500 réponses à ce sujet

[Linkenski]

The ending of ME3 was an "open ending" where Mac & Casey didn't want to write what happened. They wanted to leave it to our imaginations what happened.

The only thing you're sure of is that the cycle ended unless you refused. You died, the relays blew up, and the Normandy crashed. If you had enough EMS and picked destroy by some miracle, your chest took a gasp of air, but it could have been your last gasp. What happened afterwards is pretty irrelevant since.... drumroll... you're dead.

I think the story was that Mac had written it like he would usually do with as many details as possible but Casey saw it (and perhaps realized its flaws or perhaps he was just being stupid) and then wanted to quote-unquote "have it choreographed down to the second". From what we know he told Mac to remove half of the Anderson goodbye scene and all investigative options during the Catalyst scene. The rest we don't know, but perhaps an earlier uncovnceived version of the ME3 script contained a more detailed outcome.

I doubt it, since Final Hours said something along the lines of "Mac and Casey would actually be finessing with the final hour of the story all up until the end of production."

I think Casey is the one who decided it should have a completely open ending.

[God]

Well, it's hard to argue with the 'Shepard died' argument used by some people about certain anti-enders because, surprise surprise, guess what people are arguing about here.

 

I'm not stating my opinion, just an observation.

 

If you want Shepard to die in high EMS Destroy, you're free to headcanon it that way. That wasn't BW's intent; if he was for sure going to die, they wouldn't have shown it. I doubt even hideous, maligned, and trolling BW would create a scene like that just to say that he did in fact die. 

 

Open ending =/= Player character perma-death.

[Vazgen]

It makes no sense. They all gather to mourn his/her death even though we're supposed to believe he/she is not dead.

In control we always knew just as with breathe scene that control Shep had been created. What he/she was was ambiguous until they provided clarification via EC . Breathe Shep gets no such clarification.

 

I certainly think MEHEM shows how easily you can provide Closure/Clarification for live shep. There's a myriad of other ways too but sadly they were tyoo scummy to give the clarification and closure that ending required. Breath scene doesn't show Shep is alive. Hence devs trolling about it being his/her last breath. It certainly isn't integrated into the epilogue in any way.

Breath scene is deliberately left ambiguous because not everyone wanted their Shepard to live, like Gothfather above. The scene allows for both interpretations via headcanon. Putting a scene clearly showing Shepard as alive would've taken away from experience of those people who want to destroy the Reapers but also want their Shepard to die. Putting an unclear breath scene allows for both sides to headcanon what happens next i.e. last breath or an indication of life.

The memorial scene shows LI (or the closest squadmate) to refrain from putting Shepard's name on the wall thus indicating that there is hope. The breath scene reaffirms that hope. 

I'm quite content with the breath scene. For me it is as clear as MEHEM version - Shepard lives. That's why I don't use MEHEM, I find it unnecessary since it adds nothing to my view of the game and actually takes away from it (my Shepard does not care that much for Anderson). 

[wright1978]

Breath scene is deliberately left ambiguous because not everyone wanted their Shepard to live, like Gothfather above. The scene allows for both interpretations via headcanon. Putting a scene clearly showing Shepard as alive would've taken away from experience of those people who want to destroy the Reapers but also want their Shepard to die. Putting an unclear breath scene allows for both sides to headcanon what happens next i.e. last breath or an indication of life.

The memorial scene shows LI (or the closest squadmate) to refrain from putting Shepard's name on the wall thus indicating that there is hope. The breath scene reaffirms that hope. 

I'm quite content with the breath scene. For me it is as clear as MEHEM version - Shepard lives. That's why I don't use MEHEM, I find it unnecessary since it adds nothing to my view of the game and actually takes away from it (my Shepard does not care that much for Anderson). 

 

That's a nonsense. There's multiple ways of having a dead shep and only one high EMS one that has breath scene. Providing clarification and closure to it is no different to the way they overwrote open ambiguity from other areas of the endings. Before EC it's justifiable afterwards it's utterly disgraceful imo.

 

Memorial doesn't indicate hope. It indicates either utterly disgracefully announcing someone as dead whilst still out of contact or being misled whilst Shep is still bleeding out under rubble unfound if they are in communication with wider galaxy.

[Vazgen]

That's a nonsense. There's multiple ways of having a dead shep and only one high EMS one that has breath scene. Providing clarification and closure to it is no different to the way they overwrote open ambiguity from other areas of the endings. Before EC it's justifiable afterwards it's utterly disgraceful imo.

 

Memorial doesn't indicate hope. It indicates either utterly disgracefully announcing someone as dead whilst still out of contact or being misled whilst Shep is still bleeding out under rubble unfound if they are in communication with wider galaxy.

Well that's your opinion, can't really dispute that. IMO the exact point of the breath scene was to allow people headcanon him being dead or alive without contradicting game events (also to allow them a room to maneuver regarding Shepard's fate). You find it disgraceful, I find it quite a good compromise. We will have to agree to disagree on that. 

[themikefest]

Closure for Shepard. This would be closure for me and I've posted a few times

 

In  endings that Shepard dies, have a slide showing the grave of Shepard with LI, if he/she had one, standing over it. If no grave, have a statue of Shepard in his/her armor with LI, if Shepard has one, standing in front of it

 

In high ems destroy, have Shepard and LI, if Shepard has one, standing side by side with their backs to the screen looking up to the sky as the sun sets

 

Iif ems is below 1750 and destroy is picked, it plays out like it is shown in the game

[Valmar]

Well that's your opinion, can't really dispute that. IMO the exact point of the breath scene was to allow people headcanon him being dead or alive without contradicting game events (also to allow them a room to maneuver regarding Shepard's fate). You find it disgraceful, I find it quite a good compromise. We will have to agree to disagree on that. 

 

The thing is with the endings are it stands they didn't NEED to provide us any room to headcanon Shepard's survival or death. Because if people wanted Shepard to die... he can. There's no need to be ambiguous with the breath scene to leave room for people to pretend he dies. If death is the ending they wanted they could rather easily get it. The breathing scene is the highest EMS destroy ending. It's adamantly clear that the breathing scene, especially when paired with the modified memorial wall scene, is indication that Shepard is supposed to be alive in this version of the ending but dead in the others.

 

Why stop there, though? Why not actually show Shepard reuniting with the Normandy? We know he's alive. They made that obvious. If that was suppose to be a way to leave leeway for people to headcanon his death, its a terrible way of doing it. Its so obvious he survives. They've even confirmed it in tweets that he survives. The survival is clear. They didn't need it to be so empty and void of content, it didn't have to just be a breath scene. They didn't need to make it open to interpretation. Though I'd argue that you'd have to forgo a lot of common sense to really think he's dead at that point so I find that argument to be a moot anyway.

 

I understand giving the player a "Shepard sacrifice" ending. Im actually totally in favor for it. We already have one though. The breath scene is exclusive to the high ems ending. For the majority of players who choose destroy, Shepard is dead. So we have our "Shepard dies" ending already, they didn't need to make the survival scene even a bit ambiguous on that regard. Which is why I think they should have put more content in for our Shepard other than the breath scene and slightly tweaked memorial. Even a brief reunion scene where Shepard returns to the Normandy or embraces the LI would had been far better than the bland *GASP* scene.  Something, ANYTHING. Why make Shepard's survival so damn shallow?

[Vazgen]

 

The thing is with the endings are it stands they didn't NEED to provide us any room to headcanon Shepard's survival or death. Because if people wanted Shepard to die... he can. There's no need to be ambiguous with the breath scene to leave room for people to pretend he dies. If death is the ending they wanted they could rather easily get it. The breathing scene is the highest EMS destroy ending. It's adamantly clear that the breathing scene, especially when paired with the modified memorial wall scene, is indication that Shepard is supposed to be alive in this version of the ending but dead in the others.

 

Why stop there, though? Why not actually show Shepard reuniting with the Normandy? We know he's alive. They made that obvious. If that was suppose to be a way to leave leeway for people to headcanon his death, its a terrible way of doing it. Its so obvious he survives. They've even confirmed it in tweets that he survives. The survival is clear. They didn't need it to be so empty and void of content, it didn't have to just be a breath scene. They didn't need to make it open to interpretation. Though I'd argue that you'd have to forgo a lot of common sense to really think he's dead at that point so I find that argument to be a moot anyway.

 

I understand giving the player a "Shepard sacrifice" ending. Im actually totally in favor for it. We already have one though. The breath scene is exclusive to the high ems ending. For the majority of players who choose destroy, Shepard is dead. So we have our "Shepard dies" ending already, they didn't need to make the survival scene even a bit ambiguous on that regard. Which is why I think they should have put more content in for our Shepard other than the breath scene and slightly tweaked memorial. Even a brief reunion scene where Shepard returns to the Normandy or embraces the LI would had been far better than the bland *GASP* scene.  Something, ANYTHING. Why make Shepard's survival so damn shallow?

Maybe because they'd need to explain who found him after the mass relays are destroyed. Or maybe because of the extensive injuries he might've got after walking into an explosion. Or maybe because they were forced to release the EC fast because of all the flaming. I don't know really. 

The point I was making is that high EMS Destroy features more content that Control or Synthesis due to the breath scene. It has voice-over for slides, it has a memorial scene. It also has the breath scene which is something neither Synthesis nor Control have. And the argument for closure is subjective, because as you mentioned, breath scene is pretty clear about Shepard's survival. If anything I'd say that Bioware failed to create ambiguity about Shepard's fate.

[Valmar]

 

 

Maybe because they'd need to explain who found him after the mass relays are destroyed. Or maybe because of the extensive injuries he might've got after walking into an explosion. Or maybe because they were forced to release the EC fast because of all the flaming. I don't know really. 

The point I was making is that high EMS Destroy features more content that Control or Synthesis due to the breath scene. It has voice-over for slides, it has a memorial scene. It also has the breath scene which is something neither Synthesis nor Control have. And the argument for closure is subjective, because as you mentioned, breath scene is pretty clear about Shepard's survival. If anything I'd say that Bioware failed to create ambiguity about Shepard's fate.

 

 

The EC was merely elaboration (or extension, which ever) on what was already there. We knew Shepard took over the reapers because the ending showed the wave hitting them and them flying off. EC elaborate on that and gave us more tailored content for that. We knew synthesis really changed all life because we saw Joker and EDI being all glowy and green. EC extended this content to give it more substance.

 

Destroy ending though? Well, we already knew Shepard could survive... but why didn't that get any extension? Didn't that deserve a little elaboration? If a dedicated fan can smack together something like MEHEM then I have to imagine Bioware, even on a budget and timeline, could have smacked together scene with Shepard standing with the squad. Too much work? Give us a screenshot then. They had no problem giving us a bunch of panning images with everything else, they couldn't smack up one single image with Shepard being back with the squad and celebrating? For even more substance toss in one showing him recovering in a hospital bed with his friends and LI beside him.

 

There, two images. No fancy cutscene needed. We didn't even get that. We got jack. All we have is the same breath scene we had before and a very slightly tweaked memorial scene that the other endings also received. The EC really gave nothing special to elaborate on Shepard's survival. The survival scene is the same as it ever was.

 

It's perhaps less a matter of closure, I suppose, and more about a matter of satisfaction. I get that Shepard survived, that was never really an issue for me. I never doubted it. I should just feel happier about the whole mess. I should be happy to see my Shepard survive. I should feel accomplished and invigorated. Instead its just a chest plate for five seconds under rubble. Yay. So uplifting. Considering how depressing and dark the theme of the game was it would had been nice to feel more triumph near the end, to feel like it ended on at least a happier note. Frankly I find control and synthesis more uplifting despite the fact that I always go with destroy.

 

That being said I do acknowledge that its a subjective and personal matter that I wasn't satisfied with it. Even when being objective though I don't see why they couldn't give us even one picture in the slides. Is that really asking for too much, is that too emotional and privileged of me to feel I "deserved"? I don't know, maybe its entitlement, maybe it isn't. I just feel like they should had given us at least a crumb. I mean, the control ending actually has two entirely different dialogues based on renegade and paragon Shepard. That's pretty damn cool, imo, and its nice to see them make two variations to reflect your specific Shepard. Yet the destroy ending? It plays out the same regardless of Shepard's fate, other than the LI not placing the name on the wall in a scene present in the other endings aswell. Nothing specifically special is given to that outcome.

[Gothfather]

 

 

Maybe because they'd need to explain who found him after the mass relays are destroyed. Or maybe because of the extensive injuries he might've got after walking into an explosion. Or maybe because they were forced to release the EC fast because of all the flaming. I don't know really. 

The point I was making is that high EMS Destroy features more content that Control or Synthesis due to the breath scene. It has voice-over for slides, it has a memorial scene. It also has the breath scene which is something neither Synthesis nor Control have. And the argument for closure is subjective, because as you mentioned, breath scene is pretty clear about Shepard's survival. If anything I'd say that Bioware failed to create ambiguity about Shepard's fate.

 

 

Again the fact that people are complaining and not a small minority, that the breath scene doesn't give them closure is substantial evidence that the breath ending DIDN'T provide closure. Stating that it is subjective isn't relevant, many things in life are subjective. The EC did little to satisfy fans about the endings and it had zero effect on does Shepard live or not in the breath scene. These are facts given how often people complain about the endings and how often people complain about that breath scene. When the numbers are that high its pretty strong evidence that closure was not provided for too many people, subjectivity no longer matters.

 

While I want Shepard to be dead what I want more is closure with that scene. Ambiguity towards the protagonist is not a healthy way to end the story, when the story was always presented as a trilogy. You want people to end the trilogy feeling satisfied, far too many people end ME3 feeling completely unsatisfied yet they will turn around and say they "loved ME3 except for the ending."   You don't want people saying WTF?!? you want them going WOW! They knew people were up in arms about this ending pre EC and they took the time to make the EC (Which they didn't have to), but it failed, as it left so many fan asking the same closure questions which they refuse to address or provide contradictory answers. I have heard of both pro life and pro death responses by devs to the breath scene.

 

Now I'll grant that this ambiguity could have been their intent but it was a bad choice if so, because of how upset it makes far too many fans.  When you spend years on a series you want closure at the end, you want that satisfied feeling which is 100% independent of the issue of a happy or sad ending.

 

On a personal note I have no problems with head cannon but I don't want to head cannon the ending. I'd rather it be clear Sheppard lives or dies.

 

Also all the questions about how Shepard survived and situation of his rescue could have been swept aside with a simple statement "In the aftermath of reapers destruction rescue crews discovered Shepard severely injured but alive." That's all that is needed. Hell you don't even need to show Shepard, just an acknowledgement of one simple sentence solves all the questions of his rescue. And a better memorial scene would have been someone from the Normandy removing Shepard's name from the memorial. I'd have not liked that ending but I would have 100% satisfied feelings about said ending.

 

Maybe their intent was that Shepard should never survive the ending but they wanted one possible ending where people could have hope that he survived, so it wasn't all doom and gloom for those people who couldn't accept their hero died. Well that's an incredible stupid move as well. This isn't a Teen title this is a MATURE title which means they should be targeting their audience as adults not teens. Which means you should tell mature stories and if Shepard is dead full stop then make it clear he is dead full stop as we SHOULD be all adults here and that means we don't need adolescent hand holding for the sad bits of a story. Give it to us straight, and don't patronize us. 

 

I in all honestly don't know why things happen this way. I think it shows the Casey has a LOT of maturing to do with storytelling, again maybe there were other factors maybe he or others were second guessing themselves and they got into a vicious circle and the result was the breath scene but once it was there they didn't want to nullify anyone's interpretation. I'd hazard a guess people would rather them say definitively what's what vs. any fear their head cannon turns out to be null and void(this is re the ending only, as head cannon is important but i think people want more of an "official" result for endings). The end result is that ME3 was almost universally panned for its endings and that has really angered a lot of fans, that ISN'T the way you want to end an almost universally loved trilogy.

[Vazgen]

@Gothfather 

The Extended Cut didn't the provide closure that the fans sought. It, however, provided closure on the issue by introducing a variation to the memorial scene (which was not present in the original ending). It wasn't enough for many, but it was present and was enough for me. Saying that they did nothing to elaborate on the issue is wrong. I have my own gripes about the ending but lack of closure is not among them. Probably because I played with EC already installed.

And I think they did not want for the players to feel "That was awesome!" in the end of the trilogy. IMO they wanted people to think about the ending, to speculate and discuss it. Obviously it worked to an extent, since we still discuss it, but ultimately failed because it didn't fit the "hero saves the day" idea of the whole trilogy, especially for Paragon players. People felt mislead. Add to that rushed execution and you get "the worst ending of all times" how some fans refer to it even today.

Overall I think there were a lot of factors that we don't know which resulted in the ending we got. Short development time, hardware limitations, team changes, being forced to deal with disconnected plots of ME1 and ME2 are just some of them. And thus blaming ending's shortcomings on 1-2 people is unfair IMO.

[Linkenski]

I honestly don't know what I was expecting before I got to play ME3 when it comes to the ending. I was so focused on where the story would go in its premise (ugh) after ME2 which I thought was amazing and really got me into the series. (Always respected ME1, but it was a cliché-ridden ride and ultimately too predictable for my liking).

 

I suppose it didn't really occur to me that ME3's ending had to have closure... it wasn't something I was looking forward to when I started playing it, but it did come as a slap in my face when I didn't get it, but I think EC provided me the amount of closure I really needed, and then longer-term I felt like Citadel filled out that void with complete focus on the entire ME123 crew.

 

As for the content in the ending and why it happened the way it did, I'm sure as Vazgen says the team (aka Casey) wanted players to remember it for a long time to come and discuss it, and they mostly succeeded... just not in the light they wanted the discussion to go in I think. They wanted the ending to be deep and profound in meaning but because of that they imposed "meaning" into the final 10 minutes not knowing they were doing the opposite by derailing the story rather than driving it home.

 

EDIT: The thing about Shepard breathing in the "Shep survives" endings is of course open to interpretation and headcannon, but seriously, why would it be there in only that one (or 2) endings if it meant absolutely nothing? I think it's the intent that counts here even if it isn't physically possible for Shepard to survive the citadel exploding and waking up in London's rubble. If you're that nitpicky you have to ask yourself how the Lazarus project was possible in the first place when Shepard made planetary reentry, in a regular N7 marine suit and somehow didn't burn up into atoms.

[Gothfather]

@Gothfather 

The Extended Cut didn't the provide closure that the fans sought. It, however, provided closure on the issue by introducing a variation to the memorial scene (which was not present in the original ending). It wasn't enough for many, but it was present and was enough for me. Saying that they did nothing to elaborate on the issue is wrong. I have my own gripes about the ending but lack of closure is not among them. Probably because I played with EC already installed.

And I think they did not want for the players to feel "That was awesome!" in the end of the trilogy. IMO they wanted people to think about the ending, to speculate and discuss it. Obviously it worked to an extent, since we still discuss it, but ultimately failed because it didn't fit the "hero saves the day" idea of the whole trilogy, especially for Paragon players. People felt mislead. Add to that rushed execution and you get "the worst ending of all times" how some fans refer to it even today.

Overall I think there were a lot of factors that we don't know which resulted in the ending we got. Short development time, hardware limitations, team changes, being forced to deal with disconnected plots of ME1 and ME2 are just some of them. And thus blaming ending's shortcomings on 1-2 people is unfair IMO.

If you create something to provide closure and it didn't provide closure then it did not in fact provide closure even if that was the intent. The fact that some people get closure does not invalidate so many people that didn't get closure.

 

I have no closure problems with the any ending except the breath scene. I think the implementation of the control and destruction scenes where yuck! only because these are presented as the last desperate chance to save the galaxy from extinction but every action you take in ME3 makes you feel like the crucible isn't an act of desperation because you kick the reapers ass at every encounter. You never once fail against the reapers. The one strategic set back is the beacon on Thessia handed to you by Cerberus. Its surprising how ineffective the reapers are against Shepard and his crew. The force that wipes out every advance civilization in galactic history and it can't beat Shepard once? You enter priority Earth not feeling like this is the last desperate act of the cycle but rather we are going to win this. That feeling is in direct contradiction to the theme and subsequent story being told so when you get the the colour choices everything feels off kilter or forced or rushed. The synthesis ending just breaks my suspension of believe on too many levels for me and i can accept that somehow enough of Shepard is found after the ME2 prologue to resurrect, so I'd argue that its not a case of my suspension of disbelieve is too low, but rather it was a crap ending as implemented.

 

All endings but the breath scene give me closure, but they don't all make me satisfied. Only one ending makes me go "oh for frak sake that is too stupid for words." They all leave me with a bad taste in my mouth because the story and mechanics in the game were in opposition to the ending the team wanted to tell. I say that the head of the team is at fault, the various other devs do what they are told, its the head that determine what shape the collective parts will take. Any discontinuity between the mechanics,the story and the ending really can only bet laid at the feet of the person who was in charge of the the whole picture, the person who's job it is to make sure no department is working at cross purposes with any other department.

[Valmar]

 And thus blaming ending's shortcomings on 1-2 people is unfair IMO.

 

What you say about there being many factors that played part in this is fair and true. However who else can we blame for the poor writing of the ending when it was written by one guy without any peer-review? If it was a rushed but still subjected to review and influence of the other writer staff it very likely wouldn't had been quite the mess it was. Being pressured to release something early and not having budget or time to deliver is understandable. Deciding that the key final moment should all be written up by one guy without any oversight is not so easily forgivable, imo.
 

 

I think it's the intent that counts here even if it isn't physically possible for Shepard to survive the citadel exploding and waking up in London's rubble. If you're that nitpicky you have to ask yourself how the Lazarus project was possible in the first place when Shepard made planetary reentry, in a regular N7 marine suit and somehow didn't burn up into atoms.

 

Two things. Firstly, the series has been nothing but a long series of Shepard doing the impossible. No, really. You can apply this "that isn't possible" complaint on a LOT of the trilogy.

 

Second, he didn't wake up in London rubble. This is a misconception with the ending. Shepard is still on the Citadel (him being on London makes no sense anyway, why draw that conclusion?). Bioware even commented on it and a confirmed that it was Citadel rubble... since for some reason people actually thought it made more sense for him to be on London for some reason.

[Vazgen]

What you say about there being many factors that played part in this is fair and true. However who else can we blame for the poor writing of the ending when it was written by one guy without any peer-review? If it was a rushed but still subjected to review and influence of the other writer staff it very likely wouldn't had been quite the mess it was. Being pressured to release something early and not having budget or time to deliver is understandable. Deciding that the key final moment should all be written up by one guy without any oversight is not so easily forgivable, imo.

IIRC they did that because the original intended ending was leaked. Without knowing who leaked the ending in the first place it made sense to make changes themselves. The quality, of course, suffered.

[WizzyWarlock]

IIRC they did that because the original intended ending was leaked. Without knowing who leaked the ending in the first place it made sense to make changes themselves. The quality, of course, suffered.

I don't take that as a valid reason. So what if it was leaked? Does it make the story suffer because of it? No. Does every potential player hear about the leak? No, I know I didn't and still haven't. Does it make the game worse because it was leaked? No. If they had a story to tell, who cares if it was leaked or not?

 

It's like, say, a bunch of people download a pre-release version of The Avengers and watch it. Do the writers say, "Oh damn, now we'll have to make a new story because they've seen it early.", or do they continue creating an awesome movie regardless of who knows about it, improving on the pre-release version that some have already seen?

[God]

I don't take that as a valid reason. So what if it was leaked? Does it make the story suffer because of it? No. Does every potential player hear about the leak? No, I know I didn't and still haven't. Does it make the game worse because it was leaked? No. If they had a story to tell, who cares if it was leaked or not?

 

It's like, say, a bunch of people download a pre-release version of The Avengers and watch it. Do the writers say, "Oh damn, now we'll have to make a new story because they've seen it early.", or do they continue creating an awesome movie regardless of who knows about it, improving on the pre-release version that some have already seen?

 

Due to the overwhelming negative criticism the leak got, yeah, they decided to change it. 

 

And it's a lot different than your movie example. And yeah, the leak was a pretty big deal back at the time. As I said, it got a lot of negative press.

[Valmar]

IIRC they did that because the original intended ending was leaked. Without knowing who leaked the ending in the first place it made sense to make changes themselves. The quality, of course, suffered.

 

The irony is that this is the one time they were willing to change the ending due to the outcry of online fans... Where was there artistic integrity then, I wonder? Maybe they borrowed Garrus' stick to pull it out.

[Vazgen]

The irony is that this is the one time they were willing to change the ending due to the outcry of online fans... Where was there artistic integrity then, I wonder? Maybe they borrowed Garrus' stick to pull it out.

Tbh, from what I've read about the leaked ending makes me glad it was leaked. IIRC, there were two choices - destroy the Reapers and doom the galaxy or let them harvest humanity and save the galaxy because "humans are special". 

I don't take that as a valid reason. So what if it was leaked? Does it make the story suffer because of it? No. Does every potential player hear about the leak? No, I know I didn't and still haven't. Does it make the game worse because it was leaked? No. If they had a story to tell, who cares if it was leaked or not?
 
It's like, say, a bunch of people download a pre-release version of The Avengers and watch it. Do the writers say, "Oh damn, now we'll have to make a new story because they've seen it early.", or do they continue creating an awesome movie regardless of who knows about it?

As I recall it was a pretty big deal back then. Gaming sites, FB comments.

What you say depends on the state of the project, writers' skill and passion. I think Casey was too involved in the series to let such things spoil the fun for the players. So he made an impulsive and wrong decision to not consult the team regarding the changes in the ending. That's why the execution of the ending has quite a few weird moments.
"The Citadel. It's my home."
"The Citadel is part of me."

[Valmar]

Tbh, from what I've read about the leaked ending makes me glad it was leaked. IIRC, there were two choices - destroy the Reapers and doom the galaxy or let them harvest humanity and save the galaxy because "humans are special"

 

I don't disagree with you. I'm glad they dropped it too. I'm just pointing out the hypocritical behavior when they refused to make changes to their artistic vision with the ending after it was released but rushed to change it at the last moment when they found out people hated it originally. If they believe so strongly in their artistic integrity you'd think they would had just stuck with the original ending they had planned. They weren't on their high-horse BEFORE they raked in cash from game sales.

 

Similar to the whole Microsoft debacle. Defending themselves right up until they see their sale take a nose dive, then suddenly they're all about the consumer.

[Vazgen]

I don't disagree with you. I'm glad they dropped it too. I'm just pointing out the hypocritical behavior when they refused to make changes to their artistic vision with the ending after it was released but rushed to change it at the last moment when they found out people hated it originally. If they believe so strongly in their artistic integrity you'd think they would had just stuck with the original ending they had planned. They weren't on their high-horse BEFORE they raked in cash from game sales.

 

Similar to the whole Microsoft debacle. Defending themselves right up until they see their sale take a nose dive, then suddenly they're all about the consumer.

I would be reluctant too. After all they did change one thing to supposedly make it better because of people complaints. Now people complain again. I'd be tempted to just tell "Deal with it" and be done with the whole thing  

[Valmar]

I would be reluctant too. After all they did change one thing to supposedly make it better because of people complaints. Now people complain again. I'd be tempted to just tell "Deal with it" and be done with the whole thing

 

At this point I might have actually preferred if they had just said that - at least its a more honest representation of their feelings and not unjustified. I get where you're coming from - really, I do. I'm not just looking to rag on Bioware here. The point I was trying to elaborate on was the absurdity of their "artistic integrity" defense. They should had just owned up the mistake instead of defending it with such nonsense and then go on to distort the problems people have with it by claiming it all boils down to "because Shepard died". I'm not saying Shepard's death didn't play a part in why a lot of people were upset but you and I both know the ending had some much bigger glaring plothole issues than that which shouldn't be swept under the rug so casually.

 

When people complained about how horrible Mass Effect Deception was they were willing to man up and admit it. They even promised us a rewrite. Yet, wow, look at that. Not only are they still selling this glorified 3rd grader fanfiction garbage we haven't heard a peep on the rewrite in over two years. Swept it under the rug. How am I supposed to have any faith that Bioware won't do a repeat of the same problems in MENext when they adamantly refuse to admit what the problems were in the first place? The first step to solving a problem is admitting you have a problem.

[Vazgen]

I think there is a difference in admitting the mistakes in public and doing so for themselves. I haven't read ME:Deception but the complaints I heard about it were almost entirely about it being lore-breaking not about its writing being worse than that of the other books'. Accepting a mistake publicly will result in people demanding compensation, either in the form of money or in the form of additional content and they can provide neither. Extended Cut was a pretty generous offer on their part. As I recall they claimed that it will become paid after a year, yet here we are with almost three years passed and it still being free. 

Faith in Bioware or any other gaming company is something mythical to me. I judge a product after it is released and I spend about 1-2 months studying the reviews (user and gaming sites), watching gameplay etc. to get the game. If I like it I become more interested in their future products. I never understood people who paid about twice the price for the same gaming content, some side items and a gamble with the possible bugs and shortcomings that are only fixed in later patches.