214 odpowiedzi w tym temacie

[jtav]

I'll be the first to admit that the ending to ME3 was very bad. But I worry that the lesson BW will take from the outcry is to make the next game as safe and uncontroversial as possible. I like my stories to have a little bite and something to chew over. There were interesting ideas in the ending, and I actually liked that there was no way to successfully end the war without giving up something significant. I also consider DA2 my favorite of the modern BW games, even if it's deeply flawed from a level design standpoint. Again, it tried to do something we don't see very often in videogames, with a hero who is not larger than the events surrounding her and is just trying to hold on.

By contrast, I don't like DAI very much at all. Oh, I like the LGBT content well enough, but the game as a whole felt bland and soulless. I felt like I couldn't make a meaningful choice and that Corypheus was never in danger of winning. Even the Fade choice had very little impact because the Inquisitor has only the faintest idea who these people are. The worst thing they could possibly happen is getting dumped by your boyfriend, and that's just not world shaking. I hated Citadel with the burning passion of a thousand suns. So yes, I worry that the writers have overreacted and MEA will be a nice, safe, story that takes no risks. I'd rather have the interesting failures back.

[Gwydden]

Well, as you yourself have pointed out, after the response to DA2 and ME3 I think they are unlikely to try anything audacious any time soon. I think that either:

• They misinterpreted the poor reception of those games as being due to their straying from the formula. And to be honest, I'd say that is partially correct, even if the games had much more serious issues going on.
• They may try new things, but they are unable to pull them off. Bioware is very, very cozy in its own personal little formula. While I give them credit for trying new stuff, DA2 and ME3 make me question whether they are able to operate outside of it at all.

So I wouldn't be too hopeful about this.

[Il Divo]

That's always the risk with being a writer: if your risk pays off, we hail you as a visionary willing to take risks for your art. If your risk falls flat, we'll call you a fool/yell out what were you thinking. 

 

For the record, I think the ME3 ending is atrocious. But I don't think anybody goes into this with a clear idea of will and won't work at the outset. It's a tad more complicated than that. 

[Spectr61]

If their aim was to create controversy with the endings, they certainly achieved that goal.

Evidenced by all the threads and different posters, myself included.

I wonder what the devs and writers actual thoughts on the matter are.

Anybody heard anything Casey Hudson has said on the matter since leaving EA/Bioware and joining Microsoft?

[AngryFrozenWater]

I like at least some variations in an ending. Not all of them may be a happy ending. That's OK. But Shepard was butchered in all rainbow endings. You could headcanon that in one ending Shepard was alive due to a vague sigh scene and maybe the response of your LI suggested that too. After three titles and many real-life years of anticipation that is not an ending that Shepard deserved. Especially when all others made sure he or she was killed.

 

I really have enough of that dark and edgy crap.

[skuid]

IMO, the main problem with DA2, ME3 and DAI was development time mixed with the inclusion of some innovation into their formula. DA2 was the first DA game with a voiced protagonist and the game spans for several years moving from their usual formula. All of these they had to do it in a shorter development time of 2 years (or even less I don't remember). As consequence the result is a rushed game because they needed time to adapt to the new changes in that shorter time.

In ME3 the same happened in addition to the leaked script and the decision to create a new ending, again under time constraints. The result is an unfinished game, specially the ending.

With DAI was even worse as they needed to create a lot of code from scratch for the new engine that was designed originaly for a shooter game. Here they also made the mistake of creating an open world game including the old generation of consoles which complicated a lot the development. The solution was filling the game with fetch quest as it was imposible to add meaninful content in the time they have and with the restriction of the old generation as stated by the decision to not develop dlcs for them.

 

So in summary, IMO, the problem was not the innovation, the problem was development time. It might sound like i didn't like the games but on the contrary I really enjoyed them, even played more than 4 times each. The problem is that as I played them I noticed a lot of things that could be a lot better with a little more time of polishing, and that leaves a bitter-sweet taste.

 

In the case of MEA there are some positives points regarding development time:

• In MEA they already have a lot of code and experience with Frostbite from DAI.
• MEA is a shooter so more similar to what originally the engine was designed for.
• The old consoles are no longer supported.

And negative points:

• They need to create a new galaxy with new lore and new aliens and such.
• Open world, a lot of space to fill with content.

[Kantr]

 

IMO, the main problem with DA2, ME3 and DAI was development time mixed with the inclusion of some innovation into their formula. DA2 was the first DA game with a voiced protagonist and the game spans for several years moving from their usual formula. All of these they had to do it in a shorter development time of 2 years (or even less I don't remember). As consequence the result is a rushed game because they needed time to adapt to the new changes in that shorter time.

In ME3 the same happened in addition to the leaked script and the decision to create a new ending, again under time constraints. The result is an unfinished game, specially the ending.

With DAI was even worse as they needed to create a lot of code from scratch for the new engine that was designed originaly for a shooter game. Here they also made the mistake of creating an open world game including the old generation of consoles which complicated a lot the development. The solution was filling the game with fetch quest as it was imposible to add meaninful content in the time they have and with the restriction of the old generation as stated by the decision to not develop dlcs for them.

 

So in summary, IMO, the problem was not the innovation, the problem was development time. It might sound like i didn't like the games but on the contrary I really enjoyed them, even played more than 4 times each. The problem is that as I played them I noticed a lot of things that could be a lot better with a little more time of polishing, and that leaves a bitter-sweet taste.

 

In the case of MEA there are some positives points regarding development time:

• In MEA they already have a lot of code and experience with Frostbite from DAI.
• MEA is a shooter so more similar to what originally the engine was designed for.
• The old consoles are no longer supported.

And negative points:

• They need to create a new galaxy with new lore and new aliens and such.
• Open world, a lot of space to fill with content.

 

The game was originally going to be out before the new consoles. Then they added in the extra race options (and changed everything that the pre-alpha footage showed) making the release time after the new consoles.

[Gileadan]

In the case of MEA there are some positives points regarding development time:

• In MEA they already have a lot of code and experience with Frostbite from DAI.
• MEA is a shooter so more similar to what originally the engine was designed for.
• The old consoles are no longer supported.

And negative points:

• They need to create a new galaxy with new lore and new aliens and such.
• Open world, a lot of space to fill with content.

 

I actually hope that they won't use too much code from DAI in MEA... what with its 30 FPS cutscenes, music not playing and banter going the way of the dodo. Unfortunately, they seem to be rather fond of recycling old assets... I could swear that I've seen some of the stubble in DAI back in ME1. I agree with your other positive points though.

 

Their biggest problem seems to be that either they often just don't know where to go or have a change of heart rather late in the development cycle. Just look at DAI... it looks like it was designed as some kind of MMO first, with its big combat zones with few static NPCs and respawning enemies, only to have it changed to a single player focus after those big zones were done. I hope that this time they started out with a good vision of the game and then stuck with that.

[skuid]

The game was originally going to be out before the new consoles. Then they added in the extra race options (and changed everything that the pre-alpha footage showed) making the release time after the new consoles.

I always thought they decided to release it for old and new since the beginning, they started developing for new consoles and showed the pre-alpha, then they realized that it won't run in the old consoles so they had to rethink the whole game. And yes the extra race also contributed to running out of time.

 

I actually hope that they won't use too much code from DAI in MEA... what with its 30 FPS cutscenes, music not playing and banter going the way of the dodo. Unfortunately, they seem to be rather fond of recycling old assets... I could swear that I've seen some of the stubble in DAI back in ME1. I agree with your other positive points though.

 

Their biggest problem seems to be that either they often just don't know where to go or have a change of heart rather late in the development cycle. Just look at DAI... it looks like it was designed as some kind of MMO first, with its big combat zones with few static NPCs and respawning enemies, only to have it changed to a single player focus after those big zones were done. I hope that this time they started out with a good vision of the game and then stuck with that.

What i meant with using some code from DAI was that instead of building it from scratch they will start from that base and improve it (usually requiring less time), hopefully fixing the issues from DAI.

[mopotter]

I like at least some variations in an ending. Not all of them may be a happy ending. That's OK. But Shepard was butchered in all rainbow endings. You could headcanon that in one ending Shepard was alive due to a vague sigh scene and maybe the response of your LI suggested that too. After three titles and many real-life years of anticipation that is not an ending that Shepard deserved. Especially when all others made sure he or she was killed.

 

I really have enough of that dark and edgy crap.

I also don't mind a game where my character dies at the end.  More than one Warden sacrificed themselves in DAO.  But I also had Wardens who survived, who became Queen, stayed with the Wardens or became an advisor to the Queen.  

 

I hated the breath and dumb smile your LI had and I don't think this will happen again.  Sure let me die if my choices result in that, but I also want a game where I can ride off in the sunset with my LI by  my side.      Endings that offer depression need to be balanced with an ending that gives happiness.  Otherwise why bother replaying it.  

 

For me, games cost too much to just play them once or twice. 

[auronvigo]

I don't think Andromeda will have too crazy of an ending. Not this soon. I would expect some kind of cliffhanger to make a ME5 viable.

[rapscallioness]

I felt that DAI had within it an overreaction to the ME3 backlash, as in, it was very safe and treated the player with kid gloves. Which to me is the wrong take away from these incidents...of displeasure. *lol*. I feel that the more appropriate take away would be that, yes, you can challenge us; put some Bite into that game--even sadness, but it must be done well and completely.

 

It tells me something when at the very, very end of ME3, when you have the opportunity to "hear the devs voice", what they give you is this inappropriate energetic music and a buy DLC pop up ad. That was it. This after what was really a clumsy ending that felt heavily edited, abrupt, squaddies dying over here, yet walking about fine over there.

 

Idk whose idea it was to have the energetic music and dlc ad, but it communicated to me a certain tonal deafness. A lack, or disconnect of any emotional investment in the franchise.  I think the devs are emotionally invested in this franchise, and although I don't know--and don't want to make out the marketing dept to be the Bad Guys for everything because that can't be true. But...

 

DA2 it was rushed out in a year and a half. Word is it was rushed to try and cash in on the success of DAO. If DA2 had been given another year and a half it might not have had so many recycled caves, etc. Considering what BW had to work with, DA2 came out amazingly well.

 

So, it was the corporate environment/marketing people. Whomever it was, if they thought any decent game could be made in a year and a half, then they don't even have a rudimentary understanding of how to make a game--an understanding of the craft of the industry within which they work. Or, they didn't care. I'm not sure which is worse.

 

ME3 suddenly has this weird forced focus on Earth. Mass Effect was never about Earth. But with ME3 suddenly we're expected to get the other races to forget their homeworlds and come save Earth. Oh, I mean, "Take Earth Back"--in all the promo material...

 

Then they include the Reapers dragging the Citadel over to Earth in the last parts. It was goofy and forced.  And my suspicion is that it was included at the behest of their marketing people. Earth in peril being a theme that new players might relate to better.

 

**Also the leaked ending was not rewritten, it was the same. Although, I do think BW/ME team could have used more investment from EA to make the game they needed to make--to cover the alternate paths from choices as well as have a fleshed out ending. 

 

DAI comes along which apparently started out as an MMO. I am doubtful in the extreme that the DA team actually wanted to make a MMo out of the DA franchise. That was "marketing". Then they get convinced to make a regular game, and DAI gets repurposed and massaged into a SP. Oh, but wait, there's more! Delay it a year to shoehorn in some MP.  While they waited for that year, the team added two more romances and race options. The game was not delayed to add those features. Those features were added while the game was delayed.

 

Idk whose idea it was to cover all the platforms old and new. If it was meant for the old gen, then it should have stayed that way. Or committed to the new consoles. DA would not even support the games they sold on old gen. Not just dlc, but with patches for the game to make it work the way it should have worked out the box.  Skeevy! I was shocked. If you sell people a product, you have an obligation to ensure that product works! Or better yet, sell people a product that works right in the first place. Then you don't have to worry about patch support.

 

Ack, this is really way tl;dr. Point is, I think the..corporate culture over there at EA is messing up. They're starting these fires with their foolishness, then crying about all these fires they gotta put out. And blaming the fans. 

 

The lesson they should take away from the ME3 backlash, to me, is work to maintain an emotional investment in your own stories; even though it may start feeling like a slog after so many years. Stay fresh. Balance the levity and the Bite. Do the Bite, but do it well and carry an attn to detail all the way through to the last bits of the game. All the way through to the metaphorical last note of the "Song".  And absolutely try new things and take chances-a little bit at a time, perhaps? As you do that, though, make sure all your other stuff is put together well.

 

....And keep those suits off my games because they don't know what they're doing. I'm sorry "marketing people". I'm not trying to be a bruja about it, I'm just saying.  I'm sure individually you're decent enough people. You've got families, and what not. Regular folk. But when you all come together something else is born. It becomes its own thing...like that Orsino monster at the end of DA2.   All the mages sucked into some giant Blob of spitting, raging Capitalism. With various arms and legs dangling about. Ack. Don't be that guy.

 

But you're gonna stop screwing up my games, though. It's hard enough making a good game. It should not be made even harder by the very ones that are supposed to be on your side. Yet, that's precisely what you [EA] have been doing to BW, whether you realize that, or not.

[Cheviot]

I worry that the lesson BW will take from the outcry is to make the next game as safe and uncontroversial as possible.

Considering how they stuck to their guns with the EC (only elaborating on the original endings and adding a totally new one that didn't play it safe), I don't think you should worry. 

[Kabraxal]

I don't think "safe" is a worry... EC kept to the original ending ideas and tried to get them to work (still didn't accomplish that sadly). And Inquisition had several themes that caused the odd "SJW!" storm and a subtle take on religion that asked players to make the choice. None of that was safe.

I just think that the ending fiasco taught Bioware to remain consistent. Don't swerve into Deus Ex material when the strongest themes were far more centred on cultural clashes, do the ends justify the means, and uniting disparate people to try and beat a singular enemy. Andromeda seems to have a focus on colonisation and that might mean a thene of manifest destiny/invasion v survival/outsider in the new world. That can have a lot of heavy material to chew through and debate.

[AngryFrozenWater]

I also don't mind a game where my character dies at the end.  More than one Warden sacrificed themselves in DAO.  But I also had Wardens who survived, who became Queen, stayed with the Wardens or became an advisor to the Queen.  

 

I hated the breath and dumb smile your LI had and I don't think this will happen again.  Sure let me die if my choices result in that, but I also want a game where I can ride off in the sunset with my LI by  my side.      Endings that offer depression need to be balanced with an ending that gives happiness.  Otherwise why bother replaying it.  

 

For me, games cost too much to just play them once or twice. 

Yes. Shepard, his/her LI, squad and world became characters that you cared for. Don't kill those in every variation of the ending, just to be dark and edgy. There is no story left afterwards.

[Gothfather]

I'll be the first to admit that the ending to ME3 was very bad. But I worry that the lesson BW will take from the outcry is to make the next game as safe and uncontroversial as possible. I like my stories to have a little bite and something to chew over. There were interesting ideas in the ending, and I actually liked that there was no way to successfully end the war without giving up something significant. I also consider DA2 my favorite of the modern BW games, even if it's deeply flawed from a level design standpoint. Again, it tried to do something we don't see very often in videogames, with a hero who is not larger than the events surrounding her and is just trying to hold on.

By contrast, I don't like DAI very much at all. Oh, I like the LGBT content well enough, but the game as a whole felt bland and soulless. I felt like I couldn't make a meaningful choice and that Corypheus was never in danger of winning. Even the Fade choice had very little impact because the Inquisitor has only the faintest idea who these people are. The worst thing they could possibly happen is getting dumped by your boyfriend, and that's just not world shaking. I hated Citadel with the burning passion of a thousand suns. So yes, I worry that the writers have overreacted and MEA will be a nice, safe, story that takes no risks. I'd rather have the interesting failures back.

 

 

Well, as you yourself have pointed out, after the response to DA2 and ME3 I think they are unlikely to try anything audacious any time soon. I think that either:

• They misinterpreted the poor reception of those games as being due to their straying from the formula. And to be honest, I'd say that is partially correct, even if the games had much more serious issues going on.
• They may try new things, but they are unable to pull them off. Bioware is very, very cozy in its own personal little formula. While I give them credit for trying new stuff, DA2 and ME3 make me question whether they are able to operate outside of it at all.

So I wouldn't be too hopeful about this.

 

 

 I really think Bioware should simply ignore their fans and make the game they want to. Gamers are not a homogenized demographic they are in fact a fractured community with different groups wanting mutually exclusive things. This means that anything they do will ****** off someone so it this is the case, better you make a game you want than try and cater to a group that will still hate what you did because they are not a united voice.

 

If Bioware was unable to try different things and succeed we would never have gotten ME. Which is a rather large departure from Kotor which was a rather large departure from Baldur's gate. ME2 is a significant departure from Me as well. I don't beleive you have actually looked at Bioware's game catalogue and seen just how divergent their games are from each other and how successful they are with their changes. Do they succeed all the time? No but they are never stale compared to so many other studios.

[Gothfather]

I also don't mind a game where my character dies at the end.  More than one Warden sacrificed themselves in DAO.  But I also had Wardens who survived, who became Queen, stayed with the Wardens or became an advisor to the Queen.  

 

I hated the breath and dumb smile your LI had and I don't think this will happen again.  Sure let me die if my choices result in that, but I also want a game where I can ride off in the sunset with my LI by  my side.      Endings that offer depression need to be balanced with an ending that gives happiness.  Otherwise why bother replaying it.  

 

For me, games cost too much to just play them once or twice. 

 

I disagree. The story should dictate things. The player is a MINOR partner in the storytelling process this means sometimes you have to accept things are not in your control this includes endings. Having Shepard die was a smart move, it fills the narrative archetype Shepard was filling which was a messiah and that was what Shepard was from a literary archetype standpoint not a religious one. And Shepard paying the price to save the galaxy is 100% fitting and frankly player QQing that writers actually follow millennias' worth of literary knowledge on story telling trumps player agency in my book. 

 

Hell i felt they shouldn't have been an "out" in DA:O. A warden should have HAD to die period. Doesn't have to be the player but no "easy" button. Players are too ignorant of their own literary history and culture and when games ignore the knowledge we have on how to craft stories we complain the stories are crap and when they actually follow them we complain yet again.

 

Some stories lend themselves to mainly positive endings like ME1 other do not like ME2 which makes the perfect suicide run feel so fraking stupid. oooh the reapers are so scary that no one dies in my crew? because what? i am so damn super awesome special? The reapers were suppose to represent a force that could not be defeated by conventional needs but some how Shepard does at every opportunity? Not really the threat presented are they now.

 

This I must have the option of a happy ending just flies in teh face of all the knowledge we know about storytelling. If a story is about armed conflict there should be no hope of a casualty free ending. The player doesn't have to die but armed conflict comes at a COST and MATURE titled games should not make it possible to have a cost free ending. Tragedy should ALWAYS be part and parcel of a mature RPG's story when armed conflict is involved. Want happy cost free endings buy a teen title. mature should mean mature not just sex and/or boobs found here. And don't give me dark=/=mature argument either people this is about not shying away from MATURE consequences of our actions and choosing to kill the enemy means the enemy will sometimes kill you and yours. And the player shouldn't be able to choose NOT to suffer these consequences because they are sad.

[Iakus]

I also don't mind a game where my character dies at the end.  More than one Warden sacrificed themselves in DAO.  But I also had Wardens who survived, who became Queen, stayed with the Wardens or became an advisor to the Queen.  

 

I hated the breath and dumb smile your LI had and I don't think this will happen again.  Sure let me die if my choices result in that, but I also want a game where I can ride off in the sunset with my LI by  my side.      Endings that offer depression need to be balanced with an ending that gives happiness.  Otherwise why bother replaying it.  

 

For me, games cost too much to just play them once or twice. 

Indeed.

 

The lesson here is variety is good.  Sad endings, happy endings, if we're to have any agency, the paths we take should lead to different places.

[Kabraxal]

Indeed.

 

The lesson here is variety is good.  Sad endings, happy endings, if we're to have any agency, the paths we take should lead to different places.

 

This.  And Bioware seems to have taken note since Trespasser reintroduced the longer and more in depth epilogue that vanilla Inquisition tried for but slightly missed.  The range of endings for characters was spectacular and one quite... somber and chilling. 

 

I think Bioware got the message loud and clear after ME3.  Don't railroad the player into a limited ending and don't just forget about the characters.  Honestly, if ME3 had been the exact same but gave an hour long epilogue showcasing how Jack and Miri and Garrus and etc were affected by everything and how they pushed forward, the outcry would have been far far more muted.  Instead, we still are left with mostly no closure on any of the characters. 

[AngryFrozenWater]

I disagree. The story should dictate things. The player is a MINOR partner in the storytelling process...

I recommend watching TV. The viewer will practice the absolute minimum of story telling. You will love it.

[Iakus]

This.  And Bioware seems to have taken note since Trespasser reintroduced the longer and more in depth epilogue that vanilla Inquisition tried for but slightly missed.  The range of endings for characters was spectacular and one quite... somber and chilling. 

 

I think Bioware got the message loud and clear after ME3.  Don't railroad the player into a limited ending and don't just forget about the characters.  Honestly, if ME3 had been the exact same but gave an hour long epilogue showcasing how Jack and Miri and Garrus and etc were affected by everything and how they pushed forward, the outcry would have been far far more muted.  Instead, we still are left with mostly no closure on any of the characters. 

EH, it would have helped.  But if the best Shepard could hope for is to be a faceless torso, regardless of any choices made, there still would have been outcry.

 

Shepard should have died in some endings, and lived in others (not "a ray of hope") 

[capn233]

Some stories lend themselves to mainly positive endings like ME1 other do not like ME2 which makes the perfect suicide run feel so fraking stupid. oooh the reapers are so scary that no one dies in my crew? because what? i am so damn super awesome special? The reapers were suppose to represent a force that could not be defeated by conventional needs but some how Shepard does at every opportunity? Not really the threat presented are they now.

 

This is part of why you cannot directly compare a game to some sort of classic tragedy or even cinema.  The only literature that works even remotely like a game is a "choose your own adventure" type deal.  The player has some agency, and it makes sense to reward performance.

 

It isn't as if ME2 is such that any strategy or path through the game results in the perfect ending.  It actually would make less sense if you make every preparation possible, play the game as well as possible, and then essentially the same people die as if you hadn't done anything.

 

This is not entirely different than what happened with ME3.  The real complaints were not that Shepard died, it was that the endings were largely the same regardless of player choice, and there was hardly any difference between EMS levels.  It makes sens for a piece of literature to have one iteration of events with a single outcome.  It doesn't really make sense for a game promoting player choice to end up with essentially identical outcomes for various iterations.

[Sifr]

I like at least some variations in an ending. Not all of them may be a happy ending. That's OK. But Shepard was butchered in all rainbow endings. You could headcanon that in one ending Shepard was alive due to a vague sigh scene and maybe the response of your LI suggested that too. After three titles and many real-life years of anticipation that is not an ending that Shepard deserved. Especially when all others made sure he or she was killed.

 

I really have enough of that dark and edgy crap.

 

I concur, I don't mind a tragic or unhappy ending, but it has to make sense within the confines of the story as presented.

 

That's why I felt as if the Destroy Ending made the most sense as the "true" ending of ME3, because it was the most straightforward in terms of what the Crucible should do as a superweapon, as well as consistent with our overarching goal to stop the Reapers over the trilogy.

 

Control made some sense for a Renegade to do, but the problem is that it required Shepard (regardless of alignment) taking a huge leap of faith that they would indeed by uploaded and become the new Master Control Program of the Reapers. Honestly, I was waiting for the game to tell me that the Reaper AI had tricked Shepard into pulling a "Frank Grimes", leading them to electrocute themselves by grabbing an open power conduit.

 

Whereas Synthesis was... I dunno, I doubt even people taking peyote regularly find themselves as out there? And as with Control, trust the Reaper AI that our disintegration will cause "magic" to somehow trigger the Singularity, turn everyone transhuman and fix the problem... when it could simply by another energy beam that kills Shepard and removes a threat to the Reapers.

 

I don't think the Star Brat was a bad concept per se, but it was horribly executed in terms of it being the one to give us the choices, as well as what it's actual goals were and how nonsensical they came across to the audience? Even with the retcon in Leviathan that the Catalyst is a broken AI operating on insane troll logic, it doesn't really make the character better and mitigate how much it hurts the story by it's inclusion.

 

If the Star Brat had perhaps been an Avatar of the collective Reapers (or Harbinger), purposefully meant to trick us into making the wrong decision or prevent Shepard from firing the Crucible, then it's appearance in the ending would have probably served a better purpose.

 

TL;DR... An ending can be bittersweet, tragic or unhappy, but it has to fit the internal logic of the story.

[General TSAR]

I would be happy with an everybody dies ending as long as it made sense and didn't come out nowhere.

[fdrty]

I too worry that they learned the wrong lessons from Mass Effect 3, especially if you look at the ending of DAI.

 

The ending didn't suck because Shepard dies, and can't retire to a beach on Bekelstein and have cute blue babies with his asari waifu.

 

The ending sucked because the truth behind the reapers, the biggest mystery of the series, makes no sense, and it didn't feel like your choices made a difference in the end. And all this nonsense from an exposition AI instead of actually discovering things yourself.

 

Solution: figure out the motivation for your villains now, at the start of your trilogy, rather than coming to the end and having to cobble together whatever nonsense you can. Show the effects of the player's choices, preferably not in a slideshow.

 

Another solution: Make sure you get whoever wrote the first one and set it all up to stay on a lead writer (there's this cool thing called a contract, look it up) so you don't have to get someone else to finish what wasn't their vision to begin with.