214 réponses à ce sujet

[Gothfather]

^I'd have to go quote-digging here, but I remember Bioware explicitly mentioning that they had to push their entire dlc schedule back to make room for the Extended Cut. Given that it took several months for them to produce 10-15 minutes worth of cutscenes/dialogue, I think it's pretty unlikely that they would have been able to push Leviathan out because of the ending back lash, given it's a much bigger dlc. 

 

That doesn't make logical sense from a chronological stand point. How does the ending backlash retroactively stop bioware from not including Leviathan into the game?  They can't know of the backlash before it starts so how do you argue the existence of the backlash prohibits on principle Leviathan being removed?

 

We know there was a leak on the ending we know they reworked it, it makes sense, to me at least, that reworking the ending meant certain content didn't quite fit anymore so they cut it to tweak it and the result was leviathan. Information that really shouldn't have been missing from the vanilla game as it explains the enemy's motivations.

 

Now I am not saying that the DLC was complete and they said lets remove it do nothing to it and sell it as a dlc, that was done with Javik, I am saying that it was cut because of the ending rewrite due to the leak and it really shouldn't have been. it should have been worked on and included in the base game even if that required further delays because its lack screams incomplete and its inclusion fits seamlessly. I will grant this relies on some speculation on exactly what happen but what you wrote requires time travel so i am not sure I buy it.

[JamieCOTC]

BW has always had a problem with overcorrecting. Don't like elevators? Cut them out. Don't like the Mako? Cut out exploration. Inventory is a mess? Cut it out. Combat is sluggish? Turn it into a shooter. Game (DA2) was rushed? Cancel the expansion. ME3's ending was almost universally panned? DAI gives us an uninspired villain and a bland boss fight at the end.

 

My big problem w/ the endings was that Shepard gave up.

[AlanC9]

My big problem w/ the endings was that Shepard gave up.

Meaning that he didn't get into a big bombastic argument with the Catalyst? Yeah, as a matter of RP we should have had that even if it went nowhere.

[AlanC9]

We know there was a leak on the ending we know they reworked it, it makes sense, to me at least, that reworking the ending meant certain content didn't quite fit anymore so they cut it to tweak it and the result was leviathan. Information that really shouldn't have been missing from the vanilla game as it explains the enemy's motivations.

The problem with this argument is that it doesn't seem to fit the leak. I can't think of any content that was in the leak, cut from the released game, and showed up in Leviathan. (The Indoctrination material was already gone before the leak.)

[Wulfram]

Meaning that he didn't get into a big bombastic argument with the Catalyst? Yeah, as a matter of RP we should have had that even if it went nowhere.

I feel like the scene if anything goes on too long already. We must be losing tens of thousands of people per second, its not the time for exposition or argument really.

(The DA:O climax bothers me a bit too. Just get on with it and kill the thing)

[Big Bad]

Do you have any evidence to support this? Most DLCs are planned post release which is why many studios stop DLC production even when a title is still widely popular for example SKyrim only had three and it was still selling well. The reason is clear their production schedule was already predetermined and one of the first parts of production on a story dlc is writing it and the last parts of production of a game don't include writing...

 

So any evidence for this? I mean if i see the evidence I am more than willing to admit I am wrong because I form my opinion on evidence not pick evidence to suit my opinions so just asking.

I don't have any quotes or anything of that nature.  That said, you're the first person I've ever encountered that thought Leviathan was part of the story plan all along.  The whole thing just feels like it was after-thought, shoe-horned in to help make sense of the ending (although I like it).  Of course, I could be wrong. 

[Big Bad]

I feel like the scene if anything goes on too long already. We must be losing tens of thousands of people per second, its not the time for exposition or argument really.

(The DA:O climax bothers me a bit too. Just get on with it and kill the thing)

The problem with this is that many of the things that the Catalysts claims to be true fly in the face of what many Shepards experience over the course of the trilogy (including virtually all of my Shephards).  Because of this, the fact that Shepard can't really even disagree with the Catalyst becomes very frustrating. 

[Wulfram]

The problem with this is that many of the things that the Catalysts claims to be true fly in the face of what many Shepards experience over the course of the trilogy (including virtually all of my Shephards).  Because of this, the fact that Shepard can't really even disagree with the Catalyst becomes very frustrating.

Rather than having Shepard argue with the crazy evil machine's insane logic I'd have them just focus on "How do I get it working?" and once they know there's a choice "What happens if I pick that choice?" This isn't really the time for moral debate.

Though I do agree with the argument that Shepard is too passive in the face of the Catalyst.

[rossler]

Which is why people like myself who praise bioware for NOT allowing the sipping mojitos with you LI on the beach ending option still HATE the endings. The journey is still worth it in and of itself in my opinion but the endings are meaningless to the game played because the add nothing, they are not shaped by the past choices of teh character and provide zero illumination on the actions of the player. In short they are almost a completely separate entity the games themselves.

 

Did your actions throughout ME1 affect whether you could save the council, kill them or focus on Sovereign? Nope. You get all three choices regardless, pick one. 

Did your actions throughout ME2 affect whether you could destroy or save the base? Nope. You get the same choices. None are locked.

Did your actions throughout ME3 affect whether you could control, destroy, synthesize, or refuse the Reapers? Yes. Certain options required a level of EMS in order to unlock.

 

Therefore, your choices did matter.

 

Most of your previous choices in ME3 take into account before the Reaper story ending though.

 

Just like ME2 where your loyalty determines who lives and dies during the suicide mission. It doesn't determine whether or not you can save or destroy the base.

 

Same goes for ME1, you can do a complete playthrough, and you still have to pick one of the three choices.

 

Seeing that ME3 is the final game in the trilogy, and there is nothing left to carry over to, the final chapter that is ME3 will be shaped by your previous choices.

 

It was never about getting a different end result though. If it was, then ME1 and ME2 would work like that too. Yet they don't. I think people misunderstood how this game is supposed to work.

[echoness]

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.

 

Agreed. I'm not here to complain anything because what happened just happened.

 

But some facts I would still like to elaborate. The main problem of the ending is that the writers tried to emerge many conflicts into one big final choice. It created plot holes and discarded the original idea of the Reapers' true intention aka the Dark Energy Theory. It's hard to choose yes, but is it meaningful? Does that all really matter to the player? To me is that it doesn't really matter now because Shepard has to sacrifice himself/herself to end the Reaper threat or the cycle continues Shepard is still dead. No other way around. 

 

Main conflict through out the whole trilogy is the Reapers vs the entire galactic civilizations. The logical outcome of this conflict is 

- the Reapers are defeated with minimal casualties.

- the Reapers are defeated with heavy casualties.

- the Reapers win once again.

Whatever reason behind the cycle can be explained along the way. Shepard's determination is "stop the Reapers" which is said many times in the trilogy. That's what we always want to achieve. Not need to mix it with other conflicts. So when speaking to the space kid who makes little sense to that whole scenario, the conversation shifted the main conflict from "the Reapers vs the entire galactic civilizations" to "organics vs machines". It's very confusing because no matter how powerful the Reapers are they still can't represent the machines and their solutions. The geth can get along quite well with organics if the right choices has been made. EDI is a lovely addition as well. The Dark Energy Theory makes more sense because it is related to mass effect, the very title of the game. The original idea was about the Big Crunch of the universe, it's hard to grasp and a little far-fetched. But it is the writers' job to make it logical. Maybe reduce the scale of the dark energy effect to the Milky Way galaxy, it's dying quickly if advanced civilizations are using biotics to much that unintentionally created massive dark energy. Like butterfly effect, it just works (In Todd Howard's voice lol). The Reapers could have more obvious reasons to recycle advanced civilizations every 50000 years. That Shepard can agree or disagree with the Reapers and their solutions. It is now a big deal about our survival, short or long term. It's a meaningful choice I would take some time to make.

 

The outcome of side conflict like the geth vs the Quarians, the genophage, the Rachni, etc, I'm good with they became war assets. The more assets we get the larger chance we can defeat the Reapers. The result comes naturally with the quantity of war assets.

 

So Andromeda's ending whether it's going for a safe approach or crazy-ass diversions. I just hope this time it makes sense for story wise. If there are many choices they should be logical and meaningful. The best would be a lot fore-shadowing in quests and codex and the ending captures the main theme of ME:Andromeda. I know DAI received a lot criticisms from the fetching quests and short main quest line, but I really like the fore-shadowing of Fen'Haral's return. It is hidden in dialog, banters, codex and quests. The first time I saw the ending I feel like I need dig into lore to find out what was really going on, the result of finding it is pleasant and rewarding like a grand treasure hunt. If BioWare could do that again, I would gladly dig into every little secret they were plotting. 

[AlanC9]

But some facts I would still like to elaborate. The main problem of the ending is that the writers tried to emerge many conflicts into one big final choice. It created plot holes and discarded the original idea of the Reapers' true intention aka the Dark Energy Theory.

Quibble: It's not strictly correct to describe Dark Energy as"the original idea." At most, it was one of several competing ideas floating around during ME2's development. One of the reason ME2 doesn't take us anywhere is that Bio never really committed to any particular idea. We talk about DE a lot here, but that's because it's the only alternative we have any details on. (DE's also worse than what we got, but I'm not sure we need to get into that.)

It's hard to choose yes, but is it meaningful? Does that all really matter to the player? To me is that it doesn't really matter now because Shepard has to sacrifice himself/herself to end the Reaper threat or the cycle continues Shepard is still dead. No other way around. 

One of the biggest dividing lines in this fanbase is between people who think this way and people who think that Shepard obviously survives in high-EMS Destroy.

[straykat]

Quibble: It's not strictly correct to describe Dark Energy as"the original idea." At most, it was one of several competing ideas floating around during ME2's development. One of the reason ME2 doesn't take us anywhere is that Bio never really committed to any particular idea. We talk about DE a lot here, but that's because it's the only alternative we have any details on. (DE's also worse than what we got, but I'm not sure we need to get into that.)


One of the biggest dividing lines in this fanbase is between people who think this way and people who think that Shepard obviously survives in high-EMS Destroy.

 

Regardless of far they would have went with that, I think Drew wanted to do more with human biotics. It was a big focus for him... and it kind of diminished when he left. Now that I know one of his ideas, it's kind of interesting. Some lines spread into ME2 sort of take on additional meaning as well. Like Harbinger's taunts and the Shadow Broker.

[In Exile]

Not disagreeing there. The Starbrat is simply a terrible plot device and the theme radically shifts from the rest of the franchise, but the horrible after taste would have been lessened if we weren't sitting there asking "and? What happened to the characters? What about the genophage being cured? How did the galaxy differ from all those choices we made?".

The rage wouldn't have been as explosive and I think most discussions would simply be "the final choice made no sense" more than "what about our choices damn it!!!!" reaction that did exist. Epilogues that showcased differing outcomes on the genophage, who lived or died, who became out, etc would have lessened the feeling that nothing we did mattered. As it stands, the final railroaded idiocy mixed with absolutely no illumination on how the different choices changed anything created a disaster for Bioware. Together that gave the impression that our choices meant absolutely nothing.

I don't agree. I felt my choices with the genophage had a very detailed and in-depth reaction in game from Mordin to Wreav/Wrex. I don't need an epilogue slide and in fact I loathe the idea of them as often writers torch their own setting with these lengthy descriptions of far reaching consequences. I acknowledge this is a battle I've lost as many fans like them but to me a speech at the end of the game is not a consequence.

[In Exile]

Meaning that he didn't get into a big bombastic argument with the Catalyst? Yeah, as a matter of RP we should have had that even if it went nowhere.

We do that, though, if we pick refuse don't we? Plus Shepard got nuked. Not sure how much fighting Shepard can do against kilometer long spaceships while barely holding on to life. Something like robo-Saren is also stupid.

[straykat]

Something like robo-Saren is also stupid.

 

Stupid, but he's kind of a pain in the ass on higher difficulties. Good enough for me I almost think the same thing for Reaper baby, at least when I first played.

[Degs29]

I think different people disliked ME3's ending for different reasons.  My personal reason for disliking it was because I was fully anticipating my choices throughout the game to have a significant impact on the ending and my success against the Reapers.  The Destruction/Control/Synthesis decision came way out of the left field. 

 

I know many people were disappointed because the motivations of the Reapers were not adequately explained, but frankly I was okay about that.  An unknowable alien species is fine by me.  Others were disappointed because of plot holes (EC mostly fixed those) or because the ending seemed like a deus ex machina (I'd agree with that).  Before ME3 came out, my buddy said to me "I hope they don't introduce some killer weapon that wipes out all Reapers in one go!"  Which is, of course, basically what we got.  I would have greatly preferred a massive battle sequence that depended on your war asset accumulation; an extended cutscene that actually shows your war assets taking the fight to the Reapers.  Oh well....

 

I think the lesson they should take from ME3's controversial ending is to make choices the player makes throughout the game actually make a difference at the ending.  I mean, they marketed the game that way! 

[straykat]

I think different people disliked ME3's ending for different reasons.  My personal reason for disliking it was because I was fully anticipating my choices throughout the game to have a significant impact on the ending and my success against the Reapers.  The Destruction/Control/Synthesis decision came way out of the left field. 

 

I know many people were disappointed because the motivations of the Reapers were not adequately explained, but frankly I was okay about that.  An unknowable alien species is fine by me.  Others were disappointed because of plot holes (EC mostly fixed those) or because the ending seemed like a deus ex machina (I'd agree with that).  Before ME3 came out, my buddy said to me "I hope they don't introduce some killer weapon that wipes out all Reapers in one go!"  Which is, of course, basically what we got.  I would have greatly preferred a massive battle sequence that depended on your war asset accumulation; an extended cutscene that actually shows your war assets taking the fight to the Reapers.  Oh well....

 

I think the lesson they should take from ME3's controversial ending is to make choices the player makes throughout the game actually make a difference at the ending.  I mean, they marketed the game that way! 

 

I would have been happy with a better Earth.. our choices could have at least affected that more. It's pretty empty, considering all that you did and gathered there.

 

The ending I can live with.

[JamieCOTC]

Meaning that he didn't get into a big bombastic argument with the Catalyst? Yeah, as a matter of RP we should have had that even if it went nowhere.

 

Not so much an argument, but a struggle. I know that's what the final choice was suppose to be, but it fell flat for several reasons. There is nothing personal about it like there was w/ Mordin's death or Tali's death, both of which were great examples of your choices in action. So the end is missing either a fight or some kind of very personal struggle instead of a very abstract and symbolic choice that was ultimately meaningless.

[echoness]

Regardless of far they would have went with that, I think Drew wanted to do more with human biotics. It was a big focus for him... and it kind of diminished when he left. Now that I know one of his ideas, it's kind of interesting. Some lines spread into ME2 sort of take on additional meaning as well. Like Harbinger's taunts and the Shadow Broker.

 

Indeed, that little hints in ME2 can take a lot of weight if Drew's idea made it to ME3. The game is called Mass Effect, so mass effect could do more than just a plot device that explains everything "magical".

[echoness]

Quibble: It's not strictly correct to describe Dark Energy as"the original idea." At most, it was one of several competing ideas floating around during ME2's development. One of the reason ME2 doesn't take us anywhere is that Bio never really committed to any particular idea. We talk about DE a lot here, but that's because it's the only alternative we have any details on. (DE's also worse than what we got, but I'm not sure we need to get into that.)


One of the biggest dividing lines in this fanbase is between people who think this way and people who think that Shepard obviously survives in high-EMS Destroy.

 

Yes I lost some details in my post. But the point is not to argue which is better now. Like I said what happened just happened. You could disagree with me and I'm ok with that. We can't change it anyway. What I was trying to say is if there is something BioWare can learn from the trilogy's ending, it is the continuity of the story. Plot twists also serve that purpose. If plot twists themselves looks good but don't fit in the story, save them in the sequel. Shepard's death in ME2 is that kind of plot twist. It fits pretty well as the start of ME2. If that part moved to the ending of ME, it's kinda weird.

[Mello]

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.

Yes, yes, and yes. However, since this is a new "stand-alone" game I don't think the ending really needs to be spectacular or have a huge plot twist to it since this is the first installment of Andromeda (that is if they plan on making Andromeda 2, 3, etc) Kind of like ME1 & 2's endings. Yeah, they were "linear" but they kept us wanting more. 

[In Exile]

Yes I lost some details in my post. But the point is not to argue which is better now. Like I said what happened just happened. You could disagree with me and I'm ok with that. We can't change it anyway. What I was trying to say is if there is something BioWare can learn from the trilogy's ending, it is the continuity of the story. Plot twists also serve that purpose. If plot twists themselves looks good but don't fit in the story, save them in the sequel. Shepard's death in ME2 is that kind of plot twist. It fits pretty well as the start of ME2. If that part moved to the ending of ME, it's kinda weird.

 

Pretty sure the "death" wasn't a plot twist as much as it was a way for them to fast forward without people bitching about Shepard not being under their control while stuff happened. 

[Oni Changas]

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.

Quoted for Truth. My thoughts exactly. I had a massive problem with the ending and the things and lorebreaks that lead up to it (puts Derpception in a new context since those fixes never came). The whole Shepard dying thing just felt like a turd atop the spoiled cake. It was inconclusive, EC or not, and the slideshows were laughably bad for the size of the EC file. 

[AlanC9]

Who cares about file sizes?

[SKAR]

I worry that people like you are dragging us down.