325 réponses à ce sujet

[Femlob]

ME4 Bioware really care about fans opinions?

I'm sure some people within BioWare do.

Which is about as moot a point as any, given that the powers that be will drive what's left of this company into the ground irrespective of employee or fan opinion.

If I didn't know any better, I'd get me a tinfoil hat and yell conspiracy; but I do know better. Modern AAA developers and publishers, like most businesses nowadays, are ran by vampires. SOP is to suck 'em dry, toss 'em by the wayside and find a new victim to exploit.

[InvincibleHero]

TheRealJayDee wrote...

drayfish wrote...

So, I guess my ultimate question is: Why were only the intolerant zealot Shepards rewarded in the end?

Being good and doing the right thing is supposed to be its own reward. What you expect something so unrealistic as no good being unpunished. BW heaped praise and rewards on paragon actions all through the series. They listened to fan dissent and tempered it somewhat for ME3. Good deeds are not always rewarded nor are bad deeds always punished. It is silly people expect both good =reward and bad= punished all the time.

Destroy is paragon and renegade or neither as it is the culmination of what Shepard set out to do regardless of his bent. A renegade Shpeard would be more concerned with his well-being aka survival so would likely shy away from the sacirfice myself 100% options.

[drayfish]

InvincibleHero wrote...

TheRealJayDee wrote...

drayfish wrote...

So, I guess my ultimate question is: Why were only the intolerant zealot Shepards rewarded in the end?

Being good and doing the right thing is supposed to be its own reward. What you expect something so unrealistic as no good being unpunished. BW heaped praise and rewards on paragon actions all through the series. They listened to fan dissent and tempered it somewhat for ME3. Good deeds are not always rewarded nor are bad deeds always punished. It is silly people expect both good =reward and bad= punished all the time.

Destroy is paragon and renegade or neither as it is the culmination of what Shepard set out to do regardless of his bent. A renegade Shpeard would be more concerned with his well-being aka survival so would likely shy away from the sacirfice myself 100% options.

Firstly: this is an oversimplification that completely misrepresents what I said.

Secondly: the ending only rewards intollerant, amoral actions; it doesn't (as you suggest) explore the complexity of these issues at all.  Indeed, it's not even about Paragon versus Renegade.  It's a statement of morality and ideology that goes far deeper than that.  This is not: oh, Shepard's being a bit of a jerk to get things done; this is: Shepard just decided to rob the universe of its right to the sanctity of all autonomy and personal freedom, and has now fundamentally remade the universe to his choosing.  Just, I might add, like a Reaper.

The fact that the game forces the player to embrace this belief and employ a war-crime against their allies (or they 'lose'), and that it then goes on to show no negative consequences of these actions, instead wallpapering over them with cheery slides filled with bliss and good will for all, openly advocates this horror. 

Again: this is goes beyond Renegade and Paragon divisions.  What the game is saying runs far deeper than that.  No matter what you choose, the game validates the belief that it is okay to employ such crimes, proving that it is apparently fine to use genocide, eugenics, or become a totalitarian dictator in war, as long as you think you're the 'good guy'.

It makes me wonder why Bioware thought this was a message that it was crucial to send (to all players, not just the 'Paragons'), and why it has still offered no commentary on this polarising decision.

Modifié par drayfish, 27 novembre 2012 - 06:41 .

[David7204]

So does ME 1 'validate' the 'war crime' of 'killing' either the Council or a good chunk of the Alliance fleet, since the player is forced to do one of those?

[drayfish]

David7204 wrote...

So does ME 1 'validate' the 'war crime' of 'killing' either the Council or a good chunk of the Alliance fleet, since the player is forced to do one of those?

...That's absurd.

If you really don't see a distinction between choosing to allocate war assets in a conflict and firing a superweapon at your own people at your enemy's request, I'm not sure anything that I can say will convince you.

[David7204]

The distinction is the presence of an action or the absence of one. Shepard has pretty much the same amount of control over both situations. The only difference is that one scenario requires Shepard to take an action and one scenario doesn't. But the consequences are analogous.

You seem to think that you bear no responsibility for a situation so long as you personally didn't do anything, even if you have full control of that situation. Which is an arguable standpoint, I suppose.

[InvincibleHero]

drayfish wrote...


Firstly: this is an oversimplification that completely misrepresents what I said.

Secondly: the ending only rewards intollerant, amoral actions; it doesn't (as you suggest) explore the complexity of these issues at all.  Indeed, it's not even about Paragon versus Renegade.  It's a statement of morality and ideology that goes far deeper than that.  This is not: oh, Shepard's being a bit of a jerk to get things done; this is: Shepard just decided to rob the universe of its right to the sanctity of all autonomy and personal freedom, and has now fundamentally remade the universe to his choosing.  Just, I might add, like a Reaper.

The fact that the game forces the player to embrace this belief and employ a war-crime against their allies (or they 'lose'), and that it then goes on to show no negative consequences of these actions, instead wallpapering over them with cheery slides filled with bliss and good will for all, openly advocates this horror. 

Again: this is goes beyond Renegade and Paragon divisions.  What the game is saying runs far deeper than that.  No matter what you choose, the game validates the belief that it is okay to employ such crimes, proving that it is apparently fine to use genocide, eugenics, or become a totalitarian dictator in war, as long as you think you're the 'good guy'.

It makes me wonder why Bioware thought this was a message that it was crucial to send (to all players, not just the 'Paragons'), and why it has still offered no commentary on this polarising decision.

Ah sorry then you incorrectly label the actions as such. Destroy is actually amoral since it says nothing about the morality of the chooser as they have no choice as it is destroy or be destroyed ( you probably mean immoral) or intolerant at all. It is necessary to do so because that is the only way the reapers can be defeated. Geth and EDI are acceptable and lamentable losses depending on the view of who chooses the action to a view that it is a pittance to pay for a free safe galaxy for the survivors or as you claim genocide as an extreme.

Yeah I get synthesis as a forced change on everyone. To be kind I don't like the choice, but people are free to choose it and I won't deride them for it.

Control could be an epic failure or a great good if Shepard can indeed use the reapers for the good of the galaxy. As for enslaving them well perhaps they are not as autonomous as they believed and bereft of catalyst control could not function.

I think the message is humans are flawed and sometimes you don't get to chosoe how you want things to end. You just make the best of what you are offered and are mature enough to accept that and all attendant consequences. Sacrifice isn't  pretty, but often necessary.

[Iakus]

A pity we see no one accepting or lamenting the loss of synthetics.

And while imperfect endings are all well and good, once to make "let the galaxy burn" a viable alternative, you maybe went overboard on that imperfection

[InvincibleHero]

iakus wrote...

A pity we see no one accepting or lamenting the loss of synthetics.

And while imperfect endings are all well and good, once to make "let the galaxy burn" a viable alternative, you maybe went overboard on that imperfection

Yeah but that is like buzzkill to focus on the negative consequences. At the same time people are saying the endings are more bitter than sweet, but we'd like to add more misery because we like the geth please. Maybe in the next game they can visit upon it.

Galaxy burn is that refuse? If so fans requested it.

[djspectre]

In response to the OP's opening thread and based on the statements that Allen has made.....

There is only so much input that a development company can take into consideration from a fanbase. There are literally a limitless set of thoughts that have to be condensed down to a finite number and strung together in a logical manner.

Yes, many people may share a similar opinion, but perhaps for some reason (technical or other) it doesn't fit in with what they are trying to do.

This can't be labeled as they didn't listen. They did listen, but they made a different choice.

Further, the Extended Cut was entirely a result of public outcry which showed they did take into account our feelings.

As far as Mass Effect 4 goes, the number of options are limitless for what the setting is, where it takes place, the circumstances and backdrop or even who the main protagonists are.

The reason they are asking us is because they are searching for that creative spark....that (or those) idea(s) that they hadn't considered.

Under those circumstances, not everyone's ideas will be chosen. Only a few will.....and that will lead to mass disappointment ultimately and predictably.

I've sat in corporate meetings and high level decision making powwows and heard both sides of a topic only for the decision to ultimately be the one thats better...yet unpopular.

Do not hate the staff for their jobs or the choices they make because you truly have NO clue what goes on behind those doors or what staff have agreed with us the fans only to have it shot down by someone else on the team.

[Dean_the_Young]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Possibly because that's not what that thread of quotes was discussing.

It's not my problem you can't convey yourself properly.

It is your problem when you forget the subject of what you were talking about.

I've more than adequately explained my position and provided some sources as well. I had you figured out pretty early. Like I said originally you set the burden of proof so high nobody can match it and then feel righteous and justified later.

Adequately explaining a position without providing support to claims just means you repeat the original claim in different ways. When the actual accuracy of your claim is being challenged, repeating the claim is a failure.

There's nothing particularly academic about this: being able to support a position with facts is an expectation anyone can have because we can all expect others to build their opinions on facts in the first place.

Dean_the_Young wrote...No, it's actually just recently in the last few posts, after a good deal of exasperation at your own attempts at attacking me. It's just your paranoia that makes the earlier criticism seem like mockery.

But if you truly do think there's no point in replying, as you've said a couple of times now... you're always free to walk the walk and leave. Not, mind you, that I expect you to be able to do that now after the way you previously tried to end this exchange. Which leads you to a delimma:

If you do reply to this or any other post with me, you'll be undermining your own claims about not having in point in discussing anything with me.

If you don't reply after this post, you'll be doing so without the last word and you'll fear you'll be seen as running away from an argument you couldn't even keep your temper in, let alone defend.

Which path will you take, I wonder? Will you make yourself a liar and continue, or will you suffer a bruised ego and go silent?

There is no point to constructively engage with you. Apparently you missed that part like so much else you can't grasp.

However there is plenty of amusement to be had at your expense so why deprive myself of the pleasure? That's cruel.

See, if you felt there was no point, you wouldn't continue posting. But seeing as you are continuing to post when you have thrice claimed you see no point...

The bruised ego overcomes sincerity, it appears.

[drayfish]

David7204 wrote...

The distinction is the presence of an action or the absence of one. Shepard has pretty much the same amount of control over both situations. The only difference is that one scenario requires Shepard to take an action and one scenario doesn't. But the consequences are analogous.

You seem to think that you bear no responsibility for a situation so long as you personally didn't do anything, even if you have full control of that situation. Which is an arguable standpoint, I suppose.

This is all patently untrue - and again, your attempt to overreach in your exaggerations of what I am actually arguing is a little weird.  At no point did I say that Shepard bears no responsibility for making a tactical call in a moment of war - quite the opposite, in fact.

The whole point of this narrative is about testing the players morality in times of crisis: which tenets do you subscribe to when asked to make a difficult choice?  When the Quarians and Geth are at war, do you believe in peace?  Do you think that the Geth were victims and side with them?  Do you think that the Quarians suffered too much at the hands of a bezerker race of robots gone mad?  Your ideology is brought to bear on the situation, reacting to the crisis that others have brought into being.

However, the end of the game completely violates every component of that premise.  Rather than reacting you are being asked to preemptively strike, inflicting horror upon your own people at the request of your enemy - to solve his racist, imaginary problem (which you have already solved one way or another by this point). 

So unless you are already cool with brainwashing, genocide and eugenics, this ending does not reflect your beliefs at all.  Indeed, the only decision-making at work is which attrocity do you like better?

The game makes it clear that the only way to 'win' a war is by using the war crimes of your ememies, making you a hypocrite to your own cause and effectively advocating such brutality no matter what your personal moral standpoint.  The EC even trips over itself to gush praise for such actions: don't worry about that pile of Geth, Shepard is a hero in Destroy; nobody at all minds being genetically violated, Synthesis is the bestest; and 'cause I'm Shepard, it's totally okay that I, unstoppable, police the galaxy as I see fit in Control.

And again, if you really can't see the difference between Shepard choosing which Virmire Survivor to save in an scenario in which it is impossible to save both, and being asked to preemptively inflict a war crime on your own people by mutating or exterminating them, or appointing himself the new galactic overlord - all at your enemy's request, to fix a problem that doesn't exist anyway - then there there is very little that can be profitably added to this conversation to help you see where I am coming from. 

Modifié par drayfish, 27 novembre 2012 - 11:38 .

[Binary_Helix 1]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

It is your problem when you forget the subject of what you were talking about.

lolwut? How does someone "forget" something on a message board? You can't actually believe this crap.

Dean_the_Young wrote...Adequately explaining a position without providing support to claims just means you repeat the original claim in different ways. When the actual accuracy of your claim is being challenged, repeating the claim is a failure.

There's nothing particularly academic about this: being able to support a position with facts is an expectation anyone can have because we can all expect others to build their opinions on facts in the first place.

If my positions were so poorly supported plenty of others would have said so instead all I see is you complaining.

Dean_the_Young wrote...See, if you felt there was no point, you wouldn't continue posting. But seeing as you are continuing to post when you have thrice claimed you see no point...

The bruised ego overcomes sincerity, it appears.

There is no point in trying to reason with the unreasonable yes. However laughing at you instead is well worth my time.

Modifié par Binary_Helix 1, 27 novembre 2012 - 12:40 .

[archangel1996]

I am not one to say this, but a good 3/4 of the Pro Ending are really ridiculous, they have no argomentations and so they offer stupid answers to questions that can not have LOGICAL answers
Destroy ending, the Citadel is destroyed, explosion, space, fallen, Shepard breathes he/she lives...what the ****?

Modifié par archangel1996, 27 novembre 2012 - 12:30 .

[lajeokki]

I hope they DO care. And as long as next ME is going to be sequel and NOT a prequel I'm willing to go "shut up and take my money" all over again.

[Chobbly]

It might sound naive, but I'm sure all of them care. You wouldn't put in the hours that a Games Developer does if you didn't care for what you were doing. I'm sure a good number of the Devs felt like they'd been given a personal kicking by the harshness of some of the comments. Someone can have a different opinion and still care.

Now, whether expectations were raised too high for ME3 by the marketing, or because of how outstanding the previous games were, whether ME3 could have done with another couple of months Dev time before release, or whether story elements are flawed and don't track, those are all a different story. But I think every single employee of Bioware cares.

Modifié par Chobbly, 27 novembre 2012 - 01:25 .

[Iakus]

drayfish wrote...

David7204 wrote...

The distinction is the presence of an action or the absence of one. Shepard has pretty much the same amount of control over both situations. The only difference is that one scenario requires Shepard to take an action and one scenario doesn't. But the consequences are analogous.

You seem to think that you bear no responsibility for a situation so long as you personally didn't do anything, even if you have full control of that situation. Which is an arguable standpoint, I suppose.

This is all patently untrue - and again, your attempt to overreach in your exaggerations of what I am actually arguing is a little weird.  At no point did I say that Shepard bears no responsibility for making a tactical call in a moment of war - quite the opposite, in fact.

The whole point of this narrative is about testing the players morality in times of crisis: which tenets do you subscribe to when asked to make a difficult choice?  When the Quarians and Geth are at war, do you believe in peace?  Do you think that the Geth were victims and side with them?  Do you think that the Quarians suffered too much at the hands of a bezerker race of robots gone mad?  Your ideology is brought to bear on the situation, reacting to the crisis that others have brought into being.

However, the end of the game completely violates every component of that premise.  Rather than reacting you are being asked to preemptively strike, inflicting horror upon your own people at the request of your enemy - to solve his racist, imaginary problem (which you have already solved one way or another by this point). 

So unless you are already cool with brainwashing, genocide and eugenics, this ending does not reflect your beliefs at all.  Indeed, the only decision-making at work is which attrocity do you like better?

The game makes it clear that the only way to 'win' a war is by using the war crimes of your ememies, making you a hypocrite to your own cause and effectively advocating such brutality no matter what your personal moral standpoint.  The EC even trips over itself to gush praise for such actions: don't worry about that pile of Geth, Shepard is a hero in Destroy; nobody at all minds being genetically violated, Synthesis is the bestest; and 'cause I'm Shepard, it's totally okay that I, unstoppable, police the galaxy as I see fit in Control.

And again, if you really can't see the difference between Shepard choosing which Virmire Survivor to save in an scenario in which it is impossible to save both, and being asked to preemptively inflict a war crime on your own people by mutating or exterminating them, or appointing himself the new galactic overlord - all at your enemy's request, to fix a problem that doesn't exist anyway - then there there is very little that can be profitably added to this conversation to help you see where I am coming from. 

::applause::

This is why I have doubts about fan opinions being cared about.  Being handed a list of war crimes to choose from was a major complaint about the endings.  And EC, rather than trying to alleviate that fear, instead shows people praising Shepard for the choice.  Sorry but being praised for genocide is still genocide (oh, wait, synthetics aren't even mentioned in that one).  Even if EDI is happy, you still forcibly violated the galaxy.  And the ShepReaper seems to have abandoned the idea that people can coexist together without Reaper Clause making a naughty and nice list.  These concerns were not and to this day have no been addressed at all

[Cashmoney007]

It will be interesting to see what EA does with Bioware.  I will be interested to see how the next games turn out for Bioware.

Modifié par Cashmoney007, 27 novembre 2012 - 03:19 .

[Redbelle]

Cashmoney007 wrote...

It will be interesting to see what EA does with Bioware.  I will be interested to see how the next games turn out for Bioware.

More RPG. More imagination and more innovation.

I'd say less focus on gameplay mechanics but those are the foundation of any game.

If anything, I would say focus on the narrative and how you bring that out in game. Focus on the MP styled run and gun second.

As much as we need a solid action segment of the game so we can get through it, BW is, the bard, of the game industry.

When BW sits down to tell a story, people listen, cause they know it'll be good.

[ElectroNeonPanda]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

- Those that wanted a happy ending (they disliked how the ending was a downer.  THey didn't feel like they won, wanted to end up with their Love Interest, etc.)

That right there is the crux of the problem with the endings for me.  I feel like I played through ME2 (PS3 player so no ME1 at the time) and ME3 only to be left questioning why I'd bothered when ultimately I was forced between getting my arse handed to me or making decisions counter to everything that the game had championed up to that point, namely the fight for synthetics' right to exist alongside organics.  

I can't believe I'm getting wound up about this all over again but I still can't believe the people who took me on such an enjoyable, moving, and exciting journey can't understand how far short of the mark they fell with the ending to such an epic series.

[Captain_Obvious]

Bioware is a company, and I think they care to the extent that they want consumers like me to give them my money. They are going to do whatever they have to in order to ensure the most people give them the most money. If that means a different "artistic vision" and parting ways with a few long-time fans, so be it. It's nothing personal, it's just business.

[mrcanada]

Sure they care, but it doesn't matter one iota to the final result. This game is already planned out and in progress and nothing you say to Casey Hudson on Twitter will change that. I think it's utter nonsense that he is even posting to ask.

[Merode]

Hey,

I'm new to the forum, having just finished the trilogy with "ending" dlc. I had a "perfect" ending and I must say liked it - seems like a good, happy ending (except maybe for EDI and geth). I find it quite awesome that Shepard actually pulled this off and survived, no matter how injured or whatever. I can only imagine he's going to retire, have plenty of blue kids and free bus tickets for rest of his life for saving the galaxy.

Now lets talk Mass Effect 4. Personally, I would be very disappointed with prequel. Why?

There's a lot of fuss about "what happened after" destruction/perfect ending. It's something exciting, something you want to know, something to wait for and spend your money on. Even if you don't meet Shepard in-game, just like you don't meet Quentin Tarantino in real life - there should be a reference. The stronger the better. You can't just leave him out of picture because the combined rage of fanbase would reach moon. And besides, he's quite a hero.

Prequel would be just tedious compared to sequel - that's all for me. What I would really like to see is Shepard rewarded with happy life based on your saves (for the background) and completly new story taking place after ME3. Maybe from perspective of some "nobody" from small colonial planet somehow pulled into adventure. Makes small matter for me as long as the background for the story will be based on my saves.


From the simple mechanic point of view:

- I liked how Mass Effect 2 dived deeply into each crew member's story. I really felt for these people when it came to the suicide mission. I would like to see this kind of feature in future - make relations deeper. Not only romance..

- Mixing codex and journal was not good idea. Journal gets messy due to that. Main quests could have been seperated from sidequests too. Tutorials are misplaced. Main menu -> extras is the place for them.

- I'd like to have some more customization regarding items. I mean, it isn't fun when your chestpiece, while with good stats, looks just not good. It's a matter of taste, but maybe it could be possible to customize items so you can choose whatever outfit you like and preserve stats. Something similar to SWTOR's items.

- UI scaling. Might turn out I'm an idiot but I'm playing in 1920x1080 and ME 1 and 2 had perfectly scaled ui to my screen, while in ME3 everything was "micro". Couldn't find a way around it - please keep it in mind with next game.


Just my opinions. I'm curious what do you guys and gals think - discuss.

Modifié par Merode, 27 novembre 2012 - 08:28 .

[themaltaproject]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

But the "followed somewhat closely" happy ending crowd gets tuck with the exact same faceless torso scene. And those who hate the Catalyst got "closure" via a "Rocks fall, everyone dies" ending. The fact that there are those who still choose it should say something about the endings even in EC.

I'm on the record from months ago stating that I wholeheartedly agreed with people that felt there should be an option to refuse the catalyst, and openly stated that I'd only do it if it resulted in this cycle losing. It's a much more interesting choice to me. If it's "yay we still win anyways" then we basically say "you could choose something else... but I'm not sure why."

As much as I like the idea of choices in games, I am not a fan of "let the player get whatever conclusion that they want."


It's not "rocks fall and everyone dies." That situation is called in when you are killed for no good reason. It doesn't exactly come out of no where that the Crucible is going to be required to defeat the Reapers. Refusing to use it and having the cycle fail to defeat the Reapers is an entirely predictable outcome.


The intent appear to have always been one where Shepard's fate is teased. Given that the scene shows up and the memorial wall on the Normandy plays out differently make it seem pretty obvious that Shepard survives in that ending.

I have one question, Sir. I hope you wont take this is as sarcasm because it's a genuine question. Why the big choices at the end at all? Shep was going to die. The story was done, you guys said we are moving on from shepard. Why did you throw out all of these big choices for us to argue over and dislike? Why not one solid finale? Everything had been big decisions up until now, so why not finally just give shep a glorious death, a breathtaking ending, or if shepard lives, maybe some afterplay?

[LinksOcarina]

Reth Shepherd wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

 

Ithurael wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Ithurael wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...
Source of the article please? I would like to know when it was posted, where, and by who before I even trust it. 

I think this was the ea_spouse (erica hoffman) whistle blower article

clickity

So an anonymous post made in 2004 justifies the practices of a company in 2012, when they have a different regime and corporate structure in the intern? 

I don't discount that this may have happened, but I fail to see it being relevant to today in any way. 

When it came out in 2004 it was mind blowing and did lead to many MANY changes in EA. Though I strongly doubt that EA is the devil it was in 2004 I would say that it has priorities to satisfy the shareholders over the product of the game. Though I doubt they will ship a game that is half finsihed, I will say that they want to keep deadlines in order to keep the $$ coming in for each fiscal quarter. Mainly it is a question of priorities. They want $$ so they make games, gamers live in a world that they think game designers want to make games so they need money.

Though, Ms Hoffman has stated that EA is slowly starting to slip back into its old habits.

For the record, I will say that EA is not my favorite company, and I do strongly believe that EA had its deadlines forced onto ME3 to ship it out by the end of its fiscal quarter. When a product isn't finished, it isn't finished IMO. but, the team did the best they could.

It's funny, because John Riccitello is supposedly not well liked by the shareholders of EA because of his strategies since his tenure began in 2007, which including the diversifying process, the partners program, the transition to gaming as a service, and the fact that he is thinking ahead more than thinking about now, which causes a LOT more risks and headaches for board members. And what I mean by that is the investments into new tech, speculative markets, and next gen developments, I.E, costing them more money in the short term for long term-stability. 

I honestly think the deadline aspect is a misnomer too. After all, Mass Effect 3 did get delayed by six months before release as well. So even if the game was not as finished as they hoped, it seems unlikely that they were married to a deadline set in stone. And considering March is the end of the fiscal year of 2011, it would make no sense for EA to try to finish the year out with a bang when they knew their income was going to take a hit regardless of what is released then. Plus they were already in the black for revenue that year, although a strong finish does soften the blow I guess. I don't know I am just speculating at this point. 

As an aside, the context for the Hoffman interview from Gamasutra never explicitly states EA is where the horror stories are coming from. Hoffman is talking about the industry as a whole. At least that is how the interview read to me in terms of its context. If that is the case, again that was in 2008, and that is not a guarentee that crunch time is that hectic still either. 

I know it is a bit prudent to ask guys like Allan this, but I am sure they can vouch for themselves and say that EA is not shafting them the way say Team Bondi was imploded by Rockstar and Brendan McNamara. 

Bioware asked for more time; got it. Needed yet more time, asked for it...didn't get it. I'll also point out that according to the Final Hours app, the ending was written during the final months of the game's creation. Dunno about you, but I see a correlation here.

So do we have proof they asked for more time twice, or is that in that Final Hours Application? 

As for writing the finale in the final months, thats BioWares mistake, not Electronic Arts.