118 réponses à ce sujet

[What a Succulent Ass]

devSin wrote...

They did not change the ending because of the leak. The leak had pretty much the exact same ending.

The ending in the leaks was actually less stupid. But not by much. And only because it skimped on detail.

Modifié par Random Jerkface, 03 mai 2012 - 05:03 .

[kingtigernz]

Oh they would have seen it,the question is why did they not care in the slightest.

[GenObiOne]

I would have gone for Paragon: Shepard wins and returns the galaxy to the pre-Reaper status quo, albeit with a few billion less inhabitants. Renegade: Shepard wins but enables a human dictatorship akin to Emperor Palpatine's Galactic Empire. Low EMS score: Reapers win: Crtiical Mission Failure. Reasoning: my Paragon and Renegade endings echo ME1, and ME3 is so very much like ME1. Shepard can die in ME2 (no loyal members at the end, or he beds Morinth) so he should also be able to fail dramatically in ME3. But Paragon and Renegade endings are both a success, as they should be. Different paths to defeat the Reapers, but with different outcomes for humanity and the galaxy.

[Bluko]

detbasketball13 wrote...

How did they not?

When you release a clearly unfinished game (story wise) how did they not expect this controversy.

Why did they scrap the original ending along with the large amount of cuts to the current story.

So what if the og ending was leaked, Its not like im going to look up the ending on the internet before I play the game.

Because selling DLC is profitable. Doesn't matter if people complain about it being of scant worth or "wrong". Most end up buying it anyways. They know full well that games are sort of a virtual drug and they have no qualms about riffling your pocket as much as they can. Complain all you want but as long as you still buy it they still profit. Having a "complete" end for the game would most likely be seen as hinderance for getting most people to buy more singleplayer related DLC. Why play ME3 again just to do another side mission? It's over you beat it. Or is it? See that's the idea. Have an incomplete ending keeps people's interest as they still are not satisfied. Hence a golden opportunity you have to sell more stuff.


That said maybe they changed the ending due to the leak. But it seems unlikely as from what I remember most folks complaints weren't on the endings, but rather more minor details involving the characters. Stuff like E.D.I. granted in-game it's still kind of dumb and contrived. But most of ME3's story faults are from a simple lack of exposition. Likely the result of a rushed schedule. It just shows throughout the whole thing the game was shipped out way too soon. I'm highly convinced the real nature of the ending was a deliberate move to buy the more time to create a proper ending which they would have been unlikely to sufficiently finish by March 6th.

To be honest I'm not even sure if the script leak wasn't an intentional marketting stunt.  Granted I acknowledge that's very tinfoil hat territory. Heck this whole outrage in regards to the ending could have been planned. No matter what it brings a lot of undue attention to the game. In a sense it's free advertising. Although creating "controversy" is usually a dumb move especially since video games thrive on good word more then anything else. I think they greatly miscalculated just how mad people would get at this. Hence why they've gone to great efforts to debunk anyone who loudly complains as being that "vocal minority".

Also the current endings are hardly different at all from the original endings mentioned in the script.

Modifié par Bluko, 03 mai 2012 - 06:44 .

[MrMcDoll]

Bioware is owned by the company that SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED charging a dollar for a reloaded clip in BF3.
The rationale being that people aren't price sensitive when they are in the throes of geeking. EDIT: link here

In ME3's zero quality control on the ending it was probably more a case of people not being quality sensitive whilst in the throes of HOLY CRAP MASS EFFECT 3!!! ZOMG!!!!

The problem is (and i've talked at length about this with my Marketing/Management/Finance/something similar majoring girlfriend) It is all about money. It's not like they do this sh*t intentionally - like they actually plan out deceitful ways to trick us and shaft us, but rather that the creative dudes are at the beck and call of the suits who pay the bills.

Most "artists" in charge of an "art-as-commodity" product will concede or compromise in order to keep their jobs.

This was probably made worse by the fact that (edit: HERE) the lead writer pretty much decided the ending stuff without peer review. They get arrogant and believe that they can rest on their laurels - that Mass effect 3 will sell precicely due to the success of their previous games.

You will see 'streamlining' as a trend with Bioware over the course of their games since EA acquisition. DA:O vs DA2, ME1>ME2>ME3 - This is because publishers want to cash in on the previous game. Just like record labels do when they pick up an independent artist and produce them etc.

The sad byproduct of this is that they sell stuff that ordinarily would have been just included in a first game out of artistic desire (integrity?) as DLC due to "time and resource constraints."

Like I said, it's not a conspiracy, they do the same thing in the movie industry, the music industry, tv, books, you name it. Sequels generally look bigger, better and are marketed waaaay more - they just end up being less rich in detail and "love". They aren't the artist trying to get a message out, they are the artist trying to feed themselves and their bosses.

The game isn't directed by creativity so much as it is about how they can make cash off it.

My Girlfriend always sees things in terms of how one could make money - but she is always telling me about times when marketing/business dudes do this and end up stifling creativity in the process - they need some new artistic talent to come along and think of stuff outside of the limited scope they see things through.

Modifié par MrMcDoll, 03 mai 2012 - 07:31 .

[Cruders]

CHARK19 wrote...

Cancer Puppet wrote...

This game needed 6-12 more months of development time. This was not in line with EA's financial plans, thus you get Mass Effect 3 in it's current form.

Your signature is funny.

I don't think it was as bad as everyone says it was./ thread

Oh it's bad when you have an F rating with the BBB 
http://www.bbb.org/e...1723/complaints  (23 complaints filed since the release of ME3), parent company has a B-, the BBB rags on you. and a complaint is filed with the FTC 
http://www.bbb.org/b...etter-or-worse/ 

lol@false advertising.

Modifié par Cruders, 03 mai 2012 - 07:17 .

[Faridle]

Their eyes where like this $_$ instead of this o_o

[RyuujinZERO]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

So if I don't choose to follow Bio's alignment scheme, the whole galaxy gets punished?

Congratulations. You've actually come up with a way to make the ending worse than it already is.

Alignment based endings aren't the end of the world. They're pretty much how most Bioware games end. Stop being so melodramatic. With the stakes as high as they were (final game in trilogy) they needed to stick with their forumla for success.

I'd beg to differ. Choices hardly feel like choices if you don't have to weigh up their long term value or even understand the question being posed to you... rewarding loyalty to an alignment above all else results in the game being a simple case of mashing the upper or low dialogue options.

(But in the end it was irrelevant anyway, your choices amounted to nothing. The same ending for all: Rock falls, everyone dies)

Modifié par RyuujinZERO, 03 mai 2012 - 07:29 .

[What a Succulent Ass]

Choices hardly feel like choices if you don't have to weigh up their long term value or even understand the question being posed to you

Which is exactly what the ending was. We were given three answers to a question manufactured at the last minute, and little context or information. We can hardly weigh the pros and cons of any of the choices, because outside of the red killswitch, we have absolutely no idea what they bloody do. If we don't know what the consequences are (and are given nothing to infer...delicious speculations), it ceases to be choice.

[DKJaigen]

detbasketball13 wrote...

 How did they not?

When you release a clearly unfinished game (story wise) how did they not expect this controversy.

Why did they scrap the original ending along with the large amount of cuts to the current story.

So what if the og ending was leaked, Its not like im going to look up the ending on the internet before I play the game.

Because they are human and can make mistakes? Also the story is finished but some nerds want a complete explanation what happend.

Modifié par DKJaigen, 03 mai 2012 - 10:41 .

[RyuujinZERO]

DKJaigen wrote...

Because they are human and can make mistakes? Also the story is finished but some nerds want a complete explanation what happend.

I didn't realise wanting to know the ending of a story made you a nerd. Are you in the habit of readding a book or watching a movie, and then putting it down or pressing stop just before the epilogue?

[Stalker]

I always wondered... when they wrote "if Rachni queen is dead, there will be a clone" "if council is dead, there will be another council" or "after 5 years of choices you can choose 3 endings"... haven't they realized how much that could ****** people off when telling them about awesome interactive story-telling before?

[LeBurns]

 I think they just figured they'd sell the rest of the story via DLC and that nobody would mind since they're all too side-tracked by the multiplayer.

[gmboy902]

poor ending writing =/= a result of not enough time =/= EA's fault.

Things like a lack of cinematic diversity in the ending, terrible scanning sidequests, and perhaps the lack of EMS affecting the gameplay of the ending can be blamed on a rushed deadline. But not a terribly written ending.

[TheRealJayDee]

AlanC9 wrote...

I've been playing Bio games long enough to know that they're not really into doing long-term consequences. Short-term, sure -- just nothing that makes them design alternate gameplay sequences.

Well, I've started with with DA:O and Mass Effect. Everything about ME gave me the impression that "doing long-term consequences" was exactly what the trilogy would be about, which was one of the things that got me hooked to begin with.

Lesson learned.

[ME 3]

maybe casey and his partner who were apparently the only two worked on the s***** ending decided against telling their fellow co-workers.
This is probably not the case. They screwed up, they screwed up bad...

[billy shephard]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

I still dont get where people say "rushed" and now "annual release".

ME3 had the exact same amount of dev time as ME2 did, and it DIDN'T have to do a whole gameplay overhaul either.

The story wasn't unfinished in the least, the ending was just sub par. Up UNTIL the ending I thought the story was very well done and while I do wish there was MORE. I'm not complaining either.

Well thought, but ME3 by far has more branch outs than ME2 did. Leading to more time spent on making different scenarios other than the actual story. It's really simple if you think about how much work they really had to do.

example but not accurate:

ME1 : 32 decisions
ME2: 32x32= 1024
ME3:1024x1024=1048576

In the end not enough time and money.

[prazision]

The Rachni thing is the only one that's 100% unforgivable. "Oh you killed all the Rachni? Well uh... hm. How about... okay, the Reapers MADE MORE RACHNI! How? Space magic? I guess? Who cares check out this boss cutscene with Grunt!"

[Omega Torsk]

My best guess is that they ran out of time. They threw together the ending (using "vagueness" as a cover) and a few of the other "problem" elements (the journal, the rush-job on Tali's "face," way too much ambient auto-dialogue, etc) and hoped that the backlash wouldn't be too severe.

Unfortunately, they can't reveal the true reason why the game is what it is because that wouldn't bode well for the rEAper overlords, therefore mum's the word as they work on improving it with the EC.

I guess all I can do is put faith in them to do the right thing...

Modifié par Omega Torsk, 03 mai 2012 - 08:01 .

[NamiraWilhelm]

Who says they didn't? I think they got what they wanted.

[prazision]

Tali's face wasn't a "rush job", you know full well that no matter who or what they used to show her face everyone would complain because she didn't look like ~~~THE REAL TRUE TALI THAT LIVES IN MY HEART~~~

They should have just used the Night Elf face from the cover of Warcraft 3

[Artemis_Entrari]

prazision wrote...

The Rachni thing is the only one that's 100% unforgivable. "Oh you killed all the Rachni? Well uh... hm. How about... okay, the Reapers MADE MORE RACHNI! How? Space magic? I guess? Who cares check out this boss cutscene with Grunt!"

In one of their tweets or answers to an interview, a Dev explained that away with a pretty lame excuse.  Something about not wanting players to miss out on a mission based on a decision they made in a previous game.  Well duh!  That's the point of Choice & Consequence.  It would have been better if that's EXACTLY what happened.  You killed the Rachni Queen?  She doesn't appear in ME3, and you don't get that mission.

[Omega Torsk]

Artemis_Entrari wrote...

prazision wrote...

The Rachni thing is the only one that's 100% unforgivable. "Oh you killed all the Rachni? Well uh... hm. How about... okay, the Reapers MADE MORE RACHNI! How? Space magic? I guess? Who cares check out this boss cutscene with Grunt!"

In one of their tweets or answers to an interview, a Dev explained that away with a pretty lame excuse.  Something about not wanting players to miss out on a mission based on a decision they made in a previous game.  Well duh!  That's the point of Choice & Consequence.  It would have been better if that's EXACTLY what happened.  You killed the Rachni Queen?  She doesn't appear in ME3, and you don't get that mission.

Also, no Ravagers... I think a lot of people would've been fine with that. Lol

[prazision]

Don't you miss out on Miranda's mission if she died in ME2? I haven't finished my Renegade "only Miranda died" playthrough yet but it hasn't come up so far.