989 réponses à ce sujet

[SporkFu]

I honestly forgot all about that. Yeah, we need more of that. Not too much, mind you, but a little bit here and there to add some variety to the game would be nice. Wasn't the optional rannoch mission the save Korris the only time we got to use that or am I mistaken? I seem to recall shooting husks from it once, which definitely wasn't rannoch... hmm.

It could be fun to blast some ravengers out of the sky during the Leviathan mission. That one planet was swarming with them. Could had been pretty intense.

It was the 'save admiral Koris' mission, yep. I would love to have seen Wrex using it on Sur'Kesh to blow Cerberus mooks to hell with it instead of flying the shuttle around. Would've reminded me of Stephen Heck strapping a chaingun to a subway train to give you backup in Alpha Protocol. *sigh* oh well.

[ImaginaryMatter]

I've always been pretty neutral on this sequence. It was obviously nothing special, but nothing I'd care to criticize. I was more preoccupied with the fact that Shepard's weapons will appear and then disappear once the sequence was over.

 

It's one of those things that I probably wouldn't be too bothered with if I was invested into the game. For me though, by the time I got to Priority: Earth I was annoyed from the constant Cerberus and was dreading the inevitable TIM encounter. I was already weary of the mission's dismal color pallet (seriously, BioWare game designers, there is no reason to have this little contrast!). And confused about all the little plot holes and contrivances. Plus, everyone was saluting me with their left hand! Then you get to the actual turret section and it's another pointless tone break.

[angol fear]

Weeks, cannot publicly admit that the writing in ME3's ending have problems. He will just go the route of ‘hide the ball’. 

 

If he really dislikes the ending, he simply has to say nothing. If he says that the problem isn't the game but the players, it's because that's what he thinks. Weeks doesn't work for marketing. He is a writer. Nobody force him to say anything.

And he isn't the only one who thinks that the problem isn't the game but the players and their expectations.

[Massa FX]

tldr complete thread.

 

@ OP/PW:  But, that's not why I cried. Not exactly. I cried because of RGB and not having more freedom in choice at the end. I cried because I wanted so much more for the end of a phenomenal gaming experience. It ended too soon and it underwhelmed. Fell short. 

 

I bawled and howled. Then... got really pissed off. That anger lasted a loooong time. In fact, I've never been so emotionally tied to a video game before.

 

But I got over it. 

 

[Andres Hendrix]

If he really dislikes the ending, he simply has to say nothing. If he says that the problem isn't the game but the players, it's because that's what he thinks. Weeks doesn't work for marketing. He is a writer. Nobody force him to say anything.

And he isn't the only one who thinks that the problem isn't the game but the players and their expectations.

You have basically  missed the entire point of what I wrote.  Kudos to you! Bravo!

Also concerning your psuedo argumeant; non-sequitur much? lol

[angol fear]

You have basically  missed the entire point of what I wrote.  Kudos to you! Bravo!

Also concerning your psuedo argumeant; non-sequitur much? lol

 

You didn't say that Bioware needed to stay on their position, defending the ending if they didn't want to lose face? You didn't say that losing face = selling less?

Didn't you say in a implicit way that Weeks didn't like the ending but as a part of Bioware he wanted it to sell so he had to not criticize the ending?

 

If It's not what you said then yes I missed the entire point of what you wrote.

[Vazgen]

And if you are going to require a player to kill his.her character, it should be for concrete, understandable reasons. "For the feelz" simply doesn't cut it. Nor does "Because the Catalyst says so"

And in the case of Destroy, those who want Shepard to live get...a faceless torso taking a breath. That's nowhere near equal to watching SHepard die. It's a bone tossed at players, done on the cheap. Players who don't want their SHepard to die don't get to see their Shepard live

So you want explanation to how the Crucible works, except it must not come from the Catalyst? Did you question the notion of "organic essence" when it was introduced in ME1? Because that very notion is used in the explanation.

I'd appreciate if you did not claim to talk for all the players. I saw my Shepard live just fine. If Finger Twitch Revival doesn't work for you, sorry, it's a quite commonly used technique.

[Linkenski]

Nice to see how much discussion has been going on since last I checked. I feel that it's a good point to say that it's a bad idea to assume that everyone who hated the endings were in the same camp.

I think the bottomline is that there were multiple issues that collided within the final 10 minutes and with Shepard dying on top of all these inconsistencies it felt like a slap in the face to anyone who were invested, thus spawning an Internet horde of furious fans.

Personally though, I would still stress that if Shepard had died for a worthy cause I wouldn't have minded him dying, as sad as it would've still seemed. The reason why I put emphasis on "a worthy cause" is because I while the endings always did resolve the main conflict (end the Reaper cycle) the shift in theme and central conflict at the end makes it feel like Shepard is sacrificing himself for a wrong cause.

He does end the cycles but it feels like getting rid of the reapers is suddenly a secondary objective because the entire narrative is suddenly about resolving a nonexistant conflict (or a conflict we haven't seen any real evidence of) and to me that was always the sole reason why the endings just fell apart.

Stuff like Joker escaping and other plot holes were bad too so the Extended Cut fixing that was great, but it still didn't bother to address the main inconsistency with enough detail.

So the notion that everyone were grieving over Shepard dying for a worthy cause is misunderstood in the way I see it. Like someone wrote earlier, we've seen meaningful sacrifices in other games and despite players being very attached they found it to be sad for all the right reasons and didn't complain. I stress, the reason so many were not accepting that Shepard died is not just because we had 3 games with him and a love interest, it's because his sacrifice wasn't justified.

[Valmar]

He does end the cycles but it feels like getting rid of the reapers is suddenly a secondary objective because the entire narrative is suddenly about resolving a nonexistant conflict (or a conflict we haven't seen any real evidence of) and to me that was always the sole reason why the endings just fell apart.
 

 

I'll agree with you on a lot of the other stuff you brought up but this particularly caught me by surprise.  What are you talking about here? Did you honestly play Mass Effect without noticing the conflict of organic vs machine? Its very much there. No matter justified it may be in some situations it is still there.

 

Personally I had no problem with the reaper's motivation. Its the star brat and execution of how the choices play out that I have an issue with. Except for synthesis, that one I just plain ol' hate. At least control and destroy made some degree of sense, even if the methods were questionable (destroying a tube destroys reapers?)

[Iakus]

So you want explanation to how the Crucible works, except it must not come from the Catalyst? Did you question the notion of "organic essence" when it was introduced in ME1? Because that very notion is used in the explanation.

I'd appreciate if you did not claim to talk for all the players. I saw my Shepard live just fine. If Finger Twitch Revival doesn't work for you, sorry, it's a quite commonly used technique.

It certainly doesn't help that the explanation" (using the term loosely) comes from the very being that's been exterminating advanced life in the galaxy fro the past billion years.  Who is, in fact, the primary antagonist for the trilogy.

 

And the fact that the Crucible is being built following barely-understood blueprints with no idea what it does was a pretty idiotic idea.  I can't help but sympathize with the Council at the very start of ME3.  It amounted to wishing really hard, or sacrificing to ancient gods (or to The Shepard) for deliverance from the storm.  With Shepard himself the final sacrifice.

 

If you imagined your Shepard in the scene, that's fine.  But there's a reason why modding the memorial scene to put Shepard in it is so popular:  You get to see your Shepard. The one who's face you made/approved, hugging your Shepard's LI.  Clearly alive and clearly reunited with teh Normandy.  The breath scene is exactly how I described it:  a faceless torso.  And many find it overly brief and unsatisfying.  Do not try to deny that sentiment exists.

 

Also, you know what the Finger Twitch Revival is commonly used on?  Monsters.  Frankenstein's monster, Jason, the various Terminators.  It's sequel bait.  It's an implied promise we will face this monster again.  My problem is

 

1) Until RGB I did not see my Shepard as a monster and 

2) We've been outright told no more Shepard.  So the breath scene is a promise worth less than the air in that breath.

[KaiserShep]

Yeah I'm not really a fan of this "worthy cause" idea, because the death itself seems pretty arbitrary. If the Crucible is "mostly intact", then it's not really necessary to have the Citadel break apart, because what's the difference? If Shepard survives and the Citadel is rebuilt anyway, having it break apart at all is meaningless. At least with Control, death seems more fitting, because Shepard is essentially trading one mode of existence for another. I don't even care to touch on the other option anymore.

[Staff Cdr Alenko]

I'll agree with you on a lot of the other stuff you brought up but this particularly caught me by surprise.  What are you talking about here? Did you honestly play Mass Effect without noticing the conflict of organic vs machine? Its very much there. No matter justified it may be in some situations it is still there.

 

Personally I had no problem with the reaper's motivation. Its the star brat and execution of how the choices play out that I have an issue with. Except for synthesis, that one I just plain ol' hate. At least control and destroy made some degree of sense, even if the methods were questionable (destroying a tube destroys reapers?)

 

About the organic/machine conflict thing. Throughout ME1 and ME2, the theme that is usually summarized as the "organics vs. synthetics conflict" has evolved. Tensions between organic and synthetic lifeforms appear, of course, especially in ME1, in which the geth weren't fully fleshed out yet and we have things like the credit-stealing AI on the Presidium.

 

The thing is that in ME2 we find out more about the geth and the Morning War. The vanilla sci-fi standard "dangerous AI" theme is subverted. Some say Mass Effect is full of themes that can be summarized as 'conflict between organic and synthetic life'. I'd go as far as to say the opposite - Mass Effect is full of themes that could actually be summarized as 'cooperation between organic and synthetic life'. Even in ME1 there are hints to be found that the war between quarians and the geth wasn't as straightforward as it would seem at first glance. For instance, there's the text box that appears at the end of the final geth base in Armstrong Nebula (or maybe Voyager Cluster, the cluster where the geth were preparing a bigger invasion), which describes a quarian song. I always feel a bit sorry for the geth at that moment. It's a minor thing, but it adds a pleasant ambiguity to the geth in ME1, and that ambiguity is greatly expanded upon in ME2, with Legion and all of his conversations.

 

I have stubbornly stuck with refusing to call the third game 'Mass Effect', always putting scare quotes around "ME3". I have done so and I will persist, because that game has thrown away the development of this theme, and indeed many, many other themes that have appeared in ME1 and ME2. It's based on either different themes altogether, or uses regressed (or, calling it less mildly, butchered) versions of themes and narratives Mass Effect was built upon. It's not even a sequel, it's a reboot. To address the OP a little more directly, people weren't grieving because Shepard died. People were grieving because something else died, and it was character and story development.

[Reorte]

I'd appreciate if you did not claim to talk for all the players. I saw my Shepard live just fine. If Finger Twitch Revival doesn't work for you, sorry, it's a quite commonly used technique.

Commonly used doesn't make it either satisfying or not crap.

[Iakus]

 

The thing is that in ME2 we find out more about the geth and the Morning War. The vanilla sci-fi standard "dangerous AI" theme is subverted. Some say Mass Effect is full of themes that can be summarized as 'conflict between organic and synthetic life'. I'd go as far as to say the opposite - Mass Effect is full of themes that could actually be summarized as 'cooperation between organic and synthetic life'. Even in ME1 there are hints to be found that the war between quarians and the geth wasn't as straightforward as it would seem at first glance. For instance, there's the text box that appears at the end of the final geth base in Armstrong Nebula (or maybe Voyager Cluster, the cluster where the geth were preparing a bigger invasion), which describes a quarian song. I always feel a bit sorry for the geth at that moment. It's a minor thing, but it adds a pleasant ambiguity to the geth in ME1, and that ambiguity is greatly expanded upon in ME2, with Legion and all of his conversations.

 

Not to mention ME2 revealed that the Reapers themselves were partially organic, further muddying the "organic vs synthetic" conflict.

[Obadiah]

Commonly used doesn't make it either satisfying or not crap.

But it does mean that you understand what the breath scene is intended to convey, that Shepard survived the blast and went on to live, and it turns the rest of the arguments for the breath scene being unsatisfying into more of a personal wishlist rather than an argument.

[ImaginaryMatter]

About the organic/machine conflict thing. Throughout ME1 and ME2, the theme that is usually summarized as the "organics vs. synthetics conflict" has evolved. Tensions between organic and synthetic lifeforms appear, of course, especially in ME1, in which the geth weren't fully fleshed out yet and we have things like the credit-stealing AI on the Presidium.

 

The thing is that in ME2 we find out more about the geth and the Morning War. The vanilla sci-fi standard "dangerous AI" theme is subverted. Some say Mass Effect is full of themes that can be summarized as 'conflict between organic and synthetic life'. I'd go as far as to say the opposite - Mass Effect is full of themes that could actually be summarized as 'cooperation between organic and synthetic life'. Even in ME1 there are hints to be found that the war between quarians and the geth wasn't as straightforward as it would seem at first glance. For instance, there's the text box that appears at the end of the final geth base in Armstrong Nebula (or maybe Voyager Cluster, the cluster where the geth were preparing a bigger invasion), which describes a quarian song. I always feel a bit sorry for the geth at that moment. It's a minor thing, but it adds a pleasant ambiguity to the geth in ME1, and that ambiguity is greatly expanded upon in ME2, with Legion and all of his conversations.

 

There's several reason's why it felt weird to bring the whole thing up during the ending. The conflict was already wrapped up before Shepard heads into the end scene. The Geth had either been destroyed (minus the multiplayer hold outs), joined the rest of the organics to help rebuild everyone's futures, or made peace with the Quarians; EDI herself had finished her personal arc. For all intensive purposes it felt settled. The end felt like digging up a zombie.

 

The biggest problem, though, as you said, was that the nature of the conflict had changed. By the time we get to ME3 the conflict really isn't about AI vs organics, at least past a superficial level; it instead became some sort of stand in for racial tensions or something like that. The Geth weren't the alien AI they use to be but were rather people with metal skins and light bulb faces. This certainly isn't the direction I wanted the Geth/Quarian conflict to head into but it was the one Rannoch was not to subtly beating me over the head with.

 

Then the end comes along and repaints all this. It's not like it's impossible for an AI to destroy all organics, the Catalyst is an example, I guess. But it feels no more likely than an organic species doing the exact thing; in fact, it seems less likely given the sanctification the Geth got in ME3, where a reoccuring theme was how often they spared the Quarians (plus, removing mention of that nasty genocide business and making it sound like self-defense). Conflict is par for the course for the galaxy and AI fighting organics is just another facet of that conflict, not an entirely different one altogether. It's a conflict that's not easy to solve but one that isn't impossible barring Synthesis. It's make me wonder: that in a game where the writer's presumably control what they put into a story, why they spent so much time to make Rannoch the way it was. I know I say this a lot, but I think it's pretty telling that we're never allowed to bring up the events of Rannoch, despite it's relevance as our microcosm of the whole O vs S thing.

 

The problem, I find, isn't that the Catalyst is logically wrong (although it does seem implausible) or that the questions brought up by the end are wrong, they're just tacked on to the wrong story. The Mass Effect series neither spent the time nor the depth to make this ending work, and ultimately this makes it feel fauxlosophic. If the end introduced some generic goal for the Reapers, yet contained the same ending choices and structure it probably would have worked a lot better. When people talk about the ending choices for the most part it seems like they pick them based on the choice's own merits, not as a solution to the organic-synthetic conflict. If the game had really built up to this ending, I think we would be seeing a lot less of Destroy -- as it isn't a solution to the conflict. Instead most people seem to ignore that downside; heck, even the EC epilogue ignores it.

[Vazgen]

It certainly doesn't help that the explanation" (using the term loosely) comes from the very being that's been exterminating advanced life in the galaxy fro the past billion years.  Who is, in fact, the primary antagonist for the trilogy.

 

And the fact that the Crucible is being built following barely-understood blueprints with no idea what it does was a pretty idiotic idea.  I can't help but sympathize with the Council at the very start of ME3.  It amounted to wishing really hard, or sacrificing to ancient gods (or to The Shepard) for deliverance from the storm.  With Shepard himself the final sacrifice.

 

If you imagined your Shepard in the scene, that's fine.  But there's a reason why modding the memorial scene to put Shepard in it is so popular:  You get to see your Shepard. The one who's face you made/approved, hugging your Shepard's LI.  Clearly alive and clearly reunited with teh Normandy.  The breath scene is exactly how I described it:  a faceless torso.  And many find it overly brief and unsatisfying.  Do not try to deny that sentiment exists.

 

Also, you know what the Finger Twitch Revival is commonly used on?  Monsters.  Frankenstein's monster, Jason, the various Terminators.  It's sequel bait.  It's an implied promise we will face this monster again.  My problem is

 

1) Until RGB I did not see my Shepard as a monster and 

2) We've been outright told no more Shepard.  So the breath scene is a promise worth less than the air in that breath.

First, Crucible was never activated, in any cycle. It makes perfect sense for the explanation to come from the Catalyst. Second, Crucible scientists knew what it was going to do in at least one case, even Liara figured it out on Mars. Illusive Man figured out the other use for the device. But Citadel requirement made all those just theories. There was no way to test the device without the Citadel. They knew for certain that it would end the war though.

 

I never denied the existence of such sentiment, in fact the topic is basically built on it. What I did say, is that this sentiment comes from a group of players, not all of them and talking like endings sucked for every Mass Effect player out there is plainly wrong. 

 

Where the FTR was used before is irrelevant. The point is, it shows survival of the subject, and therefore, all the talk about Shepard dying in that ending is rendered moot. Unless you are completely unfamiliar with that technique which is not the case, given your post:

"Also, you know what the Finger Twitch Revival is commonly used on?  Monsters.  Frankenstein's monster, Jason, the various Terminators.  It's sequel bait.  It's an implied promise we will face this monster again. "

[dreamgazer]

About the organic/machine conflict thing. Throughout ME1 and ME2, the theme that is usually summarized as the "organics vs. synthetics conflict" has evolved. Tensions between organic and synthetic lifeforms appear, of course, especially in ME1, in which the geth weren't fully fleshed out yet and we have things like the credit-stealing AI on the Presidium.

The geth were actually pretty well fleshed out in ME1. ME2 retconned them.
 

The thing is that in ME2 we find out more about the geth and the Morning War. The vanilla sci-fi standard "dangerous AI" theme is subverted. Some say Mass Effect is full of themes that can be summarized as 'conflict between organic and synthetic life'. I'd go as far as to say the opposite - Mass Effect is full of themes that could actually be summarized as 'cooperation between organic and synthetic life'. Even in ME1 there are hints to be found that the war between quarians and the geth wasn't as straightforward as it would seem at first glance. For instance, there's the text box that appears at the end of the final geth base in Armstrong Nebula (or maybe Voyager Cluster, the cluster where the geth were preparing a bigger invasion), which describes a quarian song. I always feel a bit sorry for the geth at that moment. It's a minor thing, but it adds a pleasant ambiguity to the geth in ME1, and that ambiguity is greatly expanded upon in ME2, with Legion and all of his conversations.

You do remember that in the geth loyalty mission, Shepard's forced to decide whether to brainwash or destroy the heretics because of their uncooperative directives, right? That's what happens when there's an AI "schism". The conflict has always been there.
 

I have stubbornly stuck with refusing to call the third game 'Mass Effect', always putting scare quotes around "ME3". I have done so and I will persist, because that game has thrown away the development of this theme, and indeed many, many other themes that have appeared in ME1 and ME2. It's based on either different themes altogether, or uses regressed (or, calling it less mildly, butchered) versions of themes and narratives Mass Effect was built upon. It's not even a sequel, it's a reboot. To address the OP a little more directly, people weren't grieving because Shepard died. People were grieving because something else died, and it was character and story development.

ME2 will always be more of a reboot than ME3.

[Andres Hendrix]

You didn't say that Bioware needed to stay on their position, defending the ending if they didn't want to lose face? You didn't say that losing face = selling less?

Didn't you say in a implicit way that Weeks didn't like the ending but as a part of Bioware he wanted it to sell so he had to not criticize the ending?

 

If It's not what you said then yes I missed the entire point of what you wrote.

 

 

If he really dislikes the ending, he simply has to say nothing. If he says that the problem isn't the game but the players, it's because that's what he thinks. Weeks doesn't work for marketing. He is a writer. Nobody force him to say anything.

And he isn't the only one who thinks that the problem isn't the game but the players and their expectations.

My original post

 

Of course, Weeks will say that, he has to sell games. His role makes him limited in what he can say. The best thing for him to say about the fan reaction to the ME3 endings, is that the fans were just having an irrational or ‘emotional reaction’ (in this case grief) to his game. It makes the game look better (people reacted emotionally to a video game!) and it strawmans the criticism of the endings.

People who think those three endings were cogent are fooling themselves. Take for instance, when Star-Jar came out of the machine and called the green ending "evolution", I said to myself, "You have got to be ****** kidding me, where is, the RANDOM MUTATION BY NATURAL SELECTION?"  The writing behind those endings (I guess Walters and Hudson, skipped over Darwin, Dawkins and Gould when they were gathering source material) perturbed me. Fiction is about filling in those gaps in knowledge (where facts should be) with one’s imagination. Eventually the fiction will no longer work in those gaps, because new facts will replace the ficiton.
 

Ex: At present, we do not have FTL space travel; we do not know how to do it, we do not have the means. Therefore, in ME the writers said, ‘here is an interesting way to depict FTL space travel in our story (ezo, and the Mass Effect etc). If we had FTL travel in real life, there would be no reason to use fiction (ezo, the Mass Effect). It would be something as mundane as someone driving a car.

Evolution itself is not fiction it is scientific fact. You can use your imagination (as Bioware did) to create a new species etc, but to liken evolution to some sort of fantastical adaption, is absurd.

Something illogical happened in the writing of the ME3 endings (red blue and green, but especially the green). For instance, Star-Jar starts going on about messing with DNA, and having the next step in evolution. Yet implied in that ‘next step’, is that Star-Brat does not know what evolution is. This kills the player's immersion; Star-Brat is supposed to be an uber-intelligent AI, yet it does not understand something as simple and eloquent as, ‘random mutation by natural selection.’ Thus, it is only logical to say that the writers screwed up. I will add, that I do not think a nonsensical cause, can be deemed  a "worthy cause."

The ME3 endings have problems, the writers and people at Bioware know this, they just can’t say it. Instead, they put on a front (read Goffman’s “The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life”) to save (corporate) face. That is what Weeks is doing.

It’s incredible that it has been two years after the fiasco, and Bioware is still trying to mitigate the damage of the ME3 endings (they know why). If I were to guess, years from now, Bioware will still be acting as though their fans were the emotional devils, rightfully tossed headlong (into greif striken 'bottomless perdition') because...‘artistic integrity!’

Weeks is part of a team, if he were to admit that the writing was off in ME3 he would make Bioware look weak. Therefore, he stuck to a certain game of hide the ball. Hide the ball is like confirmation bias, lawyers use it as a term colloquially. It happens when a person knows that their team would lose if certain evidence were brought forth, so they obfuscate and ignore that evidence. In this case, he ignored the critics of the endings, and tried to make it sound like the fans of ME3 were just acting irrationally (grief stricken). Bioware is in a better position, if they can convince people that the critics was just fans getting emotional, because it shifts the blame fully onto the fans, and strawmans critical arguments against the endings. (Which seems to have worked). 

What you wrote is a non-sequeter, “If he really dislikes the ending, he simply has to say nothing.”  Basically, “he simply has to say nothing” does not follow from your premise  of ‘him not liking it’.  For you, Weeks being part of a business that sells games, is apparently not a variable in his behaviour.  I think that is fatuous. It would be incredibly stupid if a writer at Bioware came out and said that ME3’s ending fiasco was a result of bad writing. It would make them look bad corporately. Yes, they would lose face. Why wouldn’t they?  Their company looks stronger if they all follow a similar line of discourse, the line of discourse since 2012 has been that the fans are irrational or overemotional. No one is forcing him to say anything; all of this has to do with situation, and his role. A Bioware writer, saying that the endings were stupid and that Mac and Casey messed up, would make Bioware look like what? The logic is not so hard to follow.

“And he isn't the only one who thinks that the problem isn't the game but the players and their expectations.”

I think that is a testament to Bioware’s PR, that they now have fans who will doggedly defend the corprate explaination of the ending fiasco, and not look at it critically.

“Weeks doesn’t work for marketing. He is a writer. Nobody force him to say anything.”

I did not say that Weeks works for marketing now did I. I said he is part of a team trying to sell games; he is a writer for Bioware, being part of that team means that he wants his games to sell. Now, I do not think we need to nitpick the economics of this. Let it suffice to say, that it makes sense that a Bioware writer would want, Bioware games to sell.

[Obadiah]

* Cough *
Is there an EA/Bioware corporate message that the reaction to the Mass Effect 3 ending was only, or mostly, about players grieving about the death of Commander Shepard? I think I've only ever heard about that from Weekes, and he's referencing his personal interactions.

[Andres Hendrix]

* Cough *
Is there an EA/Bioware corporate message that the reaction to the ending was only or mostly about players grieving about the death of Commander Shepard? I think I've only ever heard about that from Weekes.

"...the line of discourse since 2012 has been that the fans are irrational or overemotional." So what Weeks said does not fit into that line of discourse? As Dr. Lecter would say, 'Enthrall me with your acumen'.

[Obadiah]

But... that's your line.

Weekes said, based on his interaction, that players were probably justifiably grieving.

The general EA/Bioware response I've seen is essentially: people have questions and we'll try to answer as many of them as possible; please enjoy the game (pretty please). Then they stopped responding almost completely after the EC for the most part.

I do think some players who were critical were irrational and overemotional, but that was just obvious in their posts. If I'd been on the receiving end of the hate from the ME3 ending, I'd probably agree with the "irrational" part as a general description.

[Pee Jae]

Heh. No. I love you to death as a writer for this series, Patrick. But, no. I wasn't grieving for Shepard or me. I was grieving about the total nonsensical left turn the game suddenly wrenched me into. And the subsequent non-ending in three colors we all got. Sure, the Reapers were destroyed, but that's pretty much the only end we got for the game. "What happened?" is never really answered after that.

 

And by "grieve" I mean "angry as hell."

[Andres Hendrix]

But... that's your line.

Weekes said, based on his interaction, that players were probably justifiably grieving.

The general EA/Bioware response I've seen is essentially: people have questions and we'll try to answer as many of them as possible; please enjoy the game (pretty please). Then they stopped responding almost completely after the EC for the most part.

I do think some players who were critical were irrational and overemotional, but that was just obvious in their posts. If I'd been on the receiving end of the hate from the ME3 ending, I'd probably agree with the "irrational" part as a general description.

If  Weeks is just making his generalisation from his ‘personal interactions’, well he is using a biased anecdotal sample. He as well as Bioware are already stuck with an association fallacy as it is, why not make it worse right? lol

You are not depicting the character of Bioware's response, which would involve the answers to said questions and what the developers and writers said about the fiasco. Weeks is just one example. Hudson, Ray Muzyka, (et al) followed the discourse that the fiasco was a result of their overly emotional fans. Where was their acknowledgment of the problems with the endings? According to them, the endings did not supply enough closure, lack of closure for them = irrational fans, hence, the EC. Within everything that happened, there was nothing offical from Bioware concerning the endings themselves being poorly writ. I don't think it is so hard to understand why.

[Obadiah]

@Andres Hendrix
I tried googling the "grief" thing and all I could find was this thread. I'm pretty sure you're right that it was said by one or a few of the devs, since it does sound familiar. But, honestly, as a corporate approved message, it sounds like the dumbest thing in the world to say or even imply. If they were wrong, it would insult and inflame critics. If they were right, it would just inflame the critics (the internet is not too big on self reflection). I don't think they'd try to push that. They might "let" the message organically emerge from the internet forums by itself, heh heh heh.

Anyway that's all I have to say on it. I agree with Angol Fear that Weekes didn't have to say anything, and personally, he just seems like he's talking from his own experience (as most of us are unless we're writing a dissertation), and we're free to agree or disagree with his conclusions. Its a fair guess that he might have run his response past his boss or someone at corporate sometime before the panel started just to get feedback on whether he should just shut up or answer questions like that.