Or how about we just have the reapers be just evil creatures with motives we can never understand and we just destory them? You know, like how ME painted them.MegaSovereign wrote...
You can make either tech singularity or dark energy work. It's all about the execution.
Wouldn't drews dark energy idea would've been better implemented then the way it went down?
Débuté par
LiarasShield
, sept. 16 2012 10:37
#26
Posté 16 septembre 2012 - 11:18
Mr.House
-
- Members
- 23 338 messages
Retour en haut
#27
Posté 16 septembre 2012 - 11:19
LiarasShield
-
- Members
- 6 924 messages
Mr.House wrote...
Or how about we just have the reapers be just evil creatures with motives we can never understand and we just destory them? You know, like how ME painted them.MegaSovereign wrote...
You can make either tech singularity or dark energy work. It's all about the execution.
Honestly I never believed the reapers needed a explaination espically the circular one that we got
#28
Posté 16 septembre 2012 - 11:22
AresKeith
-
- Members
- 34 128 messages
LiarasShield wrote...
Mr.House wrote...
Or how about we just have the reapers be just evil creatures with motives we can never understand and we just destory them? You know, like how ME painted them.MegaSovereign wrote...
You can make either tech singularity or dark energy work. It's all about the execution.
Honestly I never believed the reapers needed a explaination espically the circular one that we got
and believe it or not Bioware wasn't really gonna use the 50K cycle thing originally
#29
Posté 16 septembre 2012 - 11:22
MegaSovereign
-
- Members
- 10 794 messages
Mr.House wrote...
Or how about we just have the reapers be just evil creatures with motives we can never understand and we just destory them? You know, like how ME painted them.MegaSovereign wrote...
You can make either tech singularity or dark energy work. It's all about the execution.
Because that's a ****ty cop-out.
I for one was expecting Bioware to explain the Reapers' motives.
#30
Posté 16 septembre 2012 - 11:25
Someone With Mass
-
- Members
- 38 554 messages
The biggest problem is that they tried to make the Reapers sympathetic or have understandable/reasonable motives.
After everything they've done, it's a little too late to try and get on the player's good side.
After everything they've done, it's a little too late to try and get on the player's good side.
#31
Posté 16 septembre 2012 - 11:29
Ser Issac
-
- Members
- 130 messages
The dark energy ending was never finalized before Drew left, so we could have very well ended up with the same ending.
Drew addressed the whole ME3 ending debacle back in March on his blog: http://drewkarpyshyn.com/c/?p=381
Blog quote:
Of course, some of you are also pinging me to find out what the “original” ending of the series was when we started planning out the trilogy. Sorry, but that’s not something I’m even going to attempt to answer. The collaborative creative process is incredibly complicated, and the story and ideas are constantly evolving as you go forward. Yes, we had a plan, but it was very vague. We knew we wanted to focus on some key themes and bring in certain key elements: organics vs synthetics; the Reapers; the Mass Relays. Beyond that, we didn’t go into detail because we knew it would change radically as the game continued to evolve.
A good example of this is Cerberus. When we wrote ME1, Cerberus was basically a throw-away group of pro-human radicals: a name we dropped for some side missions to play the role of villain. We didn’t even have a concept of who was running them, and we didn’t think they were that important. Obviously by the time of my Ascension novel and ME2, that had changed radically. The Illusive Man and Cerberus became central to the story and themes – that never would have happened if we had nailed everything down and refused to make changes to the story.
So I don’t like to say “here’s what we originally were thinking” because it gives a false and very distorted impression of the process. Mass Effect was the creation of a huge team, with contributions coming in from many people at many stages of the project. Some things I liked ended up getting cut, some stuff I wasn’t sure of worked its way in. That’s the nature of the beast with collaborative works, and I think in the end it makes the final product stronger. But talking about the changes after the fact feels like I’m sitting on my throne and proclaiming, “That’s not what I would have done!” It’s easy to sit on the sidelines and say “I would do this or that”, but it’s very different when you’re part of the process, working with multiple ideas, trying to piece it all together and still hit your deadlines. Anyone who wasn’t part of the ME3 team is an outsider – even me – and whatever they say about the creation of the game is just unsubstantiated speculation.
Drew addressed the whole ME3 ending debacle back in March on his blog: http://drewkarpyshyn.com/c/?p=381
Blog quote:
Of course, some of you are also pinging me to find out what the “original” ending of the series was when we started planning out the trilogy. Sorry, but that’s not something I’m even going to attempt to answer. The collaborative creative process is incredibly complicated, and the story and ideas are constantly evolving as you go forward. Yes, we had a plan, but it was very vague. We knew we wanted to focus on some key themes and bring in certain key elements: organics vs synthetics; the Reapers; the Mass Relays. Beyond that, we didn’t go into detail because we knew it would change radically as the game continued to evolve.
A good example of this is Cerberus. When we wrote ME1, Cerberus was basically a throw-away group of pro-human radicals: a name we dropped for some side missions to play the role of villain. We didn’t even have a concept of who was running them, and we didn’t think they were that important. Obviously by the time of my Ascension novel and ME2, that had changed radically. The Illusive Man and Cerberus became central to the story and themes – that never would have happened if we had nailed everything down and refused to make changes to the story.
So I don’t like to say “here’s what we originally were thinking” because it gives a false and very distorted impression of the process. Mass Effect was the creation of a huge team, with contributions coming in from many people at many stages of the project. Some things I liked ended up getting cut, some stuff I wasn’t sure of worked its way in. That’s the nature of the beast with collaborative works, and I think in the end it makes the final product stronger. But talking about the changes after the fact feels like I’m sitting on my throne and proclaiming, “That’s not what I would have done!” It’s easy to sit on the sidelines and say “I would do this or that”, but it’s very different when you’re part of the process, working with multiple ideas, trying to piece it all together and still hit your deadlines. Anyone who wasn’t part of the ME3 team is an outsider – even me – and whatever they say about the creation of the game is just unsubstantiated speculation.
Modifié par Ser Issac, 16 septembre 2012 - 11:31 .
#32
Posté 16 septembre 2012 - 11:34
Mr.House
-
- Members
- 23 338 messages
Which just shows there was never true planinng and they just made up things on the fly. The Cerberus comment shows this.Ser Issac wrote...
The dark energy ending was never finalized before Drew left, so we could have very well ended up with the same ending.
Drew addressed the whole ME3 ending debacle back in March on his blog: http://drewkarpyshyn.com/c/?p=381
Blog quote:
Of course, some of you are also pinging me to find out what the “original” ending of the series was when we started planning out the trilogy. Sorry, but that’s not something I’m even going to attempt to answer. The collaborative creative process is incredibly complicated, and the story and ideas are constantly evolving as you go forward. Yes, we had a plan, but it was very vague. We knew we wanted to focus on some key themes and bring in certain key elements: organics vs synthetics; the Reapers; the Mass Relays. Beyond that, we didn’t go into detail because we knew it would change radically as the game continued to evolve.
A good example of this is Cerberus. When we wrote ME1, Cerberus was basically a throw-away group of pro-human radicals: a name we dropped for some side missions to play the role of villain. We didn’t even have a concept of who was running them, and we didn’t think they were that important. Obviously by the time of my Ascension novel and ME2, that had changed radically. The Illusive Man and Cerberus became central to the story and themes – that never would have happened if we had nailed everything down and refused to make changes to the story.
So I don’t like to say “here’s what we originally were thinking” because it gives a false and very distorted impression of the process. Mass Effect was the creation of a huge team, with contributions coming in from many people at many stages of the project. Some things I liked ended up getting cut, some stuff I wasn’t sure of worked its way in. That’s the nature of the beast with collaborative works, and I think in the end it makes the final product stronger. But talking about the changes after the fact feels like I’m sitting on my throne and proclaiming, “That’s not what I would have done!” It’s easy to sit on the sidelines and say “I would do this or that”, but it’s very different when you’re part of the process, working with multiple ideas, trying to piece it all together and still hit your deadlines. Anyone who wasn’t part of the ME3 team is an outsider – even me – and whatever they say about the creation of the game is just unsubstantiated speculation.
#33
Posté 16 septembre 2012 - 11:36
AresKeith
-
- Members
- 34 128 messages
Mr.House wrote...
Which just shows there was never true planinng and they just made up things on the fly. The Cerberus comment shows this.Ser Issac wrote...
The dark energy ending was never finalized before Drew left, so we could have very well ended up with the same ending.
Drew addressed the whole ME3 ending debacle back in March on his blog: http://drewkarpyshyn.com/c/?p=381
Blog quote:
Of course, some of you are also pinging me to find out what the “original” ending of the series was when we started planning out the trilogy. Sorry, but that’s not something I’m even going to attempt to answer. The collaborative creative process is incredibly complicated, and the story and ideas are constantly evolving as you go forward. Yes, we had a plan, but it was very vague. We knew we wanted to focus on some key themes and bring in certain key elements: organics vs synthetics; the Reapers; the Mass Relays. Beyond that, we didn’t go into detail because we knew it would change radically as the game continued to evolve.
A good example of this is Cerberus. When we wrote ME1, Cerberus was basically a throw-away group of pro-human radicals: a name we dropped for some side missions to play the role of villain. We didn’t even have a concept of who was running them, and we didn’t think they were that important. Obviously by the time of my Ascension novel and ME2, that had changed radically. The Illusive Man and Cerberus became central to the story and themes – that never would have happened if we had nailed everything down and refused to make changes to the story.
So I don’t like to say “here’s what we originally were thinking” because it gives a false and very distorted impression of the process. Mass Effect was the creation of a huge team, with contributions coming in from many people at many stages of the project. Some things I liked ended up getting cut, some stuff I wasn’t sure of worked its way in. That’s the nature of the beast with collaborative works, and I think in the end it makes the final product stronger. But talking about the changes after the fact feels like I’m sitting on my throne and proclaiming, “That’s not what I would have done!” It’s easy to sit on the sidelines and say “I would do this or that”, but it’s very different when you’re part of the process, working with multiple ideas, trying to piece it all together and still hit your deadlines. Anyone who wasn’t part of the ME3 team is an outsider – even me – and whatever they say about the creation of the game is just unsubstantiated speculation.
and if the Narrative director stayed, things would have been different
#34
Posté 17 septembre 2012 - 12:05
BaladasDemnevanni
-
- Members
- 2 127 messages
Maybe a bit better. At the least, the Dark Energy is presented as a potential problem far down the line, where as the reintroduction of synthetics vs. organics conflict feels forced because throughout ME2 and 3 all events point to us being able to cooperate with each other.
But I think a better route would have simply been that the Reapers are a unique race of organic-synthetic hybrids with a completely different (and arrogant) perspective of the galaxy. They should have built off of Saren's final speech to Shepard regarding the strength of hybridization and Sovereign's claims of being above us in every way. In a sense, the Reapers view themselves as the Mass Effect equivalent of White Man's Burden: bringing enlightenment to organic races.
But I think a better route would have simply been that the Reapers are a unique race of organic-synthetic hybrids with a completely different (and arrogant) perspective of the galaxy. They should have built off of Saren's final speech to Shepard regarding the strength of hybridization and Sovereign's claims of being above us in every way. In a sense, the Reapers view themselves as the Mass Effect equivalent of White Man's Burden: bringing enlightenment to organic races.
Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 17 septembre 2012 - 12:05 .
#35
Posté 17 septembre 2012 - 12:08
AresKeith
-
- Members
- 34 128 messages
BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
Maybe a bit better. At the least, the Dark Energy is presented as a potential problem far down the line, where as the reintroduction of synthetics vs. organics conflict feels forced because throughout ME2 and 3 all events point to us being able to cooperate with each other.
But I think a better route would have simply been that the Reapers are a unique race of organic-synthetic hybrids with a completely different (and arrogant) perspective of the galaxy. They should have built off of Saren's final speech to Shepard regarding the strength of hybridization and Sovereign's claims of being above us in every way. In a sense, the Reapers view themselves as the Mass Effect equivalent of White Man's Burden: bringing enlightenment to organic races.
I would preferred that than what Drew and Mac came up with since both Harbinger and Sovereign had different views on Organics but believed in the same goal
#36
Posté 17 septembre 2012 - 12:22
Dean_the_Young
-
- Members
- 20 675 messages
As it was sketched? Not really: besides that the Dark Energy idea itself was never really developed, beyond the Haestrum set-up, there's an even starker lack of cause-effect in the resolution. How, for example, does genetic variability translate to being able to stop this problem? And how would the 'kill the Reapers or join them' tie in to the other themes of the trilogy? And why is the time-limit now, and how is it such a bad thing?
It would have had many of the same anti-arguments, with fewer of the 'well the past games sort of touched on it accidentally.'
With some significant alterations? If it were cast in terms of a global warming analogy, with the cycle re-setting the dark energy buildup, that would help the motivations and cause-effect make sense. The Crucible as a Dark Energy engine to resolve the issue one way or another, or even to hold the galaxy hostage to make a cease-fire with the Reapers, also could have been an effective end-game.
It would have had many of the same anti-arguments, with fewer of the 'well the past games sort of touched on it accidentally.'
With some significant alterations? If it were cast in terms of a global warming analogy, with the cycle re-setting the dark energy buildup, that would help the motivations and cause-effect make sense. The Crucible as a Dark Energy engine to resolve the issue one way or another, or even to hold the galaxy hostage to make a cease-fire with the Reapers, also could have been an effective end-game.
#37
Posté 17 septembre 2012 - 12:25
Hexley UK
-
- Members
- 2 325 messages
Not sure overall but i'm willing to bet just about anything would be an improvement over what we got at the end of ME3.
#38
Posté 17 septembre 2012 - 01:12
LiarasShield
-
- Members
- 6 924 messages
Hexley UK wrote...
Not sure overall but i'm willing to bet just about anything would be an improvement over what we got at the end of ME3.
amen to that I feel the same
#39
Posté 17 septembre 2012 - 01:16
Jadebaby
-
- Members
- 13 229 messages
More foreshadowing sure, doesn't mean it'd be better.
#40
Posté 17 septembre 2012 - 01:21
LiarasShield
-
- Members
- 6 924 messages
Jade8aby88 wrote...
More foreshadowing sure, doesn't mean it'd be better.
Oh my dear shepard please don't have a lack of faith ^^
#41
Posté 17 septembre 2012 - 01:29
AresKeith
-
- Members
- 34 128 messages
LiarasShield wrote...
Jade8aby88 wrote...
More foreshadowing sure, doesn't mean it'd be better.
Oh my dear shepard please don't have a lack of faith ^^
both Drew and Mac went overboard with the plot for ME3
#42
Posté 17 septembre 2012 - 01:34
LiarasShield
-
- Members
- 6 924 messages
Whether or not you enjoyed the conclusion to Mass Effect 3 (personally I feel
it tarnished an otherwise masterful series) please take a look at the
pre-release quotes below from websites and interviews with the game's
developers, writers and producers.
Does all that talk of meaningful player choice, multiple significantly
different endings and closure for the characters and series not seem,
at the very least, strange?
I believe Bioware can be legitimately accused of, at best, fudging the
truth if not outright deceit given the inconsistency between notions
of choice, closure etc. expressed before the game was released and
the ending as it currently stands.
In my opinion Bioware produced a badly written, ill-conceived shambles
of an ending riddled with plot holes and logical inconsistencies but
even if you loved the final moments of this great game do you really
think what was stated in the interviews below has been proved true?
Maybe Walters, Gamble, Hudson et al will be proved right when a decent
ending is released via (presumably free) DLC that explains the
original ending was just some sort of hallucination/indoctrination.
I'm not holding my breath waiting for that though.
Official Mass Effect Website
http://masseffect.com/about/story/
“Experience the beginning, middle, and end of an emotional story unlike any
other, where the decisions you make completely shape your experience
and outcome.”
Interview with Mac Walters (Lead Writer)
http://popwatch.ew.c...-3-mac-walters/
“[The presence of the Rachni] has huge consequences in Mass
Effect 3. Even just in the final battle with the Reapers.”
Interview with Mac Walters (Lead Writer)
http://business.fina...-all-audiences/
“I’m always leery of saying there are 'optimal' endings, because I think
one of the things we do try to do is make different endings that are
optimal for different people “
Interview with Mike Gamble (Associate Producer)
http://www.computera...missing-in-me2/
“And, to be honest, you [the fans] are crafting your Mass Effect story as
much as we are anyway.”
Interview with Mike Gamble (Associate Producer)
http://www.360magazi...ferent-endings/
“There are many different endings. We wouldn’t do it any other way. How
could you go through all three campaigns playing as your Shepard and
then be forced into a bespoke ending that everyone gets? But I can’t
say any more than that…”
Interview with Mike Gamble (Associate Producer)
http://www.eurogamer...me-people-angry
“Every decision you've made will impact how things go. The player's also the
architect of what happens."
“You'll get answers to everything. That was one of the key things. Regardless
of how we did everything, we had to say, yes, we're going to provide
some answers to these people.”
“Because a lot of these plot threads are concluding and because it's being
brought to a finale, since you were a part of architecting how they
got to how they were, you will definitely sense how they close was
because of the decisions you made and because of the decisions you
didn't make”
Interview with Casey Hudson (Director)
http://www.gameinfor...s-effect-3.aspx
“For people who are invested in these characters and the back-story of the
universe and everything, all of these things come to a resolution in
Mass Effect 3. And they are resolved in a way that's very different
based on what you would do in those situations.”
Interview with Casey Hudson (Director)
http://venturebeat.c...fans-interview/
“Fans want to make sure that they see things resolved, they want to get
some closure, a great ending. I think they’re going to get that.”
“Mass Effect 3 is all about answering all the biggest questions in the
lore, learning about the mysteries and the Protheans and the Reapers,
being able to decide for yourself how all of these things come to an
end.”
Interviewer: “So are you guys the creators or the stewards of the franchise?”
Hudson: “Um… You know, at this point, I think we’re co-creators with
the fans. We use a lot of feedback.”
Interview with Casey Hudson (Director)
http://www.gameinfor...PostPageIndex=2
Interviewer: [Regarding the numerous possible endings of Mass Effect 2] “Is that
same type of complexity built into the ending of Mass Effect 3?”
Hudson: “Yeah, and I’d say much more so, because we have the ability to
build the endings out in a way that we don’t have to worry about
eventually tying them back together somewhere. This story arc is
coming to an end with this game. That means the endings can be a lot
more different. At this point we’re taking into account so many
decisions that you’ve made as a player and reflecting a lot of that
stuff. It’s not even in any way like the traditional game endings,
where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got
ending A, B, or C.....The endings have a lot more sophistication and
variety in them.”
“We have a rule in our franchise that there is no canon. You as a player
decide what your story is.”
EDIT: Couple more interesting quotes I found, enjoy......or not.
Mike Gamble (Associate Producer)
http://www.nowgamer....in_bioware.html
Mass Effect 3 will shake up the player's moral choices more than ever
before, even going so far as allowing the Reapers to win the battle
for Earth, according to BioWare's community representative Mike
Gamble.
In an inteview with NowGamer at Gamescom, we asked if BioWare was taking risks with Mass Effect 3's
plot, including a negative ending in which the Reapers win. Gamble simply said, "Yes". We asked him again to confirm what he had just said and he said, "Yes".
EDIT: thanks to Our_Last_Scene for pointing out that this quote was clarified on Mike Gamble's twitter feed (apparently the 'reapers win' scenario is simply the 'Critical Mission Failure' message the player receives if they dawdle too long at the crucible before making their choice, see this link for info - http://twitter.com/#...895746313363457)
Mike Gamble (Associate Producer)
http://www.nowgamer....ry_details.html
"Of course you don’t have to play multiplayer, you can choose to play
all the side-quests in single-player and do all that stuff you’ll
still get all the same endings and same information, it’s just a
totally different way of playing"
Casey Hudson (Director)
http://gamescatalyst...active-stories/
“The whole idea of Mass Effect3 is resolving all of the biggest questions, about the Protheons and
the Reapers, and being in the driver's seat to end the galaxy and all
of these big plot lines, to decide what civilizations are going to
live or die: All of these things are answered in Mass Effect 3.”
Casey Hudson (Director)
http://www.computera...ly-good/?page=2
“There is a huge set of consequences that start stacking up as you approach the end-game. And
even in terms of the ending itself, it continues to break down to
some very large decisions. So it's not like a classic game ending
where everything is linear and you make a choice between a few things
- it really does layer in many, many different choices, up to the
final moments, where it's going to be different for everyone who
plays it.”
EDIT: Thanks to Skidrow-Garrett for pointing out another mystifying quote or two. It seems Bioware worked for years on the ending and are really pleased with it. I think it makes new DLC to address all the concerns less likely, unfortunately.
Ray Muzyka (Co-Founder of Bioware)
http://penny-arcade....ing-a-trilogy-a
“I just finished an end to end playthrough, for me the ending was the
most satisfying of any game I’ve ever played….the decisions you make in
this game are epic,”
“The team has been planning
for this for years, since the beginning of the Mass Effect franchise.
Largely the same team, most of the same leads have worked on this for
years and years. They’ve thought about [the ending] for years and years.
It’s not something they’ve had to solve in a week or a month even, but
over the course of five or ten years.”
This post I agree with the most
it tarnished an otherwise masterful series) please take a look at the
pre-release quotes below from websites and interviews with the game's
developers, writers and producers.
Does all that talk of meaningful player choice, multiple significantly
different endings and closure for the characters and series not seem,
at the very least, strange?
I believe Bioware can be legitimately accused of, at best, fudging the
truth if not outright deceit given the inconsistency between notions
of choice, closure etc. expressed before the game was released and
the ending as it currently stands.
In my opinion Bioware produced a badly written, ill-conceived shambles
of an ending riddled with plot holes and logical inconsistencies but
even if you loved the final moments of this great game do you really
think what was stated in the interviews below has been proved true?
Maybe Walters, Gamble, Hudson et al will be proved right when a decent
ending is released via (presumably free) DLC that explains the
original ending was just some sort of hallucination/indoctrination.
I'm not holding my breath waiting for that though.
Official Mass Effect Website
http://masseffect.com/about/story/
“Experience the beginning, middle, and end of an emotional story unlike any
other, where the decisions you make completely shape your experience
and outcome.”
Interview with Mac Walters (Lead Writer)
http://popwatch.ew.c...-3-mac-walters/
“[The presence of the Rachni] has huge consequences in Mass
Effect 3. Even just in the final battle with the Reapers.”
Interview with Mac Walters (Lead Writer)
http://business.fina...-all-audiences/
“I’m always leery of saying there are 'optimal' endings, because I think
one of the things we do try to do is make different endings that are
optimal for different people “
Interview with Mike Gamble (Associate Producer)
http://www.computera...missing-in-me2/
“And, to be honest, you [the fans] are crafting your Mass Effect story as
much as we are anyway.”
Interview with Mike Gamble (Associate Producer)
http://www.360magazi...ferent-endings/
“There are many different endings. We wouldn’t do it any other way. How
could you go through all three campaigns playing as your Shepard and
then be forced into a bespoke ending that everyone gets? But I can’t
say any more than that…”
Interview with Mike Gamble (Associate Producer)
http://www.eurogamer...me-people-angry
“Every decision you've made will impact how things go. The player's also the
architect of what happens."
“You'll get answers to everything. That was one of the key things. Regardless
of how we did everything, we had to say, yes, we're going to provide
some answers to these people.”
“Because a lot of these plot threads are concluding and because it's being
brought to a finale, since you were a part of architecting how they
got to how they were, you will definitely sense how they close was
because of the decisions you made and because of the decisions you
didn't make”
Interview with Casey Hudson (Director)
http://www.gameinfor...s-effect-3.aspx
“For people who are invested in these characters and the back-story of the
universe and everything, all of these things come to a resolution in
Mass Effect 3. And they are resolved in a way that's very different
based on what you would do in those situations.”
Interview with Casey Hudson (Director)
http://venturebeat.c...fans-interview/
“Fans want to make sure that they see things resolved, they want to get
some closure, a great ending. I think they’re going to get that.”
“Mass Effect 3 is all about answering all the biggest questions in the
lore, learning about the mysteries and the Protheans and the Reapers,
being able to decide for yourself how all of these things come to an
end.”
Interviewer: “So are you guys the creators or the stewards of the franchise?”
Hudson: “Um… You know, at this point, I think we’re co-creators with
the fans. We use a lot of feedback.”
Interview with Casey Hudson (Director)
http://www.gameinfor...PostPageIndex=2
Interviewer: [Regarding the numerous possible endings of Mass Effect 2] “Is that
same type of complexity built into the ending of Mass Effect 3?”
Hudson: “Yeah, and I’d say much more so, because we have the ability to
build the endings out in a way that we don’t have to worry about
eventually tying them back together somewhere. This story arc is
coming to an end with this game. That means the endings can be a lot
more different. At this point we’re taking into account so many
decisions that you’ve made as a player and reflecting a lot of that
stuff. It’s not even in any way like the traditional game endings,
where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got
ending A, B, or C.....The endings have a lot more sophistication and
variety in them.”
“We have a rule in our franchise that there is no canon. You as a player
decide what your story is.”
EDIT: Couple more interesting quotes I found, enjoy......or not.
Mike Gamble (Associate Producer)
http://www.nowgamer....in_bioware.html
Mass Effect 3 will shake up the player's moral choices more than ever
before, even going so far as allowing the Reapers to win the battle
for Earth, according to BioWare's community representative Mike
Gamble.
In an inteview with NowGamer at Gamescom, we asked if BioWare was taking risks with Mass Effect 3's
plot, including a negative ending in which the Reapers win. Gamble simply said, "Yes". We asked him again to confirm what he had just said and he said, "Yes".
EDIT: thanks to Our_Last_Scene for pointing out that this quote was clarified on Mike Gamble's twitter feed (apparently the 'reapers win' scenario is simply the 'Critical Mission Failure' message the player receives if they dawdle too long at the crucible before making their choice, see this link for info - http://twitter.com/#...895746313363457)
Mike Gamble (Associate Producer)
http://www.nowgamer....ry_details.html
"Of course you don’t have to play multiplayer, you can choose to play
all the side-quests in single-player and do all that stuff you’ll
still get all the same endings and same information, it’s just a
totally different way of playing"
Casey Hudson (Director)
http://gamescatalyst...active-stories/
“The whole idea of Mass Effect3 is resolving all of the biggest questions, about the Protheons and
the Reapers, and being in the driver's seat to end the galaxy and all
of these big plot lines, to decide what civilizations are going to
live or die: All of these things are answered in Mass Effect 3.”
Casey Hudson (Director)
http://www.computera...ly-good/?page=2
“There is a huge set of consequences that start stacking up as you approach the end-game. And
even in terms of the ending itself, it continues to break down to
some very large decisions. So it's not like a classic game ending
where everything is linear and you make a choice between a few things
- it really does layer in many, many different choices, up to the
final moments, where it's going to be different for everyone who
plays it.”
EDIT: Thanks to Skidrow-Garrett for pointing out another mystifying quote or two. It seems Bioware worked for years on the ending and are really pleased with it. I think it makes new DLC to address all the concerns less likely, unfortunately.
Ray Muzyka (Co-Founder of Bioware)
http://penny-arcade....ing-a-trilogy-a
“I just finished an end to end playthrough, for me the ending was the
most satisfying of any game I’ve ever played….the decisions you make in
this game are epic,”
“The team has been planning
for this for years, since the beginning of the Mass Effect franchise.
Largely the same team, most of the same leads have worked on this for
years and years. They’ve thought about [the ending] for years and years.
It’s not something they’ve had to solve in a week or a month even, but
over the course of five or ten years.”
This post I agree with the most
Modifié par LiarasShield, 17 septembre 2012 - 01:35 .
#43
Posté 17 septembre 2012 - 01:40
mango smoothie
-
- Members
- 1 358 messages
Drew's dark energy idea was an outline, if that, it was more like an idea drawn on a piece of scrap paper. Because of this there is no way of knowing how that ending would've turned out. It would all depend on how it was implemented and presented.
I really can't stand it when people say oh Drew's idea would've been amazing or Drew's idea is worse than what we got, because really there is no way to know how it was going to be done.
I really can't stand it when people say oh Drew's idea would've been amazing or Drew's idea is worse than what we got, because really there is no way to know how it was going to be done.
Modifié par mango smoothie, 17 septembre 2012 - 01:43 .
#44
Posté 17 septembre 2012 - 01:42
Hexley UK
-
- Members
- 2 325 messages
mango smoothie wrote...
Drew's dark energy idea was an outline, if that, it was more like an idea drawn on a piece of scrap paper. Because of this there is know way of knowing how that ending would've turned out. It would all depend on how it was implemented and presented.
I really can't stand it when people say oh Drew's idea would've been amazing or Drew's idea is worse than what we got, because really there is know way to know how it was going to be done.
True but given how s**t what we did get was I think it was likely to be odds on favourite to be better.
#45
Posté 17 septembre 2012 - 01:43
AlanC9
-
- Members
- 35 627 messages
Mr.House wrote..
Or how about we just have the reapers be just evil creatures with motives we can never understand and we just destory them? You know, like how ME painted them.
Then we have endless threads about how Bio never had a clue what the Reapers were trying to do.
#46
Posté 17 septembre 2012 - 01:44
mango smoothie
-
- Members
- 1 358 messages
AlanC9 wrote...
Mr.House wrote..
Or how about we just have the reapers be just evil creatures with motives we can never understand and we just destory them? You know, like how ME painted them.
Then we have endless threads about how Bio never had a clue what the Reapers were trying to do.
lol yep
#47
Posté 17 septembre 2012 - 01:46
BaladasDemnevanni
-
- Members
- 2 127 messages
AlanC9 wrote...
Mr.House wrote..
Or how about we just have the reapers be just evil creatures with motives we can never understand and we just destory them? You know, like how ME painted them.
Then we have endless threads about how Bio never had a clue what the Reapers were trying to do.
Basically trading one set of criticisms for another. It was essentially a lose-lose scenario.
#48
Posté 17 septembre 2012 - 01:59
TAlTAl
-
- Members
- 223 messages
the universe is mostly made up of 2 things dark energy and dark matter, dark matter is the force that pushes away everything that is in the universe (expanding space) and the dark energy is the force that tries to clump everything together. eventually like trillions of years later the dark matter would rip us apart into atoms and dark energy is the only thing slowing down that process, this is true story btw. i'm sure the dark energy storyline bioware has had previously was much different, perhaps an energy being trying to destroy everything ? like in Titan AE? that would have been cool like how the energy beings considered all other life form as inferior existence and seek out to destroy us all so the older races decides to create reapers to protect the next generations of life in the galaxy but every generation the energy beings become stronger, because they feed on the continuum for their massive energy. perhaps they had conquered other galaxies already and reapers actually came from a surviving specie. who knows maybe mass effect 4 will have new enemies much more powerful and older than the reapers.
#49
Posté 17 septembre 2012 - 01:59
LiarasShield
-
- Members
- 6 924 messages
BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
AlanC9 wrote...
Mr.House wrote..
Or how about we just have the reapers be just evil creatures with motives we can never understand and we just destory them? You know, like how ME painted them.
Then we have endless threads about how Bio never had a clue what the Reapers were trying to do.
Basically trading one set of criticisms for another. It was essentially a lose-lose scenario.
well its seems like the catalyst became a last minute thing
#50
Posté 17 septembre 2012 - 02:05
thearbiter1337
-
- Members
- 1 155 messages
No.
It made Humans look like some damn Forerunner tier race
It made Humans look like some damn Forerunner tier race
