338 réponses à ce sujet

[ActualOjou]

Meh, no more please. Maybe just find artifacts or clues hinting at their remaining annoyance  existance.

 

I think it would be nice for something to be in the game where a certain faction of humanity is making it difficult for the races of Andromeda, hence ruining our reputation and having to have the Pathfinder have to clear it through helping them, building reputation and defusing aggression and stuff.

 

So maybe more "troubling/vigalante" type humans are battling with our more lawful faction and whoever wins gets to stay in Andromeda?

Something like this I'd kinda like.

[Killroy]

TIM kills people who get in his way because he's ruthless. That doesn't make him incorrect.

You can't claim to be a champion for humanity while having no regard for human life. TIM was always wrong. And stupid.

[Sylvius the Mad]

It is. They show the soldier implanted with Reaper tech, telling you that TIM has been playing with it. We know from ME2 and Arrival that this leads to Indoctrination.

If he's been playing with it, maybe he overcame that limitation.

I don't even know what Arrival is. And the design of ME3 shouldn't assume even that I know what happened in ME2. That would only work if a save import were mandatory (like Wizardry 2).

Yes, wanting Control is definitely not out of character for TIM, but that's why it works to the Reapers' ends.

Exactly. Because his behaviour is credibly his own.

So why does Shepard immediately assume otherwise?

TIM is actively opposing Shepard's efforts to stop the Reapers where he was helping in the last game.

We don't know that's what he's doing.

But even if we did, we don't have to tell him that. Why not be nice to the guy to win his trust? He's clearly trying to convince us. Let's pretend to be convinced.

I didn't feel like it came out of nowhere, they just never set it up as something Shepard would ever choose.

Your Shepard, perhaps. Your Shepard's motives are defined 100% by you.

My Shepard would be all over the idea, from the moment TIM suggested it. It's a great idea.

You just got done telling TIM that it was either impossible or that he was playing with things he shouldn't understand and power he shouldn't have, and that humanity wasn't ready.

I hate that the game decides that for us.

[Sylvius the Mad]

You can't claim to be a champion for humanity while having no regard for human life.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Alternatively, I don’t claim to be a champion of humanity (or when I do, I'm insincere).

[DebatableBubble]

Saying "Cerberus ruined Mass Effect" would be an egregiously massive understatement.

Correction: Cereberus is just ONE of the things that ruined Mass Effect.

[fchopin]

I hope there is no Cerberus rubbish.

[Fidite Nemini]

I hope not. Cerberus went from slightly interesting sidequest to a major plot forced down your throat in ME2 ... where is that comic strip when you need it *goes off to search*

 

Found it:

 

 

Now, I will readily admit that savegame transfer and branching storylines can only go so far before you break the budget (or your developer's backs), but completely brushing aside such an integral part of a Shepard backstory (which was obviously well within the anticipated spectrum of player actions ... because it's one of three available backstories, duh) was bad handling at best.

 

The whole reliance on Cerberus to play as one of the plots triumvirate felt forced, as if someone just tacked Cerberus on because they realized the need an initiator/plot agent for ME2.

 

 

Let past things rest. Reference it if you really want to, but I'd rather not see anymore shadow organizations which plaster their goddamn logo on every free surface as if they didn't know what "shadow" meant.

[Kabooooom]

Halo 4's main villain was deeper than the characterization of any Mass effect character.
Well, I'm lying about that. ^

The Ur-Didact WAS actually a deeper villain than any in Mass Effect, it just wasn't adequately expressed in Halo 4 - and instead in the Forerunner Trilogy.

And it shouldn't be expected to. It's a FPS, not an RPG. I dont know why people were expecting an RPG level story.

[Fidite Nemini]

The Ur-Didact WAS actually a deeper villain than any in Mass Effect, it just wasn't adequately expressed in Halo 4 - and instead in the Forerunner Trilogy.

And it shouldn't be expected to. It's a FPS, not an RPG. I dont know why people were expecting an RPG level story.

 

Maybe they were spoiled by the mostly adequate accessory merchandise quality such as novels (which is hilariously ironic as the ME novels range from mediocre (personal opinion) to downright "we forgot it ever happened"-quality (undisputable fact)).

[Kabooooom]

Maybe they were spoiled by the mostly adequate accessory merchandise quality such as novels (which is hilariously ironic as the ME novels range from mediocre (personal opinion) to downright "we forgot it ever happened"-quality (undisputable fact)).

Halo's novels are (generally) of a much higher quality than ME's. With Mass Effect, I got the impression that the novels existed solely to showcase upcoming characters or locations in the next game. With Halo, the novels exist to further explore certain aspects of the lore.

Honestly, I wish such novels existed for Mass Effect. But they don't. And after Deception...I almost hope no one ever tries again.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Found it:

*snip*

That reminds me of my reaction to how apathetic Jacob was about my Colonist Sole Survivor Shepard. 

 

Jacob: "Okay, records show you were a colony kid. Your family was killed when slavers attacked Mindoir. You enlisted, and lost your entire unit to a Thresher Maw attack. Do you remember that?" 

Me: "Now I do."

[Natureguy85]

If he's been playing with it, maybe he overcame that limitation.

I don't even know what Arrival is. And the design of ME3 shouldn't assume even that I know what happened in ME2. That would only work if a save import were mandatory (like Wizardry 2).

 

Maybe TIM figured out how to avoid what makes the Reaper's most terrifying off screen? That's a stretch. It could work if we get a reveal and exposition but we never do.

 

Arrival is DLC for ME2. It was made completely irrelevant by ME3 so don't worry about it. It's just a similar situation to the derelict Reaper. Scientists get Indoctrinated by Reaper tech they are studying.

 

However your last sentence is ridiculous. There is a 3 in the title of the game. It's the third chapter of a trilogy. How can you say that the narrative shouldn't assume you know what came before? When is that ever the case? What about ME3 makes sense if you didn't play the first two games? You won't know who Shepard is, what those massive things are blasting everything, or who any other characters are. You have no reason to care about the Genophage or the Geth, so you have no investment in the two most highly rated parts of the game. 

[DebatableBubble]

Meh, no more please. Maybe just find artifacts or clues hinting at their remaining annoyance  existance.
 
I think it would be nice for something to be in the game where a certain faction of humanity is making it difficult for the races of Andromeda, hence ruining our reputation and having to have the Pathfinder have to clear it through helping them, building reputation and defusing aggression and stuff.
 
So maybe more "troubling/vigalante" type humans are battling with our more lawful faction and whoever wins gets to stay in Andromeda?
Something like this I'd kinda like.

Essentially boiling down to Cerberus vs Alliance 2.0?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maybe TIM figured out how to avoid what makes the Reaper's most terrifying off screen? That's a stretch. It could work if we get a reveal and exposition but we never do.

I refuse to employ genre-savvy when interpreting in-game events, because I'm interpreting them from Shepard's perspective.

You'll note I'm not asking how the player knows things about TIM. I'm asking about how Shepard knows, and those are very different things.

That's one of the classic waus to build suspense: to have the audience know something the characters don't.

I'm asking why the characters act as if they know something when they have no reason to know that thing.

However your last sentence is ridiculous. There is a 3 in the title of the game. It's the third chapter of a trilogy. How can you say that the narrative shouldn't assume you know what came before? When is that ever the case?

Whenever the third entry is supposed to be even vaguely accessible to new players.

What about ME3 makes sense if you didn't play the first two games?

What about ME3 makes sense at all? That's basically what I've been asking.

You won't know who Shepard is, what those massive things are blasting everything, or who any other characters are. You have no reason to care about the Genophage or the Geth, so you have no investment in the two most highly rated parts of the game.

When the genophage comes up in ME3, there's sufficient exposition to explain what it is. There's also exposition surrounding the reapers at the start of the game.

Frankly, I think the game actually works better if you didn't play the earlier games, because otherwise the convenient appearance of everyone you've ever met comes across as incredible.

It's just a parade of Garrus/Liara/Kaidan/Wrex/Grunt/Miranda/Jack/Legion/Mordin/Kirrahe/Thane et al.

[ActualOjou]

Essentially boiling down to Cerberus vs Alliance 2.0?

 

I suppose you could put it that way but -

 

It sure didn't feel that way in any previous ME game, you know?

 

It felt like people, even if they didn't like humans much, kinda implicitly trusted them, at least to a degree. I mean heck, there was even Ambassadors already, and all.

 

Things we did with Shepherd kinda just got done, didn't feel like I was battling a tide of anti-humanity on my way to save the universe, is all.

 

I think being in a new galaxy, really having no claim to it (i.e a wild west aspect) it would be more like we're encroaching on unfamiliar territory and two equally large (and feel equally large) contingencies within humanity actually affect how you are percieved, how characters react to you and what not.

 

I don't think in previous ME's Cerberus really "tainted" people's view of humanity, they were always viewed as a radical group. Even when Shepherd was with Cerberus, people still trusted and followed her.

 

I think more "can't trust humans sentiment" would add to building relations in a new galaxy.

 

That's kinda what I meant. Alliance vs Cerberus was there, but didn't feel "real" or "active" imo.
 

[Natureguy85]

I refuse to employ genre-savvy when interpreting in-game events, because I'm interpreting them from Shepard's perspective.

You'll note I'm not asking how the player knows things about TIM. I'm asking about how Shepard knows, and those are very different things.

That's one of the classic waus to build suspense: to have the audience know something the characters don't.

I'm asking why the characters act as if they know something when they have no reason to know that thing.

It's not genre savvy. Shepard knows about Indoctrination. He's seen it's effects and dealt with people who are Indoctrinated. He knows inactive Reapers and mere Reaper tech indoctrinate people. It's pretty clear TIM is Indoctrinated. You're the one inventing things without merit, such as the idea that TIM somehow avoided Indoctrination.

 

Whenever the third entry is supposed to be even vaguely accessible to new players.

 

Such as? I noticed you provide no examples. ME3 is a trilogy with an overarching narrative. Knowledge of previous events is required for later events to make sense. Dragon Age 2 and Witcher 2 don't require you to play the previous games, but they have nothing to do with their previous games. They are separate stories.This is not true for Mass Effect.

 

What about ME3 makes sense at all? That's basically what I've been asking.

 

Well you have me there! But you at least know what's going on.

 

When the genophage comes up in ME3, there's sufficient exposition to explain what it is. There's also exposition surrounding the reapers at the start of the game.

Frankly, I think the game actually works better if you didn't play the earlier games, because otherwise the convenient appearance of everyone you've ever met comes across as incredible.

It's just a parade of Garrus/Liara/Kaidan/Wrex/Grunt/Miranda/Jack/Legion/Mordin/Kirrahe/Thane et al.

 

There is exposition to tell you what the Genophage is, but not enough to establish any emotional connection to it because that comes through the characters. You also don't know the full history behind it. You certainly don't really understand Mordin's motivation or the significance of his presence.

 

I'll grant you that the exposition on the Reapers isn't bad for setting up something completely new. However, without the knowledge of the Protheans and Vigil, the idea of the Cycle makes no sense. The endings are probably even more confusing disconnected from everything else.

 

You still get the same parade of characters but you have no emotional connection to any of them. There goes the tragedy of Mordin's death or the impact of any other character's death. It's just "oh, some guy died".

[Dantriges]

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
 

 

It´s a valid statement, if you are one of the few.

 

TIM was just rich jerk who thought that Cerberus is humanity and well who´s the head of Cerberus? He´s just a control freak suffering from delusions of grandeur , who thinks he´s a tough guy making tough decisions. Yeah really tough, smoking your cigarettes, playing scifi tennis and having sex with five different girls this week, while other people pay the price.   

 

I wasn´t impressed with his decisions what to tell me either and how he handled the whole operation.

Horizon as bait: Ok let´s forget the moral and ethical stuff for a moment because TIm is a tough man, making the tough decision. the Normandy was the response team. Why weren´t we informed so that we could be in a close distance to strike quickly. Close to the next portal if grounded on a nearby moon is too dangerous. Als we were plain lucky that the colony had turrets which we were able to get to work.

 

Not telling Shepard that he and people close to him are prime targets for the collectors: Uh well could be relevant for mission planning and operational security. 

 

Not telling Shepard that the "damaged" Collector ship is a trap because he could act suspicious: Really? I am entering an unknown ship with an unknown number of hostiles. Of course I was expecting an ambush because everyone really likes it when they surprise their enemies. Even taking the whole squad or the Hammer wouldn´t be suspicous because this ship is frikkin huge. And it´s not like the Collectors made any effort to appear like the crew or most of the crew got killed by the "turians."

 

Actually I don´t say it´s unrealistic or sloppy writing, we see "important" people behaving like they know everything better and screwing up all the time in RL.

[Sylvius the Mad]

It's not genre savvy. Shepard knows about Indoctrination. He's seen it's effects and dealt with people who are Indoctrinated. He knows inactive Reapers and mere Reaper tech indoctrinate people. It's pretty clear TIM is Indoctrinated.

Then why didn't I see it?

You're the one inventing things without merit, such as the idea that TIM somehow avoided Indoctrination.

I'm not inventing that.  You're inventing its negation.

 

I didn't suggest it was true, just that it was possible.  All possibilities are true until demonstrated otherwise.

Such as? I noticed you provide no examples. ME3 is a trilogy with an overarching narrative. Knowledge of previous events is required for later events to make sense. Dragon Age 2 and Witcher 2 don't require you to play the previous games, but they have nothing to do with their previous games. They are separate stories.This is not true for Mass Effect.

And yet, BioWare was happy to market it as if you could jump right into ME3.

There is exposition to tell you what the Genophage is, but not enough to establish any emotional connection to it because that comes through the characters. You also don't know the full history behind it. You certainly don't really understand Mordin's motivation or the significance of his presence.

 

I'll grant you that the exposition on the Reapers isn't bad for setting up something completely new. However, without the knowledge of the Protheans and Vigil, the idea of the Cycle makes no sense. The endings are probably even more confusing disconnected from everything else.

 

You still get the same parade of characters but you have no emotional connection to any of them. There goes the tragedy of Mordin's death or the impact of any other character's death. It's just "oh, some guy died".

I don't have (or need) an emotional connection to any of the NPCs.

 

Shepard has that connection, and I can roleplay that.  The player doesn't need one for that to be true.

 

Trying to induce an emotional response in the player is pointless and unnecessary, and tends to break roleplaying.  The game shouldn't acknowledge that the player exists, even implicitly, because the player doesn't exist in any way that is relevant to the in-game reality.

[Sylvius the Mad]

It´s a valid statement, if you are one of the few.

 

TIM was just rich jerk who thought that Cerberus is humanity and well who´s the head of Cerberus? He´s just a control freak suffering from delusions of grandeur , who thinks he´s a tough guy making tough decisions. Yeah really tough, smoking your cigarettes, playing scifi tennis and having sex with five different girls this week, while other people pay the price.   

 

I wasn´t impressed with his decisions what to tell me either and how he handled the whole operation.

Horizon as bait: Ok let´s forget the moral and ethical stuff for a moment because TIm is a tough man, making the tough decision. the Normandy was the response team. Why weren´t we informed so that we could be in a close distance to strike quickly. Close to the next portal if grounded on a nearby moon is too dangerous. Als we were plain lucky that the colony had turrets which we were able to get to work.

 

Not telling Shepard that he and people close to him are prime targets for the collectors: Uh well could be relevant for mission planning and operational security. 

 

Not telling Shepard that the "damaged" Collector ship is a trap because he could act suspicious: Really? I am entering an unknown ship with an unknown number of hostiles. Of course I was expecting an ambush because everyone really likes it when they surprise their enemies. Even taking the whole squad or the Hammer wouldn´t be suspicous because this ship is frikkin huge. And it´s not like the Collectors made any effort to appear like the crew or most of the crew got killed by the "turians."

 

Actually I don´t say it´s unrealistic or sloppy writing, we see "important" people behaving like they know everything better and screwing up all the time in RL.

As the CIA says, "If two people know something, it's not a secret."

 

As you just pointed out, TIM's behaviour makes perfect sense given TIM's position.  He doesn't value the lives of the people he uses as tools.  Shepard is occasionally one of those tools.  This shouldn't surprise Shepard at all.

 

And for the record, I generally ignore the moral and ethical questions, because they never really matter and they're never based on anything.  All morality is orange and blue morality.

[N7Jamaican]

It´s a valid statement, if you are one of the few.

 

TIM was just rich jerk who thought that Cerberus is humanity and well who´s the head of Cerberus? He´s just a control freak suffering from delusions of grandeur , who thinks he´s a tough guy making tough decisions. Yeah really tough, smoking your cigarettes, playing scifi tennis and having sex with five different girls this week, while other people pay the price.   

 

I wasn´t impressed with his decisions what to tell me either and how he handled the whole operation.

Horizon as bait: Ok let´s forget the moral and ethical stuff for a moment because TIm is a tough man, making the tough decision. the Normandy was the response team. Why weren´t we informed so that we could be in a close distance to strike quickly. Close to the next portal if grounded on a nearby moon is too dangerous. Als we were plain lucky that the colony had turrets which we were able to get to work.

 

Not telling Shepard that he and people close to him are prime targets for the collectors: Uh well could be relevant for mission planning and operational security. 

 

Not telling Shepard that the "damaged" Collector ship is a trap because he could act suspicious: Really? I am entering an unknown ship with an unknown number of hostiles. Of course I was expecting an ambush because everyone really likes it when they surprise their enemies. Even taking the whole squad or the Hammer wouldn´t be suspicous because this ship is frikkin huge. And it´s not like the Collectors made any effort to appear like the crew or most of the crew got killed by the "turians."

 

Actually I don´t say it´s unrealistic or sloppy writing, we see "important" people behaving like they know everything better and screwing up all the time in RL.

 

 

Completely disagree... 

[Natureguy85]

Then why didn't I see it?

 

I can't speak to why you missed what I found obvious.

 

 

I'm not inventing that.  You're inventing its negation.

 

I didn't suggest it was true, just that it was possible.  All possibilities are true until demonstrated otherwise.

 

That's just saying "anything is possible", which is meaningless. You need evidence to support as plausible a situation which is counter to all previous experience.

 

 

And yet, BioWare was happy to market it as if you could jump right into ME3.

 

I don't care what they marketed it as. The story doesn't work the same way. I noticed you didn't provide any examples.

 

I don't have (or need) an emotional connection to any of the NPCs.

 

Shepard has that connection, and I can roleplay that.  The player doesn't need one for that to be true.

 

Well you highlight why the previous games were important. Mass Effect is a character driven story. The characters were the focus. Look at ME2. That main plot was terrible but the game was carried by it's characters and their stories. The characters we are discussing aren't mere NPCs. They are former teammates. Without that emotional connection, the decisions have no weight. There is no reason to care one way or the other.

I'm all for not having something merely for the emotional response because that's only melodrama or sensationalism, but media is constantly trying to make you feel a certain way with a scene.

 

 

Trying to induce an emotional response in the player is pointless and unnecessary, and tends to break roleplaying.  The game shouldn't acknowledge that the player exists, even implicitly, because the player doesn't exist in any way that is relevant to the in-game reality.

 

If that's the case then we need to get rid of dialogue wheels and interrupts because those are player inputs. Mass Effect really isn't that great for Roleplay in the sense that Shepard is a largely defined character as opposed to the more blank slate of characters like The Warden or the characters from the Fallout games.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I can't speak to why you missed what I found obvious.

If it was so obvious, kindly explain how you knew. Map out your reasoning.

That's just saying "anything is possible", which is meaningless. You need evidence to support as plausible a situation which is counter to all previous experience.

It's not meaningless. The in-game reality is a fictional world that exists just for me. Yours exists just for you. And they can be different; they're like bubble universes.

I can resolve the ambiguity however I like, and I choose to do it in the way that makes the game better for me. But I'm not the one making positive claims, so I'm not the one who needs evidence.

Until proven otherwise, all things are possible. Without conclusive evidence otherwise, I'll happily play with thise possibilities.

I don't care what they marketed it as. The story doesn't work the same way. I noticed you didn't provide any examples.

For two reasons. One, I don't find examples informative. I can't generalize from examples, but I can instantiate from universals, so I prefer to deal in universals.

Two, I reject your premise. The game is different without knowledge of the previous games, but I deny that it is nonsensical. Shepard doesn't need to understand the Reapers or their cycle in order to recognize them as a threat. The game still works; it's just different.

But so is DAI different without knowledge of the details of DA2 (I was keenly aware of my ignorance there, as I had at one point known those things about DA2, but they hadn't stayed with me, so I could see the holes).

I think you're making the mistake of viewing the story as a single piece. I would argue that there is no story except the one that arises as you play. A playthrough can have a story, but the game doesn't. The game contains merely events. To describe that combination of events as a story is to invent structure where it doesn't exist.

Well you highlight why the previous games were important. Mass Effect is a character driven story. The characters were the focus. Look at ME2. That main plot was terrible but the game was carried by it's characters and their stories. The characters we are discussing aren't mere NPCs. They are former teammates. Without that emotional connection, the decisions have no weight. There is no reason to care one way or the other.

There isn't. I hated ME2. That's why I skipped ME3 until now.

I'm all for not having something merely for the emotional response because that's only melodrama or sensationalism, but media is constantly trying to make you feel a certain way with a scene.

The media's intent is irrelevant. Death of author.

If that's the case then we need to get rid of dialogue wheels and interrupts because those are player inputs.

The player needs some way to direct his character in a manner that is consistent with that character's design. Until we can define the character in advance with sufficient detail as to capture every nuance, we need player inputs.

Moreover, player inputs aren't the game acknowledging me. They're the means by which I acknowledge the game.

And I suppose I neant in-game events, as opposed to UI elements.

Mass Effect really isn't that great for Roleplay in the sense that Shepard is a largely defined character as opposed to the more blank slate of characters like The Warden or the characters from the Fallout games.

A defined character whom I think makes terrible decisions, and one I don't particularly enjoy playing.

[Seboist]

I hope not. Cerberus went from slightly interesting sidequest to a major plot forced down your throat in ME2 ... where is that comic strip when you need it *goes off to search*

 

Found it:

 

Now, I will readily admit that savegame transfer and branching storylines can only go so far before you break the budget (or your developer's backs), but completely brushing aside such an integral part of a Shepard backstory (which was obviously well within the anticipated spectrum of player actions ... because it's one of three available backstories, duh) was bad handling at best.

 

The whole reliance on Cerberus to play as one of the plots triumvirate felt forced, as if someone just tacked Cerberus on because they realized the need an initiator/plot agent for ME2.

 

 

Let past things rest. Reference it if you really want to, but I'd rather not see anymore shadow organizations which plaster their goddamn logo on every free surface as if they didn't know what "shadow" meant.

 

Aside from the exclusive side missions in ME1, the whole implementation of backgrounds was half-baked at best to nonexistent at worse(ME2). Not only is the lack of mention of Sole Survivor vis a vis Cerberus troublesome, but likewise with something like Grunt's LM with the whole battling of a thresher maw, and you'd think a spacer shep would have SOME kind of exclusive dialogue with Quarians or Tali in particular(especially in her LM), but no.

 

And I beg to differ with ME1 being even slightly interesting, their barebones development and lack of distinction from Exogeni and Binary Helix made them pretty boring. Given their lack of development and how it's implied they were wiped out if you saved Toomb's mission for last, BW should've never bothered using them beyond ME1(especially since Hackett was already a ruthless "TIM" figure), but apparently they needed a group to function as "plot clay" to fit whatever whims of the narrative they have in mind at any given time.

[Fixers0]

Here's what Drew Karpyshyn, Leader writer of Mass Effect and Mass Efffect 2 had to say about Cerberus in an interview shortly after ME3 was released.

 

"He revealed that Cerberus had been "basically a throwaway group of pro-human radicals" used to add spice to some Mass Effect 1 side-missions. "We didn't even have a concept of who was running them," Karpyshyn shared, "and we didn't think they were that important. Obviously, by the time of my Ascension novel and ME2, that had changed radically. The Illusive Man and Cerberus became central to the story and themes - that never would have happened if we had nailed everything down and refused to make changes to the story."

 

In the same interview, he further goes on admitting that the writers  just basically made up story as the series went along, saying that when he left the Mass Effect 2 development team they had basically no idea what the plot would be exactly in the third game.

[SolNebula]

 

Here's what Drew Karpyshyn, Leader writer of Mass Effect and Mass Efffect 2 had to say about Cerberus in an interview shortly after ME3 was released.

 

"He revealed that Cerberus had been "basically a throwaway group of pro-human radicals" used to add spice to some Mass Effect 1 side-missions. "We didn't even have a concept of who was running them," Karpyshyn shared, "and we didn't think they were that important. Obviously, by the time of my Ascension novel and ME2, that had changed radically. The Illusive Man and Cerberus became central to the story and themes - that never would have happened if we had nailed everything down and refused to make changes to the story."

 

In the same interview, he further goes on admitting that the writers  just basically made up story as the series went along, saying that when he left the Mass Effect 2 development team they had basically no idea what the plot would be exactly in the third game.

 

 

And this is why we are going to Andromeda as a result of poor planning. One can only hope they learned from their mistakes and planned their future games (trilogy if it will be the case) ahead.