislike the ending in itself - despite the execution I thought it was thought provoking which means it works on at least some level. I only disliked the fact that it was the antithesis of the original concept and didn't lead to wildly different endings. The sad thing was they didn't achieve what they set out to do. Maybe it's impossible. Maybe BioWare or some other dev will look back, take stock and may ultimately get there one day in the future.

Modifié par Guanxii, 22 avril 2012 - 09:39 .

[Flammenpanzer]

Oldbones2 wrote...

NoUserNameHere wrote...

- 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.

Pretty much this.

Bioware wanted an unforgettably ending, EA wanted it done cheaply, and both companies wanted sequels I guess.


Can't imagine the ****storm when they cannonize Synthesis.

Mass Effect 4. The Pegasus galaxy decides that the new synthesis species are an abomination and threat, and invade.

Out of curiosity, does that not mean humans are now pretty much screwed if someone sets off an EMP? Wouldn't that kill off everyone in the radius?

Modifié par Flammenpanzer, 22 avril 2012 - 09:43 .

[Sparse]

I think that budget and time constraints are why there are no side-missions, N7 reused multiplayer maps and rather skewed interaction with team members. I also think that sales are why it is much less an RPG than the others. I don't think it is the cause of the ending though

Things went wrong the moment they put their central plotline up on a whiteboard and it had less than half as many steps as it should have had. There was just no journey for the player. At the beginning you were told what your mission was and then given the tools to do it. The game was then you doing it - by collecting resources te nature of which were meaningless. You were basically playing Pac-Man

It doesn't matter how good the writing of the quests that make up the main storyline is, if there is no journey it just ends up somewhere boring.

It's where the ending came from, they tried to get around the fact that the main plot didn't work with an interesting ending. The board on the Normandy with dead crew members on it and the nightmares were supposed to be the demonstration of the journey, which then brought you to the whole starchild thing. It didn't hang together though, it did not clearly demonstrate Shepard becoming weary with the pressures of his life and crumbling under the pressure because it wasn't in any way linked to everything else that was happening.

The story was just wrong. The sub-plots were fine but the central storyline started in the wrong place didn't reallty go anywhere and then ended somewhere that it hadn't reached. It's the first time I have looked at the central plot of a Bioware game and thought, "I could do better than that". It's that bad.

Modifié par Sparse, 22 avril 2012 - 09:45 .

[Guanxii]

Flammenpanzer wrote...

Oldbones2 wrote...

NoUserNameHere wrote...

- 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.

Pretty much this.

Bioware wanted an unforgettably ending, EA wanted it done cheaply, and both companies wanted sequels I guess.


Can't imagine the ****storm when they cannonize Synthesis.

Mass Effect 4. The Pegasus galaxy decides that the new synthesis species are an abomination and threat, and invade.

Out of curiosity, does that not mean humans are now pretty much screwed if someone sets off an EMP? Wouldn't that kill off everyone in the radius?

My first thought when I saw the synthesis ending was that the movie adaption would make it canon - which is why it should never happen.

[Oldbones2]

Flammenpanzer wrote...

Oldbones2 wrote...

NoUserNameHere wrote...

- 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.

Pretty much this.

Bioware wanted an unforgettably ending, EA wanted it done cheaply, and both companies wanted sequels I guess.


Can't imagine the ****storm when they cannonize Synthesis.

Mass Effect 4. The Pegasus galaxy decides that the new synthesis species are an abomination and threat, and invade.

Out of curiosity, does that not mean humans are now pretty much screwed if someone sets off an EMP? Wouldn't that kill off everyone in the radius?

Nah, space magic rewrites the DNA somehow to do something that makes it so that-


Just shut ok.  Take the ending and accept that it is perfect.  That's what Bioware wants.

[Tarothe]

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

That was what I thought the second after I finished playing ME3.
I was like "Have I missed an annoucement about ME4 or something?" and the minute later I embarked on a journey to the vast oceans that are the net to find any ME4 info, and instead got here, to bioware forum.
I still strongly believe that it was a highly misunderstood Bioware's message to tell us ME4 is in the making (or at least in some preparatory stages), and we all just blew it out of proportion.
All things considered the ending was still not on par to the rest of the series (to express my dissapointment in a politically correct and non-offensive way), so even if ME4 with the Starchild as its protagonist is in the making, ME3 deserved a lil more.

[Oldbones2]

Guanxii wrote...

Flammenpanzer wrote...

Oldbones2 wrote...

NoUserNameHere wrote...

- 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.

Pretty much this.

Bioware wanted an unforgettably ending, EA wanted it done cheaply, and both companies wanted sequels I guess.


Can't imagine the ****storm when they cannonize Synthesis.

Mass Effect 4. The Pegasus galaxy decides that the new synthesis species are an abomination and threat, and invade.

Out of curiosity, does that not mean humans are now pretty much screwed if someone sets off an EMP? Wouldn't that kill off everyone in the radius?

My first thought when I saw the synthesis ending was that the movie adaption would make it canon - which is why it should never happen.

Considering Casey Hudson is highly involved with the film (which I really wanted to see) I think we can imagine a very green future for Mass Effect.

[kjir]

Perhaps they screwed the ending as a capstone to an attempt to jettison BioWare from EA. I look at ME3 now as a giant plea for help from BioWare, to the point that they would sabotage some of their best work to degrade their own value to EA, hoping they'd get sold to someone else less overbearing.

[MuckrakerElder]

sfam wrote...

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.

Sure it does. Introduce new character (who just happens to take the form of a previous character, so just have to tweek instead of spending more $ on new character), have that character control everything i.e. , then that condenses multiple branching paths into the only ones the new character "deems" to be available.  

Money saved, game ships out on time, everybody wins!!  

[Sesshomaru47]

Time, and the need to rewrite after it was leaked all over the Internet. Which I fail to see why the bothered changing stuff.

1. They ruined what they had by rush writing it and letting an 8 year old handle the endings forgetting everything they had publicly promised. I bet they regret that now.

2. We all found out what happened in the end before the game out because people with the "Space Edition" leaked it onto the forums here there and everywhere. I knew well before launch that they had stuffed the endings royally. So what was the point in changing them? None. They could have used that time to make the game better, not worse.

[RoamerZA]

Either
- time
- they had played Deus Ex sometime in the last 6 months,
- or they had just finished watching a Sci-Fi marathon that included 2001 and the last Matrix movie,

Seriously time ... they wanted to meet the very clever deadline of 3-6-12.

I don't buy they wanted to guide us down an avenue to make future DLC and ME4 easier to start-up, as the endings consequences were different (and non-sensical), even if the endings themselves were not.
The ending of ME2 was better at achieving that. We all ended up in the same place, but our sacrifices and gains, and how we played the game were there to see in the suicide mission.

Modifié par RoamerZA, 22 avril 2012 - 10:37 .

[Harmless Crunch]

EA time and money constraints and if true Casey and Mac writing it by themselves.

[zarnk567]

My guess is that either Casey or Mac had recently played and completed Deus Ex and said "My god that ending is brilliant! I must put that in the game for our ending no matter the cost!"

[Trentgamer]

Two words "time constraints". This game reeks of being rushed. They needed at least a few more months if not another year on it. Alas, typical of EA. They have destroyed many franchise and game studios with their deadlines.

Actually, it could be put down to one word really. "Greed"

[Xellith]

I was expecting some "Heavy Rain" type consequences at the end... cant believe they screwed up something so amazing. Ruined an entire franchise with "artistic integrity". No. ME2 was art. ME1 was art. ME3 was just an abomination.

[The Invisible Commando]

Willing to bet that it was just an easier way to make "multiple endings" from a coding point of view. They just wanted one ending to work and force that. As far as the starbrat stuff and all, I don't know what you have to be thinking for that.

[Guanxii]

Mass Effect 3 really needs at least another six months of polish in it's present state - that's obvious even from a layman's perspective. What on earth made them think they could do wrap it up in an extra 3-4 months? They should have asked for a year and gotten beaten down to six to eight months and they might have gotten it right like Mordin.

[sfam]

Zolt51 wrote...

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.

I suppose you could use Occam's, but Occam's razor does a poor job of explaining the star child. And yes, the entire earth sequence seems rushed.  There are other aspects of the rest of the game that has minor budget issues, like repeats of the photos on the wall in the Citadel. We also had Weeks' comments talking about budget and time constraints. 

[sfam]

Troglyte wrote...

Fact: Star-Brat looks like the kid we see on rooftop, vent and shuttle deathray mostly cinimatics.
Fact: Cinimatics cost money/time
Not Fact, but generaly: Cinimatics are made AFTER writers are done writing.
Unknown: When did they add Dreams of child chasing? Last minute or early on??

So given the amount of time and money spent on "the kid"/Star-Brat long before the ending it would seem that the deus ex machina ending was long planned and therefor not rushed.

That doesn't mean the 3 one ending wasn't rushed however. But since somewhere I read a twitter about dropping any "extra" info like "how long reapers have been..." and keeping star-brat's dialog "high level" it would seem that this train wreck was long in comming.

Bad ideas happen in the coperate world, after all some braintrust at Coke-a-Cola thought New-Coke was well thought out.

Agree that the star kid was in the planning prior to the end.  This to me is more about a new ME 4. FBI-Azzurri makes a good case that Shep being alive is also about ME4.  Both make sense. 

[recentio]

I think it was just a straight f* up as far as writing. Maybe time constraints chewed away some ending-glue cinematic sequences...

[Malanek]

I don't know what to think any longer. I used to believe in the indoctrination theory but now that only makes sense if they also ran out of time and they are deliberately misleading us about the extended cut.

[SimplePlan2k8]

I originally said DLC, but that's looking unlikely.

Working theory now is budget ran short, both in terms of memory and money, so the ending was smashed to bits along with other areas of the game. Also I firmly believe Hudson put his head together with EA and talked long-term future for the franchise - twist ending was the solution, and this my friends, is how series die

[ediskrad327]

derpy writing is the only explanation

[Nuke1967]

Soon as I finished it my first thought was rushed ending. It was pretty much exactly like KOTOR 2. Going from a choice driven trilogy and end it so linear with plotholes that bad, it all but stinks of rushing out an ending due to hitting their deadline with no more delays allowed.Obsidian even admitted later the ending was rushed for KOTOR 2 due to hitting the deadline. And I am pretty sure this is the case with ME3.

Modifié par Nuke1967, 22 avril 2012 - 11:58 .

[sfam]

SimplePlan2k8 wrote...

I originally said DLC, but that's looking unlikely.

Working theory now is budget ran short, both in terms of memory and money, so the ending was smashed to bits along with other areas of the game. Also I firmly believe Hudson put his head together with EA and talked long-term future for the franchise - twist ending was the solution, and this my friends, is how series die

Memory in terms of fitting it on 2 DVDs you mean?