436 réponses à ce sujet

[ZipZap2000]

I keep seeing Asaru, is that something made up by fans?

If by fans you mean that I decided to call them that. Other people are probably hitting the button next 'i' which is 'u'


See my sig for an explanation on Asaru.

[Mr_Commander_Shepard]

I mean... Mass Effect is mainly about Humanity. If we are playing as a human in the Mass Effect universe, of course we are going to be around the same races right? Makes sense they'd be the ones taking this journey with us to another Galaxy. Or we could be stuck with JUST humans. Imagine they did away with Turians, Krogans, Salarians etc. Outrage!

[Hexxagone]

Keep the Asari and Turians, scrap the rest.

[Tetrabytes101]

They wrote themselves into such a corner with ME3 that this "reboot" barely qualifies as one

 

Cant use the Normany so just design the Tempest to look like Normandy 3.0

 

Go to another galaxy but drag along every race from the Milky Way because they don't want to let them go

 

Cant use the Citadel so just design the Ark to be a mini Citadel

 

Cant use Shepard but still have an N7 character

 

Main character still working for an official organization

 

 

Its funny and sad at the same time. I was hoping for drastic changes, but I guess Mass Effect Andromeda is just going to turn out to be Mass Effect 4.

 

Go away,you clearly don't like mass effect,,SHOOO

[ld1449]

Yea, never really understood it myself. The game was simply AMAZING all the way to the end, issue with the ending itself or not.

 

Most people I knew just hated that the ending was basically the same no matter what, at least to them. I actually was really conflicted on what I thought was best out of the options given, and I have ti admit I chose synthesis the first time since I figure if Shepard was going to sacrifice himself it'd be to end the cycle (supposedly,) and create a life for all he cared about...and that did mean Edi and Joker. It's technically what the Reapers wanted all along (if in a different form,) but it seemed....like it took something away from the Reapers by Shepard actually choosing it and bypassing them sort of.

 

I tend towards the destroy now because of the indoctrination theory and that it seems Shep lives afterwards, at least, we can believe that if we wish. It's still painful losing Legion and Edi especially after all you go through to free the Geth and what Edi basically means for humanity itself, which is why I originally went Synthesis. It's a hard choice and I like that you have to make a hard choice at the end and that there is no win win situation, really.

 

 

I literally just want to know what the big deal was

 

 

If I remember correctly, the ending debacle was about more than Shepard's sacrifice - though that was a part of it for several players.

 

Because the relays were destroyed, people thought the other races were stranded at Earth (since fixing the relays, even if it was possible, would probably take forever) and the dextro races would probably starve since some of them had hundreds of years to travel to get home (without the relays). People were also upset with how easily Joker seemed to abandon Shepard as well as the thought that the crew was stranded on some backwater planet were some of the crew would starve. The end mission was also criticized because it was just a slew of fighting the Reaper's zombie-like creations +star child and differently coloured endings. Added to that no one knew what happened to the companions that ran towards Citadel-elevator-beam, did they die? Also, people thought that Harbinger was severely underutilized and disliked that he was suddenly so quiet after being such a chatty foe in ME2.

 

As for the Star child, people didn't like how he came out of nowhere, that he looked like the child they felt was a contrived attempt to force emotion out of the player, or that you couldn't question or argue with him (not much dialogue wheel options).

 

For the choices. Before the game come out, I believe a Bioware employee had stated there would be 16 endings so that was what people were expecting. Instead they got 3 endings that while they were different felt alike (which is were the cupcakes came from, cupcakes with the same flavour but differently coloured frosting -blue, green and red- were sent to Bioware to emphasis that though superficially different when it came down to it all the endings were the same). Also, the synthesis ending felt a bit like you were forcing the whole synthetic/organic thing on the galaxy (and what happened to the husks that regained their minds?) and the destroy ending forced you to destroy the Geth and EDI after you could have spent a whole lot of time and effort forging peace between the Geth and the Quarians.

 

Also, people argued, using the Arrival DLC as reference, that the destruction of the relays logically should have devastating consequences and since there was one  relatively close to Earth everyone would have died from that fallout. Added to that, we didn't get much information about what happened after that so all we had were the fans' speculations that painted a pretty bleak picture for the galaxy we'd tried so hard to save.

 

Those are the main points I remember. Personally, I didn't manage to avoid the spoilers that Shepard was going to die - but I did manage to avoid all the other spoilers floating around due to the leak. I was actually looking forward to it since I like a good heroic sacrifice but the endings didn't really deliver back then. I had hoped I would get more information of the after, perhaps a heroes funeral, maybe some of the companions reminiscing, etc. At the time, the endings felt like a punch to the gut.

 

The extended cut added removed several of the concerns players had though and salvaged the endings for a lot of people. I still don't really like the endings but I've gotten over it and the reaction Bioware got really was too much.

 

--------

On topic:

--------

 

I agree that Bioware painted themselves into a corner with the ME3 endings, but at the time they clearly weren't expecting to make another game. I don't agree that it has ruined anything to move to Andromeda. People would have been irritated no matter what they chose to do, whether it was picking a canon ending, setting it in the past, setting it in the far future, or leaving the galaxy altogether.

 

As for the tempest, as someone pointed out, ships with the same function tend to look alike - The tempest could even be based on the Normandy which was an experimental prototype if I remember right.

 

Dragging the old races along is a positive thing for me, they're a huge part of what I loved about the old Mass Effect. The world of ME wouldn't feel the same without them.

 

As for the arcs looking like the citadel... Isn't it pretty reasonable? I mean the Arcs (and they're going to be several) are space ships where a lot of people are going to live. The Citadel is, granted, a space station rather than a ship but it's a place capable of holding a huge number of people. Since Andromeda is so far away and no one really knows what to expect, it's probably a good idea to have a base that's fully capable of being at least a temporary "home" until there's a chance to get settled -  or even find worlds that are capable of being settled.

 

As for N7 characters, at first I felt it was a bit forced as well but if humanity really is desperate to find a new home it isn't unreasonable that they send along some of their elite soldiers -the best they have to offer- to help make sure it succeeds.

 

And working for an official organisation... well, that's just personal taste. I don't have problem with it.

 

 

See what I mean? Ask about it and no one gives you a straight answer, it's very weird.

 

This is about as straight an answer as I can give on the subject, adding to Kali's answer:

 

The following are the reasons for which the ending was poorly received by the community the first time around that the extended cut didn't/couldn't fix with a bunch of pretty pictures so they're still largely present.

 

1) And it cannot be repeated enough. The Catalyst is a Deus-ex Machina. Literally emerging in the final ten minutes. It has zero foreshadowing in the base game. Leviathan was DLC that was added in much later to the original work.

 

2) It states that the Synthetic/Organic conflict is an innevitability. It will always occur and it will always result in the destruction of organic life. Its proven wrong, in game, several times. (Some people say its just one example and thus can't be held as an absolute refute of the claim. Doylist/literary reasons however are quite clear in this regard on how it 'breaks' literarry rules.)

 

The first example is Edi, who falls into a romantic relationship with Joker.

 

The second time is the Geth, who are neither genocidal, nor particularly violent, all attacks from the Geth onto organics, save those of the Geth 'heretics' are retaliatory in nature, they forgive the quarians and remember the sacrifices made by those who didn't want them dead. They also cleaned and maintained Rannoch for the Quarian's eventual return and helped them re-assimilate onto the planet. This hardly sounds like machines that wish all organics dead.

 

Javik states an entirely different outcome, the Protheans fought their own race of synthetic machines and completely wiped them out. Organic life was not overcome and synthetic existence was strictly prohibited by the protheans, making it unlikely they'd be built in significant enough numbers that they'd be able to wipe out the Prothean's quickly enough. It was never an 'innevitability'

 

3) The extended cut very much handwaves the most horrible implications, lore wise, that would result of the Mass Effect relays being destroyed. No race in citadel space has the technology, or the know how, to repair, let alone re-build Mass Relay technology. That means that the entire united fleet of ships would be stuck in the Sol system. Communication would be entirely cut off from the other planets, they'd be trapped there which would mean that a great many people are going to be starving to death within a handful of months with no way to escape the system. As I said, this was handwaved in the extended cut by giving us Hacket's voice assuring us "We can re-build everything" and showing us a pretty picture to go along with it. But **** writing is still **** writing

 

 

4) The endings suffer from a thematic dissonance, the themes of Mass effect are strength through unity, diversity, and co-operation. Inevitable conflict between organic and synthetic life was never the primary theme. (Save in Mass Effect 1 and even then it was a secondary theme)

 

The endings actually undermine the primary themes. Control is not co-operation so much as it is enforcement, Synthesis isn't unity, much less diversity, its uniformity and Destroy is "Better to kill you guys than let us be killed."

 

5) The endings themselves are thematically revolting

 

Control: Is the equivalent of choosing mass slavery, combined with an extortion racket in which you hold the proverbial gun to the head of the galaxy with an eternal threat of swift and deadly retribution should they put a toe out of line.

 

Synthesis: Is the equivalent of Mass rape. You are essentially violating the right of every sentient being to self choose, and forcing upon them a state of existence that they neither consented to nor were ever informed about. Couple that with the fact that you see people, in a matter of days or weeks or months, openly co-operating with giant death machines that sought a galactic genocide of every race without a hint of animosity or resentment and the prospect of mind control isn't exactly far off either. More-so when you consider the terrible nature of husks and how they were created.

 

Destroy: Mass genocide of Edi and the Geth. It says a great deal about the quality of writing when the destruction of a sentient, semi-pacifist species is considered the hands down best outcome by an overwhelming majority of people. 68% if I recall correctly chose destroy as their favored result way back when they did a survey on Bioware forums after the EC while only 8% chose synthesis.

 

Furthermore, the Catalysts' very existence invalidates ME1 in its entirety. The reason for ME1's conflict was that Sovereign needed to reach the Citadel to activate the relay. The Catalyst IS the Citadel. He has control of its systems, as seen by the fact that it could use its space elevator to bring Shepard up from the primary control room of the space station.

 

That means that it could have activated the Citadel relay at any point it wished. Instead, it just watched Sovereign get blasted to pieces.

 

Add to that the circular logic of destroying organics by synthetics to avoid them being killed by synthetics that they build instead and all this sums up why the ending has such a horrible reputation. The ending's writing is paper thin, and not only is it a mass of ret-cons and contradictions; it doesn't hold up to even the slightest scrutiny. And that's all without factoring in the aspect of choices that were completely disregarded, even after we were assured they would be taken into account for this game. Nor is it factoring many of the most basic rules of literature that the writer basically snapped over his knee in creating it.

 

More than the ending itself though was Bioware's response to the Ending backlash that cemented the dislike of both the ending and why people kept (and keep on) badmouthing ME3 and Bioware in the same breath.

 

First they tried to disregard it by claiming it was just a 'Vocal Minority'

 

Then they said the gamers were just 'Entitled'

 

Then they doubled down and shut the proverbial bunker, keeping themselves quiet  for months on end when people were asking for explanations.

 

Then there was Bioware founder's response : "We had no idea the Endings would be so important to our comunity of players"

 

Then Casey Hudson and SuperMAC show up on a softball interview with one of their employees assuring people that 'Many people loved the endings and asked us not to change them at all. But we recognize that some of our players need a little more 'closure'

 

This, after nearly every survey, website and gaming company had polls that stated the Ending was loathed by 93-98% of the people who took said  surveys.

 

There's something to be said for owning up to a genuine mistake. And then there was Bioware's response which was them trying to lie, evade, and pass the blame onto the people who are blameless.

 

Personally, I found it both cowardly and disgusting more than the ending itself.

 

And then, there was the digging people did into the making of the game which gave the impression of the following;

 

-Drew Karpyshin, was the writer for ME1 and a good chunk of ME2. (Personally I find him arrogant and inconsiderate of other people's works/opinions but relatively competent when it comes to writing.)

 

-He left the series after ME2 and in his place we got SuperMAC. Who's only previous game writing experience before taking the helm of ME3 was writing Black Whirlwind in Jade Empire. (How could he then be appointed as the lead writer for this franchise with such a minuscule experience?)

 

-Well, grapevine suggested, Casey Hudson (the project director) is/was Mac's best friend. Which if true demonstrates that it wasn't merit, but friendship that handed the helm of the game to this man.

 

Now we go to ME3 itself.

 

-Mass effect 3 was booted out the door rush rush by EA, whom at the time had a mentality that they could **** diamonds and ****** white wine with an unrealistic "One triple A standard game per year". (Which is why DA2, Battlefield and ME3 were such messes.)

 

-If you hadn't noticed, everything after Rannoch is incredibly weak in both writing and design. This was all done in "crunch time" which was just "Make a level/Script, any level/script, we gotta get this done"

 

-In this rush job, the ending of ME3 was taken into a dark room and written up my Casey Hudson (Again, the project Director) and Mac Walters, (The lead writer who also brought us the joy that is space Naruto cosplayer Kai Leng) The two of them "wrote" (coughplagiarizedfromDeus-excough) up the ending with absolutely no peer review, shoe-horned it in there with the crap dialogue, circular logic and a slew of other things that infuriated everyone.

 

-Cue 3 days after release, huge shitstorm of fans pissed at the ending, and they decide to release the Extended cut...

 

-Extended cut was really just an over-inflated, uncompressed patch-job of a download to 'fix' the issue in the cheapest, most cost effective way imaginable (Seriously. Fully compressed as it should have been, the EC is only around 400 MB, if they would have done the ending videos effectively you could cut it down to 180MB. They inflated it to use the excuse of Microsoft's 3G limit on DLC for why they couldn't add more) since the alternative would be 6 to 8 month of writing out an actual ending, then creating it from scratch since they'd done absolutely nothing with the ending beforehand besides the bare bones skeleton they cobbled together from re-used assets the first time around. (Seriously, the hallway you're in walking up to Anderson is rehashed textures from other parts of the game, together. Its about 80% reused assets and 20% fresh created things, and even then the work on that 20% looks rushed.)

 

-And that is the story for ME3's ending.

 

Good news is, Casey Hudson has since left Bioware, very likely fired. (I say this because he "decided" to leave Bioware about a month or 2 after the release of the final DLC for the game.)

 

Unfortunately, SuperMAC has, beyond all reason that I can fathom, been promoted.

 

TLDR: The ending of ME3 was a mess because of a combination of incompetence, nepotism, **** writing, rushed work, thievery and arrogance. This is what caused the massive backlash.

[Hexxagone]

Didn't EA execs also get fired?

[ld1449]

I know a new one took the helm a few months after it. Though I believe it was because of the first golden poo award more than ME3 (which gave them the golden poo) The new one actually seems to know what he's doing, given that he abandoned that BS of one AAA game per year and seems to have implemented alot of policy changes for the better.

[Blueblood]

Andromeda will be a whole new galaxy with whole new lore, aliens, history. Hopefully. I think that bringing a little bit of the MW with us is great, and also making the best of the "screw up." Though I wouldn't call it a screw up myself.

[Who Knows]

Asari would be the first on the chopping block for me. Easily.

[ld1449]

I could personally live without Cerberus. Or the Vorcha more than the Asari...But moreso Cerberus.

[The Twilight God]

This is about as straight an answer as I can give on the subject, adding to Kali's answer:
[...] 
TLDR: The ending of ME3 was a mess because of a combination of incompetence, nepotism, **** writing, rushed work, thievery and arrogance. This is what caused the massive backlash.

I like your passion.

[KaiserShep]

I'm curious about the thievery part.

[EpicNewb]

Keep the Asari and Turians, scrap the rest.

These two MW aliens should be excluded to make the game as fresh as possible.

[GoldenGail3]

On both DA and ME? Yes, yes they did. 

[straykat]

They wrote themselves into such a corner with ME3 that this "reboot" barely qualifies as one

 

Cant use the Normany so just design the Tempest to look like Normandy 3.0

 

Go to another galaxy but drag along every race from the Milky Way because they don't want to let them go

 

Cant use the Citadel so just design the Ark to be a mini Citadel

 

Cant use Shepard but still have an N7 character

 

Main character still working for an official organization

 

 

Its funny and sad at the same time. I was hoping for drastic changes, but I guess Mass Effect Andromeda is just going to turn out to be Mass Effect 4.

 

I wouldn't say they screwed up.. since they basically executed what they wanted out of the first 3 and Hudson had no intention of making a future game like this. It's a screwup only in retrospect. 

 

He was probably forced to set this up in the initial stages.. and now he took off. I doubt he wanted anything to do with it.

[AngryFrozenWater]

BW wants to keep that familiar ME feeling. So, something more dark and edgy than the reapers lurks in another universe. In Andromeda we'll learn from Kivaj (the last remnant) that we have to save the multiverse from synthesis by destroying them.

 

So no. The MW was just collateral damage.

[straykat]

BW wants to keep that familiar ME feeling. So, something more dark and edgy than the reapers lurks in another universe. In Andromeda we'll learn from KivaJ (the last remnant) that we have to save the multiverse from synthesis by destroying them.

 

I've had enough of ancient artifacts, mistakes of the past, and dark lords for a lifetime. They've worn out their welcome with that stuff.

 

I can't believe they're actually trying it again. Or even tried it in DAI. It's like they have a whiteboard in the building that serves as a guideline to churn out all of these stories. Kind of like how fast food joints have special sauces and correct ways to flip burgers.

 

This and I think the game was made as a response to alleviate disgruntled players. These two main things make me skeptical. If I end up enjoying it, it might be for side features or gameplay at best.

[CronoDragoon]

 

Good news is, Casey Hudson has since left Bioware, very likely fired. (I say this because he "decided" to leave Bioware about a month or 2 after the release of the final DLC for the game.)

 

There's a lot of dumb misinformation in your post, but this one's baffling because of how easily it's disproven. Casey left in August 2014, well over a year after Citadel released, and well after he had already taken the reigns as a producer on BioWare's secret IP.

[Hazegurl]

I think saying they screwed up is a bit premature, we won't know that until after we play the game.  But I do think they are playing it safe with Citadel 2.0, Normandy 2.0, Most of the old aliens along for the ride, more N7, and possible ancient tech plot.

 

There come a point where you have to wonder why they're giving us a new galaxy if all they're doing is tossing the house on the truck.

[straykat]

Yeah, he stuck on for awhile and said he was setting this up. I just wonder if it was fun for him. He wouldn't have created ME3 the way he did, if he wanted this truly.

[AngryFrozenWater]

I've had enough of ancient artifacts, mistakes of the past, and dark lords for a lifetime. They've worn out their welcome with that stuff.

 

I can't believe they're actually trying it again. Or even tried it in DAI. It's like they have a whiteboard in the building that serves as a guideline to churn out all of these stories. Kind of like how fast food joints have special sauces and correct ways to flip burgers.

 

This and I think the game was made as a response to alleviate disgruntled players. These two main things make me skeptical. If I end up enjoying it, it might be for side features or gameplay at best.

No worries. It will be great. You'll see. They just want the last title of the series to be more epic than ever and end with a big bang. No intelligence this time, because BW recognized that the four options in the last series may have been too much for the average consumer.

[straykat]

No worries. It will be great. You'll see. They just want the last title of the series to be more epic than ever and end with a big bang. No intelligence this time, because BW recognized that the four options in the last series may have been too much for the average consumer.

 

But I didn't mind what they did with the last series. I have some probs, but mostly it was cool.

 

I just think relying on formula + trying to make people happy are two uninspiring ways to create a story. Which is what they're attempting here.

 

I imagine the characters will be fun though. But even that wasn't enough to keep me in DAI.

[Stakrin]

Ehh I never found Asari attractive. And adorable younger sibling Asari will fit better for me anyway, she doesn't need to be attractive; she's cute. I'd rather her not be a romance for that reason tho. Siblingmance? Is that a thing? Or is that a thing that's much worse than I think it is? Please help me

[Chealec]

I've had enough of ancient artifacts, mistakes of the past, and dark lords for a lifetime. They've worn out their welcome with that stuff.

 

I can't believe they're actually trying it again. Or even tried it in DAI. It's like they have a whiteboard in the building that serves as a guideline to churn out all of these stories. Kind of like how fast food joints have special sauces and correct ways to flip burgers.

 

This and I think the game was made as a response to alleviate disgruntled players. These two main things make me skeptical. If I end up enjoying it, it might be for side features or gameplay at best.

 

... but BioWare only make one game and put a new skin on it occasionally. Though in the case of DA Ogre > ME Brute that skin is pretty paper thin.

 

To continue your fast food analogy, BioWare games are like McDonalds; despite outer appearances you always know exactly what you're getting inside.

[straykat]

... but BioWare only make one game and put a new skin on it occasionally. Though in the case of DA Ogre > ME Brute that skin is pretty paper thin.

 

To continue your fast food analogy, BioWare games are like McDonalds; despite outer appearances you always know exactly what you're getting inside.

 

I think they mix it up sometimes. But people get pissed when they do. DA2 was a nice change of pace for me. Although it was loosely tied to an artifact story as well. But at least it didn't stick it's head out too much. And the villains were mostly down to earth.