249 réponses à ce sujet

[AlexMBrennan]

how long does one need to write an ending?

That's not how it works. Firstly, Bioware would have had to plan ahead which they did not. Secondly, the work for the ending had to be done during the development of ME3 - or are you telling me that they should have had Martin Sheen record ending dialogue for ME3 when they first pitched ME1?

Sure, they might have written the ending but that doesn't cover voice acting, animation, etc - i.e. 95% of the actual work.

[Aaleel]

Bioware did this to themselves.

They built the reapers up so much in ME1, they had no choice but to come up with something like the crucible in ME3.

But the main problem was that it is pretty obvious that they never made even a skeleton outline of the over arching story through the three games. They were making it up as they went and finally someone said oh **** we have to wrap this up some how.

Modifié par Aaleel, 11 avril 2013 - 11:26 .

[Spartas Husky]

Aaleel wrote...

Bioware did this to themselves.

They built the reapers up so much in ME1, they had no choice but to come up with something like the crucible in ME3.

But the main problem was that it is pretty obvious that they never made even a skeleton outline of the over arching story through the three games. They were making it up as they went and finally someone said oh **** we have to wrap this up some how.

Your avatar shep... is nice  lol

[Tron Mega]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

how long does one need to write an ending?

That's not how it works. Firstly, Bioware would have had to plan ahead which they did not. Secondly, the work for the ending had to be done during the development of ME3 - or are you telling me that they should have had Martin Sheen record ending dialogue for ME3 when they first pitched ME1?

Sure, they might have written the ending but that doesn't cover voice acting, animation, etc - i.e. 95% of the actual work.

.........yeah, ofcorse.

writing the ending =/= making ME3

and its not just the ending. it starts as soon as the "prothean device" is mentioned.

Modifié par Tron Mega, 11 avril 2013 - 11:33 .

[Tron Mega]

Aaleel wrote...

Bioware did this to themselves.

They built the reapers up so much in ME1, they had no choice but to come up with something like the crucible in ME3.

But the main problem was that it is pretty obvious that they never made even a skeleton outline of the over arching story through the three games. They were making it up as they went and finally someone said oh **** we have to wrap this up some how.

what do you think they spent more time on?

talis face -or- MEs story

[Venom man4]

I'm sure you don't make the game as you go along. Bioware had to have the game wrote up from start to finish before they actually began making it.

Sure they could of changed things as they wen't back and played it, but I don't think it was like. Ok guys the game is all done except the ending, what do you want to do for it?

Modifié par Venom man4, 11 avril 2013 - 11:41 .

[Bakgrind]

CronoDragoon wrote...

You can perhaps blame EA for the rushed feel of Priority Earth, but not for the content or general structure of the endings.

What rings true to me is Greg talking about how experimental the endings were, that they were taking crazy risks and trying new stuff. I can just imagine people getting excited about making a "groundbreaking" ending without taking the time to step back and look at the decision from all angles.

Personally I feel that focusing explicitly on organic/synthetic conflict would have made for a fine ME4. If they wanted to take risks, that would have been the logical place to start.

Exactly how I feel. ME 4, Next or what ever should of had the story of the discovery of the Leviathon's along with the organic/synthetic story. The last 15 mins of ME 3 would of had a good 12 hours of lead in  story for the next Mass Effect title.

[Archonsg]

Venom man4 wrote...

I'm sure you don't make the game as you go along. Bioware had to have the game wrote up from start to finish before they actually began making it.

Sure they could of changed things as they wen't back and played it, but I don't think it was like. Ok guys the game is all done except the ending, what do you want to do for it?

Actually. 
No.
Drew himself was experimenting with possible endings one of which was leaked (Dark Energy) that being Humans are key to stopping the spread of Dark Energy build up and You as Shepard has to choose to consign the entire Human race to die but surely saving the Galaxy or saying "No, we'll find another way.." 

That ending was as hotly debated and disliked because of "space-magic" nonsense as one of the reasons why  Dark Energy was spreading was the widespread use of the Relays. 
Its another case of "Yo dawg, heard that Dark Energy will destroy the Galaxy, so we are gonna build Relays to stop the spread of Dark Energy" 

If I remember right, Drew himself said that it was *one* of possible few that he was working on.
Then of course he was pulled off to do SWTOR.

[spirosz]

Venom man4 wrote...

I'm sure you don't make the game as you go along. Bioware had to have the game wrote up from start to finish before they actually began making it.

Sure they could of changed things as they wen't back and played it, but I don't think it was like. Ok guys the game is all done except the ending, what do you want to do for it?

Of course they didn't just "go with the flow" per say, but you can tell - that they ran into "what were we thinking" or "how can we accomplish this" under such restraints, budget priority (like come on, Chobot?  Seriously Bioware?) and timelines, etc.

You can see the inconsistency throughout ME3, even ME2. Was this influenced because of change in writers? Possibility, but I would assume Drew would leave certain things for the team to work with, maybe he did, but they or EA didn't think it suited their goal(s).

Personally, I think the reason a lot of the story elements seem inconsistent, is because of what they did with ME2. If it wasn't as character driven and so focused on trying to please everyone, then I believe the trilogy would of been better off. As of right now, I see the trilogy working better as standalone games. Plus, that SM mechanic going into ME3 most of been hectic. So many characters (which were well done, considering the amount), but I'd Bioware try to prioritize what they'd rather focus on - either story, or make the trilogy very character driven, as ME2 - where ME3 tried to do both and failed because of too many elements of ME2 and too little impact from choices in ME1 and 2.

Modifié par spirosz, 12 avril 2013 - 12:17 .

[Singu]

Mastone wrote...

A non disclosure agreement has nothing to do with someone expressing his or her opinion about the company he or she left, it is merely an agreement that what you saw ( internal processes, confidential stuff) you will keep to yourself.
I personally don't think Greg has an itch going back to Bioware he left for a reason ( which are his own of course).

A NDA has everything to do with someone expressing their opinion about the company he or she left. The bigger the business the harder the NDA's are. And just because Dr. Greg Zeschuck is at the top of Bioware and a vice president of EA he has to sign those same NDA's to protect the current and future portfolio of EA.

Whatever statements he makes now will have to be measured against the strong possibility that the juiciest stuff will never come out because of NDA's. If he hurt EA in a measureable way as a result of him revealing stuff that would fall under a NDA he signed you can bet that EA will take him to court and make him bleed as much as possible. Whistleblowers/NDA breakers do not live merrily ever after, even if they allready left that company. And they often find themselves too toxic in the business to do anything beyond that point.

[Megaton_Hope]

It seems to me that what he said is Bioware had complete control over what goes into a game, while the argument people have been making is instead that EA exerted control over how long the game was in development, to the detriment of the final product.

Undoubtedly a deal was hammered out that Bioware and EA both thought was feasible, but it can't have been enough for what the game needed, given what we got. Some of the pieces are very nice, but they don't all connect smoothly.

[AlanC9]

Megaton_Hope wrote...

It seems to me that what he said is Bioware had complete control over what goes into a game, while the argument people have been making is instead that EA exerted control over how long the game was in development, to the detriment of the final product.

Whether this argument makes sense depends on what you think the problems with the game are. MEHEM would have been cheaper than the ending we got, so if you think the game should have ended like MEHEM .......

[Megaton_Hope]

AlanC9 wrote...

Whether this argument makes sense depends on what you think the problems with the game are. MEHEM would have been cheaper than the ending we got, so if you think the game should have ended like MEHEM .......

I do not. A lot of attention is focused on "Priority Earth" and after, but I think that the issues with ME3 are more basic, extending back to the beginning of the game, where an insurmountable threat is introduced. Screwed up the pacing something awful. I'd lean toward the leap from storyboarding to animating rather than the crunch-time ending as the real weak link in ME3's production cycle. It's more a matter for artistic leads than writers or programmers.

The lack of really sensible endings is a bigger weak point than that none of the endings is "happy," imo. Although I wouldn't personally put in any wide-ranging conversation with a Reaper AI to explain the choices of endings available, which was just a bad plot device. By that point, Shepard should have been well on his way to solving the Reaper threat through some feasible means introduced earlier.

If you ask me, if they wanted Shepard to win a Pyrrhic victory, then there are better options for driving that point home. Taking where they went with it as a jumping-off point, a device that would destroy the Mass Relays (but which would isolate Reaper forces so they can be fought directly, perhaps with other augmentations that can be made to the fleet to make battle more even) might be a good one, since removing the Mass Relays would severely impact galacitc civilization and the various races' widely dispersed colonies. The risky-but-edgy approach could be to focus on augmenting the fleet alone and doing battle with the Reapers on their own terms.

Destroy/Control/Synthesis just aren't very satisfying in general, from my perspective, because there's not much connection with the rest of the plot, even ignoring the Catalyst and the consequences once those choices are made.

[Eterna]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Here's my opinion.

EA gave too much creative control to BioWare.

BioWare didn't use or otherwise neglected a loremaster and quality control.

EA imposed a set launch schedule and were unwilling to deviate.

EA put the game out to make money, and left out other bits to sell to consumers later for more cash.

Both EA and BW are equally responsible for the travesty of ME3.

BSN is just about the only place on the internet that considers ME3 a "Tragedy" 

[Cainne Chapel]

IF ME3 is a tragedy or travesty.... i must be a pretty sick sum****...as i enjoyed it quite a bit.

But then i also giggle at stupid people so...*shrug*

[jtrook]

If this is false...bioware is losing its touch. That means, their ability to wrap up a story is weak, they chose to practically forget about ME2 squad.

[Spartas Husky]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

IF ME3 is a tragedy or travesty.... i must be a pretty sick sum****...as i enjoyed it quite a bit.

But then i also giggle at stupid people so...*shrug*

Hey I dont argue with Dung bettles for their taste, to each their own after all...

[AlanC9]

Megaton_Hope wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Whether this argument makes sense depends on what you think the problems with the game are. MEHEM would have been cheaper than the ending we got, so if you think the game should have ended like MEHEM .......

I do not. A lot of attention is focused on "Priority Earth" and after, but I think that the issues with ME3 are more basic, extending back to the beginning of the game, where an insurmountable threat is introduced. Screwed up the pacing something awful. I'd lean toward the leap from storyboarding to animating rather than the crunch-time ending as the real weak link in ME3's production cycle. It's more a matter for artistic leads than writers or programmers.

And that's the thing. I don't see how giving more time to those leads with that vision would have done too much to make the game better for you. Someone like say, drayfish, who finds the endings morally abominable, wouldn't have been made happier either.

Though someone whose problem with the game was that, say , Priority:Earth should have been done along the lines of  DA:O's Battle of Denerim (allocating ground assets, etc.), might very well have got a game more to his liking if EA threw more money at the project.

[crimzontearz]

Actually...the people above are both right and wrong. An NDA has virtually nothing to do with the developers expressing their opinions on EA

THAT SAID....most companies, mine included, DO make you sign papers at the moment of hiring which bind you to always (in or out of work) represent your company in a proper manner (which means no bad mouthing or expressing unsanctioned opinions)

I am fairly sure EA does too

[Slayer299]

OP - you realize that if that is correct it doesn't make anything better since that would mean it was BW who cut corners and gave us what he got in ME3, right?

[Slayer299]

Tron Mega wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

Bioware did this to themselves.

They built the reapers up so much in ME1, they had no choice but to come up with something like the crucible in ME3.

But the main problem was that it is pretty obvious that they never made even a skeleton outline of the over arching story through the three games. They were making it up as they went and finally someone said oh **** we have to wrap this up some how.

what do you think they spent more time on?

talis face -or- MEs story

Neither 

[Enhanced]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

"Complete control" over "a lot of it"....


So EA did interfere... thanks for playing.

Exactly.  The thread title and article title are false and misleading.

Modifié par Enhanced, 12 avril 2013 - 01:19 .

[Iucounou]

Benchpress610 wrote...

"We had complete creative control over a lot of it”.
 
I think the good doctor, though sincere, is leaving himself an escape route. Notice he didn’t say “all of it”. In general he is just speaking PR platitudes vague enough that he wouldn’t be caught in a lie later on.
 
 

The one thing that concerns me is that, regardless of how much "interference" there might have been from EA with ME3, I can only see the situation getting worse, not better.

BW have put out the pig's ear that was DA2, had SWTOR go F2P within months and suffered the ME3 ending debacle.

If I was EA, I'd be interfering more and more with BW in order to try and get them back on track. What I see this as meaning is that we'll get more dumbed-down and "safe" games that work to some imagined recipe that EA thinks works best. In short, formulaic and risk-free (also known as dull and boring).

So even if the above mentioned games were poor because of interference is almost irrelevant. I really don't see how things can get better from here on out.

[MattFini]

Eterna5 wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Here's my opinion.

EA gave too much creative control to BioWare.

BioWare didn't use or otherwise neglected a loremaster and quality control.

EA imposed a set launch schedule and were unwilling to deviate.

EA put the game out to make money, and left out other bits to sell to consumers later for more cash.

Both EA and BW are equally responsible for the travesty of ME3.

BSN is just about the only place on the internet that considers ME3 a "Tragedy" 

That's not even close to accurate. 

Amazon, Metacritic, HTL, IGN, the escapist ... it goes on and on.

Only over the past few months have I see threads crop up with the "Hey, it wasn't that bad" sentiment. 

And, honestly, post-EC, I don't think it's that bad either. But only because it was absolutely disgusting before.